This tolerated discrimination

Let's make it clear again what is going on in front of the world in Yemen so that no one can deny this middle age's like discrimination stigma in the future. The Saudi government is allowed to go outside its border to attack a group of people in another country without being threatened in any way just because it does not like them .  

Clearly I am not with those rebels in Yemen if they are not for building a democratic system. But it is not the establishment of a democracy the Saudi government wants there.

Again, I need to know, as part of this country, that I am standing with a just cause in the actions this president is taking in Yemen. 

Even if he can do things here because of his authority, he has no authority on people outside. So, when he stands with and supports attacking others outside like he is doing there then he needs to provide us in this country with a just explanation.  

In addition to supporting the Saudi government in continuing its targeting of the Shia to Yemen, I don't know why this president discriminate by treating some people at a lesser standard than others. I don't know why instead of trying to support the wining of democracy he seems to prefer to let fighting declare who is in control like animals. In Yemen instead of just feeding the rebels there like mice to his pet snake, the Saudi government, trading in people like objects, he could at least call on those rebels to send a representation to see what of their demands are valid or can be satisfied to provide answers to fears in that an implementation of a democratic system would not skip giving them equal rights. By that I mean equal voting rights and constitutional protection rights. He may also need to point out the separation of root issues from higher level ones which could be dealt with later. In addition, people may associate a process with an end result of it so strongly that they refuse the process itself instead of that specific end result. For example, one needs to make sure if whatever issues those rebels may have with federalism are fears from being not treated equally with such separation and not federalism itself.         

Where are the plans for democracy?

While one needs to take into account how one dictatorship could be worse than the other, the rebels in Yemen should understand that all dictatorships are not acceptable not just those preferred by the Saudi government. If they haven't done so already, those rebels need to declare clear and detailed plans for creating a real democratic government. It is not a bad idea to see how other democratic countries did it and consider borrowing from their constitutions instead of reinventing the wheel.They could make those plans and declare them to the world and it should be able to see if attacks by the Saudi government impede those plans .  

The Saudis are simply interfering and attacking a group in a different country because they don't like them and this president is making us support and back such level of discrimination in front of the whole world.

And the legitimacy the Saudis claim comes through the request of help from the deposed president is at least invalid claim because, as I mentioned earlier, his presidency was established through a "presidential election" in Yemen "on 21 February 2012" were he as "Acting President Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi was the only candidate in the election. He was sworn in as president of Yemen on 25 February 2012 in the Presidential Palace...Hadi won 99.8 percent of the vote".

So he himself  can hardly be seen as truly elected president and therefore has no legitimacy especially against others from the same country.
[(Added 9/03/15: Although content of the quote above can be found in the links mentioned there, HERE is where the the quoted text can be found ] 

Again, the Saudi government has no right to conduct its attacks in Yemen and its actions are not even anywhere close to being justified as self defense and it is itself one of the worst dictatorships on earth and therefore is not expected to bring the goodness of democracy there. Instead, what we find is a dirty discrimination and singling out for one group to attack wherever it can reach them.

So why the world is tolerating the Saudi government action in Yemen and why this president is also supporting and backing it? 

The dirtiness of a nation conspiring on its own minority

Although I feel confident about my theory that the Saudi government conspires with ISIS (ISIS not AlQaeda) when I saw THIS I still wanted to subject that theory to the scrutiny called for by that. It however did not take me more than to reach the end of that news page to see how things can fit with my theory and the Saudi government in even dirtier role. It seems like the Saudi government wanted to hit two birds with one stone by letting ISIS attack its minority Shia to strengthen the perception that it is on the opposing side to ISIS then came to the realization of how that could actually give more reason for suspicion so it used this one to balance things out. 

I haven't seen somebody attacking another person while acting as if the attack is directed toward different entity like the Saudis have been doing in Yemen and claiming Iran as being the reason except in exorcism.

Things in THIS site suggest that the Saudis are causing humanitarian crises and sever shortage of food in Yemen.

Who is for democracy (real not fake) in Yemen?

Why would people agreeing on the same thing be fighting? If those rebels in Yemen want a system of real democracy and equal voting rights for everybody and are seeking power in order to secure being treated equally then they need to convey that message more clearly to the world.

