Friday, October 28, 2005

Religion vs. Idealogy

I've always said that religion has caused more death than any other reason, but I see now how this statement is flawed.

Ayatollah Sistani, one of Iraq's most senior Shia clerics has decided that Iraqi's should vote on who they want to. Unlike Ahmadinejad who has stated that his recent remarks were the voice of all Iranians, Sistani doesn't believe in the idea of mass brainwashing. Now this is a true holy man, who has told Iraqi's to do what God wants them to do; make choices based on their beliefs.

God has given us the fundemental right to choose to sin, or not to sin. We can choose to be religious or atheist, Muslim, Christian, Jew or whatever we like. I reject claims made by Iran that they are a just country. How can Iran's trailer trash government speak of justice when they think its OK to stone a woman for cheating on her husband, but not OK to watch an American movie.

So Ken is right in his last article. Religion isn't the problem at all. Its the idealogy. Islam's problem is that the extreme fundementalist "rednecks" if you will have taken over the government for their own personal gain. And its time we Iranians, and Muslims as a whole, take back our countries and religion.

"Wipe Israel Off the Map"

For over 25 years, Iran's leaders have been calling for the destruction of Israel and it's pretty clear what Iran's "president" wants to do. I have no doubt in my mind now that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. Every day, it becomes more obvious.

Khomeni has stated before that nuclear war with Israel would be worth it because it would be easier to kill 6 million Jews than it would be to kill 75 million Iranians.

And this is supposedly a man of God? I just don't see how millions of people could follow this man blindly and actually think that he is a good man. Religion is supposed to be a guiding light for man. Religion was preached to the masses so that man can better himself, not preach hate agains fellow man.

I just don't understand how someone can say that they are a religious person when they state that they want to kill 6 million other people. Why? Because they look different? Because their noses may be bigger, or their hair curlier? Don't these idiots see that Jews and Iranians are almost the same ethnic background? We're practially cousins for God's sake! I understand that family always fights when they are supposed to love each other, but for a president of a country to say that he wants to wipe another nation off the map is just ludacris.

If anyone has read my articles in the past, they know that I'm not a big fan of Israel, but nothing Israel will ever do will summon me to threaten genocide.

But I remain optimistic. Every day, more freedom is taken away from Iranian citizens. I'm hopeful that one day, Iranians will stand up and say enough is enough! Either we take back our own country, or we risk WWIII with China and Iran. Iran has global ambitions. Their jealousy of Israeli power is obvious, and something must be done to stop these lunatics before the world is blown apart.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

From Civility to Massive Death

I’ve heard most of my life that religion has killed more people in history than anything else has. I believed it for a while, along with all the other propaganda against traditional religion. That statement may be true, but it’s incomplete, and used primarily to condition people to hate religion and embrace atheism. Other words can be used in the place of religion and it’ll have the same meaning. Culture, beliefs, politics, doctrines, manifestos, philosophy, opinions, and views have been responsible for more human on human deaths than anything, but it can be summed up in one word: ideology.

Ideology means all those things, including religion. It’s peoples’ way of life and the clashing with others’ way of life that causes massive death. Now, it’s easy for atheists to say, “If only there wasn’t religion, then there wouldn’t be all this killing in the name of religion.” If religion did not exist there might not be killing in the name of religion, but there would still be killing in the name of ideologies (i.e. the National Socialist movement under Hitler). It’s impossible to say, “If only there wasn’t ideology or culture, then there wouldn’t be all this killing.” Yes, ideology and culture kill, but without them societies wouldn’t function either. It’s a paradox and a great irony. There can be an atheistic society, but they would have their own ideology nonetheless. Where “religion” ends, ideology takes its place. People have the need to believe in something no matter what. They need to have a purpose. Christianity is an ideology, as is Conservatism, as is Liberalism, as is Environmentalism, as is Islam, as is Communism, as is Buddhism, as are all ways of life.

Ideology can kill; all that matters is what side you’re on when it starts. Some sides are more just and work better than others do; some are pure evil. There are millions of cultures and ideologies, and the only way for humanity to get along would be to have one defining culture and ideology. But getting there will mean the elimination of all other cultures and ideologies. That takes a huge amount of persuasion or war and massive death, and in the aftermath there will still be differences of opinion. Life will go on, but not after millions die along the way. Humanity will never have a common culture because not even the smallest form of government, the family, can 100% get along.

My point is - world peace is an unattainable goal. The only thing you can have a positive influence on is your family. Raise them in your culture and ideology, surround yourself with others of like mind, try to be civil with those who aren’t, and prepare for clashes with the rest to begin. That’s what local governments are for. That’s why states were created. That’s why there are different countries. They prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the occurrence of conflict. The alternative isn’t world peace and unity… it’s massive death.

By Ken Bergman

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Note to US Forces in Iraq

Could we please figure out where this prison is and kill everyone of those sadistic nuts? How could they just set up a torture chamber right in the capital?

