Obviously I’ve had my share of run-ins with the peace movement, which tends to minimalize the evils of any particular enemy with the rationalization that the war propaganda is so pervasive and so misleading that any criticism of “the enemy” is seen as contributing to the war climate. The idea has been taken to extremes where activists begin to accept traditions they’d slam as reactionary in our culture – even to the point of organizations called “Women in Black” which romanticizes the very burkas the women of Kandahar threw into the streets and burned once the mandatory laws were lifted. I’m hearing so much from activists calling Islam a “beautiful religion” while not granting Christianity the same status. The farther something is, the easier to romanticize.
At minimum, progressives lose credibility. Where they’re successful, they become instruments of oppression they’d never stand for in their own countries.
But I do understand the desire to avoid marching in cadence with the war drum beat, and the question becomes how to strike a balance between opposition to a war and support for transformation in the country in question. This blogger, Ali Eteraz, is making a serious attempt to reach such a balance with regard to Iran. He starts with seven points, and then in “part 2″ suggests a program of which I’m not entirely in agreement. But the basic idea is sound.
One problem with the peace movement is that it tends to be so fixated on its own message, it fails to confront and deal with opposing views, sometimes unfortunately because activists have their own dogma and would just as soon avoid having to integrate any significant nuance into their perspective. Unfortunately, this often means their political opponents have free reign. Eteraz grabs the bull by the horns.
The Right has a narrative on Iran: bombs away. The Left has a critique of that position as enunciated by Unclaimed Territory. What the Left doesn’t have is its own narrative on Iran. This is where I can be of help.
Point 1: The Right’s information on Iran comes from very dubious sources. One of the foremost Right authorities on Iran is Amir Taheri, who, as a reader informed me, was once referred to as the Emissary of the Apparatus. This post also discuses how Taheri lied about a story about Iranian Jews being forced to wear yellow stars and even though Juan Cole called him on it he refused to recant.
Not only that, but Taheri has a history of misrepresentation. In his article written after Nejad’s letter to the White House, Taheri stated that the Iranians leaked their letter after the White House’s dismissive attitude, when, in fact, Wiki had a copy of the letter hours after Nejad wrote it. This was the first time I started becoming reticent about Taheri’s work.
I’m going to jump around as the article in its entirety is linked above. But the next salient point in my mind is that for its shallowness, the depth of the peace movement’s analysis of Iran tends to be better than the opposition.
The Left’s coverage of Iran has been immeasurably better and broader. In this post I looked at two case studies of discussions about Iran and found that both times the Right picked up a story about Iranian reformists and then dropped it, neither time questioning its bombs away strategy. Not only that, but it actually picked up the stories from the Left. As such, the Right overlooked the fact that there is a Velvet Revolution afoot in Iran (yes, we have been hearing that since 1996 but ten years is a very short time if you consider how long it took the Central Europeans to get out of Soviet control).
Then we get to the key point. The peace movement ought to be alligned with the dissent in Iran, just as it should have been with the dissent in Iraq under Hussein.
Iran, domestically, and internationally, is rife with activists and dissidents who are well aware of the evils of the Theocrats and doing something about it. My point is showing this group is that people are doing something about Iran’s evils without dropping bombs. In this post (scroll down) we heard about Amir Fakhravar who has written an important collection of writings called “The Prison Papers.” In this post we saw an Iranian dissident publicizing a letter by a man whose mother was stoned to death. In this post we heard about Rahim Jahanbegloo, the Iranian Gandhi. In this post we saw an Iranian-American anti-stoning activist take the Iranian regime to task.
Point 5: The most important point. Iranian dissidents do not need or want bombs backing their activism. In Der Speigel, Iranian nobel prize winner Shirin Ebadi stated this very clearly…
On the other hand, it’s not enough to argue that Iran should be allowed to determine its own history. The left has to be actively engaged with reform efforts, and not come across as isolationist or even as “appeasors.
The Left has to understand and promote the fact that there are ways for dealing with problems in Iran — and that the Left does have to do something about these problems because when the Left remains silent the Right starts screaming for bombs. Email and letter writing campaigns like this one — the kind of stuff that the Left excels in — help get activists involved at the global level. In fact, when I launched that initiative, close to 90 different left blogs linked to it (and one Right one). It isn’t just stoning where such pressure can be exacted. Working with Muslim and Persian ethnicity groups is another way for the Left to seek positive change in Iran. Working with Muslims will not immediately make you any less secular humanist; you can still make plenty of critiques of the perversions of religiosity in Iran. There are many opportunities for pro-active initiatives in Iran. For example, after an important cleric imposed a death fatwa on a journalist, we at Eteraz.org were able to write a pointed letter directed at the cleric. Why wasn’t this picked up by the big boys on the Left? My guess is because the Left does not have a narrative on Iran.
But it should.
No magic formulas. Just some thoughts. There would certainly be no harm in encouraging activists to become familiar with the Iranian reform movement and its players.
52 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 31, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Andy Stunich
We have been waiting for a long time for the alleged Iranian counter-revolution and it has failed to materialize to any extent that it could potentially topple the Mullahs – the real power in Iran. There are many reasons. One is that so many people have emigrated from Iran. These dissidents would have been a powerful force for change, but their emigration acts like a relief valve. I cannot even count the number of educated, rationale Iranians I have met in the United States since 1979. While I do not know the statistics, I suspects that millions of Iranians have left Iran since 1979 and the ones who left were overwhelmingly the educated Iranians who wanted no part of Sharia Law. These are the same people that would have been the best force for change within Iran. There are always dissenters in any society and I am aware that many remain in Iran, but their ideology lacks the ingrained power and appeal of Twelver Islam which dominates Iran’s collective psyche. The Mullahs have the network of Mosques to organize, watch, and control Iranian society. The Mullahs also have the added control that arises from controlling all of the political and administrative instruments of an oppressive state. Most important, when a threat arises, the Mullahs crush it quite swiftly via a variety of means above and beyond the use of force and violence. For example, university professors were summarily dismissed and replaced by younger professors that were more compliant to the Mullah’s will. This was presumably done to control one of the few venues for potential change in Iranian society apart from the Mosques.
