View Full Version : The Thread of Our Time: "Iranian Leader: Israel Will Be Destroyed"
Fictious Actor
10-26-2005, 12:30 PM
Iranian Leader: Israel Will Be Destroyed
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.
"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.
Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (search), who called for the destruction of Israel.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August.
Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (search) as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,173491,00.html
orrery
10-26-2005, 12:33 PM
US says Iranian president's comments on Israel confirm nuclear worries
WASHINGTON (AFP) Oct 26, 2005
The White House said Wednesday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" underlined US concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
"It reconfirms what we've been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
At a conference (http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051026154200.b2odayys.html#) in Tehran entitled "The World Without Zionism," the hardline Iranian leader declared that "the establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world."
"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad said, referring to a slogan which Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini used before his death in 1989.
Ahmadinejad's comments marked the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has openly called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at regime rallies.
Washington has accused Tehran of using a civilian nuclear program as cover for efforts to develop atomic weapons. Iran has denied the allegation.
Britain, France and Germany have held talks with Iran, offering incentives in exchange for a cessation of work (http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051026154200.b2odayys.html#) on nuclear fuel, but the negotiations broke down in August when Tehran rejected their offer.
Iran also ended a freeze on fuel cycle work by resuming uranium conversion -- a first step in making enriched uranium, which can be fuel for nuclear power reactors but also atom bomb material.
The 35-nation IAEA board passed a resolution in September finding Iran to be in non-compliance (http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051026154200.b2odayys.html#) with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- paving the way for the matter to be referred to the UN Security Council.
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051026154200.b2odayys.html
Dubya Gump
10-26-2005, 12:37 PM
um well it's not like i didn't warn everyone
TrueAmerican
10-26-2005, 12:39 PM
We need to nuke the whole ME including Israel, once their out of the way there will be peace.
zapcomix
10-26-2005, 12:41 PM
Iran has got to be stopped!
wanderer1
10-26-2005, 12:52 PM
Iran has got to be stopped!
See, if Saddam were still our favourite son of a bitch he would be glad to help us fight Iran. But leave it to the alcoholic to settle a personal score by toppling the only secular regime in the region.
Now do you understand what a stupid bastard junior is?
Iran has got to be stopped!
Too late.
Bush degraded the US military to the point that there is no other option with Iran, but capitulation.
Ponder
10-26-2005, 12:55 PM
Come on, guys. Israel is completely surrounded by other Middle Eastern nations. They wouldn't allow Iran to nuke Israel. The devastation wouldn't stop at Israel's borders, and every one of Israel's neighbors knows this.
Some are saying that Elmo is simply repeating the threats of Iranian leaders beginning with Khomeni. I hope. In the past, these threats were never taken too seriously, and just seen as posturing. The danger is if Elmo truly believes he can take on Israel and the West.......and actually win. Is he that much of a fanatic? Do you think he really believes this? After reading some of his speeches, and following his actions, I believe he may just be that much of a fanatic.
wanderer1
10-26-2005, 12:56 PM
Too late.
Bush degraded the US military to the point that there is no other option with Iran, but capitulation.
Not only that, what about our pocket book?
Further, Iran is already running Iraq, just ask Chalabi!
Snickers
10-26-2005, 12:59 PM
See, if Saddam were still our favourite son of a bitch he would be glad to help us fight Iran. But leave it to the alcoholic to settle a personal score by toppling the only secular regime in the region.
Now do you understand what a stupid bastard junior is?
You just dont understand shit, do you? Never quite think before hitting reply. Iraq inder Saddam Hussein, no matter how much Saddam hated Iran, would never, ever side with the US to address the growing problem. He would then face pissing off every other muslim nation on earth.
And don't even try and tell me that Iraq would have handled the problem thmselves, cause if you think Iraq would go to war against Iran to defend Israel, you are even further from reality that your post proves.
Try again, wanderer. At least GW has a REASON for being stupid. According to you, that is alcohol. What is your excuse?
zapcomix
10-26-2005, 01:02 PM
See, if Saddam were still our favourite son of a bitch he would be glad to help us fight Iran. But leave it to the alcoholic to settle a personal score by toppling the only secular regime in the region.
Now do you understand what a stupid bastard junior is?
You are out of your fucking mind!
Treachery
10-26-2005, 01:03 PM
Come on, guys. Israel is completely surrounded by other Middle Eastern nations. They wouldn't allow Iran to nuke Israel. The devastation wouldn't stop at Israel's borders, and every one of Israel's neighbors knows this.
Some are saying that Elmo is simply repeating the threats of Iranian leaders beginning with Khomeni. I hope. In the past, these threats were never taken too seriously, and just seen as posturing. The danger is if Elmo truly believes he can take on Israel and the West.......and actually win. Is he that much of a fanatic? Do you think he really believes this? After reading some of his speeches, and following his actions, I believe he may just be that much of a fanatic.
I used to think this as well, but not so much lately after seeing several interviews on some hardcore Islamic extremists. The arab people around the blast's would be acceptable loss if it meant the destruction of Israel. Even a quote from the first leader of Hamas, was something in the lines of "Do you expect to regain the holy lands without blood?"
Considering they blow each other up in Iraq all the time. I dont think they would have a problem if they think they could wipe Israel off the map in one swift blow. If they are fanatical enough, anything's possible.
happyjill
10-26-2005, 01:03 PM
Stupid, stupid Iranian leader guy. I wouldn't mess with Israel if I was him.
Based on plausible upper and lower bounds of the operating practices at the reactor, Israel could have thus produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
Treachery
10-26-2005, 01:08 PM
Too late.
Bush degraded the US military to the point that there is no other option with Iran, but capitulation.
I agree and disagree with this statement. I dont think Bush degraded the military. Ill give that honor to Clinton in which completly cut our military spending. But I will give you this, By Bush going into Iraq, and having to keep such a large peace keeping force has definatly hurt our capacity for a large scale operation.
But dont think that our military that Bush Sr. had wasnt a hell of alot bigger than what Bush Jr took over after eight years of Clinton. Heres and interesting article I read awhile back..
CAN YOU NAME THIS COUNTRY?
~709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.
~293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
~EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
~20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
~232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
~19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.
~500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
~FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.
~IS THIS COUNTRY?
RUSSIA ? NO
CHINA ? NO
GREAT BRITAIN ? NO
FRANCE ? WRONG AGAIN ( What a Laugh!!!!!)
MUST BE USA ? STILL WRONG (SORT OF)
GIVE UP ?
THESE ARE THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES THAT WERE ELIMINATED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF BILL CLINTON AND AL GORE.
Come on, guys. Israel is completely surrounded by other Middle Eastern nations. They wouldn't allow Iran to nuke Israel. The devastation wouldn't stop at Israel's borders, and every one of Israel's neighbors knows this.
Some are saying that Elmo is simply repeating the threats of Iranian leaders beginning with Khomeni. I hope. In the past, these threats were never taken too seriously, and just seen as posturing. The danger is if Elmo truly believes he can take on Israel and the West.......and actually win. Is he that much of a fanatic? Do you think he really believes this? After reading some of his speeches, and following his actions, I believe he may just be that much of a fanatic.
I happen to think Iran already possesses a nuke or two
I think an unlikely, though POSSIBLE scenario is that Israel sends an air raid against Iran to take out their nuke facilities, and Iran responds by nuking an Israeli city with a ballistic missile or nuclear cruise missile, like the ones they bought from the Ukraine.
what happens after that, is anyone's guess. Not sure the Pakistanis would sit by and let the Israelis nuke their muslim brothers in Iran, without trying to throw a few of their own nukes that way
Could be exciting!
But dont think that our military that Bush Sr. had wasnt a hell of alot bigger than what Bush Jr took over after eight years of Clinton. Heres and interesting article I read awhile back..
Sure it was!! But the military downsizing actually began when Cheney was Sec. of Defense under Bush Sr.
And of course Clinton continued the trend.
That's all water under the bridge. One would expect the current president to REALIZE this and not continuing acting like he's got the money and troops to fight wars on multiple fronts.
Hell, they can't even find Osama and fight the rag tag "insurgency" in Iraq at the same time...
and they're going to take on Iran????
HAHAHHAHA... no wonder they laugh in Bush's face.
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 01:24 PM
http://web.mit.edu/mit-rnr/OldFiles/paw/IDF_soldier_with_logo_b.jpg
bring it fuckers... i'll be back on duty in november god willing.
Rightwingnut
10-26-2005, 01:27 PM
There is not one country in the middle east that has the nut sack to take on Israel. Not one.
Aside from that, none of those countries wants the respnsibility to dealing with the Palestinians if Israel were wiped out. Israel makes a good crutch and talking point.
involved
10-26-2005, 01:28 PM
I thought you were American ?
http://web.mit.edu/mit-rnr/OldFiles/paw/IDF_soldier_with_logo_b.jpg
bring it fuckers... i'll be back on duty in november god willing.
Spectre
10-26-2005, 01:35 PM
The thread of our time? I mean I know this is a decent thread and all but I don't think it's THAT great.
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 01:36 PM
I thought you were American ?
You did?
I was born in Arkansaws, moved to Israel at age 1, travelled back and forth a little, moved back to America around age 18, went to college, and am now working for the family business which has a factory in BeerSheva, Israel, where we orignally lived.
The sales and marketing offices are here in NY, where i have been living. I was in Israel this summer working at the factory, and am going back in November.
Anything else? :)
edit: also, you know my hard-ass stance on Israeli/middle eastern relations. you think a non-citizen of israel would be as passionate about the issues as i am?
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 01:37 PM
The thread of our time? I mean I know this is a decent thread and all but I don't think it's THAT great.
agreed. theres a blurb about this in the news every 3-4 months.
It's kinda like the terror alets, Depends on whose getting indicted on which day. ;)
happyjill
10-26-2005, 01:38 PM
I'd give it a "C", really. hmmm. There we go.
No explanation from the original poster why this it the thread of our time.
happyjill
10-26-2005, 01:41 PM
Anything else? :)
?
Don't they give piss tests to their soldiers over there? With your level of drug intake, I woulda thought that they woulda bounced you out of the Army by now.(with all due respect to you, sir).
Does this not happen in Israel?
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 01:45 PM
Don't they give piss tests to their soldiers over there? With your level of drug intake, I woulda thought that they woulda bounced you out of the Army by now.(with all due respect to you, sir).
Does this not happen in Israel?
Yes jill, it happens, ExitWound and i talked about it.
See, i was 16 when i was first in the Israeli army(most join when they are 18, many at 16 however) and was not a chornic chronic smoker at the time.
They do do random drug testing, and though i might run into a problem, they have ways to "coverup", like the little tonics you can drink.
I was in outpatient for a few months and i still got away with murder back than, and i was required 1 test wevery week!
involved
10-26-2005, 01:45 PM
Yes,you used to grumble about returning to the US and I would hanker a guess that many american jews now hold dual citizenship. To your last question..Yes.
You did?
I was born in Arkansaws, moved to Israel at age 1, travelled back and forth a little, moved back to America around age 18, went to college, and am now working for the family business which has a factory in BeerSheva, Israel, where we orignally lived.
The sales and marketing offices are here in NY, where i have been living. I was in Israel this summer working at the factory, and am going back in November.
Anything else? :)
edit: also, you know my hard-ass stance on Israeli/middle eastern relations. you think a non-citizen of israel would be as passionate about the issues as i am?
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 01:47 PM
i am now back in the US and hating it... no offense, America is a great country, i just miss the beach and the women..:add09:
i MAY go back in November, bearing where my job takes me.
If it's israel, i will be working and in the army.
if it's thailand... well... take it to the "R-Rated thread"
:add09:
enough aboiut me anyways, back to Iran.
As of now, i don't think iran has any nuclear capability, they definitly would have used it already via Hammas or one of the other factions, as to not get their own nose dirty....
HOWEVER, there will be a time when we will have to worry about it, and i hope the president making the decisionn on taking those "supposed" nukes away does not follow Mr. Bushs's shining example....
Rightwingnut
10-26-2005, 01:48 PM
Does poking so much smot cause you to be chornic?
:D
Yes jill, it happens, ExitWound and i talked about it.
See, i was 16 when i was first in the Israeli army(most join when they are 18, many at 16 however) and was not a chornic chronic smoker at the time.
They do do random drug testing, and though i might run into a problem, they have ways to "coverup", like the little tonics you can drink.
I was in outpatient for a few months and i still got away with murder back than, and i was required 1 test wevery week!
happyjill
10-26-2005, 01:49 PM
Yes jill, it happens, ExitWound and i talked about it.
See, i was 16 when i was first in the Israeli army(most join when they are 18, many at 16 however) and was not a chornic chronic smoker at the time.
They do do random drug testing, and though i might run into a problem, they have ways to "coverup", like the little tonics you can drink.
I was in outpatient for a few months and i still got away with murder back than, and i was required 1 test wevery week!
Well, good for you for figuring out a way to foil the evil reach of the man. So, you don't see any problems with morale or unit cohesion with this ability of young Israeli soldiers to beat the tests?
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 01:52 PM
Well, good for you for figuring out a way to foil the evil reach of the man. So, you don't see any problems with morale or unit cohesion with this ability of young Israeli soldiers to beat the tests?
65%(made up figure please dont ask for a source i'll get the real one later, it's probably higher) of all IDF forces are aged 18-21. This is because in Israel once you finish high school you go STRAIGHT to the army.
These kids want to party. Some of them let it get out of hand and they are thrown out of the army,m sometimes even thrown out of Israel.
But hey, if everyday you took the bus to work/the base/town/etc, and even though you had an m-16 and about 20 of your army pals on the bus with you, there was still a good chance some asshole could take you and everyone out in a SECOND, wouldnt you be getting fubard?
i am now back in the US and hating it... no offense, America is a great country, i just miss the beach and the women..:add09:
Hey! :mad:
HOWEVER, there will be a time when we will have to worry about it, and i hope the president making the decisionn on taking those "supposed" nukes away does not follow Mr. Bushs's shining example....
Don't you mean the UN's?
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 01:57 PM
Hey! :mad:
Don't you mean the UN's?
Ah, i mean whoever!!!
happyjill
10-26-2005, 01:57 PM
65%(made up figure please dont ask for a source i'll get the real one later, it's probably higher) of all IDF forces are aged 18-21. This is because in Israel once you finish high school you go STRAIGHT to the army.
These kids want to party. Some of them let it get out of hand and they are thrown out of the army,m sometimes even thrown out of Israel.
But hey, if everyday you took the bus to work/the base/town/etc, and even though you had an m-16 and about 20 of your army pals on the bus with you, there was still a good chance some asshole could take you and everyone out in a SECOND, wouldnt you be getting fubard?
Hey, man-no judgements here. I would certainly want to, given that type of hostile environment that you all have to deal with. I was just wondering about the practical effect of that is. The US military used to have real problems with drug abuse among service people in the old days. The IDF always has this ass kicking rep, so, you know. I'd have a hard time going on patrol in the WEst Bank while recovering from a ecstasy binge. That's just me though-I'm sensitive like that.
involved
10-26-2005, 01:57 PM
They have topless beaches..european culture is alive and well in the Middle East,I always hear the sesame street song..one of these things just doesn't belong here.................
Hey! :mad:
Don't you mean the UN's?
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 02:00 PM
I'd have a hard time going on patro in the WEst Bank recovering from a ecstasy binge. That's just me though-I'm sensitive like that.
SIG'D! And yeah, i'm quite sure i wont do any heavy mind altering things once in the army again, but i know for a fact many do.
Where do you think most of the ecstasy in America comes from...?
It's the Jewish Mafia and the Chassidics bringing it in here... google it.
happyjill
10-26-2005, 02:03 PM
SIG'D! And yeah, i'm quite sure i wont do any heavy mind altering things once in the army again, but i know for a fact many do.
Where do you think most of the ecstasy in America comes from...?
It's the Jewish Mafia and the Chassidics bringing it in here... google it.
I'm aware of the evil Hassidic plot to get the teeny bopper rave kids in America stoned on ecstasy. Very strange.
Don't forget to add the -l on 'patro'.
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 02:12 PM
Right, thats what i'm saying. Maybe once they get the kids hooked on the ex, they can use em as soldiers for the zionistic control of the world?
and the 'l' is added.
happyjill
10-26-2005, 02:18 PM
Right, thats what i'm saying. Maybe once they get the kids hooked on the ex, they can use em as soldiers for the zionistic control of the world?
and the 'l' is added.
And make a pretty penny doing so as well. Those Hasidim folks are devious and practical.
I hear that they control the world's diamond business too, so I guess that we can blame them for the corruption and strife in places like Sierra Leone.
Boy, I can see how this evil Jewish plot business gets its start. :add09:
Snickers
10-26-2005, 02:24 PM
i am now back in the US and hating it... no offense, America is a great country, i just miss the beach and the women..:add09:
i MAY go back in November, bearing where my job takes me.
If it's israel, i will be working and in the army.
if it's thailand... well... take it to the "R-Rated thread"
:add09:
enough aboiut me anyways, back to Iran.
As of now, i don't think iran has any nuclear capability, they definitly would have used it already via Hammas or one of the other factions, as to not get their own nose dirty....
HOWEVER, there will be a time when we will have to worry about it, and i hope the president making the decisionn on taking those "supposed" nukes away does not follow Mr. Bushs's shining example....
Dude. C'mon. I have lived in a couple of different states now...Delaware (Newark and Lewes), New York (Long Island, Manhattan, Brooklyn), North Carolina (Charlotte) and Michigan (Royal Oak, a Detroit suburb). More than most places I have seen, lived and experienced...the women in NY are beautiful and plentiful...and Jones Beach is one of the highest rated beaches in the country. Just go out your front door if you want a woman, and just hop on a train for 25-30 minutes if you want the beach.
involved
10-26-2005, 02:25 PM
Yes,but they aren't for purchase.
Dude. C'mon. I have lived in a couple of different states now...Delaware (Newark and Lewes), New York (Long Island, Manhattan, Brooklyn), North Carolina (Charlotte) and Michigan (Royal Oak, a Detroit suburb). More than most places I have seen, lived and experience...the women in NY are beautiful and plantiful...and Jones Beach is one of the highest rated beaches in the country. Just go out your front door if you want a woman, and just hop on a train for 25-30 minutes if you want the beach.
The thread of our time? I mean I know this is a decent thread and all but I don't think it's THAT great.
Given the piss poor spelling ability of the majority of IH'ers, I'm guessing he meant "Threat"
but that's just a guess
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 02:28 PM
Dude. C'mon. I have lived in a couple of different states now...Delaware (Newark and Lewes), New York (Long Island, Manhattan, Brooklyn), North Carolina (Charlotte) and Michigan (Royal Oak, a Detroit suburb). More than most places I have seen, lived and experience...the women in NY are beautiful and plantiful...and Jones Beach is one of the highest rated beaches in the country. Just go out your front door if you want a woman, and just hop on a train for 25-30 minutes if you want the beach.
i have a woman here, who also likes girls. We both prefer how israeli girls look, and israeli girls are WAYYY freakyer in nature.(ask anyone whsoe been to israel, those girls want it bad :add09: )
Jones Beach USED to be beautiful, now it's filled with rich kids who think they are gangstas trashing up the beach.
and cost of living in america? a JOKE compared to most places around the world.
it's rediculous how much money we spend here...
Yes,but they aren't for purchase.
:eek:
Rightwingnut
10-26-2005, 02:29 PM
Given the piss poor spelling ability of the majority of IH'ers, I'm guessing he meant "Threat"
but that's just a guess
Dont critisize mi spehling Bman.
SmokedYourDSM
10-26-2005, 02:31 PM
Hey, i'm still sticking to my claim that i didn't spend ONE DIME on a thai bar girl.
I may have bought her dinner, and i bought my friend Ann a couple of shirts and a pair of shoes, but thats it! No bar fee's for this lucky man.
wanderer1
10-26-2005, 02:43 PM
You are out of your fucking mind!
Saddam was a bulwark against fundamentalist whackos.
You see, zap it's like this: The mere fact that Iraq and Iran were enemies was a huge help to us. Now it's one big happy family against Israel and american.
wanderer1
10-26-2005, 02:59 PM
You just dont understand shit, do you? Never quite think before hitting reply. Iraq inder Saddam Hussein, no matter how much Saddam hated Iran, would never, ever side with the US to address the growing problem. He would then face pissing off every other muslim nation on earth.
It's like I said in my previous post: The mere fact that Iran and Iraq were busy fighting each other was a huge help to us. Only the alcoholic could make Muslims hate americans to the point of uniting those two! Good job bastards!
And don't even try and tell me that Iraq would have handled the problem thmselves, cause if you think Iraq would go to war against Iran to defend Israel, you are even further from reality that your post proves.
Far be it from if to say one Muslim country would go to war with another Muslim country to defend Israel. My contention is this: Iraq and Iran had other fish to fry, mainly each other, until the alcoholic came along and ruined their fun.
Try again, wanderer. At least GW has a REASON for being stupid. According to you, that is alcohol. What is your excuse?
I realize leaving the only secular regime in the the region intact is stupid to you and your ilk, that's why Iran is now running Iraq.;)
Snickers
10-26-2005, 03:10 PM
i have a woman here, who also likes girls. We both prefer how israeli girls look, and israeli girls are WAYYY freakyer in nature.(ask anyone whsoe been to israel, those girls want it bad :add09: )
Jones Beach USED to be beautiful, now it's filled with rich kids who think they are gangstas trashing up the beach.
and cost of living in america? a JOKE compared to most places around the world.
it's rediculous how much money we spend here...
Oh no. Stay away from field 4 and field 6. That is what you are talking about. Those are the beaches that public buses serve, and the public buses also pick people up at Manhattan people at Freeport LIRR station and bus them there as well.
