This just goes to illustrate that the brouhaha about Iran’s alleged quest for nuclear weapons is just a fig leave – just like WMD canard that was used to whip up hysteria and support for Iraq invasion in 2003. Just as in the case of Iraq’s debacle, this is not about nuclear weapons/power. It all about making the region/world safe for Zionism, as previously spelled out by the zio-supremacists/Israel-firsters’ “strategy for securing the realm” for the Zionist settler-colonialist enterprise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm).
Israel and its US goons are hoping that Iran will do something that would serve as a convenient casus belli for war. They make no secret about it. Patrick Clawsen, the director of the Iran Security Initiative at AIPAC’s WINEP, said this recently:
“It's a lot better to have a fight" … adding: "Better to enter World War II after Pearl Harbor, and World War I after the sinking of the Lusitania."
If Iran does not oblige, then a false flag operation might just do the trick. The zio-supremacists want this war bad in order to “secure the realm” for their Apartheid state, regardless of the cost in terms of US blood and treasure.
I thought by now this should be abundantly clear to all: whether an action is "unlawful" and whether something is “terrorism” is largely a function of who commits it. The label “Terrorism”, as it is now applied, simply refers to “any action committed by someone who happens to identify themselves as a Muslim (irrespective of their nationality) against Israeli/US interests”. By definition, the U.S. and Israel can never commit "Terrorism".
"One problem in American-Muslim relations is the old American conviction that Islam fosters tyranny."
Anti-Semites also believe that Jews are evil. So?
"Muslims need to face the facts and realize that old perception of their societies as despotic had some basis in truth"
Should Jews also "face the fact that Anti-Semitism has some basis in truth" in the eyes of anti-semites? If not, why not? Inquiring minds want to know.
And this takes the cacke: “They also must accommodate themselves to the historical reality of Israel and realize that all nations—including many Muslim ones today—were born out of violence against native populations.”
Silly me, I thought settler-colonialism is now a crime and international law prohibits ethnic cleansing and the acquisition of territory by force. If you think this should be ignored/scrubbed, do come out and say it. If Majid thinks slavery is okay too, he should come out and say it. If he thinks natives should be treated in 2012 the way they were treated in past centuries, he should also come out and say that clearly.
Anouar Majid's views are anything but "informed". His name suggests that he is of Arab/Muslim heritage, but he clearly channels Bernard Lewis and has internalized the thinking and stereotypes of orientalists. I suggest that what we have here is another Fouad Ajami in the making.
If Iran was an ally to Israel today, as it was during the Shah’s dictatorial reign, Iran’s nuclear program would not be an issue. Hardly anyone would raise a peep -- certainly not the US Congress, which is "bought and paid by the Israel lobby" (© Tom Friedman) and consistently acts as an arm of the Israeli government that has no qualms about spending US blood and treasure to make the world safe for ethnic cleansing, land theft, and Apartheid in Palestine.
This just goes to illustrate that the brouhaha about Iran’s alleged quest for nuclear weapons is just a fig leave – just like WMD canard that was used to whip up hysteria and support for Iraq invasion in 2003. Just as in the case of Iraq’s debacle, this is not about nuclear weapons/power. It all about making the region/world safe for Zionism, as previously spelled out by the zio-supremacists/Israel-firsters’ “strategy for securing the realm” for the Zionist settler-colonialist enterprise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm).
Israel and its US goons are hoping that Iran will do something that would serve as a convenient casus belli for war. They make no secret about it. Patrick Clawsen, the director of the Iran Security Initiative at AIPAC’s WINEP, said this recently:
“It's a lot better to have a fight" … adding: "Better to enter World War II after Pearl Harbor, and World War I after the sinking of the Lusitania."
(Credit: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/01/the-israel-lobbys-plan-press-iran-into-attacking-usrael.html)
If Iran does not oblige, then a false flag operation might just do the trick. The zio-supremacists want this war bad in order to “secure the realm” for their Apartheid state, regardless of the cost in terms of US blood and treasure.
I thought by now this should be abundantly clear to all: whether an action is "unlawful" and whether something is “terrorism” is largely a function of who commits it. The label “Terrorism”, as it is now applied, simply refers to “any action committed by someone who happens to identify themselves as a Muslim (irrespective of their nationality) against Israeli/US interests”. By definition, the U.S. and Israel can never commit "Terrorism".
"One problem in American-Muslim relations is the old American conviction that Islam fosters tyranny."
Anti-Semites also believe that Jews are evil. So?
"Muslims need to face the facts and realize that old perception of their societies as despotic had some basis in truth"
Should Jews also "face the fact that Anti-Semitism has some basis in truth" in the eyes of anti-semites? If not, why not? Inquiring minds want to know.
And this takes the cacke: “They also must accommodate themselves to the historical reality of Israel and realize that all nations—including many Muslim ones today—were born out of violence against native populations.”
Silly me, I thought settler-colonialism is now a crime and international law prohibits ethnic cleansing and the acquisition of territory by force. If you think this should be ignored/scrubbed, do come out and say it. If Majid thinks slavery is okay too, he should come out and say it. If he thinks natives should be treated in 2012 the way they were treated in past centuries, he should also come out and say that clearly.
Anouar Majid's views are anything but "informed". His name suggests that he is of Arab/Muslim heritage, but he clearly channels Bernard Lewis and has internalized the thinking and stereotypes of orientalists. I suggest that what we have here is another Fouad Ajami in the making.