koko,

I was perusing yer website and ran across the skewered chicken thing.
Looks like a good start for Thai Satay. Anyway, what is yer recipe
for Persian rice? More importantly, how to make the tahdig.

I usta have a Persian rice cooker that always made a tahdig, but hadda
toss it when I moved. Rather than purchase another specialty cooker,
I'd like to make a tahdig with jes a pot/pan. What's yer technique?

nb

On 20 Jul 2015 14:18:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> I usta have a Persian rice cooker that always made a tahdig, but hadda
> toss it when I moved. Rather than purchase another specialty cooker,
> I'd like to make a tahdig with jes a pot/pan. What's yer technique?

Have you seen what The Splendid Table has on the subject?
http://www.splendidtable.org/recipes/tahdig

--

sf

On 20 Jul 2015 14:18:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>koko,
>
>I was perusing yer website and ran across the skewered chicken thing.
>Looks like a good start for Thai Satay. Anyway, what is yer recipe
>for Persian rice? More importantly, how to make the tahdig.
>
>I usta have a Persian rice cooker that always made a tahdig, but hadda
>toss it when I moved. Rather than purchase another specialty cooker,
>I'd like to make a tahdig with jes a pot/pan. What's yer technique?
>
>nb

nb
It's important to use a non-stick saucepan. I bought a cheap-o from
T.J Maxx and it works a treat.

Here's the recipe I use. I got it from a Persian cookbook "The Taste
of Persia"
I took a screenshot of the cookbook page because I haven't had the
time to enter it into my cooking program yet. Hope it shows up clear
enough. If not let me know.
https://flic.kr/p/vZtTic
https://flic.kr/p/vjX4DN

It took me a few tires to get it right, but it's well worth the
effort.
Take your time with step 5 through 7. Make sure your heat is high
enough, but then again, not so hot it will burn. I found that cooking
it over medium heat was a bit low for my stove so I cranked it up just
a bit. Also, be sure and let it cook long enough, at least the 10
minutes mentioned in the recipe.

The tahdig
https://flic.kr/p/uwZcVS

Hope this helps. Please let me know how it turns out.
Once you get it figured out, you can ace it every time.

koko

--

Food is our common ground, a universal experience
James Beard

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:56:18 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On 20 Jul 2015 14:18:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> I usta have a Persian rice cooker that always made a tahdig, but hadda
>> toss it when I moved. Rather than purchase another specialty cooker,
>> I'd like to make a tahdig with jes a pot/pan. What's yer technique?
>
>Have you seen what The Splendid Table has on the subject?
>http://www.splendidtable.org/recipes/tahdig

I almost bought the cookbook that the Splendid Table got the recipe
from, but if I remember right, there were too many negative reviews.

koko

--

Food is our common ground, a universal experience
James Beard

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:26:53 -0700, koko > wrote:

>On 20 Jul 2015 14:18:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>koko,
>>
>>I was perusing yer website and ran across the skewered chicken thing.
>>Looks like a good start for Thai Satay. Anyway, what is yer recipe
>>for Persian rice? More importantly, how to make the tahdig.
>>
>>I usta have a Persian rice cooker that always made a tahdig, but hadda
>>toss it when I moved. Rather than purchase another specialty cooker,
>>I'd like to make a tahdig with jes a pot/pan. What's yer technique?
>>
>>nb
>
>nb
>It's important to use a non-stick saucepan. I bought a cheap-o from
>T.J Maxx and it works a treat.
>
>Here's the recipe I use. I got it from a Persian cookbook "The Taste
>of Persia"

I really don't want to celebrate anything Irani.

On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:26:53 -0700, koko > wrote:
>
>> On 20 Jul 2015 14:18:27 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>> koko,
>>>
>>> I was perusing yer website and ran across the skewered chicken thing.
>>> Looks like a good start for Thai Satay. Anyway, what is yer recipe
>>> for Persian rice? More importantly, how to make the tahdig.
>>>
>>> I usta have a Persian rice cooker that always made a tahdig, but hadda
>>> toss it when I moved. Rather than purchase another specialty cooker,
>>> I'd like to make a tahdig with jes a pot/pan. What's yer technique?
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>> nb
>> It's important to use a non-stick saucepan. I bought a cheap-o from
>> T.J Maxx and it works a treat.
>>
>> Here's the recipe I use. I got it from a Persian cookbook "The Taste
>> of Persia"
>
> I really don't want to celebrate anything Irani.
>
Hard to argue that until you read up and understand their younger people
are HUNGRY for freedom from the Mullah's oppression.

No joke.

Some good folks over there.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:51:34 -0600, "Dr. Edward Morbius"
> wrote:

> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's the recipe I use. I got it from a Persian cookbook "The Taste
> >> of Persia"
> >
> > I really don't want to celebrate anything Irani.
> >
> Hard to argue that until you read up and understand their younger people
> are HUNGRY for freedom from the Mullah's oppression.
>
> No joke.
>
> Some good folks over there.

Agree and just to illustrate how badly drawing a line in the sands
went... many young immigrants deny being Iranian and insist they are
Persian. I can't blame them for that.

--

sf

On 2015-07-21, koko > wrote:

> Hope this helps. Please let me know how it turns out.

I'm able to read the recipe, jes fine. Thank you.

Strange, I've never heard of adding stuff, like yogurt and oil, to a
tahdig, but I'll give it a try. I'm not a rice fan, but like the
crunchiness of a tahdig as a filler/base for curries. I usta make a
Thai fish curry w/ coconut milk and served over a crunchy tahdig.

nb

On 2015-07-21 04:34:13 +0000, sf said:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:51:34 -0600, "Dr. Edward Morbius"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's the recipe I use. I got it from a Persian cookbook "The Taste
>>>> of Persia"
>>>
>>> I really don't want to celebrate anything Irani.

It's always nice to get the topic off of food and back to generalized
noise. I suppose during our first Iraqi war you didn't celebrate
French food either. It must be tough to regulate your diet based on
the daily headlines.

>> Hard to argue that until you read up and understand their younger people
>> are HUNGRY for freedom from the Mullah's oppression.

Never difficult for me to eat the cultural artifacts of a country or a
people despite the fact that their country and our country like to
fight wars. I don't think I've ever heard one person every carp about
Chinese food because of Mao or their human rights or trade imbalance.

> Agree and just to illustrate how badly drawing a line in the sands
> went... many young immigrants deny being Iranian and insist they are
> Persian. I can't blame them for that.

