Anti-Muslim Bias, Racism, and America’s Iran Debate: Hillary Mann Leverett on RT’s CrossTalk

Appearing on RT’s CrossTalk, click on the video above or see here and (for YouTube) here, Hillary explored the anti-Muslim bias and even outright racism driving some aspects of the opposition to a prospective Iran nuclear deal here in the United States.  (Her foil on this point was Fred Fleitz, former CIA analyst who established his neoconservative foreign policy credentials as chief of staff to John Bolton and Bob Joseph during their tenures as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.)  Evaluating domestic political dynamics in Tehran and Washington vis-à-vis the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran, Hillary says,

“I am not so concerned about the so-called ‘hardliners’ in Iran who may derail this deal.  I think we’re dealing with an Iranian government that has been very clear-eyed about what it wants to get out of these negotiations and has focused on it very seriously.  And they have the support of the Supreme Leader and others…

But I am very concerned on the American side here…My colleague [Fred Fleitz] used this language that the Obama Administration needed ‘adult supervision.’  You see that reflected in the [Republican senators’] letter, you see it in the commentary—some very insulting terms about President Obama himself, as if he’s not an adult, he’s a child.  The letter supposedly warns the Iranians that any deal would just be a deal between Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei, as if the Iranians really had to worry about that.  That line is directed toward the American people, to sow questions in a pernicious narrative here that maybe Obama is really sympathetic with ‘the ayatollahs,’ he’s really sympathetic with Islamists.  And maybe he’s not really, exactly ‘American.’  We heard former [New York City] Mayor Giuliani make such comments about Obama, too, that maybe Obama doesn’t really love America.  There’s always been an undercurrent here, since Obama started campaigning, and I think it’s rearing its ugly head again, now that the Republicans control both the House and the Senate.”

When Hillary asked Fleitz directly why he used language that Obama needs ‘adult supervision,’ he had no response.  Elaborating on her critique, Hillary explains,

“There are two very pernicious narratives that have taken hold in Washington.

One…is what Prime Minister Netanyahu gave voice to when he spoke before Congress, which is that essentially all Islamists are brutal, bloody terrorists—that the Islamic Republic is the same thing as the Islamic State, equating all Islamists, regardless of what they’re doing, as bloody, brutal terrorists—and that we have no choice but to eliminate and then impose puppet regimes on them, so they’ll behave.  That’s a very dangerous narrative for the United States, because it keeps our head in the sand, in defiance of reality that there are more than a billion Muslims in this world and we’re somehow going to have to come to terms with them—especially in the Middle East, where they’re seeking real foreign policy independence.

The other pernicious narrative that’s linked to this is an attempt to tie President Obama to that, personally.”

In a telling display of how anti-Muslim bias warps American discourse about Iran, Fleitz reacted to the moderator, Peter Lavelle, pointing out that Iran has a sovereign right—acknowledged in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—to enrich uranium with an emblematic declaration:  “It shouldn’t have that right.”  In response, Hillary notes,

“It’s really interesting, because this point that Iran ‘shouldn’t have that right’ really gets to the heart of this.  There’s a group here in Washington who thinks that they should be able to pick and choose which countries can have which rightsAnd the nuclear issue is critically important thereIt’s fine for them that Israel has nuclear weapons; it’s fine for them that India as an American friend has nuclear weapons…The problem that opponents have is they don’t like the Islamic Republic.  And so people like Sen. Cotton and his supporters here, they’re fine with a deal with Iran—but not this Iran, not the Islamic Republic of IranThey want it to be with a puppet regime in Iran that takes dictated terms from WashingtonThat’s just not going to happen, no matter how much people want it.  That defies reality.”

Extending her analysis, Hillary underscores that “the real concern” of a prospective nuclear deal’s opponents is “the changing balance of power in the Middle East and, whether they like it or not, the changing balance of power around the worldThe concern is not whether it’s 2, 200 or 2,000 centrifugesThe concern is the rise of Iran and what that means in the Middle EastThe concern is the rise of Russia, the rise of China, and what that means for international politics.  I think that, for all of its flaws, the Obama administration is trying to navigate those reality-based changes in the balance of power, in the Middle East and around the world.  And this deal will focus the United States on those necessary correctives in our own foreign policy—to get us off the track of trying to impose military dominance all over the Middle East and around the world.  That’s the importance of this agreement.  But President Obama hasn’t actually explained that to the American people, and therefore he opens the window for all of these various kinds of insulting tactics against his policies.”

Interestingly, as negotiators from the P5+1 and Iran appear to be getting close to agreement on key substantive aspects of a prospective nuclear deal, implementation—mainly on the U.S. side, is emerging as an ever more salient challenge.  In this regard, Hillary points out that Iran has been careful not to put “all their eggs in the American basket.  They have working constructive partnerships with Russia, China, European countries.  And I think they will focus on the UN and the UN Security Council to give them the international security guarantees required since the United States may not be able to live up to its word,” in terms of actually implementing a deal.

The endgame for this process promises to be very interesting, indeed.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett


136 Responses to “Anti-Muslim Bias, Racism, and America’s Iran Debate: Hillary Mann Leverett on RT’s CrossTalk”

  1. MassoudH says:

    “adult supervision”… Wow!

    Yes it boils down to racism, exceptionalism and blind arrogance of GOP and Likud, and idiots like this Fred Fleitz, former CIA ‘analyst’. The guy was just pathetic.

  2. fyi says:

    MassoudH says:

    March 17, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    That is part of the explanation.

    The other is that they can annihilate Iran – and many other countries – with impunity.

    Have you ever seen a map of Russia published in US with potential targets of air strikes in popular magazines?

    [They were going that route, I think, until Putin reminded them that Russia can annihilate US and EU.]

    Or maps of China, indicating where US might strike?

    Americans are truly degenerated lot….and they cannot even see it.

  3. MassoudH says:

    fyi says:
    March 17, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    Yes, one of the most honest analyses I have seen by Stratfor quite candidly describes the US as a barbaric empire. It’s simply down to a lack of history, according to them.

    Despite her own limitations, Iran in many ways (such as in refusing to build or use WMDs even when at war) is more civilised.

  4. Rehmat says:

    The Zionist regime gained the most from 9/11, by fueling anti-Muslim hysteria in the West. However, the anti-Muslim feelings among the majority of Western Judo-Christians have existed since the creation of first Islamic state in City of Medina in 621 CE.

    Hindu academic and author, Deepa Kumar, agrees with the above statement in her 2012 book, Islamophobia and Politics of Empire. She is an Associate Professor of Media Studies and Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University.

