Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

Abby Martin does some real good investigative work. Her series on Venezuela in EF was great too.

Assassinations are standard operating procedure for Israeli intelligence

 

a bit more information from Haaretz on the build up to the assassination of Soleimani

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.pr...-iran-trump-netanyahu-disloyal-jews-1.7733646

Obviously these attacks were killing Iraqi soldiers as well which is why Iraq understandably wanted American Military out even before the assassination of Soleimani. Iraq had already told the us they would not allow their country to be used as a platform to attack Iran. The leaking of this from the US possibly a difference of opinion about these actions/intents to the desires of Pompeo/Netanyahu etc)

 

You think there is no Arab boycott or that it has no effect ?

The right was granted to the leadership, it's not socialweb "like's" contest....

There is no evidence to such order, never heard the Arabs official claim they went thru genocide, the fact around the land there were no mass executions or genocide is the last nail, this is a Monty Python "turned me into a newt" moment..

One place, Jewish leadership took responsibility and disbanded the regiment, in fact that does prove the leadership never gave such order, in any case your side returned the favor and we never made the fuss you did....

 

My country not me...., so if you know Israel attacks bases and weapons (even Iranian Monitor agreed Israel doesn't hit many ppl) why single out just one attack ? it was business as usual from military prospective.

What is it you think I made up ?
I could be wrong about some things but I never deliberately lied to anyone here, the only thing we can do here is exchange ideas what's the point of lying ?

It sounded like a conspiracy between Israel and Trump admin. to fool Trump into killing Solimani, if so I'd say it's an "elegant" way to accuse (let's put Zionists instead of Jews so it would be perfectly not discriminating......) ZIONISTS ! in warmongering and excuse innocent Americans who are not to be blamed for anything - if they just sell out the J...Zionists !
If that's the point of such claim I'd say there's an interest, a bit of arrogance toward Americans and a tad of violence toward an entire country - not objective point of view.

​

Their idea of "good" is destroying a country I happen to live in so I challenge this claim of "decent people".

 

Iraqi soldiers ? you mean Israel attacked the army of Iraq ?
Don't host terror bases in your country if you don't want to be bombed, Israel is as constant state of war against all these proxies.

 

I don't agree with practically anything you have to say on these issues and, more so, the way you characterize them. But on this point of casualties from Israeli strikes, I want to explain what I believe is the case.

Israel typically coordinates its operations in Syria with Russia. The Russians in turn give some advance notice of impending Israeli attacks, while also making sure the Israelis don't go overboard with those attacks and cause a major flare up. As a result, at least in Syria, Israeli attacks cause limited casualties, even though groups opposed to Iran often try to exaggerate their effectiveness and claim otherwise. There have, however, been some Israeli attacks which have indeed caused casualties. In one of them, several Iranian personnel were killed around the T-4 airbase in Syria, in the incident that saw an Israeli F-16 shot down and, subsequently, some rockets launched against Israeli settlements and in the Golan in retaliation (albeit, causing no real damage or injury on the Israeli side). In another one, an Israeli attack killed some Hezbollah fighters in Syria. Hezbollah retaliated against that attack, but before it did, there was a lot of back and forth trying to persuade Hezbollah that it was a mistake. That Israel had mistakenly believed the target was an empty warehouse.

I have not read about any funeral possessions or other things to commemorate Iranian deaths as a result of these Israeli attacks since the attack on the T-4 base, even though there are such funerals and ceremonies for the large number of Iranian forces who have been killed fighting ISIS and other rebel forces in Syria. Reports by groups like the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights", however, sometimes claim some of the casualties are Iranians, although usually they mention non-Iranian forces allied to Iran as the casualties from Israeli attacks. I don't consider the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" a credible source, but it is believed to be tied to Western intelligence services. If someone put together all the Iranian deaths alleged by the Syrian Observatory as a result of these Israeli attacks, the number would probably be around 20-25 (which would be a lot more than anything reflected in the reactions to Israeli strikes in Iran).

The attacks attributed to Israeli in Iraq, to my knowledge, did not cause any casualties to any Iranians. In fact, active Iranian military presence in Iraq has been very limited since the fight against ISIS concluded. But those attacks (mostly by drones and in coordination with the Americans, with some of the attacks even conducted by the US itself) have caused serious casualties for the PMF forces. Unlike the Israeli attacks in Syria, where you have something like several hundred such attacks, most of them causing no casualties, the attacks in Iraq have been few number but almost all have been deadly (for the Iraqi PMF). And the US has been involved one way or another in all of them.

