← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Angler
Thread ID: 5670 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2003-03-20
2003-03-20 19:36 | User Profile
My apologies if this has already been posted on one of the forums here. The resolution doesn't yet support military action, but they're clearly laying the groundwork of propaganda:
(Taken from [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./temp/~c1085KfFIn::]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108...p/~c1085KfFIn::[/url] -- you'll probably have to search for it again if you want to check the source. Try here if you want to do a new search: [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c108query.html]http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c108query.html[/url])
Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran and of individual human rights abuses, particularly with regard to women. (Introduced in Senate)
SRES 82 IS
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 82 Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran and of individual human rights abuses, particularly with regard to women.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 12, 2003 Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. KYL) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran and of individual human rights abuses, particularly with regard to women.
Whereas the people of the United States respect the Iranian people and value the contributions that Iran's culture has made to world civilization for over 3 millennia;
Whereas the Iranian people aspire to democracy, civil, political, and religious rights, and the rule of law, as evidenced by increasingly frequent antigovernment and anti-Khatami demonstrations within Iran and by statements of numerous Iranian expatriates and dissidents;
Whereas Iran is an ideological dictatorship presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader with limitless veto power, an unelected Expediency Council and Council of Guardians capable of eviscerating any reforms, and a President elected only after the aforementioned disqualified 234 other candidates for being too liberal, reformist, or secular;
Whereas the Iranian Government has been developing a uranium enrichment program that by 2005 is expected to be capable of producing several nuclear weapons each year, which would further threaten nations in the region and around the world;
Whereas the United States recognizes the Iranian peoples' concerns that President Muhammad Khatami's rhetoric has not been matched by his actions;
Whereas President Khatami clearly lacks the ability and inclination to change the behavior of the State of Iran either toward the vast majority of Iranians who seek freedom or toward the international community;
Whereas political repression, newspaper censorship, corruption, vigilante intimidation, arbitrary imprisonment of students, and public executions have increased since President Khatami's inauguration in 1997;
Whereas men and women are not equal under the laws of Iran and women are legally deprived of their basic rights;
Whereas the Iranian Government shipped 50 tons of sophisticated weaponry to the Palestinian Authority despite Chairman Arafat's cease-fire agreement, consistently seeks to undermine the Middle East peace process, provides safe-haven to al-Qa'ida and Taliban terrorists, allows transit of arms for guerrillas seeking to undermine our ally Turkey, provides transit of terrorists seeking to destabilize the United States-protected safe-haven in Iraq, and develops weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and despite rhetorical protestations to the contrary, the Government of Iran has actively and repeatedly sought to undermine the United States war on terror;
Whereas there is a broad-based movement for change in Iran that represents all sectors of Iranian society, including youth, women, student bodies, military personnel, and even religious figures, that is pro-democratic, believes in secular government, and is yearning to live in freedom;
Whereas following the tragedies of September 11, 2001, tens of thousands of Iranians filled the streets spontaneously and in solidarity with the United States and the victims of the terrorist attacks; and
Whereas the people of Iran deserve the support of the American people: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) legitimizing the regime in Iran stifles the growth of the genuine democratic forces in Iran and does not serve the national security interest of the United States;
(2) positive gestures of the United States toward Iran should be directed toward the people of Iran , and not political figures whose survival depends upon preservation of the current regime; and
(3) it should be the policy of the United States to seek a genuine democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the Iranian people, abandon terrorism, and live in peace and security with the international community.
2003-03-20 21:51 | User Profile
John Mclaughlin's "One on One" had two Neocon Yentas on. Talking about this very subject!
2003-03-20 22:11 | User Profile
At this stage, it's the best we can hope for - that these nations are forced to rise up and defend themselves, yes?
2003-03-20 22:15 | User Profile
Trotsky's Fourth International is on the march. Fair warning to those who stand in its path.
What we need is for the artists among us to design some pictures like those old Russian posters showing Trotsky with blood dripping from his fangs, etc. Madrussian once gave me a link to some of those and that would be a great counter-propaganda tool. Perhaps some showing the prominent neo-cons we all know so well.
2003-03-21 09:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Mar 20 2003, 16:15 **What we need is for the artists among us to design some pictures like those old Russian posters showing Trotsky with blood dripping from his fangs, etc. **
Send me the link(s) Tex/Madrussian. Have photoshop will travel...
