An Invasion of Iran is Eminent

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyway, as for residual Nazi influence, not all the unemployed Nazis found jobs with Western powers. A significant number went to work for many of the Arab regimes (in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and now for Iran. writing "anti-semitic" (more properly, anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist) propaganda. Nassar, Saddam, Hassad, and their predecessors, to name a few.

Jerry,

Of course. But they just didn't go to work for the Arab regimes. They became the regimes.

I believe their path to power was smoothed--to the nth degree--by the support from USA and allies I mentioned. (The history of the Ba'ath party, for example, is an illuminating read, especially the part about the German influence, and see if you don't see the CIA stamped all over the late 50's early 60's...)

Something like the Muslim Brotherhood is not all Nazi-variety Nazi, especially not anymore. But it still has a lot of leftover Nazi crap floating around in it, most particularly the really spiteful variety of antisemitism.

The sad part of all this, from what I have been able to discern, is that this Nazi-contaminated strain of Islam (in its various forms) is a very small minority, although one that likes to seek leadership positions. As these people are ruthless and very evil--especially when opposed, and as most Muslims I have known are peaceful and passive, it's not too hard for them to get power and screw over their people big-time.

Michael

[Mike Renzulli]

Robert,

I have not seen where Adonis has made these claims or statements. However, the responses he gives to posts leads me to conclude he gives thinly veiled responses which imply to me he is sympathetic to Iran, the Shi'ites, and might be an anti-Semite.

Can you point me in the direction of where he said he had sympathies to Shia or talked down Wahabbi or Sufi Islam?

Jerry B,

Adonis claims to support Shi'a Islam. He's had nothing good to say about the salafi or Wahhabi variety.

I'm not sure how strongly he supports Hezbollah. But given his apologetics for the Hamas regime in Gaza (even though Hamas is a fanatical Sunni organization), my guess would be that he sympathizes with Hezbollah.

Robert C

Edited May 18, 2010 by Mike Renzulli

[algernonsidney]

After WWII, the entire Islamic-Nazi network was not dismantled in the Middle East. It just went underground a little. But it gets worse. Instead of just looking the other way, the USA and England actually hired those fine folks as spies and allies against the communists.

They also gave money to Hitler's good buddy in Spain. Did they give any money to the Nazi protectors in Argentina and Paraguay, too?

If you want to bash the USA government (and its allies) for unbelievable acts of stupidity, there is a good place to start.

For whatever reason, this stuff hasn't gotten much attention.

I did know that the Chechens fought with the Nazis. Of course, they only fought with the Nazis because they hate the Russians.

[algernonsidney]

At the risk of jumping the gun, I choose Objectivism. Or, more broadly, the culture and values of Western Civilization as expressed in classical liberalism.

If you embrace those values, then you must embrace non-interventionism and strict neutrality in foreign affairs. It works very well for Switzerland.

[algernonsidney]

I don't think that I said anything indicating that I supported the self-defeating policy of the U.S. government in its attempts to undermine the Iranian mullahs by backing Saddam in the 1980's.

You do, however, support the attitude that causes such inconsistencies.

Regarding the Shah, yes, he probably was a capitalist, just not of the type we would approve. Yes, Iran under the Shah was freer than it was after the mullahs took over. Under the Shah, women had gained the right to dress as they saw fit and to enter and compete in areas that were prohibited before the Shah and certainly prohibited later under Khomeini. In terms of religious tolerance, you could ask the Bahai's (a religion native to Iran) and the Jews living in Iran, as to which regime was more tolerant of their religious practices. Well, you could ask them, if you could find any left in Iran under Khomeini and the mullahs. Most have been either thrown-out, terrorized, or are now languishing in Iranian prisons for the "crime" of practicing their religious beliefs. The Shah was no democrat, but in comparison to what Khomeini and his ilk have done to that nation, his crimes pale. To say that there is no differance between Iran under the Shah, and Iran under Ahmadinejad, is like saying there is no differance between Franco's Spain and Russia under Stalin.

