Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What would happen if 'the people', of Occupy wall st, made official diplomatic overtures towards 'the people' of Iran, or Iraq, or any nation?

Posted 3 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 5:27 p.m. EST by blazefire (947)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Just a thought I thought I'd put out there....I wonder....



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

Iran welcomes diplomatic representation of Occupy Movement and if OWS can send a delegation to Iran they will do their best to address their agenda.

However, there's also strong anti OWS propaganda through satelite TV controlled by CIA throughout the world, especially Iran's viewers trying to label OWS as a "hippie movement" for drug addicts and homeless to tarnish the image of students and the rest of the 99% as frustrated handicapped or mentally ill people while in US they try to label the Green Movement the precursor to Arab Spring which is completely false and irrelevant because Iran is not an Arab nation and does not share any history with the Arabs in the region as an Arab entity.

A bit of History:

The Arabs invaded Iran about 1400 years ago but were gradually kicked out by Rebel Armies of the Northern Regions and eventually all that was left of their miserable armies was either annihilated or forced out of Iran in a 200 year time span.

Iran gained control of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, even India and the Caucuses south of Russia which originally belonged to Iran during the Sassanid Dynasty.

Iranians chose to practice Islam not because they were Arabs or be like Arabs but because Iranian Philosophers and Sages unanimously decided to be the followers of Islam through teachings of Salman the Persian (Persian name :Rouzbeh who had become a Christian first in Syria before traveling to Arabia to become a follower of Muhammad when the Christian priests had told him of Christ's prophecy about Muhammad's coming, but they were too old, and weak to travel with him to Arabia ) who had become a disciple of Muhammad before he introduced Islam to Arabs and Ali ibn Abi Talib Muhammad's cousin who had become a student of Salman in the art of Persian philosophy and Chosen by Mohammad to replace him as spiritual leader of all Muslims after he was gone.

Before Islam Arabs worshiped idols. Persians were Zoroastrian and worshiped Light.

It is important that OWS understands these subtleties of Iranian culture and does some research as to how they can best approach Iranians for solidarity.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 3 years ago

Let me put it this way; if the current president of Iran were Mir Hossein Mousavi (the man who actually won the popular vote in 2009) instead of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (the man who rigged the election, publicly sent the police in to slaughter protesters, disappears people he disagrees with, and seems hell-bent on creating a second Cuban missile crisis) then such a thing might be possible. After reviewing your posts, however, it's become very clear to me that you're either an Iranian government worker or you're really, really stupid.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

Ahmadinejad is serving his last term. Whoever replaces him is going to be voted for in the elections and it isn't gonna be Mousavi.

Mousavi was a joke. Anyone who endangers voters and future of Iran for his own gains backed by Zionists will share the same fortune. That's the way Iran works. It has been so ever since the revolution. Iran gave Khatami a good chance for reform before Ahmadinejad but the Zionist governments in the west never stepped forward for Iranian people and their chosen government.

Everyone had their chance to be prompt and positive but instead it turned into this post 9/11 ballyhoo of that piece of shit George W Bush and his retard supporters like you.

Now you have lost Iranian people's confidence, and you have managed to screw up your own.

Congrats. You are idiots you deserve to be. You shot yourselves in the foot!

So don't lecture me as if I am here to take shit from you. Because I won't.

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

Only problem I see with accepting a diplomatic representation to Iran is that the Iranian government oppresses it's own protestors, so if it is the government that extends this invitation, I find the motivation questionable. From a political POV, I believe the Iranian government could simply play the OWS representatives as pawns on the global stage. Picture it, Westerners being paraded about and pampered to prove to the world that Iran values free speech and diplomacy, while in reality they would shoot and torture their own protestors again just as they did the Green Party protesters. At the same time, playing into their hands would serve to de-legitimize OWS in the West, especially in America. Most Americans are not down with the Iranian government's way of doing things. We need to not be starry eyed idealists about this and understand the risks involved in taking the hand of any leader of any government when it's extended.

I am all for sharing culture, history, and good will with the Iranian people. Thank you for the history lesson. It's a good starting point. What I always find astounding is how so many Americans don't realize how modern and well educated Iranians actually are, or that there are special protections in law for any religion that is part of Iranian heritage... for some reason Americans often assume that all Muslim nations want to wipe out non-Muslim people. I wish I could make everyone in America sit down and watch some documentaries or something. America is still stuck in Bush era propaganda and FOX is still pushing it every chance they get as well.

[-] 2 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

It is no secret that the green movement like all these other recent millennium movements defined by a simple color are organized externally. The so called leader of the green movement, Mousavi has never been popular with Iranian people. The only reason he became popular all of a sudden was because he started promising youth more "unconditional freedoms" whatever that meant. His idea of freedom was asking them to go to streets wearing green scarfs and neckties and invite people to vote for him while playing loud music! They did that but they lost.

He has demonstrated that he is simply a pawn of western media interested in politics of hype; and pro-liberal form of it at that which Americans have experienced in the past 30 years and has evicted American people out of their homes in US.

His philosophy is the same as those in Wall Street. He supports Corporate rule of the most aggressive type, the American/British type, as a solution for Iran's rescue from sanctions and economic rebuild. But even worse than that his idea is to copy western economic models and integrate it into the western world as if this will solve any problems. That's why you don't hear anything about the green movement anymore because once the economic crisis started in US and Europe everyone realized how pathetic it was.

Now he and his followers simply accuse Iranian government of not being inclusive, and moderate when it comes to economy and that they are monsters for killing and imprisoning those who started the violence in Iranian cities.

Most of the history written about Iran is after Islam when in truth it is the one before Islam which has more importance. (and a lot of it is not known to west because you only find them in Iranian books, even then it is difficult to understand because there are so many unexplained historical events and researching every bit of information available like archeology, art, literature,etc won't help that much unless you decode what is encrypted). But I believe you're on the right track in this regard.

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

I really appreciate hearing another side to this. The media in the west sucks at investigative journalism, I'm sad to say. Then never bothered to look into weather or not the leader of the party was popular, and the fact he's a capitalist probably led them to the knee-jerk reaction 'he's like us, so he must be great'. lol

When those protests took place, it was not any sort of support for the candidate that I cared about. What I care about is seeing people having the freedom to go out and make their voices heard without being abused or targeted by gunmen. Weather or not the supporters of the Green Party were wrong in the end about their economic policy, they still do not deserve such treatment, and their bravery for something they believe in is still inspiring. The people I saw being beaten or murdered in videos were not behaving violently, they were merely marching. Should a peaceful protestor be gunned down because another protester further down the street threw a pebble at a police officer? I think not!

Please do not take this as an American Attacking your pride in Iran. In America, we've had both extremes in our history... violent riots in the 90's because police did not react with enough force, and on the other hand armed soldiers murdering peaceful protestors in the 60s. I'm no Nationalist, I think we need to know how alike we all are, to dispel the lies of warmongers.

I wish information on Middle East history were easier to find in general. When Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, I was dumbfounded that they were surprised by there being differing factions, more than one form, of Islam, different cultures and heritage among the rural tribes... Their excuse for not knowing what they were getting into was that they did not have good enough 'intelligence'. That statement is more true than they meant, in all the ways they didn't mean it. lol I mean, really, there must be SOME documentation of history, if they really cared to know. Our government should have historians versed in a multitude of languages pouring over foreign and domestic history books about the regions we need to have relations with. I've learned that all my government really wishes to know is how they can manipulate the rest of the world, while special interests manipulate the government! It's a situation that serves no one but the elite, on an international level.

I think if more information could be made available in more languages, the people of the world will know and understand each other better, and our leaders won't be able to make us want to kill each other anymore.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

I understand your concern at least as an analyst who wants to find out whether the Media is telling the truth or the shots being shown are actually set up to look as if the violence in the streets was started by the security forces.

I was there right in the middle of the violence when it happened and I can tell you how it happened.

In the first few days after the election various groups and organizations started their protest peacefully in an area which was about 3 to 5 miles in radius from Tehran University to upper parts of Tehran. Then the government accepted to recount the votes and they did. after the recount they announced they reached the same results. This caused Mousavi and some lesser known candidates to condemn the government furiously for fraud and they immediately announced to public that everyone should protest the results. (this seemed very suspicious to me since Mousavi always pretended to be a very mellow guy). Government rejected any requests for permits to demonstrations since they saw this as an externally sponsored move by opposition and knew that things could get ugly pretty fast if some sleeper terror groups joined in the action.

Regardless of the governmental warning about the situation some opposition groups started marching and breaking building windows, putting trash cans on fire and attacking police stations. At this point security forces reacted full force. It all happened very quickly. I was not in the center of Tehran in the morning when I got back in the afternoon I saw that my street was blocked by security forces on both ends and revolutionary guards were on the side walk with motorcycles and full gear. So I went up to them and told them I lived near by and they said I could go. There were also undercover security forces dressed in civilian cloths searching for cars that might have suspicious passengers etc. and directing them to leave the area. That's how they managed the streets by not letting traffic or people through the main streets. Some people got violent and started throwing stones at these security forces. I saw these people they were not from my neighborhood. One of them was beaten and came to our door for help. He was late teens from province; illiterate and poor. He had no idea who Mousavi was. He just wanted to be a part of some revolution without understanding what's going on. That's what government can't control: the mix. When they attack there's a good chance some bystander gets hit which is often the case.

there's a saying in Iran:

when things get rowdy all firewood burns in the same bunch regardless wet or dry.

When I got back to US and told some people these stories they were sort of shocked because what they saw was different. Well I really don't blame that much. The Media are seasoned professionals and they get paid to do this. Otherwise they'll be out of jobs.

Therefore I believe you're 100% correct that it is up to us to figure it out, of course if we have time, and unfortunately most people can't afford that luxury.

As for US government's information on the region's history, believe me, they know everything, they just want to take advantage of the situation whenever they can.

Unfortunately people in Iran and other countries in the region are not accustomed to western rituals of democracy like getting involved in dialogue in a foreign language or presenting their thoughts in a modern information age format; The best they get at this is either by posting something on the internet like twitter or facebook for their friends to read and it would most likely be useless or if they try to be 'analytical' or 'proactive' it is some form of political exigency backed by external interest.

The governments themselves don't get too specific about cultural or historical issues which is not main stream or directed at international community because then they would be accused by various oppositions as wasting people's time with elitist none sense. It is actually a trick to get them not to submit to a broad philosophy of communication and this has to do more with lack of expertise and understanding than commitment.

But imo it is not something that difficult to achieve. It requires intuition and creativity. And you can't expect it to come from outside because realistically that would never happen.