I went to school in Oklahoma in the late 60's and there were many
Iranians students there, mostly studying petrol engineering. They
*always* referred to themselves as Persians. They spoke with great
loathing of the Shah, and great disgust with the USA for propping him
up. 10 years later they spoke with disgust about how we supported
Iraq's border war with them--but still called themselves Persians. Now
they have about 80 years of complaints--all of them predicated on
America's love for Saudi oil and deference to Saudi paranoia--but still
call themselves Persians.

I've concluded it's like a Brazilian calling themselves Cariocas or
something. Iran is a country populated by Persians.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:

> Iran is a country populated by Persians.
To put that in perspective, this is similar to saying that the UK is a
country populated by the English. While the statement is true as far
as it goes, it's also incomplete.

--
Bob
Sidera errantia quibus procella tenebrarum in aeternum servata est
www.kanyak.com

On 7/20/2015 10:34 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:51:34 -0600, "Dr. Edward Morbius"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's the recipe I use. I got it from a Persian cookbook "The Taste
>>>> of Persia"
>>>
>>> I really don't want to celebrate anything Irani.
>>>
>> Hard to argue that until you read up and understand their younger people
>> are HUNGRY for freedom from the Mullah's oppression.
>>
>> No joke.
>>
>> Some good folks over there.
>
> Agree and just to illustrate how badly drawing a line in the sands
> went... many young immigrants deny being Iranian and insist they are
> Persian. I can't blame them for that.
>

I completely agree.

That nation has legitimate upside, IF the Mullahs can be sent packing.

On 2015-07-21 15:13:38 +0000, Opinicus said:

> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>
>> I've concluded it's like a Brazilian calling themselves Cariocas or
>> something. Iran is a country populated by Persians.
>
> To put that in perspective, this is similar to saying that the UK is a
> country populated by the English. While the statement is true as far
> as it goes, it's also incomplete.

There may be an argument over the validity of the category of "ethnic
Persian", to distinguish the, say, from those ethnicities that
constitue Indians or Arabs (by whatever name), but I've never heard of
one, argued or otherwise, regarding the "Ethnic English". I wouldn't
be surprised though, as we have some Americans (as well as Entlish and
Swedish for instance) that are slicing and dicing the "white race" as a
political and racial category for their own needs.

Poking around in wikipedia I find that the topic of defining who is a
Persian and what constitutes that Persian-ness is far from fixed.

"Some scholars, classify the speakers of Persian language as a single
ethnic unit (the "Persians) and exclude those Iranians who speak
dialects of Persian, or other Iranian dialects closely related to
Persian; however this approach to ethnicity in Iran is erroneous, since
the designation Iranian (Irani) as an ethnic term has been used by all
these ethnic group in Iran, including the "Persians" irrespective of
their origin, language and religion."

I have no emotional investment in the issue, but feel comfortable with
my conclusion: Iranians call themselves and think of themselves as
Persians, without it being about how much or little they love or hate
this year's leaders.

On 2015-07-21 16:57:35 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:

>> Agree and just to illustrate how badly drawing a line in the sands
>> went... many young immigrants deny being Iranian and insist they are
>> Persian. I can't blame them for that.
>
> I completely agree.
>
> That nation has legitimate upside, IF the Mullahs can be sent packing.

Yeah, if America could get rid of our Christian equivalent
("preachers") might get some legitimacy too.

On 7/21/2015 3:58 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-07-21 15:13:38 +0000, Opinicus said:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>>
>>> I've concluded it's like a Brazilian calling themselves Cariocas or
>>> something. Iran is a country populated by Persians.
>>
>> To put that in perspective, this is similar to saying that the UK is a
>> country populated by the English. While the statement is true as far
>> as it goes, it's also incomplete.
>
> There may be an argument over the validity of the category of "ethnic
> Persian", to distinguish the, say, from those ethnicities that constitue
> Indians or Arabs (by whatever name), but I've never heard of one, argued
> or otherwise, regarding the "Ethnic English". I wouldn't be surprised
> though, as we have some Americans (as well as Entlish and Swedish for
> instance) that are slicing and dicing the "white race" as a political
> and racial category for their own needs.
>
> Poking around in wikipedia I find that the topic of defining who is a
> Persian and what constitutes that Persian-ness is far from fixed.
>
> "Some scholars, classify the speakers of Persian language as a single
> ethnic unit (the "Persians) and exclude those Iranians who speak
> dialects of Persian, or other Iranian dialects closely related to
> Persian; however this approach to ethnicity in Iran is erroneous, since
> the designation Iranian (Irani) as an ethnic term has been used by all
> these ethnic group in Iran, including the "Persians" irrespective of
> their origin, language and religion."
>
> I have no emotional investment in the issue, but feel comfortable with
> my conclusion: Iranians call themselves and think of themselves as
> Persians, without it being about how much or little they love or hate
> this year's leaders.
>
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zor...sm/iranpersia/

The names Iran and Persia are often used interchangeably to mean the
same country. Iran is the legal name. Persia, was an ancient kingdom
within Iran. Iran came to be known as Persia in the West thanks to
classical Greek authors during whose time Persia was the dominant
kingdom in Iran. To call all of Iran 'Persia', would be like calling all
of Britain 'England'.

Evolution of the Name Iran

Iran is a relatively modern contraction of the name Airyana Vaeja (the
ancient homeland of the Airya or Aryans).

Over time, Airyana Vaeja became Airan-Vej, then Eran-Vej or Airan-Vej
(the Parthians and Sassanians had a slightly different pronunciation),
then Eran or Airan, and finally Iran.

Continued Western Use of the name Persia for Iran

The West, influenced as it was by Greek and Latin literature, continued
to call Eran 'Persia', presumably out of habit or because the rulers of
Iran were Persians. That Western tradition continued into the last
century until the reign of Iranian king, Reza Shah, founder of the
Pahlavi dynasty. In 1935 CE, Reza Shah asked those countries with whom
Iran had diplomatic relations, to stop using the name Persia and to
formally refer to his country as Iran. Some Euro-centric map-makers and
authors ignored this formal request and continued to use Persia as the
name instead of Iran.

On 7/21/2015 4:02 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-07-21 16:57:35 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>
>>> Agree and just to illustrate how badly drawing a line in the sands
>>> went... many young immigrants deny being Iranian and insist they are
>>> Persian. I can't blame them for that.
>>
>> I completely agree.
>>
>> That nation has legitimate upside, IF the Mullahs can be sent packing.
>
> Yeah, if America could get rid of our Christian equivalent ("preachers")
> might get some legitimacy too.

