NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so I can't even spell his name. But that doesn't mean I don't respect him. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone saying "What a douche" and "Peace? Bullshit. He wants Israel wiped off the map!" and "No nukes? Ha. Good one". I'm just sick of it. First, he IS looking for peace. He believes that by wiping Israel off the map, a new era of PEACE will come to the Middle East. Chances are it probably will, as most conflicts there are due in part to the Israelis. Also, until I actually see TRUTHFUL reports of Iran having nuclear weapons, I'm all for Iran being a nuclear power. We need someone besides the West and China to finally have nuclear power. Hell, I wouldn't mind if Iran had nukes. At least that way the West would stop picking on the Middle East. Also, that brings me to my last part. You certainly have to agree with Preisdent Tom (as I will refer to him from now on) that the American, U.K., and Israeli governments are in fact trying to, in a sense, take over the world. Now then, I am a firm supporter of democracy. However, I certainly do NOT believe invading a country with a dictator and forcing them out of power via military strength, then setting up a democratic government with only your interests in mind, then saying you were in the right because of "civil rights abuses".

Firstly, if a country suddenly goes from a facist state, which the people have grown to know after hundred years of being under it, to a democratic government, it's going to be socially and politically traumatic. People will have no idea what to do. It will, in a sense, be nothing more than anarchy. And don't say Iraq and Afghanistan aren't anarchy.

Secondly, lets say you do want to set up a democratic state. Good. But do NOT do it using military coups and do it so suddenly. Find a way to slowly weaken the power, NOT militarily, so that the people get used to new power given to them. Also, it will make them like the people who started the reformation a hell of a lot better than if someone came in guns blazing into their country and shot up every person of the dictators party. I mean, that's what America always decides to do, go in guns blazing and think that everyone loves them for it. Did the Vietnamese love us for it? Are the Iraqi's loving us for it?

And lastly, never, NEVER say you are in the right in invading a country because of "civil rights abuses". Fine, there was the occasional killing of dissidents in Iraq. It was a quasi-islamo-facist regime, with quasi-islamo-facist law being implemented. But does that at ALL compare to what they are facing now? And don't say "it'll get better". Both of us know it won't. Don't be swayed by the kids and the women and the men going "Thank you America for freeing us!".

All President Tom is trying to do is to stand up against the U.S., U.K., and Israel, who are consistently trying to force their way of life on other people through military force. And frankly, I have to be proud of him for that. There has to be someone to stand up and defy the people trying to subtly take over the world. And if it's him, fine. At least there is someone.

seconded.

dont like the guy, but some of the lies and quite frankly racist tripe posted on here is getting tedious.

yeh, i respect the guy for thumbing his nose at the west, but for that only, the whole 'final solution' thing he's advocating for israel all but negates that respect.

yeh, i respect the guy for thumbing his nose at the west, but for that only, the whole 'final solution' thing he's advocating for israel all but negates that respect.

source?

thats preciscly the kind of thing im talking about

source?

thats preciscly the kind of thing im talking about

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: I hereby declare that this sinister regime [Israel] is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the Great Satan. All it does is to implement the orders of the criminal America and England. They think that the peoples are the same as they were 100 years ago. They are not aware that things have changed in the world. Today, all the peoples have awoken. The Iranian people is the standard-bearer of this awakening for all the peoples. As we can see, from the southernmost point in South America to the easternmost point in Asia, all the people are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout: Death to Israel.

Crowd: Death to Israel.

Death to Israel.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1222wmv&ak=null

In his own words.

If I wasn't such a lurker, I'd say you were talking about me.

source?

thats preciscly the kind of thing im talking about

it was in the op and it's been suggested all the over the place many times. i can't be arsed searching for a source. besides, even if he really does advocate nuking israel off the map he hasn't got the nukes, probably won't have them for about 15 or 20 years, and even if he did have them i very much doubt he's loony enough to actually use them. you have to be seriously retarded and/or crazy to consider nukes and even bush hasn't nuked anyone yet.

President Tom?

I'm just sick of Israel v. Palestine, Liberals v. Conservatives, Muslims v. Christians mudslings full stop.

I'm just sick of Israel v. Palestine, Liberals v. Conservatives, Muslims v. Christians mudslings full stop.

Let's retire to our bunker, and nuke the whole world. That should quiet things down.

If I wasn't such a lurker, I'd say you were talking about me.
He is.

Stop trying to eradicate Israel, dammit!

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1222wmv&ak=null

In his own words.

actually its in the words of MEMRI, an organisation founded by a former IDF Intellegence agent to 'inform' the US about what those nasty arabs are saying.

That is a biased and discredited source and again, I question the motives behind disputed translations of his speeches.

actually its in the words of MEMRI, an organisation founded by a former IDF Intellegence agent to 'inform' the US about what those nasty arabs are saying.

That is a biased and discredited source and again, I question the motives behind disputed translations of his speeches.

I suppose you're one of those people who disputes the translations of Mein Kampf as well.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1222wmv&ak=null

In his own words.

Note he is saying "Death to Israel". Not "Death to the Israeli people". There's a difference in the two. He's simply looking to stop the zionist regime, not murder the Jews who are under the influence of the zionist regime.

actually its in the words of MEMRI, an organisation founded by a former IDF Intellegence agent to 'inform' the US about what those nasty arabs are saying.

That is a biased and discredited source and again, I question the motives behind disputed translations of his speeches.

Nasty Aryan, not nasty Arab. ;)

Iranians aren't Arabs.

it was in the op and it's been suggested all the over the place many times. i can't be arsed searching for a source. besides, even if he really does advocate nuking israel off the map he hasn't got the nukes, probably won't have them for about 15 or 20 years, and even if he did have them i very much doubt he's loony enough to actually use them. you have to be seriously retarded and/or crazy to consider nukes and even bush hasn't nuked anyone yet.

No, I said that it would be good if they have nukes so that they could wave them in the West's face so that they might back down a few steps on the "World Domination" ladder.

Note he is saying "Death to Israel". Not "Death to the Israeli people". There's a difference in the two. He's simply looking to stop the zionist regime, not murder the Jews who are under the influence of the zionist regime.

Sure. Back during the Iranian hostage crisis, we heard a lot of "Death to America" as well. Same words, except that America has been replaced by Israel.

I've met quite a few Iranians who were stuck living here in the US after the revolution. When they say "Death to" a country, they mean everyone living there should die.

Pretty simple. No subtle nuance there.

The next thing I'll hear from the SR is that Hitler just wanted a bigger living room for his house...

I miss the Shah. :(

Damn you, Carter! :upyours:

I suppose you're one of those people who disputes the translations of Mein Kampf as well.

GODWIN.

The source you used is discredited. Its offices are in NY, London and Jerusalem. Thats not an impartial translation. Academics tore the 'translation' of the 'wipe them off the map' speech to shreds.

You need to grow up with the labelling of those of us who question why the Israeli intellegence officers might be putting 'translations' out there.

Nasty Aryan, not nasty Arab. ;)

Iranians aren't Arabs.

Note that I'm not saying Iranians are nasty. Just that they're not Arabs.

The next thing I'll hear from the SR is that Hitler just wanted a bigger living room for his house...
He didn't like the carpet in his old one.

GODWIN.

The source you used is discredited. Its offices are in NY, London and Jerusalem. Thats not an impartial translation. Academics tore the 'translation' of the 'wipe them off the map' speech to shreds.

You need to grow up with the labelling of those of us who question why the Israeli intellegence officers might be putting 'translations' out there.

Maybe you should learn to speak Farsi, so you can translate for yourself.

The next thing I'll hear from the SR is that Hitler just wanted a bigger living room for his house...


Reported.

Grow up. Do we need you to poison another Middle Eastern thread with your racism?

Sure. Back during the Iranian hostage crisis, we heard a lot of "Death to America" as well. Same words, except that America has been replaced by Israel.

I've met quite a few Iranians who were stuck living here in the US after the revolution. When they say "Death to" a country, they mean everyone living there should die.

Pretty simple. No subtle nuance there.

Listen to your gut, not the quasi-government media. President Tom simply want to stop Israeli from taking over the middle east. He understands that not everyone in the country is zionist bastards who want to achieve that goal. He understands it's just the government who wants to achieve that goal. That's why he is trying to destroy the Israeli GOVERNMENT. He doesn't want to destroy the Israeli PEOPLE.

Does anyone here speak Farsi? :confused:

Maybe you should learn to speak Farsi, so you can translate for yourself.

why would I need to do that, sure dont i have the IDF to impartially tell me what he is saying? :rolleyes:

all neutral sources (academics etc) who have translated his speeches report a far less fiery rhetoric than clearly propaganda sites like your one.

im not saying he is a pleasant man, but you are using dubiuos sources and then screaming nazi when pulled on them.

its pathetic stuff.

did you jump up and down when peres threatened to wipe Iran off the map? He did it in english too...

Reported.
What for, exactly?

