Kaveh Mousavi on the Iran Nuclear Deal

Former FTBer Kaveh Mousavi took me to task a bit on Facebook for not mentioning in my analysis of the Iranian nuclear agreement the role that the Iranian negotiators played. Totally fair criticism, but I just don’t have the knowledge of the situation there so I had little to say about it. Thankfully, he does live there and has offered some interesting observations about the situation.

This is a victory for the Iranian people and by the Iranian people. I’m glad because we made this happen. We went to the streets and protested. We forced them to let Rouhani be elected. We forced them to accept to deal with the west. We endured all the hardships. We went through fire and ice and it is our victory. I’m reading the deal for like the tenth time. All economic sanctions will be lifted. And with Rouhani’s powerful economic team – who have already reversed the economic disasters – soon Ahmadinejad years will be no more than a nightmare. Now my students will not have to see the bleak and dark years I have seen. Their life will not be defined by trauma and fear. I’m so glad to be alive and witness history. Rouhani acknowledged that in his speech addressing the nation…

Iranian far-right say Iran has given up too much in this deal. Hossein Shariatmadari who’s possibly the most loathsome extremist I know of has said “We gave up the saddled horse and they gave us the torn tether instead”. American and Israeli right-wing says Iran hasn’t given up enough. I wonder how the same text can be interpreted so widely differently, it’s not even a scripture. (Spoiler: the enemies of the deal are lying or very ignorant).

I think these observations are really important. The fact that this deal strengthens the hand of reformers in Iran against the hardliners could be a huge development. And the fact that the situation there is so close to what it is here, with the right wing throwing a fit in each country, reminds us that the real battles may not so much be between factions within each country but between progressive and reformist movements against those who protect the status quo or even seek regression within multiple countries. We should work for solidarity between those movements in the United States and Iran.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • brucegee1962

    I think about Kaveh every time I read about this deal, and what an Iran that is more open to the West would mean to him and people like him.

    One of the subtler lies that the American right spins about Iran is to treat it as if it is a monolith. It’s just as riven by factions as we are, and a major focus of our diplomacy ought to be to find ways to strengthen the hand of reformers and progressives who are there.

  • dmcclean

    Frankenberger. Wipe Israel off the map. Ayatollahs. Nostradamus. Chamberlain. Precious bodily fluids. Kissinger. Some childish nickname for Obama. Hypodermics on the shores. Schicklgruber.

    That should do it, now we won’t be needing colnago’s services on this thread.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ brucegee1962 : Truth -seconded by me.

    Well writ Kaveh and Ed. This post – spot on.

  • http://inmyunbelief.wordpress.com TCC

    dmcclean – You win today’s Internet.

  • colnago80

    According to the administration of Neville Obama, the sanctions will be lifted in stages, as Iran’s compliance is assessed. According to Kaveh’s hero Rouhani, Iran won’t sign on the dotted line unless it is agreed to lift all the sanctions on the very instant that the agreement (what is currently being argued about is a framework for an agreement, not the agreement itself which is supposed to be signed in June) is signed. If Neville Obama knuckles under to the Iranian demand, he should be impeached, convicted and removed from office. But I’m sure that dingojack will be along to declare that Ynetnews is not a reliable source.

    http://goo.gl/C55GKq

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Oh, and I celebrate the murder of Israeli teenagers, right along with “President Osama” and all those anti-Semites and self-loathing Jews who criticize Bibi.

    NOW we’ve got all of colnago’s bases covered.

  • Nick Gotts

    I’m sure colnago80@4 is right. After all, he was completely vindicated, in spite of my scepricism, when the Iranians exploded a nuclear device last year, as I’m sure we all remember.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Look, while it’s “nice” to have Iranian so-called “reformers” on “our” “side”, to be safe, after walking away from “negotiations” we should bomb them too.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #6

    Not so. Bee forgot to mention Frankenberger aka Schicklgruber aka Heidler aka Hister aka Hitler.

  • eric

    Iranian far-right say Iran has given up too much in this deal…American and Israeli right-wing says Iran hasn’t given up enough.