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

Also, I didn't know that some were misconstruing the Green Movement as the precursor to the Arab Spring. I haven't really seen it portrayed that way on any of the news reports I've watched in America. Mainstream news tends to act like I dog watching for squirrels. Their attention span is short and they just jump from event to event most of the time, with a bunch of disagreeable pundits babbling ignorable nonsense in between.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Thanks for that input, that was an awsome point. I think this is a possibility. And I think if we can band together in this fashion globally....re your suggestions on what I should do with the material...re zionism...I'm afraid we disagree...

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

Definitely a great idea.

You can contact Iranian embassy for visa information and requirements or even discussing the OWS proposal at:


Once you have done that you can seek to organize an official Iranian government sponsored conference on "Corporate Corruption and OWS movement", and ask them if they can facilitate your travel and provide for your stay in Iran.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

I'm not certain if you are serious??? Is this something which you are suggesting as an action plan? Or a point to consider?

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

I think characteristically OWS movement leans more towards the "action plan" philosophy than the "point to consider". Mainly because OWS is an Occupy movement (action plan) rather than a Strategy movement (point to consider).

You can also do both. in fact you can first consider then plan.

1-Point to consider:

You can first discuss it with OWS community and then vote on it.

2-Action Plan:

Decide on your ideas like you march into squares, ports , buildings or schools; organize a plan and then follow through.

But always remember your goals; So your plan should include a general concept of your goals and how these goals can be achieved bypassing political tensions between Iran and US making it both a cultural exchange (Corporate greed and corruption) and a political one ( Corporations promoting and sponsoring War-like behavior by projecting an image of US as a free country and countries abroad as dictatorships).

Although in Iran OWS is viewed by authorities as a half-social-political half-grass roots movement, there are still grey areas which exist, not only for Americans but the rest of the world to explore and define.

Therefore these types of encounters or as you put it "action plans" will help people across the world to understand the problems better and will help them participate or pay better attention to issues which are generated and discussed in US, but lack cohesion abroad.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

WOW! You were serious! sorry I have just had so many convo's of: you should do this or that, but never an actual.

I have already emailed the Iraninan, and other embassies with my thoughts, however as I was sure of, I did not recieve many responses.

I was however doing this as an Australian.....which clearly does not have the same standpoint. Here is a copy of those ideas, for your own fun (please pass it on if you like it!).


I was opening this discussion, merely as a talking point, but what I considered a relevant one....in terms of the globalisation required. And it is also something that I would personally be hesitant to consider in terms of acting in the capacity of any kind of a representative.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Hey, Blazefire:

I am responding to your post a ways down on this thread: There is no reply button under it.

I am loathe to reply to your post for risk getting that psychotic "nikilister" involved, and have no wish to extend the thread. But I felt you deserved a response.

A mission of peace to the people (not the governments) of those countires would be OK if it wasn't for two things: in China and Iran, such a mission would likely put the 99%ers there in great danger. And if their government would somehow even allow it, they would only use the meeting to hypocritically enhance their own image internationally and use it for internal propaganda to further enslave the masses there.

I like your heart, but I don't think this is a practical suggestion, or one that won't further endanger the very people you want to help. The 99%erss over there are well aware of our support. They don't need a public show of it to undermine their efforts.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

You shouldn't email. Emails are treated as junk mail. You should call first, present yourself and ask for an appointment to go there in person. The embassy is in Wash DC.

But once you go there in person you should also have a list of people from OWS movement organizers who want to help you in this and you should have a comprehensive program.

The better known you are internationally as an author or an organizer the higher your chances of getting something started.

btw, 98 pages is too long no one will read it. Generalize your goals/ideas and everyone elses into max. 2 pages and include the names, and bios, etc.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

In terms of the emailing....yes, it seems that way. In terms of going to DC....clearly not an option, lol.

But I also obviously have embassies here also, and, have it mind to visit them personally as you suggest. In terms of representing occupy in any sort of 'representative capacity'....we will see...

In terms of my material, of course I encluded a summary, however I gifted you with the complete package.... Succinctly it is a plan to acheive world peace, and solve all of mankinds problems. (That almost sounds arrogant, please don't take it that way, it was not meant to be; it was just a succinct description)

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

Well I wish you and Occupy good luck. Maybe you can do something in that respect and achieve what you like to achieve.

I still have to read your book. But you can ask Iranian authorities who you can contact in Iran like intellectuals and writers who might be interested in collaborating with you on this project. So in a sense you can jump start it through emails with these individuals who are well versed in problems people face in that region concerning corporations, foreign policy, etc that are common ground and post it on the web until you build enough momentum to organize a trip.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Are you kidding???

You want OWS to form an alliance with a government that SHOOTS HUNDREDS OF ITS OWN PEOPLE TO DEATH for demanding freedom and democracy?????

Do you see the insanity of that?

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

So you want to tell me you have freedom and democracy in US? Not really. It's just a label.

Do you see anything fashionable in that?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Sorry, that's just a straw man argument. The AMerican government has not recently murdered hundreds and hundreds of OWS demonstrators. It did not go into town squares with tanks, hire paid mercenaries with sniper rifles, etc. OWS is modeled on the Arab spring in Tunisia and Egypt. When that freedom movement spread to Iran, the participants were gunned down like dogs. The murderers are who you propose OWS form a bond with. It is repellent.

Perhaps you could also suggest OWS form an alliance with North Korea. Perhaps you hope Stalin was alive so that OWS could form an alliance with that exemplar of democracy, too.

Your comparison is nothing if not obscene.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

American government according to wikileaks has murdered thousands and thousands. It has paid mercenaries as contractors to do the job.

US has specially trained snipers operating in Middle East. They have assassinated scientists and university teachers and their families in the streets near their schools and community in Iran.

I suggest you fix your idiotic government first then come here pretend you are god following the Egyptian model.

United States government is a high ranking terrorist organization.

Iran is not a country you want to push around, attack, or criticize because Iran as opposed to US is respected and supported by its neighbors specially Russia and China not only politically but militarily.

All your talk is nothing but hot air coming from a Zionist Reject.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

reply (last one: I'm done with your you) to your post below.

You are psychotic. You need psychiatric care and lots of medication. Good luck with that.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago


[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

reply to your post below.

So it's OK for the government their to kill its people because the people are protesting PEACEFULLY?

Yes, the PEOPLE of Iran are indeed peaceful. The GOVERNMENT killed THOUSANDS of them for PEACEFULLY demonstrating for democracy.

Do you really not know what happened there this past year? Are you really unaware of the Iranian government's mass murder of its people? The whole world watched in horror. Where the fuck have you been living? In a cave?

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

The Western Media is a Zionist Media and only shows the Violence it wants to.

They don't show how the so called "peaceful" demonstrators suddenly got violent. Where was the Media? In a Zionist hole?

Where were you when wikileaks showed everything the Zionist Media Does not show.

Your dead beat comments only match you with the one and only Zionist Media and make you look more and more like a career Zionist retard!

[-] -1 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 3 years ago

Iran is under UN sanctions; They are squeezed like grape. Similar to mobs squeezing shops in Hells Kitchen of the past. Same way gangs have territory. When Nations, nations of people , people lose everything -& they have nothing to lose, they lose it. Pure and simple. Kim Jung Il is an example as well. We impose sanctions, and use humanitarian front to carry out agenda and steal resources. Libya was an easy target , and distraction at same time of Japan coverage. Then media blackout. They play us like fools. Some of these views are extreme, I am always open for debate. Look at Iraq, we built that nation, twice. Saddam got out of control and did what he wanted. We backed Saddam in past against Iran. Never leave anything off the table, The US as you and I know it or think it exists died when Kennedy was assassinated. He tried to prevent Vietnam, and go back to monetary standard. He did not comply he was "offed" The rest is window dressing, and the master plan is in place. Those from other countries who I have personally met, Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and all Euro countries; They know how the US is viewed by the rest of world. Perspective, take in all data and open eyes - you will see as do I. Nobody is perfect, our corrupt leadership ruins our reputation as a nation, based on interests of our reputation as a Global corporation. Thank your bank funded elected leaders for this. We are not hated for our freedom as led to believe; we are hated as we look like Nazi Germany did back then to the world as of now. They are afraid of us and that is why they want to arm up against us. They view US as a loose cannon. I hate to say , I knda agree with them. US is bully in schoolyard, China and Russia are too, but will draw the line at some point.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

reply to your unintelligible drivel below.

Does Iran kill its people protesting? Yes or no? Does Iran's 1% shoot its own 99% Yes or no?

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

No. Most people in Iran are non-violent and peaceful. More than 99%.

There are however a few troublemakers.

But Authorities have to uphold the law and provide order for all the people living in Iran to live their daily lives. If someone wants to protest they have to apply for a permit. If they start throwing stones and disrupting daily activities of ordinary citizens then they are arrested. If they get violent and use weapons like knives and guns then they might be warned by gun shots first and if they attack then they are shot.

Unfortunately some people without weapons get hurt but they should know better.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

I actually feel for you and Puff trying to corral this group. You have your hands full because there are some crazy ideas. Man, get some sleep.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Reply to your post below.

Iran's killing of protesters is a form of restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of nationality. Therefore it should be regarded as anti-freedom and anti humanity and anti nationality.

Your lack of info on Iran's barbarism is so acute that if you are preaching anywhere else other than in the Ayatolla's house you'd probably be putting yourself in serious danger.

Interesting how simple substitution works.

Don't look now now: your double standards are showing.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

Your statement is not true because the 99% should not be sacrificed for the 1%. Less than 1% of Iranians don't mind Zionism but 99%+ hate Zionism and regard it as a barbaric culture that has been invented and imposed by the 1%- in the Wall Street and global bankers.

And your barbaric approach to reality and support of the 1% is completely opposite to OWS movement philosophy.

I don't think the filth will come off Zionism washing it through other countries free of Zionist structures.

Sorry, your simple substitution did not work and it is a testimony to your idiotic state of existence.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

reply to your psychotic rant below:

You're right about everything you said about the USA. This country has committed unconscionable crimes.

It does not change the FACT that Iran kills its own people by the thousands, people who are protesting like OWS is for democracy and dignity. It does not change the fact that you would have OWS form an alliance with those murderers. It does not change the fact that Iran has also committed unconscionable crime against its own people.

You can hate the USA all you want for its crimes. But to have the very people who are protesting those crimes get together with those who murdered thousands of their own protesters is bizarre (and I'm being kind).

Perhaps OWS should form a partnership with Kim Jung IIl, too. Oh, wait, he's dead. As would OWS if it entertained your ethically corrupt double standards.

Presumably you hate Zionism because you believe it hurts Arabs. That's arguable, but at least a case can be made for such a stance. But it is somehow OK for a Persian country to murder its own Muslim citizens? Are our Muslim brothers and sisters lives so valueless that you would spit on their graves? How is that in any way justifiable?