    “The vilification of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has a long history. It goes back to the eleventh century when the Papacy was trying to gain public support for the Franks (crusaders) invasion of more rich and civilized Muslim kingdoms around Jerusalem. The Vatican was horrified that Islam gave Muslim men and women to learn not only religion but also science, gave wife divorce right and widows and divorcees to remarry plus inheritance rights. Therefore, Vatican decided to vilify prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by labeling him a sexual deviant, fake prophet and spreading a false religion,” said Kumar.

  5. Fiorangela says:

    When was the treaty that allies US to Israel debated and approved by the Senate?

  6. Fiorangela says:

    Cotton just celebrated his first wedding anniversary (paper is the appropriate gift for first anniv. Send letters.). Cotton’s wife, Anna nee Peckham, a native of Nebraska, went to Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University. She’s apparently not in the mold of Betty Friedan or Bella Abzug; she has made it clear that she will be called Anna Cotton. No hyphenated feminist nonsense for this little lady. Cotton wouldn’t have it.

    In 1997 he made his views on feminism known in an article in Harvard Crimson —

    QUOTE: “Couples who choose a covenant marriage undergo counseling before they marry and can divorce only with fault, defined as abandonment, physical abuse, adultery or conviction of a capital crime. State legislator Tony Perkins, the author of the law (and an active member in PK [Promise Keepers] ), expects covenant marriages will soon account for half of all new marriages in Louisiana. Many states are expected to follow Louisiana’s lead.
    Presumably, women should encourage such developments since divorce leads to their “greatest fear in life.” And most women probably do support them, but not the putative potentates of feminism.

    The National Organization of Women (NOW) has dedicated itself, nationally and in its state chapters, to “exposing” both PK and covenant marriage as a thinly veiled attack by the Religious Right on women’s rights, or as an attempt to re-establish patriarchy. An example of the fanaticism with which NOW follows this course is its powest subdivision, the “Promise Keepers Mobilization Project.”

    Feminists understandably view movements like PK and covenant marriage with anxiety. They undermine what feminists consider a crowning achievement, no fault divorce. Feminists say no fault divorce was a large hurdle on the path to female liberation. They apparently don’t consult the deepest hopes or greatest fears of young women.

    Nor do they consult the data on no fault divorce. This data says that 62 percent of divorced women used to receive permanent alimony, whereas now only 13 percent receive any alimony. It says that only 25 percent of divorced women with child custody receive child support, and only one-half of that is ever paid. It says that after divorce, men see their standard of living increase by 42 percent, while women see their’s fall by 73 percent. It says, in short, that divorce is a leading cause of poverty among American women.
    Feminists might say that these figures show a need to crack down on “deadbeat dads.” That blithely misses the point. As revolutionary patriot, jurist and marriage counselor James Wilson said,

    “When divorces can be summoned to the aid of levity, of vanity or of avarice, a state of marriage becomes frequently a state of war or stratagem; still more frequently, a state of premeditated and active preparation for successful stratagems and war.”


    That last line offers a fascinating insight into Cotton’s psyche, and his warmongering: it comes from the heart: shattered male-female relationships, or the failure of females to adequately and perpetually control the “reckless and restless” nature of “simple men” lays the ground for war.

  7. Karl.. says:

    Sigh, just great,

    Netanyahu won

    What can we expect now?

  8. MassoudH says:

    Priceless! Not only do they ignore the fact that War Crimes have been committed – and repeatedly so – Americans never miss a chance to play the victim, even if a colossal mess is largely of their own direct making:

    Title: Go Ahead, Ruin My Day

    “O.K., so we learn to live with Iran on the edge of a bomb, but shouldn’t we at least bomb the Islamic State to smithereens and help destroy this head-chopping menace? Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?”

    Yes Mr. Friedman, go ahead and ruin my region, as long as you have a good day. That’s what really matters.

  9. MassoudH says:

    Karl.. says:
    March 18, 2015 at 4:09 am

    “What can we expect now?”

    A stronger Boycott and BDS campaign, further international isolation of Israel and a greater rift between USA and Israel is what I would expect.

    But then I tend to be over-optimistic about such things…!

  10. Karl.. says:


    Peace is dead definately now for palestinians?
    Netanyahu reject 2 state solution

    More likely an attack on Iran? Overall a more aggressive attitude towards Iran by US/Israel?

    Definately more wars on Gaza

    Imo I am not sure BDS will do much as long as west keeps its full relations with Israel. Obama sure doesnt like him, but the wimp obama dont dare doing anything against Netanyahu.

  11. James Canning says:

    What a preposterous contention, that Iran and the “Islamic State” or Isis are pretty much the same thing.

    I suppose Tom Cotton thinks the Palestinians should get out of occupied Palestine.

    Fred Fleitz and John Bolton. Perhaps they too think the Palestinians should leave the West Bank.

  12. MassoudH says:

    Karl.. says:
    March 18, 2015 at 9:54 am


    Israel does not have the military capability to attack Iran. Recently an ex-MOSSAD chief stated that he would have resigned rather than carry out an attack against Iran if such an order had come from Netanyahu. The claimed ‘threat’ is mere theatrics for political ends.

    And as you can see, USA is less and less likely to support Israel in such an endeavour.

    As for BDS, remember that the West was fully behind Apartheid South Africa right till the end. It was a popular global boycott that defeated them.

    The advantage of a global boycott against Israel would be in that USA would be directly harmed by the same as so many of the corporations involved are also US-based. USA would have to distance itself from Israel in such a scenario. The other advantage of BDS is that it excludes violence.

    The problem here is that the Palestinians continue to trade with Israel. They have to take a lead, like South African movements did.

    I would love to see what the Saudis are now saying since very recently they claimed that Palestinian statehood was their top priority.

  13. Karl.. says:


    There is no way US will create sanctions on Israel (nor the west in general), I think that could be written off in total.

    If Israel attack Iran US will indeed support them imo. The condemnation would be like “we condemn the hostilities and urge both parties to cease fire bla bla”

    But I do agree that palestinians need to push this conflict themselves, as you say “take a lead”, if there is ever going to be a solution in that conflict. They should rid themselves of Fatah puppet regime for starters and saudis dont care about palestinians, they could be written off too imo as any important player in that conflict. They are a part of the problem.

  14. Kooshy says:

    Strategic depth of Iran reaches the borders of Israel and every point of regional interests
    US has, that is not true or achievable for Israel or US , that is why Iran at relatively low cost can defend her interests in Syria Iraq and the rest of her regional interests but the same is impossible for Israel and even more expensive for US to secure her ingests including Israel. To attack a major regional power is not just enough to have the military mean and logistics more than that one will need to have a legitimate local acceptability ( strategic depth) to be able to hold on military gains. If it wasn’t for that US would have attacked Iran in 1979 not today that Iran can directly threaten US interests and positions with a retaliatory second strike of “A” kind. If US or Israel had other options they wouldn’t have asked Ahmadinejad’ administration for negotiations in Oman. Don’t go back to Ziocentric wishful trips like Tom Friedman we been there.
    I think if Israel ever attacks Iran, they may have to really look to locate and find the Noah’ Ark since that may be the only vessel to survive the Mediterranean stormy waters. Bisides who knows Fyi and Smith may be the first of the kind to seek refuge and walk in.

