I still have to laugh as I think of the shoes flying towards Bush!

In the name of God, the most gracious and most merciful.

Here I am, free. But my country is still a prisoner of war.

Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act.

But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.

And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland’s) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.

We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.

Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into never-ending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.

I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night’s sleep.

Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

And as soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies of the Iraqis, and while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the traces of the blood of victims that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.

The opportunity came, and I took it.

I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.

I say to those who reproach me: Do you know how many broken homes that shoe that I threw had entered because of the occupation? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? And how many times it had entered homes in which free Iraqi women and their sanctity had been violated? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.

When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.

After six years of humiliation, of indignity, of killing and violations of sanctity, and desecration of houses of worship, the killer comes, boasting, bragging about victory and democracy. He came to say goodbye to his victims and wanted flowers in response.

Put simply, that was my flower to the occupier, and to all who are in league with him, whether by spreading lies or taking action, before the occupation or after.

I wanted to defend the honor of my profession and suppressed patriotism on the day the country was violated and its high honor lost. Some say: Why didn’t he ask Bush an embarrassing question at the press conference, to shame him? And now I will answer you, journalists. How can I ask Bush when we were ordered to ask no questions before the press conference began, but only to cover the event. It was prohibited for any person to question Bush.

From The Times
September 16, 2009
Man who threw shoe at Bush, Muntazer al-Zaidi freed after jail ‘torture’
Richard Kerbaj in Baghdad
Muntazer al-Zaidi hugs his sister after being freed from prison. Last night he left Iraq for medical checks
The Iraqi journalist imprisoned for throwing his shoes at the former US President George Bush said yesterday that he had been waterboarded, electrocuted and repeatedly beaten.
Muntazer al-Zaidi — who had a front tooth knocked out and his nose broken during his nine months in prison — also said that he would name senior Iraqi government officials whom he accused of having a hand in his torture.
The reporter, who refused to apologise for throwing his shoes at the former President, demanded an apology from Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, for allegedly misleading the public about his treatment behind bars. “I was being tortured with the most hideous kind of tortures: electric shocks, beating with iron rods,” he said at a press conference at his former workplace, al-Baghdadia television.
He said that Mr al-Maliki’s public assurances that he was being cared for in prison coincided with him being “left until morning handcuffed in a place that didn’t protect me from the pinching cold of the winter, after they drowned me with water.
“I demand from him to apologise for covering up and keeping the truth from people,” Mr al-Zaidi said. “I will talk later about the names that got involved in torturing me, including some senior officials in the Government and army.”
Despite his defiance and smart appearance, Mr al-Zaidi appeared physically weak and sometimes required help. While his friends celebrated his release and his family embraced him, his brother held his hand for support. Mr al-Zaidi shook as though he were braving a sudden chill.
Asked by The Times how he was feeling, he managed a faint smile. “Not too well,” he said. “But that’s OK.”
Ali Khdayar, a family member, pointed to pockmarks on Mr al-Zaidi’s head. “That’s from the cigarettes that prison guards used to burn his face with. He got even more scars and damage that’s hidden by his clothing.”
Last night Mr al-Zaidi left on a private jet for Syria on his way to Greece for medical check-ups, according to his brother Uday.
His cousin, Haidar al-Zaidi, said: “Muntazer will go to Greece for medical treatment because he was injected with unknown chemical drugs and he suffers from a continuous headache.”
The journalists’s story dominated the news in Iraq yesterday, where his “heroic” deeds were their top bulletin. Everyday conversations in Baghdad were dominated by his release.
He became world famous for hurling his size 10 shoes at Mr Bush at a press conference last December during the President’s final visit to Baghdad and also called him a dog — two of the worst insults in the Middle East. Mr Bush ducked the flying footwear but the attack was a major embarrassment to Mr al-Maliki, who was standing next to him.
There is now talk of Mr al-Zaidi becoming a TV presenter on established Arabic networks. He has even received unsolicited proposals of marriage from around the region.
Mr al-Zaidi said that the media hype surrounding him was less important than what had happened to Iraq. “I am now free but my country is still captive,” he said. “I am not a hero . . . I feel humiliated to see my country suffer.
“If only the people who blamed me knew how many times have the shoes that I threw stepped in houses demolished by the occupation and how many times they mixed with the blood of innocent people and how many times they entered houses that have been violated.”
He was convicted in March for assault but his three-year sentence was cut to one year on appeal because he had no criminal record. It was reduced again for good behaviour.
Mr al-Zaidi’s lawyer, Dia al-Saadi, praised the justice system for allowing his client to be released early. “The court order of the release expresses the integrity and justice of the jurisdiction,” he said.
The Iraqi authorities have denied allegations that Mr al-Zaidi was tortured in prison but after his news conference Sami al-Askari, an adviser to Mr al-Maliki, said that the allegations should be investigated.