Do our preachers run the political process?

Um, no they don't.

Hmmm...did our "preachers" threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"?

Uh no, they didn't.

So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?

Or perhaps your idea of what "legitimacy" is may be wholly corrupt.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:

> I went to school in Oklahoma in the late 60's and there were many
> Iranians students there, mostly studying petrol engineering. They
> *always* referred to themselves as Persians. They spoke with great
> loathing of the Shah, and great disgust with the USA for propping him
> up. 10 years later they spoke with disgust about how we supported
> Iraq's border war with them--but still called themselves Persians. Now
> they have about 80 years of complaints--all of them predicated on
> America's love for Saudi oil and deference to Saudi paranoia--but still
> call themselves Persians.

Do you blame them? They've been trying to crawl out from under
shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
since.

They are the most educated people of all that middle eastern mess and
even better, they don't treat their female population the way Saudis
treat theirs. Given a fighting chance, they will move into the 21st
century while the rest of them move backward to the 800's. I'm
praying for Afghanistan, but they are in the grip of ISIS and I don't
have much hope.
>
> I've concluded it's like a Brazilian calling themselves Cariocas or
> something. Iran is a country populated by Persians.


--

sf

On 7/21/2015 4:44 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>
>> I went to school in Oklahoma in the late 60's and there were many
>> Iranians students there, mostly studying petrol engineering. They
>> *always* referred to themselves as Persians. They spoke with great
>> loathing of the Shah, and great disgust with the USA for propping him
>> up. 10 years later they spoke with disgust about how we supported
>> Iraq's border war with them--but still called themselves Persians. Now
>> they have about 80 years of complaints--all of them predicated on
>> America's love for Saudi oil and deference to Saudi paranoia--but still
>> call themselves Persians.
>
> Do you blame them? They've been trying to crawl out from under
> shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
> under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
> installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
> since.

That was an unfortunate response to a fear we had of Iran becoming a
communist nation.

Regrettably we had a similar concern with Iraq and hence Saddam offered
us a blocking maneuver.

So we set him against the Mullahs and got multiple decades of checkmate
between the two nations.

Think of it as a sponsored dogfight where it doesn't matter which dog
wins as long as they keep fighting each other.


> They are the most educated people of all that middle eastern mess and
> even better, they don't treat their female population the way Saudis
> treat theirs. Given a fighting chance, they will move into the 21st
> century while the rest of them move backward to the 800's. I'm
> praying for Afghanistan, but they are in the grip of ISIS and I don't
> have much hope.

Roger that.

There is speculation that the terms of the Iran "deal" will lead them to
a whopping 7-8% economic growth annually.

That's a ton of pent up demand if the estimates are accurate.

Sadly the price is nukes for a nation that doesn't need any, their oil
supplies are so deep.

But if the Mullahs light a few candles, we may all end up toast.

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 3:44:41 PM UTC-7, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>
> > I went to school in Oklahoma in the late 60's and there were many
> > Iranians students there, mostly studying petrol engineering. They
> > *always* referred to themselves as Persians. They spoke with great
> > loathing of the Shah, and great disgust with the USA for propping him
> > up. 10 years later they spoke with disgust about how we supported
> > Iraq's border war with them--but still called themselves Persians. Now
> > they have about 80 years of complaints--all of them predicated on
> > America's love for Saudi oil and deference to Saudi paranoia--but still
> > call themselves Persians.
>
> Do you blame them? They've been trying to crawl out from under
> shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
> under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
> installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
> since.
>
> They are the most educated people of all that middle eastern mess and
> even better, they don't treat their female population the way Saudis
> treat theirs. Given a fighting chance, they will move into the 21st
> century while the rest of them move backward to the 800's. I'm
> praying for Afghanistan, but they are in the grip of ISIS and I don't
> have much hope.
> >
> > I've concluded it's like a Brazilian calling themselves Cariocas or
> > something. Iran is a country populated by Persians.
>
>
> --
>
> sf

Persians are not Arabs. Distinct different blood lines. Most Persians did not follow the religion of Islam, the old religion was Zoroastrianism.
Well-to-do Persians sent their kids to the US after the fall of the Sha to get them away from the Muslim revolution. These people who are here really are Persians, not Arab Iranians. My company's owner is Persian. Came here, sent by his family, as a teenager. His family is still in Iran.

On 7/21/2015 5:08 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 3:44:41 PM UTC-7, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>>
>>> I went to school in Oklahoma in the late 60's and there were many
>>> Iranians students there, mostly studying petrol engineering. They
>>> *always* referred to themselves as Persians. They spoke with great
>>> loathing of the Shah, and great disgust with the USA for propping him
>>> up. 10 years later they spoke with disgust about how we supported
>>> Iraq's border war with them--but still called themselves Persians. Now
>>> they have about 80 years of complaints--all of them predicated on
>>> America's love for Saudi oil and deference to Saudi paranoia--but still
>>> call themselves Persians.
>>
>> Do you blame them? They've been trying to crawl out from under
>> shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
>> under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
>> installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
>> since.
>>
>> They are the most educated people of all that middle eastern mess and
>> even better, they don't treat their female population the way Saudis
>> treat theirs. Given a fighting chance, they will move into the 21st
>> century while the rest of them move backward to the 800's. I'm
>> praying for Afghanistan, but they are in the grip of ISIS and I don't
>> have much hope.
>>>
>>> I've concluded it's like a Brazilian calling themselves Cariocas or
>>> something. Iran is a country populated by Persians.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sf
>
> Persians are not Arabs. Distinct different blood lines. Most Persians did not follow the religion of Islam, the old religion was Zoroastrianism.
> Well-to-do Persians sent their kids to the US after the fall of the Sha to get them away from the Muslim revolution. These people who are here really are Persians, not Arab Iranians. My company's owner is Persian. Came here, sent by his family, as a teenager. His family is still in Iran.
>


Sound analysis.

Good folks, brought us basmati rice and sumac - love those.