Iran differs greatly from areas previously dominated by Communism and Eric Kirk’s comparison of Iran to Eastern Europeans freeing themselves from Communism is unrealistic. Communism did not appeal to its enslaved populace on an indelibly ingrained religious level dating back hundreds of years. Most importantly, the Mullahs are driven by a deeply held religious fervor that has traditionally produced a vibrant, aggressive political movement organized and directed through Mosques. The competing ideologies for change in Iran lack an organizational base and their ideology is not as aggressive and willing to fight to the death as is Twelver Islam. The opposition also has no centralized core of commonly held beliefs to rally around as the Islamists do.
In short, Iran will not change in any significant manner politically in a way that will lead to peace in the near future. If we are, therefore, to avoid Iran, which is the most prolific supporter of state sponsored terrorism in the World, from obtaining nuclear weapons, there will have to be military intervention. Whether that military intervention can be successful or whether all of the problems that will surely come with military intervention are just as potentially devastating as allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is an interesting debate and I do not purport to have all of the absolutely definitive answers to those questions, but I also believe that they are irrelevant. I believe that we will be forced to fight Iran eventually and the only issue that remains is whether we will do so when we have the best chance of success and to prevent nuclear proliferation or whether we wait for the war to come at the right time for the Mullahs – probably after they have stockpiled a massive missile stockpile with which to first strike Israel.
Be assured of one absolute reality, absent military intervention, Iran WILL become a nuclear power. When that happens, Iran will become even more of an international terrorist state and pariah and it is hard to foresee exactly how many more difficult problems it will cause, but rest assured, there will be many. At that point, military intervention would be extremely risky as Iran would go nuclear because Twelver religious doctrine actually teaches that chaos and war must commence to pave the way for the return of the Mahdi (discussed further below). Additionally, Iran has openly stated that it will share its nuclear technology with the Islamic World. That means that eventually its nuclear technology and material to make dirty bombs will filter down to terrorists. There is no question that some of those terrorist will use those weapons against us.
Everything about Iran since its Islamic Revolution has been aiming toward confrontation with the United States and Israel. I cannot help but arrive at the inescapable conclusion that war with Iran is, therefore, inevitable. Nothing we can say or do will dissuade Iran from its goals. Absent mass conversion to Islam, nothing will appease Iran. While I know that my views will be met with great derision, if not outright hostility, by this web site’s core audience, I feel compelled to speak out as it seems too plain for argument that we would be better off taking on Iran now while we have the chance of avoiding the devastating spread of nuclear weapons to such an irresponsible power. What right do we have to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? We have the inalienable right to survive free from the threats of a nation that expressly states that it wants to destroy us and which is controlled by a Twelver Islamic Doctrine that makes present day Iran the most dangerous nation the World has ever known.
I have mentioned Twelver religious doctrine and it is important when analyzing Iran to understand the doctrine as it drives Iranian foreign policy. Iran is, as most people are aware, a Shiite majority state. Shiite Islam combines all of the core Islamic Doctrine that Osama bin Laden uses to justify his terrorism with additional beliefs that make Shiite Islam even more dangerous than Sunni Islam. Twelver Shiites believe that leadership of the Muslim religion was transferred from Muhammad to his son-in-law and cousin Ali and that after Ali was killed in a sectarian schism that his authority was passed down through his descendants. Shiites refer to these successors as imams, an Arabic word meaning leaders. (Note that Farsi incorporated many Arabic words after the spread of Islam to Persia, now Iran.)
The twelfth imam following Muhammad was born in the late ninth century. Around the age of five, he disappeared and his disappearance at a young age without an heir ended Muhammad’s lineage and the line of imams. (Note that this is true notwithstanding the plethora of Muslims who claim descent from Muhammad) Shiites believe that the twelfth imam, some Shiites refer to him as the Mahdi meaning divinely guided one, simply withdrew from public view when he was five and that he will one day re-emerge to liberate the world from evil. Twelvers believe that legitimate Islamic rule can only commence with the return of the Mahdi and that chaos and war are necessary to hasten his return. Khomeini taught that Shiites must fight to speed the return of the Mahdi. Khomeini taught that America was the “Great Satan” and Israel was the “Little Satan” and that Shiites must destroy both to speed the return of the Mahdi.
That is why one of President Ahmadinejad’s expressly stated goals is the elimination of Israel and his statements regarding the destruction of Israel are well known. What is less well known is that
former presidents have shared his views, but were simply less prolific and public with their statements. For example, even former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, an alleged moderate, opined that the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel would destroy everything, but if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it would only harm the Islamic world.
That thinking reveals that the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine we have relied upon to prevent nuclear war is not viable when dealing with Islamic states.
I am well aware of all of the horrors and uncertainties that war brings. However, I am also aware of the horrors and devastation that will result when Iran becomes a nuclear power. We must avoid that consequence at all costs. The Iranian people will also benefit. The Mullahs are leading Iran to complete destruction. While Israel is, in my vew, a responsible, highly civilized and advanced democratic state, it is nonetheless deeply influenced by its heritage. Part of that heritage is the story of Sampson and, like Sampson, Israel will respond with nuclear force when attacked by Iran, regardless of the consequences to Israel. What other option will the nation have?
The only other option is for the United States to put an end to what is an obviously pending catastrophe.
While we face tremendous challenges, we have been blessed with an economy and military that can free us from the fate Iran would bestow on us. Our biggest enemy is our own uncertainty and political disunity, but that should also be resolvable. It is hard for me to imagine an enemy that can be more universally united against by a diverse American society than Twelver Islamic Doctrine that would impose either Sharia Law or destruction upon us. Twelver Islam is every bit as repugnant as the Nazi ideology that so overwhelmingly eventually united the American people. We can and should unite once again unite to stop Iran before it is too late.
December 31, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Andy, thanx for the very thoughtful and detailed comments. I’ll read them more closely and respond later when I have some more time. I’ve got to prepare a turkey right now.
However, I just wanted to correct one point. The exodus began long before 1979. I have one friend whose family left during that time and currently lives in Washington State. They’d hoped that they could return in 1979, but it very quickly became apparent that things weren’t going to improve and perhaps even get worse. I also had American friends who travelled to Iran during the mid 1970s and tried to spark up political discussions, but people were afraid of the Shah’s secret police and pretty much clammed up.