You have no love of the people. You have only hatred of the US (and Israel, I imagine.) You clearly don't give a shit about Muslims. That makes you nothing but a liability to the movement. And you're too stupid and hate-filled to understand that.

[-] 2 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

I explained in my other post:

"It is a choice.And once OWS makes that choice then we will find out who is the enemy and who isn't".

Zionism is a form of restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of nationality. Therefore it should be regarded as anti-freedom and anti humanity and anti nationality.

Your lack of info on Zionism is so acute that if you are preaching anywhere else other than in US or Israel you'll probably be putting yourself in serious danger.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

reply to your idiotic,racist post below:

China has no human rights record. Neither does Russia, Neither does Iran. China and Iran murder their own citizens who dare protest by the thousands.

You can blow anti-Zionist smoke out of your ass from now 'till doomsday, and it won't change those facts. You're suggesting OWS, a people's protest movement that shares common cause with those who have been murdered by their own government in Iran, form an alliance with the murderers of our brothers and sisters there.

It is psychotic and obscene.

It is you I suspect of being a CIA plant, sent to destroy OWS.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

You're definitely a Zionist CIA tea-bagger who has failed in life, because if you cared for human rights you would have an answer for wikileaks information released for billions of people to watch.

US has lost its legitimacy to talk about human rights as early as WWII and Vietnam war was the icing on the cake and now it has blown the roof out of Pentagon and White house with killing thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan by drones, contractors, and covert military operations.

American soldiers who are hired mercenaries both by the government and CIA are also looked upon as tools for human rights violations of immense proportions.They are also not supported by American people and no longer treated as heros because American people are sick and tired of listening to the garbage Zionist Media and idiots like you try to feed the people.

Go and find some quiet corner to die because you are nothing but a loser wasting our time to prove comradely sentiment towards OWS while being an idiotic Zionist tea-bagger retiree.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Is OWS trying to open talks with the American Government, or is it protesting against it?

You really think that an endorsement of Iran's murderous brutality if its own people by the likes of China and Russia means something in terms of democracy or humanity? Did you not follow the massive fraud in Russia's recent election? Are you unaware of its continuing authoritarianism? Are you aware of Russia's previous invasion of Afghanistan, or its brutal crackdown on Chechen Muslims that killed thousands?

Or the other one you cite with such glowing admiration, the site of Tiananmen Square, where thousands of students and workers were murdered by their own government, or Tibet, were cultural genocide is being enacted? Or their own repression of Muslims?

Because Iran's mass murder of its own people, their equivalent of people of OWS, is supported by these other brutal dictatorships somehow makes it OK for OWS to support these murderers?

You are either a fool and a complete idiot, or you are simply a perverse hypocrite. Either way you're involvement in OWS hurts it more than any ten enemies combined ever could.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

It's the 'people', the ones being murdered, that I am talking of, and asking about. We all know about the 1%, (lets face it, it's not mum and pop, Iranian giving the orders) and the things they do, and they are not really that different between any nations....the hard fact is we all have blood on our hands, and much of it.....we could 'he says, she says', for quite awhile if we want, the question still remains....what about those 'people'? The 99%? What would it mean to contact the 99% in Iran, or China, or Russia, as an 'official diplomatic mission of peace'?

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

What do you know about China and Russia? Let me tell you what you know about these countries: They can send enough weapons to Iran to blow US and its oil mongering companies into the sky a million times over. Does that scare you? I bet it does because if it didn't you'd already be bombing Iran. As for OWS it has two options when it comes to foreign support: Either hang out with the Zionist governments of US and Europe or seek solidarity with those who have suffered Zionist Corporate control of the world.

It is a choice. And once OWS makes that choice then we will find out who is the enemy and who isn't.

Start packing your bags because you're a CIA loser.

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 3 years ago

It would be too high profile, they have not done this recently but the capability is there

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Reply to your post below:

Yes the updated Patriot Act is worrisome, to say the least. But I still doubt that machine guns will be unleashed on thousands of US citizens any time soon.

The main point is, in the context of this thread, that none of this has any bearing on the obscene notion of sending a diplomatic OWS mission to the murderous Iranian government.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

They (I assume you mean the police in the US) have not done so at all regarding OWS, let alone recently.

The capability is not the issue. The act is.

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 3 years ago

The permission slip billls patriot act, and recent passed are permission slips to foster the capability. This will lead to the act and without doubt pave the road to the act. We will have no say and we will be North Korea with window dressing. Wait and see

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 3 years ago

This kind of egging people on is what i hate about cops. you guys are no better than the people you round up, having left so many other thinking some bs that you spew in order to figure people out. what do you do with the damaged minds you leave behind?

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

they should go back to zoroastrianism that is what the three wise men were.

[-] 2 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

They were Christian priests. Zoroastrian religion is still practiced in Iran by Zoroastrians.

Iranians can't go back. It won't make sense. Instead Iranians have preserved their cultural heritage and integrated it with Islam. They have also contributed to Islamic philosophy more than any nation in the world. That's why Arabs in the region like Saudis don't like Iranians because they see it as different or at times Anti-Arab or superamist.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Clarification, please. Who were Christian Priests? The three Wise Men of the New testament? If that's who you mean, it isn't possible; Christianity didn't exist yet. Christ himself was not Christian (which means "a follower" of or "believer" in Christ) but a Jew. Christianity formed after Christ's death.

And Mohammed wouldn't be born for a few hundred years after that.

ON to the subject at hand: reaching out to a country like Iran, a thoroughly undemocratic Theocracy and among the worse oppressors of its own people in the world, would be a betrayal of everything OWS stands for. It would be the worst type of hypocrisy.

And standing either with the Palestinians or the Israelis would also damage the cause: either way, you lose valued supporters. It would be a tactical mistake.

[-] 2 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

No. These are three Christian priests 6 centuries past Christ time in Syria. They lived in Muhammad's time. Muhammad was in Arabia at that time.

I don't believe that Iran is a theocracy. It is an Islamic Republic. they have a parliament and three branches. Cleric's role is on the Islamic side of the equation and the government's role is on the Republic's side.

They might not be the best source for OWS to get ideas from.They have difficulties themselves with the Corporate Tactics imposed on western governments to isolate Iran.

But one area they can substantially help OWS with is the realities of their government's Interaction with western governments. So you get a realistic picture of what it is like to be in Iran.

They are starting to downsize / innovate in some areas and upgrade / capitalize in other areas; That might be interesting for OWS as well.

Iran is Third in oil reserves and second in gas reserves in the world. They are big players in future of world energy. OWS can discuss these issues with them because Corporations need these resources. It is not a waste of time.

From what I have seen in the news and OWS forums OWS demonstrators, organizers, and posters have condemned Israelis and already taken the side of Palestinians as an oppressed people.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

"And standing either with the Palestinians or the Israelis would also damage the cause: either way, you lose valued supporters. It would be a tactical mistake."

Could I ask why you have this viewpoint?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

Simple: the subject ignites passions on both sides. If OWS stands with Israel, it insults those who support Palestinian rights, if it support Palestinian rights, is angers those who oppose Hammas terrorism.

Why go there at all? OWS is about the bank's collusion with the government, not the middle east peace process.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Why not 'go there'? Afterall OWS as I understand it started off because of taxation issues, which grew to encompass banking, political social and other issues also, and it grew worlwide. Why not take a global standpoint, and contact both sides? Why not seperate yourself, from your government, and themselves from theirs, and maybe all together we won't even need them....??? Just a thought....

Afterall, its not the poor doing any of the killing, the 99%....they're just trying to stay alive....it's the rich. Here, there, and everywhere.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 3 years ago

I think that's lovely and idealistic, but right now it is counterproductive. It is critical at this time for OWS to grow numbers of supporters form all sides, not only those few who would separate their personal passions for one state or another.

OWS will not solve the Middle East problem. Over-reaching with weaken the focus of the movement, and getting involved in will only serve to divide the membership and reduce the number of future supporters. Those supporters are what is MOST needed now. Without a critical mass of them, OWS is doomed to peeter out in the long run.

Solve the issues with the banks and corruption here, and all the other solutions for problems around the world will fall into place.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Hmmmm....I'm not so certain....check this thread out....


This issue is far from the only driving issue of our current situation, but in my mind it is certainly prominent amongst them. I think the problems are already global....and a purely American solution, simply won't 'cut the mustard'.....

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'm not saying the problem is purely American, but Americans won't solve THEIR problems by focussing on the Middle East. Furthermore, we have to solve our problems first so that we stop contributing to the problems of other regions.

After all, how much of our foreign policy is being driven, not by principles, but banking and corporate interests. Solve that and a great deal of other problems will be far more manageable.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

the wise men were magi, magi were zoroastrian, zoroastrians were persians soooo it is safe to say they were zoroastrian. zoroastrian esoteric knowledge is powerful not to say sufism is not. another thing people should realize the persians are very westernized before the revolution they were the most western of any nation in the middle east besides israel band it was not even close the women were allowed to be independent but now ha ha ha ha that is not the case of course if we didnt depose Mosaddegh we would not be in this situation most likely the iranians would never have turned to radical islam since there was no tradition of an islamic republic thank the brits for being pissed off that iran nationalized the oil. greedy bastards

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

No they were Christian priests because Salman went to Syria to become a Christian and he did but the priests surprised him by revealing Christ's prophecy that Muhammad was appearing in Arabia. So he became a Christian anyway and thanked them for their advise and immediately departed for Arabia to meet Mohammad. There are also stories that he was enslaved by Arabs and brought to Arabia but Muhammad bought him and freed him.

Westernized? Iranians are actually of European descent. 70% Iranian language has root words from Dutch, German, Scandinavian, and ancient Sanskrit and Avestan which also share roots with those languages;the rest is a mix of Arabic ,Turkish, Greek ,French , Russian and English .

So no one can claim Iranians as being an Independently Eastern civilization. It is just that the European customs evolved differently during 20th century and they Isolated themselves from Iran due to Zionist manifestation of Islamophobia and world dominance.

Mosaddegh was a problem for Zionists because he was somehow a combo of nationalist - socialist and a pro-Iranian democracy advocate and wanted to kick the British out of Iranian politics and oil.

In those days British Zionists needed a dictator type ruler to get oil and it back-lashed.

Nowadays it is different. They have learned that it is impractical to stage revolutions or coups. They've also learned that cultural movements like the green movement do not resonate with Iranian people or secure political position in future. Now they rely on things like sanctions and fear of war as potential stimulus for uprising or change of public opinion.

But Iranians have a long history of civilization and like Chinese and Indians are immune to political tricks.

Radical Islam is a British Zionist invention because they want to exhibit it to life and bring the old, discredited concepts of fundamentalist Islam to light for Europeans to fear and Arab and other fundamentalists to lead, praise, and follow as the only solution for salvation, and to a large degree they have been successful.

