Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:
First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…
Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.
Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind. This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.
Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity. They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.
They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came. Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!
In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!
The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights. Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.
This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means. A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it. Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries. But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.
In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”
But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”
It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.
Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.
Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).
We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.
But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!
When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.
Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.
Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.
Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!
Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by ”good” people?
The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.
Ok, we can all agree that Pat Robertson was a dork of stellar magnitude, and the Phelps Family are supernovae in that particular area called theocracy.
That said, before we submerge a crucifix in urine let’s give the Abrahamic tree a second look, and examine the fruit it has borne.
The Jews never had a drive to spread over the Earth. Their scriptures taught them that certain lands were given them by God; so they took them, enough said, this was 6,000 years ago after all. But after that they lost any territorial ambitions. But, the Persians and Romans proceeded to push them this way and that; being rather fanatical, they pushed back. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Judean Diaspora the centuries have seen Judaism become a religion withdrawn into itself. Having lost the arrogance of the Temple but retained the Love of God and intellectual tradition they became a creative yeast in their host cultures.
The Jews never expected to take over the world; at most they expected, and some maybe still expect that the world will join them. Not by the sword, but by the Love of God. One of the best aspects of the Jewish religion is its focus on the Love of God and a Love for God in each moment of a person’s life.
But along came Jayzus!
Things started out ok, Yesuah merely echoed and extended the teachings and philosophy of Hillel. It expanded organically and gently; converting mostly people otherwise considered “unworthy” of membership in one of the more respectable religions, then into the idle upper-class (often by way of religiously adventurous wives discontent with being the ornament on a rich man’s arm.
But then Paul and Constantine came to deal the Judaic Chrestians, and then, later, the mild original “Greek”, a double death-blow of politicization.
After several centuries of defending themselves from the fanatically imperialistic Islam Christianity began to model all sorts of the worst of the Islamic “innovations” in religion and took on an expansionist, aggressive attitude of its own.
But, it is inherent in a religion mostly based on the teachings of Jesus that every now and then people would remember what their religion was supposed to be about. Christianity may have done much more good during those periods than it did evil during its more cognitively-dissonant times.
Since the Enlightenment the swings of the pendulum between arrogant fanaticism on one hand, and humble servitude to God on the other seem to have gotten gentler. Christianity also seem centered more and more toward the liberal side of the equation; i.e. Fred Phelps, not Qaradawi.
Christianity may one day even manage to have more people who follow it for the right reasons than fools-in-lambs-clothing who use religion in unhealthy ways, or merely for social reasons.
Christianity has a core in its teachings and scripture that is there for all to see; one of Love. It today can be, and always has been, a potentially dangerous religion (I.e. Fred Phelps, Torquemada) but is not inherently so by the structure and teachings of its chief scriptures.
I do think that, despite the quantum jump that The Enlightenment enabled in society’s evolution, Christianity has shown a definite tendency to speed humanity’s growth due to the focus of many of the faithful being on Jesus’ ministry rather than the “died for your sins” part.
Now, about Islam.
Islam teaches much about peace and love. There are verses equal to any in the other Abrahamic writings. I will not comment here about those who feel it was the work of someone passingly familiar with both religions. But Pat Robertson did get one thing right; Islamic theology IS inherently aggressive.
The Islamic scriptures consist of three parts:
The Qur’an, the Sunnah –basically a biography of Mohammed’s life, and the ahadith – stories about Mohammed from people who knew him. If you read it all it is clear that there can only be peace when everyone has submitted to Allah.
Even the most fanatical religion tends to mellow over the years; people are basically families, people who want to live and work and laugh and have the space to find God before they die. Even individuals attracted to a “religious” life for evil reasons can be shocked to learn that Love of God and Love BY God can blossom in their hearts; that is the core of any religion.
Islam unfortunately is working uphill in the all so human battle against hubris while trying to find truth. But, by having such an aggressive set scriptures; by having so much to draw from that feeds the darker hungers of man, Islam will, I believe spend more time orbiting around radical aggression before submitting finally to that peace and love that is God, is Allah.
