A Jew? WHO?

[gamavor]

A JEW? WHO?

By James Taranto

 

Wall Street Journal

October 5, 2009

 

If reports about Ahmadinejad are accurate, Israel owes it to the

world to deal with the Iranian threat.

 

The United States of America is the most philo-Semitic country in

the world, yet it has never had a Jewish president. The Islamic

Republic of Iran is one of the world's most anti-Semitic regimes,

yet it may have a Jewish president. London's Daily Telegraph reports

on the surprising claim about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

 

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card

during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish

roots.

 

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as

Sabourjian--a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

 

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed

its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after

his birth.

 

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's

birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour," the

name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the

list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry

of the Interior.

 

If true, doesn't this strengthen the argument for Israeli military

action against the Iranian nuclear program? One could argue that the

Jews have some sort of collective responsibility to deal with a rogue

nation led by one of their own.

 

Meir Javedanfar argues in London's Guardian that the claim is a myth,

and we must confess we are a bit skeptical. Sabourjian sounds like an

Armenian name to us. This revelation may end up complicating Tehran's

relations with Ankara.

 

They Hate Us! They Really Hate Us!

"This is one decision Mr. Obama can't blame on George W. Bush," noted a

Saturday Wall Street Journal editorial, "though no doubt at MSNBC they

will try." Not just at MSNBC! The Chicago Sun-Times reports that "some

Chicago officials" (along with some unofficials) are blaming Bush:

 

President Obama could not undo in one year the resentment ag d.

 

"There must be" resentment against America, the Rev. Jesse Jackson

said, near the stage where he had hoped to give a victory speech in

Daley Center Plaza. "The way we [refused to sign] the Kyoto Treaty, we

misled the world into Iraq. The world had a very bad taste in its mouth

about us. But there was such a turnaround after last November. The

world now feels better about America and about Americans. That's why

I thought the president's going was the deal-maker."

 

State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) said she saw firsthand the

resentment against America five years ago when she was in Rio de

Janeiro. "I feel in my gut that this vote today was political and

mean-spirited," she said.

 

"I travel a lot. . . . I thought we had really turned a corner with

the election of President Obama. People are so much more welcoming

of Americans now. But this isn't the people of those countries. This

is the leaders still living with outdated impressions of Americans."

 

Hey Chicago, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the International

Olympic Committee just isn't that into you? It's not as though

the choices were to hold the games in the Windy City or cancel them

altogether. Maybe the IOC delegates chose Rio de Janeiro on the basis

of its merits as a venue. The notion that it must have been motivated

by hatred of America reflects a most unattractive combination of

arrogance and self-pity.

 

Sports of the Times The coverage of the Olympics fumble on the New York

Times editorial page has provided us with considerable amusement. A

Saturday editorial gently chided the administration:

 

As for why Mr. Obama went--especially if he wasn't sure Chicago

would win--here are two possible explanations: One, Mr. Obama, and

his White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, another Chicagoan,

love a good competition; the other is that they have a tad too much

confidence in Mr. Obama's hortatory powers.

 

We like having an articulate, fiercely competitive president,

especially one with such a strong moral compass. But guys, if l the

dice, next time make sure the stakes are worth it.

 

Twenty bucks says the Times does not come around to opposing a roll

of the dice when the stakes are one-sixth of the nation's economy

and all of our lives.

 

The same day, the paper published an op-ed piece by John R. Miller of

the conservative Discovery Institute, titled "Nobody Likes Us? Who

Cares?" Although not specifically pegged to the Olympics, the piece

made an excellent point:

 

Which surveys should President Obama pay attention to--the ones that

suggest approval of his leadership or the more negative appraisals? The

answer is neither. His only concern should be whether favorable

public opinion abroad will help him achieve America's own goals,

and there is little evidence that that is the case.