    I forget the actual phrasing, but isn’t there an old adage to the effect that you know you’ve reached a fair deal when both parties are equally unhappy with it?

  • StevoR

    @ colnago80 : Please could you explain why you seem to have changed your mind (backwards) with your comment on this thread :

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/04/06/tancredo-iran-deal-flirting-with-treason/#comment-414646

    as I asked before?

    Do you think its a good idea to use nuclear bombs on Iran or not?

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #11

    As I added in a comment on that thread a few minutes ago, my current position is that the use of the enhanced bunker buster bombs, which I linked to in a comment a few days ago will do the job. Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons by the US airforce is unnecessary. However, if the Government of Israel decides that Iran’s nuclear facilities must go, they would have no option but to use nuclear weapons as no Israeli warplane has the capability of delivering a 30,000+ pound bomb. I don’t know if there are any transport planes in the Israeli armory with sufficient lift capacity that could be modified to deliver such a bomb (the C5A, which can carry a 67 ton Abrams tank would be such a vehicle).

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    StevoR: Bone for tuna getting colnago to explain anything. We’ve asked him for explanations MANY times before, and all we get out of him is diversions, name-calling, irrelevant bullshit history lectures peppered with irrelevant unconnected facts, and tiresome repetition of the same policy demands over and fucking over. He almost makes apocalyptic nuclear warmongering boring. He’s clearly not mentally fit to converse with adults about complex matters like military policy — or even simple matters like racism — and he never pays attention to anyone else’s ideas, so there’s no sense in paying attention to his.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #13

    More projection from Bee.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    As I added in a comment on that thread a few minutes ago, my current position is that the use of the enhanced bunker buster bombs, which I linked to in a comment a few days ago will do the job. Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons by the US airforce is unnecessary.

    First, you very recently advocated the use of SEVERAL 15-megaton warheads against Iran. And second, you continue to ignore everyone else’s points about the, how you say, COMPLICATIONS of an unprovoked bombing attack against Iran. Your blithering is utterly useless and willfully ignorant of several very important circumstances that have been repeatedly pointed out to you.

    And you still have not apologized for falsely accusing me of “celebrating” the murder of three Israeli teenagers.

    Fuck off to bed, you stupid little troll. You clearly have nothing decent to contribute.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #15

    I already explained on the thread in question that the statement about 15 Mt bombs there was theoretical, in response to some else’s comment that taking out Iran’s nuclear capability would require the use of ground troops. I am not advocating this strategy as our enhanced bunker buster bombs can do the job. I am absolutey and positively against the use of US ground troops in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. This position is conclusively supported by the failed campaign in Iraq. The current situation in which the US uses air power to support the indigenous ground troops is a much better way to go and has already resulted in positive results, e.g. in Kurdistan, Tikrit, and Kobani.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #15

    My position is never apologize and never explain (Roy Cohn).

  • StevoR

    @ 12. colnago80 : Okay. Thanks for your replies – here and on that thread.

    I hope we don’t see war happen. l hope things in the region improve for everyone – Israelis and Iranians and others alike.

    I also hope we don’t see any more nations armed with nuclear WMDs and that peace and humanity being humane to humanity prevails.

  • StevoR

    I am realistic enough to know that my hopes may well be unrealistic but I (again) hope they happen.

    There needs to be a lot of cultural change and lot of acceptance from all sides that the other side is human and deserves to be treated as such. I wish I could be more optimistic about that than I am.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    I am not advocating this strategy as our enhanced bunker buster bombs can do the job.

    Repeating is advocating, you lying cowardly piece of filth.

    My position is never apologize and never explain (Roy Cohn).

    In other words, all you want to do is say the same stupid shit over and over, never take any responsibility for what you say, never honestly engage with anyone else, and just hog attention whether or not you have anything to contribute. That’s generally called being a troll.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    There needs to be a lot of cultural change and lot of acceptance from all sides that the other side is human and deserves to be treated as such.

    What fucking doubletalk — you still think the other guys can’t be trusted yet because they’re still heathen savages who need to change their culture — but you can’t be optimistic about THEM treating others as humans. That’s not “realistic,” that’s more like “race realism.”