Islam is inherently dedicated by its self-declared scriptural doctrine to naturally one day rule the world by TAKING control of it and forcing Dar al-Harb(‘House of War’) (Non-Muslim controlled regions) into Dar al-Islam(‘House of Islam); then all people will be free, in the Islamic view, to “choose” the “right” religion.
Sadly, it is not hard to justify all sorts of atrocities on infidels (non-Muslims) with the Qur’an; by contrast there are very few Samaritans or Philistines around for Jews or Christians to use their scripture as an excuse to start a pogrom against.
In Islam it does not matter that reformist Imams do not support something. In fact it is literally forbidden in Islam to use your ‘conscience’ as a guide in a religious dilemma; the only proper way to get an answer is to ask the proper authority, and then submit to the “truth.”
In Christianity, the violent books and verses are all somewhat shielded by being in the OT and considered to be superseded by the Love of Jesus when any conflict occurs. Islam does not have a NT to mellow its hard edges, though it does recognize the concept of abrogation (what a prophet says later is ‘rock’ to the ‘scissors’ of any earlier pronouncements or doctrines).
This makes “insulting” Islam dangerous at times in the modern world of high tech, and horrific weapons that you can make in your garage.
I mostly find it sad that the bulk of Muslims are not more vocal about denouncing their radical Brethren in both the private and the public arena. It is every person in the world’s duty to restrain the fundies of all aggressive religions until they grow up. Until a religion’s devout – highest clergy to clueless souls just born in it – recognize to their core’s that it is ok to DIE because of your religion but, that it is NEVER anything but evil to use religion as an excuse to KILL, that religion should be watched, and kept on a leash in polite company.
Islam has yet to show that it can stay grown up. They are younger though, lets give them time…but, keep the rolled up newspaper ready to smack their noses if they sh*t on the rug. We have too many permanent stains from Christianity and its messes; AND the Islam’s’ earlier messes. Of course Christianity STILL pees on the floor now and then. We just have to be patient and rub their noses PROMPTLY in their messes; but, we don’t have to worry about them eating the neighbor’s cat anymore.
I am not too PC to call a club a club (well, I can’t say spade anymore can I?); religion can be very wonderful but, people need to get over their BS and realize that the basic code of ethics that most religions have can also be formulated by simple common sense and an understanding of psychology and social dynamics. Go read a little about Neuro-Linguistic Programming and such. Real secular morality is what the world needs, not the Fascist pretend kind, only then can religion truly flourish; when we get over all this bickering on who is actually the only ones in touch with the “ONLY source of Morality™”; which they cannot even prove exists.
Faith is the problem; submission to something you do not feel yourself is the problem. Beliefs have reasons, sometimes bad ones but, reasons that can be ‘reasoned with’; faith has no reason therefore the most reasonable argument does no good, your head still rolls on the floor.
Have faith in Jesus of Mohammed; I will Believe in Bugs Bunny!
And over here Virginia we have an excellent example of a seasoned political operative exercising her trade; open-faced, warmly sincere, and accidently self-serving, distortions of basic reality. Also take note of the masterly avoidance of any substantial discussion of the actual text of the speech, or, for that matter the actual reaction of Congress to Mr. Netanyahu’s words. MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council has
It is no wonder Abbas said that Netanyahu’s speech before the joint meeting of Congress was a “declaration of war against the Palestinians.” The “Palestinian Narrative” demands victim status for the proper strategic placement to finally “Solve” the Nakba; Hamas is the historical and ideological heir to the Muftif of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the man who encouraged Hitler to adopt the rabidly innovative new idea for Europe’s “Final Solution”. Husayni commanded a Nazi SS division of Muslim soldiers, only failing to implement his own Middle Eastern Holocaust because of the decline of Germany’s falling on the defensive and subsequent loss in WWII.
