Serial Liar Reza Kahlili's Tall Tale: 'Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls for destruction of Israel, Jews'

[stockholmer]

I wrote most of this myself, as I could not find it being addressed yet on the net.

http://dissentradio.com/radio/12_02_06_sahimi.mp3 (right click, save as) 20 minutes long

Please listen to this interview above with Iranian USC professor Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering and political columnist on Iran issues. He discusses the latest anti-Iran talking point from World Net Daily and serial propagandist Reza Kahlili (“Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel“ http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/ ), what Alireza Forghani, the blogger in question, really said about Israel and preemptive strikes, and why many Americans want to believe every anti-Muslim propaganda piece they see.

Sahimi is NO FRIEND of the Iranian regime, btw, as members of his family were tortured to death by it in the aftermath of the 1979 Revolution.

-----------------------------------------

Reza Kahlili = a low-rent Ahmed Chalabi (along with dozens of other ex-Iranian fear-mongers, con artists, opportunists, etc).

Reza Kahlili http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/reza_kahlili_self-proclaimed_ex-cia_spy_makes_new_iran_claims.html completely misrepresents sources, falsely claims one website is doing something, when it is another, purposely misquotes, etc. All in all pretty much standard fair for this huckster scam artist. Kahlili is a so-called, self-proclaimed 'CIA-affiliated' disinfo agent, a darling of the Pam Geller, et al nutcase neo-con war monger crowd. He has been repeatedly debunked at all levels. He claims that Iran has has full-blown nuclear warheads for years. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/27/iran-already-has-nuclear-weapons/?page=all He is one of the biggest pushers of the 'Iranian EMP weapon will end most life in the USA' myth, which is laughable http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/us/politics/gingrichs-electromagnetic-pulse-warning-has-skeptics.html?_r=1 in its utter disregard of all known nuclear weapons science, as well as basic physics. http://www.alternet.org/story/25738/?page=1



The sham article 'Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls for destruction of Israel, Jews' (a 'Saddam tossing babies from incubators' level piece of propaganda) was near the top on the Drudge Report, and is now being picked up and expanded upon by more and more news sources each day, and if not checked, will go down a 'common wisdom'.

Examples of its spread:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097252/Kill-Jews-annihilate-Israel-Irans-supreme-leader-lays-legal-religious-justification-attack.html

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6058.htm

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/02/05/israels-netanyahu-to-visit-us-as-concern-grows-over-possible-iran-attack/

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=44676

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/iranian-website-calls-for-murder-of-all-jewish-israelis/252758/

http://theview.abc.go.com/forum/iranian-leader-calls-destruction-israel-and-aniihilation-jews-worldwide

http://www31.vosizneias.com/100442/2012/02/06/tehran-iran-ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel

http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2012/02/06/the-nature-of-the-islamic-republic/ (by the despicable Eliott Abrams)

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/islamic-fascist-republic-of-iran-calls-to-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel---israel-vs-genocide/question-2443809/

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152478

and of course RimJob and the Freeper robots of hate bit hook, line, and sinker

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2843489/posts?page=3



Help stop this disinfo cog in the marching war machine now.

[DCKit]

1. It would be one thing for Sahimi to join in propagandizing against the Iranian regime...

but the consequences to his fellow countrymen if he joined with our homegrown, draft-dodging chickenhawks, the RW propaganda outlets and Kahlili - and they were successful - has been clearly spelled out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iranian people have suffered enough.

[stockholmer]

2. Sahimi is completely anti-war, he despises the RW neo-con chickenhawks, et al (I guess I was unclear

this). Hope you get a chance to listen to the interview.

[DCKit]

3. I wasn't arguing, simply pointing out the possible consequences.

I assumed we had a similar viewpoint.

[Hugabear]

4. There you go again, injecting logic and reality into a topic that is neither

Even here on DU, you will find sometimes find those who simply run with the "Iran says they want to kill all Jews and wipe Israel off the map" meme.

Far easier to simply swallow the overwhelming anti-Iran propaganda than to question and wonder where it's all coming from.

[JDPriestly]

5. I don't understand.

Are you trying to say that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei does not call for the destruction of Israel and Jews? What is the Ayatollah's stance on Jews and Israel if he doesn't want to destroy them?

The post is pretty incomprehensible.

[Hugabear]

6. You do realize there are Jews serving in Iran's parliament

There's also a sizable Jewish population living within Iran.

So if Iran really wanted to "kill Jews", seems it would be far easier to start at home rather than going to war with another country.

