NationStates Jolt Archive

Iran: Europe wanted to complete Holocaust (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3193425,00.html)

Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said the Nazi attempt to eradicate Jews in the Holocaust was a “Myth,” has now charged that European countries sought to complete the genocide by establishing Israel, a Jewish state in the midst of Muslim countries.

“Don’t you think that continuation of genocide by expelling Jews from Europe was one of their (the Europeans’) aims in creating a regime of occupiers of Al-Quds (Jerusalem)?” the official Islamic Republic News agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

“Isn’t that an important question?”

'Anti-Semitic sentiment was a European tradition'

Ahmadinejad said Europeans had decided to create a “Jewish camp” as the best means for ridding the continent of Jews and said the camp, Israel, now enjoyed support from the United States and Europe in what he termed the slaughter of Muslims.

Last month, Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust, in which Nazi Germany killed six million Jews, was a myth. After global outrage over the comments, he said that Europeans, if they persisted in reality of the slaughter, should cede some of their territory for a Jewish state.

In October, Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “Wiped off the map.”

The fiery Iranian president said anti-Semitic sentiment was a strong and long-term European tradition while Jews had lived peacefully among Muslims for centuries.

So, was the Holocaust real or wasn't it? The more this guy rambles, the less sense he makes.

We should just kill the bastard.

Go on Israel, do your stuff...

Off with his head :p

Let this son of a bitch keep on talking. Come on, give Israel more reason to kill you, you fucking worm.

I can't wait until Israel just sends the Mossad to kill this SOB.

Let this son of a bitch keep on talking. Come on, give Israel more reason to kill you, you fucking worm.

I can't wait until Israel just sends the Mossad to kill this SOB.

Think they will?

Let this son of a bitch keep on talking. Come on, give Israel more reason to kill you, you fucking worm.
I can't wait until Israel just sends the Mossad to kill this SOB.
This guy is nuts - wasn't he just recently denying the Holocaust? Talk about your twisted logic

Let this son of a bitch keep on talking. Come on, give Israel more reason to kill you, you fucking worm.

I can't wait until Israel just sends the Mossad to kill this SOB.

Agreed. :D

Makes me think we should've helped Saddam invade Iran instead of invading Iraq...:rolleyes:

Makes me think we should've helped Saddam invade Iran instead of invading Iraq...:rolleyes:
We should've given both sides a couple billion dollars in 1988 so they could keep killing eachother until no one was left in either country.

Makes me think we should've helped Saddam invade Iran instead of invading Iraq...:rolleyes:

Because everyone knows a few playground taunts are enough to justify invading a country.

He isnt exactly a poster boy for peace and understanding, is he?

As for the idea of funding them both simultaneously, this did actually take place, though for different reasons, and all the more ironically the arms for Iran partly went via Israel. For more detail (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/intro.htm)

Eventually it was decided to swing entirely behind Iraq as Saddam was deemed far preferable than the independently minded Iranians.

Because everyone knows a few playground taunts are enough to justify invading a country.
Yes, but Iran actually has nuclear missiles. More than a few playground taunts, eh?

Yes, but Iran actually has nuclear missiles. More than a few playground taunts, eh?

They dont have nuclear missiles right now, but are developing nuclear capabilities. But the way you phrased your reply implied that the comments made by Iran's President were what prompted you to suggest invasion.

No, I've thought this way for a long time. This just added to that.

Because everyone knows a few playground taunts are enough to justify invading a country.
Quite: this is why troops are massing along the canadian border even as we speak...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is what the current president of Venezeuela would be like if he converted to Nazism.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is what the current president of Venezeuela would be like if he converted to Nazism.

???

???
Pat Robertson wants him dead, so he must be a bad hat.

We should just kill the bastard.
Well Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is becoming Hitler the Second, therefore reviving the kinda defunct Nazi party, start invading a bunch of Arab Countries, Holocaust, and then WWIII involving nukes. Yeah I agree, we should kill the bastard.

Let this son of a bitch keep on talking. Come on, give Israel more reason to kill you, you fucking worm.

I can't wait until Israel just sends the Mossad to kill this SOB.

They can't yet, there's so many anti-semetic SOBs already that want an excuse to get at Israel, the next thing you know they'd make him into a martyr. It's a pity though.

