Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

I'm Jewish. I know perfectly well what Passover means.

Your source is lying. This is how things are done in real life:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...rrah_eng.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2f3yyIvevbiWatwi-YfbCd

Silwan was Jewish until 1929 when the Jews there were massacred by Arabs, then it was administered by UNRWA from 1948 until 1967 and the residential buildings there were rented to Arabs (rented, not owned).

We were talking about the West Bank, not Israel. Jerusalem is in Israel, as you acknowledge yourself when you claim the families "got removed outside Israel" (nope). Please bring evidence of ongoing ethnic cleansing in West Bank.

The Geneva convention applies to occupied territories belonging to a high contracting party. Not relevant.

You proved squat.

Please prove your assertion that Abbas' words, or any other material on PMW, are mistranslated.

I used the same source you linked to.

 

Is this satire?

 

Very interesting.
I think Iran is very much like America in one respect: it's deeply divided. I could take a foreign visitor on a tour of America, and introduce him or her to dozens of white Americans in every single one of the fifty states, and this visitor would return and say, "Whoa ... those Americans ... so open-minded, so secular, so liberal, so tolerant ... very well educated .... not much time for their military, and they hate guns, many even laugh at the idea of saying the Pledge of Allegiance .. so guilty for slavery and racism past and present ... critical of police racist brutality ... some of them are a bit far out, even too much so for me .... but they all have interesting jobs, very hip, very knowledgeable about the web ... the men are very 'woke' and cautious about what they say about women ... even the Jews among them are very critical of Israel ... and they really have deep disdain, some of them even raw hatred, for the rightwing racists and fascists of the Republican Party ...how can such a country have elected George Bush or Donald Trump?".

Then I could take this visitor's best friend on a second tour, to every single one of the fifty states, introducing him to dozens of Americans in each state, and he would return and say "Whoa, those Americans ... very religious, very patriotic, very pro-military, so proud of their country's past, so hard-working and mainly clean-living although marijuana seems to have displaced alcohol among some of them ...some of them only have a high school education and are worried about their jobs ... the men pay lip service to sexual fidelity in marriage but you hear a lot of stories and at the truck-stops the porno magazines outsell the Christian Life magaines ...a lot of them don't actually go to church, although many do, and they all pretty much respect religion... they are Christians but they admire Israel... and do they ever loathe the other side..."

There would have been a pretty clear 'class' divide -- not class in the classic Marxist sense, but in the 'socio-economic sense' -- the further you go down the socio-economic scale, the more conservative people get. I could have introduced these people to exceptions to the rule, especially if I moved out of the white community, and of course both 'sides' have dozens of intelligent, educated people who write erudite books and articles for magazines.

And the country is divided roughly fifty-fifty right now into people who would, if they had to make a choice, align with either group (In terms of deep convinction and self-identification, it's more like 30-30-40 with the '40' being in the 'middle'. And the first group is growing, especially in terms of votes, as the whites move towards becoming a minority.

So I suppose Iran is somewhat like that. I remember back in the late 80s, even, an Iranian mathematics lecturer telling me about parties in Teheran where people swam naked in someone's indoor swimming pool! But then you can't deny the fervor and strength of the Revolutionary Guards.

Anyway, if you have books (in English) to recommend, especially recent ones, that give some idea of life in iran today, I would be grateful to learn about them.

 

Lets assume for a moment that "IQ" is the true test of what it purports to be, namely 'innate intelligence'. The problem with the works I have seen on the subject is that they are ultimately mostly unscientific, lack rigor, and use totally non-random and useless data to form sweeping generalizations about various nations etc. It is scandalous how totally junk is used to represent the "IQ" of various nations. Especially since it is undeniable that their methodology is totally unscientific:

Take Iran. I was genuinely curious how the average given for Iran was arrived at? I could not find a single study to back it up. In fact, the closest thing to find a random, scientific sample, to develop its conclusions came up with IQ average for Iran totally at odds with these 'estimates'.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425765/
Estimation of Mean Intelligence Quotient with Wechsler Scale in Iran: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

So, the first problem is that even if you accept IQ as a proper measure, you need better than "junk science" to pass judgment on large groups of people.

Beyond that, and again leaving aside various other issues with IQ tests anyway, if we wanted to organize society based on IQ scores, then the most direct and reliable test would be each individual's IQ score! Not some estimates or averages for the whole group. You could say that people who belong to MENSA get this or that privilege, right or obligation. People in some other range of IQ will be classified in this other group, etc. The notion that you take some totally junk science and then use that to extrapolate all sorts of things for all sorts of people just doesn't seem the way to do anything except justify prejudice.