Zaidi’s arrest triggered demonstrations in Baghdad and Maitham al-Zaidi, Muntazer’s brother, said supporters had already posted banners ahead of his release. He expects a crowd at the Baghdad air base where Muntazer is due to be freed.
Muntazer, working for Cairo-based al-Baghdadiya television, has received offers of support from around the world.
Abdul Hamid al-Saih, a senior official at Baghdadiya, said the channel had bought Muntazer a home in Baghdad. His salary has been paid throughout the jail term, Saih said.
Maitham al-Zaidi said Muntazer had been offered a number of jobs with other Arab media — but was still contemplating his professional future — and had been encouraged by some Iraqi politicians to run in Iraq’s parliamentary elections in January.
“Before his deed, Muntazar al-Zaidi was only a journalist, reporting news. He doesn’t belong to any specific party now — he belongs to Iraq,” Maitham said.
At the start of his trial in February, Zaidi said Bush’s smile as he talked about achievements in Iraq had made him think of “the killing of more than a million Iraqis, the disrespect for the sanctity of mosques and houses, the rapes of women.”

Iraqi Shoe Thrower Gets Hero Treatment
By Nadeem Majeed, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — The Iraqi TV journalist who threw his shoes at then-president George W. Bush will be showered with gifts including a four-bedroom house — and at least one potential bride — upon his imminent release from jail.
Muntadhar al-Zeidi, 30, is scheduled to be freed Monday after spending nine months in prison for assault, according to Dhiya al-Saadi, his lawyer.

(AP) An Iraqi journalist imprisoned for hurling his shoes at former President George W. Bush will be released next month after his sentence was reduced for good behavior, his lawyer said Saturday.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi’s act of protest during Mr. Bush’s last visit to Iraq as president turned the 30-year-old reporter into a folk hero across the Arab world, as his case became a rallying point for critics who resented the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation.

“Al-Zeidi’s shoes were a suitable farewell for Bush’s deeds in Iraq,” Sunni lawmaker Dhafir al-Ani said in welcoming the early release. “Al-Zeidi’s act expressed the real will and feelings of the Iraqi people. His anger against Bush was the result of the suffering of his countrymen.”

The journalist has been in custody since the Dec. 14 outburst, which occurred as President Bush was holding a news conference with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al-Maliki, who was standing next to Mr. Bush at the time, was said to have been deeply offended by the act.

Al-Zeidi was initially sentenced to three years in prison after pleading not guilty to assaulting a foreign leader. The court reduced it to one year because the journalist had no prior criminal history.

Defense attorney Karim al-Shujairi said al-Zeidi will now be released on Sept. 14, three months early.

“We have been informed officially about the court decision,” al-Shujairi told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “His release will be a victory for the free and honorable Iraqi media.”

Judicial spokesman Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar said he had no immediate information about the release because it was a weekend.

Followers of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who were among the leaders of many of the demonstrations demanding al-Zeidi’s release, welcomed the decision to free him early.

“We believe that al-Zeidi did not commit any crime but only expressed the will of the Iraqi people in rejecting the U.S. occupation,” Sadrist lawmaker Falah Shanshal said. “Al-Zeidi’s image will always be a heroic one.”

The bizarre act of defiance transformed the obscure reporter from a minor TV station into a national hero to many Iraqis fed up with the U.S. presence.

Thousands demonstrated for al-Zeidi’s release and hailed his gesture. A sofa-sized sculpture of a shoe was erected in his honor in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, but the Iraqi government later ordered it removed.

Neither leader was injured, but Bush was forced to duck for cover as the journalist shouted in Arabic: “This is your farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.”

The case’s investigating judge has said the journalist was struck about the face and eyes, apparently by security agents who wrestled him to the ground and dragged him away.

Al-Zeidi’s family has said he was also mistreated while in custody, although the government has denied the allegation.

“We thank God that he will be released, although we still fear for his safety since he is still in the prison,” his brother Dargham said. “He will be released full of pride and strength from all the love he has received from the Iraqi people and international organizations and figures who advocate freedom.”

The shoe-thrower is now seeking asylum in Switzerland.