They can't yet, there's so many anti-semetic SOBs already that want an excuse to get at Israel, the next thing you know they'd make him into a martyr. It's a pity though.
How does this reasoning that anybody who has a problem with Israel is the sort of anti-semite who buys Prussian Blue records and has a taste for holocaust denial work? I've never been able to follow that one.

Okay.........

So if Europe wanted to finish the Holocaust, then why do they "support Israel"?
Or is it Anti-Semitism as in anti-all Semites including Arabs. And wouldn't Iranians be Indo-European, and therefore not semitic?

I'm so confused...:confused:

Honestly, has Iranian government ever made sense?

Honestly, has Iranian government ever made sense?
Does this (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/images/Conspiracy.jpg) help alleviate any confusion? :D

Honestly, has Iranian government ever made sense?

When they got rid of the Shah. Its been a slow spiral since though.

When they got rid of the Shah. Its been a slow spiral since though.
I thought the CIA did that for them?

Honestly, has Iranian government ever made sense?
Mossadegh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh) made sense.
Too bad he wanted to keep that oil money for his own country...

Mossadegh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh) made sense.
Too bad he wanted to keep that oil money for his own country...

Mossadegh was a communist. If the U.S. and Britain hadn't intervened, he would have buried Iran's economy into the ground.

When they got rid of the Shah. Its been a slow spiral since though.

The Shah was a great leader. He was secular, moderate, pro-Western, and pursued a peaceful foreign policy and was friendly to Israel. He made amazing progress, economically and socially, in Iran. Under his leadership, Iran was making rapid strides toward First World status. Carter's betrayal of the Shah was one of his most unforgivable sins.

Mossadegh was a communist. If the U.S. and Britain hadn't intervened, he would have buried Iran's economy into the ground.

And they replaced him with a pet dictator who abused the country's populace and ended up giving Iranian Revolution a jumpstart.

And they replaced him with a pet dictator who abused the country's populace and ended up giving Iranian Revolution a jumpstart.

The Shah was a great leader. Of the people "abused" (SAVAK arrested a whopping total of about 3,000 people between 1956-78), most were communists or religious extremists who opposed bringing Iran into the 20th century and utterly deserved what befell them.

Mossadegh was a communist. If the U.S. and Britain hadn't intervened, he would have buried Iran's economy into the ground.
There is nothing wrong with being a communist. Not that Mossadegh was.
He was primarily a Nationalist, who wanted to make his country a modern force to be reckoned with. Being a defacto-colony of British, French and US oil firms doesn't quite fit that picture.
Communists protested against him alongside Khamenei and his ilk.

And most importantly, Mossadegh had the support of most people. He was as democratic as any leader of Iran ever got.

The Shah was a great leader. He was secular, moderate, pro-Western, and pursued a peaceful foreign policy and was friendly to Israel. He made amazing progress, economically and socially, in Iran. Under his leadership, Iran was making rapid strides toward First World status. Carter's betrayal of the Shah was one of his most unforgivable sins.
Yeah, except he was a dictator who treated his people like shit, had massive prisons for getting rid of political opponents, and acted as a puppet of a foreign government.
It's perfectly understandable that the people would revolt at some point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

...most were communists or religious extremists who opposed bringing Iran into the 20th century and utterly deserved what befell them.
So, Joe McCarthy still alive in spirit I see.

There is nothing wrong with being a communist. Not that Mossadegh was.
He was primarily a Nationalist, who wanted to make his country a modern force to be reckoned with. Being a defacto-colony of British, French and US oil firms doesn't quite fit that picture.
Communists protested against him alongside Khamenei and his ilk.

And most importantly, Mossadegh had the support of most people. He was as democratic as any leader of Iran ever got.

He was no nationalist, he was a Soviet stooge who brought his country nothing but ruin. He was also quite friendly to and in bed with Tudeh.

Yeah, except he was a dictator who treated his people like shit, had massive prisons for getting rid of political opponents, and acted as a puppet of a foreign government.
It's perfectly understandable that the people would revolt at some point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

Treated his people like shit? How so? Ever heard of the White Revolution?

So, Joe McCarthy still alive in spirit I see.

If you're comparing me to McCarthy, I thank you deeply. If ever we meet in person, I'll pay you handsomely.*


*No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Iran: Europe wanted to complete Holocaust (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3193425,00.html)

Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said the Nazi attempt to eradicate Jews in the Holocaust was a “Myth,” has now charged that European countries sought to complete the genocide by establishing Israel, a Jewish state in the midst of Muslim countries.

