Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

Erm that is not quite true. Jews made up about 3% of Palestine in the late 1800's before European Jews decided they were going to take it over and started coming over. These Jews most certainly were part of the Palestinian people - many of them gave their lives fighting European Jews and the British during 36-39. Many more who worked as police were killed by the Zionists.

What you are talking about is the indiginous people who included about 3% Jews and the gradual colonisation of Palestine by European Jews which by the time demand for partition amounted to around 30% of the people of Palestine. They were allotted 57% of the land. The British Archives state that the Zionists would only accept a solution which was so much in their favour it would be impossible for the Palestinians to agree to...and even then, that was only the beginning. Israel has worked on taking all the land off the people whose ancestors have worked it century after century and who almost certainly are the most direct descendents of the ancient Jews.

Of course you also forget the Christians.

 

I've heard of this book, but never read it.

And may I suggest:
The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt And Local Zoroastrianism by Patricia Crone.

I haven't read it yet. I'm still reading Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity

 

What are you talking about 36-39 ?

I'm talking about the Jews who lived there by the time the Mandate ended,
British Archives also stated the Arabs refused any kind of partition at all,
Arabs started the war - what Zionists thought is meaningless because war is very a much decisive thing one cannot go back from.
Arab propaganda about Jewish origins and Jews in general may keep you warm at night but meaningless otherwise.

I didn't say "Muslims"....

 

try a check if you are so ignorant of your history.

No they don't. If you have managed to find a bit that does then good luck but that is not what they perceived. Not that any people have a responsibility to give up over half of their homeland to people they originally welcomed in who then decided they were going to take their homeland over.

ha ha ha. They eventually came in after you had ethnically cleansed 3-400,000 while raping them and massacring them

[​

It has nothing to do with Arab propaganda. It is to do with reality. There were three 'people' in the areas, Jews Muslims and Christians. Muslims were by far the majority, then Christians then a very few Jews. Add to that that the people from the area did not have the Nazi delight of Ethnic Nationalist States and you believing you can go into another country and then claim you - the ethnic Europeans are one of the 'people' of the region while certainly being true to the inhumanity of Europe at the time, gives you no rights.

Two people you were meaning Jews and Muslims. You have no right to be living on that land by being two people. As I said prior to the late 1800's Jews were about 3% - no way 'two people' - three with Jews being the smallest.. The Christians I believe were bigger than yourselves. When did it become 2 people with Jews the next. The Jewish Virtual Library has the number of Jews there around the 16th C as 1.7% of the population, unless I am remembering it wrong and then nothing until 1880 when it claims 8% and you believe you have the right to destroy another people treating them inhumanely for ever on that.[/quote]

 

I did try to look it up, more than that my grandparents lived in that time and I never heard anything close to what you said, is it just part of the usual Arab lies or do you actually have something ?
No point to argue about the rest if you intend to just write things off your head.....

 

Any understanding of 'good against evil' (the cornerstone of the ancient Iranian mythology) must have some definition (instinctive or otherwise) to give those terms meaning. In this regard, David Hume was right: you cannot 'derive an ought from an is' using reason and logic. Anyone who pretends otherwise is selling you snake oil. So you have to start with some 'first principles" -- one that you accept as true, a priori and based on other things.

A libertarian might erect so-called "individual liberty' and, ultimately, man himself, as the "value" to cherish. I will offer my critique of that in due course. After all, there are a lot of 'individuals' on this planet and the real issues aren't about the limited points where none of those liberties/interests intersect and clash. To be sure, If libertarianism turns into something akin to Rawles' Theory of Justice, then its fine -- even if that has its issues too and shouldn't become dogma either. My main worry, however, is certainly not Rawles (I like his work) or even classical libertarian thought or the classical liberals in western civilization. These were all scholars with things to teach. I have learned a lot from both the classical economics, and from Karl Marx too (both the old and the young Marx), and very desperate figures in western scholarship covering many different angles in the way they approached things. My real worries aren't about the true scholars (whatever their stripe), but the true 'snake oil salesmen' like Ayn Rand and her ilk and kind. Or the snake oil salesmen in the opposite end of the spectrum who took Marxism to dogmatic places. Or snake oil salesmen who take any ideology and turn its scholarship into dogma. More about all that later.

But let me start with my first principles.

In my world view, there are only two values which have inherent, more lasting, and less subjective, meaning. These are truth and beauty. All other values are simply man-made, even if they play a role in the larger evolutionary path within the matrix of the material world we are positioned in.