You advocated aid and support to the government of the shah. I do not. One of my best friends was born in Iran. Based on my discussions with him, I can tell you right now that you know nothing about Iran. My friend was there when the Revolution happened. He told me that one of the first things Khomeini said to the people after the revolution was: "Hands off the Jews."

As for Mossadegh, the man was no democrat. Helping to overthrow a thug planning to align with the Soviet Union is commendable. The CIA got it right, for once. Too bad the Shah didn't fulfill all our expectations for an enlightened ruler and did not institute democratic reforms along with his more successful attempts to bring the nation, socially, out of the Middle Ages.

They didn't care what he did as long as he let the oil companies take their profits. By the way, the Anglo-Iranian oil company was initially granted a monopoly in Iran by the government. They were never capitalists. They were corporate-welfare statists, just like most of these big corporations today. Yes, Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the oil company. If I had been President in 1953, I would have told them: "You got nationalized. Well, tough shit!"

I am for freedom, peace, and capitalism. You are for dictatorship, war, and corporate welfare.

Mossadegh was also very secular, which makes him better than anyone since then.

There's an old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out." That's one big reason why I hardly pay any attention to anyone at ARI anymore.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Chris Baker

[algernonsidney]

There is no way that the U.S. can convert all anti-democratic countries to carbon-copies of our republic. For the time being, we will have to deal with other countries that do not agree with our concepts of human rights.

First, we need to establish a republic here in the USA. This country doesn't care one iota about human rights.

[BaalChatzaf]

There is no way that the U.S. can convert all anti-democratic countries to carbon-copies of our republic. For the time being, we will have to deal with other countries that do not agree with our concepts of human rights.

First, we need to establish a republic here in the USA. This country doesn't care one iota about human rights.

Has your freedom of speech been impaired or abridged lately? Can you peaceably assemble with others to petition the government for redress of grievances? Have you be compelled to involuntary servitude of late? Can you travel abroad freely (within your means, of course)? Has your property been seized without due process of law?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

There is no way that the U.S. can convert all anti-democratic countries to carbon-copies of our republic. For the time being, we will have to deal with other countries that do not agree with our concepts of human rights.

First, we need to establish a republic here in the USA. This country doesn't care one iota about human rights.

Has your freedom of speech been impaired or abridged lately? Can you peaceably assemble with others to petition the government for redress of grievances? Have you be compelled to involuntary servitude of late? Can you travel abroad freely (within your means, of course)? Has your property been seized without due process of law?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I bet his right to property has been violated lately. There are taxes. Also, if he prefers to use certain recreational drugs, he might find himself being hauled off to prison.

[Leonid]

Maybe start with a formal declaration of war, if that is to be the case?

It's so curious that the USA wants to fight wars these days without ever declaring war anymore.

What is that, a nicety to our politicians, instead of a legal condition for deploying our military in large scale?

I, personally, am sick of this policy.

I don't think full-scale war between the USA and Iran will unfold. Ugly things will yet happen, but not that.

Michael

Declaration of war is not necessary. Since Iran attacked USA embassy in Teheran, according to international law Iran and USA are technically in the state of war.

[Leonid]

Chris Baker "That being said, there is a great deal of animosity between Sephardic Jews (of Arab nations) and Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern Europe). This may very well destroy Israel before the Arabs do. If the Arabs and Muslims had any sense, they would play these groups against each other."

Much less than some Jews-haters would like to see. More than 50% of Israeli population have mixed Ashkenazi-Sephardi origin. If the Arabs had any sense they would beg Israel to accomodate them instead to fight for creation of another useless,economically and geo-politically not viable backward totalitarian Palestinian state.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Declaration of war is not necessary. Since Iran attacked USA embassy in Teheran, according to international law Iran and USA are technically in the state of war.

Leonid,

I'm afraid you don't understand USA law. I reject the USA being governed by "international law" (whatever the hell that is), other than specific treaties the USA government signed.

A declaration of war is necessary under USA law, despite presidents (like Bush) having trashed the constitution through loopholes.

Part of the reason the Tea Party movement started here is to restore the government's obedience of the law.

