What will Iran bomb first?

[Crowlogic]

Syria or the Mediterranean. I bet their aim sucks.

With a nuclear warhead you don't need precision aim. Just get it into the right county and the deed is done.

[Pardalis]

so my guess was right: You think that the intellectual way to respond to a mention of hitler is to say "godwin" and move on.
once more:
To compare someone with Hitler when the topic has nothing to do with it IS GODWIN!

[Pardalis]

I've not tried to hide that Iran wants to see the end of Israel. The comparison they have used most is the end of the USSR. You have not made the case that Iran intends to destroy Israel by starting a war.

Iran's rhetoric is not helping, it's provocation, making things unnecessarily escalate. If they want peace, they should shut up, or tone it down. They have their part of responsibility in this mess too, it's sad that you only see America as the culprit, and making all kinds of contorsions to apologize for Iran.

Israel cannot sustain itself anymore than the USSR could. Olmert himself has said that Israel is finished without a two-state solution.Olmert is but one man, what he says is his opinion, not necessarily fact.

If you take Wildcat's point about Hezbollah... Hezbollah was started in the 1980's as a resistance army. It was succesful in forcing Israel out of Lebanon and in getting prisoners released. Today, they talk about stopping Israeli fighters flying in Lebanese skies and getting back the Shebbah Farms.They kidnap, they aid terror groups, they kill innocent civilians, they help plan a coup in their own country... What's your point?

That they are only freedom fighters? To me and everyone sensible they're religious fascist demagogues and killers, but hey, you like freedom and democracy right? You're one of those "pacifists" who go out of their way to apologize for the real Hitlers of our time. Why don't you move over there, since you like them so much? You'll love it there, so much freedom. Start fresh in... an islamic theocracy. And be sure to bring Oliver along.

And, actually, I would say that Hezbollah is another reason why Iran has NOT been attacked. Israel tried to take out Hezbollah and saw how difficult it would be.Actually, it was rather easy in 2006, they stopped because of international pressures.

Syria would be Hezbollah on steroids. Iran would be Syria on steroids. Hence -- no war. Iran will not start it. And neither will Israel.If Iran gets a nuke, there will be a giant shift in the region, Syria will want one, and so forth...

Your question is not the topic of this thread. America, as a target of Iranian retaliation, is a topic of this thread.You seriously think America is a target on the other side of the Atlantic? That's the topic of this thread? I thought the US option was a joke, you know, a planet X kind of an option...

I would agree in the sense that there would be boycotts against Israel -- just like there were boycotts against apartheid South Africa.

But your belief is that Iran would bomb Israel if America agreed not to do anything about it. You can't give any evidence to support that belief. You're naïve. Radical Islam's hatred of Israel is much more virulant than that, they wouldn't just settle with mere "sanctions", that's just ridiculous wishful thinking on your part. For them the existence of Israel, its very presence in the region is a catastrophe, it's unacceptable. They want nothing more than eradication, and the only thing stopping them is America. If America wasn't such a staunch defender of Israel, and if they hadn't armed them, Israel would have been invaded on all sides. If America wasn't there, Israel would have been successfully invaded and eradicated by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq along time ago.

My proof? Read a history book. Israel wasn't a year old and they tried to invade it, and you want me to swallow your "sanctions" canard?

It's a power struggle for the region, if Iran gets the nuke, it will destabilize everything, they will get more leverage and more influence to counterbalance America, which won't be able to counter them and protect Israel as before.

[Oliver]

Iran's rhetoric


Which is?

... is not helping, it's provocation, making things unnecessarily escalate. If they want peace, they should shut up, or tone it down.


Like that? :

Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad [*excerpt from article*]

Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-28)

*snip* asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC) and AP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP) quoted him as saying.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-d8summit-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-30)

*snip* "If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[32]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-Gonzalez-31)

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Clarifying_comments _by_Ahmadinejad)




My proof? Read a history book. Israel wasn't a year old and they tried to invade it, and you want me to swallow your "sanctions" canard?


Uhm. That was long before the Iranian Revolution thingy. Would
you like to read on in your history book now? :confused:

It's a power struggle for the region, if Iran gets the nuke, it will destabilize everything, they will get more leverage and more influence to counterbalance America, which won't be able to counter them and protect Israel as before.


Protect Israel from what? It's the western struggle to keep those
down who are not willing to obey to our democratic way of life.

Let me quote you:

"but hey, you like freedom and democracy right?"

You actually like it so much that Iranian's don't deserve to choose.
Why? Because you don't like their choices. A truly democratic
stance coming from you, eh?

[Pardalis]

You do know that Iran is not a democracy, right Oliver?

[Oliver]

You do know that Iran is not a democracy, right Oliver?


They have an elected government - the final say, however, if
the supreme leader doesn't agree with a decision, is by him.
[You may call it a Veto-right like the [religious] President in the US has]

My point was that you don't care about your love for democracy
when it comes to countries you don't like. You actually seem to
support an attack against the elected Iranian Regime and their
Country - pretty much giving a **** about what they want,
therefore you're throwing your holy democratic value over board.

However, you [deliberately?] missed Ahmadinejad's outrageous claims:

Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad [*excerpt from article*]

Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-28)

*snip* asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being "no need for any measures by the Iranian people". Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future," both the BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC) and AP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP) quoted him as saying.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-d8summit-29)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-30)

*snip* "If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[32]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-Gonzalez-31)

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Clarifying_comments _by_Ahmadinejad)
So where exactly is he threatening Israel?
And what is Irans "escalating" Rhetoric?

[Pardalis]

They have an elected government - the final say, however, if
the supreme leader doesn't agree with a decision, is by him.

Ergo, not a democracy.

My point was that you don't care about your love for democracy
when it comes to countries you don't like.

No, my point is that some "pacifists" who pretend to love democracy go out of their way to apologize for regimes that stand against the very idea of democracy.

However, you [deliberately?] missed Ahmadinejad's outrageous claims:

So where exactly is he threatening Israel?
And what is Irans "escalating" Rhetoric?

They have a heck of a lot more than one claim to clarify, not to mention their actions and support of terror groups who undermine every peace efforts.

And about that referendum shtick:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ... But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel."

Kind of contradictory isn't it?

If this alleged referendum ends up with a resolution for a two-state solution, what will Iran do? They just said they will never accept Israel.

[Oliver]

Ergo, not a democracy.

No, my point is that some "pacifists" who pretend to love democracy go out of their way to apologize for regimes that stand against the very idea of democracy.

They have a heck of a lot more than one claim to clarify, not to mention their actions and support of terror groups who undermine every peace efforts.

And about that referendum shtick:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ... But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel."

Kind of contradictory isn't it?

If this alleged referendum ends up with a resolution for a two-state solution, what will Iran do? They just said they will never accept Israel.


What about elected government don't you understand, Goury?
It's not the same type of Government you, I or the US has, but
it is an elected Government. The difference is the separation of
state and church. And I completely understand that you don't
like that. I feel the same about "western democratic" leaders
who listen to god elected by god-believing people.

However: This is JREF. You are actually free to provide all the
evidence about threats against Israel, the country - and Israel,
the Regime - coming from Iran.

Feel free to cite the elected president and the supreme leader
concerning actual Iranian Policies concerning Israel...

[Pardalis]

Oliver, you didn't answer my point.

What if a pan-Palestinian referendum ends up with a majority of people wanting a two state solution, a Palestinian state, and Israel? What will Khamenei or Ahmadinejad say?

[Oliver]

Oliver, you didn't answer my point.

What if a pan-Palestinian referendum ends up with a majority of people wanting a two state solution, a Palestinian state, and Israel? What will Khamenei or Ahmadinejad say?


What Hitler [:p] Ahmadinejad said:

"If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it."

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Clarifying_comments _by_Ahmadinejad)

[Pardalis]

What Hitler [:p] Ahmadinejad said:

"If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it."

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Clarifying_comments _by_Ahmadinejad)

Again, he also said this:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ..."

Kind of contradictory, isn't it?

BTW, what does "keep the Zionist" mean, exactly? What does the opposite of "keeping the Zionists" imply?

[Oliver]

Again, he also said this:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ..."

Kind of contradictory, isn't it?


Of course they don't recognize it. Their argument is that it's completely
ignoring the Palestinian people [Their fellow Muslims so to speak]. So why
should they recognize it if they don't want to and actually see Israel as
an invasion and occupation?

[Is there some kind of "Israel-recognizing law" somewhere that forces
elected governments to recognize Israel? Never heard of it.]

Here is the Supreme Leader - answering your question:

"We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-41)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Interpretation_of_s peech_as_call_for_referendum




Ahmadinejad said the same:

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-42)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-43)[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-44)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-45) Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-46)
TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Interpretation_of_s peech_as_call_for_referendum




Where is the threat? Could it be that there is a lot of exaggeration because
"loud" voices don't want such a solution, loving the status quo?

[FireGarden]

once more:
To compare someone with Hitler when the topic has nothing to do with it IS GODWIN!


And once again: You think that the way to respond is to say "Godwin" and move on.

I'll show you what I think should be done:

You're one of those "pacifists" who go out of their way to apologize for the real Hitlers of our time.

Ooh, look! a comparison to Hitler.
On what basis do you make that comparison? On the basis that Iran has spoken about the end of Israel, which was led by a man who also spoke of the end of Israel?

Your comparison is incorrect.
Ahmadinejad has not launched an attack and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Bush has. On the continuum from saint to Hitler, Bush is closer to Hitler than Ahmadinejad is.

I don't have to run away from your comparison -- I can argue against it.

Why don't you move over there, since you like them so much?

Because I'm British not Bushish.
And it is amazing that you think I should prefer Iran to Britain because I refuse to accept Ahmadinejad is a genocidal madman.

Actually, it was rather easy in 2006, they stopped because of international pressures.

Israel gave in to international pressure? You're joking.

America sent Israel more weapons, even moving them through Britain which led to some criticism of the British government. America (and others) went on and on about Israel's right to defend itself. In the end, they had to admit the cost to Israel was too great. They had to stop the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6479377.stm

Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.

Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".

He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.

Do you have any counter evidence to support your claim? If not, I'll take Bolton's interpretation over yours.

You seriously think America is a target on the other side of the Atlantic? That's the topic of this thread? I thought the US option was a joke, you know, a planet X kind of an option...

America has forces and bases not too far from Iran.

For them the existence of Israel, its very presence in the region is a catastrophe, it's unacceptable.

If by "catastrophe" you mean "Nakba", then how would you describe being driven from your own home?

If America wasn't such a staunch defender of Israel, and if they hadn't armed them, Israel would have been invaded on all sides. If America wasn't there, Israel would have been successfully invaded and eradicated by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq along time ago.

My proof? Read a history book. Israel wasn't a year old and they tried to invade it, ...

Perhaps you could detail America's help to Israel in 1948. And also address the Arab Peace plan, which recognises Israel within the 1967 borders.

No, my point is that some "pacifists" who pretend to love democracy go out of their way to apologize for regimes that stand against the very idea of democracy.

There you go again with the hyperbole: "against the very idea of democracy."

The Iranian government is voted in. The Supreme Leader is elected by the assembly of experts, who themselves are elected for an 8 year term. (From a government approved shortlist).

Is that a perfect democracy? I don't like it. But it's not for me to tell them how to live their lives. The Iranians have changed it in the past -- even since 1979 -- and they can change it again.

[Pardalis]

Of course they don't recognize it. Their argument is that it's completely ignoring the Palestinian people [Their fellow Muslims so to speak]. So why should they recognize it if they don't want to and actually see Israel as
an invasion and occupation?

You're not answering my question. If they will never recognize it, then the outcome of a referendum suggesting a two state solution is out of the equation for them.

They pretend they will accept any outcome but not this one, I call that disingenuous, they may say they want democracy, they don't mean it. They only will accept the outcome where Israel disappears, and probably its population along with it, since Kamheni views them as rsponsible as the "Zionists".

Who are Israelis? They are responsible for usurping houses, territory, farmlands and businesses. They are combatants at the disposal of Zionist operatives. A Muslim nation cannot remain indifferent vis-a-vis such people who are stooges at the service of the arch-foes of the Muslim world.

Maybe that's what they mean by "keep the Zionists". Since they know already it's out of the question, then "not keeping them" means "getting rid of them", forcefully?

Tell me, and please try to answer this one for once, how will a one state Palestine treat their former "captors"? Wouldn't this be Rwanda all over again?

And once again: You think that the way to respond is to say "Godwin" and move on.

You have no point to make with this comparison. Leave Hitler out of this, unless anyone has murdered 12 million people in a genocidal premeditated and organized extermination policy, a comparison with him is bunk.

Ooh, look! a comparison to Hitler.Yes, it was intentional.

Because I'm BritishYour country has alot to be responsible about in the conflict. So you're a hypocrite? You prefer to remain in a country responsible for this and to support the "good guys" by yelling from the stands?

Good thing Britain allows you to do that, you wouldn't like to be a dissenter in Iran.

If by "catastrophe" you mean "Nakba", then how would you describe being driven from your own home?They've had sixty years to get over it. It's no longer a matter of if this decision to implant Israel was right or wrong anymore, it's there now, no matter if we like it or not. The Muslim world should live with it. It's a matter of living side by side, and making peace progress. The people who are against peace are blowing themselves up.

Perhaps you could detail America's help to Israel in 1948. And also address the Arab Peace plan, which recognises Israel within the 1967 borders.
Again, every peace plan was undermined by extremists.

The Iranian government is voted in. The Supreme Leader is elected by the assembly of experts, who themselves are elected for an 8 year term. (From a government approved shortlist).That's not a democracy, no matter how much you want it to be, not when the supreme leaders decide which parties run. You're ridiculous.

Is that a perfect democracy? It's not a democracy.

But it's not for me to tell them how to live their lives.A revolution is not what I would call "a choice".


The Iranians have changed it in the past -- even since 1979 -- and they can change it again. Since the only progressist Kathani has been museled by the leaders, and any dissenters are being imprisoned or executed, it may take a while.

[Oliver]

Goury? Would you - in your own description - define the Term Democracy, please?
And after that, define Iran's form of Government?

ETA: Also, provide the threat and dangerous speeches from Iranians Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad.

And in your dishonest Bias about the Iranian irrational nukethrowing genocide wannabe-Hitler's,
would you like to tell us what you think about their solution:

"We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-41)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Interpretation_of_s peech_as_call_for_referendum)

[Pardalis]

please try to answer this one for once

I guess it was too much to ask.

[WildCat]

There you go again with the hyperbole: "against the very idea of democracy."

The Iranian government is voted in. The Supreme Leader is elected by the assembly of experts, who themselves are elected for an 8 year term. (From a government approved shortlist).

Is that a perfect democracy? I don't like it. But it's not for me to tell them how to live their lives. The Iranians have changed it in the past -- even since 1979 -- and they can change it again.
This is an example of why it's pointless to discuss anything with you here - you are not a rational person. By that definition of democracy Saddam's Iraq was a democracy, the Soviet Union was a democracy, etc etc.

The fact is, you are nothing more than an apologist for Islamic thugocracies and you don't value actual democracy in the slightest and by extension basic human rights, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, equality between the sexes - the whole basket of goods that generally comes with truly democratic nations. This is why you are revealed as a hypocrite every time you whine about the wart on the nose of Israel or the US, and give a free pass to the cancer infecting damn near every Muslim nation on the face of the earth.

The problems in the Missle East aren't caused by Israel, nor the US, but by governments using the Muslim religion to stifle democracy and human rights while justifying totalitarianism and terror.

[Oliver]

I guess it was too much to ask.


What was too much to ask? You mean the contradictory thing?
I answered that - and even if it's contradictory in your definition,
doesn't mean that a contradiction is a threat.

Is it?

Anyway: What would happen if Iran really starts their Nuke-Program
again and actually "changes the Game". Your only Argument is:

I love democracy and freedom, therefore I will not allow any freedoms
for Iran to their right to have nuclear technology.

Don't you see how ridiculous your argumentation is? :confused:

[Pardalis]

Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. Here he clearly rejects the entire Israeli people, and their rights. They don't even exist in his mind. Want to talk about human rights? The Israeli people have existed for over 60 years, what Ahmadinejad accuses the Israelis of doing to the Palestinians, he wishes done on them as retaliation.

Not what I call peace, it's called revenge. Peace is about diplomacy, about compromise. A two-state solution would be a compromise, a one state solution would not. Believe me, a state with two diametrically different nations doesn't work.

That's what I'm talking about when it's irrelevant to be arguing if what happened in 1948 was legitimate or not. Israel exists now, it's a political entity that can't be discarded.

The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. Iran has nothing to say about "human rights" if they keep killing women and homosexuals.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or JewsWhat does "native" Palestinians mean? Oliver, try to read between the lines for once.