Its time the CIA started spending a little more money on recruiting. If Iraq is turned into another Islamic Republic, it would be disasterous.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Bassij Militia Wants a Repeat

The British embassy was attacked by Islamist thugs. All this of course is OK with the Supreme Leader. He doesn't care if a few Brits get hurt and probably enjoyed it when the students called for a repeat of the US embassy sacking.

But if a few thousand students get together and simply ask for their freedom, well then there is hell to pay. And these hypocrits talk about islamic justice.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Iran Embassy Bomb Blasts

There are not many details but two explosions were heard near the British Embassy in Tehran. Tonight was the sight of demonstrations called on by the Supreme Leader. Of course, when students get together and protest with no explosions or violence, police are ordered to fire upon them. But when paid members of the evil islamic militia beat women in the streets and maim, kill and even steal artwork, no one complains.

While Iran and Syria maim and kill those who stand in their way, we must figure out a plan to take on this evil in the future. I think we have had enough war. I agree with Bush that North Korea, Syria and Iran are run by evil tyrants. I agree that their regimes should be changed. While evil men plot, we must stay one step ahead of them.

In other news, looks like the evil JDL which I always knew to be a terrorist group is going down for good.

Chaos in Basra

I recently made a statement about British troops and their rescue operation. I want to take this criticism back. Read this article to find out why we need more troops like the British in Basra.

Friday, September 23, 2005

The Face of Evil


Just look at this pathetic man. Doesn't he just look like he would do something like order the killing of 30,000 of his own people? His eyes insist he was guilty of hanging kids as young as 12 on cranes, from 9 to 5 until the number reached 30,000. When you tell people its OK to have sex with
babies and barnyard animals,
there must be something wrong with you.

I'm afraid to ask why people would blindly follow that man. Surely everyone in Iran must know about his numerous massacres. The people cannot be as backward as he was. Here is the poll I want to see in Iran. Of course, the person who took this poll would be executed immediately under the "spirit of the islamic revolution." Simply ask the people if they want the current government or a Democratic Republic. I'm betting over 80 percent of the people in Iran would like to see Khameini hang from a tree.

When you tell people its OK to go into a resturant and kill people because they are a different race or religion than you, its not just terrorism, its genocide. I mean seriously, what kind of a person would give a poor little village kid a plastic key, made in China of course, and tell them that he will go to heaven if he is killed while running through a mine field? What kind of a person would order a theatre full of families to be burned? Do Iranians not realize how evil this man is, or are they evil themselves? I don't think the followers of the revolution are evil, but I do know that they love money.

Its obvoius that all we did in 79 was switch kings. The one we have now is just more cruel and backward. Only kings claim they ge their power from God, the way "Ghomehini" did in 79. He was nothing more than a more backward Pat Robertson, except for he was able to convince enough of his breed to help him take over an entire nation. If the British and Americans were not so incompetent in the first place, we would have never had the pleasure of being rulled by the hypocrite murderous regime in Iran.

Public enemy number one is currently gearing up for war. I will soon have a detailed post on Iranian military power, but until then, think about this. Anyone who would order thousands of their own people to be executed would not blink twice about nuking millions of people he considers the enemy. As of now, I don't think military action would be a good idea. But I would not trust followers of a sheep fucker with a nuke. We will be FORCED to take out all Iranian nuclear facilities right before that day comes, so I hope by then the people of Iran will be brave enough to take matters into their own hands. Let those cowards try what they did in 88.

I wonder if our current rulers know how evil they are. I wonder if there really is a devil, and these people are really under his control? I wonder if the current islamic king really thinks he gets his power is granted to him by God. But when the day comes that somebody puts finally puts an M-16 to his head and blows his fucking brains out, he will know who's side God was on.

Monday, September 19, 2005

My Little Furlough In New York

I apologize for the absense on my blog. I appreciate the traffic I have been receiving, although it would be better to have more comments. For reasons I will explain, I will not comment on anything that happened in New York. Although there is much I want to say about Katrina and our government inefficiency, as well as my country's terrorist "President". A man who used to torture and execute people for years in Tehran's prison for political prisoners.

Its as if the trashiest, most redneck backward people in our country were suddenly put into power in 79. If Iran had trailer parks, the country's elite would be the trailer trash. We have a saying for people like this in Iran. We call them "Dahati". To tide you over, I have a post from Ken Bergman I'm sure you will find interesting.

The Game of Risk

I was staring at a map of the Middle East today just to refresh my memory of exactly where certain nations and regions are and whom they border with. This map displays each nation with a different color and each region with a different shade of the national color. There was the tiny sliver of Israel surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and you can easily wave to Saudi Arabia across the Red Sea from Elat. And there was Iran, surrounded by American-controlled Iraq to the west and American-controlled Afghanistan to the east, along with American “friendly” nations like Pakistan and Turkey. Looking at these colors and realizing the current political layout, I couldn’t help but think back to when I’d play the board game Risk.