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael

There are number of international treaties which established the sovereignty of the Embassy's territory and qualified the attack on this territory as an aggression, that is- act of war. Declaration of war is needed when the country initiates the war. In this particular case Iran is an aggressor. The act of self-defense doesn't require formal declaration of war. American President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional right to decree such an act. What American law requires is the approval of presidential decree by Congress.

[dan2100]

Declaration of war is not necessary. Since Iran attacked USA embassy in Teheran, according to international law Iran and USA are technically in the state of war.

Leonid,

I'm afraid you don't understand USA law. I reject the USA being governed by "international law" (whatever the hell that is), other than specific treaties the USA government signed.

A declaration of war is necessary under USA law, despite presidents (like Bush) having trashed the constitution through loopholes.

Part of the reason the Tea Party movement started here is to restore the government's obedience of the law.

Michael

I believe this -- not having declarations of war -- was consolidated under Truman, but has it roots earlier in US history. I wouldn't lay the blame solely on presidents -- though, they surely get a good chunk of it. Instead, I'd blame the Congress for going along with it. (I might be generous here, too, and blame even many in the public for going along with and not understanding or, worse, caring about the issue.)

While I wouldn't defend the embassy- and hostage-taking by a student group in Iran, I think one of the motivations was to prevent another coup like the 1953 one. In other words, to prevent the US government from returning the Shah to power.

[Martin Radwin]

Declaration of war is not necessary. Since Iran attacked USA embassy in Teheran, according to international law Iran and USA are technically in the state of war.

Leonid,

I'm afraid you don't understand USA law. I reject the USA being governed by "international law" (whatever the hell that is), other than specific treaties the USA government signed.

A declaration of war is necessary under USA law, despite presidents (like Bush) having trashed the constitution through loopholes.

Part of the reason the Tea Party movement started here is to restore the government's obedience of the law.

Michael

I believe this -- not having declarations of war -- was consolidated under Truman, but has it roots earlier in US history. I wouldn't lay the blame solely on presidents -- though, they surely get a good chunk of it. Instead, I'd blame the Congress for going along with it. (I might be generous here, too, and blame even many in the public for going along with and not understanding or, worse, caring about the issue.)

While I wouldn't defend the embassy- and hostage-taking by a student group in Iran, I think one of the motivations was to prevent another coup like the 1953 one. In other words, to prevent the US government from returning the Shah to power.

It's incredible to me the extent to which many people, including many objectivists, discuss the seizure of the American Embassy by Iran as proof of Iran's ultimate evil and as justification for anything the US government might wish to do to Iran, without considering any of the history or context behind this event.

From the Wikipedia entry on the Iran hostage crisis,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

"1953 coup

Further information: Operation Ajax and Iranian Revolution

In February 1979, less than a year before the hostage crisis, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, had been overthrown in a revolution. For several decades before that, the United States had been an ally and backer of the Shah. During World War II, Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union occupied Iran and required Reza Shah the existing Shan of Iran to abdicate in favor of his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[9] The invasion was allegedly in fear that Reza Shah was about to align his petroleum-rich country with Nazi Germany during the war: However, Reza Shah's earlier Declaration of Neutrality and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany, was the strongest motive for the allied invasion of Iran. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called "The Bridge of Victory" by Winston Churchill.[10]

By the 1950's, the Shah was engaged in a power struggle with Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, an immediate descendant of the previous monarchy, the Qajar dynasty. In 1953, the British and U.S. spy agencies deposed the democratically-elected government of Mossadegh in a military coup d'état codenamed Operation Ajax, and restored the Shah as an absolute monarch.[11][12][13] The anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event in post-war world history" that replaced Iran’s post-monarchic, native, and secular parliamentary democracy with a dictatorship.[14] US support and funding continued after the coup, with the CIA training the government's secret police, SAVAK. In subsequent decades this foreign intervention, along with other economic, cultural and political issues, united opposition against the Shah and led to his overthrow.[15][16][17]

