DEATH TO AHMADINEJAD! DEATH TO THE MULLAHS!

purely democratic Iran, in fact, I would prefer it. But the violence you call for only propagates further violence.

I pray to the Almighty that the propagation of anti-government violence in Iran spreads like a plague and turns into an earthquake that destroys the regime. If the Founders had listened to you we would still be under British rule.

That is the difference between us. Violence keeps the conflict going well after it has ended.

Not when you've crushed your enemy and destroyed his will to fight you. Then the bloodletting stops and war turns to peace.

The world can not be governed by those who wish the destruction of a race of people or who disagree with policies, or those who would invade for emperialist reasons.

It is up to those governments who 1)believe in the rights of individual liberties, pursuit of happiness, and the right to self determination, 2)have the power 3)have the will of those being subjugated, 4)have the guts to act in support of 1,2, & 3 to liberate those under tyranny when and where they can and when no one else will. Otherwise you might as well issue the USSR a reprieve and re-establish that evil empire.

You don't do great things for humanity by bowing to those who are inhumane.

Grant said "War is all about making it mentally and physically more repugnant, in the enemies mind, to continue than it is in your own mind."

Peace and love is good for after the villains are all dead. But then you have to be able to distinguish the villains from the good guys. We are among the good guys.

Glenn Flowers

"Peace and love is good for after the villains are all dead." Well said. Well said.

But then don't you become the enemy you are crushing?

If you defeat your opponent in debate how would that be defeating yourself? Was Obama defeated on Election Day when he beat McCain?

Yes if that is what Ahmadinejad said. The problem is in the translation and whether we a translation written by war mongers or apologists for power or we get an accurate one. I have a friend who knows the language and the context of the statement because he is Iranian. What Ahmadinejad said refers back to what Ayatollah Khomeini said that is they want to see the destruction of Zionism, not all Jews. One only needs to check the status of Jews in their country and visiting Jews from Israel, such as when the Neturei Karta delegates visited Ahmadinejad's convention on the Holocaust. The Neturei Karta are a branch of UltraOrthodox Jews who speak out against Zionism (http://www.nkusa.org). They disagree with Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust.

Having said that, do not think I like Ahmadinejad. Though he has a legitimate concern for the Palestinians, his denial of the Holocaust and the violence that he would accept in eliminating Zionism cannot be tolerated. It is lunacy.

But in the category of what goes around, comes around. The Iranian revelution, from which the ruling Mullahs come, came about because of the 25 year, American supported, suppression of dissenting opinion by the Shah, whom the UK and the US put into power after overthrowing Iran's democratic government. Hopefully, enough Iranians will speak out to either change the direction of the Mullahs or even change who is in control. But if they do so violently, they will have one more thing in common with the people they are replacing.

Anti-Zionist religious Jews refuse to accept Israel's right to exist because according to their interpretation of Scripture God is to restore Israel only in the Messianic Age and not before.

As for Iran's Jewish population it has been diminishing since the start of the revolution due to anti-Jewish discrimination. Iranian Jews have been contemptuously treated as second class citizens by the regime

And what specifically is that treatment of the Jews and when did that begin?

BTW, the NK seriously oppose the treatment of Palestinians by Israeli gov't

Surely you know that Iran is an Islamic country, and certainly you know enough about Islam to know what Dhimminitude is. According to Wikipedia before the revolution there were 140-150,000 Jews in Iran. Now there are around 80,000. The exodus of 60,000 was due to discrimination in employment, public housing, education and taxation. Most Jewish schools and synagogues have been closed by the state; the state strictly controls what Jews can be taught and the practice of the sabbath is no longer recognized by the gov't. Iran is far from being a friendly place for Persian Jews and that is why so many left.

appear twice because I forgot the first part of the note. but I will add something here. Not all Muslims believe have dominion theology like some conservative American Christians have. Many Muslims believe in religious freedom and there historical examples showing that Islam can be far more tolerant than Christianity. As in Christianity, there are examples where that is not the case as well.

regarding your stats on Jews in Iran. It would be interesting to see the documentation. From what I read, there were 100,000 Jews in Iran in 1948 while there were 25,000 in 2004. Official stats have not been kept since 1986. Most estimates place today's Jewish population at between 10,000 to 25,000. From what I have read in the past, Jews have served in the Iranian Parliament up until 2006 at least. And though there is discrimination and persecution, Iran has the 2nd highest Jewish population of any Middle East country.