“Don’t you think that continuation of genocide by expelling Jews from Europe was one of their (the Europeans’) aims in creating a regime of occupiers of Al-Quds (Jerusalem)?” the official Islamic Republic News agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

“Isn’t that an important question?”

'Anti-Semitic sentiment was a European tradition'

Ahmadinejad said Europeans had decided to create a “Jewish camp” as the best means for ridding the continent of Jews and said the camp, Israel, now enjoyed support from the United States and Europe in what he termed the slaughter of Muslims.

Last month, Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust, in which Nazi Germany killed six million Jews, was a myth. After global outrage over the comments, he said that Europeans, if they persisted in reality of the slaughter, should cede some of their territory for a Jewish state.

In October, Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “Wiped off the map.”

The fiery Iranian president said anti-Semitic sentiment was a strong and long-term European tradition while Jews had lived peacefully among Muslims for centuries.

So, was the Holocaust real or wasn't it? The more this guy rambles, the less sense he makes.
What a jackass. :mad:

At first I agreed with him about isreal, until I found out his stance on the Holocaust. Now I realize my mistake... :headbang: (now i DON'T agree with him at all)

He was no nationalist, he was a Soviet stooge who brought his country nothing but ruin. He was also quite friendly to and in bed with Tudeh.
Actually, Iran was making a killing from the nationalisation. And as for "Soviet stooge"...well, I'm sure you can somehow prove it.
Socialist Reforms do not a Soviet Ally make. You'll have to consider the times - socialism had worked in many countries, capitalism just meant that Western powers took a big slice of the cake.

Treated his people like shit? How so? Ever heard of the White Revolution?
http://www.ghandchi.com/14-Savak.htm

As for the "White Revolution"...he kinda forgot to help the people in the process. The squalor for the poor just became worse. And remarkebly, he managed to completely forget about democratic measures as well.

Mossadegh was a communist. If the U.S. and Britain hadn't intervened, he would have buried Iran's economy into the ground.


Really? A unique view. In fact they were just worried he'd natiuonalise the oil industry now that the British had left. So instead of nationalisation proposed by an Iranian national we had the British/French/American plan, which gave rise to all oil revenues being sent out of the country for an agreed 25 years. What an astounding improvement.

The Shah was a great leader. He was secular, moderate, pro-Western, and pursued a peaceful foreign policy and was friendly to Israel. He made amazing progress, economically and socially, in Iran..

He traded his peoples wealth for power as mentioned above. He tried to forcibly secularise the Iranians, thus causing the religous backlash which led to the rise of the Ayatollah. His "economic progress" consisted of rewarding the elite, much as any other thug with a peaked cap has done over the last 200 years. At least 14,000 were killed by SAVAK and more than twice that tortured or forced into exile.

Do you think the ton of caviar he ordered and 100 Million USD for the celebrations of the centenary of the Persian Empire was part of his "amazing progress"?

If you're comparing me to McCarthy, I thank you deeply. If ever we meet in person, I'll pay you handsomely.*


*No, I'm not being sarcastic.

You do realize that Joseph_McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy) was no true Communist fighter? He was merely an alcoholic bully opportunist who took advantage of the Red Scare and elevated Witch Hunting to a whole new low. McCarthy used the threat of labelling someone a Communist to get his way, and the ultimate proof of his arrogance was the Army Hearings.

The fact that you worship a corrupt individual like the Shah shows how clueless you are about the abuse that encouraged the Iranian Revolution, much less how exaggerated the threat of global Communism was and how it was used to justify so many horrible practices.

Kind of like how the threat of Islamic Terrorism is being used to justify so many horrible practices today.

Then again you take pride in being compared to Tailgunner Joe so you're probably a Bushevik on top of those too.

You do realize that Joseph_McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy) was no true Communist fighter? He was merely an alcoholic bully opportunist who took advantage of the Red Scare and elevated Witch Hunting to a whole new low. McCarthy used the threat of labelling someone a Communist to get his way, and the ultimate proof of his arrogance was the Army Hearings.

Source?

Then again you take pride in being compared to Tailgunner Joe so you're probably a Bushevik on top of those too.

Hell, no. I hate neocons.

Source?

Did you even see the link there?