[edit] Carter administration

Shortly before the revolution on New Year's Day 1979, American president Jimmy Carter further angered anti-Shah Iranians with a televised toast to the Shah, declaring how beloved the Shah was by his people. After the revolution in February, the embassy had been occupied and staff held hostage briefly. Rocks and bullets had broken enough of the embassy front-facing windows for them to be replaced with bullet-proof glass. Its staff was reduced to just over 60 from a high of nearly 1000 earlier in the decade.[18]

The Carter administration attempted to mitigate the anti-American feeling by finding a new relationship with the de facto Iranian government and by continuing military cooperation in hopes that the situation would stabilize. However, on October 22, 1979 the U.S. permitted the Shah - who was ill with cancer - to attend the Mayo Clinic for medical treatment. The American embassy in Tehran had discouraged the request, understanding the political delicacy,[19] but after pressure from influential figures including former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Council on Foreign Relations chairman David Rockefeller, the Carter administration decided to grant the Shah’s request.[20][21][22]

The Shah's admission to the US intensified Iranian revolutionaries anti-Americanism and spawned rumors of another U.S.-backed coup and re-installation of the Shah.[23]

Revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - who had been exiled by the Shah for 15 years - heightened rhetoric against the “Great Satan”, the United States, talking of what he called “evidence of American plotting.”[24]

"You have no right to complain, because you took our whole country hostage in 1953.”[23]"

So, after participating in the coup against Iran's democratically elected leader and then foisting the brutal dictatorship of the Shah on Iran for 26 years, including training of the KGB like Iranian secret police SAVAK, after the Shah was removed from power, war criminal Henry Kissinger helped to get the Shah admitted to the US for medical treatment, an unbelievable slap in the fact to the Iranian people. And president Carter had the chutzpah to have "a televised toast to the Shah, declaring how beloved the Shah was by his people".

But all of this context is routinely left out of the everyday denunciations about the evil of Iran. They took our embassy hostage; that's all that matters. Never mind what we did to them for years prior to that, or the way we spat in their collective faces by offering sanctuary to the dictator who ruled over them with an iron fist for 26 years.

Martin

[algernonsidney]

Thanks for bringing that all up, Martin, the US was under no obligation whatsoever to help that piece of trash into the country for medical treatment. They even flew him around the country in Air Force jets. (Who paid for that?) It looks like taxpayers may also have paid for his treatment. The US was harboring a criminal, just as Argentina harbored the likes of Eichmann and Mengele.

Of course, the Iranians have now lived under their own tyranny for 31 years. That is five years longer than the period from 1953 to 1979. Let them have the ayatollahs if that is what they really want. They probably could have burned their Korans under the shah--did they?

[algernonsidney]

I believe this -- not having declarations of war -- was consolidated under Truman, but has it roots earlier in US history. I wouldn't lay the blame solely on presidents -- though, they surely get a good chunk of it. Instead, I'd blame the Congress for going along with it. (I might be generous here, too, and blame even many in the public for going along with and not understanding or, worse, caring about the issue.)

The public does deserve the blame. That is because the American people absolutely, positively love war. They celebrate it. They cheer it on. They wave flags and sing songs. They love war as much as Pete Rose loves gambling and as much as Ayn Rand loved cigarettes. Without killing poor people in other parts of the world, what would Americans have to feel good about? Nothing makes Americans happier than seeing innocent people in other countries die.

While I wouldn't defend the embassy- and hostage-taking by a student group in Iran, I think one of the motivations was to prevent another coup like the 1953 one. In other words, to prevent the US government from returning the Shah to power.

This is probably true.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I remember reading a few years ago about Chip Tatum, a former CIA spy, and a really interesting story about Iran on a site called Deep Black Lies. I don't see this story debunked anywhere, and the site owner, David Guyatt, is a cut way above your normal conspiracy theorist. (Google him to see for yourself.) But this is on the fringe, so reader beware. Still, I believe it is very plausible.