I don’t want to get into a pointless discussion of which regime was worse – that’s not my point. Nor do I necessarily want to get into a “blow-back” discussion. But history is too often written with the assumption that Iran was a democratic wonderland until 1979. What’s interesting about the discussion is that Shah apologists/minimalists make similar arguments we hear in the peace movement about Hussein. The Shah was essentially secular. Women could work and weren’t forced to wear burkas. Etc.
Supposedly classified files about CIA activities in Iran during the 1950s are going to be released this year. If so, the timing is uncanny.
As to a military intervention, what are we talking about? A series of bombings or a full out invasion with occupation? Something in between?
What will happen in Iraq with the majority representative Shiite government?
Lastly, isn’t MAD working between India and Pakistan? Is Pakistan any less extreme in religious views?
More later.
December 31, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Andy Stunich
My views are in no way dependent upon the belief that the Shah, despite his abuses, was far better than the Mullahs. I do believe the Shah was a demonstrably better leader for both Iranians and the World than his successors, but I do not see how that debate affects the current situation.
I think that a ground invasion and occupation are unrealistic other than limited forays to destroy suspected nuclear development sites. I believe that we could destroy enough of Iran’s infrastructure such that the Iranians would be forced to focus on immediate needs as opposed to nuclear technology. At a minimum, I would take out the Revolutionary Guard, all scientific and advanced educational infrastructure, all segments of the ruling Mullah class, and all military equipment and infrastructure. I suspect that the foregoing steps would curb nuclear development and also possibly help opposition groups to achieve power in the long run after the initial unity that would be generated by the attack dissipated.
I would continue to destroy any efforts to rebuild the infrastructure until the Mullahs are removed from power.
I believe Iraq would be stabilized in the long run as I believe Iran is now undermining our eforts in Iraq. However, I said from day one that any attempts to turn Iraq into a stable democracy would fail unless the country was divided into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni areas. The Kurdish sector is prospering because it is relatively separate and autonomous. The Shiite and Sunni population have no chance until they are separated or a new strong man seizes absolute control. Even if large segments want to live in peace, terrorists will always be able to stir up violence by attacking opposing mosques or worshipers. Only separating the sects or the imposition of a Stalinist type government can end the violence. Clearly segregation is preferable. The only positive thing I see currently in Iraq right now is that Sunnis and Shiites are voluntarily starting to segregate out of necessity.
MAD is working so far between India and Pakistan because of President Pervez Musharev (sp?) He is a rational, intelligent man. If he were to lose power to a fundamentalist Islamic movement, I believe those Pakistani weapons would be a grave threat to the World. At a minimum. the Islamists would share the technology with terrorists. Worst case scenario, they would fire on India when the next dispute over Kashmir erupts.
While bombing Iran is unpalatable, seeing a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel is much more unpalatable. If we were lucky, the conflict might remain between the two countries, but it could spread throughout the Middle East. Imagine the global human suffering that would result as economies shut down due to lack of energy and people were unable to heat their homes in Winter.
December 31, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Anonymous
Andy, you have become flat out crazy with your hatred of Islam and Muslims. You are advocating another winless war between America and Arab Muslim Middle East, for what reason? To protect a rogue nuclear power that even you predict would use their atomic weapons. With both Israel and America on this “First Strike” mentality you have no idea what that does to any notion of mutual nuclear deterance that kept America and Russia from doing the unthinkable.
Our first strike should be for Israel to give up its nuclear capacity along with Iran. Both these parties are ruled by religious fanaticism, and both are a danger to world as long as they are armed with nuclear weapons.
I really don’t understand how you and eric can continue to be deceived by Zionist ideology that excuses a patently rogue state which has violated its U.N. mandate from the very beginning. I really do not understand how you both cannot see Israel from the Arab Middle East position. I don’t understand how both of you do not seem to know that the U.N. partition of Palestine mandated equality in the return of Palestinian refugees, something Israel has never allowed which breaks their contract with International law.
No person in the 20th and 21st centuries has seen such long term oppression of a peoples as Israelis have done to Palestinians in the way of their Greater Israel ambition. How can you excuse Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, excuse Israeli apartheid policies that exceed South African brutality and long term destruction of a whole peoples. It boggles the mind, especially hearing the war-mongering sentiments of Andy backed up by eric who elsewhere claims Leftist leanings and a Progressive outlook. A weird dichotomy in ethics.
January 1, 2007 at 2:15 am
Anonymous
There goes David Duke — sorry, Steve Lewis — again, spewing his Jew-hatred. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows that the palestinians have had several opportunities to create their own state, and they always find an excuse not to do so. One would have thought that, to mention only the most obvious case, the period from 1948 to 1967offered ample time to create a state, assuming that Jordan, larger than Israel and right next door, with a majority palestinian population, wasn’t enough of a homeland. Steve david Duke seems unaware that hundreds ofthousands of Jews were driven from their homes in Arab countries during the 1948 war; why don’t we hear more about them? because they chose to create a new life in Israel and not to spend half a century whining about being refugees.If you think israeli treatment of Palestinians is harsh, read a bit of Tibetan history and find out what a real occupation looks like.
January 1, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Anonymous
More smearing, anon? More cowardly bloggers who can’t make a rational argument so they have to resort to slander of their opponents.
I still ask all of you who support Israel against Palestinians, to give reasons why we should not condemn the gigantic lie that Ashkenazis have inflicted on the world, the lie that they, European converts to Judaism without a shred of ancestry to the Holy Land, deserve a land not their own, deserve to have the indigenous peoples pushed out of their own land in order to make way for these Europeans and now American Ashkenazi Jews.
Without addressing the morality of foreign invasion by Ashkenazis, Americans will never understand Arab Muslim hostility towards us for backing this Fraud, this ugly piece of history that has wreaked so much pain and misery so that one ethnic group can play victor aggressors and oppressors of Palestinians in revenge for being victims of European aggression and oppression. Making the Arab Muslim world pay for social crimes of European religious fanatics. It is morally disgusting.