Iran is a big obstacle because it is neutralizing this concept, Although it is portrayed exactly the opposite in Zionist media. The process is slow and tricky but that's what Zionists are counting on: Stupidity and Impatience of their fearful audience. They also rely on the generalization of radical Islam as true for all Islam.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

the three wise men from the story of christ's birth were magi. there was no islam or christianity at that time only zoroastrians and jews worshipped one god at that time. please get those facts straight. you are saying anti-semitic propaganda. the zionists did this and the zionists did that here is a little history lesson the jews never had a problem with the persians it is the supreme leader who has a problem with the jews and has brainwashed his people accordingly. radical islam is a british zionist invention you are dumber than dirt dare i say prove it. iran is not a moderate muslim state it is a radical state that has a majority non radical but silent majority here learn some truth about the arab-israeli conflict dummy http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/arafat_en.html

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

Extremist Muslims do exist, weather one calls it fundamentalism, radicalism, or extremism, is irrelevant. It's well documented. But so do extremist Zionists and extremist Christians also exist... It can happen with almost any religion, and THAT is something we must all be honest about.

It is important if we ever want to see the world progress beyond this bigotry and endless warfare, that we all seek the truth in all it's forms, and never NEVER seek to insulate our own culture from rightful examination. This defensiveness and denial I see on ALL sides can only breed further ignorance, and is self-destructive.

I direct this post to everyone taking part in this argument, I am not taking sides at the moment.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

dude you are not being honest you don't see jews or christians committing beheadings, stoning people to death mutilating little girls. no you don't see christians and jews doing these things that are extremist... you are too politically correct to see that. you don't see any other religion producing child suicide bombers... i am a liberals liberal however being ignorant to the truth about jihadism and moderate islam is going to get us all fucked. mohammed was a war lord of a city state, and his teachings reflect that. for crying out loud learn something about a culture before you go saying they shouldn't change. here watch this clip of a former muslim on al-jazera i think she says it perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atphQK47dyA

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

When did I say extremists shouldn't change? You are making broad assumptions based on my simple stance that 1) Not all Muslims are extremists and 2) All of the Abramic religions have had extremism in their history.

As for genital mutilation, I agree it needs to be outlawed world wide regardless of traditionalist claims. That goes for both female and male circumcision. The latter is performed on infants of Christians and Jews against the will of their offspring.

As for violence in primitive war torn regions, where traditionalism and theocracy are prevalent, there are Zionists who want to eradicate Arab and Muslim Palestinians completely, and claim they have a duty to do so based on a section of the Old Testament. There are also Christians who feel Christianity has been marginalized by the prevalence of religious freedom and secularism. There have been isolated incidents of violent acts by Christians who hold this viewpoint, and I do believe this viewpoint factors heavily in America's foreign policy and why so many people are so eager to support unjust and unnecessary wars, so long as they are only killing Muslims. I guess I could use the old Dungeons and Dragons alignment grid as an easy way to explain the disconnect between how we view Muslim terrorists versus Christian and Zionist terrorists; Muslim terrorists are 'chaotic evil' while Christian and Zionist terrorists are 'lawful evil'. Bombing civilians is terrorism no matter who is doing it!

Oh, I almost forgot to mention the Christian abortion clinic bombers, the Christians who murder gay people much the same as Muslim governments, the militant Christian in Europe who massacred those campers at a retreat, and the Christians who harass American Muslims and try to prevent them from building Mosques.

Did you know that in Israel, Hasidic Jews are trying to to marginalize women in similar ways as we criticize certain types of Muslims for doing?

Oh, and don't forget Mormon cults that institutionalize the rape of children.

I recommend advocating secularism. Under secularism people can have their religion without trying to impose it on each other, and are protected from persecution. Something the Religious Right reviles as much as their enemies the 'jihadists'.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

the difference is no other religion is trying to rule the world and implement sharia law. you are a fool. you can try to compare and contrast all you want but no religion preaches the hate and vile that islam does do you have any clue about islam? are all muslims terrorists no of course not however turning a blind eye to reality does not work our european friends found that out recently.... and the us and israel have never intentionally targeted civilians that is a load of jihadist propaganda.... you act like islam is never spread at the tip of a sword, that is exactly how they spread it and they will do it here as well there were 200,000 muslims living in the us 30 years ago over 9 million now they average over 6 kids per family you do the math the us average is under 2 europe now has 50 million muslims they will not assimilate as all former immigrant groups have ... stick your head back in the sand were it has been. or watch this and learn what is really going on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyYoAoHVOFQ

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

I wasn't talking about the three priests at Christ's time.

These Christian priests were in Syria 6 centuries after Christ at the time of Mohammad who Salman met in Syria.

What the hell are you talking about? Everyone knows that Zionists and Israelis hate Iranians. Don't you read the news? They say They want to nuke Iran!!

Take your total bullshit psychodrama somewhere else. Like Israel.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

I do want to point out that I do not ion any way support a zionistic viewpoint, which I find offensive, and counterproductive to OWS and what it stands for.....

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

I'm glad to hear it. These type of ideologies belong to dark ages.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Oh phew! For a sec there I thought you were promoting it! lol....soz...I've had my head done in a bit by them, and I guess I just start to froth at the mouth, as soon as I see that word....sorry for the misunderstanding...

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

I guess you're tired. It's probably been a long night/day for you!

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

VERY! Thanx again for understanding my misunderstanding...and keep on spreading truth my friend!

Omnia vincit amor.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

no israelis hate no one more arab propaganda

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

Don't tell me...."Arabs" have taken over Fox and CNN. Was this Obama's Christmas gift to "Arabs"?

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

stick your head back in the sand

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

I live near mountains. Go back to Israel.

[-] 2 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

ALL OVER THE WORLD I would like to see PEOPLE reach out to PEOPLE, not really AGAINST their governments but BEYOND their governments.

When governments are a sham and a disgrace - as they so often are - why wouldn't THE PEOPLE step in to fill the "meaningful communication" vacuum?

[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Exactly! We need to BE humanity, BE the world, and BE the solution.

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

AGREE. We have to stop being passively the "herd", the "sheeple", the "governed".

How de we achieve that? Here are a few suggestions:

1 - Turn off the TV for good. Become a beautiful, "cable-free" HUMAN BEING!!!

2 - Find your news on the Internet.

3 - Take up daily meditation and reconnect with your inner peace and joy.

4 - Remember you are not a silly "consumer" but a child of God, who was told 2000 years ago to LET HIS LIGHT SHINE! Forget the so-called "stars", YOU are the star of your own life!!!

[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

I could not agree more! I think true education can only really begin when the indoctrination stops....I also think it is ironic and appropriate, that that word ends in 'nation'.

And yes, our enlightenment needs to go both ways, internally and externally.

How can we accomplish this however, what steps need to be taken?

[-] 1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

I have a dream...

I see a nation-wide CANCEL CABLE CAMPAIGN, with posters everywhere showing a beautiful human being holding a disconnected cable and proclaiming with a glorious smile:


Most of American television is part of a mass experiment in COLLECTIVE CRETINIZATION, probably unparalleled in human history.

As the Dalai Lama advises his American audiences, "TURN OFF THE TV!" - AND GET YOUR LIFE BACK!

[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Hmmmm or more ideally still, would be advertisements and shows promoting truth, education and togetherness rather than sex, drugs and fear.

Give the Dali Lama the remote! lol

"You are the Buddha." - Buddha

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

There's a way to begin that process as things stand now. I have no personal problem with what's on cable; I'm simply not buying cable because I honestly have no use for it and probably never will. Cable is pay-to-play, and if people will pay for tits and TMZ then all they'll get is tits and TMZ. Broadcast TV, however, is not pay-to-play. It's freely available to anyone with a TV and a converter box, and there was a time when it was in fact a reliable source of information and investigative journalism.

I love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, partially because I agree with them politically, but the fact remains that they're comedians. Funnymen. They're the guys you're supposed to watch after you've had your fill of serious journalism when you want to laugh at the current state of the world, and yet they're actually no less reliable than typical network news. They have no obligation to fact check their material or provide intelligent commentary (even though they generally do those things), but the network news (which most reasonable people would argue does have such an obligation) is no more accurate or intelligent than they are. That, to my mind, is the problem. There are simple and fairly conservative (in the sense of scope rather than political alignment) measures that would cut out a lot of the crap, namely the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule.

As far as I'm aware, the rationale for dropping the Fairness Doctrine was that the sheer breadth of channels available on things like cable TV meant that we could endorse the "anything goes" mentality because if the field was wide enough then surely somebody would keep the public interest in mind and journalism would get better for the lack of regulation. Did that actually happen? Absolutely not. Actual good investigative journalism became much harder to find on the airwaves, and generally the group that would go out of its way to look for it was the group that needed it the least.

The Equal Time Rule would also be a great way to deal with changing the way we run campaigns in this country, as it pretty much dictates that no television station or overtly political event, save a few exceptions, may offer different airtime rates for different candidates and are required to give the candidates the same sweetheart rates that they give firms with whom they have a close relationship. I would expand its scope a bit so that actual debates would be subject to these provisions (providing an appropriate forum for independent candidates) and consider requiring broadcast TV stations to provide actual equal advertising time to all who request it.

Also, just a little side note: the Fairness Doctrine provided a very wide latitude to television stations as to how controversial political issues are presented or how different points and counterpoints are presented (format, style, length, etc.). A 1-to-1 equal time rule for different views was also not enforced and in fact was not part of the doctrine. The point was that differing views must be given their chance to be heard, and the standards of how this was to be accomplished was left up to the stations themselves. It was a way of holding broadcast TV to decent journalistic standards without exerting influence over which views were or were not "allowed".

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I had to reply back up here.....

Yes....and the paradox of that is the goverments become what the people assume them to be. It's the chicken/egg paradox, where we create society, but society creates us.

If I was to reflect your opinion, your concern is for the creation itself, as being the problem, rather than the loop of social control we are experiencing....and I would agree....

To take it back to the OP....I read in another comment here that the word 'Taliban", simply translates to mean student......and this is only one example of an orwellian like shift in the meaning of language. This is done through NEWS services, for reasons that can only possibly equate to profit, power and control, which are all almost simply synonyms in themselves, in this current system. Words like 'natural', 'conspiracy theory', 'government', have simply completely shifted in meaning. Where once 'natural', was a word signifying an organic approach, now it is a buzz-word, where once 'conspiracy theory', simply meant a theory about a group of people conspiring, now it means a crazy person, attacking the 'goverment', which used to mean a 'representation of the people'.

I forget who this quote is attributed to, and I forget it verbatim, but it was significant enough that I remembered the gist of it:

"Government - Most easily recognisable as a group of people lacking any governing."

