'The Eyes of the World Are on Iran' © 2009, John Crosley, All Rights Reserved

The Eyes of the World are on Iran, and Iran's Youth's eyes are on the

world, pleading for help in a difficult struggle with an entrenched regime.

Your ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. Photo taken

during a demonstration against the current regime. If you rate harshly or

very critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment;

please share your superior photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Very good photo. congrats...

Happy Fourth,

 

I spent the eve of the fourth recognizing and rescuing this from a slightly larger capture. I had left in too much forehead and had not cut it off at the bottom of the sign as cropped here; the aspect ratio was just wrong, so I fixed that and now it is as I envisioned it when I shot it.

 

I saw that the top and bottom needed a trim and voila -- one of my better works.

 

Who knew?

 

I had already worked up four or five of this group as being better, but I guess that'll tell you how good my editing is from original photos, (and how seldom I crop at all.)

 

I always love to see you've dropped by.

 

John (Crosley)

Full of sense and meaning. Original and very good presentation. God bless them. I pray for them... I feel so sorry for all that youth.

for the courage to photograph and post photos documenting the pleadings of a people in captivity.

I have sat on this photo for over a week, then last night I saw it as I was processing it and upsized it to a larger size and in doing so the larger size got cropped in Adobe CS4 in the display, and it resulted in the forehead and part of the 'top' garment's getting cropped - the result was an extremely tight crop top and bottom.

 

It turned out to be like another photo with a landscape orientation with another woman with eyes similarly shown, but this was just a better photo. I lightened the whites of the eyes a little and voila! It went from being a good but not great photo to an even better one.

 

I'll let your remarks about its posting stand without comment; they are self-evident.

 

I almost never crop, but note the printer for Helmet Newton whom I know well, told me Newton who shot 2-1/4 square intended to crop almost every shot.

 

I make food use of the aspect ratio of a 35kmm equivalent frame (2:3) -- he almost never did with the square format.

 

But I am not bound to do so by any rule or law, so I am doing some experimentation.

 

In this case, the right crop, top and bottom really seems to have helped greatly, and with a D300's 12.3 megapixels, there's no problem with such a crop -- there's plenty of high quality detail left to play around with., unlike the older cams such as the D70 and even (to a lesser extent) the D200 with its 10.2 megapixels.

 

You are always welcome to browse my very large portfolio. It arose one photo at a time, and you don't have to look at it all; some people come back, and back, and back -- others tend to like to come to read the comments.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you for complimenting me on my courage, but maybe I'm just thick-witted; it didn't seem to take so much courage.

 

When the Basiji comes looking for people they won't be too interested in me, I think, as opposed to the very brave subjects of my photos -- the truly brave ones.

 

I am not so sure they have much chance, but I'm hopeful for the cause of freedom and democracy, no matter where in the world, and this is not my fight -- I'm a photographer who seeks to document what he sees as best he can, and this is what I saw (after I looked at this particular shot again, and did a minor crop, top and bottom.)

 

Best to you this 'Freedom Day: -- the U.S;'s birthday.

 

John (Crosley)

Bien hecho.

Saludos.

Gracias Rueda,

 

Juan

 

John (Juan) (Crosley)

Careful arrangement of simple components makes this shot powerful in its content and interesting in its composition. I think there are three elements, or to be more exact, the juxtaposition of them, which decide this photo, even if it may look very simple and somewhat familiar, is in fact really original. The slogan, the photo on the poster and the eyes above have their important significance in conveying the message here, so far as the hands refer rather to our hearts and conscience and pray for help, the slogan and particularly eyes nearly demand to take action in a peremptory tone. The eye contact between the viewer and the woman creates the tension and enhances the message giving very little scope for indifference here. Imho cropping the forehead was a winning idea here. Best regards -wm

timely message

This is one photo that I just instinctively knew how to take, but my aspect ratio of my 35 mm camera was wrong for the scene. Some judicious cropping, top and bottom fixed that, thankfully, or it never would have been nearly so good -- an ordinary photo as opposed to a nearly extraordinary photo.