I work with Native Americans and have a better idea than most European Americans of what “real occupation” looks like from people who have experienced it all their lives, for generations now. As for Tibet, a feudal religious oligarchy is best for the people where if you aren’t a Buddhist monk, you have no say in your government’s policy? There’s reasons why Buddhist Tibet has been in conflict with Communist China–two rival totalitarian systems, neither one guaranteeing democracy to Tibetans. When democracy is guaranteed in Tibet, it will really be free.
January 1, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Carson Park Ranger
Wow! Everybody is an expert on Iran now, even Andrew Stunich!
January 1, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Carson Park Ranger
Oh, and Anonymous fancies himself to be an expert on Palestine. He’s not.
He reminds me of a conversation I heard between two old left-wing, Coney Island Jews. They were clashing on the issue of statehood for Palestine. The first started with the ridiculous canard brought up by Anonymous:
“The Palestinians already have a State.”
“yeah, and where’s that?”
“Jordan”
“Well, we Jews already had a State.”
“yeah, and where’s that?”
“New York”
January 2, 2007 at 1:17 am
Anonymous
Well Carson Park Ranger, you are not revealing yourself to be a real intellectual giant in this debate. So far you have contributed a sarcastic jibe on the level of a pre-school debate and a mildly comic, bigoted jibe that adds nothing to the debate. Can you actually format a factually based reasonable opinion on topic? If so, let us hear it. Perhaps our opinion of you will rise above the initial impression you have made of simply being a mean spirited, intellectual light weight. Let me guess. You took a few liberal studies courses in college, but dropped out to do something meaningful? Am I close?
January 2, 2007 at 4:03 am
Carson Park Ranger
It’s hard to know where to begin. The first commenter sounds a lot like someone who formed his opinions by listening to talk-radio and watching Fox News, and afterward went looking for history on the internet which would bolster his arguments. He annoyingly and constantly uses ridiculous “certainties” (e.g. “Iran will not change in any significant manner politically in a way that will lead to peace in the near future”). Where does he come up with this? He likes to say scary things like, “Be assured of one absolute reality…” It’s a cheap rhetorical stunt, designed to weaken opponents, but not to offer any information. I’d go on, but I’m frail when it comes to litigation, and perhaps I’ve said too much already.
I assure you taht I’ve been an interested observer of the Middle East for many years, and then, suddenly, after Sept 11th, every clown I came into acquaintance with had strong opinions and knew more about the Middle East than I.
Perhaps the aphorism is true, that “God invented war to teach Americans geography.” The problem is that Americans still don’t pay attention to the lesson. How many people know anything at all about Vietnam?
If you want me to opine on a particular matter (e.g.Iranian nukes) I’d be happy to, but there is way too much nonsense and rhetorical trickery posted above to go point-by-point.
“Let me guess. You took a few liberal studies courses in college…” Since when are academic credentials required on a blog? Would it make you feel better if I were a Harvard Ph. D.? Would it somehow help my arguments if I had a pedigree? George W. Bush got through Yale and received a masters degree from Harvard, while achieving a fourth or fifth grade education.
January 2, 2007 at 4:06 am
Carson Park Ranger
By the way, what did I say that was bigoted?
January 2, 2007 at 6:47 am
Eric V. Kirk
So Carson, what are your views of Iran. How should we approach their apparent nuclear capability (although Howard Zinn made a convincing case that the very potential is being overblown particularly with regard to the grade of enriched uranium capacity)? And more to the point of my original post, can those who oppose the war spend some time addressing the realities within Iran and the dissent therein? And how does that get integrated into an anti-war narrative?
January 2, 2007 at 7:10 am
Anonymous
Let’s review how preemptive,”get them before we KNOW they’re going to get us”, strikes have worked so far:
Iraq; on the plus, we were the enablers who provided for the spectacle of an evil dictator’s public lynching ceremony. That’ll have a sizable payoff for us in the long run, no doubt. GWB has Saddam’s pistol mounted on the oval office wall, and, well, I’m all in on the positive. Maybe Andy can add more.
On the negative side I’ll spare you the statistics. We all know them. I would instead refer you to http://www.riverbend.blogspot.com.
Another blogger noted this site before, and it tells the tale from an Iraqi woman’s point of view who is actually living with it. Better than anything I or anyone here in the comfort of the good old USofA could say. Eric, you ought to link this site after reading it for yourself.
Then there’s
Lebanon; the planned retalitory foray our proxy, or little brother, if you prefer, Israel just wrapped up a few months ago to get 2 soldiers back and to teach Hezzbolah and Iran a lesson should qualify as a preemptive undertaking.
Hard to find anything positive there. Soldiers still missing, 12 lateral miles of Lebanon destroyed, by US ordinance on lend lease. Hundreds of innocent Lebanese killed and Hezzbolah, and Iran, appear to have only been strengthened by it. They fought the invincable Israeli miliary to a standstill and have rebuilt most of the infrastruture that was destroyed quicker than anything accomplished in New Orleans so far.
That’s a pretty impressive balance sheet. No wonder the Jews are upset with that gambit. GWB called it a victory,btw.
Then, historically,for a footnote, there’s Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s Blitzkrieg. Worked out well for both of those interests.
Now Mr.Stunich believes we need to preemptively attack Iran. Just take out all their infrastructure and nuke capabilities with a Shock & Awe redux and they will see the error of their ways and beg for Jewish forgiveness.Or at least they’ll have a hard time recovering and we’ll be much, much safer. Armageddeon Lite now or the real deal later.
And who has exibited more of a nack for pulling the preemptive trigger then GWB. This time he’ll get the details worked out first and I’ll bet he could find some room on the wall for another souvenir too.
I’m sold. When do you think we should do this, Andy? Before, during,or right after a Muslim holiday?
They seem to have quite a few, so why even bother worrying about their religious customs. Payback for the Yom Kipper war while we’re about it.
This IS all about a religious struggle between the evil forces of Islam and the goodness of Judeo-Christianity, right?
As long as God is on our side – let’s roll!
January 2, 2007 at 7:38 am
Eric V. Kirk
Well, the Israeli aerial bombing attack on the Iraqi nuclear facilities in 1981 set their program back several decades apparently. One attack. A barrage of international condemnations and a UN resolution against Israel were the downside.
I’m not necessarily endorsing this. I was a Junior in high school at the time, and I viewed it as an unwarranted act of aggression. Now I’m not so sure.