Go to West End 2, or Lido Beach. Nothing at all like what you are describing.
As far as Israeli women go, based on lack of experience, I can't comment. I will give you one thing...an awful lot of them seem pretty hairy to me, judging by the mustaches I see on many of them in pictures....but I would like to find out. And cost of living? Well, you are in NY, you know. It's an abomination how much things cost here...no denying that, but it is an anomoly in the US. Hawaii in general, NY, San Fran, San Diego and Boston are costly. Everywhere else is not bad at all. North Carolina is beautiful, fun, and cheap. But, I am back in NY and liking it....
Good luck with your girl that likes girls. I would like to be a fly on the wall in your apartment around 2am on weekends :sex_01:
Spectre
10-26-2005, 03:55 PM
Given the piss poor spelling ability of the majority of IH'ers, I'm guessing he meant "Threat"
but that's just a guess
LOL, yeah I figured this. I just had to be a smart ass though.
Rightwingnut
10-26-2005, 03:57 PM
Saddam was a bulwark against fundamentalist whackos.
You see, zap it's like this: The mere fact that Iraq and Iran were enemies was a huge help to us. Now it's one big happy family against Israel and american.
Hitler was a bulwark against Communist psychos.
Being a Bulwark does not justify some peoples existence.
JustAVoice
10-26-2005, 04:04 PM
Hitler was a bulwark against Communist psychos.
Being a Bulwark does not justify some peoples existence.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RWN again.
Hitler was a bulwark against Communist psychos.
Being a Bulwark does not justify some peoples existence.
Here's a question.
Would you support Hitler, if by doing, Stalin would have fallen from power?
Why or why not?
Hitler was a bulwark against Communist psychos.
Being a Bulwark does not justify some peoples existence.
Please explain that to this man:
He can do whatever he wants to maps.
But on the ground, Israel shall stand.
.
He can do whatever he wants to maps.
But on the ground, Israel shall stand.
.
Rightwingnut
10-26-2005, 04:31 PM
Here's a question.
Would you support Hitler, if by doing, Stalin would have fallen from power?
Why or why not?
Knee-jerk would be NO!
But thats approaching it from a position of knowing what we know now. If I step back and examine it from a view of NOT having the luxery of knowing what those two men ended up becoming...its a bit more difficult to answer.
Let me think about this.
JustAVoice
10-26-2005, 04:32 PM
Here's a question.
Would you support Hitler, if by doing, Stalin would have fallen from power?
Why or why not?
The enemy of my greater enemy is my friend...for now...then we'll deal with the other enemy.
Knee-jerk would be NO!
But thats approaching it from a position of knowing what we know now. If I step back and examine it from a view of NOT having the luxery of knowing what those two men ended up becoming...its a bit more difficult to answer.
Let me think about this.
Hitler killed how many?? 6 million? 10 million?
Didn't Stalin kill four or five times that many?
Plus, no Stalin, maybe the Communists collapse, which means no Korean War.. no Viet Nam war, right?
Hard to say
wanderer1
10-26-2005, 05:41 PM
Hitler was a bulwark against Communist psychos..
Well to begin with Saddam was no hitler.
In the second place, we had no problem with him committing mini genocide against the Kurds. As a matter of fact, the vegetable and junior's old man sold him the weapons and promptly turned a blind eye to his atrocities.
And in the third place, unlike hitler Saddam never posed a threat to this country.
For your convenience:
German Declaration of War against the U.S. (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm)
Rightwinglunatics ought to crack a history book every now and then!:rolleyes:
Being a Bulwark does not justify some peoples existence.
Which is why, if the drunk absolutely had to settle a personal score, he should have done it by means of assassination! It would have been a much simpler and cleaner way to go about it; but noooo, leave it to that incompetent lush to drive us into bankruptcy, kill thousands of innocent people and destroy the entire country! Good going bastards!
wanderer1
10-26-2005, 05:43 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RWN again.
It doesn't take much to impress you thumpers, uh?:add16:
JustAVoice
10-26-2005, 05:54 PM
...
As a matter of fact, the vegetable and junior's old man sold him the weapons and promptly turned a blind eye to his atrocities.
...
You do realize that France and Russia sold arms to Iraq.....SCUDS are not American made....
Also, I do love your constant name-calling...it makes you sound like you're 12 years old. It's quite humorous. :mad_01:
Fictious Actor
10-26-2005, 06:50 PM
Shit............. wrote out a long response and computer crashed...... arrrrgggg!
A) Sorry about the post on the fly with no commentary..... saw it, posted it and had to get to work.
B) It was no typo...... my spelling is not that badd!
C) One world leader calling for the extinction of another nation? In a world that is based on diplomacy where nations align their national interests, I think that we must see who aligns and distances themselves with these comments... I ask myself is this a direct result of the comments that called Iran an "Axis of Evil" nation? And if so then I say great! For they have now shown their true colors and not our perceived colors..... This is massive news (and of course we have heard it before, but never as solid as this) and the ramifications are huge! I find these comments to be the most significant since our declaration of "War on Terror"........ If for nothing else Bush should be praised for shaking the global tree to see what has fallen out...... these rogue nations could spell your demise and as such this is the Thread and Threat of our lifetime!
Ebola
10-26-2005, 11:35 PM
See, if Saddam were still our favourite son of a bitch he would be glad to help us fight Iran. But leave it to the alcoholic to settle a personal score by toppling the only secular regime in the region.
Now do you understand what a stupid bastard junior is?
No, but we understand what an ignorant bastard you are!
:add09:
undertaker
10-27-2005, 12:04 AM
A question directed to wanderer1:
What is your reaction to the Iranian words and what should we do?
Orson
wanderer1
10-27-2005, 12:38 AM
A question directed to wanderer1:
What is your reaction to the Iranian words and what should we do?
Orson
My reaction: There they go again. Why are all religious zealots crazy?:rolleyes:
What shall we do: Iran doesn't have a nuclear capability, if she had it she would have used it long ago. So the obvious thing to do is make up a story and start another quagmire, of course!
wanderer1
10-27-2005, 12:43 AM
No, but we understand what an ignorant bastard you are!
:add09:
You'll never be accused of being profound:
http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=403859&postcount=47
Ebola
10-27-2005, 12:47 AM
A question directed to wanderer1:
What is your reaction to the Iranian words and what should we do?
Orson
Orson....you should know by now that when you ask a stupid ass an intelligent question, that stupid ass will respond with a stupid ass answer.
It's just that simple.
C) One world leader calling for the extinction of another nation? In a world that is based on diplomacy where nations align their national interests, I think that we must see who aligns and distances themselves with these comments... I ask myself is this a direct result of the comments that called Iran an "Axis of Evil" nation? And if so then I say great! For they have now shown their true colors and not our perceived colors..... This is massive news (and of course we have heard it before, but never as solid as this) and the ramifications are huge! I find these comments to be the most significant since our declaration of "War on Terror"........ If for nothing else Bush should be praised for shaking the global tree to see what has fallen out...... these rogue nations could spell your demise and as such this is the Thread and Threat of our lifetime!
Who is Iran's greatest ally in the world right now?
Why its none other than the Bush backed Regime in Iraq.
Ethyl
10-27-2005, 12:50 AM
Who is Iran's greatest ally in the world right now?
Why its none other than the Bush backed Regime in Iraq.
That's not necessarily true Bman.
A great strategic move is to be able to turn events around to one's advantage.
Vancouver
10-27-2005, 12:50 AM
(Ahmadinejad) There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma ...
Obviously absurd, but nobody in the Islamic Police State of Iran would dare tell that punk how full of shit he is. Does Ahmadinejad really think that the Pallies are about to start beating the Hebes? The Pallies are on a losing streak that goes back to David and Goliath. No, I think Ahmadinejad is doing some old-fashioned rabble-rousing, and it may even be that he plans a coup against the moolahs, supported by Iran's many so-called students.
wanderer1
10-27-2005, 12:50 AM
You do realize that France and Russia sold arms to Iraq.....SCUDS are not American made....
Also, I do love your constant name-calling...it makes you sound like you're 12 years old. It's quite humorous. :mad_01:
Of course France and Russian sold Iraq arms did you expect the americans to be the only profiteers?
Ethyl
10-27-2005, 12:59 AM
Obviously absurd, but nobody in the Islamic Police State of Iran would dare tell that punk how full of shit he is. Does Ahmadinejad really think that the Pallies are about to start beating the Hebes? The Pallies are on a losing streak that goes back to David and Goliath. No, I think Ahmadinejad is doing some old-fashioned rabble-rousing, and it may even be that he plans a coup against the moolahs, supported by Iran's many so-called students.
Does he make it seem so unattractive as to create an uprising? A former member of the Revolutionary Guard? I don't buy that for a second.
~snip~
Iran would not have been where it is today within the IAEA if its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had not overhauled Tehran’s nuclear negotiating team less than three weeks before the crucial vote in Vienna. In every country, new presidents or prime ministers, even elected ones, bring in people they trust into positions of importance and make changes. Rajiv Gandhi did it, so did Bill Clinton, and they both paid for it: Clinton quickly realized his mistakes, controlled the damage, regained his political initiative and won a second term in office.
In the run-up to the meeting of the IAEA’s board of governors, Ahmadinejad replaced the chief of his supreme national security council by bringing in a known hardliner, Ali Larijani, who, in turn, made sweeping changes to the team which had long experience in keeping the West at bay on Iran’s nuclear policy. Out went Hossein Moussavian, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, and another key diplomat with long experience in talks with the West, Sirous Nasseri.
It was this new team which went with Ahmadinejad to the UN summit in New York, where his speech on Iran’s nuclear policy neatly played into the hands of the US president, George W. Bush. Before Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN, Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, was publicly requesting India, Russia and China, to talk to Iran and find a way to deal with its nuclear policy, in ways similar to the six-party negotiations with North Korea which have defused the nuclear shadow over the Korean peninsula for the time being. But after Ahmadinejad’s hardline speech in New York, Bush and Rice did not need India, Russia or China to negotiate with Iran. The stage was set for the showdown in Vienna.
Iran’s nuclear programme was not started by Khomeini, but by the late Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It was a joint venture between Pakistan’s Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the Shah, a by-product of the Shah’s megalomania and Bhutto’s burning desire to get back at India for his country’s humiliation over the creation of Bangladesh. After the Islamic revolution, Khomeini called upon the Persian diaspora to return home and contribute to a new Iran. Western propaganda and prejudices against Iran’s Islamic regime have obscured the reality that large numbers of highly qualified professionals from many walks of life returned from America and Europe in response to that call. During visits to Iran, this columnist has met scores of such Iranians — technically foreign nationals from having lived long years abroad and acquired the citizenship of their countries of residence — who have found fulfilment from returning home and working in Iran, even under difficult conditions created by domestic political and theocratic turmoil and the havoc caused by a war imposed on the young republic by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
One of those highly qualified overseas Iranians who heeded Khomeini’s call to return home was Reza Amrollahi. This columnist had a rare meeting with Amrollahi some 10 years ago. Amrollahi, who had the rank of Iran’s vice-president, was then heading the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. The meeting took place at the organization’s heavily-guarded and secure headquarters. Amrollahi studied nuclear physics at the University of Texas and lived in the US for several years. He later moved to Belgium, where he worked at a nuclear facility before heeding Khomeini’s call to return to Iran.
What this columnist remembers most of all from the hour or so spent talking to the then AEOI chief is his obsession with ensuring that his country’s nuclear programme and policies do not give any quarter to the US to be used against Iran. At the time of this meeting, tension was high between Iran and Bahrain, on the one hand, and between Iran and the United Arab Emirates, on the other. Iran considers Bahrain to be its 14th province because of a decree by its parliament that was adopted not during Khomeini’s rule, but much earlier, in 1957. The Iranians also claim three Gulf islands, a claim that is contested by the UAE and often leads to tension between the two countries.
Amrollahi was convinced that the US would use any excuse to plot against Iran, destabilize the Islamic republic and, if an occasion arose, invade the country. A part of his mission, as the man in charge of fashioning Iran’s nuclear policy, was to make sure that Washington was frustrated in this objective. Iran’s one-time oil minister, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who replaced Amrollahi, showed the same determination. Ahmadinejad broke that unstated underpinning of Iran’s nuclear diplomacy and his new team lacked the finesse and tact that enabled Tehran to have room for manoeuvre at the IAEA and in the UN for at least 10 years.
This change in Iranian diplomacy was an important factor that influenced the Indian vote in Vienna on September 24. The Islamic revolution has changed Iran’s political character, but it has not and will not alter the character of the Iranian nation or its people. If history is any guide, Iranian diplomacy will correct itself and go back to what Ahmadinejad’s two predecessors, Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, practised on the nuclear front. It is an opportunity that the Bush administration would very much like to deny Ahmadinejad. But in Tehran, the process has already begun in the Majlis, where critics have been vocal this week about the diplomatic mismanagement in New York and Vienna.
New Delhi has always walked a tightrope on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In 1990, the V.P. Singh government offered Iran a 5mw nuclear reactor, which Iran had sought for research purposes. A composite team from Tehran, made up of officials from the foreign ministry and the AEOI, led by a deputy minister, arrived in New Delhi for talks. The IAEA’s guidelines allowed such transfers to countries like Iran, which had signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Yet when the team went to South Block for talks, the V.P. Singh government reneged on its commitment to sell the research reactor.
The CPI(M) and other left parties, which were supporting the government of that time, did not make an issue of such backsliding by the government the way they are doing now. At any rate, they did not change V.P. Singh’s mind or even that of the then external affairs minister, I.K. Gujral. Karat, however, now insists that Manmohan Singh should change his stand in November when the IAEA will once again be seized of the Iranian nuclear programme.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051005/asp/opinion/story_5319201.asp
now, there is a great thinker. *hats off*
That's not necessarily true Bman.
A great strategic move is to be able to turn events around to one's advantage.
Do I need to post quotes from Prime Minister Jafaari to back up my claim that Iraq is Iran's closest ally?
Ethyl
10-27-2005, 01:01 AM
Do I need to post quotes from Prime Minister Jafaari to back up my claim that Iraq is Iran's closest ally?
I've read a lot of that stuff Bman. Read what I wrote about strategy.
I've read a lot of that stuff Bman. Read what I wrote about strategy.
I don't follow your logic
Iran is the one that executed their strategy, by duping the US through the use of their agent, Ahmad Chalabi into removing Saddam, installing a pro-Iran regime and bogging itself down in a costly war, so that it is nearly powerless to stop Iran.
Ethyl
10-27-2005, 01:10 AM
I don't follow your logic
Iran is the one that executed their strategy, by duping the US through the use of their agent, Ahmad Chalabi into removing Saddam, installing a pro-Iran regime and bogging itself down in a costly war, so that it is nearly powerless to stop Iran.
What's done has already been done, no hand wringing can change it. It was a blunder by the US, nothing more. Doesn't mean everything is lost!
Here's a scenario....
Consider how much 'junk' Hussein had in his military... when the US invaded. His army was the shits! Sanctions softened that country up - though it did benefit other weasles!
Imagine what would have happened if Iran had taken it over - and spun the story. The US would have never had a chance to occupy that spot on a geo-political map.
Perhaps it would have gone to the UN - but everyone knows the UN is a spineless, corrupt organization. ;)
This war is very sadly, far from over. The *only* thing that can really change it is for the US to turn tail and run!
Vancouver
10-27-2005, 07:58 AM
Ethyl, about the students vs. the moolahs, Ahmedinejad was a student rabble-boss himself when he was younger. Students helped to topple the Shah, and they did as they pleased early in Homeini's regime. Ahmedinejad was a Republican Guard later. Mayor of Tehran later still. He wants more. Guys like him always do.
There is not just one Iran. There are the moolahs, the big Iranian weapons industry, oil ... The place is unstable. The moolahs have many enemies in Iran, bitter Sunni enemies in Iraq and Pakistan, NATO in Afganistan, and many thousands of ex-Iranian middle class enemies all over the world.
slaman
10-27-2005, 10:18 AM
This is frustrating... Iran should not be allowed to make comments like this. I support my government in condemning Iran, and I now support Iran's nuclear proliferation issue to be referred to the UN's Security Council.
Iran has pushed too many threads - it's time to take a more aggressive stance.
Let's hope the Security Council gets the referral. This new Iranian Prime Minister needs to realize that in politics, you CANNOT make these comments... he's not a cleric anymore, the world is listening, and he has responsibilities.
Ponder
10-27-2005, 10:36 AM
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak03.html
Addressing a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled "The World Without Zionism", Ahmadinejad said, "To those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible."
To a cheering audience that at several points erupted with chants of "death to Israel, death to America, death to England", Ahmadinejad continued, "Once, his eminency Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini - leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution], stated that the illegal regime of the Pahlavis must go, and it happened. Then he said the Soviet empire would disappear, and it happened. He also said that this evil man Saddam [Hussein] must be punished, and we see that he is under trial in his country. His eminency also said that the occupation regime of Qods [Jerusalem, or Israel] must be wiped off from the map of the world, and with the help of the Almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism, notwithstanding those who doubt."
That's just a snippet, go read the whole thing. It suggests there is a "rift" between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, and says that Khamenei has transferred certain powers from the Supreme Leader to the Expediency Council led by Rafsanjani.
"The increased powers given to ADIS were interpreted as a clear warning to Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards who provided him with millions of votes, against trying to wrest any powers from the clerical establishment."
This is frustrating... Iran should not be allowed to make comments like this. I support my government in condemning Iran, and I now support Iran's nuclear proliferation issue to be referred to the UN's Security Council.
Iran has pushed too many threads - it's time to take a more aggressive stance.
Let's hope the Security Council gets the referral. This new Iranian Prime Minister needs to realize that in politics, you CANNOT make these comments... he's not a cleric anymore, the world is listening, and he has responsibilities.
What if he simply referred to them as an "Axis of Evil" that needs to be "dealt with"
would that be better?
slaman
10-27-2005, 11:04 AM
What if he simply referred to them as an "Axis of Evil" that needs to be "dealt with"
would that be better?
Yes, because that does not indicate violent destruction of an entire country. Israel is a country and "wiping it off the map" implies all its inhabitants must be killed. Although I don't agree with Bush's classification, it simply implies a change in government or some other type of action.
It appears overly evident, the promblem at hand. We bicker back and forth about it on here everyday, but in my opinion some people prefer to be blind and or ignorant about it.
This says it all, or quite a bit anyway:
Newspapers across the Middle East, meanwhile, reported Wednesday's speech by Ahmadinejad without comment, many of them on their front pages.
Egyptian Foreign Ministry and Cabinet officials said Cairo would have nothing to say on the address. Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher also declined comment.
Take it anyway you want, most of you will.
Yes, because that does not indicate violent destruction of an entire country. Israel is a country and "wiping it off the map" implies all its inhabitants must be killed. Although I don't agree with Bush's classification, it simply implies a change in government or some other type of action.
Ok..
what if Iran were to say, Israel and America are EVIL. We will work to overthrow their governments and install our own rulers, making those lands safe for Muslims
Would that be more acceptable to you?
This is one of the things I don't understand about Americans.
Why do you get so wound up when other countries do what we do?
The Russians invaded Afghanistan, to take on terrorism, and the US went apeshit. Carter even boycotted the Olympics.. yet we do the same thing.
Iran attacked the mad-man, Saddam.. and the US armed him and supported him.. Then, when we attack him we accuse Iran of trying to thwart us?
Bush calls other nations the "Axis of Evil" and says the US will "do whatever it takes" to maintain our security.
Iran sees Israel as an evil nation, armed with nuclear weapons. It vows to develop its own nukes and calls for the destruction of Israel.
So?
why is that surprising to anyone?
If you're Iran, you'd have to be complete jackasses not to arm yourself with nukes, given what Bush did to Iraq. Especially compared to what he's done with Pakistan, who is harboring Al Qaeda, but happens to have nukes
Fictious Actor
10-27-2005, 12:39 PM
It appears overly evident, the promblem at hand. We bicker back and forth about it on here everyday, but in my opinion some people prefer to be blind and or ignorant about it.
This says it all, or quite a bit anyway:
Take it anyway you want, most of you will.
Precisely my point...........
A nation has no self-interest if it has no self........
This is one of the things I don't understand about Americans.
Why do you get so wound up when other countries do what we do?
The Russians invaded Afghanistan, to take on terrorism, and the US went apeshit. Carter even boycotted the Olympics.. yet we do the same thing.
Iran attacked the mad-man, Saddam.. and the US armed him and supported him.. Then, when we attack him we accuse Iran of trying to thwart us?
Bush calls other nations the "Axis of Evil" and says the US will "do whatever it takes" to maintain our security.
Iran sees Israel as an evil nation, armed with nuclear weapons. It vows to develop its own nukes and calls for the destruction of Israel.
So?
why is that surprising to anyone?
If you're Iran, you'd have to be complete jackasses not to arm yourself with nukes, given what Bush did to Iraq. Especially compared to what he's done with Pakistan, who is harboring Al Qaeda, but happens to have nukes
If I believed in god, I would thank him for not having you placed as a representative of the USA at the UN.
If I believed in god, I would thank him for not having you placed as a representative of the USA at the UN.
Can't argue with my logic, so you go for the personal attack..
Ok..
here is my response, which is just as relevant:
If my sister didn't already have a boyfriend, I'd urge her not to go out with you.
Catwoman
10-27-2005, 12:59 PM
If I believed in god, I would thank him for not having you placed as a representative of the USA at the UN.
:add09:
When was the last time Iran attacked anyone, let alone the US??
Where are all those Iranian Al Qaeda members?
