Iranian president advocates genocide.. [Archive]

masterhapposai

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:15 PM

sorry for crapping d_jedi but I found subliminal messages in your post count :-0 :

Anyway what is the count for this guy's comments now like 5?

:-0 I always suspected d_jedi could be evil, since he's against piracy

Yeah that Iran guy is prob at the world record of war threats, without a retaliation.

I don't get it. Why doesn't he shut his mouth and hide their programs? Proclaim his country is a peaceful one, and use propaganda to gain support for his country through peaceful means..

THEN if he wants to, he can strike suddenly at whomever he wants.

Instead, he seems like he's just a Bush puppet asking to get bombed.

He's highly illogical.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said.

for some reason the craziest people have become world leaders. Each side upping the ante to call the others bluff. I can't believe the ignorance.

Exactly, it all seems surreal.

Ojam

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:24 PM

Rehan

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:30 PM

Besides what Ojam posted, does predicting == advocating?

FastFokker

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:34 PM

Wait.. I think djedi just wants us to jump on the anti-Iran bandwagon.. stop talking sense people!

masterhapposai

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:38 PM

Besides what Ojam posted, does predicting == advocating?

regardless, why would you say these things as a leader, where every word you say is taken as gold and can lead to wars

the guy's a puppet plain and simple. he's not acting in the best interest of Iran, he's a U.S patsy

FastFokker

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:40 PM

Yeah he should be more like Bush where you pretend to be the innocent victim, while delivering violence to other nations illegally.

Talk is cheap.

x86asm

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:41 PM

regardless, why would you say these things as a leader, where every word you say is taken as gold and can lead to wars

the guy's a puppet plain and simple. he's not acting in the best interest of Iran, he's a U.S patsy

I would imagine the US would look down on things like this. How would he be acting as puppet for the US?

masterhapposai

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:46 PM

I would imagine the US would look down on things like this. How would he be acting as puppet for the US?

U.S wants to get jump in there fast as they can. Afghan & Iraq surround Iran, they're in great position.

They'd never have support to get in Iraq if Saddam didn't help them out with his trash talking and uncooperative behaviour.

The fact is, the tactics of middle eastern countries are horrible. It's as if they are creating cases, so that they can have other countries invade.

This is what Bush sees and is :D about every morning:

Country has oil - check
Country claims to have WMDs or at least has suspicion of carrying - check
Country is making threats, which is enough on it's own to start a legal war over - check

FastFokker

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:47 PM

Yeah watch out Stephen Harper, if you say something Bush doesn't like he reserves the right to invade Canada and depose our fair leader.

:rolleyes:

masterhapposai

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:49 PM

Yeah watch out Stephen Harper, if you say something Bush doesn't like he reserves the right to invade Canada and depose our fair leader.

:rolleyes:

:lol: :lol: Bush is probably very angry that we're not like Iran/Iraq. We have more? oil and are so close to him.

Canada has never given any country a reason to invade.

Canadian leaders > Iraq/Iran/Afghan leaders

If someone attacked Canada, the whole european union would jump in. Hell, Russia & China might even consider doing U.S in.

Because plain and simple, we're peaceful. We don't talk smack. It's a righteous country to defend.

Rehan

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:53 PM

regardless, why would you say these things as a leader, where every word you say is taken as gold and can lead to warsThough Saddam was despised for the way he treated many of his country's people, many in the region admired the way he stood up to the bullying of the west. Maybe that's the hero image that Ahmadinejad is trying to build; the role is otherwise unfilled right now.

(BTW, what I was told by an American born and bred friend that has been studying in Iran for the last couple of years is that Ahmadinejad is very well liked among the Iranians.)

masterhapposai

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:55 PM

Though Saddam was despised for the way he treated many of his country's people, many in the region admired the way he stood up to the bullying of the west. Maybe that's the hero image that Ahmadinejad is trying to build; the role is otherwise unfilled right now.

sometimes it's a good to be a hero, but we know for fact how U.S operates. I think it's time to suck up some pride and get help from the E.U and from China/Russia through peaceful means

look at this:

Iran remains a key transshipment point for Southwest Asian heroin to Europe

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

And Afghan is the world's greatest producer of Heroin.

If you can hold these 2 countries under control, you control the world. Not even counting the oil.

x86asm

Apr 14th, 2006, 08:55 PM

Kind of stretching on the genocide don't you think?

and even though the article has the full quote in it, they still mistake the regime for the country, the quote is in relation the the regime.

"The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm,"

Translation:
The leaders are corrupt

"That will be eliminated by one storm," I assume that�s what you think means genocide. but if we are to work with the concept that he is talking about the leaders, which it would appear he is, that their annihilation would simply mean their downfall from power, from either INTERNAL forces, or external forces, but lets go back and look at that word Rotten, if they are Rotten, that implies that whatever will bring them down will be from the inside, a storm though comes from the outside, but is that outside the leadership, or outside the country? You don't know, and you have no basis to say he is calling for genocide, so all we end up with is another misleading thread title from the king of misleading thread titles.

I think the point that d_jedi is making is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments can be easily misinterpreted. Even if he meant no harm, he should not have openly criticized another country, especially a country with which the middle east has bad blood between.

The matter of the fact is that no one knows what the hell he is doing (or trying to do) by making these announcements. It is not really helping him and will only serve to strain relations and to make key players in this episode more aggitated.

Ojam

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:01 PM

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Iran has a pretty big "brain drain" maybe all he is trying to do is instill some good old patriotism in his citizens to try and keep the young people home, and he simply has a taste for the exuberant, trying to spice up otherwise mundane speeches. Maybe taking a page from Castro, the Cuban citizens (until they started watching "all my children") used to stand for hours and just listen to Castro speak of his fight against the United states, perhaps he is trying the gain more support in that fashion.

FastFokker

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:03 PM

I'd rather misinterpret the words of a leader, than misinterpret the bombs dropping by a leader.

d_jedi

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:05 PM

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said.

What does he mean by "annihilation"?

annihilate
1.
1. To destroy completely: The naval force was annihilated during the attack.
2. To reduce to nonexistence.
3. To defeat decisively; vanquish.
2. To nullify or render void; abolish.
I believe he is referring to the first definition of the term.

How would it happen?

The day before Ahmadinejad had announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fuelling nuclear reactors or making nuclear bombs.
I don't think the two are unrelated.

To say that Israel would be "annihilated" and "wiped off the map" really doesn't suggest to me that he thinks Israel will be brought down by internal forces.

He also said:
"Your martyrs are our martyrs. Your pain is our pain," he said of the Palestinians, adding that "Islamic nations have the duty to help you in every possible way".
In this context, "martyrs" usually refers to suicide bombers. To call them "martyrs" instead of "terrorists" legitimizes their tactics of targeting and murdering civilian non-combatants.

In all, this suggests to me that Iran would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, should they ever acquire one. That's my interpretation, anyway.

Ojam

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:08 PM

I think the point that d_jedi is making is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments can be easily misinterpreted. Even if he meant no harm, he should not have openly criticized another country, especially a country with which the middle east has bad blood between.

The matter of the fact is that no one knows what the hell he is doing (or trying to do) by making these announcements. It is not really helping him and will only serve to strain relations and to make key players in this episode more aggitated.

No, I think jedi just likes the word genocide in relation to Iran (this is not the first time he has used it) and I bet he would use it even Ahmadinejad said he wanted to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich out of Israeli peanuts and dessert berries, he would take the peanuts to be the people and the jelly their blood and Ahmadinejad would be a cannibal, drinking the blood of Israeli genocide.

asim99

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:09 PM

..
Again, calling Israel a ""rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm.""
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145012468035&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
that's a very sophomoric interpretation of what he said...perhaps you WANT him to say genocide, because i don't seen that term in his quotes

FastFokker

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:13 PM

d_jedi works for the US Administration.. he's a propogandabot.. blame his programmers.

asim99

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:20 PM

In this context, "martyrs" usually refers to suicide bombers.
oh come on, stop spreading israeli propaganda...

israel kills 3 palestinians for every israeli killed, and 5 palestinian children for every israeli child killed...most of those palestinians are not suicide bombers...they are innocent martyrs murdered by israeli terrorist state...

when he says palestinian martyrs are his martyrs, he is talking of the notion of 'muslim ummah' (that considers entire muslim body as one nation)...read a bit before making false statements...muslims in pretty much all of the muslim world consider palestinian innocent martyrs as their own

d_jedi

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:22 PM

oh come on, stop spreading israeli propaganda...

israel kills 3 palestinians for every israeli killed, and 5 palestinian children for every israeli child killed...most of those palestinians are not suicide bombers...they are martyrs...

when he says palestinian martyrs are his martyrs, he is talking of the notion of 'muslim ummah' (that considers entire muslim body as one nation)...read a bit before making false statements...muslims in pretty much all of the muslim world consider palestinian innocent martyrs as their own
Do the militant Palestinian groups not consider the suicide bombers to be "martyrs"?

Does Iran not support these militant groups?

asim99

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:25 PM

Do the militant Palestinian groups not consider the suicide bombers to be "martyrs"?

Does Iran not support these militant groups?

who cares what militany groups consider martyrs...there are 2-3 times more innocent palestinians martyred by israel....why are you putting them in the same group as suicide bombers?

don't you think those innocent palestinians are martyrs?

d_jedi

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:28 PM

who cares what militany groups consider martyrs...there are 2-3 times more innocent palestinians martyred by israel....why are you putting them in the same group as suicide bombers?

don't you think those innocent palestinians are martyrs?
The question is, does the Iranian president consider the suicide bombers to be martyrs, as well? If not, why does Iran support the militant groups?

asim99

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:30 PM

The question is, does the Iranian president consider the suicide bombers to be martyrs, as well? If not, why does Iran support the militant groups?
i don't have psychic powers that you seem to have..
however, you did not answer my question...do you consider the innocent palestinians and children killed by israel as martyrs?

d_jedi

Apr 14th, 2006, 09:50 PM

i don't have psychic powers that you seem to have..
It is my opinion that he does.. the evidence points in that direction, I think.

however, you did not answer my question...do you consider the innocent palestinians and children killed by israel as martyrs?
I didn't answer it because I don't think my personal view of this is necessarily relevant.. but, if you really want to know:

I think that depends on your definition of what a martyr is.

mar�tyr
1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3.
1. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
2. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.
When I think of a martyr, I usually think of the second definition. But key in that is choice - the martyr has the option of doing (or not doing) something that will end their suffering, but they choose not to because of their principles.

On the other hand, lack of this choice does not stop someone who endured this suffering from being a martyr to a group of people. (I'm not sure if I'm making a whole lot of sense here..)

So, I do not think that the innocent Palestinians and children necessarily intend to be martyrs, but they can be considered as martyrs to the Palestinian people.

Nonetheless, the killings of innocent civilians (by which I define as non-combatants) is definately tragic, on either side.

Happy13178

Apr 14th, 2006, 10:22 PM

You know, this guy KNOWS that everything he says will be repeated, and reported, and how the majority of the western world will take his comments. And yet he says it anyways. We're up to what, 5 comments now about the "future" of Israel? And yet I still see people saying "Oh, that's not what he meant, he's a peaceful guy, etc, etc". He's saying these things while the US has a fairly heavy military presence there. He refuses to make concessions of any kind on the nuclear front (I'm not entirely sure if he wants to build a bomb or just better power plants, so lets leave that aside for now). So tell me this: What happens if or when he acts on it? Will he still be a peacemaker? Is he really making gains by thumbing his nose at the US while they're seriously considering going in there next?

U-S foreign policy of late is pretty much first-strike. That is, if they consider a nation to be a threat, they won't wait for them to make the first move before going to war. Politics aside, its not a big jump to say a lot of Americans support this viewpoint. None of them want to see another Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and if their leaders can convince them that a clear and present danger exists, they'll support starting another war. You can argue this until you're blue in the face, but at least initially in these types of situations, Americans tend to fall in line behind their leaders, at least until they consider the threat to be somewhat abated.

Now with Iran's president making comments like this, benign or not, combined with rapidly increasing nuclear tension, do you really think the US will wait until they've actually got the bomb to attack, and have to deal with another North Korea? This guy has got to know that he's antagonizing them, and how they're taking it. His comments before about wiping Israel off the map, I saw several people defending and saying he didn't mean it, and yet the UN condemned him saying these things, so clearly they took it the same way too. Do all of you defending him really believe that he bears no ill will towards Israel? Do you think he wouldn't attack if he thought he would win, and not face retaliation from other nations?