If appropriate photos of neo-con heads can be found it should be possible to splice them into the Russian posters and stylise them enough to look like a natural part of the original art.
2003-03-22 02:02 | User Profile
Hopefully, after seeing what we did to Iraq, Iran will end its nuclear programs peacefully. But we are certainly going to make them end them, unless the Russians or the Chinese intervene directly.
2003-03-22 03:07 | User Profile
Hopefully, after seeing what we did to Iraq, Iran will expedite its nuclear programs peacefully, since Jewish Amerika only attacks those who can't defend themselves.
2003-03-22 03:47 | User Profile
Oh, you mean you want us to attack Iran sooner rather than later? Could be a good idea--the troops are already in the region.
Yes, we kick them when they are down. It's the best time to do so. But I am hoping we might get a little more daring with N. Korea, and we certainly don't need Jewish approval to attack that nation.
2003-03-22 04:31 | User Profile
Tex --
Hey! Are you criticizing my pal Trotsky?
D-oh! Such hate....affer all, Trotsky jus' wanted peace, justice, singing, dancing, sunshine, frisbee-tossing and lotsa rainbows....you against dat?
2003-03-22 06:21 | User Profile
Oh, you mean you want us to attack Iran sooner rather than later? Could be a good idea--the troops are already in the region.
By all means, pausing to polish your fangs is a waste of time when you know theyââ¬â¢ll be stained shortly. But before you rush to enlist and partake in the next feast, Iââ¬â¢d be remiss if I didnââ¬â¢t attempt to add to your education. Seeing your agile apprehension of biosphere as finite space, I know youââ¬â¢re ready to take in further lessons, this time with only minimal prompting. Do you know about fallacy of power and inherent limits on that power, particularly as concerning the US political structure?
But I am hoping we might get a little more daring with N. Korea, and we certainly don't need Jewish approval to attack that nation.
Actually, you need pollsters to tell you how fast you can get more daring, and when the data disappoints you need time to condition the dumb brutes to be more accommodating. Recall that it took months to get the cattle to think Osama = Saddam.
BTW, is the last point to be interpreted as an offer of personal assurance? :)
2003-03-22 07:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Mar 20 2003, 21:55 ** Well, didn't Sharon dictate to Bush, "after Iraq, attack Iran and Syria." Given that Bush has been taking orders from Tel Aviv like no other President in US history, does an imminent "follow-up" attack on other Mideast enemies of Israel by the US come as any surprise? **
Not just Iran and Syria
** [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=4464]Principalities and Powers - WWIV[/url]
Set aside the geopolitical exhortations offered by other members of the Zionist- neoconservative cabal and consider merely the war demanded by Mr. Ledeen and Mr. Podhoretz. The enemies' list in their crusade includes not only Iraq, as well as AI Qaeda and Afghanistan, but Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority (not to mention North Korea and, we may assume, eventually China)**
2003-03-22 08:22 | User Profile
Oh, I think the American public is getting pretty well primed as we speak. Blood from here on out, as you like it.
As far my assurances go, they are simply offered as an opinion based on the idea that white Goys are willing to allow that the Mideast falls within a Jewish sphere of influence, but will be dead and damned before they let Jews interfere with desired military operations in Asia.
Finally: the biosphere might be finite, but the earth carrying capacity can expand a thousand-fold through technology. What is finite is Anglo ability to tolerate 3rd world invasions of resentment directed at the US.
2003-03-22 09:27 | User Profile
Oh, I think the American public is getting pretty well primed as we speak. Blood from here on out, as you like it.
Not as I like it but as I fear is necessary to impart the lesson that there exits a limit to the force that even the strongest may apply without undoing themselves. Law is no protection against the martyrs (foreign or domestic) that it creates. You can threaten and punish but not evade the consequences. This will be grasped only when suicide bombers begin plying their trade on Pennsylvania Avenue or Trafalgar Square to the cry of Allahu Ackbar! :(
2003-03-22 10:38 | User Profile
**Hopefully, after seeing what we did to Iraq, Iran will expedite its nuclear programs peacefully, since Jewish Amerika only attacks those who can't defend themselves. **
Yup, I got a feeling even Dumya ain't stupid enough to try a pre-emptive strike on Kim Jong Il.
Then again, N. Korea doesn't directly threaten Israel, either :P
But folks on the West Coast and Alaska might wanna invest in bomb shelters....