 

I think Israel also tries not to cause casualties if possible, the main effort - so they say - is to prevent Lebanon Hizbi's from obtaining guidance systems to their rockets, now since the PMF consists of Hizbullah among others and sponsored by Iran I think it's very possible what they say is true and such attacks are made in self defense and not to start a war (otherwise there would be a lot more casualties).

 

Being that you have a vote and do not admit you are not a democracy you have a responsibility in what your government does. This is even more so in that you have protected what your government has been doing with abuse to other posters over the past week or so.

I did not mention Israel attacking weapons. You will find the link I gave to its attacks in Iraq on the PMF in a post on the previous page. The same post with the Interview done by Aaron Mate, which you called a hate video.

​

You were giving all your patter of me saying things just because it was my agenda when I knew what was correct was what you thought. You then denied that was what you thought. Waste of time and just you being rude.

​

You were playing games. Lying would be saying that video with Aaron Mate was a hate video. You did that. Recently you have just appeared so angry that you just say whatever comes into your head. A lot of it has appeared meaningless.

​

No I checked this before I replied and it was not as you believed.

Aaron Mate has no intention of destroying the people of Israel. First time I met the person he was talking about but I very much doubt he does either. They were providing information so that people could make an informed judgement., If you believe that if people have an informed opinion they would want to destroy your country then you need to look for what would make you think that.

You are taught that anyone who criticises Israel is antisematic. This is the way the extreme right Israel establishment has managed to get people to go along with it whereas many Jews believe that if it were not for Israel there would be no antisemitism. Of course some white nationalist past have turned their Jew hatred into Israeli hatred but they are very easy to spot. What you as a human being should be more concerned about is that white Nationalists like Richard Spencer is open that he likes Israel because you both have the same desire - an ethnic nationalist country. You should be more concerned that Netanyhu is making friends with all the extreme right in the West. That includes Hungary where a couple of years ago they put up a statue to the man who organised for Jews to be sent to the death camps. Also of course Poland and Trump's US. If I was you I would start thinking why is my country only friends with the extreme right. Is that what I want.

I understand it is getting harder and harder for Jews in Israel with a left point of view.

People are negative towards Israel because of how Israel acts and how she acts is as a Colonial power in all its grossness (was just listening to a debate about British Colonialism so much the same) I don't believe that will ever create a decent life for the people of Israel. For the people of the UK in the last election there was an intrusion into the General Election by pro Israelis. There was Trump or Pompeo or Pence's leaked talk which was apparently with a Jew who had gone and complained about Corbyn who in case you are not aware is absolutely not antisemetic but does support a just solution with rights for the Palestinians. In this the US said that if Corbyn managed to get through the gauntlet which was being created -mainly though fake media and unfortunately through the right and official Jewish organisations which do not necessarily have the main British Jews supporting them. Corbyn made a massive mistake. He decided to keep quite and hope it would go away. Very likely that with work also done by British intelligence to create the same they did get their message through. The fight against Corbyn from all centrists and further right was because he does not support Imperialism. The fight from Israel, from Britain's Right wing Jews and most of the British Right was also because of his position on Israel in addition to his position on Imperialism of course..

They have very successfully managed to make everyone too scared to say anything, they have made people too scared to be honest because they do not want to lose their jobs. The Labour Party has decided that Britain's Right wing Jews will decide who is antisemetic and who is not - which means one word against Israel and they are out. MacCarthy never had a look in in how his measures are being enacted in the UK right now...

and then you have a man who is known as the Chief Rabbi (most Jews claim he is nothing to do with them) declaring in the General Election that if the people vote for Labour they are voting for immorality....

so let me tell you when this drama began. After your, ok Israelis attack on Gaza in 2014 (something I remember you did support) After that a new group appeared ' 'Campaign Against Antisemitism'. They introduced themselves waving Israeli flags. Immediately other Jews were saying they were here to try and present a picture of the UK as brimming with antisemitism. Their first questionaire was seen as that by all the Jewish organisations including the one who officially worked on this antisemitism but not by Ms Theresa May. She believed it was accurate ..or she knew about the set up. I think it was then she started talking about Britain going by the IHRA. Officially who is providing funds for the Campaign Against Antisemitism is kept secret but it is believed it is Israel. At about the same time a Group called the Labour Jewish Movement was resurrected. I have heard different things about its past. One that it was people aligned with Israel in the 40/50's and long ended and the second which I think is more likely a group which started around 2003/4 which never attracted Members. However it again came into being and had as its first President a woman who had previously been working in the Israeli Embassy on a task team to end deligimisation of Israel. It should be noted that to the best of my knowledge the vast majority of the people in this are not Jews and indeed their first foes were Labour left wing Jews. In the beginning the attempt to smear the UK with the claim of antisemitism was towards the entire UK. Once Corbyn looked like he was going to be leader of the Labour Party due to his position on Israel, it passed to him.