Oh, and if you clicked the 'report this post' button, that doesn't actually work. :p

Listen to your gut, not the quasi-government media. President Tom simply want to stop Israeli from taking over the middle east. He understands that not everyone in the country is zionist bastards who want to achieve that goal. He understands it's just the government who wants to achieve that goal. That's why he is trying to destroy the Israeli GOVERNMENT. He doesn't want to destroy the Israeli PEOPLE.

Explain to me once again, and prove, how Israel has been trying to take over the Middle East.

Go ahead, I've got years for you to pull crap out of your ass.

Note he is saying "Death to Israel". Not "Death to the Israeli people". There's a difference in the two. He's simply looking to stop the zionist regime, not murder the Jews who are under the influence of the zionist regime.

Please.

The Israeli people would not long survive without the Israeli state. And I doubt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would shed a tear for them.

Listen to your gut, not the quasi-government media. President Tom simply want to stop Israeli from taking over the middle east. He understands that not everyone in the country is zionist bastards who want to achieve that goal. He understands it's just the government who wants to achieve that goal. That's why he is trying to destroy the Israeli GOVERNMENT. He doesn't want to destroy the Israeli PEOPLE.

Okay seriously, where does President Tom come from? I don't get it...

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1222wmv&ak=null

In his own words.

No it's not, actually. That's a bad translation of it. He didn't say death to Israel, he called for the current administration sitting in Jerusalem to be wiped from the pages of history.

In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained antagonistic statements about Israel. According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that would be eliminated.

Source! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Iran-Israel_relations)

Explain to me once again, and prove, how Israel has been trying to take over the Middle East.

Go ahead, I've got years for you to pull crap out of your ass.

Look at all the conflicts Israel has taken part in in the Middle East, most of which Israel was the aggressor, and if not tried to take land because "they deserve it for being aggressive".

Please.

The Israeli people would not long survive without the Israeli state. And I doubt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would shed a tear for them.

So you're saying that without the government that has served them for only sixty years, a large number of Israeli people would die just because the Israeli government was replaced?

No it's not, actually. That's a bad translation of it. He didn't say death to Israel, he called for the current administration sitting in Jerusalem to be wiped from the pages of history.



Source! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Iran-Israel_relations)

EXACTLY what I was saying.

Okay seriously, where does President Tom come from? I don't get it...

His name is far too long. I always end up misspelling it. So I just call him Tom.

Note he is saying "Death to Israel". Not "Death to the Israeli people". There's a difference in the two. He's simply looking to stop the zionist regime, not murder the Jews who are under the influence of the zionist regime.

I think if that were actually the case, he would speak in absolutely crystal clear terms, rather than leave it up to your astute interpretation. If he were truly an honest and peace loving man, dont you think he would have clarified the immediate mis-interpretations of his peace embracing speech?

No-he speaks in slightly more vague terms, so people like you and many others can defend him from the rest of us.

How many of you have been sipping the kool aid ?

He is a slithering, hateful con artist and he is already fooling people.

EXACTLY what I was saying.

Careful now. Using the facts in relation to Iran makes you a Nazi according to the font of all wisdom, DK... :D

Look at all the conflicts Israel has taken part in in the Middle East, most of which Israel was the aggressor, and if not tried to take land because "they deserve it for being aggressive".

Doesn't wash.

Did Israel take over the Middle East? No.

Did Israel start, or play any part in, the Iran-Iraq War? No.

Did Israel start the invasion of Kuwait? No.

Did Israel start the US invasion of Iraq? No.

Did Israel start the October 1973 War? No.

Did Israel start the recent Lebanon conflict? No, that was Hezbollah.

When was the last time Israel invaded Jordan? Eqypt?

Looks like if you have a peace treaty with Israel, and actually keep your side of the treaty, Israel doesn't attack you. Hardly what I would call "trying to take over the Middle East".

When was the last time Israel really went for the big payoff - you know, conquering Middle East oil nations? Never? Really?

Doesn't wash.

Did Israel take over the Middle East? No.

Did Israel start, or play any part in, the Iran-Iraq War? No.

Did Israel start the invasion of Kuwait? No.

Did Israel start the US invasion of Iraq? No.

Did Israel start the October 1973 War? No.

Correct, but many NSers would answer in the affirmative to each of those. ;)

I fail to see the substantial difference between actually meaning "Death to Israel" and meaning any type of lesser, directed violence. People bitch over and over again about how unfair it is that countries like the US are harassing and harming other poor little countries. What you're telling me is that for the US to impose itself upon another country is wrong, but for Iran to impose itself upon Israel, be that to kill everyone or to destroy the government, or just to screw with someone's morning coffee...that's alright? Aside from the double standard, have you lost your mind? If anyone is going to be a gun-toteing lunatic, I'd rather it be the country with at least -some- oversite and public responsibility instead of a country run a questionably democratic government and led by an admittedly-islamo-facist purity council. Might just be me, but the -really- crazy people scare me more than the slightly crazy ones.

I think if that were actually the case, he would speak in absolutely crystal clear terms, rather than leave it up to your astute interpretation. If he were truly an honest and peace loving man, dont you think he would have clarified the immediate mis-interpretations of his peace embracing speech?

No-he speaks in slightly more vague terms, so people like you and many others can defend him from the rest of us.

How many of you have been sipping the kool aid ?

He is a slithering, hateful con artist and he is already fooling people.

He is NOT trying to kill the Jews! Does he say ANYWHERE "Death to the Jews!"? No! He only says "Death to Israel". And by that he means "Death to the imperialistic Israeli government".

He is NOT trying to kill the Jews! Does he say ANYWHERE "Death to the Jews!"? No! He only says "Death to Israel". And by that he means "Death to the imperialistic Israeli government".

Naliitr, its very simple. The Bushites have targetted Iran, and like when they did with Iraq, a wall of lies and disinformation comes from their cheerleaders.

Facts, accurate translations and the reality that they are using the exact same rhetoric they used about Saddam is irrelevent to these neo-cons. Iran is next, and fuck dissent.

You are literally talking to a wall using reason and sense with these warmongers.

So you're saying that without the government that has served them for only sixty years, a large number of Israeli people would die just because the Israeli government was replaced?

I'm saying that the primary reason for Israel's existance is to prevent a second Holocaust. If Israel didn't exist there would be nothing stopping the anti-Semitic Arab regimes persecuting the Jews.

This is why the West supports Israel, because we do not want the death of another six million Jews on our conscience.

No, I said that it would be good if they have nukes so that they could wave them in the West's face so that they might back down a few steps on the "World Domination" ladder.

Waving nukes in someone's face so they back down a few steps?

Lets say for a minute that they did have nukes and the United States-and all our allies backed off. Iran will be satisfied within its own borders, right? They wouldnt dream of glomming Iraq. of course not.

Do you obviously think you'll survive in peace in a world where Iran has any significant power-aside from all the terrorism they currently support?

No-people like you would be subjugated or exterminated as soon as it was your turn. You dont like Iran, you just dont like the US. Its only with the US in power that people that think like you can exist-and express what you feel.

How many people in Iran do you figure were able to watch and hear the speech President Bush gave yesterday?

You are too far gone to help.

Doesn't wash.

Did Israel take over the Middle East? No.

Did Israel start, or play any part in, the Iran-Iraq War? No.

Did Israel start the invasion of Kuwait? No.

Did Israel start the US invasion of Iraq? No.

Did Israel start the October 1973 War? No.

Did Israel start the recent Lebanon conflict? No, that was Hezbollah.

When was the last time Israel invaded Jordan? Egypt?

Looks like if you have a peace treaty with Israel, and actually keep your side of the treaty, Israel doesn't attack you. Hardly what I would call "trying to take over the Middle East".

When was the last time Israel really went for the big payoff - you know, conquering Middle East oil nations? Never? Really?

They didn't start the Lebanese conflict? Then why is it that THEY are the ones who crossed over into Lebanon soil instead of Lebanese, not Hezbollah, troops crossing over first?

Israel knows that if it attacked any respectable middle east countries, they would be screwed by the rest. That's why it is subtly taking over instead of massively invading.

And I think Israel did send troops to Iraq to assist. And I'm pretty sure Israel is strengthened with Iraq weakened.

And Israel might as well have started the Yom-Kippur war. What the Arab nations were doing was reclaiming the land they had lost in the Six-Day war, which Israel started.

Also, use a q, not a g when spelling "Egypt"

He is NOT trying to kill the Jews! Does he say ANYWHERE "Death to the Jews!"? No! He only says "Death to Israel". And by that he means "Death to the imperialistic Israeli government".

It's the same thing! The Israeli state is the last defence of the Middle Eastern Jews. It is like arguing the difference between 'destroy the space suits!' and 'kill the astronauts!'

This is why the West supports Israel, because we do not want the death of another six million Jews on our conscience.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but, there will be the death of 6 million more Jews... in due time of course. I mean, they are human, they will die like the rest of us do. Either do to old age or just random stupidity that occassionally cleanses the gene pool.