  15. MassoudH says:

    Karl.. says:
    March 18, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    it sounds like you are unaware of how the boycott movement worked against South Africa. It had nothing to do with state-sponsored sanctions in the West or the UN Security Council. USA even labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist at the time. As I mentioned, they were opposed to the boycott, yet it worked because they were globally popular. It was civilians – including many in the West – boycotting South African produce, and refusing to allow them to participate in sports, educational and scientific forums etc. The country was shunned by the world, despite Western support for it.

  16. Karl... says:


    Wasnt the sanctions by states what finally made regime change possible in SA?
    Also SA is not Israel. Western people in general still have a very high support for Israel so I dont see how even a civilian BDS would do any change. I hope you are right though.

  17. Fiorangela says:

    LA Times Reports the IAEA is Unlawfully Sharing Safeguards Information with the U.S. Government

    QUOTE: “Top-Secret U.S. Replica of Iran Nuclear Sites Key to Weapons Deal.” . . .

    U.S. officials won’t comment on the classified research, which is being conducted at an undisclosed location in the United States. But former officials and private analysts say American agencies have constructed models of the Iranian facilities, relying on informants in Iran, information from foreign governments and voluminous data about Iran’s program collected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog.” END QUOTE

  18. Rehmat says:

    On March 17, 2015, ex-UNHRC envoy for the Occupied Palestine, Dr. Richard Falk, posted an article at his personal blog, entitled, Iran’s Nuclear Program: Diplomacy, War, and (in) Security in the Nuclear Age.

    In the article, Falk discusses illegal ‘crippling sanctions’ against Iran claiming these were meant to “exert pressure on Iran to negotiate an agreement that would provide assurance that it was not seeking to acquire nuclear weaponry.”

    Such assumption is totally wrong. United States, Israel and United Nation have never applied sanctions to punish the undesired (independent of Zionist supremacy) – but to starve the public in order to turn against their own elected regimes.

  19. James Canning says:


    The primary reason the whites and honorary whites relinquished their control of South Africa was simply that there were far too many South Africans who were not whites or honorary whites.

  20. Rehmat says:

    Jammes Canning – The ‘White’ colonists were always a minority in South Africa. So what kept them that G-d forsaken African country for over 150 years? They decided to relinquish the occupation because it became more costly for the ‘White’ race. They decided to cut a bargain with the ‘Jew-hating’ ANC – and maintain a great majority of their privileges over the Black majority.

  21. James Canning says:


    I take it you are unhappy with the political transition achieved in South Africa two decades ago?

  22. Irshad says:

    Dear fyi – whats your take on the article recently publised in the Atlantic Magazine bout Mr Woods, “What Isis really wants?”

    Is he been biased? Is he accurate in presenting Isis understanding of Islam in the article? Will this aid in defeating the takfiri-wahabi ideology?

  23. fyi says:

    Irshad says:

    March 20, 2015 at 1:17 pm

    Regrettably, in my opinion, he is correct in his overall assessment – barring a few details.

    ISIS is using the same weapon that has been used from the time of Imam Ali – designating this or that person, country, village, tribe to be anti-Islam and dealing with them accordingly per Sharia and the Quran.

    In my opinion, we cannot defeat Takfiri approach to Islam unless we agree that everyone is a Muslim and as Islamic as everyone else.

    Then the issues of behavior – deviant or criminal – could be decided based on the Law – administrative, civil, criminal – with Judges and Juries to decide the cases.

    That is the first step – a step which I have endeavored to articulate on this forum.

    The next step is to take issue with Takfiri/Wahabis on the level of Political/Legal Authority.

    They do not represent Legitimate Spiritual or Temporal Authority.

    In Iraq, in Pakistan, in Nigeria, and in Afghanistan there is a legitimate political authority. They have, in effect, rebelled against that authority.

    In Syria, perhaps, a case can be made that the Syrian Arab Republic is not the legitimate authority but then neither is ISIS.

    The only silver lining I see – potentially – in all of this is that religious people and not so religious people in Iran and Turkey and few other places such as those will reject the worst aspects of ISIS practices – “This is not our religion!” – including the conservative religious scholars in Iran and elsewhere.

    Hopefully, the level of atrocity in places such as Nigeria and Pakistan and now Yemen, in the name of Islam, will force mainstream scholars and leaders to explicitly name and shame those barbaric people.

    In turn, this could trigger off some movement in mainstream Islam towards a more open model of thinking and behaving.

  24. Karl.. says:


    Hopefully, the level of atrocity in places such as Nigeria and Pakistan and now Yemen, in the name of Islam, will force mainstream scholars and leaders to explicitly name and shame those barbaric people.

    What MSM scholars are you talking about? I havent seen anyone supporting irrational killings in MSM, ever.

    In turn, this could trigger off some movement in mainstream Islam towards a more open model of thinking and behaving.

    Since “mainstream” muslims (whatever that means) dont condone these irrational acts, that sentence need some clarification imo.

  25. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    March 20, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    I meant Sunni Muslims by “mainstream Muslims”.

    You do not understand what is going on, ISIS is not doing anything that is without precedent in Muslim History and Tradition.

    That is also why it is attracting so many adherents among Muslims all over the world.

    Facile statements that they are un-Islamic is not sufficient; they have arrogated to themselves to decide who is and is not a Muslim as well as who is the enemy of God.

    Their position is unassailable from within the Mainstream Islam.

    And do not tell me about Al AZHAR -it has no authority, spiritual, legal, temporal – has not had it since Salah Al Din killed the Shia Doctors there or sent them to exile.

  26. Fiorangela says:

    Israeli electorate handed Obama a two-fer:

    Obama can deflate Bibi by walking away from a deal with Iran.

    Israel’s big and tough? You deal with your nuclear armed neighbors.

    China & Russia are doing business with Iran.
    Doesn’t it make more sense for USA to join them rather than oppose them?
    And does Israel think it can take on Iran, USA, Russia AND China if their commerce is harmed by Israeli assassination squads or hell-raising?

  27. Karl.. says:


    I meant Sunni Muslims by “mainstream Muslims”.

    It doesnt matter what group you are talking about, the “maintream” muslims as you call them, dont support irrational attacks you mentioned.