Ojam

Apr 14th, 2006, 10:36 PM

Happy13178

Apr 14th, 2006, 10:39 PM

Ojam

Apr 14th, 2006, 10:49 PM

Granted its not the only possibility. But given the past comments, is it really that big a jump to see that some people would think he's talking about genocide?

Sure, if they are prone to jumping to arbitrary conclusions, and are looking for words that will cause the maximum amount of �shock� value to describe something that really wasn�t said. Other then that, there is absolutely no reason why genocide should have been used, the title could have simply been the original quote for example. But no, he chose to use a misleading title, yet again.

Happy13178

Apr 14th, 2006, 10:58 PM

Sure, if they are prone to jumping to arbitrary conclusions, and are looking for words that will cause the maximum amount of �shock� value to describe something that really wasn�t said. Other then that, there is absolutely no reason why genocide should have been used, the title could have simply been the original quote for example. But no, he chose to use a misleading title, yet again.

I'm not talking about d_jedi, but on that note, how is it misleading? Iran's president has made comments like this before....are they all being misconstrued? And again, what happens when it's no longer just words? If he actually tries it? Are you really willing to say for certain that Iran would never attempt to commit genocide against Israel? That other arab nations in that region wouldn't jump in?

hagbard

Apr 14th, 2006, 11:04 PM

Interesting debate, sounds like the one we had last week. :lol:

Ojam

Apr 14th, 2006, 11:06 PM

I'm not talking about d_jedi, but on that note, how is it misleading? Iran's president has made comments like this before....are they all being misconstrued? And again, what happens when it's no longer just words? If he actually tries it? Are you really willing to say for certain that Iran would never attempt to commit genocide against Israel? That other arab nations in that region wouldn't jump in?

No, I'm not; I'm also not willing to say the Israel wouldn't strike first, or Russia wouldn't invade the United States. Bush has made many very similar comments regarding the destruction of the enemies of the United States; does that mean he too is calling for genocide? It�s misleading because that is not what he said. Genocide wasn't even said in the article. His full quote is

"The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm,"

Generally a regime is considered to be the leaders and their way of thinking, not the country, not the people of the country. That doesn't say genocide that says "regime change".

Mr._Hankey

Apr 14th, 2006, 11:52 PM

I have to hand it to him, he may be insane but does know what he's talking about. Saying the Israeli regime is "rotten", he's absolutely right about that one.
He and the Hizbullah leader, Nasrallah, share something in common and I doubt that any alliance between the two does not exist.
Contrary to Saddam, they stand behind their words and definitely gain alot of respect from their enemies.
It would be impossible to get rid the guy any time soon.

Nemodigital

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:00 AM

No, I'm not; I'm also not willing to say the Israel wouldn't strike first, or Russia wouldn't invade the United States. Bush has made many very similar comments regarding the destruction of the enemies of the United States; does that mean he too is calling for genocide? It�s misleading because that is not what he said. Genocide wasn't even said in the article. His full quote is

"The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm,"

Generally a regime is considered to be the leaders and their way of thinking, not the country, not the people of the country. That doesn't say genocide that says "regime change".
I thought the wipping Israel off the map statement was pretty evident ... unless you consider that a "nation change".

evanx

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:09 AM

Iran is literally asking for it

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:36 AM

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:54 AM

I don't think anybody is calling him a peace maker, we are saying Jedi's interpretation and his subsequent thread title is completely wrong, or at the very least not the only possibility. He doesn't say genocide, he doesn't actually say Israel, and as Rehan pointed out he isn't advocating anything, he is predicting their downfall. Jedi's post and title is completely false, and this really isn't something new, it�s a regular occurrence.

I agree. Ahmadinejad's just " beating the tom-toms " as it were......his comments and tacit endorsement/ allowance of rhetorical displays ( i.e banners during parades ) leaves his administrations' intentions open to a wide range of interpretations.....

- "Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military

- "We Will Trample America Under Our Feet," read another banner."

- the " Wiped Off the Map" phrase found draped on a missle in a parade in Tehran...along with �Death to America,� and �Death to Israel.�

- "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

- first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies." .......But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a "historic war". ....

- "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5102702221.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...3CE0E9957EA.htm

http://www.missilethreat.com/missil...hab-3_iran.html

Rehan

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:57 AM

So was Hitler - very well liked among the Germans - during the 30'sYeah, and so was G. W. Bush in the fall of 2001. So?

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 01:00 AM

I thought the wipping Israel off the map statement was pretty evident ... unless you consider that a "nation change".

Having the slogan " "Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" on a banner draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade in Tehran in no way means Iran has any violent intentions toward Israel....rather " Wiped Off the Map " may simply be a diplomatic or politcal term....the fact that they chose to drape the slogan over a missle, and that some think Iran has genocidal motivations is simply just an unfortunate coincidence.

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 01:00 AM

Yeah, and so was G. W. Bush in the fall of 2001. So?

You just made my point.

Rehan

Apr 15th, 2006, 01:01 AM

You just made my point. Eh? You didn't have one.

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 01:07 AM

Eh? You didn't have one.

The point was....Hitler, GWB, Ahmadinejad...all despised in the forum of world opinion......yet ironically ( at times ) very well liked among the people of their countries.

ronin893

Apr 15th, 2006, 02:11 AM

vladislav

Apr 15th, 2006, 03:24 AM

Ojam

Apr 15th, 2006, 06:20 AM

I thought the wipping Israel off the map statement was pretty evident ... unless you consider that a "nation change".

except when you actually look at the rest of the content of the speech rather then just taking 4 words out of it.

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 08:44 AM

except when you actually look at the rest of the content of the speech rather then just taking 4 words out of it.

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is an interesting phrase...... " Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" ........an puzzling why Iranians should choose to have a banner withy such a slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade......along with slogans like � Death to Israel � I think it is the " Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" / � Death to Israel � combination that is sometimes present that is a cause for concern.

If you drape a slogan like that over a missle, you're allowing it to be associated with violence - why would the iranian leader allow that if his comments are purely peaceful / diplomatic in nature ? I suppose it's the terms "wiped " and "map " that are open for a wide range of interpretation.

What does " wipe " mean ? Is it a violent term? Or a diplomatic term ?

- countrie(s) should blast Israel off the face of the earth with nukes ??
- countrie(s) invade Israel with convential forces ??
- the UN / US should re-locate Israel goegraphically elsewhere via - and to where ??
- is the wiped to be for the state only or the entire Jewish race he is referring to ??

....I often think that when we look back, others have engaged in this sort of anti-semitic policy / rhetoric and duped the entire world.

After all look at Hitler. And, how there were countless apologists for Hitler's aims and appeasement in reaction to his actions. I mean, in 1938, Hitler was named 'Time' magazine's man of the year....stating the Germans need for ' the craving of large sections of the politically immature German people for strong, masterful leadership " - sounds famiiar. " On 30 January 1939 Hitler declares in the Reichstag that a new world war will lead to the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.

A " new world war will lead to the destruction of the Jewish race "- it sounds like one could interpret that "wipe off the map "is the same as "destuction" - perhaps not. And I'm sure there were many apologists for Hitler who claimed his call for theh desruction of the Jewish race was simply politcial rhetoric and was being taken out of context, that he didn't really mean it .....and we ended up with the Holocaust to prove them wrong. I fact the term "destruction " was being used by the EU in response to the "Wiped Off the Map "remark........

A British diplomat said a statement adopted by the 25-member European Union at the Hampton Court summit in London Thursday was circulated in the council.In their statement, the EU leaders "condemned in the strongest terms" the Iranian leader's words." Calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community," they said.

http://www.theallineed.com/news/0510/281235.htm

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hitler.html

ephemera

Apr 15th, 2006, 09:11 AM

I was waiting for this one :) Iran going to wipe out Israel, LOL :=) I am sure Israel is waiting for them to try.

I am sure the US are holding isreal back.

I am amazed at the comments supporting the genocide of another member of the human race.

There is a definate 'trend' in the RFD off-topics lately.

FastFokker

Apr 15th, 2006, 09:14 AM

I am sure the US are holding isreal back. More like US are pumping Israel with even more weapons and military power.

Nobody is supporting genocide, as there is no genocide occuring on the part of Iran.. it's purely speech, and I can understand why Iran hates Israel.

If we want to go after genocide, why don't we go after *REAL* genocides that are happening instead of dwelling on oil nations who say things we don't completely agree with.

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 09:15 AM

I am sure the US are holding isreal back.

I am amazed at the comments supporting the genocide of another member of the human race.

There is a definate 'trend' in the RFD off-topics lately.

Thats an understatement. I think when you have posters making comments like " I've already wiped Israel off the map, I put a large "Palestine" in its place "...it's very sad.

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 09:17 AM

More like US are pumping Israel with even more weapons and military power.

Nobody is supporting genocide, as there is no genocide occuring on the part of Iran.. it's purely speech, and I can understand why Iran hates Israel.

If we want to go after genocide, why don't we go after *REAL* genocides that are happening instead of dwelling on oil nations who say things we don't completely agree with.

Then why does Iran drape a "wipe Israel off the wipe " banner over a missle...if violence isn't relevant ? Why on a missle - of all things ? How does a rational person explain that ?

asim99

Apr 15th, 2006, 09:34 AM

I am amazed at the comments supporting the genocide of another member of the human race.
one has to be pretty dumb to actually take the issue that far...no one has supported genocide...not even ahmadinejad has mentioned genocide...so calm down! take a deep breath.

by the way, it's not like bush has not used silly rhetoric about muslims...he has previosuly declared crusade on muslims

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."

Mr._Hankey

Apr 15th, 2006, 11:03 AM

The stuff that Ahmadinejad says is for domestic consumption. I don't think he cares if any outsiders misinterprets his words. Nothing to get excited about, people. Does anybody here actually believes that Iran has a remote chance of hurting Israel in any way? Ahmadinejad is all bark and no bite.

This crazy man knows what he's talking about. He is waiting for the day when the Israeli regime would become too humane to retaliate, too humane to respond to the Iranian nuclear threat, too merciful to protect its own citizens by killing those who imperil their existance.
This is the path that most of the world has chosen, the citizens of the world have forgotten all about their governments' responsibility for their own lives, their pacifist beliefs leading them to self destruction along with their governments who they're protesting against.
The arab world, who has never had this disease within itself, has recognized the course in which the western world is heading and all it has to do is wait.
Arab leaders never lie about their intentions. I'd rather trust an arab leader than a western one, who changes his views according to the weather and the slogans he sees in the hands of the protestors from the windows of his parliament.
The western world has to learn something about respect and dignity before it can claim any future victories over what it calls, evil.
This is why the west will lose its war against this evil and the world order will take a 180 degree turn, with new superpowers emerging and the old liberal values taking a blow to the head.

hagbard

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:07 PM

:arrowu: I want what he's smokin'.

CheapScotsman

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:10 PM

:arrowu: I want what he's smokin'.The same thing that Chamberlain was smoking when he signed an agreement with Hitler? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement#Reasons_why_the_British_government_app eased_Hitler

Mr._Hankey

Apr 15th, 2006, 12:44 PM

:arrowu: I want what he's smokin'.

I don't expect an anarchist to follow.

Happy13178

Apr 15th, 2006, 01:20 PM

Ojam

Apr 15th, 2006, 01:56 PM

We'll see. I'll be the first one to admit if I'm wrong and he actually has peaceful intentions. But I'll also be bookmarking all these posts, because of the very real chance that it will go the other way, so I hope you can explain it if he really is a warmonger.

Saying he is not advocating genocide, and saying he is for peace are not the same thing, there is a pretty large range of activities which would fall against peace between the two, but also come up far short of genocide. There is no doubt in my mind that he wants the Zionist regime to go away, but that doesn't mean he wants to commit genocide against the population of Israel, just like you'd be stupid to say that just because Bush wanted the regime of Saddam to go away didn't really mean he wanted to commit mass genocide against the Iraqi people. (Although I could see some arguing that is what has happened).

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 02:00 PM

Ojam

Apr 15th, 2006, 02:00 PM

As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is an interesting phrase...... " Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" ........an puzzling why Iranians should choose to have a banner withy such a slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade......along with slogans like � Death to Israel � I think it is the " Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" / � Death to Israel � combination that is sometimes present that is a cause for concern.

If you look at the actual quote though, he says "regime must be wiped off the map"

I think there is definitely some translation problems happening, but if the October quote was Regime, like the above quote suggests, and he is now talking about the regime again, it sounds more as if he wants the leaders gone and not necessarily the people.