2003-03-22 17:40 | User Profile
There is a limit to how much force we can apply, of course. But where is that limit?
Suicide bombers are not rational creatures. It is very difficult to predict whether a stronger show of force encourages or discourages their activities. Israel, for example, might be thought to suffer not because it uses force, but because it uses some force, but not enough.
BTW, suicide bombers might be that catastrophe that Sisyfos is always looking for -- the one that will awaken white racial consciousness. They are likely to strike regardless, and it is better that they strike now, before they have nuclear weapons.
2003-03-22 17:43 | User Profile
It is stupid to pre-emptively destroy the missle capability of a bizarre dictator who has nuclear weapons? What, we are to wait for him to build a few 100 bombs and missiles, and test them all, so they can take out Hollywood?
Here at Over-Dosed, we have no idea what is 'stupid' with regards to attacks on North Korea's missile programs. We do not have the necessary intelligence about whether the missiles can be taken out in a pre-emptive strike.
2003-03-22 19:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 22 2003, 11:40 ** Suicide bombers are not rational creatures. It is very difficult to predict whether a stronger show of force encourages or discourages their activities. Israel, for example, might be thought to suffer not because it uses force, but because it uses some force, but not enough. **
Suicide attacks are acts of desperation. They are committed by people who feel they must take revenge on their tormentors but lack any effective conventional means to retaliate against a much stronger foe.
As for Israel, the reason why they still have to cope with suicide bombers is because they refuse to end their criminal occupation of Palestinian land. The more brutal the methods they use on the Palestinians, the more hatred is engendered in the same, and the more likely suicide bombings are to occur.
If I were a Palestinian who had grown up watching his parents be humiliated and brutalized on a near-daily basis by armed Israeli thugs who are backed by the world's only superpower, I'd probably commit a suicide attack as well. I'd definitely engage in some sort of resistance. How could any self-respecting person NOT do so?
2003-03-22 19:27 | User Profile
You completely ignore the religious motivations of suicide bombers.
As to the Palestinians, I think they would have had a lot more success if they had followed Ghandi's example.
A rational Muslim-Palestinain would realize that he was a member of an Arab ethnic group and of a Muslim religious group that had attacked the Israeli's, and continued to attack them. He would thus realize that Israeli oppression of his kin had a rational basis, rather than being motivated out of sheer hatred for his kin. Having realized all of this, I am not sure why is going to conclude that the right thing for him to do is engage in terrorist activities that kill Israeli civilians, including children, or support the use of Palestinian children as agents of terrorism. Given that his kin was not likely to benefit from such attacks, and given they warping of norms of warfare they involve, his motivation is probably not doing what is right by any ordinary standards, but only by the standards of the jihadistic Allah that fuses Arab-Muslims maurading racial identities with vivisions of fanatical devotion to anti-'infidel' violence.
2003-03-22 20:53 | User Profile
Religion only forms a backdrop for the Palestinian struggle. It does not provide the suicide bombers' primary motivation.
Generally speaking, the Palestinians do NOT hate anyone solely on account of differing religious beliefs or race. Just look at their reactions to the murder-by-bulldozer of Rachel Corrie. She wasn't Arab and was almost certainly not Muslim, yet the Palestinians set up memorials to her, tearfully holding pictures of her and calling her a martyr. This has been all over the news.
So it's clear that the militant Palestinians are not acting out of hatred borne of religion. Contrast that with the Zionists, who essentially hold anyone who isn't Jewish in contempt. They founded their nation by driving countless Arabs from their homes through the use of terror and intimidation. They are guilty of some of the most appalling massacres against civilians and have only been sheltered from international condemnation by the use of the US veto. Some examples are here: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,917834,00.html]http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,917834,00.html[/url]
Palestinians militants have committed some atrocities as well, but their record shines in comparison with that of the IDF. And when the Zionist-controlled American news media reports that a Palestinian militant has killed "civilians," certain facts are not mentioned, e.g., that many if not most Israeli civilians are armed, and many are actually reservists. By that definition of "civilian," it must follow that ALL Palestinians are civilians, since they do not even have a uniformed military.
2003-03-22 21:12 | User Profile
I don't find credible your claims that religion is not central to Palestinian terrorism. As to their treatment of the Corrie death, this could be safely dismissed as so much PR. When they mourne the death of a Jew killed by their attacks, we will have something to talk about.
