Iran official: We have obtained the S-300 missile system

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Iran official: We have obtained the S-300 missile system

 AP  04.08.2010

Fars news agency says Tehran signs deal with Belarus after Russia reportedly refused to provide Iran with the surface-to-air system over recent UN sanctions.

By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service
A semiofficial Iranian news agency says Iran has obtained four S-300 surface-to-air missiles despite Russia's refusal to deliver them.

The Fars news agency said Wednesday that Iran has obtained two missiles from Belarus and two others from another unspecified source.

Russia signed a contract in 2007 to sell the missiles to Iran but said in June that new UN Security Council sanctions against Tehran prevent delivery. The sale would have substantially boosted the country's defense capacities, raising Israeli fears it would tip the military balance in the Middle East.

In June, a senior Iranian official said that that if Russia persisted in its refusal "to deliver the systems, we are well capable of producing missile defense systems that are very much similar to Russia's S-300 apparatus."

Since the recently approved UN sanctions resolution against Iran, Russia has released several contradicting reports regarding it missile deal with Iran.

The senior Iranian official added that if Russia eventually refused "to deliver the systems, we are well capable of producing missile defense systems that are very much similar to Russia's S-300 apparatus."

Since the UN sanctions resolution against Iran was approved last Wednesday, Russia has released several contradicting reports regarding it missle deal with Iran. Russia said on Thursday it was in discussions with Iran on possible new nuclear power plants in the Islamic state, the country's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters


Israel and the United States have asked Russia not to deliver the missile systems, which can shoot down several aircraft or missiles simultaneously and could potentially be used to protect nuclear facilities.

Western diplomats in Moscow believe Russia is eager to keep the deal in reserve as a bargaining chip. Iran has expressed increasing frustration over the unfulfilled contract.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.305954

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

'Israel will be destroyed if it attacks Iran'
Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:21:29 GMT


A group of ex-CIA officials have warned Washington against Tel Aviv's efforts to "mousetrap" the US on Iran, a mistake that would "destroy" Israel.

In a memo to the US President Barack Obama, a group of former CIA intelligence officers at the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity warned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ready to go unilateral on Iran.

"Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel's quiver," the group said on Thursday.

To prevent such a 'disaster', the former officials wrote, the White House should "move quickly to pre-empt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens."

If Obama fails to do so "Israel's leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel," the memo continues.

Plans for a military attack against Iran have gained momentum in Tel Aviv over the past few months.

On November 7, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon warned Iran that Tel Aviv's persistent threats of military action were not just a bluff.

Tel Aviv has also ordered a long list of US-made military equipment, including systems needed by the Israeli Air Force, certain types of missiles and advanced electronic war equipment.

The ex-CIA officials however have suggested that Tel Aviv's impatience may cost them dearly.

"Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel," the group said.

Formed in January 2003 "to speak out on the use of intelligence to justify the war," the veterans are widely known for their opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"We now believe that we may also be right on (and right on the cusp of) another impending catastrophe of even wider scope - Iran - on which another President, you, are not getting good advice from your closed circle of advisers," the memo concludes.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=13 ... =351020101

[Negentropic]

Israel and the United States have asked Russia not to deliver the missile systems, which can shoot down several aircraft or missiles simultaneously and could potentially be used to protect nuclear facilities.

hmmm, let me get this straight . . .  Israel and the USA have asked Russia not to deliver missile systems to Iran made in their defense industry which they wouldn't even have if Israel and the U.S.A. had not given them the original technology & financial support to develop (and hence acquire proper boogie-man status) during the cold war to maintain?   How come when Israel tells Putin to shut his trap about the Holohoax and 9-11 he doesn't say a word?  Just curious.  :lol:  Putin's Lubavitcher buddies must be really pissed at the Judo-man right about now for giving Iran the capability to destroy their Rotchschild-created-perfect-front-for-criminal-activity now wouldn't they?  Is Judea going to declare war on Russia the way they did on Germany in 1933? Somehow I don't think so.

[abduLMaria]

"Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel," the group said.

music to my ears.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

"Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel," the group said.

music to my ears.

Yeah, abduLMaria...this whole thing makes me think the whole Israeli-AIPAC-Jew-Goy American Military Puppets Iran invasion  hinged on the weapons system?  Just like in Georgia, when the Jews-Amero-Puppets wouldn't stop gradually building up forces there, Russia delivers the "Peace-makers" right before the ZioCrazies hit the buttons to go "all-in"... could be wrong but I only hope this makes the Global JewTards think twice and not take it to the next Level.

Of course, if the S-300s are just a Russo-Jew example of "blowing smoke" that Iranians have bought hook, line and sinker as a "real deal" when they actually don't work, then this is not good. War is not far away and Israel has scammed some UN propaganda points.

[Whaler]

I was listening to Mark Glenn's show. He seems certain that an attack on Iran is going to occur soon.
He talks about the article CSR posted.


The Ugly Truth Podcast August 5, 2010
http://media11.podbean.com/pb/fd595f3c3 ... of1MP3.mp3

The gathering storm–Mark Dankof joins the discussion concerning that latest open letter to Pres. Obama from former US intelligence professionsals viz a viz Israel's drive for war with Iran and what the repercussions will likely be.

[Negentropic]

I was listening to Mark Glenn's show. He seems certain that an attack on Iran is going to occur soon.
He talks about the article CSR posted.

Well, they've been saying it's going to happen for years now, and if it happens, you can't say that Ahmedinejad didn't play directly into their hands at every turn right on cue.  It's like a step-by-step orchestrated slow suicide.

[MikeWB]

Do they really have S-300 missiles??? I haven't seen any proof.

But a better, close-up picture shows what appears to be a non-traditional transporter, erector, launchers carrying several tubes of welded together oil drums to simulate S-300 canisters.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 84ed33837d

[Whaler]

FBI again hunts al Qaeda "dirty bomb" expert - first exposed by DEBKA



http://www.debka.com/article/8957/

US federal agencies Saturday, Aug. 7, announced the hunt was on again for Adnan Al Shukrijumah, 35, who lived in the US for 15 years and may now be Al Qaeda's mew global operations chief.
debkafile's counter terror sources confirm the wanted man is indeed dangerous - but not because of his climb up the al Qaeda ladder but owing to the unique task first assigned him seven years ago to carry out a radiological bombing attack in America.
This task was first revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 132, the Nov. 17, 2003, whose sources reported that  already then, in October of that year, Shukriumah was the quarry of a secret manhunt in the US and Canada.  He was employed at the time as a nuclear engineering student at MacMaster University's nuclear 5-megawatt research reactor in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada before suddenly disappearing.

His absence was noted when a large quantity of radioactive material was missed from the university's reactor. It was suspected then that Osama bin Laden had entrusted the "student" with preparing a "dirty bomb" attack in a North American city.
Shukrijumah has never been traced since.

Born in Saudi Arabia, Shukrijumah was brought to the United States as a young child by his father, an imam, and mother and lived inNew York and Florida for 15 years.

In its original report of 2003, DEBKA-Net-Weekly disclosed:

American authorities first heard about Al ShukriJumah's terror mission on al Qaeda's behalf from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the senior operative of the fundamentalist network captured at his home in Karachi one night in March.
Sheikh Mohammed described the wanted man as a one-man cell trained to build from scratch radiological bombs capable of environmental contamination. From Sheikh Mohammed, US counter-terror agencies learned for the first time about the single-cell al Qaeda chemical, biological and nuclear strike-teams consisting of lone operatives trained to operate solo.
The experts had previously assumed that each unconventional weapons cell numbered several members and was  supported by broad logistical backup crews [like the network which carried out the 9/11 attacks].

To read this article in full, click here

His disclosures were therefore an eye-opener in more ways than one.
Today, debkafile's counter-terror sources are skeptical about the wanted man's new job description as al Qaeda's head of global operational planning. It is far more likely, they say, that the organization would rather take advantage of his familiarity with the American scene for grooming Muslims who are US citizens for attacks inside the United States.
That was the impression gained by the Detroit taxi driver Najibullah Zazi, one of three men accused of plotting suicide bomb attacks on New York's subway last year. According to his account, Shukrijumah was key liaison officer at their training camp in Pakistan.
Our experts would not be surprised to hear that Shukrijumah was as keen on getting updated on the changes occurring in America during his seven-year absence as he was to teach the new recruits the arts of terror.
Al Qaeda is wont to stick with a long-term plan until it is carried out - or is aborted. Their designated expert in unconventional terror may be in the process of adjusting his operation for a dirty bomb or other unconventional strike in America according to the circumstances prevailing today..

See Also:
NEW "AL QAEDA" LEADER MAY BE ISRAELI
viewtopic.php?f=4&p=47349#p47349

[Negentropic]

Just imagine, what would happen if Ahmedinejackturd kept ranting and he was blacked-out of the media?  Nobody would even know he existed or where Iran was on the map (actually quite a few still don't know where it is).  He plays the villain in a Jew-orchestrated media charade. Why would the producers of the charade put their villain in the play if he wasn't advancing their agenda?  They WANT to attack Iran because they want to impose a much fuller control than they already have through pulling strings from behind the scenes ever since 1978 and before. They CAN attack Iran anytime they want. They have 300 plus nukes and the entire U.S. Military Industrial Complex under their command. Israel is not in any way any more afraid of Iran than it was of Iraq. Israel is just afraid of public opinion in the United States, not even the world, just the U.S. Because once the U.S. military turns against Israel, that's when Israel is finished and not before. Leaders almost always serve the same functions. Useful idiots or outright owned controlled opposition, the results are exactly the same, controlled opposition. A C.O. is one that never poses any real threat but is allowed to be perceived as a real threat whether in domestic politics (Ron Paul), World Politics (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan) or in psy-ops or Ideological warfare (Alex Jones and a large part of the 'truth movement').  Always have, always will be.  

Chavez is a true leader?  Chavez cares about his people? Then what's he doing so buddy-buddies with both Castro and Ahmedinejacket?  And what's Chomsky doing in the middle of all this? Fighting the imperialists, you say?  Funny how he left out the importance of discovering who was behind the little event that provided the excuse and blank check for the mass-murdering imperialism of the past 10 years in his anti-imperialism crusade, isn't it?  

















During meeting with Hezbollah spiritual leader Fadlallah, Jewish-American professor says mentality of madness rules many in Israel


















the guy on the right, the one he's about to french-kiss, he indulges in a side hobby with his buddies in Iran: it's called 100-lashes plus the death penalty for adultery and homo activity but homie Chavez is cool with that. :up:


they're like homies, hangin' out





















Noam Chomsky and Edward Manukyan, at Chomsky's MIT office. Behind is the portrait
                      of Bertrand Russell, with the "Three passions..." quote at the bottom.


The Prologue to Bertrand Russell's Autobiography
What I Have Lived For

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.
 I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness--that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what--at last--I have found.
With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.
 Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.
 This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.
________________________________________
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) won the Nobel prize for literature for his History of Western Philosophy and was the co-author of Principia Mathematica.



1. The following quotes are from the book "The Impact of Science on Society" by Bertrand Russell (Yes the same Bertrand Russell who wrote that lovely 'three passions' quote above, he either did not mean what he said or something is wrong with his methods :lol: ) (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1951 and 1953):

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's." (p. 26)

"...the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology.... The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician's paradise." (p. 30)
"Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."  (Page 50)
"...most civilized and semi-civilized countries known to history and had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners.  There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible.  And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority.  When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces.  And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class.  I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship." (Page 54)
"There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population.  The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority." (pps. 103-104)
________________________________________
"My conclusion is that a scientific society can be stable given certain conditions.  
1.   The first of these is a single government of the whole world, possessing a monopoly of armed force and therefore able to enforce peace.  
2.   The second condition is a general diffusion of prosperity, so that there is no occasion for envy of one part of the world by another.  
3.   The third condition (which supposes the second fulfilled) is a low birth rate everywhere, so that the population of the world becomes stationary, or nearly so.  
4.   The fourth condition is the provision for individual initiative both in work and in play, and the greatest diffusion of power compatible with maintaining the necessary political and economic framework.  
The world is a long way from realizing these conditions, and therefore we must expect vast upheavals and appalling suffering before stability is attained.  But, while upheavals and suffering have hitherto been the lot of man, we can now see, however dimly and uncertainly, a possible future culmination in which poverty and war will have been overcome, and fear, where it survives, will have become pathological.  The road, I fear, is long, but that is no reason for losing sight of the ultimate hope." (Page 113-114)
________________________________________
Bertrand Russell would later write that a "Black Death" or bacteriological warfare might be needed to cull the population.[28] Wells had already written that 'they would have a cause that "would make killing worth the while." (Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953, p. 103.)

[Ahmed]

Ahmedinejad hasn't played into anyone's hands, Khamenei and Ahmedinejad have employed diplomacy and defiance to safeguard the Iranian people as best they can. And have done so in a dignified and resolute manner which has increased Iran's standing in the world and, in some ways, allayed people's suspicions about Iran's perceived inclination towards sectarian politics.

10-15 years ago maybe they could censor a person to keep his or her view completly out of the media, but the new media has made it next to impossible to keep the truth form those who're interested. And though the number who are interested isn't what it should be, its enough to shred some Zionist nerves and frustrate their schemes. Some people like to go on about this and that; holocaust, Zionist Jewry etc and how it never gets any MSM coverage, and when someone or people finally bring it to the fore, they're called agents or controlled opposition.

My guess is that Iran doesn't need S-300 at all, from 1980-88 the combined force of the U.S., The Soviet Union, Britain, France, Egypt, Jordan and NATO supported Iraq against  Iran. And Iran, almost single headedly with God's help, managed to stave off a defeat which, on paper, seemed certain.  

This pointless war was, as usual, instigated by Zionist Jews to weaken both nations and up the arms trade / usury and loans etc.

Incidentally, this war was also predicted in the Islamic Hadith:

A nation will come from the Farsi (Iran) direction, saying: "You Arabs have been too zealous! If you don't give them their due rights, nobody will have an alliance with you. It must be given to them one day and to you the following day, and mutual promises must be kept" (perhaps referring to Palestine).

"There will be a war between them. God will deprive both armies of a victory".

Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rasul Barzanji, Al-Isha`ah li Ashrat as-Sa`ah, p. 179

I ask the Muslim governments, why do you fight over rivers? The land of Palestine has been usurped. O you hopeless ones, you should be throwing the Jews out of Palestine, instead you are fighting each other. Palestine has been usurped and you are squabbling over a river. While you dispute over a river, the Israelis have established a government in Palestine. They have driven those misfortunate Arabs out, and now a million or more of them are sleeping in deserts, hungry and bereft. They have become completely homeless and wretched.

Shouldn't the Muslim governments raise any objections?
Shouldn't they say something?

Should you enter into an alliance with a government which has thrown one million Muslims out of their homeland and made them homeless?
There is a group of thieving Jews in Palestine who have kept more than a million Muslims dispersed for ten years, more than ten years, and have occupied Islamic lands. All the Muslim leaders do is mourn over their plight. But if they unite, how can this bunch of thieving Jews take Palestine from you and drive the Muslims out of Palestine while you look on helplessly?

If you have not formed an alliance with them, well announce that you haven't in your newspapers, allow that which I am saying now to be published. If you refuse to do so, then obviously you have aligned yourselves with them, you have aligned yourselves with the Jews, with Israel"

Ayatollah Khomeni,  9th  September 1964

[Negentropic]

Ahmedinejad hasn't played into anyone's hands, Khamenei and Ahmedinejad have employed diplomacy and defiance to safeguard the Iranian people as best they can. And have done so in a dignified and resolute manner which has increased Iran's standing in the world and, in some ways, allayed people's suspicions about Iran's perceived inclination towards sectarian politics.

Diplomacy means less than nothing in the face of brute force, just a good charade while it lasts, entertainment for gullible minds, a distraction, a civilized front to keep the civilized fooled.  Saddam used nothing but diplomacy and full disclosure and he still got clobbered; same with Bin Laden and Afghanistan if you read Bin Laden's actual statements, they were pretty diplomatic.  Defiance means even less since it gives the West the excuse to go in and completely destroy Iran. Ahmedinejad has done more to give them the excuse to invade than Bin Laden and Saddam combined. To think that 'defiance' somehow earns him enough respect to deflect and protect against the increased anger created by the same behavior is to give a silly weasel, a mere knight in the chess game if not an outright pawn, too much credit as a psychological warrior.


Safeguard the Iranian people? I don't think so.  They don't care about the people, no collectivist state does, and certainly not theocratic dictatorial regimes as brutal as medieval Islamic Iran.  If they 'safeguard' the people at all it's only when it will keep their regime in power and Islamic fundamentalism alive. Would heroic and defiant nationalistic diplomats who love the Iranian people and wish to safeguard them, would any human being who's not lower than scum allow the following retarded and medieval laws to be imposed on their fellow brothers and sisters?  Take a few minutes and look at how 'dignified' and 'resolute' these laws are and how much they increase Iran's standing in the world:

Islamic Republic of Iran: Penal Code Excerpts Relating to Women

http://www.learningpartnership.org/resources/legislation/nationallaw/iran

Source: Afkhami, Mahnaz and Erika Friedl, eds. In the Eye of the Storm: Women in Post-Revolutionary Iran. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1994.

Pursuant to Article 85 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, the Islamic Penal Code was passed by the Judiciary Committee of the Islamic Consultative Assembly on 8 Mordad 1370 (30 July 1991) and was subsequently approved by the Council on the Determination of the Regime's Welfare (Majma'-e Tashkhis-e Maslehat-e Nezam) on 7 Azar 1370 (28 November 1991) and was received on 30 Azar 1370 (21 December 1991) by President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani for implementation.

The Code contains four basic sections: general, hodud (punishment prescribed in religious law; singular, hadd), qasas (retribution), and diyeh (money paid in lieu of criminal damage). Article 12 of the Code establishes criminal punishments as follows.

Punishments established by this law are of five kinds: (1) Hodud; (2) Qasas; (3) Diyat; (4) Ta'zirat; (5) Prohibitive punishments.

Each category is then defined. Hadd is a punishment whose kind, extent, and quality are defined in the shari'a (religious law). Qasas is a punishment that is inflicted on the condemned criminal and must be equal to the crime committed. Diyeh is the amount of money or property that the religious law-giver has determined for the crime. Ta'zir is a punishment the kind and extent of which are not defined in the law and therefore are left to the judge's discretion. Prohibitive punishments are punishments established by the government against civil and other wrong-doings for the purpose of maintaining peace and social tranquility.

Crimes that require hadd punishments include adultery, male homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual procurement, accusations of adultery or homosexuality, use of alcoholic beverages, fighting, corruption on earth, and robbery. Qasas is used in cases of homicide or damage to bodily organs. Diyeh is used when a crime against life or a bodily organ has been committed. The Code details the extent, amount, and conditions of qasas and payment of diyeh in relation to practically all parts of the human body.

This section contains articles and sub-articles in the code that specifically concern women. The materials presented are representative rather than inclusive.
 
Hodud (Punishment prescribed in religious law)

Article 63. Adultery is the act of intercourse, including anal intercourse, between a man and a woman who are forbidden to each other, unless the act is committed unwittingly.

Article 64. Adultery shall be punishable (subject to hadd) when the adulterer or the adulteress is of age, sane, in control of his or her action and cognizant of the illicit nature of his or her act.

Article 65. Only the adulterer or the adulteress who is cognizant of the illicit nature of his or her act shall be punished for adultery.

Article 66. If either the adulterer or the adulteress claims ignorance of law or fact, he or she shall not be punished for adultery if his or her claim is presumed to have prima facie validity, even if no witnesses to verify said claim are produced.

Article 67. If either the adulterer or the adulteress claims to have been under duress while committing the act of adultery, he or she shall not be punished if his or her claim is not otherwise clearly disproved.

Article 68. If a man or a woman repeats his or her confession of adultery four times before the judge, he or she shall receive the designated punishment, but if he or she repeats his or her confession fewer than four times, the punishment shall be at the judge's discretion.

Article 73. Pregnancy of an unmarried woman shall not by itself be the cause of punishment unless relevant evidence, as defined in this code, proves that she has committed the act of adultery.

Article 74. Adultery, whether punishable by flogging or stoning, may be proven by the testimony of four just men or that of three just men and two just women.

Article 75. If adultery is punishable only by flogging it can be proven by the testimony of two just men and four just women.

Article 76. The testimony of women alone or in conjunction with the testimony of only one just man shall not prove adultery but it shall constitute false accusation which is a punishable act.

Article 81. If the adulterer or the adulteress repents prior to confessing to the act of adultery, he or she shall not be punished (subject to hadd). If, however, he or she repents following his or her confession the punishment for adultery shall apply.

Article 82. The penalty for adultery in the following cases shall be death, regardless of the age or marital status of the culprit: (1) Adultery with one's consanguineous relatives (close blood relatives forbidden to each other by religious law); (2) Adultery with one's stepmother in which the adulterer's punishment shall be death; (3) Adultery between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman, in which case the adulterer (non-Muslim man) shall receive the death penalty; (4) Forcible rape, in which case the rapist shall receive the death penalty.

Article 83. Adultery in the following cases shall be punishable by stoning: (1) Adultery by a married man who is wedded to a permanent wife with whom he has had intercourse and may have intercourse when he so desires; (2) Adultery of a married woman with an adult man provided the woman is permanently married and has had intercourse with her husband and is able to do so again.

Note. Adultery of a married woman with a minor is punishable by flogging.

Article 84. Old married adulterers and adulteresses shall be flogged before being stoned.

Article 85. Revocable divorce shall not relieve the husband or wife from the bond of marriage during the waiting period whereas irrevocable divorce shall do so.

Article 86. Adultery of a permanently married man or a permanently married woman who does not have access to his or her spouse, due to travel, incarceration or similar impediments, shall not require stoning.

Article 88. The punishment for an unmarried adulterer or adulteress shall be one hundred lashes.

Article 90. If a man or a woman has committed the act of adultery several times and has been punished after each act, he or she shall be put to death following his or her fourth act of adultery.

Article 91. An adulteress shall not be punished while pregnant or in menstruation or when, following birth and in the absence of a guardian, the newborn's life is in danger. If, however, the newborn becomes the ward of a guardian the punishment shall be carried out.

Article 92. If the flogging of a pregnant woman or a woman nursing her child poses risks to the unborn or to the child respectively, the execution of the punishment shall be delayed until the said risk is no longer present.

Article 93. If an ailing woman or a woman in menstruation has been condemned to death or stoning, the punishment shall be carried out. If, however, she is condemned to flogging, the punishment shall be delayed until she is recovered or her menstruation period is over.

Article 100. The flogging of an adulterer shall be carried out while he is standing upright and his body bare except for his genitals. The lashes shall strike all parts of his body–- except his face, head and genitals-- with full force. The adulteress shall be flogged while she is seated and her clothing tightly bound to her body.

Article 102. The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts.

Article 119. Testimony of women alone or in conjunction with that of a single man shall not prove sodomy.

Article 127. Lesbianism consists in genital sexual acts carried out between women.

Article 128. Evidence for proof of lesbianism and sodomy is the same.

Article 129. The punishment for lesbianism is a hundred lashes for both parties to the act.

Article 130. Punishment for lesbianism applies only to the person who is of age, sane, in control of her actions and who has been a willing party to the act of lesbianism.

Note. In the application of the penalty for lesbianism there shall be no distinction as to whether the culprit has been passive or active or as to whether she is a Muslim or non-Muslim.

Article 131. If the act of lesbianism has been repeated three times and punishment has been carried out each time, the death penalty shall apply if the act is committed a fourth time.

Article 132. If the perpetrator of the act of lesbianism repents prior to the testimony of witnesses, the penalty of hadd shall not apply. Repentance following the witnesses' testimony, however, shall not bar hadd punishment.

Article 133. If the act of lesbianism is proved through confession and the culprit repents afterwards, the judge may ask the supreme jurist (vali-ye amr) for waiver of punishment.

Article 134. If two women, who are not consanguineous, go under the same bed cover while nude and without justification, they shall be given fewer than one hundred lashes. In case of repetition of the act for a third time each shall be given one hundred lashes.

Article 138. The penalty for procurement is in the case of a male procurer 75 lashes and banishment between three months and a year and in the case of a female procurer only 75 lashes.

Article 140. The penalty for false accusation is 80 lashes regardless of the gender of the culprit.

Article 145. Any insult that causes indignation to the victim but which does not constitute false accusation of adultery or male homosexuality, such as when a husband tells his wife: 'You were not a virgin,' is punishable by up to 74 lashes.

Article 150. If the husband falsely accuses of adultery his deceased wife who is survived only by a child from him, no punishment shall apply. If, however, the said deceased wife is survived by inheritors other than the said child, the penalty shall apply.

Article 164. The right to demand punishment for false accusation belongs to all survivors except the husband and the wife. Any one of the survivors may demand the application of said punishment even if other survivors waive their right.

Article 174. The punishment for intoxication is 80 lashes for both men and women.

Article 176. When flogging is carried out, the man being flogged shall be in a standing position and be bared except for his genitals, whereas the woman being flogged shall be seated and her clothing tightly bound to her body.

Note. The face and head and genitals of the condemned shall not be struck by the lashes during flogging.
 
Qasas (Retribution)
Article 209. If a Muslim man commits first-degree murder against a Muslim woman, the penalty of retribution shall apply. The victim's next of kin, however, shall pay to the culprit half of his blood money before the act of retribution is carried out.

Article 210. If a non-Muslim commits first-degree murder against another non-Muslim, retribution shall apply even if the culprit and his or her victim profess to two different religions. In the said case, if the victim is a woman her next of kin shall pay the culprit half his blood money before retribution is carried out.

Article 237. (1) First degree murder shall be proven by testimony of two just men; (2) Evidence for second-degree murder or manslaughter shall consist in the testimony of two just men, or that of one just man and two just women, or the testimony of one just man and the sworn testimony of the accuser.

Article 243. The claimant [in the case of murder] may be either a man or a woman but in either case he or she must be one of the victim's inheritors.

Article 248. In case of doubt, first-degree murder may be proved by the sworn testimony of 50 men who must be sanguineous relatives of the claimant.

Note 2. If the number of the sworn testimonies does not reach 50, any of the male testifiers may repeat his oath as many times as it is necessary to constitute 50 testimonies.

Note 3. If the claimant cannot present any of his sanguineous male relatives to provide sworn testimony in support of his or her claim, the claimant may repeat the sworn testimony 50 times, even if she is a woman.

Article 258. If a man murders a woman, the woman's next of kin may ask for retribution if he pays the murderer half of his blood money or they may agree to a settlement whereby the murderer pays him an amount less or more than the victim's blood money.

Article 261. Only the inheritors of the victim of a murder shall have the option of retribution or pardon. The victim's husband or wife, however, shall have no say in either retribution, pardon or execution of the punishment.