Fighting has been going on for so long and we still don't know who is with a system of one person one vote and who is not? If you don't trust that the other side would really implements such system then don't express that as a stand against democracy and instead ask the world for answers to such fears if they don't want you in power. 

The White House sends condolences to China for the death of people but those Shia in Iraq being killed even for just today in bigger number than that, apparently accepted as part of normal life.

You know why the Shia being attacked like this? Because probably earth did not know another group as morally restricted from making a generalized response that could unjustly include the innocent Ssunnies as they are (however again, if a level of justice like in this country is the line they do not want to cross I am not sure they are working sufficiently within this line to prevent such attacks).     

Like I said previously, attacks and death of the Shia in Iraq are tolerated as normal part of life that they are, and have been so for a long time, hardly given attention by the news media. Today I did a search to demonstrate that and HERE is an example of what I found. Here is ANOTHER  example. And here is a THIRD one. Here is a  FORTH  one. 

While there is no excuse in targeting the innocent for the action of the guilty, one would still wonder if history had known any other example of a majority in the position of power controlling themselves from unjust and generalized responses like the Shia in Iraq? 

However, while I may complement self restrictions not to violate justice I still criticize hardly the lack of sufficient work with in the lines of it.

By the way, the attacks in Ssunny cities are conducted by the same groups and generally target government forces.

  
   

I don't know it to have happened in the contemporary, if not the entire, history of this nation that it stood with and gave support to taking action in another country to impose none democratic system until the actions of this president in Yemen.

Again, people here need to open their eyes and see that they, through their president, are supporting in Yemen an attack that is on its face is for a none democratic government that could even be worse than the one being attacked. The attack has the Saudi face on it which is far from being known for having a democratic system for itself let alone bringing it to other nations but instead is known for its targeting of any group classified as Shia whenever they make a sound for themselves even in their own countries. 

  

So now we have moved from not questioning the justice of those drone attacks to not caring about having a just cause to begin with?      

And the amazing thing is that some here are still calling their president "the leader of  the free world". Shouldn't he be on its side first? The guy is supporting what the Saudi government is trying to impose in Yemen. How differently you think not the uncaring but the enemy of the free world would act? 

Even if the question of justice and democracy is not the main focus, if you are already involved in fighting or supporting and backing a fighting for some kind of government why don't you make it a fight for a democratic one? Or is it merely seeking an evil path just for its evilness?    

Notice that, although you may see a reference to The Muslim Brotherhood here and there, like when you click on the "Islah Party" in the quote of the post below, keep in mind that the Egyptian one could be different and that in many issues it may have its own separate path from those associated with the Saudis or The Muslim Brotherhood of Syria.     

Even before this attack by the Saudis, look at its involvement and the kind of manipulation and control and creation of a system far from providing equality for all as could THIS from Wikipedia suggests:

"In the absence of strong state institutions, elite politics in Yemen constituted a de facto form of collaborative governance, where competing tribal, regional, religious and political interests agreed to hold themselves in check through tacit acceptance of the balance it produced.^[15] The informal political settlement was held together by a power-sharing deal between three men: president Ali Abdullah Saleh, who controlled the state; major general Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, who controlled the largest share of the army; and sheikh Abdullah al-Ahmar, figurehead of the Islamist Islah party and Saudi Arabia's chosen broker of transnational patronage payments to various political players,^[16] including tribalsheikhs.^{[17][18][19][20]} The Saudi payments have been intended to facilitate the tribes autonomy from the Yemeni government and to give the Saudi government a mechanism with which to weigh in on Yemen's political decision making.^[21]

... Saudi Arabia's main concern was to maintain its influence in Yemen through some old regime figures and other tribal leaders who were part of the so-called "GCC initiative""

Remember, the actions and intentions mentioned here are not related to some democratic country that is also not known for targeting a specific group. On the contrary, this is a report suggesting talking and walking like a duck related to what we already know as a duck. 

And for the guy who describe himself as the legitimate president, HERE is how he was elected according to wikipedia

"A presidential election was held in Yemen on 21 February 2012. Acting President Abd Rabbuh Mansur al-Hadi was the only candidate in the election. He was sworn in as president of Yemen on 25 February 2012 in the Presidential Palace...Hadi won 99.8 percent of the vote."   