What the hell is wrong with America, that you can't seem to understand who our enemy is
OUR ENEMY IS AL QAEDA.. not "Hamas", or "the Irish Republican Army" or "the Tamil Tiger"... those are all terrorist groups that do not target the US... .our NUMBER ONE ENEMY IS AL QAEDA..
They are the ones that bombed the Cole, bombed the WTC, then flew planes into it.
WHO is al Qaeda????
Al Qaeda is primarily made up of ARABS.. of the Wahhabi persuasion... Note, Al Qaeda is NOT known for its Persian, shiite members.
Oh, and by the way, in case you didn't know, Persians aren't Arabs.. and in case you STILL didn't know, Iranians are mostly Persian...;
Al Qaeda DOES however enjoy state support from Pakistan, as well as the Saudia Arabian government. Most of their members are either Arabs, or Pakistani
SmokedYourDSM
10-27-2005, 01:15 PM
In all fairness, bman, they do shout DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISRAEL, when parliament breaks....
But you are correct in saying AQ is more of a threadt to the US than Iran is, for now...
Israel, on the other hand....
happyjill
10-27-2005, 01:16 PM
Bman, you might want to look at this in terms of our national interests. You say that Iran is entitled to develop nuclear weapons because of the threat we pose to them. The US says that we are do not want to allow them to do this because the centerpiece of Iranian foreign policy is the destruction of the state of Israel, via Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and an opposition to the US and its goals. It's interesting to realize that Iran's national life is centered on the Islamic revolution, and the narrative core of that revolution is hatred for the United States and Israel. Now the Iranian government which is informed and directed by its opposition to us and our ally, is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.
That's pretty alarming, if one considers that religious extremism expands the range of possible options for their use of those weapons, should they develop them. What if the Mullahs had a fit of pique one day and lobbed a missile towards Tel Aviv? Allah told them to do so? Our logic of MAD thinking doesn't seem to apply to a bunch of religious zealots.
I think that a lot of the threat from Iran is pretty overblown in the US, it really is a backwards country, with limited economic potential. But I would prefer them not to have nuclear weapons, because the same kind of safeguards against their use would seemingly not necessarily apply.
slaman
10-27-2005, 01:17 PM
Ok..
what if Iran were to say, Israel and America are EVIL. We will work to overthrow their governments and install our own rulers, making those lands safe for Muslims
Would that be more acceptable to you?
Evil, although politically incorrect, is not an implication of a violent overthrowing. The US did not say the latter part of your question.
In all fairness, bman, they do shout DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISRAEL, when parliament breaks....
But you are correct in saying AQ is more of a threadt to the US than Iran is, for now...
Israel, on the other hand....
SO WHAT? haven't they been saying that for 25 years now??????
Let them say it.. it releases sexual frustration, apparently.. whatever
We had a US Congressman say that we should Nuke Mecca , which is Saudi Arabia
Who cares???
Actions are what matters
As far as Israel, if or when Iran attacks Israel, I'm sure the US would support Israel
when was the last time that happened, however???
Evil, although politically incorrect, is not an implication of a violent overthrowing. The US did not say the latter part of your question.
The US didn't violently overthrow the government of Iraq?
That's news
SmokedYourDSM
10-27-2005, 01:21 PM
SO WHAT? haven't they been saying that for 25 years now??????
Let them say it.. it releases sexual frustration, apparently.. whatever
We had a US Congressman say that we should Nuke Mecca , which is Saudi Arabia
Who cares???
Actions are what matters
As far as Israel, if or when Iran attacks Israel, I'm sure the US would support Israel
when was the last time that happened, however???
Yestrday... a suicide bomber killed 5 people. It is a well known fact Iran pays out money to the families of bombers, ESPECIALLY those of Islamic Jihad, the perpertrators of yesterdays bombing....
Secondly, do you know how many Hezbolah agents are in the US awaiting a word from Syria or Iran? THOUSANDS.
I really don't have the time to go searching for articles, but i will when i get home from work.
They are waiting for us to become totally exhausted from Iraq, and then the decision will be made to try an implement their plan of an all muslim world.
Can't argue with my logic, so you go for the personal attack..
Ok..
here is my response, which is just as relevant:
If my sister didn't already have a boyfriend, I'd urge her not to go out with you.
Right, what a huge personal attack I gave you. Now that you mention it, you are sounding a bit a like a panty waist though.
If you think your logic is tight, then you have a screw loose. You give credit to backwards countries with backwards points of view. If they were the first to develop and have nukes, you wouldn't be alive today, Kaffir, because they would have nuked all of our asses. What is impeccable is the inability of some, you included, to see that.
Fictious Actor
10-27-2005, 01:29 PM
When was the last time Iran attacked anyone, let alone the US??
Where are all those Iranian Al Qaeda members?
What the hell is wrong with America, that you can't seem to understand who our enemy is
OUR ENEMY IS AL QAEDA.. not "Hamas", or "the Irish Republican Army" or "the Tamil Tiger"... those are all terrorist groups that do not target the US... .our NUMBER ONE ENEMY IS AL QAEDA..
Geesh...........
I totally disagree ......... the groups you mentioned and many others pose a threat to humanity........ this is bigger than US national interest... this is accepting a world order filled with violence as "the" only solution..... I don't want to live in that world.... and I am certain that you do not either......think of it as a brotherhood of goodness....good people trying to make their lives better.... free of terrorism for whatever reason......
The War on Terror.............. all forms.... all peoples...... whatever it takes! And yes...... it would be nice to make the world a safer place for everybody!
Bman, you might want to look at this in terms of our national interests. You say that Iran is entitled to develop nuclear weapons because of the threat we pose to them. The US says that we are do not want to allow them to do this because the centerpiece of Iranian foreign policy is the destruction of the state of Israel, via Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and an opposition to the US and its goals. It's interesting to realize that Iran's national life is centered on the Islamic revolution, and the narrative core of that revolution is hatred for the United States and Israel. Now the Iranian government which is informed and directed by its opposition to us and our ally, is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.
That's pretty alarming, if one considers that religious extremism expands the range of possible options for their use of those weapons, should they develop them. What if the Mullahs had a fit of pique one day and lobbed a missile towards Tel Aviv? Allah told them to do so? Our logic of MAD thinking doesn't seem to apply to a bunch of religious zealots.
I think that a lot of the threat from Iran is pretty overblown in the US, it really is a backwards country, with limited economic potential. But I would prefer them not to have nuclear weapons, because the same kind of safeguards against their use would seemingly not necessarily apply.
I'm not saying that Iran has a RIGHT to develop nukes.. What I'm saying is why is this surprising, given that George Bush has made it a central position of HIS (ie, OUR) foreign policy to topple their regime????
Right, what a huge personal attack I gave you. Now that you mention it, you are sounding a bit a like a panty waist though.
If you think your logic is tight, then you have a screw loose. You give credit to backwards countries with backwards points of view. If they were the first to develop and have nukes, you wouldn't be alive today, Kaffir, because they would have nuked all of our asses. What is impeccable is the inability of some, you included, to see that.
LOL... and what is the only country in the world ever to nuke anyone?
Was it Reagan's "Empire of Evil"?? Was it the Pakistanis or the Indians??
Was it "Red China"??
Maybe it was the "Axis of Evil"??
I can't remember who it was.. why dont' you explain it to me
you need to actually read some history and quit getting all of your information from propagandists.
slaman
10-27-2005, 01:58 PM
The US didn't violently overthrow the government of Iraq?
That's news
I'm talking about political speech.
I'm talking about political speech.
Ok, so while Iran calls for the violent overthrow of the government of Israel, the US actually DOES it to Iraq.
Why do you worry about the speck of dust in your brother's eye? Why dont' you first remove the log from your own eye, so that you can see more clearly before helping him?
Ok, so while Iran calls for the violent overthrow of the government of Israel, the US actually DOES it to Iraq.
Um no, they're calling to destroy Isreal alltogether.
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:02 PM
Yestrday... a suicide bomber killed 5 people. It is a well known fact Iran pays out money to the families of bombers, ESPECIALLY those of Islamic Jihad, the perpertrators of yesterdays bombing....
No they don't. You're confusing Iran with Iraq.
Secondly, do you know how many Hezbolah agents are in the US awaiting a word from Syria or Iran? THOUSANDS.
I really don't have the time to go searching for articles, but i will when i get home from work.
They are waiting for us to become totally exhausted from Iraq, and then the decision will be made to try an implement their plan of an all muslim world.
Let me guess, you got that information from WorldNetDaily.com and DEBKA? lol.
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:03 PM
Ok, so while Iran calls for the violent overthrow of the government of Israel, the US actually DOES it to Iraq.
Why do you worry about the speck of dust in your brother's eye? Why dont' you first remove the log from your own eye, so that you can see more clearly before helping him?
Iran does not call for the violent overthrow of the government of Israel. Iran calls for the complete annilation of the country as a whole.
They're not looking to "re-build" the nation - they're looking to eradicate the Jewish population from the Middle East.
See the difference?
happyjill
10-27-2005, 02:03 PM
I'm not saying that Iran has a RIGHT to develop nukes.. What I'm saying is why is this surprising, given that George Bush has made it a central position of HIS (ie, OUR) foreign policy to topple their regime????
Well, I don't know, man. You asked:
This is one of the things I don't understand about Americans.
Why do you get so wound up when other countries do what we do?
The answer, in this case is,
The US says that we are do not want to allow them to do this because the centerpiece of Iranian foreign policy is the destruction of the state of Israel, via Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and an opposition to the US and its goals. It's interesting to realize that Iran's national life is centered on the Islamic revolution, and the narrative core of that revolution is hatred for the United States and Israel. Now the Iranian government which is informed and directed by its opposition to us and our ally, is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.
It's in our national interest to do our best to ensure that they do not achieve their nuclear weapons development based on that reality.
Hmmm, you're kinda all over the place here, seems like you are putting out contradictory statements. Hard to follow where you are going with this.
Guest4
10-27-2005, 02:04 PM
You give credit to backwards countries with backwards points of view. If they were the first to develop and have nukes, you wouldn't be alive today, Kaffir, because they would have nuked all of our asses. What is impeccable is the inability of some, you included, to see that.
I think this is a bit simplistic.."backward" countries?..they had societies, written languages and commerce when we were still poking turtles with sticks. It would be more accurate to say backward politics rationalized by religion.
When push would come to shove, how much actual support could the mullahs and religious extremists rely on from the average Iranian? I think not much and they know it. Jamming an extreme intrepretation of the Koran down the throats of the Iranian people while they're just trying to conduct day to day life is probably about just as appealing as having an extreme intrepretation of the Bible jammed down our throat while most people are just trying to conduct day to day life here.
The mullahs are on their way out via natural selection. Lets support their way out through example of actions supporting healthy societies.
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:05 PM
I'm not saying that Iran has a RIGHT to develop nukes.. What I'm saying is why is this surprising, given that George Bush has made it a central position of HIS (ie, OUR) foreign policy to topple their regime????
Agreed. Bush fucked up by alienating Iran as a country...
That does not make Iran's desire to pursue nuclear technology valid or even beneficial for world peace. Agreed?
LOL... and what is the only country in the world ever to nuke anyone?
Was it Reagan's "Empire of Evil"?? Was it the Pakistanis or the Indians??
Was it "Red China"??
Maybe it was the "Axis of Evil"??
I can't remember who it was.. why dont' you explain it to me
you need to actually read some history and quit getting all of your information from propagandists.
It's okay I forgive your view of history. Whether or not we are first and only country to have used nukes is due to the fact that we had them first and have the most and the best nukes. I forgive your inability to see past the obvious though, I am sure had Iran or some random mullah been the first with the best and the most we would all live in blissful Sharia. That is of course, those of us who weren't boiled in our own skins with radiation. The irony of all of this you imply upon yourself that you would have let the US fall to Japan had it been your choice since you so obviously think going over seas to fight people you oppose is anti American. And stop before you act silly by pointing out that Iraq did not attack us because you are the one who brought up the fact that we nuked Japan.
What propagandists are you referring to btw? Hopefully you are not closed off enough from reality to remember that I am not a fan of Bush or his admin.. You fit right into the moron's (if ye ain't wit me yer aginst me) routine.
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:06 PM
I think this is a bit simplistic.."backward" countries?..they had societies, written languages and commerce when we were still poking turtles with sticks. It would be more accurate to say backward politics rationalized by religion.
When push would come to shove, how much actual support could the mullahs and religious extremists rely on from the average Iranian? I think not much and they know it. Jamming an extreme intrepretation of the Koran down the throats of the Iranian people while they're just trying to conduct day to day life is probably about just as appealing as having an extreme intrepretation of the Bible jammed down our throat while most people are just trying to conduct day to day life here.
The mullahs are on their way out via natural selection. Lets support their way out through example of actions supporting healthy societies.
Applause!
Agreed. Bush fucked up by alienating Iran as a country...
That does not make Iran's desire to pursue nuclear technology valid or even beneficial for world peace. Agreed?
Bush did? When were we close allies of Iran? Under which admin?
I don't recall Bush making it a point to topple the regime either.
It's okay I forgive your view of history. Whether or not we are first and only country to have used nukes is due to the fact that we had them first and have the most and the best nukes. I forgive your inability to see past the obvious though, I am sure had Iran or some random mullah been the first with the best and the most we would all live in blissful Sharia. That is of course, those of us who weren't boiled in our own skins with radiation. The irony of all of this you imply upon yourself that you would have let the US fall to Japan had it been your choice since you so obviously think going over seas to fight people you oppose is anti American. And stop before you act silly by pointing out that Iraq did not attack us because you are the one who brought up the fact that we nuked Japan.
What propagandists are you referring to btw? Hopefully you are not closed off enough from reality to remember that I am not a fan of Bush or his admin.. You fit right into the moron's (if ye ain't wit me yer aginst me) routine.
The Russians, when they were ruled by the Empire of Evil (as Reagan called them) never nuked anyone.
Why is that?
The Chinese under all of their communist dictators never nuked anyone?
Why?
So why do you suppose Iran would nuke anyone?
I'm trying to see where you're coming from here.
Bush did? When were we close allies of Iran? Under which admin?
I don't recall Bush making it a point to topple the regime either.
Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil"
Now.. what did he do to Saddam, shortly after that??
North Korea, on the other hand, declares itself a nuclear power and Bush sends emmissaries to see how much money we can give them.
If you're Iran, what are you going to do???
DUH
I think this is a bit simplistic.."backward" countries?..they had societies, written languages and commerce when we were still poking turtles with sticks. It would be more accurate to say backward politics rationalized by religion.
Key word is 'had' with no particular evolution to witness.
When push would come to shove, how much actual support could the mullahs and religious extremists rely on from the average Iranian? I think not much and they know it. Jamming an extreme intrepretation of the Koran down the throats of the Iranian people while they're just trying to conduct day to day life is probably about just as appealing as having an extreme intrepretation of the Bible jammed down our throat while most people are just trying to conduct day to day life here.
I think that this is just a supposition. While you may have some merit, history doesn't show Islam to have failed to create conflict since the inception of the idea by the child molestor himself. Not that Christianity is any better mind you. You always have good with the bad in religious societies, but the good has way to much patience and empathy for the bad.
The mullahs are on their way out via natural selection. Lets support their way out through example of actions supporting healthy societies. The mullahs aren't going anywhere. There are more now getting more airtime with 'let's destry the West' to varying degrees and we say "let's see if they calm down over time and after we give them a bunch of shit they will take for granted" No thanks, I would rather support Bush and that doesn't make me feel much better.
.............
Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil"
Now.. what did he do to Saddam, shortly after that??
DUHYou're speculating is all.
If you're hungry and buy a cheesburger, does that mean every time you're hungry you buy a cheeseburger.
Well, I don't know, man. You asked:
The answer, in this case is,
It's in our national interest to do our best to ensure that they do not achieve their nuclear weapons development based on that reality.
Hmmm, you're kinda all over the place here, seems like you are putting out contradictory statements. Hard to follow where you are going with this.
The heart of your arguement is that the central core of Iran's foreign policy is the destruction of Israel and America.
I challenge that notion.
What has Iran done in the past 40 years to harm either Israel OR America?
lay out your case
Btw, the same things were said about the Communists in Russia... how they wanted to rule the world and they were going to nuke us at any minute....
Yeah, right... that was nothing more than an EXCUSE to launch military spending THROUGH THE ROOF
Why can't educated people simply look at the facts and understand this?
The Russians had absolutely no desire to nuke the US... none.
You're speculating is all.
If you're hungry and buy a cheesburger, does that mean every time you're hungry you buy a cheeseburger.
You can't understand why the Iranians would think that Bush is planning to attack them??
Especially when he says he hasn't ruled it out???
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:19 PM
Bush did? When were we close allies of Iran? Under which admin?
I don't recall Bush making it a point to topple the regime either.
Did I say the US was an ally of Iran? I said Iran was alienated... and these kinds of statements are a direct result of Iran's leaders playing on that sentiment.
happyjill
10-27-2005, 02:22 PM
The heart of your arguement is that the central core of Iran's foreign policy is the destruction of Israel and America.
I challenge that notion.
What has Iran done in the past 40 years to harm either Israel OR America?
lay out your case
Uh......oooooooooK.
I would think that you would know that since the 1979 revoultion, the IR of Iran has been one of the principle sponsors of Islamic terrorism in the world, and indeed, the groups that they sponsor were in the forefront of the new types of terrorism we have seen of recent decades and its continuing evolution today.
Wow. This will take me a little bit, since the amount of historical docs to draw from are fairly extensive.
Did I say the US was an ally of Iran? I said Iran was alienated... and these kinds of statements are a direct result of Iran's leaders playing on that sentiment.
You said : Agreed. Bush fucked up by alienating Iran as a country... As BMAN said they've been screaming 'death to america!!' well before he came along.
You can't understand why the Iranians would think that Bush is planning to attack them??
Especially when he says he hasn't ruled it out???
I thankfully don't understand a lot of what they do. Maybe they're just anxious conspiracy theorists?
However you don't understand they have said they plan to destroy Israel? I'm not saying I think they're going to. You seem to be getting quite emotional on someone proving a thought or plan versus an outright threat that wsa said.
The Russians, when they were ruled by the Empire of Evil (as Reagan called them) never nuked anyone. Why is that? Because we would have had to go to a nuclear war with them and no one wants that after seeing what we did.
The Chinese under all of their communist dictators never nuked anyone?
Why? ? Because we would have had to go to a nuclear war with them and no one wants that after seeing what we did.
So why do you suppose Iran would nuke anyone? Why do you want to take the risk? And why for fuck sake would you trust them with them? Why do they need them? Even if they have them any of the above countries you mentioned could still totally annhialate them with little damage to themselves comparitively, so what kind of defense is that? Please don't ignore the FACT, that many a muslim country and sect strives to see the irradication of not only Israel, but the West.
I'm trying to see where you're coming from here. I am coming from the middle that realizes how badly a religion we seem to fight to keep in existance would cherish our demise. My perspective is from that which holds religion responsible for deaths in uncountable numbers over the centuries. I am more harsh with what I consider the greater 'evils' called religion and cut the others no slack.
It's not the people, it's the religion. Christians are a fucking pain in the ass, but at least they don't saw off the heads of others and display them on TV while chanting religico propaganda.
Bush may be a fucking cunt without question, but he is a saint in my book compared to Islamist leaders of Iran, Syria, etc etc.
Uh......oooooooooK.
I would think that you would know that since the 1979 revoultion, the IR of Iran has been one of the principle sponsors of Islamic terrorism in the world, and indeed, the groups that they sponsor were in the forefront of the new types of terrorism we have seen of recent decades and its continuing evolution today.
Wow. This will take me a little bit, since the amount of historical docs to draw from are fairly extensive.
Terrorism?
Terrorism is hardly a threat to the United States of America's existence.
How many Americans have been killed by terrorists in the past 25 years?????
its negligible.
It's not the people, it's the religion. Christians are a fucking pain in the ass, but at least saw off the heads of others and display them on TV while chanting religico propaganda.
Bush may be a fucking cunt without question, but he is a saint in my book compared to Islamist leaders of Iran, Syria, etc etc.
and the radical Islamic dictator of nuclear Pakistan.. the nation that GAVE Iran and North Korea nuclear weapons technology.....
what is Bush doing about THAT problem?
see.. there's no consistency in the policy.
Voice of Reason
10-27-2005, 02:26 PM
The Russians, when they were ruled by the Empire of Evil (as Reagan called them) never nuked anyone.
Why is that?
The Chinese under all of their communist dictators never nuked anyone?
Why?
So why do you suppose Iran would nuke anyone?
I'm trying to see where you're coming from here.
A & B, above, because they knew the US would have followed through with a devastating counter-attack. They aren't fanatics, and they don't want to be wiped off the map along with their children's children's future. Plus their technology was not as good as ours, which put them at an obvious disadvantage.
C -- why would Iran nuke anyone? Ask them. They're the ones always threatening it. Have you ever looked into the animosity that Muslims have against Jews in general and Israel in specific? 2nd, they have a fanatic mentality and Ahmadi-nejad recently even gave a speech glorifying martyrdom. 3rd, they have stated that a nuclear exchange between the Arab / muslim world and Israel would totally wipe Israel out and the majority of the Arab / muslim world would survive.
The confluence of these attitudes spells trouble.
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:28 PM
You said : Agreed. Bush fucked up by alienating Iran as a country... As BMAN said they've been screaming 'death to america!!' well before he came along.
And America has been screaming "Death to Iran"?
No.
I thankfully don't understand a lot of what they do. Maybe they're just anxious conspiracy theorists?
However you don't understand they have said they plan to destroy Israel? I'm not saying I think they're going to. You seem to be getting quite emotional on someone proving a thought or plan versus an outright threat that wsa said.