    It seems that you have fallen for the typical westernized anti-muslim attitude, that ISIS represents the Muslim.
    Trying to equate ISIS with muslims in general, is the best recipe for more western and or secterian wars in the middle east and espcially against the Islamic republic.

  28. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    March 20, 2015 at 3:14 pm

    The burden of proof are on those people who claim that ISIS is un-Islamic.

    Let them supply such reasoning as they have – in the same manner that a complex argument was made almost ten years ago in Iran which equalized the blood money among all religions.

  29. kooshy says:

    نوروز پیروز و سال نو شما مبارک

    Happy Norooz and the new year to you all

  30. Fiorangela says:

    Thank you kooshy.

    Happy Norooz to you and All.

  31. Khomeini says:

    everyone look what these crazies are saying.

    “New Docs Reveal Osama bin Laden’s Secret Ties With Iran”

    Its Iraqi-ization of Iran. Mad, Mad, …

  32. Ataune says:


    “The burden of proof are on those people who claim that ISIS is un-Islamic.”

    The debate here is not about the religious merits of a group witch is obviously using extremist methods to achieve some political goals. We all know of groups claiming to be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist etc… having used or using the same kind of tools. By unnecessarily emphasizing the religious claim you are muddying a debate which is about the political goals and the actors involved.

    “ISIS” goals are clearly to weaken the states aligned together in the region on the basis of state independence and non-interference from outside powers. It is also obvious that without logistics and money these groups calling themselves, or being called, “ISIS” would be incapable of politically influencing the events the way they do currently. Now the interesting and useful debate would be what each of us think about the nature of the political goals involved here.

    My take is that “ISIS” is a tool financed and logistically helped by intelligence/proxies with close relation with Nato and her regional surrogates/allies and I believe that the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the ones claiming otherwise.

  33. fyi says:

    Ataune says:

    March 21, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    I believe that the points that you have articulated are not in contradiction to the point that I have raised; chiefly that ISIS is as Islamic as they come; its pratices are not extremists and are part and parcel of Islamic Tradition.

    How many people and how often have people on this forum called me a non-Muslim?

    How many of them, given the chance, would kill me?

    And those have been Shia Muslims – the more rational among Muslims, as they go.

    Do not kid yourself about the essential nature of ISIS being Islamic.

    Yes, ISIS began its life as a tool of asymmetrical warfare against the Shia Crescent but the Persian Gulf Arabs – its main sponsors – have now lost control of it.

    Turkey is still supporting it to spite the Arabs, hurt the Kurds, and harm Iran.

    ISIS is a new state that is charting its own course.

  34. Karl.. says:


    In a sense then people like Leveretts are wrong and people like Cotton and Foxnews are right about Islam? Did you watch the video? Leverett just pointed out this fact that you cannot add all muslims together and generalize like that.

    Deal with the fact that Ataune raised, namely this:

    We all know of groups claiming to be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist etc… having used or using the same kind of tools. By unnecessarily emphasizing the religious claim you are muddying a debate which is about the political goals and the actors involved.

    I am also wondering if you (or someone else that sympathize with ISIS) could give any evidence to what is de facto “islamic” about ISIS and any evidence that sunni muslims support them generally, if you cannot do such simple things, what is your views based on really? Nothing?

  35. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    March 21, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    You and Ataune do not understand the claims of Islam to encompass and engirth all aspect of human life and existence.

    The late Osama Bin Ladin, before declaring war on the United States, went and found a Muslim religious scholar – as much as someone like that could be found among the Sunni – and got him to issue a Fatwa of war against America.

    Was that binding on all Mulsims? That Fataw?


    But precisely because there is no universally accepted religious authority among Muslims, any 3 Muslims can go into a room and decide that the 3 of them are the true Muslims and everyone else is a false Muslim deserving of death.

    That is what the late Ibn Muljam Muradi did and decided that the Imam Ali was not a Muslim and deserved death.

    The late Teymour the Lame got the Learned Scholars of Transoxania to declare the Shia of the Central Iranian plateau to be Rafizi and Heretics – their lives, property, children, and women to be available to the conquering Sunni Tatars as religiously sanctioned war booty.

    Yes, there are a variety of Muslims but there is deafening silence from Sunni Islam as to what is un-Islamic about ISIS.

    In Shia Islam, starting from the Sayings and Orations of Imam Ali as captured and recorded in Nahj al Baliqah – one can construct arguments as to why what ISIS is doing is wrong; for example, the Islamic Government or Order will not wage war against infidels – let alone other Muslims – unless war is initiated by them.

    Did Yazidis wage war against Islamic Order – any Islamic Order or Government? Did they attack any Muslims or communities?

    The answer is a clear no yet they were attacked and raped and killed by ISIS.

    This is un-Islamic if you accept the authority of Imam Ali.

    ISIS does not accept that – they rely on lies of the late Abu Hurrairah – who is considered a reliable source of Hadith of the Prophet by Sunni but who is completely rejected by the Shia.

    Do Sunni Muslims support ISIS?

    Many do: in Nigeria, in Sin-Kiang, in Fergana Valley and in Europe and in Turkey , and in Iraq and in Syria.

    You have to first accept the reality that the Wahabi/neo-Salafi Islam – pushed by US and Saudi Arabia as anti-dote to the ideas of the late Imam Khomeini – constitutes now a major sect of Islam and it is facilitating the spread of ISIS all over the Sunni World.

  36. Kooshy says:

    Like Iranian officials including FM Zarif has said nothing about IS/ISIL is Islamic or even is an state for functions like one. The real burden of proof is on those who claim IS functions like an state say how? May be the hope of keeping and supporting IS as an asymmetric tool for security of Israel exist for some Ziocentrics and IMO to a degree has worked for short period. But it would be foolish to think endurance of a political entity will be placed and will last long with this type of political support ( very much same as what Americans hoped with Talaban)

  37. Karl.. says:


    But precisely because there is no universally accepted religious authority among Muslims, any 3 Muslims can go into a room and decide that the 3 of them are the true Muslims and everyone else is a false Muslim deserving of death.

    Exactly, so why are you constantly claim otherwhise?
    I have asked you many times, show us proof for what you are saying.
    Give us evidence (links) that sunnis in general support this group.

    ISIS, Bin Laden or any other group/person could claim whatever but their views are not supported by the large majority that you keep claiming.

    Yes, there are a variety of Muslims but there is deafening silence from Sunni Islam as to what is un-Islamic about ISIS.

    THis read out like a Fox news commentator, that a Muslim in Iran somehow must apologize to the hegemon west for what a muslim in lets say Algeria does.

    In fact Muslim community have condemned various acts past 14 years, but now thats not enough apparently..