My reference the number of Jews in Iran is

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/i ranjews.html

If the 25,000 figure is correct then the 80,000 is probably Iranian propaganda. There are reform Moslems who reject the idea of Islamic supremacy, but they are a small minority especially in the Middle East where out of fear they are virtually silent.

There are something like 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. I think we would have far more serious problems than we do now if a majority of them believed in domination.

The vast majority of Moslems are indoctrinated, conditioned, brainwashed with Mohammed's vision of a one world Moslem supremacist state, but they are not organized into a powerful world force. The unification of supremacist Islam under a single Islamist banner is the goal of Sunni (Moslem Brotherhood) and Shiite (Khomenist) radicalism.

First, can you prove what you are saying scientifically with statistical data?

Second, how different are Muslims then from Christians who believe that Christ will rule the world?

The Moslem world can be roughly divided into those who take the idea of Islamic Supremicism seriously, and those reformed and modernized Moslems who regard Islam on an equal basis with other theistic religions. The former are in an overwhelming majority, among these are a minority of jihadists who actively pursue through violent and non-violent means the destruction of democracy and Western Civilization, and those in the majority who give them material and/or moral support.

Not really, there are many who take Islam very seriously who are tolerant and non-violent. Our problem is taking passages from the Koran out of context. For example, if we took OT passages that told the Israelites to kill all non-Israelites out of context, what would be we be doing now?

Moslems who believe: 'My faith is supreme for me and your faith (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.,) is supreme for you,' "the tolerant, non-violent types" as you call them, are what I call "reformed Moslems." They have completely transcended the supremicist idea, the prophet's false and primtive vision of a conquered humanity living in a one world Moslem Sharia state.

That is what you call them but consider the following

1) The context in which the Koran was written
2) The context of what some conservatives think of as consist Islam--consistent with the Koran
3) The context of the Bible verses that command ruthless violence
4) The context of the Bible verses that preach peace

In addition, consider that throughout history, Muslims have often, though not always, demonstrated tolerance. And we see many times in history, including Brother Bush and the invasion of Iraq, where Christians have used violence in the name of God. Christian Europe, Europe in the old days, had a dreadfully violent history until people saw more of the consequences of violence in WWII.

My dear man:

You cannot separate the Koran from the life of its author who was by any reasonable measure a mass, murdering terrorist thug. There is a huge difference between a Mohammed leading his followers to pillage, plunder, dismember and kill innocent people for the unpardonable crime of rejecting his divine authority and a President Bush executing the terms of a breached ceasefire agreement, 17 UN Resolutions and the Iraq War Resolution passed by both Houses of Congress. Bush is a civilized man not a 7th century barbarian like Mohammed. I believe that even if he were an atheist Bush would have ordered Operation Iraqi Freedom.

That was my point, you can't take verses from the Koran out of context by projecting them into contexts. This is especially true when other verses in Koran oppose aggression and promote peace.

And what can you say about Mohammad that cannot be said about Joshua whose troops slaughtered women and children? The Israelites committed genocide and a partial ethnic cleansing when they took the land of Cananan.

FInally, if only Bush would also follow the UN resolutions he cited Saddamn for breaking. Resolution 1440 stated that material breaches of past resolutions with regards to weapons inspections would be reviewed and handled by the UN. Thus for Bush to make a unilateral move against Saddamn, broke resolution 1440 as well as other resolutions. And since it was clear that Saddamn had WMDs that the UN inspection team had not already accounted for, it is not clear what UN resolutions Saddamn broke. And finally, if breaking 17 UN resolutions, according to conservatives' estimates is ground for invasion, then why aren't we invading Israel which has broken over 30 UN resolutions with regards to Palestine?