To be sure, I am not suggesting all people are innately equal in ability, intelligence or other things. I wouldn't be shocked (based on general observation) if I discovered that people of certain African ancestry were more proficient in certain physical traits to explain some of their over-representation among elite athletes or even musicians. Or that people of east Asian ancestry (and Iranians), along with Slavic or East Europeans, had superior capabilities in certain other things, accounting for their superior performance in Mathematic olympiads and some other scientific competitions. Or that there was something in the "Iranian gene" that made us better in some sports such as wrestling and weightlifting, but ultimately, these generalizations are worthless and, in each case, the 'proof of the pudding is in the pie'. Hold fair competition, giving people fair and equal right to compete in whatever competition that one has in mind, and whatever the results and "ethnic distributions" that arise, that is fine with me. It still would't make me any more a world champion weightlifter, wrestler of a Mathematics Olympiad gold winner! Or its opposite either.

 

Quickly for now, and I will get back to respond to this in greater length (and think about a book that would be a good read about Iran):
It is true that Iran has its many divisions. All large countries are that way. But there are certain things that actually unite Iranians. Whether "religious", "traditional" or "westernized", most Iranians (except a very small number) aren't particularly well read in scripture (after all, it is in Arabic and most Iranians aren't proficient in Arabic) and very few are obsessed with scriptural interpretation!

Most Iranians who are religious are actually better described as "traditional". In other words, people who represent the Persianate culture that was prevalent in the Muslim world (and was the backbone of the cultures of all the dominant empires of the region, including in Iran as well as our rivals in the Ottoman empire) before the advent of Westernization beginning in the 19th century and gaining steam in the 20th century. This culture cannot be understood through the stereotypes about it in the literature that seeks to develop Islamophobia in the West. It is traditional, and aspects of it is virulently against "foreign domination". It has a sense of "good versus evil", "justice" and such, with all those nebulous concepts given an "Islamic label", but it is ultimately focused on preserving the institutions which served as the backbone of societal order for centuries.

That said, there is a divide in Iran between "Westernized Iranians" (who may include many who are nonetheless very much in favor of Iran's resistance to western political domination) and "traditional Iranians", reflecting itself most vividly in cultural issues like attitudes towards hejab, same sex relations, divorce, and sexual relations out of wedlock. The divide in Iranian society on these issues is now, indeed, close to 50/50. But I stress again: even among the '50%' who might be 'westernized' or 'liberal' on social issues, you have a large percentage who are staunchly nationalistic and support "Iran's resistance" to western/US/Israeli hegemony in the region and any attempt to extend it to Iran.

 

No, it is the end result of many decades worth of propaganda and brainwashing.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Yes, there is a huge amount of nonsense and pseudo-science in this field. And even serious researchers start cutting corners -- IQ 'estimates' are worthless in my opinion, especially when applied to backward countries which have not had several generations of proper educational infrastructure. I note that the mean of IQ of Ireland has increased by several percentage points over the last couple of decades... how did that happen, if not the environment? How is that the Indians of Guatemala were building pyramids and inventing a positional-exponential notation system for their mathematics 2000 years ago, and are now sunk in squalor?

There is plenty of rigorous research in intelligence and IQ-as-a-valid-measure of 'intelligence'. It just tends not to reach the politically-correct conclusions of the Faithful. I guy I trust a lot on this has a blog called GeneExpression at the Unz Review, here:
https://www.unz.com/gnxp/ --- he's moving soon. I have always found him very informative, and he's not a prisoner of anyone's dogma. And [Lefties, cross yourselves and say the Word Against Evil! ] Charles Murray has a new book which I haven't bought yet but which I suspect will be very good: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Diversity-Biology-Gender-Class/dp/1538744015

And then there's the Flynn Effect -- mean IQ going up by about 3 points per decade, although this may be levelling off. Probably due to television, according to me.

The bottom line is: just let the geneticists keep doing their research, just keep trying to help the backward countries develop economically (the socially will come along naturally), just keep trying to provide quality education to everyone, and we'll know the truth in a few more decades.

In the meantime, why step on peoples' toes by appearing to challenge their religious faith?

 

Look, I grew up in the fifties in Texas. Your generation [ slams walking stick on the floor] doesn't know what brainwashing and propaganda is! But, as the Russians say, you can't fool life.