Here are the articles by Guyatt (which include a whole lot of monkey-shines):

The Pegasus File, Part 1

The Pegasus File, Part 2

and for good measure, Tatum's own Chronicles: The Chip Tatum Chronicles

Here is the pertinent excerpt from The Pegasus File, Part 2:

SUPER BILLS

One operation in which Tatum has knowledge, regards the so called "Superbills," or "Supernotes" sting. Years earlier, in the late sixties or early seventies, the CIA had secretly provided to the Shah of Iran a perfect set of printing plates that could reproduce US$100 bills without blemish. Also provided was an intaglio printing press. This special printing press ensures that the etched plate meets paper with tremendous force, creating the distinctive embossed feel of a genuine banknote. In addition, the Shah was also given the ink and banknote quality paper enabling him to produce perfect counterfeit US Dollar banknotes. The Shah later fled Iran and left the plates and press behind in his confusion. The whole caboodle sat in the mint at Tehran, according to some experts.[viii]

According to Tatum, a deal was arranged in the early mid-eighties between VP George Bush, Panama's Manuel Noriega and the Iranian leadership. A sum of US$8 billion deposited in the Banco Nacional de Panama on behalf of Colombian Cocaine king, Pablo Escobar was "lent" to George Bush. Of this, US$4 billion was shipped by plane to Iran where it was exchanged at a ratio of one good bill for two counterfeit bills. On the return trip, the aircraft, an 707 cargo container carried two shrink-wrapped pallets containing US$4 billion each. The 707 arrived at Howard/Albrook Air Force base in Panama where the pallets were off-loaded under armed guard of the Panamanian military. The counterfeit notes were re-deposited back into Escobar's account at the Panama central bank. Under no circumstances could the counterfeit bills be permitted to leave the bank vault - for fear of devaluing the US currency with forged notes - and active steps would later be taken to ensure this.

The other half of Escobar's "good" money was placed into the hands of Nana DeBusia, the grandson of Guyana's first democratic leader. DeBusia was chosen by the CIA's William Casey to launder the massive sum into numerous bank accounts under the joint signature of VP George Bush and Director Casey. The next leg of the operation was to retrieve the $4 billion exchanged with the Iranians for the Superbills. This was facilitated by the supply of military equipment - arms, ammunition and replacement parts for weapon systems. This part of the deal was arranged by Col Oliver North on behalf of the CIA's William Casey.

The result of these complex manoeuvres were twofold. On the one hand the CIA acquired $4 billion - via the arms sales - for use in future black operations without the need to rely on Congressional oversight or authority. If later caught, Tatum says "… the CIA can report the source of funds as being from an arms transaction with Iran." Part of these funds were then used to support the Contra's, whilst the rest disappeared down the ultra-black hole of the Company's covert finances. Meanwhile, Nana DeBusia had begun laundering the remaining $4 billion through various banks, including the Vatican bank.[ix] For his trouble, DeBusia was entitled to take a commission amounting to $200 million. The remaining $3.8 billion was then secreted in private numbered accounts around the globe controlled by George Bush and William Casey.

The operation was complete apart from some necessary mopping-up which was to occur over the following years. 1) In 1989, Pablo Escobar was targeted by an intensive US-Colombian "War on Drugs" campaign. He flees into hiding, in fear of his life. Eventually, in 1993, he is tracked down and killed in a police shoot-out. A British TV documentary reveals that the Cocaine King was gunned down while attempting to escape and was probably unarmed. The campaign waged against Escobar ensures he cannot withdraw the $8 billion in superbills. Following his death, the quantity and quality of Cocaine shipments from Colombia immediately increases many fold - giving the lie to the "war on drugs." 2) Also during 1989, Panama's General Noriega was captured in a US invasion of Panama. Noriega was later convicted and placed in federal prison under constant US guard to ensure his silence.[x] 3) penultimately, Nana DeBusia was indicted on 32 counts including bank fraud and thereby effectively silenced.[xi] 4) Earlier, in 1987, DCI William Casey died of a brain tumour - just days before he would have been required to attend the Senate hearings into the Contragate affair. According to Tatum only one figure emerges unscathed - George Bush, who alone retained control of $3.8 billion in laundered funds. Obviously, the CIA still retained control over the balance of their $4 billion share of the "sting" operation.