Real good, juxtaposed against real evil, for me, begins with the quest for truth. Which is why all true scholars (of whatever stripe and message) who are guided by scholarship (earning credibility based on the cogency of their ideas and not, first, on the strength of its popularity with the masses) and the quest for truth (knowledge), as opposed to being guided by falsehood (lies, or "doroogh", the face of the real "devil" (Div) in Iranian mythology) peddling 'snake oil' (propaganda) for the masses, are ultimately true friends of IRAN. Not always the "Iranian regime", but of IRAN, its true spirit, and what it ultimately and truly stands for.

If our own scholars (ulama) are no longer so scholarly, it is not their methodology on this issue that is the problem. In fact, the opposite. It is/was because of the fact that their 'curriculum' (while profound on many levels) stopped being inclusive enough of all strains and strands of knowledge being developed, for them to fully and truly learn from all of it, and become the real 'scholars' which they once comparatively were and which they are supposed to be and which their robes once represented them to be. It was also because some were actually were working against this very ideology -- an ideology which is the cornerstone of the 'shia clerical' route to scholarship and attaining the rank of an "Ayatollah" (a scholar who has attained the right to "Ijtihad"; a mujtahid, who only after attaining this rank, can then engage in a 'popularity' context with other Ayatollahs to see who has more followers as a 'source of emulation"). They were working against it by adopting "dogma' over true knowledge and the 'quest for truth'. They were becoming like "Sunnis" in that sense. Dogma is the whole cloth which covers "dorooghi" (falsehood). Truth (and beauty), on the other hand, the "light" that guides the human spirit to that which I consider "spiritual" (above the reality and truths of the material world to something more meaningful).

As for "beauty", is does have an 'objective core' too, even if parts of beauty are indeed 'in the eyes of the beholder'. I can't deal with "beauty" the way you deal with "truth". Here, "logic" isn't the main guide. Your emotions are the true guide instead. I will address this in my next message.

 

Ok, hold the presses! Ayn Rand is a propagandist? That begs elucidation.

Are you Sufi?

I sense frustration.

In what arenas do you feel the clergy have limited new knowledge?

 

Does it?

I am certainly influenced by Iran's "sufi tradition". But, unlike the Sufis, I don't believe you can totally turn your back on the "material world". The material world is itself a 'guide' to the truth. Not the 'whole truth', no more than it is in the universe (which is composed of 5% matter and, the rest, of other things including what is dubbed by scientists as "dark energy"). But the evolutionary process of the material world, and the laws governing it, takes us towards that path, and controlling its forces and learning from it, important ingredients in that process. In a way, to me, you need to be both a "sufi" (ultimately aware enough not to become too beholden by the material world and its interests and erect such temporal things as your God) and, yet, have a society that has experts on the material laws (called 'scientists'), guided by the love of 'knowledge' above material goods, but a society that sufficiently marshals the material world and its resources to produce a society which is also stable and prosperous enough to have the technological advances which allow modern day scientists to study the universe better.

Some frustration, yes, but not only directed at our current 'sources of emulation' but also many who aspire to that role from the West. The latter more so, in fact, with my next post perhaps hinting at it

Once upon a time, the "Islamic world" contained the 'cutting edge' of what was worthwhile to learn. The scholarship, mainly by Persians, was nonetheless done in Arabic as the language of 'science' and non-literary 'philosophy'. Arabic had become the lingua franca of the Islamic world and remained the lingua franca when it came to these disciplines for a long time. Our clerics learned Arabic (even if not as fluently as they pretend) and read the works of the great "masters" (whether those which had translated ancient Greek texts into Arabic, or those which were written by Persian philosophers such as Farabi and Ibn Sina (Avicenna) from the rationalist school and their so-called opposite, Ghazali. They were also trained in Persian literature and philosophy and the traditions that came to follow the classical period in Islamic philosophy and the sciences, with Iran's philosophical tradition a dynamism that was lost elsewhere in the Islamic world. But while advances by these (mainly Persian) scholars in various 'scientific' disciplines such as mathematics, astronomy and medicine were first rate and kept scholarship in Iran at around the level if not above the level in Europe even many centuries after the European renaissance, eventually, the West started to move ahead in all these fields and many more. But what was being done in the West, was in a language and part of a tradition that our 'scholars' no longer followed. When they were confronted with it, they had already fallen way behind. By this time, 'education' became divided in the "Muslim world" between 'religious education' being taught in the seminaries and "western education" being taught in western style universities and institutions of learning. The former, in Iran, following Iran's "Ayatollahs" as their sources of emulation. The latter following scholars in the West for this purpose.