  38. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    March 21, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    ISIS is spreading as crimes are committed against Muslims and Christians and Yazidis and others under that name.

    How many Sunni Muslims are sympathetic to ISIS is unknown to me; you need to apply the methods of survey research to gauge that.

    In Saudi Arabia, I would guess, several millions are sympathetic to ISIS.

    And all over Muslim world – perhaps tens of millions – seeking a Muslim Order based on Piety.

    In my earlier post, I constructed an argument based on appeal to the authority of Imam Ali.

    I am not an expert and I think a competent scholar in Qum or Najaf can construct many more such arguments – with more precision and more deeply steeped in precedents of religious law.

    Yet Al Azhar is quite silent; it regals us with sentences telling us that ISIS is un-Islamic.

    Last week, Al Azhar criticized Shia Milita for attacking ISIS at Tikrit.

    Let us all see what the Al Azhar scholars would produce – in details – as to why ISIS is un-Islamic.

    [That ISIS is Islamic is precisely the reason that it is threat to Jordan, the Arabs of the Persian Gulf and why it could and would spread to Central Asia, Indonesia, India and elsewhere.]

  39. Karl.. says:


    “How many Sunni Muslims are sympathetic to ISIS is unknown to me; you need to apply the methods of survey research to gauge that.”

    Heres one:

    ‘Results showed: 85% of arabs hold negative attitude,
    11% saw them in positive attitude.’

    Either way, ‘being’ Wahab or Salafi does not equalize into support for what ISIS are doing.

  40. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    March 21, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    11% of 300 million Arabs is 33 million souls.

  41. Karl.. says:


    Yes so its nowhere near your claim that majority of muslims supporting them.

  42. paul says:

    I’m not sure why we should be happy that it looks like the US will succeed in forcing a deal on Iran on the basis of a faked crisis and a brutal economic war and constant threats of bombing.

  43. MassoudH says:

    paul says:
    March 21, 2015 at 10:33 pm

    You could see it as Iran forcing a deal on USA. Wouldn’t you celebrate that?

  44. MassoudH says:

    Happy Norooz everyone!

    A year for peace?

  45. James Canning says:


    Russia has ten or twelve thousand troops in Ukraine, aiding the separatists. You think this is a good thing?

  46. Karl.. says:


    What are you even replying too?

    As for your question, sure if it is true – why is this so horrible? When Falklands were attacked I didnt heard people like you condemning UK military force so stop being a hypocrite, you are getting tiresome.

  47. Rehmat says:

    In 2006, Uri Avnery, former member of Jewish terrorist Irgun militia and Israeli lawmaker, in an article, Muhammad’s Sword, wrote: “There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?

    Last year, American Jewish academic and envoy, Richard Falk also declared that there was no anti-Semitism was found in the Muslim world until the creation of state of Israel in Palestine by the western colonial powers.

  48. fyi says:

    Persian Gulf says:

    March 22, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    A disappointing essay Mr. Persian Gulf; steeped in an irrelevant model of the political-economy of the Near East – indeed all Muslim countries.

    “Socialism, Neo-Liberalism, Modernity” are categories that are relevant to the historical experience of the Euro-Americans and irrelevant to us, in my opinion.

    In none of these countries are we dealing with a political economy that is dominated by a market economy – market economy was never given a chance in these states.

  49. James Canning says:


    You appeared to agree with the article you linked, that claimed the EU was acting foolishly toward Russia regarding its support of civil war in Ukraine.

  50. James Canning says:


    The Ukrainian armed forces did not attack Russia and attempt to seize Russian territory. Your analogy with the Argentine attack on the Falkland Islands is not apt.

  51. Karl.. says:

    March 23, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    Is very apt, thats why I called you a hypocrite, you defending UK and its military wars on “protection” grounds in Falklands, but deny Russia the same methods.

    Over 95% voted for Crimea going to Russia.
    You hate Russians or you hate democracy? What is it?

  52. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 23, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    The fact of the matter is that during the last 25 years, the Axis Powers did many unsavory things in the International Arena – shredding NPT, violating the Charter of UN, weaponing inter-state Finance and Commerce, and lately Information Technology.

    Now the Russian Federation is demonstrating that it too is quite capable of playing the same destructive games – and the Axis Powers cannot do a damn thing.

    Iran is country that has historically suffered at the hands of the Russian Federation, USSR, and lately the Russian Federation. One would have expected the Iranians to support Ukraine – but they are on the side of the Russian Federation in this.

    This much Axis Powers have alienated Iran.

  53. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 23, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    The fact of the matter is that during the last 25 years, the Axis Powers did many unsavory things in the International Arena – shredding NPT, violating the Charter of UN, weaponizing inter-state Finance and Commerce, and lately Information Technology.

    Now the Russian Federation is demonstrating that it too is quite capable of playing the same destructive games – and the Axis Powers cannot do a damn thing.

    Iran is country that has historically suffered at the hands of the Russian Empire, USSR, and lately the Russian Federation. One would have expected the Iranians to support Ukraine – but they are on the side of the Russian Federation in this.

    This much Axis Powers have alienated Iran.

  54. Kooshy says:

    “One would have expected the Iranians to support Ukraine – but they are on the side of the Russian Federation in this.”

    Where is the your support for this insertion of yours? Do you have or can you show one?
    As matter of fact Iranians have cast no vote or have shown no official standing other than both side have to negotiate their disputes, Iran like many NAM nations recognized the coup government in Ukraine.

    Don’t make up your own Ziocentric version of Iranian foreign policy. It should be shameful to make an assertion without support, but again Zios don’t care to show support for their wishful thinking.

  55. masoud says:

    MassoudH says:
    March 22, 2015 at 7:12 am

    Happy Nowruz to you too. Peace is always nice to hope for, but I think I’m going to remain sceptical.

    I’ve enjoyed your contributions, I hope you keep them coming.

  56. kooshy says:

    Russian-Iranian Relations in the Shadow of Ukraine
    by Mark N. Katz

    “Although Russia and the West are deeply divided over Ukraine, Iran doesn’t pay much attention to this issue. Like many other non-Western governments, it has largely avoided getting involved.”

  57. Jay says:

    Kooshy says:
    March 23, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    James is a special cat! Masterful in some ways, but so arrogant that the cannot believe that others see right through him. He genuinely believes that his clumsy attempts to turn things upside-down is missed by others.

    The funniest attempt at redirection of recent times was when someone pointed out the Brits deep rooted problem with pedophilia – his response was along the lines of “you seem to have a problem with sex”! You see, it is not that pedophiles are a problem, it is that you point it out!!

  58. MassoudH says:

    masoud says:
    March 23, 2015 at 8:09 pm

    Thank you, and ‘chashm’ masoud khan 🙂

    Scepticism is certainly called for given the weasels Iran has to deal with, but the changes that make me optimistic are in geopolitical realities that have become undeniable by now. The West needs Iran’s help.