He's rejecting again the Israelis as a whole, in his mind, the are not legitimate Palestinians, since they have usurped the land.

should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate governmentFirst of all, he doesn't state the question of the referendum, so we can't know really what he means by it. This idea of referendum is meaningless unless he states what it will be about.

Secondly, he seems to only accept a one state government as a possibility, the idea of a two-state solution is completely ignored, and therefore, he is being disingenuous and not interested in peace talks unless it has to do with the only solution he wishes. It's not a negotiation if there is only one option on the table.

Thirdly, let's say a referendum has for option a two-state solution (I doubt Iran will recognize such a referendum, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend they would) if a majority of people find that a two-state solution would be best, what then? They have stated that Israel will never be recognized.

[Pardalis]

What was too much to ask? You mean the contradictory thing? I answered that

No you didn't.

Your only Argument is:

I love democracy and freedom, therefore I will not allow any freedoms
for Iran to their right to have nuclear technology.


That's not my argument, that's your strawman.

Iran is bound by international treaties not to proliferate.

[Oliver]

No you didn't.

That's not my argument, that's your strawman.

Iran is bound by international treaties not to proliferate.


No, Iran is not bound. They signed the treaty in good will. They didn't have to do that. You agree?

4.1 Iran's nuclear program and the NPT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Iran.27s_nuclear_program_a nd_the_NPT)

[Pardalis]

No, Iran is not bound. They signed the treaty in good will. They didn't have to do that. You agree?

To sign is to bind.

You're still avoiding my point, BTW.

[Oliver]

To sign is to bind.

You're still avoiding my point, BTW.


*lol* :D Gee, you're avoiding the whole OP by not answering what Iran's
retaliation will be! And now you complain I didn't answer the question
about "sounds contradictory" the way you'd like to hear??? :confused:

[Pardalis]

Nice non-answer, again.

[FireGarden]

They pretend they will accept any outcome but not this one, I call that disingenuous, they may say they want democracy, they don't mean it.

Evidence?
We have evidence that America pretends it wants democracy because when the vote didn't go America's way, they decided to boycott Hamas.

You have no point to make with this comparison. Leave Hitler out of this, unless anyone has murdered 12 million people in a genocidal premeditated and organized extermination policy, a comparison with him is bunk.

If you think the comparison has to be that exact, then why did you use the phrase "real Hitler"?

Your country has alot to be responsible about in the conflict. So you're a hypocrite? You prefer to remain in a country responsible for this and to support the "good guys" by yelling from the stands?

I criticise Britain, too.
And there you go again: implying that I should leave because I don't think my nation is perfect. That's mad.

And there you go again: thinking that I must believe Ahmadinejad is a good guy if I refuse to accept that he isn't a genocidal madman.

They've had sixty years to get over it.

Try going through it, then tell them to suck it up.

It's no longer a matter of if this decision to implant Israel was right or wrong anymore, it's there now, no matter if we like it or not. The Muslim world should live with it.

They've offered to. Look up the Saudi Peace plan, which every Arab government has agreed to.

Again, every peace plan was undermined by extremists.

Your grasp of even recent history was shown to be weak when you commented on the end of the 2006 war.

That's not a democracy, no matter how much you want it to be, not when the supreme leaders decide which parties run. You're ridiculous.

It's not a democracy.

I was responding to your hyperbole, which had the Iranians being "against the very idea of democracy."

I also said I didn't like the Iranian form of government.

[FireGarden]

No you didn't.



That's not my argument, that's your strawman.

Iran is bound by international treaties not to proliferate.

Iran is allowed nuclear technology under the NPT.
They are allowed to enrich Uranium under the NPT.

It has not been proven that they have a nuclear weapons program.

[Pardalis]

Evidence?
We have evidence that America pretends

Again, this is not about America. Go see a doctor about that.

it wants democracy because when the vote didn't go America's way, they decided to boycott Hamas.
Hamas is a terrorist organization.

If you think the comparison has to be that exact, then why did you use the phrase "real Hitler"?

To give you a piece of your own medicine, to show you how sterile a referrence to Hitler is.

And there you again: thinking that I must believe Ahmadinejad is a good guy if I refuse to accept that he isn't a genocidal madman.
That's a strawman BTW, I don't expect you to say he's a genocidal madman, I atl least expect you to stop bending over for him every step of the way and be critical of him.

Try going through it, then tell them to suck it up.It doesn't matter what happened, Israel is there now. Try to live in the present.

They've offered to. Look up the Saudi Peace plan, which every Arab government has agreed to.Then why the stall? If everybody is in agreement, then why is the peace process so hard?

What's that noise? Oh, right, another Hamas kamikaze blowing himself up.

Your grasp of even recent history was shown to be weak when you commented on the end of the 2006 war.Hizbollah were the ones surprised by Israel's response.

I was responding to your hyperbole, which had the Iranians being "against the very idea of democracy."

I also said I didn't like the Iranian form of government.Good.

[Oliver]

Iran is allowed nuclear technology under the NPT.
They are allowed to enrich Uranium under the NPT.

It has not been proven that they have a nuclear weapons program.


Pardalis doesn't seem to care.

[Indeed, he cares more about his Freedoms and Rights]

[FireGarden]

Again, this is not about America. Go see a doctor about that.

Tell you what... Let's make it easy for you!
Everytime someone says something about America which you cannot answer, simply say "Niwdog!" and pretend that answers it.

To give you a piece of your own medicine, to show you how sterile a referrence to Hitler is.

LOL
You have such a black and white view of the world that I wonder why you bother with the concept of comparison. All you need is the concept of things being identical.

That's a strawman BTW, I don't expect you to say he's a genocidal madman, I atl least expect you to stop bending over for him every step of the way and be critical of him.

I have been critical of him. Maybe you missed it. But you keep wanting me to think he will nuke Israel or "push them into the sea" or some such.

It doesn't matter what happened, Israel is there now. Try to live in the present.

Hey, my comments were more than 60 seconds ago. Suck it up. Live in the present.

Then why the stall? If everybody is in agreement, then why is the peace process so hard?

What's that noise? Oh, right, another Hamas kamikaze blowing himself up.

Perhaps you ought to be looking into what the settlers are doing to IDF soldiers at the moment. That might clue you in to one reason you seem to have overlooked:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1025585.html

Israel has already bitten off more than can it can give back. Turns out that facts on the ground are double edged.

Hizbollah were the ones surprised by Israel's response.

That has nothing to do with your original claim.
Ctrl-F search the page for Bolton gets your original claim and my answer.

[Matteo Martini]

Iran's rhetoric is not helping, it's provocation, making things unnecessarily escalate. If they want peace, they should shut up, or tone it down. They have their part of responsibility in this mess too, it's sad that you only see America as the culprit, and making all kinds of contorsions to apologize for Iran.
[..]

Well, I have to agree on this one.
Just noting that it is just one stupid guy (who unfortunately, happens to be the President) to say this things.
Claiming that all the Iranians see Israel as an enemy is false (I hope - too bad we do not have any Iranian in this forum).

[Matteo Martini]

This is an example of why it's pointless to discuss anything with you here - you are not a rational person. By that definition of democracy Saddam's Iraq was a democracy, the Soviet Union was a democracy, etc etc.


??
The Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor and their economic status[citation needed]. The election saw a turnout of almost 60% of eligible voters, seen as a strike back by Iran at the United States' initial allegations that many in Iran would be restricted from voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

Do elections in the US have turn-outs of almost 60%?

[..]
This is why you are revealed as a hypocrite every time you whine about the wart on the nose of Israel or the US, and give a free pass to the cancer infecting damn near every Muslim nation on the face of the earth.

Yuppi!!

[Oliver]

Well, I have to agree on this one.


How so?

The two Iranians running the country made a very good and reasonable
proposal - in contrast to what Pardalis thinks about those irrational nutjobs:

Ayatollah Khamenei: "We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-41)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Interpretation_of_s peech_as_call_for_referendum)


Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-42)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-43)[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-44)[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-45) Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-46) TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Interpretation_of_s peech_as_call_for_referendum)

[soylent]

The straight of hormuz?

[WildCat]

??
The Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor and their economic status[citation needed]. The election saw a turnout of almost 60% of eligible voters, seen as a strike back by Iran at the United States' initial allegations that many in Iran would be restricted from voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

Do elections in the US have turn-outs of almost 60%?
You think it has to do with turnout?! Saddam's Iraq had a 99.99% voter turnout, so it must have been the greatest democracy ever!

Oh, and if every political candidate in the US had to be approved by the Bush Administration to run for office would we really have a democracy?

It's astounding the lengths you go to in order to defend a theocracy which engages human rights abuses on the scale which Iran does.

[Ziggurat]

Do elections in the US have turn-outs of almost 60%?

I think I've mentioned this before, but isn't it a little strange that every comparison you make between America and its enemies always tries to favor its enemies?

But this comparison was a particularly weak one on your part, because
1) yes, US elections sometimes do exceed 60%,
2) why do you think those figures are reliable?
3) as wildcat mentioned, given high voter turnout in dictatorships, why do you think it's indicative of anything?
4) do you not understand the role of the Guardian Council in deciding who gets to run in the first place?

[Pardalis]

How so?

The two Iranians running the country made a very good and reasonable
proposal - in contrast to what Pardalis thinks about those irrational nutjobs:


A reasonable proposal? When there is no option on the table, it's no proposal.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4098167&postcount=269

[Oliver]

A reasonable proposal? When there is no option on the table, it's no proposal.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4098167&postcount=269


If there is a problem and all the people being involved in - and
affected by that problem and vote about solving the problem,
how in the friggin Canadian deserts is this no option at all? :confused:

Stop spilling this crap. And stop saying Iran is a threat or irrational,
when I actually present their pretty rational reasoning regarding
the issue.

[Pardalis]

Your post is completely unintelligible.

[Oliver]

Your post is completely unintelligible.


You mean like your unwillingness to say what Iran's retaliation will look like?

[Ziggurat]

If there is a problem and all the people being involved in - and
affected by that problem and vote about solving the problem,
how in the friggin Canadian deserts is this no option at all? :confused:

How about if everyone in the US and everyone in Canada get to vote on whether or not the US should annex Canada? If all the Canadians vote against it and they still lose the vote, tough luck: there was a vote. I think I get the idea of where this is going. If the Germans had just voted on whether or not to exterminate the Jews, it would have been OK. After all, German Jews would be allowed to vote on that too.

[Pardalis]

How about if everyone in the US and everyone in Canada get to vote on whether or not the US should annex Canada?

It's not even that Ziggurat. If you read carefully the "proposition", and to keep with your example, what they are suggesting is that once America has already annexed Canada, the referendum would be about what would the "Greater America" government be like.

They are not considering at all a vote whether or not Israel should be annexed, it's a sine qua non condition. It's a referendum once the annexation already has happened. God knows what this referendum would really be about. They don't even say what the question would be.

People like Oliver who don't read past the obvious fluff words like "referendum" and "democracy", they don't see the actual implications of what they mean, and imply.

ETA: it's like saying the religious charities which fund Al Qaeda are good because of the word "charity".

[Pardalis]

And what I'd like to know, is why people like Fire Garden think that the Arab nations' proposal is a good thing, and at the same time consider the two-state solution a thing of the past?

FG asked me earlier how long should we push for the two-state solution. Well, if the Arab league still considers it an option, then why not keep at it?

[Oliver]

How about if everyone in the US and everyone in Canada get to vote on whether or not the US should annex Canada? If all the Canadians vote against it and they still lose the vote, tough luck: there was a vote. I think I get the idea of where this is going. If the Germans had just voted on whether or not to exterminate the Jews, it would have been OK. After all, German Jews would be allowed to vote on that too.


Yes, Democracy sucks for the minority.

And concerning Genocide: That's off-topic since Iran made a pretty
human, democratic proposal, namely:

Ayatollah Khamenei: "We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-41)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Interpretation_of_s peech_as_call_for_referendum)

[Pardalis]

How many more times are you going to post that quote without reading it?

[RandFan]

Huh? You asked what pretext could be used to attack Iran, implying (or so I thought) that it would be difficult for the US to form one. It wouldn't be, I gave a slew of various pretexts proffered in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, and how some could be applied to Iran.Huh? No, you started by saying you couldn't imagine what pretext the US would use. I then gave you WMD.

You consented that "in some ways we exacerbate" and it's my opinion that that exacerbation has outweighed the good we've done. That's what "too many" means here. I gave some examples later on. And is there a reason to suppose that your list is objective and that you've controlled for your bias?

There are plenty of examples of alliance or creation of despotic, undemocratic regimes. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, Iran. Balanced against Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Turkey. A lot can be excused by having to thwart Soviet influence, but a) the canard of "spreading/promoting democracy as a consistent foreign policy" is still a canard, and b) we've continued this lousy foreign policy post-USSR dissolution. I imagine the next blowback state will be Pakistan, a decade or less after we leave there and Afghanistan. It's a complex and messy issue that won't be unravalled with your simplistic assertions. You are simply seeing what you want to see because of confirmation bias. I concede that we have made mistakes but it's not as easy as thinking that there was always a good and bad choice. Often there were two bad choices and we had to find the best choice. That we didn't make the choice that you think we should have doesn't make you right.

[Ziggurat]

And concerning Genocide: That's off-topic since Iran made a pretty
human, democratic proposal, namely:

What a useful fool you are. Do you honestly think that Khameini is calling for a vote because he believes in democracy? Of course not. Iran itself is a testament to that. He's calling for something he knows he can't get in the hopes of making himself sound like the good guy. But what, exactly, do you think the phrase "Palestine belongs to Palestinians" means? Do you think he means the West Bank and Gaza? No. He means all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. He wants to let a Palestinian vote determine the fate of the Israelis. Seriously: how do you think such a vote would turn out?

[Oliver]

What a useful fool you are. Do you honestly think that Khameini is calling for a vote because he believes in democracy? Of course not. Iran itself is a testament to that. He's calling for something he knows he can't get in the hopes of making himself sound like the good guy. But what, exactly, do you think the phrase "Palestine belongs to Palestinians" means? Do you think he means the West Bank and Gaza? No. He means all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. He wants to let a Palestinian vote determine the fate of the Israelis. Seriously: how do you think such a vote would turn out?


So what? If Khameini and Ahmadinejad think that Israel belongs to the
Palestinians, that's what you guys would call freedom of speech. Yet
their proposal is a democratic poll - and they stated that they agree
with whatever the outcome may be.

So where is the threat here? - Other than a democratic solution some
in here and Israel hate in the name of the Status Quo?

So to quote Pardalis: Do you hate freedom and democracy? :confused:

Or are you concerned about Jewish people being a minority in this poll?

[Pardalis]

A poll about what?

[Oliver]

A poll about what?


A referendum in which the Palestinians [including those being refugees],
the Jews and Christians vote for the solution they prefer for the fate
of the region.

That's what Iran proposes without making any threat. Plus they
say that they will accept whatever Jews, Pals and Christians decide
about the place that used to be the one they belong.

That's a democratic option.

And somehow you don't seem to be willing to understand this
option, despite your love for freedom and democratic choices.

[Pardalis]

A referendum in which the Palestinians [including those being refugees], the Jews and Christians vote for the solution they prefer for the fate
of the region.

First of all, you've got to set your mind on a word, and stick with it. It's either a poll or a referendum. Words have meaning.

Second of all, you clearly haven't read the "proposal". This is not what they are saying at all.

Plus they say that they will accept whatever Jews, Pals and Christians decide
about the place that used to be the one they belong.This is contradicted by this latest statement by your buddy Mahmoud, that I've quoted before but that you keep ignoring:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ... But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

[Oliver]

First of all, you've got to set your mind on a word, and stick with it. It's either a poll or a referendum. Words have meaning.

Second of all, you clearly haven't read the "proposal". This is not what they are saying at all.

This is contradicted by this latest statement by your buddy Mahmoud, that I've quoted before but that you keep ignoring:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ... But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel


Are you deliberately ignorant, Goury?

They do not accept Israel. Because Israel ignores Pals. Iran thinks
that Pals should have a say as well. Therefore they call for a referendum.

What don't you understand about that? Do you think the
Palestinians should have no say at all - being the democratic,
freedom lovin guy you are???

Where is the threat?

And what will Iran's retaliation will be once Israel is going to change
Iran's current peaceful stance? :confused:

I know you won't answer - it's too much to ask you to think about it.

[Ziggurat]

So what? If Khameini and Ahmadinejad think that Israel belongs to the
Palestinians, that's what you guys would call freedom of speech.

Funny, but that's not something either of those nutjobs believes in. Nor is that point in any way relevant, since I'm not advocating censoring them.

Yet their proposal is a democratic poll

Of Palestinians. To determine what to do with the Israelis.

and they stated that they agree with whatever the outcome may be.