But, after all, Netanyahu’s adherence to the actual armistice agreement from all the way back in ‘48 is hardly a shock; Israel always was supposed to have a negotiated border based on the “Green Line” where, for the most part, troops happened to be when the final ceasefire was called. From ‘48 to ‘67 Gaza was effectively a part of Egypt and The West Bank was part of Jordan; neither country EVER made a single move, or even suggested, that the “Palestinians” needed a state of their own.
Then in ‘67 Egypt illegally blockaded Israeli shipping and sent it’s entire armored force toward the Israeli border while proclaiming to the world that it was the intention of Egypt to eliminate the state of Israel by a genocidal application of military force.
Here is a quote from Judge Stephen Schwebel, former President of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) (italics added)
“The facts of the June 1967 ‘Six Day War’ demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF (a UN peacekeeping force “invited” to stand aside, or else by Egypt prior to the massing of the invasion force – Guy DeWhitney). It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”
On to MPAC’s all too commonly disingenuous “analysis of Mr. Netanyahu’s amazingly blunt and refreshingly honest speech…
“Last week, President Barack Obama outlined his vision for the Middle East, rooted in the principle that change is inevitable, and that democracy, human rights and self-determination will continue to ultimately move the region to a better place. For too long, dictators ran the region, many of whom deliberately held the Mid-East peace process hostage for their own personal gain and popularity.”
Well, we all know how willing the Arab states have been to sit down and hammer out a settlement, right? The following undisputed quotes paint a different picture of the Muslim attitude on the ground I am afraid…
“You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion….I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews.”
Yasser Arafat speaking to an Arab audience; Stockholm, Sweden 1996
“Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong. This intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.”
PA Minister Imad Falouji, 2001
“We may lose or win [tactically], but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the river to the sea. Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth.”
Faisal Husseini, PA minister & Jerusalem PLO representative, 2001
Peace Partners, Obama said? “Not by the hair of my chinny, chin, chin. said the Little Pig”. Back to MPAC’s demonstration of psychological projection…
An important component of the President’s address was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President did not offer anything novel regarding the conflict, but rather re-stated long-running U.S. policy regarding the 1967 borders, which both the Clinton and Bush administrations saw as a starting point for negotiations.
In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat in the White House alongside Obama and called the President’s remarks on the 1967 borders “indefensible” and “throwing Israel under the bus”. Netanyahu not only questioned President Obama’s intelligence in a 12-minute rambling diatribe in the Oval office on the history of the Middle East, but at the invitation of the congressional Republican leadership, he went so far as to rebut the President’s speech in front of both houses of the United States Congress this week.
And, it seems that much of Congress was receptive to this fresh, almost shocking openness and return to honesty in that sacred chamber. The MPAC fantasy continues…
“Unfortunately, this type of political grandstanding is nothing new from the Republican leadership in Congress. In November 2009, after meeting with Netanyahu in Israel, Republican House Majority leader Eric Cantor (leading a 25-person Congressional delegation), said that he would act as a check to the President’s policy in the Middle East. This statement was an unprecedented rebuke by a member of Congress, of an American President on foreign soil. No matter what one’s views are regarding the conflict, it is distasteful for members of Congress to volunteer themselves as theater props in order to discredit the President of the United States.”
A member? hardly; MPAC’s spin-meisteress forgot to add that 30 Representatives and 17 Senators were chosen/volunteered by the VICE PRESIDENT and Speaker of the House to be Netanyahu’s “Escort of Honor”; and yes Virginia, it was a totally bi-partisan group, including BOTH Democratic Senators from California! Oh, and then there were the 27 standing ovations, most of them loud and obviously sincere; there is an element on the Left that claims the entire U.S. Congress is so terrified of Israel that they do not feel they can be SEEN to NOT be enthusiastic, Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght! Oh, we should also note this little piece from the Washington Post: Democrats join Republicans in questioning Obama’s policy on Israel
“No matter how long such political theater continues, the status quo will not move either side forward. Both sides have entrenched themselves. From the Israeli side, the separation wall continues to be built on Palestinian land and illegal settlements continue to grow. The Palestinians have recently signed a unity agreement, yet there does not seem to be much movement towards a national platform for peace and the use of violence in Gaza continues to set them back.”