Shoe-throwing events are now happening in USA where protesters can throw shoes at a Bush effigy, dubbed “Give Bush the Boot.” The shoe throwers are NOT being arrested.

Aren’t proxy wars fought when there is someone also fighting a proxy war on the other side? The US has a huge proxy in the middle east to whom we send 3 billion dollars a year in mostly military aid, which is used in crushing those you consider Iran’s proxies.
So you agree that Iran fights proxy wars? What’s the difference? A proxy war is designed for you to make others fight so you don’t have to. There isn’t much of a difference between a proxy war and a direct war. Both involve in this case Iran funding, training, and encouraging war. The difference between Israel is that they don’t seek every opportunity to kill civilians and make war much unlike Hezbollad, Hamas, and the other terrorist organizations in the area. I am sure you’ll have some lame comeback for that but there is a big moral difference between the two!

The sanctions are actually not legal since, as you point out, Iran is in accordance with the requirements of the NPT.
Why aren’t the sanctions legal? The UN passed them so that make them legal. Unless you’re anti UN which I am and don’t consider anything the UN does or says as binding then that’s a whole other argument but either way if you believe the UN is constitutional then the sanctions are legal if you don’t then it doesn’t matter.
I doubt I’ll be able to find a video with any Iranian official saying that they are pursuing WMD’s but actions speak louder than words. You have never explained why they aren’t willing to halt their enrichment then the EU & Russia would give them everything they would need for a civilian program for free? Why would one of the world’s leading oil producing states need nuclear energy anyway? I doubt it’s for their enviromental concerns. I would think that common sense could answer this question but I guess not in this case.
Also, of course the IAEA whose leader or chairman come from Iran I believe found no evidence of ‘non-peaceful uses.’ They don’t have enough yet for a weapon but when they do it will be too late. Again I like to error on the side of caution.
The US will only use nukes on Iran if they use nukes first. Israel and the US don’t kill civilians for fun nor use them as human shields. I think both countries have for the most part shown enormous restrain with their nuclear weapons and their military in general. An Armageddon obsessed cult that wants to promote a huge war to quicken the return of the 12th Imam shouldn’t be trusted with such weapons!
We have other leverage mainly China to use on N. Korea. They aren’t suicidal religous fanatics like Iran. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.
Some videos and a website to backup my points:
http://www.memri.org/jihad.html
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD216908
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA21805
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA37707
I have more if you’d like?

There are hundreds of videos and it’s debated extensively that Iran is seeking WMD’s to destory Israel and then they’re coming for us! Watch the videos and hear it from their own mouths! Hopefully you’ll wash away the mud from your eyes and see the truth.

Chris,

Your arguments are completely baseless if the evidence you have is what you showed me in the above videos. There is nothing in there in which Iranian officials state they are seeking after nuclear weapons. May I remind you of your previous statement:

How do I know they are pursuing nuclear weapons? Because they have said they are countless times!

Then, my answer was:

Then why don’t you quote one of these countless times? Perhaps it is because you have no idea what you are talking about?

You then replied saying the answer was in the videos. I watched the videos and there was not a single statement coming from an Iranian official’s mouth stating that Iran was seeking after nuclear weapons. Back to the drawing board on that point my friend.

The fact that Iranian government officials with Iranian made weapons have been captured in Iraq doesn’t prove my point to you?

Source please. I would like to see where it is written that an Iranian government official has been found with Iranian made weapons in Iraq. I suspect your evidence is not as solid as you would like to imagine.

Iran has fought and will continue to fight proxy war’s with us and Israel because people like you refuse to aknowledge what the war’s are actually about.

Aren’t proxy wars fought when there is someone also fighting a proxy war on the other side? The US has a huge proxy in the middle east to whom we send 3 billion dollars a year in mostly military aid, which is used in crushing those you consider Iran’s proxies. However, I would like to make it part of the record that my assertion that Iran has never offensively attacked another nation with it’s military in it’s entire existence, still stands.

Also, if you haven’t noticed Syria & Iran are clsoe allies and I highly doubt Syria would have done anything this bold without a tacit approval from Iran. This is purely speculation it is entirely possible and very probable.

Anything is possible in a fantasy world. However, I would like to base my views on established facts, the type of which you have yet to provide.

If they were so ‘compliant’ how come the UN has several sanctions on them for their nuclear program?