In other words, if the Palestinians decide they want to throw the Israelis into the sea, then that's what Khameini will agree with. And your argument indicates you would to. I will be generous and assume that you're simply too clueless to understand the consequences of your own position.

So to quote Pardalis: Do you hate freedom and democracy? :confused:

Or are you concerned about Jewish people being a minority in this poll?

Most Jews in Israel wouldn't get a vote in the poll he wants, because they wouldn't be counted as "native". As I asked before, and as you failed to answer in any form, what do you think the results of such a poll would be?

[FireGarden]

And what I'd like to know, is why people like Fire Garden think that the Arab nations' proposal is a good thing, and at the same time consider the two-state solution a thing of the past?

The Arab proposal indicates that the Arabs are willing to accept an Israeli state -- a willingness you said was lacking. That I provide evidence that you are wrong about that does not mean I think the two-state solution is possible.

FG asked me earlier how long should we push for the two-state solution. Well, if the Arab league still considers it an option, then why not keep at it?

I asked "how long?", and you replied "as long as it takes". Is that still your position?

If a two-state solution can be agreed, then I'm for it. But I doubt it will be agreed. Olmert was convinced that Israel's survival required a two-state solution -- he was still unable to deliver one. Why is Livni going to do better?

Time to put other solutions on the table.

[FireGarden]

Yes, Democracy sucks for the minority.

And concerning Genocide: That's off-topic since Iran made a pretty
human, democratic proposal, namely:

I agree that genocide is off the table.

But I'm not sure what you think this is:

Ayatollah Khamenei: The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42]"

I think it is clearly about voting for a government -- not voting for what kind of state(s). The wiki link makes clear it is stated in the context of a one-state solution.



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/26/iranian_president_mahmoud_ahmedinejad_on_iran

Ahmadinejad argues that there will be no piece as long as the "Zionist regime" remains. 100 different solutions have been tried and all come to nothing. He says it's because of the aggression of the Israelis.

But when pressed directly on the point of whether or not Iran would accept a two-state solution if that is what the Palestinian leaders agree, then he says "yes"

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] We believe that people have to decide and choose their own fate, the right to self-determination. If they would like to keep the Zionists, they can stay; if not, they have to leave. What do you think the people there want?

AMY GOODMAN: You would support a two-state solution, if they do?

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Wherever people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums. We’ve been saying this for several years as a proposal.

So it's not about Zionists voting (alongside Palestinians) about whether a Zionist state remains. Ahmadinejad is talking about supporting a two-state solution if the Palestinians agree to it.

[Matteo Martini]

How so?

The two Iranians running the country made a very good and reasonable
proposal - in contrast to what Pardalis thinks about those irrational nutjobs:




Well, well..
Why does Ahmadinejiad said in a pulic meeting "there are people from all nations around the world who wear placards on which there is written death to isreal"?, why did he said that he was not sure that the Holocaust took place? why he never said that (as far as I remember) Israel has a right to exist ? Why he denied there are gays in Iran, why they kill them?

[Matteo Martini]

I think I've mentioned this before, but isn't it a little strange that every comparison you make between America and its enemies always tries to favor its enemies?


Is not a little bit strange that, every time the Government of the US does not like a country, that country becomes a "terrorist state", a not-real democracy, etc. ?


But this comparison was a particularly weak one on your part, because
1) yes, US elections sometimes do exceed 60%,


Which means that sometimes do not.
Therefore, the US is not a democracy?


2) why do you think those figures are reliable?

CARACAS, Venezuela, Dec. 6 -- In another example of the security, accuracy and auditability of Smartmatic's automated electronic voting system, the results of Sunday's Presidential election in Venezuela were certified by the National Election Commission (CNE), as well as by international observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union. Perhaps more importantly, the results were accepted by all of the political parties and players involved as accurate and representing the will of the Venezuelan people.
http://www.mywire.com/a/PRNewswire//2223535?extID=10051


3) as wildcat mentioned, given high voter turnout in dictatorships, why do you think it's indicative of anything?

Dictatorships do not have elections where people can vote freely for their candidate

4) do you not understand the role of the Guardian Council in deciding who gets to run in the first place?

Do you understand the role of the Republican and Democratic party in deciding who can run for President of the US, in fist place?
Or, do you assume you could run as well?

[Ziggurat]

Is not a little bit strange that, every time the Government of the US does not like a country, that country becomes a "terrorist state", a not-real democracy, etc. ?

Uh, no. Look at France. And are you seriously trying to claim that Iran is not a state sponsor of terrorism and that it is a genuine democracy? How far detached from reality is your anti-Americanism?

Which means that sometimes do not.
Therefore, the US is not a democracy?

Uh, no. I'm not the one trying to claim that voter turnout indicates democratic status.

CARACAS, Venezuela, Dec. 6

I ask you for evidence of why you think Iranian election figures are reliable, and you provide me with information about a Venezuelan election. Why did you expect that to fly?

Dictatorships do not have elections where people can vote freely for their candidate

Surprise, surprise: neither does Iran.

Do you understand the role of the Republican and Democratic party in deciding who can run for President of the US, in fist place?
Or, do you assume you could run as well?

Oh, but I can run. My chances of winning are quite small, and quite frankly they should be because I'm a nobody, but I can run. That is not the case in Iran. Furthermore, I'm not just talking about presidential elections, I'm talking all elections. Once again, since you refused to answer last time, do you understand the role of the Guardian Council in Iranian elections?

[Pardalis]

The Arab proposal indicates that the Arabs are willing to accept an Israeli state -- a willingness you said was lacking. That I provide evidence that you are wrong about that does not mean I think the two-state solution is possible.

There is an unwillingness to make due on their plan, a few intifadas are proof of that.

I asked "how long?", and you replied "as long as it takes". Is that still your position?

Well it hasn't been that long since I said that, so yes.

If a two-state solution can be agreed, then I'm for it. But I doubt it will be agreed. Olmert was convinced that Israel's survival required a two-state solution -- he was still unable to deliver one. Why is Livni going to do better?

We've got all the ingredients for it to work, the Arab plan, the US' peace plan, everybody seems to be in agreement. All that's needed is for the terrorists to stop killing and for some states to stop funding them, and for the settlers to stop colonizing where they do not belong.

Time to put other solutions on the table.

Such as? A one-state solution is not a solution for the Israelis.

[Pardalis]

Do you understand the role of the Republican and Democratic party in deciding who can run for President of the US, in fist place?

You do understand that there's a vote when this happens?

[Shadowdweller]

nm

[Oliver]

Well, well..
Why does Ahmadinejiad said in a pulic meeting "there are people from all nations around the world who wear placards on which there is written death to isreal"?, why did he said that he was not sure that the Holocaust took place? why he never said that (as far as I remember) Israel has a right to exist ? Why he denied there are gays in Iran, why they kill them?


I don't know why Ahmadinajad says stupid things. However, none
of what he says implies: "I will nuke Israel" - and in strong contrast
to what "Caucasians" say about Iran. So given his - and more importantly,
his Bosses proposal, there should be a democratic referendum.

You cannot deny that, can you?

So where's the threat? And what will happen once Iran actually
has the right to defend themselves?

[Matteo Martini]

Uh, no. Look at France. And are you seriously trying to claim that Iran is not a state sponsor of terrorism and that it is a genuine democracy? How far detached from reality is your anti-Americanism?


Evidence that the US are enemies of France?
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/Bush2G_468x466.jpg


Uh, no. I'm not the one trying to claim that voter turnout indicates democratic status.


I claim that high-turnout in free elections indicates democratic status


I ask you for evidence of why you think Iranian election figures are reliable, and you provide me with information about a Venezuelan election. Why did you expect that to fly?


Oops..

From The New Yor Times..

TEHRAN — Iranians appeared to have turned out in large numbers on Friday to vote in parliamentary elections nationwide. In Tehran, lines formed at major mosques where polling took place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/world/middleeast/15iran.html


Surprise, surprise: neither does Iran.


Evidence that people were forcedly sent to vote with a gun held on their head.


Oh, but I can run. My chances of winning are quite small, and quite frankly they should be because I'm a nobody, but I can run. That is not the case in Iran. Furthermore, I'm not just talking about presidential elections, I'm talking all elections. Once again, since you refused to answer last time, do you understand the role of the Guardian Council in Iranian elections?

You can run on the paper.
But you have no chances to get elected, no matter how good your program, unless you are sponsored by any of the two parties, or you have some billions of dollars in the bank.
If you disagree with this, please give me a name of a recently elected President of the US who was not supported by any party and was quite poor.

[Matteo Martini]

You do understand that there's a vote when this happens?

And, in order to be voted, you need to be part in the democratic or republican party (at least in some state).
If I am not recorded in any party, I can not vote in some states (closed primary).
Moreover, the party brass will quickly kill off any potential candidate with some "strange" ideas they do not like..

[Matteo Martini]

I don't know why Ahmadinajad says stupid things. However, none
of what he says implies: "I will nuke Israel" - and in strong contrast
to what "Caucasians" say about Iran. So given his - and more importantly,
his Bosses proposal, there should be a democratic referendum.

You cannot deny that, can you?

So where's the threat? And what will happen once Iran actually
has the right to defend themselves?

I am not claiming that Iran has no right to defend themselves.
I would like to point out that Bush did not say that America will nuke Iran, he said that nuking Iran was the very last option, but he could not rule it out.
AFAIK, the next president Obama (we hope) has ruled out nukes on Iran (I hope).
Last thing, the fact that Ahmadinejiad says stupid things is probably the very point in discussion.
Had we had Rafsanjiani in power, there would probably be no such mess.

[FireGarden]

There is an unwillingness to make due on their plan, a few intifadas are proof of that.

What are you talking about? It sounds now that you are accusing all the Arab states of engaging in/supporting the intifadas.

We've got all the ingredients for it to work, the Arab plan, the US' peace plan, everybody seems to be in agreement. All that's needed is for the terrorists to stop killing and for some states to stop funding them, and for the settlers to stop colonizing where they do not belong.

The violence doesn't need to stop for negotiations to move forward and agreements be made. The 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon proved that.

Such as? A one-state solution is not a solution for the Israelis.

It is for some.
Ilan Pappe is the most vocal.

Meron Benvenisti is another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meron_Benvenisti

Given South Africa type sanctions, I think a one-state solution would become even more acceptable to Israelis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/26/comment

As the Israeli left sees it, the confinement of one and a half million people in a huge holding pen fulfils the ideal of putting an end to the occupation, and furnishes some relief about how "we are not responsible".

Similarly, when in South Africa a failed attempt was made to solve demographic problems by creating "homelands for the blacks", liberals originally supported the idea, and even a portion of the international community viewed the measure as a step toward "decolonisation". But, after a short time, it became clear that the ploy was designed to confer legitimacy on the expulsion of black people, and their uprooting. The bantustans collapsed, demands for civil equality intensified, and the world mobilised for the defeat of apartheid.

[...] The plan will last, however, only as long as the illusion is sustained that "separation" is a means to end the conflict.

The day will come when believers in this illusion will realise that "separation" is a means to oppress and dominate, and then they will mobilise to dismantle the apartheid apparatus. The last ones who will consent to abandon the ideal of "separation" and uphold rights will be the Palestinians, but - to some extent - Sharon's separation plan and Bush's declaration will provoke them.

[Ziggurat]

Evidence that the US are enemies of France?

Moving the goalpost, I see. You said countries the US doesn't like.

I claim that high-turnout in free elections indicates democratic status

Why is that relevant, given that Iranian elections aren't free?

Evidence that people were forcedly sent to vote with a gun held on their head.

Boy, do you not have a clue. It's not because people are forced to vote that Iranian elections are not free, it's because they cannot vote for whomever they want to. Which you would have known had you picked up on my multiple references to the Guardian Council. Or did you simply not know the function they serve?

You can run on the paper.
But you have no chances to get elected, no matter how good your program, unless you are sponsored by any of the two parties,

And you can get that sponsorship by getting votes. You don't need the approval of anyone in the party leadership. So the fact that almost everyone who gets elected is either Democrat or Republican isn't really a barrier to getting elected, since there's no barrier (other than getting votes) to running as the candidate of those parties. And the ability to get votes is rather the relevant criteria for getting elected. Furthermore, we HAVE had third party candidates and independents elected, including to the presidency. Lest you forget, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. In contrast, you can't even run on paper in Iran unless the Guardian Council decides you can.

Really, your continued attempts to portray Iran as more democratic than the US are getting pathetic.

[Matteo Martini]

Moving the goalpost, I see. You said countries the US doesn't like.

The US does not like France?


Why is that relevant, given that Iranian elections aren't free?


Why are the Iranian elections not free?
And why are the US elections free?


Boy, do you not have a clue. It's not because people are forced to vote that Iranian elections are not free, it's because they cannot vote for whomever they want to. Which you would have known had you picked up on my multiple references to the Guardian Council. Or did you simply not know the function they serve?

And here you go again.
Being represented in the ballots means nothing, unless you have space in the television debates.
If you have no space in the media debates, you have no chance (zero) to get elected.
Do you agree on this?
Or you think that you can be elected as President even if you ahve no space in the TV debates?
And now, who chooses who can go to TV debates and who can not?


And you can get that sponsorship by getting votes. You don't need the approval of anyone in the party leadership. So the fact that almost everyone who gets elected is either Democrat or Republican isn't really a barrier to getting elected, since there's no barrier (other than getting votes) to running as the candidate of those parties. And the ability to get votes is rather the relevant criteria for getting elected.

How do you get votes from people if:
1) you do not have (a lot) of money and
2) you have no big group of interests supporting you?
3) you have the media against you?


Furthermore, we HAVE had third party candidates and independents elected, including to the presidency. Lest you forget, Abraham Lincoln was a third party candidate. In contrast, you can't even run on paper in Iran unless the Guardian Council decides you can.


What is the difference between running on paper with zero possibility of getting elected and not running at all?


Really, your continued attempts to portray Iran as more democratic than the US are getting pathetic.

I am not attempting enything like this.
You are a liar not well-informed person

[Ziggurat]

The US does not like France?

Nope. That's why we call them cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

Why are the Iranian elections not free?
And why are the US elections free?

Are you not paying any attention? I'm sorry, but at this point, if you can't figure it out, it's because you don't want to figure it out.

I am not attempting enything like this.
You are a liar not well-informed person

Sure you are. You did it again in your response.

[Oliver]

Of Palestinians. To determine what to do with the Israelis.


Uhm, no. Their proposal is about "letting the Palestinians decide in
a democractic referendum". And by Palestinians, they're talking about
jewish and christian Palestinians as well - so no one would be excluded.

[Pardalis]

Uhm, no. Their proposal is about "letting the Palestinians decide in a democractic referendum". And by Palestinians, they're talking about jewish and christian Palestinians as well - so no one would be excluded.

As Ziggurat and I have previously said, they talk about "native" Palestinians, and I don't think they think the present residents of Israel are "native" Palestinians, judging from Khamenei's comments about them:

"It is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsense to say that we are friends of Israeli people ... Who are Israelis?" ... They are responsible for usurping houses, territory, farmlands and businesses. ... A Muslim nation cannot remain indifferent vis-a-vis such people who are stooges at the service of the arch-foes of the Muslim world."

Also, in the "proposal" it is implied that the referendum, whatever it would be about, would be after Israel would have disappeared. So as you see, it's not a proposal, if they have already decided Israel is gone.

[Shadowdweller]

What is the difference between running on paper with zero possibility of getting elected and not running at all?

The difference between democracy and dictatorship. We here in the US have some rather miniscule Communist and Fascist minorities (in the true sense of the terms, rather than perjorative). That candidates of either persuasion would have effectively zero chance of being elected is due to the opinions of the majority rather any legal barrier or inherent systemic bias.


And, in order to be voted, you need to be part in the democratic or republican party (at least in some state).
If I am not recorded in any party, I can not vote in some states (closed primary).

Registration for one party or another is merely a matter of affixing the appropriate label (or checking the appropriate box) to your name on a registration form. There is no cost, no approval process, no requisites to be overcome beyond those for merely voting, and that in some cases one is excluded from registering for multiple parties at once. Do you imagine that the alternative case, where one is able to simultaneously choose the best candidate for one's own party and the most silly and ineffective candidate for one's opponents be more democratic?


Moreover, the party brass will quickly kill off any potential candidate with some "strange" ideas they do not like.
Contrary to your delusions, the party "brass" has no such power. Do yourself a favor and look up the term "primary" as it pertains to elections. Even in the event that a given candidate loses a primary, they are free to run under a different party or as an independant. This happened to senator Joseph Lieberman in recent memory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran undeniably has some very anti-democratic factors at work within its government.