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Pretty much, and the best part is that the attachment of baggage to words to the point where the baggage outweighs the original meaning wasn't even the result of a concerted initiative to control the people. As much as there are groups out there that play the word game as a deliberate means of controlling public opinion, it wouldn't work unless the people are apathetic and ill-informed enough that they can't be bothered to give a damn about it.

I'd argue that the press as the enabler of this crap came predominantly from the quest for viewers and ratings. Shocking headlines tend to grab a lot more casual eyes than well-thought-out thesis statements, and a good titillating or suspenseful story is far more likely to hold casual readers than an involved factual piece with nuanced arguments. The sad truth is that tits and TMZ get better ratings than serious, intelligent journalism, and as long as the latter has to compete with the former for the same poorly educated and apathetic audience it's going to lose out, become unprofitable, and be replaced by more tabloid crap that renders the populace even more ill-informed and apathetic.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I would table that 'the apathetic many', are not so in fact. I would say that we face that chicken/egg scenario, where, because their choice is totally negated, in the political arena, their apathy is a bi-product; ie, becuase there's nothing 'they' can do, 'they' care not, and do nothing, which, in a true cyclic fashion, fuels further apathy still, and more, provides ample justification for it. Distractions to our races denial, of what is, are many and varied, each appealing to baser instinctual desires/needs/nature. Our very senses, are being numbed by what can only be called ignorance....and it touches everything....


However I stand as I am, and at heart I am an optimist:

"The truth will set you free."

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I agree, but the flip side of that is often just as dangerous. As I said to BeReal below, more and more people are assuming that standard media outlets regularly and casually lie, twist facts, or just bumble around not covering anything important, and there is nothing that the people can do to fix things. If you can't believe in the mainstream media, though, then what can you believe in? The answer to that question is all too often things at least as bad; all you have to say to make people trust you is "the mainstream media doesn't want you to see this, but..." and then you can sell half of them a bigger line of hooey than the mainstream media does.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Yes.....and people rarely click through links....they simply find 'fact' that supports their current POV. Of course, it is in our nature to desire to be correct, and, to prove it, and this desire can often overcome our search for 'truth'. How many data sets have been ignored? How many technologies shelved? We inherantly only accept what 'is', as what we see it to be, and almost instincively deny all that steps out of that 'box'. Which to my mind, and with all humility is most certainly a core issue, and a 'primal cause'.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

If you think the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule is good for TV and radio, then why not the internet? You are a fraud, AssRod!

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Here's the thing: Internet bandwidth and cable TV channels are pretty much unlimited. In the case of the former, pretty much anyone can rent server space and put whatever he wants out there for the world to see. As much as that can be a weakness at times (because if you don't know what you're looking for it can be difficult to sort out who actually knows what they're talking about) it's also one of the Internet's greatest strengths, and I believe that that strength is worth protecting even at the expense of journalistic quality and ease of access.

Broadcast TV and radio, however, are a whole different animal. They're public assets subject to special rules because they were always intended to be useful sources of information to the populace. If you think about it, broadcast TV and radio are still subject to regulation and in some cases censorship and that hasn't completely gone away (and may never go away). The Hays Code may be gone, but the Seven Words routine still holds, the nudity regulations still exist, and there's only so violent you can get on network TV.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Let's get to the core of the issue and quit with the BS. First, no one really cares about broadcast TV, it's a mind-numbing wasteland on it's last legs. The real issue is the great success of conservative talk shows on AM radio and it's the left's greatest challenger. The only reason the left wants the Fairness Doctrine back is to censor the right. The reality is that Conservative talk radio is the balance for all of the left wing propaganda everywhere else. Always soooo much talk about free speech from the left, including here, and yet they (and you) want all dissenting speech silenced. Why? Because the leftist propaganda cannot hold up to scrutiny and you know it.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

First of all, I could give a damn about the success of right-wing talk radio; if that's what people want to stuff their minds with then that's their decision and I don't want to interfere with that. What I want can be summed up by two things:

1) That there be clear differentiation between news and whatever else is out there. Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and their compatriots need to explicitly label their work as political commentary, not news. As long as they follow in the example of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and clearly differentiate between their work and actual news shows (and differentiate between the actual facts and the commentary that they provide) then they're fine by me.

2) That there be accountability for deliberate distortion, omission, or fabrication of facts on the part of a news show. If it's a one- or two-shot deal or an honest mistake, then a retraction and correction on the next program would suffice. If there's a pattern of facts being consistently ignored, misrepresented, slanted, or made up on a specific program, then there need to be serious penalties up to and including loss of the program producer's broadcast license.

This would apply to everyone on broadcast TV and AM and FM radio; commentary is fine as long as it's clearly distinguished but nobody on either end of the political spectrum should be able to say whatever they want and claim that it is truth. Rant if you want to rant, but if you want what you say to be taken as the truth you need to be able to back it up on request or it's not in fact the truth.

This is not in any way an attack on the right, it's an attack on people who deal in lies and fear rather than present the facts and let the populace decide the issues for themselves. If it happens to hit one group in a disproportionate manner then that doesn't mean that the policy is biased but rather that the group in question has been playing fast and loose with the truth in an attempt to drive up ratings and that needs to stop.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Those are excellent points. I've heard conspiracy theories which connect the timeslots of certain broadcast T.V. programs, to blur reality. I'm not saying I personally ascribe to the theory, however, does having news programs, that distort not just the truth, but the very meaning of language, not have an effect, whatever the cause? And following up this 'distorted reality', is a soap, or some other complete 'unreality', to further cement the distortion.

Regardless of anything, we know we are being lied to. It really is just a question of scope. With the analysists, psychology, and social and subliminal sciences, being used to further agendas, fuelling the mess, of ignorance.

This is the information age, and it seems that, that's what the weapon of choice is today; information, and our minds are the battleground....

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

It's been the game ever since the advent of cable and the Internet; once it was no longer possible to limit the volume or screen all of the media people could consume it was impossible to bend public opinion through omission and tight control. Censorship, however, actually became a great deal easier, and was in fact quite easily cloaked under the guise of full freedom of speech.

The trick was not to fight to silence people, but rather to drown them out. As long as you have the money out there to buy up and maintain broadcast licenses, you claim that the First Amendment entitles you to flood the airwaves with whatever you please. Then you simply broadcast whatever you choose, loudly enough and consistently enough that you don't need to discredit your opponents specifically; people listen to so much more of what you say over what they say (unless they specifically tune you out, creating serious selection bias) that they'll learn in time to tune out your opponents because these opponents get so little airtime. And so it goes...

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Yes.....and on and on.... Every now and again, I actually watch it, and the pace of change is incredible.....And the effects even more so. It's ironic that we so easily accept propoganda as a powerful tool of war, but somehow see commercial advertising and 'political commentry' as different.

Mundus vult decipi.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

People assume that the government is by definition dangerous; give it an inch and it'll take a mile, and that any power it has will be almost reflexively employed to repress the populace. They forget that the government has no monopoly on cruelty or arrogance or corruption, and they forget that venality without the proper channels directing it can do just as much harm over time as outright hunger for power, and they forget that one doesn't need police power to control people and that such a bluntly coercive approach is far more prone to backfire than more subtle alternatives.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

First of all, all of the people you mention in item #1 are on cable or the internet and not on broadcast TV.

Bill and Glenn are commentators that also report on certain news items. Jon and Stephen are comedians.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

My point is that I don't care which medium they do or don't use, and Beck & Co. are on broadcast radio, which I explicitly included. I don't care if Beck and O'Reilly choose to double as news anchors and correspondents in between talk shows and radio gigs, but when they (or anyone else) choose to wear their reporter's hats their opinions need to cease to matter and their reports need to be held to the same standards as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are held to until they doff those hats at the end of the segments. Incidentally, a recent study held that Stewart has become a de facto news anchor, as his work is no less substantial or accurate than that of network news. That's not intended to elevate his work (although to his credit he has taken the responsibilities that wound up devolving on him quite seriously) but rather as proof that something needs to be done.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Every once in a while, a post does not have a reply link associated with it. This is the case with your latest post below. Do you know why that happens?

Anyway, I will reply to your most recent post here....

Are you talking about someone specific? Who do you see as a serial liar?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I'm not sure why that happens. I personally suspect that a lot of the coverage on Fox News is not as accurate or as well-rounded as it should be, and apparently it's more true than I thought; a Fairleigh Dickinson University study found that Fox News viewers were 18 percentage points less likely to be on top of current events than people who didn't actually watch the news (that's after controlling for levels of education, partisanship, political views, etc). I'm not going to make any snide comments, but if I were running the place and I saw a study indicating that we were serving our audience that poorly a lot of people would be out of jobs and a lot of different lineups would get rearranged.

Fox News aside, though, even if there isn't any particular program or network behaving badly, such a setup would restore a great deal of credibility to the mainstream media. More and more people are assuming that standard media outlets regularly and casually lie, twist facts, or just bumble around not covering anything important, and there is nothing that the people can do to fix things. This then fuels the growth of conspiracy theories and UFO stories to the detriment of the country because then all you have to say to make people trust you is "the mainstream media doesn't want you to see this, but..." If there is an actual concrete policy in place to address those actions when they occur and it is even halfway enforced then you'll restore a lot of trust in the media while simultaneously ensuring that the media is worthy of that trust.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Oops, I forgot Beck was on the radio since I actually listen to his radio show on the internet (GBTV).

"...need to be held to the same standards as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal ..."

By who, the government? The government is where ethics and objectivity go to die.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

By holding to a standard I don't mean continuous investigation nor rubbernecking by the government. I mean that independent citizens and watchdog groups should have someone to go to when they find news organizations and their personnel deliberately twisting or misrepresenting the facts. Ideally, getting corrected should lead to swift and public retractions and corrections, and any consistent pattern of lying and misrepresentation of facts should produce enough of a listener outcry to cause shakeups and firings all on its own.

In reality, as long as there's a core group that sees what it wants to see and hears what it wants to hear you get a self-reinforcing selection bias that eliminates (and may in fact reverse) the economic impetus for cleaning things up. That group won't care whether the facts are true or not, and may in fact take umbrage when the truth is presented if it disagrees with them (or if it interferes with the latest adventures of the Kardashians) and thus you get a counter-evolutionary mechanism that keeps drivel and sloppy journalism on people's TVs and radios rather than weeding it out.

In those cases, a limited intervention may be necessary; if a watchdog group finds that a particular program is consistently twisting and/or disregarding the facts, has brought the complaint to the producers of the program, and has gotten brushed off then the group should be able to go to the government to make the case for an investigation. If there's enough evidence there that it's clearly not a backhanded attack from a competing network or partisan harassment then the government should issue a summons calling for the network to explain themselves. If the reply amounts to "Fuck you" rather than an explanation of what happened, then there should be a combination of FCC fines, possible civil action, and possible loss of license. That's all I or anyone else here is looking for.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

Who NEEDS a remote when you have a mouse?