I'm in agreement that Iran should be punished for their comments. I think the issue should be referred to the Security Council.
and the radical Islamic dictator of nuclear Pakistan.. the nation that GAVE Iran and North Korea nuclear weapons technology.....
what is Bush doing about THAT problem?
see.. there's no consistency in the policy.
I don't disagree with this, but I do fail to see how it could turn anyone in their right mind to giving any credence to the bullshit being flung around by Iran right now. Btw, I think we should go and conquer Pakistan and we probably will if Mushie gets overthrown as he is the only one between Madrassa Muhammed and his little band of exploding sidekicks.
I'll sum up my points in this post, since there seems to be confusion, and I have to go.
1. I'm amazed that people are getting so worked up about the Iranian President calling for the destruction of Israel. I thought there were many muslim nations that have called for the destruction of Israel. Most (except maybe Jordan and Egypt) do not FORMALLY RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS A NATION.
2. Regarding nuclear weapons, the idea that Iran is going to nuke the US is preposterous. The same thing was said of the Russians, and the Chinese and of course that was nothing more than a tactic to keep the American people scared, so they would support more defense spending and more military intervention abroad.
3. Its logical to understand WHY Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, given Bush's track record of aggressively attacking countries that are not threatening the US, simply because he personally considers them to be "Evil"
A & B, above, because they knew the US would have followed through with a devastating counter-attack. They aren't fanatics, and they don't want to be wiped off the map along with their children's children's future. Plus their technology was not as good as ours, which put them at an obvious disadvantage.
C -- why would Iran nuke anyone? Ask them. They're the ones always threatening it. Have you ever looked into the animosity that Muslims have against Jews in general and Israel in specific? 2nd, they have a fanatic mentality and Ahmadi-nejad recently even gave a speech glorifying martyrdom. 3rd, they have stated that a nuclear exchange between the Arab / muslim world and Israel would totally wipe Israel out and the majority of the Arab / muslim world would survive.
The confluence of these attitudes spells trouble.
I've heard the same arguments about the Communists.. How they didn't care if we counter-attacked, etc, because they didn't care about their own people dying, etc, etc,
Propaganda.
Fool me once... you can't get fooled again
I realize that now.
I'll sum up my points in this post, since there seems to be confusion, and I have to go.
1. I'm amazed that people are getting so worked up about the Iranian President calling for the destruction of Israel. I thought there were many muslim nations that have called for the destruction of Israel. Most (except maybe Jordan and Egypt) do not FORMALLY RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS A NATION.
2. Regarding nuclear weapons, the idea that Iran is going to nuke the US is preposterous. The same thing was said of the Russians, and the Chinese and of course that was nothing more than a tactic to keep the American people scared, so they would support more defense spending and more military intervention abroad.
3. Its logical to understand WHY Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, given Bush's track record of aggressively attacking countries that are not threatening the US, simply because he personally considers them to be "Evil"
i will answer this in one point:
Iran pays Hamas to kill by suicide bombing and have military operations against Israel and is now declaring the destruction of Israel during their pursuit of Nukes. Period.
It appears to me that they want Nukes to start war rather than to abate it.
I don't disagree with this, but I do fail to see how it could turn anyone in their right mind to giving any credence to the bullshit being flung around by Iran right now. Btw, I think we should go and conquer Pakistan and we probably will if Mushie gets overthrown as he is the only one between Madrassa Muhammed and his little band of exploding sidekicks.
Point being Iran is SO FAR DOWN on the list of security threats to America, its laughable
As I've pointed out in great detail on this board over the years... Al QAEDA is supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is a nuclear armed, rogue nation that created the Taliban. Pakistan is known to have passed nuclear weapons technology on to Iran and North Korea and possibly terrorist organizations as well
WHO CARES what the Iranian President says in a speech, when you've got threats like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to deal with, and they've already got nukes?
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:36 PM
i will answer this in one point:
Iran pays Hamas to kill by suicide bombing and have military operations against Israel and is now declaring the destruction of Israel during their pursuit of Nukes. Period.
It appears to me that they want Nukes to start war rather than to abate it.
How many times has Israel invaded or attacked a neighbouring country?
There's something to be said for nuclear deterrence...
Iran doesn't pay Hamas according to what I know.
I'll sum up my points in this post, since there seems to be confusion, and I have to go.
1. I'm amazed that people are getting so worked up about the Iranian President calling for the destruction of Israel. I thought there were many muslim nations that have called for the destruction of Israel. Most (except maybe Jordan and Egypt) do not FORMALLY RECOGNIZE ISRAEL AS A NATION.
"
I don't think peeps are that worked up over it. But were that any western leader calling for the ":total destruction" of a country I think many more would be.
I'm amazed you get worked up over speculation on your part by a categoric name (axis of evil)!
slaman
10-27-2005, 02:39 PM
I don't think peeps are that worked up over it. But were that any western leader calling for the ":total destruction" of a country I think many more would be.
I'm amazed you get worked up over speculation on your part by a categoric name (axis of evil)!
Evil has the connotation of divine inspiration. Bush was using an indirect religious standpoint by making such a statement. Good vs. Evil.
Point being Iran is SO FAR DOWN on the list of security threats to America, its laughable
As I've pointed out in great detail on this board over the years... Al QAEDA is supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is a nuclear armed, rogue nation that created the Taliban. Pakistan is known to have passed nuclear weapons technology on to Iran and North Korea and possibly terrorist organizations as well
WHO CARES what the Iranian President says in a speech, when you've got threats like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to deal with, and they've already got nukes?
So let's just have another one of these idiotic regimes have nukes. Hell, give them all nukes then we don't have to worry about any of them. We will all be one big happy family.
I don't think peeps are that worked up over it. But were that any western leader calling for the ":total destruction" of a country I think many more would be.
I'm amazed you get worked up over speculation on your part by a categoric name (axis of evil)!
I'm not worked up about that
I don't care what anyone labels anyone else. Those are just words
Actions are what counts
When I see people shouting "WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAN" and pounding the table, then yeah..I get worked up about that sort of hysteria
How many times has Israel invaded or attacked a neighbouring country?
There's something to be said for nuclear deterrence...
Iran doesn't pay Hamas according to what I know.
Easy, less times that they themselves have been attacked by Muslim aggressors. AS far as I am concerned they can all annhialate each other, but flush them all down the toilet, floaters stink up the place.
Voice of Reason
10-27-2005, 02:43 PM
I've heard the same arguments about the Communists.. How they didn't care if we counter-attacked, etc, because they didn't care about their own people dying, etc, etc,
Propaganda.
Fool me once... you can't get fooled again
I realize that now.
Obviously the Communists didn't care if some of their own people died -- tens of millions did under their benevolent, egalitarian rule -- but the leaders themselves didn't want to die. They had pretty cushy lives overall and probably, like most people, wanted to pass something along to their descendants.
Myself, I've never heard the argument that you mention, BUT I have heard from the Iranians that they want to wipe Israel out -- it's the topic of this thread, hello? They say it all the time. Posturing? You really feel like assuming the risk that they're not? You know them that well?
Why don't you want to deal with the numerical imbalance and the confluence?
So let's just have another one of these idiotic regimes have nukes. Hell, give them all nukes then we don't have to worry about any of them. We will all be one big happy family.
The point is we ENCOURAGE them to develop them, through our actions.
We create INCENTIVE. You're a free market guy right? What happens when you give someone incentive?
If you don't want nuclear proliferation, the best policies would be to remove INCENTIVE, instead of trying prohibition. Surely you of all people can understand that.
How do we give them incentive? By richly rewarding nations that have nuclear weapons.. even nations that proliferate nukes (like Pakistan), and by attacking nations that do NOT have nukes, like Iraq.
Its the ultimate "carrot and stick"
If you don't have nukes, we will obliterate you and topple your government unless you obey us.
if you DO have nukes, we will treat you as a partner, sell you weapons systems and respect your sovereignty
The point is we ENCOURAGE them to develop them, through our actions.
We create INCENTIVE. You're a free market guy right? What happens when you give someone incentive?
If you don't want nuclear proliferation, the best policies would be to remove INCENTIVE, instead of trying prohibition. Surely you of all people can understand that.
How do we give them incentive? By richly rewarding nations that have nuclear weapons.. even nations that proliferate nukes (like Pakistan), and by attacking nations that do NOT have nukes, like Iraq.
I think you improperly place our responsiblity to an extent. Opportunists no matter their creed will take opportunity to better their leverage. Some will do it and place a reason on it acceptable to the public, but actions speak louder than words and from my seat in the crown it appears there is more at stake than our actions, much more.
However, your statement re: rewarding nuclear nations and I agree with that. Would you like to make Iran rich and reward them? I wouldn't. But this is a sore spot for me as well. It makes me crazy that we give a single dime of tax payer money to any country for any reason and it makes me crazy that Israel sells us out to China. Many things make me severly uptight and Islam is #1 in that.
When I see people shouting "WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAN" and pounding the table, then yeah..I get worked up about that sort of hysteria
Who? And so what if they do? I'd rather see someone pounding a table then launching an actual attack.
happyjill
10-27-2005, 03:02 PM
Terrorism?
Terrorism is hardly a threat to the United States of America's existence.
How many Americans have been killed by terrorists in the past 25 years?????
its negligible.
I guess that 911 wasn't that big a deal for you?
Wow, I'm sorry, but the threat is very real. You have a major supporter of state terrorism in Iran, who has funded a variety of Islamic terrorist groups that have actively targeted US and Israeli targets since the start of the Iranian revolution.
See if you can pick out the many references to Iran in this text:
The year 1979 was a turning point in international terrorism. Throughout the Arab world and the West, the Iranian Islamic revolution sparked fears of a wave of revolutionary Shia Islam. Meanwhile, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent anti-Soviet mujahedeen war, lasting from 1979 to 1989, stimulated the rise and expansion of terrorist groups. Indeed, the growth of a post-jihad pool of well-trained, battle-hardened militants is a key trend in contemporary international terrorism and insurgency-related violence. Volunteers from various parts of the Islamic world fought in Afghanistan, supported by conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia. In Yemen, for instance, the Riyadh-backed Islamic Front was established to provide financial, logistical, and training support for Yemeni volunteers. So called "Arab-Afghans" have -- and are -- using their experience to support local insurgencies in North Africa, Kashmir, Chechnya, China, Bosnia, and the Philippines.
In the West, attention was focused on state sponsorship, specifically the Iranian-backed and Syrian-supported Hezbollah; state sponsors' use of secular Palestinian groups was also of concern. [3] Hezbollah pioneered the use of suicide bombers in the Middle East, and was linked to the 1983 bombing and subsequent deaths of 241 U.S. marines in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as multiple kidnappings of U.S. and Western civilians and government officials. Hezbollah remains a key trainer of secular, Shia, and Sunni movements. As revealed during the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Libyan intelligence officers were allegedly involved with the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine -- General Command (PFLP-GC). Iraq and Syria were heavily involved in supporting various terrorist groups, with Baghdad using the Abu Nidal Organization on several occasions. State sponsors used terrorist groups to attack Israeli as well as Western interests, in addition to domestic and regional opponents. It should be noted that the American policy of listing state sponsors was heavily politicized, and did not include several countries -- both allies and opponents of Washington -- that, under U.S. government definitions, were guilty of supporting or using terrorism.
Key Radical Religious Groups
(descriptions taken directly from the U.S. State Department publication "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2000")
• Hezbollah: Radical Shia group formed in 1982 in Lebanon. Strongly anti-Western and anti-Israeli. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran but may have conducted operations that were not approved by Tehran. Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of U.S. and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and is a suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires. Operates in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon. Has established cells in Europe, Africa, South America, North America, and Asia. Receives substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria.
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ - Al-Jihad, Jihad Group, Islamic Jihad): Egyptian group active since the late 1970s. The EIJ is apparently split into two factions: one led by Ayman al-Zawahiri - who currently is in Afghanistan and is a key leader in the Usama bin Laden (UBL) network - and the Vanguards of Conquest (Talaa' al-Fateh) led by Ahmad Husayn Agiza. Abbud al-Zumar, leader of the original Jihad, is imprisoned in Egypt and recently joined the group's jailed spiritual leader, Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, in a call for a "peaceful front." The group's traditional goal is the overthrow of the Egyptian Government and creation of an Islamic state. Given its involvement with UBL, EIJ is likely increasingly willing to target U.S. interests. The group has threatened to strike the U.S. for its jailing of Shaykh al-Rahman and the arrests of EIJ cadres in Albania, Azerbaijan, and the United Kingdom..
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): The PIJ, emerging from radical Gazan Palestinians in the 1970s, is apparently a series of loosely affiliated factions rather than a cohesive group. The PIJ focus is the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian Islamic state. Due to Washington's support of Israel, the PIJ has threatened to strike American targets; the PIJ has not "specifically" conducted attacks against U.S. interests; Arab regimes deemed as un-Islamic are also threatened. The group has stated its willingness to hit American targets in Jordan. PIJ cadres reportedly receive funding from Tehran and logistical support from Syria.
• Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS): Emerging from the Muslim Brotherhood during the first Palestinian intifadah (1987), HAMAS has become the primary anti-Israeli religious opposition in the occupied territories. The group is mainly known for its use of suicide bombers and is loosely organized, with centers of strength in Gaza and certain areas in the West Bank. HAMAS, while condemning American policies favoring Israel, has not targeted the U.S. directly.
• Al-Gamaat Al-Islamiyya (IG - the Islamic Group, al-Gama'at, Islamic Gama'at, Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya, GI): The IG, begun in the 1970s, is the largest of the Egyptian militant groups. Its core goal is the overthrow of the Cairo regime and creation of an Islamic state. The IG appears to be a more loosely organized entity than the EIJ, and maintains a globally present external wing. IG leadership signed Usama Bin Ladin's February 1998 anti-U.S. fatwa but has denied supporting UBL. Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman is al-Gama'at's spiritual leader, and thus the U.S. has been threatened with attack. From 1993 until the cease-fire, al-Gama'a launched attacks on tourists in Egypt, most notably the attack in November 1997 at Luxor that killed 58 foreign tourists. Also claimed responsibility for the attempt in June 1995 to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Has a worldwide presence, including Sudan, the United Kingdom, Afghanistan, Austria, and Yemen. The Egyptian Government believes that Iran, Bin Ladin, and Afghan militant groups support the organization.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html
Look, the point of all this is that you have an active state sponsor of terrorism who is playing a continuing role in funding groups which are capable and determined to strike against US and Israeli interests and targets. It's their MO to do things in this way-the terrorists they support are proxies for the Iranian gov'ts goals-ie the continuation of the Islamic revolution.
Now that you have this country with this established history of terrorist activity seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. Now why should n't we be alarmed about that?
I guess that 911 wasn't that big a deal for you?
This is where I think you go off the edge.
9/11 was a horrible and evil event.
it in NO WAY THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER.
Hurricane Katrina did way more damage than 9/11, but is the US now in danger of toppling?
Of course not. its preposterous
Terrorism is a DANGER, just like earthquakes or drunk drivers or whatever.. but in no way is the US in danger of "ceasing to exist"
Read the posts from Hobbes in Iraq.. these terrorists are a JOKE.. they're not taking over anything, any time soon
what IS a threat to the US, however, is overspending on the military, overstretching our resources and the erosion of our own freedoms from within, due to mass hysteria and ignorance among our own population.
Who? And so what if they do? I'd rather see someone pounding a table then launching an actual attack.
This guy, for one
http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=403580&postcount=5
This guy, for one
http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=403580&postcount=5
You've gone hysterical over that?
You've gone hysterical over that?
have I gone hysterical?
I didn't realize that.
Have you gone hysterical too?
Spectre
10-27-2005, 03:23 PM
This is where I think you go off the edge.
9/11 was a horrible and evil event.
it in NO WAY THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER.
Hurricane Katrina did way more damage than 9/11, but is the US now in danger of toppling?
Of course not. its preposterous
Terrorism is a DANGER, just like earthquakes or drunk drivers or whatever.. but in no way is the US in danger of "ceasing to exist"
Read the posts from Hobbes in Iraq.. these terrorists are a JOKE.. they're not taking over anything, any time soon
what IS a threat to the US, however, is overspending on the military, overstretching our resources and the erosion of our own freedoms from within, due to mass hysteria and ignorance among our own population.
I agree with this totally. I swear, the righties who call the lefties cowards all day are truely the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone is so goddamned afraid of the terrorists. They live in fear every day just waiting for the next attack. Fuck that shit. If it happens and I die, then I die. But goddamned if I'm going to cower in a fucking bunker for the rest of my life and advocate nuking the rest of the world just to ensure my safety.
have I gone hysterical?
I didn't realize that.
You seem it, over this subject, my apologies if you are not.
You're upset because of an opinion of a poster here, yet not one stating destruction of Israel by the President of Iran??
I agree with this totally. I swear, the righties who call the lefties cowards all day are truely the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone is so goddamned afraid of the terrorists. They live in fear every day just waiting for the next attack. Fuck that shit. If it happens and I die, then I die. But goddamned if I'm going to cower in a fucking bunker for the rest of my life and advocate nuking the rest of the world just to ensure my safety.
Especially when the attacks are so few.. My God, if I lived in Israel, then yeah.. I could see maybe being worried.. and even worried that the nation itself might collapse. They were getting attacked every day it seemed like, so that no one could even go about their business. Foreign investment was drying up, etc...
But the US.... Christ, there's been like 2 attack in the US.. ever.. in history.. it was 7 years between the attacks and 3000 people died..
Hell, we've lost 2000 more in Iraq. Does that mean the country is about to "cease to exist"
I don't get this insanity.
Terrorism is a DANGER, just like earthquakes or drunk drivers or whatever.. but in no way is the US in danger of "ceasing to exist" NOT just like earthquakes. You can't kill a fault line nor can you do a damn thing to thwart an earthquake and an earthquake does not target people, they just happen to live there.
Read the posts from Hobbes in Iraq.. these terrorists are a JOKE.. they're not taking over anything, any time soon Maybe not, but are you sure? If we leave Iraq tomorrow, would they be such a joke then? Maybe, but the jokesters would take over Iraq. Of course that is our fault for taking out a leader that, well let's just leave it at Sadaam since we all know what he has done and that he violated his cease fire agreement for 20 years straight with the UN doing nothing other than bloviate.
what IS a threat to the US, however, is overspending on the military, overstretching our resources and the erosion of our own freedoms from within, due to mass hysteria and ignorance among our own population.
Don't forget these: thinking France is our friend, giving foreign aid to non appreciative and non reciprocating countries (yes, including Saudi and Pakistan), thinking the UN is worth while and not focusing on alternative energy like we should. I did really like your ignorance among our own populatinn quote, while the right pursues it the left with the likes of Global Warming Gore and Michael "mass hysteria" Moore.
The truth always lies in the middle in our "butt of the joke" discussion here and no one wants to look at the crack in the center.
You seem it, over this subject, my apologies if you are not.
You're upset because of an opinion of a poster here, yet not one stating destruction of Israel by the President of Iran??
the President of Iran means NOTHING to me.. he costs me no money. When he gets his countrymen fired up, I don't lose any freedom.
He's a NOBODY. I couldn't tell you his name without looking it up
When I see Americans immediately calling for the US to do something about Iran, then I get upset.
What specifically do they want to do? Do they want another $500 billion to go to war with Iran? Is that is??
Do they want to ban Iranians from the US? Or just lock up muslim looking people as enemy combatants?
What do they want to "do"??????
Why is this of concern to the US?? Why not leave this one to the Brits or the French, or the Russians for a change??
Surely the terrorists "hate their freedoms" as much as they hate ours, right?
We're already busy, as I see it
the President of Iran means NOTHING to me.. he costs me no money. When he gets his countrymen fired up, I don't lose any freedom.
He's a NOBODY. I couldn't tell you his name without looking it up
When I see Americans immediately calling for the US to do something about Iran, then I get upset.
You think Zapcomix controls the President? LOL, what's the difference? Who here is 'fired up'--->words on a forum. Many here have very strong opinions about many different things.
You think Zapcomix controls the President? LOL, what's the difference? Who here is 'fired up'--->words on a forum. Many here have very strong opinions about many different things.
Perhaps I should have used your term... "hysterical"
Zapcomix doesn't control the President. I never said he did
When I see use citizens calling for action against Iran because the Iranian President said something offensive in a speech to some students in Iran, then I get nervous and I will vigorously spell our reasons why that is a bad idea snf not in our interest.
Bman
Spectre
10-27-2005, 03:41 PM
the President of Iran means NOTHING to me.. he costs me no money. When he gets his countrymen fired up, I don't lose any freedom.
He's a NOBODY. I couldn't tell you his name without looking it up
When I see Americans immediately calling for the US to do something about Iran, then I get upset.
What specifically do they want to do? Do they want another $500 billion to go to war with Iran? Is that is??
Do they want to ban Iranians from the US? Or just lock up muslim looking people as enemy combatants?
What do they want to "do"??????
Why is this of concern to the US?? Why not leave this one to the Brits or the French, or the Russians for a change??
Surely the terrorists "hate their freedoms" as much as they hate ours, right?
We're already busy, as I see it
Amen. It's all this "doing" shit that makes us look like assholes in the first place. What I wouldn't give for an isolationist POV like we had in the old days.
When I see use citizens calling for action against Iran because the Iranian President said something offensive in a speech to some students in Iran, then I get nervous and I will vigorously spell our reasons why that is a bad idea snf not in our interest.
Bman
So you're offended that an American was offended by something that a foreign leader said?
It's a toss up if the Int'l community will take what the iranian president said seriously or not. What do you think?