On 2015-07-21 22:09:07 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:

> On 7/21/2015 4:02 PM, gtr wrote:
>> On 2015-07-21 16:57:35 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>>
>>>> Agree and just to illustrate how badly drawing a line in the sands
>>>> went... many young immigrants deny being Iranian and insist they are
>>>> Persian. I can't blame them for that.
>>>
>>> I completely agree.
>>>
>>> That nation has legitimate upside, IF the Mullahs can be sent packing.
>>
>> Yeah, if America could get rid of our Christian equivalent ("preachers")
>> might get some legitimacy too.
>
> Do our preachers run the political process?
>
> Um, no they don't.

Depends on what you consider "political process"; I find that political
block, evangelicals,certainly do have significant effects on what kind
of blabber and posturing politicians produce to get their votes and
support. I call that the political process.

> Hmmm...did our "preachers" threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"?

No, *some* prefer to wipe Iran off the map, or communist nations, or
whomever is the foe du jour. I might add, and this is really the point,
that "mullahs" as a generic category for any islamic "preacher" did not
threaten Israel as a group with map-wiping.

> Uh no, they didn't.

Ah--it was rhetorical question and therefore supposed to go unanswered. I see.

> So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?

Going personal so soon? I consider the wholesale summoning of all of
Islam an appeal to stupidity and political manipulation. Just as is all
of Christian "preachers" as in my example. I see only one side of that
finds offense.

> Or perhaps your idea of what "legitimacy" is may be wholly corrupt.

In future dealings, I'll strip your insults and work with whatever is left.

On 2015-07-21 22:44:28 +0000, sf said:

> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>
>> I went to school in Oklahoma in the late 60's and there were many
>> Iranians students there, mostly studying petrol engineering. They
>> *always* referred to themselves as Persians. They spoke with great
>> loathing of the Shah, and great disgust with the USA for propping him
>> up. 10 years later they spoke with disgust about how we supported
>> Iraq's border war with them--but still called themselves Persians. Now
>> they have about 80 years of complaints--all of them predicated on
>> America's love for Saudi oil and deference to Saudi paranoia--but still
>> call themselves Persians.
>
> Do you blame them?

Not in the least; I pity them, and though I don't condone terrorist
activity, state run or individual lone-wolf, I can frequently find a
viable rationale.

> They've been trying to crawl out from under
> shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
> under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
> installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
> since.

The US has always been a big fan of the "stability" that comes with
having one highly corrupt strongman to deal with. Sadly we usually have
some significant pushback in a generation or two.

> They are the most educated people of all that middle eastern mess and
> even better, they don't treat their female population the way Saudis
> treat theirs. Given a fighting chance, they will move into the 21st
> century while the rest of them move backward to the 800's. I'm
> praying for Afghanistan, but they are in the grip of ISIS and I don't
> have much hope.

That would be keen.

On 2015-07-21 22:51:07 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:

>> Do you blame them? They've been trying to crawl out from under
>> shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
>> under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
>> installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
>> since.
>
> That was an unfortunate response to a fear we had of Iran becoming a
> communist nation.
>
> Regrettably we had a similar concern with Iraq and hence Saddam offered
> us a blocking maneuver.
>
> So we set him against the Mullahs...

I don't want to make trouble but this "Mullahs" you refer to. Is that
some specific group, or are you speaking of any religious leader or
scholar within Islam? Or are you speaking of the government of Iran?

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:14:22 -0600, "Dr. Edward Morbius"
> wrote:

> On 7/21/2015 5:08 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> >
> > Persians are not Arabs. Distinct different blood lines. Most Persians did not follow the religion of Islam, the old religion was Zoroastrianism.
> > Well-to-do Persians sent their kids to the US after the fall of the Sha to get them away from the Muslim revolution. These people who are here really are Persians, not Arab Iranians. My company's owner is Persian. Came here, sent by his family, as a teenager. His family is still in Iran.
> >
>
>
> Sound analysis.
>
> Good folks, brought us basmati rice and sumac - love those.

True Persians are Aryans as in Aryan race and not Hitler's Nordic
version of it.

--

sf

On 7/21/2015 6:27 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-07-21 22:09:07 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>
>> On 7/21/2015 4:02 PM, gtr wrote:
>>> On 2015-07-21 16:57:35 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>>>
>>>>> Agree and just to illustrate how badly drawing a line in the sands
>>>>> went... many young immigrants deny being Iranian and insist they are
>>>>> Persian. I can't blame them for that.
>>>>
>>>> I completely agree.
>>>>
>>>> That nation has legitimate upside, IF the Mullahs can be sent packing.
>>>
>>> Yeah, if America could get rid of our Christian equivalent ("preachers")
>>> might get some legitimacy too.
>>
>> Do our preachers run the political process?
>>
>> Um, no they don't.
>
> Depends on what you consider "political process";

That's just semantics laden obfuscation.

You know as well as I do that religion does NOT institutionalize itself
in our democratic republic.

> I find that political
> block, evangelicals,certainly do have significant effects on what kind
> of blabber and posturing politicians produce to get their votes and
> support. I call that the political process.

You think "evangelicals" are in charge?

Really?

LOLOL!!!

What you call the "political process" is as absurd as you are.

Take Germany, no really, do.

Do we have a party named the "Christian Democrats"?

Eh?

Sheesh.

This is a secular state with nominal due given to its Christian birthright.

>> Hmmm...did our "preachers" threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"?
>
> No,

No IS the RIGHT answer.

> *some* prefer to wipe Iran off the map, or communist nations, or
> whomever is the foe du jour. I might add, and this is really the point,
> that "mullahs" as a generic category for any islamic "preacher" did not
> threaten Israel as a group with map-wiping.

You're being dishonest, to a point.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88N0HF20120924

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots
in the Middle East and would be "eliminated," ignoring a U.N. warning to
avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.

Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel
could launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, denied
sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran's threats to the life of
British author Salman Rushdie.

Case closed.

>> Uh no, they didn't.
>
> Ah--it was rhetorical question and therefore supposed to go unanswered.
> I see.
>
>> So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?
>
> Going personal so soon?

No time better than the present.

> I consider the wholesale summoning of all of
> Islam an appeal to stupidity and political manipulation.

After all, it's only about 20% of them who actively endorse radical
Jihad against us...

> Just as is all
> of Christian "preachers" as in my example. I see only one side of that
> finds offense.

I see major bias from you, hypocrisy in letters.

>> Or perhaps your idea of what "legitimacy" is may be wholly corrupt.
>
> In future dealings, I'll strip your insults and work with whatever is left.

You're down to bare metal now, have at.