 

So there you go. You lot celebrate the massacre of babies and that God passed you over. The start of the march towards Canaan to commit genocide, with the blessing of your God. That's what this believe is about.

Nope.

I don't recognize the jurisdiction of an Israeli court rulings about property outside Israel.
And if if this court ruling applies to Arabs as well, than all them Arab refugees who got ran out of Israel must be getting their properties all back. As far I know, it doesn't count for them. Hence it's a bogus judgement anyways. We all know that.

This was in East Jerusalem, which is occupied by Israel. It's not Israel. The UN had a vote on it. So sorry.

It is relevant. Israel is a high contracting party.

That's your problem of proving, not mine.

I see you sourcing something else.

 

Not sure of your point there, but I grew up in Florida in the 50's. I didn't realize our training by hiding under our school desks was brainwashing and fear-mongering until some years into adulthood, including 1 year in Vietnam watching my government destroy that country.

Once one understands that pretty much everything we see in the media is propaganda, it all becomes a bit more clear.

 

Couldn't agree more. And yes, my point was not clear... not even in my own mind.

Here's my point, I guess: when we grew up, in the fifties, there was near unanimity in the press and TV etc:. Everyone in my high school, except me, was unanimous in their belief about the total virtue and goodness of American foreign policy, and the total evil of all of our enemies, and of the proper response to them.

But by the end of the 60s, the whole country was in turmoil, all the college kids were completely alienated from official society -- especially the kids from the elite colleges. The view of the world as divided into democracies, led by us, and a monolithic evil Satanic communist empire, spreading out inexorably using the methods of terror, was destroyed.

So the official propaganda isn't very effective, when it clashes with reality. It didn't fit the Vietnamese example, it couldn't explain the Russia/China split ... and the American people were perfectly happy when Nixon turned our China policy inside out and recognized Communist China -- something absolutely unthinkable when you and I were in high school.

We've seen that again with respect to terrorism and the Middle East and our attempt to bring the benefits of a liberal democracy to the warring tribes there. It was USA! USA! ALL THE WAY! and THESE COLORS DON'T RUN! ... but now, if it can only find expression in a political leadership, most of the American people have understood that we don't need to be, shouldn't be, extended all over the world militarily. In their great majority they know absolutely nothing about the reality of life there, and why should they? But they can see that we can't shape the region to our will, and trying to do so just burns up money and lives.

If it were not for the influence of the very powerful Israeli lobby in the US, plus, I suppose, a lot of Saudi money buying influence, we would be gone from there in a few years. As it is, everything's open in American poltiics now, and what happens is unpredictable. Trump has destroyed the Republican establishment and Bernie is destroying the Democratic one. So all is open, and we may see a sane foreign policy emerge, despite all the media bs.

 

Yes, I see your point. Yes things have changed, as they must.

But it seems to me the official propaganda has worked extremely well, at least on most people. Indeed, many people still believe Russia is our mortal enemy. Many people believe it was AQ who attacked us in 2001.

But official propaganda will be ignored, or at least not believed, by certain segments of the population at large.

Apologies if I'm being repetitive, but I'm watching "The Untold History of the United States" by Oliver Stone. In many ways it is very eye opening for me, having been born in 1947. For one, I never realized what an insecure idiot Harry Truman was. And I never realized that despite FDR's best efforts to make peace and friendship with Russia, the war mongers succeeded in portraying them as mortal enemies.

Sad story, but it's been a good conversation with you.

 

Alternative histories are very tricky.
ANY Russian leadership -- the most democratic and liberal in the world -- would, after having been invaded twice by Germany within the space of 25 years, having defeated her -- taking 100 times the cost in lives the US paid -- would have wanted to make absolutely certain that there wouldn't be a 'third time lucky' on the part of a revived Germany. Nor were the characters of the pre-war East/Central European regimes such as to reassure anyone, should the people there get democracy and the right to elect a leadership they wanted. So probably ANY Russian regime would have wanted to play it safe, and not simply go back home and let whatever was going to happen in Europe happen.

This of course is doubly, triply true for the Communist leadership of Russia, given that the victorious allied powers had, just twenty five years earlier, invaded Russia themselves. (Most Americans don't know that we sent 20 000 troops to try to overthrow the Bolshevik regime.)

BUT ... of course the leadership of Russia were not democrats, and not just any sort of autocrat. They were, nominally, the adherents of an ideology which said that there could not be peaceful coexistence of both capitalism and socialism, and that a funeral march would be played over the graves of one or the other -- to quote Lenin.