1) The Supreme Leader holds overwhelming power over foreign and domestic policy. The position may be held indefinitely. Although theoretically chosen and removable by a representative body, as Ziggurat mentioned, all such representatives must first be approved by said Supreme Leader or his directly appointed Guardian Council.

2) The theocracy must also approve parliamentary candidates prior to election. Rates of rejection have historically been unusually high amongst the Reform Party.

3) Censorship and freedom of the press is infamously bad in Iran. Reporters Without Borders, for instance, rates them as worse than Myanmar. Journalists have been commonly imprisoned for criticism of the government, statements unflattering to Ayatollah Khomeini, posting feminist arguments over the web. Media Outlets have been seized, demolished. In at least one case within the past year a journalist was executed by the government.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25431

4) While this isn't a huge issue since the population of Iran is overwhelmingly Islamic, as mandated by law the highest officials (including the Supreme Leader and the president) may only be Islamic. As per the Iranian constitution, only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians may even legally conduct religious rites or operate religious schools within the country.

Article 13 [Recognized Religious Minorities]
Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities, who, within the limits of the law, are free to perform their religious rites and ceremonies, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs and religious education.

[Oliver]

Also, in the "proposal" it is implied that the referendum, whatever it would be about, would be after Israel would have disappeared. So as you see, it's not a proposal, if they have already decided Israel is gone.


Linky?

[Matteo Martini]

Nope. That's why we call them cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
[..]

Never heard George W. say such a thing.
Do they seem like two enemies?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/Bush2G_468x466.jpg

Please, give me evidence that the US Government does not like France as much as they do not like Iran (after all, US is a general term, it is the US Government who hates Iran, I bet not common US people)

[Matteo Martini]

The difference between democracy and dictatorship. We here in the US have some rather miniscule Communist and Fascist minorities (in the true sense of the terms, rather than perjorative). That candidates of either persuasion would have effectively zero chance of being elected is due to the opinions of the majority rather any legal barrier or inherent systemic bias.


You are quoting some small minorities that would have no chance to get elected anyways (such as a pro-free-sex party in Iran, just to make an example).
But there are many candidates that could be elected in the US but they will not have the possibility just to even speak in any public national debate.
There is no practical difference between having a legal barrier that bars some candidates and a media/party system that does basically the same.


Registration for one party or another is merely a matter of affixing the appropriate label (or checking the appropriate box) to your name on a registration form.

Matters up to a point.
If I want to be free (that is, I do not want to be a Republican), can I still vote for the primaries in all the states for a Republican candidate?


There is no cost, no approval process, no requisites to be overcome beyond those for merely voting, and that in some cases one is excluded from registering for multiple parties at once. Do you imagine that the alternative case, where one is able to simultaneously choose the best candidate for one's own party and the most silly and ineffective candidate for one's opponents be more democratic?

There are people saying that having parties is unnecessary.
The point is that, when you are linked to a party, you are not free to move as you like.
You can not easily call George W. an idiot, if you are an elected Republican senator, for example.
Your own party will kill you (metaphorically)


Contrary to your delusions, the party "brass" has no such power. Do yourself a favor and look up the term "primary" as it pertains to elections. Even in the event that a given candidate loses a primary, they are free to run under a different party or as an independant. This happened to senator Joseph Lieberman in recent memory.


Will Lieberman be elected president after changing party?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran undeniably has some very anti-democratic factors at work within its government.


Yes


1) The Supreme Leader holds overwhelming power over foreign and domestic policy. The position may be held indefinitely. Although theoretically chosen and removable by a representative body, as Ziggurat mentioned, all such representatives must first be approved by said Supreme Leader or his directly appointed Guardian Council.

2) The theocracy must also approve parliamentary candidates prior to election. Rates of rejection have historically been unusually high amongst the Reform Party.

3) Censorship and freedom of the press is infamously bad in Iran. Reporters Without Borders, for instance, rates them as worse than Myanmar. Journalists have been commonly imprisoned for criticism of the government, statements unflattering to Ayatollah Khomeini, posting feminist arguments over the web. Media Outlets have been seized, demolished. In at least one case within the past year a journalist was executed by the government.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25431

4) While this isn't a huge issue since the population of Iran is overwhelmingly Islamic, as mandated by law the highest officials (including the Supreme Leader and the president) may only be Islamic. As per the Iranian constitution, only Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians may even legally conduct religious rites or operate religious schools within the country.

1) I have never claimed that Iran is a good example of democratic government; I think it is quite a bad example of "democratic" government, in fact.
2) In the US too, I guess, the President has still to say something about "God", when he takes office
3) Iran, whether you like it or not, has a democracy that has an high percentage of turn-out, if the Iranians did not like their current form of government, they would probably not go to vote at all.

[Matteo Martini]

Are you not paying any attention? I'm sorry, but at this point, if you can't figure it out, it's because you don't want to figure it out.
[..]

I give up on this..

[Ziggurat]

There is no practical difference between having a legal barrier that bars some candidates and a media/party system that does basically the same.

The party system does nothing to prevent candidates from running. You can run as a member of whatever party you like - all you need to do is get votes in a primary. So no one has the power to STOP you from getting elected. That is indeed a practical difference between our system and Iran. And the fact that you can't see it at this point can only mean that you don't want to see it. Your reflexive anti-Americanism is blinding you to reality.

[Oliver]

I am not claiming that Iran has no right to defend themselves.
I would like to point out that Bush did not say that America will nuke Iran, he said that nuking Iran was the very last option, but he could not rule it out.
AFAIK, the next president Obama (we hope) has ruled out nukes on Iran (I hope).
Last thing, the fact that Ahmadinejiad says stupid things is probably the very point in discussion.
Had we had Rafsanjiani in power, there would probably be no such mess.


Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".
Boy, that would be an outrageous outcry from Politicians and in the
News! :D

[Doctor Evil]

Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".
Boy, that would be an outrageous outcry from Politicians and in the
News! :D

Do you have a link to a politician which sing about bombing Iran then???

Here is some of what Ahmadinegad did say (http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1868.htm):
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The Zionists are crooks. A small handful of Zionists, with a very intricate organization, have taken over the power centers of the world. According to our estimates, the main cadre of the Zionists consists of 2,000 individuals at most, and they have another 8,000 activists. In addition, they have several informants, who spy and provide them with intelligence information. But because of their control of power centers in the U.S. and Europe, and their control of the financial centers and the news and propaganda agencies, they spread propaganda as if they were the entire world, as if all the peoples supported them, and as if they were the majority ruling the world. That is a great lie – just like their Jewishness is a great lie. They have no religion whatsoever. They are a handful of lying, power-greedy people who have no religion, who only want to take over all the peoples and countries, and to trample the rights of the peoples.
[...]
I've heard that one of them [PM Olmert] recently said that the idea of Greater Israel is dead. I would like to declare that the idea of "smaller Israel" is also dead. The very notion of Israel is dead, but they are lagging behind the times. Just like the idea of Greater Israel died 30 years ago, and they did not realize this, and have continued to perpetrate crimes for 30 years... Today, I say to them: The idea of smaller Israel is dead.
Let me give them a piece of advice: You would be better off if you stop your oppression and express remorse. If you want to do something good in your lives, leave the land of Palestine, free it from your oppression and occupation. Carry on with your lives. You captivated [Jewish] people with your trickery and lies, and you brought them over there with false promises. You sent them to settlements in order to serve as your human shields, and you continue to perpetrate your crimes. Let me give you some advice: Enough. For 60 years, you have been doing ugly things and committing crimes – leave, and show remorse.
[...]
You've heard on the news that [the Zionists] established a network for kidnapping people. They kidnap oppressed, destitute, ignorant people from other countries, and bring them to the occupied lands to serve as human shields.
[...]
If the occupiers and invaders take ignorant people – even if they are innocent – and use them as human shields in order to carry out invasions, the [Palestinian] people, which is on the defensive, has to conduct resistance, even if it is against innocent people, who were brought to the scene without being aware of it.
[...]
At this very moment, hundreds of American exporters are trying very hard to sell products to Iran, but we refuse. The same goes for investors from some European countries that you mentioned, who insist on investing in Iran – but we set conditions.
[...]


This is an antisemitic rant which include threats to hurt innocent people. If you have comparable speeches by western leaders please supply them.

[Matteo Martini]

Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".
Boy, that would be an outrageous outcry from Politicians and in the
News! :D

Ahmadinejiad said that the regime of Israel should vanish from the page of time (or he quoted Khomeini on that, do not remember).
I do not know which of the two, McCain`s song or Ahmadinejiad`s quote, is worse

[Matteo Martini]

The party system does nothing to prevent candidates from running. You can run as a member of whatever party you like - all you need to do is get votes in a primary. So no one has the power to STOP you from getting elected. That is indeed a practical difference between our system and Iran. And the fact that you can't see it at this point can only mean that you don't want to see it. Your reflexive anti-Americanism is blinding you to reality.

The system is not the party.
The system is the party+the lobbies+the media.
The system does not prevent people from running, but filters them.
It is impossible for a candidate to win, even if he has the best program, if he has no support from the lobbies and the media attacking him.
If somebody would try to get elected with ideas similar to Noam Chomsky, he would be "killed" by the media instantly.
And I think NC`s ideas are much more consistent with reality that both McCain`s or Obama`s.

[RandFan]

Well, at least Ahmadinejad isn't singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Israel".Yeah, but I think most would take it mostly in stride if it wasn't part of a daily stream of rhetoric. McCain hasn't made a lifetime of calling for the destruction of Israel.

Oh, and BTW, have someone call for the destruction of Germany and see how much the Germans like it. The land will still be there. The people will still be there but the government will be eliminated. I doubt many Germans or Italians, or Spanish or any nation would care much for that but Israeli's are suppose to be ok with that.

[RandFan]

Do you have a link to a politician which sing about bombing Iran then???McCain did so jokingly. It was in poor taste.

o-zoPgv_nYg

[Shadowdweller]

You are quoting some small minorities that would have no chance to get elected anyways (such as a pro-free-sex party in Iran, just to make an example).
But there are many candidates that could be elected in the US but they will not have the possibility just to even speak in any public national debate.
Broadcasting time is a finite, costly resource. Before one is able to convince a media outlet to provide it, free of charge, one must establish significant public support. Before one is able to claim public campaign funding from the FEC, one must establish significant public support. Where third party candidates have been able to establish such support, they have consistently been granted debate time (e.g. Ross Perot in 1992).

There is no practical difference between having a legal barrier that bars some candidates and a media/party system that does basically the same.
Poppycock. The former is an example of the law (and more particularly the regime or particular individuals that wrote the law) determining who can be elected. The latter, insofar as it pertains to the US, is an example of the voting population rejecting a given candidate. Democracy does NOT imply that every single candidate or philosophy will be given equal credence by a specific voting population.

If I want to be free (that is, I do not want to be a Republican), can I still vote for the primaries in all the states for a Republican candidate?
If you are so phobic of the otherwise meaningless label that you are unwilling to comply with protections against attempts to foist untenable candidates upon the opposition, then no, you don't get to vote between that party's candidates in the primary (in states that even have such protections). One is otherwise free to register for one party as little as ten days before a primary (depending on state), then register back immediately after voting.

You can not easily call George W. an idiot, if you are an elected Republican senator, for example.
Your own party will kill you (metaphorically)
If one insults ANY person in ANY situation in ANY country, one risks offending those who may support or think highly of that individual. Bush has long enjoyed support amongst the religious right, which makes up a significant part of the Republican party's voting base. So what? One does not and should not win elections in a democracy by offending the voters.

2) In the US too, I guess, the President has still to say something about "God", when he takes office
Wrong. The oath the president must swear when he takes office is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Furthermore, the constitution in the very first amendment states that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
----------------------------------------------------------

Iran, whether you like it or not, has a democracy that has an high percentage of turn-out, if the Iranians did not like their current form of government, they would probably not go to vote at all.
Quite aside from the extreme idiocy of trusting statistics from a government that so aggressively censors any criticism (which may nevertheless be true for all that): voter turnout, by itself, is meaningless. MANY countries, such as Britain and Iran itself under the Shah, historically had elected parliaments even while run by monarchs. This did not in any significant degree make them democracies.

[Kopji]

If I had a concern at this point it would be that Iran would bomb itself either unintentionally or 'by accident' in a heavy populated area like Tehran.

If an 'accident' could be engineered by Iran's enemies (internal or external) there might be significant political benefit for someone positioned to take advantage.

[RandFan]

If I had a concern at this point it would be that Iran would bomb itself either unintentionally or 'by accident' in a heavy populated area like Tehran.

If an 'accident' could be engineered by Iran's enemies (internal or external) there might be significant political benefit for someone positioned to take advantage. Iran doesn't need enimies.

Three Mile Island accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident)

Chernobyl disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

Where the hell are the anti-nuclear postestors (http://www.thewho.net/linernotes2/NoNukes.jpg) when you need them?

Who the hell would have ever thought that liberals would come to embrace nuclear energy just by getting Iran interested.

Go figure.

[Matteo Martini]

Quite aside from the extreme idiocy of trusting statistics from a government that so aggressively censors any criticism (which may nevertheless be true for all that): voter turnout, by itself, is meaningless. MANY countries, such as Britain and Iran itself under the Shah, historically had elected parliaments even while run by monarchs. This did not in any significant degree make them democracies.

The validation of the Iranian voting process I wsa talking about does not come from the Iranian government or from any Iranian organization.

You also mean..
Monarchs are incompatible with democracies?
Ype!

[Shadowdweller]

The validation of the Iranian voting process I wsa talking about does not come from the Iranian government or from any Iranian organization.
A matter of editing on autopilot :P That statement should have read: "...from a country where criticism in the press is so aggressively censored by the government..."

You also mean..
Monarchs are incompatible with democracies?
Ype!
Where the monarch, being an official not elected by the populace or their direct representatives, holds any significant power to affect public policy beyond simple respect/endorsement, yes.

[Matteo Martini]

Iran doesn't need enimies.

Three Mile Island accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident)

Chernobyl disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

Where the hell are the anti-nuclear postestors (http://www.thewho.net/linernotes2/NoNukes.jpg) when you need them?

Who the hell would have ever thought that liberals would come to embrace nuclear energy just by getting Iran interested.

Go figure.

Funny you use an accident happened in the US as an argument against
nuclear power generator in Iran

[Matteo Martini]

A matter of editing on autopilot :P That statement should have read: "...from a country where criticism in the press is so aggressively censored by the government..."

Do you get that the validation of the voting process of the Iranian elections did not came from within Iran, but from international organizations?


Where the monarch, being an official not elected by the populace or their direct representatives, holds any significant power to affect public policy beyond simple respect/endorsement, yes.

I do not understand what you talked about Iran and the UK, monarchy, and not being a democracy..

[Matteo Martini]

If I had a concern at this point it would be that Iran would bomb itself either unintentionally or 'by accident' in a heavy populated area like Tehran.

If an 'accident' could be engineered by Iran's enemies (internal or external) there might be significant political benefit for someone positioned to take advantage.

Why this should happen in Iran and not, for example, the US (considering that the US has a far longer list of enemies and much more potential targets)?

[Matteo Martini]

Broadcasting time is a finite, costly resource. Before one is able to convince a media outlet to provide it, free of charge, one must establish significant public support. Before one is able to claim public campaign funding from the FEC, one must establish significant public support. Where third party candidates have been able to establish such support, they have consistently been granted debate time (e.g. Ross Perot in 1992).

Ross Perot had money.
Bet you have a chance of winning the elections in Iran too, with some billions in the bank


Poppycock. The former is an example of the law (and more particularly the regime or particular individuals that wrote the law) determining who can be elected. The latter, insofar as it pertains to the US, is an example of the voting population rejecting a given candidate.

The party people and the media people make only about 0.1% of the total American population, therefore, they do not represent the American population.
But, their influence is so big that, being rejected by them means, in practice, that you will be rejected by the US population


Democracy does NOT imply that every single candidate or philosophy will be given equal credence by a specific voting population.


Of course


If you are so phobic of the otherwise meaningless label that you are unwilling to comply with protections against attempts to foist untenable candidates upon the opposition, then no, you don't get to vote between that party's candidates in the primary (in states that even have such protections). One is otherwise free to register for one party as little as ten days before a primary (depending on state), then register back immediately after voting.


People would hate to do such a thing.
It means that you are a worm that change party according to your own practical needs


If one insults ANY person in ANY situation in ANY country, one risks offending those who may support or think highly of that individual. Bush has long enjoyed support amongst the religious right, which makes up a significant part of the Republican party's voting base. So what? One does not and should not win elections in a democracy by offending the voters.


OK.
Another example. If a candidate uses the ideas of Chomsky during a debate, he will be killed by the media.
Or the ideas of Naomi Klein. Media will represent that candidate very very badly.