Article 262. Retribution shall not be carried out against a pregnant woman. In said case, if post-delivery retribution endangers the newborn's survival it shall be delayed until such time as the child's life is no longer in danger.

Article 273. In retribution for injury to, or loss of, bodily organs men and women shall be treated equally. Thus, a male culprit who has maimed a woman or otherwise caused her bodily injury shall be subject to commensurate retribution unless the blood money for the lost organ is a third or more than a third of the full blood money, in which case the female victim pay the culprit half of the blood money for said organ.
 
Diyeh (Money paid in lieu of criminal damage)
Article 300. The blood money for the first- or second-degree murder of a Muslim woman is half of that of a murdered Muslim man.

Article 301. The blood money is the same for men and women except when it reaches a third of full blood money, in which case a woman's blood money shall be half of a man's.

Article 441. Defloration of a virgin by insertion of a finger that results in incontinence shall entitle the victim to her full blood money plus a sum equal to her potential dowry.

Article 459. In case of disagreement between the culprit and the victim, the testimony of two just male experts or that of one male expert and two just female experts asserting unrecoverable loss of sight or loss of sight for an indeterminate period shall entitle the victim to blood money. In the said case, the blood money is due the victim if the eyesight is not recovered at the time predicted by the experts, or if the victim dies before his or her eyesight is restored, or if someone else gouges his or her eye.

Article 478. If a man's reproductive organ is severed from the circumcision line or lower he shall be entitled to his full blood money, otherwise the amount of blood money shall be proportional to the size of the severed part.

Article 479. If a woman's genital is totally severed she shall be entitled to her full blood money and if only half of her genital is severed half of her blood money is due her.

Article 483. Compensation for injury to hand or foot caused by spear or bullet shall be 100 diners if the injured party is male and commensurate with the injury if the injured party is female.

Article 487. Section 6. Blood money for the aborted fetus which has taken in the human spirit shall be paid in full if it is male, one-half if it is female, and three-quarters if its gender is in doubt.

Article 488. If the fetus is destroyed as a result of its mother's murder its blood money shall be added to the blood money of its mother.

Article 489. If a woman aborts her fetus at any stage of pregnancy she shall pay its full blood money and no share of the blood money shall go to her.

Article 490. Separate blood monies shall be paid for each aborted fetus if more than one is involved in an abortion.

Article 491. Blood money for loss of limb of, or injuries to, the fetus shall be proportionate to its full blood money.

Article 492. The blood money for the aborted fetus in cases involving deliberate intent shall be paid by the culprit, otherwise by the fetus's next of kin

This is from a Leftist website:

Rape under a fundamentalist regime

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/women/RAPE.html

The Islamist movement''s "justice" and "liberation" excludes women, who are indeed explicitly discriminated against! A few examples from the Islamic Republic may help.

In the courts evidence of female witnesses is inadmissible unless accompanied by that of a male witness. Even then, the value of a female witness is half that by the male (Article 33 and 99 of the Law of Retribution: Hodoud and Ghesas, Section 2 of Article 237)

The diyeh (blood money) for a Muslim woman in cases of manslaughter and murder is half that of a Muslim man. (Article 300,  Law of Retribution). If a male Muslim intentionally kills a Muslim women, he is subject to retribution (an eye for an eye) but only if the guardian of the murdered woman pays him half of the diyeh to the murderer to make up the deficiency (Article 6 of Diyat, Article 209 Law of Retribution). The blood money payable to the murderer amounts to 50 camels or 100 cows or the equivalent (Article 3, Diyat).

A husband can kill his adulterous wife without punishment while a woman is punishable by death for a similar crime.

Before the law, women are not a compete person their testimony is only half that of a man. These absurd efforts to place arbitrary and discriminatory values on women has serious repercussions on how women are thought of and treated by society.
Extramarital sex is prohibited under Islamic law. To this extent Islam recognises rape as a crime. However rape taking place within the home and prisons is not considered rape and is therefore legal. It is this situation which I wish to address.

Upkeep for submission
The Koran (Nesa, 34:34) ascribes to men dominance over, but also responsibility for the women under their care. Women have to be given nafagheh (upkeep money), but in return must submit to their husband's will. If a woman disobeys her husband's will, he is instructed to separate their bed and to talk with his wife. If she continues to thwart his desires, he should hit her. The moment she stops disobeying, the punishment and sanctions for misbehaviour should stop. The Koran thus tells a man to respect his wife's rights, while also instructing him to abuse her.
Moreover women are sex objects. A man is permitted four "ordinary" wives and as many "temporary wives" (concubines) as he wishes. A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim (Article 1059 of the Civil Law) but a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim . Together these laws create a permissive environment for legal rape.

n I came across Simin in 1979. She was 19 years old and had been pursuing her divorce case through courts for the last four years. One day on returning from school  her father told Simin point blank she had to marry a certain man. Simin, being only 15, had no intention of marrying. She was also in love with another man. Simin refused and her father firmly insisted. She ran away three times, hiding with relatives, yet her father found her and forced her to marry. Simin kept running away from her "husband". She could not stand living and sleeping with him and he hit her and raped her.
When I met her she was exhausted and despirited. Her family tried to help her get a divorce but the law did not permit it. The man followed her on the street and beat her. During the anarchy of the revolutionary days we formed a group to help Simin and in this way she was able to regain her freedom.

A man divorces his wife on any pretext (Article 1133, Civil Law). Women, on the other hand, can obtain divorce only under extreme circumstances: if the man is mentally ill, or impotent (Articles 1121 and 1122). Given that women cannot chose their partners and that once married it is near impossible to get divorced, this is clearly legal rape.

The age of marriage has been reduced for women from 18 to 9. All the harsh punishments prescribed under Islamic law are applicable to a 9-year old girl, whereas a 14 year old boy is still regarded underage and will not be subjected to such punishment until he is 15 (Paragraph 2, Article 1210, Civil Law). Furthermore, with the permission of the guardian (father or grandfather) and provided it is in the "best interest" of the ward, a girl can be married to a man even when she has not reached the age of consent, or indeed even when she is a baby girl (Article 1041 of Civil Law). This is legal child rape.

Religious rape

According to Islamic lay the killing of a virgin woman is prohibited. This reflects the objectification of women. In prison, if a virgin woman is to be executed, she is first "married" (raped) by one of the guards before execution. Afterwards the guard goes to the woman's family and declares that she is their son-in-law. It is totally distinct from the process of obtaining confession or to humiliate the prisoner. The prison guards are simply obeying Islamic law.

Nadereh was educated in France and had been in touch with opposition groups against the Shah. On the eve of the revolution she returned to Iran to take part in the anti-dictatorial movement against the Shah. For Naderh, like other Iranian intellectuals, it was vital to be present in this decisive historic struggle. During the revolution she worked for a socialist organisation.

She was arrested three years after the revolution. Although others with her alleged crime normally received a few years imprisonment, she was executed after a few month in prison. That was our first shock.

We discovered the reason later. In prison her interrogator took a fancy to her. She had more than once complained of her interrogator's advances towads her. When her case went to court, which consisted of one mullah as judge and no jury, the interrogator accused Nadereh of attempting to escape during her interrogation. The mullah accepted this obviously false charge and sentenced her to death. Both the mullah as the interrogator knew full well that this also gave the interrogator permission to rape Nadereh. The interrogator got what he wanted and fulfilled his religious duty in the bargain. Thousands of young women were executed in Iranian prisons (1), most of them were raped under Islamic law.

Shukuh Jalalie

1. A list of 1,400 has been collected and published by Iranian Political Prisoners Action Committee. Some were pregnant, many were under 17.

[/color]

They only care about power. They play the lower-level power game that they've been stage-choreographed to play in, the same as the communist bloc did before. They are either smart enough to understand this, becoming direct agents even if not directly contacted or smart enough to play the game but not smart enough to understand the big picture, therefore becoming useful idiots. They are designated controlled opposition for imperialist designs just like the commies before them whether they like it or not. They do whatever advances 'true Islam' (according to them) in the world in the same way as the commies did whatever advanced their idea of Marxism. And yet Communism was controlled throughout all those years people fought and died in wars against it and for it.  Post-communist China, mixed-economy statist Russia and Islamic fundamentalist medieval Iran are the same. Except Iran is now the designated boogie-man stand in for Islamic opposition anywhere in the world, sometimes authentic to be sure, just like Marxists were, but controlled on a leash nevertheless. When they need to pull on the leash they point to Iran to justify the choke.

This is a variation of something I've posted here before:

"The Elite Banksters have the power, position and pull to undermine or allow undermining of their own less important assets in order to gain leverage towards their more important assets. Pawns for a Knight, Knight for a Bishop or a Rook. They do this constantly as world events present themselves if it will serve to further their longer term more important goals. It's the longer term and often more hidden goals that they are always striving for, (mainly overall power). The best way to control the opposition is to lead it themselves, but the best way of obtaining this leadership of opposition while fooling the general public is to lead it from behind the scenes without a direct puppet and take some genuine setbacks, similar to a two steps back and 3 steps forward strategy. To this end they establish their own opposition to pretend to fight them, even genuinely, in fact, the more genuine the better as long as the leash stays on the dog, gladly undermining some of their less important assets to gain leverage in their more important goals.

It's called knowing that it's better to not control everything than to lose control. The important thing is for the leash to stay on, not how long the leash gets. All controlled oppositions turn authentic to different degrees after a certain amount of time that's why they're called 'CONTROLLED' opposition. They become authentic but never even 80 to 90% authentic much less 100%, the leash becomes very hard to see but it stays on. This is inevitable and just smart planning. The controllers know that it's impossible to control everything but that they can definitely control what's really important and direct it to serve their interests more or less, give or take certain unforeseen possibilities which they also provide for. It's like a big controlled lab experiment with all the potential troublesome factors checked and accounted for if and when they appear and the potential of solving these troubles also checked and accounted for to different degrees. Then they just let the scenario unfold on the big world stage with lots of little-bitty actors running around acting pathetic within their designated cages and deal with it as they must or as they have already made allowances for ahead of time, sometimes decades ahead of time with careful planning and social engineering. They'll easily take a loss sometimes for years even in order to make a huge gain that more than offsets it a decade or two down the line. It's not all that complicated really, it just takes lots and lots of money which they don't need taxes for, having already achieved full legal control of banking and finance everywhere . If you look through recent history this has been the case over and over. Especially in countries like Iran where people have thousand year histories and lots of pride you would have to be a moron not to factor that pride and history and possibility of degrees of authentic rebellion in. They founded whole think-tanks and schools dedicated to studying the Middle East so that then they can hedge their bets better. For example, the Shah of Iran rebelled after a while when he realized that the CIA/Mossad/MI6 and all the Western-alliances were not serious about helping his country and were only industrializing it and militarizing it to continue its dependent position. So he had to be slapped down hard like Mossadeq before him but since they had all the industrialization they needed they could now play their trump card. Now, if you study the history of the region you'll find that British intelligence from the time of the Muslim Brotherhood and before were also in control of the Mullahs and chieftains who held lots of power with the devoutly Muslim common people. Since the time they had installed the Shah's father they kept the Mullahs and their backwards ways in their grip and protected them from too much persecution. They knew that as soon as the Shah started mouthing off and getting big-headed and 'authentic' they could reverse a great deal of the advances made and through his 'controlled' (not dominated, that would be overplaying your hand, it's like putting it on a leash and controlling its length to your taste) polar opposite keep the country enslaved and the rabble fooled.

[/color]

And isn't it a blessing that they arrived just in time, right about a decade before the communist bloc was imploded as controlled opposition, so that they could take over.  As the deliberately prolonged Iran-Iraq massacre proved, the Mullahs will not hesitate for one second to draft and forcibly send hundreds of thousands of their own people to die in defense of their territorial borders or their 'nation.'  The deliberately prolonged (by Khomeini) 8 year massacre that was the Iran-Iraq war was funded on both sides by at least 26 countries by the way http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-18/ ... 1_gulf-war).  Khomeini, being the lunatic that he was, insisted long after the war was seen as futile and pointless that it should go on. Many people went into hiding and exile to avoid that blood-feud. Others were not so lucky. The Iranian-Armenian guy who fixes my air-conditioning was drafted and forcibly sent to the front for 24 months straight. Every day for 24 months he had to pick up the arms, legs, heads and body-parts of the friends and other soliders he was talking to the day before torn apart by aircraft shells and put them in freezer trucks, along with their dog-tags, to be shipped home to their families.  He considers it a miracle that he survived.

The single-handed 8 year struggle of Khomeini's glorious Islamic regime against Saddam's Iraq and its myriad of so-called backers. Oh really? Here's just a tiny little dose of reality. If not for that crazy motherfucker Khomeini, that whole massacre would have been over by 1982 and hundreds of thousands of more lives would have been saved, when Iraq offered to negotiate a settlement:

http://islamic-fundamentalism.info/chVI.htm


War is a divine blessing, a gift bestowed upon us by God. The cannon's thunder rejuvenates the soul.

Khomeini, September 1980

 




memorial to iran-iraq war in baghdad




"Iranian armed forces will cut off the hands of any attackers before they pull the trigger," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an address to a parade in Tehran. Reuters reported that the event was broadcast on state television to commemorate the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September 1980.
"No power in the world is daring enough to attack Iran as we are more experienced and powerful than ever," Ahmadinejad said.


The eight-year Iran-Iraq War was Iran's first major external conflict since the Russo-Iranian wars of the first decades of the nineteenth century. The Iranian mullahs' policy of exporting fundamentalism ("spreading the Islamic Revolution") to Iraq played a key role in the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, the Khomeini regime's determination to export revolution to Iraq was a major cause of the eight-year war.

     Ten years ago, the Mojahedin obtained and published a top-secret analysis of the Iran-Iraq conflict formulated by the leaders of the now defunct Islamic Republic Party after extensive discussions among Khomeini, Rafsanjani, and Khamenei. The analysis reads in part:

There is no need to mention the dangers of an imposed peace in the current circumstances. Everyone has a general idea of the unwelcome repercussions of such a peace. If we win the war, however, the situation will change completely. The euphoria of victory will strengthen the revolution's pillars as never before, and the invincibility of Islam will inject fresh blood into the veins of our tired society. This in and of itself will enable the ruling system to handle any military or political confrontation. Victory in battle will enhance Iran's political stature. Iran's triumph will prove that "Muhammad's ideology cannot be defeated," thus raising the morale of Muslims throughout the region. This will mean more domestic difficulties for America's lackeys.

It must be recalled that in discussing the war, the morale of the Muslim peoples of other countries is an important issue. Our present propaganda capabilities are not equal to the magnificence of the Islamic Revolution. Peace with Iraq would mean confronting the seven-headed dragon of Imperialist propaganda. Any peace with Saddam will be characterized as a defeat for Iran by the international media, even if we succeed in gaining many concessions from Iraq. For us, there is no such thing as a victorious peace. Only a military victory over Iraq can establish in the minds of the Muslims of other countries that Iran has achieved its goal. One should not underestimate the impact of making peace with Saddam on weakening the hope for exporting the Islamic Revolution.

The final significant point to be made in this analysis is that accepting peace will have ramifications far beyond the Muslims' loss of faith in Islam's power to confront blasphemy. One of the principal conditions of any peace agreement between the two countries is noninterference in each other's internal affairs. On the surface, this principle may not seem so important. But [Swedish Prime Minister] Olaf Palme [peace mediator at the time] describes the practical implications of such a peace as follows: Eliminating from Iran's mass media broadcasts and speeches by the Islamic Republic's leaders anything which might instigate the people of Iraq against the Ba'athists, or which urge them to turn to genuine Islam; probably an end to most of Iran's Arabic radio broadcasts; expelling or restricting the activities of the opponents of the Iraqi regime residing in Iran. . .

In this light, the dimensions of this principle [of non-interference] can be better understood. If the Islamic Republic were to be insensitive to the realities beyond its borders or did not want to acquaint other nations with the truth of Islam, the Iran-Iraq War would not have essentially started.2

     It is clear from the above analysis, particularly the concluding sentence, that the Iran-Iraq War, or at least its final phase, could have been avoided were it not for the mullahs' obsession with exporting revolution. Other factors contributed to the outbreak of hostilities, among them border claims, the dispute over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, and various historical and national enmities. But in the final analysis, these only became important because of the Iranian regime's policy of export of revolution.

     As the post revolutionary provisional government's foreign minister for some time before the war, Ibrahim Yazdi was involved in Tehran's conspiracies to install a vassal government in Baghdad. He has described the Iranian regime's objectives in Iraq as follows:

First, the dispatch of an ambassador knowledgeable about Iraqi affairs and capable of establishing sufficient and secret contacts with anti-Saddam Muslim groups in Iraq. This was an essential step. Another part of our policy against Iraq and other Arabs, especially the Iraqi people, was to broadcast propaganda in Arabic. At that time, numerous meetings were held at the Foreign Ministry to coordinate these aspects of the Islamic Republic's foreign policy. In these meetings, particularly those dealing with Iraq, Iran's ambassador to Iraq was present and the main outlines and principal guidelines were considered and formulated. This undertaking indeed played an effective role.3

     About five months before the war, in a meeting on April 13, 1980, Hussein, Ali Montazeri, at that time Khomeini's designated successor, asked him to assume the leadership of the "Islamic Revolution" in Iraq: "These days, Iraqi brothers repeatedly approach us saying, we expect His Eminence Imam Khomeini to lead the Iraqi Revolution as he did the Iranian Revolution."4 The ruling Islamic Republic Party's newspaper constantly wrote about Iraq's "Islamic Revolution" and the conquest of Iraq: "Upon the call by the Imam, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Forces of the Revolution declared their readiness to conquer Iraq with the support of Muslims."5

     But why did the Khomeini regime choose Iraq as the first target for exporting its revolution and installing a client Islamic Republic? The most important reasons are the large number of Shi'ites, who make up nearly the entire population of southern Iraq, and the presence in Iraq of the most sacred Shi'ite shrines - the tomb of Imam Ali, the first Shi'ah Imam, and that of his son, Hussein, known to Shi'ites as "the Lord of Martyrs." For many centuries, Iraq has been the most important center of Shi'ism in the Arab world, and the city of Najaf the main seat of Shi'ah learning and theological seminaries.

     Moreover, Khomeini had lived in Iraq for fifteen years and knew that from a geopolitical standpoint, Iraq would be the best springboard for export of the "Islamic Revolution" to the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, Jordan, and Egypt. Iraq's 1,200, kilometer border with Iran and its vast oil reserves (second only to Saudi Arabia's), also made Iraq the most tempting target.

     Establishing an Islamic Republic in Iraq became top priority. Such slogans as "liberating Qods (Jerusalem) through Karbala" reflected Khomeini's extraterritorial designs. Iran's clerical leaders even went so far as to produce a map showing the eastward expansion of the Islamic Republic, again depicting Iraq as the staging ground for the subsequent phases of the plan.6

     The war also enabled the mullahs to fortify the pillars of their velayat-e-faqih rule and justify domestic repression, thereby providing a readymade scapegoat for every crisis and shortcoming - including the catastrophic economic situation - deriving from the clerical regime's theocratic rule. Khomeini described the war as a "divine blessing," and for many years, his regime insisted on prolonging hostilities when Iraq was willing to negotiate.

     Iran's conduct of the war also reflected Khomeini's fanaticism. Following the capture of Iraq's southernmost town, Faw, in 1986, the mullahs saw themselves on the verge of victory. Khomeini formally replaced the slogan "war, war, until victory" with "war, war, until the obliteration of fitna throughout the world." The term fitna, meaning sedition or disorder in Arabic, had been carefully chosen for its vagueness and could be conveniently interpreted by the clerics to include a range of "targets," from Iraq to other Arab or Muslim countries. With the war with Iraq "nearly won," the mullahs now prepared themselves to take on Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries as Iraq's partners and backers in the war.

     To legitimize his belligerent policies and lend an Islamic appearance to his decisions about the war, Khomeini issued a voluminous supply of fatwas, or religious decrees. Decrees on Defense and the Front, a book published by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, contains the full texts of Khomeini's decrees on war-related issues. In accordance with the traditional format of fatwas, Khomeini pronounced his decrees in the form of answers to questions from unidentified adherents. One question asks: "Under the present circumstances, is parental consent necessary before [children] can be sent to the war fronts?" Khomeini replied: "So long as forces are needed at the war fronts, serving there is a religious duty and there is no need for parental consent." The objective of this particular decree was to pave the way for the forcible dispatch of hundreds of thousands of children - even 9, and 1O-year-olds - to the fronts despite the opposition of their families. The overwhelming majority of these children never returned; they were used as cannon-fodder or mine-sweepers and made up the bulk of Iranian casualties in each offensive.

     Khomeini was also asked whether the killing of elderly men and of women and children who cooperate with the forces of evil is permissible. His reply: "In the name of God, they must be treated as aggressors." (See Appendix.) Khomeini thus gave his Guards free rein to perpetrate any crime against the civilian population. In another religious decree, he sanctioned the execution of prisoners of war. Documents confirm the execution of thousands of Iraqi paws by the Guards Corps.

The War and the Mojahedin

     To counter Khomeini's fanatical commitment to the war - which was to the detriment of the Iranian people - after Iraq withdrew its forces from Iranian territory in May 1982, the Mojahedin leader Massoud Rajavi declared that the war was no longer legitimate. He added that its continuation only served the Khomeini regime's interests, harming the peoples of both countries. The Mojahedin subsequently began a national and international campaign to expose the belligerent policies of the mullahs and counter the hysteria the mullahs tried to whip up in Iran.7 Thus the Mojahedin deprived Khomeini of his most important excuse for brutally cracking down on all dissent: the claim that there was no alternative to war.

     The formulation of a comprehensive peace plan by the National Council of Resistance (NCR) of lran in March 1983 was the high point of this strategy.8 The many attacks on the Mojahedin for the peace policy were essentially a smear campaign provoked by the ruling mullahs and did little to lessen the Mojahedin's resolve to pursue peace.

Damages Inflicted by the War

     The mullahs' insistence on continuing the war at all costs resulted in tremendous material destruction. Rafsanjani put the colossal war damages at one trillion dollars, equivalent to Iran's oil revenues for the century. He concluded: "Every Iranian became 50 percent poorer during the war."9

     Of greater significance, however, was the human toll. Hundreds of thousands of children died on the battlefields. On the Iranian side alone, one million people were killed and an equal number gravely wounded or maimed. Three to four million other Iranians lost their homes and property and became refugees. The scars of the war years still torment the Iranian people, who blame the ruling clerics for continuing and losing a futile war. A sharp reminder of the widespread feeling of frustration on this issue have been demonstrations and protests by handicapped veterans. These victims, daily reminders of the war's human toll, have always been the subject of much propaganda by the government, which called them janbazan (those ready to sacrifice their lives.) Gradually realizing that it was only hollow rhetoric that once incited them to go to the front, the janbazan have begun to voice their protests.10 The authorities have been deeply embarrassed by such strong criticism of the government coming from those who have been much praised by the clergy as "living 63 martyrs." Antigovernment feelings on the question of the war have been fueled by the fact that four years after the cease-fire, the government has not taken any serious steps to reconstruct the war-stricken regions. Officials acknowledge that the budget for construction is one-fifteenth of the military expenditures.

[/color]

The human rights record of the Islamic Fundamentalist regime of the past 30 years is much worse than the Shah ever was, in fact, worse than all other Iranian regimes of the 20th century combined.  All in the name of fighting Western Imperialism, the same as the communist bloc before, only now they wear towels on their heads and permanent beards. There's a reason why Ahmedinajackturd does not roll a towel on his head by the way, that's so he will look more 'moderate' and 'secular' to ignoramuses. Now you say, but commies didn't fight Israel, Ahmedinejad is fighting Israel and that's what matters? First of all, Noam Chomsky and all the millions of leftists that follow him are anti-Israel, so is Castro, the marrano Jew, being anti-Israel, in-and-of-itself does not prove jack-shit about authenticity. On the other hand, not abusing the crap out of your own long-suffering peoples' individual rights in the name of Islam, in addition to being peaceful in foreign policy (something the U.S. certainly is not) does at least point in the direction of authenticity, goodwill, non-hypocricy and heroism.  Is it not possible to fight imperialism and / or Israel without being a scumbag torturer and mass-murderer within your own country? Ahmedinejad certainly doesn't think so and therfore Ahmedinejad is nobody's hero, just another ass-clown politician.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/08/the-bloody-red-summer-of-1988.html

The Bloody Red Summer of 1988

25 Aug 2009 14:49 36 Comments

The 1980s were the bloodiest and darkest in the contemporary history of Iran.


Ayatollah Khomeini (center), has his hand kissed. Seyyed Asadollah Lajevardi (lower right in white turtleneck and glasses), earned the nickname "the Butcher of Evin," while he was warden of the prison from 1981 to 1985.

By MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles | 25 Aug 2009
[TEHRAN BUREAU]

The 1980s, particularly the period between 1980 and 1988, are the darkest and bloodiest in the history of contemporary Iran. In 1980, the country was still in the grip of the chaos of the 1979 Revolution. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had been toppled, but the provisional government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan did not last long either. They resigned on November 5, 1979, the day after Islamic leftist students overran the United States embassy in Tehran.

The reactionary right, which began to emerge at this time, was eager to clamp down on dissent. With their help, political freedom began to wane only a year into the Revolution. As more and more restrictions began to be put in place, internal strife began to increase dramatically as well. As always, the universities were the centers of dissent. Secular leftist students were particularly strong and well organized on campuses. The reactionary right managed to convince the Islamic leftists of the necessity of a crackdown.

To crackdown on dissent, and to purge the secular leftists from the universities, the political establishment began to speak of the necessity of a "cultural revolution." To formalize it, on Friday April 18, 1980, after Friday prayers, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini strongly attacked the universities in a speech.

He said,

We are not afraid of economic sanctions or military intervention [which were feared at that time because of the hostage crisis]. What we are afraid of is Western universities and the training of our youth in the interests of the West or East.

Many interpreted Ayatollah Khomeini's speech of April 18, 1980, as a signal for attacks on the universities. In the evening of that day, right-wing paramilitary forces called Phalangists, after the Lebanese Phalangist forces that were fighting the leftist forces in the civil war in that country, laid siege to the Teachers Training College of Tehran. The campus looked like a "war zone," according to a British reporter, and one student was reportedly lynched.

Other campuses around the country did not fare any better. Over the next two days, offices of leftist students at universities in Ahwaz, Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz were ransacked, leaving hundreds injured and at least 20 people dead. The violence then spread to several campuses in Tehran, particularly the University of Tehran, which has always been a hotbed of political dissent.

All the universities were shut down on June 12, 1980, and did not re-open until two years later. Officially, the goal was the "Islamization" of the universities, which was an absurd notion. (How, for example, do you "Islamicize" the natural and medical sciences, or engineering?) It was really just a guise for exercising oppression and repression.