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #20

    You know, you accuse me of name calling. It would seem that this is an activity in which you like to engage. I made a decision several months ago that I wouldn’t engage in name calling against other commentators and so I will not reply in kind.

    And by the way, I also criticize Bibi and have labeled him a congenital liar, as have former French President Sarkozy and former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Yes, I accuse you of name-calling, because that’s what you do. Where’s your evidence for that charge that I “celebrated” the murder of three Israeli teenagers? Where’s your evidence for all of the “anti-Semite” and “self-loathing Jew” shit you spew all over the place as routinely as you breathe?

    Your behavior proves you to be nothing more than a hateful, childish, uncaring bigot, eager to advocate genocidal violence from inside the protective bubble of childish disengagement from reality. You’re nothing but a worthless troll with no sense of shame or personal responsibility.

  • StevoR

    @ 21. Raging Bee : History, precedent and their own language and actions.

    Those all tell me that the other Arab / Persian side still has a long way to go. Why doesn’t it tell you they same thing and don’t you think that Israelis may have a point and a case at all when you look at what and who they are up against? You totally ignorant of regional history and the nature and charter of Hamas and teh regular “death to Israel /USA chants and brainwashing ceremonies in Iran for example? Do you really think Iran doesn’t have more than its share of hateful extremists who are also a huge part of the problem here?

    Where is your empathy for Israeli civilians and leaders and your (in)ability to put yourself in their metaphorical shoes?

    I’ve said before and will say again, part of the deal here should have been the long overdue acceptance of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state that isn’t going away and isn’t a “Satan” by Iran.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Those all tell me that the other Arab / Persian side still has a long way to go.

    First, there is no “Arab/Persian side.” Arabs and Persians are not on the same side — they’re rivals for regional power and stature. Who are those “sources” that “all” tell you they’re indistinguishable? The above sentence alone proves you don’t know what you’re talking about, and are basing your arguments in pure shameful ignorance. So no, you don’t get to pretend you’re the smartest or most “realistic” guy in the room.

    And second, “they have a long way to go” is not a valid argument against any specific treaty or other interaction. We’re not perfect either, and it’s worse than useless to refuse to do business with imperfect parties.

    Where is your empathy for Israeli civilians and leaders and your (in)ability to put yourself in their metaphorical shoes?

    Where’s YOUR empathy? You don’t really give a shit about Israelis; you’re just hiding behind their trouser-legs to avoid the effort of serious responsible thought. Since when is negotiation = lack of empathy?

  • dmcclean

    You know, you accuse me of name calling. It would seem that this is an activity in which you like to engage. I made a decision several months ago that I wouldn’t engage in name calling against other commentators and so I will not reply in kind.

    With an exception for Tuesday, when you called raging bee “Don Black in drag.”

  • JustaTech

    colnago80 @12: I am confused by your statement here that Israel would choose/have to use a nuclear weapon to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. I’m not disputing your assessment of Israel’s current weapons capability. I am simply under the impression that, even though the Cold War is over, *anyone* who uses a nuclear weapon expects to be visited by the same from other countries in very short order. I know it’s not quite the MAD of the USA/USSR anymore, but why would any nation state think that they could set off a nuke without themselves being immediately at least attacked, if not nuked by many other countries?

    Why do you think that Israel would think that they would be exempt from this? I genuinely don’t understand.

  • Who Cares

    @colnago80(#5):

    Seeing that the deal as represented here has the Iranians agreeing to sanction suspensions, with the U.S. retaining the right to reinstate them in the case of non-performance, in stages against verifiable goals, yes your linked site is full of it.

    I’m betting on a ‘miss-translation’ in the hopes of derailing the talks that hammer out the details of how to achieve what is agreed to in the framework.

  • dingojack

    SLC – I don’t need to. Your track record of source usage proves the point amply…

    😀 Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re dmcclean @ #26

    Yeah, I slipped up there when the provocation became too blatant.

  • colnago80

    Re Who Cares

    The statement in the link is a little unclear. It says that sanctions will be suspended after Iran’s compliance is verified by IAEA. Since that may take some time, it would seem that Rouhani’s demand of immediate sanction suspension will not be fulfilled. Are you claiming that he was mistranslated?