 

Naturally, you are able to articulate more than I was able to put together in my camera lens in just two or three -- maybe four seconds -- and have done a very excellent job of explaining this photo. Sometimes I'm very good at explaining the success of my better photos; here not so good. It was just a shot I SAW, and then ran off to take plenty others -- many of which are posted here.

 

This photo is both original and unoriginal. Think of those 'feed the children' photos or others like them in which small waif-like eyes peer over something very much like this sign board (or I imagine that's how I would take such a photo if given an assignment.

 

Due to a difficulty in upsizing for my standard 'very large size' I realized the forehead and clothing bottom, were detracting from the full frame version, so I went through my full-frame versions and cropped them very, very tightly.

 

Sometimes the necessity of Photoshop to display only PART of a photo when upsizing can lead to some great crops -- it surely loosened my artistic vision and made me 'see' this photo. I think it may be more iconic now.

 

I agree with you about the eye contact view between woman and viewer creating tension. She does not use her hands for praying, exactly, but to hold the sign which holds praying hands -- surely there must be some obscure name for such a photograpic device?

 

In any case, it is in my opinion a different and very good photo, far out of my usual range, but then again, I take all sorts of photos in all sorts of genres.

 

You my friend, have written a powerful and incisive critique -- a model critique that should be in some model folder for beginning or advanced critiquers to draw from for ideas and as a template for how a great critique might be wtitten.

 

Thanks for choosing my photo for that attention.

 

John (Crosley)

Aren't you a doppleganger for Meir Samel? You have never straightforwardly answered that question. Until you do, I will not be replying: Two memberships are forbidden to one person. I have suggested that unless you can prove your separateness, you drop your membership and/or at least your contributions under a pseudonym under my photographs;

 

I do not generally write this bluntly, but I have written these and similar words before to you, and not obtained a clear answer from you.

 

John (Crosley)

Dear John,

 

I'm quite new to photo.net and to the world of photography, so what I'm going to say is not a technical critique, but mainly a personal opinion.

 

I'm from Iran, and I was home when all the horrible things happened. Now I'm back to Malaysia where I study and keep trying to forget all those heartbreaking images, yet trying to remember the pain.

 

I really didn't expect to see this photo in your collection, it came as quite a shock. I've looked at hundreds of photos of the riots and demonstrations and only a few of them expressed the true sense of the events. I must tell you that this photo brought tears to my eyes; as I kept looking into the girl's beautiful eyes, I cried, remembering the pain and the sorrow.

 

Thank you for sharing this photo and contributing to the Iranian's movement against tyranny. It gives me and the other Iranians hope and strength that people from other countries are looking at us and praying for us.

 

Thank you John for this amazing work.

 

Maryam.

Your reaction, expressed in your comment says more than I could hope for. Thank you for the great compliment.

 

I turned a short drive down the boulevard past a shopping center into this photo, aided by a little judicious cropping to emphasize the eyes (the camera frame was the wrong dimension to create this 'look' without cropping).

 

This is the result, exactly as I had planned before I put camera to eye.

 

I am highly flattered by your intense personal reaction to this shot. I hoped to take a very intense photo; it appears I succeeded.

 

This was an entirely impromptu photo - I took it at a protest event I just happened upon (and of course now I get invited to more such events, but I do not belong to any movements, one way or the other. I attempt to preserve my neutrality.

 

As a photographer I try not to 'take sides', so I do not express an opinion in the politics of other countries - at least in writing and in most circumstances. It is just not good for my personal safety and my future freedom to photograph, to be seen as allying myself to one side or another where ideas and politics collide fiercely and I am not a national of that country. I am a foreigner and it officially is not my business; good photography is my main interest.

 

But if you are moved by a photo of mine, and it appears to support your cause, then Allah be with you.

 

I learned as a reporter, long ago, to try to preserve my neutrality; you never know when I might want to visit your native country as a photographer or in another capacity and being seen as an 'enemy of the state' would be a great hindrance and even possibly a death sentence, especially since I am not Persian, so I cannot afford to ally myself with any side, except the side of good photography, however it may arise.