 

Rather, history suggests that there is only one sure way for President

Obama to ensure the popularity of the United States abroad: reduce

the power of the United States or simply don't exercise it--either

militarily, economically or even diplomatically. The world simply

distrusts the big guy on the block, and the only way to address this is

to stop behaving like a superpower. A much better option, of course,

would be to pay less attention to foreign opinion surveys and more

to our own ideals and interests.

 

It might have been useful to the Times's readers had the paper aired

this excellent argument back when George W. Bush was president.

 

Today former Enron adviser Paul Krugman weighs in, irate about

conservative schadenfreude over the Olympic slip-up:

 

"Cheers erupted" at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly

Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine's

staff, with the headline "Obama loses! Obama loses!" Rush Limbaugh

declared himself "gleeful." "World Rejects Obama," gloated the Drudge

Report. And so on. . . .

 

The episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American

politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation's

two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republi

might be good for the president, they're against it--whether or not

it's good for America.

 

To be sure, while celebrating America's rebuff by the Olympic Committee

was puerile, it didn't do any real harm. But the same principle of

spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters,

with potentially serious consequences.

 

So, in case you're keeping score at home:

 

Rooting for terrorists who wantonly murder women and children to beat

America in a war: the highest form of patriotism.

 

Rooting for Rio to get the Olympics: treason.

 

The World's Smallest Violin The Obama administration appears set to

renege on its promise to import terrorists from Guanantamo Bay to

the U.S. by January, but the Washington Post reports that may be good

news for one of the worst terrorists of all:

 

For up to four hours a day, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed

mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, can sit outside in the Caribbean

sun and chat through a chain-link fence with the detainee in the

neighboring exercise yard at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

 

Mohammed can also use that time to visit a media room to watch movies

of his choice, read newspapers and books, or play handheld electronic

games. He and other detainees have access to elliptical machines and

stationary bikes.

 

At Guantanamo, such recreational activities interrupt an otherwise

bleak existence, according to a Pentagon report of conditions at Camp

7, which houses 16 high-value detainees. But even those privileges

may soon vanish.

 

The Justice Department has begun to hint in court filings that at

least some of the defendants in the Sept. 11, 2001, case, as well

as other prominent suspects, will be transferred to federal custody

in the United States. While lawmakers and activist groups have been

consumed with a debate over such a move, little attention has been

paid to the conditions that Mohammed and other high-value detainees

would face in the United States.

 

And those conditions, it turns out, would be vastly more draconian

than they uantanamo Bay.

 

In the most plausible alternative, the supermax prison in Colorado,

Mohammad and his fellow terrorists "would be sealed off for 23 hours

a day in cells with four-inch-wide windows and concrete furniture,"

would be allowed to exercise in "a tiny yard"--alone--for the remaining

hour, and would "have little or no human contact except with prison

officials."

 

Despite these humanitarian concerns, this column favors keeping KSM

and other terrorists at Guantanamo until the end of al Qaeda's war

against America, because their absence from U.S. soil limits their

ability to work mischief through the courts.

 

Obama's 'Policy Tempo' Slate's John Dickerson tries to put the best

face on President Obama's apparent dithering over Afghanistan:

 

Obama was elected in part because he promised he would be a commander

who wouldn't go rushing into deep and dangerous commitments. Officials

at the Pentagon and White House counsel that even at Obama's

deliberative pace, he'll still be moving faster than Bush did when he

made his "surge" decision in 2006. Plus, the public is not screaming

for more troops. In fact, if Obama does choose to send more troops,

he can point back to all the thoughtful meetings that went into

his decision.

 

>From Dickerson's lips to God's ears. But as he notes (Dickerson, not

God), the president's "insistence on slow deliberations on Afghanistan

contrasts with the policy tempo on other fronts":

 

Obama has been a president of action. Economic collapse? Here's a

government program to address it. Car companies failing? Here's a

program to help them. Want the Olympics to come to your town? Obama

can help. . . . Even while policy was being debated, the message

always was: Action is coming.