  59. James Canning says:


  60. James Canning says:


    You appear to think “sexual deviancy” is a foreign policy issue. I disagree.

  61. James Canning says:


    Iran was supportive of Georgia in 2008, during the crisis with Russia over South Ossetia.

  62. James Canning says:


    I think Russia is doing itself a great deal of damage, in fostering civil war in Ukraine.

  63. James Canning says:


    You appear to be claiming that Russia has ten or twelve thousand troops in Ukraine, fostering civil war, in order to keep Crimea. Is this a fair statement of your position?

  64. James Canning says:


    I think Russia is hurting itself, due to its military intervention in Ukraine. That intervention is not intended to “promote democracy”, as you seem to argue.

  65. MassoudH says:

    Israel must end its 50-year occupation of Palestine, the White House says

    “We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never made, or that they don’t raise questions about the prime minister’s commitment to achieving peace through direct negotiations.”

    The latest statement appears to be a rejection of an attempted about-face by the Israeli prime minister, who attempted to downplay his earlier comments after US criticism.”…

    “A recent book by the last [UK] Labour government’s director of communications Alastair Campbell alleged that Foreign Office officials have long believed Mr Netanyahu is an “armour-plated bullshitter”.”

  66. Karl.. says:


    “Is it a fair statement” that you are not only racist against muslims, blacks but also racist against russians, that you hate democracy and on top of that accept pedophilies running around in the UK?

  67. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 24, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    I do not think so.

    Repeated attempts at regime change to the detriment of the Russian Federation by the Axis Powers have failed.

    This time they went too far, in fact trying to make the Black Sea a “NATO Sea” and achieve naval area denial to the Russian Federation.

    Russia intervened and destroyed Ukraine – however rickety it was – as a functioning unified country.

    Next, she indicated that she is ready for war.

    That is the Duchess of Deutschland and the Duke of Burgundy went to meet the Republican Tsar in Moscow and negotiate a cease-fire.

    They broke with the Mad King – just as the English peasants revolted against the Mad King 2 years ago.

    The latest offer from Axis Powers is EU control of Ukraine while NATO remains outside of Ukraine.

    The Tsar will not accept that; she can dispose of Ukraine as he wishes.

  68. kooshy says:

    “This time they went too far, in fact trying to make the Black Sea a “NATO Sea” and achieve naval area denial to the Russian Federation.’

    It’s not just about the black sea, as per history of past couple of millenniums these wars are all about the Mediterranean Sea, which is the most important strategic body of water on the plant, connecting 3 continents and 2 oceans, Mediterranean is the reason why there exist a white European Jewish state on the eastern side of it, and why Libya, Egypt and Syria are in turmoil now, or why Turkey is named but is not accepted as a European state, facilitating her to be a NATO member state. BTW then most strategically important part of the Mediterranean Sea is its eastern/ S. eastern part.
    IMO European client states and their American policy masters will have no choice but to go to a nuclear war to prevent the Russians from keeping their small foothold on this sea. For this body of water I believe both sides will be ready to go to war perhaps another world war.

  69. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    March 24, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    Thank you James for being generous by providing confirmation for what I said earlier.

    So, the problem is not that the western powers colluded to create chaos in Ukraine, the problem as you see it is that Russia reacted to it!!

  70. Kooshy says:

    Mediterranean Sea is the most strategic body of the water on the planet, and the Middle East centered on Iran is the most strategic body of land on the planet. Iran is the only one country that can directly connect Europe to the Indian Ocean and Far East , so it’s just not enough to prevent Russia’s access to the Mediterranean Sea without preventing her access to the Indian Ocean. That’s the reason for US hegemonic posture strategically Iran is so important to US that she can’t afford having a direct war with her people, but also can’t accept her independence, so, the only choice left would be a regime change unless the US can change her posture to accommodate Iran’s national interests, doing that creates and brings imbalance to current local and regional client states like KSA, various PG statelets and Israel. Some tough choices and face savings to make if Iran can’t be changed using all tools in tool boxes they had.

  71. fyi says:


    Dr. Pollack on US Grand Strategy in the Middle East

    [No mention of the War in Palestine]

  72. James Canning says:


    Your contention that I fail to see blunders by the US and other countries, that contributed to bringing on the crisis in Ukraine, is simply incorrect. That said, Russia is injuring itself, in supporting the separatists in Ukraine with ten thousand or more Russian troops.

  73. James Canning says:


    Your apparent assertion that Russia can do as it pleases in Ukraine is not true, in my view.

  74. James Canning says:


    If you regard my noting that Muslims in Britain are 4.5% of the population, and that 21% of the most violent criminals in British prisons are Muslims, as “racist”, that is your right. Even if it is palpable nonsense.

    Your apparent contention Russia has intervened militarily in Ukraine in order to promote democracy, is simply silly.

  75. James Canning says:


    You might enjoy David Gardener’s comments in the Financial Times today, regarding the need for Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

  76. James Canning says:

    David Gardner (not Gardener)

  77. Karl.. says:


    That you think muslims and blacks are violent and that you think pedophilia in the UK is just fine is your right but its “palpable nonsense”.

    About democracy:
    Over 95% voted for Crimea going to Russia.

  78. Karl.. says:

    Yemen conflict seems to get bigger and bigger.
    They’ve started blaming iranian authorities too of course.

  79. Ataune says:


    I see lots of problems in the commentary link you sent out:

    1- Pollack got his historical background wrong on every an all aspect. I personally found at least 20 gross inaccuracies in the 17 paragraphs he dedicates to the purpose of lining his historical ducks together;

    2- The methods he is recommending for the US, particularly in the “hot spots” – where he conveniently omit to mention that they are mainly caused by the American/Israeli actions – seems unworkable to any logical mind unless America adopt the kind of substantial change of perspective the Leveretts are advocating here;

    3- The long-term solution of a “Pax-Americana” he is promoting in front of the Armed Service Committee of the Senate as an alternative to the so-called twin ISIS/Iran influence in the region can, reasonably speaking, be only implemented by political forces possessing the credibility, besides the power, to do it. And this rare commodity in the the middle-east nowadays can only be found among the likes of Iran with the politics she promoted in and towards the region since 1988.

    Lots of platitude by our Dr and essentially lacking historical facts and sound analysis.

  80. fyi says:

    Ataune says:

    March 25, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    I do not disagree.

    But such are the thinking (or rather the un-thinking) ideas of men and women who are influencing US policy.

    He wants to have Hindus in India and Han in China to join the Christian West in fighting Islam – very broadly speaking.