On 7/21/2015 6:30 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-07-21 22:44:28 +0000, sf said:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:04:04 -0700, gtr > wrote:
>>
>>> I went to school in Oklahoma in the late 60's and there were many
>>> Iranians students there, mostly studying petrol engineering. They
>>> *always* referred to themselves as Persians. They spoke with great
>>> loathing of the Shah, and great disgust with the USA for propping him
>>> up. 10 years later they spoke with disgust about how we supported
>>> Iraq's border war with them--but still called themselves Persians. Now
>>> they have about 80 years of complaints--all of them predicated on
>>> America's love for Saudi oil and deference to Saudi paranoia--but still
>>> call themselves Persians.
>>
>> Do you blame them?
>
> Not in the least; I pity them, and though I don't condone terrorist
> activity, state run or individual lone-wolf, I can frequently find a
> viable rationale.

Oh that's jolly of you.

So here we have it - a terrorist apologist!

>> They've been trying to crawl out from under
>> shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
>> under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
>> installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
>> since.
>
> The US has always been a big fan of the "stability" that comes with
> having one highly corrupt strongman to deal with. Sadly we usually have
> some significant pushback in a generation or two.

The US is oft times faced with the choice of two or more local *******s.

The fact we make any choice at all is a Hobson's dilemma.

Damn you for making US the bad guys in a corrupt equation NOT of our own
construct!

>> They are the most educated people of all that middle eastern mess and
>> even better, they don't treat their female population the way Saudis
>> treat theirs. Given a fighting chance, they will move into the 21st
>> century while the rest of them move backward to the 800's. I'm
>> praying for Afghanistan, but they are in the grip of ISIS and I don't
>> have much hope.
>
> That would be keen.

You have a snotty attitude.

On 7/21/2015 6:33 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-07-21 22:51:07 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>
>>> Do you blame them? They've been trying to crawl out from under
>>> shariia law since 1928, but the West keeps pulling the rug out from
>>> under them. We ousted a democratically elected government and
>>> installed the Shah back in 1941 - and they have been unstable ever
>>> since.
>>
>> That was an unfortunate response to a fear we had of Iran becoming a
>> communist nation.
>>
>> Regrettably we had a similar concern with Iraq and hence Saddam
>> offered us a blocking maneuver.
>>
>> So we set him against the Mullahs...
>
> I don't want to make trouble but this "Mullahs" you refer to. Is that
> some specific group, or are you speaking of any religious leader or
> scholar within Islam? Or are you speaking of the government of Iran?
>

I am obviously referring to the ruling religious clerics of Iran.

Jeebers!

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/482/1/85

Direct rule by Islamic clerics in Iran is an important new phenomenon in
Middle Eastern politics. The legitimacy of clerical rule is based on an
ideology developed from Shiite thought by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
and his neofundamentalist followers. This ideology is embodied in the
Iranian Constitution, which institutionalizes rule by Islamic clerics.
Their sense of legitimacy has been reinforced by Khomeini's commitment
to maintaining clerical rule, by his claim to leadership on the basis of
a divine calling, and by a monopolization of the interpretation of the
sacred law. The principal themes of clerical rule include grandiosity,
an insistence on unity, ascription of hostile motives to the actions of
other states, a preference for military solutions to political problems,
and a belief in ultimate victory. Replication of the Iranian pattern of
clerical rule elsewhere in the Middle East will be problematic without
the emergence of a figure like Khomeini or the assistance of Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/op...tyle.html?_r=0

The nouveaux riches in Tehran drive Porsches, Ferraris and Maseratis and
live in multimillion-dollar luxury apartments replete with walk-in
closets, Bosch appliances and computerized shower systems.

I was stunned when I caught a glimpse of what Iran’s megarich can afford
— on, of all things, a program made by Press TV, an English-language
news organization sponsored and monitored by the Iranian state. It was
not just the wealth that struck me, but how freely Iran’s “one
percenters” flaunted the symbols of Western decadence without fear of
government retribution.

Thirty-five years after a revolution that promised an egalitarian utopia
and vowed to root out “gharbzadegi” — the modern Westernized lifestyles
of Iran’s cosmopolitans — how have some people become so rich?

Much of Iran’s wealth, it turns out, is in the hands of the very people
in charge of maintaining social justice. Hard-line clerical leaders,
together with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (the branch of
Iran’s military in charge of protecting the country’s Islamic
government), have engineered a system where it is largely they, their
family members and their loyal cronies who prosper.

On 7/21/2015 9:51 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:14:22 -0600, "Dr. Edward Morbius"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2015 5:08 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>>
>>> Persians are not Arabs. Distinct different blood lines. Most Persians did not follow the religion of Islam, the old religion was Zoroastrianism.
>>> Well-to-do Persians sent their kids to the US after the fall of the Sha to get them away from the Muslim revolution. These people who are here really are Persians, not Arab Iranians. My company's owner is Persian. Came here, sent by his family, as a teenager. His family is still in Iran.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sound analysis.
>>
>> Good folks, brought us basmati rice and sumac - love those.
>
> True Persians are Aryans as in Aryan race and not Hitler's Nordic
> version of it.
>

This is true and also a relevant data point.

On 7/22/2015 2:20 PM, Dr. Edward Morbius wrote:
> On 7/21/2015 9:51 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:14:22 -0600, "Dr. Edward Morbius"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/21/2015 5:08 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
Barbara J. Llorente FRAUD!

Barbara J Llorente 71 Cerritos Ave San Francisco, CA 94127.
Age 65 (Born 1950) (415) 239-7248. Background Check - Available. Record
ID: 47846596.

No one cares about you.

Get OUT!


_,..._
/__ \
>< `. \
/_ \ |
\-_ /:|
,--'..'. :
,' `.
_,' \
_.._,--'' , |
, ,',, _| _,.'| | |
\\||/,'(,' '--'' | | |
_ ||| | /-' |
| | (- -)<`._ | / /
| | \_\O/_/`-.(<< |____/ /
| | / \ / -'| `--.'|
| | \___/ / /
| | H H / | |
|_|_..-H-H--.._ / ,| |
|-.._"_"__..-| | _-/ | |
| | | | \_ |
Barbara Llorente | | | | |
| The | |____| | |
|Troll Enabler | _..' | |____|
jrei | |_(____..._' _.' |
`-..______..-'"" (___..--'.

On 7/22/2015 1:59 PM, Dr. Edward Morbius wrote:
> On 7/21/2015 6:27 PM, gtr wrote:
Barbara J. Llorente FRAUD!