After Right Wing Jews decided who is antisemetic the Jewish Labour Movement is to decide who in the Labour Party - you know that Movement whose first director came from the Israeli Embassy and was working on stopping deligimisation on Israel. Indeed these people I hear are now demanding that Jewish Voice for Labour and other left wing Jewish voices be ignored. I understand in the UK we have a lot of Bund Jews as well as neo Zionists. I am guessing that most Jews here are like everyone else and do not have much time for politics. However I also believe that a lot of them have come to believe that the smears against Labour were true. This can result in them feeling unnecessarily scared and especially when they are young, being provocative - I see that as a potential difficulty but different from the adults deliberately creating this and interferIng in the democracy of the UK.

I went way off on that but will leave it for now so you know the history of what has been going on here.

I believe you need to look at what you are supporting and see if you are with it and not believe that people only get angry with Israel because they don't like Jews. The loudest voices I hear in my country against Israel are Jews.

 

You wrote a lot and i will respect that with an elaborated answer but I dont have the time now, Ill just say:
I vote for the other guy, never Bibi - and you know that
Criticizing a Gov or policy is normal, criticizing the very existence of a Israel IMO is antisemitic
I dont think there can be any negotiations with ppl that think Jews are not real Jews, have no right for Independence, have some global domination plan (Zionism), want to kill cause it's their faith etc' - some if all appear in BDS - so at the very least IMO BDS is not objective.....so isn't "Jewish Home" party for that matter....

 

The Jews did not have their own state for 2000 years, but did survive as a people. For whatever reason -- natural selection -- they were, or became, an extraordinarily talented and sucessful people. But
they were always a minority, almost entirely in countries which were dominated by people of antagonistic religions (Christianity and Islam, although Islam was, over the centuries, more tolerant of the Jews than Christians were, having an 'official' status, if inferior, for Jews and Christians.)

As the Enlightenment slowly spread through Europe, the Jews were champions of it, in part through sheer self-interest, in part because the more intelligent you are, the more you respond to the basic ideas of the Enlightenment, which puts a premium on discovering objective knowledge and not bowing to traditional authority.

This meant, in every country, the Jews tended to be champions of, if not 'internationalism', then at least not fanatical nationalism. Then, at the end of the 19th Century, disillusioned with the progress that enlightened thought was making, at least with respect to tolerance of the Jews, a split occurred in the Jewish community. A group arose within it who championed Nationalism -- Jewish nationalism. (Probably the Dreyfuss trial in France was important in this. If the home of the Enlightenment, the land of the Great French Revolution, could use Jews as a scapegoat ... what chance was there of continued progress everywhere else?) But it was very much a minority within the Jewish community.

Ever since then, Jews have been divided between 'internationalists' and nationalists. The accidents of history gave Palestine to the Jews -- turning what had been a minority interest, confined to people seen as eccentrics by many other Jews, into a serious movement, and, moreover one with state power.

But, in Israel, even the nationalist Jews were pretty left wing for many years. Rightwing Christian 'Zionists' would be surprised, if not horrified, to realize how 'socialist' Israel was in the 1950s, and going into the 60s. The Israeli kibbutzim were probably the best chance to show that socialism would work. They failed, of course. But not from lack of sincere effort.

Now the nationalists quarrel with the non-nationalists and internationalists. BDS has been described as a "Jewish Civil War". And, as @alexa says, the most articulate and passionate anti-Zionists are often ...Jews. (I don't know what the anti-Semitic coo-coo's make of that. More proof of the deviousness of the Conspiracy?)

What a huge shame it is! The leading tribe of humanity -- the people who have, proportionately, won more Nobel Prizes in science and medicine than any other group by far, whose contributions to art, music and literature far outweigh any other tribe's, who stand out among the leading mathematicians and chess grandmasters and any other field of intellectual and practical endeavor, including business and entertainment -- have been pulled by historical accident into the horrible tribal wars of whose-land-is-this -- and have proved equally adept at learning the art of war.

Who can blame them? They've learned not to trust the non-Jews, who shook their heads in disapproval at Hitler, but wouldn't accept Jewish refugees. So now they have a state of their own, and are determined never to be victims again. And if this means making victims of others, well ... they're behaving no differently than most of their accusers have behaved. (I have yet to find a white anti-Zionist in the US who is prepared to turn the keys of his house over to the nearest Indian tribe and go back to Europe. Or a Persian or Turkish or Arab nationalist who will grant self-determination to the Kurds.)

But it's a huge tragedy nonetheless, because at some point in the future, the Persians and Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons. And if they are still harboring deep hatred for the Israelis, then the whole region will be in grave danger.

