Actually its not slander...if its the written word its libel.
But of course its not libel either because it is true. MEK fighters assisted the Iraqi RG in the battle and suppression of the Kurds in Irbil in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) March-April 1991.
Originally they tried to manipulate Saddam's regime using his funding and support to strike at the Islamic regime in Iran from their HQ in Iraq (from 1986)....But after having been the deceived by Saddam that he would support their 'invasion' of Iran in 1988 as the National Liberation Army of Iran (who Saddam abandoned after the invasion in a Bay of Pigs fashion), the remnants of the MEK were eventually (by 1990) thoroughly compromised and infiltrated by Saddam's Republican Guard and were co-opted to assist in paramilitary actions against the Kurds, and possibly the Shia in Basra.
The MEK cannot even be considered mercenaries...they did the dirty work of the Iraqi RG to save themselves after Saddam threatened to turn them over to the Iranian RG....
I'm not sure. Perhaps if he can interrupt the transmissions from the mothership with his tinfoil hat then maybe the conspiracy fantasies will cease and the urge to post pseudo-jewdo-hoodoo-doodoo on the forum will subside.
Has there ever been a less appropriate nom de plume?
"However , I fear of the untimely repeated revolutions in the Arab world . Protocols of Elder sons of Zionism (sic) mentioned that point ,hence , i am afraid of history ; The Reich , Soviet , Great Britain, the ottoman kingdom , the Rome empire ,...etc. have been broken down, then economically controlled by the secret Jewish organisations and councils .
Ok...the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fake document created by the Tsarist Secret Police sometime between 1898-1903....The provenance of the fake 'protocols' has been proven and has been well documented for over 90 years....try reading some real history rather than this conspiracy rubbish.
...and a secret Jewish conspiracy to economically control the world?..Dating back to the fall of the Roman Empire no less! That defies all historical knowledge much less common sense.
You would do well to approach history from a perspective other than.."who can we blame for this situation?" or in the case of the Middle East, "why do bad things always happen to the Arabs?"
..as for your invitation to debate, discussions, and historical tackles....I figure you'd need to read a little more history and a lot less fairytale fiction before that would happen.
I suppose the Mossad were responsible for 9/11 as well?
I'm sorry you are 'afraid' Ahmed...if all else fails perhaps you could make a tinfoil hat to protect yourself in the future.
Agreed... But also zu Guttenberg is in a position to step down and then return to frontline politics at a later date and time.
Berlsuconi has no such opportunity. Not only is he too old to step aside and then run again, his freedom from prison and from crushing business competition is predicated on his remaining in power and manipulating the law in his favour.
When Niall Ferguson departed Oxford and Cambridge to continue an academic career in the US (and finally assume the Chair in History at Harvard), many saw it as a sign of the ascendancy of US university system over the British.
Not quite....Ferguson's revisionist approach to history and his neo-con tendencies marginalised him somewhat in mainstream British academia and the US proved greener pastures for his 'style'.
While I agree with many of the counterfactual arguments which Ferguson makes, he refuses to stop at the historical 'truth' of his perspective and attempts to extend his 'truths' to a moral dimension of certainty and righteous certitude. Apparently its not enough for his assertions to be correct, he needs them to be morally superior as well.
"Germany......receives all the benefits of global US security efforts"
All The benefits of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to US 'efforts'? Gee thanks for that.
Maybe you didn't notice but the Cold War is over and nowadays the benefits of global US security efforts are paid for with diplomatic obsequiousness and deference to US policies regarding Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan....
Who exactly is the US defending Europe from anyway these days?
The US defends its interests; in strategic resources; to Israel; in its dominant presence as a hegmonic power; and its commitment to US centric free trade. Europe is part of US strategic interests because NATO underpins US military industry sales, allows military bases, and encourages military, moral, diplomatic, and political cooperation which entrenches US hegemony within the international system.
The days of the US as a possible isolationist hegemon have passed, as the US has spent 20 years pursuing an international post Cold War system with itself as a hegemonic power based on a diplomatic, moral, and political mandate to lead a 'coalition of the similar'....similar in their shared normative values, commitments to human rights, rule of law, and free trade.
America needs Europe just as any leader needs followers...otherwise you have that uniquely American situation (such as the NFL) where you deem yourselves to be 'the World Champions' in a contest in which no one else plays....America! Superpower of America....not getting very far with that claim are you.
