The United States of Amnesia
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
It's true that you're burning calories by dancing around my questions, still, one must question your position if all you do is ask for answers yet never provide any in kind.
"America is the devil."
"Death to America."
It seems you acknowledge Wikis so I shouldn't have to explain where the image is from in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism
"America is the devil."
"Death to America."
It seems you acknowledge Wikis so I shouldn't have to explain where the image is from in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism
First of all, the two phrases are not found in any of your previous links but only in Wikipedia.
I traced down the Wikipedia quotation, and here is what I got:
The chant, 'Death to America' has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979,[50][51]
Using the search function in 51, I still could not find these phrases.
However, in 50, the phrase "Death to America" does appear, but it stated otherwise:
Cries of "marg bar Amrika" (death to America) no longer fill the air, but in the shadow of the Den of Spies - formerly known as the US embassy - echoes of an equally atavistic anti-Americanism still resonate.
So Wiki claim it is still being used, but the source claim otherwise. But then again, how does a chant on the street represent the desire of the Iranian that "All Westerners should die"? All I see is anti-Americanism, but not Anti-Westerners. By the way, I do hope you know why the Iranian is strongly anti America.
I traced down the Wikipedia quotation, and here is what I got:
The chant, 'Death to America' has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979,[50][51]
Using the search function in 51, I still could not find these phrases.
However, in 50, the phrase "Death to America" does appear, but it stated otherwise:
Cries of "marg bar Amrika" (death to America) no longer fill the air, but in the shadow of the Den of Spies - formerly known as the US embassy - echoes of an equally atavistic anti-Americanism still resonate.
So Wiki claim it is still being used, but the source claim otherwise. But then again, how does a chant on the street represent the desire of the Iranian that "All Westerners should die"? All I see is anti-Americanism, but not Anti-Westerners. By the way, I do hope you know why the Iranian is strongly anti America.
I have a pretty good idea. Shit, I live hear and I get those days where I have that mentality myself. My issue is not the Iranians or their foreign policy. My issue is the fact that you think having an anti-American sentiment is justified. And also the fact that you always demand proofs and answers but are unable to present them before me, Zero Phoenix. That's fine. Let's move onto something else. Perhaps you could explain your anti-West position. I mean after all, that is what this discussion is all about no?
Surely, if you argue about Anti-Americanism - I can agree with that. But to assert that Iran's policy as "All Westerners should die" is just bordering fantasy. Now, regarding Anti-Americanism - the crucial question is; why does it exist? And the answer is pretty much simple and straightforward; do you like being bullied again and again for years and years? If you don't like it, I think the Iranians shares your feeling perfectly.
Anyway, I'm not saying Anti-Americanism is justified.
But I will said that it is a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.
In 1951, the Socialist Mossaddegh was democratically elected by the Iranian people. Afraid that his social reform would effect American interest in Iran (primarily; Oil), the CIA organize a coup and replace Mossaddegh with the dictator Shah Reza Pahlevi. It is due to Pahlevi's brutal rules (backed up by the U.S.) that Anti-Americanism become prevalent within the Iranian population which ultimately exploded with the rise of the theocratic Khomeini regime. One way or another, we can say that the current Iran is a product of American past foreign policy.
And people wonder why Anti-Americanism is prevalent in Iran?
But I will said that it is a consequence of U.S. foreign policy.
In 1951, the Socialist Mossaddegh was democratically elected by the Iranian people. Afraid that his social reform would effect American interest in Iran (primarily; Oil), the CIA organize a coup and replace Mossaddegh with the dictator Shah Reza Pahlevi. It is due to Pahlevi's brutal rules (backed up by the U.S.) that Anti-Americanism become prevalent within the Iranian population which ultimately exploded with the rise of the theocratic Khomeini regime. One way or another, we can say that the current Iran is a product of American past foreign policy.
And people wonder why Anti-Americanism is prevalent in Iran?
America is actually quite popular in Iran. More so than many other Arab countries. In 2002 the following was published.