Like I said earlier that purpose also needs to be declared to that group because currently the action being taken has the Saudi face on it which clearly does not reflect democracy or justice.

One could also say that there were no signs to support that the group being attacked by the Saudis is a bad enough alternative to make taking control from it with no regard to the kind of system that would replace it a valid purpose.

Also, like I stated previously, there was no showing of crimes and atrocities for the group  being attacked by the Saudis in Yemen that could be used as an argument for its elimination being itself the purpose.   

People here need to ask this president what is that which he wants to do there? What are his objectives and how he intends to reach them? Suppose that those against whom he approves and supports the Saudi attacks are no longer in control of any place, what is the next step in his plan? Would we be the one building a government there or would we also just let that to the Saudis?   

This president may also needs to be told that he cannot attack an entity or stand with and support such attack in order to balance things out because you previously attacked an entity from the opposing side. People are not objects. Every person should be dealt with according to his own actions. 

This targeting to the Shia in their own countries by the Saudi government is one of the worst and most inexcusable discrimination in modern history and this president is condoning and supporting it. 

Even if not a democracy, in Afghanistan and Iraq was there any doubt that the system we are bringing is better than that which existed there at the time? Do we know here that the government system which the Saudis is fighting for is better than that which they are fighting against for us to stand with them on that?  

Was there any doubt when this country took its direct action in Iraq and Afghanistan that it intended to build democracy there? So why doesn't this president make clear what is his just intention for Yemen especially given that he is acting indirectly and using the least trust deserving proxy?   

Saudi government claim Iran interference in Yemen? How does that claim compare to even just what is established of its own interference there? In any case, does anyone see Iran's airplanes bombing targets there? If no, then why doesn't the Saudis limit themselves to the same level of interference?

I don't care whether the Saudi government claims Iran or even Satan himself being behind those they are targeting in Yemen, it still did not show any harm from them in its own country to justify attacking them in their own country. Of course that is not new since it also failed to give any justification for its action for same targeting  in Bahrain.  

How the world is tolerating one country singling out one group of people to go after and attack those who belong to it even in their own countries like this is beyond me. What century are we living in? 

Again, this guy in the white house has been severely degrading and making us guilty by associating us and making us stand with a none democratic force like that of Saudi Arabia. Power has apparently went to his head and he is acting like he thinks he can do whatever he wants. How many other countries currently having their airplanes bombing a neighbouring country like the action the Saudi government is doing in Yemen which we are supporting? It is clearly and in front of every body is involving itself directly where it has no business being, because of a claim regarding indirect involvement by another country? So if it is neither a question of justice between countries nor democracy, what is it then? Does this guy care to explain to us?

Moral values imposes a responsibility on those in congress to force the path of justice on this or any other president who diverge from it especially a divergence like this. It is not just about being strong and powerful. It is very important to me and every citizen with moral restrictions as well that if we face any reaction to our international actions, to at least be capable of saying that we do stand with democracy. But this president is not only not fulfilling that in Yemen but is instead standing with the opposite of it. 

Even if he wants to please the Saudi government, what does the Saudi government want? I have one policy for everywhere. I stand for democracy in Yemen where the Shia is a minority just as I stand for democracy in Iraq where the Shia is the majority. Why doesn't this president stand with democracy and tell the Saudi government don't you want democracy for Yemen? Don't you want the same thing that you were complaining about being given to the Shia majority in Iraq be given to the Ssunny majority in Yemen? Or were you pleased about the Iraq situation and we just missed that?

ATTENTION!!!!!

THAT GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING US EXTREMELY DOWN MORALLY IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. ALTHOUGH, THIS COUNTRY MAY ACKNOWLEDGE  DICTATORSHIPS BY DEALING WITH THEM , IT AT LEAST, BRING DEMOCRACY NOT DICTATORSHIPS TO POWER WHEN IT CHANGES A RULING GOVERNMENT. THAT SEEMS TO BE NO LONGER THE CASE WITH OUR SUPPORT TO THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT ACTION IN YEMEN. THE GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING AWAY THAT ONE SINGLE MORAL THING FROM US.