While the country was in disarray, Saddam Hussein decided to invade Iran. He had never been happy with the 1975 Algiers Agreement signed by Iraq and the Shah intended to settle a border dispute. Add to that the threat of a revolution led by Shia clerics next door, especially when the Shiites made up the majority of the population in Iraq. Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples were also using tough rhetoric to denounce Saddam Hussein.

Hussein also made a great miscalculation: He thought that with Iran's regular army disorganized and demoralized, and with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) still in its infancy, he could easily invade Iran and occupy a significant portion of it. That, in Hussein's thinking, would provoke a military coup by the remnants of the imperial army and get rid of the clerical leadership.

Hence, after some border skirmishes, Iraq's army invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, and began a war that lasted approximately eight years. "This war is a gift from God," said Ayatollah Khomeini. And from his perspective, it was. On the one hand, the war unified a nation that was getting tired of all the chaos and gave them a patriotic cause to rally around: defending the homeland. On the other, the war gave the extremist right wingers the perfect excuse, to use the threat of 'national security and territorial integrity of Iran' to brutally repress the opposition with much bloodshed.

At the same time, the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MKO), the most powerful opposition group, was constantly agitating the political scene. It was not totally their fault. The right-wing, and even some elements of the Islamic left, were opposed to the MKO, and played an important role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and the confrontation between the two camps.

Mohammad Reza Saadati, who was among the top leaders of the MKO [and who had been jailed by the Shah from 1973-1978], had also been arrested by the new regime on the charge of being a spy for the Soviet Union. [To the best of the author's knowledge, the charge was bogus]. However, his arrest outside the Soviet embassy had provided the right wing with much ammunition and propaganda to attack the MKO. Supporters of the MKO, and even very young, impressionable people who were simply selling the MKO mouthpiece, Mojahed, were constantly harassed and persecuted. Seventy-one of them were killed between February 1979 and June 1981.

The MKO's goal was gaining power at any cost, at the earliest time possible. The MKO leaders, Masoud Rajavi and Mousa Khiabani, had even proposed to Ayatollah Khomeini to "deliver to them the government," as they considered themselves the only group qualified to run the government. But Ayatollah Khomeini rejected the proposal. In fact, before the victory of the Revolution and while still in Paris, Ayatollah Khomeini had reached a consensus with others, including Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Taleghani, a popular progressive cleric who passed away on September 9, 1979, and others, that no top governmental position should be given to the MKO. Rajavi was also disqualified from running in the first presidential election in February 1980.

By early 1981, Abolhassan Banisadr, who had been elected the Islamic Republic's first president in February 1980 and had been a close aid of Ayatollah Khomeini during the Revolution, was also on a collision course with the Ayatollah and his circle of clerical aids, and the MKO was supporting him. On June 10, 1981, the Ayatollah sacked Banisadr as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces [according to Iran's Constitution, the Ayatollah was the commander-in-chief, but he had transferred the authority to Banisadr]. On June 19, the MKO issued a harshly-worded statement, calling Ayatollah Khomeini all kinds of names [the same ayatollah who, up until a few weeks earlier, had been called by the MKO "the Father," "the Leader," etc.], and declaring armed struggle against the government. Over the next two days, huge demonstrations were held by the MKO and the government against each other.



Lajevardi (standing) and Ayatollah Gillani, who had two of his own sons executed.

On June 21, 1981, the Majles (parliament) impeached Banisadr; he was fired. By that point, he had already fled and gone into hiding in western Iran. The IRGC executed several of his close aids, including Hossein Navab, Rashid Sadrolhefazi, and Manouchehr Massoudi, an attorney. Their mouthpiece, Enghelab-e Eslami [Islamic Revolution] was also shut down. [Enghelab-e Eslami is still published in exile in France.] Dozens of others were also executed on June 21 and 22, including at least 12 young girls whose identities were not even known to the judiciary. Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammadi Gilani, the prosecutor of the revolutionary court, declared that he did not care about the identities of the young people whose execution he was ordering. Saeed Soltanpour, a poet and a leftist, was arrested during his wedding ceremony and later executed.
June 20, 1981, was also the last time that the author spoke with his younger brother, Ali. Living in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and attending graduate school, I called Ali, who was home in Tehran. I was worried about my family. Ali had just gotten home when I called. His voice was hoarse and angry. He had supported the Revolution and had actively participated in it, but had turned against the political establishment. I never spoke to him again. It was impossible to find him after that last conversation.

Almost three months later, on September 8, 1981, the author's brother was arrested, and was executed on September 17. In the morning of the day after his execution, the author's family received a phone call from the notorious Evin prison, notifying them that Ali had been executed, and that they should go there to take his body and belongings. When my father, an aunt, and a cousin went to Evin, they were told to go to the Behesht-e Zahra cemetery because Ali had already been buried. When they went there, they were told that no one with that name had been buried there.

Hopeful that there could have been a mistake made, they went home. But, in a television news program broadcast at 2:00 p.m. that day, the government announced the names of 180 people who had been executed two nights earlier, among them my brother. So, the entire family rushed to the cemetery, and this time they were told where Ali had been buried. The official policy at that time was not to confirm the burial of any executed person until his or her name had been officially announced. So, the life of a 23-year-old university student and patriot was abruptly ended.

The family was ordered to refrain from mourning the death of Ali publicly, and also told not to put a tombstone on his grave. They did both, and ran into a great deal of trouble for doing so. When they put in the tombstone, it was immediately broken by the Phalangists. The family installed two more, both of which met with the same fate. After the fourth tombstone was installed, the Phalangists stopped breaking it.

Many Muslims follow a tradition of visiting the grave of a loved one every Thursday afternoon for the first year after their death. The author's family closely observed this tradition. Every week, when they visited the cemetery, they were harassed by the Phalangists, who shouted that they hoped they -- the author's family -- would be dead soon too. When on the anniversary of the author's brother's death, the family had visited his grave, they were all arrested and taken to a police station nearby, interrogated for hours, and finally released. They refused to guarantee that they would not visit the cemetery again.

But that was not the end of our troubles. The author's father was forced to retire and stay home, because he was very outspoken against the clerics. He was threatened that if he did not stay home, he would be jailed. The author's youngest brother, who was 16 at that time, was arrested and jailed for a week. Twice he was blindfolded and taken to a mock execution. It was a miracle that he too was not executed.

The suffering of the author's family was neither unique, nor the worst. Thousands of families who lost their loved ones in the 1980s went through the same kind of suffering, sometimes under more dire circumstances. There were families who lost several loved ones to executions. Hundreds of thousands of families also lost loved ones to the Iran-Iraq war.

On June 28, 1981, there was a huge explosion in the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party, a clergy-dominated political group founded by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ayatollah Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardabili, and others. Nearly 120, by some estimates, including the judiciary chief, Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Beheshti, and scores of other senior government and political figures were killed. The MKO considered Beheshti its archenemy.

To evoke emotions, however, the government announced that Beheshti and 72 -- not the correct number -- of his comrades had been killed. This was done in order to make a parallel between that and the events of October 10, 680 A.D. in Karbala, in modern day Iraq, when Imam Hossein, the Shias' third Imam, the grandson of the Prophet and one of the most revered figure in Iran, and 72 of his close supporters and family members were slain in an epic battle.

It is widely believed that the MKO carried out the bombing of the Islamic Republic headquarters, which took the bloody confrontation between the MKO and the government to a completely new level. The MKO began assassinating senior political figures, including many leading ayatollahs. Mohammad Ali Rajai, who had been elected President after Banisadr; Dr. Mohammad Javad Bahonar, the Prime Minister under Rajaei, were assassinated on August 30, 1981. In retaliation, the government would arrest and kill MKO members and supporters, showing no mercy, not even on the very young, and in some instances children. The youngest victim that the author is aware of was a girl named Fatemeh Mesbah, who was said to be 12 when killed. Ayatollah Mohammadi Gilani even ordered the execution of two of his own children.

At Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, the author's brother's grave is surrounded by those of other people who were executed around the same time, including very young people between the ages of 14 and 28. Next to the author's brother's grave is the resting place of a young medical doctor, who was executed at 28. His only "offense" was treating protesters who had been injured during street demonstrations. A cousin of the author met the same fate. He too was a medical doctor, and about the same age, when he too was executed for the same "offense." His brother and another cousin had already been killed during the Revolution.

Two other victims of the executions also evoke deep emotions in the author. Laid to rest in Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, in the same section of the author's brother's grave, are Maryam Golzadeh Ghafouri and her husband Alireza Haj Samadi, both MKO members. Maryam's father, Ali Golzadeh Ghafouri, taught the author to read and interpret the Holy Quran, when he was young. The author's father and several friends had started a weekly gathering on Tuesday nights to read the Holy Quran and study its teachings. Typically, 50 people would participate, and the place of the meeting would rotate between the members' homes. The author also participated in the gatherings, as his father was keen that he learn about the Holy Quran.

Each person in the gathering would read a few verses, or lines, from the Holy Quran. Golzadeh Ghafouri, who was not a clergy, would first correct the way we read, making sure that we pronounced the Arabic words correctly. Then, at the end, he would interpret what we had read. He was a devout Muslim, who was progressive, extremely knowledgeable and very kind, a true gentleman in every sense of the word, and a friend of the author's father. The author had the highest respect for him. He supported the Revolution, and was a deputy in the first Majles after the Revolution. But after his daughter and son-in-law were executed, he quit the Majles and went into seclusion. He has hardly been seen in public since.

No one was safe, not even those who had played prominent roles in the Revolution. One example was Ayatollah Hassan Lahouti, the first clerical commander of the IRGC, whose two sons were married to Rafsanjani's daughters. Lahouti went to Evin to see another son, who had been arrested -- apparently for being a member of the MKO -- and died there. Lahouti, who had been very critical of the clerics, was reportedly killed there.

The MKO tactic of assassinating government officials had been emulated from leftist Latin American guerrilla fighters. For example, when the Tupamaros were unable to take over the government of Uruguay in the 1960s through elections, they began a campaign of assassinations. The goal was to provoke the military to take harsh action, and then use the military's reaction as an excuse to further provoke the population against the government. The MKO was using the same tactic.

Mohammad Reza Saadati, a top MKO leader, was executed on July 27, 1981. Before his death, he had asked to be released in return for helping put an end to the MKO's armed struggle; but the hardliners did not care. They wanted blood and revenge. The next day, Banisadr and Rajavi fled Iran. A Boeing 707, flown by an air force pilot, took them first to Turkey and then to Paris, France. That began the process of the MKO going into exile. Eventually, MKO forces settled in Iraq, and worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran. The group, or what remains of it, is now listed as a terrorist organization by the United States State Department.

In February 1982, the MKO suffered a tremendous blow. Mousa Khiabani, the commander of the MKO forces in Iran, his pregnant wife Azar Rezai [whose brothers Ahmad, Reza and Mehdi had been killed under the Shah], and Ashraf Rabiei, Rajavi's wife, and 18 other MKO members were killed by the IRGC in a shootout. The three had managed to break through the IRGC forces, but their bulletproof Peugeot was hit by an RPG that killed everyone but Rajavi's 1-year-old son. Rajavi appointed Ali Zarkesh the new commander of the MKO forces in Iran. He was killed in 1988 during the MKO attacks on Iran from Iraq (see below).

The campaign of assassinations by th

[Negentropic]

Ahmedinejad hasn't played into anyone's hands, Khamenei and Ahmedinejad have employed diplomacy and defiance to safeguard the Iranian people as best they can. And have done so in a dignified and resolute manner which has increased Iran's standing in the world and, in some ways, allayed people's suspicions about Iran's perceived inclination towards sectarian politics.

Diplomacy means less than nothing in the face of brute force, just a good charade while it lasts, entertainment for gullible minds, a distraction, a civilized front to keep the civilized fooled.  Saddam used nothing but diplomacy and full disclosure and he still got clobbered; same with Bin Laden and Afghanistan if you read Bin Laden's actual statements, they were pretty diplomatic.  Defiance means even less since it gives the West the excuse to go in and completely destroy Iran. Ahmedinejad has done more to give them the excuse to invade than Bin Laden and Saddam combined. To think that 'defiance' somehow earns him enough respect to deflect and protect against the increased anger created by the same behavior is to give a silly weasel, a mere knight in the chess game if not an outright pawn, too much credit as a psychological warrior.


Safeguard the Iranian people? I don't think so.  They don't care about the people, no collectivist state does, and certainly not theocratic dictatorial regimes as brutal as medieval Islamic Iran.  If they 'safeguard' the people at all it's only when it will keep their regime in power and Islamic fundamentalism alive. Would heroic and defiant nationalistic diplomats who love the Iranian people and wish to safeguard them, would any human being who's not lower than scum allow the following retarded and medieval laws to be imposed on their fellow brothers and sisters?  Take a few minutes and look at how 'dignified' and 'resolute' these laws are and how much they increase Iran's standing in the world:

Islamic Republic of Iran: Penal Code Excerpts Relating to Women

http://www.learningpartnership.org/resources/legislation/nationallaw/iran

Source: Afkhami, Mahnaz and Erika Friedl, eds. In the Eye of the Storm: Women in Post-Revolutionary Iran. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1994.

Pursuant to Article 85 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, the Islamic Penal Code was passed by the Judiciary Committee of the Islamic Consultative Assembly on 8 Mordad 1370 (30 July 1991) and was subsequently approved by the Council on the Determination of the Regime's Welfare (Majma'-e Tashkhis-e Maslehat-e Nezam) on 7 Azar 1370 (28 November 1991) and was received on 30 Azar 1370 (21 December 1991) by President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani for implementation.

The Code contains four basic sections: general, hodud (punishment prescribed in religious law; singular, hadd), qasas (retribution), and diyeh (money paid in lieu of criminal damage). Article 12 of the Code establishes criminal punishments as follows.

Punishments established by this law are of five kinds: (1) Hodud; (2) Qasas; (3) Diyat; (4) Ta'zirat; (5) Prohibitive punishments.

Each category is then defined. Hadd is a punishment whose kind, extent, and quality are defined in the shari'a (religious law). Qasas is a punishment that is inflicted on the condemned criminal and must be equal to the crime committed. Diyeh is the amount of money or property that the religious law-giver has determined for the crime. Ta'zir is a punishment the kind and extent of which are not defined in the law and therefore are left to the judge's discretion. Prohibitive punishments are punishments established by the government against civil and other wrong-doings for the purpose of maintaining peace and social tranquility.

Crimes that require hadd punishments include adultery, male homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual procurement, accusations of adultery or homosexuality, use of alcoholic beverages, fighting, corruption on earth, and robbery. Qasas is used in cases of homicide or damage to bodily organs. Diyeh is used when a crime against life or a bodily organ has been committed. The Code details the extent, amount, and conditions of qasas and payment of diyeh in relation to practically all parts of the human body.

This section contains articles and sub-articles in the code that specifically concern women. The materials presented are representative rather than inclusive.
 
Hodud (Punishment prescribed in religious law)

Article 63. Adultery is the act of intercourse, including anal intercourse, between a man and a woman who are forbidden to each other, unless the act is committed unwittingly.

Article 64. Adultery shall be punishable (subject to hadd) when the adulterer or the adulteress is of age, sane, in control of his or her action and cognizant of the illicit nature of his or her act.

Article 65. Only the adulterer or the adulteress who is cognizant of the illicit nature of his or her act shall be punished for adultery.

Article 66. If either the adulterer or the adulteress claims ignorance of law or fact, he or she shall not be punished for adultery if his or her claim is presumed to have prima facie validity, even if no witnesses to verify said claim are produced.

Article 67. If either the adulterer or the adulteress claims to have been under duress while committing the act of adultery, he or she shall not be punished if his or her claim is not otherwise clearly disproved.

Article 68. If a man or a woman repeats his or her confession of adultery four times before the judge, he or she shall receive the designated punishment, but if he or she repeats his or her confession fewer than four times, the punishment shall be at the judge's discretion.

Article 73. Pregnancy of an unmarried woman shall not by itself be the cause of punishment unless relevant evidence, as defined in this code, proves that she has committed the act of adultery.

Article 74. Adultery, whether punishable by flogging or stoning, may be proven by the testimony of four just men or that of three just men and two just women.

Article 75. If adultery is punishable only by flogging it can be proven by the testimony of two just men and four just women.

Article 76. The testimony of women alone or in conjunction with the testimony of only one just man shall not prove adultery but it shall constitute false accusation which is a punishable act.

Article 81. If the adulterer or the adulteress repents prior to confessing to the act of adultery, he or she shall not be punished (subject to hadd). If, however, he or she repents following his or her confession the punishment for adultery shall apply.

Article 82. The penalty for adultery in the following cases shall be death, regardless of the age or marital status of the culprit: (1) Adultery with one's consanguineous relatives (close blood relatives forbidden to each other by religious law); (2) Adultery with one's stepmother in which the adulterer's punishment shall be death; (3) Adultery between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman, in which case the adulterer (non-Muslim man) shall receive the death penalty; (4) Forcible rape, in which case the rapist shall receive the death penalty.

Article 83. Adultery in the following cases shall be punishable by stoning: (1) Adultery by a married man who is wedded to a permanent wife with whom he has had intercourse and may have intercourse when he so desires; (2) Adultery of a married woman with an adult man provided the woman is permanently married and has had intercourse with her husband and is able to do so again.

Note. Adultery of a married woman with a minor is punishable by flogging.

Article 84. Old married adulterers and adulteresses shall be flogged before being stoned.

Article 85. Revocable divorce shall not relieve the husband or wife from the bond of marriage during the waiting period whereas irrevocable divorce shall do so.

Article 86. Adultery of a permanently married man or a permanently married woman who does not have access to his or her spouse, due to travel, incarceration or similar impediments, shall not require stoning.

Article 88. The punishment for an unmarried adulterer or adulteress shall be one hundred lashes.

Article 90. If a man or a woman has committed the act of adultery several times and has been punished after each act, he or she shall be put to death following his or her fourth act of adultery.

Article 91. An adulteress shall not be punished while pregnant or in menstruation or when, following birth and in the absence of a guardian, the newborn's life is in danger. If, however, the newborn becomes the ward of a guardian the punishment shall be carried out.

Article 92. If the flogging of a pregnant woman or a woman nursing her child poses risks to the unborn or to the child respectively, the execution of the punishment shall be delayed until the said risk is no longer present.

Article 93. If an ailing woman or a woman in menstruation has been condemned to death or stoning, the punishment shall be carried out. If, however, she is condemned to flogging, the punishment shall be delayed until she is recovered or her menstruation period is over.

Article 100. The flogging of an adulterer shall be carried out while he is standing upright and his body bare except for his genitals. The lashes shall strike all parts of his body–- except his face, head and genitals-- with full force. The adulteress shall be flogged while she is seated and her clothing tightly bound to her body.

Article 102. The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts.

Article 119. Testimony of women alone or in conjunction with that of a single man shall not prove sodomy.

Article 127. Lesbianism consists in genital sexual acts carried out between women.

Article 128. Evidence for proof of lesbianism and sodomy is the same.

Article 129. The punishment for lesbianism is a hundred lashes for both parties to the act.

Article 130. Punishment for lesbianism applies only to the person who is of age, sane, in control of her actions and who has been a willing party to the act of lesbianism.

Note. In the application of the penalty for lesbianism there shall be no distinction as to whether the culprit has been passive or active or as to whether she is a Muslim or non-Muslim.

Article 131. If the act of lesbianism has been repeated three times and punishment has been carried out each time, the death penalty shall apply if the act is committed a fourth time.

Article 132. If the perpetrator of the act of lesbianism repents prior to the testimony of witnesses, the penalty of hadd shall not apply. Repentance following the witnesses' testimony, however, shall not bar hadd punishment.

Article 133. If the act of lesbianism is proved through confession and the culprit repents afterwards, the judge may ask the supreme jurist (vali-ye amr) for waiver of punishment.

Article 134. If two women, who are not consanguineous, go under the same bed cover while nude and without justification, they shall be given fewer than one hundred lashes. In case of repetition of the act for a third time each shall be given one hundred lashes.

Article 138. The penalty for procurement is in the case of a male procurer 75 lashes and banishment between three months and a year and in the case of a female procurer only 75 lashes.

Article 140. The penalty for false accusation is 80 lashes regardless of the gender of the culprit.

Article 145. Any insult that causes indignation to the victim but which does not constitute false accusation of adultery or male homosexuality, such as when a husband tells his wife: 'You were not a virgin,' is punishable by up to 74 lashes.

Article 150. If the husband falsely accuses of adultery his deceased wife who is survived only by a child from him, no punishment shall apply. If, however, the said deceased wife is survived by inheritors other than the said child, the penalty shall apply.

Article 164. The right to demand punishment for false accusation belongs to all survivors except the husband and the wife. Any one of the survivors may demand the application of said punishment even if other survivors waive their right.

Article 174. The punishment for intoxication is 80 lashes for both men and women.

Article 176. When flogging is carried out, the man being flogged shall be in a standing position and be bared except for his genitals, whereas the woman being flogged shall be seated and her clothing tightly bound to her body.

Note. The face and head and genitals of the condemned shall not be struck by the lashes during flogging.
 
Qasas (Retribution)
Article 209. If a Muslim man commits first-degree murder against a Muslim woman, the penalty of retribution shall apply. The victim's next of kin, however, shall pay to the culprit half of his blood money before the act of retribution is carried out.

Article 210. If a non-Muslim commits first-degree murder against another non-Muslim, retribution shall apply even if the culprit and his or her victim profess to two different religions. In the said case, if the victim is a woman her next of kin shall pay the culprit half his blood money before retribution is carried out.

Article 237. (1) First degree murder shall be proven by testimony of two just men; (2) Evidence for second-degree murder or manslaughter shall consist in the testimony of two just men, or that of one just man and two just women, or the testimony of one just man and the sworn testimony of the accuser.

Article 243. The claimant [in the case of murder] may be either a man or a woman but in either case he or she must be one of the victim's inheritors.

Article 248. In case of doubt, first-degree murder may be proved by the sworn testimony of 50 men who must be sanguineous relatives of the claimant.

Note 2. If the number of the sworn testimonies does not reach 50, any of the male testifiers may repeat his oath as many times as it is necessary to constitute 50 testimonies.

Note 3. If the claimant cannot present any of his sanguineous male relatives to provide sworn testimony in support of his or her claim, the claimant may repeat the sworn testimony 50 times, even if she is a woman.

Article 258. If a man murders a woman, the woman's next of kin may ask for retribution if he pays the murderer half of his blood money or they may agree to a settlement whereby the murderer pays him an amount less or more than the victim's blood money.

Article 261. Only the inheritors of the victim of a murder shall have the option of retribution or pardon. The victim's husband or wife, however, shall have no say in either retribution, pardon or execution of the punishment.

Article 262. Retribution shall not be carried out against a pregnant woman. In said case, if post-delivery retribution endangers the newborn's survival it shall be delayed until such time as the child's life is no longer in danger.

Article 273. In retribution for injury to, or loss of, bodily organs men and women shall be treated equally. Thus, a male culprit who has maimed a woman or otherwise caused her bodily injury shall be subject to commensurate retribution unless the blood money for the lost organ is a third or more than a third of the full blood money, in which case the female victim pay the culprit half of the blood money for said organ.
 
Diyeh (Money paid in lieu of criminal damage)
Article 300. The blood money for the first- or second-degree murder of a Muslim woman is half of that of a murdered Muslim man.

Article 301. The blood money is the same for men and women except when it reaches a third of full blood money, in which case a woman's blood money shall be half of a man's.

Article 441. Defloration of a virgin by insertion of a finger that results in incontinence shall entitle the victim to her full blood money plus a sum equal to her potential dowry.

Article 459. In case of disagreement between the culprit and the victim, the testimony of two just male experts or that of one male expert and two just female experts asserting unrecoverable loss of sight or loss of sight for an indeterminate period shall entitle the victim to blood money. In the said case, the blood money is due the victim if the eyesight is not recovered at the time predicted by the experts, or if the victim dies before his or her eyesight is restored, or if someone else gouges his or her eye.

Article 478. If a man's reproductive organ is severed from the circumcision line or lower he shall be entitled to his full blood money, otherwise the amount of blood money shall be proportional to the size of the severed part.

Article 479. If a woman's genital is totally severed she shall be entitled to her full blood money and if only half of her genital is severed half of her blood money is due her.

Article 483. Compensation for injury to hand or foot caused by spear or bullet shall be 100 diners if the injured party is male and commensurate with the injury if the injured party is female.

Article 487. Section 6. Blood money for the aborted fetus which has taken in the human spirit shall be paid in full if it is male, one-half if it is female, and three-quarters if its gender is in doubt.

Article 488. If the fetus is destroyed as a result of its mother's murder its blood money shall be added to the blood money of its mother.

Article 489. If a woman aborts her fetus at any stage of pregnancy she shall pay its full blood money and no share of the blood money shall go to her.

Article 490. Separate blood monies shall be paid for each aborted fetus if more than one is involved in an abortion.

Article 491. Blood money for loss of limb of, or injuries to, the fetus shall be proportionate to its full blood money.

Article 492. The blood money for the aborted fetus in cases involving deliberate intent shall be paid by the culprit, otherwise by the fetus's next of kin

This is from a Leftist website:

Rape under a fundamentalist regime

http://www.iran-bulletin.org/women/RAPE.html

The Islamist movement''s "justice" and "liberation" excludes women, who are indeed explicitly discriminated against! A few examples from the Islamic Republic may help.

In the courts evidence of female witnesses is inadmissible unless accompanied by that of a male witness. Even then, the value of a female witness is half that by the male (Article 33 and 99 of the Law of Retribution: Hodoud and Ghesas, Section 2 of Article 237)

The diyeh (blood money) for a Muslim woman in cases of manslaughter and murder is half that of a Muslim man. (Article 300,  Law of Retribution). If a male Muslim intentionally kills a Muslim women, he is subject to retribution (an eye for an eye) but only if the guardian of the murdered woman pays him half of the diyeh to the murderer to make up the deficiency (Article 6 of Diyat, Article 209 Law of Retribution). The blood money payable to the murderer amounts to 50 camels or 100 cows or the equivalent (Article 3, Diyat).

A husband can kill his adulterous wife without punishment while a woman is punishable by death for a similar crime.

Before the law, women are not a compete person their testimony is only half that of a man. These absurd efforts to place arbitrary and discriminatory values on women has serious repercussions on how women are thought of and treated by society.
Extramarital sex is prohibited under Islamic law. To this extent Islam recognises rape as a crime. However rape taking place within the home and prisons is not considered rape and is therefore legal. It is this situation which I wish to address.