One indicator was the September 2002 poll commissioned by the Iranian Majlis' National Security Committee which found that 74 percent of Iranians favored resumption of relations with the United States and 46 percent felt that U.S. policies on Iran were "to some extent correct," despite the fact that Iranian media constantly harped on Bush's "axis of evil" remark in his January 2002 State of the Union speech.(1) The Ayandeh Institute pollsters who conducted this poll, Abbas Abdi and Hossein Ali Qazian, were sentenced to jail terms of eight and nine years respectively for "publishing nonscientific research."'
Do not make the mistake to believe that the opinion of the Iranian government and elite is the opinion of the people.
One indicator was the September 2002 poll commissioned by the Iranian Majlis' National Security Committee which found that 74 percent of Iranians favored resumption of relations with the United States and 46 percent felt that U.S. policies on Iran were "to some extent correct," despite the fact that Iranian media constantly harped on Bush's "axis of evil" remark in his January 2002 State of the Union speech.(1) The Ayandeh Institute pollsters who conducted this poll, Abbas Abdi and Hossein Ali Qazian, were sentenced to jail terms of eight and nine years respectively for "publishing nonscientific research."'
Do not make the mistake to believe that the opinion of the Iranian government and elite is the opinion of the people.
@Canabary
The important thing that one should not make mistake is when using sources, quoting unreliable (and in this case flat out lie) sources will not only mislead the readers but also put one (whether intentionally or not) among the ranks of Washington's propaganda machine. Anyone with basic knowledge on Middle East Affair would definitely be alerted when they read the above fantasy quotation, but in my case - I instead decided to trace down the origin of this piece of propaganda, and this is what I found out.
This lie originated from THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY, a well known right-wing propaganda machine, closely associated with the White House and Israel Lobby. The original article stated as follow:
The results indicated that 74% of Iranians over the age of fifteen favored resumption of relations with the United States while 46% felt that U.S. policies on Iran were "to some extent correct."
The article itself provided no link or copied/translated for the original poll documents, thus it would be hard for us to verify directly whether this claim is true or not. Even though it is true, we still need to know what does "to some extent correct" really suppose to mean. Henceforth, I will use other secondary sources as comparison to the claim made by this so called "think thank".
Payvand.com (established in San Francisco Bay Area in late 1995 and is dedicated to Iranian-American issues) reporting on the Abdi & Qazian case:
Qazian and Abdi, both working at the Ayandeh Polling and Research Institute, were apprehended last year following an opinion poll they had directed which claimed that two-thirds of citizens in Tehran favored resumption of talks with the US.
Source: http://www.payvand.com/news/03/feb/1025.html
UNHCR also reported this case:
Qazian and Abdi, both working at the Ayandeh Polling and Research Institute, were apprehended last year following an opinion poll they had directed which claimed that two-thirds of citizens in Tehran favoured resumption of talks with the US.
Source: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/403245b08.pdf
On both alternative (and clearly more credible) report, there's significant differences between their version and the THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY version. First and obvious, the polls represent citizen of Tehran and not Iranian in general. This is consistence with my knowledge of Iranian politic where the clerical power hold more influence in rural area compared to big cities. Furthermore, none of the two alternative sources mention anything about "U.S. policies on Iran were "to some extent correct" from the viewpoint of Tehran citizen - and this is highly unlikely the case either. I see no reason to believe even a single thing spouted by THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY due to its infamous reputation among the scholarly circle - and in this instance; proven to have lied, at least on the first claim (exchanging Tehran citizen with Iranian overall).
But how do we approach both claims by the so called "think thank"? There's one thing about Middle East politic that we need to understand first, namely; the different attitudes that Middle Easterners has towards American Culture and American Foreign Policy. It is empirically observable that the popularity of American Culture has a deep impact towards the young generation of Middle Easterners, especially on the notions of freedom, democracy, free speech, dresses, music, movies etc. - this is plainly undeniable. However, this is not the case when it come to U.S. foreign policy and this is where Middle Easterners or in this case Iranian's Anti-Americanism stemmed from.
Because I am unable to verify the second claim made by the propaganda tool (I'm willing to bet my pocket that it is another form of screwing the data a la Fox News), I will only focus on the first claim by asking this question; what is the significant point of the first claim? There's none, except that it flies back to the face of the U.S. warmongering government. Indeed, the Iranian regime themselves on many occasion has offered a renewal relationship with the U.S. government to which the latter always flatly rejected! Nothing is more glaring than the Iranian offer to help the American on the wake of 9/11. This fact is already widely known and in fact even reported on the U.S. mainstream media!