And the European Communists -- after Hitler had invaded the USSR -- had played leading roles in the fight against fascism, and were actually quite popular among the anti-fascist forces in Europe -- in free elections after the war they were getting 30-40% of the vote in Italy and France. The Yugoslav communists had headed the effective resistance to the Nazis, and also appealed to anyone in that area who didn't want to see the place dissolve into bloody inter-tribal warfare.

So ... could the Americans have pursued a different course, and made the Soviet Union something like it became in the 70s ... maybe a giant Yugoslavia ... with some sort of mutual security guarantee in East Europe ...which allowed them to keep from being transformed into communist dictatorships, but did also guarantee the Russians that they would not become forward bases for another round of attacks on Russia?

I don't know. It seems unlikely to me, but I don't know enough about the period to really have an informed judgement. I am glad we didn't follow the advice of the philosopher Bertrand Russell, at the time, and attack the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons.

Anyway, now we must think about the future. American conservatives and American liberals/progressives need to set aside their mutual hatred for a while, and see if we can come up with some new approach to foreign policy, that doesn't involve our fighting wars all over the world to bring liberal democracy to savage tribes which just want to kill each other (and us, if we get in the way). If we can shake off the chains of empire, we can concentrate better on fighting each other.

The latest issue of Foreign Affairs, by the way, (to which I subscribe) has a set of articles on future American foreign policy, with debates from people on both sides on what we should do. If you're interested in reading them, PM me an email address.

 

The Russians were the first victims of an international state, and the methods the Marxists used are being repeated today for our new liberal one world order. Twenty million Christians were killed by the Bolsheviks so they could take over Russia, and in the past years the Christians killed in Syria and other places for our present world order have averaged about 300 a day.

Russia's political scientist and philosopher Alexander Dugan wrote a book about a 4th political system. I haven't read it, but from what I gather he believes as I do, that every culture/language has their own innate differences and that no one should try to impose their own standards on others as being superior.

 

And that's why the "liberating" North Vietnamese asked all journalists to leave
South Vietnam after they invaded the south (remember the "peace movement"
saying there were no North Vietnamese in the South?)
There was no cheering in the streets, no southerners helped them gain power.
And some 100,000 people were to be executed.

You are quite right. We all watched Americans bombing Communists, terrible
stuff, wasn't it? But the Communists didn't want you see what THEY were doing.

It's sad. South Vietnam was on its way to being another South Korea - it wound
up being another North Korea. That country was destroyed - but it wasn't by
America.

ps hiding under your desk was propaganda, it was a crude form of civil defense.
I am not aware that America has ANY form of civil defense against nuclear
strike now. That is a shocking thought. For maybe 1% of the defense budget
couldn't they begin developing evacuation programs, food programs etc..?
It's going to happen one day - nuclear weapons will be a part of every nation's
arsenal, and used often.

 

Those supposed allies wouldn't pee on us if we were on fire. They can go to hades.

 

You are seeing history from a Left wing perspective.
Stalin WAS a MORTAL ENEMY to EVERYONE, including about 800,000
of his own Communist Party he put to death.
Did Stalin was peace.. anywhere? How can Communism grow if a nation
is at peace and flourishing? Enough Americans saw this in Stalin and the
Soviet Union to make a difference. Without American entry into the war
Stalin would have ruled Europe, and taken Britain. More would have died
because of him than in all of WWII casualties.

ps I meant to say 'hiding under the desk WASN'T propaganda. It was
about the only civil defense people had. Keep low.

 

I think that the number of people in the South who supported the Communists -- not so much as Communists but as champions of Vietnamese independence -- was a lot more than 'none' -- you say "no southerners helped them to gain power" but it was well known to the American military that certain villages were "pro-VC".
Nor is today's Vietnam "another North Korea". Far from it.But this is an argument for another thread.

I would like to comment on your observation emboldened above, to agree with it and to suggest that we all should start demanding such a program right now.
We cannot say how often, if at all, nuclear weapons will be used in the future, but to say they never will be, is foolish. Nuclear weapons used elsewhere can still endanger Americans via fallout.

In short: the USA should begin a comprehensive program aimed to provide maximum shelter for its population in the event of nuclear war, waged against the US, or elsewhere.
This would include legal building requirements, such that new buildings incorporate adequate shelter; and the building of stand-alone shelters as well.

The money to pay for this should come from that money now sent to horrible kleptocrat governments: (For example, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#Military_and_economic_aid )

Also:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Spend_amount_and_destination
and
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/...ign-military-aid-bought-us-not-much-pub-75657