What a tribute to the Imagination and genius of the Republican “political theater” staff; twenty seven standing ovations from both sides of the aisle; no less enthusiastic at the end, after Congress being gently slapped in the face with reality, than at the beginning.
“President Obama cannot produce a peace agreement on his own…”
Of course not, and if he tried I think that this same MPAC writer would likely claim that the U.S. had no right to do any such thing!
“…And while pressure is on Palestinians to make more concessions, the reality is that the Israelis can end the stalemate now if it wanted to have a peace deal.”
This is the first time I have seen “peace deal” used as a euphemism for national and ethnic suicide; given the adamantly stated goals of the Arab nations and the Palestinian “leadership” no other definition can be entertained by the sane and sober.
Here are some more historical quotes to dash a little cold water on this fantasy called the “Palestinian narrative”:
“The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel.”
Ralph Galloway, Director of UNRWA, 1958
“All the Arab countries want to keep this problem looking like an open wound.”
Ana Liria-Franch, UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ regional representative to Cairo, 2003
“If Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.”
Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egyptian President, 1961
“The demand for the return of the Palestinian refugees…is tantamount to the destruction of Israel.”
As’ad Abd-Al Rahman, Minister of Refugee Affairs – Palestinian Authority, 1999
The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians… but, instead they abandoned them and, forced them to emigrate and to leave.”
PA President Mahmoud Abbas, 1976
“We will smash the country. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said, 1948
“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”
Haled al Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister, 1948-1949
“The fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were our biggest mistake…Palestinians fled in terror.”
Hazem Nusseibeh, editor – Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic news in 1948
And now Virginia, back to our regularly scheduled Islamist Apologetics demonstration…
“But Netanyahu’s condescending attitude to our President and by extension our country has to end. Jeffery Goldberg in an article entitled “Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don’t Speak to My President That Way”, in the Atlantic Monthly, said, “…he [Netanyahu] threw something of a hissy fit. It was not appropriate, and more to the point, it was not tactically wise…”
Twenty. Seven. Standing. Ovations. Clearly Congress failed to realize they were being insulted. Myself I thought Netanyahu showed them respect, by simply telling the truth and not playing games with an issue that is of existential aspect to Israel. Look at this bit from…
Top Democrats have joined a number of Republicans in challenging President Obama’s policy toward Israel, further exposing rifts that the White House and its allies will seek to mend before next year’s election.
The differences, on display as senior lawmakers addressed a pro-Israel group late Monday and Tuesday, stem from Obama’s calls in recent days for any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians to be based on boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, combined with “mutually agreed swaps” of territory.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and other Democrats appeared to reject the president’s reference to the 1967 lines in his latest attempt to nudge along peace talks, thinking that he was giving away too much, too soon.
White House officials say Obama’s assertion did not reflect a shift in U.S. policy. But the president’s comments touched a nerve among pro-Israel activists, drew a rare Oval Office rebuke from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and instantly became a litmus test in domestic American politics.
Now Obama — whom critics often accuse of employing a play-it-safe governing style in which he waits for others to take the lead — is largely isolated politically in raising the issue of boundaries…
The MPAC writer, who, I think, must have slightly less sense than my char-lady, concludes thusly…
“It is not only the left who has been taken back by Netanyahu’s disrespect to the Oval office but even among the conservatives there is criticism of the way he has demeaned the office of the President of the United States.For peace to be a reality, respect for the White House by Netanyahu must be the first condition to any legitimate process.”