January 2, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Anonymous
Because Zionist ideology has you sold, eric? That Israelis Jewish cult fanatics with their nuclear weapons are more to be trusted than Iranian Muslim fanatics with nuclear weapons?
Ah, to be able to side with one set of religious fascists over another set. Meanwhile, the rest of the world would like to be free of threats of a nuclear WW III, which can only be done when the U.S. and Europe decide to play fair and treat Israel’s army and nuclear capacity as the real threat to Middle East stability. How many years will it take for the message to get through to Western ears that it Israel that is the cause of Middle East hatred of the U.S. and that avoiding that issue avoids any serious commitment to securing peace in the region.
January 2, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Carson Park Ranger
“…the very potential is being overblown particularly with regard to the grade of enriched uranium capacity…”
We’ve seen the military capacity of “enemies” trumped up for political reasons recently, haven’t we?
George Bush and his idiotic advisors have done everything possible to strengthen the regime in Tehran. He’s threatened the government and people with war (nothing congeals power like a threat, and nobody knows this like Bush). He’s voiced unwelcomed and unsolicited support for the opposition, a blow which will cripple them indefinitely. He’s submerged the US in an internecine conflict in Iraq which is unlikely to be resolved soon and has strengthened the governmebnt in Tehran. Iran has also benefited from the spike in oil prices since Bush took office.
Let’s see, I know I’m forgetting something. I’d probably be reminded of it if I reread the first comment in this thread, but who’s got that kind of time?
January 2, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Because Zionist ideology has you sold, eric?
Science more like it, and subsequent articles in the American media about what was bombed.
That Israelis Jewish cult fanatics with their nuclear weapons are more to be trusted than Iranian Muslim fanatics with nuclear weapons?
Yes. They have not articulated that Iran must be destroyed. Iran’s leadership has in fact stated that Israel should be destroyed. That alone determines the issue for me.
January 2, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Anonymous
For millions of Iranians, humor is proving the perfect way to let off steam, and jokes focusing on Mr. Ahmadinejad’s purported lack of personal hygiene have begun to proliferate via text messages and e-mails.
Most are the work of supporters of Iran’s fractured reformist movement, which remains marginalized despite signs of a comeback in a recent vote for district councils. Meanwhile, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s image as a religious zealot makes him an easy target.
Fond of denouncing all things American and rarely dressing in anything more statesmanlike than a beige anorak, he is portrayed as an ignorant, bigoted bumpkin in jokes swapped among Tehran’s educated middle class.
One joke tells of how Osama bin Laden meets Mr. Ahmadinejad in hell and finds him dancing with the American singer Jennifer Lopez.
“Is this your punishment?” asks bin Laden.
“No,” the president replies, “It’s Jennifer Lopez’s punishment.”
Other jibes are altogether more cutting, such as the tale of how the president finds lice when combing his hair one day. “OK, male lice to the left and females to the right,” he says — a reference to his reported attempt to introduce segregated corridors in the city hall during his previous job as mayor of Tehran.
Mr. Ahmadinejad has made recent efforts to shed his image as a stern and intolerant Islamist. After being fiercely heckled by reformists during a speech at a student demonstration last month, he surprised his audience by declaring that they should not be arrested or hurt. And members of the president’s personal staff say the boss likes a joke as much as anyone else.
However, rumor has it that Mr. Ahmadinejad took umbrage recently at a joke claiming that he needed to shower more often.
The gag was brought to his attention, not via Iran’s formidable secret intelligence services, but in a misdirected text message. In response, he is said to have lodged an official complaint with the judiciary.
According to Rooz Online, a pro-reformist Web site, a senior official with the country’s mobile phone network was fired and several others arrested and accused of being foreign spies.
January 2, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Anonymous
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | January 2, 2007
WASHINGTON — For nearly a year, a select group of US officials has been quietly coordinating actions to counter the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, including increasing the military capabilities of Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.
The group, known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group, or ISOG, is also coordinating a host of other actions, which include covert assistance to Iranian dissidents and building international outrage toward Iran by publicizing its alleged role in a 1994 terrorist attack in Argentina, according to interviews with half a dozen White House, Pentagon, and State Department officials who are involved in the group’s work.
Pentagon officials involved with the group intend to ask Congress as early as February to increase funding for transfers of military hardware to allies in the Persian Gulf and to accelerate plans for joint military activities. The request, which is still being formulated, is expected to include but not be limited to more advanced-missile defense systems and early-warning radar to detect and prevent Iranian missile strikes.
“There is the perception in the Gulf that Iran is really on the rise,” said Emile El-Hokayem, research fellow at the Stimpson Center, a Washington-based think tank. “Washington wants to prepare for a potential show down.”
The existence of ISOG reflects an intensification of the Bush administration’s planning on Iran. Syria, which has linked itself to Iran through military pacts, is a lesser focus for the group. Its workings have been so secretive that several officials in the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs bureau said they were unaware it existed.
The United States has repeatedly said its policy is not to overthrow the Iranian regime, but one former US official who attended a meeting during ISOG’s initial phase eight months ago said in an interview that he got the impression that regime change was a key goal of many of the meetings’ participants.
He said that some of the intelligence reports ordered by members of the group were so highly classified that they were accessible to less than a dozen people in the US government, suggesting that some of the group’s activities were far from routine.
But interviews with half a dozen current White House, Pentagon, and State Department officials indicated that ISOG’s aims are more modest. Several said that as much as they would like to see the regimes in Tehran and Damascus go, ongoing military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan have limited their range of options. The main goal now, they said, is Cold War style “containment” of Iran in the hopes that Iranians one day will opt to change their own government.
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the topic to the press, described ISOG as an inter agency clearinghouse for ideas and strategies to roll back the influence of Iran. Senior officials of the State Department, White House, CIA, Treasury Department, and other agencies meet weekly to report their day-to-day operations.
“It’s really more operational, to provide a forum for ongoing interagency group discussions on Iran and Syria, share ideas, and follow things up week after week,” said Kate Starr , a National Security Council spokeswoman.
ISOG’s work, which focuses on isolating and containing Iran, is consistent with the administration’s refusal to reach out diplomatically to Iran and Syria, as the Iraq Study Group has recommended.