    Re Dingojack @ #29

    Rouhani’s demand has been reported on numerous other sources, including NPR, CNN, the Independent, etc. Of course, any article with which you disagree is automatically considered unreliable, regardless of the source.

  • colnago80

    Re JustaTech @ #27

    I don’t agree with your assumption that some third party would retaliate against Israel if they used nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear installations. Who would that be? Pakistan is too far away to launch a nuclear strike against Israel. That leaves China and Russia. I don’t see either one caring enough to start a world wide nuclear war over a few nuclear installations in Iran. Certainly the US, Britain, and France aren’t going to do so.

  • Who Cares

    @colnago80(#31):

    Go learn to read. Then comeback and read my comment at #28 again.

    As with regard to this being on NPR, CNN and others. Wouldn’t be the first time that those just did a copy-paste of the news somewhere else. I have a distinct memory of the deliberate miss-translation by MEMRI being parroted all over the the US news with only a few newspapers in Europe pointing out that what was said that Iran wanted a regime change in Israel to something that was less hostile to both them and the Arabs around Israel.

  • Who Cares

    @colnago80(#32):

    What nuclear weapons? by whom?

    You mean those non-existent ones that Iran will not ever build and now has a greater chance of not even being able to build. That is if the U.S. and Israel don’t blow up the deal so that they don’t lose their bogeyman to wave at their constituents.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    We should work for solidarity between those movements in the United States and Iran.

    Getting known as “in solidarity” with anybody in the US would give the kiss o’ death to any movement in Iran, no?

  • Who Cares

    I have to apologize to colnago80. The Iranians have indeed been saying that their aim is that the sanctions be lifted at the moment the deal is either signed or going into effect.

    That said I didn’t expect the freaking White House to publish information that would be considered incorrect on this issue.

    The fact sheet I linked to is slanted to woo the anti-Iran deal people at best, incorrect at worst.

    I hope the comments by the Iranians fall in the same area but with regards to their own anti-U.S. deal people.

    Then again the fact sheet leaked by the French differs from both the U.S. and Iran fact sheets.

    The parties involved agreed that the others could present the deal couched in terms more palatable to their constituents but this is getting ridiculous.

    Differences in how and when the sanctions will be lifted, in timetables, what is allowable for R&D, what is to be done with the processed uranium Iran already has, differences in how and where inspections are allowed.

    Seems more like what either sides would start negotiations with then a framework that would allow people to work out details on the different points.

  • colnago80

    Re Who Cares @ #36

    What this shows is that the various parties seem unsure as to what was agreed on. This, of course, plays into the hands of the neo-cons who can use the confusion to sow opposition. Assuming that they, in fact, reach an actual agreement in June, they better be absolutely clear with everybody on the same page or this agreement, regardless of whether it is a good one or a bad one ain’t going anywhere. At this point in time, I think it is reasonable to conclude that everybody ain’t on the same page.

  • http://flewellyn.livejournal.com Flewellyn

    colnago80, I am sure we all appreciate your efforts at over-the-top satire, but perhaps you should leave that sort of thing to Modusoperandi, who is much better at it than you are.

  • colnago80

    Re Flewellyn

    Well gee, I wasn’t consciously being satirical and I agree, Modus is the blog’s expert in this regard.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Well gee, I wasn’t consciously being satirical…

    Yeah, we know — that’s part of what makes your self-parody so over-the-top.

  • llewelly

    Once a blast radius is bigger than a building, much of a bomb’s energy is being wasted. Much beyond that point, it’s usually more effective to use smaller bombs. “15 megaton” weapons are about a thousand times less efficient than the most powerful weapons ever used. That’s not an accident; they were not created or maintained in order to destroy the “enemy”. They exist so that irreparably immoral people can engage in strongman posturing, and fill as many people as possible on all sides with overwhelming terror. When these people get called on their garbage, they retreat to alternatives, like “enhanced blockbusters”, which are more efficient ways to achieve the monstrous horrors they are so fond of.