    What is in it for them is never explained.

    Americans sold their jobs for 40 years abroad to pay for a military machine that is only fit for a war of annihilation and not one of conquest and administration.

    I wonder what they are going to sell to pay the Chinese and Indians of this world to come and help US.

    I also think it has downed to the Barons in EU, finally, that the Imperial Center is hopelessly out of kilter and its policy prescriptions rather unsound.

    What the EU Barons are doing is that they are charting their own path now – in case of Ukraine and now in case of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – without actually challenging and confronting US.

    [Although, they are not yet ready to drop their war against the Shia Crescent.]

    Even the Turkish Pasha is charting an independent path – ignoring US entreaties.

  81. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 25, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    Russia can do a lot that you guys in Axis Powers are not prepared for.

    She can move the borders of the Russian Federation with Ukraine in a Westerly direction and there is nothing that Axis Powers can do to stop it.

    Russia can conquer all of Ukraine, create 4 different countries out of it, and let the former Bessarabia became part of EU.

    The Russian Federation can create a variety of political organizations that agitate for “Russian citizens Rights” in the 3 Baltic states – thus destabilizing them and keep them that way for years.

  82. MassoudH says:

    James Canning says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    Thanks for sharing James, it’s good to see such admissions about Israel’s crimes and Netanyahu’s deviousness opening up in the media.

    But I don’t believe that a 2-state solution can work. Do you?

  83. MassoudH says:


    I also listened to this talk on FT:

    It’s quite funny to listen to a few lapdogs of American imperialism talking about what Iran can and cannot do or will be ‘allowed’ to do as part of a nuclear deal. It’s like the bark of a cute little poodle trying to act like a guard dog. It’s both comical and irritating.

    Still waiting for your ex-PM to be tried for war crimes he committed. Guess that’s just wishful thinking when dealing with imperial leeches with no moral fibre. What is your view? Do you think morality has any place in Western foreign policy?

  84. Ataune says:

    This is just a pure propaganda piece for Saudi/Israeli agenda. Why even mention it?

  85. Kooshy says:

    Ataune –

    He is posting these links to Pollock and Atlantic articles to agitate us ( the truth is that he like his PM is agitated since things aren’t turning as planed/ hoped for) and not to inform us. By now we all can guess and know what kind of shit can be expected to come out of Atlantic or Pollock that’s not a news or a changed position. Don’t get twined in his misinformation game, like sub doing Dracula, reply back with a few real factual links of baby killings by his beloved and only hope for protecting and saving of his fantasy British made faith in occupied Palestine.

  86. Jay says:

    James Canning says:
    March 25, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    More of the same James….

    Analog of your view is this: I can see that the rapist blundered by attacking the poor person, but that person is causing injury to self by resisting the rape. You are suggesting that Russia should sit back and enjoy it?!

  87. Nasser says:

    And wow can’t believe so much hate for the man at the comment section but they do make clear the Evangelical voters’ connection in all this that the article fails to highlight.

  88. fyi says:

    Ataune says:

    March 25, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    Of course!

    You cannot expect imaginative diplomacy from people who presided who sold the wealth of their nation in order to acquire the ability to inject military force anywhere on this planet.

    There is a saying in Persian for this: “Seven sets of pots and pans, nothing for lunch or dinner.”

    War is the only policy choice ….

  89. MassoudH says:

    If nuclear talks fail, sanctions against Iran won’t hold, Kerry says

    “What happens if, as our critics propose, we just walk away from a plan that the rest of the world were to deem to be reasonable?” Kerry asked. “Well, the talks would collapse. Iran would have the ability to go right back spinning its centrifuges and enriching to the degree they want, if they want.”

    He added, “And the sanctions will not hold, because those other people who deem the plan to be reasonable will walk away and say, ‘You do your thing, we’ll do ours. You’re not willing to be reasonable, we’re going to do what we think is reasonable.’ And then you have no sanctions regime at all.”

  90. Irshad says:

    @fyi – thank you for your earlier response.

    Things are heating up in Yemen – the Kingdom of Horror has started bombing Yemen, has massed 100 planes, 150,000 troops and 10 countries for this operation. How will the Houthis, Saleh supporters react? How will Iran react? Its interesting that these Arab countries did nothing fir Palestine and did nothing when Isis was threathening the legitimate govt in Baghdad. At the sametime they are sponsoring terrorists to fight the legitimate govt of Syria!

  91. fyi says:

    Irshad says:

    March 26, 2015 at 7:58 am

    I think Yemen will be partitioned.

    Iran will do nothing overt.

    Sunni Arabs have played their game – and this will go on for a long time.

  92. Karl.. says:

    Iran seems to get humilitated by not only Saudi/sunni states but US themselves in Yemen.
    Is it really reasonable to reject nuclear deterrence by Iran?

    And we can add another war waged by Obama. Disgusting.

  93. Kathleen says:

    This morning on the BBC’s World Service a report linking the possibility of Saudi Arabia’s attack on Yemen being partially an effort to add to Israel and 47 Republican Senators efforts to undermine P5+1 negotiations. The timing of all of this.

    So pathetic that MSNBC Chris Matthews and others still have warmongers like Bob Woodward on to discuss the situation with Iran. Woodward said this about the Plame outing “much ado about nothing”

    When will some of these MSM host have Hillary on to discuss the situation with Iran? They are so intimidated. Not Melissa Harris Perry.

    The U.S. invasion of Iraq sure set the middle east “on fire” So many dead, injured, displaced. Seems as if this was the twisted intention.

  94. Kathleen says:

    Scott Ritter has a great piece up over at Huffington Post about Israel, 47 Republicans Senators and espionage.

  95. Karl.. says:


    Thanks, although hard to look the same on Scott Ritter after his time in jail.

  96. James Canning says:


    I think Paul Wolfowitz and other neocons who conspired to set up the idiotic US invasion of Iraq, actually believed that the aftermath would be similar to what obtained in France after Germany’s defeat in 1945.

  97. James Canning says:


    You are actually arguing that sending ten or twelve thousand Russian troops into eastern Ukraine, to foster civil war, is a Russian action intended to prevent itself from being “raped”? Amazing.

    I take it you think admission of Ukraine into the EU, say 20 years from now, would be “raping” Russia.

  98. James Canning says:


    My understanding is that Tony Blair backed the idiotic US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in part because he thought this would help to clear the way for a deal on Israel/Palestine, to end the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

  99. fyi says:

    Karl.. says:

    March 26, 2015 at 11:14 am

    US & EU have designated the Shia as enemies since they are enemies of Israel.

    They would prefer Al Qaeda and ISIS, it seems to me.

    That is about the sum of it.

  100. James Canning says:


    I think Palestine could be a thriving independent country, within the so-called “pre-1967” borders.