Spectre
10-27-2005, 03:44 PM
So you're offended that an American was offended by something that a foreign leader said?
It's a toss up if the Int'l community will take what the iranian president said seriously or not. What do you think?
Well, personally I'M offended that American's think we somehow need to involve ourselves in this situation. It proves that our own dumbass people haven't learned anything from the clusterfuck in Iraq and that absolutely FRIGHTENS me.
So you're offended that an American was offended by something that a foreign leader said?
It's a toss up if the Int'l community will take what the iranian president said seriously or not. What do you think?
I'm not OFFENDED by anything. you're putting words in my mouth
I'm CONCERNED that my fellow citizens are calling for ACTION on the part of the US against Iran, because of something their President said.
Who cares what he said?
I am presenting a case against taking action, because Iran is currently no threat to us, as much as they would like to be
Well, personally I'M offended that American's think we somehow need to involve ourselves in this situation. It proves that our own dumbass people haven't learned anything from the clusterfuck in Iraq and that absolutely FRIGHTENS me.
I'll go on a limb and assume that not a great majority of americans would support a war in Iran, ESPECIALLY due to the clustereff in Iraq. However, I think they condemn / disapprove of what Ahmadinejad said .
Spectre, perhaps it wasn't a typo after all? Maybe this really IS the Thread of our Time?!! :happy_04:
I'll go on a limb and assume that not a great majority of americans would support a war in Iran, ESPECIALLY due to the clustereff in Iraq. However, I think they condemn / disapprove of what Ahmadinejad said .
Ok.. if it makes everyone feel better, I too "condemn" what Ahmadinejad said.
I double condemn it. Dare I say, I "censure" it...
There. That accomplished alot
Spectre
10-27-2005, 03:54 PM
I'll go on a limb and assume that not a great majority of americans would support a war in Iran, ESPECIALLY due to the clustereff in Iraq. However, I think they condemn what Ahmadinejad said .
lol, clustereff. I dunno, Alli, I think those two actions are just a few pieces of effed up intelligence apart.
Ok.. if it makes everyone feel better, I too "condemn" what Ahmadinejad said.
I double condemn it. Dare I say, I "censure" it...
There. That accomplished alot
Yay!:happy_01:
Yay!:happy_01:
I'll go so far as to "Double Dog Censure" it!
Ok.. if it makes everyone feel better, I too "condemn" what Ahmadinejad said.
I double condemn it. Dare I say, I "censure" it...
There. That accomplished alot
Okay, now say Iran shouldn't have nukes. :D
Then I"LL say, BUSH IS A DIPSHIT!! Now see, that feels better huh? ;)
Okay, now say Iran shouldn't have nukes. :D
Then I"LL say, BUSH IS A DIPSHIT!! Now see, that feels better huh? ;)
Iran SHOULDN'T HAVE NUKE. My God. Of course they shouldn't
That's why its so frustrating to see us providing them INCENTIVE to get them!!!!!!!!
zapcomix
10-27-2005, 04:11 PM
Iran SHOULDN'T HAVE NUKE. My God. Of course they shouldn't
That's why its so frustrating to see us providing them INCENTIVE to get them!!!!!!!!
How are we providing incentive?? Iran is the one yelling for muslim world domination, unprovoked. If they would shut the fuck up and play nice we wouldn't have any problems.
SmokedYourDSM
10-27-2005, 04:13 PM
How are we providing incentive?? Iran is the one yelling for muslim world domination, unprovoked. If they would shut the fuck up and play nice we wouldn't have any problems.
because countries that HAVE nukes continuously recieve aid( BRIBES) from the US... just look at Pakistan.
Can you actually READ the fucking posts before you post. I know, you respond to the ones with 2 lines instead of 50 lines because all that reading is SOOO hard.... But it's been DISCUSSED already...
happyjill
10-27-2005, 04:17 PM
This is where I think you go off the edge.
9/11 was a horrible and evil event.
[b]
it in NO WAY THREATENS THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER.
Hurricane Katrina did way more damage than 9/11, but is the US now in danger of toppling?
Of course not. its preposterous
Terrorism is a DANGER, just like earthquakes or drunk drivers or whatever.. but in no way is the US in danger of "ceasing to exist"
Read the posts from Hobbes in Iraq.. these terrorists are a JOKE.. they're not taking over anything, any time soon
what IS a threat to the US, however, is overspending on the military, overstretching our resources and the erosion of our own freedoms from within, due to mass hysteria and ignorance among our own population.
I'm going off the edge?
Gosh, I don't know, if a explosive nuclear device were to go off in an American city, that's just one city lost, right? We have a bunch of these city dealies in this country do we not?
We are spending too much money on pro-actively trying to ensure that this doesn't happen, right? That we aren't attacked in this way?
The terrorists have shown themselves to be quite capable of doing amazingly destructive and horrific acts against us, but that doesn't sufficiently alarm you.
My opinion is that they threaten our way of life by threatening our security. Unlike Katrina, or an earthquake, we do have the ability to fight against the people who wold seek to do us harm. For myself, I am happy that our government is aggressively seeking to fight the possibilty that we will be attacked in this way.
OldGit
10-27-2005, 05:27 PM
Knee-jerk would be NO!
But thats approaching it from a position of knowing what we know now. If I step back and examine it from a view of NOT having the luxery of knowing what those two men ended up becoming...its a bit more difficult to answer.
Let me think about this.
That sounds like what I'd call Rummyspeak - 'there are known knowns, known unknowns, and there are unknown unknowns,' or something like that.
OldGit
10-27-2005, 06:04 PM
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Blair 'revulsion' at Iran remarks
Tony Blair has expressed "revulsion" at the Iranian president's assertion that he wanted Israel "wiped off the map".
Mr Blair told an EU summit at Hampton Court, near London, that he had "never come across" comments like those made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday.
He added that Iran, suspected of having a nuclear weapons programme, could soon be considered a "real threat".
But Iran later accused the West of turning a blind eye to what it called Israel's "crimes".
EU leaders earlier issued a joint statement saying they condemned Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Blair's comments carried the "implicit threat of military action".
'Unacceptable'
The Iranian charge d'affaires in London had already been summoned to the Foreign Office for the UK to lodge a protest.
Speaking after a one-day EU summit, Mr Blair said the Iranian leader's sentiments were "completely and totally unacceptable".
He said: "Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue - it isn't acceptable."
Mr Blair said he had never heard of the president of a country saying they wanted to wipe out another country.
"If they continue down this path, then people are going to believe that they are a real threat to our world security and stability.
"They may believe... the eyes of the world will be elsewhere, but I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks."
Mr Blair added: "Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?"
'Zionist crimes'
The BBC's Nick Robinson said: "I haven't heard the prime minister speak in this way since the Iraq war.
"He knew what he was doing today. He intended to keep Iraq guessing."
Earlier, the US said the Iranian president's comments highlighted concerns about nuclear plans, which Iran says are for peaceful purposes only.
Mr Ahmadinejad made his comments at a conference in the Iranian capital Tehran entitled The World without Zionism.
Referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
The Iranian foreign ministry later said the country's embassies in the West would officially protest against Europe's attitude to "Zionist crimes".
Although the ministry's statement did not specifically mention Mr Ahmadinejad's speech, it said Iran blamed the complex situation in the Middle East on continued support for Israel.
Mr Ahmadinejad came to power earlier this year, replacing Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who attempted to improve Iran's relations with the West.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "Military action remains quite 'inconceivable', as the foreign secretary said last December." He added: "The prime minister's revulsion is justified, but there are diplomatic and political steps that can be taken against Iran if it persists in bellicose behaviour and language."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/4380306.stm
Published: 2005/10/27 21:22:03 GMT
© BBC MMV
Invisoclam
10-27-2005, 07:17 PM
No, no....
What he means, being a peaceful muslim, is merely wipd as in, he wants a different map made, with a different name for israel.
Nobody would be harmed, no killing, just a whole lot of new maps being printed, worldwide, not just in the muslim world where Israel isnt on any maps to begin with!
malum
10-27-2005, 07:38 PM
That sounds like what I'd call Rummyspeak - 'there are known knowns, known unknowns, and there are unknown unknowns,' or something like that.
these are terms found in a variety of logic and reasoning process models, such as Fitch's 'Paradox of Knowability', propositional logic, Venn diagrams, etc...
there are more structured approaches to logical thinking than what typically occurs on itshappening... ;)
undertaker
10-27-2005, 08:43 PM
Generally speaking, when someone threatens* to kill me or my family, I tend to take it seriously. Don't you?
Orson
*even in jest.
I'm going off the edge?
Gosh, I don't know, if a explosive nuclear device were to go off in an American city, that's just one city lost, right? We have a bunch of these city dealies in this country do we not?
Have the Russians nuked us? Have the Chinese? Has anyone ever nuked anyone??
Why or why not?? We already covered this.
We are spending too much money on pro-actively trying to ensure that this doesn't happen, right? That we aren't attacked in this way?
Yes, that's correct.
The terrorists have shown themselves to be quite capable of doing amazingly destructive and horrific acts against us, but that doesn't sufficiently alarm you.
Actually false. The terrorists have an extremely low rate of success.. As I pointed out, there have only been two successful terrorist attacks in the US... EVER.. IN all of history. 3000 dead... How many people die from the flu each year, btw?
My opinion is that they threaten our way of life by threatening our security. Unlike Katrina, or an earthquake, we do have the ability to fight against the people who wold seek to do us harm. For myself, I am happy that our government is aggressively seeking to fight the possibilty that we will be attacked in this way.
Well, as this thread points out, our government HAS NOT taken an "aggressive stance" against proliferators of nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite.
Think Pakistan.. Think North Korea. Think Iran....
Now.. compare that to Bush quest to install an Iran type democracy in Iraq.
Which do you suppose has gotten more attention and more resources?
How are we providing incentive?? Iran is the one yelling for muslim world domination, unprovoked. If they would shut the fuck up and play nice we wouldn't have any problems.
By attacking nations that are foolish enough not to arm themselves with nukes before they refuse to obey the US (Iraq) , and by rewarding nations (with arms sales, foreign aid (cash) and favored states) that develop nukes secretly, lie about their nukes and give the techonolgy to terrorist states (Pakistan, North Korea).
Iran SHOULDN'T HAVE NUKE. My God. Of course they shouldn't
That's why its so frustrating to see us providing them INCENTIVE to get them!!!!!!!!
I wish we would leave these places, trust me. But I just can't fathom that our not being there would deter them in any way and maybe just maybe they would already HAVE nukes. As a matter of fact, had it not been for the Israelis Sadam would have had nukes before 1990 and we were his 'buddy' then. At least we seemed to be good enough buddies to give him about 1% of the chemical agents he enjoyed using.
I wish we would leave these places, trust me. But I just can't fathom that our not being there would deter them in any way and maybe just maybe they would already HAVE nukes. As a matter of fact, had it not been for the Israelis Sadam would have had nukes before 1990 and we were his 'buddy' then. At least we seemed to be good enough buddies to give him about 1% of the chemical agents he enjoyed using.
Its been shown over and over again that countries will NOT pursue nuclear weapons if they do not feel threatened.
Originally there were 5 nuclear powers, before the nuclear proliferation treaty was signed. They happen to be the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, the US, France, China, Russia
For years, that was it... No one pursued nukes.
Israel of course felt THREATENED by its neighbors.. so they developed nukes. Pakistan and India both felt threatened as well, since they were fighting a constant low grade war with each other over Kashmir, all the way back to 1947. Each feared the other would get the bomb first, then nuke the other...
So, those were the 3 countries that developed nukes after the NPT.
Now you have North Korea, which feels threatened by the presence of 10s of thousand US Troops in South Korea, and the fact that the most powerful leader in the world has referred to it as "the Axis of Evil".
Iran, understandably feels threatened as well. Bush called lumped them in with Iraq and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" and Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world.
Iran can look across the border and see what happened to Saddam who was in a similar situation.
They have ENORMOUS incentive to produce an atomic weapon
Developing an atomic bomb is extremely difficult and costly. A country must devote a great deal of its scientific resources and cash to the project, which takes decades typically to produce a weapon. If it has to be done in secret, its even more difficult and costly.
Most nations find it unnecessary to pursue nuclear weapons, because the cost in cash and political ill will of the international community are extremely high.
For nations like North Korea and Iran, however.. they consider the cost of NOT having nukes, to be even higher.
and I believe if you look at Saddam Hussein versus Perves Musharraf, you will see a strong case to support that notion.
By attacking nations that are foolish enough not to arm themselves with nukes before they refuse to obey the US (Iraq) , and by rewarding nations (with arms sales, foreign aid (cash) and favored states) that develop nukes secretly, lie about their nukes and give the techonolgy to terrorist states (Pakistan, North Korea).
That is a bit circular, though I agree with some of it's content. I think it a shitty deal to have to buy our friends and I am pissed about that. The leaders on both sides of the aisle are resopusible for that and Bush is making it worse I agree.
Why is it that Saudi and Pakistan got nukes in the first place? Because we were over there? I doubt it. Saudi we have kissed the sand burnt asses of because of oil, I don't disagree with that.
These islamic fools have been at war over the existance of their birth as a religion and I believe they simply are behind the much of the rest of the world in advances, though at one time they had assimilated culture that was advanced compared to the white apes. I think Islam has cancers it refuses to operate on and getting their 'god told me to do it' asses educated and armed with the ultimate weapon in the name of Allah. I don't we created the mess, I think we stir the hornets nest at times, but only to reveal the true nature of crazy islamic hardliners.
And stuff.
edit: p.s. good one, that last.
Bman - good post that last. You don't think their is anyting else at play here? Was there peace in muslim lands before oil became a global commodity? Was there peace there before whitey conquered the Ottoman Empire? This is the most disputed land in the history of earth. Not just jew on muslim, but muslim sects on muslim sects. We may have given them a reason to agree on who to attack this year or next, but we certainly don't have anything to do with whether they attack or not it seems to me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the way things are going either - but I think the world should do all it can to stop letting countries arm themselves with nukes. I think they would aspire to get them without our presence their and we would then be blamed for not being there to do anything about it when Iran nukes Iraq or Israel.
slaman
10-27-2005, 09:22 PM
Bman - good post that last. You don't think their is anyting else at play here? Was there peace in muslim lands before oil became a global commodity? Was there peace there before whitey conquered the Ottoman Empire? This is the most disputed land in the history of earth. Not just jew on muslim, but muslim sects on muslim sects. We may have given them a reason to agree on who to attack this year or next, but we certainly don't have anything to do with whether they attack or not it seems to me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the way things are going either - but I think the world should do all it can to stop letting countries arm themselves with nukes. I think they would aspire to get them without our presence their and we would then be blamed for not being there to do anything about it when Iran nukes Iraq or Israel.
coda that's a very pessimistic view on Islam and demonstrates a fair bit of ignorance of history. The Islamic Empire was very peaceful for very long periods of time. However, like any Empire, it was brought down by external factors and internal unrest. All Empires have gone through this - Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Roman, Greek... you name it.
I love how you bring up Jew on Muslim and Muslim on Muslim but conveniently forget the largest slaughter in the region - Christian on anything that wasn't...
Now look at it from a logical standpoint. The concept of nuclear deterrence is just that... the threat of global annilation is real, so no one will take the first step. The ONLY reason the US did it in WWII was because it was the only power that had the weapon...
Say what you want, but Iran isn't stupid. It's not going to risk the destruction of the world by nuking Israel. What it WILL do is get nuclear weapons to get more power in making Israel do what it wants...
Israel is the only nuclear power in the region - that creates an unfair balance. Basic game theory states that any neighbouring country, enemies of Israel, will seek those weapons out as well.
Agreed?
Slaman, you're right, I did forget to mention Christianity. Not on purpose, but they are to blame for many things. I think Christianity has progressed more and is more accepting of others than Islam is, generally speaking. However, my speeck appeared totally biased and was not intended.
What I am saying about the nukes is this. We need to stop ALL nuke spreading to these twerpy countries. It's all an excalation. the fucking Israelis stole their nukes, from us! I think we should get them back too. Argh. anyway...
slaman
10-27-2005, 09:31 PM
Slaman, you're right, I did forget to mention Christianity. Not on purpose, but they are to blame for many things. I think Christianity has progressed more and is more accepting of others than Islam is, generally speaking. However, my speeck appeared totally biased and was not intended.
What I am saying about the nukes is this. We need to stop ALL nuke spreading to these twerpy countries. It's all an excalation. the fucking Israelis stole their nukes, from us! I think we should get them back too. Argh. anyway...
Well blame Israel's nuclear technology on France...
I agree, nuclear proliferation is horrible...
Which is why I think the real "threat" was North Korea and not Iraq... and I think Bman is making that point as well.
I'm all for regulating Iran, but in completely legal manners. We have to get them to voluntarily give up their search for nuclear weapons technology. There is no legal argument for preventing them from pursuing "peaceful" nuclear technology...
PS: I forgot you were anti-religious - thought for a second that you were a Bible-thumper ;) Sorry for that offensive categorization hehe
Truthsayer
10-27-2005, 09:33 PM
Iran should Nuke up. I hope they have them now, if not they will have them soon. Israel needs to be punched in the mouth just like America, maybe then they will tread lightly while in the company of the muslims, may Allah give us a victory over their Kufr.
slaman
10-27-2005, 09:35 PM
Iran should Nuke up. I hope they have them now, if not they will have them soon. Israel needs to be punched in the mouth just like America, maybe then they will tread lightly while in the company of the muslims, may Allah give us a victory over their Kufr.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Are you advocating the murder of innocent civilians?
Please tell me that you want Israeli civilians to be killed...
Keep in mind, Israel is a MULTI-CULTURAL country with over 10% being Muslim...
Do you value the life of humans equally or is a Muslim "worth more" in your mind?
Pghredneck
10-27-2005, 09:40 PM
Well blame Israel's nuclear technology on France...
I agree, nuclear proliferation is horrible...
Which is why I think the real "threat" was North Korea and not Iraq... and I think Bman is making that point as well.
I'm all for regulating Iran, but in completely legal manners. We have to get them to voluntarily give up their search for nuclear weapons technology. There is no legal argument for preventing them from pursuing "peaceful" nuclear technology...
PS: I forgot you were anti-religious - thought for a second that you were a Bible-thumper ;) Sorry for that offensive categorization heheOK, I’ll be honest. I oppose other nations obtaining nukes primarily because it diminishes my countries advantage against them. But, if I were in the shoes of the frothing maniac who currently leads Iran, I’d move heaven and earth to acquire nuclear capabilities. And anyone who suggested that I voluntarily give up my ambitions would summarily be told to fuck off or worse...
Truthsayer
10-27-2005, 09:41 PM
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Are you advocating the murder of innocent civilians?
Please tell me that you want Israeli civilians to be killed...
Keep in mind, Israel is a MULTI-CULTURAL country with over 10% being Muslim...
Do you value the life of humans equally or is a Muslim "worth more" in your mind?
I am not advocating the Murder of Civilians. If Israel attacks Iran then it deserves what is coming to it, and the Civilians of Israel will be responsible for the kind of governmen that chooses to attack Iran pre-emptively. I value all human life, but clearly it is the Muslims who submit to Allah, and the other people of Israel who are practicing Jews and Christians should influence their government to not be so oppresive to their muslim neighbors if Israel persist in their domination of the Muslims then I pray that Iran can gain the power and technology to defeat them, this will make for a more peaceful middle east.
Truthsayer
10-27-2005, 09:43 PM
OK, I’ll be honest. I oppose other nations obtaining nukes primarily because it diminishes my countries advantage against them. But, if I were in the shoes of the frothing maniac who currently leads Iran, I’d move heaven and earth to acquire nuclear capabilities. And anyone who suggested that I voluntarily give up my ambitions would summarily be told to fuck off or worse...
I agree with you on this dog.. Great Post.:happy_01:
undertaker
10-27-2005, 09:44 PM
I am not advocating the Murder of Civilians. If Israel attacks Iran then it deserves what is coming to it, and the Civilians of Israel will be responsible for the kind of governmen that chooses to attack Iran pre-emptively. I value all human life, but clearly it is the Muslims who submit to Allah, and the other people of Israel who are practicing Jews and Christians should influence their government to not be so oppresive to their muslim neighbors if Israel persist in their domination of the Muslims then I pray that Iran can gain the power and technology to defeat them, this will make for a more peaceful middle east.
As the buzzards circle overhead, on a hot windy day.
Orson
undertaker
10-27-2005, 10:35 PM
The smell of cooked meat and the shimmer of glass assaults the senses of smell and sight.
Orson
Truthsayer
10-27-2005, 10:48 PM
The smell of cooked meat and the shimmer of glass assaults the senses of smell and sight.
Orson
I would Imagine that Meat and Bagels is a pretty good meal.:add09:
slaman
10-27-2005, 11:24 PM
I am not advocating the Murder of Civilians. If Israel attacks Iran then it deserves what is coming to it, and the Civilians of Israel will be responsible for the kind of governmen that chooses to attack Iran pre-emptively. I value all human life, but clearly it is the Muslims who submit to Allah, and the other people of Israel who are practicing Jews and Christians should influence their government to not be so oppresive to their muslim neighbors if Israel persist in their domination of the Muslims then I pray that Iran can gain the power and technology to defeat them, this will make for a more peaceful middle east.
Ok, so a pre-emptive attack deserves a response that attacks the civilians of a nation?
Now, do you feel that, as an American, you are a legitimate target for an Iraqi or Afghani insurgent?
Israel persists in their domination of the Muslims? In what manner? In the way they treat their Muslim citizens? In the fact that they are the military power in the region?