Upkeep for submission
The Koran (Nesa, 34:34) ascribes to men dominance over, but also responsibility for the women under their care. Women have to be given nafagheh (upkeep money), but in return must submit to their husband's will. If a woman disobeys her husband's will, he is instructed to separate their bed and to talk with his wife. If she continues to thwart his desires, he should hit her. The moment she stops disobeying, the punishment and sanctions for misbehaviour should stop. The Koran thus tells a man to respect his wife's rights, while also instructing him to abuse her.
Moreover women are sex objects. A man is permitted four "ordinary" wives and as many "temporary wives" (concubines) as he wishes. A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim (Article 1059 of the Civil Law) but a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim . Together these laws create a permissive environment for legal rape.

n I came across Simin in 1979. She was 19 years old and had been pursuing her divorce case through courts for the last four years. One day on returning from school  her father told Simin point blank she had to marry a certain man. Simin, being only 15, had no intention of marrying. She was also in love with another man. Simin refused and her father firmly insisted. She ran away three times, hiding with relatives, yet her father found her and forced her to marry. Simin kept running away from her "husband". She could not stand living and sleeping with him and he hit her and raped her.
When I met her she was exhausted and despirited. Her family tried to help her get a divorce but the law did not permit it. The man followed her on the street and beat her. During the anarchy of the revolutionary days we formed a group to help Simin and in this way she was able to regain her freedom.

A man divorces his wife on any pretext (Article 1133, Civil Law). Women, on the other hand, can obtain divorce only under extreme circumstances: if the man is mentally ill, or impotent (Articles 1121 and 1122). Given that women cannot chose their partners and that once married it is near impossible to get divorced, this is clearly legal rape.

The age of marriage has been reduced for women from 18 to 9. All the harsh punishments prescribed under Islamic law are applicable to a 9-year old girl, whereas a 14 year old boy is still regarded underage and will not be subjected to such punishment until he is 15 (Paragraph 2, Article 1210, Civil Law). Furthermore, with the permission of the guardian (father or grandfather) and provided it is in the "best interest" of the ward, a girl can be married to a man even when she has not reached the age of consent, or indeed even when she is a baby girl (Article 1041 of Civil Law). This is legal child rape.

Religious rape

According to Islamic lay the killing of a virgin woman is prohibited. This reflects the objectification of women. In prison, if a virgin woman is to be executed, she is first "married" (raped) by one of the guards before execution. Afterwards the guard goes to the woman's family and declares that she is their son-in-law. It is totally distinct from the process of obtaining confession or to humiliate the prisoner. The prison guards are simply obeying Islamic law.

Nadereh was educated in France and had been in touch with opposition groups against the Shah. On the eve of the revolution she returned to Iran to take part in the anti-dictatorial movement against the Shah. For Naderh, like other Iranian intellectuals, it was vital to be present in this decisive historic struggle. During the revolution she worked for a socialist organisation.

She was arrested three years after the revolution. Although others with her alleged crime normally received a few years imprisonment, she was executed after a few month in prison. That was our first shock.

We discovered the reason later. In prison her interrogator took a fancy to her. She had more than once complained of her interrogator's advances towads her. When her case went to court, which consisted of one mullah as judge and no jury, the interrogator accused Nadereh of attempting to escape during her interrogation. The mullah accepted this obviously false charge and sentenced her to death. Both the mullah as the interrogator knew full well that this also gave the interrogator permission to rape Nadereh. The interrogator got what he wanted and fulfilled his religious duty in the bargain. Thousands of young women were executed in Iranian prisons (1), most of them were raped under Islamic law.

Shukuh Jalalie

1. A list of 1,400 has been collected and published by Iranian Political Prisoners Action Committee. Some were pregnant, many were under 17.

[/color]

They only care about power. They play the lower-level power game that they've been stage-choreographed to play in, the same as the communist bloc did before. They are either smart enough to understand this, becoming direct agents even if not directly contacted or smart enough to play the game but not smart enough to understand the big picture, therefore becoming useful idiots. They are designated controlled opposition for imperialist designs just like the commies before them whether they like it or not. They do whatever advances 'true Islam' (according to them) in the world in the same way as the commies did whatever advanced their idea of Marxism. And yet Communism was controlled throughout all those years people fought and died in wars against it and for it.  Post-communist China, mixed-economy statist Russia and Islamic fundamentalist medieval Iran are the same. Except Iran is now the designated boogie-man stand in for Islamic opposition anywhere in the world, sometimes authentic to be sure, just like Marxists were, but controlled on a leash nevertheless. When they need to pull on the leash they point to Iran to justify the choke.

This is a variation of something I've posted here before:

"The Elite Banksters have the power, position and pull to undermine or allow undermining of their own less important assets in order to gain leverage towards their more important assets. Pawns for a Knight, Knight for a Bishop or a Rook. They do this constantly as world events present themselves if it will serve to further their longer term more important goals. It's the longer term and often more hidden goals that they are always striving for, (mainly overall power). The best way to control the opposition is to lead it themselves, but the best way of obtaining this leadership of opposition while fooling the general public is to lead it from behind the scenes without a direct puppet and take some genuine setbacks, similar to a two steps back and 3 steps forward strategy. To this end they establish their own opposition to pretend to fight them, even genuinely, in fact, the more genuine the better as long as the leash stays on the dog, gladly undermining some of their less important assets to gain leverage in their more important goals.

It's called knowing that it's better to not control everything than to lose control. The important thing is for the leash to stay on, not how long the leash gets. All controlled oppositions turn authentic to different degrees after a certain amount of time that's why they're called 'CONTROLLED' opposition. They become authentic but never even 80 to 90% authentic much less 100%, the leash becomes very hard to see but it stays on. This is inevitable and just smart planning. The controllers know that it's impossible to control everything but that they can definitely control what's really important and direct it to serve their interests more or less, give or take certain unforeseen possibilities which they also provide for. It's like a big controlled lab experiment with all the potential troublesome factors checked and accounted for if and when they appear and the potential of solving these troubles also checked and accounted for to different degrees. Then they just let the scenario unfold on the big world stage with lots of little-bitty actors running around acting pathetic within their designated cages and deal with it as they must or as they have already made allowances for ahead of time, sometimes decades ahead of time with careful planning and social engineering. They'll easily take a loss sometimes for years even in order to make a huge gain that more than offsets it a decade or two down the line. It's not all that complicated really, it just takes lots and lots of money which they don't need taxes for, having already achieved full legal control of banking and finance everywhere . If you look through recent history this has been the case over and over. Especially in countries like Iran where people have thousand year histories and lots of pride you would have to be a moron not to factor that pride and history and possibility of degrees of authentic rebellion in. They founded whole think-tanks and schools dedicated to studying the Middle East so that then they can hedge their bets better. For example, the Shah of Iran rebelled after a while when he realized that the CIA/Mossad/MI6 and all the Western-alliances were not serious about helping his country and were only industrializing it and militarizing it to continue its dependent position. So he had to be slapped down hard like Mossadeq before him but since they had all the industrialization they needed they could now play their trump card. Now, if you study the history of the region you'll find that British intelligence from the time of the Muslim Brotherhood and before were also in control of the Mullahs and chieftains who held lots of power with the devoutly Muslim common people. Since the time they had installed the Shah's father they kept the Mullahs and their backwards ways in their grip and protected them from too much persecution. They knew that as soon as the Shah started mouthing off and getting big-headed and 'authentic' they could reverse a great deal of the advances made and through his 'controlled' (not dominated, that would be overplaying your hand, it's like putting it on a leash and controlling its length to your taste) polar opposite keep the country enslaved and the rabble fooled.

[/color]

And isn't it a blessing that they arrived just in time, right about a decade before the communist bloc was imploded as controlled opposition, so that they could take over.  As the deliberately prolonged Iran-Iraq massacre proved, the Mullahs will not hesitate for one second to draft and forcibly send hundreds of thousands of their own people to die in defense of their territorial borders or their 'nation.'  The deliberately prolonged (by Khomeini) 8 year massacre that was the Iran-Iraq war was funded on both sides by at least 26 countries by the way http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-18/ ... 1_gulf-war).  Khomeini, being the lunatic that he was, insisted long after the war was seen as futile and pointless that it should go on. Many people went into hiding and exile to avoid that blood-feud. Others were not so lucky. The Iranian-Armenian guy who fixes my air-conditioning was drafted and forcibly sent to the front for 24 months straight. Every day for 24 months he had to pick up the arms, legs, heads and body-parts of the friends and other soliders he was talking to the day before torn apart by aircraft shells and put them in freezer trucks, along with their dog-tags, to be shipped home to their families.  He considers it a miracle that he survived.

The single-handed 8 year struggle of Khomeini's glorious Islamic regime against Saddam's Iraq and its myriad of so-called backers. Oh really? Here's just a tiny little dose of reality. If not for that crazy motherfucker Khomeini, that whole massacre would have been over by 1982 and hundreds of thousands of more lives would have been saved, when Iraq offered to negotiate a settlement:

http://islamic-fundamentalism.info/chVI.htm


War is a divine blessing, a gift bestowed upon us by God. The cannon's thunder rejuvenates the soul.

Khomeini, September 1980

 




memorial to iran-iraq war in baghdad




"Iranian armed forces will cut off the hands of any attackers before they pull the trigger," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an address to a parade in Tehran. Reuters reported that the event was broadcast on state television to commemorate the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September 1980.
"No power in the world is daring enough to attack Iran as we are more experienced and powerful than ever," Ahmadinejad said.


The eight-year Iran-Iraq War was Iran's first major external conflict since the Russo-Iranian wars of the first decades of the nineteenth century. The Iranian mullahs' policy of exporting fundamentalism ("spreading the Islamic Revolution") to Iraq played a key role in the outbreak of hostilities. Indeed, the Khomeini regime's determination to export revolution to Iraq was a major cause of the eight-year war.

     Ten years ago, the Mojahedin obtained and published a top-secret analysis of the Iran-Iraq conflict formulated by the leaders of the now defunct Islamic Republic Party after extensive discussions among Khomeini, Rafsanjani, and Khamenei. The analysis reads in part:

There is no need to mention the dangers of an imposed peace in the current circumstances. Everyone has a general idea of the unwelcome repercussions of such a peace. If we win the war, however, the situation will change completely. The euphoria of victory will strengthen the revolution's pillars as never before, and the invincibility of Islam will inject fresh blood into the veins of our tired society. This in and of itself will enable the ruling system to handle any military or political confrontation. Victory in battle will enhance Iran's political stature. Iran's triumph will prove that "Muhammad's ideology cannot be defeated," thus raising the morale of Muslims throughout the region. This will mean more domestic difficulties for America's lackeys.

It must be recalled that in discussing the war, the morale of the Muslim peoples of other countries is an important issue. Our present propaganda capabilities are not equal to the magnificence of the Islamic Revolution. Peace with Iraq would mean confronting the seven-headed dragon of Imperialist propaganda. Any peace with Saddam will be characterized as a defeat for Iran by the international media, even if we succeed in gaining many concessions from Iraq. For us, there is no such thing as a victorious peace. Only a military victory over Iraq can establish in the minds of the Muslims of other countries that Iran has achieved its goal. One should not underestimate the impact of making peace with Saddam on weakening the hope for exporting the Islamic Revolution.

The final significant point to be made in this analysis is that accepting peace will have ramifications far beyond the Muslims' loss of faith in Islam's power to confront blasphemy. One of the principal conditions of any peace agreement between the two countries is noninterference in each other's internal affairs. On the surface, this principle may not seem so important. But [Swedish Prime Minister] Olaf Palme [peace mediator at the time] describes the practical implications of such a peace as follows: Eliminating from Iran's mass media broadcasts and speeches by the Islamic Republic's leaders anything which might instigate the people of Iraq against the Ba'athists, or which urge them to turn to genuine Islam; probably an end to most of Iran's Arabic radio broadcasts; expelling or restricting the activities of the opponents of the Iraqi regime residing in Iran. . .

In this light, the dimensions of this principle [of non-interference] can be better understood. If the Islamic Republic were to be insensitive to the realities beyond its borders or did not want to acquaint other nations with the truth of Islam, the Iran-Iraq War would not have essentially started.2

     It is clear from the above analysis, particularly the concluding sentence, that the Iran-Iraq War, or at least its final phase, could have been avoided were it not for the mullahs' obsession with exporting revolution. Other factors contributed to the outbreak of hostilities, among them border claims, the dispute over the Shatt al-Arab waterway, and various historical and national enmities. But in the final analysis, these only became important because of the Iranian regime's policy of export of revolution.

     As the post revolutionary provisional government's foreign minister for some time before the war, Ibrahim Yazdi was involved in Tehran's conspiracies to install a vassal government in Baghdad. He has described the Iranian regime's objectives in Iraq as follows:

First, the dispatch of an ambassador knowledgeable about Iraqi affairs and capable of establishing sufficient and secret contacts with anti-Saddam Muslim groups in Iraq. This was an essential step. Another part of our policy against Iraq and other Arabs, especially the Iraqi people, was to broadcast propaganda in Arabic. At that time, numerous meetings were held at the Foreign Ministry to coordinate these aspects of the Islamic Republic's foreign policy. In these meetings, particularly those dealing with Iraq, Iran's ambassador to Iraq was present and the main outlines and principal guidelines were considered and formulated. This undertaking indeed played an effective role.3

     About five months before the war, in a meeting on April 13, 1980, Hussein, Ali Montazeri, at that time Khomeini's designated successor, asked him to assume the leadership of the "Islamic Revolution" in Iraq: "These days, Iraqi brothers repeatedly approach us saying, we expect His Eminence Imam Khomeini to lead the Iraqi Revolution as he did the Iranian Revolution."4 The ruling Islamic Republic Party's newspaper constantly wrote about Iraq's "Islamic Revolution" and the conquest of Iraq: "Upon the call by the Imam, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Forces of the Revolution declared their readiness to conquer Iraq with the support of Muslims."5

     But why did the Khomeini regime choose Iraq as the first target for exporting its revolution and installing a client Islamic Republic? The most important reasons are the large number of Shi'ites, who make up nearly the entire population of southern Iraq, and the presence in Iraq of the most sacred Shi'ite shrines - the tomb of Imam Ali, the first Shi'ah Imam, and that of his son, Hussein, known to Shi'ites as "the Lord of Martyrs." For many centuries, Iraq has been the most important center of Shi'ism in the Arab world, and the city of Najaf the main seat of Shi'ah learning and theological seminaries.

     Moreover, Khomeini had lived in Iraq for fifteen years and knew that from a geopolitical standpoint, Iraq would be the best springboard for export of the "Islamic Revolution" to the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, Jordan, and Egypt. Iraq's 1,200, kilometer border with Iran and its vast oil reserves (second only to Saudi Arabia's), also made Iraq the most tempting target.

     Establishing an Islamic Republic in Iraq became top priority. Such slogans as "liberating Qods (Jerusalem) through Karbala" reflected Khomeini's extraterritorial designs. Iran's clerical leaders even went so far as to produce a map showing the eastward expansion of the Islamic Republic, again depicting Iraq as the staging ground for the subsequent phases of the plan.6

     The war also enabled the mullahs to fortify the pillars of their velayat-e-faqih rule and justify domestic repression, thereby providing a readymade scapegoat for every crisis and shortcoming - including the catastrophic economic situation - deriving from the clerical regime's theocratic rule. Khomeini described the war as a "divine blessing," and for many years, his regime insisted on prolonging hostilities when Iraq was willing to negotiate.

     Iran's conduct of the war also reflected Khomeini's fanaticism. Following the capture of Iraq's southernmost town, Faw, in 1986, the mullahs saw themselves on the verge of victory. Khomeini formally replaced the slogan "war, war, until victory" with "war, war, until the obliteration of fitna throughout the world." The term fitna, meaning sedition or disorder in Arabic, had been carefully chosen for its vagueness and could be conveniently interpreted by the clerics to include a range of "targets," from Iraq to other Arab or Muslim countries. With the war with Iraq "nearly won," the mullahs now prepared themselves to take on Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries as Iraq's partners and backers in the war.

     To legitimize his belligerent policies and lend an Islamic appearance to his decisions about the war, Khomeini issued a voluminous supply of fatwas, or religious decrees. Decrees on Defense and the Front, a book published by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, contains the full texts of Khomeini's decrees on war-related issues. In accordance with the traditional format of fatwas, Khomeini pronounced his decrees in the form of answers to questions from unidentified adherents. One question asks: "Under the present circumstances, is parental consent necessary before [children] can be sent to the war fronts?" Khomeini replied: "So long as forces are needed at the war fronts, serving there is a religious duty and there is no need for parental consent." The objective of this particular decree was to pave the way for the forcible dispatch of hundreds of thousands of children - even 9, and 1O-year-olds - to the fronts despite the opposition of their families. The overwhelming majority of these children never returned; they were used as cannon-fodder or mine-sweepers and made up the bulk of Iranian casualties in each offensive.

     Khomeini was also asked whether the killing of elderly men and of women and children who cooperate with the forces of evil is permissible. His reply: "In the name of God, they must be treated as aggressors." (See Appendix.) Khomeini thus gave his Guards free rein to perpetrate any crime against the civilian population. In another religious decree, he sanctioned the execution of prisoners of war. Documents confirm the execution of thousands of Iraqi paws by the Guards Corps.

The War and the Mojahedin

     To counter Khomeini's fanatical commitment to the war - which was to the detriment of the Iranian people - after Iraq withdrew its forces from Iranian territory in May 1982, the Mojahedin leader Massoud Rajavi declared that the war was no longer legitimate. He added that its continuation only served the Khomeini regime's interests, harming the peoples of both countries. The Mojahedin subsequently began a national and international campaign to expose the belligerent policies of the mullahs and counter the hysteria the mullahs tried to whip up in Iran.7 Thus the Mojahedin deprived Khomeini of his most important excuse for brutally cracking down on all dissent: the claim that there was no alternative to war.

     The formulation of a comprehensive peace plan by the National Council of Resistance (NCR) of lran in March 1983 was the high point of this strategy.8 The many attacks on the Mojahedin for the peace policy were essentially a smear campaign provoked by the ruling mullahs and did little to lessen the Mojahedin's resolve to pursue peace.

Damages Inflicted by the War

     The mullahs' insistence on continuing the war at all costs resulted in tremendous material destruction. Rafsanjani put the colossal war damages at one trillion dollars, equivalent to Iran's oil revenues for the century. He concluded: "Every Iranian became 50 percent poorer during the war."9

     Of greater significance, however, was the human toll. Hundreds of thousands of children died on the battlefields. On the Iranian side alone, one million people were killed and an equal number gravely wounded or maimed. Three to four million other Iranians lost their homes and property and became refugees. The scars of the war years still torment the Iranian people, who blame the ruling clerics for continuing and losing a futile war. A sharp reminder of the widespread feeling of frustration on this issue have been demonstrations and protests by handicapped veterans. These victims, daily reminders of the war's human toll, have always been the subject of much propaganda by the government, which called them janbazan (those ready to sacrifice their lives.) Gradually realizing that it was only hollow rhetoric that once incited them to go to the front, the janbazan have begun to voice their protests.10 The authorities have been deeply embarrassed by such strong criticism of the government coming from those who have been much praised by the clergy as "living 63 martyrs." Antigovernment feelings on the question of the war have been fueled by the fact that four years after the cease-fire, the government has not taken any serious steps to reconstruct the war-stricken regions. Officials acknowledge that the budget for construction is one-fifteenth of the military expenditures.

[/color]

The human rights record of the Islamic Fundamentalist regime of the past 30 years is much worse than the Shah ever was, in fact, worse than all other Iranian regimes of the 20th century combined.  All in the name of fighting Western Imperialism, the same as the communist bloc before, only now they wear towels on their heads and permanent beards. There's a reason why Ahmedinajackturd does not roll a towel on his head by the way, that's so he will look more 'moderate' and 'secular' to ignoramuses. Now you say, but commies didn't fight Israel, Ahmedinejad is fighting Israel and that's what matters? First of all, Noam Chomsky and all the millions of leftists that follow him are anti-Israel, so is Castro, the marrano Jew, being anti-Israel, in-and-of-itself does not prove jack-shit about authenticity. On the other hand, not abusing the crap out of your own long-suffering peoples' individual rights in the name of Islam, in addition to being peaceful in foreign policy (something the U.S. certainly is not) does at least point in the direction of authenticity, goodwill, non-hypocricy and heroism.  Is it not possible to fight imperialism and / or Israel without being a scumbag torturer and mass-murderer within your own country? Ahmedinejad certainly doesn't think so and therfore Ahmedinejad is nobody's hero, just another ass-clown politician.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/08/the-bloody-red-summer-of-1988.html

The Bloody Red Summer of 1988

25 Aug 2009 14:49 36 Comments

The 1980s were the bloodiest and darkest in the contemporary history of Iran.


Ayatollah Khomeini (center), has his hand kissed. Seyyed Asadollah Lajevardi (lower right in white turtleneck and glasses), earned the nickname "the Butcher of Evin," while he was warden of the prison from 1981 to 1985.

By MUHAMMAD SAHIMI in Los Angeles | 25 Aug 2009
[TEHRAN BUREAU]

The 1980s, particularly the period between 1980 and 1988, are the darkest and bloodiest in the history of contemporary Iran. In 1980, the country was still in the grip of the chaos of the 1979 Revolution. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had been toppled, but the provisional government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan did not last long either. They resigned on November 5, 1979, the day after Islamic leftist students overran the United States embassy in Tehran.

The reactionary right, which began to emerge at this time, was eager to clamp down on dissent. With their help, political freedom began to wane only a year into the Revolution. As more and more restrictions began to be put in place, internal strife began to increase dramatically as well. As always, the universities were the centers of dissent. Secular leftist students were particularly strong and well organized on campuses. The reactionary right managed to convince the Islamic leftists of the necessity of a crackdown.

To crackdown on dissent, and to purge the secular leftists from the universities, the political establishment began to speak of the necessity of a "cultural revolution." To formalize it, on Friday April 18, 1980, after Friday prayers, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini strongly attacked the universities in a speech.

He said,

We are not afraid of economic sanctions or military intervention [which were feared at that time because of the hostage crisis]. What we are afraid of is Western universities and the training of our youth in the interests of the West or East.

Many interpreted Ayatollah Khomeini's speech of April 18, 1980, as a signal for attacks on the universities. In the evening of that day, right-wing paramilitary forces called Phalangists, after the Lebanese Phalangist forces that were fighting the leftist forces in the civil war in that country, laid siege to the Teachers Training College of Tehran. The campus looked like a "war zone," according to a British reporter, and one student was reportedly lynched.

Other campuses around the country did not fare any better. Over the next two days, offices of leftist students at universities in Ahwaz, Isfahan, Mashhad and Shiraz were ransacked, leaving hundreds injured and at least 20 people dead. The violence then spread to several campuses in Tehran, particularly the University of Tehran, which has always been a hotbed of political dissent.

All the universities were shut down on June 12, 1980, and did not re-open until two years later. Officially, the goal was the "Islamization" of the universities, which was an absurd notion. (How, for example, do you "Islamicize" the natural and medical sciences, or engineering?) It was really just a guise for exercising oppression and repression.

While the country was in disarray, Saddam Hussein decided to invade Iran. He had never been happy with the 1975 Algiers Agreement signed by Iraq and the Shah intended to settle a border dispute. Add to that the threat of a revolution led by Shia clerics next door, especially when the Shiites made up the majority of the population in Iraq. Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples were also using tough rhetoric to denounce Saddam Hussein.

Hussein also made a great miscalculation: He thought that with Iran's regular army disorganized and demoralized, and with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) still in its infancy, he could easily invade Iran and occupy a significant portion of it. That, in Hussein's thinking, would provoke a military coup by the remnants of the imperial army and get rid of the clerical leadership.

Hence, after some border skirmishes, Iraq's army invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, and began a war that lasted approximately eight years. "This war is a gift from God," said Ayatollah Khomeini. And from his perspective, it was. On the one hand, the war unified a nation that was getting tired of all the chaos and gave them a patriotic cause to rally around: defending the homeland. On the other, the war gave the extremist right wingers the perfect excuse, to use the threat of 'national security and territorial integrity of Iran' to brutally repress the opposition with much bloodshed.

At the same time, the Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (MKO), the most powerful opposition group, was constantly agitating the political scene. It was not totally their fault. The right-wing, and even some elements of the Islamic left, were opposed to the MKO, and played an important role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and the confrontation between the two camps.

Mohammad Reza Saadati, who was among the top leaders of the MKO [and who had been jailed by the Shah from 1973-1978], had also been arrested by the new regime on the charge of being a spy for the Soviet Union. [To the best of the author's knowledge, the charge was bogus]. However, his arrest outside the Soviet embassy had provided the right wing with much ammunition and propaganda to attack the MKO. Supporters of the MKO, and even very young, impressionable people who were simply selling the MKO mouthpiece, Mojahed, were constantly harassed and persecuted. Seventy-one of them were killed between February 1979 and June 1981.

The MKO's goal was gaining power at any cost, at the earliest time possible. The MKO leaders, Masoud Rajavi and Mousa Khiabani, had even proposed to Ayatollah Khomeini to "deliver to them the government," as they considered themselves the only group qualified to run the government. But Ayatollah Khomeini rejected the proposal. In fact, before the victory of the Revolution and while still in Paris, Ayatollah Khomeini had reached a consensus with others, including Mehdi Bazargan, Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Taleghani, a popular progressive cleric who passed away on September 9, 1979, and others, that no top governmental position should be given to the MKO. Rajavi was also disqualified from running in the first presidential election in February 1980.

By early 1981, Abolhassan Banisadr, who had been elected the Islamic Republic's first president in February 1980 and had been a close aid of Ayatollah Khomeini during the Revolution, was also on a collision course with the Ayatollah and his circle of clerical aids, and the MKO was supporting him. On June 10, 1981, the Ayatollah sacked Banisadr as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces [according to Iran's Constitution, the Ayatollah was the commander-in-chief, but he had transferred the authority to Banisadr]. On June 19, the MKO issued a harshly-worded statement, calling Ayatollah Khomeini all kinds of names [the same ayatollah who, up until a few weeks earlier, had been called by the MKO "the Father," "the Leader," etc.], and declaring armed struggle against the government. Over the next two days, huge demonstrations were held by the MKO and the government against each other.



Lajevardi (standing) and Ayatollah Gillani, who had two of his own sons executed.

On June 21, 1981, the Majles (parliament) impeached Banisadr; he was fired. By that point, he had already fled and gone into hiding in western Iran. The IRGC executed several of his close aids, including Hossein Navab, Rashid Sadrolhefazi, and Manouchehr Massoudi, an attorney. Their mouthpiece, Enghelab-e Eslami [Islamic Revolution] was also shut down. [Enghelab-e Eslami is still published in exile in France.] Dozens of others were also executed on June 21 and 22, including at least 12 young girls whose identities were not even known to the judiciary. Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammadi Gilani, the prosecutor of the revolutionary court, declared that he did not care about the identities of the young people whose execution he was ordering. Saeed Soltanpour, a poet and a leftist, was arrested during his wedding ceremony and later executed.
June 20, 1981, was also the last time that the author spoke with his younger brother, Ali. Living in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and attending graduate school, I called Ali, who was home in Tehran. I was worried about my family. Ali had just gotten home when I called. His voice was hoarse and angry. He had supported the Revolution and had actively participated in it, but had turned against the political establishment. I never spoke to him again. It was impossible to find him after that last conversation.