Hell, no. I hate neocons.

Yet you wholeheartedly support one of their biggest puppets in history and admire someone they derive one of their most popular political tactics from. As the old cliché goes If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck...

He traded his peoples wealth for power as mentioned above. He tried to forcibly secularise the Iranians, thus causing the religous backlash which led to the rise of the Ayatollah.

Hmm, I wish some western governments and organizations would learn from that....

Yet you wholeheartedly support one of their biggest puppets in history and admire someone they derive one of their most popular political tactics from. As the old cliché goes If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck...

It's a horse!:D

Did you even see the link there?



Yet you wholeheartedly support one of their biggest puppets in history and admire someone they derive one of their most popular political tactics from. As the old cliché goes If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck...
Here is a detailed analysis of the issue (http://www.exchangescan.org/images/Gallery/Large/Puppet%20Show%20008.jpg)

There is some truth to the claim, though the messenger is a repulsive one.

Does anyone seriously think Eastern Europe would have welcomed the survivors with open arms?

Does this (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/images/Conspiracy.jpg) help alleviate any confusion? :D
I have a question about this. Are the Bush twins and the Olson twins being traded to the Minnesota Twins? So what happens then? Do the Twinkies trade the 2 sets of twins to the Rangers for Soriano? Do the Twinkies then shop to the Yankees for Arod and basically do a reverse of the original Arod trade except the Rangers get nothing.

Makes me think we should've helped Saddam invade Iran instead of invading Iraq...:rolleyes:

Well actually you did. In the 80s during the Iran-Iraq war.

Really? A unique view. In fact they were just worried he'd natiuonalise the oil industry now that the British had left. So instead of nationalisation proposed by an Iranian national we had the British/French/American plan, which gave rise to all oil revenues being sent out of the country for an agreed 25 years. What an astounding improvement.



He traded his peoples wealth for power as mentioned above. He tried to forcibly secularise the Iranians, thus causing the religous backlash which led to the rise of the Ayatollah. His "economic progress" consisted of rewarding the elite, much as any other thug with a peaked cap has done over the last 200 years. At least 14,000 were killed by SAVAK and more than twice that tortured or forced into exile.

Do you think the ton of caviar he ordered and 100 Million USD for the celebrations of the centenary of the Persian Empire was part of his "amazing progress"?


Good post.

Not many realise that the Shah's policies (influenced by his western backers) led to the rise of reactionary radicalism and Khomeini capitalised on that resulting in the revolution.

We should've given both sides a couple billion dollars in 1988 so they could keep killing eachother until no one was left in either country.

Then establish a pro-democratic gov't.

I think an invasion is in order here. This guy is clearly out of his mind. If the Iranian people won't do it themselves. Than it is up to the international community.

I still can't belive that shock tactics like this still work. Its more than a little obvious this guy has the most power when he causes controversy, to be fair he's not doing badly either

Then establish a pro-democratic gov't.
I don't care about that, but if both nations had wiped eachother out we wouldn't have problems with them.

There is some truth to the claim, though the messenger is a repulsive one.

Does anyone seriously think Eastern Europe would have welcomed the survivors with open arms?

Of course not. There always has been deeply rooted antisemitism in Europe. Even in America, there was. Not nearly as much now, thankfully -- after all, the majority of us still support Isreal's existance, even though they're government is out of whack.

Jews come up, make their way to Isreal after fleeing Egypt. Everything is peachy, then the Babs come. Then the Persians.
Then the Romans.
Then the Catholic Church.
Then the Protestant Churches.
Then the Monarchies of the West.
Then Russia.
Then Hitler.
Then the Muslims.

Rough times, the only place they haven't been shot out of is the East, but that's probably only because they haven't gone there in force yet. No one really wants them, which is a shame. That's why there's Isreal, and -- surprise! -- they get their historical land back, and everyone hates them and wants them to go away.

If they leave Isreal, where will they go?

I don't care about that, but if both nations had wiped eachother out we wouldn't have problems with them.

I agree, we should have never stopped that war -- who knows? Maybe it'd just be a wasteland and even a nation like France could waltz in there and take it over.

Hell, God knows the US would be a lot better off if it had the oil fields in the Gulf.

There always has been deeply rooted antisemitism in Europe.
So, where are you from then?