I fail to see the substantial difference between actually meaning "Death to Israel" and meaning any type of lesser, directed violence. People bitch over and over again about how unfair it is that countries like the US are harassing and harming other poor little countries. What you're telling me is that for the US to impose itself upon another country is wrong, but for Iran to impose itself upon Israel, be that to kill everyone or to destroy the government, or just to screw with someone's morning coffee...that's alright? Aside from the double standard, have you lost your mind? If anyone is going to be a gun-toteing lunatic, I'd rather it be the country with at least -some- oversite and public responsibility instead of a country run a questionably democratic government and led by an admittedly-islamo-facist purity council. Might just be me, but the -really- crazy people scare me more than the slightly crazy ones.

Hey, listen to me bub. I was saying that Iran is trying to destroy the Israeli government because it itself is trying to enforce it self on several Middle Eastern countries.

Also, use a q, not a g when spelling "Egypt"

Why? That's just mispelling it.

I'm saying that the primary reason for Israel's existance is to prevent a second Holocaust. If Israel didn't exist there would be nothing stopping the anti-Semitic Arab regimes persecuting the Jews.

This is why the West supports Israel, because we do not want the death of another six million Jews on our conscience.

In case you haven't noticed, Muslim anti-semitism towards Jews has in fact DROPPED. The only acts of violence against Jews is when fighting the Jewish controlled Israeli government. There will NOT be another Holocaust in our minds.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but, there will be the death of 6 million more Jews... in due time of course. I mean, they are human, they will die like the rest of us do. Either do to old age or just random stupidity that occassionally cleanses the gene pool.

That's a pretty silly point. I said 'on our conscience'. Natural death would not be our fault, allowing Arab invasion would be.

It's the same thing! The Israeli state is the last defence of the Middle Eastern Jews. It is like arguing the difference between 'destroy the space suits!' and 'kill the astronauts!'

Israel is NOT defending the Jews. If anything it is making the Muslims hate them MORE. I don't think that the Muslims would run into Israel once they get the chance and slaughter every Jew they found.

He is NOT trying to kill the Jews! Does he say ANYWHERE "Death to the Jews!"? No! He only says "Death to Israel". And by that he means "Death to the imperialistic Israeli government".

Sure.

Now, my lad, tell me what you would say if President Bush "only" said "Death to Iran" in a speech ?

You dont have to answer me-I know the answer. You know the answer. Dont annoy us with some contrived semantics.

How would people feel if Americans were out in the street burning iranian flags, chanting "Death to Hezbollah" or "Death to Hamas" or burning the pres of Iran in effigy?
Or if some redneck shot an imman or cleric here in the US.

You and your friends would be screeching so loud, your rose tinted glasses would shatter.

I think if that were actually the case, he would speak in absolutely crystal clear terms, rather than leave it up to your astute interpretation. If he were truly an honest and peace loving man, dont you think he would have clarified the immediate mis-interpretations of his peace embracing speech?
He was likely speaking in crystal-clear terms until someone translated his speech from Farsi into English, probably missing something that couldn't be translated directly because the language didn't clearly translate into English (as is often the case with colloqualisms).

In case you haven't noticed, Muslim anti-semitism towards Jews has in fact DROPPED. The only acts of violence against Jews is when fighting the Jewish controlled Israeli government. There will NOT be another Holocaust in our minds.

If I was an Israeli citizen I would not bet my life on that.

That's a pretty silly point. I said 'on our conscience'. Natural death would not be our fault, allowing Arab invasion would be.

LISTEN TO ME. Muslims do NOT have the hate of Jews the Nazis do!

That's a pretty silly point. I said 'on our conscience'. Natural death would not be our fault, allowing Arab invasion would be.
That's why I said it. Your ending sentence was just too vague. Besides, I had to briefly hijack this thread to do my mandatory jackassory.

Waving nukes in someone's face so they back down a few steps?

Lets say for a minute that they did have nukes and the United States-and all our allies backed off. Iran will be satisfied within its own borders, right? They wouldnt dream of glomming Iraq. of course not.

Do you obviously think you'll survive in peace in a world where Iran has any significant power-aside from all the terrorism they currently support?

No-people like you would be subjugated or exterminated as soon as it was your turn. You dont like Iran, you just dont like the US. Its only with the US in power that people that think like you can exist-and express what you feel.

How many people in Iran do you figure were able to watch and hear the speech President Bush gave yesterday?

You are too far gone to help.

Read my first post. Please.

That's a pretty silly point. I said 'on our conscience'. Natural death would not be our fault, allowing Arab invasion would be.

but any hypothetical arab invasion is not because of the fact Israel is a Jewish state, its because its seen as an illegal, illegitimate state created on arab land. Its a red herring to suggest anti-semitism, and thouroghly dishonest.

Naliitr, its very simple. The Bushites have targetted Iran, and like when they did with Iraq, a wall of lies and disinformation comes from their cheerleaders.

Facts, accurate translations and the reality that they are using the exact same rhetoric they used about Saddam is irrelevent to these neo-cons. Iran is next, and fuck dissent.

You are literally talking to a wall using reason and sense with these warmongers.

how self-satisfied you must be now,having used "Bushites" "neo-cons" and "warmongers" all in the same post. There must be more in the manual.
Maybe a new mantra could be composed using them.

Sure.

Now, my lad, tell me what you would say if President Bush "only" said "Death to Iran" in a speech ?

You dont have to answer me-I know the answer. You know the answer. Dont annoy us with some contrived semantics.

How would people feel if Americans were out in the street burning iranian flags, chanting "Death to Hezbollah" or "Death to Hamas" or burning the pres of Iran in effigy?
Or if some redneck shot an imman or cleric here in the US.

You and your friends would be screeching so loud, your rose tinted glasses would shatter.

Here's the difference between America saying that and Iran saying that. America already has all the power in the world. They don't need to say "Death to Iran". They can simply perform it. Iran has to speak out, as it does not have the power needed to destroy the governments trying to oppress it. While telling me to look in context, you your self haven't even.

If I was an Israeli citizen I would not bet my life on that.

Neither would I, as the IDF tells me what it is I believe.

but any hypothetical arab invasion is not because of the fact Israel is a Jewish state, its because its seen as an illegal, illegitimate state created on arab land. Its a red herring to suggest anti-semitism, and thouroghly dishonest.

Exactly. Here's what happened after World War II. Jews migrate to Palestine. Jews decide land is thiers. They take it over, without even asking. I think that's a good reason to hate the country. Sure, Jews started it, but they don't blame the Jews for the current crises.

He was likely speaking in crystal-clear terms until someone translated his speech from Farsi into English, probably missing something that couldn't be translated directly because the language didn't clearly translate into English (as is often the case with colloqualisms).

Ahh mistranslation. How many times has that started wars?

He was likely speaking in crystal-clear terms until someone translated his speech from Farsi into English, probably missing something that couldn't be translated directly because the language didn't clearly translate into English (as is often the case with colloqualisms).

"probably missing" ? Thats the best you can do is assume someone probably missed something?

Dont you think when something of such gravity is said, there isnt room for that?
He has had more than ample opporotunity to clarify or correct-If some evil western translator mis-interpreted what this weasel said, he'd be screaming bloody murder.

Maybe he only said he's "not comfortable with Israel" , right? :rolleyes:

Here's the difference between America saying that and Iran saying that. America already has all the power in the world. They don't need to say "Death to Iran". They can simply perform it. Iran has to speak out, as it does not have the power needed to destroy the governments trying to oppress it. While telling me to look in context, you your self haven't even.

So we'll keep in line with your absurd logic for a second- You dont really want Iran to be empowered, do you?

"probably missing" ? Thats the best you can do is assume someone probably missed something?

Dont you think when something of such gravity is said, there isnt room for that?
He has had more than ample opporotunity to clarify or correct-If some evil western translator mis-interpreted what this weasel said, he'd be screaming bloody murder.

Maybe he only said he's "not comfortable with Israel" , right? :rolleyes:

Yeah, he'd be screaming bloody murder in FARSI. Which would then be translated by Western translators into what their governments tell them to translate it into. And even if aren't doing it for the governments, there is surely mistranslations .

So we'll keep in line with your absurd logic for a second- You dont really want Iran to be empowered, do you?

I want it to, but only for the sake of making sure the West backs down from their imperialistic ideals.

Neither would I, as the IDF tells me what it is I believe.

Umm... no. As an Israeli citizen I am free to seek my information from any available source. I can read about relations between my nation and its neighbours from, not only domestic sources, but from the BBC, from Fox News, from al-Jazeera, from anywhere. To suggest that the Israelis all blindly believe their government propaganda is offensive to their intelligence. But all Israelis (correctly) believe that they are safest in a government run by Jews.

Yeah, he'd be screaming bloody murder in FARSI. Which would then be translated by Western translators into what their governments tell them to translate it into. And even if aren't doing it for the governments, there is surely mistranslations .

Yes- western media would tolerate such a major mistake, right?

