Posted on 02/10/2025 12:37:10 PM PST by CharlesOConnell
Using the now conventional regime-change strategy of the “rent-a-riot”, “Stormin’ Norman” Schwartzkopf Jr.’s daddy, Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. (1895-1958) led the overthrow of the duly elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh on the pretext that that government was too cozy with the Soviets, this despite the fact that the Soviets had seized the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, a constituent of which, Azerbaijan, had historically been a part of Iran. So, rather than honestly threatening to go with Stalin, the Iranians must have been guilty of playing off various foreign factions against one another, at worst.
The reality underlying much of Israel’s hostility to Iran, was that Royal Dutch Shell/BP, a Red Shield possession, suffered nationalization on May 1, 1951 of its Iranian petroleum interests under Mossadegh; though some accommodation has recently been arranged, this history apparently precluded the type of arrangement that birthed the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO) with Saudi Arabia.
(Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal held forth on the Saudis’ undying emnity toward Iran in his recent interview by Tucker Carlson.)
The Israelis can’t claim the historical fiction that Iran is part of Amalek. The Old Testament prophet Isaiah predicted the rise of Persian King Cyrus the Great 100-200 years before his birth, in Isaiah 44:23-45:8, as “God’s Anointed Shepherd”. This was apparently instrumental in Cyrus liberating the Jews from their Babylonian Captivity, after he had conquered Babylon and allowed them to return to Judah, ending the exile in 538 BC; this is described in the Bible as the “Edict of Cyrus” where he permitted the Jews to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem.
Thus the unreasoning hatred of Iran by the Zionist entity has no conceivable rationalization, as do the ancestral Zionist hatreds of Russia and Germany.
It’s too bad if you are so un-used to the heavy lifting of doing your own thinking that you get easily snow-blinded by well-thought-out arguments. Go back to sucking on beers & drooling in front of the t.v.
Not to quibble, but the character’s name in TOS episode was Trelane.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
a confabulation of spurious utterances.
“what the f*** did I just read?”
You didn’t “read” “f***”, it’s just rattling around in your head.
Go get some drug recovery therapy.
I’m all for free speech- but that is pretty jumbled. Maybe the original poster mixed up 4 or 5 separate threads. I browsed over something about Star Trek, and then here come the Jews? Wth
“then here come the Jews?”
Uh, oh, there goes any possibility of serious, intelligent discussion.
Q had an IQ of 2005, according to Q. This wouldn’t make him omniscient, but it would put him in a league above Einstein or Hawking.
The Jews will do that
either way, I’m sure we were in no danger of a serious discussion breaking out.
“Uh, oh, there goes any possibility of serious, intelligent discussion.”
—————————
There is no possibility of a serious, intelligent discussion if you can’t stick to one topic at a time. First, you’re talking about a rather minor character in the Star Trek universe. Then you start discussing angels and demons, without relating it in any way back to the original topic, this minor character “Q“ in Star Trek. Then you go off in a comment about Israel’s emnity toward Iran. None of these topics have the slightest thing to do with each other, at least not based upon anything that you have said here on this thread.
Oh, by the way, perhaps Q is simply just a character intended for some drama and some comic relief. He doesn’t have to be related to angels and Demons, not even as a metaphor. Sometimes a character is just a character. You sound like some of my old literature professors, who wanted to put all kinds of meaning into books and characters that the author likely never even thought about. This is what’s known as creating a mountain out of a molehill.
With regard to Israel and Iran, Israel doesn’t have hostility toward Iran, it has hostility toward the regime of the Ayatollas, and that is because that regime has made it one of its missions to utterly wipe Israel off of the map, and has consistently acted consistent with that declared goal. I don’t know about you, but I would not really be very kindly disposed toward anybody who wanted me wiped out. Prior to the Ayatollahs, Israel got along well with Iran. Iran never went to war against Israel in modern history; quite to the contrary, during the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the Shah of Iran made sure that there were oil shipments to Israel. Why would they be hostile to Iran? No, they are hostile to a regime that has declared its undying enmity for the very existence of Israel.
Until and unless you are able to not only stick to one topic, but to make logical and coherent arguments related thereto, there can’t be any serious and intelligent discussions.
bro. You are high.
“…consistently acted consistent….”
————
Please disregard the first word.
Geez, and here I thought that you might appreciate me taking what appeared to be your side.
Oh, well, I’m done with this thread. It’s bad enough to have one illogical nut job to deal with, two is just a bit too much for me. I’m not going to waste my time anymore with either of you two idiots.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?
I hated Q, he was a real jerk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.