[JDPriestly]

21. Yes. I am very aware of that.

I could not understand what was being said in the post.

[stockholmer]

8. he did not call for it, the mp3 interview explains it all in depth, the thumbnail version is that

Reza Kahlili (in his original World Net Daily article) completely misrespresented who posted, where they posted, and what they said. In the mp3, Sahimi destroy's Kahlili on all fronts.

The middle of my post is background on Kahlili as a serial liar and nutcase (with examples). The final part is examples of how Kahlili's lies are spreading globally and used to whip up more war frenzy.


As for myths vs. realities of the Iranian regime, Juan Cole wrote a good article a couple years ago:

http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/top-things-you-think-you-know-about.html


Hope that helps.





As for Reza Kahlili, would you buy a used car from this man?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. Anyone who doesn't hate the Ayatollah has no right to call themselves a liberal,

so the fact that you're using "hate" as a bad thing here worries me considerably.

He really is an evil, bigotted, anti-semitic monster, and should be acknowledged as such.


In terms of the specific, the Ayatollah is repeatedly on record calling for the destruction of Israel and the deaths of vast numbers of Jews; focussing on the fact that there are some he doesn't want killed strikes me as hair-splitting, to say the least.

[stockholmer]

9. false choice, I never said the regime was a just one, but I AM a progressive who opposes the march

to an UNJUST war based on falsehoods perpetrated by serial con artists who serve deeper, more nefarious reasons and masters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. There's kind of a gap between "unjust" and "rape as government policy". N.T.

[JackRiddler]

10. I wasn't aware that "liberal" is defined by required hate.

Thanks for making clear how you feel. Excuse me if after reading that I decide that at least on a rhetorical level, you are no ambassador for liberalism.

Now.

stockholmer presents a case that certain statements attributed to Khamenei are in fact fabricated by those who wish to wage war on Iran.*

Do you have anything to say about that, or would you prefer to give us a longer list of people we are supposed to "hate" if we want to remain in your "liberal" club?

-------------------------

* That would be a real war with real killing. The kind that the nuclear-armed Israeli rogue state has started on other countries many times. The kind that modern-era Iran has never started, despite the threat it supposedly poses to its neighbors.

.

[renie408]

12. +1!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I did indeed have something to say about that, as you are no doubt aware,

having read my post before having replied to it.

As for "real killing" - how many people do you think the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have murdered? Or the weapons Iran supplies to the Taliban? Or Hamas, or Islamic Jihad - both heavily Iranian-backed? Iran hasn't technically started wars, because it doesn't want to fight armies, it prefers to have proxies target civilians.

[JackRiddler]

16. Now imagine the US had not committed a war of aggression against Iraq...

Before we go on: Provide evidence for your astonishing claim that the radical Shi'a government of Iran is supplying its old enemies, the Sunni radical Taliban. Or correct yourself. It's on you as the one making the claim.

At the time the USG launched the aggressive invasion of Iraq, USG was also declaring that Iran was part of an "Axis of Evil." The USG threat to wage war on Iran was all-too credible. It started before the election of Ahmedinejad, at a time when the moderate Khatami was president. The superpower showed it had the will and ability to commit mass murder without needing any credible pretext and even when almost all of its allies were in opposition.

It's as if a galactic superpower blew up Canada and threatened to blow up your country next. Logically, you would find yourself some allies in Canada.

If the US had not committed the worst crime of this century in Iraq, then Iran would have had neither the opportunity nor the incentive, in self-defense, to be involved in Iraq. Yet some of those same Shi'a militias, especially the government-near ones, are also backed by the US. Interesting, no? I guess your black-and-white view of the world doesn't go that far.

As long as the occupying power of Israel maintains Gaza as an open-air prison and claims a right to murder the people there at any time in the streets, there will be a Hamas fighting back. Too bad if they turn to Iran for supplies.

Iran has not attacked any country and will not attack Israel, whereas Israel has stated a desire to attack Iran, and (speaking of proxies) is lobbying for others to attack Iran. Once again, the pretext (in this case, more "weapons of mass destruction&quot is known to be fabricated.

The USG must stop threatening Iran and condemn the Israeli push for war at all costs. The way of threats and sanctions has failed. An opening will come through negotiations and engagement.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Here.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. Here.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm

[JackRiddler]

20. For the record, your source is the US Department of State.

That would be a department from a government that actually sponsors an armed insurgency and acts of terrorism in Iran.