    Furthermore, most of the middle eastern bombing campaigns of the past made strong contributions to the radicalization of diverse Muslim extremist groups, and that is an important reason why their influence has grown so much. People who are in favor of further bombing are either deeply ignorant of the recent history of the middle east, and also deeply ignorant of the role that martyrdom has played in the rise of most significant ideologies, especially religions, or, possibly, those people figure the power and existence of Muslim extremist groups is useful for terrifying people.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Llewelly: or, they’re just too simpleminded and rigid in their thinking to even comprehend the idea that violence might have an effect more complex than the simple capitulation they imagine. Listening to people like colnago, I get the strong feeling they’re simply UNABLE to understand how people really function, and are too dominated by fear, hate and wishful thinking, to see any solution more nuanced than “keep on pounding them until they give in!”

    And why do they so automatically advocate such barbaric violence? Ironically, because they can’t trust their enemies to understand anything other than barbaric violence.

  • colnago80

    Re llewelly @ #41

    Once a blast radius is bigger than a building, much of a bomb’s energy is being wasted

    You have to be kidding me. I suggest looking at some still photos of Hiroshima after the bomb went off. A lot more then 1 building was destroyed.

  • colnago80

    Re lewelly @ #41

    According to the attached link, a surface blast of a 5 megaton thermonuclear device would leave a crater 1.5 miles wide and .5 miles deep with a blast radius of 50 miles (meaning that up to 50 miles away from ground zero, there would be damage of varying intensity based on the distance from ground zero.

    http://goo.gl/UN1mol

  • StevoR

    @ 25. Raging Bee :

    First, there is no “Arab/Persian side.” Arabs and Persians are not on the same side — they’re rivals for regional power and stature. Who are those “sources” that “all” tell you they’re indistinguishable? The above sentence alone proves you don’t know what you’re talking about, and are basing your arguments in pure shameful ignorance. So no, you don’t get to pretend you’re the smartest or most “realistic” guy in the room.

    Supermassive reading comprehension fail on your part Raging Bee. I wasn’t saying anything of the sort as should be obvious. Do you not know how a ‘ / ‘ symbol operates? It was used here exactly>/i> to make that distinction between them showing that they are seperate cases – just as I later in the same comment used Israel / US. (Again for your purpose of your comprehension I don’t think these two are identical.)

    second, “they have a long way to go” is not a valid argument against any specific treaty or other interaction. We’re not perfect either, and it’s worse than useless to refuse to do business with imperfect parties.

    Wow. What a surprise, Raging Bee imaging wrongly I’m saying something I’m not. Imagining I’m saying things that are actually the opposite of what I’ve explicitly stated many times even. How do you buy your straw from dude and how does your local community manage when you take and consume in a few lines their entire supply of yellow dried grasses?

    I have also made it very clear on this and other threads that I support this peace deal and hope it succeeds and I’ve never said or implied we’re perfect or that imperfect parties can’t still make agreements that are better rather than worse scenarios.

    Also I notice you – unlike Colnago80 – failed to actually answer my questions :

    1) Looking at regional and global history , precedent and the rhetoric of the Israel-hating leaders of the Arab and also (separately) the Iranians don’t you think that Israelis may have a point and a case at all when you look at what and who they are up against?

    2) Are you totally ignorant of regional history and the nature and charter of Hamas and the regular “death to Israel / (or respectively) “death to USA!” chants and brainwashing ceremonies in Iran for example?

    3) Do you really think Iran doesn’t have more than its share of hateful extremists who are also a huge part of the problem here?

    4) Where is your empathy for Israeli civilians and leaders?

    Plus

    5) Where is your ability to put yourself in Israels metaphorical shoes?

    Instead of answering these questions reasonably you instead rage at the person asking them and strawmonster them. Well, that certainly is your unpleasant and logic free style. If you think that makes *you* Raging Bee, “the smartest or most “realistic” guy in the room, then you are truly deluding yourself – and fooling almost no one else.

  • StevoR

    &^%$%#@R$!@ italics.

  • StevoR

    And lack of ability to edit and fix here. Sigh.

  • StevoR

    @42. Raging (& strawmonstering & unable to pass exercises in comprehension) Bee : “why do they so automatically advocate such barbaric violence? Ironically, because they can’t trust their enemies to understand anything other than barbaric violence.”