Almost three months later, on September 8, 1981, the author's brother was arrested, and was executed on September 17. In the morning of the day after his execution, the author's family received a phone call from the notorious Evin prison, notifying them that Ali had been executed, and that they should go there to take his body and belongings. When my father, an aunt, and a cousin went to Evin, they were told to go to the Behesht-e Zahra cemetery because Ali had already been buried. When they went there, they were told that no one with that name had been buried there.

Hopeful that there could have been a mistake made, they went home. But, in a television news program broadcast at 2:00 p.m. that day, the government announced the names of 180 people who had been executed two nights earlier, among them my brother. So, the entire family rushed to the cemetery, and this time they were told where Ali had been buried. The official policy at that time was not to confirm the burial of any executed person until his or her name had been officially announced. So, the life of a 23-year-old university student and patriot was abruptly ended.

The family was ordered to refrain from mourning the death of Ali publicly, and also told not to put a tombstone on his grave. They did both, and ran into a great deal of trouble for doing so. When they put in the tombstone, it was immediately broken by the Phalangists. The family installed two more, both of which met with the same fate. After the fourth tombstone was installed, the Phalangists stopped breaking it.

Many Muslims follow a tradition of visiting the grave of a loved one every Thursday afternoon for the first year after their death. The author's family closely observed this tradition. Every week, when they visited the cemetery, they were harassed by the Phalangists, who shouted that they hoped they -- the author's family -- would be dead soon too. When on the anniversary of the author's brother's death, the family had visited his grave, they were all arrested and taken to a police station nearby, interrogated for hours, and finally released. They refused to guarantee that they would not visit the cemetery again.

But that was not the end of our troubles. The author's father was forced to retire and stay home, because he was very outspoken against the clerics. He was threatened that if he did not stay home, he would be jailed. The author's youngest brother, who was 16 at that time, was arrested and jailed for a week. Twice he was blindfolded and taken to a mock execution. It was a miracle that he too was not executed.

The suffering of the author's family was neither unique, nor the worst. Thousands of families who lost their loved ones in the 1980s went through the same kind of suffering, sometimes under more dire circumstances. There were families who lost several loved ones to executions. Hundreds of thousands of families also lost loved ones to the Iran-Iraq war.

On June 28, 1981, there was a huge explosion in the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party, a clergy-dominated political group founded by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ayatollah Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardabili, and others. Nearly 120, by some estimates, including the judiciary chief, Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Beheshti, and scores of other senior government and political figures were killed. The MKO considered Beheshti its archenemy.

To evoke emotions, however, the government announced that Beheshti and 72 -- not the correct number -- of his comrades had been killed. This was done in order to make a parallel between that and the events of October 10, 680 A.D. in Karbala, in modern day Iraq, when Imam Hossein, the Shias' third Imam, the grandson of the Prophet and one of the most revered figure in Iran, and 72 of his close supporters and family members were slain in an epic battle.

It is widely believed that the MKO carried out the bombing of the Islamic Republic headquarters, which took the bloody confrontation between the MKO and the government to a completely new level. The MKO began assassinating senior political figures, including many leading ayatollahs. Mohammad Ali Rajai, who had been elected President after Banisadr; Dr. Mohammad Javad Bahonar, the Prime Minister under Rajaei, were assassinated on August 30, 1981. In retaliation, the government would arrest and kill MKO members and supporters, showing no mercy, not even on the very young, and in some instances children. The youngest victim that the author is aware of was a girl named Fatemeh Mesbah, who was said to be 12 when killed. Ayatollah Mohammadi Gilani even ordered the execution of two of his own children.

At Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, the author's brother's grave is surrounded by those of other people who were executed around the same time, including very young people between the ages of 14 and 28. Next to the author's brother's grave is the resting place of a young medical doctor, who was executed at 28. His only "offense" was treating protesters who had been injured during street demonstrations. A cousin of the author met the same fate. He too was a medical doctor, and about the same age, when he too was executed for the same "offense." His brother and another cousin had already been killed during the Revolution.

Two other victims of the executions also evoke deep emotions in the author. Laid to rest in Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, in the same section of the author's brother's grave, are Maryam Golzadeh Ghafouri and her husband Alireza Haj Samadi, both MKO members. Maryam's father, Ali Golzadeh Ghafouri, taught the author to read and interpret the Holy Quran, when he was young. The author's father and several friends had started a weekly gathering on Tuesday nights to read the Holy Quran and study its teachings. Typically, 50 people would participate, and the place of the meeting would rotate between the members' homes. The author also participated in the gatherings, as his father was keen that he learn about the Holy Quran.

Each person in the gathering would read a few verses, or lines, from the Holy Quran. Golzadeh Ghafouri, who was not a clergy, would first correct the way we read, making sure that we pronounced the Arabic words correctly. Then, at the end, he would interpret what we had read. He was a devout Muslim, who was progressive, extremely knowledgeable and very kind, a true gentleman in every sense of the word, and a friend of the author's father. The author had the highest respect for him. He supported the Revolution, and was a deputy in the first Majles after the Revolution. But after his daughter and son-in-law were executed, he quit the Majles and went into seclusion. He has hardly been seen in public since.

No one was safe, not even those who had played prominent roles in the Revolution. One example was Ayatollah Hassan Lahouti, the first clerical commander of the IRGC, whose two sons were married to Rafsanjani's daughters. Lahouti went to Evin to see another son, who had been arrested -- apparently for being a member of the MKO -- and died there. Lahouti, who had been very critical of the clerics, was reportedly killed there.

The MKO tactic of assassinating government officials had been emulated from leftist Latin American guerrilla fighters. For example, when the Tupamaros were unable to take over the government of Uruguay in the 1960s through elections, they began a campaign of assassinations. The goal was to provoke the military to take harsh action, and then use the military's reaction as an excuse to further provoke the population against the government. The MKO was using the same tactic.

Mohammad Reza Saadati, a top MKO leader, was executed on July 27, 1981. Before his death, he had asked to be released in return for helping put an end to the MKO's armed struggle; but the hardliners did not care. They wanted blood and revenge. The next day, Banisadr and Rajavi fled Iran. A Boeing 707, flown by an air force pilot, took them first to Turkey and then to Paris, France. That began the process of the MKO going into exile. Eventually, MKO forces settled in Iraq, and worked with Saddam Hussein against Iran. The group, or what remains of it, is now listed as a terrorist organization by the United States State Department.

In February 1982, the MKO suffered a tremendous blow. Mousa Khiabani, the commander of the MKO forces in Iran, his pregnant wife Azar Rezai [whose brothers Ahmad, Reza and Mehdi had been killed under the Shah], and Ashraf Rabiei, Rajavi's wife, and 18 other MKO members were killed by the IRGC in a shootout. The three had managed to break through the IRGC forces, but their bulletproof Peugeot was hit by an RPG that killed everyone but Rajavi's 1-year-old son. Rajavi appointed Ali Zarkesh the new commander of the MKO forces in Iran. He was killed in 1988 during the MKO attacks on Iran from Iraq (see below).

The campaign of assassinations by th

[Ahmed]

Diplomacy means less than nothing in the face of brute force, just a good charade while it lasts, entertainment for gullible minds, a distraction, a civilized front to keep the civilized fooled. Saddam used nothing but diplomacy and full disclosure and he still got clobbered; same with Bin Laden and Afghanistan if you read Bin Laden's actual statements, they were pretty diplomatic.

Saddam Hussein was a Rothschild asset and Bin Laden, to a lesser extent, was as well; though if or when contractual severance between him and the U.S. occurred, is debateable.

Iran, on the other hand, hasn't let the Talmudists in for over 30 years, so their stance and MO is quite different to the others.

Defiance means even less since it gives the West the excuse to go in and completely destroy Iran. Ahmedinejad has done more to give them the excuse to invade than Bin Laden and Saddam combined.

An invasion of Iran seems less likely after Rothschild's humiliating defeat in Afghanistan and objective failures in Iraq (I say Rothschild, but obviously they don't care for Gentile casualties on either side). Desperation on the Zionists part may mean they'll do something stupid, so no one should rule out the possibility of invasion. But chances that the U.S. military would make it out alive from Tehran in light of such a move, are slim to none. People are, for the first time, openly discussing the Israeli problem and war lust has all but  evaporated, even amongst the shabbos goy.  

To think that 'defiance' somehow earns him enough respect to deflect and protect against the increased anger created by the same behavior is to give a silly weasel, a mere knight in the chess game if not an outright pawn, too much credit as a psychological warrior.

Many would disagree.

Safeguard the Iranian people? I don't think so. They don't care about the people, no collectivist state does, and certainly not theocratic dictatorial regimes as brutal as medieval Islamic Iran.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has kept Rothschild at bay for over 30 years, whilst our nations are held to ransom by their economic system and wars. It's the so-called free countires whose people are coming home in boxes and committing unforgivable crimes aboard, thanks to the Talmudist infestation that shoves them from war to war. So obviously the Iranians care more about their people than the Western nations seem to care about theirs.

Rothschild occupied U.S. has the worst human rights record on Earth. The human rights record of one Zionist Jew owned U.S. president in just 8 years, is worse than the human rights records of North Korea, Cuba, El Salvador, Iran and Iraq combined over 30 years.

If they 'safeguard' the people at all it's only when it will keep their regime in power and Islamic fundamentalism alive. Would heroic and defiant nationalistic diplomats who love the Iranian people and wish to safeguard them, would any human being who's not lower than scum allow the following retarded and medieval laws to be imposed on their fellow brothers and sisters? Take a few minutes and look at how 'dignified' and 'resolute' these laws are and how much they increase Iran's standing in the world:

So anyone whose against the proliferation of homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual procurement, use of alcoholic beverages, fighting, corruption on earth, and robbery
is a bad guy by your definition?

Its also worth knowing that Mahnaz Afkhami (from whose book you quote) was a prominent member of the Shah Reza Pehlavi regime in 1975.

This is from a Leftist website

First of all, there's no chapter in the Holy Qu'ran called Nesa. And verse 34:34 reads: "We never sent a warner to a town but those who led lives in ease in it said: We are surely disbelievers in what you are sent with".

Which, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the issue of men's rights over women. People tend to expect Zionist disinformation every time the U.S. ZOG is being pushed to attack another country. Most anti-Iranian screeds are un-sourced, vague and sometimes even contradict each other. This report was one of those screeds IMO.

They only care about power. They play the lower-level power game that they've been stage-choreographed to play in, the same as the communist bloc did before. They are either smart enough to understand this, becoming direct agents even if not directly contacted or smart enough to play the game but not smart enough to understand the big picture, therefore becoming useful idiots. They are designated controlled opposition for imperialist designs just like the commies before them whether they like it or not.

Is our point of view (i.e. anti-Talmudism) so outrageous that no world leaders could possibly subscribe to it without being part of some dialectic conspiracy? Because that's exactly what the doom and gloom merchants' insinuate, whether intentionally or unintentionally, their no-win-scenarios / lose-lose paradigms only serve to undermine cohesive resistance against an identified enemy.

They do whatever advances 'true Islam' (according to them) in the world in the same way as the commies did whatever advanced their idea of Marxism. And yet Communism was controlled throughout all those years people fought and died in wars against it and for it. Post-communist China, mixed-economy statist Russia and Islamic fundamentalist medieval Iran are the same. Except Iran is now the designated boogie-man stand in for Islamic opposition anywhere in the world, sometimes authentic to be sure, just like Marxists were, but controlled on a leash nevertheless. When they need to pull on the leash they point to Iran to justify the choke.

Fair point, but again, the main difference is that Lenin, Stalin, Marx and Engles all agreed to the Rothschild-Talmudic agenda before hand. Lenin even said that 90% of Communizing a nation was the establishment of a centralized bank. Jacob Schiff financed the Bolsheviks from New York, and Marx came from a line of Talmudic Rabbis. So the links were quite obvious. Can you honestly see any ideological, theological or political similarities between Iran and the Talmudic agenda?

So you see it's not always a conspiracy, if it were; you'd have already been forced to pledge allegiance to the Kaabalist Kahal, kiss the Talmud and throw yourself upon the altar of an anti-Christ system.

As the deliberately prolonged Iran-Iraq massacre proved, the Mullahs will not hesitate for one second to draft and forcibly send hundreds of thousands of their own people to die in defense of their territorial borders or their 'nation.' The deliberately prolonged (by Khomeini) 8 year massacre that was the Iran-Iraq war was funded on both sides by at least 26 countries by the way. Khomeini, being the lunatic that he was, insisted long after the war was seen as futile and pointless that it should go on. Many people went into hiding and exile to avoid that blood-feud. Others were not so lucky. The Iranian-Armenian guy who fixes my air-conditioning was drafted and forcibly sent to the front for 24 months straight. Every day for 24 months he had to pick up the arms, legs, heads and body-parts of the friends and other soliders he was talking to the day before torn apart by aircraft shells and put them in freezer trucks, along with their dog-tags, to be shipped home to their families. He considers it a miracle that he survived.

The Iran-Iraq war was a brutal and pointless struggle as we discussed earlier, and my sympathy's are with your friend and to both sides who endured that horrendous conflict. My advice to your friend, however, would be that he research the machinations surrounding that bloody affair a little more closely.

Ayatollah Khomeini was absolutely right to maintain a tactical-aggressive posture until 1988. Remember, it was Iran's resolve on the Western front that allowed them to effectively build up the resistance in Lebanon: Excoriate Israel in 1982-85, repel the Franco-American troop build up in 1983, strike IDF terrorists in South Lebanon and keep the Russians off their back in the East. Iran's support, though often sectarian, was also forthcoming against anti-Communist Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and they welcomed about a million Afghani refugees into their country during the Afghan-Soviet war whilst being at war with Rothschild backed Iraq themselves.


[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6JVPMqteew[/youtube]20po2esn]

So whilst its easy for armchair generals to say this and that, the reality on the ground at the time was pretty volatile on all fronts. The fact Iran didn't flinch is a testament to the Ayatollah Kohemei's inspirational leadership, inflexible code of honour and die hard commitment to the principals of Islamic revolution.

The single-handed 8 year struggle of Khomeini's glorious Islamic regime against Saddam's Iraq and its myriad of so-called backers. Oh really? Here's just a tiny little dose of reality. If not for that crazy motherfucker Khomeini, that whole massacre would have been over by 1982 and hundreds of thousands of more lives would have been saved, when Iraq offered to negotiate a settlement

The Talmudists used Saddam Hussein throughout his entire career, he did eventually turn on the moneylenders, but like Adolf Hitler, it was too little too late. Saddam Hussein had no authority to end the war in 1982 nor did he have any say about when to start it for that matter. Everybody knew who the real instigators were and what conditions a U.S. brokered "settlement" would involve so early on. I think I've explained the regional picture at the time (e.g. Lebanon, Afghanistan etc)  above in some detail.

There's a reason why Ahmedinajackturd does not roll a towel on his head by the way, that's so he will look more 'moderate' and 'secular' to ignoramuses.

 :eh: That's the Hasbra talking. Iranian presidents of the revolutionary era dress as they please, be it casual wear or traditional shalwar camise: Abulhassan Banisadr and Mohammad Ali Raja dressed casually, whereas Akbar Rafsanjani and Ali Khamenei preferred the camise and clerical hat.

This is in stark contrast to laws imposed by the first Rothschild imposed Shah in 1929. Who forced Iranian ladies to dress in the European, specifically Parisian, style and followed up with the lunatic decree of imposing Western hats!

Now you say, but commies didn't fight Israel, Ahmedinejad is fighting Israel and that's what matters? First of all, Noam Chomsky and all the millions of leftists that follow him are anti-Israel, so is Castro, the marrano Jew, being anti-Israel, in-and-of-itself does not prove jack-shit about authenticity. On the other hand, not abusing the crap out of your own long-suffering peoples' individual rights in the name of Islam, in addition to being peaceful in foreign policy (something the U.S. certainly is not) does at least point in the direction of authenticity, goodwill, non-hypocricy and heroism. Is it not possible to fight imperialism and / or Israel without being a scumbag torturer and mass-murderer within your own country? Ahmedinejad certainly doesn't think so and therfore Ahmedinejad is nobody's hero, just another ass-clown politician.

President Ahmedinejad is a legend. And as I proved earlier, Iranian law seems a lot fairer than the arcane, ZOG dogmas printed out and passed in secret in our so-called free countires. Even the harshest article of Iranian legislation isn't on a par with being molested by Zionist Jew run U.S. goons under the Patriot Act II. Because you borrowed an interesting book from the library, were 'acting suspicious' or engaged in some kind of anti-government protests.

Iran is keeping the Talmud out, America is bringing it into law.

[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gWexCJ3RBk[/youtube]20po2esn]

[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW1DltEt5z4[/youtube]20po2esn]

[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWul35JnjY[/youtube]20po2esn]


And lets just clarify a few other points as well:

1.   Mahmoud Ahmedinejad isn't a Freemason.
2.   Mahmoud Ahmedinejad isn't a Jew
3.   Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was elected by a popular mandate twice. He was also put forward for office after successful tenures as Governor of his district and Mayor of Theran.


http://www.themajlis.org/2009/10/03/iro ... jad-jewish

They can still keep it completely out of the mainstream media of TV Radio and Print and most of the mainstream internet. The only freedom and non-censorship is on the non-mainstream, independent areas of the internet which if the mainstream practices complete blackout would get marginalized and not heard to any effect.

How can one accurately define "the mainstream internet" when it comes to news? IMHO its time we ceased to rely upon others to tell us what's mainstream and whats underground and just focus on the facts: It's as plain as day; Zionist Jewry / Talmudism is the hand behind an international crime network which has been active in mainland America since 1913, and yes, these fiends can only operate in collaboration with an equally depraved sector of Shabbat goy criminals. The biggest of which today is, without question, The United States of America.

Why would Ahmedinejad have a Holocaust Revisionist conference in Iran when, no matter what any truth-seeker on the internet might think of the 'holohoax,' after watching the David Cole video or or other Revisionist findings and challenges to the official hogwash , it obviously, in the eyes of the mass-media brainwashed Western world, does little more than make him look like HITLER (who, again in the eyes of the brainwashed mass-media world, even in large parts of the Muslim world, and through 60 years of non-stop anti-German propaganda, is considered the symbol of "Ultimate Evil" despite the fact that he never even wanted war and was forced into it by the Zionists, who actually declared all-out war on Germany as far back as 1933) Now, I'm not discussing Hitler here, only the degree of 'controlled opposition' still pulling strings in Iran, which is a valid 'conspiracy question' to think about. When Ahmedinejad does something to look like HITLER in the eyes of the western world, what does the mainstream media in the Western World do? IT BROADCASTS IT EVERYWHERE!

[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4yoLd_sze4[/youtube]20po2esn]

[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY[/youtube]20po2esn]

[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrVqApoyVYU[/youtube]20po2esn]

The main reason, I feel, that this interview even took place was because (a) The MSM knows its lost ground and people aren't interested in their spin (b) To seem fair  (c) To try and engineer the image they'd hoped to project upon the guest.

But as you can see from this excerpt, Ahmadinejad doesn't fall for any misdirection and, with God's help, simply tells it like it is. Now don't you wish, haven't you wished that someone would come along and put across this point of view in as calm and sophisticated a manner as Ahmedinejad does here?  And now, when someone finally does what you've been hoping  for, some still call it controlled opposition!

Now, if the Zioinist Jews placed in control of the Western media apparatus by the Banksters were afraid of any supressed facts about their holycost industry coming out, would they not IGNORE and BLACKOUT Ahmedinejad's conference instead of broadcasting it and reporting on it everywhere? Now, you have to remember that at this point in time 96% of the mainstream media is owned, lock, stock & barrel by Zionists. This is not just radio, television and print but also large areas of the interenet. Mainstream also means those portions of the internet where the mainstream websites and blogs are. They could black out and straight out marginalize and ignore it in the same way that they do Israel's crimes.

Orwell once said of Kipling that "He could not foresee that the same motives which brought the Empire into existence would end by destroying it". Meaning that the mechanisms of control could just as easily be turned against the oppressor as they were once turned against the oppressed. Zionist Jews, as you correctly state, own the means of production and 96% of its output, but they don't own the souls of a people who've chosen to enforce content, and content is king.

Are Israel's crimes worse today then they were ten years ago? No, they've always been depraved and cowardly.

Are Israel's crimes as hidden today as they were ten years ago? No, because the underground BECAME mainstream.

Why? because more and more people began to despise what was being fed to them by the MSM, their swill was thrown back in their faces piping hot and it burned. Now, the MSM is FORCED to bring issues to the fore or risk alienating more people than it can afford to lose. Even arch shill Alex Jones is essentially fighting a revolt on his own forums, even Fox News sometimes has to call out Zionist Jewry through gritted teeth.

And it's moving in this direction, you can evern gage the difference in your own life: e.g. How long was being called anti-Semitic a knock out slur? Decades. Today, it just doesn't hold the same purchasing power. As Mohammed Rafeeq pointed out "We are the new mainstream".

Conclusion: whether useful idiot or direct or indirect agent of stronger powers in Iran, either way, same result: 'controlled opposition.'

Even C3-P0 wasn't this resigned to failure! You're not doomed or powerless. Yes the situation looks bad, the enemy too strong and the odds unfavourable. But if one sits there and sulks they're only sowing cognitive differences and doubt into what is, right now, a unified and vibrant struggle with all the momentum.

If he was smart enough or not 'controlled' enough to avoid falling in that gigantic trap then he would deserve the title of authentic internal woman-hating, human-rights-desecrating tyrant and external man-of-peace, the last part being that which he is often praised for by useful idiot 'truth seekers' and anti-war people.

With all due respect, I think you should research the history of Iran a little more. The Islamic revolution wasn't really a revolution in the traditional sense at all IMO. But a counter-revolution that restored Iran's true identity and removed the Talmudic façade forced upon her like an iron mask of imperialism.

"Our revolution introduced a totally new thing into the world - not Marxist, not nationalistic, but religious. We could do nothing without Islam. I was not always religious, but now I see it's the only way we can make the changes. I say this as a scientist and as a sociologist."

Zahra Rahnavard

David H. Albert, Tell the American People: Perspectives on the Iranian Revolution (Philadelphia: Movement for a New Society, 1980) 155.


"Through their participation in the Islamic Revolution, many of these women felt that they were casting off their passivity. They hadn't feel liberated by the Pahlavi regime. In fact, the regime inspired the opposite feelings in many women, feelings of repression, a lack of originality, and a general lack of control. They were forging their own identities through their opposition of the Shah and were standing up for their political beliefs. But most of all, the revolution shows us that these women were not a passive part of society. They took a direct interest and action in shaping the history of Iran."

Nesta Ramazani, "Women in Iran: The Revolutionary Ebb and Flow" Middle East Journal 47 (1993): 424.

"The women who contributed to the revolution were, and are, women in Islamic dress, not all made up like you, women who go around all uncovered. The coquettes who put on makeup and go into the street showing themselves off did not fight against the Shah. They never did anything good, not those. They do not know how to be useful, neither socially, nor politically, nor professionally."

Ayatollah Khomeini laying down the law with anti-Islamic polemicist Oriana Fallaci in January 1979

Ayatollah Kohemeni was ahead of his time in predicting that women's liberation (i.e. feminism), like the homosexual agenda, was a sinister movement with ulterior motives: Motives which had absolutely nothing to do with women's rights.

Iran's laws are so fucked-up it almost makes you wish you were in the sharia wonderland of Dubai. You mean you can be an adulterer there and do drugs and only do a long jail sentence? Well, Allright !!!! Let's party !!

Nations that have abandoned principals in favour of Talmudic law are wrecked from the inside out. To me, and perhaps I've misread what you're advocating here, it sounds like you want Iran to become some kind of a Sodom or Gammorah or Vegas. And that's not going to happen, God willing. Iran is Iran, and its actually reintroducing lost morality into the world. The basic values that we once held in the West, slowly eroded by years of Talmudic appeasement and internal collaborators who've dragged us into the ideological and moral stone age, is being rekindled: It's a flickering flame for the world has lost so much, but a welcome reminder nonetheless.

Article 102. The stoning of an adulterer or adulteress shall be carried out while each is placed in a hole and covered with soil, he up to his waist and she up to a line above her breasts.  (Ahmedinejad and Khamenei should get to throw the first stones, just like American Presidents throw the ceremonial first pitch at baseball games )

Lets presume the above is true, then so is Article 81. If the adulterer or the adulteress repents prior to confessing to the act of adultery, he or she shall not be punished. And
Article 90. If a man or a woman has committed the act of adultery several times and has been punished after each act, he or she shall be put to death following his or her fourth act of adultery.  How many times? "his or her fourth act of adultery". Just checking.

Pretty damn reasonable if you ask me. And in the Jew.S.A? Screw around all you like, just don't protest war criminals in New York or else you'll end up tazered and face down in an abandoned Pier. And remember, don't ask Talmudic Jew scumbag John Kerry what he does in the woods at night, because that's punishable by tazer too. Oh, and I almost forgot, don't try and defend your country from Zionist Jew owned Shabbos goy Yankee goons; because you will be sodomised, raped or tortured to death.

In terms of the law, Iran is a million times better than any ZOG.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 69001.html

A Foreign Policy Program

To conclude our discussion, the primary plank of a libertarian foreign policy program for America must be to call upon the United States to abandon its policy of global interventionism: to withdraw immediately and completely, militarily and politically, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, from everywhere. The cry among American libertarians should be for the United States to withdraw now, in every way that involves the U.S. government. The United States should dismantle its bases, withdraw its troops, stop its incessant political meddling, and abolish the CIA. It should also end all foreign aid — which is simply a device to coerce the American taxpayer into subsidizing American exports and favored foreign States, all in the name of "helping the starving peoples of the world." In short, the United States government should withdraw totally to within its own boundaries and maintain a policy of strict political "isolation" or neutrality everywhere.

General Butler knew the score, almost makes one wish he'd gone along with the coup and then implemented these ideas.

Not to belabor a point too much but as an addendum here's the exciting and intriguing history of lots more jolly shenanigans of the past 30 years that tend to make the heroic Islamic lash-&-stone-dead-thy-sinners regime look just a tad bit duplicitous:

In simple terms: Iran needed guns to repel the invasion, they had the den of spies (i.e. U.S. embassy) locked down, they got some guns in exchange for U.S. operatives stationed in their country. I use the word operatives instead of diplomatic staff, attaches or hostages because that's what they were: The bloody reign on terror that ushered in the fall of Mossadegh in 53' was coordinated in part from the U.S. embassy in Iran. And the only reason they didn't close down and leave in 1979 was because they thought Khomeini would do their bidding as well.