 

Your view of my sympathies is a view that comes from your heart as it interprets this photo, which is the best photo I could take under the circumstances.

 

I hope you understand what it is I am writing and read and re-read this very carefully for a full understanding.

 

I often spend a great deal of time in Ukraine and before that in Russia. To be seen now as a critic of Russia (when I was there before, or if I were to return, would jeopardize my personal safety if I were now on Russian soil, I believe, as the government's view of what it perceives as 'criticism' has changed, and so have the consequences of criticizing the Russian government.

 

I just want to take my telling street photographs and maybe photographs of Russia's and Ukraine's famously beautiful women. But no sleight to the also famously beautiful women of Persia, mind you.

 

Again, thank you so much for the compliment; it has moved me greatly,and was quite unexpected.

 

John (Crosley)

So nice! I should thank you in favor of all my friends who saw your photo because of your sense of sympathy for Iranians.

I urge you to read my comment above.

 

As a photographer, I see my task to try to make moving and compelling photographs, but officially I do not 'side' with any particular movement or 'cause'.

 

To do so would cause severe problems for me if I undertook travel in Persia or nearby, as I would be mistaken for an 'enemy of the state' when really I have no war to fight or cause to further.

 

I do know that you do, and my heart goes out to all people who believe in the justice of their cause.

 

As an American, I am a devotee of democracy and justice,

 

It goes with being American - and that's where my sympathies as an American lie, and so I support the American government (but not generally the policies of George W. Bush, which were further impetus for my leaving the U.S. so much of the time during his tenure in office. (many threatened to leave; when I could, I actually did.)

 

You may personally read into this photo what you will, and I hope you always have the freedom to do so; Official word from the leadership in Tehran now has softened, and nobody now is blaming the West for leading the recent revolt, and I don't want to add fuel to that ill-considered fire.

 

I just take photos, and not propaganda photos - just photos of what I see, and what moves me.

 

In the instance where I''m in a foreign country or dealing with people with complex political situations, I often do not understand them completely, so I do not form complete judgments, as one group or another will only tell me half the story -- their half, of course.

 

Naturally one gets a certain view in the press, but I prefer to gather my views first hand, as I did when I went to Viet Nam with a camera (but came away pretty confused - but very determined that if drafted I would not go and thankfully I was never called to service.)

 

I wanted to die a natural death, not for something I had no real understanding of, even after careful, personal study. (Now I do know the answer about that war decades later, and it is not flattering to my country or its leadership, which now admits its mistakes there.

 

So, I am very careful before I 'take sides' with anybody.

 

I have friends all over the world, and although I acknowledge there have been injustices in Iran (Persia), what if the revolt became successful, would policy still be to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? I'm not Jewish or a Zionist but I don't think such a policy would be right in any sense. I do not know the answer to that . . . . and I'm not supporter or apologist for Israel which itself does much good and also some bad and suffers from the worst slander from the present Iranian leadership,such as the allegation the Holocaust never happened.

 

I can personally refute that, as I knew in New York City many Holocaust survivors freed by Allied forces in World War II, and I personally have walked the grounds of Dachau Concentration three times in different decades and he idea that 'the Holocaust didn't happen' or the deaths were exaggerated is a calumny.

 

I don't know yet if your side would perpetuate that calumny, so I cannot speak words of support at all because of that for to deny that or minimize it is to rewrite history I have seen and perpetuate lies.

 

Again, I do not carry water for Zionism or for the Jewish State, but Jews and Israelis are humans and entitled to live a peaceful life, free from aggression, just as you are hoping for yourself and your friends and relatives.

 

As a backer of justice and truth, that is important to me. When Middle Easterners all recognize the right of the others to live in peace, then I'll start making endorsements - for everybody, regardlesss of their religion.

 

I am a supporter of people living in peace with goodwill for and to their neighbors.

 

At one time in the Holy Land, Jews, Muslims and Christians lived side by side,and mostly there was peace, especiallly until the 20th C. - with some notable exceptions.