Pretty pathetic.

My view is that spokespersons for war-sponsoring organizations like the State Department should actually be paid for it. As a self-appointed volunteer, you undervalue yourself. You ought to demand payment.

[sabrina 1]

19. Well said. I am learning a lot these past few years about how wrong I apparently was

regarding what the 'liberal' really means. It gets very confusing because throughout the Bush era, we were as united against all these phony wars as the far right was in favor of them.

Now, the far right of course is always ready to go kill 'some ragheads' led by the usual bloodthirsty suspects. But from out of nowhere it seems to me, we now all these liberals either silent about this new rush to war, or totally on board with it. What happend, did I just not see them during the Bush years?

And btw, whatever happened to Chalabi, hero of the far right, recognized for what he was by the left, now MIA. I guess he served his purpose.

So now we have a new Chalabi for a new war. The script never changes, does it, when the war machine is gearing up for a new profitable war in some oil producing country? We have the 'babies in the ovens' routine, the 'ex-pats', the claims of 'mushroom clouds' or some variation of it.

Have we hired the Rendon Group yet?

Anyone considering a war with Iran is certifiable and should be removed any position of power if they have one before it is too late.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Rape, for example is not a liberal value. It is, however, a value of the Iranian regime.

The Iranian regime really is unutterably evil. That so many DUers refuse to accept this, simply because it opposes the USA, really does seem to lend credence to the right-wing line that many liberals hate the USA, which mildly horrifies me.

For the record, I'm strongly against war against Iran. While the reasons against it in this thread are mostly nonsense, there are other good ones (specifically: such a war would only make things in Iran even worse).

But this thread is full of idiots who cannot distinguish between "war is not the solution" and "the Iranian regime is not a problem". And that so many self-proclaimed liberals are acting as apologists for a regime which has had women under sentence of death deliberately raped so as not to execute virgins sickens me.

[JackRiddler]

23. Schematic black-and-white thinking is not a liberal value.

Saddam was a very bad man. And yet not every accusation leveled at him was true. And some accusations against him were invented to commit a crime against the Iraqi people that was even worse than what Saddam had done to them already.

Those who deconstructed these false accusations did not therefore defend Saddam's other bad acts, or hate the USA.

People here can bloody well distinguish between a bad Iranian regime (which has only grown worse thanks to Western pressures) and the idea that war is not the solution. They're just not going to participate in the demonization and manufactured propaganda that goes together with the push to war.

The most important thing Americans (and that is what most of us are) can do right now to help Iranians is to oppose the plots for starting a war on Iran, which will make everything worse. This is not support for the Iranian regime. And that you flip this somehow into "hating the USA" is triply disgusting.

And funny, because the one who seems incapable of expressing outrage without literally demanding that we "hate" - as a requirement to be considered liberal, no less - is you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. When the situation is black and white then it is.

Not all moral issues are shades of grey. The Iranian regime really does have people raped and murdered and tortured in huge numbers

If you want to make the case against an invasion of Iran in such a way that you might actually convince someone who supported it, rather than purely as an exercise in barren self-satisfaction, you need to do so in such a way that implies that you have grasped what the issues are, rather than simply indulging in kneejerk antiAmericanism. Referring to criticism of the Iranian regime as "demonisation" and "manufactured propaganda" makes it fairly clear that you *haven't* grasped that, and fatally undercuts any possibility you might have of convincing anyone.

You need to *start* by acknowledging that the Iranian regime really is not merely bad but one of the worst on the planet (although by no means uniquely bad; there are plenty of other appalling ones too); that it really does support terrorist groups to attack all sorts of other countries, and have people raped before executing them, and has called for the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews, and many of the other "horror stories" are absolutely true too.

*Then* you can make the point that a war would make things worse, not better, and it will be clear that you have at least some idea what the stakes are, and haven't simply underestimated how bad not having a war is.

[sabrina 1]

27. The US has people, raped and tortured and murdered also. Or have you forgotten

Abu Ghraib to mention just one example.

I have Iranian friends, they feel about the same way about their government as we do about ours. And a lot better about it than, say Uzbeks, a country which tortures and murders its citizens, but 'they let us build bases there' so we not only turn a blind eye, but fund them with tax dollars also.

Seems our 'morality' has little to do with the crimes of its leaders, but more to do with how cooperative they are with us. Once they are cooperative, who cares about all the rape and murder etc.?