The Shah's regime, and ask your friend if he aggress, was out of hand. People were being taken from their homes and never seen again. Most of them courtesy of the Talmudic Jew created, SHABAK / Mossad trained SAVAK secret police. Four years before the takeover, the U.S. and Zionist Jewry were funding the Shah's puppet regime; helping furnish and carry out some of the regime's most brutal atrocities. Including a crackdown of the Qum protests 1975, dissolving opposition parties, show trial of religious leader Mahmoud Taliqani who was sentenced to 10 years,  U.S. armed riot police attacking a student sit in at Tehran university in 1977, deadly crackdowns at Qum in 1978 and the massacre at Zhaleh Square,Tehran. The Americans were also channelling funds via Iraq to the MKO, who assassinated Iranian President Mohammad Ali Rajai on 30th August 1981.

"What we have said is true not only of America but also of Britain, another country that signed and ratified the Declaration of Human Rights; a country whose civilisation and democracy are so highly praised by those who Britain itself has convinced of its praise worthiness via effective propaganda and cunning. Indeed, it has succeeded in convincing people that it is the leader of democracy and the home of true constitutionalism. But we have all seen what crimes and atrocities Britain has committed in India, Pakistan and its former colonies. The imperialist states like America and Britain brought Israel into existence, and we have seen what misery they have inflicted and continue to inflict on the Muslims there, and in particular on the Shi`i Muslims. Meanwhile, they have installed an agent in Egypt named Sadat, whose every act is devoted to serving imperialism and who, only a short time ago, visited Israel where he gave it official recognition and approved of every word the Israelis had to say."

Ruhollah Khomeini, 1978 at the Shaykh Ansari Mosque in Najaf, Iraq.

So when Iranian student revolutionaries besieged and secured the area, it wasn't done so for a laugh, but to neutralize an active and hostile criminal base of operations.

[youtube:20po2esn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDAnXIajTfk[/youtube]20po2esn]

[jai_mann]

If Ahmedinajad isn't a Mason, then why does he throw up their hand signs? I hate to break it to you, but he's one of the masonic white chess pieces.

[Negentropic]

And let's not forget this recent article, as if all that other stuff since 1979 wasn't enough, the U.S. says one thing in its policy and does the exact opposite by giving contract payments, grants and benefits to the tune of $107 billion to companies that do business in Iran? hee hee haa ha ho ho, isn't that cute?   :lol:  Score another one for controlled opposition:
   

US Has Given Over $100 BILLION To Companies Defying Its Policy On Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/middleeast/07sanctions.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

March 6, 2010

U.S. Enriches Companies Defying Its Policy on Iran

By JO BECKER and RON NIXON

The federal government has awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments, grants and other benefits over the past decade to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran, despite Washington's efforts to discourage investment there, records show.

That includes nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied American sanctions law by making large investments that helped Iran develop its vast oil and gas reserves.

For years, the United States has been pressing other nations to join its efforts to squeeze the Iranian economy, in hopes of reining in Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Now, with the nuclear standoff hardening and Iran rebuffing American diplomatic outreach, the Obama administration is trying to win a tough new round of United Nations sanctions.

But a New York Times analysis of federal records, company reports and other documents shows that both the Obama and Bush administrations have sent mixed messages to the corporate world when it comes to doing business in Iran, rewarding companies whose commercial interests conflict with American security goals.

Many of those companies are enmeshed in the most vital elements of Iran's economy. More than two-thirds of the government money went to companies doing business in Iran's energy industry — a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a primary focus of the Obama administration's proposed sanctions because it oversees Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

Other companies are involved in auto manufacturing and distribution, another important sector of the Iranian economy with links to the Revolutionary Guards. One supplied container ship motors to IRISL, a government-owned shipping line that was subsequently blacklisted by the United States for concealing military cargo.

Beyond $102 billion in United States government contract payments since 2000 — to do everything from building military housing to providing platinum to the United States Mint — the companies and their subsidiaries have reaped a variety of benefits. They include nearly $4.5 billion in loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that underwrites the export of American goods and services, and more than $500 million in grants for work that includes cancer research and the turning of agricultural byproducts into fuel.

In addition, oil and gas companies that have done business in Iran have over the years won lucrative drilling leases for close to 14 million acres of offshore and onshore federal land.

In recent months, a number of companies have decided to pull out of Iran, because of a combination of pressure by the United States and other Western governments, "terrorism free" divestment campaigns by shareholders and the difficulty of doing business with Iran's government. And several oil and gas companies are holding off on new investment, waiting to see what shape new sanctions may assume.

The Obama administration points to that record, saying that it has successfully pressed allied governments and even reached out directly to corporate officials to dissuade investment in Iran, particularly in the energy industry. In addition, an American effort over many years to persuade banks to leave the country has isolated Iran from much of the international financial system, making it more difficult to do deals there.

"We are very aggressive, using a range of tools," said Denis McDonough, chief of staff to the National Security Council.

The government can, and does, bar American companies from most types of trade with Iran, under a broad embargo that has been in place since the 1990s. But as The Times's analysis illustrates, multiple administrations have struggled diplomatically, politically and practically to exert American authority over companies outside the embargo's reach — foreign companies and the foreign subsidiaries of American ones.

Indeed, of the 74 companies The Times identified as doing business with both the United States government and Iran, 49 continue to do business there with no announced plans to leave.

One of the government's most powerful tools, at least on paper, to influence the behavior of companies beyond the jurisdiction of the embargo is the Iran Sanctions Act, devised to punish foreign companies that invest more than $20 million in a given year to develop Iran's oil and gas fields. But in the 14 years since the law was passed, the government has never enforced it, in part for fear of angering America's allies.

That has given rise to situations like the one involving the South Korean engineering giant Daelim Industrial, which in 2007 won a $700 million contract to upgrade an Iranian oil refinery.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the deal appeared to violate the Iran Sanctions Act, meaning Daelim could have faced a range of punishments, including denial of federal contracts. That is because the law covers not only direct investments, such as the purchase of shares and deals that yield royalties, but also contracts similar to Daelim's to manage oil and gas development projects.

But in 2009 the United States Army awarded the company a $111 million contract to build housing in a military base in South Korea. Just months later, Daelim, which disputes that its contracts violated the letter of the law, announced a new $600 million deal to help develop the South Pars gas field in Iran.

Now, though, frustration over Iran's intransigence has spawned a growing, if still piecemeal, movement to more effectively use the power of the government purse to turn companies away from investing there.

Nineteen states — including New York, California and Florida — have rules that bar or discourage their pension funds from investing in companies that do certain types of business in Iran. Congress is considering legislation that would have the federal government follow suit, by mandating that companies that invest in Iran's energy industry be denied federal contracts. The provision is modeled on an existing law dealing with war-torn Sudan.

Obama administration officials, while indicating that they were open to the idea, called it only one variable in a complex equation. Right now, the president's priority is on breaking down Chinese resistance to the new United Nations sanctions, which apply across borders and are aimed squarely at entities that support Iran's nuclear program.

But Representative Ron Klein, a Florida Democrat who wrote the contracting provision moving through Congress with the help of a lobbying group called United Against Nuclear Iran, said it offered a way forward with or without international agreement.

"We need to send a strong message to corporations that we're not going to continue to allow them to economically enable the Iranian government to continue to do what they have been doing," Mr. Klein said.

An Unused Tool

Sending a strong message was Congress's intention when it passed the Iran Sanctions Act in 1996.

The law gives the president a menu of possible punishments he can choose to levy against offending companies. Not only do they risk losing federal contracts, but they can also be prevented from receiving Export-Import Bank loans, obtaining American bank loans over $10 million in a given year, exporting their goods to the United States, purchasing licensed American military technology and, in the case of financial firms, serving as a primary dealer in United States government bonds or as a repository for government funds.

Congress is now considering expanding its purview to a broader array of energy-related activities, including selling gasoline to Iran, which despite its vast oil and gas reserves has antiquated refineries that leave it heavily dependent on imports.

From the beginning, though, the law proved difficult to enforce.

European allies howled that it constituted an improper attempt to apply American law in other countries. Exercising an option to waive the law in the name of national security, the Clinton administration in 1998 declined to penalize the first violator — a consortium led by the French oil company TotalFina, now known as Total.

The administration also indicated that it would waive future penalties against European companies, winning in return tougher European export controls on technology that Iran could convert to military use.

Stuart E. Eizenstat, who as the deputy Treasury secretary handled those negotiations, said the law let Iran "exploit divisions between the U.S. and our European allies."

Waiving it, though, was followed by additional investments in Iran — and more government largesse for the companies making them.

In 1999, for instance, Royal Dutch Shell signed an $800 million deal to develop two Iranian oil fields. Since then, Shell has won federal contract payments and grants totaling more than $11 billion, mostly for providing fuel to the American military, as well as $200 million in Export-Import loan guarantee and drilling rights to federal lands, records show.

Shell has a second Iranian development deal pending, but officials say they are awaiting the results of a feasibility study. In the meantime, the company continues to receive payments from Iran for its 1999 investment and sells gasoline and lubricants there.

Records show Shell is one of seven companies that challenged the Iran Sanctions Act and received federal benefits.

John R. Bolton, who dealt with Iran as an under secretary of state and United Nations ambassador in the Bush administration, said failing to enforce the law by punishing such companies both sent "a signal to the Iranians that we're not serious" and undercut Washington's credibility when it did threaten action.

Mr. Bolton recalled what happened in 2004 when he suggested to the Japanese ambassador that Japan's state-controlled oil exploration company, Inpex, might be penalized for a $2 billion investment in the Azadegan field in Iran. "The Japanese ambassador said, 'Well, that's interesting. How come you've never sanctioned a European Union company?' " Mr. Bolton recounted.

Inpex was never penalized, though several years later it decided to reduce its stake in the Iranian project. And to Mr. Bolton's chagrin, the Bush administration did not act on reports about other such investments, neither waiving the law nor penalizing violators.

Recently, after 50 lawmakers from both parties complained to President Obama about the lack of enforcement and sent him a list of companies that apparently violated the law, the State Department announced a preliminary investigation. Officials said that they were looking at 27 deals, and that while some appeared to have been "carefully constructed" to get around the letter of the law, they had identified a number of problematic cases and were focusing on companies still active in Iran.

Competing Interests

Among the companies on the list Congress sent to the State Department is the Brazilian state-controlled energy conglomerate Petrobras, which last year received a $2 billion Export-Import Bank loan to develop an oil reserve off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. The loan offers a case study in the competing interests officials must confront when it comes to the Iran Sanctions Act.

Despite repeated American entreaties, Petrobras had previously invested $100 million to explore Iran's offshore oil prospects in the Persian Gulf.

But the Export-Import Bank loan could help create American jobs, since Petrobras would use the money to buy goods and services from American companies. Perhaps more important, it could help develop a source of oil outside the Middle East.

After The Times inquired about the loan, bank officials said that they asked for and received a letter of assurance from Petrobras that it had finished its work in Iran. A senior White House official, in a Nov. 13 e-mail message, said that while it was the administration's policy to warn companies against such investments, "Brazil is an important U.S. trading partner and our discussions with them are ongoing."

But if the administration hoped that the loan would bring Brazil in line with its objectives in Iran, it would soon prove mistaken.

On Nov. 23, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited Brazil, and the two countries agreed to share technical expertise on energy projects. Iranian officials said they might offer Petrobras additional incentives for further investment.

The visit infuriated American officials, who felt it undercut efforts to press Iran on its nuclear program while lending international legitimacy to the Iranian president. Brazil's relationship with Iran has also complicated American maneuvering at the United Nations, where Brazil holds a rotating seat on the Security Council. Just last week, Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, restated his opposition to the administration's sanctions proposal, warning, "It is not prudent to push Iran against a wall."

Carter Lawson, the Export-Import Bank's deputy general counsel, acknowledged that Mr. Ahmadinejad's visit was "problematic for us, and it raised our antenna." He said that since December the bank had been operating under a new budget rule requiring borrowers to certify that they had no continuing operations in Iran's energy industry, and was carefully monitoring Petrobras's activities.

In the meantime, Petrobras's Tehran office remains open. And Diogo Almeida, the acting economic attaché at the Brazilian Embassy in Iran, said that while Petrobras was currently assessing how much it could invest in Iran, given the huge discovery off Rio de Janeiro, company officials were in active discussions with the Iranian government and were interested in pursuing new business.

Opportunities for Profit

For all the American rules and focus, there is still plenty of room for companies to profit in crucial areas of Iran's economy without fear of reprisal or loss of United States government business.

Auto companies doing business in Iran, for instance, received $7.3 billion in federal contracts over the past 10 years. Among them was Mazda, whose cars in Iran are assembled by a company called the Bahman Group. A 45 percent share in Bahman is held by the Sepah Cooperative Foundation, a large investment fund linked to the Revolutionary Guards, according to Iranian news accounts and a 2009 RAND Corporation report prepared for the Defense Department.

A Mazda spokesman declined to comment, saying the company was unaware of the links.

Even companies based in the United States, including some of the biggest federal contractors, can invest in Iran through foreign subsidiaries run independently by non-Americans.

Honeywell, the aviation and aerospace company, has received nearly $13 billion in federal contracts since 2005. That year it acquired Universal Oil Products, whose British subsidiary is working on a project to expand gasoline production at the Arak refinery in Iran. Universal recently received a $25 million federal grant for a clean-energy project in Hawaii.

In a statement, Honeywell said it had told the State Department in January of 2009 that while it was fulfilling its Arak contract, it would not undertake new projects in Iran.

Ingersoll Rand, another American company with foreign subsidiaries, says it is evaluating its "minor" business in Iran in light of the political climate. But for now, according to a spokesman, Paul Dickard, it continues to sell air-compression systems with a "wide variety of applications," including in the oil and gas industries and in nuclear power plants.

Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, tried to close the foreign subsidiary loophole after a furor erupted in 2004 over Halliburton, former Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, which had used a Cayman Islands subsidiary to sell oil-field services to Iran. But he said he was unable to overcome business opposition.

William A. Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, lobbied against Mr. Dorgan's bill and has opposed other unilateral sanctions. He argues that their futility can be seen in the intransigence of the Iranian government and the way American oil companies have simply been replaced by foreign competitors. Moreover, many foreign companies with business interests in Iran are also large American employers; deny them federal contracts and other benefits, Mr. Reinsch said, "and it's those workers who will pay the price."

But Hans Sandberg, senior vice president of Atlas Copco, which is based in Sweden, offered a different perspective. Atlas Copco's sales of mining and construction equipment to Iran are dwarfed by its American business, including military contracts. If forced to choose, he said: "It would be no problem. We wouldn't trade with Iran."


Eric Owles contributed reporting.


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: March 10, 2010


An article on Sunday about United States government contracts and other benefits received by companies doing business in Iran misstated the date Honeywell, the aviation and aerospace company, notified the State Department that, while a British subsidiary would finish a refinery project in Iran, it would not undertake new projects there. It was January 2009, not last January.

[abduLMaria]

"Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel," the group said.

music to my ears.

Yeah, abduLMaria...this whole thing makes me think the whole Israeli-AIPAC-Jew-Goy American Military Puppets Iran invasion  hinged on the weapons system?  Just like in Georgia, when the Jews-Amero-Puppets wouldn't stop gradually building up forces there, Russia delivers the "Peace-makers" right before the ZioCrazies hit the buttons to go "all-in"... could be wrong but I only hope this makes the Global JewTards think twice and not take it to the next Level.

Of course, if the S-300s are just a Russo-Jew example of "blowing smoke" that Iranians have bought hook, line and sinker as a "real deal" when they actually don't work, then this is not good. War is not far away and Israel has scammed some UN propaganda points.

Jeez ... this thread is long.  but Good !  good pics, etc.

i read that Israel rejected the avionics that comes with the F-16's that the US just gave them.  Israel wants to use their own avionics.  makes me wonder what's going on there.

Good news - Iran has started the Bushehr reactor.  an attack on it would jeopardize many countries in the region.  so i think an attack on Bushehr may now be lower probability.  but then, Israel is insane, so, i shouldn't extrapolate too much.

Bad news - Israel has recently purchased about $2 Billion worth of jet fuel with a shelf life of 2 years max.

[Ahmed]

If Ahmedinajad isn't a Mason, then why does he throw up their hand signs? I hate to break it to you, but he's one of the masonic white chess pieces.

One photo does not a Mason make, even Bill Hicks used to throw that sign sometimes, and though he rarely mentioned Zionist Jewry, Hicks was hardly what I'd call Illuminati. Besides, I would need to know where and when that alleged illuminati picture was taken before making a judgement about it either way.

To me, if a wealth of real life actions and statements far outweigh one questionable, obscure accusation; then I say give him the benefit of the doubt.    

Freemasonry (i.e. the Kaabalah) is officially banned in Iran, and people are well aware of its symbols and motifs. Those Iranian masons who fled the clean up in 79' now mostly reside in L.A. There are, obviously, some crypto-Jew elements still in Iran as there are in Iraq, Turkey, Yemen and elsewhere but Ahmedinejad isn't one of them IMO

Iran's internal political issues are the sole concern of the Iranian people and, no doubt, there were many questionable polices in place during the Rafsanjani administration. But from 2005 onwards, as an allied country in the internationalist war against Talmudic criminals, I'm glad they're on board.

[Ahmed]

Iran has resources the U.S. doesn't. Foreign policy or controlled opposition doesn't really come into the equation. All that matters is the extent and nature of the inevitable interaction that takes place between nation states and their respective outlets / businesses.

I tend to find that people who go on about lose/ lose paradigms, no-win scenarios, dialectic conspiracy and controlled opposition. Are directly, or sometimes indirectly, propping up inequity or are unwilling to engage with anti-Talmudists. In other words: They will sulk and they will argue, but they actually want things to remain as they are.

The U.S. is only enemies with Iran because Rothschild tells them to be. And threatens to make the consequences felt at home if they aren't, this kind of scam has been going on for some time as you know: 1811, The charter for the Rothschilds Bank of the United States expires and Congress votes against its renewal: "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war", Nathan Mayer Rothschild.

For the same reason shabbos goy Americans will grovel before the satanic state of Israhell and do business with the likes of Kuwait or Burma, they will present to the masses whatever narrative front they're told to all the while attempting to achive their dictated objectives in that country.

The U.S. can't afford to lose Iran commercially (as Ahmedinejad rightly pointed out: U.S. and Europe have a greater need for Iran than Iran does for either of them) and nor can it intimidate or invade them. Iran appears to understand the obvious threat of Rothschild imperialism and aims to, like she has for 30-years, keep them at arm's length.

Some of the organisations banned in Iran since 2010. These groups were purged following an investigation into outlets that helped stoke up tensions and directly facilitate criminal activity in the deadly aftermath of the disputed 2009 elections.

George Soros Open Society Foundation (i.e. Rothschild),
Wilton Park, UK Foreign Office funded groups that organises conferences in a country estate near London,
Yale University and Zionist think tanks (e.g. Brookings Institution),
Rah-e Sabz (U.S.-Zionist Jew affiliated 'Green Revolution' hub),
BBC,
Voice of America (U.S. government-Rothschild funded),
Radio Farda (U.S. government- Rothschild funded),
HRW,
Freedom House (Washington D.C. based, U.S. government- Rothschild funded)
Radio Zamaneh (Netherlands funded disnfo, apparently the Dutch weren't happy because Zamaneh weren't pushing enough propaganda: But it was obviously enough to get them banned),
National Endowment for Democracy (U.S. government-Rothschild funded),
National Republican Institute (as above),
Stanford University's Hoover Institution (as above),
Search For Common Ground Organization,
New American Foundation,
British Center for Democratic Studies,
East European Democratic Center,
MEMRI,
U.S. National Defense University,
The Smith Richardson Foundation

[Negentropic]

Good news - Iran has started the Bushehr reactor. an attack on it would jeopardize many countries in the region. so i think an attack on Bushehr may now be lower probability. but then, Israel is insane, so, i shouldn't extrapolate too much.

That's because despite all the sabre-rattling by Israeli big-mouths, they don't do anything major unless the go-ahead is given from way above. The goal of having controlled opposition is not to necessarily launch a big attack and take over but to build up the enemy through orchestrated and consistent media propaganda to  justify other actions (and also to let the supporters of the so-called opposition falsely believe that there is real opposition and dissipate their energies and support in the wrong direction, always running, never arriving). The 100 billion dollars in aid given through 3rd parties is the icing on the cake of all the behind-the-scenes contolled opposition shenanigans that went on in the past 30 years since Khomeini took over. It clearly shows that they say one thing and do the opposite and that they have always wanted to keep it strong rather than weaken it and topple it.

As far as the defensive value of a running nuclear reactor. Even if the goal was to attack and take over Iran, why are you assuming they want to attack the reactor? It's just a power-plant for electricity right?  You mean to tell me these Mullahs love their Islamic dictatorship so much better than Western Imperialism that they're willing to get nuked into oblivion before letting the U.S. or Israel take over? Maybe, but the average U.S. citizen will never support a Islamic dictatorship no matter how much they hate Israhell and they will always march to the drum of democracy versus dictatorship. That's how they were mobilized to massacre Iraqis twice in the last 20 years and the Afghanis too. Saddam just let them walk in and take over. The turmoil within Iraq is deliberately created to maintain troops there. They could have turned Iraq into the 53rd American State long ago if  'Iraqi freedom'  was really their goal. So did the Shah. The Shah went without a fight and they flew Khomeini out to take his place. If they wanted the Shah to stay or another puppet to take his place other than Khomeini they would have just attacked and massacred the Islamic revolution's supporters and clamped down with the military. They didn't because they wanted Khomeini in and the Shah or any Shah type secular puppet out. They could have just as easily told Khomeini in 1979: fuck you, you bearded old jackass, you're not going anywhere, you're staying under house-arrest right here in your CIA-Mossad safe-house in Paris. Then they just blockade sales of Iranian oil to anyone but themselves. No oil money, no power of Iran to do anything. No parts sold to them, no air-force built up under the Shah.  No support from the West, no weapons sold, no Iran-Iraq war to make sure any rebellion didn't break the leash while making money in the process, all wars are the harvest of the bankers who ultimately finance them on both sides directly or through third parties.

Russians are helping Iran operate their reactor right? And who gave the Russians the nuclear technology in the first place back in the post WWII years so the so-called 'cold war' could commence and its concomitant of vast military-industrial complex spending and development? Who made sure the Soviets stayed in power and maintained their rule for 70 years and developed nuclear weapons? The West, that's who (read Major Jordan's diaries and Anthony Sutton for documented proof). and who does the west take its orders from?  The elites who own the West through central banks. Therefore no orders from elites, no Soviet nuclear weapons and no Russian nuclear knowledge and experience to help Iranians. No go-ahead from elites and no Bushehr built in the first place by Germans during the Shah.

All you people are playing into the charade acted out by all these supposedly 'do-gooding' politicians (even when they're 100% proven tyrants like Ahmedinejad and the fundamentalist Mullahs in Iran) and assuming some financial independence between States that does not exist.  They all operate together. And now you're assuming the Russians are all of a sudden independent and doing what they want without being directed?  How naive is that? Didn't the supposed kicking-the-Billionaire-Jews out charade and letting the Lubavitchers run wild already prove Putin was full of it?   If the goal was to attack Iran and get it out of the way, they would have already done it ten times but not before having a replacement to take over the 'cliche evil villain' media role.

They didn't ever attack the USSR, did they? No, they kept it there as the big bad threat and attacked other countries where communism was supposedly spreading, being backed by Russia, the same Russia they propped up and gave nuclear weapons secrets to.  Replace communism with 'terrorism' and you see Iran's function for Western propaganda. They get a lot more mileage out of crazy-Mullahs than some dead Bin Laden in a cave with faked videos. Destroying Hitler and 'Nazism'  is considered the reason why WWII was supposedly the 'just' war.  There's a reason why Iran's laws are as repressive as they are, so that they can make a perfect enemy to the simple-minded Westerner. No Westerner would ever want to live under Iran's repressive Islamic regime, no way, no how and the average American or Brit or European or Australian or even Japanese would fight to the death rather than live under Sharia law or an Islamic dictatorship. They require a slowly creeping scientific dicatorship so they will grow to love their servitude rather than the upfront adn obvious theocratic one.  Look how many idiots are having a shit-fit over that staged 'Mosque at Ground Zero' nonsense. No repression, no demonization by the West. Americans will never attack Sweden or Denmark or any country like that. They won't even attack Israel as long as the media tells them Israel is a wonderful democracy internally, the only one in the entire middle east.

On the flip side of the coin, no foreign aggression and savagery on the part of the U.S. and England, no demonization of them either in the eyes of the world and especially Muzzies.  They build up the aggression and hostilities on both sides using different strategies that fit together.  They play the internal tyranny card and nearly non-existent external threat to make the West hostile and the demonstrated-by-mass-murder external tyranny card to make both the Islamic world and leftist-&-socialists the world over even more hostile. That way socialism and Islamic fundamentalism always have a reason to fight and be kept alive undermining non-usurious creative free-market capitalism the real enemy of the bankers, and fascism and imperialistic savagery also always have a reason to fight and be kept alive as a so-called bullshit countermeasure against both fundamentalism and Marxism, again undermining non-usurious creative free-market capitalism, the real enemy of the bankers.  The real America and United States of the founding fathers and Jackson is the only real enemy on all sides. They will live with Marxism, with Communism, with Islamic fundamentalism, with dictatorships of all kinds, with Mixed-Economies of all kinds, even with non-usurious Islamic dictatorships that go nowhere economically and let one encroach upon the other and back and forth, but they will never live with any system of  non-usurious free market capitalism under constitutional freedoms and protected individual rights. The post-Jackson America. That is the real enemy kept out of the dialectic, as they play everyone else's overheated sentiments and short-sightedness against the middle. Always has been, always will be.  

That's why Ron Paul being against 9-11-truth is such a big letdown and shows they have him out there to let constitutionalists and Libertarians let off steam without getting anywhere. If Ron Paul came out for 9-11 truth, he'd be the ideal candidate. If Alex Jones ran as a presidential candidate  for the libertarian party, all you people here that are pro-free-market would have to vote for him.  Why? He's pro-9-11 truth, anti-Fed, anti-banker, pro-free-market and isolationist. Isolationist means no money for Israhell or anymore foreign policy massacres. Will he let the criminals off the hook? Some of them no doubt would get the Get-out-of-Jail-Free Jew card and use it. Will Arabs still run Hollywood during an Alex Jones / Ted Anderson presidency?  :lol: Yes, but don't the positives outweigh the negatives? He won't get to talk about the Bilderbergers anymore that's for sure. No such thing is likely to happen, of course, because they're also controlled opposition never intended to win or garner enough support to win political power. But if they did run and they did have a chance to win, and their only opponents were Obama, Clinton and who knows what other new fool, then all you people here who are American citizens and pro-free-market, pro-9-11 truth and anti-foreign-aid would have to vote for Alex 'Arabs Own Hollywood' Jones for President whether you like him or not or you'd be helping defeat your own cause.