Our government is controlling the media again, damnit ?!

Here I am thinking the pres of Iran is a hateful "warmonger" and he's just been singing the theme song to Teletubbies this whole time.

Umm... no. As an Israeli citizen I am free to seek my information from any available source. I can read about relations between my nation and its neighbours from, not only domestic sources, but from the BBC, from Fox News, from al-Jazeera, from anywhere. To suggest that the Israelis all blindly believe their government propaganda is offensive to their intelligence. But all Israelis (correctly) believe that they are safest in a government run by Jews.

So all the Christians and Muslims in there believe a Jewish run government is safest for them? And that al-Jazeera isn't "accidently" mistranslated?

Yes- western media would tolerate such a major mistake, right?

Our government is controlling the media again, damnit ?!

Here I am thinking the pres of Iran is a hateful "warmonger" and he's just been singing the theme song to Teletubbies this whole time.

They would if thier governments told them to.

I want it to, but only for the sake of making sure the West backs down from their imperialistic ideals.

Ok-good. I'm sure thats right where they intend to stop. :rolleyes:

time to get off the crazy train- marinating in stupidity is dangerous.

Ok-good. I'm sure thats right where they intend to stop. :rolleyes:

Maybe not. But until I see them trying anything more, I will support them. If they do try anything more, then I hope that a non-imperialistic coalition will stop them.

I want it to, but only for the sake of making sure the West backs down from their imperialistic ideals.

You are a paranoid and twisted individal if you feel it best to empower a country that supports islamic extremism and, directly, publicly, or tacitly, supports the actions of murderers, suicide bombers, kidnappers, and various other violent and immoral individals. Your reasons are your own, misguided though they may be, but your method is absurd. To halt what is, in your mind, a spreading Western violence, you would advocate simply a different violence, and a different dominance. Trading one oppressor for another still does not solve the issue of oppression.

You are a paranoid and twisted individal if you feel it best to empower a country that supports islamic extremism and, directly, publicly, or tacitly, supports the actions of murderers, suicide bombers, kidnappers, and various other violent and immoral individals. Your reasons are your own, misguided though they may be, but your method is absurd. To halt what is, in your mind, a spreading Western violence, you would advocate simply a different violence, and a different dominance. Trading one oppressor for another still does not solve the issue of oppression.

I'm not saying we should allow Iran to become a world power with no one else in their way. I'm saying we need someone with different ideals to stand up to the other world powers.

I'm not saying we should allow Iran to become a world power with no one else in their way. I'm saying we need someone with different ideals to stand up to the other world powers.

And by "stand up" you mean "threaten nuclear war"? Yes...this speaks of wisdom...

Maybe not. But until I see them trying anything more, I will support them. If they do try anything more, then I hope that a non-imperialistic coalition will stop them.

*chokes to death*

And by "stand up" you mean "threaten nuclear war"? Yes...this speaks of wisdom...

Threatening is something far away from actually doing. Iran threatening nuclear war will certainly cause the West to back down a little.

So all the Christians and Muslims in there believe a Jewish run government is safest for them? And that al-Jazeera isn't "accidently" mistranslated?

Yes, Christians and (Israel-loyal) Muslims do believe that a Jewish run government is safest for them.

And most Israelis speak Arabic, so they needn't worry about mistranslation.

Maybe not. But until I see them trying anything more, I will support them. If they do try anything more, then I hope that a non-imperialistic coalition will stop them.

Define "non-imperialistic."

And most Israelis speak Arabic, so they needn't worry about mistranslation.

Yes, but do most Americans? Do most British? That's where the majority of support for the Israelis is coming from. Do you know why? Because the people are being convinced that this man is evil. That he deserves to be killed. Therefore they support whatever their governments can do to get him out of power.

Define "non-imperialistic."

As in "They don't attack Iran for the sake of gaining power in Iran. They only do it for the sake of keeping Iran from taking over the world."

Threatening is something far away from actually doing. Iran threatening nuclear war will certainly cause the West to back down a little.

No, it isn't. Saber-rattling gets people killed. Threats without backup are meaningless, and threats with backup start wars. You do -not- allow someone to have devistating military weapons just to show off, in the vain hope that they never get the idea to actually -use- said weapons (dispite that being...their purpose...). To believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons simply as a showpeice is truely foolish.

Hey, listen to me bub. I was saying that Iran is trying to destroy the Israeli government because it itself is trying to enforce it self on several Middle Eastern countries.

Yeah, they sure are "enforcing" themselves. "Don't attack us and murder our people." Boy, they're real fucking facists, aren't they? How dare they demand that they be left in peace?

No, it isn't. Saber-rattling gets people killed. Threats without backup are meaningless, and threats with backup start wars. You do -not- allow someone to have devistating military weapons just to show off, in the vain hope that they never get the idea to actually -use- said weapons (dispite that being...their purpose...). To believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons simply as a showpeice is truely foolish.

Firstly, you only have twelve posts. No offense, but that severly limits your credibility. And threats are never meaningless. If someone threatens you with a knife, do you consider that meaningless? Sure, THEY might use the knife on you, but that's because it's one person. The Iranians realize this isn't one person. It's the entire world that could die because of use.

Yeah, they sure are "enforcing" themselves. "Don't attack us and murder our people." Boy, they're real fucking facists, aren't they? How dare they demand that they be left in peace?

Unless you haven't noticed, Israel is getting a little aggressive lately. Wanting more land. Etc.

Firstly, you only have twelve posts.
That's still 12 more sensible ones than you've ever made.

That's still 12 more sensible ones than you've ever made.

So now you're saying NONE of my arguements have ever been any good?

And as usual, the anti-Isreali group ignores the facts that President Tom has mede inferences to nuclear attacks on Isreal (that's not killing all Jews, really), publicly supports Hamas which calls for the elimination of all Jews and recognizes the "Protocols" as factual, and militarily and financially supports Hezbollah whose president has stated that he wants all Jews to move to Isreal so it would be easier to kill them.

As for the IDF going into Lebanon first, I guess rewriting history is what is done best here. Seems people forget the Hezbollah forces that went into Isreal and kidnapped IDF soldiers and regularly launched rockets into civilian areas.

So now you're saying NONE of my arguements have ever been any good?
Yep.

Oh wait...

...No, I was right the first time.

Primarily, post numbers simply mean I found this website after you. And so far, concerning credibility, I have used logic and reason and you have been spouting paranoid fantasy.

Moving right along, if someone threatens me with a knife, that person better damn well be willing to use it. If a country threans to cause mass destruction and loss of life, that is something to be taken seriously. Not because it is a threat, but because of the consiquences of -action-. Threatening death implies a willingness to kill. If you arnt going to use said weapon, don't threaten. Threatening the western world is akin to poking a bear with a short stick. You may have a gun in the other hand, but the bear will still maul you.

And as usual, the anti-Isreali group ignores the facts that President Tom has mede inferences to nuclear attacks on Isreal (that's not killing all Jews, really), publicly supports Hamas which calls for the elimination of all Jews and recognizes the "Protocols" as factual, and militarily and financially supports Hezbollah whose president has stated that he wants all Jews to move to Isreal so it would be easier to kill them.

As for the IDF going into Lebanon first, I guess rewriting history is what is done best here. Seems people forget the Hezbollah forces that went into Isreal and kidnapped IDF soldiers and regularly launched rockets into civilian areas.

I know Hezbollah went in first. But was it LEBANON who went in first? I do think Israel was waging more of a war against LEBANON than against Hezbollah.

Also, sources for your first paragraph please.

Yep.

Oh wait...

...No, I was right the first time.

So you're saying my defense for Wicca during my Ritlina days was completely bollocks?

Primarily, post numbers simply mean I found this website after you. And so far, concerning credibility, I have used logic and reason and you have been spouting paranoid fantasy.

Moving right along, if someone threatens me with a knife, that person better damn well be willing to use it. If a country threans to cause mass destruction and loss of life, that is something to be taken seriously. Not because it is a threat, but because of the consiquences of -action-. Threatening death implies a willingness to kill. If you arnt going to use said weapon, don't threaten. Threatening the western world is akin to poking a bear with a short stick. You may have a gun in the other hand, but the bear will still maul you.

But you just said that threats are NOTHING to worry about.

Also, we on NS have a tendency to sense people with low count numbers as "uncredible". Get some more and we'll respect you more.

So you're saying my defense for Wicca during my Ritlina days was completely bollocks?
I'm saying you're a whiney kid who thinks he knows it all and the world is against him. If you have no arguments at someone other than 'you've only made 12 posts' then you should expect people to cast a critical eye over your own post history.

I'll let you know when you make a quality post.

I'm saying you're a whiney kid who thinks he knows it all and the world is against him. If you have no arguments at someone other than 'you've only made 12 posts' then you should expect people to cast a critical eye over your own post history.

I'll let you know when you make a quality post.

That wasn't my only arguement. I was simply letting him know that with such a low post count he might have less credibility than he wishes for.

