Iranian Regime and Palestinian Nationalist ties to Nazism

[caketastydelish]

However, the reason and the only reason why the US is allies with Saudi Arabia is because they support the US petrodollar. As far as India, I don't know much about US interests in regards to them. I never looked into it.

Yes, Saudi's give us oil whereas those pesky Iranians won't, that's what a lot of it comes down to. India is a US ally despite being ranked as literally the worst country in the world for women to live in (with Saudi Arabia getting spot number 2).

Iran's government is backwards through and through but many of our "friends" are just as bad, the only difference is their governments would rather suck up to us rather than stand their ground.

If we're going to sanction Iran for the idiotic beliefs of their leaders we should be doing the same with a lot of these other countries we call our friends.

This is where I disagree with you. Iran has consistently demonstrated that they are run by fundamentalist religious fanatics and are a radically unstable force in the region who hates Jews and hates the West.

The people at the top of their theocratic craptacular regime want to be bullies, but they aren't nearly as good at being bullies as the United States has been for the last 50 years and continues to be.

They also have very strong ties to Nazi ideology which they preach publicly on a regular basis.

Considering just how terrible the Iranian regime is there are few things I would actually put past them, but this is one of them. Where is the proof that they actually have ties to Nazi ideology? They say anti-semetic things, but that in and of itself is not necessarily tied to nazi ideology (although I condemn their anti-semitism regardless, but still).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Saudis don't give the US oil. They trade oil to the US in order to get the dollars they need to pay the US for keeping their regime in place. It is the same deal we have had with various Iraqi regimes, various Iranian regimes, and numerous others. If they get too comfortable with their people, we sanction them to make their people uncomfortable, then sponsor a coup of some sort. Some nations in the Middle East, after decades of being kept in a perpetual state of civil war, are getting resistant and have required direct invasions.

 

[civman110]

Yes, Saudi's give us oil whereas those pesky Iranians won't, that's what a lot of it comes down to.

It has nothing to do with getting oil. It has to do with the Saudi's agreeing to only trade oil in US dollars, which effectively makes the US dollar the global currency.

Iran's government is backwards through and through but many of our "friends" are just as bad, the only difference is their governments would rather suck up to us rather than stand their ground.

Saudi Arabia is just as bad. I agree 100%.

If we're going to sanction Iran for the idiotic beliefs of their leaders we should be doing the same with a lot of these other countries we call our friends.

US policy has pretty much been, "we stay out of your business as long as you are serving our interests and are not threatening our allies, destabilizing a part of the world, or embarrassing us because we are associated with you and your human rights record is widely known for being horrible."

Considering just how terrible the Iranian regime is there are few things I would actually put past them, but this is one of them. Where is the proof that they actually have ties to Nazi ideology? They say anti-semetic things, but that in and of itself is not necessarily tied to nazi ideology (although I condemn their anti-semitism regardless, but still).


There is no reason why Western powers should ever allow them to have nuclear bomb.

Iran supported Hitler in WWII and the shah was overthrown by the US to prevent them from joining the axis powers.

"Later, that same shah welcomed Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the exiled grand mufti of Jerusalem, into the country. The mufti was on the run because of his pro-Nazi work and his efforts in attempting to bring the Jewish Holocaust to the Middle East. Al-Husseini would later go on to inspire and tutor Yasser Arafat. Arafat referred to al-Husseini as “uncle.”"

 

[JollyRoger]

You're not convincing anyone.

I'm convinced.

 

[civman110]

I'm convinced.

But, you're a lost cause anyway because you don't read books, or watch documentaries.

I know you like to flatter yourself, but I didn't post any of this to convince you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But, you're a lost cause anyway because you don't read books, or watch documentaries.

Yet he has so much established credibility.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Which is it?

Are the Palestinians dedicated to preserving western Kultur against the Asiatic Jews, or are they opposed to the civilization that produced Nazism?

Oh and while you're at it: Are you Pro-Nazi Producing Civilization, or Anti-Western?

I'm still thinking the answers to these questions will be fascinating...do you plan to get back to them?

 

[keli]

Is this a joke thread? Good to see you guys have some humor here in OT.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is this a joke thread? Good to see you guys have some humor here in OT.

Pretty much. Any thread that invokes Godwin's law right in the title is pretty hard to take seriously.

 

[caketastydelish]

It has nothing to do with getting oil. It has to do with the Saudi's agreeing to only trade oil in US dollars, which effectively makes the US dollar the global currency.

Poor choice of wording on my part, but the point still stands nonetheless.

US policy has pretty much been, "we stay out of your business as long as you are serving our interests and are not threatening our allies, destabilizing a part of the world, or embarrassing us because we are associated with you and your human rights record is widely known for being horrible."

Given our many "allies", we should be pretty damn embarrassed. Haven't you been listening to me this whole time?

Iran supported Hitler in WWII and the shah was overthrown by the US to prevent them from joining the axis powers.

Iran supported Hitler to spite the British. And by the way, that wasn't very polite of us to overthrow him, the Iranian people should have (and eventually would have) done it themselves.