 

When one side gets agressive over that territory, as the Christians did in the Crusades, the consequences are unGodly.

 

I wish for peace for all, not just Persian protestors, Christians, or Jews, but all mankind.

 

I fear the consequences or radical religionist from any faith or sect, as the fundamentalist always believe they are 100% right and are therefore justified in doing anything they see as advancing the cause they see as their own or that someone charismatic tells them is their cause.

 

I prefer to think for myself. Fundamentalist often are 'told' what to believe and not to 'believe' what they are told becomes a heresy. I cannot accept that, personally.

 

When I know the whole truth, I'll try to send my ghostly to earth to make communication with the world leaders to explain it to them how to achieve world peace . . . . '~))

 

As that will never be learned in my lifetime or the lifetime I think of my children or theirs in turn.

 

And if there is a ghostly spirit that is so inclined.

 

Thank you, Shanam for the compliment.

 

I congratulate the protesters I came across in the US for their sane, cordial behavior and the kind manner of their treatment of me - they showed humanity and their dignity spoke well for them and their cause.

 

I hope things work out for justice and peace.

 

As an American and a minor student of history, I have learned that there are some things in which America does not belong, especially in some foreign domestic disputes over power. My country made one big mistake in your country's affairs, and this is not the time to re-enact that mistake, but it requires help from the country's leadership, whoever that is.

 

But there now are severe world consequences for states that engage in severe bad behavior, and that does trouble me, so - I withhold judgment on the question of where my support might go, and if I had support I might keep it secret.

 

I think now that you see my predicament as a photographer seeking good, moving photos and trying to do the right thing while remaining neutral to avoid being seen as a 'foreigner' who sticks his head in a country's internal politics.

 

Thanks for your fine compliment and comment.

 

Peace and God be with you.

 

John (Crosley)

i would like to thanks you deeply for your very kind consideration for people of iran movement for their freedom from the present situation which have been running for 3 decades,so excellent capture which has excellent message both in written an specially the look and eyes of the protestore,looking forward for a free world of any dictatorship from governments and for ever peace.

thanks again.

siamak-tehran

Thank you for the kind compliment. I do want to direct you to my comments made in reply to the posts above.

 

I do not take 'propaganda' photos -- not for anyone or for anything.

 

I take 'personal' photographs which are 'what I see', whether or not I happen to agree or want to advance the positions that I sometimes happen to capture.

 

Of course, I surely am for peace, throughout the world. I have been in war (with a camera), and it is horrible to see bodies blown apart, helmets that won't stop bullets (they are more for stopping shrapnel and falling dirt than anything, because no helmet will stop a bullet, I can assure you), and just seeing a young man forced to stop his own bleeding stump of an arm because his blown off arm was not deemed 'serious enough' for help compared to those with abdominal wounds and head wounds, is enough to make anyone advocate peace.

 

Peace is not always the answer, as some would take advantage of those who would give up and hand everything to thugs who would take everything else away from those who want peace, but peace is the good and desirable overall goal.

 

But in Middle Eastern politics I don't particularly take sides especially in your country's dispute.

 

I worry that your country is dedicated to blowing another country off the face of the earth, and unless one side or the other declares that is a goal they renounce, I will abstain from backing any side in this internal dispute.

 

I am just a photographer, but I do hope that nuclear devices never will be used or threatened again in my lifetime.

 

I spent a youth and early adulthood -- especially early adulthood - knowing that I was usually within one to five miles of THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC SITE FOR A SOVIET NUCLEAR DEVICE TO TARGET -- the infamous 'Blue Cube' -- strategic U.S. spy satellite control center, located next to two major freeways near Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Mountain View, California at or near Moffett Field, California.

 

In fact, I was in Europe reading a major U.S. magazine when I read major details of that, so obviously the Soviets with their spies knew 1,000 times as much.

 

I long knew that the San Francisco Bay area would be targeted initially, but had been unaware it had such a ripe and inviting target just a few miles from my home and much closer to where I worked and went to law school.