BEFORE THAT HE DISAPPOINTED THE DEMOCRACY IN EGYPT THAT CAME TO HIM LIKE A PIECE OF CAKE. HE HAD THE WEAKER SIDE RULING WHILE THE STRONG MILITARY LED BY THE CURRENT DICTATOR ON THE OPPOSING SIDE. INSTEAD OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT BALANCE TO SAFEGUARD DEMOCRACY UNTIL NEXT ELECTION, HE CHOSE TO LET THE MILITARY SIDE 

TAKE POWER AND ESTABLISH A DICTATORSHIP.

NOW THAT DICTATOR IS ACTING LIKE THAT ISIS TERROR GROUP. HE EVERY NOW AND THEN FLEXES HIS MUSCLES ON THE FORMER ELECTED PRESIDENT AND OTHER  HELPLESS POLITICAL PRISONERS AND MOST RECENTLY EVEN ISSUING DEATH SENTENCES ON THEM.     

CRAMMING SOME INTERNATIONAL ISSUES 2

You changed the system in a shallow way that people never felt justice. Things were like a joke and many apparently were not held accountable to their criminal actions with the former regime. So beside the question of justice your change of government did not sound like a real change and many pro past regime acted as if they can continue their path just with different name. They, in fact, did not even bother to hide that. I saw someone speaking about how the killing by western powers and Iraqi government at that time exceeded the killing during Saddam's ruling. The Pro Saddam appeared to be in parliament and in government positions like nothing really changed. I wonder did the change of government of Hitler also made with such level of low just prosecution? You acted like the person who does a surgery with extremely low level of disinfection then wonder about the complications afterwords. 

Then came the issue of how to deal with applying democracy. There is a common Iraqi saying, which probably has its counterparts in other cultures, that if there were an international competition for wisdom words from common people I would have entered that competition with it. It has an amazing amount of psychology concentrated in it. The saying states that, in rough translation, fear the good person if he becomes hungry and fear the bad person if he becomes full. You may say, that is good but how can I know the good from the bad to apply that. The answer is yes, that could be very difficult but in a situation were you are changing a regime like Saddam's with all its immorality, to which group you think those who were on the side of such regime belong? 

Like that military leader who burned the ships showing no path behind exists, you needed to burn the mental ships that tempt the evil persons to seek the old system by as much as possible not giving an opportunity for that which can occur by the simple showing of any weakness in action. I would say if you want  justice and equality it is your lucky day; but if you want to mess things we can kick your behind and make you ultimately reach the same result. I wouldn't go after and beg anybody to participate in a democratic system. Instead I would say that democracy is what you will get, and when balancing with similar rights for others, it is the only thing you would get.

After giving democracy with protected rights, I wouldn't listen much to complaints of not sharing power that comes from deep refusal to accepting the essence of democracy.   

CRAMMING SOME INTERNATIONAL ISSUES 1

I need to go back to talk about the Supreme Crap of this country so I may cram these international issues here.

I want to talk about the mess of those in power in this and by extension probably also some other western democratic countries.

First, let me give you the very important advice not to compare your advancement in science and technology to that of things like politics and think you are most probably correct in your policies because you have such level of advancement there. These two things exist like each in its own universe.

Now, I want to start from my believe that democracy is for everywhere. If you put a group of cave men together who need to make a governing entity the other natural option to the mess and bad consequences of fighting for power is to see who is accepted by the most to lead and make him the leader. Just like how human desires for material things are basically selfish but human beings still live in societies instead of individually attacking each other there is no reason to see that this shouldn't fit selfish desires against democracy.

For people, who are much more ready to accept imperfection in carrying justice than the like of me your actions are very stupid.

You entered Iraq giving the gift of democracy. However, since the majority there are Shia, you decided to act like someone who spend his time cooking a meal for a homeless person but just before he allows that person to eat he picks some dirt from the floor and sprinkle it all over that food. You turned on all your warning lights and sirens on the Shia before they do anything  from much far away than you do that for yourself let alone those dictatorships around and their treatment of people including the Shia there.

