Why only Israel and MEK are right on Iran 11/13 by HLF Benyamin Solomon | Politics Podcasts
Check out this Blog Talk Radio episode that I did where I explain why Israel and the MEK are pretty much the only ones that understand and say the truth about Iran.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
Iranian proxy Maliki begs for US intervention
Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi Prime Minister and member of the Islamic Dawa Party, the Iranian proxy group, which bombed a US embassy in the 1980's, has begged for the US to intervene. There has been a misconception about the new Iraqi Government being a puppet of the US. No, they're puppets of Iran.
The latest act Maliki is doing on behalf of Iran is to massacre and torture the Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf. Iran and their propagandists have claimed that the people in Ashraf are "terrorists" and pose a threat. But in reality, it's Iran that poses a threat. Why don't we see the people in Ashraf committing violence? Oh right. The MEK denounced violence back in 2001. And the people in Camp Ashraf handed their weapons over to the US-led coalition and agreed to accept refugee status under the 4th Geneva Convention. The MEK did not lift a finger against the US, even when America stupidly bombed them in the hope that Iran would leave us alone. Oh wait. Iran did not leave us alone. Instead, their thank you was placing roadside bombs in order to kill US troops. But the MEK never fought the US. They surrendered. They didn't lift a finger for Saddam Hussein. All they are are enemies of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran, which is a global threat to the Free World. It's ironic how the Iranian proxies in the Iraqi Government want the luxery of US troops fighting for them while their terrorist masters in Tehran kill them. It is truly disgusting. The Iraqi army, with all that US training, rather than fighting terror, act "bravely" against innocent Iranian refugees in Camp Ashraf, who dare to stand up to Khomeinist Fascism. Maliki begged for the US intervention on the grounds that it's needed to help combat Al Qaeda. While the US has said nothing about its commitments, Obama said, “Although Iraq's made significant progress in areas like oil production and a range of other reforms that have taken place, unfortunately al Quida has still been active and has grown more active recently. We had a lot of discussion about how we can work together to push back against that terrorist organization.”
Al Qaeda is a threat. But so is Iran. Maliki said nothing about the threat Iran poses in Iraq. Why isn't he interested about the threat Iran poses to any hope of democracy in Iraq [as pessimistic as I am about dmeocracy in Iraq succeeding]. Face it. Maliki's forces are abunch of cowards. They can't even fight Al Qaeda terrorists [assuming Maliki is saying the truth when he begged for US intervention]; but they can commit massacre after massacre against Iranian dissidents in Ashraf, who are not lifting a finger. I already explained why I think the MEK is trying to protect democracy in Iraq. They have been nothing but cooperative and have warned about Iranian terrorism. Should Obama be supporting Maliki? I think not. But it goes to show how Maliki gets away with committing brutal terrorist atrocities against the people in Camp Ashraf [the world was too busy condemning Israel like usual and crying for Iranian nuclear scientists who helped Khomeinist Tehran to develop nukes for their Jihadist ambitions]. So Maliki and his Khomeinist masters in Tehran are therefore just as much terrorists as Al Qaeda are. That's the point. But this type of Islamist chutzpah never ceases to amaze me.
The latest act Maliki is doing on behalf of Iran is to massacre and torture the Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf. Iran and their propagandists have claimed that the people in Ashraf are "terrorists" and pose a threat. But in reality, it's Iran that poses a threat. Why don't we see the people in Ashraf committing violence? Oh right. The MEK denounced violence back in 2001. And the people in Camp Ashraf handed their weapons over to the US-led coalition and agreed to accept refugee status under the 4th Geneva Convention. The MEK did not lift a finger against the US, even when America stupidly bombed them in the hope that Iran would leave us alone. Oh wait. Iran did not leave us alone. Instead, their thank you was placing roadside bombs in order to kill US troops. But the MEK never fought the US. They surrendered. They didn't lift a finger for Saddam Hussein. All they are are enemies of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran, which is a global threat to the Free World. It's ironic how the Iranian proxies in the Iraqi Government want the luxery of US troops fighting for them while their terrorist masters in Tehran kill them. It is truly disgusting. The Iraqi army, with all that US training, rather than fighting terror, act "bravely" against innocent Iranian refugees in Camp Ashraf, who dare to stand up to Khomeinist Fascism. Maliki begged for the US intervention on the grounds that it's needed to help combat Al Qaeda. While the US has said nothing about its commitments, Obama said, “Although Iraq's made significant progress in areas like oil production and a range of other reforms that have taken place, unfortunately al Quida has still been active and has grown more active recently. We had a lot of discussion about how we can work together to push back against that terrorist organization.”
Al Qaeda is a threat. But so is Iran. Maliki said nothing about the threat Iran poses in Iraq. Why isn't he interested about the threat Iran poses to any hope of democracy in Iraq [as pessimistic as I am about dmeocracy in Iraq succeeding]. Face it. Maliki's forces are abunch of cowards. They can't even fight Al Qaeda terrorists [assuming Maliki is saying the truth when he begged for US intervention]; but they can commit massacre after massacre against Iranian dissidents in Ashraf, who are not lifting a finger. I already explained why I think the MEK is trying to protect democracy in Iraq. They have been nothing but cooperative and have warned about Iranian terrorism. Should Obama be supporting Maliki? I think not. But it goes to show how Maliki gets away with committing brutal terrorist atrocities against the people in Camp Ashraf [the world was too busy condemning Israel like usual and crying for Iranian nuclear scientists who helped Khomeinist Tehran to develop nukes for their Jihadist ambitions]. So Maliki and his Khomeinist masters in Tehran are therefore just as much terrorists as Al Qaeda are. That's the point. But this type of Islamist chutzpah never ceases to amaze me.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Atheist Conservative's Jillian Becker convinced to forsake Khomeinist propaganda on MEK
In the comment section of the Atheist Conservative on an article that criticized Michelle Bachmann for her support of the MEK, I got into an interesting discussion with the post's author Jillian Becker. That post promoted an anti-MEK article by Michael Rubin, who, while not a supporter of Iran's regime, was endorsed by one of their propaganda sites for repeating Khomeinist disinformation on the MEK. It must be stressed that Jillian Becker herself was not a support of the Khomeinist regime in Iran either. Yet nevertheless, back in 2011, she promoted one of Michael Rubin's articles, which repeated Khomeinist disinformation.