Jews come up, make their way to Isreal after fleeing Egypt. Everything is peachy

I'm sorry, I support what you say in the rest of your post, but I can't let that slide. The organised genocide and rape depicted in the bible committed by the tribes of Israel when they took their lands is one of the main reasons I have strong atheistic tendencies. It's a disgusting tale, one you can only hope was exaggerated, but if even some of it's true... ergh, sickening.

We should've given both sides a couple billion dollars in 1988 so they could keep killing eachother until no one was left in either country.
One sec. Are you... justifying... genocide? I mean, is it OK when it doen't involve your ethnicity?

I think it is time the world stood up to this asshole.

How about some sanctions that will cripple Iran's economy? Better yet, some air strikes to destroy their nuclear capabiltiy and perhaps some Spec Ops to take out high level officials in the Iranian government.

One sec. Are you... justifying... genocide? I mean, is it OK when it doen't involve your ethnicity?
It has nothing to do with ethnicity, it is politics. Both nations are problems for us so it is better if they just wipe eachother out and we don't have to deal with them. Have you ever heard the old saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Better that they kill eachother instead of us having to deal with them.

I think it is time the world stood up to this asshole.

How about some sanctions that will cripple Iran's economy? Better yet, some air strikes to destroy their nuclear capabiltiy and perhaps some Spec Ops to take out high level officials in the Iranian government.

Which will of course make Bin Ladin cream in his pants as the Chimp in Chief again hands him a propaganda bonus that he never thought would happen again after Iraq.

Which marginalizes and silences the Moderate Muslims as the Jihadists scream "See!? Osama is right!! The West and Israel does want to exterminate Islam!!"

Which means every Jihadist organization gets even more recruits and their attacks step up.

Which means Iraq will get dragged down.

Which means Afghanistan will get dragged down.

Which means the United States just shot itself in the groin.

It has nothing to do with ethnicity, it is politics. Both nations are problems for us so it is better if they just wipe eachother out and we don't have to deal with them. Have you ever heard the old saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Better that they kill eachother instead of us having to deal with them.
So you better not disagree with him or he might want to kill everyone in your country too.

This clown is trying to provoke a war.

Elgesh']I'm sorry, I support what you say in the rest of your post, but I can't let that slide. The organised genocide and rape depicted in the bible committed by the tribes of Israel when they took their lands is one of the main reasons I have strong atheistic tendencies. It's a disgusting tale, one you can only hope was exaggerated, but if even some of it's true... ergh, sickening.

Okay, so I definitely used the wrong words -- inside, it was an udder shithole. However, I was refering to foreign intervention/oppression ONLY. My fault in the bad wording.

And Neu Leonstein, I say that simply by looking at history. Whether there is now I do not claim to know, although I hope there is none.

Which will of course make Bin Ladin cream in his pants as the Chimp in Chief again hands him a propaganda bonus that he never thought would happen again after Iraq.

Which marginalizes and silences the Moderate Muslims as the Jihadists scream "See!? Osama is right!! The West and Israel does want to exterminate Islam!!"

Which means every Jihadist organization gets even more recruits and their attacks step up.

Which means Iraq will get dragged down.

Which means Afghanistan will get dragged down.

Which means the United States just shot itself in the groin.

That could happen yes, but some things are worth the risk.

That could happen yes, but some things are worth the risk.

Plus, even if they did do that, they wouldn't have much of a base or funds to operate from, 'cept maybe Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (leaving out Syria as, IIRC, Wal Mart is richer than they are). 'sides, if they killed each other, it's not like we'd have troops there, so we could send them other places.

Like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. :D



Or Syria. :p

isnt time we(earth) stopped catering for every religion and just give up on the idea of theocracy as a whole? cant we just have countries with no state religion (which excludes the USA thanks to our quite lovely old christian fundamentlists who vote for the preacher over the politician.) this guy uses extreme views to atract attention to him we'd do best to ignore him and to focus on more important things like finishing iraqs government.

I don't know why people get all emotional about what the president of Iran says, cause that's all he can do, just talk, so back-off. Every one is entitled to their opinion(s), just like that guy who said it was okay for the president of Venezuela should be assassinated by the US on TV. All this hypocrisy makes me sick, “This religious fanatic is okay cause he's one of ours but that religious fanatic over there has to go cause he's one of theirs.” Attacking another country around the Middle East, yeah really smart, can't even handle the secular Iraqis:D . Also, the prosecution of Jews throughout Christian Europe in the past itself is damaging, (and don't think it only goes back to Hitler's Nazism) read your history books.