“Iran is the key to everything at the strategic level — the biggest problem we have faced in a long time,” said a senior State Department official involved in ISOG, citing Iran’s negative impact on Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. “These are all things they are doing because they sense weakness [on the part of the United States]. The best thing for us to project is strength, not ‘please talk to us.’ “
ISOG was modeled after the Iraq Policy and Operations Group, set up in 2004 to shepherd information and coordinate US action in Iraq. ISOG has raised eyebrows within the State Department for hiring BearingPoint — the same Washington-based private contracting firm used by the Iraq group — to handle its administrative work, rather than State Department employees.
Some lower level State Department officials saw the decision to outsource responsibility for scheduling meetings, record keeping, and distributing reports as an effort to circumvent the normal diplomatic machinery and provide extra secrecy for the group.
But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said BearingPoint was hired for its experience and good work on Iraq. He said that about a dozen BearingPoint contractors work out of the Iraq Policy and Operations Group office on the sixth floor of the State Department, and that a few of them have begun working on the Iran and Syria group.
ISOG is led by a steering committee with two leading hawks on Middle East policy as chairmen: James F. Jeffrey, prinicipal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, who once headed Iraq policy, and Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser for “Global Democracy Strategy.” Michael Doran, a Middle East specialist at the White House, steps in when Abrams is away. Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president’s daughter, who was the former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, served as cochairwoman before she took a maternity leave earlier this year.
ISOG is made of five main “pillars,” or working groups. The military group explores ways to bolster Arab defenses and create more military cooperation between the Persian Gulf states. The initiative was set into motion in May , when John Hillen, assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs, traveled to the region on his first of a series of trips to the Gulf.
In October, Hillen and Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter W. Rodman, along with National Security Council staff and others, traveled to Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain to discuss ways to beef up the military capabilities of those countries.
US officials also conducted the first naval training exercises in the Persian Gulf designed to intercept weapons shipments to and from Iran, with participation from Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
A second working group deals with “democracy outreach,” focusing on the State Department’s effort to provide secret financial assistance to dissidents and reformist organizations inside Iran and Syria. It also seeks ways to use scientific exchanges and human rights conferences to learn more about what is happening inside Iran, officials said.
US financing of pro democracy activities in Iran is expected to double in 2008, according to the senior State Department official. In 2006, $85 million was allocated for such programs.
A third working group focuses on finances and the Treasury Department’s efforts to beef up bilateral restrictions on money transfers to and from Iranian banks. A fourth group focuses on Iran’s “special relationships” with Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and terrorist organizations. That group has closely followed Iran’s alleged role in a 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina.
A fifth working group coordinates media outreach to the people of Iran, Syria, and the region.
January 2, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Anonymous
what we want to know Carson Park Ranger is this:
What is your opinion regarding whether we should use military force to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, if military force is the only remaining option to prevent it?
January 2, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Stephen
–That Israelis Jewish cult fanatics with their nuclear weapons are more to be trusted than Iranian Muslim fanatics with nuclear weapons?
“Yes. They have not articulated that Iran must be destroyed. Iran’s leadership has in fact stated that Israel should be destroyed. That alone determines the issue for me.”
Israelis don’t have to articulate Iran must be destroyed. They have already destroyed Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq, by sicing America on their enemies. And eric, do you know for certain that Iran wants Israel as a nation or destroyed as the political entity representing both Palestinians and Israeli Jews?
Having been a member of two Palestinian groups for years now, I don’t think you will find very many Arabs, Pals, or otherwise, thinking of genociding Israelis. Pals just want to get back control of their own country from foreign domination that has been going on for centuries.
Most Americans cannot see Zionist Judaism for what it is–a seriously fanatical paranoid religious cult, the world’s oldest and most powerful one, now controlling the Middle East foreign policy of the U.S. and Britain. Google Harvard and U.of Chicago profs. Mearsheimer and Walt’s report the Israeli Lobby and American Foreign Policy.
Here’s a test to spot Judaism as a fanatical paranoid religious cult. Compare the reactions of Jim Jones’ Jonestown, David Koresh’s Waco compound, with the Jews at Masada. All three religious cult fanatics were quite willing to kill innocent children in order to protect the cult. The Cult means everything and when the Cult is embedded within a nation and controls its foreign policy, we are all in danger. Israel is that Cult, and Israel has nuclear weapons and I have yet to hear anyone saying Israel will not use those weapons against it’s Arab Muslim neighbors even if if using them destroys Israel in the process. Such is cult fanatical ideology.
January 2, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Because Israel has used nuclear weapons against the Arabs now – how many times?
January 3, 2007 at 12:52 am
Andy Stunich
Steve, Mosada occurred nearly 2000 years ago and the children were killed in the belief that was preferable to Roman torture or slavery. It was also a small radical sect that hardly represents Judaism for the ages. We call Zealots Zealots because of the namme of that radical sect. Seen any Jews that self-identify as Zealots in the last thousand years? Finally, where is there any evidence that these children were killed because of Judaism? The fact is that these were simply Jews that did something about which you do not approve. That hardly justifies your views of modern Jews. It would be one thing if they did what they did because of some doctrine in the Torah, but there is no evidence that is the case. Does Judaism teach that killing your children is preferable to allowing them to be captured or killed by Romans. Of course not so your argument is very illogical.
January 3, 2007 at 12:59 am
Andy Stunich
Also, what is it about the belief that Jews should be allowed to form a homeland within the borders of their ancient homeland that you find so morally repugnant? Do you use some alternative definition of Zioinism? If so, what is your definition? Besides, have we not moved beyond the Zionist debate given that Israel has existed for over fifty years? What do you want the Jews to do lay down their arms and sumbit to Arab hegemony? Do you really believe that Jews can obtain justice and fair governance from a people that cannot even live in peace among themselves? Are you aware of the Arab on Arab violence in the West Bank? Have you not seen or read what they do to alleged collaberators with the Jews with no trial or real proof?
January 3, 2007 at 1:27 am
Eric V. Kirk
Well Andy, the basic point is that it displaced people who were already there, most of whom had no ill will towards Jews up until that point. The “land without a people for a people without a land” is a bit of BS PR. People were there, and they lost land and homes that had been in families for hundreds of years.