EDIT: Also you didn't answer my question about my defense for Wicca during my Ritlina days, which I consider my greatest debate.

That wasn't my only arguement. I was simply letting him know that with such a low post count he might have less credibility than he wishes for.

Why?

EDIT: Also you didn't answer my question about my defense for Wicca during my Ritlina days, which I consider my greatest debate.
I never saw that debate. I do remember you as being no different as Ritlina than you are now.

Why?

Because it's true in NS. People have a tendency to look down on people with low post counts. Just letting him know.

Because it's true in NS. People have a tendency to look down on people with low post counts. Just letting him know.
No, you do.

Most people will roll their eyes at a gun smiley low post count person. Anyone who makes sensible points will be heard no matter how many times they've hit 'reply' here.

Also, use a q, not a g when spelling "Egypt"


WHAT???

No, you do.

Most people will roll their eyes at a gun smiley low post count person. Anyone who makes sensible points will be heard no matter how many times they've hit 'reply' here.

Can we please get back on topic.

So far, no one has voiced any problem with post number, save you...as you attempt to scramble for a reaction to why your innane and illogical tripe makes for sub-par argumentation.

And yes, threats without backup are useless. People know this. That is why most, at leat semi-inteligent, people do not toss around empty threats. If Iran is ready to nuke the west and have it all out, let's go. Either everyone will die, or the west will -still- come out on top due to numerical superiorty in weapons. Giving Iran nuclear weapons serves no purpose other than to invite war. It won't make anyone back down, it'll only make the questionably-sane people in most major governments a bit more itchy with the trigger fingers.

Unless you haven't noticed, Israel is getting a little aggressive lately. Wanting more land. Etc.

Which is why they've given up the Gaza Strip. Right?

I never saw that debate. I do remember you as being no different as Ritlina than you are now.

That would be impossible. I was Ritlina far before Feburary 2006. So unless you were a lurker then, be quiet. And believe me, it was a great debate. Search for threads started by "Ritlina". It should be in there somewhere.

Which is why they've given up the Gaza Strip. Right?

Which is why they are incredibly pissed because they are essentially being forced to give it up.

I know Hezbollah went in first. But was it LEBANON who went in first? I do think Israel was waging more of a war against LEBANON than against Hezbollah.


So you're saying Hezbollah is not part of the Lebanese Gov't nor that it has controlled the southern part of the country for decades?

Also, sources for your first paragraph please.

Like I said, It's been repeated over and over. Conviently forgotten, eh?

here's just one of them.

"if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"[71]).Lappin, Elena. "The Enemy Within." The New York Times. Section 7; Column 1; Pg. 15. 23 May 2004. 3 September 2006 LexisNexis Academic.

(everything is IMHO unless I write "this is a fact")

1.Mr.Ahmadinejad doesn't give a f*** about Israel. He just need the poorer Iranians (who voted for him) to forget that he's doing nothing to make them live better in the short term. He's a macchiavellian on that side.

2.As for Iran being fundamentalist, this is plainly false (this is a fact). Islamic fundamentalism is a SUNNI movement, whose roots lie mostly in Saudi Arabia and the Wahabites. For example, Iranian women are allowed to work, vote, go to school and testify in trials (even if their voice counts half a man, I know that). Saudi women don't vote (hey, even Saudi men can't, that is an absolutist monarchy), they cannot go around without a male relative, they cannot even drive a car or get higher school degrees!
BTW I'm speaking of Islamic fundamentalism because I know of at least two other fundamentalistic movements (Jewish Ultra-orthodoxes and Fundamentalist Christians, for example).

3.Iran has all right in the world to own nuclear power. It also should have the right to own nuclear weapons, given that in that area there are already plenty of them. Russia has, Pakistan has, India has, Israel has but won't admit, China has, the US military has, the UK military has, Turkey is under the NATO nuclear protection (facts)... so what if Iran has, too?
If you want other people to lay down their weapon, maybe you should drop them first. Why do the US and Russia keep their Cold-War nuke arsenal?

4.Iran has never started a war, while the leader of the more anti-Iranian-nuke coalition is the ONLY country in history who's actually USED them in war, against civilian targets too (oh yes, I'm speaking about USA, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and that's a fact). I'm more scared by the nuke-owners who have already used them than by potential nuke-owner who never started a war (yet?) . BTW if the US didn't know how many people would have died at Hiroshima, after that they knew perfectly, and still did Nagasaki, so no I recognize no moral supremacy to the US about nukes.

5.Mr.Arbusto (Bush) is more scared by Iranian nuclear civilian power than by Iranian nukes.
If Iranian were ever to fire a nuke on someone, the US, the UK, India and possibily even Russia would raze Iran in no time (and they don't need nukes to do that!).
If Iran would generate electricity from nuclear power, it would lessen its internal oil demand, so a lot of Iranian oil would come on the world market and the price of crude would fall. And that after Mr.Bush had to make a war to secure to his fatcat oil-tycoon fellows the control of Iraqi oil wells and to make the crude price soar. It was less than 30 US$ before the US attacked Iraq, and now is more than 60 US$; I guess Exxon, Mobil and Shell aren't exactly crying from despair.

6.The better way to stop the rage of Islamic people against the West is to stop treating them as colonies. Look at the new UNIFIL mission to Lebanon, that is a good example of an intelligent intervention in the Near and Middle East area. Multilateralism, not muscularism. Not against Hezbollah, but to stop Hezbollah from firing rockets on Israel. Not against Israel, but to stop Israel from razing Lebanese cities. The more the West treats ill the Islamic countries, the more space will have extreme right-winged nationalist politicians like Mr.Ahmadinejad.

Which is why they are incredibly pissed because they are essentially being forced to give it up.

Oh yes? Who forced them?

the iranians, obviously.

n.b. - sarcasm

Which is why they are incredibly pissed because they are essentially being forced to give it up.

Bullshit. They unilaterally disengaged from Gaza until the palestinians decided to kidnap Gilad Shalit and start firing rockets and mortars into Israel. They had planned to give up most of the west bank too. Once again Palestinians screw the pooch and blow a chance for a viable palestinian state.

All President Tom is trying to do is to stand up against the U.S., U.K., and Israel, who are consistently trying to force their way of life on other people through military force. And frankly, I have to be proud of him for that. There has to be someone to stand up and defy the people trying to subtly take over the world. And if it's him, fine. At least there is someone.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is more than just a reaction to several instances of force that have been used in the Middle East though. Instead he is a reaction to something much more fundamental and powerful than any army could be. Cultural change is being brought about in countries across the region, as globalization expands and liberalizes economies, other things will liberalize as well. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reaction to this liberalization, the ultra-conservative factions of the Iranian society that are afraid of the change that might come. That there might no longer be sufficient will to continue hanging homosexuals from cranes, oppression of those who don't conform to their brand of religion, the summary execution of adulterers and many, many other despicable things. How is that noble, how is that decent? It isn't.

Which is why they are incredibly pissed because they are essentially being forced to give it up.

They're being forced to give it up? They did so unilaterally.

It's really touching to see this outpouring of love for the leader of a nation who's expressed genocidal wishes and who allows nine year old girls to be wed to old men and raped by those same pious and dedicated followers of the Islamic revolution. Seriously, Iran is a great place. A place where good, god-fearing people have the right to see their gay brothers and sisters executed, and women and girls who are raped get the justice they deserve by being hanged from a construction crane.

It's wonderful to see all these nice peaceful, progressive folks rooting for a fascist, theocratic state to get the bomb. I'm sure they'll love it when a nuclear Iran crosses one line too many and it's population ends up decimated by nuclear war.

Risottia,
On many points, I do agree with you. I would like your thoughts on a couple of points, though.

1) Does anyone have a "right" to nuclear weapons? I agree that many other countries do have such weapons, but would adding more to the world mix help the situation, or simply fuel proliferation? Admittedly, the attempts at arsenal reduction have not been as complete as would be prefered, but at what point is it reasonable to say that more nuclear weapons, regardless of owner, are still a bad idea?

2) I agree that there is no moral superiorty over the US control of nuclear weapons. And I recognize that Iran has never started a war to date. Yet, Iranians, be they political or civilian, have called for violence, have funded violent organizations, and have supported violent/terrorist actions. So have many other countries, to certain degrees, including western countries, at one time or another. It seems that you attempt to place Iran on a moral highground concerning war that I think may be inappropriate. While they have not been the agressor in a war, that does not make them good people. (Saying -nothing- about the questionable moral status of the US...)

3) I do have to take exception with the "Bush creates war for oil" theory, as there must be significantly easier ways to get oil other than invade foreign countries, kill American soldiers, and not piss off most of the world. And, if it were a war to increase American oil supplies, why am I paying so much for gas? The theory serves as a good platform to vilify Bush, but it does not seem to be wholy effective.

Oh, as a point, Iranian nuclear power is wonderful. Easy, cheep power to the region is a great idea. Nuclear weapons, of any sort, in any government, are a bad idea.