"Later, that same shah welcomed Haj Mohammad Amin al-Husseini, the exiled grand mufti of Jerusalem, into the country. The mufti was on the run because of his pro-Nazi work and his efforts in attempting to bring the Jewish Holocaust to the Middle East. Al-Husseini would later go on to inspire and tutor Yasser Arafat. Arafat referred to al-Husseini as “uncle.”"

Iran has had some anti-semetic rulers, just one more thing I hold against the Iranian regime. But the USA has certainly had some anti-semetic (and actively racist) presidents, let's not forget ourselves here.

 

[civman110]

Poor choice of wording on my part, but the point still stands nonetheless.



US policy has pretty much been, "we stay out of your business as long as you are serving our interests and are not threatening our allies, destabilizing a part of the world, or embarrassing us because we are associated with you and your human rights record is widely known for being horrible."


Given our many "allies", we should be pretty damn embarrassed. Haven't you been listening to me this whole time?

In regards to some allies, yes. It is shameful, however things are often a lot more complicated under the surface. Saudi Arabia is a good example of that.

Also I'm not an American. Lol, and I'm not Jewish either in case anyone is wondering.

Iran supported Hitler to spite the British. And by the way, that wasn't very polite of us to overthrow him, the Iranian people should have (and eventually would have) done it themselves.

Iran supported Hitler because they believed a lot of the Nazi ideology and also yes, I agree, they do not like Britain.

The shah needed to be overthrown. Hitler was absolutely evil and the allies had a hard enough time defeating the axis powers. To be perfectly honest, the Russians crushed the Nazis in Stalingrad. The US didn't defeat Hitler. Russia did. Russia destroyed something like 80% of the entire German Army.

If Hitler had not attacked Russia the world would be a very different place today.

Iran has had some anti-semetic rulers, just one more thing I hold against the Iranian regime. But the USA has certainly had some anti-semetic (and actively racist) presidents, let's not forget ourselves here.

FDR was a big anti-Semite and so was Regan, however they weren't anti-Semitic to the radical extent that Iran's leaderships is.

 

[caketastydelish]

Iran supported Hitler because they believed a lot of the Nazi ideology and also yes, I agree, they do not like Britain.

After how Britain exploited them, can you blame them for not liking Britain?

Iran was more interested in spiting their British oppressors than loving Nazi ideology. That said I don't mind condemning the Shah, but what we replaced him with is obviously even worse. In any case just one more proof why the USA should stop meddling in world affairs.

The shah needed to be overthrown. Hitler was absolutely evil and the allies had a hard enough time defeating the axis powers. To be perfectly honest, the Russians crushed the Nazis in Stalingrad. The US didn't defeat Hitler. Russia did. Russia destroyed something like 80% of the entire German Army.

The shah was overthrown because they refused to suck up to the USA, it wasn't because they were afraid they'd lose WW2. Iran was not in a position to hold much sway in WW2 much one way or the other.

Iran's military was a laughing stock at that time (a big part of why the British were able to exploit them so easily in the first place), so they would not have made a big difference in the war either way.

If Hitler had not attacked Russia the world would be a very different place today.

But they did, anyway what's your point?

FDR was a big anti-Semite and so was Regan, however they weren't anti-Semitic to the radical extent that Iran's leaderships is.

I'd agree with Tim that they're more anti-Israel than anti-semetic (which I would condemn both, but they aren't interchangeable terms).

 

[Tahuti]

Which is it?

Are the Palestinians dedicated to preserving western Kultur against the Asiatic Jews, or are they opposed to the civilization that produced Nazism?

In all seriousness though, it can't be helped but noticed that Hitler often criticised Western civilisation for being decadent and wanted to remodel it, in part on Islamic civilisation. In many ways, Nazis are self-hating Westerners, although in contrast to the multicultural thought police, not because the West wasn't naturally exploitative, though rather because it wasn't exploitative enough. Hitler himself expressed feelings of kinship towards Arabs compared to the open hostility to the ethnic groups of Western civilisation, such as French, Russians and Jews.

Israel has been a really crappy neighbor from the get go. Between "we need to boot out these poor people to make room for richer refugees from Europe...here, you take them" and "our idea of peace talks is we rattle our US supplied sabers and you grovel on the sand" they have made absolutely no friends.

Jordan is doing fine. Egypt too. As long as you don't have any designs on it, you will easily get along. It isn't that hard. Besides, I happen to agree with you on Russia, and I notice a Pro-Ukrainian poster might say exactly the same about Russia.

 

[Agent327]

Palestine:

< snip >

This is basically very, very old news. You only just found out?

 

[Traitorfish]

In all seriousness though, it can't be helped but noticed that Hitler often criticised Western civilisation for being decadent and wanted to remodel it, in part on Islamic civilisation.

Eh?

 

[jackelgull]

Eh?

The only famous Westerner to say positive things about Islam I have found so far is Hitler

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n***** with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.

 

[Traitorfish]

Seven lines of musing do not a Grand Master Plan make.