2003-03-22 22:15 | User Profile
**There is a limit to how much force we can apply, of course. But where is that limit? **
We have arrived at the crux of it. Assessing this limit is the true artistry of government. For the US variant of the vaudeville that is democracy the limit is simply anything that decisively impacts administrationââ¬â¢s bid for a second term. With Empires that are all but invulnerable from external attacks, domestic issues take precedence.
Assuming a best-case scenario for the present conflict, i.e., minimum casualties on both sides and a grand finale with footage of Janissaries marching in the streets of Baghdad accompanied by cheers, flowers and kisses from Iraqi maidens, politically, Junior will benefit no more than did George I. Temporary flushed with success he will still need time to prep the populace for further liberations. Democracy does not allow for speedy decisions because it requires apparent legitimacy. Again, where this is not forthcoming prolonged schooling of the masses is required. George II went ahead with the barest of margins per opinion polls. If he gets more ambitious the opposition will grow and the pressure to cease will be politically unbearable.
In any event, domestic issues will determine his fate, and retaliations against the US whose seeds he is planting may not be apparent for a long time, therefore they are of no consequence to the administration. A government whose investment is more prolonged, such as monarchy, can at least be trusted to weigh such consequences more gravely. This tendency can also be observed in lower levels of administration where individual duty to state can near indefinite. E.g., witness the resignation of NSA officials charged with domestic security.
**Suicide bombers are not rational creatures. **
My use of homegrown suicide bombers was an example of what may educate still viable whites, not their governments. They are powerless as is evident in Israel. I am of the opinion that suicide is a rational act in certain circumstances. But that is a sidebar for us and for Israel, which will go down on account of demographics with suicide bombers playing only a limited role.
It is very difficult to predict whether a stronger show of force encourages or discourages their activities. Israel, for example, might be thought to suffer not because it uses force, but because it uses some force, but not enough.
This is very true. If faced with an implacable enemy you can do one of two things: 1) Defeat him via limited war(s) and keep him isolated, or 2) exterminate him. The latter is the more pragmatic approach but, alas, it is also virtually impossible to implement, even by a god-like autocrat presiding over a fanatically loyal populace. Sharon knows what needs to be done but he is trapped by an inefficient political structure, by hostile world opinion sensitive to any excess, and by presiding over a country depended on Palestinian cheap labour and US resources. Doubtless he can read demographic trends as well as we and infer what is in store for Israel. Of course, consolation that the pariah state will choke on its own vomit before the Occident is negligible.
2003-03-23 00:05 | User Profile
What, we are to wait for him to build a few 100 bombs and missiles, and test them all, so they can take out Hollywood?
Actually, that's not a bad idea.
2003-03-23 05:15 | User Profile
Your view is that because Zionist Jews did some evil things early on in the formation of Israel, and because the press is biased, we have to conclude that present Israeli actions are comparable to the evil of Palestinian terrorists.
Well, this argument might work if the press was so biased that it failed to report most Israeli attacks, and if these attacks were as evil as the Palestianian ones in their form. But this is not the case.
However, what I was largely discussing was the rationality of the suicide bombers. I am not sure how they are rational on your account. Yes, maybe their kin are being harmed to a greater extent than most know; I still don't see how hitting back in the way they do is rational. It's not rational; it's religious fanaticism. A non-fanatical people would have recognized that they had been conquered, acted more peacefully, and been given a state by now. But they don't just want a state; they want Israel gone, and the defeat of the Muslim world by infidels 'put right.'
Their strategy is irrational because it involve faith in a destiny of victory for Arab peoples, based in a larger faith about the victory of Muslim peoples. This faith invovle a bet that risks all of humanity, and which ignores the clear signs that neither the Israelis nor the Americans will accept Muslim victory in the world, period. (Also, the Bosnian situation ought also to indicate something about hidden European resolve, as should the growing anti-immigration sentiment in the EU.)
2003-03-23 15:45 | User Profile
**RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran and of individual human rights abuses, particularly with regard to women......
Whereas men and women are not equal under the laws of Iran and women are legally deprived of their basic rights; **
Should we make war on Iran I suggest we use an entire female army. Lets let the darlings show us their equality and love of freedom and democracy by letting them free their sisters in bondage. I'm sure that if People magazine were to run an Army add recruiting for such an effort soccer moms across the country would enlist.