 

Going to "beauty", I consider Iran one of the places that exudes beauty in ways that defy its material conditions and limitations. The Zionists claim they have turned the desert of Palestine into some oasis of beauty. But this was actually done by Iran a long time ago, without modern technology and without all that the Zionist project entailed. The word "paradise" comes from Persian. Travel through Iran, and you will see how total wasteland and deserts have been turned into paradise on earth. The beauty of IRAN is captivating, even for those who might be repelled by so much of the corruption and the truly ugly things that have come to cover a lot of that beauty.

If you visit Iran, you might discover why Iran, can touch even the hearts and minds of even those who are otherwise most prejudiced against it. Even at its ugliest nadir in the 19th century, it was Iran after all that captured the imagination of a "Nordic supremacist" like Comte de Gobineau the most (and Iranians have never been Nordics, the myths propagated by Gobineau notwithstanding). More so even compared to the true Nordic heartlands in Scandinavia, much less to the jungles and cities in Brazil, the many places in Europe, or even his own country in France (none of which he really liked). This despite bemoaning how (in his confused mind) the true Aryans (Iranians) had become a race of "mixed breeds"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau

Gobineau, an aristocratic who couldn't tolerate for a second mixing with commoners in his own native land, France, spend a lot of his time mixing up with the Persians (including even common folks in Iran).

And while Gobineau was ultimately a confused soul, and his confusions and nonsense influenced some terribly monstrous political philosophies including that of Nazi Germany, you find a somewhat similar reaction in an opposite (but even more clearly anti-Iran) person like the ultra Zionist, Jewish, columnist Annika Hernroth-Rothstein, whose account of her visit to Iran is ultimately interesting (not for the polemics or propaganda she likes to peddle) but only because of this one admission in response to the question: "Q: What surprised you the most about Iran?" A: "How much I loved the country. Q: Really? A: Yes, because besides Israel, I have never fallen that deeply in love with a country". (See this video of her interview with Israel Hayom television, minutes 11:40-11:50).

This reaction to Iran, of course, isn't peculiar to 'right wing' figures who visit their nemesis. You find it also in tens of thousands of accounts from more liberal tradition. Take this one from the British journalist and writer, John Simpson:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/t...an-is-the-most-charming-country-on-earth.html

These are selections from people whose view of Iran's regime isn't positive at all. There are literally tens of thousands of accounts you can find from people who take no side on the political issues between Iran and the West, or those who might even sympathize with Iran, who will say much the same (if not with as much credibility) then with as much conviction. Put differently, Iran is among the "most hated" countries on earth among all who have never seen it. And it among the most loved countries by those who have. Just "google" find what people who have actually visited Iran have to say about it. They can even be people who hate its regime, banned from the country, even those imprisoned and detained in Iran. So long as they have actually spent enough time to visit it, you will find that Iran has 'something' to attract them in ways that few other countries have.

So before I address at some point in some other message the issues about my political theory and philosophy, I want to be clear: yes, I believe in 'truth' and 'beauty'. And while I am not exactly chauvinistic and totally realize that 'truth and beauty' exist in many places outside of Iran, and there are many things ugly and false in Iran too, I believe Iran (at its core) is about truth and beauty, fighting against falsehood and what is ugly. Not by erecting, ugly, racist ideologies. But by following the spirit of IRAN and its true traditions.

 

@Iranian Monitor I don't believe anyone doubts your devotion to your country.

 

Abraham, as the story goes, went to Canaan. While Moses is a rip of from Sumerian mythology. It was Sargon who was set afloat in basked in a river. Picked up and ended up at the royal court.

The Jew God massacred the innocent babies in Egypt. The Jew still celebrate they got passed over the massacre of their God. That was step 1 to commit genocide against the people of Canaan, with the blessing of God of course. And the Sumerians had a god of war. In fact, he is mentioned in the Torah.

 

The only country the Arabs are boycotting, is Israel itself. That disproves your ridiculous conspiracy theory.
The Jew homeland is simply a paria state. It refuses to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

Nope. They were TOLD by the world that their Mandatory of Palestine was going to be divided between the 2 people.
The Arabs of Mandatory of Palestine were never ASKED if they were ok with that, or on what side the border should be going.
Hence, they were refused their rights to determine ON THEIR OWN in what country they wanted to live.
That's what SELF determination is about.

The order to kill all Arab males was real. The demands all Arab women and children to leave was real. The deliberate systematic destruction of Arab civilian houses, was real. That aint no propaganda. That's ethnic cleansing, that is genocidal. It's way to late to rewrite history, champ.

 

Questions
1 - do you believe the Jewish God massacred the innocents in Egypt?
2 - do you believe God massacred the innocent Jews through Assyria, Babylon, Rome and 2,000 of exile to this day?

 

My point was that it's a rip off from Sumerian mythology. I think I proved my case rather thoroughly.

 

Well, my case is that you are not answering my questions, for some reason.