  101. James Canning says:


    Of course Russia can do a number of things, to increase instability in Eastern Europe. And hurt itself in the process.

  102. James Canning says:


    The ten or twelve thousand Russian troops in eastern Ukraine, aiding the separatists in their civil war with the government of Ukraine, ARE NOT IN CRIMEA.

  103. Karl.. says:


    Why not say 200’000 were you are already lying your pants off?

    As Jay said:
    Analog of your view is this: I can see that the rapist blundered by attacking the poor person, but that person is causing injury to self by resisting the rape. You are suggesting that Russia should sit back and enjoy it?!

    Interesting that you finally admit that Crimea is now Russian. Interesting also how you deny supporting democratic election. You really hate democracy.

  104. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 26, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Ukraine has snow ball’s chance in Hell of joining EU.

    EU weapon-ized finance against Syria, Libya, Iran, and the Russian Federation.

    It can no longer be viewed as a purely commercial/economic arrangement among like-minded states; rather, as an auxiliary force to NATO.

  105. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 26, 2015 at 1:16 pm


    So you agree that Axis Powers are powerless to carry the project they started 2 years ago under the public leadership of Ms. Nuland.

    Now that the French and German Barons have broken rank with the Mad King, perhaps the Baron of London would deem it fit to do likewise.

  106. Karl.. says:


    UK back Saudi war on Yemen

    Now I await your condemnation like you condemn Russia or am I right again that you are a hypocrite?

  107. Jay says:

    Karl.. says:
    March 26, 2015 at 2:02 pm


    James gets it! He really does. He knows his absurd duplicitous view, which by the way is reflective of the the entire Brit. Gov., does not have any legs to stand on. If he were honorable, he would admit it, say that his buddies up there at Downing St. are wrong, and all this violence unleashed by the west is wrong. But, alas, he is part and parcel of the same political structure! So, he does what is left – deny, deceive, distract, detract, and do it over and over again!

  108. Karl.. says:


    Nice summary, there is no idea talking to him anymore imo, I thought that he could change, I was wrong.

  109. MassoudH says:

    James Canning says:
    March 26, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Do you see the idiotic invasion of Iraq as a war crime?

  110. Kathleen says:

    James I can separate people’s personality failings from there expertise. If Ritter had touched a kid that would be a different issue. You can bet Feith and team were into his personal life as the Bush administration was proven to be into Prof Juan Cole’s personal life because of his stance against the Iraq invasion. You can bet Feith etc were digging hard into Ritter’s personal life. Bet you could put money on that if someone dug into the group digging into his life had contacts with the warmongers. Look I am glad he was busted but how and why they (the law) decided to focus on him would make for a great story

    Anyway I honor Ritter for putting everything on the line to stop the invasion of Iraq based on the facts that he knew up close about Iraq. His book “Target Iran” is a must read. Also all of his interviews on Cspan.

    Really honor him for stepping back into the anti unnecessary wars ring

  111. Kathleen says:

    Hillary was so great to see and hear you on MSNBC’s The Cycle on Thursday. Breaking down the walls. Now when will Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed etc have you on. Some of us keep politely pounding them as well as other media outlets.

    Facts are important

  112. fyi says:

    Kathleen says:

    March 27, 2015 at 10:22 am

    Facts are important to people like us, not men and women who are pulling the levers of powers and think that they can make new facts that supersede existing facts.

  113. fyi says:


    Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor of the United Arab Emirates, on al Arabiya website:

    “There can be no meaningful dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation with ambitions of reinstating the Persian Empire and quashing Arabs under its boot, just as it has stamped upon Sunnis and ethnic/religious minorities in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq,”

    ISIS is Good, Iran and the Shia re Bad.

  114. M.Ali says:

    The Arab coalition against Yemen is a huge disgrace. The writing is clear & obvious. The time of Saudi & friends are near an end.

    The Saudi’s billions of aid money seems not to be enough in securing their allies, and they keep getting nasty shocks, and for the last few years, they’ve been moving towards more hands on approaches out of desperation. Their digging their own grave, but I guess that’s at least something to do, because others were already digging it for them anyway.

  115. Karl.. says:


    I think that was supposed to go to me – not James, other than that, yes I agree with what youre saying.

  116. Karl.. says:

    Doesnt shias have weapons that can target military planes of saudi?

  117. M.Ali says:

    Read the comments on this qatari news source and see how almost every commenter is against Saudi attacks.

  118. M.Ali says:

    The current Saudi Ministry of Defense is apparently Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, who is the son of the new King, and is in office since only 23rd of January, and is only 34 years old (he is currently the youngest Ministry of Defense in the world).

    It’s just funny how Saudi is even a real country in the 21st century.

  119. James Canning says:


    The US invasion of Iraq was based on knowingly false pretenses. Many would say this is “war crime”.

  120. James Canning says:


    Is Saudi Arabia trying to create a separate state within Yemen, and for that reason is promoting civil war, in your view?

  121. James Canning says:


    What is the “project” you claim the US is trying to carry through in Ukraine? Maintain the territorial integrity of that country?

  122. Fiorangela says:

    James Canning @ March 26, 2015 at 1:15 pm

    I am certain there were many prosperous latifundia.

  123. James Canning says:


    Identify ONE example of western military intervention in the Middle East that you believe I think was appropriate.

  124. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 27, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    The Mad King is resembling more and more the late Napoleon Bonaparte; “Can any agreement be made with this man that he would respect?” asked the late Metternich.

  125. Kooshy says:

    One would like to know how would a persistent Ziocentric commenter of this site feel, once, in his own unmasked analytical moment of self conscious comes to think of the fact that his dreamed supposed protector of his fantasy faith and the top clients he tow behind him are for years and months in negotiation with whom he considers to be the existential threat to his dream faith, and He knows that’s not because she will bomb his faith but rather because his dream is bombed out by whom he put his faith in their protective hand.

    That’s a tough mental circle to round about.

  126. James Canning says:


    Who is the “Mad King”? Obama? He surely is not a megalomaniac.

  127. fyi says:

    James Canning says:

    March 28, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Indeed, who is the Mad King?

    The man who declared enemies of Israel to be enemies of US?

    And invaded Iraq?

    Or the man that continued with that policy?

    Who, in turn, was on the verge of war with Iran?

    Or whose policies gave rise to ISIS – a direct threat to his own vassals in the Near East?

    And who rules in the Court of the Mad King:

    A group of courtiers in the Halls of the Mad King state – to Le Grand Sophie de les Persicos:

    “We do not want an agreement with you because we desire to bomb you.”

    Peace is expensive and War is cheap in the Halls of the Mad King – yesterday, today, or tomorrow.