In 8/07 the IAEA reports that the IAEA has “been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use,”
In 9/08, the IAEA the IAEA reports that Iran’s nuclear activities continued to be operated under safeguards and with no evidence of any diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses and Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and accountancy reports, as required by its safeguards agreement. Nevertheless, the report reiterated that the IAEA would not be able to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program unless Iran adopted “transparency measures” which exceeded its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, since the IAEA does not verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in any country unless the Additional Protocol is in force. It should be noted that there are numerous countries under the NPT who haven’t adopted the additional protocol, including our neighbor to the north, Canada. Scary?

So they must be sanctioning Iran for being in accordance with the NPT & IAEA reports right?

The sanctions are actually not legal since, as you point out, Iran is in accordance with the requirements of the NPT. The sanctions are a tool used by the US to achieve its goals in the region, which goals include setting up justification for a military attack on Iran. This is not very different from the way the US set up justification for an attack on Iraq. Of course, we now see clearly that the set up for an attack on Iraq was completely baseless.

You go ahead and believe a genocidal, holocaust denying regime that has stated as it’s number foreign policy goal to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ if you like.

You repeat the falsehood here that Iran’s Pres. said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. That was a mistranslation that is entirely not consistent with everything else Ahmadinejad has said regarding Iran’s policy toward Israel. The accurate translation, on the other hand, is very consistent with what Iran’s Pres. has been saying, which is something more like, “the Zionist regime will disappear from the pages of time,” and, as the Pres. explained, much like the way the Soviet Union or the Apartheid regime of South Africa disappeared. He has never threatened Israel with military attack except in self-defense.

Having said all of the above, if, Iran did indeed pursue nuclear weapons, would it not be justified as the two nations that threaten to attack it, the US and Israel, contain massive amounts of nuclear weaponry and have actually threatened to use those nuclear weapons on Iran? On the other hand, the other member of the axis of evil that hasn’t been attacked or threatened with attack is North Korea, and the reason is pretty clear why they haven’t been attacked: They had a deterrent.

This brings us back to the question of what the word, “terrorist” is defined as. Iran has never attacked another nation with its military in its entire existence. You are describing to me acts of individuals or groups that come from Iran, but the Iranian government has never been implicated in the scenarios you describe.
Oh Curits you are completely hopeless! The fact that Iranian government officials with Iranian made weapons have been captured in Iraq doesn’t prove my point to you? Iran has fought and will continue to fight proxy war’s with us and Israel because people like you refuse to aknowledge what the war’s are actually about. Your ignorance and naivity scare me Curtis!
Also, if you haven’t noticed Syria & Iran are clsoe allies and I highly doubt Syria would have done anything this bold without a tacit approval from Iran. This is purely speculation it is entirely possible and very probable.

However, the IAEA has been unable to detect diversion of the enrichment process to military purposes and have never reported on the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Iran remains within the confines of the NPT as far as the IAEA is concerned. Googling the subject will give you the same information.
If they were so ‘compliant’ how come the UN has several sanctions on them for their nuclear program? So they must be sanctioning Iran for being in accordance with the NPT & IAEA reports right? That doesn’t seem to go along with your theory. You go ahead and believe a genocidal, holocaust denying regime that has stated as it’s number foreign policy goal to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ if you like. I am going to error on the side of caution.

How do I know they are pursuing nuclear weapons? Because they have said they are countless times!

Then why don’t you quote one of these countless times? Perhaps it is because you have no idea what you are talking about?

The same IAEA that Saddam had been dooping and playing a game of hide and seek for over a decade. The same inspectors that Saddam paid off to give false reports. The same IAEA that has stated at least a dozen times that Iran is violating international sanctions and enriching uramium. Again just google IAEA and Iran for proof.

The IAEA had a handle on Iraq’s nuclear program. They declared Iraq in violation in 1991. After that, Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was pretty much dismantled. I’d say that stopping Iraq from developing a nuclear weapon was pretty good work. Perhaps you confuse the IAEA with UNMOVIC here which was charged with regulating non-nuclear WMD’s in Iraq.
As far as the sanctions violations go, it is true that the IAEA has reported the breaking of the sanctions by Iran. However, we hardly needed the IAEA to tell us that. Iran told us that they continued to enrich uranium in violation of security council resolutions themselves. However, the IAEA has been unable to detect diversion of the enrichment process to military purposes and have never reported on the existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Iran remains within the confines of the NPT as far as the IAEA is concerned. Googling the subject will give you the same information.