Anyone can find on the Internet sites "promoting truth, education and togetherness". TV has never offered such choices and probably never will.


[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

So I guess you want me to stop watching Link TV and Democracy Now? Or is it somehow more noble to watch the same material on the internet? And shouldn't we be aware of the material our fellow citizens are basing their world view on, rather than ignorant of it?

Also, have you ever heard of art and entertainment? I'm all for being aware of all the BS and negative indoctrination on television, but I don't see why that should stop me from enjoying House, the Daily Show, and contest shows like Project Runway. lol

The more I think about this thread within the thread, the less I understand how it's even relevant to the original topic only a few posts up.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Yes....it did get a little off topic....slightly relevant in terms of the mass manipulation through media....but regardless, what do you think of the topic? Should this be something to consider?

[-] 2 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

overtures to the people of the Middle East? For it, completely. But not in any way that would have a representative of this movement shaking hands with ruthless dictators of Middle Eastern countries. We can let the people know how we feel, and that we share a common enemy, without ever a single one of us needing any official clearance to set foot in their country.

We must be thoughtful and educate ourselves on the complexities of the relations between our countries, and how they must be feeling. We need them to know that WE see their humanity, when our leaders do not.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The 1% of every nation, merely has to point to the activities of the 1% of another nation to find reasons to make war.....

The 1%, seem to be unlike the 99%, as they are free of nationalism, patriotism, or any other such concerns....wherever they are....

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Here....check this out, it is a plan that may enable us to acheive all that we are searching for....


[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 3 years ago

I would support it towards "the people" of Iran or Iraq but not the governments. They are just as corrupt as any other government and certainly not a paradigm to model yourselves upon.

The response: the government will ignore it. They wouldn't perceive it as America extending its hand.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Yes....that seems to be the commonly held opinion, and, IMHO, the correct one....

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 3 years ago

We'd be called terrorists by the right wing extremists instead of just hippies.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Hmmmmm.....do you think? Afterall they've worked pretty hard at the 'hippy' thing....and people have a certain view of 'hippies'....it would just be such an enourmous political shift, to almost an opposing paradigm.

I'm not certain such a take could work....

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 3 years ago

I assume they'd be arrested for treason. I'm not saying it's right, I just have no doubt that that's what the U.S. government would do....

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Possibly.....when you think about it, probably....however, maybe occupy could use a 'martyr' like that....

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 3 years ago

You are one brave individual. That said, I think Georgia's Cynthia McKinney has done something very similar to your suggestion.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Thankyou....but I haven't taken any 'risks' per se....as I am only posing questions.....and whether or not occupy, takes up a thought such as this, or another does, to make people think, just think about diplomacy a little longer....has to be a good thing!

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

We already have. The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City is addressed "To the People of the World." If that's not a diplomatic overture, I don't know what is.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Can we be specific? In our intention of good will towards, 'the people', represented by those that are considered enemies, and for that reason?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

The "enemy" if there is any, is the 1%, not anyone else in the world. The people all over the world are rising up. They are, everywhere, regardless of what wars the 1% want to involve us in, our allies.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Yes....we are in agreement....which is exactly why I would raise this issue....as an issue....

[-] 0 points by horsemanure10 (-2) 2 years ago

the zionazis need to go....they need to checkout...the world hates them with a passion

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Ok.....so I would stipulate that race, and racism, are naught but concepts, that are illusitory in nature, and, have no bearing whatsever on the problems that face us except as symptoms, of larger causes; The only reason, that nations exist, is the illusion that they do.

[-] 0 points by horsemanure10 (-2) 2 years ago

but in a way they are....jewish overrepresentation...why not more blacks, latinos, semites (arabs) and whites in ceo or board of director positions....isn't OWS for fairness, the middle class, he average joe? or is it for protecting Israel and all its human rights violations? I don't see you people crying racism when there are muslim or christian slurs?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

Firstly allow me to say that I have no interest in racism. Period. It's simply the 'blame game'. And something that is naught but a distractor. I don't care who the 'evil doers' are, I care that they exist. Soldiers, are not a problem, war is a problem. And profit is the issue. I care not for which nation fights which, but for good men shooting and maiming over invisible lines. Humanity, has no place in racism, but surely every race has a place in humanity.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 2 years ago

We're already ridiculed. Muslim countries laugh at us. They don't understand why our women vote and drive.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

I think we would be able to find common ground....and what would it mean if we could?


[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

It would backfire beyond your wildest imagination.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago


[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

The Right would love nothing better than for you to speak to "radical" regimes. You might as well declare yourselves "Stalinists."

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Ummm, ok, I'm sorry I'm lost as I don't understand the references....to clarify I am Australian, and, I have no desire to see communism installed anywhere....so....this brings me back to the original question...why would this backfire?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

Because every time a private, liberal, American citizen attempts to open discussions with a troublesome foreign regime......the mission never works, the person is made to look a fool, and the conservative Right in our country has a field day.

Occupy could do nothing more stupid. Period.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Cool......so....can we pick someone who isn't a 'private, liberal, American? Is that your only issue with the concept?



[-] 0 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

Sure. You've already become a tool of the radical left. Why not become a tool of radical jihadists too? I mean, OWS is way too sophisticated to be manipulated by outside movements that are hostile to America. Right?

The number of responses on this thread that seem to be actively considering this is mind boggling. Simply. Mind. Boggling.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Why would you consider talk of diplomacy over warfare a bad thing?


[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

Amateurs pretending to be qualified and competent to carry out diplomacy in a complicated international setting is a very bad thing. Ever hear of the phrase "useful idiots?" that's exactly what OWS would be in trying to deal directly with Iran. Geez, I can't believe I'm having this conversation...

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

You would be more effective if you were not being so insulting and hostile. I agree it's too idealistic and naive, but the heart is in the right place.

It would be more constructive for OWS to engage Iranian citizens in discussion, with the goal of increasing our understanding of eachother, and strengthening bonds between our people. Government officials and religious leaders are nothing but savvy manipulators who would use us as a means to their ends, and discredit us in doing so.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

OK....lets assume that you are quite correct in that estimation, which to a large degree, I would agree with.

I'll ask you this, do you feel as if your personal interests are currently being accurately and well represented? Do you think warfare, could not be considered the ultimate diplomatic failure? Should warfare exist, then, it may be said that diplomacy has clearly failed.

I am well traveled, and would table that people are people, no matter where you go, and, that right now there is a confused old guy in Iran, saying almost exactly what you are, and, like you, he is naught but concerned for his community, I would say that soldiers are not a problem, war is a problem. Good men, fighting and killing over invisible lines is a problem. I would say that profit, is the issue.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

I would agree that historically, the vast majority of wars have been caused by economics. If we go to war with Iran, though, that will not be the case.

I don't think my interests have been well represented. I plan to express that through the ballot box, an incredible invention that allows me to express myself on a regular basis in a way that can really make a difference. I DON'T plan to take diplomacy into my own hands, or encourage others to do so. Any contemplation of such a step by OWS would be the height of hubris and foolish on more levels than I care to count.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

So....you don't think your interests are well represented, AND your voting for them to be represented? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be what your saying....?

And I would ask what reason or premise you would give for warfare being a 'good' thing? And I would also ask, if not profit/power or religion, what reason would there be for warfare in the first place?

I'm only asking questions here....not making suggestions, don't get me wrong, however I would search for all alternatives to warfare, in every case, and would also suggest that I would do this in my capacity as a member of humanity, and, that I am justified as such to excercise that capacity as a responsibility, and whatever alternatives they may be, to give serious consideration to each and every one, including this one.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

Yes, I am voting for my interests to be better represented, voting for people who will do better than those currently in power. I'm not like many in these forums who have given up on the process.

Diplomacy is and must be the first and most important approach to resolving conflict. But as a student of WWII, I recognize that the carrot of diplomacy often requires the stick of force to be effective. Amid all the mockery of Bush and the WMDs in Iraq, we forget that they weren't there because Israeli had taken out the Iraqi nuclear program in the 80s - the wars in the gulf that followed would have been very different if they hadn't.

So yes, diplomacy must be done seriously. And there must be an option, a credible one, if diplomacy fails. A world run by Iran, or even significantly influenced by it, would be a catastrophe for mankind. So I want my government to pursue ever possible diplomatic option to effect change, and I want it to have credible options of force if those diplomatic approaches fail. Amateurs getting involved, like Jane Fonda in Vietnam, will only make things worse, not better.


[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

< A world run by Iran, or even significantly influenced by it, would be a catastrophe for mankind> how do you know? prove it. but lets pretend that Iranians are not represent terrorism and terrorism is just political pinch-bar. Also dont forget that Iranian leader an asshole and he just want them people live like thousand years before

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

Sorry, Timir, I don't think I understand most of your post. But i feel no need to prove that Iran's influence on the world would be negative. If that isn't self-evident, there's nothing I could say that you would probably find convincing.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

if somebody doesnt understand me this is my fault only in part. i can not imagine how entire world can be influenced by Iran. but i rather say this: dont touch it, and it is not gonna smell. Most likely New World Order will bring us more struggle and more destruction. Rare men able to read my message clearly

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

timir, It's just that your sentence structure and wording can be confusing at times. I think this post is clear, though.

Confusedoldguy, I can't see a world 'ruled by Iran'. How would that even come about? When have they ever even expressed such an ambition? If anything countries like America and Britain are the ones who always seem like they're trying to rule the world. Fear mongers just use the Middle East conflicts as a scapegoat, to keep us fearful and faithful to our own government and it's ever-growing, all-corrupting military industrial complex. The real enemy is within.

Yes, America, as well as other nations, have to be aware of each others' dealings, but that does not mean that we have to unfairly take sides in every conflict, and then prop up ruthless dictators, human rights violators, and royals because we need them as allies in the conflicts we never should have involved ourselves in in the first place. Lets be honest, the real reason is usually money. Not money for a better economy, not money for a more prosperous people, but money for the military contractors and mineral/oil companies, aka the people who REALY get the vote in america. It's a representative democracy for citizens, but a direct democracy for special interests with unlimited funds!

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

I forgot to mention the part where we bow before the might of some of the worst human rights offenders, who are also self-described communists, and stop reporting their crimes on our news, because they own most of our debt! lol! And what do we give them for being such bad bad people? Sanctions? No! We give them all our jobs!