If you want to know how the world really works, play the game Risk. When I played that game as a teenager, my mindset wasn’t on securing my territory, keeping strategic positions, or having a deterring army, but letting someone else have a continent so it would be a fair game. I was always overrun every time I let that happen. I appeased others too often, and as a result I was taken over. This world is governed by the aggressive use of force and preying on other’s weaknesses. This game is the perfect analogy for our world. It’s probably why this game was created; the creator knew how this world works. You must be stronger than the enemy to deter them, but you also must be more brutal than the enemy to defeat them. Not all civilizations act civil, and civilized people are weak compared to barbarians. This game revolves around not only strategy, but also self-preservation and the will to make the necessary actions to keep you in the game.

Sometimes people team up to take over someone else’s country when that someone gets too powerful, then turn on each other as the game progresses. This is true of situations like the U.S. teaming up with the USSR to defeat Hitler, and then we had the Cold War with the USSR. We had to team up with radical Muslims to defeat the USSR in Afghanistan, then the Muslims unleashed the terror attacks against us and we in turn crushed them. We had to team up with Saddam to try to defeat Iran, then Saddam turned on the region to control the oil supplies with our weapons, killing hundreds of thousands, and we had to go to war with him twice. We are currently teamed up with regimes like the Saudis of Saudi Arabia and Musharraf of Pakistan to defeat radical Muslims, however sometime in the future they will probably turn on us or others with our training and weapons. It always happens, just like the game of Risk.

Now let’s take a closer look at the players on our board. Where Israel is concerned, they are completely surrounded by hostile neighbors. Let’s be clear, if Israel did not have nuclear weapons, it would not exist. However, they are acting as I did as a teenager with their withdrawal from the Gaza settlements. The desire for peace is Israel’s weakness being preyed upon by its enemies. It’s obvious that Gaza is of strategic importance, and Israel lost it. This is where Israel’s enemies will gather their strength, along with the West Bank as stated by the PA. In time, they will be able to cut Israel in half, and a house divided cannot stand. As soon as an Iran has nuclear capabilities, Israel’s enemies will be on equal footing. Destroying Israel is of greater importance to these Muslims than the amount of Muslims Israel will be able to kill as they go down swinging, so say Iranian leaders. They may not even have to resort to annihilating Israel; their frog is already simmering in the pot. Nevertheless, once Israel is gone the different factions of militant Islamic groups will be at each other’s throats for control of what’s left over.

Iran is in the same situation as Israel. They too are surrounded by hostile neighbors, namely America. If there were ever a full on assault against Iran, they’d get it from all fronts. With the discontent of the Iranian people towards their leaders, they wouldn’t stand a chance. We know this won’t happen though, because diplomacy triumphs in the western world - a weakness the Iranians are taking full advantage of. The difference between Israel and Iran is that Israel is deterring its enemies while Iran’s enemies are deterring themselves. In the meantime, Iranian leaders are growing in power and capabilities, and soon they will actually be able to deter their enemies. Iran’s only weakness is its divide from within. Iran, like Israel, can fall under internal unrest. It did not take many dissenters to overthrow the Shah, nor will it take many to overthrow the Ayatollah.

We cannot leave America out of this discussion. America has the strength and ability to defeat any specific enemy, but its divide from within prevents its leaders from using the force necessary to defeat and deter its enemies. That is America’s weakness. There are two sides in any war. One side will win, and you will be on one side or the other. For example, if you say Iran should be able to develop nuclear capabilities, you are on Iran’s side. If you say America should take out Iran before it becomes a greater threat, then you are on America’s side. If your reasons for saying Iran should be able to get nukes aren’t pro-Iran (you think it’s only fair that if we have them so should they), how would the outcome be any different if you were pro-Iran? I gave away positions when I played Risk to be fair, and I lost. So will America. While America is distracted by internal problems, its enemies can grow and conspire. Also, America may be able to defeat any enemy, but it cannot defeat all its enemies at once. The other players will team up against the most powerful player eventually; it always happens.

Then there is always a player who protects their borders heavily and seems to remain dormant most of the game. What becomes obvious is that they’re building themselves up for the final battle. Once all the other countries are weak from trying to defeat each other, this power will make their move. They have a large enough army to march across the board, and they’ll usually win. The Romans tried it, Alexander tried it, the Muslims tried it, Hitler tried it, but they all fell eventually. Currently the one country that has the ability and manpower to do this very thing though is China.

The most powerful player will eventually make the move to control the board, but at the same time will not be able to protect certain positions leaving vulnerability. That is the game of Risk. Inevitably, someone will make that drastic move that determines who wins the game. Who will take that risk? Who do you want to see win?

~Ken Bergma