Wrong. The oath the president must swear when he takes office is:

Furthermore, the constitution in the very first amendment states that:



I dunno.
No time to check now, but I take your word for that.

[Ziggurat]

The system does not prevent people from running, but filters them.

Thank goodness for that. Otherwise I'd have to wade through tens of thousands of individuals come election time.

It is impossible for a candidate to win, even if he has the best program, if he has no support from the lobbies and the media attacking him.

Lobbies are not monolithic. If someone really has a great program, he'll be able to get support from at least some lobbies. And since many lobbies have explicitly contradictory purposes (NRA vs gun control, for example), nobody ever gets the support of all of them. And candidates have indeed won with the media attacking them.

If somebody would try to get elected with ideas similar to Noam Chomsky, he would be "killed" by the media instantly.

That's because Americans wouldn't like Chomsky's ideas, and so all the media would have to do is expose them.

And I think NC`s ideas are much more consistent with reality that both McCain`s or Obama`s.

I'm sure you do. American voters don't, which is the rather more relevant fact if you want to talk about how democratic we are.

[Matteo Martini]

Thank goodness for that. Otherwise I'd have to wade through tens of thousands of individuals come election time.


How does the system filters candidates?


Lobbies are not monolithic. If someone really has a great program, he'll be able to get support from at least some lobbies. And since many lobbies have explicitly contradictory purposes (NRA vs gun control, for example), nobody ever gets the support of all of them. And candidates have indeed won with the media attacking them.


Does not mean anything.
What does it mean "great program"?
"Great program", great for who?
If it is great for the interest of the people, but bad for some lobby, the lobby will work against the cancidate and nobody will work for the candidate, as people do not usually even get to know one candidate`s program before the candidate is already on many TV shows.
And, it is impossible to get on TV shows if you do not have some strong organization who supports you..


That's because Americans wouldn't like Chomsky's ideas, and so all the media would have to do is expose them.


What do you mean by "Americans"?
Have you personally asked all the 305 + million American citizens?
What do American people know about Chomsky`s ideas, in first place?
The media can make Einstein look like a dumb duck, if they want to.


I'm sure you do. American voters don't, which is the rather more relevant fact if you want to talk about how democratic we are.

Again, this is nonsense, as Americans have not even come to know Chomsky`s ideas, in first place.

[Doctor Evil]

McCain did so jokingly. It was in poor taste.

o-zoPgv_nYg

Thank you for the link. It helps to know the contest.

It is rather poor taste. Especially if you consider that when you want to be the president of the US everything you are going to say will be scrutinied. Still, it is not even in the ballpark of the Ahmadinejadspeech I have cited.

[Ziggurat]

Does not mean anything.
What does it mean "great program"?
"Great program", great for who?

You tell me - you introduced it as a criteria.

If it is great for the interest of the people, but bad for some lobby, the lobby will work against the cancidate and nobody will work for the candidate,

Nonsense. As I already pointed out, there are competing lobbies. If it's great for "the people", it's going to be great for some subsets of "the people" which have lobbies. There are always some lobbies (not always the same ones) which oppose any candidate, so the idea that opposition from lobbies prevents election is simply absurd.

What do you mean by "Americans"?
Have you personally asked all the 305 + million American citizens?

Unlike you, I live in America. I have a sense of what most people think about things. There's only a minority which would like Chomsky. What on earth makes you think that he'd be popular?

Oh, that's right: you agree with him, ergo...

[Matteo Martini]

You tell me - you introduced it as a criteria.

[..]

Nonsense. As I already pointed out, there are competing lobbies. If it's great for "the people", it's going to be great for some subsets of "the people" which have lobbies. There are always some lobbies (not always the same ones) which oppose any candidate, so the idea that opposition from lobbies prevents election is simply absurd.


You assume that lobbies of interest are "symmetrical", but they are symmetrical only in your head.
They lobby of the oil producers that protect big oil companies is powerful.
The lobby of GreenPeace and other associations who protect the environment is probably not as strong.
This is as people who protect the environment are usually isolated and not so organized as the Big Oil.
This is just an example.
If two interests are one against the other, but one lobby is organized in a structure an has money, while the other is disorganized and fragmented, the first one is stronger.


Unlike you, I live in America. I have a sense of what most people think about things. There's only a minority which would like Chomsky. What on earth makes you think that he'd be popular?

Oh, that's right: you agree with him, ergo...

How many books of Chomsky have you read, in first place?
Also, this is not actually the point.
The point is people will not even be able to listen to his opinions, as the system will prevent people from listening.

[Ziggurat]

You assume that lobbies of interest are "symmetrical"

No, I assume they are diverse, and that they are not omnipotent. Nothing else is needed, and asymmetries can be (and are) overcome when voters actually like the ideas of a candidate.

If two interests are one against the other, but one lobby is organized in a structure an has money, while the other is disorganized and fragmented, the first one is stronger.

Yes. But if voters favor the ideas of the second one, it will still win.

Also, this is not actually the point.
The point is people will not even be able to listen to his opinions, as the system will prevent people from listening.

Nonsense. Anyone who is interested in Chomsky can rather easily listen to what he says. But most people aren't interested. TV coverage won't change that, just like broadcasting "Knitting for Retired Folks" on prime time won't turn crocheting into a national pasttime. Bemoan that all you want to, but the majority of the American public doesn't care about Chomsky, and won't care no matter how much coverage you provide him with.

[Oliver]

FYI: Olmert visited Russia to hinder them selling missile defense systems that
would allow Iran to easily wipe off every attacking Airplane from the face of
the planet:

Russia backs away from Iran sale (http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/110728.html)
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - 6 hours ago

Russia appears to be backing away from a proposed sale of state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert raised the ...

Medvedev Offers Olmert Support, but No Promises (http://mnweekly.ru/news/20081010/55350626.html) Moscow News
Israeli PM gets no promises on Russian arms sales (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hb8njivapk4b5WCCzmAyX2WYB2yQD93LQ2DG0) The Associated Press
Russia fudges pledge not to sell S-300s to Iran (http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2008/10/10/Russia_fudges_pledge_not_to_sell_S-300s_to_Iran/UPI-95661223663722/) United Press International
Reuters India (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-35878420081009) - Xinhua (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/09/content_10172351.htm)

all 705 news articles » (http://news.google.com/news?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1254381410)

[Matteo Martini]

No, I assume they are diverse, and that they are not omnipotent. Nothing else is needed, and asymmetries can be (and are) overcome when voters actually like the ideas of a candidate.

Yes. But if voters favor the ideas of the second one, it will still win.


Not necessarily.
Because:
1) voters go to vote for President/Congress one time every four years each;
2) when they choose one candidate, they choose them for all the issues, they can not vote selectively for different candidates for different issues, therefore, they usually pick the right candidate for the one, two issues that are more important for them (for example, the economy at the moment), but they leave out some other 30 issues in this choice
3) for each topic, where 95% of the public gets information from? The media. Controlling the media the system can control and push the opinion of 95% of the possible voters


Nonsense. Anyone who is interested in Chomsky can rather easily listen to what he says. But most people aren't interested. TV coverage won't change that, just like broadcasting "Knitting for Retired Folks" on prime time won't turn crocheting into a national pasttime. Bemoan that all you want to, but the majority of the American public doesn't care about Chomsky, and won't care no matter how much coverage you provide him with.

This is true in your mind, but not in practice.
95% of the people who come home tired after work, is not usually motivaed to get into a forum and discuss America`s foreign policy in the Middle East, or to spend money on books for that.
If they buy a book, they will buy some novel, if they watch television, they will watch some comedy and the news.
Once you control what is in the news, you basically control what 90% or more of the people know about many issues, and, therefore, you will control what they will vote for.
Even if 100% of the people who read Chomsky agree with what he says (and I agree that this is not going to happen), but the readers of Chomsky make up 0.001% of the total American population, that will not be a menace to the system.
By the way, I am using Chomsky here only as an example.

[Oliver]

Thank you for the link. It helps to know the contest.

It is rather poor taste. Especially if you consider that when you want to be the president of the US everything you are going to say will be scrutinied. Still, it is not even in the ballpark of the Ahmadinejadspeech I have cited.


In the "Ahmadinejadspeech" you cited, where exactly made he a threat
towards Israeli People? :confused:

[Doctor Evil]

In the "Ahmadinejadspeech" you cited, where exactly made a a threat
towards Israeli People? :confused:

Oliver, if you need help understanding the speech just let me know. I am busy now, but if you ask I will go over the speech for you sometime next week.

[Oliver]

Oliver, if you need help understanding the speech just let me know. I am busy now, but if you ask I will go over the speech for you sometime next week.


Some direct quotes where he threatens Israel would do it, Doctor Evil.

[Doctor Evil]

Some direct quotes where he threatens Israel would do it, Doctor Evil.

OK then. I don't have the time to do this properly, but here are some of the quotes in the speech and my interpretation of them.

The Zionists are crooks.
Presenting his enemies as criminals, rather than as just political enemies. This is i) a recurring theme in anti-Semitic speech, ii) a political tool used to make violence easier to justify.

A small handful of Zionists, with a very intricate organization, have taken over the power centers of the world. According to our estimates, the main cadre of the Zionists consists of 2,000 individuals at most, and they have another 8,000 activists. In addition, they have several informants, who spy and provide them with intelligence information. But because of their control of power centers in the U.S. and Europe, and their control of the financial centers and the news and propaganda agencies, they spread propaganda as if they were the entire world, as if all the peoples supported them, and as if they were the majority ruling the world. That is a great lie – just like their Jewishness is a great lie.
Here he is propagating a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory that Jews have some illegitimate secret influence, and they control politics and economics, has a long history. I suggest you will read it.

Ahmadinejad blames some unnamed Zionists rather than Jews. But somehow, these Zionists are charged with the same charge that Jews were charged with. Curious, isn't it? Moreover, it seems that these Zionists claim to be Jews, and lie about this too? So lets face it, he really means Jews.

My opinion is that the Iranian president is a raging antisemitic. It is possible that he can stand Jews when they are nice and submissive, leading to his distinction between real and lying Jews. However, blaming the Jews is bad for public relations, so lets blame the Zionists instead. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if you know what I mean.)

That is a great lie – just like their Jewishness is a great lie. They have no religion whatsoever. They are a handful of lying, power-greedy people who have no religion, who only want to take over all the peoples and countries, and to trample the rights of the peoples.

I am speculating here, as this part reminds me something from the looming tower, but that was related to Sunni Muslims and I am not sure whether I can extrapolate. I would value feedback from other people.

Why does Ahmadinejad claim that his enemies are not really religious. My interpretation is that this has theological reasons. Islam differentiates between the believers of religions such Christianity and Judaism and people who believe in many gods. The former are to be treated better. If Ahmadinejad manage to put 'the Zionists' at the latter group, maybe he can religiously justify a more violent approach to the issue.

Why did I mention violence. Well, the Muslim Brotherhood used this claim, of people who are not really religious, to justify violence against them. This first appeared as a justifications for killing fellow Muslims in Egypt during the 50's.

If you want to do something good in your lives, leave the land of Palestine, free it from your oppression and occupation. Carry on with your lives. You captivated [Jewish] people with your trickery and lies, and you brought them over there with false promises. You sent them to settlements in order to serve as your human shields, and you continue to perpetrate your crimes. Let me give you some advice: Enough. For 60 years, you have been doing ugly things and committing crimes – leave, and show remorse.


A few interesting points here. First, not the time frame - 60 years. So Ahmadinejad does not speak about the West Bank and Gaza, but rather on the creation of Israel itself. We also see what he may think these people should do, that is, leave. Ahmadinejad does not specify who should leave, but I seem to vaguely remember a letter he sent where he claimed that since the Holocaust was not the fault of the Palestinians, Europe should take 'its Jews' back. Maybe someone can find a link to this.

We also return to conspiracy land, and learn that the Jewish people are tricked by this unnamed Zionists. This is, of course, ********. I have highlighted this as he claims that the Jewish people serve as human shields for the 'unnamed conspirators'. He will refer to human shields, or innocents later. We now know their identity.

You've heard on the news that [the Zionists] established a network for kidnapping people. They kidnap oppressed, destitute, ignorant people from other countries, and bring them to the occupied lands to serve as human shields.

More conspiracy theory, and a crazy one at that. We have seen that the Human shields are the Jews in Israel. This weird paragraph refers to Jews immigrating to Israel. In Ahmadinejad, they are kidnapped! I can also say much about his depiction of Jewish immigrants as destitute and ignorant.

If the occupiers and invaders take ignorant people – even if they are innocent – and use them as human shields in order to carry out invasions, the [Palestinian] people, which is on the defensive, has to conduct resistance, even if it is against innocent people, who were brought to the scene without being aware of it.

Resistance is a phrase which have many meaning, but it commonly use to include terror attacks against civilians. Moreover, from the context of previous paragraph, we know who these human shields are, the Jews.

One last point, it is true that Ahmadinejad does say that it is the Palestinians are the ones who 'conduct resistance', and not Iran. This is consistent with current Iranian policy, of fighting by proxies, such as Ha mas and Hizbullah. However, the justification of violence against the Jewish people is there, and who knows, maybe Iran will decide to change this policy in the future.

This is a despicable speech. I have no other terms to describe it. This is a fairly clear instance of antisemitism, filled with conspiracy theories, and aimed at justifying violence against civilians. Oliver, I predict that you will wave all this out since Ahmadinejad do not advocate direct Iranian attack. Well, why should he? What can he gain, at the time when Iranian policy is war by proxy? In any case, I do hope that other used would find my analysis useful.

[Ziggurat]

Not necessarily.
Because:
1) voters go to vote for President/Congress one time every four years each;

Your cluelessness about American politics reveals itself. Congressmen are elected to two-year terms, not four-year terms.

3) for each topic, where 95% of the public gets information from? The media. Controlling the media the system can control and push the opinion of 95% of the possible voters

Why do you think politicians put out political adds? Because the public only pays attention to the media? Of course not.

By the way, I am using Chomsky here only as an example.

But it's a very instructive example. Chomsky doesn't get much attention because people don't agree with him. You can blame it all on a conspiracy of the media if you want to, but the reason for his lack of popular appeal is simply much more basic: his readership is low because most Americans won't read books whose outlooks they fundamentally disagree with.

And even to the extent that the media does have power (something which is in no way unique to the US but is common among all western democracies), it's not monolithic. That is in marked contrast to Iran: not only does the Guardian Council have absolute power in determining who can be elected, it is monolithic. So the idea that you have to consider Iran comparably democratic to the US is simply absurd. And yet, you persist in trying to form that argument. Why is that?

[Pardalis]

Chomsky
Chomsky
Chomsky
Chomsky

Boy, you really want to talk about Chomsky don't you?

A bit off topic though.

[Dragoonster]

Not necessarily.
Because:
1) voters go to vote for President/Congress one time every four years each;
2) when they choose one candidate, they choose them for all the issues, they can not vote selectively for different candidates for different issues, therefore, they usually pick the right candidate for the one, two issues that are more important for them (for example, the economy at the moment), but they leave out some other 30 issues in this choice
3) for each topic, where 95% of the public gets information from? The media. Controlling the media the system can control and push the opinion of 95% of the possible voters

1 & 2) True, but the issue stances the candidates take will also be influenced by the people. If the majority of us are pro-gun, the lefty will shift his position slightly more to the center. If majority are pro-choice, the righty will tone down the anti-Roe v. Wade rhetoric, and may continue to do so in office.

The two-party system pushes each candidate to the middle, constantly. Evidence of this is the relatively close margins of victory in each election. If one or the other candidate refused to compromise the elections would be blowouts, and one of the parties would maintain a vast superiority for many decades. These two factors work off each other, ensuring narrow elections and mostly centrist candidates.

I'd change our system too for several reasons, but it's very democratic relative to an Iran, and does include a process by which third-party views will be coopted by the majors.

3) Our media is capitalist and not state-controlled, they will not even suffer being influenced if it doesn't earn them profit and ratings; as such they need to draw an audience. There's always a push-pull between what the media would like us to like and what we actually like...but most faults with our media are due to our general populace. In this chicken-egg scenario, the people come first, and the media follows. Sometimes the media tries an experiment and the public follows, but these are exceptions within the decades of the media conforming to the viewers.

You're arguing the effects of our democracy, but it is a very free democracy. Obviously a lot freer than Iran, as well as maintaining itself as such for centuries longer than Iran's current incarnation.

Anti-Iran demagogues are usually wrong too about how heavily they call Iran undemocratic. But the truth is somewhere between what they argue and what you argue here. Ahmadinejad is not a dictator, and was elected relatively narrowly by a free, inclusive vote. The issue is that the list of candidates was overly controlled by the ruling Council of Guardians. And of course that the President's power is more puppet than real. And these are serious issues, as well as the CoG's outlawing of political parties, and obviously the inability to have direct elections for their seats.