Why do the US and Russia keep their Cold-War nuke arsenal?


Because they don't. Beyond the fact that the US and Russian nuclear stockpiles have been radically decreased in the years following the collapse of the USSR, which obviously shows the cold war era stockpiles are gone, there happens to be a massive backlog at decomissioning sites. Even at that, it takes time to talk states down from nuclear weapons, and having more states enter the nuclear club is NOT the way to do it.

If only the Shah were still in power. Under the Shah, there was complete religious freedom, men and women were equal under the law, homosexuality was not a crime, Iran pursued a peaceful foreign policy, and the economy was thriving. He had his faults, but human rights were far better than in many of the countries in which Carter conveniently chose to ignore human rights abuses - like China, Mengistu's Ethiopia, Cuba, and the U.S.S.R.

It's really touching to see this outpouring of love for the leader of a nation who's expressed genocidal wishes and who allows nine year old girls to be wed to old men and raped by those same pious and dedicated followers of the Islamic revolution. Seriously, Iran is a great place. A place where good, god-fearing people have the right to see their gay brothers and sisters executed, and women and girls who are raped get the justice they deserve by being hanged from a construction crane.

It's wonderful to see all these nice peaceful, progressive folks rooting for a fascist, theocratic state to get the bomb. I'm sure they'll love it when a nuclear Iran crosses one line too many and it's population ends up decimated by nuclear war.

This is exactly what I'm thinking.

The US isn't perfect, it's made mistakes, but to support Ahmadinejad just out of blind hatred for the US is absolute folly.

This is exactly what I'm thinking.

The US isn't perfect, it's made mistakes, but to support Ahmadinejad just out of blind hatred for the US is absolute folly.

*gives Andaluciae and DCD each a cookie*

This is exactly what I'm thinking.

The US isn't perfect, it's made mistakes, but to support Ahmadinejad just out of blind hatred for the US is absolute folly.

Personally, I don't support him.

But I smell bullshit in some of what is being alledged about the 'genocidal' statements he has made. Iran is not a threat to anyone and is perfectly entitled to diversify their energy sources.

There is a definite agenda to get this man at play here.

All President Tom is trying to do is to stand up against the U.S., U.K., and Israel, who are consistently trying to force their way of life on other people through military force. And frankly, I have to be proud of him for that. There has to be someone to stand up and defy the people trying to subtly take over the world. And if it's him, fine. At least there is someone.
You're proud of a ultra-conservative human rights abuser? If he was Christian would you feel the same way? Oh wait Bush is the Christian version and you don't support him, do you, hypocrite?

You're proud of a ultra-conservative human rights abuser? If he was Christian would you feel the same way? Oh wait Bush is the Christian version and you don't support him, do you, hypocrite?

But the Iranian prez is batshit crazy and evil. Bush is just stupid. ;)

Naliitr is shockingly misinformed.

You're proud of a ultra-conservative human rights abuser? If he was Christian would you feel the same way? Oh wait Bush is the Christian version and you don't support him, do you, hypocrite?

The point of this thread is not one of support.

Its to ask NS people to bash the guy for things he deserves it for, specifically human rights abuses.

NOT for contrived mistranslated speeches.

Naliitr is shockingly misinformed.

Misinformed I can deal with. Its the absolute inability to consider anything other than that misinformation that concerns me.

Misinformed I can deal with. Its the absolute inability to consider anything other than that misinformation that concerns me.

Agreed.

The point of this thread is not one of support.

Its to ask NS people to bash the guy for things he deserves it for, specifically human rights abuses.

NOT for contrived mistranslated speeches.

There were no mistranslated speeches-thats pure speculation by cockeyed individuals.

The point of this thread is not one of support.

Its to ask NS people to bash the guy for things he deserves it for, specifically human rights abuses.

NOT for contrived mistranslated speeches.

You're hopelessly naive, and shockingly uninformed. Rather like Chamberlain.

The point of this thread is not one of support.

Its to ask NS people to bash the guy for things he deserves it for, specifically human rights abuses.

NOT for contrived mistranslated speeches.

You mean like how he has publicly supported Hamas? You know, the group that believes the "protocols" are real? Like how even the website that keeps getting posted about how he was "mistranslated" has him stating he hasn't seen enough evidence to believe the holocaust even happened? How Iran supports Hezbollah whose president has called for the killing of all Jews?

We've had this conversation before.

You're hopelessly naive, and shockingly uninformed. Rather like Chamberlain.

Why do you have a problem with Chamberlain?

Why do you have a problem with Chamberlain?

Because he was one naive son of a bitch.

You're hopelessly naive, and shockingly uninformed. Rather like Chamberlain.

Good God, Man ! You know the penalty for naming he who cannot be named!! :p

Because he was one naive son of a bitch.

Ah, so appeasement was only about him being naive, gotcha.

too late....I was too late...*trying to find ear plugs* :(

Because he was one naive son of a bitch.

But...but...Wilt Chamberlain was one of the greatest basketball players of all time!

Ah, so appeasement was only about him being naive, gotcha.

Actually, if you study the matter, his "buying time" didn't buy very much in the way of rearmament.

Also, if France and Britain had invaded Germany when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland (in 1936 when it was still possible to do so), there would not have been WW II.

Read some Donald Kagan, and you'll find out what a fool he was in every possible way. He did everything except have sex with Hitler.

So we'll keep in line with your absurd logic for a second- You dont really want Iran to be empowered, do you?
Coming from your average pre-programed, postmodernized neo-leftist idealogue sheep... I wouldn't be surprized. After all. These are the type of dolts who backed and admired people like Stalin. People ridiculous and blind enough to be anti-west, yet adore things like globalism, postmodernism and yes still sometimes even communism/socialism.

So no, I wouldn't expect too much from them if I were you.

But...but...Wilt Chamberlain was one of the greatest basketball players of all time!

And not bad at fucking, either...

Actually, if you study the matter, his "buying time" didn't buy very much in the way of rearmament.

Also, if France and Britain had invaded Germany when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland (in 1936 when it was still possible to do so), there would not have been WW II.

Read some Donald Kagan, and you'll find out what a fool he was in every possible way. He did everything except have sex with Hitler.

His buying time did alot in terms of rearmament and we still got our arses handed to us in '39/'40. There is also the matter of having to gain the political and popular will to get involved in another huge conflict with the memory of WW1 still so fresh in the mind of the people.

But...but...Wilt Chamberlain was one of the greatest basketball players of all time!

Didn't he claim to bang something like 20,000 women? That's got to be a record or something.

Didn't he claim to bang something like 20,000 women? That's got to be a record or something.

Yepper! :D

Coming from your average pre-programed, postmodernized neo-leftist idealogue sheep... I wouldn't be surprized. After all. These are the type of dolts who backed and admired people like Stalin. People ridiculous and blind enough to be anti-west, yet adore things like globalism, postmodernism and yes still sometimes even communism/socialism.

So no, I wouldn't expect too much from them if I were you.

I'm confused why they think these people, who are defiant even without significant power, will be any less belligerant once they have power.

No one with a brain would chose to let Iran have a nuke. Unless they love having all the rules changed and totally lose any possibility of diplomacy to try to solve differences.
The UN is impotent now. Imagine how useless when Iran has power ?

Exactly. Here's what happened after World War II. Jews migrate to Palestine. Jews decide land is thiers. They take it over, without even asking. I think that's a good reason to hate the country. Sure, Jews started it, but they don't blame the Jews for the current crises.

I am sorry to disapoint you but you really need to learn some history.
Jews didn't migrate to Palestine after WWII and they didn't decide that this is their country. And they didn't take it over.

Jews were always living there, for over 3000 years (when Arabs were still far in their Arabian Peninsula, playing with sand).
At the middle of the 19th century Jews started coming back here to their historical homeland, they lived quite peacefully with their new arab neighbours, be they christians or muslims, under the Ottoman rule.
At some point, closer to the 20th century, they started drying out swams, building more cities, bringing their relatives, turning the place green (where there was only desert even though the land had presense of arabs for 1500 years).
After the first World War, the Brittish empire "owned" Palestine. Palestine = modern Israel + PA + Jordan.
After the WWII and the Holocaust, the jews immigrated to Palestine, and since they were beaten and hurt and had no homeland, the Brittish decided to divide all of this big land (again, modern Israel, PA [West Bank + Gaza strip] and Jordan) to Arabs and Jews.
They created the Transjordan (modern Jordan), and the remaining part, West of the Jordan river was divided about 50%-50% for Jews and Arabs. This division was voted on in the UN and passed by majority of voices.