 

I'm not answering personal questions. That just ends up in personal attacks.

 

I have used a lot of 'words', but time for pictures and videos to show people the "Iran" that some want to "nuke". I start with a small 'glimpse' of Iran's 'cultural' sites (which Trump once threatened to destroy), before I show you more of Iran in pictures and videos. The "real Iran" isn't a place anyone with any interest in truth or beauty would want to see destroyed.

 

IM. No one wants to nuke Iran.
Trump doesn't count - he's crazy enough to nuke America.
Truth is - America has been rather generous to Iran. The Obama treaty would
allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon after 15 years.
And America tended to ignore Iran's involvement in Lebanon and its proxy
Hezbollah government. America did nothing about the massive transfer of
weapons to Hezbollah too, right under the noses of the UN.
But with the assassination of your Quds General all that is changing.

And what is going on in Iran with domestic opposition is much worse than
Hong Kong. I read today one woman journalist got 38 years for reporting
on women's protests.

And as for visiting this country - forget it, you could wind up another hostage.
I think there's at least one or two Australian "hostages" there now. You go
as a tourist and then you're a spy. And holding you becomes a part of the
next round of Iranian negotiations on something else.

 

Nothing personal, just asking questions about POV's.

re these two questions

1 - do you believe the Jewish God massacred the innocents in Egypt?
2 - do you believe God massacred the innocent Jews through Assyria, Babylon, Rome and 2,000 of exile to this day?

For both it's the affirmative. And God has promised that it will be the Gentiles who suffer next.
Yes, the "rip off" is the first few chapters of Genesis. But actually, the people in the bible at
that time WERE Sumerian. Only later we read Abraham "settling" in Palestine. The word
"Hebrew" means "crossing over" - of the Euphrates. Abraham rejected the culture of the
nations he grew up in. He married his son back into his own family, now living in what is Turkey.

 

Lovely pictures. I never thought that I would have made it to this age without visiting.

But I have to agree with Pb, one does not choose for a relaxing vacation a destination where people are known to stand in the street and shout death to Americans.

 

In the wake of the assassination of General Soleimani, I wouldn't encourage Americans to visit Iran. Before that? Absolutely. Even during the era of "maximum pressure'. Just google and see what those who did will tell you. The rest is truly propaganda. One that has sold well with many Americans.

Here is a 3-part series which I think you should watch. But also do search for yourself using google, look at Lonely Planet, Trip Adviser, etc and see if Iran is anything like the propaganda. It is NOT.

 

Instead of you telling me about IRAN, a country I think I know much better than you would ever know, tell me more about your 'views' on the Bible and its so-called prophesies instead! I saw this article today which seems to run down your alley! To me, it is all drivel, but I prefer listening to even this drivel than to clueless people telling me about Iran.

https://www.jpost.com/judaism/Bible-codes-may-have-foretold-an-Iranian-attack-within-the-year-616051
Bible codes may have foretold an Iranian attack within the year
...

 

What matters is that this is what the religious Jews believe in. And look at them buggers go. Ethnic cleansing more and more land in the WB, moving in,.. after they first ethnically cleansed 100.000's of Arab civilians from present day Israel. People who object get killed. The Jew state de facto already rules over the entire West Bank in that way, with apartheid rule. Jews in the WB got far more rights than Arabs. It's driven by their believe they can God supports it all, even genocide.

 

Steer clear of those "biblical prophecies" stuff, they remind me of what a friend tried
to get me to watch last night - aliens in the bible.
But... in Ezekiel 38 and 39 it speaks of the new Israel today - the Jews going home
to Israel a second time, rebuilding the land etc.. It mentions a future war that names
Persia, along with Libya, Ethiopia and Magog. These nations today are not the nations
back then, with the exception of Persia. The writer of Ezekiel knew all these nations
but could not name Israel's ally - a nation on the coast or over the sea.
As it was it's a terrible war that Israel wins.

 

I'm sick and tired of people telling Jews what they believe in. No, Jews don't believe in what you think they believe.

Please post a list of all lands allegedly ethnically cleansed in the WB, complete with names of villages, family names of the people allegedly ethnically cleansed, when and how it happened, and where are those people now.

By the way, some 900 Israeli Arabs live in Israeli settlements in the WB.

Look what I found. Abbas - himself a refugee from the now Israeli city of Safed - admits that Arabs left Israel by choice, fearing revenge for the massacres of Jews in Safed and Hebron in 1929. The interview was translated by Palestinian Media Watch and posted on youtube. Not banned, then.


The article you linked to in other post, trying to prove PMW is a hate site banned by youtube, is actually contradicting your assertions. It clearly states that the hate was in the content of the Palestinian media, not something PMW have said.