I never see OPs here about the horrible crimes of Karamov. Although if we ever decide it is more advantageous to invade that country, we will hear the same talking points now being used against Iran. All of a sudden there will be an awareness of what a bad man Karamov is. And depending on which party is in power when and if this ever happens, that 'team' will be presenting all the arguments now being presented here, while the other 'team' will use it feign outrage.

To my knowledge we are not funding the Iranian government. We are however, funding Karamov. Where is the outrage over something we are claiming we care so much about, and something maybe we, as citizens of a government that is propping up this regime, could actually do something about. Imagine how thrilled those people would be to hear that the US is no longer funding their dictator?

Hypocrisy is right. Our ethics are situational. Which is why they are not believable or respected just about anywhere in the world at this point. It would be difficult to find too many people around the world who believe we actually care about the people of any these countries we invade. We just use them so we can claim it's a 'humanitarian' mission. And that is not working anymore, is it, so they will either have to be honest re Iran and tell the truth about WHY that country is being targeted or come up with some other clever and deceptive excuse.

[sabrina 1]

24. Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and a whole host of our allies are far worse

than Iran when it comes to rape and homophobia and the suppression of women. How liberal is it to not just leave them alone, to stay out of their affairs but to actually support them, with money, with the full backing of this government? Why are some dictatorships more acceptable than others? I mean it's as if we are consistent with our so-called values, is it? Executing gay people is fine apparently when the Saudis do it.

I don't recall saying anything about Iran's government, it is not my business. I have faith in the people of Iran to deal with their own problems, which will be a lot easier to do if they are not constantly interfered with by Western powers. The reason Iran has the government it now has is a direct result of that kind of interference, the installation of the Shah, a cruel dictator who was fully supported by US.

We at least agree that a war with Iran would in fact make things a lot worse for the Iranian people, as it did for the Iraqis and the Afghans and just about any other place that has been invaded by one empire or another.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Nonsense.

> Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and a whole host of our allies are far worse than Iran when it comes to rape and homophobia and the
> suppression of women

"Not noticeably better than", sure. "Far worse than" strikes me as wishful thinking, trying to make the US appear more immoral than it is.


> Why are some dictatorships more acceptable than others? I mean it's as if we are consistent with our so-called values, is it?
> Executing gay people is fine apparently when the Saudis do it.

They aren't. I entirely agree that there's a double standard. But you're on the wrong side of it - you should be complaining about the lack of condemnation of the Saudi government, not the condemnation of the Iranian one! I'll take inconsistent opposition to evil over no opposition to evil any day.


>I don't recall saying anything about Iran's government, it is not my business.

By all means take the "it's not my business" line to avoid joining in discussions about Iran, but if you choose to do so, as you have done, then it stops being valid, and the only liberal line to take is "the Iranian regime is evil".


> I have faith in the people of Iran to deal with their own problems, which will be a lot easier to do if they are not constantly
> interfered with by Western powers.

Like all forms of faith-based thinking, this is foolish (at least the first half). What the evidence shows is that the Iranian people are probably not able to deal with their own problems. It may well be that there is/will remain nothing the West can do to help either (I certainly can't see any such options at present, although possibly sanctions may help reduce support for the regime; I don't know enough to be certain), but that doesn't mean that doing nothing will result in things improving. You may be right that Western backing for opposition movements will do them more harm than good, though.

>The reason Iran has the government it now has is a direct result of that kind of interference, the installation of the Shah, a cruel
> dictator who was fully supported by US.

*A* reason. The actions of Iranians contributed too.

> We at least agree that a war with Iran would in fact make things a lot worse for the Iranian people, as it did for the Iraqis and the
> Afghans and just about any other place that has been invaded by one empire or another.

I would cite Kosovo as an obvious counter-example from recent history; things in Afghanistan arguably improved in the short-term as a result of the invasion, too, and it's only become such a catastrophe because attention was diverted to Iraq rather than focussed on building a functional state there. And, conversely, there have been a bunch of places in Africa where Western military intervention would probably have done a great deal of good.

[Hugabear]

11. See #6

What many anti-Iranian propagandists overlook is that there are quite a few Jews living inside of Iran. In fact, the Ayatollah issued a "fatwa" declaring that Iranian Jews were to be protected. There are Jews serving in Iran's parliament.

Kind of hard to square with the idea that the Ayatollah wants to "kill all Jews".

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. thank you for posting --- EVERYONE MUST listen to the radio interview !!!!!!!!!!

http://dissentradio.com/radio/12_02_06_sahimi.mp3