If they leave Isreal, where will they go?

Actually most would be content if they just stuck to their 1967 borders and withdrew from the occupied territories, despite what some might have you believe.

Gauthier nails it on the head as regards the rest.

Carter's betrayal of the Shah was one of his most unforgivable sins.
It has recently occured to me that carter was the last US President who made any kind of attempt to base his foreign policy on moral considerations. Given this it seems rather strange that the Busheviks loathe him so much: this is the excuse the chimp is offering for having invaded Iraq now that the WMD story has fallen apart, after all.

Given the make-up of the chimp in chiefs cabinet and advisors, WMD are more likely to grow spontaneously from the ground in Iraq than they encounter anything vaguely resembling Carters "moral considerations".

Given the make-up of the chimp in chiefs cabinet and advisors, WMD are more likely to grow spontaneously from the ground in Iraq than they encounter anything vaguely resembling Carters "moral considerations".

And this has what to do with Iran? Nothing.

Makes me think we should've helped Saddam invade Iran instead of invading Iraq...:rolleyes:

You did.

Besides, you are aware that this guy wasn't the leader of Iran back then, aren't you?

He's undoubtedly the worst President Iran has ever had, but many posters in this thread seem as irrational as he is.

We should've given both sides a couple billion dollars in 1988 so they could keep killing eachother until no one was left in either country.are you Jewish or something?

Let this son of a bitch keep on talking. Come on, give Israel more reason to kill you, you fucking worm.

I can't wait until Israel just sends the Mossad to kill this SOB.
I'm more holding out for Israel to send in the IDF (no, not you) to 'dismantle' their nuclear 'electricity stations'.

I don't know why people get all emotional about what the president of Iran says, cause that's all he can do, just talk, so back-off. Every one is entitled to their opinion(s), just like that guy who said it was okay for the president of Venezuela should be assassinated by the US on TV. All this hypocrisy makes me sick, “This religious fanatic is okay cause he's one of ours but that religious fanatic over there has to go cause he's one of theirs.” Attacking another country around the Middle East, yeah really smart, can't even handle the secular Iraqis:D . Also, the prosecution of Jews throughout Christian Europe in the past itself is damaging, (and don't think it only goes back to Hitler's Nazism) read your history books.exactamente.

that guy is a friggin sick psygotic moron!!!
that must be enough information...

that guy is a friggin sick psygotic moron!!!
that must be enough information...BUSH? yeah I agree BUSH is a friggin sick psygotic moron... but that Iranian Pres is a moron too.

The Voters should figure in the first months after they take office...

And obviously they should never reelect these chimps... cos that would mean their country voters are morons too :D ... or that they are mostly Blind and Deaf..

BUSH? yeah I agree BUSH is a friggin sick psygotic moron... but that Iranian Pres is a moron too.

The Voters should figure in the first months after they take office...

And obviously they should never reelect these chimps... cos that would mean their countries are full of morons too. :D

Nice sarcasm since that is what it is.

Nice sarcasm since that is what it is.It is not sarcasm. LOL.. sometimes I do sarcasm and people do not notice.. but this is the first time it goes the other way..
i totally agree with him.. the President is a frigging sick psygotic moron...

It is not sarcasm. LOL.. sometimes I do sarcasm and people do not notice.. but this is the first time it goes the other way..
i totally egree with him.. the President is a is a frigging sick psygotic moron...
I'm not sure that Bush is smart enough to make the grade as a moron: most morons don't have to be prevented from trying to eat pretzels, after all.

It is not sarcasm. LOL.. sometimes I do sarcasm and people do not notice.. but this is the first time it goes the other way..
i totally agree with him.. the President is a frigging sick psygotic moron...

Kim Jong Il?

Kim Jong Il?

Hey, both Shrub and Kim Jong-Il have nation-wide Personality Cults worshipping them.

Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said the Nazi attempt to eradicate Jews in the Holocaust was a “Myth,” has now charged that European countries sought to complete the genocide by establishing Israel, a Jewish state in the midst of Muslim countries.

This guy and Hugo Chavez should get together and have babies.

Oh wait, we already have enough members of the ACLU and moveon.org

Hey, both Shrub and Kim Jong-Il have nation-wide Personality Cults worshipping them.