On a democracy scale I'd say the US is about a 9, Iran about a 4.

[Oliver]

OK then. I don't have the time to do this properly, but here are some of the quotes in the speech and my interpretation of them.


Presenting his enemies as criminals, rather than as just political enemies. This is i) a recurring theme in anti-Semitic speech, ii) a political tool used to make violence easier to justify.


Here he is propagating a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory that Jews have some illegitimate secret influence, and they control politics and economics, has a long history. I suggest you will read it.

Ahmadinejad blames some unnamed Zionists rather than Jews. But somehow, these Zionists are charged with the same charge that Jews were charged with. Curious, isn't it? Moreover, it seems that these Zionists claim to be Jews, and lie about this too? So lets face it, he really means Jews.

My opinion is that the Iranian president is a raging antisemitic. It is possible that he can stand Jews when they are nice and submissive, leading to his distinction between real and lying Jews. However, blaming the Jews is bad for public relations, so lets blame the Zionists instead. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if you know what I mean.)


I am speculating here, as this part reminds me something from the looming tower, but that was related to Sunni Muslims and I am not sure whether I can extrapolate. I would value feedback from other people.

Why does Ahmadinejad claim that his enemies are not really religious. My interpretation is that this has theological reasons. Islam differentiates between the believers of religions such Christianity and Judaism and people who believe in many gods. The former are to be treated better. If Ahmadinejad manage to put 'the Zionists' at the latter group, maybe he can religiously justify a more violent approach to the issue.

Why did I mention violence. Well, the Muslim Brotherhood used this claim, of people who are not really religious, to justify violence against them. This first appeared as a justifications for killing fellow Muslims in Egypt during the 50's.



A few interesting points here. First, not the time frame - 60 years. So Ahmadinejad does not speak about the West Bank and Gaza, but rather on the creation of Israel itself. We also see what he may think these people should do, that is, leave. Ahmadinejad does not specify who should leave, but I seem to vaguely remember a letter he sent where he claimed that since the Holocaust was not the fault of the Palestinians, Europe should take 'its Jews' back. Maybe someone can find a link to this.

We also return to conspiracy land, and learn that the Jewish people are tricked by this unnamed Zionists. This is, of course, ********. I have highlighted this as he claims that the Jewish people serve as human shields for the 'unnamed conspirators'. He will refer to human shields, or innocents later. We now know their identity.


More conspiracy theory, and a crazy one at that. We have seen that the Human shields are the Jews in Israel. This weird paragraph refers to Jews immigrating to Israel. In Ahmadinejad, they are kidnapped! I can also say much about his depiction of Jewish immigrants as destitute and ignorant.


Resistance is a phrase which have many meaning, but it commonly use to include terror attacks against civilians. Moreover, from the context of previous paragraph, we know who these human shields are, the Jews.

One last point, it is true that Ahmadinejad does say that it is the Palestinians are the ones who 'conduct resistance', and not Iran. This is consistent with current Iranian policy, of fighting by proxies, such as Ha mas and Hizbullah. However, the justification of violence against the Jewish people is there, and who knows, maybe Iran will decide to change this policy in the future.

This is a despicable speech. I have no other terms to describe it. This is a fairly clear instance of antisemitism, filled with conspiracy theories, and aimed at justifying violence against civilians. Oliver, I predict that you will wave all this out since Ahmadinejad do not advocate direct Iranian attack. Well, why should he? What can he gain, at the time when Iranian policy is war by proxy? In any case, I do hope that other used would find my analysis useful.


There is not a single threat in your quotes - other than strongly disliking
Zionists, which isn't a surprise given his side of the isle. Try again.

[Doctor Evil]

There is not a single threat in your quotes - other than strongly disliking
Zionists, which isn't a surprise given his side of the isle. Try again.

I should have known that any attempt at rational discussion is bound to be futile.

[Oliver]

I should have known that any attempt at rational discussion is bound to be futile.


I thought the same - because you have no point at all if there is no threat.
You know, the "Ahmadinejad-Holocaust-Nuke-Israel-Genocide"-type of threat
US politicians, Pro-Israel groups and some rapture-nuts are spewing all the time.

It does not exist ... one big, ridiculous exaggeration.

[Matteo Martini]

Your cluelessness about American politics reveals itself. Congressmen are elected to two-year terms, not four-year terms.


Why so aggressive?
I think that does not change the concept I was trying to expose.


Why do you think politicians put out political adds? Because the public only pays attention to the media? Of course not.


They put ads, in order to "bribe" newpapers. Newspapers who get hundreds of dollars from one candidate will hardly speak badly about him.


But it's a very instructive example. Chomsky doesn't get much attention because people don't agree with him. You can blame it all on a conspiracy of the media if you want to, but the reason for his lack of popular appeal is simply much more basic: his readership is low because most Americans won't read books whose outlooks they fundamentally disagree with.

And even to the extent that the media does have power (something which is in no way unique to the US but is common among all western democracies), it's not monolithic. That is in marked contrast to Iran: not only does the Guardian Council have absolute power in determining who can be elected, it is monolithic. So the idea that you have to consider Iran comparably democratic to the US is simply absurd. And yet, you persist in trying to form that argument. Why is that?

You do not seem to see that, while there are major difference between North America (and Europe) and Iran, they are not so big.
I do not even argue if Americans like or not Chomsky`s ideas, or if Chomsky has a grasp on things.
I have told you that the media are not willing to report ideas outside from the main-stream view of foreign policy. The same happens in Iran.
If a person, a politician, or so, happens to have ideas in contrast with the main-stream view of "war-on-terror", "corporate policy", etc. then, the media will not give him much space on television, so the large part of the American public will not even come to get to know him/her

[Matteo Martini]

Boy, you really want to talk about Chomsky don't you?

A bit off topic though.

just to remain off topic: is that you the person in the avatar?

[Matteo Martini]

There is not a single threat in your quotes - other than strongly disliking
Zionists, which isn't a surprise given his side of the isle. Try again.

Very nice avatar!!
I laughed for a while!!!!

1 & 2) True, but the issue stances the candidates take will also be influenced by the people. If the majority of us are pro-gun, the lefty will shift his position slightly more to the center. If majority are pro-choice, the righty will tone down the anti-Roe v. Wade rhetoric, and may continue to do so in office.

And where the people will make their opinion from?
From what they hear from the media.
And, who controls the media?


3) Our media is capitalist and not state-controlled, they will not even suffer being influenced if it doesn't earn them profit and ratings; as such they need to draw an audience. There's always a push-pull between what the media would like us to like and what we actually like...but most faults with our media are due to our general populace. In this chicken-egg scenario, the people come first, and the media follows. Sometimes the media tries an experiment and the public follows, but these are exceptions within the decades of the media conforming to the viewers.

As you said, your media (I would say, our media), are capitalist.
Which interest do they have to publish news that are in contrast to the corporations from which they get money, or the candidates from which they get interviews/money?


You're arguing the effects of our democracy, but it is a very free democracy. Obviously a lot freer than Iran, as well as maintaining itself as such for centuries longer than Iran's current incarnation.

Anti-Iran demagogues are usually wrong too about how heavily they call Iran undemocratic. But the truth is somewhere between what they argue and what you argue here. Ahmadinejad is not a dictator, and was elected relatively narrowly by a free, inclusive vote. The issue is that the list of candidates was overly controlled by the ruling Council of Guardians. And of course that the President's power is more puppet than real. And these are serious issues, as well as the CoG's outlawing of political parties, and obviously the inability to have direct elections for their seats.

On a democracy scale I'd say the US is about a 9, Iran about a 4.

If you are using a scale of 1 to 100, I agree.

[Dragoonster]

And where the people will make their opinion from?
From what they hear from the media.
And, who controls the media?

People make their opinions from all sorts of things--their education, family, friends, church, job, in addition to the media. It's far from the only input, particularly now with the internets.

As you said, your media (I would say, our media), are capitalist.
Which interest do they have to publish news that are in contrast to the corporations from which they get money, or the candidates from which they get interviews/money?

As far as I know they only get money from either ad-buying, or local affiliates. Yeah, some ad-buyers will pull ads if a station shows content they think is immoral or something, but that hasn't really led to self-censoring of news. The interviews thing is a problem, agree there and it does lead to some sucking-up of the press.

The media is far from perfect, and several in the media admitted after the Iraq War found no WMD that they were negligent by not digging deep enough or raising more questions. And they were right--they were part of the problem.

But I don't see an easy alternate option. Finding the truth depends on every individual, those who really want it will search all references. Those who don't and just want something to believe will continually watch the same broadcasters every day. Doesn't really matter how diverse the media is to those people, and unfortunately it's a lot of them. But even a perfectly objective media shouldn't be trusted.

If you are using a scale of 1 to 100, I agree.

It was 1-10. I didn't consider crazy stuff like say, a system run by 100% public referenda on every issue though, whose government has no lawmaking power...so if that's what you mean I guess your scale might be accurate. If the goal is workable, stable democracies, I'll go with my scale.

For what it's worth you've made good points but have taken this argument a bit beyond its limits.

[Matteo Martini]

People make their opinions from all sorts of things--their education, family, friends, church, job, in addition to the media. It's far from the only input, particularly now with the internets.


Your education in maths conveys little information to cope with the current situation with Iran.
Family, friends and people from job they all get info from the media, too.


As far as I know they only get money from either ad-buying, or local affiliates. Yeah, some ad-buyers will pull ads if a station shows content they think is immoral or something, but that hasn't really led to self-censoring of news. The interviews thing is a problem, agree there and it does lead to some sucking-up of the press.


I do not understand what you say.
I said that the sole fact that politicians give money to the media influences the media when giving info on that politician.


The media is far from perfect, and several in the media admitted after the Iraq War found no WMD that they were negligent by not digging deep enough or raising more questions. And they were right--they were part of the problem.


And, why they said that after the invasion was started, and not disputed that claim before that?


But I don't see an easy alternate option.

Me neither.

[Kopji]

Why this should happen in Iran and not, for example, the US (considering that the US has a far longer list of enemies and much more potential targets)?

Despite the many shortcomings of the US, you can hate our guts, call us names, spit on us, burn our flag, and yet sleep peacefully at night without worry that the US is going to send the morality police to haul you away in the night for it.

For Iranians critical of the way things are, there is no such peace. That is why they have a greater risk for catastrophe.

[RandFan]

Despite the many shortcomings of the US, you can hate our guts, call us names, spit on us, burn our flag, and yet sleep peacefully at night without worry that the US is going to send the morality police to haul you away in the night for it.

For Iranians critical of the way things are, there is no such peace. That is why they have a greater risk for catastrophe. :)

I can call George Bush an idiot, burn the national flag and hang out with gays and lesbians. Try doing that in Iran.

....oh, I forgot there are no gays and lesbians in Iran.

[Kopji]

Iran doesn't need enimies.

Three Mile Island accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident)

Chernobyl disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

Where the hell are the anti-nuclear postestors (http://www.thewho.net/linernotes2/NoNukes.jpg) when you need them?

Who the hell would have ever thought that liberals would come to embrace nuclear energy just by getting Iran interested.

Go figure.

I'm not really against nuclear power with the proper safeguards. Proper safeguards might be something like having Israelis running the reactor in Iran, and vice versa in Israel. :)

[Dragoonster]

Your education in maths conveys little information to cope with the current situation with Iran.
Family, friends and people from job they all get info from the media, too.

I was thinking more of history, government, geography, or anything which involved critical thinking or objectivity. Or the need to research evidence to support a paper.

I do not understand what you say.
I said that the sole fact that politicians give money to the media influences the media when giving info on that politician.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Politicians in the US do not give money to the media. Ever. (at least they aren't supposed to). The only thing they can pay for is advertisements.

And, why they said that after the invasion was started, and not disputed that claim before that?

I don't know exactly why. Maybe the media has gotten too soft, or wants too much to give each side of an issue equal time, even if one side is obviously full of it.

Me neither.

I wonder if the BBC is any better. Here in the US I'd really worry about a state-run or state-funded media, our politicians can be pretty slimy.

But our media doesn't make us any less of a democracy. At it's worst it just makes us kind of stupid.

[Matteo Martini]

:)

I can call George Bush an idiot, burn the national flag and hang out with gays and lesbians. Try doing that in Iran.
[..]

You can call Bush an idiot, in Iran :)

[Matteo Martini]

Despite the many shortcomings of the US, you can hate our guts, call us names, spit on us, burn our flag, and yet sleep peacefully at night without worry that the US is going to send the morality police to haul you away in the night for it.

For Iranians critical of the way things are, there is no such peace. That is why they have a greater risk for catastrophe.

If you are talking about foreign people/leaders doing this, the American elite is not interested in people who burn flags, nor in people who spit.
But, try to go on a television program, and question the role of the US in the recent conflict in Georgia, or attack any of the power lobbies, and you will see..

[Matteo Martini]

I was thinking more of history, government, geography, or anything which involved critical thinking or objectivity. Or the need to research evidence to support a paper.


At first, I do not believe there is such a thing as an "absolute objectivity".
Nor, I believe that history as thaught is free of bias.
Just look for example at how they talk in Italy about the great times of the Roman Empire, or in the US about the age of the founding fathers.
But, this is not the main point.
The point is that what you have studied in school, is of little help to understand the current situation in Iran; and you can only learn from the media, unless you do not have much time or a friend near Tehran.


Sorry for the misunderstanding. Politicians in the US do not give money to the media. Ever. (at least they aren't supposed to). The only thing they can pay for is advertisements.


How much 2 minutes of advertising space cost, on a national television, prime time?


I don't know exactly why. Maybe the media has gotten too soft, or wants too much to give each side of an issue equal time, even if one side is obviously full of it.


I guess why.
If some of the media had gone out saying that all the "evidence" of Iraq having WMD was a fabrication, they would have been put in the freezer:
http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-obama-putting-fox-news-in-freezer.html


I wonder if the BBC is any better. Here in the US I'd really worry about a state-run or state-funded media, our politicians can be pretty slimy.


Agreed that state-run media can be worse.

[Oliver]

I thought the same - because you have no point at all if there is no threat.
You know, the "Ahmadinejad-Holocaust-Nuke-Israel-Genocide"-type of threat
US politicians, Pro-Israel groups and some rapture-nuts are spewing all the time.

It does not exist ... one big, ridiculous exaggeration.


Am I wrong?

[RandFan]

Am I wrong?Yes.

[Oliver]

Yes.


So demonizing something despite evidence is okay for you as a Skeptic?
Those are sad News, RandFan. :(

[RandFan]

So demonizing something despite evidence is okay for you as a Skeptic?
Those are sad News, RandFan. :(Claiming that there is no evidence doesn't make you right.

[Oliver]

Claiming that there is no evidence doesn't make you right.


Claiming that suspicion does have an influence regarding the topic
does make you right.

However: As long Iran is a pretty non-intervening country in contrast
to those you think are "rightdoers", you don't have a point unless there
is a real threat.

So far, Iran didn't pose a real threat - despite the "Holocaust, Nuking off
the face of the planet, Genocide"-kind of threat the propaganda is trying
to portray.

Anyway: Propaganda and facts are two opposing issues, are they not?

[RandFan]

So far, Iran didn't pose a real threat...Asserting something doesn't make it true.

People far smarter than you and I are quite concerned. These folks include countries friendly to Iran.

[Oliver]

Asserting something doesn't make it true.

People far smarter than you and I are quite concerned. These folks include countries friendly to Iran.


It should be the most easy thing in the world to point out
the actual threat coming from Iran. Yet, you refuse to point
it out. So I guess you don't want to go to the rational part
of the facts.

Why is that?

[And I'm not even offended by your stance]

[RandFan]

It should be the most easy thing in the world to point out the actual threat coming from Iran. Why is the UN concerned? Why is Russia concerned? Iran has expressed some very strong rhetoric against Israel and is currently praising the terrorists.

You are right. That was pretty easy.

"Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It" --George Santayana

[Oliver]

Why is the UN concerned? Why is Russia concerned? Iran has expressed some very strong rhetoric against Israel and is currently praising the terrorists.

You are right. That was pretty easy.

"Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It" --George Santayana


So if everyone is concerned. About what? [other than losing the
dominance in the ME]

What is the threat, "RandFan"? Point it out:

[RandFan]

So if everyone is concerned. About what? [other than losing the
dominance in the ME]

What is the threat, "RandFan"? Point it out:? I'm not sure what you are demanding. The UN has stated quite plainly that they are concerned about Iran having nuclear capabilities. If you are denying that then you are just being willfully obtuse.

Why do you think the Russians offered to provide nuclear fuel to Iran?