It’s legitimate to ask why Palestinians should have to foot the bill for the sins of Europeans. And the claim to the land was 2000 years old. Certainly a statute of limitations had expired.
January 3, 2007 at 2:11 am
Stephen
Andy, I have come to the conclusion you and eric just don’t want to think about the morality of foreign religious converts taking the land away from indigenous peoples. That is sad.
“Steve, Mosada occurred nearly 2000 years ago and the children were killed in the belief that was preferable to Roman torture or slavery. It was also a small radical sect that hardly represents Judaism for the ages. We call Zealots Zealots because of the namme of that radical sect. Seen any Jews that self-identify as Zealots in the last thousand years?”
You answered my fear of Israeli cult fanaticism already, Andy, negating your own argument above.
“While Israel is, in my vew, a responsible, highly civilized and advanced democratic state, it is nonetheless deeply influenced by its heritage. Part of that heritage is the story of Sampson and, like Sampson, Israel will respond with nuclear force when attacked by Iran, regardless of the consequences to Israel. What other option will the nation have?”
The option to form a truly democratic government with Palestinians given equal rights and equal political power. The option to honor the orthodox Jews who view Israel as a secular monstrosity violating the spirit of the Torah. The option to quit using religion as a cover for cult power grabbing.
“Finally, where is there any evidence that these children were killed because of Judaism?”
Was there any evidence Jonestown children or Waco children were killed because of their cult identity? The cultist themselves killed the children–Jonestown, Waco, and Masada.
“Does Judaism teach that killing your children is preferable to allowing them to be captured or killed by Romans. Of course not so your argument is very illogical.”
This is the argument Jim Jones used, Koresh used, and no doubt, Masada Jews leaders used, to justify the unthinkable, killing your own children instead of letting them live without the cult identity. Did Romans make a habit of killing children? I don’t think so. That sort of tactic would not serve them very well in their Roman Empire based on Pax Romana and letting conquered peoples rule themselves under Roman guidance. Masada reaction shows the fanatical side of Jewish cult mentality. Your own opinion of Israeli usage of nuclear weapons in a final Gotterdammerung scenario also shows your own unconscious awareness of Jewish fanatical cult mentality.
“Also, what is it about the belief that Jews should be allowed to form a homeland within the borders of their ancient homeland that you find so morally repugnant?”
That’s just it, Andy, Jews want us to forget all about their Ashkenazi religious conversion in the Khazar kingdom north of Turkey. I still ask you and eric, if it is moral for America and Europeans to engineer the U.N. to divide a nation in order for foreign religious converts to have a nation to themselves by ousting the indigeneous population. I am still asking that question as neither of you has addressed it squarely.
“Do you use some alternative definition of Zioinism? If so, what is your definition?”
Yes I do. My definition of Zionism matches that of the Neturai Carta orthodox Jews. Both of us believe the Zionist ideal of establishing Jerusalem as a center for world peace cannot be done secularly and definitely cannot be done militarily. Modern Israel is the worst thing that has happened to Jews, worse than the Shoah because while the Shoah illicited sympathy for Jews, modern Israel illicits the opposite. Modern Israel seems the place where Jews wreak revenge on a people weaker than themselves as if punishing Pals for over 60 years for all the past crimes of European Gentiles against Gentiles. It’s sick.
“Besides, have we not moved beyond the Zionist debate given that Israel has existed for over fifty years? What do you want the Jews to do lay down their arms and sumbit to Arab hegemony? Do you really believe that Jews can obtain justice and fair governance from a people that cannot even live in peace among themselves?”
Andy, Israeli Jews get back what they put out. You don’t seem to understand Israeli Jews have never practiced being good neighbors in the Middle East. They have relied on brute force made possible by American military and economic aid unavailable to Palestinians. Israelis now find themselves in the exact same position as white supremist South Afrikaaners and the same solution will eventually evolve-Palestinians will take back their own homeland and Israelis will learn to become good citizens of a democratic nation where sovereignty and political rights are not a religious issue.
“Are you aware of the Arab on Arab violence in the West Bank? Have you not seen or read what they do to alleged collaberators with the Jews with no trial or real proof?”
Andy, please do some reading about collaborators in France during their occupation by Nazis. Were the French Resistance fighters evil people when they killed collaborators with the Germans? It is the inevitable outcome of foreign occupation that it often pits the occupation victims against each other. Hell, both Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were killed by Lakota collaborators with the U.S. Army. The occupation creates evil and that is why we need to end the occupation as soon as possible.
January 3, 2007 at 2:29 am
Andy Stunich
Well Steve, you have a unique way of looking at things. You ask: “I still ask you and eric, if it is moral for America and Europeans to engineer the U.N. to divide a nation in order for foreign religious converts to have a nation to themselves by ousting the indigeneous population. I am still asking that question as neither of you has addressed it squarely.”
If what you said were true, no I would not think it was fair. But my review of history reveals far different facts:
1. The UN was created for no such purpose.
2. All the UN did was recognize Israel. It did not create Israel.
3. The Jews lawfully bought land from absentee landlords leaving more than enough land for the Arab population to buy and preserve. Violence erupted because of ant-Semitism and nothing more.
4. No Arabs were ousted until the Arabs started murdering Jews. Most Arabs fled of their own accord. Even at that, more Jews were sumarily ousted from neighboring Arab lands than were displaced by Jews. Why do you never rail against the summary removal of Jews from Egypt, Syria and Iraq who had lived in those countries for hundreds of years?
January 3, 2007 at 2:38 am
Andy Stunich
I beg to differ with you Eric. Palestine was lightly populated and there was plenty of room for Jews and Arabs. Even if one ignores the fact that Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan provide plenty of land for Arab habitation, the original split of what remained of Palestine after Jordan was created wherein Jews were forbidden to settle there was very fair. There was plenty of room for the Arabs that remained in what was left of non-Jordanian Palestine. There was no need for the violence Arabs initiated.
Present day Israel has never been an independent Arab nation and I am unable to see why it is that such a rational man can believe that Arabs had some right to preclude Jews from buying land there and creating a very tiny homeland. They never intended to steal land from any Arab or to force them to leave. Many Arabs live as citizens in Israel far better than most Arabs live under Arab governance. Be honest Eric, would you rather be an Israeli Arab living in a democracy or live in Egypt, Syria, or Jordan?