Also, a favourable disposition to Islam was quite popular in a lot of the West in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries*, part of the whole Orientalism deal, a way of marking yourself out as an open-minded man of Empire against the narrow-minded provincials in the Metropole. (The young Winston Churchill was reportedly so taken with Eastern romance that his family were seriously worried that he might convert to Islam.) It's just that it was a basically pretty shallow enthusiasm, really just the condescension of imperialists, so it couldn't survive the anti-colonial sentiment that emerged after 1918. Hitler's enthusiasm for Islam was just a late expression of that, presumably because pre-1945 anti-colonial sentiment in the Islamic world was anti-British, anti-French and anti-Dutch, but indifferent to or even hesitantly sympathetic towards Germany. It wasn't really until the Cold War that "the West" emerges as a popular concept and a non-specifically "anti-Western" anti-colonialism emerges.

*edit: And in Germany this is particularly true between 1900 and 1914 specifically, i.e. the period in which Adolf Hitler received his political education, because this is the period in which Germany became aligned with the Ottoman Empire, while France positioned itself as the sponsor of the Eastern Catholics, Russia as that of the Orthodox, and Britain of the Jews, so a certain moderate sympathy for Islam became part of German policy and thus German nationalist ideology, a way of reconciling the German state's avowed Christianity with the fact that they were supporting an empire which suppressed its Christian minorities. Hitler's praise of Islam wasn't something radical and new so much of the baggage of his youth, like an ageing leftist who has a soft sport for China.

 

[Tahuti]

Seven lines of musing do not a Grand Master Plan make.

Then focus on what Nazism actually did: You are certainly aware that the Nazis eliminated the traditional subdivisions Germany (i.e. Prussia, Bavaria), and sought to dismantle Germanic polities such as the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Norway and commit genocide against kindred ethnic groups such as Poles, Russians and Jews. As much as they claim to be German nationalists, the Nazis pretty much spoiled the very essence of German statecraft in order to remake Germany into something similar to the current terrorist state that is now rampaging Syria and Iraq.

Thing is, there was a Third-Worldist current in the Nazi worldview. It would make a lot more sense to compare Hitler to African Post-Colonial dictators such as Mobutu and Ghaddafi rather than, say, Mussolini. This is still echoed in modern Neo-Nazi sympathy for the Nation of Islam and the Palestinians. On top of that, Neo-Nazi groups like the Dutch NVU call themselves 'Anti-Fascist', and this is probably not just rethoric. Conflating Nazism with Fascism makes as lot sense as conflating Nazism with Stalinism.

This is not to say Nazism can be conflated with Radical Islamism. If my wording was taken as such, then I apologise. However, in the same way Fascism influenced Nazism, while Nazism remained distinct from it and occasionally opposed, I'd say radical Islam has a similar direct influence on Nazism. And the conclusion I derive from this is that Nazism is therefore Anti-Western, seeing how it sought to destroy many traditional Western institutions and ethnic groups.

 

[aelf]

Thing is, there was a Third-Worldist current in the Nazi worldview. It would make a lot more sense to compare Hitler to African Post-Colonial dictators such as Mobutu and Ghaddafi rather than, say, Mussolini.

Given that the Third World didn't exist during the time of Hitler, this is convenient anachronistic nonsense. It's just like saying Jesus was the first communist - uneducated blabber.

 

[Traitorfish]

Then focus on what Nazism actually did: You are certainly aware that the Nazis eliminated the traditional subdivisions Germany (i.e. Prussia, Bavaria), and sought to dismantle Germanic polities such as the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Norway and commit genocide against kindred ethnic groups such as Poles, Russians and Jews. As much as they claim to be German nationalists, the Nazis pretty much spoiled the very essence of German statecraft in order to remake Germany into something similar to the current terrorist state that is now rampaging Syria and Iraq.

This isn't an argument against Nazism being a Western phenomenon, only for it being a destructive one. It's entirely possible to regard Nazism as the culmination of a self-destructive tendency within Western history. That was the orthodox left-wing view for decades, in fact. These points only amount to an "anti-Western" tendency if "the West" is imagined as an ideal towards which societies progress or away from which they regress, a Platonic deity inexplicably reimagined as a secular political order, and that seems ridiculous on the face of it.

Given that the Third World didn't exist during the time of Hitler, this is convenient anachronistic nonsense. It's just like saying Jesus was the first communist - uneducated blabber.

Yeah, the "Third World" isn't just an economic category, it's a statement of identity which sets people apart from and against both a capitalist "West" and a state-socialist "East". That view doesn't really emerge until the Sino-Soviet Split, when the USSR lost is credibility as the spearhead of global anti-imperialism, and even then functions more as the PRC's theoretical justification for palling around with non-Communist regimes like India and a few overtly anti-Communist regimes like Indonesia than a serious diplomatic position. The only kinship it shares with Nazism is an emphasis on "the people" and a distrust of both the Western powers and the USSR, which are both so broad enough that they encompass basically everybody who isn't wedded to either Entente/NATO or Soviet programs, from left-social democrats in Europe to conservative isolationists in the United States.