 

So, all my youth and adulthood was spent with the thought of 'what do I do if the Soviets attack us with nuclear devices?' and it was not paranoid - many or most Americans of that time grew up with those thoughts, and we viewed 'safety' films in classrooms that taught us how to avoid blast injuries ('Duck and Cover', we were told) as the mushroom cloud exploded on the classroom screen, and we were shown a whole mock town getting blown to smithereens quite some ways from 'ground zero' of a nuclear detonation).

 

MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction - which meant if the Soviets attacked the US - the US would raze all of the Soviet Union with its nuclear devices, ultimately caused a stalemate, I think, and ultimately the singer Sting, singing for 'the Police' had it right 'The Russians Love Their Children Too' (and boy do they, as much or more than any people I have encountered on earth).

 

In fact, that line from that song literally embodied the whole reason there never was a nuclear holocaust despite thousands of nuclear weapons stockpiled by both sides in the Cold War and Generals, Admirals and other higher-ups on both sides sometimes urging a preemptive strike.(get them before they get us)

 

However, much, much later, I married a Russian woman, and she was raised watching similar films, warning her to 'Duck and Cover' if the Americans were to attack the Soviets (something that was unthinkable under any sane American leadership, though there were a few crazies in the military who urged that - and were disregarded)

 

The Russians indeed 'love their children', more than even today most Americans could ever guess.

 

But there is a different dynamic, apparently in the Middle East. The Israelis have never officially said they have nuclear devices, but it is clear they have them - lots and lots and lots of them. They have never threatened to use them.

 

On the other hand, Iran has stated clearly through its leaders, it will use its against Israel as soon as they are finished, and they clearly are working to make many, though only a few would wipe out Israel.

 

I guess, until one or the other sides of your civil dispute disavows that pledge to blow apart a country, I will abstain from backing anyone in any civil dispute in your country, and still prefer just to take photos -- for me, in my taste, in my style, for my aesthetic -- not to be used for propaganda by anyone or to advance anyone's cause.

 

That is no agenda of mine.

 

My agenda is to take good photos, whether or not they express my innermost feelings.

 

You cannot always look at a photo taken by me and discern my true internal feelings. In many cases you can, but not always.

 

I do not believe in wiping out any people or state, whether you love 'em or hate 'em.

 

I have no enemies among peoples -- none at all. I am not affiliated with any country other than the US and then only as a citizen - loyal to my country, but not a sycophant of it. When I visit other countries, I try to do so respectfully.

 

So I'll abstain now, and perhaps forever.

 

I saw this as a photo that had to be taken, and that I could take in a way that would move many, as it apparently has many and it has apparently become emblematic of a struggle.

 

That is fine, but it is not my struggle.

 

Until somebody disavows publicly, forever,the idea of 'wiping out' any other state or the use of nuclear devices for anything other than saving the lives of a state's entire citizenry as a last ditch effort, then count me out of taking sides.

 

'In pare delicto' is the Latin phrase that best describes how I view things now. If it changes, let me know.

 

When it no longer may apply, I may change my mind.

 

I mean no disrespect at all, as I am extremely flattered by your praise, so please do not get me wrong. For you and your friends to be 'moved' by a photo of mine, is as high praise as you can give me as a photographer, and I proudly accept it.

 

As a photographer.

 

John (Crosley)

Hi

Your photo is so good. But my friend, the majority of Iranians are pro-regime. Surprise is that you as a non-Iranian, you say these sentences, while the inside Iran do not have the correct information. Perhaps you and your media influence Advertise regardless majority of people asked to speak to you.

I certainly agree with ali (and that is all we agree on). Regardless of the elections, the "majority of people" want to blow me and my little apartment to "Kindom Come".

 

 

 

Thank you for the compliment on the photo.

 

As to my remarks, I cannot exactly understand all that you are stating, because of some lack of clarity in English. But, if as you say, the majority of Iranians are pro-regime, that means if the regime wishes to blow Israel to smithereens, to me that is not acceptable.

 

But the dissenters -- what do they say about that?

 

You write about the 'correct information', but since we agree about the pro-regime population and the regime, what do the dissenter say about using nuclear bombs against neighbors and near-neighbors to blow them away from the face of the earth?