I think you were correct to provide the context, but now that we have the context , what is your best guess as to what he meant by " wipe off the map " ?

Welcome your thoughts.

I think he is calling for regime change, I think he wants to happen to Israel, what the US did to Iraq, and I think just as Bush probably thought it was the best plan, and the best for the people of the regime, he thinks the same thing. I don't think he wants to kill all Jewish people, I just think he wants to change they way he perceives them to think. A regime is both the government, but also the ideas surrounding the government.

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 02:01 PM

poedua

Apr 15th, 2006, 02:26 PM

If you look at the actual quote though, he says "regime must be wiped off the map"

I think there is definitely some translation problems happening, but if the October quote was Regime, like the above quote suggests, and he is now talking about the regime again, it sounds more as if he wants the leaders gone and not necessarily the people.

I think he is calling for regime change, I think he wants to happen to Israel, what the US did to Iraq, and I think just as Bush probably thought it was the best plan, and the best for the people of the regime, he thinks the same thing. I don't think he wants to kill all Jewish people, I just think he wants to change they way he perceives them to think. A regime is both the government, but also the ideas surrounding the government.

Interesting...so you think he could live with a 2-state solution as a means of achieving a long term period of peace in the region ? I hope you're right.

Because if so - and it simply requires a regime change - then there's hope. Palestinians and Israeli's living side by side in some sort of joint co-existence ( i.e a 2-state framework ) in the region seems the only logical route for peace IMO.

Casanova

Apr 15th, 2006, 04:39 PM

If you look at the actual quote though, he says "regime must be wiped off the map"

I think there is definitely some translation problems happening, but if the October quote was Regime, like the above quote suggests, and he is now talking about the regime again, it sounds more as if he wants the leaders gone and not necessarily the people.

I think he is calling for regime change, I think he wants to happen to Israel, what the US did to Iraq, and I think just as Bush probably thought it was the best plan, and the best for the people of the regime, he thinks the same thing. I don't think he wants to kill all Jewish people, I just think he wants to change they way he perceives them to think. A regime is both the government, but also the ideas surrounding the government.

we must have some Iranians on this board that can confirm :)

plymouthhater

Apr 15th, 2006, 07:12 PM

he is talking of the notion of 'muslim ummah' (that considers entire muslim body as one nation)...

So does that mean when Sunni's blow themselves up at a Shia mosque in Iraq or visa versa or when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a Pakistani mosque last week, they all felt that they were members of "one nation" ?

poromol

Apr 15th, 2006, 07:31 PM

So does that mean when Sunni's blow themselves up at a Shia mosque in Iraq or visa versa or when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a Pakistani mosque last week, they all felt that they were members of "one nation" ?

thats the thinking people should be engaging in. it shows that the people responsible for these attacks do not follow a faith, they're power hungry bastards leading easily impressionable youth into it.

Happy13178

Apr 15th, 2006, 08:12 PM

thats the thinking people should be engaging in. it shows that the people responsible for these attacks do not follow a faith, they're power hungry bastards leading easily impressionable youth into it.

I think that should be the textbook definition of modern politics, for any nation. Nothing would make me happier than if these people were actually advocating change through peaceful means, but given the overall mood and environment of Iran's political culture right now, it really doesn't look like that's the case. I think the real victims here will be the people that want nothing more than to carry out their lives peacefully. Because it looks like the next war is coming from that region.

hagbard

Apr 15th, 2006, 11:16 PM

I am sure the US are holding isreal back.

I am amazed at the comments supporting the genocide of another member of the human race.

There is a definate 'trend' in the RFD off-topics lately.

More like the manipulation of words and "trickery" by the enemies of Islam. ;)

Happy13178

Apr 15th, 2006, 11:38 PM

OK, this is just getting stupid...enemies of Islam? please...someone lock this nonsense.

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 12:22 AM

OK, this is just getting stupid...enemies of Islam? please...someone lock this nonsense.
why? i think ephemera's quote that he sees "comments supporting the genocide of another member of the human race" on rfd is worse than what you seem to be up in arms about

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 16th, 2006, 12:56 AM

we must have some Iranians on this board that can confirm :)

Well, I kinda avoided this thread, because there's too much stuff flying around this thread which is incorrect and I don't have the time to be responding numerous people.

I only have three quick comments.

1) Ahmadinejad's quotes in persian does not have the same meaning as the translation provided. Hagbard is correct, in this quote as well, he is specifically mentioning the word regime. He is not calling for destruction of it this time though, he is saying that the Zionist regime is becoming weaker [on its own]. In Persian, if he wanted to say that we would destroy it , he wouldn't say it in a passive way like it's becoming weaker. He would just directly say that we will destroy it. So although this guy talks a lot of insanity, this time actually he was unexpectedly polite.

2) I believe it was Rehan mentioning something about his friend studying in Iran and saying Iranians love the president. This is absolute BS. Iranians don't love this guy, if anything they hate him. Most Iranians voted the other two candidates, but by some magic lamp power, this guy ended up president. He's our Bush (although Bush has a lot more % of population voting for him).

3) Finally all I can say is, this is all a big political game. Don't take things for what they seem. Iranians don't like thier government one bit, but if Iran is attacked all of these opposition groups will be forced to side with the government to defend the country, same thing that happend for Iran vs Iraq war, complements of the USof A which didn't want Iran to become a communist country. At this point in time it's all speculations. As far as we are concerned a bunch of people in a forum on the internet are in no place to full understand the politics behind what's going on around us. I recommend though if you don't want to make a fool out of yourself, do not give in to anti-Iranian propaganda which surely will follow in the coming months and years.

EDIT: I just read the discussion about the "wiped off the map" part. Guys, Persian is the language of metaphores, we use metaphores constantly in even everyday talk. The wiped off the map does not sound as evil in Persian as it does in English. Don't spend your time trying to argue about the English translation of it. All that we need to know is that this guy doesn't like the Zionist Israel. If it means anything, I never heard any of these mullahs say things against the Jews, it's mainly the Zionism and Zionist regime of Israel that is criticized by them. They might hate jews but they won't just say that openly.

Txiasaeia

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:08 AM

3) Finally all I can say is, this is all a big political game. Don't take things for what they seem. Iranians don't like thier government one bit, but if Iran is attacked all of these opposition groups will be forced to side with the government to defend the country, same thing that happend for Iran vs Iraq war, complements of the USof A which didn't want Iran to become a communist country. At this point in time it's all speculations. As far as we are concerned a bunch of people in a forum on the internet are in no place to full understand the politics behind what's going on around us. I recommend though if you don't want to make a fool out of yourself, do not give in to anti-Iranian propaganda which surely will follow in the coming months and years.

How do you feel about Iran becoming a nuclear power? Is this something that you'd feel comfortable with?

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:39 AM

How do you feel about Iran becoming a nuclear power? Is this something that you'd feel comfortable with?

For me, and I'm sure many other Iranians, it's a confusing issue. There are opposing feelings about Internal matters and International matters of Iran.

Internally, we want this government gone, we want the mullahs gone. With that view, and knowing that without outside involvement the government can't be toppled, we do feel like this might be a chance for freedom. So if nuclear is an excuse which would have these mullahs flushed out of out country, then let it be.

Internationally though, there are tons of issues.

1) Never have the west been willing to help Iranians. They infact meddled with our country's politics over and over again and indirectly (or possibly directly) were the cause of installation of the current government. You'd know what I mean if you read the history of Iran and how USA seemed to absolutely turn the revolution around from a communist revolution to an Extremist Islamic end. So to expect that now they are actually willing to help is beyond naiive. This automatically means, we don't trust the Americans and although we do want our government gone, we don't want Americans to turn our country to dust like they did to Iraq.

2) The whole nuclear thing seems to be a big excuse for USA to do whatever they're planning to do. Israel has it, India has it. Pakistan has it, and they're not exactly a very peaceful nation either, I can't see why Iran can't have it. Of course, I'd much rather if Iran is doing it for nuclear energy and not bombs. Mullahs have enough money to purchase these bombs easily, it wouldn't make sense for them to make reactors and such which can take years.

Ok, I don't want to go off topic now, basically, if the worry is that the crazy mullahs ruling Iran are too crazy to be allowed to possess nuclear bombs, don't fret, they probably already do. They do have more than enough money to purchase it, wouldn't need to make reactors and go thourgh the whole process. Their strategy hasn't ever been making things for Iran, they're more into their own security and pocketing the oil income, and buying land/houses/etc in europe and north america so when the day finally comes that they should be kicked out,their children and many generations after them are gonna be well-fed with money they have stolen from Iranian people.

Since they probably already have it, why even bother Iran about it, and make this whole fuss about a buncha reactors, let the reactors be so maybe Iranian people might benefit from nuclear energy.

I'm thinking why all these stories and politics and shows, USA should just come out and say they don't like Iranian government and want to change it (if that's even their real intention) there's no need for all these excuses about nuclear matters.

M.D.

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:49 AM

Jesus is returning soon! :D

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:52 AM

For me, and I'm sure many other Iranians, it's a confusing issue. There are opposing feelings about Internal matters and International matters of Iran.

Internally, we want this government gone, we want the mullahs gone. With that view, and knowing that without outside involvement the government can't be toppled, we do feel like this might be a chance for freedom. So if nuclear is an excuse which would have these mullahs flushed out of out country, then let it be.

Internationally though, there are tons of issues.

1) Never have the west been willing to help Iranians. They infact meddled with our country's politics over and over again and indirectly (or possibly directly) were the cause of installation of the current government. You'd know what I mean if you read the history of Iran and how USA seemed to absolutely turn the revolution around from a communist revolution to an Extremist Islamic end. So to expect that now they are actually willing to help is beyond naiive. This automatically means, we don't trust the Americans and although we do want our government gone, we don't want Americans to turn our country to dust like they did to Iraq.

2) The whole nuclear thing seems to be a big excuse for USA to do whatever they're planning to do. Israel has it, India has it. Pakistan has it, and they're not exactly a very peaceful nation either, I can't see why Iran can't have it. Of course, I'd much rather if Iran is doing it for nuclear energy and not bombs. Mullahs have enough money to purchase these bombs easily, it wouldn't make sense for them to make reactors and such which can take years.

Ok, I don't want to go off topic now, basically, if the worry is that the crazy mullahs ruling Iran are too crazy to be allowed to possess nuclear bombs, don't fret, they probably already do. They do have more than enough money to purchase it, wouldn't need to make reactors and go thourgh the whole process. Their strategy hasn't ever been making things for Iran, they're more into their own security and pocketing the oil income, and buying land/houses/etc in europe and north america so when the day finally comes that they should be kicked out,their children and many generations after them are gonna be well-fed with money they have stolen from Iranian people.

Since they probably already have it, why even bother Iran about it, and make this whole fuss about a buncha reactors, let the reactors be so maybe Iranian people might benefit from nuclear energy.

I'm thinking why all these stories and politics and shows, USA should just come out and say they don't like Iranian government and want to change it (if that's even their real intention) there's no need for all these excuses about nuclear matters.

I'm no big expert on Iran, but it seems to me that the Russian involvement in Iran is a major deterring factor for the US. Russia profits big time out of its investments in Iranian oil and returns a favour by helping out in the development of Iran's nuclear program. As long as Russia is involved, I'm pretty sure that even the stupidest US administration yet wouldn't want to come anywhere near Iran.

Casanova

Apr 16th, 2006, 08:19 AM

EDIT: I just read the discussion about the "wiped off the map" part. Guys, Persian is the language of metaphores, we use metaphores constantly in even everyday talk. The wiped off the map does not sound as evil in Persian as it does in English. Don't spend your time trying to argue about the English translation of it. All that we need to know is that this guy doesn't like the Zionist Israel. If it means anything, I never heard any of these mullahs say things against the Jews, it's mainly the Zionism and Zionist regime of Israel that is criticized by them. They might hate jews but they won't just say that openly.

thanks!

ephemera

Apr 16th, 2006, 09:01 AM

More like the manipulation of words and "trickery" by the enemies of Islam. ;)

"Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to:

*
advocate genocide
*
publicly incite hatred
*
wilfully promote hatred

against an "identifiable group."

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

*
colour
*
race
*
religion
*
ethnic origin

Hatred directed against others groups (such as women, or gays and lesbians) is not punishable under sections 318 and 319.

The Criminal Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions.

For example, "advocating genocide" includes publicly arguing that members of an identifiable group should be killed. Wilfully promoting hatred can only be committed by communicating statements other than in a private conversation. And inciting hatred is only prohibited if statements are communicated in a public place.