January 3, 2007 at 4:44 am
Carson Park Ranger
“…whether we should use military force to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, if military force is the only remaining option to prevent it?”
This is not a question we should be addressing now. Iran poses no threat to the United States, and the only reason that we’re discussing the issue is that the Bush administration is itching to expand their war into Iran, so they’ve been sounding the alarm. Does the pattern look familiar? We haven’t had much success in Iraq, so why would people trust the Bush administration to expand the scope of the disaster into Iran, and what would it accomplish?
Diplomacy is in order now. It’s long overdue. We’ve botched Iraq, and we need help in order to extricate ourselves.
January 3, 2007 at 4:49 am
Carson Park Ranger
On another note, A.S. pitting his energetic and relentless expressions of ignorance up against Steve Lewis’ fanciful views of religious history does not make for a pleasant, nor edifying evening of reading.
January 3, 2007 at 5:59 am
Anonymous
I’ll tell you, Andy, why Steve Lewis doesn’t shed any tears over the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries: he doesn’t know the history of the region.
January 3, 2007 at 6:02 am
Eric V. Kirk
Andy – I would much rather be an Arab living in Israel. Then again, I’d also rather be a black person living in Jim Crow south in the 20s. But I wouldn’t want that either if I could avoid it.
Many of the Palestinians did leave of their own will, some of them leaving with the promise from Arab countries to destroy Israel and restore them to their land. But many others were forcibly removed following a sham census in 1952 in which farms and property were deemed to be abandoned by Arabs when in fact they were working away from home or otherwise. And the fact is, even many of the Palestinians who left the country did not do so in solidarity with the invasion but simply because they wanted to avoid the crossfire. I’ve spoken to vehement Zionists about this, and many of them concede that the 52 census was a joke.
And even those who didn’t lose their land – the fact is a country was formed around them in which they became second class citizens – perhaps better off than in other countries, but still annexed against their will – all over a claim based on a two-thousand year old collection of tribal religious texts (from their perspective).
It couldn’t have sat well. And these were people who mostly had done nothing to harm Jews.
It’s done, and years have passed with Israel in Palestine becoming a permanent political reality. I believe a statute of limitations has been reached there, and now we’re talking decades rather than milenia. I believe that Jews should have been given a chunk of land to call home. But there were populations more deserving of the imposition.
January 3, 2007 at 6:04 am
Eric V. Kirk
Iran poses no threat to the United States
That’s the magic topic of debate. I’d like to expand on it, because I don’t know which argument is right.
January 3, 2007 at 6:31 am
Carson Park Ranger
“Many of the Palestinians did leave of their own will”
Another canard, oft repeated, thus now a fact.
January 3, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Eric V. Kirk
By their own words CPR. There’s more than a little documentation.
January 3, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Carson Park Ranger
This does not square with contemporary accounts.
January 3, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Andy Stunich
“No two historians ever agree on what happened, and the damn thing is they both think they’re telling the truth.” Harry S. Truman.
January 3, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Andy Stunich
Since we seem unable to agree on the underlying history, I looked for and found a short, but very accurate history on-line located at http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm for anyone that is interested. For those who prefer hardcopy, Mithchell G.Bard’s book entitled “Middle East Conflict” is very well written and interesting. Dr. Bard is one of the foremost experts on the Middle East.
January 3, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Carson Park Ranger
It appears that Mr. Stunich does not like to venture far for information: Mithchell G.Bard was the editor of the Near East Report, an AIPAC weekly newsletter on U.S. Middle East policy.
We might just as well rely upon the Israeli government for our history.
January 3, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Stephen
Mazim Qumseyeh has the best history of Palestine. He is a Palestinian professor of biology I think who is quite active in the Palestinian statehood movement. Of course, Mazim would be considered biased as would any info coming from Israeli or Zionist sites. http://qumsiyeh.org/
January 4, 2007 at 1:17 am
Carson Park Ranger
You could do a lot worse than Israeli historian Simha Flappan’s The Birth of Israel: Myths and Reality
“Many…Palestinians did leave of their own will” This is one of the myths which Flappan addresses.
January 4, 2007 at 3:46 am
Andy Stunich
Many Palestinians did leave of their own will. It may have been because they wanted to avoid the conflict or, as in many cases, they responded to rumors or Arab leaders instructions to make way for the invading armies. Most thought the Arabs would quickly crush the Jews and that they could quickly return. Even the old PBS special entitled “The 50 Years War Israel and the Arabs” acknowledged that Arab leaders had started false rumors for propaganda purposes that caused thousands of Arabs to flee. PBS can hardly be written off as a Zionist mouthpiece.
January 4, 2007 at 3:52 am
Stephen
Not with Amy Goodman at the helm, by G-d!
January 4, 2007 at 4:09 am
Andy Stunich
The PBS special was made in 1999 Steve.
January 4, 2007 at 4:45 am
Carson Park Ranger
“PBS can hardly be written off as a Zionist mouthpiece.”
Again, a clearly debatable opinion stated as fact. At least it was brief.
January 4, 2007 at 7:19 am
Eric V. Kirk
Stephen – Amy Goodman’s with Pacifica, not PBS.
January 4, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Stephen
Nit-picking, eric. Her shows air on PBS and NPR.
January 5, 2007 at 5:05 am
Carson Park Ranger
Amy Goodman’s show is not on PBS nor is it on NPR.
If these are nits, they’re awfully big ones.
January 5, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Stephen
Well, excooze me! I don’t listen to radio much at all and it seems to me the few times I listened to Amy Goodman her show was part of NPR. But maybe they just carried her show as a syndicated one from Pacifica. Hell, I don’t know, and I don’t even care, nit-pickers.
January 5, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Eric V. Kirk
She’s on KHSU, which airs programming from both NPR and Pacifica.
January 6, 2007 at 4:18 am
Carson Park Ranger
If Stephen doesn’t know, and doesn’t care, then he ought not comment.
January 7, 2007 at 1:49 am
Stephen
cpr, I have heard her and I can comment on what I have heard. It’s still a free country in that funny way.