 

By ignoring the right of the indigenous people to have a state, Israel pretty much deserves other people to make that criticism of her. When Crooke was working with Hamas to get them ready to come to the table he discovered that the reason they would not accept an Israeli State was because Israel had never accepted a Palestine State. They would have accepted a two state solution on pre 67 borders.

The only people who I have ever heard say theyare anti Zionist in that they believe there should be no Israel are anti Zionist Jews. They say that Zionism is a political philosophy, one which they do not agree with and they say it most certainly is not antisemetic to be anti Zionist. However it is ridiculous to imagine there could be no Israel. No one can stop Israel from existing. However Israel is trying to stop the indigenous people from having any freedom. Israel is working an apartheid on them as was done to the people of South Africa many of whom believe it is worse for the Palestinians than it was for them. Israel has kept them prisoner for over 50 years and the Palestinians who became part of Israel as second class citizens for over 70 - under martial law at first and there are around 50 or so laws which discriminate against them. Anyone who does not believe in treating people in this way, anyone who believes in social justice is going to be well against Israel. Indeed until the West became taken over by the far right or possibly 9/11 Israel was severely criticised by Europe and the UK and that has not changed in general with citizens though it is part of the new Western far right to love Israel. Orban may be antisemetic but he loves Israel and so Netanyhu loves him.

Israel did have support from the US from 67 particularly from Christian Zionists though I understand that before that time American Jews did not have much support for Israel. At that time I understand the American Christian Right did not vote. Work went on to get them to believe they should act politically and Carter, himself a Christian, saying that work needed to be put in to get the Palestinians some Justice was the last straw for them. Since then there has been a strong political focus from America towards Israel - something which has now grown so that they are in Government, are Trump's base and fund raisers - along with Addelson and are denying International Law to try and make it so that Israel takes everything she wants from the Palestinians and leaves them in a situation of Apartheid without rights for ever.

Of course the CZ's are wanting the Armageddon which has been smouldering while the US has been playing 'clean break' since 2003 and do not mind if everything explodes. The Palestinians will not say that Israel has a right to exist because they correctly say that Israel was not established justly. They do not deny that Israel exists. They know it does. That is a fact but they do not see it as a right because they say it has been done completely without justice.

The only moral completion of what has been going on for the past 70 odd years now is a One State Solution with equal rights for all....and that is because Israel never intended the 2 state solution as well as CZ's getting in touch with Netanyhu and him working with them and the American Neo Cons ever since. Some of the neo cons were involved in writing clean break. That is the basis which has brought Israel to the place she is in. It is Netanyhu's dream coming true trying to bring into being the desires of his father working for Jabotinsky. However when you got to Oslo the Palestinians had reached the time when Jabotinsky said they would be ready for a deal. Jabotinsky realised they would not before because no people will feel good about another people taking their land but he believed that a time would come when they would understand that they could not get it back. At that time he believed it would be possible to do a deal with them. That is where the Palestinians were at Oslo. (I appreciate what you say about Hamas but if you understand what Crooke said that was resolved which led to the decision to declare them terrorists, which itself would mean a two state solution would be impossible as it would never be possible to come to a resolution without talking to Hamas. That and the other bits I am sure you know now.)

The Christian Zionists went delirious at the idea of a two state solution with Muslims on land which their bible said must be ruled by Jews and straight away went looking for extremist Israelis to work with to make sure this 2 state solution never happened. Had the US been genuine in their support of a two state solution I am in no doubt that that would have happened and there is no reason why that could not have been successful and you would be able to bring up your children in a peaceful, respected society concentrating on climate change.

It did not happen and during the destruction of the ME with the rise in 'terrorists' which it gave rise to, Israel's position has become more and more extreme and frankly inhumane to the Palestinians. Now the people of Israel are gradually conditioned to accept this, to believe it is alright but it is not to anyone who believes all people deserve to be treated as equals and all people deserve rights.

all these things could have discussion. I doubt you would be negotiating with them.

Not sure what you are talking about here. It sounds like a slogan. Israel needed to make a compromise. I have read that right from the 67 war, Israel intended taking over the West Bank. Israel did have a state. This was a further desire at replacing the people as Israel had done for her original state. It is replacement colonialism like what was done in the US, Australia and so on. Israel's Colonialism came a century too late. By the time she was trying it, laws had been brought in against it because it was understood that the people who were to be replaced were human beings too and had an equal right to have a life and self determination to anyone else. Britain France and other European States managed to do their Colonialism only because they had better military and arms. International Laws were brought in to protect those who had less. Israel ignores those. The US acts like Britain and France before believing it has a right to decide who has a life worth living because it has a right. It has brought us right back to the position that the UN was created to change.