Can you comment on how Iran "dominates" Jews in its country? Or how Lebanon treats its Christians?
slaman
10-27-2005, 11:25 PM
OK, I’ll be honest. I oppose other nations obtaining nukes primarily because it diminishes my countries advantage against them. But, if I were in the shoes of the frothing maniac who currently leads Iran, I’d move heaven and earth to acquire nuclear capabilities. And anyone who suggested that I voluntarily give up my ambitions would summarily be told to fuck off or worse...
You admit your selfish reasoning behind this... for that I respect you.
And you have a great point...
Lone Star
10-28-2005, 12:06 AM
Iran should Nuke up. I hope they have them now, if not they will have them soon. Israel needs to be punched in the mouth just like America, maybe then they will tread lightly while in the company of the muslims, may Allah give us a victory over their Kufr.
You will always have the nutsack of the kafir squarely upon your nostrils and upper lip whenever you are not sniffing his arsehole oh truthslayer, this you can count on till the end of your days.Just as every other Muslim nutcase will, enjoy! :add09:
happyjill
10-28-2005, 12:48 AM
Wow, I have to say that I disagree with almost everything in your response.
Have the Russians nuked us? Have the Chinese? Has anyone ever nuked anyone??
Why or why not?? We already covered this.
You’ve already covered this. Man, you can be an egomaniac sometimes. You are coming from left field on this issue, as whatever has happened in the past with regard to use of nuclear weapons has little to do with the horrible possibilities that the future holds. The Russians are still a concern because they had and continue to possess 1000s of atomic weapons, as well as tons of fissile material, which I don’t think have been adequately accounted for. So they may indirectly irradiate us in the future, due to the lack of appropriate safeguards with their nuclear stockpiles.
Vigilance is the key here. I do not agree with your analysis of why the past is any key to why the future has little threat of people “nuking” other people. During the Cold War, the bomb was not dropped on either side because of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. The Communists obviously cared as much about their survival as we did ours-the guarantee of a nuclear exchange kept accountability for nuclear weapons usage the shared reality of all the members of the nuclear club.
The future is significantly different, and countries like Iran are a good illustrator of the difficulties that we face. What is lacking here is that accountability which kept people sane in the past. Terrorism is a great way for different groups and countries to not to be accountable for the acts of political violence that they pursue. Countries like Pakistan, Syria and Iran have used terrorism and the groups that pursue it by proxy as a means of furthering particular national goals. The terrorist networks that they established, and help fund and facilitate, have different groups that have acted in tandem with those governments, but have also independently of those governments and national goals.
When Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad srikes Israel, they are acting as an adjunct of Iranian foreign policy and as their agents-but shield the Iranians from those acts because they are discreet groups separate from the Iranian government.
All the Islamist groups are likely loosely connected as well. I don’t doubt that AQ people talk to IJ people who talk to Palestinian groups and so on. Islamist groups have a variety of shared aims and goals which I would imagine helps to create alliances between them as the need arises.
What this ultimately means for us is that if a nuclear weapon or other WMD entered into any one of these well-established terrorist networks, real problems will arise. The Islamist terror networks have shown an ability to pull off complicated attacks in countries far from their bases of operation. They would love the opportunity to strike at the heart of the west, and Israel in particular, with a WMD. These terror networks allow the hard-core revolutionary, extremist strain of Islam to strike Western targets without an opportunity to pin the blame on a particular country.
You have pointed out yourself that the Saudis and the Pakistanis themselves represent a threat that is not being addressed. I agree with you-these countries have been shielded from real responsibility for the terror networks which they have helped create. I don’t doubt that 911 was a great victory for Saudi Wahhabist movement and the Mujahadeen/Taliban in Afghanistan. As you know, the Taliban was partially a creation of the Pakistani intelligence services.
With that kind of base-the terror networks allow the Islamist movement a means of reaching us, in our cities, and our homes. This is not an idle threat, and this is where you and I likely part ways in the way we see the dangers currently present in the world.
We are spending too much money on pro-actively trying to ensure that this doesn't happen, right? That we aren't attacked in this way?
Yes, that's correct.
I am having a Katrina moment here. I remember reading about the dangers involved with a catastrophic hurricane and the inadequate levy system in NOLA over a year ago in National Geographic. At the time I thought-well they should probably spend the money, if the city is under 10 feet of water, that’s likely to be more expensive then the cost of beefing up the flood system.
I don’t know what the cost of a WMD strike would be. You might as well ask what the cost of replacing LA, or NYC, or San Diego would be. Or London, Paris or Tel Aviv for that matter. Whatever the expense of the security measures that we take now is, it is likely to be paltry in comparison to that kind of post-WMD terror strike expense.
Actually false. The terrorists have an extremely low rate of success.. As I pointed out, there have only been two successful terrorist attacks in the US... EVER.. IN all of history. 3000 dead... How many people die from the flu each year, btw?
Bman, this is one instance where I have to shake my head at you. We were attacked by an hostile external group. They killed 1000s our country men. It is not an event comparable to the flu. Besides the fact that Americans were attacked and murdered in 2 major American cities, 911 had so many associated costs to those killings; I think it’s impossible to get a grip on its totality. Besides the lost infrastructure, the shutting down of the financial markets, the shut down of the air travel system, the lost human capital of all the 911 victims, and tipping the country into recession, and the continuing and ongoing fall out from it to this day. How do you put a price on the lost sense of security in our homes and country after that event?
Your flippancy about the event tells me that you are an idiot that I didn’t peg you for, or are making a point that you haven’t thought through.
Did we as a country, sit around and say, wow, that Pearl Harbor attack only cost us 4,500 American lives-compare that to the flu! No, we made damn sure that the Japanese and the other fascist countries of the time would never be able to come after us again. That’s the same resolve that we need to pursue these Islamist networks.
This part of your response to me is the most stunning and disgraceful that I could have imagined from you.
Well, as this thread points out, our government HAS NOT taken an "aggressive stance" against proliferators of nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite.
Think Pakistan.. Think North Korea. Think Iran....
Now.. compare that to Bush quest to install an Iran type democracy in Iraq.
Which do you suppose has gotten more attention and more resources?
I happen to agree with you-we do need to go after the Saudi based terror networks, as well as the Pakistani based ones, and call these countries to account for the damage that they have already done. My sense on this is that these countries are marginally in “our camp”. For a variety of internal political reasons, these countries allowed the establishment of terror support networks from their resource bases. The alliance of the Wahhabi sect and the Saudi royal family meant that Saudi oil money went to the proselytizing of the militant Islam that sect pursues. Pakistan similarly pursued a policy of promotion of Islamic fundamentalism as a means of furthering specific national goals-unity in the face of its ongoing struggles with India for example. These internal political situations with both countries created real danger outside of the countries themselves.
I think that our government knows these things, and is working to put pressure on SA and Pakistan to eliminate these hard-core Islamist tendencies within those countries. It’s difficult because the SA and Pakistani governments can not be seen to be kowtowing to the Americans-doing so might lead to the rise of governments even more inimical to American national goals-so a more measured approach is likely being taken by the US with them.
The idea here is likely to be-hey; let’s not create another couple of Irans.
Which loops me back to why Iran is different than these other countries. The Islamic revolution in Iran specifically promotes conflict with us, and death to Israel. There is none of the pleasant lip service, and monetary relationships that we share with SA. No partnerships in fighting terrorists with the Pakistanis. The Iranians are our enemies here, and have been for a quarter century. Definitely people we do not want to allow to make atomic weapons (remember, lack of accountability here). Especially with the unrestrained terror networks that have been the godfathers for, for decades now
You are right that we need to keep an eye on the situation in Iraq-whatever steps we are taking are likely to be short cuts made for the sake of expendiency, rather than the appropriate actions necessary to ensure the best future for our national interest. Its an on-going drama, and one that is being written as we speak. Not an easy situation, by any means.
__________________
Bman, this is one instance where I have to shake my head at you. We were attacked by an hostile external group. They killed 1000s our country men. It is not an event comparable to the flu. Besides the fact that Americans were attacked and murdered in 2 major American cities, 911 had so many associated costs to those killings; I think it’s impossible to get a grip on its totality. Besides the lost infrastructure, the shutting down of the financial markets, the shut down of the air travel system, the lost human capital of all the 911 victims, and tipping the country into recession, and the continuing and ongoing fall out from it to this day. How do you put a price on the lost sense of security in our homes and country after that event?
Your flippancy about the event tells me that you are an idiot that I didn’t peg you for, or are making a point that you haven’t thought through.
Did we as a country, sit around and say, wow, that Pearl Harbor attack only cost us 4,500 American lives-compare that to the flu! No, we made damn sure that the Japanese and the other fascist countries of the time would never be able to come after us again. That’s the same resolve that we need to pursue these Islamist networks.
This part of your response to me is the most stunning and disgraceful that I could have imagined from you.
That was in specific response to your statement that the terrorist have shown themselves to have a "high rate of success" in attacking us.
And this is based on WHAT? I pointed out that they do NOT have a high rate of success in attacking us.
BTW, 9/11 didn't put us into a recession. That's another myth. In fact, 9/11 brought us OUT of a recession (due to all the Fed stimulus and government spending). That's a FACT that can be shown by looking at quarterly GDP data.. but a I won't even bother to go into that.
Fictious Actor
10-28-2005, 02:08 AM
Annan 'dismayed' by Iran remarks
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has voiced his "dismay" over remarks by Iran's president calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
In a rare rebuke, Mr Annan reminded Iran that, as a UN signatory, it had undertaken not to threaten the use of force against another state.
While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words provoked international outrage, Tehran said the West was over-reacting.
Israel has called for Iran to be expelled from the UN.
A statement released by the UN said the secretary general "read with dismay the remarks about Israel attributed to Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad".
It is rare for Kofi Annan to publicly rebuke a UN member state, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan in New York.
Our correspondent says Mr Annan, like other secretaries general, sees himself as the servant of the 191 countries that make up the UN.
Israeli demand
Mr Ahmadinejad made his comments at a conference on Wednesday in Tehran entitled The World without Zionism.
We must submit a clear-cut request to the UN (...) to obtain Iran's expulsion from the United Nations
Shimon Peres
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister
Referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Mr Ahmadinejad's speech drew a chorus of global condemnation, not least from Israel, which called for Iran to be kicked out of the UN.
"We must submit a clear-cut request to the UN secretary general and the Security Council to obtain Iran's expulsion from the United Nations," Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said.
Correspondents say it is unlikely that such a request would be followed through.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" at Mr Ahmadinejad's words, which he called "completely and totally unacceptable."
"Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?" he said.
Negotiations have stalled between the EU and Iran over attempts to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Iranian leader's words underlined US concerns about Tehran's nuclear programme.
The US suspects Iran of wanting to acquire atomic weapons but Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
'Over-reacting'
French President Jacques Chirac said Iran was at risk of becoming "an outlaw state".
"I was profoundly shocked by the statements of the Iranian president, which are totally senseless and irresponsible," he said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on a visit to Israel, called Mr Ahmadinejad's comments unacceptable.
He said they gave ammunition to those seeking to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear policy.
Russia is seen as a supporter of Iran in the international row over its nuclear programme.
But the mood in Tehran seems defiant, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Bridget Kendall.
She says officials there played down their president's comments as nothing out of the ordinary.
Instead, our correspondent says they accused the West of deliberately over-reacting in an attempt to smear Iran's image abroad and bolster their claim that Iran might be seeking nuclear weapons.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384024.stm
Published: 2005/10/28 04:49:21 GMT
OldGit
10-28-2005, 04:34 AM
these are terms found in a variety of logic and reasoning process models, such as Fitch's 'Paradox of Knowability', propositional logic, Venn diagrams, etc...
there are more structured approaches to logical thinking than what typically occurs on itshappening... ;)
As yet unknown knowns, you mean Malum - like - known by some, but not others?
I know that - I suppose its a known known, but I know which is easier to say and understand.
:)
The future is significantly different, and countries like Iran are a good illustrator of the difficulties that we face. What is lacking here is that accountability which kept people sane in the past. Terrorism is a great way for different groups and countries to not to be accountable for the acts of political violence that they pursue. Countries like Pakistan, Syria and Iran have used terrorism and the groups that pursue it by proxy as a means of furthering particular national goals. The terrorist networks that they established, and help fund and facilitate, have different groups that have acted in tandem with those governments, but have also independently of those governments and national goals.
When Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad srikes Israel, they are acting as an adjunct of Iranian foreign policy and as their agents-but shield the Iranians from those acts because they are discreet groups separate from the Iranian government.
All the Islamist groups are likely loosely connected as well. I don’t doubt that AQ people talk to IJ people who talk to Palestinian groups and so on. Islamist groups have a variety of shared aims and goals which I would imagine helps to create alliances between them as the need arises.
Ok. I've had time to put some thoughts together.
Iran's current government has been in existence for the past 25 years. Do you agree with that?
In that time, can you tell me how many times Iran has been linked to terrorism against US citizens, on US soil?
You suggest that terrorism threatens the very viability of the United States, so I would think that you could easily off the top of your head list a few of the incidences were Iran was linked to terrorism IN THE UNITED STATES of America.
The fact is, Iran does NOT have a long history of terrorism against the United States. I'm sure there have been incidences here and there, but they are NEGLIGLE.
Why , NOW, all of a sudden do you feel Iran is about to embark on some wide, mass scale terrorist campaign??
I'm not sure whether you're being careless or ignorant, but there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is an any way affiliated with AL QAEDA, or Wahhabism.
Al Qaeda is the organization that has "upped the ante" when it comes to mass scale terrorist attacks against the West, and in particular, in the United States.
I fully support sparing no cost or effort in tracking down and destroying Al Qaeda.
The FACTS of the matter, however, suggest that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the primary STATE SPONSORS of Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. Not Iran.
Again, I'm not sure if you're one of those folks that consider all muslims to be Arabs, and all Arabs to be terrorists, or what. Iranians are NOT Wahhabis, and as far as I know I have never heard of any link between Iran and Al Qaeda.
In addition, let us not forget that Iran considers the US to be a terrorist nation.
When one considers the FACTS of the matter, Iran has more reason to fear "terrorism" from the US, than the US has to fear from Iran.
Anyone remember the US downing of a unarmed Iranian jetliner by a US warship??
300 people were killed in that attack.
The fact is, governments of the world have been attacking each other "clandestinely" for decades. This isn't some new threat. This has been around all my life.
Al Qaeda, however, is relatively new phenomena. Let's not take our eye off the ball.
Catwoman
10-28-2005, 09:25 AM
Bman, go to the News Forum and check out NYer's post on Iran. Looks like Tony Blair's ire is up.
Bman, go to the News Forum and check out NYer's post on Iran. Looks like Tony Blair's ire is up.
As well it should be.
But I don't think anything at all has changed with Iran in the past 25 years..
they're the same now as they were when Khomeini was there.. No more of a threat, no less
I just scanned an article on how *odd* that Arab countries are quite mute on the statements by the Iranian Pres.
Well blame Israel's nuclear technology on France...
I agree, nuclear proliferation is horrible...
Which is why I think the real "threat" was North Korea and not Iraq... and I think Bman is making that point as well.
I'm all for regulating Iran, but in completely legal manners. We have to get them to voluntarily give up their search for nuclear weapons technology. There is no legal argument for preventing them from pursuing "peaceful" nuclear technology...
PS: I forgot you were anti-religious - thought for a second that you were a Bible-thumper ;) Sorry for that offensive categorization hehe
I blame France for many things. Mostly for being stupid. It's hard to get your whole point across on this board when we can't read all past posts building up to current discussions. Here is a little of my view of some of this:
http://wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=367096&postcount=275
slaman
10-28-2005, 09:57 AM
I blame France for many things. Mostly for being stupid. It's hard to get your whole point across on this board when we can't read all past posts building up to current discussions. Here is a little of my view of some of this:
http://wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=367096&postcount=275
I don't agree with your post because you classify Iraq as the same threat-level as Hitler's Nazi Regime.
One's goal was global domination and racial superiority, and the other's wasn't. There's a significant difference.
Catwoman
10-28-2005, 10:19 AM
I just scanned an article on how *odd* that Arab countries are quite mute on the statements by the Iranian Pres.
Are you surprised? What if "Death to Israel and Satan" forment was suddenly directed inward toward the leaders?
pilobolus
10-28-2005, 10:23 AM
Ok. I've had time to put some thoughts together.
Iran's current government has been in existence for the past 25 years. Do you agree with that?
In that time, can you tell me how many times Iran has been linked to terrorism against US citizens, on US soil?
You suggest that terrorism threatens the very viability of the United States, so I would think that you could easily off the top of your head list a few of the incidences were Iran was linked to terrorism IN THE UNITED STATES of America.
The fact is, Iran does NOT have a long history of terrorism against the United States. I'm sure there have been incidences here and there, but they are NEGLIGLE.
Why , NOW, all of a sudden do you feel Iran is about to embark on some wide, mass scale terrorist campaign??
I'm not sure whether you're being careless or ignorant, but there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is an any way affiliated with AL QAEDA, or Wahhabism.
Al Qaeda is the organization that has "upped the ante" when it comes to mass scale terrorist attacks against the West, and in particular, in the United States.
I fully support sparing no cost or effort in tracking down and destroying Al Qaeda.
The FACTS of the matter, however, suggest that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the primary STATE SPONSORS of Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. Not Iran.
Again, I'm not sure if you're one of those folks that consider all muslims to be Arabs, and all Arabs to be terrorists, or what. Iranians are NOT Wahhabis, and as far as I know I have never heard of any link between Iran and Al Qaeda.
The philosophy of preimptive action makes such considerations moot
I don't agree with your post because you classify Iraq as the same threat-level as Hitler's Nazi Regime.
One's goal was global domination and racial superiority, and the other's wasn't. There's a significant difference.
Goal's grow with the advent of success, especially if success is not guided with moralities. An asshole by any other name, is still an asshole...
Ponder
10-28-2005, 10:39 AM
Iranians bemused over furor concerning Elmo's remarks....after all they hear it after every Friday's prayers, and they even have annual rallies to celebrate hatred towards Israel and the U.S. while picnicking with their families....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1847563,00.html
On the spot in Tehran: 'A family day-out ... with flag-burning'
Ramita Navai, Tehran Correspondent for The Times, was among thousands on the streets of the Iranian capital for annual anti-Israel rallies, at which the President continued his inflammatory rhetoric.
"It's a bit like a family day out, but with cursory outbreaks of flag burning. There are picnics, street-vendors and people selling balloons... there's a kind of carnival atmosphere.
"But I walked past one stand where people were writing messages on a flag to send to Palestine. There was a girl there, she can't have been older than 5, and she had just signed her name below a message reading 'Death to Israel, death to America.'
"The conservative hardliners have turned out in force, but it would be a mistake to think that all of Iran is on the streets baying for Israel's blood.
"The majority of ordinary Iranians don't really care about Israel - they have enough to worry about at home with a declining economy and high unemployment.
"Many of the people are wearing bibs or carrying banners which read 'Peaceful Nuclear Energy is Iran's Right.' That is certainly an issue which has united all of Iran - the destruction of Israel is not.
"Nevertheless, Iranians are really quite puzzled by the reaction to the President's comments. To them it's nothing that they don't hear at every Friday prayers. They are quite bemused about it all. Everyone knows that it's what President Ahmadinejad thinks.
"What's being debated here is whether he is just incredibly naiive and inexperienced in international diplomacy or whether this is a change towards a more confrontational approach in Iran's negotiating tactics.
"I have heard that he has just repeated his comments to the crowd, confirmed and repeated them. So it looks as though he is not backing down."
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,239713,00.jpg
Iranian schoolboys shoot with their toy guns in Tehran (Vahid Salemi/AP)
pilobolus
10-28-2005, 10:42 AM
All this goings on in Iran, particularly the University Students shouting death to Isreal, USA, must make conservatives here in the US pine for better days.
Imagine, if OUR universities were filled with students that would toe the government line and get behind the program of demonizing our enemies.
sigh.
Iranians bemused over furor concerning Elmo's remarks....after all they hear it after every Friday's prayers, and they even have annual rallies to celebrate hatred towards Israel and the U.S. while picnicking with their families....
I have to admit, I was surprised as well to see the big "bruhahah" over this
Doesn't the Iranian Parliament begin its opening session each year by chanting "Death to America"??
That's what gets them motivated, apparently. Fortunately, its just bluster. Its meant to please the voters back home.
pilobolus
10-28-2005, 10:49 AM
I have to admit, I was surprised as well to see the big "bruhahah" over this
Doesn't the Iranian Parliament begin its opening session each year by chanting "Death to America"??
That's what gets them motivated, apparently. Fortunately, its just bluster. Its meant to please the voters back home.
The Bruhahah could be that while this is daily occurence, perhaps it means something more when a head of state, with a potential finger on the nuclear button, states such.
Spectre
10-28-2005, 10:51 AM
Ok. I've had time to put some thoughts together.
Iran's current government has been in existence for the past 25 years. Do you agree with that?
In that time, can you tell me how many times Iran has been linked to terrorism against US citizens, on US soil?
You suggest that terrorism threatens the very viability of the United States, so I would think that you could easily off the top of your head list a few of the incidences were Iran was linked to terrorism IN THE UNITED STATES of America.
The fact is, Iran does NOT have a long history of terrorism against the United States. I'm sure there have been incidences here and there, but they are NEGLIGLE.
Why , NOW, all of a sudden do you feel Iran is about to embark on some wide, mass scale terrorist campaign??
I'm not sure whether you're being careless or ignorant, but there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is an any way affiliated with AL QAEDA, or Wahhabism.
Al Qaeda is the organization that has "upped the ante" when it comes to mass scale terrorist attacks against the West, and in particular, in the United States.
I fully support sparing no cost or effort in tracking down and destroying Al Qaeda.