Online communications that advocate genocide or wilfully promote or incite hatred are likely to fall within the provisions because the Internet is a public network.

Under section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, a judge has the authority to order the removal of hate propaganda from a computer system that is available to the public. Such authority extends to all computer systems located within Canada."

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 09:22 AM

I am amazed at the comments supporting the genocide of another member of the human race.
Who here is "supporting the genocide of another member of the human race"? Got anything to back up your claim about this "trend"?

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 09:34 AM

2) I believe it was Rehan mentioning something about his friend studying in Iran and saying Iranians love the president. This is absolute BS. Iranians don't love this guy, if anything they hate him. Most Iranians voted the other two candidates, but by some magic lamp power, this guy ended up president. He's our Bush (although Bush has a lot more % of population voting for him). I figured you would have figured out that an American studying in Iran is in the hawzas there... but in any case... The perspective my friend sees is different from that of Iranian emigrants (and their Iranian friends) that despise the religious leadership.

I was myself surprised to hear what he said, but I have no reason to doubt him. Though the current President may be "hated" by some Iranians, that feeling is very likely no different from how they've felt for a long time about the rest of the theocracy ("the mullahs", as you like to say pejoratively) in Iran.

hagbard

Apr 16th, 2006, 09:48 AM

"Criminal Code of Canada

Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to:

*
advocate genocide
*
publicly incite hatred
*
wilfully promote hatred

against an "identifiable group."

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

*
colour
*
race
*
religion
*
ethnic origin

Hatred directed against others groups (such as women, or gays and lesbians) is not punishable under sections 318 and 319.

The Criminal Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions.

For example, "advocating genocide" includes publicly arguing that members of an identifiable group should be killed. Wilfully promoting hatred can only be committed by communicating statements other than in a private conversation. And inciting hatred is only prohibited if statements are communicated in a public place.

Online communications that advocate genocide or wilfully promote or incite hatred are likely to fall within the provisions because the Internet is a public network.

Under section 320.1 of the Criminal Code, a judge has the authority to order the removal of hate propaganda from a computer system that is available to the public. Such authority extends to all computer systems located within Canada."

A) They're not in Canada, thus not subject to Canadian law
B) You have no proof other than your misreading and manipulation of the facts to back up your claims.
C)The Iranians aren't advocating genocide, they're suggesting an end to the State of Israel (at least, in its current location and/or form).
D) That particular law is an ass. Look forward to seeing it whipped out in the nearl future.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 10:42 AM

A) They're not in Canada, thus not subject to Canadian law
B) You have no proof other than your misreading and manipulation of the facts to back up your claims.
C)The Iranians aren't advocating genocide, they're suggesting an end to the State of Israel (at least, in its current location and/or form).
D) That particular law is an ass. Look forward to seeing it whipped out in the nearl future.

" The Iranians aren't advocating genocide, they're suggesting an end to the State of Israel (at least, in its current location and/or form) "................. which makes the placement of a banners like " Death to Israel " "Wipe Israel off the map " draped over missles in a parade - in that context, clearly a violent message in nature - all the more puzzling.

" an end to the State of Israel (at least, in its current location and/or form " ................. again, another sign that his Iranian leader is out of touch. This will never happen. Israel is here, it exists. It has a right to exist. And, it isn't going anywhere. so, the only hope for peace is a 2 state solution where both sides co-exist.

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:03 AM

" The Iranians aren't advocating genocide, they're suggesting an end to the State of Israel (at least, in its current location and/or form) "................. which makes the placement of a banners like " Death to Israel " "Wipe Israel off the map " draped over missles in a parade - in that context, clearly a violent message in nature - all the more puzzling. Though the US administration doesn't go out chanting it in the street, their goal is clearly to get rid of the current regime in Iran. And they may resort to violent methods such as missile strikes, if necessary. They are even seriously considering nuking the country. As GWB said, "I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

So how is that different from what Iran is doing *? How does one of them count as "advocating genocide" but the other does not?

You should move beyond your simplistic view of what is reported in the headlines. I would also suggest reading the "Persian is the language of metaphores" comments from Boss_Scorpius earlier in this thread.

( * - I supposed one difference is that Iran is far more bark than bite, and US is more bite than bark.)

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:10 AM

Though the US administration doesn't go out chanting it in the street, their goal is clearly to get rid of the current regime in Iran. And they may resort to violent methods such as missile strikes, if necessary. They are even seriously considering nuking the country.

So how is that different from what Iran is doing *? How does one of them count as "advocating genocide" but the other does not?

You should move beyond your simplistic view of what is reported in the headlines.

( * - I supposed one difference is that Iran is far more bark than bite, and US is more bite than bark.)

Do you think the "rationale "/ justification for a regime change in Iran versus Israel is the same ?

I assume the US is "alleging " the reason to launch a pre-emptive attack Iran is to prevent them ( the regime ) from getting nukes [ percieved threat] - or you could argue - it is to get Iran's oil [ desire for control of resources ] ?

What do you think the rationale is for Iran to want to attack Israel and remove that regime ......... percieved threat............desire for control of resources ...something else ?

Welcome your thoughts.

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:13 AM

Do you think the "rationale "/ justification for a regime change in Iran versus Israel is the same ?

I assume the US is "alleging " the reason to launch a pre-emptive attack Iran is to prevent them ( the regime ) from getting nukes [ percieved threat] - or you could argue - it is to get Iran's oil [ desire for control of resources ] ?

What do you think the rationale is for Iran to want to attack Israel and remove that regime ......... percieved threat............desire for control of resources ...something else ?

Welcome your thoughts. I see you avoided my main question in the last post. I asked it because you've posted repeatedly about the "wiped off the map" statement.

How does one of them count as "advocating genocide" but the other does not?

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:14 AM

Though the US administration doesn't go out chanting it in the street, their goal is clearly to get rid of the current regime in Iran. And they may resort to violent methods such as missile strikes, if necessary. They are even seriously considering nuking the country. As GWB said, "I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

So how is that different from what Iran is doing *? How does one of them count as "advocating genocide" but the other does not?

You should move beyond your simplistic view of what is reported in the headlines. I would also suggest reading the "Persian is the language of metaphores" comments from Boss_Scorpius earlier in this thread.

But the " Wipe Israel off the map " quote came from al Jeezera itself ...they'd get the translation right...don't you think ?

I mean if you can't trust al Jezeera headlines.....whose can you trust ?

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:17 AM

But the " Wipe Israel off the map " quote came from al Jeezera itself ...they'd get the translation right...don't you think ?

I mean if you can't trust al Jezeera headlines.....whose can you trust ? If you need help understanding Boss_Scorpius's comments, here's a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor

FastFokker

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:18 AM

Goes to show, the US Administration is creating a nice arms race.. on a WMD scale.

Either a country will have deterrents (nuclear) or you can and will be invaded by the choice of the United States of Amnesia.

I'd rather no countries have nuclear weapons, but since some crazy countries do.. I see no reason why all crazy and non-crazy countries shouldn't have equal playing field. Fairs fair.

Iran is a beautiful country with fantastic people.. it may have a poor government, but most nations do.. Doesn't seem like good enough reason to force "liberation" on everyone.. if that's the case, we should liberate the Americans of their ~37% Approval President and ~18% Vice-President.

America has the most of it's own people incarcerated out of any nation on the planet.. that seems like a rather brutal regime.

Anyway I could rant for pages, just the hypocrisy on this website is appalling. America should take care of itself first before going out globally preaching about humanities and governments and instituting policies by force.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:21 AM

I see you avoided my main question in the last post. I asked it because you've posted repeatedly about the "wiped off the map" statement.

How does one of them count as "advocating genocide" but the other does not?

No i didn't. US violent intentions are clear. I'm not disputing that. That is not open for debate. I never drew a comparion beween the US and Iran- you did.

My argument is that if Iran's intentions are 100% peaceful;...why drape "Death to Isreal " or "Wipe Isreal off the map "- banner slogans over missles" ?

What do missles have to to do with "Death to Isreal " or "Wipe Isreal off the map ".....this is where I get confused.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:22 AM

If you need help understanding Boss_Scorpius's comments, here's a link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphor

What do you think the rationale is for Iran to want to attack Israel and remove that regime ......... percieved threat............desire for control of resources ...something else ?

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:44 AM

My argument is that if Iran's intentions are 100% peaceful;...why drape "Death to Isreal " or "Wipe Isreal off the map "- banner slogans over missles" ? Who said Iran's intentions are 100% peaceful?

Do you live in such a binary world that the only possibilities are peace or genocide?

No i didn't. US violent intentions are clear. I'm not disputing that. That is not open for debate. I never drew a comparion beween the US and Iran- you did. Okay, so what you're saying that you're not okay with Iran "advocating genocide", but you're okay with the same threats from the US towards Iran. In other words, it's possible to justify "advocating genocide". Hmmm...

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 11:52 AM

It's very intresting because on one hand we have Israel and America, who have the capacity to commit genocide and have been accused of it, even have UN sanctions against them to this very day, and on the other hand, arab nations who don't have the means to commit genocide. They can't even defend themselves properly, and we are supposed to see them as a threat to our safety?

It's the arab nations who should feel threatened and pursue weapons to defend themselves.

Israeli fighter jets ocassionaly fly over Lebanon's capital city puting the city under curfew and alert. Imagine the fear those people have? As a country who had fought Israel, they have a reason to fear it. Isn't that terrorism? striking fear for no other reason than their military superiority?

The US has several bases and conducts military training in the region. Does that region have a reason to fear them? yes! they have been attacked before, and one arab country after another is being threatned. while half the world refused to consent, the US attacked Iraq.

Iran has every right to defend it's citizens. They may hav emuch to learn in international relations, but you'd have to be ignorant of history to miscontrude their statements as proof of their "evil".

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:14 PM

It's very intresting because on one hand we have Israel and America, who have the capacity to commit genocide, and on the other, arab nations who don't have it. They can't even defend themselves properly, and we are supposed to see them as a threat to our safety?

It's the arab nations who should feel threatened and pursue weapons to defend themselves.

Israeli fighter jets ocassionaly fly over Lebanon's capital city puting the city under curfew and alert. Imagine the fear those people have? As a country who had fought Israel, they have a reason to fear it. Isn't that terrorism? striking fear for no other reason than their military superiority?

The US has several bases and conducts military training in the region. Does that region have a reason to fear them? yes! they have been attacked before. they have been intimidated before. while half the world refused to consent, the US attack Iraq.

Iran has every right to defend it's people.

The arabs already had their chance and they took it, back in the days when Mohammed and his successors had slaughtered everybody who stood in their way, before their conquest of northern Africa and parts of Europe.
Perhaps history repeats itself now.

As for the Israeli fighter jets that fly 2-3 times a year, making supersonic booms to desperately try and deter the Hizbullah terrorists who had bombed the Israeli northern cities a day before, from doing it again, I've never heard of any casualties as a result of these tours and frankly, the only time these jets flew above Beirut was about a year ago, the only time since Israel's getaway from Lebanon.

Casanova

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:18 PM

The arabs already had their chance and they took it, back in the days when Mohammed and his successors had slaughtered everybody who stood in their way, before their conquest of northern Africa and parts of Europe.
Perhaps history repeats itself now.
.

links, proof?

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:41 PM

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 01:56 PM

Are you saying that it is the Jew's/Christian's turn to take what they want? I don't get your point.

I don't think that's what I'm saying. Am I speaking Persian to you? :confused:
Glance back at your post, then at my response again. Maybe you'll be able to make a reference between the two:)

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:01 PM

I don't think that's what I'm saying.
You don't think? are you not certain? :confused:

Am I speaking Persian to you? :confused:
just because you wrote in english, doesn't mean it will make sense.

Glance back at your post, then at my response again. Maybe you'll be able to make a reference between the two:)
I don't see it, please do show me the light.

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:08 PM

You don't think? are you not certain? :confused:

just because you wrote in english, doesn't mean it will make sense.

I don't see it, please do show me the light.

Oh well, here goes.
You suggested that America and Israel "have the capacity to commit genocide" against poor and defenseless arab nations.
I reminded you of the genocide that the Muslims carried out during their 7th century conquests, against poor and defenseless nations.
Do you see the irony?

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:24 PM

Though the US administration doesn't go out chanting it in the street, their goal is clearly to get rid of the current regime in Iran. And they may resort to violent methods such as missile strikes, if necessary. They are even seriously considering nuking the country. As GWB said, "I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

So how is that different from what Iran is doing *? How does one of them count as "advocating genocide" but the other does not?