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

Negentropic, I see you're still working hard to aid the Jewish war-cry with Iran. Magnifying any little wrongdoing of the Iranian gov't as if you, as an American, have any right to talk about the wrongdoing of other people whilst your military is currently engaged in state-sponsored terrorism to the tune of 2 million dead Iraqis/Afghans and counting. Iran isn't blowing people into tiny pieces with cluster bombs or spewing depleted uranium all across the land. You might as well go fire the first shot at the Iranians to get this war going for your Jewish elders.

[youtube:2ilmacon]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6ncmndebjE[/youtube]2ilmacon]

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

You care about the Iranian people just about as much as Daniel Pipes or William Kristol "cared" about the victims of Saddam's regime which they couldn't stop writing about in their neo-con rags in the lead up to war, or as much as Fox News "cared" about the 'oppressed Afghan women'. In other words you don't care at all but these issues are useful for you to manufacture consent for your war with Iran so more Iranians will be killed. Keep up the Jewish war-cry, but do us all a favor -- stop pretending that you're a Gentile.

[Negentropic]

Negentropic, I see you're still working hard to aid the Jewish war-cry with Iran. Magnifying any little wrongdoing of the Iranian gov't as if you, as an American, have any right to talk about the wrongdoing of other people whilst your military is currently engaged in state-sponsored terrorism to the tune of 2 million dead Iraqis/Afghans and counting. Iran isn't blowing people into tiny pieces with cluster bombs or spewing depleted uranium all across the land. You might as well go fire the first shot at the Iranians to get this war going for your Jewish elders.

Who asked you to join the festivities Yiddy Yoda? Aren't you about a month too late with that wanna-be-dictator cry-baby broken record? I thought you quit TIU for the second time already since 2009 to go Yiddy Yodaing on some more important, less completely hopeless forum worth a piss. What did you think everybody was going to beg you to come back and loosen your diaper and start the same juvenile name-calling bullshit again in between 30 posts in a row about those scumbag murderous Americans down where your holy 100%-zio-infiltrated Canada ain't ?  What I want to know is this: Who put you in charge of the propaganda ministry of TIU with its little roster of 40 to 50 daily loyal member vistors in order to keep corruption out and the blood pure?  You don't like what I write?  Who gives a rat's ass ? Don't read it!  Since you don't know how to censor yourself for your own safety, let me do it for you, diaper-rash boy: I hereby ban MSMD Yiddy Yoda and everyone else from the censorship bureau who are offended by criticisms of their favorite medieval tyrants  from reading any of my posts ever again.   :lol:  

[§N9sh2bj]

he's just a stupid monkey that knows how to use a video editor.

[Negentropic]

Iran, on the other hand, hasn't let the Talmudists in for over 30 years, so their stance and MO is quite different to the others.

For a country that hasn't let the Talmudists in, it's one fucked up, repressive, backwards and medieval place that's for sure.  The only thing missing is burning people at the stake. If that's what it takes to keep the Talmudists out then the cure is worse than the disease.  There is not a single American in ten thousand in Talmudic America that would choose to go live in Islamic Iran of their own free will. Even those who praise Ahmedinejad's foreign diplomacy, rarely praise his dastardly regime or would ever consider going to live there themselves. And yet there were all kinds of Europeans and Americans living permanently in Iran during the Shah's regime.

By the way, anti-usury and no interest allowed (actually they do still allow some interest in Iran under certain conditions) does not mean 'not stealing' for the thoroughly corrupt Mullahs Islamic republic;  it just means different methods of stealing. The most glaringly obvious for anyone who understands economics is through inflation. Their central bank operates on Fiat currency with no gold or silver backing and the Mullahs take the role of the bankers and print their own money based on productivity indexes. The result is rampant inflation, much worse than anything in in fractional reserve banking countries. The Iranian inflation rate has always been in double digits and sometimes as high as 25%.

http://www.ameinfo.com/159701.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2037673520080324

Iran inflation keeps pressure on Ahmadinejad

By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent
TEHRAN | Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:45am EDT





(Reuters) - Ali Daryani is embarrassed at the inflationary pain he is passing on to his customers.

"Sometimes we have to change the price stickers three times a day because of inflation," the 42-year-old Tehran grocer said.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad survived this month's parliamentary election without a big blow to his prestige, even if his core support base among a broad conservative camp shrank.

Now the president's opponents in the Islamic Republic, both from the reformist minority and the victorious conservatives, could force him to rein in populist spending policies seen as partly to blame for inflation hovering around 19 percent.

Since Ahmadinejad swept to power in 2005 promising to spread Iran's oil wealth to the people, soaring world oil prices have swelled national revenues, but economists say colossal subsidies and presidential handouts have predictably fuelled inflation.

Ahmadinejad is basking in support from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for his tough nuclear stance, but his economic record may dent his chances of re-election next year.

Iranians are cushioned by a vast array of costly subsidies, but runaway prices still hit the pockets of ordinary consumers.

"The prices of rice, meat, fruit and everything else have gone up," complained Baqer Gabai, a 54-year-old retired teacher, in Tehran's Mohseni Square. "The price of chicken has doubled in six months, but my income has not changed a bit."

Former Central Bank Governor Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli, who now heads a think-tank, said Ahmadinejad was aware of the danger and was already reverting to some more orthodox policies.

"He has helped the poor in some way with micro-attention," he said of the president's habit of touring the provinces, receiving petitions and trying to address problems directly.

"But if you go and spend money and have a huge expansionary fiscal policy without limits, it pushes inflationary pressures."

CURBING MONEY SUPPLY

Adeli told Reuters the Central Bank was now pursuing "very contractionary policies" to correct this.

The previous Central Bank governor, Ebrahim Sheibani, quit last year over differences with Ahmadinejad over interest rate policy. The current governor, Tahmasb Mazaheri, has proposed bank loan repayment rates, or "profit-sharing" rates, based on inflation plus a fee -- a move analysts saw reversing a policy backed by Ahmadinejad that had sent rates below inflation.

Iran, the world's fourth-biggest crude producer, has raked in $70 billion in oil revenue in the past year, the government says. But much of the cash flows out in lavish subsidies on everything from fuel and transport to food and medicine.

"The system is buying loyalty to pursue its nuclear program," economist Saeed Laylaz said.

Many of the subsidies are not targeted, which often means the rich benefit more than the poor because they consume more.

Adeli put the direct and indirect cost of fuel subsidies alone at $45 billion a year.

Lacking the refining capacity to meet domestic demand, Iran had been importing at least $5 billion worth of petrol a year, which was sold cheaply to the public, encouraging waste and smuggling.

To reduce the import bill, the government began rationing petrol last year. Last week, in an apparent bid to streamline the subsidy, rationing was temporarily relaxed to let drivers buy extra petrol for five times more than the subsidized price.

The new system could be extended, although the liberalized petrol price may also have a short-term inflationary effect.

COMPLEX TASK

"Taking away subsidies is no easy matter," said Mohammad Ali Farzin, an Iranian economist who heads a United Nations Development Program poverty reduction unit. "The scale of the problem is just so overwhelming that it will take time."

Ali Reza Cheloyan, a farmer in Ahmadinejad's home town of Aradan, east of Tehran, acknowledged his dependence on state assistance with fertilizer, tractors, petrol, gas oil and bread, as well as the price he gets for his wheat and cotton.

"Inflation has gone up but it's a global problem. We support the government," he said.

Reliance on subsidies is growing, argued the UNDP's Farzin.

"Where you have chronic inflation, disproportionate rises in property prices relative to income, serious unemployment and underemployment, it's only natural that low-income households cannot keep up," he said. "So they rely on subsidies."

Iran has reduced absolute poverty over the years, but officials say 7 to 10 percent of the population of 70 million still live below the line set at a minimum daily intake of 2,100 calories.

However, Farzin said, wealth inequalities are widening.

"Iran's economy doesn't produce in such a way as to generate sufficient employment, distribute the income well and alleviate relative poverty," Farzin said. "This is the core problem."

Iran is grappling with economic challenges that are exacerbated by U.N. and unilateral U.S. sanctions that have raised the cost of doing business and deterred badly needed Western investment in its oil and gas industry.

But it would be rash to assume more economic pressure would force Iran's leaders to compromise in their row with the United States and its allies over the nuclear program, which the West suspects has a military purpose. Tehran denies this.

"They're in a crunch, but the reality is they have a very high tolerance for economic hardship," a Western diplomat said.

Adeli, an ex-ambassador who thinks Iran should interact more with the world for economic reasons, called sanctions futile.

"Historically they haven't been able to serve their purpose, especially when it comes to Iranians, with their pride, their resilience, their resistance towards foreigners," he said.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Sara Ledwith)

Inflation and monetary policy

See also: Banking in Iran#Islamic banking, Government of Iran#Public finance and fiscal policy, Iranian Rial, and Seigniorage

Double digit inflation rates have been a fact of life in Iran for the past 20 years. Between 2002 and 2006, the rate of inflation in Iran has been fluctuating between 12 and 16%[33].

Monetary policy in Iran has not been successful in meeting the inflation and monetary targets set in the Iranian Five-Year Development Plans, owing mainly to the monetary impact of government spending out of oil revenue. Although the attainment of the inflation targets has improved somewhat recently, the objective of a gradual disinflation to single-digit levels has not been achieved. Moreover, the implicit intermediate target of monetary policy, money growth, has been systematically missed[60].

The Central Bank is an extension of the Iranian government and as such it does not operate independently. Interest rate is usually set based on political priorities and not monetary targets. There is little alignment between fiscal and monetary policy.

The Central Bank assesses the inflation rate with the use of the prices of 395 goods and services in Iran's urban areas.[61][62]

High levels of inflation have also been associated with a growth in Iran's money supply. The Central Bank's data suggest that the money supply growth has been about 40% annually. The rapid growth of money supply came from high demands for borrowing capital at the rate of 12% the banks offer, imposed by the Government to make credit accessible to average Iranians and small entrepreneurs. However, this rate is lower than the rate of inflation. This makes the cost of borrowing less than free market cost as determined by supply and demand, based on the inflation rate and investment risk.[63]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sennholz6.html

Inflation Is Theft

by Hans F. Sennholz

Many people know how to earn money, but few are aware of what the Federal Reserve System, acting on behalf of the U.S. Government, is doing to their money. It is inflating and depreciating the dollar at various rates – at double-digit rates during the 1970s and early 80s and at single-digit rates ever since. The present dollar is worth no more than 10 cents of the 1970 dollar and 50 cents of the 1980 dollar.

The reasons and explanations given for this loss may change over time, but the consequences are always the same. Inflation covertly transfers income and wealth from all creditors to all debtors. It dispossessed present creditors of nine-tenths of their 1980 savings and enriched debtors by the same amount. The dollar savings accumulated since then have shrunk at lesser rates but are fading away notwithstanding. No wonder, many victims readily conclude that thrift and self-reliance are useless and even injurious and that spending and debt are preferable by far. They may join the multitudes of spenders who prefer to consume today and pay tomorrow, and they may call on government demanding compensation, aid, and care in many forms. Surely, the hurt and harm inflicted by inflation are a mighty driving force for government programs and benefits.

In their discussions and analyses of various problems, economists usually avoid the use of moral terms dealing with ultimate principles that should govern human conduct. Ever fearful of being embroiled in ethical controversies they seek to remain neutral and "value-free." They do counsel legislators and regulators on the cost-efficiency of a policy but not on its moral implications. They may offer professional advice on the efficiency of money management but not on the morality or immorality of inflationary policies. They dare not state that inflation is a pernicious form of taxation which most people do not recognize as such. Authorities of money and banking rather than taxing authorities redistribute income and wealth under cover of ignorance. Placed on every person in the form of higher goods prices, the application does not fall equally and simultaneously on every buyer. The people who receive the newly created money first may actually benefit, as goods prices readjust rather slowly. Others who receive it later or not at all will have to tighten their belts. Above all, inflation ravishes the savings of countless Americans and turns many into prodigal spenders and debtors.

The biggest debtor also is the biggest inflation profiteer. With some eight trillion dollars in debt, the Federal Government is by far the biggest winner. In fact, it gains not only from debt depreciation, which at just three percent amounts to some $240 billion every year, but also from Federal Reserve money and credit creation that enables the U.S. Treasury to suffer annual budget deficits of some $500 billion a year. Without the power to inflate and depreciate the dollar at will, the U.S. Government would be a different institution, like that which the Founding Fathers had envisioned. But endowed with the power of inflation it has become an almighty organization that redistributes income and wealth and refashions the social and economic order.

The primary beneficiaries of the new order are its own managers: legislators, regulators, and a huge army of civil servants. They are first in power, prestige, and benefits. Many U.S. Senators and Congressmen are the admired and esteemed benefactors of countless petitioners for handouts and favors. They are revered for every benefit they bestow. And there are the officials of the Department of Commerce with 7 benefit programs, the Department of Education with 34 programs, the Department of Energy with 6, the Department of Health and Human Services with 8, the Department of Housing and Urban Development with 14, the Department of the Interior with 3, the Department of Labor with 9, the Department of Transportation with 9, and various government commissions and authorities with another 10 programs. Federal politicians and agents are the wise and virtuous judges and juries of benefits amounting to more than $1 trillion every year. How "honorable" would they be, pray tell, without Federal Reserve assistance in financing the deficits and its power to print more money?

Evil acts tend to breed more evil acts. Inflationary policies conducted for long periods of time not only foster the growth of government but also depress economic activity. Standards of living may stagnate or even decline as growing budget deficits thwart capital accumulation and investment that are sustaining the standards. Inflation misleads businessmen in their investment decisions, which causes much waste and many bankruptcies. In fact, it is the root cause of the boom-and-bust cycle which wreaks havoc on economic activity. Indeed, inflation breeds many evils of which most Americans are unaware.

Since 1971 when President Nixon abolished the last vestiges of the gold standard and repudiated all obligations to meet international obligations with payments in gold, the U.S. dollar has been the dominant world currency. It enables Americans to buy massive quantities of foreign goods and services, suffering annual trade deficits of more than half a trillion dollars now, and making payment in ever-depreciating dollars. Foreign central and commercial banks as well as many foreign individuals are using their dollars with the hope that they will retain their purchasing power in the long run. Asian creditors are holding more than $2 trillion in claims, Japan and China alone an estimated $1.5 trillion between them. A dollar depreciation rate of just 3 percent strips Japan and China of some $45 billion in purchasing power every year. They undoubtedly are suffering such losses in silence because they are mindful of the many benefits they are receiving from amicable relations with the United States. American capital is rushing into China, building many plants and introducing modern technology while some 20,000 young Chinese are studying at American colleges and universities. At the same time Japanese and Chinese companies are investing surplus dollars in the United States, assuming control over American corporations. If the United States government should ever disrupt this peaceful relationship with discriminatory trade restrictions and painful barriers, the Asian creditors may dump some dollar holdings. The dollar crash would be heard around the globe.

There is no conscience in politics. Economic policies may be changed, reformed, and readjusted because they are ineffective, unproductive, and unpopular, but rarely ever because they are immoral. Debt may be a grievous bondage to an honorable man, but it may be a "national bond" which, in President Roosevelt's words, "is owed not only by the nation but also to the nation." Surely, politicians have a code of laws to observe and obey, but honesty in matters of debt and money is not one of them.

If it is true that we cannot do wrong without suffering wrong, we must brace for more grief to come.

[/color]

The Islamic Republic of Iran has kept Rothschild at bay for over 30 years, whilst our nations are held to ransom by their economic system and wars. It's the so-called free countires whose people are coming home in boxes and committing unforgivable crimes aboard, thanks to the Talmudist infestation that shoves them from war to war. So obviously the Iranians care more about their people than the Western nations seem to care about theirs.

Don't make me laugh. Kept the Rothschilds at bay?  Hitler couldn't do it with help from Japan and Italy,  but Khomeini's Iran with its rinky-tink two-bit army that couldn't even defeat Iraq after 8 years of insanity did?  And let's says they are the magic muzzies you claim and as per Islamic law do not practice usury, correct? How do you justify double digit inflation which is outright stealing by the government and the Mullahs and their favored people at the expense of everyone else in the country. Since they print the money and they get to choose who gets the paper or check-book money first while prices are low at the expense of the majority of the people who get it last, after it has gone through the entire economy and raised prices 10 to 25 percent! If  they're going to do that, then surely they don't need usury or even non-compounding interest, since they steal enough through massive inflation already.  

Why did Iran release these hostages,




kept for 444 days, only 20 minutes after Reagan was sworn in as President?  What made them become such nice guys all of a sudden? If it wasn't being scared of Reagan & Bush then it surely must have been what Bush gave them from behind the scenes. And who does Bush work for? Doesn't the Bush family work for the Harrimans who work for the Rockefellers who take orders directly from the Rotschilds as Eustace Mullins identified in "The World Order"? So they kept the Rothschilds at bay by doing exactly as the Rothschilds through Bush told them. They didn't even wait 20 minutes after Reagan was sworn in before putting an unceremonial end to the entire 444 day hostage crisis, just like that, as if it had never happened, as if it hadn't made Americans and Euopeans hate Islam for 444 days with every fiber of their body, a hatred that was kept brewing and put to good use later.  Go back and read the first couple of pages of the Iran-Contra chapter I posted from that book previously.

Coming home in boxes? Committing unforgivable crimes abroad? And how about the 500,000 to a million plus dead in the Iran-Iraq war that could have ended in 1982 but was kept running for another 6 years by Ahmedinejad's lunatic idol Khomeini trying to spread the Islamic revolution to the Shia majority in Iraq? That doesn't count?  That's somehow forgivable?  Or maybe, Iranians are justified in forcibly drafting and killing as many people as they did because they were defending their sacred territory from foreign invaders? And how can anyone claim morality or demand respect for human rights when they refuse to respect the most basic individual human rights of their own people? They want to enslave through Sharia law and yet be free in international relations according to Western Common Law and individual rights? Yeah right! It's a good game and the Mullahs and Mahmood think they have everyone fooled. They force them to play by one set of rules internationally that they don't abide by internally.  But what they don't realize is that it is a deliberately orchestrated game for useful idiots. People who think they are real clever and crafty like Ahmedinejad cannot imagine that there are people much more clever and crafty than them with much more power whose bigger game they are unwittingly caught in.  


What do you mean by 'so-called' free?  Americans were internally the example of freedom for the entire world for close to a hundred years. People from all countries and religions immigrated here and were welcomed as long as they abided by the constitution. Who the hell except other Muslims immigrated to Muslim countries?  Even after the unconstitutional Patriot act, no woman in the USA is worth only half a man the way they are under Iranian Islamic law, as per the exact articles I posted above. Even 100 years ago when women could not vote and did not have full equality with men in the USA, nothing even remotely approaching the insane laws of Islamic Iran existed. No one was lashed a hundred times or caned as punishment. Thieves didn't  have their hands cut off

Share Send Save Print [ Monday, 09 August 2010 ]  
 

Cutting off a thief's hands
 
 

Mehrangis Kar

The hands of five young individuals who are said to be thieves were cut off in the city of Hamedan last week. A man whose words appeared more like those of a blood thirsty criminal but in fact has the title of Prosecutor for the city of Hamedan and who calls himself Biglari rationalized the act whose execution he had signed in these words:

" Iranian youth whose hands are cut on charges of being thieves, are in fact stealing because of deprivation. When a regime does not use the assets and property of a nation to create jobs and government importers act against domestic non-government producers, the conditions for a large part of the population are those of scarcity ""The live-giving school of Shiite provides dignity for mankind and respects the rights of citizens. Because of this, it does not prescribe cutting hands for every thief, but has 16 conditions that must be met for this."

Biglari then listed the conditions and five young Iranians who are mostly younger than 25 years of age qualify to have their hands cut off also said, "One condition is that the stolen good must have a private owner and the other is that the thief had to have violated the protective barrier. The protective barrier is something that the owner sets up for his property to safeguard it against thieves."

These two conditions that Biglari highlighted to cut off the hands of the thieves are in fact present among official thieves of the Iranian regime, the very same regime that has given him the judiciary title through which he exercises his butchery. A person who has been selected by thieves and acts on their orders cannot take the position of an independent and impartial judge and protect the life, property or dignity of citizens and respect human dignity and self-esteem.

We know that the natural resources of Iran belong to the Iranian people just as we know that these have been usurped by regime individuals and groups who portray themselves to be the protectors of the "life-giving" school of Shiism. One does not have to go far to show or prove that the regime has the public's resources. The head of Iran's Majlis, Larijani, who has nothing to do with the legal or illegal opposition and himself is among the regime culprits, had cried in protests that the president and his colleagues ignore the head of the Majlis, ridicule the supervisory powers of parliament, disregard Majlis' laws and resolutions, implements the government's provisions without Majlis' approval contrary to the constitution and engages in many other similar actions which when listened to make it clear that the property and natural resources of the Iranian nation are in fact usurped by powerful thieves whose hands are not cut off. This property has the 'protective barrier' that Biglari mentions, which is supposed to be the constitution. The thieves have broken into this barrier and have stolen the property. So, based on the same Shiite humanity saving school that Biglari uses to cut of the hands of the young, unemployed, deprived and hungry Iranians, the hands of the thieves who have stolen the property of the people and broken the property barrier, which is the law, must be cut off from this country and nation.

Furthermore, as a reminder of the historic measure a few years ago through which the Guardians Council together with the State Expediency Council removed the supervision of foundations and institutions under the command of the leader from Majlis' jurisdiction and investigations also translates into that these two institutions blatantly in broad daylight broke the 'protective barrier' (i.e. the constitution). The Iranian had thought that they had succeeded in safeguarding, or in the religious term put it under a protective barrier and believed that they had protected it legally from the invasion of thieves. According to one provision under law, the hands of a person who breaks into this barrier must be cut. The act of plundering the wealth of the Iranian people has taken place, the thieves have broken the barrier and have been identified. So why are they not punished? Has the humanity saving school of Shiism given permission to Biglari and his accomplices to apply the 16 criteria against the poor, youth, the unemployed, the homeless and those under the subjugation of government thieves and at the same time ignore that their own long hands have clenched against the Iranian people and have broken the barriers and usurped the oil and gas in this land? If the regime had not plundered, then the five Iranian youth would have had a decent human life, job, welfare and social security. And most importantly they would have had their hands.

After Biglari ordered the butchers to amputate the hands of the five Iranian youth with a saber, then began to issue justifications and as an effort to clear his stained hands said, "When a hand gets used to stealing and results in public suffering, it must be shortened." He added that the purpose of this was to "punish the thief and teach a lesson to others." Finally, he acts condescendingly and says that the cutting of the hands was not done in public because, "global imperialism (a term usually to mean the US) takes misuses the execution of these decrees in public and claims that human rights are not respected in Iran."

When one puts all of Biglari's utterances together, we come to learn of the a criminal who is attacking the Iranian nation and while amputating the body of the deprived Iranian people, and at the same time does not hide his fear of 'global imperialism' and wonders why 'criminals' air allegations against humanity and call them (i.e. the butchers) to be violators of human rights.

Iranian youth whose hands are cut on charges of being thieves, are in fact stealing because of deprivation. When a regime does not use the assets and property of a nation to create jobs and government importers act against domestic non-government producers, the conditions for a large part of the population are those of scarcity. Biglari himself concedes that in a year of scarcity one cannot cut the hands of a thief. One of the 16 criteria that Biglari mentions that is necessary to cut a thief's hand is that the theft should not have taken place at a time of scarcity. Biglari knows better than others that for a large part of the Iranian youth we are in a period of scarcity and so long as the key and natural resources of their country are in the hands of occupying thieves, they will continue to remain deprived and live under scarce conditions. If a theft is not committed through the use of arms but out of need, particularly in a land where government thieves are busy plundering the wealth of the country, the act is not absolute and if the government desires to remove the injustice and suffering of the deprived on the basis of religious standards, it has the duty of interpreting the humanity saving school in a way that provides the youth bread, water, housing and education. Let's not even talk abut what some of their own kind have said which is that not only should the hands of a thief not be cut in the time of scarcity and when the regime is cruel, but that until the appearance of the 12th imam such punishment and others (i.e. Islamic retribution) is forbidden and has no Shiite justification.

These remarks and quotes will not return the hands of the five youth that have been cut. They are a warning to Biglari and his accomplices to fear the consequences of their own acts as they have proven through their deeds that they do not believe in the day of judgment as they amputate the body of people. They should be thinking of the retribution that awaits them in this world and which is close and serious.


* Published in Iran's ROOZ on August 8
 
 

http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2010/08/09/116148.html

(the biggest thieves, of course, are the politicians and elites of the country, in Iran's case the Mullahs and their pals, who steal through the hidden taxation of inflation, double-digit rampant in Iran for 30 years now) No one is stoned to death for an extra-marital affair, no one is allowed to get away with honour killings or throwing acid on some girl's face, and gays and lesbians, quite often born that way and unable to change, are not lashed, caned and/or stoned to death.  

The Shah's regime, and ask your friend if he aggress, was out of hand. People were being taken from their homes and never seen again. Most of them courtesy of the Talmudic Jew created, SHABAK / Mossad trained SAVAK secret police. Four years before the takeover, the U.S. and Zionist Jewry were funding the Shah's puppet regime; helping furnish and carry out some of the regime's most brutal atrocities. Including a crackdown of the Qum protests 1975, dissolving opposition parties, show trial of religious leader Mahmoud Taliqani who was sentenced to 10 years, U.S. armed riot police attacking a student sit in at Tehran university in 1977, deadly crackdowns at Qum in 1978 and the massacre at Zhaleh Square,Tehran. The Americans were also channelling funds via Iraq to the MKO, who assassinated Iranian President Mohammad Ali Rajai on 30th August 1981.

You fail to distinguish between the low-level game and the high-level game. Both levels exist at all times in bigshot world politics and sometimes even 3 or 4 compartmentalized levels tied to each other through one or two crucial links.  Americans were channelling funds and doing this and that mischief?  Well, of course! The low-level politicians and armies, the puppets in the game always have to be kept busy running aournd doing this and that for one cause or one country or religious belief or another. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves otherwise. Iran , Israhel or Palestine or anywhere else, the lower level bigshots on all sides believe they are doing it for the right cause just like the fools under the communist regimes thought they were fighting for the liberation of the proletariat or working man.