James F. Dobbins, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on Afghanistan in late 2001, said Iran was "comprehensively helpful" in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack in 2001 in working to overthrow the Taliban militias' rule and collaborating with the United States to install the Karzai government in Kabul.
Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested, the author of "After the Taliban: Nation-Building in Afghanistan," said in a separate interview.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/world/main4508360.shtml
Iran made a significant conciliatory gesture towards the Obama administration today, offering to help US-led efforts to stabilise and rebuild Afghanistan.
At an international conference on Afghanistan at The Hague, in the Netherlands, the Iranian delegate, Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh, responded positively to Barack Obama's new strategy for winning the war against the Taliban. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/iran-afghanistan-obama
No countries in their right mind wound have wanted to antagonize America unless they are cornered again and again, it's a simple logic. The U.S. love war (George Carlin pun here) and are known to brought down other countries governments through covert terrorism means. Indeed, perhaps not known to some; the U.S. government itself is currently conducting an underground war against Iran via terrorism - and once again, this fact has also been reported by the mainstream media!
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
I can't even imagine what the U.S. would do if Iran boasted it is conducting a covert war against the U.S.!
Again, one need to ask, what's the point of the first poll if rejectionism is actually on the U.S. side?
Look back at the time of the Green Revolution, amidst the war between the two factions - nobody is praising American's foreign policy (the essence of Anti-Americanism in the Middle East and South America) either, and this add another strong doubt to the second propaganda claim.
Finally, about THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY, this is what Mearsheimer and Walt has to say in their Magnum Opus (THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY):
The Lobby’s goals are also served when pro-Israel individuals occupy important positions in the executive branch. During the Clinton Administration, for example, Middle East policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations—including Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits there.
Source: http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
In conclusion, Anti-Americanism is a matter of U.S. malevolent foreign policy in the affected region, but unrelated to the cultural influences that the U.S. positively spread around the world.
The important thing that one should not make mistake is when using sources, quoting unreliable (and in this case flat out lie) sources will not only mislead the readers but also put one (whether intentionally or not) among the ranks of Washington's propaganda machine. Anyone with basic knowledge on Middle East Affair would definitely be alerted when they read the above fantasy quotation, but in my case - I instead decided to trace down the origin of this piece of propaganda, and this is what I found out.
This lie originated from THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY, a well known right-wing propaganda machine, closely associated with the White House and Israel Lobby. The original article stated as follow:
The results indicated that 74% of Iranians over the age of fifteen favored resumption of relations with the United States while 46% felt that U.S. policies on Iran were "to some extent correct."
The article itself provided no link or copied/translated for the original poll documents, thus it would be hard for us to verify directly whether this claim is true or not. Even though it is true, we still need to know what does "to some extent correct" really suppose to mean. Henceforth, I will use other secondary sources as comparison to the claim made by this so called "think thank".
Payvand.com (established in San Francisco Bay Area in late 1995 and is dedicated to Iranian-American issues) reporting on the Abdi & Qazian case:
Qazian and Abdi, both working at the Ayandeh Polling and Research Institute, were apprehended last year following an opinion poll they had directed which claimed that two-thirds of citizens in Tehran favored resumption of talks with the US.
Source: http://www.payvand.com/news/03/feb/1025.html
UNHCR also reported this case:
Qazian and Abdi, both working at the Ayandeh Polling and Research Institute, were apprehended last year following an opinion poll they had directed which claimed that two-thirds of citizens in Tehran favoured resumption of talks with the US.
Source: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/403245b08.pdf
On both alternative (and clearly more credible) report, there's significant differences between their version and the THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY version. First and obvious, the polls represent citizen of Tehran and not Iranian in general. This is consistence with my knowledge of Iranian politic where the clerical power hold more influence in rural area compared to big cities. Furthermore, none of the two alternative sources mention anything about "U.S. policies on Iran were "to some extent correct" from the viewpoint of Tehran citizen - and this is highly unlikely the case either. I see no reason to believe even a single thing spouted by THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY due to its infamous reputation among the scholarly circle - and in this instance; proven to have lied, at least on the first claim (exchanging Tehran citizen with Iranian overall).
