I generally agreed with 99% of what you write, but...

2007-11-29T11:14:00.000-07:00

I generally agreed with 99% of what you write, but that average has just dropped to 98% by this:

The Iranian regime has also been plausibly implicated in an act of anti-Jewish terrorism in Argentina some years ago.

While some groups have used governmental powers to punish ethnic enemies, those enemies are almost always viewed as enemies of the state. That's because those in power view themselves as coextensive with the state, and, thus, the enemies, whether foreign or domestic, constitute a threat to the monopoly of their rule.

Even during the reign of the Nazi party in Germany, those jews who were targeted were done so because of the Nazi view that jews had become enemies of the state, not simply because they were jews. (The enemy-of-the-state was cast far and wide by the Nazi government.) While this is an unpopular way to explain the German government's actions toward jews, that's because Western political forces, in an effort to deflect criticism from their own policies of unbrided statist power, have spent the last 60 years protraying the Nazis as having murdered jews simply because they were jews. This, in turn, helps ensure that people do not realize that the German government was treating jews in the manner obtained because they were enemies of the state, rather than because they were jews. If more were to come to this realization, the people would become repulsed whenever their own government labeled individuals, or groups, as "enemies of the state." And isn't that exactly what our current government is calling people such as members of the Christian Identity movement and certain patriot and racialist groups? (Just wait until the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Commission gets into full swing. You'll be seeing a lot of the label "enemies of the state.")

It has been alleged the motive for Iran to bomb the Asociacion Mutua Israelita Argentina (AMIA) center was based in the bloodlust of murdering jews, presumably simply because they were jews. And that's how the Nazis have been portrayed as well, even though they were eliminated because the jew had become (in the Nazis' eyes) enemies of the state. A judgment that transcended solely ethnic concerns.

You wrote that the Iranian government was "plausibly implicated." A subjective allegation (i.e., a "plausible allegation") can hardly substitute for evidence, especially where the murder of nearly a hundred individuals has been committed. And where there is no evidence, even circumstancial, one must rely upon motive. The likely scenario is that the bombing of AMIA was done for political purposes, not simply ethnic hatred. But what political gain would Iran derive from the act? And if not Iran, who would gain? Who would portray an act of political intrigue as common bloodlust? Who has in the past? Cui bono?

Will,great piece. i'm glad someone else saw that ...

2007-11-29T02:36:00.000-07:00

Will,

great piece. i'm glad someone else saw that the agreement is an illegal treaty. i wonder where the senate is?

He is a threat because he understands the problem ...

2007-11-28T14:43:00.000-07:00

He is a threat because he understands the problem the world faces.

He is an Iranian but as countries stand strong together in their own defense, it will be more powerful than one forceful tyrant.

http://www.myspace.com/vampares

Comments on Pro Libertate: Imperial Dread

I generally agreed with 99% of what you write, but...

Will,great piece. i'm glad someone else saw that ...

He is a threat because he understands the problem ...