Good post! Thank you very much for the great information. I am the one usually enquire more about companies that i might work even before I apply. I keep criteria for myself while i search for jobs.

I found this website tapety to be incredibly useful interms of information.

Few companies are looking at these anonymous opinions of their employees as constructive feeback. Word is moving towards good!

“The quote can be found in several editions of Khomeini’s speeches and messages. Here is one edition:

Paymaha va Sokhanraniyha-yi Imam Khomeini (“Messages and Speeches of Imam Khomeini”) published by Nur Research and Publication Institute (Tehran, 1981).

The quote, along with many other passages, disappeared from several subsequent editions as the Islamic Republic tried to mobilize nationalistic feelings against Iraq, which had invaded Iran in 1980.

The practice of editing and even censoring Khomeini to suit the circumstances is widely known by Iranian scholars. This is how Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, the Director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland and a specialist in Islamic censorship, states the problem: “Khumayni’s [sic] speeches are regularly published in fresh editions wherein new selections are made, certain references deleted, and various adjustments introduced depending on the state’s current preoccupation” (Persian Studies in North America, 1994).”

How convenient. A quote only claimed by him, which no one else has ever heard or read. And now, it most likely changed or was thrown out. Too bad Taheri doesn’t copy and save these sources of information like any respectable author would do.

And here he is continiously peddling more lies:

“What is at issue here is the exact nature of the Khomeinist regime. Is it a nationalistic power pursuing the usual goals of nations? Or is it a messianic power with an eschatological ideology and the pretension to conquer the world on behalf of “The One and Only True Faith”?

Khomeini built a good part of his case against the Shah by claiming that the latter was trying to force Iranians to worship Iran rather than Allah. The theme remains a leitmotif of Khomeinists even today. . . . Those who try to portray this regime as just another opportunistic power with a quixotic tendency do a grave disservice to a proper understanding of the challenge that the world faces.

But this is not new. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot also had their apologists who saw them as “nationalists” with “legitimate grievances.””

Without any actual quotes, you really don’t seem to have much fall back on, Mr. Taheri. Just another clever author manipulating history for his own selfish purposes.

Mr. Podhoretz, if you had absolutely any journalistic integrity you would have researched the quote yourself instead of relying on a serial fabricator such as Mr. Taheri. However, such a quote not-existing basically destroys your arguments and your idealogy. You surely can not allow that to happen, even at the expense lying. Willfull ignorance are the key words here.

actually sent him money once, but he’s gone off the deep-end.

the ratio of attacks to substance is pretty low on his blog.

We have all the might we need to beat this back. Do we have the will? Sullivan and The Economist (I won’t read either anymore) have already shown they do not. Why are they so invested in denying our enemies are saying exactly what they are saying?

—-

BTW, when we accuse our opponents of being shrill this is the kind of stuff we mean.

Do you have any evidence that Norman’s a racist? Are you just in the habit of tossing that charge at your opponents because you feel it must be true or do you have something he said or wrote to back that up?

Is Andrew Sullivan a guy who you think fits this level of argumentation?

—-

His timing and split with a lot of the right coincided remarkably well with the infighting over a federal marriage amendment a couple years ago. But this isn’t just Iraq where this came into play — it’s everything. For people who are relying on Andrew Sullivan and who are fans of the guy right now, I really how many of you guys used to read his earlier work. It’s not merely his opposition to the war, but that there’s not a principle this guy holds that you can count on him holding onto.

The burden of proof of the Khomeinists’ sanity does not rest entirely upon a single utterance by the founder of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and foreign policy realists who stake American and Israeli security and regional stability on hopes “the jumper…

Will The Economist check it out? Its editors, in making their accusation, went to considerable trouble earlier, consulting various data bases. Will they now search out that 1981 edition of Khomeini’s speeches? Will they announce their findings manfully and will Sullivan hold their feet to the fire if they don’t? And if Norman is vindicated, will Andrew offer one of his apologies?

Knuckles are turning white.

The impression I received was much more that Sullivan felt he had the goods on Mr. Podhoretz and could casually dismantle his claims with a few sentences. In fact it seemed very much as if Sullivan were laughing at “NPod.” By this point, of course, I have to admit I’m also laughing at NPod, though I hope not shrilly or hysterically as we await what the sober-minded President Bush refers to as “World War III.”

As the cool and even-toned Mr. Podhoretz says, God help us all.

The point is, There is a consistent statement of “overheated hyperbolic statements” by small group of Successive thuggish leaders.

They are currently one of the three greatest sponsors of terrorism worldwide killing hundreds, each month and looking to expand through their several proxies.

Have been undeterred in the past and seem uninterested in arguments, incentives and threats by greater and much more powerful men and nation states than CZ.

And finally, those few who have been in power since 1979 in Iran, could care less what “millions of Iranians” think or want. They have proven that to be the case consistently.

We have small business people here who brought their families out of Iran … they have very chilling stories of what it is like there on the inside for “millions of Iranians”.

In the end, Iran’s Mullah-occracy may not get what it wants… a Shia dominated Persian gulf as a launching pad for further terrorist and overt wars over conversion to Shia Islam elsewhere in the world.