Those dictatorships probably told you that Iran is coming and you stupidly failed, and even to this day continue to fail, in recognizing that it is the empowerment of the Shia they real fear not the empowerment of Iran even despite how their actions actually directly fit that. Here you see cops keep showing different violante reactions in arresting somebody while he keeps saying I am not resisting and an external person  really cant see any resistance from him but should assume you are doing your job properly. On the other hand a Shia just need to take a step forward and you would assume that he is going to do the worst things on earth.

It is not that Iraq cant bring a leader like Lincoln. But the restriction you imposed on those inside and their attempt to fit with that restriction instead of their real inner realization to what justice is killed such possibility. From the first day I saw your tanks in Baghdad I said this is a joke and continued to hold my view regarding complying with forms versus complying with real justice. Despite all that,  reading the word militia in  your second amendment here shocked me. I thought this is what their constitution speaks about the militia while they act as if any militia is necessarily evil there? I realized how I left my inner calling to what is just and followed a form created by the west without realizing the wrong in that. So clearly things from here are more difficult to to be seen on their reality there.    

Since the attack of 2001, I have never seen what suggests that the Saudi Government is connected to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, at least not systematically. But for ISIS it did not take me any considerable time to look at the Saudi behavior and think this is a joke. 

As for ISIS being at the core a second identity game using a fraudulent claim of interest in the religion, I feel confident in that to the level that I may invoke it as part of a bigger picture construction to support other things and see how everything fit altogether but not for any inclination to have it supported by the other elements in that picture because it has enough support for it by itself. However, it seems that, at the outer layers, some still believed and joined that organization for religious reasons. This shows what level the mind boggling superficiality in following the religion has reached.The problem of following those who are connected to the religion merely by the words they use was augmented by the following to those who are intentionally trying to disfigure the religion and scare the west with it as being the bad alternative to their true identity.

If those in the intelligence see and understand things the way I often see conveyed by persons on the TV then the only thing that seems to me can explain falling to recognize the reality behind things orchestrated like a kids show is a high level of blindness caused by the sever problem of the identity complex here.    

        

The Saudi Government and the bus massacre in Pakistan

Why would the Saudi Government want to be behind that attack in Pakistan? One motivation stands out here which is to direct the attention away from its actions in Yemen. 

Looking at the big picture would show this more than a mere possibility. You have the timing, the style, and the taking care of the inability to answer for the outrageousness of the action in Yemen by trying to use something that stands on as much similar grounds and make a similar situation as much as possible. To that end you see how the use of  "We will continue such attacks" (Link) and "In the coming days.." (Link)  could serve the purpose of projecting a continuous  situation in order to be more analogous with what is going on in Yemen.

The style of not being a suicidal attack also fits here since you clearly cant easily do business with suicidal attackers.

We may also see more support and connections if we expand our view. For example, that last thing would fit with the Saudi connection to and playing the game of dual identity with ISIS. That is because it fits connection to the core of what ISIS is in being part of the Syrian resistance which is probably more capable of conducting and teaching military style attacks than other groups.  

                   

Here we go again 3

That attack in Pakistan seems to be, with good  probability, the making of the Saudi Government.

Also, I say again that, ISIS, which is at the root is nothing more than a second identity game played by some of the resistance in Syria, is part of one group with the Saudi Government and you probably are much more capable of taking that to the bank than you think. 

Here we go again 2

Actually, the world appears to have stopped counting in attacks like these on the Shia in Iraq a long time ago. Whether the Shia is majority and the other side is the minority or minority and the other side is the majority these attacks always happen from the other side on them (Although I still wouldn't equate a minority position having much less power to respond without committing similar injustice with those in position of power but do not know how to act. Those who have been in the leadership of Iraq probably needed to read the Constitution of this country paying attention to how it flows from the inner self  in order to recognize the importance of the connection to their inner selves and in turn the merits rather than the forms when trying to act justly) 

Here we go again

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/asia/pakistan-bus-attack/


Show me one attack like these committed by any group classified as a Shia. Yet it is the other side who attack more Shia claiming self defense even before anyone can see any indication of potential danger toward them.