I believe the only moral solution there is now is a one state solution with equal rights for all the people and I believe that this is because Israel has been so busy taking land that nothing else is possible. I do not expect Israel as it currently is to go with it. I do not expect the United States to support it and until or unless that happens I see continual killing going on in the area and in this scenerio Israel is the extreme right and is supported by same. I don't see the end unless it is the Armageddon the Christian Zionists want. I believe Israel has put itself into a no win position.

Well clearly not all Jews. Whether a few elite do I do not know. I do not think they would be the only people though.

I can't remember the name of the Rabbi who did the lecture on Israel being about rejecting Judaism not antisemitism. He believed the people who created Israel and most of the early Zionists were not practising Jews, wanted to get away from the acceptance of difficulties there was in Judaism (can't remember exactly) and that instead they wanted to act like the antisemites. Certainly among your leaders and the original response to holocaust survivors I have thought he might be right.

I agree with BDS in that I believe the only way to stop Israel acting as she is, is BDS. Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. I don't know when it got started but for that reason I was not buying Jaffa Oranges in the 80's. For someone who believe in Social Justice and Equal rights what Israel is doing is far from acceptable. I also believe that if Israel did become one state with citizenship and equal rights for all its people it could become a State which itself was based on these premises and give a lot to the world. I have only visited the BDS site a couple of times and when I have heard about it that has mainly been from British Jews - British Jews regardless of their thoughts on Israel do not like antisemitism. They have said that BDS and a lot of them are involved in it, is not antisemetic.
​

 

Have you ever heard the phrases "cutting the lawn" or "giving Gaza a haircut?"

 

What you wrote, while a tab bit too generous too the 'Jews', would have nonetheless something I could have written (with a few edits here or there) 20 years ago. But this is not how I see things anymore.

First, the issues about Israel has never really been about the "Jews". Sounds like a strange thing to say about a "Jewish homeland" supported strongly by so many prominent "Jews". But that is actually the truth. The Zionist movement itself didn't gain currency because of "Jewish influence" as much as because of Christian Zionist influence. The majority of Ashkhenazi Jews weren't supportive of the project; the (then) orthodox among them considered Zionism sacrilegious and heresy. Secular Jews were too focused on becoming accepted into their respective European nations, and losing any distinction as "Jews", to have any interest in a "Jewish homeland. But Hertzel's project found strong advocates about Christian zealots and imperialists. Only then, wealthy "Jewish collaborators" (the one who had become very rich within the West and who would eventually really lose any remaining distinction as Jews, such as is the case with the Rothschild's) began to lend the project their support to this project. Even then, it wasn't as much this support as it was the Christian Zionist creed that was behind the Balfour Declaration. And while, with the rise of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, more and more "Jews" found the Zionist agenda appealing, Israel was still a product of larger European (here, to include the "East European" Russians, as well as the Americans) geopolitical agendas and moves. What better way to atone for the murder of "Jews" in Europe (ostensibly as a result of an ideology that may have reached its zenith in madness in Germany, but whose general reach was widely accepted throughout northern Europe in France and Britain included), then to create a "Jewish homeland" at some other 'tribe's' expense elsewhere out of Europe, where these "Jewish refugees" and their kin could resettle and live? And if this "Israel" that was constructed had the backing of all European (and European wannabe) powers (and none in the East, whether in the Islamic world -- not even US allies Turkey or Iran who voted against the UN partition plan -- or in India or China, who similarly voted against the UN partition plan), not by votes from the "Jews", and if this "limited" view of "Israel" brought all European interests together, the "Greater Israel" of the Likudniks isn't a danger because of the "Jews" alone. Most "Jews" in fact do not support the "neocons and these agendas! Most are, indeed, part of the "liberal tradition" you allude to. Without imperialists and Christian evangelical Zionists, despite the huge influence of many of the wealthy "Jewish collaborators" who serve as their patrons, the Likudniks would still not be all that influential.

Second, and related to that, the narrative you present is about "Jews" (and ends up in some type of false generalizations that once led to theories of Nordic supremacy), not about Zionists and not about ultra Zionists either. How many of those "Jews" who contributed to the arts and sciences in the West in the 19th and early 20th century were Zionists? How many of the "Jews" who received these prizes or won these competitions were "Israelis"? Not many at all! Israel, the supposed "Jewish homeland", even by purely Western scientific criteria, lags behind both Iran and Turkey in the sciences!

Bearing the above in mind, I recently gave a different narrative elsewhere which I quote below:

 

I have posted pictures of Irano-Islamic civilization. Let me post pictures of 'modern Iran', through a few of the many things being built in Iran since the revolution. These are just from Tehran and represent a small sample:

In this one picture below, you can see in the background the Milad Tower (one of the largest communication towers in the world), the Sadr Multi-Level Highway and the Niyayesh Tunnel, and a get view of parts of north Tehran. All among the things built in Tehran recently in the past 20 years.