Barbara J Llorente 71 Cerritos Ave San Francisco, CA 94127.
Age 65 (Born 1950) (415) 239-7248. Background Check - Available. Record
ID: 47846596.

No one cares about you.

Get OUT!


_,..._
/__ \
>< `. \
/_ \ |
\-_ /:|
,--'..'. :
,' `.
_,' \
_.._,--'' , |
, ,',, _| _,.'| | |
\\||/,'(,' '--'' | | |
_ ||| | /-' |
| | (- -)<`._ | / /
| | \_\O/_/`-.(<< |____/ /
| | / \ / -'| `--.'|
| | \___/ / /
| | H H / | |
|_|_..-H-H--.._ / ,| |
|-.._"_"__..-| | _-/ | |
| | | | \_ |
Barbara Llorente | | | | |
| The | |____| | |
|Troll Enabler | _..' | |____|
jrei | |_(____..._' _.' |
`-..______..-'"" (___..--'

On 2015-07-22 03:59:23 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:

>>>> Yeah, if America could get rid of our Christian equivalent ("preachers")
>>>> might get some legitimacy too.
>>>
>>> Do our preachers run the political process?
>>>
>>> Um, no they don't.
>>
>> Depends on what you consider "political process";
>
> That's just semantics laden obfuscation.

Not it's not.

> You know as well as I do that religion does NOT institutionalize itself
> in our democratic republic.

Narrowing "political process" down to the institutionalization of the
Christian religion within the governmental mechanism is a peculiarly
narrow definition of "the political process", but sure, that would
imply that Christianity has no involvement with the government. I was
using the phrase the way it's normally used. What does your use of the
word "mullahs" mean?

>> I find that political
>> block, evangelicals,certainly do have significant effects on what kind
>> of blabber and posturing politicians produce to get their votes and
>> support. I call that the political process.
>
> You think "evangelicals" are in charge?

If I had thought so, I would have said so. Are you saying that
evangelicals have no control over regional senators and congress
persons?

> Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no
> roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated," ignoring a U.N.
> warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General
> Assembly session.

Yeah we know all about that. But all you have to do to find fascist
"christians" is turn on the radio.

> Case closed.

I think your case was that your opinions are correct. And yes it seems
quite closed.

>>> So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?
>>
>> Going personal so soon?
>
> No time better than the present.

Welcome to the killfile.

On 7/22/2015 4:57 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-07-22 03:59:23 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>
>>>>> Yeah, if America could get rid of our Christian equivalent
>>>>> ("preachers")
>>>>> might get some legitimacy too.
>>>>
>>>> Do our preachers run the political process?
>>>>
>>>> Um, no they don't.
>>>
>>> Depends on what you consider "political process";
>>
>> That's just semantics laden obfuscation.
>
> Not it's not.

Yes, it is.

The political process itself is secular, period.

>> You know as well as I do that religion does NOT institutionalize
>> itself in our democratic republic.
>
> Narrowing "political process" down to the institutionalization of the
> Christian religion within the governmental mechanism is a peculiarly
> narrow definition of "the political process", but sure,

You mean of your allusion as to what the "political process" may be.

You never even stated your definition.

> that would imply
> that Christianity has no involvement with the government.

Functional?

None.

Nominal by public invocation, prayers, the Pledge or such - only a very
little.

> I was using
> the phrase the way it's normally used.

Care to DEFINE that for us?

http://thelawdictionary.org/political-process/

"What is POLITICAL PROCESS?

....the method used where the candidates for a public office are
nominated and then elected."

> What does your use of the word
> "mullahs" mean?

That should have been clear long ago, the religious clerics who run Iran.

>>> I find that political
>>> block, evangelicals,certainly do have significant effects on what kind
>>> of blabber and posturing politicians produce to get their votes and
>>> support. I call that the political process.
>>
>> You think "evangelicals" are in charge?
>
> If I had thought so, I would have said so.

The question begged an answer.

> Are you saying that
> evangelicals have no control over regional senators and congress persons?

I'm saying their "influence" such as it was under Ralph Reed, has been
steadily eroding ever since the late 80s..

This nation does NOT have a viable Christian Democrat Party.

>> Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no
>> roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated," ignoring a U.N.
>> warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General
>> Assembly session.
>
> Yeah we know all about that.

What a facile little pass-off that was!

> But all you have to do to find fascist "christians" is turn on the radio.

Acting as President and chief spokesmen of a dangerously theocratic
republic?

No.

I can't find those.

And neither can you!

>> Case closed.
>
> I think your case was that your opinions are correct. And yes it seems
> quite closed.

My opinions, as ever, are unassailable, ergo your pallid attempt to do so.

>>>> So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?
>>>
>>> Going personal so soon?
>>
>> No time better than the present.
>
> Welcome to the killfile.

Run, hide, run from the facts!

On 2015-07-22 03:59:23 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:

>>>> So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?
>>>
>>> Going personal so soon?
>>
>> No time better than the present.
>
> Welcome to the killfile.

A final note, now that your id is pasted in the file.

Whether Iran can manage to cobble together a few nuclear warheads while
crippled by sanctions or whether they have to wait another 10-15 years
to pick up where they left off is of no importance to me.

The basic reason why is this: Iran is never going to drop the bomb on
Israel, if they did they would be annihilating one of the politically
holiest of political holy lands: Palestine. They'd wipe out what is
left of the Palestinian people, and ensure that millions of the
dispossessed can never return to their homeland. They'd also foul the
environment in Syria, Jordan and Egypt for a generation or two. What a
looney idea to think they would do that. Oh but they're *crazy*,
right? REAL crazy!! So very very crazy that we need to sign many more
billion-dollar contracts with manufacturers of bombs, tanks, planes and
anything Halliburton makes. We have all the money in the world to give
to industrialists if we're all real scared of crazy crazy Mooslims!
Hell--I think there's one at my door right now!! Even if there isn't,
I should go buy 3 or 4 more handguns, right? So they can rust with the
rest.

Twenty years ago it was a communist at my front door, and 60 years
before that it was Italian anarchists--and four two centuries urban
black predators were outside all my windows.

So these are some of the ideas that I'd be interested in discussing,
but when people can't corral their logical thinking in there ahead of
their emotional thinking, when they can't subvert their emotional
anguish to the utility of their rhetorical purpose... well, what the
hell, I already have radio.