Our very special shame in Yemen

This president granted the country of Saudi Arabia in the region the very special and unique privilege of attacking another  country targeting a specific group in it, which it always target, merely for its own interest or preference without any justification. Does he realize how shameful such position is? Moreover, unlike the interference that the Saudi government did in Bahrain to suppress the demand for democracy by that same general group, which happened also during his administration, it appears that he is making us take the position of actively participating with the Saudis action there as demonstrated by our ships escorting the Iranian ones away from supporting the attacked group there. Everybody should be held to his own actions and the mere wish by the Saudis for the rebels there to be equated with ISIS does not by itself justify treating them as such.  

This president also appears to have neglected  or failed to explain and show how his stand there would fit the most important thing that sets nations like this apart from the like of the Saudi government when they go to change the government of other countries. That thing is to bring the justice of establishing a democratic system. Instead he is supporting the demand requiring those rebels to surrender and give control back to a force that has the face of the Saudi government which is far from being  recognized as a trusted power for bringing democratic change and could have been part of the reason why those rebels had revolted to begin with. Regardless of how much those rebels seem to haven't yet made an established dictatorship and the degree with which their intentions are being pre judged, this president did not offer them an alternative path trusted in bringing a real democracy with basic protected rights at a level trusted in the action of a country like this when it seeks changing the regime.

(continuing from the post below)

While even if the rebels in Yemen are seeking to take control of the country there is nothing to support the believe that the resulted dictatorship will be worse than that in Saudi Arabia or other gulf states, that still does not justify for the rebels taking away the rights of those living with them in the same country if their intention is to build such a dictatorship.

If , on the other hand, their intention is to secure their own voting rights and a basic set of protected rights that also apply to everybody else then they should try to better explain their position to the world and demand guarantee and protection for such rights from the big democratic countries in the world and declare readiness to give away cities they took over if those countries are ready to provide such guarantee and answer related fears. Although ,in addition to failing in showing them attacking or encroaching on other countries, the Saudi government also failed to show any level of criminality and committing of atrocities in them like those which happened in Iraq or Syria, the rebels in Yemen should moreover deny the Saudi government the opportunity to equate them with the like of those in Iraq who already got those rights but resort or condone violent resistance because of  refusal or reluctance to  accept the empowerment to the ruling of the majority in a democratic system, if it is not the case.

I guess all sides claim seeking just cause.Yet, there is still fighting going on. This and other democratic countries, for their part, can declare the intention to build a democratic just system of equal voting rights with protection for basic rights like those provided by the constitution of this country to everybody there then see who would refuse to comply with that despite providing the required guarantee and protection.

The guy in the White House also needs to know that making the super power he leads stands with a country attacking a group in another country based on a self defense claim as weak as the one he is accepting or condoning from the Saudi government for its attack in Yemen is far from being a positive example against chaos in the world. I cant see what forces him to use such path if he is seeking justice and democracy for the people in Yemen.

In addition, I would be even more careful before I ignore complaints of suffering injustice or inequality from people suffer from indiscriminate suicidal or car bombing attacks and still resist to respond the same way. That is especially true when things are contested between them and the like of the Saudi government and those working for it inside Yemen. Did this administration make sure that those rebels are revolting despite the existence of equal voting rights and a constitution guaranteeing basic rights or real path to those aims before agreeing to let the Saudi government corner them? Did trusted entities oversight anything existing of that or are we supposed to trust the Saudi government on it despite its proven extreme discrimination and singling out for the Shia?

The Saudi's Dangerous Precedence

I just want to know, with the world allowing the Saudi government to do what it is doing in Yemen, is the world going to accept that any country attacks whomever it wants in another based on claims of self defense and danger that lack support by evidence, history, or even being rationally explainable to this level? And if that is not enough we actually have signs adding to the lack of rationality in that claim with the relatively recent history of the same attacking country involving itself in Bahrain and claiming a danger from peaceful protesting demanding democracy in that small country.      

Continuing from the post below

And in case having the man in that situation acts as if he was in need to point out being shot himself does not reflect badly enough on the environment, you also can hear the man proceeding after that to complain about his breath with one of the cops responding with "F*** your breath".