Another view, focusing on the Milad Tower itself:

Niayesh tunnel route in Tehran's map (below)

The picture below shows the entrance to the Tohid tunnel, also one of the largest urban tunnels in the Middle East and the world, near district near south of Tehran:


The picture below shows the eastern part of Tehran, and the Khalij Fars artificial lake and rapidly developing areas around it. This place was practically empty only a few years ago.



Among the many malls built in Tehran, including in this district of Tehran near the Khalij Fars lake, is the "Iran Mall" -- one of the largest, if not the largest, shopping malls in the world.

To get a good sense about this mall, which is too big to be represented in a few pictures, you will need to see a video like the one below.

But here a a couple of pictures from the interior of the mall:

 

Wonderful photos! Things like this need to be seen by all Americans, who have a very different picture of Iran. They would be shocked.

I don't see any serious difference in what you have written, and what I have written. Perhaps one of emphasis, with one exception.

I don't believe that Israel was some sort of imperialist plot, as you seem to think. I believe it was a historic accident, a result of Nazi-ism.
Also, while there have always been 'Christian Zionists' in the West, American fundamentalist Christians become Zionists a long time after
the establishment of Israel. And it's their uncritical support of the most extreme expansionist Zionism that's the problem. The economic imperialists
have, in general, seen Israel as a pain in the neck. The Cold War people saw it as an ally. But without the, again accidental, Cold War, Israel would
not have had much support in the West. There is a lot of accident in history -- remember that one of the original supporters of partition, in the UN, was
the Soviet Union. I assume that this was because at the time, the Zionists in Israel were killing British soldiers (and civilians), and also non-British people ...
this being what nationalists do.

With respect to your reference to "theories of Nordic supremacy" ... no, the Jews who have and who are contributing so much were/are not necessarily Zionists or Israelis, although some are.
They're Jews. What is the origin of their superior performance? Here we get into an area that most people are not capable of discussing rationally, since it contradicts
their quasi-religious beliefs about biological equality where mental powers come in.

So I won't go further into it, except to say, I don't believe it's all due to their 'culture', and therefore reproducable anywhere we like, unforunately.

The real question of interest is -- to what extent is this advanced architecture (and, we may infer, advanced technology) supported by advanced social attitudes?

Unfortunately, a country can have advanced architecture and technology, and be in the grip of atavistic, exterminationist thinking: Nazi Germany is an example.

And -- I hesitate to say this because demagogues will say I am comparing the USA to Nazi Germany -- so also has the US been an example, in the 20th Century, of backward social attitudes which continue to exist in a modern country: for part of the 20th Century women could not vote, and Blacks in a large part of the US barely even had the pretense of the protection of the law, when whites were in conflict with them.

Not that the US is now perfect, not by a long shot. Humanity advances slowly and unevenly. People can't jump over their own heads, in America or Iran.

And if we look at Israel and Zionism itself, we find that among a people who have been at the forefront of the Enlightenment and modernity, when nationalism takes hold, we find a reversion to really primitive feelings and actions. (Although it always amazes me that even in Israel itself, so many Jews remain committed to fairness, self-criticism, honesty.) I'm always a little surprised, in the US and UK, to see othewise ntelligent people making the most transparently demagogic arguments in defense of Israel -- calling anyone who criticizes it 'anti-semitic' or a 'terrorist sympathyzer'. Beneath contempt.

So ... I am NOT saying, "Iran has to live up to the standard of modernity and become tolerant and peaceful etc". I hope it does, but I don't claim that if it does, it will be 'catching up' to Israel or America.

Here's what I would like to see: as for internal changes, non-Iranians should leave that up to Iranians. The people who run Iran want it to be a strong powerful country. Just like the Shah did, in fact. (And Indian and Chinese anti-colonialist revolutionaries also were motivated by the desire for their peoples to take their leading places in the modern world -- they knew/know from their own history of achievement in science and mathematics, archtecture and philosophy, that they are just as good as, if not better than, the tribes of that little peninsula of Asia we call Europe, and its settler-colonies, who happened to be ahead a bit in the ebb and flow of civilizations and were fortunate enough to first break up religious absolutism, allowing free thought, and then to undergo the industrial revolution, which allowed them to leverage their advantage and subdue the rest of the world, temporarily .)

To make Iran modern, the mullahs needed to train and educate a large cadre of scientists, engineers, lawyers, businessmen, and all the other members of the cultural apparatus that run a modern country. To continue what the Shah was doing, in fact. But in doing that, they undermine religious fundamentalism and primitive chauvinism (there is also non-primitive chauvinism, of course).