Then, the Israeli state was announced by David Ben-Gurion if I'm not mistaking.
I think that on the next day, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudia (with Iraqi forces as well) attacked the new country of Israel.
Without any real army, the Israelis have won. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War)

Same happened again in 1967. When Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon prepared their forces at the border being ready to attack Israel, Israel attacked Egyptian air-force and the battle started. Again, in all fronts. And the Israelis has won again, conquering the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Then, 1973, Yom Kippur evening (something like Ramadan), Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attack Israel. Guess what? "The war began on the day of Yom Kippur with a surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria crossing the cease-fire lines in the Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively, which had been captured by Israel in 1967 during the Six-Day War". Again, Israel was attacked but won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

At 1982, Israel was the one to go into Israel after actions from PLO and etc. from within Lebanon, trying to get rid of those organizations without wanting to stay in Lebanon. Unfortunatly, they stayed as things unfolded not as they wanted. At 2000 they got out of there.

2006, Hizbollah fires missiles on Israel, attacks a Hummer patrol, crosses the border to Israel (see, they were the first to invade), kidnaps 2 soldiers (killing 8) and the rest of the story is known.

Anyway, the Sinay was given back to Egypt, the West Bank and the Gaza strip was given mostly to PA but most of the rescent attepts for peace were denied by the PA even though they were offered the lands back. Peace was made also with Jordan.

Israel doens't want to conquer the middle east as you claimed, they don't need it, they don't want it. They just want to live quietly and peacefully in their land without their neighbours wanting to annihilate them (and they do want it).

crap

I dont believe you typed that out yourself.

From some of the reactions on this thread its apparant that any rational debate about the threat Iran is or isnt will be drowned in a sea of smears and anti-semetic labels.

Certain people learnt nothing from the Iraqi invasion at all.

I know Hezbollah went in first. But was it LEBANON who went in first? I do think Israel was waging more of a war against LEBANON than against Hezbollah.

So... basically, you're saying that Israel had no right to fight back because it wasn't the Lebanese government that attacked Israel but only an organization that is based in Lebanon, has people in their government and the Lebanese officials never tried to do anything to stop them from running their own Hizbollah little government inside of Lebanon? Israel should have said "Oh damn, it wasn't the Lebanese army attacking us, let's go drink some coffee..."?

"probably missing" ? Thats the best you can do is assume someone probably missed something?

Dont you think when something of such gravity is said, there isnt room for that?
He has had more than ample opporotunity to clarify or correct-If some evil western translator mis-interpreted what this weasel said, he'd be screaming bloody murder.

Maybe he only said he's "not comfortable with Israel" , right? :rolleyes:
He said that it's the current administration that sitting in Jerusalem that needs to be wiped from the pages of history. That's a bloody far cry from "Israel needs to be wiped off the map", don't you think?

Plus, there is always something lost in translation. There are words that we have in English that just don't translate the same, and words in foreign languages that have no English equivalent.

He believes that by wiping Israel off the map, a new era of PEACE will come to the Middle East. Chances are it probably will, as most conflicts there are due in part to the Israelis. Two words...
Samson Option.


The peace of a dead Israel in the middle east will be the peace of the Grave.

If Israel IS wiped off the map, it will be followed seconds later by the rest of the Middle East being destroyed by the Israel Nuclear Counterattack.

I dont believe you typed that out yourself.

From some of the reactions on this thread its apparant that any rational debate about the threat Iran is or isnt will be drowned in a sea of smears and anti-semetic labels.

Certain people learnt nothing from the Iraqi invasion at all.

I just typed it myself, quickly, starting as a response about a comment someone made and then without noticing typing some more information.
This is factual information, mind you. Unless you prove me wrong.

Yes, Christians and (Israel-loyal) Muslims do believe that a Jewish run government is safest for them.

And most Israelis speak Arabic, so they needn't worry about mistranslation.
Arabic is not the same as Farsi.

Persian Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farsi)
Arabic Lanaguage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic)

Language family (for Farsi):
Indo-European
Indo-Iranian
Iranian
Western Iranian
Southwestern Iranian
Persian

But...but...Wilt Chamberlain was one of the greatest basketball players of all time!

:D

He says he needs nuclear power, yet he has all the oil he needs to fuel his country for the next couple centuries. He's ignorant, he's a deceiver, he's corruptful. He spread propaganda of Bush being portrayed as Hitler, even americans portray Bush as Hitler. The funny reality is though, is that both these protesters and radical muslims use the same propaganda. Connection? The radical muslim side wants the destruction of the west, the protesters don't want destruction of radical muslims. Thus bringing destruction to the west, and it equals out that they wear the same colors they do. I don't totally agree with Bush's saying about you're either with us or against us. Theres three colors (white) with us, (black) against us, and (gray) nuetral.

I've got to say this, but you know what, these guys have worse ideals than Hitler. Talking about the destruction of continents, even a whole entire hemisphere is insane. Islam one of the most radical religions out there, they didn't convert people peacefully, and they still don't today. And that fucking Venezualan president is like a fucking dumbass puppet. He's a christian, him living in Iran would equal death. But yeah, thank Jimmy Butt-fucking Carter for letting the Shah fall to the revolutionaries, when he was our ally not only against communism, but he was our ally in WW2. Jimmy Carter's grave should be a dump yard.

He says he needs nuclear power, yet he has all the oil he needs to fuel his country for the next couple centuries. He's ignorant, he's a deceiver, he's corruptful. He spread propaganda of Bush being portrayed as Hitler, even americans portray Bush as Hitler. The funny reality is though, is that both these protesters and radical muslims use the same propaganda. Connection? The radical muslim side wants the destruction of the west, the protesters don't want destruction of radical muslims. Thus bringing destruction to the west, and it equals out that they wear the same colors they do. I don't totally agree with Bush's saying about you're either with us or against us. Theres three colors (white) with us, (black) against us, and (gray) nuetral.

I've got to say this, but you know what, these guys have worse ideals than Hitler. Talking about the destruction of continents, even a whole entire hemisphere is insane. Islam one of the most radical religions out there, they didn't convert people peacefully, and they still don't today. And that fucking Venezualan president is like a fucking dumbass puppet. He's a christian, him living in Iran would equal death. But yeah, thank Jimmy Butt-fucking Carter for letting the Shah fall to the revolutionaries, when he was our ally not only against communism, but he was our ally in WW2. Jimmy Carter's grave should be a dump yard.


Russia

The US

Britain

France.

ALL have oil. ALL have diversified into other power sources.

Worse than Hitler?

This shit is getting more and more outlandish.

Russia

The US

Britain

France.

ALL have oil. ALL have diversified into other power sources.

Worse than Hitler?

This shit is getting more and more outlandish.

Oh can you reply to my post on page 10, the one on what will happen if the Israel nation gets wiped off the map?

Oh can you reply to my post on page 10, the one on what will happen if the Israel nation gets wiped off the map?

whats there to respond to? MAD is MAD, and Iran is no more or less likely to use the bomb that other theocratic states that have the bomb, such as Pakistan or Israel

whats there to respond to? MAD is MAD, and Iran is no more or less likely to use the bomb that other theocratic states that have the bomb, such as Pakistan or Israel
You claimed in the first post that Israel one day would be destroyed.
Even if Israel is destroyed Coventionally. Israel will use the bomb. Because what would they care, they're all doomed anyway if they lose. You know how hard it was for the US to keep Israel from using the Bomb in 72 when they thought they were going to lose?

Unlike the MAD programs of Russia, China and the US. Israel's is the one that could possibly happen. If Israel falls and there is even a wink that says it's coming from a Muslim nation... Boom.

The Iran government is the only nation that would use the Bomb for offensive purposes. After all they have 'god' on their side. No nukes can touch them.

The Iran government is the only nation that would use the Bomb for offensive purposes. After all they have 'god' on their side. No nukes can touch them.

thats based on what though? A rather racist view of the Iranians as a foaming bunch of mullahs thats not reflected in the fact its the wealthiest and most free (relative ill admit) state in the middle east after Israel.

Even the US arent claiming they have a nuke weaopns programe at the moment, just they might try for one in the future.

whats there to respond to? MAD is MAD, and Iran is no more or less likely to use the bomb that other theocratic states that have the bomb, such as Pakistan or Israel

There are more ways than one to use the bomb. Pakistan has used it to make money through illegal weapons proliferation and to make the world turn a blind eye to it's encouragement of terrorism. Iran will use it similarly. Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. I really don't want them to gain virtual immunity from the consequences of their terrorist activities that playing the nuclear threat card might give them.

I hope that if diplomacy fails a good, vigorous conventional bombing campaign against known Iranian nuclear sites, most of their military facilities, and the homes of the members of the current Iranian government and the guardian council will serve to disarm them.

Arabic is not the same as Farsi.

Persian Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farsi)
Arabic Lanaguage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic)

I'm well aware of that, thank you. If you read my post you'll find I was simply refuting the point that Israelis are inward-looking and ignorant, and that they are able to understand the opposing side's view point.

thats based on what though? A rather racist view of the Iranians as a foaming bunch of mullahs thats not reflected in the fact its the wealthiest and most free (relative ill admit) state in the middle east after Israel.

Even the US arent claiming they have a nuke weaopns programe at the moment, just they might try for one in the future.

Their government and their military is controlled by the foaming bunch of mullahs. The people might want peace and greater contact with the outside world, but the mullahs still want to spread their Islamic revolution.