The Shah like Saddam thought he could defy the elites and get away with it, he thought wrong. Khomeini was brought in by the Mossad & CIA and British Intelligence, who had protected him for years, in order to jump start their new Frankenstein monster enemy: Islam. Before Khomeini, Islam was no one's enemy but Israel's in that region. After Khomeini's extreme example, Islam became demonized enough to become the entire Western world's enemy.  Khomeini was brought in and put on the stage to play out his role. They didn't have to direct him with phone calls or direct handlers or anything else. They have the leash on him which Khomeini thinks is off. It's predictable within certain parameters how certain people given power will act. A Tiger will act like a tiger, a jackal will act like a jackal, a Khomeini will act like a Khomeini, out-of-his-mind crazy believing he has power he doesn't. When they installed Khomeini they already knew he was going to act the way he did and wanted that performance. They maintained a leash on him at all times through behind the scenes operators and control of trade and contorl of who trades with those who trade with Iran. They kept the leash on with the subsequent Iranian leaders. The hostages being freed through dealings with Bush as soon as Reagan came was an early instance when the leash was pulled; the later Iran contra deals proves the leash was loosened; the 26 companies that sold weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war prove the leash was loosened on both sides; the $107 billion the federal government awarded in contract payments, grants and other benefits over the past decade to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran is another instance of loosening the leash to further strengthen their manufactured enemy.

The Shah's regime was a puppet dictatorship just like Saddam's and sometimes brutally repressive but mostly against political opponents of the regime that posed a real threat. Savak employed torture to scare the shit out of those thinking of serious political dissent or action to think twice. My dad was born and raised in Iran and he had two Armenian Christian friends who were communist party (or TUDEH as it was called in Iran) members in their youth. They were both arrested by Savak and imprisoned for 2 years. I never asked them if they were tortured or not, they might have been tortured also, I don't know. After 2 years they were not allowed to enter the professions for another 10 years. Basically, this mean that even if they were smart and could study and become architects and engineers and doctors and lawyers and such, they were not allowed and had to make their living in low-paying jobs for 10 years. After 10 years, once they had realized the futility of their political dissent in a dictatorship, they were allowed back into the professions and both of them became civil engineers and did very well for themselves. I met both of these guys in L.A. through my dad. Both of these guys LOVED IRAN with all their heart and talked about the good-old days of the Shah and how great the quality of their life was compared to the bullshit that passed for quality-of-life in the so-called modern metropolis of  Los Angeles. Now, remember, these are two guys who did 2 years prison time each and endured a  further 10 years of blacklisted existence at wages far below their abilities and talents. Even these guys were not bitter and LOVED their life under the Shah's regime and reminisced about it all the time. Every real life anecdote, every joke they told was connected to their life during the Shah's reign and before that the Shah's father. They would have preferred Mossadegh, of course, but they had no control over that. Now, these same two guys and everyone else of Iranian origin I ever met in Los Angeles and there are over 500,000 Iranians here, absolutely and uncategorically all hate and despise the Mullahs and the Islamic regime. They hate the Mullahs for destroying their country, these same guys who suffered under the Shah for their political activity. Not one Iranian guy I've met in L.A. in the past 30 years and I must have met many hundreds if not thousands, has ever told me that they like and support the Islamic republic. At most they say, even if they're hardcore Marxists, that the Shah was a puppet and Savak was terrible but the Islamic regime is a hundred times worse and if you didn't meddle in politics and didn't run your mouth you had no problems under the Shah and life was sweet. The   Shah gave women equality but didn't force the religious Islamic women not to wear hijab and become secular if they didn't want to, the way his father had. During the Shah's time they had American movies shown everywhere. There were tens of thousands of Europeans and Americans living in Iran. Compare that to the absurd situation now, where,  even someone like Kiarostami,  who is considred Iran's greatest filmmaker, had his last 3 films banned in Iran but is nevertheless allowed to show these same movies in foreign countries because that will of course result in positive public relations and less pressure on the lunatics that rule it with an iron fist.  Kiarostami is smart enough to know this, and the more famous he gets the more political he gets. Initially he used what little freedom he had to communicate some sense of the rich cultural heritage of Iran that transcends the current intentionally deadlocked absurd political situation.  Later, when he got too famous to persecute, he made more and more risque films, culminating in his most overtly political film the pro-women's-rights "Ten,"  which was immeidately banned.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_(film)

Ten (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
For the American film, see 10 (film).
Ten
 
Directed by Abbas Kiarostami
Written by Abbas Kiarostami
Starring Mania Akbari
Amin Maher
Release date(s) 2002
Running time 89 minutes
Country Iran
Language Persian

Ten (Persian: ده) is a 2002 Iranian film directed by Abbas Kiarostami and starring Mania Akbari. It was nominated for the Palme d'Or at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival[1] and ranks at number 447 on Empire magazine's 2008 list of the 500 greatest movies of all time. [2]

Contents [hide]
1 Plot
2 Film details
3 Trivia
4 Bibliography
5 References
6 External links
 
[edit] Plot
The film is about a clinical psychologist who decides to meet with her clients in her van for the day. It is divided into ten scenes, each of which depict a conversation between an unchanging female driver (played by Mania Akbari) and a variety of passengers as she drives around Tehran. Her passengers include her young son (played by Akbari's real life son, Amin Maher), her sister, a bride, a prostitute, and a woman on her way to prayer. One of the major plots during the film is the driver's divorce from her (barely seen) husband, and the conflict that this causes between mother and son.

[edit] Film details
Much of the cast were untrained as actors, and the film has an improvisatory element. Elements of the characters were based on the actual life of the main actress and her son. The film was recorded on two digital cameras, one attached to each side of a moving car, showing the driver and passenger respectively.

The film explores personal social problems arising in Iranian society, particularly the problems of women.

[edit] Trivia
Ranked #47 in Empire magazines "The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema" in 2010.[3]

Kiarostami was born in Tehran. His first artistic experience was painting, which he continued into his late teens, winning a painting competition at the age of eighteen shortly before he left home to study at the Tehran University School of Fine Arts.[6] There he majored in painting and graphic design, and supported his degree by working as a traffic policeman. As a painter, designer, and illustrator, Kiarostami worked in advertising in the 1960s, designing posters and creating commercials. Between 1962 and 1966, he shot around 150 advertisements for Iranian television. Towards the late 1960s, he began creating credit titles for films (including Gheysar by Masoud Kimiai) and illustrating children's books.[6][7]

In 1969, Abbas married Parvin Amir-Gholi but later divorced her in 1982; they had two sons, Ahmad (born 1971) and Bahman (1978). At the age of fifteen, Bahman Kiarostami became a director and cinematographer by directing a documentary Journey to the Land of the Traveller in 1993.

Kiarostami was one of the few directors who remained in Iran after the 1979 revolution, when many of his colleagues fled to the west, and he believes that it was one of the most important decisions of his career. He has stated that his permanent base in Iran and his national identity have consolidated his ability as a filmmaker:

When you take a tree that is rooted in the ground, and transfer it from one place to another, the tree will no longer bear fruit. And if it does, the fruit will not be as good as it was in its original place. This is a rule of nature. I think if I had left my country, I would be the same as the tree.-Abbas Kiarostami[8]

Kiarostami frequently appears wearing dark-lensed spectacles or sunglasses. He wears them for medical reasons due to a sensitivity to light.[9]

In 2000, at the San Francisco Film Festival award ceremony, Kiarostami surprised everyone by giving away his Akira Kurosawa Prize for lifetime achievement in directing to veteran Iranian actor Behrooz Vossoughi for his contribution to Iranian Cinema

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

Negentropic, I see you're still working hard to aid the Jewish war-cry with Iran. Magnifying any little wrongdoing of the Iranian gov't as if you, as an American, have any right to talk about the wrongdoing of other people whilst your military is currently engaged in state-sponsored terrorism to the tune of 2 million dead Iraqis/Afghans and counting. Iran isn't blowing people into tiny pieces with cluster bombs or spewing depleted uranium all across the land. You might as well go fire the first shot at the Iranians to get this war going for your Jewish elders.

Who asked you to join the festivities Yiddy Yoda? Aren't you about a month too late with that wanna-be-dictator cry-baby broken record? I thought you quit TIU for the second time already since 2009 to go Yiddy Yodaing on some more important, less completely hopeless forum worth a piss. What did you think everybody was going to beg you to come back and loosen your diaper and start the same juvenile name-calling bullshit again in between 30 posts in a row about those scumbag murderous Americans down where your holy 100%-zio-infiltrated Canada ain't ?  What I want to know is this: Who put you in charge of the propaganda ministry of TIU with its little roster of 40 to 50 daily loyal member vistors in order to keep corruption out and the blood pure?  You don't like what I write?  Who gives a rat's ass ? Don't read it!  Since you don't know how to censor yourself for your own safety, let me do it for you, diaper-rash boy: I hereby ban MSMD Yiddy Yoda and everyone else from the censorship bureau who are offended by criticisms of their favorite medieval tyrants  from reading any of my posts ever again.   :lol:  

And I see you haven't taken a single day off in your feverish attempt to defame Iran and promote another Purim holocaust for the benefit of your Jewish brethren in Tel Aviv. You are the turd in the punchbole, spreading discredited nonsense almost as quickly as your valiant american soldier pawns spread DU across the middle east. The effects are about the same in the long run becuz without the propaganda the latter is not possible. You have a large trap, much like a neo-con Jew, and your long winded pro-war propaganda posts are not much different than William Kristol's or Robert Kagan's articles in The New Republic or some other neo-con rag. Really, your Jewish efforts to defame Iran are not even really needed. Your brethren have already been hard at work. The Jews have a monolithic media empire on their side which has been doing that for a good few years now, which makes your attempts here really just evil desperation. Do you honestly expect us to believe that a non-Jew would focus all his efforts on a "conspiracy/truth" forum promoting a militant attitude towards Iran? Honestly!? Maybe you're just   lusional.

[Ahmed]

The following quote is sponsored by

Negentropic wrote:
 For a country that hasn't let the Talmudists in, it's one fucked up, repressive, backwards and medieval place that's for sure. The only thing missing is burning people at the stake.

Altogether now...


[youtube:12jmfcv7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSTOcyevIOE[/youtube]12jmfcv7]

If that's what it takes to keep the Talmudists out then the cure is worse than the disease.

A telling statement.

Even those who praise Ahmedinejad's foreign diplomacy, rarely praise his dastardly regime or would ever consider going to live there themselves.

Your description of the popular, twice elected government in Iran, suggests that you've played into Zionist hands more than anyone. By acknowledging or repeating Zionist Jew clichés & lies, we're only conferring a sense of legitimacy to their nonsense. People have moved on and are more than capable of coming to their own conclusions / searching for the facts themselves.  

The harshest Iranian law is still a million times better than anything in the Zionist Jew drafted U.S. Patriot Act II.

And yet there were all kinds of Europeans and Americans living permanently in Iran during the Shah's regime.

I don't measure a nation's worth or success based on how many Europeans choose to live there.

By the way, anti-usury and no interest allowed (actually they do still allow some interest in Iran under certain conditions) does not mean 'not stealing' for the thoroughly corrupt Mullahs Islamic republic; it just means different methods of stealing. The most glaringly obvious for anyone who understands economics is through inflation. Their central bank operates on Fiat currency with no gold or silver backing and the Mullahs take the role of the bankers and print their own money based on productivity indexes. The result is rampant inflation, much worse than anything in in fractional reserve banking countries. The Iranian inflation rate has always been in double digits and sometimes as high as 25%.

In the article, Former Central Bank Governor Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli said President Ahmadinejad was

reverting to some more orthodox policies.

"He has helped the poor in some way with micro-attention," he said of the president's habit of touring the provinces, receiving petitions and trying to address problems directly.

"But if you go and spend money and have a huge expansionary fiscal policy without limits, it pushes inflationary pressures."

Iran is (if you believe the IMF) the 18th largest economy in the world and, God willing, on the up and up. In the time since that article was written, double-digit inflation is down and CPI up by 7%, which isn't bad. Also remember that Iran wasn't hit by the Rothschild instigated depression in 2009-10 since they've kept them at arm's length. And even U.S. sanctions aren't working the way the Zionists had hoped. There's always room for improvement, but overall, Iran's economic polices are infinitely better than the parasitic, fractional reserve banking policies that pummel the Western world into oblivion every few decades.

Don't make me laugh. Kept the Rothschilds at bay?

Evidently so.

Hitler couldn't do it with help from Japan and Italy, but Khomeini's Iran with its rinky-tink two-bit army that couldn't even defeat Iraq after 8 years of insanity did?

Iraq was armed to the teeth by a long line of nations, two superpowers and NATO. Iran had to make some audacious moves to secure an arms supply line. Like we discussed earlier, Iran did a sterling job in cutting down Zionist Jew criminals in Lebanon, stemming the Franco-American troop build up and keeping the Soviets off their back the East. It was a hard eight years, but Iran showed true grit and courage under fire.

Why did Iran release these hostages, kept for 444 days, only 20 minutes after Reagan was sworn in as President? What made them become such nice guys all of a sudden?

They weren't hostages but operatives actively supporting the criminal, Zionist Jew backed Shah dictatorship. A regime which was bought to power through terrorism, extortion and murder. Then in 1979 they attempted to exert unlawful influence over the new government; which proved to be a scheme too far.

Release was actually secured under Carter with the Algiers Accord but a deal was made to have it announced by Reagan. Certainly there was an admittted arms-for-operatives exchange as reported by the Tower Commission.

Released, I presume, because Iran's strategic objectives had all been achieved: Delta Force made its stunning debut in the Tabas desert, U.S. envoy Ramsey Clark was summoned to appear before the 'Crimes of America' tribunal in Tehran and Ayatollah Khomeini compelled the U.S. to return $8 million worth of stolen Iranian Gold.

1980-88: With Iran's resolute and unwavering resistance against Talmudism, Zionist Jews in Lebanon hobbled back into occupied Palestine, their warped ideas of Eretz Israel all but shattered, The Kaabalah (i.e. masonry) exiled from Iranian land as Rothschild's other project (i.e. Communist Russia) was rattling like a shot exhaust in Afghanistan.

Not bad for 'controlled opposition'.

And how about the 500,000 to a million plus dead in the Iran-Iraq war that could have ended in 1982 but was kept running for another 6 years by Ahmedinejad's lunatic idol Khomeini trying to spread the Islamic revolution to the Shia majority in Iraq? That doesn't count? That's somehow forgivable? Or maybe, Iranians are justified in forcibly drafting and killing as many people as they did because they were defending their sacred territory from foreign invaders?

We went through this earlier; Saddam Hussein had no authority to end the war on reasonable terms, he didn't have the authority to start it either. Saddam was mercilessly exploited and incredibly naïve in aiding and abetting Zionist Jew owned Yanks. Think about it: Would a leader who has to ask some third rate Yank ambassador whether the U.S would mind if he retaliates against the tin pot dictatorship of Kuwait in 1990, have had any say whatsoever about calling the shots on a multi-national, billion dollar war crime like the invasion of Iran in 1982?

What do you mean by 'so-called' free? Americans were internally the example of freedom for the entire world for close to a hundred years. People from all countries and religions immigrated here and were welcomed as long as they abided by the constitution.

The Talmudic system, as you ought to know by now, isn't always a blowtorch to the head, it's a little drop of arsenic in your soda every day, until the day you look down and realize you've been eaten alive from the inside out. The U.S. has been an occupied criminal base of operations since 1913, and before but for a seven decade respite in 1836.

My view based on the evidence available, is that the Talmudist criminal dogma took control of the U.S. in 1913. Obviously the parasite couldn't have burrowed so deep into the infrastructure without treasonous collaborators at the very top.

Let me say first off, that the establishment of the United States was a colonial crime built on plunder and genocide. I do acknowledge, however, that not all who emigrated there or attained positions of authority were criminals, or even shared the imperial ideas with which Europeans first seized the continent. There is diversity of thought and benevolence that exists amongst the people, and amongst individuals anywhere around the world.

1913: Talmudist Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed President Woodrow Wilson who conceded to the following demands:  

Let the Rothschilds back into America to set up the Federal Reserve and control the economy.

Allow Jacob Schiff to establish the ADL.

Get Louis Dembitz Brandeis (Leader of Executive Committee for Zionist Affairs)
Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Inveigle as many Gentiles as possible into the Christian Zionism cult (Untermeyer's printing presses were rolling off kosher approved copies of the Schofield Bible en-masse a few years earlier).

"The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation, subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed, well-funded authors of World Zionism."

The Source Of The Problem In The Mideast--Why Judeo-Christians Support War
By C. E. Carlson

1913: Zionism is injected into the American bloodstream, its venom courses through the veins of its host nation and takes almost immediate effect.

1914: World War I begins.

The rest is all blood and tears for the people. Until now.

Who the hell except other Muslims immigrated to Muslim countries?

I couldn't possibly say as I don't have those immigration figures to hand, perhaps you could tell us. And while you're at it, please tell me exactly where all these Muslim countries are, because I can only find about five that can call themselves Islamic with a straight face.

Even after the unconstitutional Patriot act, no woman in the USA is worth only half a man the way they are under Iranian Islamic law, as per the exact articles I posted above. Even 100 years ago when women could not vote and did not have full equality with men in the USA, nothing even remotely approaching the insane laws of Islamic Iran existed. No one was lashed a hundred times or caned as punishment. Thieves didn't have their hands cut off

Are you, at this time, suggesting that life was better under Zionist Jew control?  :problem:

The Islamic revolution wasn't really a revolution at all IMO. But a counter-revolution that restored Iran's true identity and removed the Talmudic façade forced upon her like an iron mask of imperialism.

"Our revolution introduced a totally new thing into the world - not Marxist, not nationalistic, but religious. We could do nothing without Islam. I was not always religious, but now I see it's the only way we can make the changes. I say this as a scientist and as a sociologist."

Zahra Rahnavard

David H. Albert, Tell the American People: Perspectives on the Iranian Revolution (Philadelphia: Movement for a New Society, 1980) 155.


"Through their participation in the Islamic Revolution, many of these women felt that they were casting off their passivity. They hadn't feel liberated by the Pahlavi regime. In fact, the regime inspired the opposite feelings in many women, feelings of repression, a lack of originality, and a general lack of control. They were forging their own identities through their opposition of the Shah and were standing up for their political beliefs. But most of all, the revolution shows us that these women were not a passive part of society. They took a direct interest and action in shaping the history of Iran."

Nesta Ramazani, "Women in Iran: The Revolutionary Ebb and Flow" Middle East Journal 47 (1993): 424.


"The women who contributed to the revolution were, and are, women in Islamic dress, not all made up like you, women who go around all uncovered. The coquettes who put on makeup and go into the street showing themselves off did not fight against the Shah. They never did anything good, not those. They do not know how to be useful, neither socially, nor politically, nor professionally."

Ayatollah Khomeini laying down the law with anti-Islamic polemicist Oriana Fallaci in January 1979

The Islamic Revolution saved Iran from a life of serfdom and tyranny, it may've been hard, perhaps even ruthless at times but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about; though all those Iranians who got it in the neck during that Zionist Jew backed dictatorship don't need to imagine anything. For Ben Gurion's 'Alliance of the Periphery', Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline and Project Flower were just the beginning of Rothschild's satanic plans had not that regime been ousted and its enablers removed. There are some Iranians who, in their mind, have legitimate reasons to oppose the ruling party and I respect their right to have those opinions heard in a civilised manner. But if they chose to ally themselves with Zionist Jew criminals and Talmudic enablers, then that's a choice which proves their real alliance lies not with their country, but to the Rothschild banner that sullies the skies over occupied Palestine.

You fail to distinguish between the low-level game and the high-level game. Both levels exist at all times in bigshot world politics and sometimes even 3 or 4 compartmentalized levels tied to each other through one or two crucial links. Americans were channelling funds and doing this and that mischief? Well, of course! The low-level politicians and armies, the puppets in the game always have to be kept busy running aournd doing this and that for one cause or one country or religious belief or another. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves otherwise. Iran , Israhel or Palestine or anywhere else, the lower level bigshots on all sides believe they are doing it for the right cause just like the fools under the communist regimes thought they were fighting for the liberation of the proletariat or working man.

Rothschild affiliated groups and companies banned in Iran: 60

Rothschild affiliated groups and companies banned in U.S: 0

Kabaalah status in Iran: Banned and exiled.

Kabaalah status in U.S: Recognized and protected

Talmudic Jew lawmakers in the Iranian government: 0 known

Talmudic Jews lawmakers in the U.S. government: 13% of the Senate for 1.4% of the population

And so on, you present an interesting spin on the scenario, but the facts speak for themselves.

Not one Iranian guy I've met in L.A. in the past 30 years and I must have met many hundreds if not thousands, has ever told me that they like and support the Islamic republic. At most they say, even if they're hardcore Marxists, that the Shah was a puppet and Savak was terrible but the Islamic regime is a hundred times worse and if you didn't meddle in politics and didn't run your mouth you had no problems under the Shah and life was sweet.

Exiles tend to have that attitude, otherwise they wouldn't be exiles.

Its like those Cubans in Miami who'll tell you Castro is the devil incarnate but then attempt to justify the CIA's satanic mass murder of Cuban passengers aboard flight 455 and numerous other terrorist attacks in mainland Cuba. Same with those guys who fled Vietnam after the liberation of Saigon or any of those U.S backed foreign war criminals retired in Florida.

My dad was born and raised in Iran and he had two Armenian Christian friends who were communist party (or TUDEH as it was called in Iran) members in their youth. They were both arrested by Savak and imprisoned for 2 years.

Born and raised in Iran during the Mossadegh term or under The Shah's regime?

Kiarostami was one of the few directors who remained in Iran after the 1979 revolution, when many of his colleagues fled to the west, and he believes that it was one of the most important decisions of his career. He has stated that his permanent base in Iran and his national identity have consolidated his ability as a filmmaker:

I agree, brilliant director but I think you're exaggerating here. His latest movie, self-financed and shot in Europe with an American distributor, didn't get past the censors because of some vulgarity. It has, however, been green lit for film studies and DVD. And you forgot to mention that Kiarostami's first encounter with state censorship occurred under the Shah with his film 'In Tribute to the Teachers' (1973) The Shah's education minister Manuchehr Ganji demanded cuts and took the film away from him.

From some of your comments, as far as I can tell, it seems you're quite content living under laws drafted by Mikha'el Chertoff Ben Rabbi Gershon Baruch.



So why bother with all this anti-Zionist exertion? Just soak it up in the Jew S.A and leave the Talmudists to those who're serious about a future free of their enslavement, we won't hold it against you.

[youtube:12jmfcv7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iar_1OKOmc[/youtube]12jmfcv7]

[sirbadman]

Iran's military build up is allowed to happen. Iran is going to be the Germany of WWIII - whenever it happens. Germany was allowed to build up before WWII, the parallels exist. Wars make lots of money for the bankers and WWII was a sham with American/Jewish banks and corporations providing funding, oil, munitions to Germany.

China will go to war on Taiwan. North Korea versus South Korea. Not sure where Russia fits.

As far as I can tell Malaysia is one of the only countries independent from zionist control.

A world war will allow more BS policies/laws/controls to be slammed on to the people in the Western countries as well.

I'd like to think Iran really is independent, but Ahmadinnerjacket is always doing these stupid hand signs and he is not trying to clear the record when he is misquoted by MSM. He is dressed up as bad guy all the time and he really doesn't mind. He's doing his job.

Who knows, maybe he has a deal where they just kill one of his dopplegangers at the end of this and everyone thinks Ahmadinnerjacket is dead.

Hitler's death was bloody weird. Plus there seem to be a few different Hitlers in the photos anyway, you will know what I mean if you look at enough different photos of Hitler.

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

The following quote is sponsored by

Negentropic wrote:
 For a country that hasn't let the Talmudists in, it's one fucked up, repressive, backwards and medieval place that's for sure. The only thing missing is burning people at the stake.

All of this   clown's Iran trash talk proves one thing -- he doesn't give a shit about Palestinians, he doesn't give a shit about Iraqis, he doesn't give a shit about Afghans and he certainly doesn't give a shit about Iranians otherwise he wouldn't be non-stop promoting pro-war Talmudic propaganda that rivals the shit put out by the likes of William Kristol, Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller.

I pegged this guy as a   within a week of his arrival on this forum-- everything he says/does confirms it.  All of his posts are either anti-Iranian pro-war disinfo or wacky long-winded rants followed by assorted over-sized pictures and stupid videos -- trying to make us all look crazy. hey Negentropic... beat it yid!

[Negentropic]

All of this  clown's Iran trash talk proves one thing -- he doesn't give a shit about Palestinians, he doesn't give a shit about Iraqis, he doesn't give a shit about Afghans and he certainly doesn't give a shit about Iranians otherwise he wouldn't be non-stop promoting pro-war Talmudic propaganda that rivals the shit put out by the likes of William Kristol, Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller.

I pegged this guy as a  within a week of his arrival on this forum-- everything he says/does confirms it. All of his posts are either anti-Iranian pro-war disinfo or wacky long-winded rants followed by assorted over-sized pictures and stupid videos -- trying to make us all look crazy. hey Negentropic... beat it yid!

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  I'm about to keel over from laughing.  :lol: You pegged this guy? How come you didn't peg yourself in the ass?  :lol:  Wrong monkey-boy, I just don't give a shit about you, because you don't deserve to be given a shit about. YOU STRAIGHT OUT SUCK, you were gone whining for a month like a cry-baby and I didn't miss your posts one friggin bit.  You have no arguments, coherent or not, long-winded or short-winded, pictures or no-pictures, to present -- only non-stop yelling and screaming about how evil Americans are and the sooner America goes down the better and ad-hominem bullshit attacks and name-calling. Have you taken your meds today or do you just regress back into a 13 year old's personality on cue?  :lol: This little diaper-rashed butt-paste cry-baby infant still thinks he has some credibility left on this forum or anywhere else on the internet because of his Jeff-Rense/Pak-Alert press popularised 'Israel did 9/11' post that he supposedly wrote from scratch. I say his juvenile behavior proves his Mossad agent Momma wrote it for him to give him some credibility which he would subsequently destroy with his infantile behaviour making the document disreputable. Look, we've got a document here that fingers Israel for 9/11, it was written by this guy:

:lol:  :lol:

You don't need me to make you all look crazy Yiddy Yoda, your own posts already took care of that :lol:  :lol:  :lol: . From now on I'll call you MonkeySeeMonkeyShit, Yiddy Yoda shows respect you don't deserve.  Hey idiot: I hate to burst your little bubble but 'You're not a leader of shit in this movement' based just on that one post that you supposedly wrote (mostly copied from Chris Bollyn's research by the way, like a 13 year old cheating on his exam) that got 80,000 views, thanks to Pak Alert & Jeff Rense & DBS. Not that 80,0000 views necessarily means jack crap. Rap videos get 5 million views on you tube. I hate to break it to you infant boy but you have no street-cred left, NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU SAY if you don't have a coherent argument to back it up.  So keep yelling YID and JOO and SKUMBAG and PRO-WAR TALMUDIC PROPAGANDA  :up:  Make yourself look real super-intelligent and mature in front of everyone :lol:   :up: :clap:

Keep in mind the words of the wise men who said:

 "a boy is a man when he walks around a mud puddle instead of through it"