It is of considerable significance that this operation has been corroborated by another source who's credibility is not in question.[xii] This individual was present in Tehran during many of these events, and was later posted to another sensitive location in this connection. Moreover, it has additionally been revealed that Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) were heavily involved in the Superbill sting. That BNL were an intrinsic part of Oliver North's so called "Enterprise" - in reality the OSG's of the Terrorist Incident Working Group - is beyond doubt.[xiii]

The question remains, however, is what did George Bush intend to do with his "black" $3.8 billion? What was the ultimate purpose of the operation? Perhaps some of the money is to be used to grease palms and otherwise finance Bush's bid for the presidency following the completion of President Reagan's second term? Maybe it was used to finance other lucrative projects. Perhaps it was to be used to inject financial muscle into another, grander scheme that Tatum has recently spoken of. This involves George Bush's "scope and mission" paper for a New World Order.

A copy of the Scoping paper supplied to Tatum by George Bush outlines the formation of a Corporation whose purpose is to "… provide a central network of information, analysts and strategists on an international basis in pursuit or world order and economic stability." The "scope" of the corporation involves four features: 1) Centralization of informational services; 2) Analysis of data by region specific analysts; 3) Provide recommendations based upon analysts reports by international experts, and 4) Provide international master plan for world growth and economic stability. The Corporation will be privately owned with a Board of Directors "consisting of twelve members, elected annually by the shareholders." In addition there will be five departments: "Data Resources; Political Management; Economic Management; Military Management; Environmental Management."[xiv]

. . .

(Footnotes:)

[viii] See The New Yorker article by Fredric Dannen and Ira Silverman - October 23, 1995 for additional details.

[ix] Tatum says DeBusia laundered this sum through banks in London. Coincidences abound in this story and they may be no more than coincidences. However, I think it is worth citing Gerald James, former Chairman of Astra Plc and one of the principal figures in the Scott affair and arms sales to Iraq. In his book "In the Public Interest" (Warner Books 1996) Gerald reproduces an internal company memorandum referring to the massive British-Saudi Al Yamamah arms deal in which a sum of $4 billion is mentioned in connection with a bribe to Saudi Prince Bandar - a nephew of King Fahd. The memorandum states "This 4 bil US was mentioned in connection with M. Thatcher's son." Interestingly, the sum of $3.8 billion is mentioned in the "Kerry Report" that looked into the IranContra affair.

[x] One of the principal prosecution witnesses again Gen. Noriega was Gabriel Taboada. Arguably, without Taboada's testimony (he was regarded as the "star witness") the prosecution case against Noriega may well have failed. Tatum has provided this writer with a number of private letters and other documents written by Toboada. These clearly show that Toboada was "coached" by the prosecution in what to say, and, more significantly, what not to say. Toboada's correspondence makes it clear he was aware that the prosecution case against Noriega was severely flawed by perjury - a fact known to the prosecution team. Today, Toboada lives in fear of his life - a state of affairs that the US Justice Dept dismiss out of hand.

[xi] Following the intervention of the CIA, DeBusia is acquitted on all counts. Effectively discredited he will continue to maintain silent.

[xii] Private communication with this writer

[xiii] See Alan Friedman's "The Spider's Web" (Faber & Faber 1993) for a more detailed role of BNL in the Contragate affair. I have been reliably informed that that significant portions of Friedman's original manuscript were excised by a wary publisher?

[xiv] It is impossible to judge the veracity of this document for a number of reasons. Principally, the name of the Corporation is not stated and the document itself is typed on blank A4 paper running to three pages. Readers must make of it what they will.

The idea of the Reagan government doing covert business with Khomeini to get the "eurodollar" plates back is quite an image...

Khomeini agreeing to it, too...

Yet I find it plausible...

Michael

[algernonsidney]

I certainly wouldn't put anything past the goons and charlatans who hung around President Jellybean. Reagan's image has already suffered some in the past ten years and will continue to do so. He was a socialist, fascist, and a militarist. His support for freedom was almost as phony as the man that he appointed to the chair of the Fed.