    The atom bomb is hardly a barbarians weapon of choice! That’d be more something like Conan’s sword or Gimli’s battle axe.

    (For a certain literal value and usage of ‘barbarian’, unlike you I know what you meant there.)

  • StevoR

    PS. Also again, I’m going to ask you answer the questions noted in #45 & earlier in #24.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    You have to be kidding me. I suggest looking at some still photos of Hiroshima after the bomb went off. A lot more then 1 building was destroyed.

    I suggest reading for comprehension.

    Also I notice you – unlike Colnago80 – failed to actually answer my questions : 1) Looking at regional and global history , precedent and the rhetoric of the Israel-hating leaders of the Arab and also (separately) the Iranians don’t you think that Israelis may have a point and a case at all when you look at what and who they are up against?

    That’s a fucking lie and you know it. I already answered your questions, and so did a lot of other people. Here, lemme repeat it: given what Israel is up against, I’d say that an unprovoked preemptive attack on Iran is a really bad, maladaptive, counterproductive idea; and that a negotiated solution with Iran, while imperfect, is still the best option for Israel’s long-term security. And even if the deal isn’t enough to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuke, or even if Iran blows the deal off altogether, bombing or invading Iran is still a catastrophically shitty alternative. Looking at what poor pathetic scared little Israel is up against (STILL up against, after decades of unilateral attacks against neighboring peoples, I must add), it’s perfectly obvious they’re in a situation they can’t bomb their way out of, and that the US can’t bomb them out of; and that military responses would only make things worse, as previous military responses have already made things worse, for Israel and for its neighbors.

    So please, stop pretending we’re not seeing Israel’s point of view and you’re the sole voice of compassion here. We ARE seeing it, and we’re also seeing the point of view of shitloads of other humans who are also within range of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear threat. There’s nothing special about the humans inside Israel’s narrow borders. They’re not the only ones with legitimate concerns here.

    If you really had any compassion for Israel, you’d be making more mental effort on their behalf, not just waving bloody shirts and refusing to think. Your refusal to offer anything other than raw emotion and self-righteousness shows that you’re the one lacking compassion.

  • StevoR

    @21. Raging bee :

    “..you still think the other guys can’t be trusted yet because they’re still heathen savages who need to change their culture — but you can’t be optimistic about THEM treating others as humans. That’s not “realistic,” that’s more like “race realism.”

    No that’s because I know who we are talking about here and the words of the Iranian Mullahs and leaders and the words and actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad speak for themselves.

    For example :

    The whole world should know that the Zionists will eventually disappear and Bint Jbeil will remain alive.”

    (Former Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at a rally in the Southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil, which borders Israel. Source – Anti-Defamation League, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad In His Own Words”)

    Then there’s this :

    n a Friday sermon on Dec. 15, 2000, Khamenei declared, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini]…is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” A month later, he repeated his message. “The foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.”

    More recently, on Nov. 20, 2013, Khamenei told an assembly of some 50,000 Basij militiamen that Israel was ready to fall. “The Zionist regime is a regime whose pillars are extremely shaky and is doomed to collapse,” he said. Israelis, he added, “should not be called humans.”

    (Emphasis added so that hopefully even Raging Bee will understand it and be unable to deny it!)

    Source : http://www.buzzfeed.com/jerusalemcenter/sworn-to-destruction-20-threats-iranian-leaders-m-hys5

    Oh and then there’s the notorious Hamas charter which includes :

    (Hamas) .. strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine..” (ie allof tehformer mandate including every last piece of Israeli land) & “There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer.”

    That’s Hamas still unchanged still in force founding reason for existence. That’s what they believ in

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    No that’s because I know who we are talking about here…

    You don’t know shit. Kaveh knows far better “who we are talking about here,” because he’s actually there, and guess what — his take doesn’t even come close to supporting any of your simpleminded bigoted allegations. For starters, it’s perfectly obvious (and has been since 1980) that huge numbers of Iranians don’t really agree with the most bigoted mullahs; nor do all the mullahs even; and the Iranian people are starting to move past the mullocracy of Khomeini’s day and assert a more mature vision of their country’s interests. Oh, and just in case you were unclear on this too, the London Underground is not a political movement.