It is not possible to see from the video the reaction of that reserve cop who pulled his gun instead of a taser and shot that man in Tulsa . However, based on what I hear in that video it seems as if I could accidentally step on the foot of a person but still react in a way showing how shocked and horrified I am by what I did more than that. Without knowing what happened, it sounds that one could think that the shooting guy was reacting for something like accidentally dropping and damaging a cell phone, and probably not an expensive one, of one of his partners.

Democracy attempt in Egypt

From the beginning the change of the regime was clearly too easy for me to believe. I saw the Egyptians celebrate their military during that uprising treating it as if it is for the people not the government. Watching that I remembered how I wondered when Saddam's military was bombing and attacking my city in Iraq in the uprising of 1991 why some people were claiming that the attacking solders were brought from far. So, apparently it was also part of a similar wishful thinking that the military in a dictatorship is with the people not the government or is easily ready for a spontaneous change from that to be on the side of justice and democracy.  I don't expect to see one dictatorship on earth that is not supported by its military or even anyone who would be crazy enough to try to impose a dictatorship without arranging things with the military of the country first. But I thought, who knows may be the situation is different there. Seeing people go to the elections and voting there, that probability appeared to be strengthened despite the fact that inside I was far from being convinced a real change happened . However, it did not take long to see the military take back direct control. I was correct and so were probably so many other people there who , being like me from that part of the world, couldn't believe a real change happened. So many of those people probably did not go to vote whether because of fear or seeing what was going on as a joke and as a result a potentially very different voting results did not materialize while many in the west kept complaining that "islamists" won the election.

Election System In Iran - 2

I casted a doubt on the correctness of election results in Iran in that post because of the complaints that happened with Ahmedinajad's second term election. Otherwise, unlike the situation of Putin in Russia for example, regarding the question of whether the election results in Iran are correct or manipulated by the ruling system I think they are correct. So, after writing that there I thought I probably should try more not to add to the confusion in distinguishing between correct and fake results world wide if I truly think otherwise. 

Furthermore, after that I also noticed the question of why would the system there need to fabricate results with its level of restriction on candidacy?  

Again, I am referring to  the question of fabrication of results by the ruling system not what candidates or those on their side may do if they can. 

 

Election System In Iran

Aside from how much of the elections in Iran is real and the question of what gives you the right to impose Islam as a starting point (although I wouldn't be much surprised if that can be spun back based on  Islam itself), we see this:

Guardian Council of the Constitution ------> (by restricting candidates) Assembly of Experts 

Assembly of Experts -----> (by appointment) Supreme Leader

Guardian Council of the Constitution------> (by restricting candidates) Parliament

Supreme Leader ----> (by appointments) half of Guardian Council of the Constitution

Parliament ----> (by appointments) half of Guardian Council of the Constitution

I wonder if this was the inspiration of Putin-Medvedev's combination?

    

There is a circular dependency here and present situation may have no way to escape being  predetermined by past results. Is this more of a way to give power to people or to hijack power and make it continuously dependent on people's trust and faith or hope placed at the starting point (Like that which could have been there at the beginning after the revolution) ?  Shouldn't any reasonable constitution give the power for fresh start to the people at some recurring point?

For example although the President and Senate here appoint federal judges, still if everybody misbehave without exception, people would still have the power of fresh start to change and remove them all directly or indirectly (through the replacements they elect) without exception.  

 

Continuing from the post below:

I don't know how that crime was committed but shooting the women here makes it as if the guy, in addition to committing the act of taking lives unjustly, was in competition with the like of ISIS for the lowest scale in lack of morality and shameless act. If it were me investigating whether this was a hate crime, I probably would be looking if there is what could negate what appears to be strongly suggesting that from the onset.  

Some are questioning whether the guy who killed three in North Carolina did it because of religious hatred or was about parking dispute. Whatever the reason could be the end result is that the guy killed three people. However, if we want to get into the reason for the action I would not limit myself to the superficial dealing with events like these by depending merely on a wider

view searching for direct clues in that regard as it seems to be the usual way of investigating these things here. For example, in this case not only the two claims are not necessarily contradictory but they also have a special fit. A park is a place for a car. In other words, a park is a place for a car to exist. So it is not hard to see hatred to the existence of a person to manifest itself through such matter and make it acquire such unusual importance. Of course, this by itself is only suggestible theory as would generally be the case with any other clues in that regard that could be found through a widened searching view to the person.  