[algernonsidney]

Chris Baker "That being said, there is a great deal of animosity between Sephardic Jews (of Arab nations) and Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern Europe). This may very well destroy Israel before the Arabs do. If the Arabs and Muslims had any sense, they would play these groups against each other."

Much less than some Jews-haters would like to see. More than 50% of Israeli population have mixed Ashkenazi-Sephardi origin. If the Arabs had any sense they would beg Israel to accomodate them instead to fight for creation of another useless,economically and geo-politically not viable backward totalitarian Palestinian state.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ashkenazi-parent-sephardi-girls-have-a-bad-influence-on-our-girls-1.1513

[BaalChatzaf]

Chris Baker "That being said, there is a great deal of animosity between Sephardic Jews (of Arab nations) and Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern Europe). This may very well destroy Israel before the Arabs do. If the Arabs and Muslims had any sense, they would play these groups against each other."

Much less than some Jews-haters would like to see. More than 50% of Israeli population have mixed Ashkenazi-Sephardi origin. If the Arabs had any sense they would beg Israel to accomodate them instead to fight for creation of another useless,economically and geo-politically not viable backward totalitarian Palestinian state.

http://www.haaretz.c...ur-girls-1.1513

Proving once again that religious extremism of any stripe and hue is bad news for the human race. Perhaps G-D made man, but it was the Devil, for sure, who created religion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[algernonsidney]

"Perhaps G-D made man, but it was the Devil, for sure, who created religion."

I will be sure to remember this one.

[Leonid]

Chris Baker "That being said, there is a great deal of animosity between Sephardic Jews (of Arab nations) and Ashkenazi Jews (Eastern Europe). This may very well destroy Israel before the Arabs do. If the Arabs and Muslims had any sense, they would play these groups against each other."

Much less than some Jews-haters would like to see. More than 50% of Israeli population have mixed Ashkenazi-Sephardi origin. If the Arabs had any sense they would beg Israel to accomodate them instead to fight for creation of another useless,economically and geo-politically not viable backward totalitarian Palestinian state.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ashkenazi-parent-sephardi-girls-have-a-bad-influence-on-our-girls-1.1513

So, your conclusion about "great deal of animosity is based on sensational news paper report about wild behavior of few ultra-orthodox bigots? I afraid, you don't know Israel from your elbow. The same applies to your statement that Israel "despises capitalism". If it so, how Israel managed to attract the amount of venture capital which is bigger than that of France and Germany combined? How it developed the most advanced IT industry and agriculture in the world? How is it that TEVA sales medications all around the globe and ELSINT produced the first CT scan. I suggest that you'll do some research before you post.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Leonid

[algernonsidney]

The same applies to your statement that Israel "despises capitalism". If it so, how Israel managed to attract the amount of venture capital which is bigger than that of France and Germany combined?

This might be one of the most absurd comments I've ever seen on this board. You are going to defend Israel by comparing it to France and Germany.

Let's see France--the country that produced Rousseau, Roberpierre, and Saint-Simon. This is a nation where the private schools were taken over by the government. France is a socialist country.

And now on to Germany--this shithole is the only country on Earth were homeschooling your kids is explicitly illegal. This country gave us Marx, Engels, and Hitler. Germany has never been for capitalism.

According to the Fraser Institute, Israel ranks 78th in the world in economic freedom out of 141 nations in their study. Even Mexico, Kyrgyztan, Mongolia, Oman, Bahrain, and Jordan rank higher.

[jriggenbach]

Will no one with the authority to do so edit the title of this thread? Or does no one here with such authority grasp the difference between "imminent" and "eminent"?

Jesus H. Christ!

JR

[9thdoctor]

Will no one with the authority to do so edit the title of this thread? Or does no one here with such authority grasp the difference between "imminent" and "eminent"?

Oh omnipotent editor, while you're in miracle working mode, would you change this thread title to "Sightings":

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8020&view=findpost&p=86334