This statement alone makes me lose all respect for you Curtis…

This brings us back to the question of what the word, “terrorist” is defined as. Iran has never attacked another nation with its military in its entire existence. You are describing to me acts of individuals or groups that come from Iran, but the Iranian government has never been implicated in the scenarios you describe.
As for the Hariri assassination, the UN report mentions nothing of Iran, but implicates Syria instead. Looks like you got your middle-eastern countries crossed. There are many who believe the Mossad had something to do with it. Who knows.

It’s like you’re watching Al-Jazeera!

And that is bad because…..
Originally a creation of the BBC it is actually a pretty good source of information on the middle east. It’s actually been criticized for it’s pro-Israeli stance.

your source is still biased. The ‘monitors’ that are cited were Russian troops

No wonder you have such a fictitious understanding of the world we live in… you apparently are severely afflicted with some sort of dyslexia. Actually, the article said of the observers in Georgia the following:
The monitors were members of an international team working under the mandate of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or O.S.C.E. A multilateral organization with 56 member states, the group has monitored the conflict since a previous cease-fire agreement in the 1990s.

Details were then confirmed by three Western diplomats and a Russian, and were not disputed by the O.S.C.E.’s mission in Tbilisi, which was provided with a written summary of the observations.
Whether Russia went in to teach a lesson to Georgia or not is not what I am pointing out here. The fact that there was a massacre of defenseless Ossetian civililans in their sleep by the Georgian military is not seriously disputed by many today. Google that.

If Iran did call for a ‘nuclear free Middle East’ why are they pursuing nuclear weapons?

Chris, you start from a baseless platform. How do you know they are pursuing nuclear weapons? They have adhered to their claim that they are seeking only to enrich uranium exclusively for civilian energy purposes for the whole time. The US says that they are pursuing nuclear weapons, but we have produced no good evidence for this. The IAEA has been inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities for a long time now and has never found evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Iran calls for a nuclear weapons-free middle east because of the equal footing it would put all middle-eastern countries upon if Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons. They are estimated to have around 200 nuclear weapons and are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. When you have evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons feel free to share it, but I doubt you know more than the IAEA knows.

It is naive to believe that Iran isn’t pursuing nuclear weapons and that they don’t want them.

Again, we don’t have to leave anything to doubt. We have a weapons inspection regime called the IAEA that seeks to make sure that all nations are upholding their responsibilities under the NPT and they have found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Having said that, it sounds like you are part of the nuclear hypocrisy crowd when it comes to Iran. How can you expect that a nation as threatened as Iran is by the US and Israel, two big nuclear weapons powerhouses, to not seek to protect itself by the deterrent of a nuclear weapons program (if they were indeed pursuing a nuclear weapons program)? Look at how the US treated Iraq, who didn’t have nuclear weapons, and the difference in the way we treated North Korea, who does have nuclear weapons. The possession alone of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to invasion by even superpowers like the US. We have our armies surrounding Iran on all sides right now and we have threatened them as has Israel with unprovoked military strikes. Iran has never threatened Israel or the US with the exception of threats of retaliation for threatened attacks. In fact, Iran has never attacked another nation offensively in its entire existence as a nation. Iran is not a warmongering nation. On the other hand, both Israel and the US continually attack other nations and have been in a constant of war for a very long time now. Who is seeking who’s destruction here?

“Inalienable right” right to enrich uranium huh? So God gave them that right? They can enrich uranimum for a civilian nuclear program but since that’s not what they want then they have waived their right to enrich it. That and their support for terrorism I think would would disqulify them from being able to enrich or pursue such hazardous materials.

They have a right under the existing world authority for enriching uranium under the NPT regime. This is the right all nations recognize as signatories to that treaty and the US is part of that treaty (though the USA violates the spirit of that treaty) as is Iran. As long as the IAEA hasn’t found them in violation of that treaty, the still retain the privilege of enrichment. If terrorism was a reason to take away that right, the US and Israel would also lose their right to enrich now wouldn’t they.

Your Georgia source I noticed was only a quote. Are you sure it’s from a non biased source?

The Georgia source was the New York Times from November 7, 2008. This is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print

Another good article which tells the situation as it was without the western media lens can be found here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20535.htm

Gorbachev himself wrote for the Washington Post what the rest of the world besides the US already knew to be true here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081101372_pf.html

Which is exactly why they have made many of the ossestians “citizens” of Russia. I chose to take the side that doesn’t murder journalists for being critical of the government. You can take their side if you want?