Well Virginia, I do not know why I feel disappointed, after all the whole piece up to that point was also nothing but lies, why shouldn’t the conclusion be more of the same? Here is a link to a compilation of CONGRESSIONAL comments regarding the speech… MPAC has to hate it when people actually go to the SOURCE to refute their propagandistic spin-meister/meistress.
Here is a link to the speech itself… Love it!
Here we have an interesting video of Obama speaking with Netanyahu I found on Al-JazeeraEnglish at YouTube.
I am not sure Obama is happy about the response from the Muslim world on his attempts to appease them. Maybe reality is setting in and, wonder of wonder, miracles of miracles, Obama is waking up to reality. I doubt his Marxist-friendly version of Islam is quite what the global Muslim community is aiming for.
I think our dear President may have realized that if he allows Iran to nuke Israel only a lightening fast impeachment could save him from the angry mobs; did someone point out that the Obama name could end up being lower down in esteem of historians than the bigoted, and not-so-bright, (last in his class at West Point) Gen. Custer? IS he aware that the stain on his name could exceed that on Jackson’s for his "Trail of Tears" inflicted on the Cherokee nation?
How else can we explain his slow, but steady reversal of attitude on Israel? (If that is really what is happening, instead of simply a more effective "plausible deniability."
Here is a transcript of a recent interview with Israeli TV by Obama; other than his usual racism and self-absorption this is the most open and honest view of Israel I have seen out of the White House since the Election:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
July 08, 2010
Interview of the President by Yonit Levi, Israeli TV
Diplomatic Reception Room
(Conducted July 7, 2010)
5:23 P.M. EDT
Q President Barack Obama, shalom, and thank you so much for talking with us today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q I’d like to actually open up by asking you about hope, which was such a prominent notion in your campaign and in your presidency. And how can you convey that concept of hope to Israelis, who’ve seen so many failed attempts at a peace process?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, it’s always a challenge. One of the things I used to say during the campaign but also at the beginning of my presidency is, being hopeful is not the same as being blindly optimistic. I think you have to be clear-eyed about the situation.
And Israelis, rightly, look at the past and have skepticism about what’s possible. They see the enmity of neighbors that surround them in a very tough neighborhood. They see a track record of attempts at peace where, even when concessions were made, a deal could not be consummated. They see rockets fired from Gaza or from areas in Lebanon, and say to themselves that the hatreds or history are so deep-seated that changed is not possible.
And yet, if you think back to the founding of Israel, there were a lot of people who thought that that wasn’t possible either. And if Herzl or Ben-Gurion were looking at Israel today, they would be astonished at what they saw — a country that’s vibrant, that is growing economically at a extraordinary pace, that has overcome not just security challenges but also has been able to overcome challenges related to geography. And so that should be a great source of hope.
Unfortunately Barry just can’t seem to stay in the real world; he prefers the warm dream of "what I want" to the somber reality of "what can be done with what we have."
Iranian fighter turned US spy: Tehran will attack Israel
Former Revolutionary Guard member who relayed its secret operations to CIA for 10 years says Iran will commit ‘most horrendous suicide bombing in human history’ if not stopped
Kahlili accused the Obama Administration of being naïve. According to him, the American overtures are viewed by the Iranian regime as a sign of weakness, while the Iranian people consider the efforts to engage the regime an act of betrayal against their struggle for freedom.
Kahlili said he joined the Revolutionary Guard following the Islamic revolution of 1979, but volunteered to work for the CIA when he became disillusioned with the Khomeini regime after witnessing acts of rape, torture and murder.
Iran, not Turkey has the most secularly oriented population in the Muslim world. Iranians were the only Muslim population to come out into the streets in *sympathy* for America after 9/11. There is little doubt that the Shah abused the Iranian people and that they were justified in wishing him removed. However the general Iranian population had no idea that the end result would be slavery to the most conservative religious elements.
I firmly agree with those that believe that if Obama had shown any support for the Iranian (almost) revolution after their last election the “almost” would be missing completely.