It's not impossible to be able to solve second-order partial differential equations, while still being a religious fundamentalist ... but there is a tension there. It would be very strange if Miriam Mirzakhani had been a fundamentalist.

It's Iran's relationships with its neighbors -- which unfortunately the Americans seem to be drawn to interfering in -- that many of us would like to see 'modern Iran' spell out. That is, suppose an heir to Mossadegh came to power, in some sort of transformation we cannot now imagine but which has happened over and over in the world. (Many dictatorships, most of them American-backed, evolved into tolerable democracies without a bloody upheaval, and Iran isn't even a dictatorship.)

But suppose such a person, backed by the majority of Iranians, came to power in Iran. How would Iran's foreign policy change? Would it advance a two-state solution in Palestine,for example?
(For instance, the Iranians I have known in the West, not a random selection, of course, have largely been in favor of a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine issue. They don't want to be, as one of them put it to me, "More Palestinian than the Palestinians." They have assumed that most Palestinians would accept a reasonable compromise, serious compensation for the land and property they lost, apologies ... [whether they would or not I don't know]. Is this attitude general among 'modern' Iranians? I am not talking about Trump's plan.)

No one who knows anything thinks that such a government would come to Washington and say, 'How can we help you achieve your goals?'.

But what would it do? What do you see as the legitimate national interests of Iran, which may clash with American/Israeli/Saudi interests ... this is natural and normal. Even Canada and the US have disputes.

Anyway, it's good to see your contributions. They need to be MUCH more widely available than on a discussion forum, even such a good one as this, where the best people come.
Have you considered contributing an article to some American national journal? Off the top of my head, I think The New Republic, or The American Conservative (to take one each from Left and Right) would be interested in what you have to say. And now is the right time -- in the base, including the conservative base, questions of what our foreign policy should be are 'in the air'. All the only certainties are gone. It's the right time to get into the discussion.

 

Americans have a very wrong image of Iran. And so do those Iranian (Americans) who haven't seen their own country in a while.

While the rise of Nazi Germany, and WWII, was certainly a turning point which boosted the "Zionist project", there were adherents (within the West) of this project before the Nazis. The Balfour Declaration, after all, predates Nazi Germany by more than two decades -- and the principal figures behind the Balfour Declaration were, in fact, imperialists and Christian evangelicals.

Christian Zionism as a political movement may be a recent phenomenon in America, but that is because the issues the British imperialists and Christian Zionists had to deal with a different set of agendas before America got involved in imperialism on an international scale. And at a time when many in Europe did have strong, anti-Semitic views, with shipping the "Jews' to Palestine could solve as well. The religious motivation behind it being an added boost.

We kind of disagree on this point. The Cold War actually set a ceiling on the aspirations of the ultra Zionists specifically and made America more reluctant to go out of its way to take a position that would alienate the other nations in the region or undermine their leaders. Of course, when several Arab states began purchasing large quantities of arms from the Soviets, the US did eventually begin to take a more active role in providing arms to Israel. But even then, America had to be watchful of how "one sided" its policies could be perceived in the region, lest it would undermine those states in the region which were considered US allies.

The Soviet support for Israel involved a range of factors, not least among them the intellectual comradeship between the anti-Nazi forces among the 'left' which had many Jewish and soon to be Israeli supporters and the Soviet Union. More broadly, however, until the rise to power of 'secular Arab nationalist' regimes (the B'aathist) in countries like Syria and Iraq, the Soviets might not have felt they could find too many friends (besides Israel) in the region anyway.

I am open to any rational discussion. And I don't believe all human beings are equally gifted in all their attributes. I am not comfortable making racial generalizations for various reasons, the most important one being that I don't find the nexus being as reliable as is being imagined. Generally, even if (on average) members of X tribe are "more intelligent" than members of Y tribe, it still doesn't mean that a retard who happens to belong to X tribe has any greater claim to intelligence than a genius in the Y tribe. In any case, I prefer to discuss this issue separately.

You raise a lot of issues about Iran and many other things, some of which require us to discuss subject-by-subject. The truth in each of them is, lets say, 'more complicated' than it appears. But, even with its warts, one thing I want to be clear about: Iran isn't what people imagine and that applies to more than its architecture and such.

 

The world is a safer place now that president Trump fired John Bolton. Getting rid of the neocons is as important to world peace as is getting rid of the Islamic terrorists.

 

Big progress for sure!

 

Okay. I would be very happy to learn more about Iranian social reality. I'm sure others here (and elsewhere) would as well.

On the IQ thing, of course you're right. It's a distribution. Every people has its morons and its brilliant stars.