I've got to say this, but you know what, these guys have worse ideals than Hitler. Talking about the destruction of continents, even a whole entire hemisphere is insane. Islam one of the most radical religions out there, they didn't convert people peacefully, and they still don't today. And that fucking Venezualan president is like a fucking dumbass puppet. He's a christian, him living in Iran would equal death. But yeah, thank Jimmy Butt-fucking Carter for letting the Shah fall to the revolutionaries, when he was our ally not only against communism, but he was our ally in WW2. Jimmy Carter's grave should be a dump yard.hmm- a little history lesson for you Iran was a "DEMOCRACY" and the CIA organized a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government and put in the hated dictator Shah Pahlavi. Of course the reason for this was oil just as it is now. A little knowledge of history and you come to understand where this hate for the USA comes from.

Also, if France and Britain had invaded Germany when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland (in 1936 when it was still possible to do so), there would not have been WW II.

Hey, that was a bullshit rule. How would you like it if Germany had won WWI, and occupied New York in the US, or England in the UK? That's what it's like.

Ok, so I can't even spell his name. But that doesn't mean I don't respect him. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of everyone saying "What a douche" and "Peace? Bullshit. He wants Israel wiped off the map!" and "No nukes? Ha. Good one". I'm just sick of it. First, he IS looking for peace. He believes that by wiping Israel off the map, a new era of PEACE will come to the Middle East. Chances are it probably will, as most conflicts there are due in part to the Israelis. Also, until I actually see TRUTHFUL reports of Iran having nuclear weapons, I'm all for Iran being a nuclear power. We need someone besides the West and China to finally have nuclear power. Hell, I wouldn't mind if Iran had nukes. At least that way the West would stop picking on the Middle East. Also, that brings me to my last part. You certainly have to agree with Preisdent Tom (as I will refer to him from now on) that the American, U.K., and Israeli governments are in fact trying to, in a sense, take over the world. Now then, I am a firm supporter of democracy. However, I certainly do NOT believe invading a country with a dictator and forcing them out of power via military strength, then setting up a democratic government with only your interests in mind, then saying you were in the right because of "civil rights abuses".

Firstly, if a country suddenly goes from a facist state, which the people have grown to know after hundred years of being under it, to a democratic government, it's going to be socially and politically traumatic. People will have no idea what to do. It will, in a sense, be nothing more than anarchy. And don't say Iraq and Afghanistan aren't anarchy.

Secondly, lets say you do want to set up a democratic state. Good. But do NOT do it using military coups and do it so suddenly. Find a way to slowly weaken the power, NOT militarily, so that the people get used to new power given to them. Also, it will make them like the people who started the reformation a hell of a lot better than if someone came in guns blazing into their country and shot up every person of the dictators party. I mean, that's what America always decides to do, go in guns blazing and think that everyone loves them for it. Did the Vietnamese love us for it? Are the Iraqi's loving us for it?

And lastly, never, NEVER say you are in the right in invading a country because of "civil rights abuses". Fine, there was the occasional killing of dissidents in Iraq. It was a quasi-islamo-facist regime, with quasi-islamo-facist law being implemented. But does that at ALL compare to what they are facing now? And don't say "it'll get better". Both of us know it won't. Don't be swayed by the kids and the women and the men going "Thank you America for freeing us!".

All President Tom is trying to do is to stand up against the U.S., U.K., and Israel, who are consistently trying to force their way of life on other people through military force. And frankly, I have to be proud of him for that. There has to be someone to stand up and defy the people trying to subtly take over the world. And if it's him, fine. At least there is someone.

He prays for the end of the world at the UN ...he needs a minuteman enima .

bush hasn't nuked anyone yet.
Key word YET!!

Pentagon tries to develop ‘usable’ nukes (http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=619)

New Nukes, Anyone? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/wittner2.html)

hmm- a little history lesson for you Iran was a "DEMOCRACY" and the CIA organized a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government and put in the hated dictator Shah Pahlavi. Of course the reason for this was oil just as it is now. A little knowledge of history and you come to understand where this hate for the USA comes from.
Propaganda 101 is far better than any actual historical account!! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Free Sex and Beer
hmm- a little history lesson for you Iran was a "DEMOCRACY" and the CIA organized a coup to overthrow the democratically elected government and put in the hated dictator Shah Pahlavi. Of course the reason for this was oil just as it is now. A little knowledge of history and you come to understand where this hate for the USA comes from.

The Pahlavi dinasty came to power in the 1920's. Are you trying to say the US was involved in the Middle East at that time? And if you're talking about Mossadegh, he's the one who was showing signs of trying to overthrow the monarchy.
Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. Some purport that the vote was rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. Allegations that Mossadegh was resorting to dictatorial tactics to stay in power were in turn cited by US- and British-supported opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power. Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's emergency powers were extended.

In August 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Risottia,
On many points, I do agree with you. I would like your thoughts on a couple of points, though.

1) Does anyone have a "right" to nuclear weapons? I agree that many other countries do have such weapons, but would adding more to the world mix help the situation, or simply fuel proliferation? Admittedly, the attempts at arsenal reduction have not been as complete as would be prefered, but at what point is it reasonable to say that more nuclear weapons, regardless of owner, are still a bad idea?

2) I agree that there is no moral superiorty over the US control of nuclear weapons. And I recognize that Iran has never started a war to date. Yet, Iranians, be they political or civilian, have called for violence, have funded violent organizations, and have supported violent/terrorist actions. So have many other countries, to certain degrees, including western countries, at one time or another. It seems that you attempt to place Iran on a moral highground concerning war that I think may be inappropriate. While they have not been the agressor in a war, that does not make them good people. (Saying -nothing- about the questionable moral status of the US...)

3) I do have to take exception with the "Bush creates war for oil" theory, as there must be significantly easier ways to get oil other than invade foreign countries, kill American soldiers, and not piss off most of the world. And, if it were a war to increase American oil supplies, why am I paying so much for gas? The theory serves as a good platform to vilify Bush, but it does not seem to be wholy effective.

Oh, as a point, Iranian nuclear power is wonderful. Easy, cheep power to the region is a great idea. Nuclear weapons, of any sort, in any government, are a bad idea.

1.I think that, in a morally decent world, no one should have right to owning nukes (and a lot of other WMD such as poison gases, bombers that can raze towns etc). However, this world isn't morally decent. So, since a lot of countries own nukes, Iran is fully entitled to own them, too. Maybe we'll create a nuclear stalemate like in Cold War era.
However, I agree that the best opinion would be for all countries to dismantle all WMD.

2.If it looked like I'm placing Iran on a moral highground, I have been not clear enough and apologise. My point is that no one is on a moral highground. Not the US, nor Iran, the EU, China, San Marino or whoever. I haven't heard yet of a country calling for world appeasement without any hidden interest.
Moreover, a lot of people around the world still seem to believe that war and violence are the better solution to their problems. That is the type of people who shameless politicians can exploit - look, for example, at Mussolini, Hitler... italians and germans were quite supportive - at the beginning - of war. They really thought war was in their best interests.
Every moral authority (I'm thinking mostly of religious and political leader) should at least explain that war should be the very last answer to problems. "You can say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one".

3.I think that you missed my point. My opinion is that Mr.Bush and his fellows want to get richer themselves. When you pay a lot for gas, it is the oil corps who are getting more money. They don't care about all US citizens, just about oil corp stakeholders.

Hope this answers to your points. Bye

Also, use a q, not a g when spelling "Egypt"


Also dont forget to substitute the number 2 with the letter S whenever applicable. God i love random wierd NS statements like this.

The point of this thread is not one of support.

Its to ask NS people to bash the guy for things he deserves it for, specifically human rights abuses.

Except last I checked you weren't even willing to do that (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11459856&postcount=12).

Irans only crime it appears is to try and do things differently.

It is a comparitvely wealthy, democratic middle eastern state. Its not perfect, but your president is mental too and many believe he doesnt weild the real power. so what?

whats there to respond to? MAD is MAD, and Iran is no more or less likely to use the bomb that other theocratic states that have the bomb, such as Pakistan or Israel
Pakistan isn't really a theocratic state, and Israel certainly isn't.

Since when was the left pro-nuclear proliferation?

You fool! You fooool! You should've let this die! Doom is now upon us!

source?

thats preciscly the kind of thing im talking about

SOURCE??? OMFG! Surely you JEST! How about every damend speech that asshole has MADE, for God's sake? Don't you even read or listen to things like that?????

I'm continually amazed and disconcerted by the abysmal depth of igrnorance on here! :(

You fool! You fooool! You should've let this die! Doom is now upon us!
I hate to fail to reply to posts addressed to me.

I'm continually amazed and disconcerted by the abysmal depth of igrnorance on here! :(
Calm down, remember that Naliitr is a small boy.

I hate to fail to reply to posts addressed to me.


Calm down, remember that Naliitr is a small boy.

He is?? I didn't know that. :p