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

the problem is - american occupation regime. you probably don't even know about its existance. whatever. War is the problem. So don't start it. Keep solders and civilians far away from the conflict. So non of americans get hurt. Sit in the building, watch TV and see how them, of the east people gunning to each other. don't go into the fray. let GOD decide who was right and who have right to live and who have right to leave. isnt this nice?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

So in your opinion it is the 1% that are the true enemy...? Is this what you are inferring to? And are you suggesting that this war is a simple police action, and the current diplomacy is something that is successful?

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

no. develop and explore economy not the resources of other continent. i sow badge to one of the protesters it said something like: 90% tax to billionaires. is that what you want??? this is not liberal way. and i dont give a shit about current diplomacy. why our diplomacy cant be same as Canadian one. bad example, i know. lets not to be nosy to international affairs, and then we not have to change anything with diplomacy. correct me where i was wrong

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Hmmmm.....normally I would be somewhat agreeable.....but I think the time has come where various nations are looking for economic solutions through the soldiers they have simply lying around....

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

for your information. there are some thought that "arab spring" began with outside feeding probably from the west. i have nothing against "economic and democratic transformation" in those countries. but some time we have to be smarter then just OWS tools. if you check how libian people are doing right now you will understand that movements in the midle east and africa related to the subsoil and minerals and also separation of spheres of influence among the occupying forces. libians are protesting against transitional government

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

i'm not agree with radical jihadist thing. And i very sure that everybody agree that terrorists like a public enemies has to be prosecuted in court. court have to be open and have live stream cameras that everybody can see the burden of punishment. i never seen extraterrestrial alive or dead. picture image doesnt prove of exsistence. basis on this i say that terrorism is the power of imagination. i never see them alive. because they are always dead. ha ha very funny

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

Good observation. Fear it's self is a more terrible enemy, and it is wielded against us by our own government. They tell us if we want to be safe, we have to allow them to spy on us, we have to suspend rights and civil liberties, we have to allow prisoners to be held indefinitely without trial or contact with the outside world, or else 'they' will get 'us'. We are effectively being coerced.

All the while we are told that to have our safety and freedom, we must deny foreigners in their own homelands of having that same freedom and safety. It's unjust, and I've caught my government lying to me too many times to believe anything they say anymore.

[-] 0 points by RussellFeingold (55) 3 years ago

I agree completely. It's time to start flexing our muscles internationally. We need to stop Obama from starting a new war with Iran. The best way to prevent a nuclear crisis with Iran is to start trading with them and normalize relationships, just like we did with Russia.

Australia trades openly with Iran. Muslim people do not hate Americans. I was working in Oman with a US passport when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006. No one harmed me, but I did have some tense discussions. (Most Arabs believe that Israel is a state in the USA, like Hawaii.) I was working in Indonesia when a Denmark newspaper published pictures of the Prophet Muhammed with a bomb on his head. None of my Indonesian customers cared. Nobody bothered me in Jakarta either.

[-] 2 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

"Most Arabs believe that Israel is a state in the USA, like Hawaii." If Israel was a state, the government would be collecting taxes from Israelis instead of giving our tax money TO the Israelis. Oh shit, maybe they are right, it's just the other way around! lol j/k

In seriousness, though, I agree more normalized interaction with the Middle East will bring more peace and less hate. How dare we prop up dictators and royalty when it suits our national interests and then claim we're bringing Democracy when we bomb those who had nothing to offer us but a useful scapegoat, or target practice for our Military? Obama even had the audacity to ask for his drone back after it crashed in Iran, WHERE WE WERE USING IT TO SPY ON THEM. lol

Sometimes the international community has to make a stand when a government is committing crimes against humanity, but these standards have to be enforced fairly and without bias. If that were the case, the Israel/Palestine map would look like the one they originally agreed to, not the travesty of a fractured land that looks more like Ghettos than a sovereign nation, which the Palestinians are relegated to now.

I think I'd get along with all Middle Easterners except for the Taliban-like Islamist ideologues. I'll never condone their racism and their institutionalized abuse and slavery of women, nor could I ever condone the murder of homosexuals and Christians promoted by many of the more extreme groups. But bombing civilians and imposing blockades of things people need to survive is no way for America to promote our ideals or better the lives of women, minorities, and homosexuals in those countries. The chaos we've created has played right into the hands of those who do want to impose ancient religious codes on people, and who do hate freedoms.

I'm rambling. Yes, we should make overtures of solidarity with oppressed people the world over. The real enemy of freedom is corporate greed and the misuse of religion to oppress and promote war. That is the global enemy.

I think that first, we must educate ourselves regarding the history, culture, and politics of these nations our media and government try to demonize and generalize, though. Most Americans don't even know that half of Israel was supposed to belong to Palastine, or that Israeli soldiers have literally murdered civilians in the street without any fear of reprimand from the government they serve. There's so much material proving the abuses, and most people never see any of it. Likewise most people don't understand that tribes in the Middle East do not all share the same values. They hear of one tribe that upholds a brutal honor code in which women are merely pawns, and assume all rural Middle Easterners share that culture. Afghanistan alone, I've seen footage from so many different rural villages that professed drastically different views about things like the rights and role of women. That diversity means that there is hope from within, rather than from without. Had the invasion been done differently, and had the drones and carpet bombs never been employed, but rather an attempt to win the hearts and minds of moderates from the onset, could things be better in Afghanistan today? If we had spent the money on rebuilding infrastructure and protecting the towns captured so the people could gain resources to rule themselves, could we have been out of Afghanistan by now, allowing the Afghanis to settle their own internal disputes?

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

"half of Israel was supposed to belong to Palestine...". Uh, no. Parts of today's Israel belonged to Jordan, Egypt and Syria, and was occupied when those nations attempted to wipe Israel off the map, in direct violation of the agreements that they now hypocritically call on others to enforce.

I am not a knee-jerk supporter of all things israeli. But the inescapable fact of the region is this - if the Palestinians and their supporters laid down their arms today, we would have peace. If Israel laid down it's arms, it would cease to exist.

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

Sorry about my mistake regarding the map. I was talking about a map that was drawn when they agreed to a treaty, and on that map, Israel and Palestine had roughly the same amount of land and coastline. I should have been way more clear about that. Now Palestinians have hardly anything left, Israel has most of what had been shown as theirs on that treaty agreement map. Israel also continues to wall off areas of Palestinian land, bulldoze their orchards and farms, and build illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Then they make the Palestinians go through check points to get from one area of occupied land to another, and it's well documented that they abuse that power terribly. I saw a five minute piece once about how in this one Palestinian town, Israel took a large area to settle, and then banned the Palestinians from walking certain streets, effectively trapping many families in their own houses because their doors open onto the banned streets. They have to go out windows onto rooftops and traverse alleys to live in their own town.

Palestinians who's ancestral homes are on Israeli land are second class citizens, and are also being forced off their land in many cases.

There are Israeli activists, in fact, some of whom are from families who have ancestral homes on the land, are also documenting these abuses the Palestinians are suffering at the hands of Zionists who come from across the globe claiming a right to land merely because of their religious identity.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

WOW! How can you state that with such certainty?

Mundus vult decipi.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

I take people at their word. Israel's enemies have repeatedly promised to wipe it off the map - the most significant threat lately came from the soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, sponsors of Hezbollah. Israel had made no such threats against it's neighbors. Words matter.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Which people exactly have threatened you personally? Do you not find it even slightly interesting that an entire race is labeled by the actions of the 1% there... Think about it, the 1% are criminal everywhere, there, here in Aus, and there in the USA. It seems that those in charge, the "they" (1%), unlike us, have no nationalistic pride or care, they care not what nation is fighting what nation, as long as nations are fighting.

And I would again ask, for what cause is warfare 'good'?

For what reason of nationalism do you give for your fellow man to slaughter one another? For what reason could one advocate this?

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

Sorry, blaze fire, this is wandering off topic. I was responding to inaccurate depictions of the history of the middle east, and the idea of OWS making diplomatic connections with iran, and tossed in a comment about the situation israel finds iitself in today. Not really interested in a debate about whether there is such a thing as a just war. Feel free to carry that forward with other posters. Thanks for the exchange.

[-] 0 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

uh-huh.....so....you actually have no standpoint?.....you stand for nationalism, but not war, which results from it? You stand for voting for people that don't represent your interests, and simply believing that people that have never met you, mean you harm?

Re: inaccurate descriptions of the history of the middle east....what descriptions ARE accurate?

Hmmmmm......what ARE you doing here?

[-] 2 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

I was having what I thought was a sincere exchange of contrasting ideas, refreshingly free of the personal attacks that have become so common on these pages. I thought I brought it to a close in a respectful way, without the smarmy ad hominem attack that so often closes these threads. I'm disappointed that it didn't end that way.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

So...according to wha your saying in that other thread...all you really have is problems for what OWS is doing, and, are putting forward that we should simply stop protesting and re-engage the system...and that we shouldn't 'occupy' churches, or 'anything' if I understand your inference correctly???

Does that 'sum it up'? I don't think you are confused...about this movement....I think you are set in your ways and confused as to why anyone would have reason to disagree with that way.

You do not seek to learn more information, or to discover why people are protesting, but to discredit those that put forward any concept outside of your understanding of things....it's a shame....

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 3 years ago

So noted. Thanks for your input.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

No problems! Thanks for giving me the ability to bump this thread over and over....promoting it!

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

What does OWS stand for, redistribution of income?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Where have you gone? Oh....and I was so enjoying this.....ummmm...discussion....

Go, on, I dare you to post an original thought....just one....I dare you....


[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

No, I am Australian. Did YOU go to harvard? And what did you study?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

"Oh, and I just fell of a hay truck." - ok! Your wrong, but whatever....what questions/points to make do you have?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

ummmm....ok. So you are of the opinion that the economy is simply in recession, and simply 'buckling down', and 'working hard', will solve the current dillemas?

Here watch this film....it may shed some light on our current straights....


p.s. I'm replying here cause I ran out of room in the other section...

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

Sorry, i won't click through to any film. We have our problems and need to go back to fundamentals. I have no idea what your film says.

[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Clearly....well...I'm quite happy to continue to discuss what you won't discuss....it amuses me....or if you like we can talk about, how your not willing to talk? It's slightly entertaining, and a nice quiet change from the real discussion happening everywhere....besides it promotes my threads....thanx for that btw!

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

What.. did you go to Harvard???

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Soooo....after reading through some of your other posts, it seems that you lack in any sort of original thought, that does not contain insult, and, are just here to undermine the movement....would this be a correct summation?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

I am shallow.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Ok....so what questions would you like answered?....AND....what cause brings you here.....? What fundementals do you speak of?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Oh...and what possible harm, could come from clicking on links to well known newspapers? That is rediculous.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

Oh, and I just fell of a hay truck.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

So....if your not willing to open anything that I would share with you....and....your not willing to ask any questions...why are you here?