But it will surely only be by the same force that ended 500 years of Islamic Barbary Piracy, and 7 wars against Israel to date.

They just can’t get enough blood in an honor/shame culture that seeks eternal paradise with 72 personal virgins.

Once I can see. Occasionally, maybe. But to believe that Iranian leaders routinely and misquoted and mistranslated in exactly the same way is to believe that the MSM repeatedly being duped by sensationalistic tales of US perfidy (Gitmo Q’ran flushing, Beauchamp’s tales, multiple non-existent masacres…) is also random and without connection. It makes more sense, to me, to conclude that both phenomena demonstrate clear trends. That the Iranian leadership is non-nationalist with overreaching religious goals and that the MSM wants to believe the worst about the US and her troops.

They endorsed Kerry in 2004 despite his manifest foolishness (’postpone elections in Iraq until the insurgency is over’) – foolishness confirmed by his conduct since ‘04.

I’ll bet anyone 10 dollars the Economist will endorse Hillary in ‘08 – its already clear from their writing on her. Any takers? You heard it here first!

The leaders of the former Soviet Union were very secular and often provided no more than lip service to the core doctrines of Communism. They were not even slightly nihilistic and suicidal. Remaining alive and affluent remained a high priority. Religious fanatics are generally more dangerous than secular ideologues. The Iranian leaders may very well be inclined to die on behalf of Allah—and destroy the entire world in the process.

Even if Khomeini claimed he served a larger cause than Iran’s national interest, it doesn’t mean that he managed to.
I have to use the Soviet Union as an example again. When Lenin and his mob took power, they had similar internationalist aims, but soon realised that they had to face up to the realities of statecraft. Leading a nation greately sobers your political ambitions, as your main concern is retaining power from internal and external threats.
I believe the Mullahs face many real threats, especially from the growing scepticism inside the country. There is a growing middle class in Iran that is not that enamored by radical islam, and has no real need for it. Notice the petrol riots in Iran last summer.
i would compare Iran to Venezuela rather than Nazi Germany. Both are reasonably wealthy, oil producing countries, but feel threatened by the power of our presence in the world, as well as the growing wealth of their own population; resulting in violent, but hollow Anti-American statements purely designed to unite the unstable country.

molon labe Says:
“Actually, our Strategic Defense Initiative had a lot more to do with the collapse of the USSR than did negotiations.”
That, and other factors. I did not mean to suggest that negotiations ended the Soviet Union, but were used to reach mutual understanding with the United States in order to avoid another Cuban Missile Crisis. The SALT Treaties allowed us and the Soviet Union to act in more predictable ways with each other. I believe that by negotiating with Iran won’t change the regime (as that is for the Iranian people to do themselves), but it would ease tensions and would greatly reduce the chance of either Iran or the United States doing something stupid which could destabalise the whole region.
I would like to repeat again that the regime will collapse by itself, or lose its radical edge. Iranians are growing wealthier and are getting more fed up with the leadership’s neurotic posing. The regime is finding it harder to deliver economically to the demands of its people, much in the same way which led to the demise of communism.

Actually, our Strategic Defense Initiative had a lot more to do with the collapse of the USSR than did negotiations.

But now compare Egypt and Suadi Arabia or even schizophrenic Turkey or even traditional Irag before the Kuwait invasion, with Iran. Syria is like some black box that seems to support bad guys but doesn’t want to stick out doing so. And remember how fast, and authentically Khomeini did a u-turn, even in so many words proclaiming himself our ally. Look up a map. It’s really easy to read the news yet never do a good Google image search of the region. Sadly, I think Afganistan will remain a backward country since it never developed an industrial base except for textiles. At least girls can learn to read there now.

As for Israel, having never been there, I was amazed to see in up-close satellite view that it looked just like a much bigger (if dustier) version of Brooklyn. They have a lot of money compared to must tiny countries, and run desalination plants using nuclear reactors. Sand is cheap in the area. Manhattan did it. They expanded, creating Battery Park. I wonder why Israel doesn’t just expand its country about 20 more miles out into the ocean, or even create huge floating islands with a nuclear reactor in their center to run the lights and factories? I’m 41 years old and glad that his BORING “Middle East Peace Process” (doublespeak) is getting stirred up good and proper.

Psychologically, societies that encourage polygamy leave a lot of very frustrated men in their 20s, and those are hard to govern, so they maintain rather oppressive governments to deal with it, and then power corrupts and the leaders go crazy in the old James Bond movie bad guy sense.

All this crap about the Palestinians? Why doesn’t Egypt or Syria etc. set up a few big oil burning power plants and desalination plants and move them into a newly created oasis in the Sahara? Then they’d stop being the stand-in antagonizers of Israel. Who the hell are Palestinians anyway? Where did they come from? It seems like their only economy is based on donations for martyrdom. I profess my ignorance, but reading the right dozen books doesn’t seem very interesting to me. They had elections, and (the non-females allowed to vote) elected as leaders a textbook example of a terrorist organization. Hitler, like Hamas, was elected to help solve the decades old phrase “The Jewish Problem,” a phrase that was tossed around and accepted just like the “Drug Problem” is treated today. There really is a suicidal impulse that corrupts the “Arab Mind” (phrase from a book about how homosexuality does *indeed* exist in Iran and surrounding areas, much as there is in prisons by otherwise straight males). Our DARPA research should make lots of Real Dolls or virtual reality sex games that connect straight to people’s brains so polygamy dominant societies will stop using scapegoat enemies like Israel or the USA to unite their population. Funny how our 9/11 terrorists went *where* before turning planes into missiles? A strip club!