You should move beyond your simplistic view of what is reported in the headlines. I would also suggest reading the "Persian is the language of metaphores" comments from Boss_Scorpius earlier in this thread.

( * - I supposed one difference is that Iran is far more bark than bite, and US is more bite than bark.)

One is advocating the destruction of a nation. The other is warning that they will defend one. Who's the aggressor here? Have you considered that part of the reason the US is now preparing to ramp up their nuclear arsenal after so many years, is because of nations like Iran and North Korea that are refusing to cease nuclear development? They're pushing into another arms race, and short of a miracle, its a race they'll lose. And probably kill millions doing it.

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:32 PM

Iran has every right to defend it's citizens. They may hav emuch to learn in international relations, but you'd have to be ignorant of history to miscontrude their statements as proof of their "evil".

If arab nations can't defend themselves properly, it stands to reason that they'd keep from antagonizing the "bully" nations by kidnapping and killing its citizens, right? Or throwing suicide bombers into crowded places?

Iran isn't talking about defending its citizens here, they're talking about attacking Israel. Genocide or not, that's not defense, its offense. And it's also ignorant to think that a country's jistory is enough to excuse its actions as not being "evil." There may be no proof that they're evil, but theres no proof that they're not, either.

Honestly, this is the leader of a nation that's got a lot of eyes on it right now. Why would the leader be making statements that could be misconstrued in this way, given the current state of global politics? Saying its a mistranslation is foolish, as it's basically saying that nobody in the Iranian government understands english well enough to know how these words will be taken. And not just english, either...German, French, Russian, etc....plenty of nations are pissed that he's been saying this stuff....so ALL of them are mistranslating? That's beyond just naive...

poromol

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:33 PM

Oh well, here goes.
You suggested that America and Israel "have the capacity to commit genocide" against poor and defenseless arab nations.
I reminded you of the genocide that the Muslims carried out during their 7th century conquests, against poor and defenseless nations.
Do you see the irony?

since when did two wrongs make a right? from what i learned about the muslim conquests is that the civilians of other nations were allowed to govern themselves but had to pay a tax.

you seem to value arab life alot less than other blood. i think this is the main issue here. when they give numbers how isreali's have been coercing the palestinian people, you simply state that the terrorists do worse (but not in numbers, as in they dont kill/injure as many people). from that i conclude that you value palestinian life less than isreali life.

maybe i missed some points, and iam sorry if i did so.

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:36 PM

since when did two wrongs make a right? from what i learned about the muslim conquests is that the civilians of other nations were allowed to govern themselves but had to pay a tax.

you seem to value arab life alot less than other blood. i think this is the main issue here. when they give numbers how isreali's have been coercing the palestinian people, you simply state that the terrorists do worse (but not in numbers, as in they dont kill/injure as many people). from that i conclude that you value palestinian life less than isreali life.

maybe i missed some points, and iam sorry if i did so.

I have a hard time seeing people in the Middle East valuing life at all at the moment. They attack innocents, soldiers, non-combatants, and even themselves. Are these the actions of a civilized nation? Of a sane one? I'm not excusing Israel from this, either...they share plenty of the blame. But as I've said again and again, I don't see Israelis strapping bombs to their children and sending them into palestinian territory either. And I'm supposed to believe that these people are peaceful? That they value life?

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:40 PM

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:42 PM

I don't see Israelis strapping bombs to their children and sending them into palestinian territory either.
because they don't need to, when they can bomb from skies, send missiles and bulldoze houses...they inflict far more torture on poor palestinians that they claim to have suffered...give the palestinians bombs, missiles and bulldozers, and then complain.

and it is sad to see people in peaceful countries like canada supporting the terrorist state of israel by sending money....about time canada declares state of israel as a terrorist state, that oppresses its palestinian population, as recognized by the united nations' general assembly time and again

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:43 PM

One is advocating the destruction of a nation. The other is warning that they will defend one. Who's the aggressor here? The aggressor will be the one who attacks first.

For a minute, forget about the reasons/justification. Iran wants the removal of the Israeli regime, possibly by military means. The US wants the removal of the Iranian regime, possibly by military means. If the US succeeds, Iran will have very different leadership and the same name; the majority of the Iranian people will remain where they are. If Iran succeeds, Israel will have very different leadership and a different name; the majority of the Israeli people will be dislocated.

So yes, there are some differences. But in terms of genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide), how is one of them different from the other?

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:44 PM

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:47 PM

Yes, and what do you suggest we do about it? nothing? I was correct in my statment that you think we should let the arabs suffer.

I don't suggest anything. I just countered you with a fact which you may be too ignorant to think of.

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:49 PM

Iran isn't talking about defending its citizens here, they're talking about attacking Israel. Genocide or not, that's not defense, its offense. Iran is talking about defending Muslims. It is defense in their view.

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:52 PM

views of people like you makes one admire the courage of palestinians for standing up to terrorist bullies like israel and the united states

I wish I could say the same about the people who were slaughtered just because they refused to convert to Islam. Dozens of thousands of people who were beheaded and chopped to pieces after the Muslim warriors had invaded their countries.

FastFokker

Apr 16th, 2006, 02:58 PM

I wish I could say the same about the people who were slaughtered just because they refused to convert to Islam. Dozens of thousands of people who were beheaded and chopped to pieces after the Muslim warriors had invaded their countries.Guess you just have an aversion to religions in general, as atrocities are historical amongst. :lol:

Not much to do specifically with Islam or Iran... well unless you want to get hypocritical and/or selective in your standards. :lol:

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:00 PM

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:11 PM

Guess you just have an aversion to religions in general, as atrocities are historical amongst. :lol:

Not much to do specifically with Islam or Iran... well unless you want to get hypocritical and/or selective in your standards. :lol:

Not all of the religions compelled the people of the nations which they'd invaded to accept their religion, or be butchered.

well, that was as disgusting as the current terrorism of the state of israel

Israel hasn't invaded any nations so far (and I'm not too happy about it). It hasn't compelled anyone to convert. And if Egypt and Jordan had accepted the territories they owned before 67, like Israel offered them to, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:12 PM

I wish I could say the same about the people who were slaughtered just because they refused to convert to Islam. What are your thoughts about what Joshua did to the Canaanites in Jericho?

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:18 PM

Israel hasn't invaded any nations so far (and I'm not too happy about it). It hasn't compelled anyone to convert. And if Egypt and Jordan had accepted the territories they owned before 67, like Israel offered them to, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
it has invaded palestine...since then it has been made to leave gaza, west bank in next...if the current reign of israeli terror continue, i would not bet on seeing the state last more than a few more decades

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:33 PM

I wish I could say the same about the people who were slaughtered just because they refused to convert to Islam. Dozens of thousands of people who were beheaded and chopped to pieces after the Muslim warriors had invaded their countries.

Interestingly enough , Iran possibly falls within the range of the same countries whose people may have been forcefully converted. History is fun.

devious9191

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:44 PM

Besides what Ojam posted, does predicting == advocating?

You make me laugh Rehan. It seems pretty clear to the rest of us exactly what Iran is trying to say.. as it did with their previous comments on 'relocating Israel'

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:44 PM

I figured you would have figured out that an American studying in Iran is in the hawzas there... but in any case... The perspective my friend sees is different from that of Iranian emigrants (and their Iranian friends) that despise the religious leadership.

I was myself surprised to hear what he said, but I have no reason to doubt him. Though the current President may be "hated" by some Iranians, that feeling is very likely no different from how they've felt for a long time about the rest of the theocracy ("the mullahs", as you like to say pejoratively) in Iran.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as calling your friend a liar. Americans often have trouble understanding the Iranian culture. This can be seen in their accounts of Iranian revolution, their eye witness accounts seem to be radically different that those written by Iranians themselves. Maybe I should be more clear. I'm not saying everyone in Iran hates Ahmadinejad. There are many exterimist muslims in Iran as well, there are many Basiji's. If your friend happend to be in their circles, he would hear a lot of praise for the president and for Islamic leader Khamenei. People who don't like the president and the Islamic leader will not dare to talk about it. In case you might not know, it is against the law in Iran to talk bad about the authorities. Iran is possibily number one nation with the most journalists in jails. Every now and then a magazine closes and its journalists jailed because they criticized an authority. So your American friend should not expect at all to just go there and find out what people really think, people will not trust him to be just giving him their own opinion.

Contrary to popular belief, it's not just Iranian refugees and immigrants that dislike the government of Mullahs. Many Iranians living in the country also do, but they are not lucky enough and often not motivated enough to be able to immigrate/seek refugee status to get out of the country. You will however never hear these people openly opposing the government, because they simply don't want to die just yet.

Also for Iranians who were following the last elections (elections are a joke in Iran, it's a known fact) it was clear that Rafsanjani and Moien were more liked by the people but in our country, it's not who you like that gets elected at the end, it's who the Islamic leader and his hardliner group decide on behind the closed doors.

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:45 PM

What are your thoughts about what Joshua did to the Canaanites in Jericho?

I'm surprised how you're taking what's written in the book for granted. But I'll collaborate. The next book (Judges), claims that many of the Canaanites remained in the land after its occupation, which rebuts any genocide had taken place.
I find it hard to believe that many of the events described there actually happened. In fact, archaeological diggings in Jericho revealed that the place was deserted at the time of Joshua's occupation and none of the structures or gates described in the book actually existed. Jericho was a very small village at the time and it didn't require any effort to capture it.

it has invaded palestine...since then it has been made to leave gaza, west bank in next...if the current reign of israeli terror continue, i would not bet on seeing the state last more than a few more decades

The UN gave "palestine" to the people who were already there. Your attempts to rewrite history over and over are pathetic.

masterhapposai

Apr 16th, 2006, 03:55 PM

I'm surprised how you're taking what's written in the book for granted. But I'll collaborate. The next book (Judges), claims that many of the Canaanites remained in the land after its occupation, which rebuts any genocide had taken place.
I find it hard to believe that many of the events described there actually happened. In fact, archaeological diggings in Jericho revealed that the place was deserted at the time of Joshua's occupation and none of the structures or gates described in the book actually existed. Jericho was a very small village at the time and it didn't require any effort to capture it.

The UN gave "palestine" to the people who were already there. Your attempts to rewrite history over and over are pathetic.

Bronze age

Many of the Canaanite cities were destroyed during 16th century BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and such traces have been found in Jericho by three different excavations. There are also archaeological signs of a wall around the city with a stone outer revetment but primarily built of mud brick. The exact sequence and dating of these remains is difficult and highly debated. Kathleen Kenyon noted 15 different destructive episodes in the Bronze Age remains.

The Biblical account of its destruction is found in the Book of Joshua. The Bible describes the destruction as having proceeded from the actions of Joshua, Moses' successor. Biblical researchers who use Scriptural genealogies to date the exodus to the 16th or 15th century BC see this as significant support for the veracity of the record, and a landmark in the Biblical archaeology corpus. Other scholars see a contradiction between history and the biblical text in this area, as the earliest known Israelite settlements do not appear until ca.1230 BC, long after Jericho's walls had already been destroyed.

I'm pretty sure it happened.

Why? Most of greek history was written off as mythology, but every day we find more and more of it is true. Same with the vikings and other cultures.

Back in the day humans didn't lie as often as our current government.

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:01 PM

If arab nations can't defend themselves properly, it stands to reason that they'd keep from antagonizing the "bully" nations by kidnapping and killing its citizens, right? Or throwing suicide bombers into crowded places?

Iran isn't talking about defending its citizens here, they're talking about attacking Israel. Genocide or not, that's not defense, its offense. And it's also ignorant to think that a country's jistory is enough to excuse its actions as not being "evil." There may be no proof that they're evil, but theres no proof that they're not, either.

Honestly, this is the leader of a nation that's got a lot of eyes on it right now. Why would the leader be making statements that could be misconstrued in this way, given the current state of global politics? Saying its a mistranslation is foolish, as it's basically saying that nobody in the Iranian government understands english well enough to know how these words will be taken. And not just english, either...German, French, Russian, etc....plenty of nations are pissed that he's been saying this stuff....so ALL of them are mistranslating? That's beyond just naive...

I can't stop thinking about Asim's signature about ignorant Americans thinking Pakistan is an arab nation. Well believe it or not Iran is not an arab nation either.