Your understanding of the situation here is faulty. Ossetians were citizens of Russia before Georgia broke away and most of them hold Russian passports. Putin himself has called for the decision to be left to the Ossetians themselves (which voted overwhelmingly for independence from Georgia in 2006) as to what nation they want to be a part of. Georgia has recognized the autonomy of South Ossetia since the early 90s, but inexplicably enacted its massacre of South Ossetians in violation of their own agreement on August 7, this year.

No matter what Russia says, the South Ossetians themselves have spoken on this subject and have indicated that they were attacked without provocation and were defenseless when the indiscriminate attack began. Russia came to their aid as only can be expected in such a situation.

Boy are we looking at skewed corners of the world. After considering you counterpoint here I see that we’re not even talking about the same thing. Let me see if I can sum it up.

EVERYBODY you spoke of would be a terrorist.

And one more thing: Who’s “WE” hotshot?

To say that Iran is for a ‘free middle east’ of nuclear weapons is a bit naive.

Naïve? Iran has called for a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east and a verifiable one at that. UN Security Council has passed a vote on the same issue back in 1991. Iran is all for it since it would reduce Israel’s threat against the Iranian nation. If you have a verifiable weapons reduction program, there is nothing left to naivety. The problem is that the US and Israel consistently vote against such measure with exception to UN resolution 687 back in 1991.

The EU and Russa have all offered Iran the components necessary for a civilian nuclear program if they would stop enrighing uranimium. They have offered to provide for them and then collect it for disposal. Of course Iran has refused this offer because they aren’t interested in civilian nuclear power they want a bomb!

Says who? They have an inalienable right under the NPT to enrich uranium under the supervision of the IAEA just as much as we do. Why should they give up this right? There is no compelling reason.

I haven’t seen any evidence of a massacre and I’d like a source.

This is due to only partially to you keeping your eyes closed. I say that because US media coverage of the event was horrendous… a perfect example of how completely biased our news outlets are. There was credible evidence from the beginning that there was a massacre that Russia was responding to, but our media didn’t start paying attention to it until it was way too late, about 3 months after the fact! Here is the New York Times from November 7:

Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.
Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.

There’s plenty more where that came from, buy you’ll have to look outside of the US for early accounts.

As for the assassination of Taraki, I don’t know for sure that the US was behind it or not, but it sure does fit the pattern. We have had many others assassinated so it would not be shocking to me if we were behind it. Read, “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” if you would like to know what pattern I speak of.

Carb,

No, there is one big definitional difference. Are the targets primarily government/military targets? or civilian ones? Yes, you can make an argument that Bush/Cheney are terrorists by that definition. Which goes to prove that it isn’t just because you are on the winning/powerful side that makes you a terrorist or freedom fighter. And in war, almost everyone uses SOME terrorist tactics throughout the war. Some more than others.

I’m not quite sure I get your point here. The US establishment looks upon Hamas as terrorists for example. However, the Palestinian people voted for Hamas in free and fair elections as their legitimate leaders. Hezbollah is looked upon in the west as terrorists. However, they were heroes in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world for standing up to the brutal attack of Israel in 2006. We called the Mujahideen freedom fighters and the moral equivalents of George Washington in the 80s and now we call them the worst terrorists on the planet. We loved Suharto and his brutal oppression of his own people and the people of East Timor, killing upwards of 1 million landless peasants. To his people though, he ran a regime of terror. The Cuban exiles in Florida love Jose Luis Posada, but he blew up a passenger airliner and killed 72 innocent people in the 1970s. I don’t see any conflict in the statement which says that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
Currently the US funds Jundallah and other groups dedicated to terror attacks in Iran. We have funded groups that have spread terror in foreign nations for years. Any student of history ought to look into these events. Look at what we did in Guatemala, Chile, and the list goes on and on.

I wouldn’t be so quick as to judge the war so horribly. What if Iraq turns out to be a beacon of freedom and liberty in the Middle East?

I would say that most of us here prefer to judge policies based on principle rather than on the potential outcome of the policy. We need to make more decisions based on principle and trust in the promise “that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us”. (Spencer W Kimball)

You asked what was wrong with pre-emptive war. We can look to the scriptures and the Book of Mormon for a guide. Do you find anything that supports it?

Hugh Nibley was very clear about the strict defensive strategy of Captain Moroni. He even says “any thought of preemptive strike is out of the question”. Now surely Nibley may not have been inspired of God while saying this, as you note. But do you get anything different from the lessons of Captain Moroni?