The guy used to be much more hawkish (not just on Iraq, but in general), he used to be much more conservative on social issues outside of gay marriage, he used to pro-life (not sure if he’s done a complete 180 on that, but the last time I checked that was falling by the wayside) – It’s not just that he changes his positions (there’s no reason to fault him solely for that), it’s that the guy will spend years staunchly, strongly, emotionally arguing for something…and, then, voila, one day you’ll wake up and out of nowhere that’s all changed. No explanation, no reason behind it, no announcement – the position just evaporates. If he doesn’t put that much reliance and faith in his arguments, and doesn’t feel a need to be bound by them, I see no reason why I or other readers should.

I will not address Mr. Sullivans remarks. However, I think the disagreement between Mr. Bakhash and Mr. Podhoretz is more academic than political. Mr. Bakhash does not address the nature or intentions of the Iranian regime, because that is not the point he is making. He simply wants accurate history.

Sep 23, 5:07 AM (ET)
By BRIAN MURPHY

“This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” Adm. William Fallon said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.

“I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for,” said Fallon during the Friday interview at Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Qatar. “We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all …. It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.”

Adm. Fallon, the head of CENTCOM, said this a month ago and now Adm. Mullen, chairman of the JCS, said the same in an interview with the NY Times:

He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.

With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.

Nazi Germany wasn’t Nazi Germany—in 1935. What’s your point?

yours/
peter.

Fine that discredits the source. However, since that is not the only source and the statement is consistent with other statements, you have not seriously impugned the veracity of the statements in question.

What you have to do is discredit all the sources. It would be helpful if you could find out who pulled off this fakery and how.

Mr. Sullivan has apparently lost complete touch with reality.

The Neo Communists (Neo Comms) hate Mr. Podhoretz because he long ago emerged from the socialist/communist thrall and has used his extraordinary intellect and writing skills to illustrate the wrongness of the path of socialism, communism, and irrational activism to current generations.

As for the other writers attacking Mr. Podhoeretz herein, the anti-American left, blinded by their delusional self-hatred. They fail to recognize that they, as today’s avatars of the useful idiots of the middle 20th century, will be the first to fall to the scimitar. I suspect that the opaqueness of closed societies like Iran prevents all of us from recognizing the body count racked up by the Iranian Khomeinists and their client states. We can only guess at the numbers. It is likely horrifying.

Who are you claiming is Mr. Podhoretz’ known fabricator, Mr. Tahiri? To my knowledge, he is a respected writer with great resources. I am a normal, rational person and I certainly value Mr. Podhoretz and Mr. Tahiri’s words over those of Mr. Sullivan, the smart mouthed Sashal, and the cat.

The other side says Iran isn’t trying to get the bomb and even if they are, they won’t use it. So, how bad are they going to feel if they’re wrong? Or will they feel anything? Anyone know how a piece of radioactive waste that was once human feels?

Andrew Sullivan doesn’t care, he’d rather be moral than right. He has no children. I don’t mind betting my life, I refuse to bet the lives of my children.

“bakum” then lectures us: “When we’re trying to make decisions about foreign policy we need to have RATIONAL arguments based on FACTS, not hysteria which only serves to reinforce a particular set of neuroses.”

“bakum,” in your eagerness to discredit Podhoretz, you proceeded to whitewash Khomeini. In the spirit of conducting “RATIONAL arguments based on FACTS” and not on jaw-dropping ignorance masquerading as informed comment, I offer you the following:-

—

Khomeini fatwa “led to killing of 30,000 in Iran”

Sunday Telegraph, UK, February 4, 2001

Children as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran’s prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.

More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre – a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals…

According to testimony from prison officials – including Kamal Afkhami Ardekani, who formerly worked at Evin prison – recently given to United Nations human rights rapporteurs: “They would line up prisoners in a 14-by-five-metre hall in the central office building and then ask simply one question, ‘What is your political affiliation?’ Those who said the Mojahedin would be hanged from cranes in position in the car park behind the building.”

He went on to describe how, every half an hour from 7.30am to 5pm, 33 people were lifted on three forklift trucks to six cranes, each of which had five or six ropes. He said: “The process went on and on without interruption.” In two weeks, 8,000 people were hanged. Similar carnage took place across the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/04/wiran04.xml

That is something that, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot never did. Even when they used their youngest followers. They at least armed them and never sent them on mass suicide missions.

Anycountry that would do that, do you think really worries about its people surviving? Mutal Assured Destruction does not apply. There are over 1 Billion Muslims, they feel that they can sacrifice a couple hundrd million and still survive. Now do you really want to take the chance of them having the nuclear weapons with that kind of mentality?