But how do we approach both claims by the so called "think thank"? There's one thing about Middle East politic that we need to understand first, namely; the different attitudes that Middle Easterners has towards American Culture and American Foreign Policy. It is empirically observable that the popularity of American Culture has a deep impact towards the young generation of Middle Easterners, especially on the notions of freedom, democracy, free speech, dresses, music, movies etc. - this is plainly undeniable. However, this is not the case when it come to U.S. foreign policy and this is where Middle Easterners or in this case Iranian's Anti-Americanism stemmed from.
Because I am unable to verify the second claim made by the propaganda tool (I'm willing to bet my pocket that it is another form of screwing the data a la Fox News), I will only focus on the first claim by asking this question; what is the significant point of the first claim? There's none, except that it flies back to the face of the U.S. warmongering government. Indeed, the Iranian regime themselves on many occasion has offered a renewal relationship with the U.S. government to which the latter always flatly rejected! Nothing is more glaring than the Iranian offer to help the American on the wake of 9/11. This fact is already widely known and in fact even reported on the U.S. mainstream media!
James F. Dobbins, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on Afghanistan in late 2001, said Iran was "comprehensively helpful" in the aftermath of the 9-11 attack in 2001 in working to overthrow the Taliban militias' rule and collaborating with the United States to install the Karzai government in Kabul.
Iranian diplomats made clear at the time they were looking for broader cooperation with the United States, but the Bush administration was not interested, the author of "After the Taliban: Nation-Building in Afghanistan," said in a separate interview.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/world/main4508360.shtml
Iran made a significant conciliatory gesture towards the Obama administration today, offering to help US-led efforts to stabilise and rebuild Afghanistan.
At an international conference on Afghanistan at The Hague, in the Netherlands, the Iranian delegate, Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh, responded positively to Barack Obama's new strategy for winning the war against the Taliban. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/iran-afghanistan-obama
No countries in their right mind wound have wanted to antagonize America unless they are cornered again and again, it's a simple logic. The U.S. love war (George Carlin pun here) and are known to brought down other countries governments through covert terrorism means. Indeed, perhaps not known to some; the U.S. government itself is currently conducting an underground war against Iran via terrorism - and once again, this fact has also been reported by the mainstream media!
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html
I can't even imagine what the U.S. would do if Iran boasted it is conducting a covert war against the U.S.!
Again, one need to ask, what's the point of the first poll if rejectionism is actually on the U.S. side?
Look back at the time of the Green Revolution, amidst the war between the two factions - nobody is praising American's foreign policy (the essence of Anti-Americanism in the Middle East and South America) either, and this add another strong doubt to the second propaganda claim.
Finally, about THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY, this is what Mearsheimer and Walt has to say in their Magnum Opus (THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY):
The Lobby’s goals are also served when pro-Israel individuals occupy important positions in the executive branch. During the Clinton Administration, for example, Middle East policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations—including Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often visits there.
Source: http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf
In conclusion, Anti-Americanism is a matter of U.S. malevolent foreign policy in the affected region, but unrelated to the cultural influences that the U.S. positively spread around the world.
Sorry for the late reply. Anyways, scales? Is the only scale you count the distance of which it is done from the countries borders and not the scale of people actually affected? Because thats the only way you can argue the US is worse then China and Russia, since both of them got a whole lot more people killed during their great purges and self inflicted famines.
Also, dont give me that America was all across the world and the USSR wasnt. They both competed for the entire world. The USSR was also involved in conflicts in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America. Cuba crisis anyone? Granted, they had less direct military interventions then the US, but they still supported a number of communist regimes with weapons and money.
Also, dont give me that America was all across the world and the USSR wasnt. They both competed for the entire world. The USSR was also involved in conflicts in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America. Cuba crisis anyone? Granted, they had less direct military interventions then the US, but they still supported a number of communist regimes with weapons and money.
And what would you call the numerous Iranian government sponsored reports about Iran's Anti Americanism? Surely you can not consider these to be more reliable than reports made by a US political institute?