In the comment section, I explain that back in WWII, the US supported Stalin against Hitler. In the comment section, I explain that Stalin was the "worst of the worst" and that he was not any less anti-Semitic than Hitler was. I explain that had he died later than he did, he would've carried out his plan to ship the Jews over to Siberia so they can die off there. I explain that Stalin was no better than Hitler in terms of human rights. In fact, Stalin murdered millions of more people than Hitler. Jillian Becker acknowledges that I was right about Stalin's anti-Semitism, saying that " as for Stalin and his anti-Semitism, I know the history well. What you say is true." The argument I was making was that if the US and the West could support Stalin agianst Hitler, who was then a global threat, why can't America and the West support the MEK, who are not NEARLY as bad, against the Khomeinist regime, which is a global threat. For unlike Stalin, who was a totalitarian Communist, the MEK seeks to have a democratic Iran. I explain that geopolitics doesn't always give you desireable allies and that the MEK is the one force that's chellanging Iranian terrorism in Iraq, which I see as a threat to the Free World. Jillian Becker even visited this blog and said,"I've visited your site. The pictures of the massacre in Camp Ashraf are horrifying!" Then, where she really got convined to forsake Khomeinist disinformation on the MEK was when she said,"I've also read the history of MEK (- MKO). I believe you now that the people you are supporting deserve support against the present Iranian regime." Before, she said,"I appreciate the trouble you have taken to make your case for supporting the MEK. I'll find out more about the organization as it is now, and come back to you soon on this page."
Whatever you like or dislike about the MEK, one point is that it's very dangerous for America or the Free World to base their policies off of Khomeinist disinformation. Especially be careful of Khomeinist propaganda sites like Habillian Association and Iran-interlink, both of which spew Khomeinist propaganda and are run by Khomeinist propagandists [or perhaps even agents of Iran's regime]. When I think of the Habillian Association, the first thing that comes to my mind is Nazi propagandists. I picture in my head of what would happen if during WWII, some German "human rights" group denounced Hitler's opponents as "terrorists" and kept on brown nosing him and saying how the threat posed by Nazi Germany was "Jewish propaganda" or "Neo-Con propaganda." For there is no questioning that Habillian Association enthusiastically supports Iran's regime. Yet in this politically correct pro-Islamist world, they get praised as a "human rights" group. Perhaps that's me going on a tangent. But if you want more details about that, go here. Jillian Becker was impressed at how fluently I defended the MEK against Khomeinist disinformation. For on the Atheist Conservative, using fact, I clearly discredited Khomeinist disinformation.
In the comment section, I explain that back in WWII, the US supported Stalin against Hitler. In the comment section, I explain that Stalin was the "worst of the worst" and that he was not any less anti-Semitic than Hitler was. I explain that had he died later than he did, he would've carried out his plan to ship the Jews over to Siberia so they can die off there. I explain that Stalin was no better than Hitler in terms of human rights. In fact, Stalin murdered millions of more people than Hitler. Jillian Becker acknowledges that I was right about Stalin's anti-Semitism, saying that " as for Stalin and his anti-Semitism, I know the history well. What you say is true." The argument I was making was that if the US and the West could support Stalin agianst Hitler, who was then a global threat, why can't America and the West support the MEK, who are not NEARLY as bad, against the Khomeinist regime, which is a global threat. For unlike Stalin, who was a totalitarian Communist, the MEK seeks to have a democratic Iran. I explain that geopolitics doesn't always give you desireable allies and that the MEK is the one force that's chellanging Iranian terrorism in Iraq, which I see as a threat to the Free World. Jillian Becker even visited this blog and said,"I've visited your site. The pictures of the massacre in Camp Ashraf are horrifying!" Then, where she really got convined to forsake Khomeinist disinformation on the MEK was when she said,"I've also read the history of MEK (- MKO). I believe you now that the people you are supporting deserve support against the present Iranian regime." Before, she said,"I appreciate the trouble you have taken to make your case for supporting the MEK. I'll find out more about the organization as it is now, and come back to you soon on this page."
Whatever you like or dislike about the MEK, one point is that it's very dangerous for America or the Free World to base their policies off of Khomeinist disinformation. Especially be careful of Khomeinist propaganda sites like Habillian Association and Iran-interlink, both of which spew Khomeinist propaganda and are run by Khomeinist propagandists [or perhaps even agents of Iran's regime]. When I think of the Habillian Association, the first thing that comes to my mind is Nazi propagandists. I picture in my head of what would happen if during WWII, some German "human rights" group denounced Hitler's opponents as "terrorists" and kept on brown nosing him and saying how the threat posed by Nazi Germany was "Jewish propaganda" or "Neo-Con propaganda." For there is no questioning that Habillian Association enthusiastically supports Iran's regime. Yet in this politically correct pro-Islamist world, they get praised as a "human rights" group. Perhaps that's me going on a tangent. But if you want more details about that, go here. Jillian Becker was impressed at how fluently I defended the MEK against Khomeinist disinformation. For on the Atheist Conservative, using fact, I clearly discredited Khomeinist disinformation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)