And we can see examples of peoples who have fallen way back from their achievements, probably with a lowering of their average IQ, but not due, I think, to biological reasons. I have the Mayans in mind, probably the Aztecs and Incas as well. What happened to them was nothing related to their genes, but to, basically, as Che Guevara put it, the fact that they forgot to invent gunpowder.

So it's obviously complex, and what happens to a society probably, in some way we don't understand -- epigenetics???? -- influences how IQ actually develops.

But it's not really worth arguing about because there are no consequences: everyone should get the best schooling/education/training possible, within the limits of society's resources.

And anyway, it's really a moot point, because if we don't destroy ourselves, we'll be selecting, even manufacturing, the genes of our descendants ourselves in a few decades, then all our kids will have the IQ of Miriam Mirzakhani.

 

Downtown San Franciso? Maybe not, I don't see piles of excrement.

 

Ha ha... close! Teheran this is.

 

They only don't recognize Israel as a nation. Than again Lost of Christian/Jewish nations refuse to recognize Palestina.

So you are confirming that nobody asked the Palestinian Arabs in -what is now present day Israel- in what country they would be part of. And it wasn't granted to some leadership. World leaders had a vote on it at the UN.

I sourced that there was.

'
You're making it up. The Jews destroyed 601 civilian places, and 194 Syrian ones. It's part of their ethnic cleansing ways.
https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-de...ages-is-not-a-matter-of-perspective-1.5381430

 

The 'social realities' in Iran are complex, but the long and short of it is that Iran isn't all that different socially than elsewhere in the "modern" world. For better or worse, large parts of Iranian society are also focused on materialism, materialistic consumption, with the sexual revolution, also leaving its marks, all shown in various statistics such as those showing Iran being the 7th largest consumer of cosmetic products in the world; among the top 10 countries when it comes to plastic surgery, in the fact that the number of shopping malls in Tehran have definitely overtaken what you find anywhere in America or anywhere else (even Dubai!), the fact that surveys show around 80% of Iranian high school kids engage in premarital sex, in rising divorce rates, and much more. Forcing women to put a head scarf on their heads doesn't change that. The same way that making it illegal for Iranians to consume alcohol hasn't made alcohol use in Iran all that lower than elsewhere, with alcohol consumption in Iran on average 3 times the rest of the MENA region. Drug abuse is worse. Terrible, in fact, although the subject has at least given us one of the best movies I have seen produced anywhere in a very long time (Just 6.5, which I would strongly recommend you watch when it begins showing in America. You won't regret it as this is resitting movie, with great acting, but also with some of the more authentic and inspiring messages which still distinguish Iranian cinema from what you find in Hollywood).

In the meantime, the cultural scene in Iran is, in fact, very vibrant and Iran is in many ways the most dynamic and culturally productive place in the region and beyond. While our 'cultural elites' are typically politically among the dissident voices within Iran, which (considering the challenges Iran is facing, being under "maximum pressure" from a superpower) makes things very difficult and complicated for those who have an interest preventing Iran ending up in disarray and disorder (ala Syria, Iraq and elsewhere were 'freedom and democracy' has reared its head in the ME under American tutelage or design), they also add to the attraction of Iran. They make it a very interesting place to live in, as long as "maximum pressure" hasn't totally sunk your finances or dampened your spirits.

On the latter, here are excerpts from an unlikely source for what I am trying to say: the chief Middle East correspondent for the Economist, who happens to be Jewish, and who found himself detained (and then prevented from leaving Iran as his case was being investigated). He had a lot of 'free time' on his hand stuck in Iran for over a month, while his case was being investigated, and got to experience Tehran's cultural scene first hand, in a way that a typical tourist might not. I don't like some of the polemics in much of his article, nor agree with some of his views for sure, but the point I am trying to make perhaps comes through in these excerpts:

https://www.1843magazine.com/features/trapped-in-iran
NICOLAS PELHAM | FEBRUARY/MARCH 2020
TRAPPED IN IRAN

 

Geez! why is this even a discussion anymore, the MORAL of this Story is, for every American citizen killed, WE! kill Hundreds, maybe THOUSANDS of your Terrorist SCUMBAGS! President Trump recognized Soleimani for the Terrorist he was and turned him into actual Salami with one perfectly targeted HellFire missile. The United States has the most powerful Military in the History of the World and our Intelligence, Fire Power and Will allows us to seek out and kill anyone of these Bastards wherever they Hide, whether it's in a Cave, Tunnel, Bunker or whatever hole these Cowards try to hide.

 

In the meantime:
https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...eart-following-iran-ballistic-missile-attack/
Nearly 60 service members could be eligible for the the Purple Heart following Iran ballistic missile attack