That is preposterous. Yes the institute is funded in part by people with connections to the pro isreal lobby, but they have also recieved criticism from the said lobby for "embracing a delegation of representatives of the Fatah terrorist movement". Assuming that a group is a "propoganda machine" simply because their core member's political opinion is a little right wing is absurd.
You will also note that they've published several articles about middle eastern hate for the US and how US foreign policy has caused a divide between the US and other arab nations. How they encourage scrutiny of the relationship between the US and Isreal. (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=97) and several critical reviews of the US's approach to the Middle East.
Their staff is generally diverse with Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Atheists all being represented. Their panel of experts is one of the best in the US, and their board of advisors include some of the most knowledgeable people on US foreign policy in the late 20th and early 21st century, among which is Henry Kissinger.
Staff (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...NavLink=templateI10.php?&newActiveNav=experts)
Board of Advisors (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...=templateC11.php?CID=133&newActiveNav=aboutUs)
I do not deny a certain level of bias, but to completely dismiss them would just be wrong.
Payvand is not a credible source. It's a newspaper. Details don't tend to be their forté. Unhcr states the following:
"Disclaimer: Reports contained in this document are selected from publicly available resources and edited by
country experts. The information provided here is not, and does not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to
conditions in the country of origin surveyed, or conclusive as to the merits of any particular claim. Further
information may be obtained from BO Ankara."
As you perfectly well know any actual information on the Iranian people's opinion on the US is impossible to get your hands on due to the nature of the Iranian censorship. Once anything remotely positive was found and published, the ones behind it was jailed for "missinformation and espionage". WINEP's member's articles are published in several well respected journals, as a result it's only natural to assume that their information would be correct.
I'm not claiming the WINEP article is 100% correct. I am however claiming that in the abscence of the actual report you can't produce sources which specifically claim to not be accurate as evidence against it.
Note, unhcr the only actual credible source you used, specifies that the information isn't conclusive of any particular claim. A search of the Yas-e Now opinoin poll results in the majority of articles regarding the subject are actually refering to WINEP, includoing those published in generally respected news sources and articles. Although I appreciate this isn't any evidence at all. In the abscence of the actual webpage or document, which was removed by the Iranian government, it is impossible to conclusively prove that they are "lying" or being accurate.
An article in Foreign Affairs claims otherwise.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58434/barry-rubin/the-real-roots-of-arab-anti-americanism
http://www.google.com/books?hl=no&l...of anti americanism in the arab world&f=false
http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2003/12/paz.pdf
It is not the de facto foreign policy that is causing the anti americanism, it is the percieved propoganda pushed on the people by their governments and the "idea" of the US as being at war with Islam.
As I'm sure you are well aware it is one of the fears of the United States government that the Iranian government are given too much influence in the region. To accept this help does not only mean recieving aid, but also increasing Iran's position in the middle east as well as establishing them as a power in Afghanistan and Iraq. As long as the Iranian government's position on Isreal remains so.. absolute.. there is no chance of the US accepting help in the region from them.
Point being that Anti Americanism isn't as widespread as we are supposed to believe. It has nothing to do with higher up politics most Iranians are completely oblivoius to, it has to do with the general attitude of Iranians towards the United States.
Although I do not doubt that the US have covert operations in many countries, and probably do in Iran, no one has officially claimed that that the US has operations ongoing in Iran. The policy of the CIA and the White House is to not comment on covert affairs. The US are not "boasting" about having operations in Iran, as you can well see by reading the article they "can not confirm nor deny that there are covert operations going on in Iran".
Nobody is praising their policy, but that doesn't automatically mean that everyone has a strong anti american sentiment.
I do not deny there is a connection between certain groups within WINEP and the pro isreal lobby, but to go take a leap from having pro isreal supporters to conclude that therefore they must fabricate their research is absurd. Granted there may be a bias to what they write, and in such a way their resource particulary regarding Isreal-Palestine is often geared towards Isreal, but to fabricate research is a very serious claim that no one has presented. Being pro-isreal does not mean fabricating research.