What cause would you have?

Do you have a cause?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

You are not sharing anything with me, just asking me to click through.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Ok....so what medium would be more preferable? I have been floating around these forums for sometime now, so if you do have questions...I can help answer them...but if you won't click on the sources....theres not much I can do...Hmmmm...would newpaper articles be all right? Here, check this out..,..


Thats a signed declaration of support for occupy made by 170 economists....or more contextually, information in regards to the war in Iraq, that probably won't make it to FOX news...


I could keep going...but I suspect that you probably won't click those links either....

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

You really think I would click links? If you are that gullible I question your economics.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Now THAT's a question..... I can of course tell you what it means to me, and yes, a redistribution of income, would occur after a restructuring of the entire world economic/political systems...


And here's why there are so many different ideas as to what the answer to that question is...


And in case your wondering, if I arrived at these conclusions on my own....heres what others I have spoken to have said...


The real question here, I think...is what do YOU think....

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

I am not for redistribution of income. I can't dictate the outcomes of the market but this country was founded on freedoms and freedom to provide for each family.

You folks just seem to want to complain.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Ok....I'll ask you then again then... what do YOU think? Are you happy with the current economic models? Are you happy with the current political systems, and what they stand for?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 3 years ago

I have no problem with the system. We are in a recession and have to back to fundamentals. I believe in treating everybody the same and that means a flat tax, eliminate deductions. Reduce spending and that sends a message to the business community and the world that we are serious and we have a boom, and we are back to work. Pretty easy.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

So to be clear....for those that read this thread later, you most certainly DO NOT support occupy and what it stands for, and are here to undermine it's current efforts....As you so clearly point out in other threads...Or....am I somehow mistaken?


[-] 0 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

In what way am I making any personal attacks? I am simply asking questions.....that for whatever reason you are deflecting, which arouses my suspision. If you are legitimate in purpose, you would have good legitimate reasons for stating what you have, so, I am querying as to what those reasons are....I have taken you at face value, and will continue to do so, however some of your statements seem to be almost wildly contradictory, and your standpoint seems to be one of happiness in the current system....

Do you support occupy? And if you do why? And if you don't what are you doing here?

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

Can you imagine the USA having bombs consistently being lobbed across the border from say Mexico, or Canada? Killing our citizens, or injuring us? We would utterly obliterate a foe like that. Israel has exercised great restraint, in my opinion.

[-] 2 points by Satyr000ART5 (12) 3 years ago

And Israels government has done nothing to create the situation? Just look at the history of military action in Gaza. Its been tit for tat between Israel and other nations for years. The US government and Israeli government are doing everything they can to make Israel look innocent when they are clearly just as guilty. Remember the rocket attack that killed almost 200 Palestinians? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/27/israelandthepalestinians

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

Don't see Israel bombing randomly, nearly every day, like what is perpetrated on them. They pulled out of Gaza at the urging by UN and USA to bring some supposed peace. Now Gaza sends bombs at them too. It isn't tit for tat. It is provocation after provocation after endless provocation.then israel responds. Kinda like the the kid being picked on by the bully all the time, and after so much, the kid gets pissed off and beats the crap out of the bully.

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

The Palestinians are becoming militant because Israel keeps taking their land, and treats Palestinian Israelis as second class citizens. Do some research on the shrinking boundaries of Palestinian territory. If someone was taking my land and my sovereignty from me, I'd want to fight, too.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 3 years ago

Muslims in Israel are the most free in the middle east. The land was taken in 1967, and the 1948 & 1949 war. Israel was attacked on all sides. The land they took was spoils of war.

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

I've been reading up on this, and the Israelis actually were on the offensive, not defensive, before the Arab nations intervened.

Spoils of war? Well then, I suppose it won't be amoral then if Israel looses a new Middle East war, and all it's inhabitants lose their land? I'm assuming the rule goes both ways? Should we let the Arabs systematically massacre the Jews and bulldoze entire villages the way the Zionists did against the Palestinian Arabs during that war? Do war crimes mean nothing anymore?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

We need unity. Solidarity. Defendit numerous. What better place to recruit friends, than amongst our enemies? Everyone, everywhere would see an end to warfare. An end to the killing, and to the rape of our land, and all that dwell within it. We fight over invisible lines; good men rushing to kill, and be killed, over naught but an illusion.

I believe humanity, ALL of humanity, needs to unite. The people, need to stand.

Vox populi, vox dei.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

You are either paid or entirely focused upon anti-Israeli propaganda. I will have to hand it to you, some of your tactics are nuanced and some direct (and some very offensive).

But, you are not a thinker. You are a propagandist.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 2 years ago

So....what do you think of the actual question?

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

I'm sorry, who are you referring to...?

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

This RussFeingold borg troll person.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago


[-] -1 points by RussellFeingold (55) 3 years ago

Puff, just because someone occasionally disagrees with you, does not mean that they are a Troll. You are the most prolific author on this forum, and somewhat of a Diva and Drama Queen. Lighten up.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

How many aliases do you have on this forum?


[-] -1 points by RussellFeingold (55) 3 years ago

How many aliases do YOU have on this forum?


[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 3 years ago

one.....thomas the tank. a moniker designed to thwart puff6269.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

the people yes the governments NO!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago


[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

i want no interaction with those scumbags. they repress their people in ways we are just starting to experience

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Which 'scumbags'? The people there, the government there, or the goverments here, or all goverments in general?

[-] 2 points by nikilister (109) 3 years ago

He's talking about Israelis killing unarmed Palestinian kids.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Ahhhhh....yes. People killing people. Hmmmm that never seems to be the way of it though does it.....

"If I kill one person they call me a murderer, If I kill one million they call me king."

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

our government is corrupt theirs is just criminal.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

So you speak of the Goverments there and here....but not the people....so what do you think about diplomatic overtures towards the people there?

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

persians are just fine but they can stick their leaders religious rhetoric up their ass. the vast majority of persians would love to westernize they like the west always have always will.

[-] 2 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

Why do we need them to 'Westernize'? I LIKE that there are countries in the world that are different from my own.

To call human rights and liberties 'westernization' seems a bit... what's the right word? It seems like the west is saying 'look at how much more civilized we are than the rest of you' when in fact that is not historically true. If human rights and civil liberty belong to the world, then they must not be credited solely to one region of origin.

This leaves us with Westernization as other cultures disregarding their own history and culture to imitate us and to welcome commercialism and consumerism with open arms. That could be a bad thing.

We can all fight for the same ideals and embrace each other as human beings without trying to assimilate. I think assimilation only serves corporate entities by making us all better consumers and easier to market to as all one demographic.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

dude are you insane? they do not embrace and share these same ideals, is it not obvious that our culture as fucked as it is,as much as our culture needs to reduce the consumerism and materialism, it is far superior to any other culture yes why not westernize japan did it with out losing their cultural identity. i don't know about you but i like women being equal to men, being able to drive, go to school, have a job, save her own money, not being beaten by your husband, being able to leave the house alone, not being subject to virginity tests, people not being a prisoner to jihadists who want to live in the 14th century, i like having the freedom to have sex, drink, dance, listen to music, talk to who i want, have the opinions that i want to have, worhip god or a twig if i choose, not to even mention the advances in science, medicine, and technology that i love, and we all enjoy does our culture need to become more holistic sure but to suggest that any culture on the planet is equal to the west is simply a fallacy, do i appreciate other cultures sure but any country that is not a third world trash heap are westernized they adopt science, logic, reason, equal rights, freedom as values and these are purely western values and the values of progress if you don 't think that we are more civilized than people who still stone people to death and their culture is equal are blinded by political correctness. so either you don't know what the hell you are talking about or you don't know what the hell you are talking about you talk of assimilation as if multiculturalism works it does not just look at the situation europe is in. i know that you are just trying to be fair but until these countries start making a contribution to the advancement to mankind and embrace western values like science and logic they will only hold mankind back...

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

I agree about freedom. What you describe is more accurately called 'Secularism' and I fully advocate the spread of Secularism, as well as human rights.

I do not believe we have a right to claim some sort of monopoly on concepts like Secularism and Human Rights. There are factions in our own western cultures fighting against secularism and trying to villainize secularists, and the west does not always obey or enforce human rights! If we did, Bush and half his support in government and the military would be on trial! But they aren't are they?

[-] 1 points by EccentricSage (50) 3 years ago

In fact, Obama also should be considered a war criminal at this point.

[-] 0 points by burningman2012 (187) 3 years ago

they are distinctly western concepts whether you want to believe or not. it is a flawed world the west and the people are not perfect but the ideas of freedom, of democracy, of self determination, equal rights are perfect ideas. these ideals all products of our belief system... you do not see them in other belief systems including buddhism.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

ahhhh....this is my point, and more, my question....what would that mean, and what would that result in?


[-] 0 points by survivor514 (65) 3 years ago

You will be held as spies.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Espionage, requires secrecy. If it is a completely transparent; ie simply a diplomatic mission of peace and goodwill, what legal standpoint could argue that view?

Of course, considering the bent of the law atm, you could be held as a spy if you simply exist, so....


[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

I don't know, I heard some of their food is yukky.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Ummmm ok....

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

I'd recommend any delegation, going in person, to be comprised of no blue or green eyed persons. I'm out.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago


[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 3 years ago

Frogs' legs are a rare delicacy. I've never tried the wings though....

"I heard some of their food is yukky." - a brainless comment worthy of a TROLL who's never traveled any further than the neighborhood Wal Mart.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 3 years ago

Hell they ain't rare if you have a gig and live near a decent pond or creek. The wings however, yeah.

No Walmart where I live, but, I have heard about them and they sound amazing. Tell me stories about Walmart, please! I heard it was like another universe and just perfect.

[-] -1 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

yes. Lets tell Iranian people that we apologize for our Imperialistic government. and we sorry for further bombing your cities and civilian casualties. We dont know when and where it is gonna happened, and we dont know the power of destructions but you must be prepare to leave your cities now. Great idea

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Or you could explain that it is not you personally conducting those activities, and, that you are using diplomatic measures, in the best of your abilities, to abate all warfare....? Maybe there will be strength in occupy having true globalisation, in all areas.....at the very least it is something to consider...

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 3 years ago

<Maybe there will be strength in occupy having true globalisation, in all areas.> to speak normal language let them do the true revolution from inside the country. is that what you mean? No Way!!! let them live with out occupation. Information bombshells, proxy war facebook revolution with overseas foundation this is so dumb CIA tricknology. This is why united we stand against. government manipulation over people.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 3 years ago

Hmmmm I'm not certain what you are asking or driving at....I will say that 'we' should consider, as in occupy, that 'we' stand for a global movement, and, be inclusive in all ways towards that measure. Towards humanity.....and away from nationalistic ideals...