A common error in analysing the role of the military is failing to identify the military hierarchy as part of the entrenched elite. Of course it is improbable that enlisted troops from the cities and towns would open fire on the protesters...the military command understand this. So refusing to engage the protesters is not a blow for democracy as much as recognition of the reality.
Th Egyptian military will now deal with the 'democrats' who offer a continuation of Egyptian military power and protect the entrenched financial interests of the military in society. Infrastructure construction, house building, transportation, banking, retail, import/export, hell the military even own 2 of the major hotel resorts in Sharm El Sheik on the Red Sea! Before we sing the democratic ideals of the military we should recognise that they are looking after their own interests first and foremost.
Iran is a different case altogether. Its the Republican Guard which is not only ideologically synchronised with the theocratic regime overseeing all facts of internal state security, intelligence, and the nuclear program, but is also entrenched as a separate financial actor. The RG has separate financial interests in oil, transport, import/export, and construction within Iranian society.
The Iranian military doesn't have the independence, the financial clout, or the standing in society to oppose the Republican Guard, and RG interests are synonymous with the interests of the regime.
Hopefully there will be a ruling stating that insurance companies can't discriminate against where the policyholder lives and what kind of car the policyholder insures!
I mean why should my girlfriend's 1.2 Nissan cost less than my 4.0, V8 Range Rover anyway? Why should I be discriminated against keeping my car on the road in the city centre as opposed to being safely locked in a garage in a nice suburb?
Maybe they shouldn't discriminate against drivers who have previously lost their driving license due to speeding or drink driving either.
The EU makes it difficult for even Europhiles to defend it sometimes.
I find it difficult to follow what you are suggesting...
"Examiners go straight to the chapters where the authors are making contributions: Hypothesis, Research questions, Ontology, Epistimology, Qualitative or Quantitative data, Data processing, Proofs regarding Hypothesis, Models, Analysis at the end."
...If these are the chapters where the authors are making a contribution, what are the chapter headings where they are not?
"Hiring someone else to do the main work for the PhD is very common and even recommended in Australian universities."
...What is 'doing the main work'? Do you mean word processing? Proofing? Composing the actual text? Compiling the data sets? Carrying out qualitative interviews? Modelling? Who proposes the methodologies of the PhD then?
"Australian supervisors would not allow any PhD students to proceed unless he/she can find a model ( i.e already written research by some American, as the Australians slavishly follow the Americans) and ask the PhD students just to repeat that American PhD with new data."
...Are you stating that the American PhD is simply plagiarised wholesale or is used as a model, a template, as an example of layout and structure without using the content?
"Australian PhD students declare openly that "I have hired the best one" to do my statistics"
...Hired the best one? The best what? Professor? Another PhD recipient? And hired in what fashion? Do you mean that someone else is paid to word process the thesis? Paid to actually compose the thesis Paid to gather the statistics? Paid to complete the statistical analysis?
One does not simply 'submit' a PhD in its completed form after 3 years of research and work but submits 2 or 3 chapter at a time, over set intervals, to the PhD supervisor for review. Thus a completed written PhD is almost never rejected as it has been constantly reviewed and moulded, under supervision, so only a failure to defend the PhD in the viva (oral) exam would result in the failure of a PhD to be awarded. If you are stating that most Doctoral theses follow a common structure and that one would utilise the structure of an existing thesis to provide the layout, then that may be true.
You may pay to have a thesis word processed, proofread, bound and printed. You may pay someone to conduct a survey on your behalf, a survey which you had created. Research volunteers may be paid to undertake trials or surveys required for the data set. One may even pay to have the statistical analysis and proofs double-checked I suppose.....But that's it. You wouldn't 'pay' or 'hire' or 'employ' anyone for anything else.
If you are stating that within a submitted Doctoral thesis there is wholesale plagiarism, unreferenced material, unattributed authorship, undeclared third party content of any kind ....and that this situation is accepted or encouraged?
Then unless you would be prepared to provide specific examples from specific Universities I'd say that what you are suggesting was utter nonsense and complete tosh.
Maybe the field of study has something to do with it? I'm not saying the Int students were lesser prepared as much as they were at a disadvantage with English academic vocab and expression which are foundational skills in subjects such as Political Science or International Relations Theory. I'm guessing there was, perhaps, a specific 'allowance' in the marking for students whose first language was not English...