Labeling US foreign policy as "malovelent" is ridiculous. US foreign policy is not based on making life as painful as possible for the population of the region. It is not based on the destruction of Islam and Islamic culture, and it is not based on an American overlord situation in the middle east. The US have not gone into Iraq like they did with Japan, nor have they done so in Afghanistan or Libya, their goals are clearly not to overtake these countries, if it was they would have gone in much harder and much stronger.
That is preposterous. Yes the institute is funded in part by people with connections to the pro isreal lobby, but they have also recieved criticism from the said lobby for "embracing a delegation of representatives of the Fatah terrorist movement". Assuming that a group is a "propoganda machine" simply because their core member's political opinion is a little right wing is absurd.
You will also note that they've published several articles about middle eastern hate for the US and how US foreign policy has caused a divide between the US and other arab nations. How they encourage scrutiny of the relationship between the US and Isreal. (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=97) and several critical reviews of the US's approach to the Middle East.
Their staff is generally diverse with Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Atheists all being represented. Their panel of experts is one of the best in the US, and their board of advisors include some of the most knowledgeable people on US foreign policy in the late 20th and early 21st century, among which is Henry Kissinger.
Staff (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...NavLink=templateI10.php?&newActiveNav=experts)
Board of Advisors (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...=templateC11.php?CID=133&newActiveNav=aboutUs)
I do not deny a certain level of bias, but to completely dismiss them would just be wrong.
Payvand is not a credible source. It's a newspaper. Details don't tend to be their forté. Unhcr states the following:
"Disclaimer: Reports contained in this document are selected from publicly available resources and edited by
country experts. The information provided here is not, and does not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to
conditions in the country of origin surveyed, or conclusive as to the merits of any particular claim. Further
information may be obtained from BO Ankara."
As you perfectly well know any actual information on the Iranian people's opinion on the US is impossible to get your hands on due to the nature of the Iranian censorship. Once anything remotely positive was found and published, the ones behind it was jailed for "missinformation and espionage". WINEP's member's articles are published in several well respected journals, as a result it's only natural to assume that their information would be correct.
I'm not claiming the WINEP article is 100% correct. I am however claiming that in the abscence of the actual report you can't produce sources which specifically claim to not be accurate as evidence against it.
Note, unhcr the only actual credible source you used, specifies that the information isn't conclusive of any particular claim. A search of the Yas-e Now opinoin poll results in the majority of articles regarding the subject are actually refering to WINEP, includoing those published in generally respected news sources and articles. Although I appreciate this isn't any evidence at all. In the abscence of the actual webpage or document, which was removed by the Iranian government, it is impossible to conclusively prove that they are "lying" or being accurate.
An article in Foreign Affairs claims otherwise.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58434/barry-rubin/the-real-roots-of-arab-anti-americanism
http://www.google.com/books?hl=no&l...of anti americanism in the arab world&f=false
http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2003/12/paz.pdf
It is not the de facto foreign policy that is causing the anti americanism, it is the percieved propoganda pushed on the people by their governments and the "idea" of the US as being at war with Islam.
As I'm sure you are well aware it is one of the fears of the United States government that the Iranian government are given too much influence in the region. To accept this help does not only mean recieving aid, but also increasing Iran's position in the middle east as well as establishing them as a power in Afghanistan and Iraq. As long as the Iranian government's position on Isreal remains so.. absolute.. there is no chance of the US accepting help in the region from them.
Point being that Anti Americanism isn't as widespread as we are supposed to believe. It has nothing to do with higher up politics most Iranians are completely oblivoius to, it has to do with the general attitude of Iranians towards the United States.
Although I do not doubt that the US have covert operations in many countries, and probably do in Iran, no one has officially claimed that that the US has operations ongoing in Iran. The policy of the CIA and the White House is to not comment on covert affairs. The US are not "boasting" about having operations in Iran, as you can well see by reading the article they "can not confirm nor deny that there are covert operations going on in Iran".
Nobody is praising their policy, but that doesn't automatically mean that everyone has a strong anti american sentiment.
I do not deny there is a connection between certain groups within WINEP and the pro isreal lobby, but to go take a leap from having pro isreal supporters to conclude that therefore they must fabricate their research is absurd. Granted there may be a bias to what they write, and in such a way their resource particulary regarding Isreal-Palestine is often geared towards Isreal, but to fabricate research is a very serious claim that no one has presented. Being pro-isreal does not mean fabricating research.