 

Well, maybe not always. The Washington Post reports on another

foreign-policy decision that smacks of indecision:

 

In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured

Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama

and President Obama until after Obama's summit with hi art, Hu Jintao,

scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials

and other sources familiar with the talks.

 

For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will

visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. . . .

 

U.S. officials also said they are not pulling punches with the

Chinese. They have, however, indicated that they want to try something

new on Tibet, figuring that the old policy--of meeting with the Dalai

Lama regularly and calling for substantive talks between China and

his representatives--had achieved little. American officials told

Tibetan representatives that "this president is not interested in

symbolism or photo ops but in deliverables," the Asian diplomat

said. "He wants something to come out of his efforts over Tibet,

rather than just checking a box."

 

If the president is "not interested in symbolism or photo-ops,"

he must find his job even more boring than the rest of us do!

 

Confirmed Bachelor Here's one for the Great Moments in Euphemism

files. The Washington Post, in a profile of Virginia's Democratic

nominee for governor, Creigh Deeds, describes the arguments for and

against Deeds's reputed tendency to be for and against the same things

at various times:

 

To supporters, his capacity for change suggests the promise of his

leadership: that, never having been wed to ideology, he is capable of

responding even-handedly to the array of economic and social challenges

facing Virginia. To his skeptics, the trait merely evinces Deeds's

habit of trying to appeal to different constituencies by saying "yes"

and "no" to the same question.

 

That "never having been wed" is a rich metaphor. Deeds is 51. Isn't

it time someone made an honest woman of him?

 

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine No one wants to get cancer,

though we suppose some people want to live in the Canadian province

of Ontario. But if you do get cancer, you really don't want to live

in Ontario. An editorial in Canada's National Post explains why:

 

Opponents of the [u.S. h ic option maintain that Canadian-style health

care would entail rationing, caps on care, bureaucratic interference

in medical decision-making and even "death panels" deciding when the

ill become too expensive to save.

 

Most Canadians believe this is a gross exaggeration of reality. But

then how to characterize Ontario's decision to cut off funding for

colorectal cancer patients taking a life-prolonging drug, in order

to save $9-million [about US$8.4 mllion] a year?

 

Andre Marin, the province's plain-speaking ombudsman, said the decision

"verges on cruelty." Marin said the "arbitrary" limit on the number

of cycles of the drug Avastin that Ontario will fund forces patients

to pay out of their own pockets or abandon treatment.

 

Avastin does not cure cancer, but prolongs life when taken in

conjunction with chemotherapy treatment, adding, on average, nine

months of survival.

 

"For patients whose cancer has already metastasized, it stops their

tumours from growing and prolongs their lives, at least for a while. It

is, without exaggeration, their lifeline," Mr. Marin said.

 

It should be noted that the public option would not automatically

establish a Canadian-style health-insurance monopoly. But as we've

noted before, many public-option backers, including congressional

leaders and the secretary of health and human services, do favor such

a monopoly, known in wonkese as "single payer," and believe it would

be the inevitable result of the public option.

 

Bushism of the Day "I'll tell you another thing about Glenn Beck. He

wouldn't know the difference between a football, a bat and a hockey

court."--Democratic consultant James Carville, Oct. 5

 

 

 

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg286276.html

 

 

 

CWM stands for Complete Western MORONIZATION! This must be an aftermath of the Bush Era. Of course Western "specialists" are not expected to have thorough knowledge on Armenian names, but a little research before throwing the Bomb - Sabourjian is Armenian name, might be of help!!!

 

Someone must tell those Idiots that we Armenians do not posses exclusivity rights on the suffix "IAN". It is rather universal and heavily employed predominantly by the Armenians and Persians. No Jews are recorded with "IAN" suffix and depending on the root of the respective family name it can be easily determined if it is Persian or Armenian. I can assure the editors of this garbage that although uncertain D'Aartanian, Kilian Red, Karaian and Sebastian Bach most likely are not Armenians!