 

This is not 'advertising' or 'propaganda' but clear lack of the dissenters having told anybody, that has repeated it to me, what they feel about the subject, and I wish they would speak clearly on that, so I can consider their point of view, (if they have a clear point of view - and if they don't, that would be important to know).

 

I am not Jewish, not Zionist and not even pro-Zionist, but I would protect those who live in Israel from harm from others, just as my country has pledged to do so.

 

For even if Israel has nuclear weapons, they haven't used them, and I believe with what I think is just cause they would never use them except if their very existence came into the most grave peril or was actually disappearing.

 

MAD - mutually assured destruction - saved the Soviets and the West from a nuclear Holocaust and I hope that such an event never occurs in the Middle East.

 

I have friends from both Israel and Iran (and the Arab states as well), and I don't want to have to 'choose sides', so i won't.

 

But if anybody wants to blow the other party up, not in self-defense at the most grave peril, then I may take sides, after all.

 

So, Ali, what do the dissenters say about this issue of blowing up your neighbors?

 

I did not say what they say only that if they do say they support it, then that is not something i agree with.

 

In the meantime, 'in pari delicto'. (You can look up the Latin legal phrase).

 

Or as we Americans sometimes say, 'be kind to your neighbor, he knows where you live'.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(Ali because of your English not being clearly stated, parts of what you wrote I could not understand, so I am unclear who is subject to 'media influence' (not I,as I make my own judgments.

 

I once wrote for print media worldwide, not television, which is horrendous, but the press, and NOBODY, ever told me what to write.

 

If they had told me to do so, I (and my colleagues) would have quit and publicized it.

 

Good journalists are quite independent, though becoming increasingly rare (and jobless as newspapers fail.)

 

I hope this helps you understand I could not understand all you wrote.

 

John (Crosley)

and my refusal to accept 'taking sides' or obligingly take so much praise and instead 'argue' a little with those who compliment my work here, is that I stand four square against those who would blow anybody's apartment to 'kingdom come'.

 

Whether you like 'em or hate 'em.

 

Do NOT blow anybody's apartment to 'kingdom come', or even think about it loudly, as that is an unforgivable act of aggression.

 

I am waiting for word from the dissenters, to find out where they stand on the issue of 'blowing up' others' homes.

 

Until then, again, 'in pari delicto' - it's an internal struggle that is interesting to watch, but if the victor gets nuclear bombs and follows an identical strategy, it is just a historical oddity then who wins.

 

However, if dissenters disavow a nuclear weapons program and destruction of neighbors, that would be of great interest to me.

 

So, do dissenters speak cohesively on the subject, or are they too busy fighting the administration?

 

John (Crosley)

Thank you for your comments. I totally understand all your worries as a photographer and I'm sorry if what I said could have implied you taking side with a particular side in this dispute.

 

Maybe I should take these words back :"contributing to the Iranian's movement against tyranny". :)

 

I believe, the true sense of photography is to capture and immortalize a moment through a creative eye and an artistic touch. you have hundreds of other photos in your portfolio and each one of them talks in a different way with the viewers. Everyone interprets things around them in their specific way and judge based on their whole system of belief and their background. When people see a prostitute for example, standing in the dark on the sidewalk late in the evening you can never know how each passer by judges this view. this is the same when one looks at a photo of one.

 

This is quite natural that a photo of this genre, that pictures the rise against an authority and norms, arouses such a debate. If you had uploaded a photo of a cute dog, no one would have ever expressed their political or religious opinions under it! I still frequently remember the heated debate in the critiques of you photo of the Arab woman who's shopping for cosmetics. :)

 

I will be more careful from now on when commenting on people's photos in a public community like this.

 

I want to add one more thing and that's the answer to Ali. The thing is, no one will ever know if the "majority" of the people want a regime or not unless there's a free referendum, which seems quite unlikely to happen for now. So I just ask everyone to learn from John and only speak for themselves, starting from myself!