    Get off your damn hobby horse and go to bed, StevoR. The more you insist you know, the more ignorant you prove yourself to be. We have reliable information sources to fall back on, and we know you’re full of shit.

  • StevoR

    Er, Raging (Misreading and Strawmonstering) Bee : How you have you failed to notice what I specifically stated in comment #18 right here? :

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/04/09/kaveh-mousavi-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/#comment-415320

    Plus my agreement with Kaveh and Ed Brayton in #3 here and my repeated support on multiple earlier threads for Obama’s Iran deal? Really. How can you be so flippin’ stupid?

    As well as ignorant :

    STILL up against, after decades of unilateral attacks against neighboring peoples, I must add..

    Bzzzt! Wrong. History fail number 1000,000,000,000,000,001 from Raging Bee here. Reality says its actually been the exact opposite. The neighbouring people’s have been the one’s doing the unilateral attacking. Starting with Israel’s 1948 war of independence and , basically never really stopping since. All the way to Hamas murdering teenagers and firing rockets willy-nilly at Israeli cities in the last Gaza war.

    OTOH, Israel would be the one that has unilaterally withdrawn and voluntarily surrendered “land for peace” – Their unilateral Gaza withdrawal. Guess how that that worked out? (Hint – see previous sentence immediately above.)

    Note the actual question I’ve asked you goes well beyond and deals with a lot more the current Iran deal which, yet again, I support and think is a good thing.

    Try rereading my words slowly. Try thinking about them and remembering what I’ve said in the actual type before. Emphasis the words in bold – does the help you get it? Try to take off your ideological blinder and set aside your obvious anti-Israel and anti-me prejudices. Maybe one day, Raging Bee, you’ll surprise us all by actually something right on this issue! (Or /and actually understanding the actual questions and points I’m raising here.)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    The neighbouring people’s have been the one’s doing the unilateral attacking. Starting with Israel’s 1948 war of independence…

    Dude, do you have any idea how self-contradictory that sentence is? Israel’s neighbors unilaterally started Israel’s war of independence? Seriously?

    Try rereading my words slowly.

    Maybe you should be the one reading your words: you keep on saying you’re for a deal, but then you keep on saying you can’t really be optimistic about it because those other people are all such horrible savages. Which means, for all practical purposes, you really don’t support a deal, because you don’t really believe it can work, based on a savagely ignorant view of the other people that’s totally contradicted by masses of available evidence.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Also, StevoR, I note that your relentless diversion into Israel’s military history does absolutely nothing to refute anything I’ve said about the US-Iran deal, or about the good it could do for Iran’s neighbors, or about the lack of any better alternative policy toward Iran.

    Israel and its struggles against the dark-skinned heathen savages are not the whole of history, and they don’t answer all questions of diplomacy and policy-making.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Raging Bee :

    Israel declare Independence, its Arab neighbours then declared war and immediately tried to exterminate Israel and commit genocide against its Jewish population.

    Fact :

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html

    Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: “It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.”

    What about that exactly is self-contradictory and makes you think its israel’s fault or that isreal caused the war?

  • StevoR

    Raging Bee, dude, seriously? Really and fucking truly? You still haven’t cottoned on to what I’ve expressly stated about fifty times already here? :

    .. the current Iran deal which, yet again, I support and think is a good thing.

    Kind of you to yet again conclusively prove my point regarding your reading comprehension, dude!

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Israel declare Independence, its Arab neighbours then declared war and immediately tried to exterminate Israel and commit genocide against its Jewish population.

    First, the people who declared independence, did so after migrating from Europe and colonizing someone else’s land. And second, the people whose land they forcibly conquered did not “immediately [try] to exterminate Israel and commit genocide.” They just wanted their fucking land back. Kinda like the Native Americans who wanted their land back, and never actually tried to commit genocide against white people.

    Seriously, dude, even from a pro-Israel standpoint I can see your “history” is pure shit. Do you really think you’re convincing anyone here?