How do you explain then, that just now the eyes of the world is focused on Iran. Don't you know that for the past 20 years, these slogans have been constatly said by vairous government officials of Iran? For god's sake, in Tehran there are billboards and huge wall paintings with comments like "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" etc...

The explaination by the mullahs has always been that we don't have anything against the American people/ Israeli people and that "death to America" is infact to mean death to American government. In school if we were to criticize and ask a religion teacher about the comment and how barbaric it sounds, that's the response we would get. So I do believe Iranians are well taught on what is meant by this comment unlike the rest of the people in the world. To be honest for our generations who were brought up under the islamic regime , these comments are repeated so much that it has completely lost its meaning. I rememeber every student I knew would make fun of it. It's become like an expression just for the heck of it, not because people really believe it.

Another point I need to make. Presidents in Iran are absolutely powerless. They are even constitutionally complete puppets. Check this out to understand the political structure of current government:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/supreme_leader.stm

Supreme leader is the person in charge of military and mass media , etc. He's the one really in charge. And he has always said everything and anything against USA and Israel. It's all barking though, for all these years nothing came out of it. You are so naiive to believe that the current regime of Mullahs will risk losing their high position in Iran by disturbing anyone in the world. They preffer to quietly steal all they can and keep it down.

So all and all, I think you are falling for all this crap, Iranian government has always made comments about Israel and USA, they have always printed it everywhere they could, whether it be on TV, on Walls, or on Missles, in books, in anything and everything. It doesn't mean much to us Iranians, but somehow the world has decided that it's a matter of outmost importance after 20 years of this happening? Come on, you can't really believe that? There's definitly something else going on, we just have to wait and see.

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:05 PM

You make me laugh Rehan. It seems pretty clear to the rest of us exactly what Iran is trying to say.. as it did with their previous comments on 'relocating Israel'You + poedua + Mr. Hankey != "the rest of us"
:cheesygri

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:05 PM

I'm pretty sure it happened.

Why? Most of greek history was written off as mythology, but every day we find more and more of it is true. Same with the vikings and other cultures.

Back in the day humans didn't lie as often as our current government.

As the studies imply, nobody can say for sure when it happened or who did it. It's just BS until scientifically proven otherwise.

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:05 PM

The UN gave "palestine" to the people who were already there. Your attempts to rewrite history over and over are pathetic.
you are funny :lol:

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:12 PM

because they don't need to, when they can bomb from skies, send missiles and bulldoze houses...they inflict far more torture on poor palestinians that they claim to have suffered...give the palestinians bombs, missiles and bulldozers, and then complain.

and it is sad to see people in peaceful countries like canada supporting the terrorist state of israel by sending money....about time canada declares state of israel as a terrorist state, that oppresses its palestinian population, as recognized by the united nations' general assembly time and again

So if Canada should happen to get itself into a war, and we don't have the weapons to fight it, we should start sacrificing our children? That's ridiculous. And Israel as long as Israel conducts itself the way it has been, which unfortunately for you is better than the Palestinians, they'll never be declared a terrorist state. It's more likely Canada will be declared one before Israel is.

Rehan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:13 PM

Well, I wouldn't go as far as calling your friend a liar. Americans often have trouble understanding the Iranian culture. This can be seen in their accounts of Iranian revolution, their eye witness accounts seem to be radically different that those written by Iranians themselves. Maybe I should be more clear. I'm not saying everyone in Iran hates Ahmadinejad. There are many exterimist muslims in Iran as well, there are many Basiji's.

...etc...

Also for Iranians who were following the last elections (elections are a joke in Iran, it's a known fact) it was clear that Rafsanjani and Moien were more liked by the people but in our country, it's not who you like that gets elected at the end, it's who the Islamic leader and his hardliner group decide on behind the closed doors.FWIW, I do think that you have a better understanding of the general Iranian public view than my friend does. But it was the "not everyone in Iran hates Ahmadinejad" fact that I wanted to point out. :)

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:19 PM

The aggressor will be the one who attacks first.

For a minute, forget about the reasons/justification. Iran wants the removal of the Israeli regime, possibly by military means. The US wants the removal of the Iranian regime, possibly by military means. If the US succeeds, Iran will have very different leadership and the same name; the majority of the Iranian people will remain where they are. If Iran succeeds, Israel will have very different leadership and a different name; the majority of the Israeli people will be dislocated.

So yes, there are some differences. But in terms of genocide (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide), how is one of them different from the other?

As far as I know, nobody is telling the Iranians that they have no right to exist, and that their nation will be wiped off the map. If the US removes Iranian leadership and forces a regime change, Iran will still exist. Do you think for a second that if Iran attacks Israel, that they'll be satisfied with just removing them from their homes? More likely, arabs in the region will see it as an excuse to begin executing Jews. Whether or not it will happen, is it really out of the question to see it happening? When people are rioting over cartoons? When they're sending children into battle to attack civilians, because according to some other members here, they don't have bigger guns? The US is largely preparing for conflict with Iran because of the nuclear issue, which Iran's president is refusing to budge on. You can bet that if there's a war there in the next little while, that will be the reason the US gives. And frankly, Iran's president is an idiot for playing this game, because he can't win. You can bet that if the US goes into battle with a nation that's nuclear capable, then the US won't rule out using their nukes to destroy them.

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:24 PM

So if Canada should happen to get itself into a war, and we don't have the weapons to fight it, we should start sacrificing our children? That's ridiculous. And Israel as long as Israel conducts itself the way it has been, which unfortunately for you is better than the Palestinians, they'll never be declared a terrorist state. It's more likely Canada will be declared one before Israel is.
i suppose in your view israel "conducts itself better" by killing THREE palestinaisn for every israeli, and killing FIVE palestinian CHILDREN for every ONE israeli CHILD...israel has hardly any moral and ethical leg to stand on, and comparing that terrorist state with my wonderful canadian state is ridiculous

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:25 PM

.......never be declared a terrorist state. It's more likely Canada will be declared one before Israel is.

See folks! This guy isn't even a Canadian. He lives here, enjoys our freedoms, but is only loyal to Israel. :| He thinks Canada is a terrorist state.

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:27 PM

See folks! This guy isn't even a Canadian. He lives here, enjoys our freedoms, but is only loyal to Israel. :|
and most likely sends money to support that terrorist state...sad!

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:27 PM

I can't stop thinking about Asim's signature about ignorant Americans thinking Pakistan is an arab nation. Well believe it or not Iran is not an arab nation either.

How do you explain then, that just now the eyes of the world is focused on Iran. Don't you know that for the past 20 years, these slogans have been constatly said by vairous government officials of Iran? For god's sake, in Tehran there are billboards and huge wall paintings with comments like "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" etc...

The explaination by the mullahs has always been that we don't have anything against the American people/ Israeli people and that "death to America" is infact to mean death to American government. In school if we were to criticize and ask a religion teacher about the comment and how barbaric it sounds, that's the response we would get. So I do believe Iranians are well taught on what is meant by this comment unlike the rest of the people in the world. To be honest for our generations who were brought up under the islamic regime , these comments are repeated so much that it has completely lost its meaning. I rememeber every student I knew would make fun of it. It's become like an expression just for the heck of it, not because people really believe it.

Another point I need to make. Presidents in Iran are absolutely powerless. They are even constitutionally complete puppets. Check this out to understand the political structure of current government:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/supreme_leader.stm

Supreme leader is the person in charge of military and mass media , etc. He's the one really in charge. And he has always said everything and anything against USA and Israel. It's all barking though, for all these years nothing came out of it. You are so naiive to believe that the current regime of Mullahs will risk losing their high position in Iran by disturbing anyone in the world. They preffer to quietly steal all they can and keep it down.

So all and all, I think you are falling for all this crap, Iranian government has always made comments about Israel and USA, they have always printed it everywhere they could, whether it be on TV, on Walls, or on Missles, in books, in anything and everything. It doesn't mean much to us Iranians, but somehow the world has decided that it's a matter of outmost importance after 20 years of this happening? Come on, you can't really believe that? There's definitly something else going on, we just have to wait and see.

The big problem there is, that the people fighting for the American government are American soldiers, made up of American citizens, who voted to put said American government into power. So by someone saying they hate the government, its a given that they hate the people too, because the government is at the very least a reflection of a good chunk of the population.

Now, that goes both ways, obviously...people can't say they dislike the Iranian government and have no beef with the people, because again, government is a reflection of the people. So when Iran's president says the things he's been saying, its assumed that he is speaking for the people, and the people, or a good number of them, share this viewpoint.

This big difference now after 20 years, is again the nuclear issue. The US will simply not allow another North Korea to appear in a hotbed like the Middle East. If a nation that's trumpeting its hate of the US and its allies is also developing its nuclear technology, should they wait until they have the bomb, to see if they're going to use it? Or stop it before it happens? Everyone knows which way American policy is going to point in that scenario. Whether he means what he's saying or not, Iran's president is pointing the people towards a war, and the next one is going to be much worse than the Iraq wars.

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:29 PM

See folks! This guy isn't even a Canadian. He lives here, enjoys our freedoms, but is only loyal to Israel. :| He thinks Canada is a terrorist state.

Good job there on twisting my words. If that's the best you can do in an argument like this, you shouldn't even be posting in here. I said that Canada is more likely to be declared a terrorist state than Israel is, and neither one is going to happen in the forseeable future.

devious9191

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:30 PM

See folks! This guy isn't even a Canadian. He lives here, enjoys our freedoms, but is only loyal to Israel. :| He thinks Canada is a terrorist state.

What are you talking about? His point, was that by definition Israel doesn't commit terrorist acts. So it's as likely that Canada will be declared a terrorist state as Israel, as France, etc.

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:32 PM

and most likely sends money to support that terrorist state...sad!

The Palestinians are more a terrorist state than Israel is, and I've said repeatedly that Israel has to face plenty of blame for its conduct in this matter too. But you know, if I did send money to support any state, you can bet I'd send it to the one that didn't use its children as ammunition. That's whats sad, and the fact that you have an excuse for why they do it is even sadder. I feel sorry for your children if that's what you really believe.

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:35 PM

What are you talking about? His point, was that by definition Israel doesn't commit terrorist acts. So it's as likely that Canada will be declared a terrorist state as Israel, as France, etc.
nice try....he was saying that israel is even "less likely" than canada to be declared a terrorist state, not "as likely"....

devious9191

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:36 PM

The Palestinians are more a terrorist state than Israel is, and I've said repeatedly that Israel has to face plenty of blame for its conduct in this matter too. But you know, if I did send money to support any state, you can bet I'd send it to the one that didn't use its children as ammunition. That's whats sad, and the fact that you have an excuse for why they do it is even sadder. I feel sorry for your children if that's what you really believe.

Indeed.

Palestine:

Target civilians as military targets? Check
Recruit children as cannon fodder? Check
Governing body a recognized terrorist group? Check

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:36 PM

and most likely sends money to support that terrorist state...sad!
money and perhaps intelligence too. HUNDREDS of israeli men have been arrested over spying activities in North America. That's the thanks we get for supporting them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew&search=fox%20news#comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/91260.stm

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1916758,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml
http://www.nysun.com/article/14523
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4318526.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4594255.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4468585.stm

even Canada has an ongoing investigation into Israeli spies using our country as a base of operations. using our passports to gain entry into other countries.

devious9191

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:40 PM

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:40 PM

and most likely sends money to support that terrorist state...sad!

" terrorist state " - LOL

fakishan...here's your chance!!!

....you went on record in another thread as saying ...

" There is no such thing as a terrorist state "

Perhaps you can set asim99 straight...eh ? :)

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:41 PM

The Palestinians are more a terrorist state than Israel is, and I've said repeatedly that Israel has to face plenty of blame for its conduct in this matter too. But you know, if I did send money to support any state, you can bet I'd send it to the one that didn't use its children as ammunition. That's whats sad, and the fact that you have an excuse for why they do it is even sadder. I feel sorry for your children if that's what you really believe.
it is stupid and disgusting to send kids as suicide bombers...

most of the dead palestinian kids were killed by israeli forces who have shown no regard for palestinian lives
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/children_by_year-lg.gif

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:43 PM

nice try....he was saying that israel is even "less likely" than canada to be declared a terrorist state, not "as likely"....

"It's more likely Canada will be declared one before Israel is."

Is exactly what I said. It's pretty clear.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:43 PM

The Palestinians are more a terrorist state than Israel is, and I've said repeatedly that Israel has to face plenty of blame for its conduct in this matter too. But you know, if I did send money to support any state, you can bet I'd send it to the one that didn't use its children as ammunition. That's whats sad, and the fact that you have an excuse for why they do it is even sadder. I feel sorry for your children if that's what you really believe.