Labeling US foreign policy as "malovelent" is ridiculous. US foreign policy is not based on making life as painful as possible for the population of the region. It is not based on the destruction of Islam and Islamic culture, and it is not based on an American overlord situation in the middle east. The US have not gone into Iraq like they did with Japan, nor have they done so in Afghanistan or Libya, their goals are clearly not to overtake these countries, if it was they would have gone in much harder and much stronger.
Radio Free Europe also reported the same exact thing:
IRANIAN OPINION POLLSTERS GET HOME LEAVE
Ayandeh Research Institute board member Abbas Abdi was given a one-hour leave from prison on 22 February, "Iran News" reported on 25 February, citing "Seda-yi Idalat." Abdi's daughter told the daily that her father was in good health. Abdi was sentenced to eight years in prison after Ayandeh conducted a poll that found that the majority of Tehran citizens favor the resumption of Iran-U.S. relations. Ayandeh Managing Director Hussein Qazian's lawyer, Ramazan Haji-Mashhadi, said his client received a few hours leave to visit his family, "Etemad" reported on 22 February. Qazian is considering filing an appeal. The granting of leave to these individuals might be connected with the current visit to Iran by a UN team that is examining the country's prisons, and it is not known if other prisoners get the same privilege. BS
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1142863.html
Now don't tell me that RFERL is not a credible source.
Why is this war criminal running around free?
IRANIAN OPINION POLLSTERS GET HOME LEAVE
Ayandeh Research Institute board member Abbas Abdi was given a one-hour leave from prison on 22 February, "Iran News" reported on 25 February, citing "Seda-yi Idalat." Abdi's daughter told the daily that her father was in good health. Abdi was sentenced to eight years in prison after Ayandeh conducted a poll that found that the majority of Tehran citizens favor the resumption of Iran-U.S. relations. Ayandeh Managing Director Hussein Qazian's lawyer, Ramazan Haji-Mashhadi, said his client received a few hours leave to visit his family, "Etemad" reported on 22 February. Qazian is considering filing an appeal. The granting of leave to these individuals might be connected with the current visit to Iran by a UN team that is examining the country's prisons, and it is not known if other prisoners get the same privilege. BS
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1142863.html
Now don't tell me that RFERL is not a credible source.
Why is this war criminal running around free?
I never said UNCHR was an unreliable source either. But without the poll itself with the data presented there's no way to prove conclusively that anyone is lying or fabricating research data. An accusation that no one should ever make without absolute proof.
I honestly can't be bothered to discuss Kissinger's involvement in the cold war, but regardless of all that he remains one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to foreign policy and realpolitik.
I honestly can't be bothered to discuss Kissinger's involvement in the cold war, but regardless of all that he remains one of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to foreign policy and realpolitik.
That would be to accuse them of fabricating research published in a scientific journal, which is not something I'm willing to do without conclusive evidence. I will admitt that the sources contradict eacother, considering there is so little available information on Iranian polling that has not been "adjusted" by the Iranian government I am unable to find any other sources. I would post the reports of the Foreign Policy office in Washington on Iran, but considering this is a governmental led branch of intelligence gather I would assume you wouldn't accept that as unbiased in any shape or form.
MERIA is a personal project.
http://meria.idc.ac.il/whatis.html
EDIT:
It turns out that MERIA is just another piece of the propaganda machine;
http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2010/06/rynhold.html
No wonder its articles are strongly biased towards the right wings.
http://meria.idc.ac.il/whatis.html
EDIT:
It turns out that MERIA is just another piece of the propaganda machine;
http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2010/06/rynhold.html
No wonder its articles are strongly biased towards the right wings.
I hadn't gone too deeply in to it but appears it is astonishingly pro Isreal, yes. I am ready to admitt when I'm wrong, and I was wrong when it came to the unbiasness of MERIA. I am not entirely convinced by WINEP yet because their articles are far more diverse than what I see at the Gloria-Center. However, here's something I will not budge from. I will not admitt that anyone has fabricated their research without conclusive proof.