Iran etc

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Jan 9, 2010 at 23:09

Hi Mr. Infidel,

Hi Mr. Bannerjee,

"I told the expert comrades that I need guerrilla groups in Europe to kill whoever they see of them [Kurdish oppositionists]. I will do it, with the help of God. I will defeat them and follow them to Iran. Then I will ask the Mujaheddin to attack them there ." --Mr Al Majid at a meeting of Ba'ath Party leaders ,26 May 1987

My Answer >>>> It does mean that Al-Majid is referring about Saddam's (and now Western) Iranian puppies Mujhahedin-e-khalq as "the Mujaheddin". Remember Al-majid did mention that he will follow them to Iran before he mentioned the words "the Mujaheddin". So I do have proof from your own comments that Al- Majid did not talk about Allah when he said about Mujahedin in the above mentioned quote.

Part of the quote from Al Majid above states "....I will do it, with the help of God." I'm sorry - I thought God and Allah were interchangeable terms. If not - then you'll have to explain exactly who or what allah is.

"So you see - it was all done for allah and by the mujahadeen - so everything is OK and you don't have to worry."

"....My Answer >>>> I can prove you that MEK(Mujhahedin-e-Khalq) is nothing but an atheist group of pro-western(formerly pro-Saddam) terrorist thugs. Now surely they have nothing to do with Allah. Comparing them with Allah is like telling Hitler did kill on the name of Jesus."

You miss the point in mentioning Hitler. Hitler never did anything in the name of religion, that he was born in a Christian culture was just a matter of circumstance. Same with Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. Hitler never even attempted to invoke religion to justify his actions or to incite his followers. How could he have ? If he had said ' Do what Jesus did and slay people you think are your enemies?' - peole would have thought him insane. But the thing is - Islamists can be induced to follow their 'prophet's example in that regard can't they? Especially if they are motivatetd by an imaginary reward.

Hitler had no recourse to any Christian scriptures which could inflame the blooodlust of Wehrmacht soldiers - nothing even close to these goodies:

47:4 Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. [95, Medina]

8:65 O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence. [88, Medina]

3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.[89, Medina]

4:12 When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. [88, Medina]

8:60 Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged. [88, Medina]

In Germany before and during WW2 there was no 'Allah akbar' before summary executions. etc There was no attempt made to deceive the people that he was some sort of religious figure. He was a political leader purely and simply . Religion was irrelevant to his concerns. It was not the raison d'etre of the Nazi Party. And the Nazi Party was local to one country alone - it was not spread through dozens of countries with dozens of languages.

Good. Then you'll also agree that Al Shebab, Lashka e Tayba, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and just about every other Islamist based organisation has nothing to do with truth or justice and certainly not consciousness and awareness and the promotion of peace and harmony.

"Yes I am worried that the West as well as the Israelis who accuse everyone in the world as terrorists do provide support to a bunch of terrorist thugs like the MEK. It tells me about the hypocrisy of their supporters like you."

The West and Israelis accuse people who are actually terrorists of being terrorsts. I think that's a fair thing, don't you?

"Iran's animosities to the 'great Satan" - the US and its allies exist because it is not Islamic. The US did court favour with the Shah in the 1960's - purely and simply because of the Cold War and Iran's proximity to Russia. Once the Shah was deposed by the deranged Ayatollah and his co- cultists - talk of the US government meddling with Iranian government decisions is pure fantasy.
Iran's meddling in the affairs of other countries is well known - eg. Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan."

My Answer >>>>> How naive of you that you did not talk about US overthrowal of Mohammad Mossadeq , the most progressive,nationalist and secular leader of Iran in last 100 years and replacing him with the tyrannical Shah regime. Now I call that "act of malevolent interference" in other people's matters.This is similar to what would happen if the Iranians tried to determine the government in the US or Israel.Kindly try to answer that one.

Shouldn't be too hard. Let's see:

"The Shah came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah's rule oversaw the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry under the prime ministership of Mohammad Mosaddeq. During the Shah's reign, Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. His White Revolution, a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power, succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women, among other things. However, the decline of the traditional power of the Shi'a clergy due to parts of the reforms increased opposition."

So the Shah was the last monarchs in Iran's monarchical system which lasted 2500 years. Mohammad Mossadeq was the Prime Minister. He was deposed when he threatened to nationalise the Anglo_Iranian Oil company. Wouldn't you call nationalising a legally set up foreign company that was developing Iran's resources ' an act of malevolent interference in other people's matters' as you put it??

As you know - the Iranians would find it impossible to determine the government of the US or Israel.

"And by the way there are plenty of unconfirmed reports that groups linked to the al-Qaeda network have tried to obtain the ingredients to make mustard gas in Afghan labs."

"My Answer >>>>> Mustard Gas from Afghan Labs ???? I think you will also agree with me that Afghanistan is a pretty much underdeveloped country. How can you have laboratories there producing a sophisticated chemical such as Mastard gas ? "

Pakistan is a pretty unsophisticated and undeveloped country as well yet it is able to produce atomic weapons. Money and determniation can make anything happen , anywhere.

"...By the way there are plenty of confirmed reports that Israel used toxic agents on innocent Gaza civilians during "Operation Cast Lead".

I don't believe every rumour I hear - but what has that got to do with you - an Indian Muslim I presume? Do you also develp a pathological hatred of jews and Israelis and an identification with the Bedouin Palestinians? Because most of them are Muslim? Does rationality and objectivity go out the window when you became a muslim or were you always one and lately have become more 'sure' in your beliefs?

"Yes - Saint Mandela WAS called a terrorist at that time - he was brought before a court of law and he himself admitted to terrorist charges."

"My Answer >>>> By your above logic then former Israeli leaders such as Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin should also be called terrorists since they were convicted by British courts at the time of being involved in terrorist activities at the time. By the way I believe plenty of US founding fathers were also called terrorists by the british at the time."

?? Begin and Shamir weren't even in Britain. Mandela HIMSELF admitted to terrorist acts. Was convicted and sentenced in his own country for terrorist acts. Straying off topic and bringing in a couple of Jew's names would be a typical thing to expect from an Islamist.

"My defintion of terrorism is any act by which innocent blood is shed for pollitical reasons is worthy of called terrorism. Do you agree with it ?"

So Major Hasan's motivation to kill 13 people and wound many more while shouting 'Allah Akbar' in Ft. Hood and the Detroit Christmas Day botched attempt at bringing down an arliner over detroit would not be covered by your definition. They were done for religious reasons - to kill Infidels. Which brings uo the questuion - what would have been the outcome if the plane had caught fire and been brought down in Dearborn, Michigan, causing massive loss of life on the ground? Who would be blaming whom?

And what then if it is shed for religious reasons? Your definition is not wide enough for me.

Let's see what a dictionary definition gives us:

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.^[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.^[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.^[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.^[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition"

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".