Granted, I'm a conservative, but...

I think you're insulting Kin Jong-Il right about there, degrading his personality cult. Bush, compared to the Great Leader, has nothing.

Hey, both Shrub and Kim Jong-Il have nation-wide Personality Cults worshipping them.

Now this is a load of hogwash. Kim Jong-Il yea most definitely but Bush(:rolleyes:)

Hey, both Shrub and Kim Jong-Il have nation-wide Personality Cults worshipping them.

Wow, you must really be stupid. Comparing Bush to Kim Jong-Il? Wtf?

Wow, you must really be stupid. Comparing Bush to Kim Jong-Il? Wtf?

It's not too far fetched a comparison.

1) They both got into the seat of power through their daddies.

2) They both show absolutely little to no talent for running efficient domestic policies.

3) They both have an entire nation worshipping them that believes they can do no wrong.

It's not too far fetched a comparison.

ACtually it is.

1) They both got into the seat of power through their daddies.

Jong-Il yes, Bush? Still had to get elected and he was so that's a no.

2) They both show absolutely little to no talent for running efficient domestic policies.

Bush is trying but not Jong-Il so this is a bust too.

3) They both have an entire nation worshipping them that believes they can do no wrong.

This is most definitely not true for Bush.

Wow, you must really be stupid. Comparing Bush to Kim Jong-Il? Wtf?WTF indeed..

you are insulting Kin Jong-Il...degrading him.. comparing him to a Chimp
I think you're insulting Kin Jong-Il right about there, degrading his personality cult. Bush, compared to the Great Leader, has nothing.
...

exactamente.. :D

Makes me think we should've helped Saddam invade Iran instead of invading Iraq...:rolleyes:

A very good point indeed. The man is obviously deranged. The only thing I can see bad about the Israelis taking this chump out would be that it would provide the liberal left in this country with a chew toy that they could go crazy with for months, if not years. Somehow, even that would be Bush's fault.

The only thing I can see bad about the Israelis taking this chump out would be that it would provide the liberal left in this country with a chew toy that they could go crazy with for months, if not years. Somehow, even that would be Bush's fault.
Curious...I can think of a few other bad things. Like dead people. And Iraq being destroyed when the Iranians invade it.

But then, why should we bother with not killing people. "War is Hell", therefore it's somehow okay, right?

Curious...I can think of a few other bad things. Like dead people. And Iraq being destroyed when the Iranians invade it.

But then, why should we bother with not killing people. "War is Hell", therefore it's somehow okay, right?

There are any number of human monsters throughout history that need/needed taken out. I think that ultimately he will end up killing many of his own people, if not his neighbors. It is obvious he (the Iranian president) is rather unbalanced. It may well be that killing him would result in saving many other lives. Who's to say? I am only saying that if it comes to pass that I would not shed a tear over it. And the Israelis have a very vested interest in maintaining the stability of the region. It's their call, isn't it?

There are any number of human monsters throughout history that need/needed taken out.
I would agree - but it's a thing to be considered carefully. Just because someone doesn't comply with our wishes does not make him a monster.
Ahmadinejad may be an arsehole, but he's not on par with any real dictator, such as Pinochet (whom we all loved, despite being one of the more nasty kind), or even more serious ones like Mugabe or Kim Jong Il.

I think that ultimately he will end up killing many of his own people, if not his neighbors. It is obvious he (the Iranian president) is rather unbalanced.
Hey, so are many other people. Some of the comments Bush has made are being considered rather unbalanced in many countries - but that does not necessarily make it right.

It may well be that killing him would result in saving many other lives. Who's to say?
That's the point. Who's to say either way?
People accuse me of always wanting to wait until it's too late - but before you willingly go out and kill people, you need to be certain that you don't do more damage than you prevent.

And the Israelis have a very vested interest in maintaining the stability of the region. It's their call, isn't it?
Well, no. It would be the call of the entire region. Most Arab countries have become uneasy with Iranian rhetoric, and it would be absolutely necessary for Israel to consider them as well.

It may well be that killing him would result in saving many other lives. Who's to say? I am only saying that if it comes to pass that I would not shed a tear over it. If you killed BUSH before he invades Iraq...

would I shed a tear over it?

If you killed BUSH before he invades Iraq...

would I shed a tear over it?

You? Probably not.