Maybe it would help if you ask asim99 for his definition of a " terrorist state " - maybe you and he are comparing apples and oranges with respect to that term.

( I wouldn't hold my breath for answer from him by the way :) )

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:45 PM

money and perhaps intelligence too. HUNDREDS of israeli men have been arrested over spying activities in North America. That's the thanks we get for supporting them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew&search=fox%20news#comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/91260.stm

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1916758,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml
http://www.nysun.com/article/14523
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4318526.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4594255.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4468585.stm

even Canada has an ongoing investigation into Israeli spies using our country as a base of operations. using our passports to gain entry into other countries.

thanks for the links...israel does come across as a pretty insecure state, so much so as it doubts even its true-partner-in-crime united states

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:46 PM

it is stupid and disgusting to send kids as suicide bombers...

most of the dead palestinian kids were killed by israeli forces who have shown no regard for palestinian lives
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/children_by_year-lg.gif

Comparing numbers is fallacious reasoning.

But since you brought it up, how is it Isreali children were killed at all do you think ? As targets ? Or by accident ?

devious9191

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:46 PM

it is stupid and disgusting to send kids as suicide bombers...

most of the dead palestinian kids were killed by israeli forces who have shown no regard for palestinian lives
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/children_by_year-lg.gif

A benefit to not staging attacks out of hospitals and schools, as well as not using your children as suicide bombers is that less children tend to get killed.

You could reasonably say that since Israel's military operates out of military bases, and they don't make use of children in their army, that the vast majority of Israeli children killed, were targetted as civilian targets by Palestinian militants.

I would think that your graph would show different results if they removed the Palestinians children that attacked Israelis, as well as those that were collaterol damage in a legitimate military strike.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:47 PM

Mr._Hankey

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:49 PM

money and perhaps intelligence too. HUNDREDS of israeli men have been arrested over spying activities in North America. That's the thanks we get for supporting them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew&search=fox%20news#comment
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1916758,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/27/fbi.spy/
http://www.sundayherald.com/37707
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml
http://www.nysun.com/article/14523
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4318526.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4594255.stm
ihttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4468585.stm

"We"? You're an American now?
1 is a bunch of conspiratorial crap
2 is re. a spy who was sent to dig up intelligence about Iraq, which the US refused to deliver to Israel due to circumstances related to the cold war.
3 same purpose
4 conspiratorial BS
5 same as 3
6 same
7 same
8 doesn't have anything to do with North America
etc.

The US has had hundreds of spies planted in Israel over the years and Israel never squeaked.

even Canada has an ongoing investigation into Israeli spies using our country as a base of operations. using our passports to gain entry into other countries
Unsubstantiated BS.

Happy13178

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:50 PM

( I wouldn't hold my breath for answer from him by the way :) )

I never do.

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:51 PM

I want to address this suicide children issue one and for all. how many cases are there? 1 or two?

Military historians classify suicide bombing as a form of armed violence, belonging to the tactics of asymmetric warfare � suicide bombings are only common when one side in a violent conflict lacks the means for effective, conventional attacks. "Suicide bombging is the most successful way of inflicting damage against the opponent and the least costly in terms of casualties".

As horrible as it sounds, Iraq should of used that method at the beggening. Do you know the casualty list of the Iraqi war? much more than that of Palestine. More children die under conventional weapons than by suicide bombings.

That's why there are more dead Palestinian children, because Israel uses "civilized" conventional warfare.

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:53 PM

Unsubstantiated BS.

November 3, 1998

Israeli secret service still using Canadian passports

TORONTO (CP) -- Israel's secret service still appears to be using Canadian passports for its covert operations, despite promises it would stop doing so, CTV's W-Five said in a report broadcast Tuesday night.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy is expected to comment on the report today. In a statement released Tuesday night the government said:

"Minister Axworthy takes these assertions very seriously. He has instructed his officials to immediately review the claims made in the W-Five report."

But Leslie Lewis, a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen who moved from Vancouver to Israel in 1991, says Canadian authorities don't appear to be too concerned.

Ottawa's ambassador to Israel, David Berger, insists the Israelis are keeping their promise. But Lewis, 55, told W-Five he informed Canadian authorities the Mossad approached him as recently as last February about getting its hands on a Canadian passport.

Lewis's involvement with the Mossad began in 1996, when he turned over his expired Canadian passport after the spy agency told him "they wanted to get oppressed Jews in oppressed countries out of these countries."

In September 1997, Israeli agents were caught after a bungled assassination attempt of a prominent Palestinian leader in neighbouring Jordan. The agents were carrying doctored Canadian passports, causing a major diplomatic ruckus between Canada and Israel.

In November 1997, Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy promised his Canadian counterpart, Lloyd Axworthy, that Israel would not use Canadian passports again.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also told his secret service that Canadian passports were off-limits.

But within weeks, the Mossad asked Lewis again for his new passport, a request he refused. And last February, it asked yet again, this time about getting his daughter to apply for a Canadian passport so she could turn it over. Lewis told W-Five he also knows of a case in which the Mossad approached another Canadian in April and was given a passport. He said he reported the incidents to the Canadian embassy.

wait, I'll fetch more.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:53 PM

I want to address this suicide children issue one and for all. how many cases are there? 1 or two?

As horrible as it sounds, Iraq should of used that method at the beggening. Do you know the casualty list of the Iraqi war? much more than that of Palestine. More children die under conventional weapons than by suicide bombings.

That's why there are more dead Palestinian children, because Israel uses "civilized" conventional warfare.

In your view...do the Israelis target civilians ( including children ) as primary targets...as the suicide bombers do ?

asim99

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:55 PM

A benefit to not staging attacks out of hospitals and schools, as well as not using your children as suicide bombers is that less children tend to get killed.

You could reasonably say that since Israel's military operates out of military bases, and they don't make use of children in their army, that the vast majority of Israeli children killed, were targetted as civilian targets by Palestinian militants.

I would think that your graph would show different results if they removed the Palestinians children that attacked Israelis, as well as those that were collaterol damage in a legitimate military strike.
the graph shows how ruthless israeli oppression, and aggression is....and it shows utter disregard for welfare of palestinian life in the mind of israeli terrorists

i would think that the graph will show no israeli kids killed if palestinians had bombs, and missiles to target israeli military and government establishments...they will show much better restrain than israelis have when it comes to killing civilians and children

i have serious doubts about the intellect of people who support the israel terrorism and murder of palestinian children in the name of "collateral damage"

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:57 PM

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:57 PM

In your view...do the Israelis target civilians ( including children ) as primary targets...as the suicide bombers do ?

I can't know that without seeing it with my own eyes. I won't believe it so easilly neither, but look at the toll of Israeli-weapon inflicted deaths on Palestinian children. That speaks ample.

fakishan

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:57 PM

Quote link ?
wiki

poromol

Apr 16th, 2006, 04:59 PM

Indeed.

Palestine:

Target civilians as military targets? Check
Recruit children as cannon fodder? Check
Governing body a recognized terrorist group? Check

we could do the same about isreal:

target civilians in military operations which are supposedly highly accurate? check
elected president (or whatever the title is) that is a war criminal (sharon)? check

btw your recruiting of children idea is only in like .001% of cases or whatever, its not in numbers that matter.

we should just stop these threads because iam getting pretty sick of it.

Conclusion:
Both sides are idiots, and will continue to kill each other unfairly.

now both sides of the arguement are happy.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 05:06 PM

the graph shows how ruthless israeli oppression, and aggression is....and it shows utter disregard for welfare of palestinian life in the mind of israeli terrorists

i would think that the graph will show no israeli kids killed if palestinians had bombs, and missiles to target israeli military and government establishments...they will show much better restrain than israelis have when it comes to killing civilians and children

i have serious doubts about the intellect of people who support the israel terrorism and murder of palestinian children in the name of "collateral damage"

" i have serious doubts about the intellect of people who support the israel terrorism and murder of palestinian children in the name of "collateral damage" " - as compared to the alleged " intellect " of suicide bombers. Got it.

" i have serious doubts about the intellect of people who support the Palestinian terrorism and murder of Israeli children in the name of collateral damage " ...funny how easy you can simply change the words, and it carries the same disgusting message ...........c'mon asim99...at least be open-minded enough to realize that no one - neither side - has the high road or moral justification for kiling in this conflict.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 05:07 PM

wiki

Paste in the link then....that's what all others do in RFD when they supply wiki quotes.

poedua

Apr 16th, 2006, 05:10 PM

I can't know that without seeing it with my own eyes. I won't believe it so easilly neither, but look at the toll of Israeli-weapon inflicted deaths on Palestinian children. That speaks ample.

I know that.

What is your suspicion then ? If it " speaks " to you , what does it say ????......Do you think Israel intentionally targets civilians/children for murder ?

What's your best guess.

d_jedi

Apr 16th, 2006, 05:51 PM

I want to address this suicide children issue one and for all. how many cases are there? 1 or two?

As horrible as it sounds, Iraq should of used that method at the beggening. Do you know the casualty list of the Iraqi war? much more than that of Palestine. More children die under conventional weapons than by suicide bombings.

That's why there are more dead Palestinian children, because Israel uses "civilized" conventional warfare.
Targetting non-combatants is never a valid military strategy.

ronin893

Apr 16th, 2006, 09:34 PM

Do you think Israel intentionally targets civilians/children for murder ?That is irrelevant. Even in US law, if you commit a crime, such as robbing a convenient store, and someone gets killed, you can be charged with murder, no matter what the intent was. Therefore, one can say that Israel is guilty of murdering Palestinian children.

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder): The intent to commit murder is often called malice aforethought, and can be inferred when the defendant commits an act that shows depraved indifference to human life, or (in federal court and those states that apply the felony murder rule) whenever a victim is killed during the commission of another felony, whether or not the defendant intended the killing, or even committed the fatal act. In this case, the intention to place the victim in great bodily harm is inferred from the defendant's intent to commit the felony. Some states also require the underlying felony to be an 'inherently' dangerous one.

ronin893

Apr 16th, 2006, 09:42 PM

Targetting non-combatants is never a valid military strategy.I generally agree but there are exceptions. The rules of war allows for the targetting of non-combatants if they are assisting the military in some way, e.g.: scouts, lookouts. I also make an exception for settlers/colonists. They are fair game. They know what they are getting into when they decide to live on contested territory.

masterhapposai

Apr 16th, 2006, 09:48 PM

I can't stop thinking about Asim's signature about ignorant Americans thinking Pakistan is an arab nation. Well believe it or not Iran is not an arab nation either.

How do you explain then, that just now the eyes of the world is focused on Iran. Don't you know that for the past 20 years, these slogans have been constatly said by vairous government officials of Iran? For god's sake, in Tehran there are billboards and huge wall paintings with comments like "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" etc...

The explaination by the mullahs has always been that we don't have anything against the American people/ Israeli people and that "death to America" is infact to mean death to American government. In school if we were to criticize and ask a religion teacher about the comment and how barbaric it sounds, that's the response we would get. So I do believe Iranians are well taught on what is meant by this comment unlike the rest of the people in the world. To be honest for our generations who were brought up under the islamic regime , these comments are repeated so much that it has completely lost its meaning. I rememeber every student I knew would make fun of it. It's become like an expression just for the heck of it, not because people really believe it.

Another point I need to make. Presidents in Iran are absolutely powerless. They are even constitutionally complete puppets. Check this out to understand the political structure of current government:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/supreme_leader.stm

Supreme leader is the person in charge of military and mass media , etc. He's the one really in charge. And he has always said everything and anything against USA and Israel. It's all barking though, for all these years nothing came out of it. You are so naiive to believe that the current regime of Mullahs will risk losing their high position in Iran by disturbing anyone in the world. They preffer to quietly steal all they can and keep it down.

So all and all, I think you are falling for all this crap, Iranian government has always made comments about Israel and USA, they have always printed it everywhere they could, whether it be on TV, on Walls, or on Missles, in books, in anything and everything. It doesn't mean much to us Iranians, but somehow the world has decided that it's a matter of outmost importance after 20 years of this happening? Come on, you can't really believe that? There's definitly something else going on, we just have to wait and see.

Well how about this: I don't care what they taught in school. Keep it quiet for now if they're really smart.

Or else Bush is going to do a cakewalk in the capital city, after bombing the place if not the whole country.

There definitely is something else going on, and I'm shocked to see Saddam/Iran/etc.. falling into the traps. It's like they're puppets as I said.