 

[Arpa]

A JEW? WHO?

By James Taranto

 

Wall Street Journal

October 5, 2009

If reports about Ahmadinejad are accurate, Israel owes it to the

world to deal with the Iranian threat.

=======

 

CWM stands for Complete Western MORONIZATION! This must be an aftermath of the Bush Era. Of course Western "specialists" are not expected to have thorough knowledge on Armenian names, but a little research before throwing the Bomb - Sabourjian is Armenian name, might be of help!!!

 

Someone must tell those Idiots that we Armenians do not posses exclusivity rights on the suffix "IAN". It is rather universal and heavily employed predominantly by the Armenians and Persians. No Jews are recorded with "IAN" suffix and depending on the root of the respective family name it can be easily determined if it is Persian or Armenian. I can assure the editors of this garbage that although uncertain D'Aartanian, Kilian Red, Karaian and Sebastian Bach most likely are not Armenians!

Not to forget that “dart” as in Dartagnan rhymes with “fart”. Shall we substitute “Vartanian with Fartanian”?

You forget such “Armenian” surnames like guderian, mongolian, indonesian, indian, polynesian, fijian, hawaiian, persian, parisian, italian, albanian, bosnian (a real Armenian family name), croatian, chekhoslavakian, slovenian, hungarian, romanian, BULGARIAN athenian, rhodesian, stanbulian, syrian, arabian, ethiopian, egyptian, lybian, tunisian, algerian, nigerian, kenyan, russian , siberian, georgian … what did I forget? How about the so called Armenian surname “aprikian/afrikian, habeshian/abyssinian”? Why is that most Armenians with the surname of “habeshian” I have known have a darker skin complexion?

I would love to have some “shatobrian/chateaubriand” ;

http://pinegrovemarket.com/cart/images/chateaubriand.jpg

Aah! How can I forget!!!

Moshe Dayan?

http://www.tylerphoto.com/people/images/moshe_dyan.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ayan_croped.JPG

 

 

[Yervant1]

Canadians are Armenian too!!!!!!!!!!!

[Arpa]

Canadians are Armenian too!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah! How can I forget that quebeqians/Քեբեքիան are also Armenian Not to forget the "torontonians, albertians, saskachevians"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arpa the second line was not neccessary! Yervant

Edited October 6, 2009 by Yervant1

[Arpa]

YEAH RIGHT!!! After all who is not a hrya?

The Abrahamians, Movsesians, Davidians, Hakobians, Hovsepians, Mateosians, Markosians, Ghukasians, Hovanesians, or .… Israelians? How about all the Ruths and Esthers, Adams, Evas, Daniels, Samuels, Soghomons, Aharons and Yeghias? Did I leave anyone out?

Quotes from below.

“A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.”

---

Yeah right!! Every family that has the “ji-ian” in their surnames are… you guessed it. Or is it “jew-ian”? Just like the so called Armenian surname BOKHJIAN. You dont believe me? Search and see how many "bokhjalian"s you can find.Even if on the surface it may look like "bundle", it in fact means "diaper" full of you know what.

"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith“.

----

So true! As today the Armenian converts are the most rabid turkophiles, perhaps to mask their true heritage and avoid persecution?

Those SOB's! How come they forgot that Obama’s real name is Obadiah,that idiot who masquerades as a “prophet”? Not to forget that Khomeini’s real name was “coheni/keheni” before he converted.

====

AZG Daily #190, 10/21/2009

Opinion

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD REVEALED TO HAVE JEWISH PAST

telegraph.co.uk

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vitriolic attacks on the Jewish world hide an astonishing secret, evidence uncovered by The Daily Telegraph shows.

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.

Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.

Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.

identity by condemning their old faith.[/b]

"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new

identity by condemning their old faith.

"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.

The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.

Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.

The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.

During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.

However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.

Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'

Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."

Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.

 

© AZG Daily, 2004

Edited October 23, 2009 by Arpa