Greg Potemkin

Typical eye-ranian victory - get an A-rab to win it for you! j/k Greg

That video was hilarious. Unfortunately, i will have to watch it again in slow motion, to determine if there were any parts of it that weren't entirely plausible. I understand the desire to do it so fast (poetic license and all of that), but it should be reviewed more slowly.

Hi Guerrilla, While I agree with you that my president is absolutely bat{bleep} crazy, I don't think that gives a complete explanation of why the seven "countries of concern" were chosen. On should remember that those countries of concern were designated by the Obama administration. Those idiots (the Obama administration), as opposed to these idiots (the Trump Administration) chose those countries because they were either states suffering from serious instability (often times caused by our own policies) or because they were opposed to US hegemony in the region. The two categories don't really have anything to do with each other, but they are conflated by these nitwits (in the Trump administration and Obama Administration) who let the Zionists do their thinking for them, and tell them who their enemies should be. Greg

Yeah, I have been to Iran twice, although it was back in 1996, and then again in 2006. Neither time did I have a guide - i went with Iranian-American friends (I don't know if you would call that a "guide" - but they weren't really supporters of the Islamic Republic) and we stayed with their extended families. However, I don't know if the travel policies have changed in the last 10 years. And no - I am just an American, and I am NOT a duel citizen, although the people I was traveling with were. At any rate, I don't think your original post makes a lot of sense. If it is a bad policy for our president to arbitrarily revoke validly issued visas with all of the difficulties which that imposes, (as well as apparently trying to stop permanent residents from traveling freely to and from the United States), it isn't really mitigated because the Iranian government puts restrictions on Americans traveling to Iran. Finger pointing really isn't much of an argument. Greg

I don't think that is fair repenter - he probably wasn't smokin' anything, but at the 14:07 mark he explained that he needed some scotch - he sounded like he had already been drinkin' some.

This guy has gone full on retard! He just regurgitates the narrative from the Zionists. All Muslims are bad - Sunnis, Shias, all the same, al-Qaida, Isis, Iran Hezballah, even secularists like Assad, or Saddam, and they must all be in cahoots together, except those who have decided to cut a deal with the Zionists, and then they suddenly become "good moderates", etc. The gibberish at the end, about how a woman is a good leader, and therefore the MEK is good, is just some nonsense thrown in because he has been told that the MEK is "good" because they want to overthrow the regime in Tehran. Which brings up another question, I din't see any people there that looked remotely like eye-ranians, not even eye-ranian-americans who ran away after the revolution - certainly not on the stage. Was this an MEK event?

Akbar, I think that you are misjudging Mr Sheuer. 1st off, I don't think that he is Jewish, 2nd he is one of the few public figures (or semi-public figures) who is willing to point out how Israel, and its lobby here in the US is leading the Us astray in our policies towards the Arab and Islamic world. (I don't know if he has come out in favor of the abolition of the state of Israel, and the punishment for those responsible for establishing it and maintaining it, the way I do, but he has been very critical of the "special relationship".) He may have said "let Sunnis kill Shias", but I think the gist of what he was actually saying was that it would be better to let the Sunnis and Shia settle their own affairs without our intervention. I am of the opinion (and I think that Mr Sheuer would concur) that the Sunni-Shia civil was which has broken out recently across the region, is largely the result of the US war of aggression against Iraq, and its aftermath. The US occupation resulted in the overthrow of a Sunni led government, albeit a brutal secular dictatorship, and its replacement with a government which represented the majority Shia population of Iraq. The government of Iraq being predominantly Shia would, of course, follow the basic democratic principle of majority rule. But to many Sunnis, the new government of Nuri al Maliki had become painted as a sectarian government, which leaves the Sunni Arab population out, and, moreover, which came to power on the heals of a foreign invasion and occupation. Consequently, the Sunni Arab population of Iraq has become totally disaffected with the current Iraqi regime, and many have embraced this takfiri wahabi ideology, since it helps validate their resentments against the Shia. In Syria, the situation was different, the US trying to promote a change in the largely Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad, (primarily because that serves the interests of the Zionists), but without ever considering the consequences for the minorities there, Christians, Alawites, Druze, Shia, etc. The fact that this savage civil war between Sunnis and Shias is largely the result of our attempt to decide which Sunnis or Shias should rule the countries of the region, should give us, as Americans, some pause. And might even make us draw the conclusion that it is better for all concerned, if we didn't intervene, even if that means "letting Sunnis and Shias kill each other" to certain extent. It may sound callous, and I certainly don't mean it that way, but it is something to think about.

That was very good. In fact it is so good, I wish that I had written it.

Even your diction demonstrates the absurdity of your position. An "embargo" is a very different thing from a "blockade". An embargo is when country A refuses to trade with country B, a blockade is when country A physically prevents country B from trading with country C. A blockade is what the Zionist entity is imposing upon the people of Gaza. As for your claim about not blaming a sect, I think that it is pretty clear, that your arguments are just a rehash of stupid Zionist hasbara, and you have clearly bought into it out of a desire to distance yourself from the predominantly Sunni Palestinians.

Y'all do realize that now that Greece has finally scored a goal, there is only one team in the entire world cup to have FAILED to score a goal- Iran. Oh well, maybe that will change tomorrow

That was a pretty good video - it had a few minor distortions, but overall it was quite good.

Israel is still maintaining its blockade of Gaza, which is what is preventing the Palestinians there from having anything remotely resembling a normal life. I have to say your sectarian victim blaming is kind of disgusting.

Oh good grief! What idiotic spin. The lives of Palestinians in Gaza are miserable, because of the actions of the Zionist entity, not Hamas.

Andres, you do realize that the Arabs make up a minority of the citizens, only because 80% or so of them were "cleansed" (driven out) of the area which became "Israel" in 1948, and the Zionist regime has not allowed them to return? I must say that your definition of "democracy" is rather curious, considering the reality in occupied Palestine, and the racial policy on who is and is not allowed to "return" and claim citizenship. After all, in South Africa before apartheid was finally abandoned, the white government there was following a multi-state solution by trying to force the black population into bantustans so that they could have a white majority "democratic" state there.

Andres, "Israel" is a state for the Jews, and the only way it obtained a Jewish majority was by ethnic cleansing. If one calls it a "democracy", it must be called a "Brechtian Democracy". http://gregpotemkin.blogspot.com/2005/06/israel-brechtian-democracy.html