Saturday, December 22, 2012

Wired's Weird Propaganda and the Most Dangerous Man in the World

Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, Wired writer Robert Beckhusen








Iranian military commanders have even confirmed this view. "Our military warfare equipment is based on deterrent policies and strategy," said Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar in 2006, and also noted that "Iran is ready to sign a non-aggression pact with regional countries."











It is not Iran.


Meanwhile, the threats against Iran continue unabated.







Why is he so dangerous?  Beckhusen explains,





 Benjamin Netanyahu, not dangerous according to Wired's Danger Room.



Iran thru Open Eyes said...

re: "if the elected leaders of the United States and Israel defy the wishes of their own citizens by launching an illegal military adventure against Iran . . ."

I question your use of the verb "defy." Not since FDR first rolled out a massive anti-German propaganda, then dissembled to take the American people to war in 1945, has the question of whether the USA should go to war been placed before its citizens.

Article 1 Sect. 8 grants to Congress the power to declare war. As former director of national security Michael Hayden told students at Univ. of Michigan's Ford School of International Affairs several months ago, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq relied for legitimization on Congress's Authorization [to the President] to Use Military Force. That is, Congress abdicated its responsibility and subverted the right of the people to decide, through their representatives, IF the nation should go to war, and IF and HOW the nation would pay for that war.
In the course of that speech at Univ. of Michigan, Hayden disclosed that his thinking processes were just as confusin' as Beckhusen's: both proceed from an initial, unspoken assumption that some Other -- Afghanistan, Iran -- is an "enemy" against whom the USofA has the legitimate right to aggress. Hayden said that within minutes of his having watched the WTC towers implode, he "knew that AlQaeda" was the perpetrator and based on that determination -- by divine inspiration? reading of pigeon livers? -- "ratcheted up" spying on US and foreign communications. Later, he reassured himself that his actions were legitimate because "the President said in a speech, 'We are at war.' " Therefore, Hayden said, his actions were legitimate exercises of defense against an enemy. Further, actions such as drone strikes are also "legitimate defense" rather than acts of homicide since "the president said we are at war."

But the US Constitution does not give the President of the USofA the right to declare a war, much less to do so in an off-hand speech.

Anonymous said...

More nonsense from IRI apologist Nima Shirazi.

I'd really love for this Nima character to meet Qassem Suleimani and the Quds force and see if they'll be buddy-buddies with him.

Go back to Brooklyn you moron.

Nima Shirazi said...

Thanks for the note, Anonymous. (And for the courage to sign your name. Seems like the only "character" here is you.)

While I know this question will only invite more stupidness on your part, I'm still curious: What in this post is "nonsense" and apologia for the Iranian government?

Please point to something that is not true or that you believe whitewashes or justifies actions taken by the Iranian government that could be seen as indefensible.

Also, while the "buddy-buddies" comment is simply odd, I should point out that it also makes no sense in the context of your pathetic accusations. I mean, if you actually think I'm an apologist for the Iranian government, wouldn't it then make sense that I'd get along rather well with Soleimani and the Qods Force?

Also, if you insist I go back to Brooklyn, where do you think I am now?

Merry Christmas,

Anonymous said...

Let's see, your articles are thinly veiled as pro-IRI.

It's not like you come out and say "Hey I love Khamenei" but your articles all have a defensive posture about it to suggest "hey guys, Iran's isn't that bad!!!"

Which is fine and dandy if you truly believe in the Iranian system, in which case, I strongly urge you to move there.

On the other hand, you have absolutely no problem blatantly and harshly condemning for every single action it takes. Every single one. You have no problem talking about Bill Maher for a "stupid" comment he made on some random show or article or Susan Rice because it offends your dear Arabs and Palestinians, but you take SUCH CAREFUL consideration and even avoid the topic all together when writing about Iran.

You're a joke.