 

About the idea of "removing Israel from the face of the world"!, well i believe it's just a propaganda and part of the game and that they never dare to so. I think, what this regime and all the other ones are trying to do is to keep things the way they are so that they can go on enjoying the power. These words mean nothing to me. And even if both sides use their own nuclear bombs after all, well.... then there's nothing much we can do about, is there?

 

I totally agree with this part of your argument as one of my main concerns even from a very young age was "Why war?". I hate it to my very core and will never be persuaded that ANY of the wars in the history were justified! :

 

"Of course, I surely am for peace, throughout the world. I have been in war (with a camera), and it is horrible to see bodies blown apart, helmets that won't stop bullets (they are more for stopping shrapnel and falling dirt than anything, because no helmet will stop a bullet, I can assure you), and just seeing a young man forced to stop his own bleeding stump of an arm because his blown off arm was not deemed 'serious enough' for help compared to those with abdominal wounds and head wounds, is enough to make anyone advocate peace.

 

Peace is not always the answer, as some would take advantage of those who would give up and hand everything to thugs who would take everything else away from those who want peace, but peace is the good and desirable overall goal. "

 

Regards,

Maryam.

 

 

Yours is a very thoughtful comment, and I laud you for it.

 

However, some of history's wars were indeed 'justified'.

 

The Germans in World War I and their allies tried to take over all of Europe and more. They had to be resisted. When they conquered Belgium, they did not stop. They aimed their artillery (cannons) at the famous landmark buildings all over Belgium - wonderful, famous buildings, and just blew them up after hostilities had otherwise ceased. They taught the Belgians a 'lesson' - they punished them.

 

They did the same with people they did not like.

 

That, then, was the German way.

 

After a long period, the Nazi Germans did a similar things to all of Europe aided by the Japanese in the Far East and the Italians to the South.

 

They slaughtered millions of people and had an aim to 'rule the world', but they were 'gangsters' and behaved as 'gangsters' and thugs, but worse, they slaughtered a whole 'people' not just the Jews, but homosexuals, gypsies, communists and anyone else they thought was undesirable.

 

If they thought you were undesirable or not properly Aryan, they would have enslaved you or killed you too.

 

They fancied themselves, 'Christian' too, so I think a Muslim would not have fared well at all.

 

So, fighting them, was to my mind, clearly 'justified', and I have never had a doubt about that.

 

And as to propaganda about 'blowing tiny Israel to smithereens' - the propaganda about doing so is incredibly destructive, You cannot minimize it by calling it propaganda.

 

It is designed to tear the hearts out of mothers and all the citizens of Israel.

 

It is indefensible.

 

I do not always get along very well at least publicly with one major critic from Israel, but I will defend his right to be free from the terror and worry about being bombed by nuclear weapons from Iran AND from being THREATENED by such bombing.

 

And I will do right here by expressing that opinion publicly now. That does not take any courage for me; it is right.

 

There just can be no minizing the horror of threats to blow Israel to smithereens by saying they're 'mere propaganda'.

 

The mere threat is indefensible and abhorrent..

 

Until the protesters say not only is the threat propaganda, but they also disavow it entirely as against their will and abhorrent, will I listen to ALL they say more carefully.

 

Of course, the US, in playing 'geopolitics' may have a different 'mindset', as my country often takes sides for expediency.

 

Not me.

 

Peace. Yes.

 

I am for it, but with peace must also be 'peace of mind' free from threats so great that one cannot truly evaluate whether that threat is 'mere' propaganda or an honest to gosh threat with genuine intentions truthfully expressed for one's total destruction by the opposing party.

 

Do I love Jews and Zionists? As a rule, I pick and choose those I love, and have no particular favor, one way or the other for the Zionist movement or Israel, and regret that three religions are fighting for essentially the same piece of real estate, with the Christians being the least vigorous, (for now,but think of the Crusades, and the Children's Crusades of times past).

 

It's destabilizing to one's psyche and to one's national government as well to live a life under threat of total annihilation.

 

And even a threat to world order and peace.

 

I thank you for a well-expressed comment.

 

John (Crosley)