Although I did not remember hearing about Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda at that time , when he was pointed at as being behind the attack of 2001 I did not feel any inclination to question that. That does not mean if I was a judge or a jury I would accept such accusations without sufficient evidence. It only means that inside, I, and most probably many others even outside this country, did not feel a worthy amount of doubt that he would be accused here if he was really not behind that. However, corruption seems to have embarked on taking even that from us. Because of the accusatory jokes we have been hearing at this level, such faith can hardly be seen as lasting with the continuation of such examples.

Here we go again with another ridiculous claim of hacking by China to some data from some entity neither of which makes any sense for being a target of interest to the dictatorship leading that country. As usual you can smell the corruption from even just the way the claim is being made.

Reason for the FBI's claim

Why would the FBI wants to cooperate with making that false claim of Sony's hacking by the dictatorship of North Korea? I have strong belief that it was at least partly a service for the hedge fund guy I am suing and his connections.  I think that the FBI was helping the hedge fund guy in showing me how high he can go and still cause the corrupt compliance he wants so that I would have less expectations for the Supreme Court to act differently than the lower two Federal Courts. I think that whether he knows or not, the President was used for that purpose. I also wouldn't be surprised to know that some talk against the FBI's claim that preceded my writing about the issue was pushed by the hedge fund guy himself  to be more confident that I can see through that claim.   

The antisemitism in the common use of "antisemitism"

It seems as if after ignoring the descendants of Ismail as descendants of Abraham ,which is at least biologically wrong even if  you believe according to your religion that the man who faced being thrown in fire and done all what he did for his faith couldn't control himself not to commit adultery to have a son, some in the western world thought why not expand on that denial in depth and width  by limiting the  use of the term "antisemitic" to only one subgroup excluding and denying the existence of the rest of the group to the time of Noah.    

Yesterday CBS aired this report explaining why the FBI accused North Korea with the hacking of Sony.

Not only that would require believing in the FBI's honesty in defending an investigation where its honesty could have been in question, the stated claim by itself seems venerable. According to that claim North Korea has been trying to hack American companies long before the attack on Sony. Why then didn't we hear about similar things like this one before? With all the less than pleasing things that were going on around throughout all that time  why didn't it try to at least take some revenge by messing things like it did in this hacking? Same question also applies to other western countries. It is not like it has a good relation with any of them. That must be some quite self control by a system run by the whims of a dictatorship coming from a young man who, according to the news, even obligated other young men in his country to have the same hair cut as his.

Now, we have also to continue to the conflicting assumption that all that self control and self hiding and avoidance of suspension by that dictatorship evaporated in this Sony hacking when things apparently point  only to it as the one with a motive and for the sake of a movie.    

Although one may be tempted to generalize because of the proximity,it is amazing how the small cities I live in here are different from the main big one despite being so close to it. In a few years these two cities (the one I live in and the other one between it and the big city) showed me shameless and aggressive discriminating behavior that I did not experience at that level in the main city despite living there much longer. If one occasionally experience a discrimination and sick level of hatred in that big city, one can hardly go out and do even a little task without experiencing that in a much more obvious way. I may in the future provide specific example about the level of discrimination here. However, my main intention here is to point out the difference between the big city and those two small cities close to it. This also may provide some answer to what I used to wonder about in seeing how the population of big cities grows much faster than that of the small ones surrounding it.    

This recent hacking or messing with military and defense department related data was -you guessed it- also framed on other entities . It is and Sony's in addition to the preceding ones were most probably were all originated ,not necessarily in the technical sense, from the same entity here.

No one needs to take into account the alleged hacking of  North Korea to Sony to see how bad that dictator is. Its significance here is less than that of adding a traffic ticket violation to a murder trial.

Here, on the other hand, we are already swimming in an ocean of corruption and we do not need to add to it corruption at this level with these kind of issues. It is a question of corruption not inelegance and the FBI can hardly be seen as anywhere  near being really misled by decoys here.

The allegation do not fit to a level that calls badly for a very deep, honest and comprehensive real investigation to the investigation itself that led to that conclusion probably for the service of someone trying to show that he can get corruption help anywhere he wants.