Maybe it's something messed up as "we'll help you now Saddam, as long as you help us get rid of your country later on. just give us reasons". You know there's evidence out there that they were coaxed into attacking Kuwait and/or told it was "ok", so it's not too far fetched.

Point is : I think it's Iran that is falling for it.

d_jedi

Apr 16th, 2006, 10:16 PM

Well how about this: I don't care what they taught in school. Keep it quiet for now if they're really smart.

Or else Bush is going to do a cakewalk in the capital city, after bombing the place if not the whole country.

There definitely is something else going on, and I'm shocked to see Saddam/Iran/etc.. falling into the traps. It's like they're puppets as I said.

Maybe it's something messed up as "we'll help you now Saddam, as long as you help us get rid of your country later on. just give us reasons". You know there's evidence out there that they were coaxed into attacking Kuwait and/or told it was "ok", so it's not too far fetched.

Point is : I think it's Iran that is falling for it.
I think they're saying this now because they know they can get away with it.. if the US wasn't in Iraq (and hence would have the capability to attack Iran), I'd bet Amaninajad would keep his mouth shut..

d_jedi

Apr 16th, 2006, 10:18 PM

I generally agree but there are exceptions. The rules of war allows for the targetting of non-combatants if they are assisting the military in some way, e.g.: scouts, lookouts.
I wouldn't necessarily call scouts or lookouts noncombatants..

I also make an exception for settlers/colonists. They are fair game. They know what they are getting into when they decide to live on contested territory.
Depends on their reasoning for choosing to live there.. if they even had a choice.

ronin893

Apr 16th, 2006, 10:59 PM

Depends on their reasoning for choosing to live there.. if they even had a choice.I can only think of the Australian colonists as an example of those not having a choice. The others have/had a choice.

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 17th, 2006, 12:14 AM

Well how about this: I don't care what they taught in school. Keep it quiet for now if they're really smart.

Or else Bush is going to do a cakewalk in the capital city, after bombing the place if not the whole country.

There definitely is something else going on, and I'm shocked to see Saddam/Iran/etc.. falling into the traps. It's like they're puppets as I said.

Maybe it's something messed up as "we'll help you now Saddam, as long as you help us get rid of your country later on. just give us reasons". You know there's evidence out there that they were coaxed into attacking Kuwait and/or told it was "ok", so it's not too far fetched.

Point is : I think it's Iran that is falling for it.

Exactly, the very reason that he doesn't shut up and was suspeciously "elected" might give enough basis for a conspiracy theory about him being installed there by a group which eventually will benefit from a war or whatever is coming. Could it be that he's installed by Americans themselves, it's possible but for now as I've said before it's all speculations, we will only later know what is really going on behind the scenes.

fakishan

Apr 17th, 2006, 12:25 AM

Washington's intransigence stems from the Bush administration's obsession with dividing the world into "friends" and "enemies", those "with us" and those "against us". With breathtaking double standards and utter disregard for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Washington's "friends" - eg, India, Pakistan, Israel - are allowed to enrich uranium, and/or even to possess nuclear weapons, whether they are signatories to the treaty or not. But Iran is part of an "axis of evil", despite being an NPT signatory with a perfectly legal right to develop a uranium fuel cycle, and therefore it must be beaten into submission to Washington's will.

Actually, as Gabriel Kolko notes in his new book The Age of War, [1] the threat, or frequent actual use, of armed force to impose Washington's will around the world is hardly an invention of the administration of President George W Bush, but has been the defining characteristic of US foreign policy since World War II. It's just that the Bush administration is so much cruder and more open about it. Another defining characteristic of US policy is that the use of armed force, whether by the US itself or by its proxies, has very seldom had the desired outcome for Washington - witness the Korean and Vietnam wars, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq II, all of which have resulted in defeat, stalemate, or massive blowback for the US.

Nuclearizing its friends while using force against its foes invites disaster for the US. Who knows who will be the United States' friends and foes 30 years hence? It was not so long ago that India was regarded as an ally of the Soviet Union, while Iraq under the shah was a docile US client state. Remember how the US armed and funded the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets, and how that came back to haunt it on September 11, 2001? And now it wants to allow its "friends" to have potential nuclear weapons capability?!

Editor of Asian Times Online.

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 17th, 2006, 12:32 AM

The big problem there is, that the people fighting for the American government are American soldiers, made up of American citizens, who voted to put said American government into power. So by someone saying they hate the government, its a given that they hate the people too, because the government is at the very least a reflection of a good chunk of the population.

Now, that goes both ways, obviously...people can't say they dislike the Iranian government and have no beef with the people, because again, government is a reflection of the people. So when Iran's president says the things he's been saying, its assumed that he is speaking for the people, and the people, or a good number of them, share this viewpoint.

This big difference now after 20 years, is again the nuclear issue. The US will simply not allow another North Korea to appear in a hotbed like the Middle East. If a nation that's trumpeting its hate of the US and its allies is also developing its nuclear technology, should they wait until they have the bomb, to see if they're going to use it? Or stop it before it happens? Everyone knows which way American policy is going to point in that scenario. Whether he means what he's saying or not, Iran's president is pointing the people towards a war, and the next one is going to be much worse than the Iraq wars.

It's no problem at all, if American soldiers attack Iran, it should be justified to fight these aggressors and that usually means killing them [the soldiers not just any American citizen]. What you are saying about the government representing the citizens is only partially true about USA and almost absolutely false about Iran.

Look at it this way, In this board alone we have various people who dislike the US policies and effectively its government, do you really believe these people will want to kill Americans? Sure on paper and in theory, majority of Americans voted this government and thus are responsible for what it's doing. In reality, with all the politics involved, people often don't know what's really going on around them, they're played into voting one way or another eventually their only sin is ignorance and that's not enough crime to justify wanting them dead.

In Iran , people know better that the government is not a representation of people, after all that's the way our current government has been for past decades. So for others to actually believe that Iranian government is a representation of Iranian people is too ignorant, Iran is not even a democracy like USA. I posted the political structure of it in my previous post, if you haven't noticed, it's infact very much a dictatorship. The elections is only so that the rest of the world would think we have a democracy in Iran, it's only for show.

Anyways, to summarize for you, if an American tourist comes to Iran, Iranians will welcome him. Bush on the other hand will definitly not be welcome.

devious9191

Apr 17th, 2006, 12:39 AM

It's no problem at all, if American soldiers attack Iran, it should be justified to fight these aggressors and that usually means killing them [the soldiers not just any American citizen]. What you are saying about the government representing the citizens is only partially true about USA and almost absolutely false about Iran.

Look at it this way, In this board alone we have various people who dislike the US policies and effectively its government, do you really believe these people will want to kill Americans? Sure on paper and in theory, majority of Americans voted this government and thus are responsible for what it's doing. In reality, with all the politics involved, people often don't know what's really going on around them, they're played into voting one way or another eventually their only sin is ignorance and that's not enough crime to justify wanting them dead.

In Iran , people know better that the government is not a representation of people, after all that's the way our current government has been for past decades. So for others to actually believe that Iranian government is a representation of Iranian people is too ignorant, Iran is not even a democracy like USA. I posted the political structure of it in my previous post, if you haven't noticed, it's infact very much a dictatorship. The elections is only so that the rest of the world would think we have a democracy in Iran, it's only for show.

Anyways, to summarize for you, if an American tourist comes to Iran, Iranians will welcome him. Bush on the other hand will definitly not be welcome.

Good post. I've done a fair amount of research on Iran, and what you say about the government is certainly true. The question I have, is if the USA were to 'invade' Iran, or UN or whoever, the goal wouldn't be to permanently occupy it, but rather to remove the current government (dictatorship), and eventually hold fully democratic elections, like they've done in Afghanistan and Iraq. I can appreciate why certain groups would oppose that (namely whatever group in Iran benefits from the current dictatorship, like the Sunni's in Iraq), but why would their be hostility from the population in general?

poedua

Apr 17th, 2006, 12:48 AM

I generally agree but there are exceptions. The rules of war allows for the targetting of non-combatants if they are assisting the military in some way, e.g.: scouts, lookouts. I also make an exception for settlers/colonists. They are fair game. They know what they are getting into when they decide to live on contested territory.

Perhaps a better distiinction is the one between those who might be viewed as non-combatants but are seen as guilty of being as collaborators and thus might be cited as targets during a resistance campaign as part of guerilla warfare ( i.e the French Resistance in WW2 ) as opposed to terrorism - which generally targets innocent non-combatant civilians ( i.e children )....as was the case with Hiroshima, 9/11, Russian school children slaughter, subway riders etc.

Acts of guerilla warfare and acts of terrorism are 2 very different things in my view - and the latter can never be morally justified IMO.

Boss_Scorpius

Apr 17th, 2006, 01:56 AM

Good post. I've done a fair amount of research on Iran, and what you say about the government is certainly true. The question I have, is if the USA were to 'invade' Iran, or UN or whoever, the goal wouldn't be to permanently occupy it, but rather to remove the current government (dictatorship), and eventually hold fully democratic elections, like they've done in Afghanistan and Iraq. I can appreciate why certain groups would oppose that (namely whatever group in Iran benefits from the current dictatorship, like the Sunni's in Iraq), but why would their be hostility from the population in general?

I think the problem will only arise when USA would try to implement such a plan. You see, in Iraq, the soldiers weren't/aren't exactly acting like liberators. They do destroy things that there's not need to destroy, they might kill civilians and harm the innocent, etc.. This behaviour will anger anyone, no one likes to see aggressors around them, no matter how much these aggressors claim to be there for liberation.

Aside from that, many Iranians, especially the older generation still haven't forgotten how USA meddled with Iran, brought to power a dictator (shah) and supported him, so that America could steal the oil and resources off Iran. We don't exactly like American involvment, in short we don't trust them at all. So the secretly communist/socialist opposition groups, liberal Islamic groups, and democratic groups dislike American invasion as much as Islamic extremists, though for different reasons.

Islamic extremists: which is the current regime obvisouly won't like Americans to come over and take away the power from them.

Monarcists: They are the ones who loved the Shah, they pretty much all immigrated to USA and some to Europe right when the revolution happened. I still have trouble understanding why they support a monarcy, they seem to think the time of Shah was a better time by ignorting that Shah was practically giving away our resources to USA, oppressing the population, putting in ridicoulous laws one which made American dogs superior in value to an Iranian person. Anyways, not many people living in Iran right now are monarcists so they are not even counted in this matter.

Communist/Socialist groups ( Tudeh party): haven't forgotten how USA installed the Shah as a dictator and caused a coup on Mossadegh. They infact started the revolution because they were enraged by the way Shah was a puppet of America.They were the main target of Shah's secret police and did possibly suffer the most during the revolution that they began for obvious reasons : being tortured and killed and such...After the revolution they suffered again when USA encouraged the Islamic extremists to systematically murder every single communist leader in Iran right after revolution. USA definitly didn't want communism in Iran, I always believe China is lucky they don't have oil, otherwise things would have turned out differently for them as well. Many people of this group has also immigrated to other countries like US/Canada and European countries. Many of which will definitly go back to Iran if there's a regime change.

Liberal Islamic groups and democratic groups also aren't too pleased with how USA has meddled with our politics and although they're more forward thinking and modernized, they know the history and they know USA is not trustworthy. They dislike the way the current regime is operating but don't see USA as the solution. They're more into just slowly changing things as time passes, a strategy that has proved unsuccessful when Ahmadinejad took office.

I do believe if Iranians really believed the US is there to help there wouldn't be much problems from opposition groups, but Iranians don't believe so and they have good reasons whether it be our own historical experiences with USA or the current affairs of Iraq. In short, we do want democracy and freedom but we don't have much faith in US being able to carry that in for us without causing huge damages to our country and perhapse making things even worse.

With that in mind, Iranians are ultra nationalists unlike I dare say any other middle eastern country. To other middle easterners and muslims in general, Islam comes first, then maybe the nationality. To Iranians, Iran comes first then their ethnicity (kurd, lur, persian, azari, baluchi, etc...) then religion. The only Iranians who are an exception to that, are the extremist muslims and mullahs, who put religion first because that's where their money comes from. That's what keeps them in power, they couldn't care less about Iran.

So with that kind of mentality, most Iranians have mixed and confused feelings about whether US should invade Iran, but when it actually comes true I think everyone's nationalism will come out and they will be very upset about it. Specially if reports come out about Americans destorying things/ killing innocent people/ raping people/etc...