You can be sure that an argument that is punctuated by personal
invective is a marker that the speaker doesn't want to discuss
anything, he wants to trade talking/thinking for fighting and noise as
quick as possible; it's so much easier. The recitation of the daily
"conservative" agitprop isn't just about propaganda and bogus
arguments, it's also about *agitation*. Agitation is the most
important part.

Get a good night's sleep. Everything will be just the same tomorrow.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:40:31 -0700, gtr > wrote:

>On 2015-07-22 03:59:23 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>
>>>>> So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?
>>>>
>>>> Going personal so soon?
>>>
>>> No time better than the present.
>>
>> Welcome to the killfile.
>
>A final note, now that your id is pasted in the file.
>
>Whether Iran can manage to cobble together a few nuclear warheads while
>crippled by sanctions or whether they have to wait another 10-15 years
>to pick up where they left off is of no importance to me.
>
>The basic reason why is this: Iran is never going to drop the bomb on
>Israel, if they did they would be annihilating one of the politically
>holiest of political holy lands: Palestine. They'd wipe out what is
>left of the Palestinian people, and ensure that millions of the
>dispossessed can never return to their homeland. They'd also foul the
>environment in Syria, Jordan and Egypt for a generation or two. What a
>looney idea to think they would do that. Oh but they're *crazy*,
>right? REAL crazy!! So very very crazy that we need to sign many more
>billion-dollar contracts with manufacturers of bombs, tanks, planes and
>anything Halliburton makes. We have all the money in the world to give
>to industrialists if we're all real scared of crazy crazy Mooslims!
>Hell--I think there's one at my door right now!! Even if there isn't,
>I should go buy 3 or 4 more handguns, right? So they can rust with the
>rest.
>
>Twenty years ago it was a communist at my front door, and 60 years
>before that it was Italian anarchists--and four two centuries urban
>black predators were outside all my windows.

There's always gotta be a 'boogeyman, either real or manufactured, to
keep the industrialists happy. Not long ago we had Al-Qaeda, now it is
'ISIS'.

>So these are some of the ideas that I'd be interested in discussing,
>but when people can't corral their logical thinking in there ahead of
>their emotional thinking, when they can't subvert their emotional
>anguish to the utility of their rhetorical purpose... well, what the
>hell, I already have radio.
>
>You can be sure that an argument that is punctuated by personal
>invective is a marker that the speaker doesn't want to discuss
>anything, he wants to trade talking/thinking for fighting and noise as
>quick as possible; it's so much easier. The recitation of the daily
>"conservative" agitprop isn't just about propaganda and bogus
>arguments, it's also about *agitation*. Agitation is the most
>important part.
>
>Get a good night's sleep. Everything will be just the same tomorrow.

The fact that the state of Iran (as we know it) hasn't actually ever
started a war also means nothing, apparently. I see no reason why Iran
should not have nuclear power and weapons whilst other countries can,
based on their track record. That said, I'd prefer that neither
existed in any other country either.

On 7/22/2015 5:40 PM, gtr wrote:
> On 2015-07-22 03:59:23 +0000, Dr. Edward Morbius said:
>
>>>>> So then WTF is your major mental malfunction?
>>>>
>>>> Going personal so soon?
>>>
>>> No time better than the present.
>>
>> Welcome to the killfile.
>
> A final note, now that your id is pasted in the file.

That's precisely how disingenuous those who deploy petty kill files are.

You can't possibly resist coming back for one more round, dipshit.

> Whether Iran can manage to cobble together a few nuclear warheads while
> crippled by sanctions or whether they have to wait another 10-15 years
> to pick up where they left off is of no importance to me.

Of course not.

In fact you pre-load that statement with your own shockingly naive
misconceptions.

They're going to have 100 billion $$$ in assets unlocked and are under
NO onus of inspection for military facilities - just "civilian"
enrichment locations.

Now how's THAT going to work out, eh dimwit?

> The basic reason why is this: Iran is never going to drop the bomb on
> Israel,

I'm NEVER going to take your word on that, moron.

> if they did they would be annihilating one of the politically
> holiest of political holy lands: Palestine.

Has ISIL cared much for regional holiness?

Nah...

> They'd wipe out what is left
> of the Palestinian people, and ensure that millions of the dispossessed
> can never return to their homeland.

And they're doing so much for them right now, eh?

> They'd also foul the environment in
> Syria, Jordan and Egypt for a generation or two.

Like they care?

> What a looney idea to
> think they would do that. Oh but they're *crazy*, right? REAL crazy!!

Yes - as verbalized on the national stage:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10148351.html

Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who leads the Basij volunteer
force, made the declaration to mark Islamic Republic Day in Tehran on
Tuesday.

“Wiping Israel off the map is not up for negotiation,” he said according
to Kol Yisrael radio.


Mr Netanyahu responded today by calling Iran's regime "murderous" and
condemning any deal over its nuclear capabilities.

“Yesterday an Iranian official said that Israel's destruction is
non-negotiable,” he said, according to the Jerusalem Post.

“However, giving Iran's murderous regime the bomb is negotiable. This is
unconscionable.

“Iran is accelerating its campaign of terror and conquest throughout
region, most recently in Yemen."

Iran has been accused of supporting the Houthi rebels fighting Yemen’s
government, meaning it is effectively part of a proxy war with Saudi
Arabia and its allies.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...27/israel.iran

Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by
describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the
face of the earth". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is more hardline than his
predecessor, told students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian
attacks would be enough to finish off Israel.

The populist leader's comments [See footnote], reported by the state-run
media, come at a time when Tehran is under pressure over its suspect
nuclear weapons ambitions and alleged involvement in attacks on British
troops in Iraq.

He said: "Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the
Islamic nation's fury, [while] any [Islamic leader] who recognises the
Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the
Islamic world." He was addressing a conference titled The World Without
Zionism.

> So very very crazy that we need to sign many more billion-dollar
> contracts with manufacturers of bombs, tanks, planes and anything
> Halliburton makes.

You stuttering simpleton!

Halliburton does not make bombs, tanks, or airplanes.

They produce...wait for it...OIL!

What kind of minute rube are you anyway?!?!?

> We have all the money in the world to give to
> industrialists if we're all real scared of crazy crazy Mooslims! Hell--I
> think there's one at my door right now!! Even if there isn't, I should
> go buy 3 or 4 more handguns, right? So they can rust with the rest.

Hyperbolic rhetorical nuttery, you haven't a rational bone in your
invertebrate body.

> Twenty years ago it was a communist at my front door,

Where?