[Matteo Martini]

[..]Why is Russia concerned?[..]

Putin: Iran nuke plans 'peaceful'
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/putin.iran/index.html

Russia backs Iran nuclear rights
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7046258.stm

Putin: Iran not developing nukes
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.russia/

Putin favours Iran with military warning to US
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1566498/Putin-favours-Iran-with-military-warning-to-US.html

[Pardalis]

and hang out with gays and lesbians

Be careful what you wish for. :boxedin:

[Oliver]

? I'm not sure what you are demanding. The UN has stated quite plainly that they are concerned about Iran having nuclear capabilities. If you are denying that then you are just being willfully obtuse.

Why do you think the Russians offered to provide nuclear fuel to Iran?


Offering nuclear fuel to another country is a threat? Sure, where
did Israel get the nuclear fuel from then?

Oh, and despite cowards, those [including UN-]guys just visited Iran:
Former global leaders in Iran to support Khatami (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3vJuu_em2Fm0vbE-FfJP8yZkgrwD93POTOO0)

[Ziggurat]

Offering nuclear fuel to another country is a threat?

How clueless are you? The offer was made to try to remove the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons. It is not itself a threat, and RandFan didn't mean it that way, but your complete misunderstanding of his statement indicates that you are deeply clueless about these issues, as you are about so much else. The fact that they turned it down is evidence that it's not fuel Iran is really interested in, but nuclear weapons.

[Oliver]

How clueless are you? The offer was made to try to remove the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons. It is not itself a threat, and RandFan didn't mean it that way, but your complete misunderstanding of his statement indicates that you are deeply clueless about these issues, as you are about so much else. The fact that they turned it down is evidence that it's not fuel Iran is really interested in, but nuclear weapons.


So what??? Israel does have Nukes. Why would a nuclear Iran be a
threat when nuclear Israel obviously isn't in your opinion?

The only answer to the question is a racist/biased one - unless,
of course, there is evidence for a threat. Which there is not a
convincing one or at least an historical precedence from the
current Iranian Regime, is there?

[FireGarden]

How clueless are you? The offer was made to try to remove the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons. It is not itself a threat, and RandFan didn't mean it that way, but your complete misunderstanding of his statement indicates that you are deeply clueless about these issues, as you are about so much else. The fact that they turned it down is evidence that it's not fuel Iran is really interested in, but nuclear weapons.

But hardly convincing evidence when you consider that Russia cut gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4572712.stm

Why would anyone want to put themself into that kind of situation? Who guarantees fuel deliveries from Russia?

[Darth Rotor]

So what??? Israel does have Nukes.
Yes.

And?
Why would a nuclear Iran be a threat when nuclear Israel obviously isn't in your opinion?
Why do you assume that all countries are equal? They aren't.
The only answer to the question is a racist/biased one - unless, of course, there is evidence for a threat.
The other answer, since your "only" horsecrap is dead on arrival, is intentions and demonstrated behavior.

Israel has had nukes for forty years. None used, to date. Decent track record. Not playing the NPT and IAEA game? Not such a nice track record. Mixed bag.

Iran has no nukes yet, and are already not playing nice with NPT and IAEA. Large regional power. A risk.

Me, I don't care if they get nukes, it merely adds them to the STRATCOM target list. No big deal.
Which there is not a convincing one or at least an historical precedence from the current Iranian Regime, is there?
When you are done with your false dichotomy, please go borrow a euro and buy a clue.

[Ziggurat]

So what??? Israel does have Nukes. Why would a nuclear Iran be a
threat when nuclear Israel obviously isn't in your opinion?

Because one is a democracy and one is a dictatorship which sponsors international terrorist organizations. You're only allowed one guess as to which is which.

And because one would be violating the NPT, which would have global consequences for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, whereas the other one did not.

The only answer to the question is a racist/biased one

Nice attempt at poisoning the well. Do you really want to play that game, my German friend?

[Ziggurat]

But hardly convincing evidence

On it's own? It's not conclusive, that's true. But it fits into a rather larger pattern of behavior.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes.

And?

Why do you assume that all countries are equal? They aren't.

The other answer, since your "only" horsecrap is dead on arrival, is intentions and demonstrated behavior.

Israel has had nukes for forty years. None used, to date. Decent track record. Not playing the NPT and IAEA game? Not such a nice track record. Mixed bag.

Iran has no nukes yet, and are already not playing nice with NPT and IAEA. Large regional power. A risk.


Are the NPT rules fair?
The NPT also requests countries with nukes to dismantle them.
Has this been done, so far?
If not, why not?

[Matteo Martini]

Because one is a democracy and one is a dictatorship which sponsors international terrorist organizations. You're only allowed one guess as to which is which.



Evidence that Iran sponsors international terrorist organizations, please (no, a link to the US Department of Defense is NOT evidence )

[Ziggurat]

Evidence that Iran sponsors international terrorist organizations, please (no, a link to the US Department of Defense is NOT evidence )

Is it that you don't think Iran supports Hezbollah, or is it that you think Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization? Before I go on a wild goose chase, I'd like to know what sort of evidence you would accept.

[Matteo Martini]

Is it that you don't think Iran supports Hezbollah, or is it that you think Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization? Before I go on a wild goose chase, I'd like to know what sort of evidence you would accept.

According to Wikipedia, there are only four countries in the world that consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (three of them being the US, Canada and Israel), with other two countries consider a terrorist organization only its military part.
In a world of 250+ countries, I think this hardly constitutes evidence of Hezbollah being universally considered as a terrorist organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Do terrorist build schools and run hospitals?
Hezbollah also organizes extensive social development programs, running hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Social services have a central role in the party's programs. Most experts believe that Hezbollah's social and health programs are worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.[18]
(same source)

[Oliver]

Is it that you don't think Iran supports Hezbollah, or is it that you think Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization? Before I go on a wild goose chase, I'd like to know what sort of evidence you would accept.


Iran declared the CIA being a terrorist organization for trying to
undermine Iran's regime by supporting Anti-Regime Terrorgroups
within Iran. So according to your argumentation, Israel is
sponsoring terrorist organizations as well in cooperating with
America and it's CIA.

Gimme something that really provides evidence for any threat
against Israel in context with "Iran violating the NPT to obtain
Nukes to use them against Israel".

You can't. And your next answer will show that. Popcorn, anyone?

[Ziggurat]

According to Wikipedia, there are only four countries in the world that consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (three of them being the US, Canada and Israel), with other two countries consider a terrorist organization only its military part.

That's not an answer. Even if we accept the notion that there is a separation between their branches, that still leaves the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries. Is this or is this not an assesment you share? And do you or do you not think that the military wing of Hezbollah is supported by Iran?

[Ziggurat]

Iran declared the CIA being a terrorist organization for trying to
undermine Iran's regime by supporting Anti-Regime Terrorgroups
within Iran. So according to your argumentation, Israel is
sponsoring terrorist organizations as well in cooperating with
America and it's CIA.

No. In order for that argument to make any sense, I'd have to agree with Iran's assessment of the CIA, and I don't.

Gimme something that really provides evidence for any threat
against Israel in context with "Iran violating the NPT to obtain
Nukes to use them against Israel".

Did I say that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel? No, I didn't. Pay attention, Oliver. I'm not here to cure your stupidity, you've got to do that on your own.

[gtc]

Do terrorist build schools and run hospitals?

Some do, yes.

Hezbollah and the LTTE spring to mind.

Are you honestly trying to argue that Hezbollah doesn't conduct terrorist activities?

[Matteo Martini]

That's not an answer. Even if we accept the notion that there is a separation between their branches, that still leaves the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries. Is this or is this not an assesment you share? And do you or do you not think that the military wing of Hezbollah is supported by Iran?

Please, bring evidence that "the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries".

Some do, yes.

Hezbollah and the LTTE spring to mind.

Are you honestly trying to argue that Hezbollah doesn't conduct terrorist activities?

It depends on how you define "terrorist activities".
Was the US support of Saddam in the `80s a terrorist activity too?
Was the CIA support of the evil General Noriega a terrorist activity?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0D71638F931A35753C1A96E9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
I dunno..

[Shadowdweller]

No. In order for that argument to make any sense, I'd have to agree with Iran's assessment of the CIA, and I don't.

In which case you are every bit as ignorant about the subject as Matteo Martini is about American politics. Try looking up the following subjects:

Operation Ajax (Iran)
KUBARK
CIA-Savak collaboration (Iran)
Operation PBSUCCESS
Operation Mongoose

(Not all of the above related to Iran)

[Oliver]

No. In order for that argument to make any sense, I'd have to agree with Iran's assessment of the CIA, and I don't.

Did I say that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel? No, I didn't. Pay attention, Oliver. I'm not here to cure your stupidity, you've got to do that on your own.


What Shadowdweller said plus: So we agree that Iran's reactor and nuclear
facilities aren't a threat, even if they would build nukes - breaching the NPT?

[Ziggurat]

Please, bring evidence that "the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries".

You grow tiresome, and you're avoiding the original question. Do you consider Hezbollah's military wing to be a terrorist organization? I don't want someone else's opinion, I want yours.

It depends on how you define "terrorist activities".

Since you've been trying so hard to avoid saying whether or not Hezbollah's military wing is a terrorist organization, I'm rather curious about how you define the term. Or, for that matter, if you define the term at all.

[Ziggurat]

So we agree that Iran's reactor and nuclear
facilities aren't a threat, even if they would build nukes - breaching the NPT?

No, Oliver. Your attempts at characterizing the threat that I think they pose is wrong, but I said nothing about them not being a threat. I guess the cure still eludes you.

[WildCat]

In which case you are every bit as ignorant about the subject as Matteo Martini is about American politics. Try looking up the following subjects:

Operation Ajax (Iran)
This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists. The Soviets were stunned, thinking they had Iran already in the bag as their next satellite state.

Iran wasn't some happy little democracy destroyed by the big bad US with their CIA, it was a fractured country undergoing great internal upheaval that wasn't going to continue in a democratic fashion if the west had just looked the other way.

[Matteo Martini]

You grow tiresome, and you're avoiding the original question. Do you consider Hezbollah's military wing to be a terrorist organization? I don't want someone else's opinion, I want yours.

Since you've been trying so hard to avoid saying whether or not Hezbollah's military wing is a terrorist organization, I'm rather curious about how you define the term. Or, for that matter, if you define the term at all.

Again, I replied to your question clarifying that it is not clear to me the definition of "terrorist organization".
What does it mean, "terrorist organization"?
Maybe it is.
Maybe, also the Government of the US can be defined as such.
I do not know, as I do not know how to classify an organization as "terrorist" with sevure criteria.
I hope that this will be enough as a reply.

Now, if you please can bring evidence that "the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries".

[Matteo Martini]

This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists. The Soviets were stunned, thinking they had Iran already in the bag as their next satellite state.

Iran wasn't some happy little democracy destroyed by the big bad US with their CIA, it was a fractured country undergoing great internal upheaval that wasn't going to continue in a democratic fashion if the west had just looked the other way.

So, all the operations named by ShadowDweller are invented?

[WildCat]

So, all the operations named by ShadowDweller are invented?
How on earth would you come to that conclusion based on my post?

Your ability to understand English seems to come and go at your convenience.

[Ziggurat]

Again, I replied to your question clarifying that it is not clear to me the definition of "terrorist organization".
What does it mean, "terrorist organization"?
Maybe it is.
Maybe, also the Government of the US can be defined as such.
I do not know, as I do not know how to classify an organization as "terrorist" with sevure criteria.
I hope that this will be enough as a reply.

It is not. All I see from you is a rather pathetic attempt to try to avoid acknowleging Iran's active participation in the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians. Makes whatever excuses you want to, but your appologism for tyranny has now extended itself into appologism for terrorists. You are the definition of a useful fool.

[FireGarden]

This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists.

They did more than that according to CNN:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html

When Iran nationalized the industry, the British government, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was furious. London set out to topple the man it blamed - the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh.

[...] [Britain and the US] chose a general to lead the coup and worked hard to convince the reluctant and vacillating shah to take part. The U.S. even paid for violence and demonstrations to sow confusion.

[...] MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

[...] I think that's one of the most surprising aspects that I found in this history is the contempt that the CIA held for the shah, and the degree to which they saw him as a vacillating coward who had to be constantly bucked up to do what the CIA wanted him to do.

The CIA really didn't ask him to do very much. All they wanted him to do was to sign a couple of royal decrees, one dismissing Mr. Mossadegh and the second appointing General Zahedi, who was a retired Iranian general who the CIA and British intelligence had handpicked to be Mr. Mossadegh's successor as prime minister. And they couldn't get the shah to even do that for weeks.

Iran becoming more influenced by the USSR was a factor:

And as you pointed out earlier, they really were - there did seem to be a genuine concern by the Eisenhower administration about the Soviet threat in Iran. And while the British seemed overly concerned about oil and their access to Iranian oil, the Eisenhower administration really did seem to be worried that the Soviet influence would increase as the instability - political instability in Iran increased under Mossadegh.

And that seemed to be their - the motivating factor behind the decision to overthrow Mossadegh.

[Matteo Martini]

It is not. All I see from you is a rather pathetic attempt to try to avoid acknowleging Iran's active participation in the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians. Makes whatever excuses you want to, but your appologism for tyranny has now extended itself into appologism for terrorists. You are the definition of a useful fool.

Ziggurat, you are lying.
I have apologized nothing.
I was talking about the definition of "terrorist organization".
The CIA deliberately targeted civilians too.
I did not apologized that in the case of the CIA and I do not apologized it in the case of Hezbollah.

You have got caught with your pants down with your sentence "the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries".

Ah! So much time wasted talking to you..
In my opinion, you are joining dubalb in the list of the people with who it is not possible to have a rational discussion.
Let`s see if WildCat also joins that list soon..

[Matteo Martini]

How on earth would you come to that conclusion based on my post?

Your ability to understand English seems to come and go at your convenience.

Why did the US got involved in a coup d` etat against a democracy, then?

[WildCat]

In my opinion, you are joining dubalb in the list of the people with who it is not possible to have a rational discussion.
Let`s see if WildCat also joins that list soon..
Priceless!

:id:

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, you are lying.
I have apologized nothing.

Sure you have. Every single time you compare the US to one of our enemies, you try to make that comparison favor our enemies. You are entirely predictable in the stances you take: if it involves a conflict between the US and an enemy, you always favor the enemy. Make whatever excuses you want to about how you don't actually like those enemies either, but the pattern is rather clear.

Ah! So much time wasted talking to you..
In my opinion, you are joining dubalb in the list of the people with who it is not possible to have a rational discussion.

That's rich, coming from you.

[WildCat]

Why did the US got involved in a coup d` etat against a democracy, then?
The democracy was ending amidst an enormous power struggle, and in the peak of the Cold War it was feared that Mossadegh was leaning towards the Marxists and the Soviets. His opposition were the Islamists and the Monarchists. It was in the US interest that the Monarchists won out in this power struggle.

The US and Britain didn't create the power struggle so much as they managed it to their benefit. You know, just as some here have claimed Iraq would have been better managed by Saddam remaining in power rather than the war necessary for it to get the democratically elected government it has now.

[Matteo Martini]

The democracy was ending amidst an enormous power struggle, and in the peak of the Cold War it was feared that Mossadegh was leaning towards the Marxists and the Soviets. His opposition were the Islamists and the Monarchists. It was in the US interest that the Monarchists won out in this power struggle.

The US and Britain didn't create the power struggle so much as they managed it to their benefit. You know, just as some here have claimed Iraq would have been better managed by Saddam remaining in power rather than the war necessary for it to get the democratically elected government it has now.

Mohammad Mosaddeq has been elected prime minister by regular elections in Iran in 1951.
Even conceding that he was "leaning towards the Marxists and the Soviets" (thing I do not know), who gave the US the authority to interfere in Iran`s own country affairs?
If an elected Prime Minister wants to lean torwards Mars, is not it a business only of that Prime Minister and the citizens of that country?

[Ziggurat]

Mohammad Mosaddeq has been elected prime minister by regular elections in Iran in 1951.

And was re-elected by non-regular elections with non-secret ballots in 1953. Surprise, surprise: he won over 99% of the vote. Kinda like Saddam.

[RandFan]

Offering nuclear fuel to another country is a threat??

I never said it was.

Oh, and despite cowards, those [including UN-]guys just visited Iran:
Former global leaders in Iran to support Khatami (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3vJuu_em2Fm0vbE-FfJP8yZkgrwD93POTOO0)Does't disprove my claim.