The FACTS of the matter, however, suggest that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the primary STATE SPONSORS of Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. Not Iran.
Again, I'm not sure if you're one of those folks that consider all muslims to be Arabs, and all Arabs to be terrorists, or what. Iranians are NOT Wahhabis, and as far as I know I have never heard of any link between Iran and Al Qaeda.
This is a GREAT post. I just absolutely don't understand the logic of people around here. How the fuck are you linking 9/11 to Iran HJ?? I mean Jesus Christ, should we just start taking over the world? By the huge degrees of separation that you're apparently using to link Iran and 9/11 you could probably link just about any country on Earth to it too. Or is it just Islamic nations? How about poor ones? Non-democratic ones? Ones that make stupid comments? WTF?
Terrorism has been around for a VERY VERY long time. We are NOT going to stop it. That's utterly impossible. The only reason it makes such big press today is because the tools to cause large scale terrorism are readily available on just about any open market and to any Joe Schmo. To think that you're going to stamp out terrorism by talking tough and declaring war on every country that employs the use of terrorism is patently absurd.
This is a GREAT post. I just absolutely don't understand the logic of people around here. How the fuck are you linking 9/11 to Iran HJ?? I mean Jesus Christ, should we just start taking over the world? By the huge degrees of separation that you're apparently using to link Iran and 9/11 you could probably link just about any country on Earth to it too. Or is it just Islamic nations? How about poor ones? Non-democratic ones? Ones that make stupid comments? WTF?
It comes out of ignorance. They don't realize that the Muslim world is made up of numerous races, sects, and nations... that they're not all one big unit marching in lockstep, with the excepttion that I think they all want to see Israel destroyed.
alot of people think Iran is an "Arab" country. Pakistan too.
Terrorism has been around for a VERY VERY long time. We are NOT going to stop it. That's utterly impossible. The only reason it makes such big press today is because the tools to cause large scale terrorism are readily available on just about any open market and to any Joe Schmo. To think that you're going to stamp out terrorism by talking tough and declaring war on every country that employs the use of terrorism is patently absurd.
Not all terrorism is the same, either.. If Israel fires a rocket into the car of an old man in a wheel chair and five bystanders are killed, is THAT terrorism?
If terrorists attack a warship, because they don't feel it should be in the Gulf, is that TERRORISM? How is that different than a warship downing an airliner because it "shouldn't be" in the Gulf?
Terrorism that targets civilians is always wrong, however. In my opinion its just as bad if it comes from a fighter jet, or a suicide bomber, however.
The Bruhahah could be that while this is daily occurence, perhaps it means something more when a head of state, with a potential finger on the nuclear button, states such.
Wasn't he speaking to a crowd of students or something??
This has been going on for ever.. Nothing new here
November 4, 2003 Tuesday
Iranian hard-liners commemorate anniversary of 1979 U.S. embassy seizure
ALI AKBAR DAREINI; Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran
Thousands of Iranians, mostly hard-liners, marked the 24th anniversary of the student-led takeover of the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday by chanting anti-U.S. slogans at the site that once housed the embassy in central Tehran.
The participants, mostly students, chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and burned U.S. and Israeli flags and an effigy of U.S. President George W. Bush.
Hard-line cleric Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri told the crowd that U.S. attempts to meddle in Iranian politics have been unsuccessful.
"America's plans for a regime change in Iran have met a totally disappointing failure," said Nateq Nouri, a top adviser to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
He said the United States challenged Iran's leadership by its support of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in his 1980-88 war against Iran and now continues its efforts through a push for political change from within.
"Assuming that Iran's new youth generation does not remember the 1979 revolution and will not support the Islamic establishment, the Americans have been encouraging riots with their final aim being regime change," Nateq Nouri said.
He was referring to student-led protests in June in which protesters called for the overthrow of the ruling Islamic establishment.
Authorities arrested 4,000 people, some of them students, and unleashed hard-line vigilantes to silence the protesters. Almost all the detainees have been freed.
Nateq Nouri charged that the American administration was testing waters through "its mercenaries," who provoked the riots.
"But they met crushing failure. This establishment will not collapse if a number of foolish people take to the streets," he said, and advised the United States not to expect big changes in Iran.
"Americans have wrongly pinned hope on reformists to bring changes in Iran but even reformists have disappointed them through remaining loyal to the basic principles of the ruling establishment," he said.
Nateq Nouri was the biggest rival to President Mohammad Khatami during 1997 presidential elections but was embarrassed after Khatami's landslide victory.
Iranians regularly mark the anniversary of the U.S. Embassy takeover with protests but Tuesday's ceremony drew a larger gathering compared to the previous years. The increase is likely due to a rise in U.S. complaints and pressure on Iran about its nuclear program and and branding of Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" by Bush.
In 1979, militant students seized the embassy and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days to protest Washington's decision to give refuge to deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom the revolutionary government wanted to stand trial in Iran.
Many Iranians, including reformists, consider the takeover of the U.S. embassy as the outcome of the wrath of the Iranian nation against many years of American interference in Iran's internal affairs.
Iranians resent the U.S. government for its role in a coup that toppled the populist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953 and its support of Pahlavi during the 1979 Islamic revolution.
"The Americans are afraid that Iran's message of the 1979 Islamic revolution has prompted Muslims in Lebanon and Palestine to resist foreign domination and stand up for their rights," he said.
Iran supports the Lebanese group Hezbollah and militant Palestinian groups fighting Israel but has dismissed allegations of extending military or financial help to the militants.
Oh, THIS (http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=406419&postcount=57) is real nice :rolleyes:
SmokedYourDSM
10-28-2005, 11:13 AM
I'm praying they wait until mid-november.
I have a LOT of pent up aggression i'd like to get out these days.....
and an IMI Negev to do the talking.....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ea/Negev01.jpg/300px-Negev01.jpg
Again.. this is NOTHING NEW folks.. this has been going on for DECADES
Why is there such fascination with this all of a sudden????
Financial Times (London,England)
October 12, 2000, Thursday London Edition 1
Iran hardliners push for foreign policy rethink
By GUY DINMORE
TEHRAN
Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister, flies to Iraq today as events strengthen the hand of hardliners demanding a rethink of Tehran's foreign policy, including more support for Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla movement and radical Palestinian groups.
Mr Kharrazi, the first Iranian foreign minister to visit Iraq since their 1980-88 war, is also expected to visit Syria and Lebanon.
Iranian newspapers reported that Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, had asked Iran to use its influence over Hizbollah to secure the release of three Israeli soldiers captured in the disputed Shebaa Farms area last Saturday. The Tehran Times also said the US had urged Jose Maria Aznar Spain's prime minister, to carry the same message when he visits Iran on October 21. Western diplomats in Tehran could not confirm the reports.
Clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces on the West Bank repeatedly broadcast on Iranian television have led to renewed calls for the "removal of the cancerous tumour" that Iran calls Israel.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, who has the ultimate say in foreign policy, has called on Muslim states to sever all ties with Israel and says Iran will back the Palestinians in their "new intifada" (uprising).
Mohsen Rezaie, former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, went further, saying revolutionary forces in Iran had established a new "anti-Zionist movement". He suggested that Islamic countries, with UN co-operation, send military forces to the borders of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to intervene in the event of Israeli attacks on Palestinians.
Egypt has been the first casualty in this apparent shift in Iranian diplomacy. Relations between the two countries had been steadily improving but Arab diplomats in Tehran said normalisation of ties could not be finalised in the current climate. Hardline newspapers in Iran often accuse Egypt of treachery for its 1978 peace deal with Israel.
The bloodshed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip may also undermine quiet efforts by the US and Iran to open talks on normalising their relations. Diplomats said it was interesting, however, that Mehdi Karrubi, the speaker of parliament and the key figure in an anti-Israeli demonstration in Tehran last week, led the crowd in calls for "death to Israel" but barely made any mention of the US while the demonstrators carried out their ritual burning of the US flag.
Meanwhile, Iran and Iraq appear to be moving closer. Iran reported progress in talks between Mr Khatami and the Iraqi vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, on the sidelines of an Opec summit in Caracas last month.
Iraq has called for the opening of a new page in relations with Iran and last week sent its transport minister to Tehran to try to re- establish air links in defiance of UN sanctions. Iran said it would consider the matter.
pilobolus
10-28-2005, 11:15 AM
Wasn't he speaking to a crowd of students or something??
This has been going on for ever.. Nothing new here
My argument is this; when someone on this board, for instance, says "Nuke Mecca" it means something different that when the President, for instance, calls for a crusade against terror. It may be rhetoric and we know the peon has no say on who get's nuked, but the fact that the one in power suggests that there is a need to eliminate some country or use language laden with ominous meaning, well, it is a big deal.
My argument is this; when someone on this board, for instance, says "Nuke Mecca" it means something different that when the President, for instance, calls for a crusade against terror. It may be rhetoric and we know the peon has no say on who get's nuked, but the fact that the one in power suggests that there is a need to eliminate some country or use language laden with ominous meaning, well, it is a big deal.
And I've posted a few articles in this thread that show that it WAS people in power, all along who have been calling for "death to Israel" and "death to America"
Its been the GOVERNMENT of Iran.
All of a sudden, this is a big deal. Makes me wonder if Bush's paid media agents aren't trying to whip up a case for war.
SmokedYourDSM
10-28-2005, 11:19 AM
And I've posted a few articles in this thread that show that it WAS people in power, all along who have been calling for "death to Israel" and "death to America"
Its been the GOVERNMENT of Iran.
All of a sudden, this is a big deal. Makes me wonder if Bush's paid media agents aren't trying to whip up a case for war.
Well, here's to our troops NEVER leaving Iraq now...
Spectre
10-28-2005, 11:19 AM
And I've posted a few articles in this thread that show that it WAS people in power, all along who have been calling for "death to Israel" and "death to America"
Its been the GOVERNMENT of Iran.
All of a sudden, this is a big deal. Makes me wonder if Bush's paid media agents aren't trying to whip up a case for war.
I SWEAR TO GOD I was just about to post something very similar. This is TOTALLY nothing new and it's very fishy that all of a sudden this is a big deal right around indictment time.
SmokedYourDSM
10-28-2005, 11:21 AM
I SWEAR TO GOD I was just about to post something very similar. This is TOTALLY nothing new and it's very fishy that all of a sudden this is a big deal right around indictment time.
exactly, and a month or two after a SEMI DECENT exit strategy was announced..
Bye bye exit strategy, you think Bush is going to PULL TROOPS out now...? fat chance.
They will just set up shop next door in Iran now...
I SWEAR TO GOD I was just about to post something very similar. This is TOTALLY nothing new and it's very fishy that all of a sudden this is a big deal right around indictment time.
What has changed since 15 YEAR AGO??
Shit, even the US President's NAME is the same.. .LOL
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
September 13, 1990, THURSDAY, FIVE STAR Edition
IRANIAN LEADER CALLS FOR A 'HOLY WAR'
NICOSIA, Cyprus - Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stepped up his country's support for Iraq on Wednesday, calling for a holy war against Western forces and raising the prospect of suicide attacks. And Iraq's foreign minister accused President George Bush of plotting to take over the world.
In other developments Wednesday: An Iraqi Airways plane carrying 440 Westerners, most of them American and British women and children, landed in London after a flight from Baghdad, Iraq, airport officials said. A State Department spokesman said the plane, a Boeing 747, carried 274 Americans on board; British officials estimated that 83 Britons were on the flight and an unspecified number of foreigners. The Americans will be flown today to Raleigh-Durham airport in North Carolina. Another plane, carrying 10 ailing and elderly Italian men, was flown to Rome. About 900 Americans have left Iraq and Kuwait in recent days, and an additional flight is scheduled for Friday. About 1,400 Americans remain in Kuwait while about 200 are in Iraq, according to official estimates.
Iraqi soldiers publicly executed three Kuwaitis suspected of being resistance fighters and burned 17 houses to discourage opposition to their occupation of the emirate, a British woman said in Baghdad. ''It is pretty horrific at the moment in the residential areas,'' she told BBC television. Iraqi authorities are intensifying their search for American men in Kuwait in an apparent effort to find more human shields to deter a possible U.S. strike, the State Department said. ''In Kuwait, there has been increased harassment of U.S. citizens, and more systematic house-to-house searches for American men are now being conducted,'' said spokesman Richard Boucher.
In Tehran, Iran, Khamenei declared that Moslems who die fighting to throw Americans out of the region would be martyrs bound for heaven. His speech, monitored in Nicosia, came amid reports that his country had agreed to help break the U.N. embargo of Iraq by allowing in food and medical supplies in return for free Iraqi oil. Khamenei reiterated his opposition to Iraq's Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait. But the condemnation was muffled by his bitter denunciation of the U.S. forces deployed to protect Saudi Arabia. Speaking amid chants of ''Death to America!' and ''Death to Israel!' by an audience of hundreds, Khamenei said: ''The struggle against American aggression, greed, plans and policies in the Persian Gulf will be counted as a Jihad, and anybody who is killed on that path is a martyr.'' He added, ''They saw how vulnerable their presence can be. Have they forgotten how a bunch of pious Moslem youth - just that - swept them away and evicted them from Lebanon?'' He was referring to a suicide truck bomb attack by Moslem fundamentalists that killed more than 240 U.S. servicemen in Lebanon in 1983. Analysts said Khamenei's comments might have been aimed at placating anti-Western radicals in Iran who have been critical of the U.S. presence as well as the moderating policies of President Hashemi Rafsanjani. One analyst contacted by The Associated Press said he doubted Khamenei's statement reflected a serious threat to unleash Iran's zealous Revolutionary Guards or other Moslem forces against American forces in the gulf. ''This could be part of the signals being sent to the West, demonstrating Iran's leverage in the present situation,'' said Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian exile who teaches history at George Mason University in northern Virginia.
The White House withheld comment on Khamenei's statement, but senior administration officials said they were closely watching to see if Iran moved to break the embargo against Iraq. In Iraq, Foreign Minister Tareq Aziz accused Bush of seeking world domination. ''The U.S. president's address (to Congress is a model speech by an imperialist ruler who wants to impose his power on the world,'' the Iraqi News Agency quoted Aziz as saying. Elsewhere: A Russian parliamentary committee called for the immediate withdrawal of Soviet military specialists from Iraq. On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze told the Soviet parliament that the military men would leave as their contracts end. He said the government was worried about what might happen to the 5,800 Soviet citizens if the advisers are pulled out right away. About 650,000 cans of corned beef delivered to refugees in Jordan was declared unfit for human consumption, Jordanian Health Minister Mohammad Adoub Al-Zaben said. The food, a gift of the European Economic Community, was delivered Monday by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. Pressed for a greater contribution to the multinational effort to bring stability to the Persian Gulf region, Japan will announce a ''daring amount'' of economic aid to Jordan, Turkey and Egypt, perhaps within the week, Japanese Foreign Ministry sources said. Kuwaiti children who are refugees in Bahrain appealed for Bush to end the Iraqi occupation of their country. A dozen children, ages 10 and 11, delivered the message to U.S. Ambassador Charles Hostler. ''In the name of the childhood for which the Baghdad rule has no consideration please help us to stop the violation of human rights . . . and return us to our land for which we yearn, and for which we accept no alternative,'' it said. Similar messages were taken to the British, French and Chinese embassies.
Fictious Actor
10-28-2005, 12:13 PM
This is a GREAT post. I just absolutely don't understand the logic of people around here. How the fuck are you linking 9/11 to Iran HJ?? I mean Jesus Christ, should we just start taking over the world? By the huge degrees of separation that you're apparently using to link Iran and 9/11 you could probably link just about any country on Earth to it too. Or is it just Islamic nations? How about poor ones? Non-democratic ones? Ones that make stupid comments? WTF?
Terrorism has been around for a VERY VERY long time. We are NOT going to stop it. That's utterly impossible. The only reason it makes such big press today is because the tools to cause large scale terrorism are readily available on just about any open market and to any Joe Schmo. To think that you're going to stamp out terrorism by talking tough and declaring war on every country that employs the use of terrorism is patently absurd.
Does this mean that we should not even try?
Should we give up?
The fact that it is WRONG....... means nothing?
There is NO PLACE for comments like his....... NO PLACE... and even if we have heard them before..... never before have the times been such as these.....
sweetchild
10-28-2005, 12:37 PM
Does this mean that we should not even try?
Should we give up?
The fact that it is WRONG....... means nothing?
There is NO PLACE for comments like his....... NO PLACE... and even if we have heard them before..... never before have the times been such as these.....
how about TRYING not 2 fiddle about in arab lands, like lotsa other nationalities do e.g. Japan, China etc. the MORE u fiddle, the more terrorism, simple as that.
or AT LEAST try limit fiddling to NECESSITY. e.g.
1) ok, israelis fiddled, too late, impossible so "necessity" = x terrorism
2) afghanistan, mmm, ok, 9/11 supposedly Ben Laden's there = x times 2 terrorism.
3) iraq, mmm, WMD (?), Freedom from Oppression (?) = x times 3 terrorism.
i.e. the more fiddling the more terrorism?
yes, it hurts from ur point of view that something is WRONG, but if the method of fighting WRONG only results in continuous WRONGS, where are u guys heading?
sweetchild
10-28-2005, 12:49 PM
u see what happens when u fiddle in arab lands for unclear reasons. bcoz of u guys mucked in iraq, an unproven threat, for god-knows-whatever, now other nations who are more of a proven threat feel stronger bcoz u guys are occupied with a god-knows-for-what business. so now they wanna rile u guys up by threatening to go 4 israel, knowing that u guys are beginning to get exhausted on ur "war on terrorism" in iraq.
i wonder if israelis agree with ur iraq policies, if i was israeli i'd prefer y'all be free from other ME fiddling abouts, all this WMD hysteria & superhero freedom from oppression wannabes, so y'all dont rile up my tempestous neighbours & so y'all can be on full alert all resource standby ready to protect israel ONLY.
What has changed since 15 YEAR AGO??
Shit, even the US President's NAME is the same.. .LOL
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
September 13, 1990, THURSDAY, FIVE STAR Edition
IRANIAN LEADER CALLS FOR A 'HOLY WAR'
NICOSIA, Cyprus - Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stepped up his country's support for Iraq on Wednesday, calling for a holy war against Western forces and raising the prospect of suicide attacks. And Iraq's foreign minister accused President George Bush of plotting to take over the world.
In other developments Wednesday: An Iraqi Airways plane carrying 440 Westerners, most of them American and British women and children, landed in London after a flight from Baghdad, Iraq, airport officials said. A State Department spokesman said the plane, a Boeing 747, carried 274 Americans on board; British officials estimated that 83 Britons were on the flight and an unspecified number of foreigners. The Americans will be flown today to Raleigh-Durham airport in North Carolina. Another plane, carrying 10 ailing and elderly Italian men, was flown to Rome. About 900 Americans have left Iraq and Kuwait in recent days, and an additional flight is scheduled for Friday. About 1,400 Americans remain in Kuwait while about 200 are in Iraq, according to official estimates.
Iraqi soldiers publicly executed three Kuwaitis suspected of being resistance fighters and burned 17 houses to discourage opposition to their occupation of the emirate, a British woman said in Baghdad. ''It is pretty horrific at the moment in the residential areas,'' she told BBC television. Iraqi authorities are intensifying their search for American men in Kuwait in an apparent effort to find more human shields to deter a possible U.S. strike, the State Department said. ''In Kuwait, there has been increased harassment of U.S. citizens, and more systematic house-to-house searches for American men are now being conducted,'' said spokesman Richard Boucher.
In Tehran, Iran, Khamenei declared that Moslems who die fighting to throw Americans out of the region would be martyrs bound for heaven. His speech, monitored in Nicosia, came amid reports that his country had agreed to help break the U.N. embargo of Iraq by allowing in food and medical supplies in return for free Iraqi oil. Khamenei reiterated his opposition to Iraq's Aug. 2 invasion of Kuwait. But the condemnation was muffled by his bitter denunciation of the U.S. forces deployed to protect Saudi Arabia. Speaking amid chants of ''Death to America!' and ''Death to Israel!' by an audience of hundreds, Khamenei said: ''The struggle against American aggression, greed, plans and policies in the Persian Gulf will be counted as a Jihad, and anybody who is killed on that path is a martyr.'' He added, ''They saw how vulnerable their presence can be. Have they forgotten how a bunch of pious Moslem youth - just that - swept them away and evicted them from Lebanon?'' He was referring to a suicide truck bomb attack by Moslem fundamentalists that killed more than 240 U.S. servicemen in Lebanon in 1983. Analysts said Khamenei's comments might have been aimed at placating anti-Western radicals in Iran who have been critical of the U.S. presence as well as the moderating policies of President Hashemi Rafsanjani. One analyst contacted by The Associated Press said he doubted Khamenei's statement reflected a serious threat to unleash Iran's zealous Revolutionary Guards or other Moslem forces against American forces in the gulf. ''This could be part of the signals being sent to the West, demonstrating Iran's leverage in the present situation,'' said Shaul Bakhash, an Iranian exile who teaches history at George Mason University in northern Virginia.