> and 60 years
> before that it was Italian anarchists--

What, you grew up in Italy?

> and four two centuries urban
> black predators were outside all my windows.

Did you live in Watts or Culver City?

> So these are some of the ideas that I'd be interested in discussing, but
> when people can't corral their logical thinking in there ahead of their
> emotional thinking, when they can't subvert their emotional anguish to
> the utility of their rhetorical purpose... well, what the hell, I
> already have radio.

And it appears to have brainwashed you into a walking talking lying
sound bite.

But what a nice armada of straw man you set in your duck pond - anything
to reduce topical fealty.

Typical of you lot.

> You can be sure that an argument that is punctuated by personal
> invective is a marker that the speaker doesn't want to discuss anything,
> he wants to trade talking/thinking for fighting and noise as quick as
> possible; it's so much easier.

And yet I HAVE discussed.

YOU, OTOH, steadfastly refused to quantify your terms, even when pressed
multiple times.

Remember: "political process"???

Now you want a get out of jail card based upon my colorful prose.

Nope.

Not happening.

> The recitation of the daily
> "conservative" agitprop isn't just about propaganda and bogus arguments,
> it's also about *agitation*. Agitation is the most important part.

And what is the recitation of this surrender-monkey libitarded pabulum
you spew forth meant to serve as?

A prelude to a complicit entry to WW3?!?!?

You fools will get us ALL killed.

> Get a good night's sleep. Everything will be just the same tomorrow.

Be an ostrich, just keep your inarticulate beakhole shut here.

Capisce?!?

On 7/22/2015 6:07 PM, Je�us wrote:
> There's always gotta be a 'boogeyman, either real or manufactured, to
> keep the industrialists happy. Not long ago we had Al-Qaeda, now it is
> 'ISIS'.

And this planet would be so much better without industry, right you
namby-pamby little shrimp-gobbler?

> The fact that the state of Iran (as we know it) hasn't actually ever
> started a war also means nothing, apparently.

Why "start" one when you can fund the principals to fight it for you, eh
traitor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...involving_Iran

> I see no reason why Iran
> should not have nuclear power and weapons whilst other countries can,
> based on their track record.

YOU ARE A ****ING IDIOT!

> That said, I'd prefer that neither
> existed in any other country either.

So you and your ancestors could be speaking German or Japanese?

YOU'RE A ****ING IDIOT!

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:15:57 -0300, wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:07:23 +1000, Jeßus
> wrote:
>
>>The fact that the state of Iran (as we know it) hasn't actually ever
>>started a war also means nothing, apparently. I see no reason why Iran
>>should not have nuclear power and weapons whilst other countries can,
>>based on their track record. That said, I'd prefer that neither
>>existed in any other country either.
>
>Why did nobody say anything when Israel disobeyed and went ahead and
>adopted nuclear power and weapons ?

Because it's Israel, and you can't question anything Israel does
(I realise it was a rhetorical question

>Personally, having seen
>Hiroshima as a kid, I would say nobody should have nuclear weapons.
>Coming from the UK I had seen plenty of bomb damage but even then I
>could realise Hiroshima was massive by comparison. People were still
>dying from the effects of the two bombs as late as the 1980s. It was
>brutal.

Brutal beyond imagination.

>I see the other day the Japanese apologised to Americans who worked in
>the mines when they were POWs. What about the British POWs who were
>there, including one of my uncles who went down on HMS Exeter after
>she went to the south China Sea from the Battle of the River Plate.

Same question is also applicable to other servicemen from other
countries too.

>He
>was in the mines at Nagasaki and told me they watched the bomb there
>like a firework display, he was lucky, he lived into his 90s despite
>that.

He's had quite a life...

On 7/22/2015 6:20 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:07:23 +1000, Jeßus
> > wrote:
>
>> The fact that the state of Iran (as we know it) hasn't actually ever
>> started a war also means nothing, apparently. I see no reason why Iran
>> should not have nuclear power and weapons whilst other countries can,
>> based on their track record.
>
> If you think it's a good idea that those medieval hate beards have
> nuclear weapons, you have a screw loose.
>
+1!

On 7/22/2015 6:22 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:15:57 -0300, wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:07:23 +1000, Jeßus
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that the state of Iran (as we know it) hasn't actually ever
>>> started a war also means nothing, apparently. I see no reason why Iran
>>> should not have nuclear power and weapons whilst other countries can,
>>> based on their track record. That said, I'd prefer that neither
>>> existed in any other country either.
>>
>> Why did nobody say anything when Israel disobeyed and went ahead and
>> adopted nuclear power and weapons ?
>
> Because it's Israel, and you can't question anything Israel does
> (I realise it was a rhetorical question

I realize you are a virulent Jew-hater, damn your soul to HELL!

>> Personally, having seen
>> Hiroshima as a kid, I would say nobody should have nuclear weapons.
>> Coming from the UK I had seen plenty of bomb damage but even then I
>> could realise Hiroshima was massive by comparison. People were still
>> dying from the effects of the two bombs as late as the 1980s. It was
>> brutal.
>
> Brutal beyond imagination.

Sorta like what Tojo and his toenail peeling rapists did to Korea?

**** off and DIE!

On 2015-07-23 00:20:12 +0000, Bruce said:

> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:07:23 +1000, Jeßus
> > wrote:
>
>> The fact that the state of Iran (as we know it) hasn't actually ever
>> started a war also means nothing, apparently. I see no reason why Iran
>> should not have nuclear power and weapons whilst other countries can,
>> based on their track record.
>
> If you think it's a good idea that those medieval hate beards have
> nuclear weapons, you have a screw loose.

Excellent! Mischaracterize the statement ("good idea"), add your own
bile ("hate beards"--cute!), then a personal insult. That's downright
elegant!

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:37:18 -0700, gtr > wrote:

>On 2015-07-23 00:20:12 +0000, Bruce said:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:07:23 +1000, Jeßus
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that the state of Iran (as we know it) hasn't actually ever
>>> started a war also means nothing, apparently. I see no reason why Iran
>>> should not have nuclear power and weapons whilst other countries can,
>>> based on their track record.
>>
>> If you think it's a good idea that those medieval hate beards have
>> nuclear weapons, you have a screw loose.
>
>Excellent! Mischaracterize the statement ("good idea"), add your own
>bile ("hate beards"--cute!), then a personal insult. That's downright
>elegant!

I hope you weren't expecting anything better than that from him.