The White House withheld comment on Khamenei's statement, but senior administration officials said they were closely watching to see if Iran moved to break the embargo against Iraq. In Iraq, Foreign Minister Tareq Aziz accused Bush of seeking world domination. ''The U.S. president's address (to Congress is a model speech by an imperialist ruler who wants to impose his power on the world,'' the Iraqi News Agency quoted Aziz as saying. Elsewhere: A Russian parliamentary committee called for the immediate withdrawal of Soviet military specialists from Iraq. On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze told the Soviet parliament that the military men would leave as their contracts end. He said the government was worried about what might happen to the 5,800 Soviet citizens if the advisers are pulled out right away. About 650,000 cans of corned beef delivered to refugees in Jordan was declared unfit for human consumption, Jordanian Health Minister Mohammad Adoub Al-Zaben said. The food, a gift of the European Economic Community, was delivered Monday by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. Pressed for a greater contribution to the multinational effort to bring stability to the Persian Gulf region, Japan will announce a ''daring amount'' of economic aid to Jordan, Turkey and Egypt, perhaps within the week, Japanese Foreign Ministry sources said. Kuwaiti children who are refugees in Bahrain appealed for Bush to end the Iraqi occupation of their country. A dozen children, ages 10 and 11, delivered the message to U.S. Ambassador Charles Hostler. ''In the name of the childhood for which the Baghdad rule has no consideration please help us to stop the violation of human rights . . . and return us to our land for which we yearn, and for which we accept no alternative,'' it said. Similar messages were taken to the British, French and Chinese embassies.
Ponder
10-28-2005, 12:56 PM
What has changed since 15 YEAR AGO??
I think that the idea of a religious zealot with control of nuclear weapons pretty much did it for me.
Before, it was easy to laugh off the idiotic chants for death to Americans and Israelis, now things are a bit different.
u see what happens when u fiddle in arab lands for unclear reasons. bcoz of u guys mucked in iraq, an unproven threat, for god-knows-whatever, now other nations who are more of a proven threat feel stronger bcoz u guys are occupied with a god-knows-for-what business. so now they wanna rile u guys up by threatening to go 4 israel, knowing that u guys are beginning to get exhausted on ur "war on terrorism" in iraq.
i wonder if israelis agree with ur iraq policies, if i was israeli i'd prefer y'all be free from other ME fiddling abouts, all this WMD hysteria & superhero freedom from oppression wannabes, so y'all dont rile up my tempestous neighbours & so y'all can be on full alert all resource standby ready to protect israel ONLY.
I happen to agree with you. The reason the US is a target is because we have troops in the middle east, where they don't belong
Countries that do not send troops to the Middle East , are not targeted.. ie, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, etc
I can see why middle easterners don't want foreign troops in their land. I wouldnt' want them in mine either
Ponder
10-28-2005, 01:01 PM
u see what happens when u fiddle in arab lands for unclear reasons.
Terrorists were exporting their crap way before Iraq. Afghanistan was in direct retaliation for the NYC attack. So, where were we BEFORE, that we were not invited?
slaman
10-28-2005, 01:03 PM
Goal's grow with the advent of success, especially if success is not guided with moralities. An asshole by any other name, is still an asshole...
Saddam was an asshole, not looking to establish racial superiority. It comes down to the fundamentals of the ideologies that the person in power practices...
Global domination like communism or racial superiority like Nazism is a lot different than some greedy dictator looking to get more oil revenues.
Spectre
10-28-2005, 01:43 PM
Does this mean that we should not even try?
Should we give up?
The fact that it is WRONG....... means nothing?
There is NO PLACE for comments like his....... NO PLACE... and even if we have heard them before..... never before have the times been such as these.....
I never once said that we should not try to fight terrorism. What I'm saying is we should try to fight terrorism that pertains to us and our allies by fighting the actual culprits. So what, are you saying that we should invade Iran because of these comments? If so, I'd like to see you specifically state why.
Ponder
10-28-2005, 01:49 PM
I never once said that we should not try to fight terrorism. What I'm saying is we should try to fight terrorism that pertains to us and our allies by fighting the actual culprits. So what, are you saying that we should invade Iran because of these comments? If so, I'd like to see you specifically state why.
If the Guardian Council maintains control of their military apparatus, then I don't think we have too much to worry about. However, if Ahmadinejad happens to wrest control of the military in some sort of a coup, taking the mullahs out of control, then all bets are off. I think it's entirely possible he could pull off a 'Khomeni', and do just that, considering his background and affiliations.
pilobolus
10-28-2005, 01:51 PM
And I've posted a few articles in this thread that show that it WAS people in power, all along who have been calling for "death to Israel" and "death to America"
Its been the GOVERNMENT of Iran.
All of a sudden, this is a big deal. Makes me wonder if Bush's paid media agents aren't trying to whip up a case for war.
I see your point.
Fictious Actor
10-28-2005, 02:33 PM
I never once said that we should not try to fight terrorism. What I'm saying is we should try to fight terrorism that pertains to us and our allies by fighting the actual culprits. So what, are you saying that we should invade Iran because of these comments? If so, I'd like to see you specifically state why.
Whooooooooaaaaaaa killer......
I didn't say invade.......
I propose using that piece of shit UN... sanctions... get a world unity movement behind this situation stating that there is no room ever to express for one nation wishing the destruction of another nation.
What if we called for the elimination of Sweden..... death to Sweden...... wtf would happen? The world would go crazy......... and yet it's okay to say death to the Jews from the top governmental official of a nation........
Sanctions....... at the very least....... their intentions do not warrant a place in the global community......
As for terrorism world wide.................. I still say we do whatever we can to protect the innocent....
Fictious Actor
10-28-2005, 02:37 PM
how about TRYING not 2 fiddle about in arab lands, like lotsa other nationalities do e.g. Japan, China etc. the MORE u fiddle, the more terrorism, simple as that.
or AT LEAST try limit fiddling to NECESSITY. e.g.
1) ok, israelis fiddled, too late, impossible so "necessity" = x terrorism
2) afghanistan, mmm, ok, 9/11 supposedly Ben Laden's there = x times 2 terrorism.
3) iraq, mmm, WMD (?), Freedom from Oppression (?) = x times 3 terrorism.
i.e. the more fiddling the more terrorism?
yes, it hurts from ur point of view that something is WRONG, but if the method of fighting WRONG only results in continuous WRONGS, where are u guys heading?
There you have it in a nutshell....... congrats for boiling it down...... America BAD...... world GOOD...... American intentions are for world domination... and world response is OKAY to do whatever it takes to beat back the EVIL EMPIRE.........
There were no bad people in the Middle East.......... NONE
They magically grew when we got there.....
If we are so globally focused on conquering the world...... how come we don't own property in the Middle East yet............
Ohhhhhhhhhh Americans spreading that foul plague of freedom............. ROT IN HELL BAD PEOPLE.............
YANKEE GO HOME..........
yawn.....
orrery
10-28-2005, 05:39 PM
Iranian president joins anti-Israel protests
Updated: 5:05 p.m. ET Oct. 28, 2005
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s ultraconservative president — spurning international outrage over his remarks about Israel — joined more than a million demonstrators who flooded the streets of the capital and other major cities Friday to back his call for the destruction of the Jewish state.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood fast behind his assertion that Israel should be wiped off the map and repeated the call during the nationwide protests Friday, the Muslim day of prayer.
But in an apparent attempt to blunt international outrage over Ahmadinejad’s comments, the Iranian Embassy in Moscow issued a statement saying the Iranian leader did not want to “engage in a conflict.”
As he marched alongside demonstrators in downtown Tehran, Ahmadinejad renewed his criticism of the West, saying: “They become upset when they hear any voice of truth-seeking.”
“They think they are the absolute rulers of the world,” he added.
‘Death to Israel, death to America’
Many marching with him held placards reading, “Death to Israel, death to America.”
On Friday the Iranian embassy in Moscow tried to soften the impact of Ahmadinejad’s comment.
“Mr. Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict,” the Iranian embassy in Moscow said in a statement following a wave of international criticism.
It added that Ahmadinejad “underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories.”
The embassy statement came after Moscow, a key ally of Iran, joined criticism of Ahmadinejad’s statement and summoned the Iranian ambassador to ask for an explanation.
Iran’s influential former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, also tried to soothe tensions, suggesting in his Friday prayer sermon that Israelis and Palestinians decide the future of their conflict in a referendum.
The state-organized demonstrations are part of the annual al-Quds Day — or Jerusalem Day —protests, which were first held in 1979 after Shiite Muslim clerics took power in Iran.
At least 200,000 people rallied in Tehran, some chanting “Israel is approaching its death” and wearing white shrouds symbolizing their readiness to die for their cause. Others carried banners reading, “Israel must be destroyed.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the president’s comments represented Iran’s long-held policy of not recognizing Israel.
“Unfortunately the Western countries have remained silent on the increasing inhumane activities of Israel (against the Palestinians),” Mottaki said a Tehran march.
Iran’s seven state-run TV stations devoted coverage Friday to programs condemning the Jewish state and praising the Palestinian resistance since the 1948 creation of Israel.
The demonstrations attracted at least 100,000 people in all of Iran’s major cities, while major rallies were held in other Middle Eastern countries.
Tens of thousands of Lebanese joined a demonstration in southern Beirut organized by the powerful Shiite Muslim guerrilla group, Hezbollah.
Flags burned in Bahrain
At least 30,000 people marched in Bahrain, burning Israeli and American flags and demanding their government rescind a recent decision to end its economic embargo of the Jewish state.
Countries from Britain to Russia denounced Ahmadinejad’s comments. The United States said the Iranian leader’s hostility underscored Washington’s concern over Iran’s nuclear program. Israel said Iran should be suspended from the United Nations.
U.N. chief Kofi Annan expressed “dismay” in a rare rebuke of a U.N. member state.
The Vatican condemned as “unacceptable” statements denying the right of Israel to exist, although it did not mention Iran by name.
Even Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat criticized the comments.
“We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran,” Erekat said. “This is unacceptable.”
Hungary’s Deputy State Secretary Laszlo Varkonyi summoned Iran’s ambassador Friday, telling him that “no leader of a country which considers itself a responsible member of the international community can make such a statement.” Japan’s Foreign Ministry called the remarks “unacceptable in whatever context.”
After Khomeini toppled the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979, he declared the last Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan as an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9823624/
orrery
10-28-2005, 05:47 PM
I believe, that if the United Nations wants to redeem itself and win back my personal support... It must take action to remove Iran from the United Nations. The U.N. has compromised far too many of its principles in attempting to placate every nation into becoming a member. If it is to stick by the principles it claims to stand for, it must expel Iran and send a strong a message as possible that the international community will not recognize such a madman as a member of the international community.
orrery
10-28-2005, 05:54 PM
Bush assails Syria, Iran as terrorism patrons
NORFOLK, Virginia (AFP) Oct 28, 2005
US President George W. Bush, happy to leave a White House scandal behind on a visit to Virginia Friday, assailed Syria and Iran as terrorism patrons and sought to bolster waning suppport for the war in Iraq.
With senior aides bracing nervously for possible criminal indictments in a CIA leak case, Bush began a speech on the war on terrorism by telling his cheering audience: "Thanks for the chance to get out of Washington."
He spoke shortly before the special prosecutor looking into whether a crime was committed in the unmasking of a CIA agent in 2003 was expected to announce that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff would be indicted.
Bush, who did not mention the scandal, touted progress in the global war on terrorism he launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks and said the United States would "deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes."
"State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration (http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051028163848.fagff3py.html#) with terrorists -- and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror," the president told his audience in Norfolk, near the home of the Naval Station Norfolk, the world's largest naval station.
"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and those who support and harbor them -- because they are equally guilty of murder," he said.
Bush also said the United States and its allies had thwarted more than a dozen shipments of weapons of mass destruction, including equipment for Tehran's ballistic missile program.
White House officials contacted by AFP could not immediately flesh out those claims.
"In the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology -- including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program," said the president.
Facing slumping support for the war in Iraq, Bush warned that "the terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against terror."
"This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory -- and so we will keep our nerve and win that victory," said Bush.
At one point, Bush was heckled by a man who stood up and shouted: "Mr President, war is terror." He was booed by the crowd, and security escorted him from the hall.
wanderer1
10-28-2005, 05:56 PM
i wonder if israelis agree with ur iraq policies, if i was israeli i'd prefer y'all be free from other ME fiddling abouts, all this WMD hysteria & superhero freedom from oppression wannabes, so y'all dont rile up my tempestous neighbours & so y'all can be on full alert all resource standby ready to protect israel ONLY.
I agree with you. Bible thumping extremists have been a disaster for Israel, but then again wasn't that their original intent? Seems I've heard something about their bible telling them their messiah isn't coming down from wherever until Israel is destroyed.
The alcoholic was only trying to be helpful to christianity when set the entire ME region ablaze.
wanderer1
10-28-2005, 06:00 PM
I believe, that if the United Nations wants to redeem itself and win back my personal support...
I believe you're crazy enough to believe The United Nations knows you're alive.:rolleyes:
orrery
10-28-2005, 06:14 PM
I believe you're crazy enough to believe The United Nations knows you're alive.:rolleyes:
:mad_01:
overwatch
10-28-2005, 07:18 PM
If Israel fires a rocket into the car of an old man in a wheel chair and five bystanders are killed, is THAT terrorism?
Fuck me you're outdoing yourself here. Ahmed Yassin was a vile leader of a terrorist group (hamas) whose stock in trade was persuading dumb teenage arabs to blow themselves to fuck on civilian buses murdering hundreds of innocent people.
He was not some poor old fella in a wheelchair who was brutally murdered for no reason.
Fuck you and your moral equivalence, will you weep for the "poor old man with kidney failure struck down by a neocon 1,000lb bomb as he leaned on his walking stick" when binny boy finally gets iced?
Actually, yes, you probably would.
SmokedYourDSM
10-28-2005, 07:23 PM
as far as iran goes, please read my comments
here
http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18815
Ethyl
10-28-2005, 08:52 PM
Perhaps it is a big deal now .....
because one islamic fundamentalist wingnut decided to take action from rhetoric to reality.
And if one can do it..... what is to stop another whackjob from trying to 'wipe Israel off the face of the map'?
Fictious Actor
10-29-2005, 02:27 AM
Iranians Rally Against Israel, U.S.
Friday, October 28, 2005
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's ultraconservative president — spurning international outrage over his remarks about Israel — joined more than a million demonstrators who flooded the streets of the capital and other major cities Friday to back his call for the destruction of the Jewish state.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) stood fast behind his assertion that Israel should be wiped off the map and repeated the call during the nationwide protests Friday, the Muslim day of prayer.
But in an apparent attempt to blunt international outrage over Ahmadinejad's comments, the Iranian Embassy in Moscow issued a statement saying the Iranian leader did not want to "engage in a conflict."
Marching alongside the protesters, the 47-year-old former mayor of Tehran and one-time Republican Guard (search) commander renewed his criticism of the West.
"They become upset when they hear any voice of truth-seeking. They think they are the absolute rulers of the world," he said during the al-Quds — or Jerusalem — Day protest, which was among the largest since they were first held in 1979 after Shiite Muslim clerics took power in Iran.
His fellow marchers carried placards reading "Death to Israel, death to America." It is not uncommon for an Iranian president to join marches in the capital. Ahmadinejad was accompanied by five bodyguards, but otherwise security was not out of the ordinary for such an event.
Despite Ahmadinejad's continued harsh attacks on the West, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani tried to dial back the rhetoric, suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians hold a referendum to decide the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations.
"If Muslims and Palestinians agree (to a referendum), it will be a retreat but let's still hold a referendum," Rafsanjani said in his Friday prayer sermon.
The Iranian Embassy statement in Moscow said Ahmadinejad "did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict."
But that was not the message carried by the at least 200,000 Iranians who massed in Tehran to unleashed virulent condemnation against Israel, the United States and the West in general, accusing them of oppressing Palestinians and Iran.
Some demonstrators chanted "Israel is approaching its death" and wore white shrouds in a symbolic gesture expressing readiness to die for their cause.
A resolution was read at the end of the rallies backing "the position declared by the president that the Zionist regime must be wiped out."
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki (search) defended his president's comments, saying they represented Iran's long-held policy of not recognizing Israel.
"Unfortunately the Western countries have remained silent on the increasing inhuman activities of Israel," Mottaki said at the Tehran march.
Protests attracted at least 100,000 in each of Iran's eight largest cities, according to AP reporters. State television said millions of people assembled throughout the country. Major rallies also were held in other Middle Eastern countries.
In Beirut, the militant Hezbollah (search) group marked the day by staging a parade that saw more than 6,000 guerrillas march in uniform through the streets of the Lebanese capital.
The Shiite group, which supports it Iranian mentors, has sought to strengthen its position in Lebanon after the withdrawal of Syrian troops.
At least 30,000 Bahrainis marched in their capital, Manama, burning Israeli and American flags and demanding their government rescind its recent decision to end its economic embargo of the Jewish state.
The United States said the Iranian leader's remarks have only underscored Washington's concern over Iran's nuclear program. Israel said Iran should be suspended from the United Nations. U.N. chief Kofi Annan (search) expressed "dismay" at the comments in a rare rebuke of a U.N. member state.
The Vatican (search) condemned as "unacceptable" statements denying the right of Israel to exist, although it did not mention Iran by name. The U.N. Security Council also condemned the remarks, while Russia summoned the Iranian ambassador seeking an explanation for the president's words.
Iran's seven state-run TV stations devoted coverage Friday to programs condemning the Jewish state and praising the Palestinian resistance since the 1948 creation of Israel.
Three stations also showed live coverage of crowds of people gathering Friday in streets throughout Tehran.
In Washington, the State Department said it was skeptical the demonstrators had gone into the streets voluntarily.
"I think you have over the past decade seen examples of the Iranian regime organizing protests in support of some of their more outrageous policies," spokesman Sean McCormack said.
After Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (search) toppled the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979, he declared the last Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan as an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem. The founder of the Islamic regime had also called for Israel's destruction.
__________________________________________________ ______
Come on people...... it's as easy as us versus them........ On their Muslim day of prayer they call for the eradication of a group of people...... is that what you pray for? Ever?.............. this is our WW1 WW2....... this is not a Crusade...... our God is not better than their God..... their idea that their God is THE ONLY God is the deal....... I mean this is HUGE....... and the more quiet the other Muslim nations are.... the more we should WAKE UP and realize that they want your "Sluppy" sucking ass DEAD..........
But noooooooooooooo let's focus our angst on the outing of a "really I am a CIA op" gal and her ego driven hubby.....
zapcomix
10-29-2005, 02:55 AM
Iran is spoiling for a fight, we will have no choice. This is a mark in history where "another" religious group thinks they own the world... count the times. History repeats itself, history shows these radical ideas have been defeated/suppresed over the centuries. So far we have withstood these radical ideas, which has allowed our existence.
If we fold now all the suffering our ancesters went through will mean nothing. God damn it, they literally gave their lives, their spirits, everything, so we could have what we have now.
We cannot soil that legacy... period!
Professor
10-29-2005, 02:57 AM
Fuck me you're outdoing yourself here. Ahmed Yassin was a vile leader of a terrorist group (hamas) whose stock in trade was persuading dumb teenage arabs to blow themselves to fuck on civilian buses murdering hundreds of innocent people.
He was not some poor old fella in a wheelchair who was brutally murdered for no reason.
Fuck you and your moral equivalence, will you weep for the "poor old man with kidney failure struck down by a neocon 1,000lb bomb as he leaned on his walking stick" when binny boy finally gets iced?
Actually, yes, you probably would.
Yassin was someone who they argued that if he stayed around, he would actually stem the tide violence that he was keeping back like the little dutch boy with his finger in the proverbial dike.
Well, After his handicapped parking pass was forcefully revoked, the attacks decreased significantly (in no small part to the wall as well.)
It's a shame they had to waste the American taxpayer's money due to the missile, but hey, whatever works. It was certainly better money spent than other foreign aid projects that i've seen.
I was sort of hoping they would capture him and film a special Zionist edition of "Jackass." The possibilities of the wheelchair, hills and bombs are endless.
Fuck me you're outdoing yourself here. Ahmed Yassin was a vile leader of a terrorist group (hamas) whose stock in trade was persuading dumb teenage arabs to blow themselves to fuck on civilian buses murdering hundreds of innocent people.
He was not some poor old fella in a wheelchair who was brutally murdered for no reason.
Fuck you and your moral equivalence, will you weep for the "poor old man with kidney failure struck down by a neocon 1,000lb bomb as he leaned on his walking stick" when binny boy finally gets iced?
Actually, yes, you probably would.
LOL.. .that's be the day the neocons drop a bomb on Osama... hahaha..
That's hilarious
You still haven't figured out that he's the only reason they haven't been run out of town on a rail in the US, have you??
The day Bin Laden is killed or captured is the day that I admit I was wrong about Bush.. that's he not the best thing that ever happened to radical Islam.
undertaker
10-30-2005, 11:33 PM
The day Bin Laden is killed or captured is the day that I admit I was wrong about Bush.. that's he not the best thing that ever happened to radical Islam.
Be very glad you didn't say the same about Sadaam.
Orson
Or did you?
The day Bin Laden is killed or captured is the day that I admit I was wrong about Bush.. that's he not the best thing that ever happened to radical Islam.
Be very glad you didn't say the same about Sadaam.
Orson
Or did you?
You're still having a hard time telling the difference between the two, eh??
Keep trying.. its not that hard: Osama is the guy that brought down the towers.. remember??
Saddam was a toothless old fool that made the mistake of refusing to open up his oil fields to western corporations.
That's why Bush went after Saddam, instead of Osama.. To Bush and his corporate backers, Saddam was the more urgent threat.. LOL
undertaker
10-31-2005, 12:39 AM
You're still having a hard time telling the difference between the two, eh??
Keep trying.. its not that hard: Osama is the guy that brought down the towers.. remember??
Saddam was a toothless old fool that made the mistake of refusing to open up his oil fields to western corporations.
That's why Bush went after Saddam, instead of Osama.. To Bush and his corporate backers, Saddam was the more urgent threat.. LOL
You totally missed the point.
Orson
You totally missed the point.
Orson
I think you totally "invented" the point, that I allegedly missed.
Nice try, though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.