[Shadowdweller]

This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian
operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists. The Soviets were stunned, thinking they had Iran already in the bag as their next satellite state.
This is very simply, flat out wrong. Declassified CIA documents show the CIA and SIS pouring literally millions of dollars into pro-shah elements. Covert deception and initimidation campaigns were initiated to destabilize support for Mossadegh. The CIA lists techniques such as making fake bomb threats against third party leaders supposedly on behalf of Mossadegh's supporters or the Tudeh (communist) party. Militia groups beating anti-shah demonstrators. Reams of false criticism against Mossadegh were disseminated into the press. One passage baldly states that 1,000,000 rials per week (90 rials per dollar) were authorized toward buying out members of the Majlis (parliament).

Furthermore the Shah, originally and rightly (although not perhaps in the manner originally conceived of) suspicious of British and American influence had to be extensively manipulated by the joint intelligence agencies before he agreed to even marginal co-operation. CIA accounts make it clearly apparent that the operation was very tightly orchestrated by the CIA and SIS.

Examples of said documents themselves may be read here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/#documents

Mossadegh was not some heavy-handed would-be dictator refusing to leave office after many years and terms of service. He was originally appointed in 1951. He resigned in 1952 when the Shah refused to allow him to appoint cabinet members via emergency powers. When his successor started to cave in to the British with respect to oil, Iranian political parties (specifically the National Front and Tudeh) revolted and had him reinstated. He was wildly popular at the time.

And was re-elected by non-regular elections with non-secret ballots in 1953. Surprise, surprise: he won over 99% of the vote. Kinda like Saddam.
A special election which occurred AFTER Mossadegh's supporters had figured out that the US and Britain were conducting covert manipulations in their territory.

ETA: For the record, I did NOT list the extent and severity of CIA misdeeds during the operation. Only examples relevant to my responses.

[Ziggurat]

A special election which occurred AFTER Mossadegh's supporters had figured out that the US and Britain were conducting covert manipulations in their territory.

So because we were interfering with their democracy, Mossadegh decided to just do away with it. That's one hell of a poster boy for democracy you picked there.

[Shadowdweller]

So because we were interfering with their democracy, Mossadegh decided to just do away with it. That's one hell of a poster boy for democracy you picked there.
In the face of a foreign power sending militia groups out to strongarm government factions, pouring vast amounts of money into an impoverished nation to conduct bribes, and spreading huge amounts of disinformation throughout the press? Grow up.

[Ziggurat]

In the face of a foreign power sending militia groups out to strongarm government factions, pouring vast amounts of money into an impoverished nation to conduct bribes, and spreading huge amounts of disinformation throughout the press? Grow up.

Mossadegh was returned to office in 1952 because of violence committed on his behalf by street gangs, before the US even considered helping to remove him. I understand how hard it must be for you to not lionize someone you see as a victim of the CIA, but whatever the faults of our involvement, he was no democrat. He was a man with a will to power, nothing more.

[mrbaracuda]

It doesn't matter. The Mahdi has got to come back one way or the other. Armageddon is more likely than not so long as idiots believe that god and heaven are more important than earth.

One way or the other (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-cults15-2008oct15,0,7562112.story).

[mrbaracuda]

Berlin

Hey! :(

West Berlin

Hey! :mad:

Sorry, East Berlin.

Better. ;)

The Breach of Rule 10 removed.

He didn't say that word in that context, did he?
My, for some reason I knew this thread would be worth the read!

Oh goody, now he's talking in 'regimes'. FireGarden as well.
And Oliver still claims those photos are manipulated.

We have some very.. special people on here. Keep it up!
Sweet, sweet denial must be kissing them good night.


Stay on AJAX, haven't heard enough of that here I think. :D

[Shadowdweller]

Mossadegh was returned to office in 1952 because of violence committed on his behalf by street gangs, before the US even considered helping to remove him. I understand how hard it must be for you to not lionize someone you see as a victim of the CIA, but whatever the faults of our involvement, he was no democrat. He was a man with a will to power, nothing more.
By which you once again firmly establish your cluelessness on the matter. Mossadegh resigned of his own free will. He was returned to power because of massive protests by literally all of the major Iranian political parties once Qavam (his successor) announced he would give in to the British, who were very unpopular as a result of doing things like refusing to allow disbursement of Iranian funds in British banks or, say, having established a huge naval blockade against Iranian oil exports. (Otherwise known as the Abadan crisis).

Amongst the leaders of these protests were figures such as Ayatollah Khashani (mentor to Khomeini), who would later turn against Mossadegh because of overly secular reforms and a copious infusion of US dollars.

[Ziggurat]

By which you once again firmly establish your cluelessness on the matter. Mossadegh resigned of his own free will.

Because he demanded more power and and the shah wouldn't give it to him. He essentially wanted to force a crisis, and he did. The subsequent protests forced the Shah to not only reappoint Mossadegh, but to give him the power he had demanded. And he didn't stop there. Mossadegh had an ever-increasing demand for more and more powers. As I said, he was no hero, nor was he a democrat. He was an authoritarian who took advantage of democratic institutions to get the power he wanted.

[Shadowdweller]

Because he demanded more power and and the shah wouldn't give it to him. He essentially wanted to force a crisis, and he did. The subsequent protests forced the Shah to not only reappoint Mossadegh, but to give him the power he had demanded. And he didn't stop there. Mossadegh had an ever-increasing demand for more and more powers. As I said, he was no hero, nor was he a democrat. He was an authoritarian who took advantage of democratic institutions to get the power he wanted.

:rolleyes:
Mossadegh demanded the ability to appoint the War Minister, a horrible ghastly power possessed by the majority of western leaders. In response to a genuine crisis. The horror! A democratically elected official insisting that a non-elected, hereditary monarch make republican reforms.

[Ziggurat]

:rolleyes:
Mossadegh demanded the ability to appoint the War Minister, a horrible ghastly power possessed by the majority of western leaders. In response to a genuine crisis. The horror! A democratically elected official insisting that a non-elected, hereditary monarch make republican reforms.

And did it stop there? No, it didn't. Not by a long shot. Executive power to create laws, non-secret ballot elections, those are not the acts of someone trying to defend and extend democracy.

[Oliver]

Former Iranian defense minister gives us some clues
about what will happen in case of an Israeli attack...



'War on Iran to spell Israel's collapse' (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=72643&sectionid=351020101)

- Former Iranian defense minister says an Israeli attack on Iran would result in Palestinian victory over Israel in the occupied lands.

- Referring to the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon, Shamkhani said, "Iran would definitely deliver a more devastating blow to Israel than that of Hezbollah."

- The former Iranian defense minister said Iran's crushing response to Israel, in case of an attack, would help ensure the return of the occupied territories to Palestinians.

Full Story: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=72643&sectionid=351020101

[RandFan]

Former Iranian defense minister gives us some clues about what will happen in case of an Israeli attack...?

Is there something unexpected by the rhetoric? What is the point of pointing it out ad nauseam? Yes, we know, Iran is beating the war drums with provacative and polemic rhetoric and promises to destroy Israel. We've been talking about this for years. We get it.

Tell us something we don't know.

[FireGarden]

Yes, we know, Iran is beating the war drums with provacative and polemic rhetoric and promises to destroy Israel. We've been talking about this for years. We get it.

Tell us something we don't know.

Randfan,
Did you notice the phrases: "an Israeli attack on Iran would result in" and "Iran's crushing response to Israel, in case of an attack,"

And decide not to acknowledge them in writing? Or did you miss them entirely?

And LOL.
Promises to respond to an attack by destroying the attacker is beating the war drums. There was a time when it would be considered as a deterrent -- ie: an attempt to avoid war.

[Oliver]

And there is more from an Iranian Army commander ...


Iran promises no mercy against aggressor
Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:53:06 GMT

"Mistake can be rectified but the launch of an invasion of Iran would be an irreversible error that we will respond to until their collapse," said top Iranian Army commander, Major General Ataollah Salehi. :boxedin: *snip*

"Enemy threats considering their military power are serious, but we also possess military power," declared the Iranian commander regarding recent threats. *snip*

Full Article: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=72643&sectionid=351020101

[Pardalis]

and?...

[mrbaracuda]

I see Oliver has openly assumed his position as the Iranian Forum Propaganda Minister.
No surprise here!

[Shadowdweller]

And did it stop there? No, it didn't. Not by a long shot. Executive power to create laws, non-secret ballot elections, those are not the acts of someone trying to defend and extend democracy.
Those are the actions of a nation in crisis with a government unable to effectively respond. Powers which were 1) democratically granted by a broad, popular coalition, 2) included exact expiration dates, 3) were given in a valid emergency, and 4) were surpassed by what the Shah took for himself as a direct consquence of US and British action. Mossadegh did show some heavy-handedness at the end (e.g. disbanded the then-present Majlis), but this was AFTER the joint intelligence forces had begun suborning the Iranian government or, in the case of the example given, had already attempted the initial, unsuccessful coup.

[Oliver]

and?...


Annnnnnddd??? :D This is what the whole thread is about. :boggled:

Not to mention that you're probably one of the first people
being upset about any retaliation, are you not?

[Oliver]

You gotta love Fox and their Anti-Iran agenda. Why do they
hate Iran getting a defense system - and Russia for providing
it? Double standards, as usual...

ojG9H4MNqkc

[Darth Rotor]

And there is more from an Iranian Army commander ...



Appeal to an alleged authority is noted, as well as a complete miss of what information warfare is.

Oliver, just because a guy in Iran says something does not make it so. The issue of future predictions, and being a blowhard, is a very inexact science.

Or didn't you know that?

[Clippy]

You gotta love Fox and their Anti-Iran agenda. Why do they
hate Iran getting a defense system - and Russia for providing
it? Double standards, as usual...

ojG9H4MNqkc

I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being the crisis to which Biden referred.

[Oliver]

Appeal to an alleged authority is noted, as well as a complete miss of what information warfare is.

Oliver, just because a guy in Iran says something does not make it so. The issue of future predictions, and being a blowhard, is a very inexact science.

Or didn't you know that?


Yes, I completely agree. My initial point, however, was to make it
absolutely clear that there will be retaliation in one way or another,
because I intended to let those people, who are in favor for an attack,
know that there is a price-tag to it.

[moon1969]

Freemasons, disabled and mentally ill people, homosexuals, jews? Oh no wait Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that jehovah's witnesses are infidels and Adolf Hitler was a hero and that holocaust never happend and is a myth and was invented by zionist jews like Henry Kissinger and The Rothschild family. Ahmadinejad is anti-NWO upps anti-zionist so many people probaly support a lunatic like Ahmadinejad.

[moon1969]

Why would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say that the holocaust is a myth? Why did he say that? Why doesn"t he "believe" in the holocaust?

[Pardalis]

Why would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say that the holocaust is a myth? Why did he say that? Why doesn"t he "believe" in the holocaust?

Where the hell have you been all these years?

It's because of Israel, it's always about Israel.

[RandFan]

Randfan,
Did you notice the phrases: "an Israeli attack on Iran would result in" and "Iran's crushing response to Israel, in case of an attack,"

And decide not to acknowledge them in writing? Or did you miss them entirely?

And LOL.
Promises to respond to an attack by destroying the attacker is beating the war drums. There was a time when it would be considered as a deterrent -- ie: an attempt to avoid war. If the rhetoric was only about a response you would have a point. It isn't and you don't. You can parse the "destruction of Zionism" all you want but if Bush said the same for any nation you know damn well it would be provocative no matter how he tried to spin and parse the way Oliver is doing.

Let's be honest here. The rhetoric coming from Iran toward Israel would be unacceptable by those who are defending it if it were made by America toward other nations.

[RandFan]

Where the hell have you been all these years?

It's because of Israel, it's always about Israel.Oliver believes that holocaust denial should be a punishable crime. I wonder if he would support prosecuting Iranians who deny the holocaust?

[Pardalis]

Oliver believes that holocaust denial should be a punishable crime. I wonder if he would support prosecuting Iranians who deny the holocaust?

Didn't you know? They have diplomatic immunity (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123212&postcount=137). :boggled:

You couldn't make this stuff up.

[RandFan]

Didn't you know? They have diplomatic immunity (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123212&postcount=137). :boggled:

You couldn't make this stuff up.

No, as long he's the president thingy, he most probably could say those things in Germany. It's called diplomatic immunity, if you heard about that.Yeah, but would Oliver be for prosecuting Muslims in general who denied the holocaust?

Bear in mind, David Irving didn't deny the Holocaust in Germany. If after Ahmadinejad, after he is president, went to Austria would they prosecute him or does he have life long immunity?

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, I completely agree.
Yay. *dons party hat, tosses confetti* :) Nice that we can agree now and again.
My initial point, however, was to make it absolutely clear that there will be retaliation in one way or another, because I intended to let those people, who are in favor for an attack, know that there is a price-tag to it.
Do you also try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?

It does not take much imagination to suss out the concept of Iran, if attacked, getting a shot (or ten) back at the attackers from their side.

Why did you think you needed to tell anyone that?

DR

[Pardalis]

Yeah, but would Oliver be for prosecuting Muslims in general who denied the holocaust?

Bear in mind, David Irving didn't deny the Holocaust in Germany. If after Ahmadinejad, after he is president, went to Austria would they prosecute him or does he have life long immunity?

Apparently in Oliver's mind, it's all about threat assessment.

To him, a no-name with no political weight spouting holocaust denial in Germany is more of a threat (to whom one might ask) than the president of an Islamic state (that may or may not be in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons) hosting holocaust denial conferences.

[RandFan]

Apparently in Oliver's mind, it's all about threat assessment.

To him, a no-name with no political weight spouting holocaust denial in Germany is more of a threat (to whom one might ask) than the president of an Islamic state (that may or may not be in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons) hosting holocaust denial conferences.IOW, whatever is conducive to Oliver's world view.

[Matteo Martini]

Oliver believes that holocaust denial should be a punishable crime. [..]

You do not?

Apparently in Oliver's mind, it's all about threat assessment.

To him, a no-name with no political weight spouting holocaust denial in Germany is more of a threat (to whom one might ask) than the president of an Islamic state (that may or may not be in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons) hosting holocaust denial conferences.

While I do not agree with everything Oliver says, it is pretty clear that you guys are tremendously biased.
You are making a fuss about hosting a conference about the holocaust and denying it (a very bad thing, indeed), but say little about a president that went to a war on false premises and lied to a nation.
The government of the US and Bush has provoked an internal war that led to hundreds of thousands of victims, something Ahmadinejiad has yet to do.
Considering the first as a bad President but not a criminal, while the second as a criminal shows very clearly that you guys, endorsing each other, are what you are.
Biased.
No more no less than the people you are pretending to fight against (I mean, Islamic extremists, not Oliver)

[Pardalis]

Maybe one day you'll understand how wrong it is to constantly try to make moral equivalences, especially when they always end up being about how "bad" the US is. That is biased.

Anyway, I seriously do not care what an Italian from Japan thinks of anything.

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
Anyway, I seriously do not care what an Italian from Japan thinks of anything.

Why do not make a sub-forum group with RandFan, Ziggurat and WildCat so you can talk to each other without having other annoying people like me, Dictator Cheney and Oliver stepping into?

[Oliver]

Maybe one day you'll understand how wrong it is to constantly try to make moral equivalences, especially when they always end up being about how "bad" the US is. That is biased.

Anyway, I seriously do not care what an Italian from Japan thinks of anything.


Yet you reply to him a lot. But seriously - me and Matteo are just
fighting the obvious bias that America is "good" - and concerning
this topic, the bias that Iran is "bad".

And I'm sorry to point it out, but Iran is better than the US in terms
of aggression against other countries. That's what the facts say.
[And no, this has nothing to do with human rights in Iran - even if
you love to make this irrelevant point concerning the topic]

Plus a retaliation by Iran is legitimate after a first strike by Israel, no?

[Matteo Martini]

Yet you reply to him a lot. But seriously - me and Matteo are just
fighting the obvious bias that America is "good" - and concerning
this topic, the bias that Iran is "bad".

And I'm sorry to point it out, but Iran is better than the US in terms
of aggression against other countries. That's what the facts say.
[And no, this has nothing to do with human rights in Iran - even if
you love to make this irrelevant point concerning the topic]

Plus a retaliation by Iran is legitimate after a first strike by Israel, no?

In Italy, we say..
"There is no more deaf person than a person who does not want to hear".
How much true!!
Trying to convince Pardalis that the Government of the US is not precisely interested in the development of democracy in the third world is like trying to convince a Jeovah`s Witness that the world was not (literally) made in six days.
We are wasting our time here, Oliver..

[Pardalis]

Trying to convince Pardalis that the Government of the US is not precisely interested in the development of democracy in the third world...

Is that what you were trying to do?

You guys are sure hard to follow.

[RandFan]

Yet you reply to him a lot. But seriously - me and Matteo are just fighting the obvious bias that America is "good" - and concerning this topic, the bias that Iran is "bad". A strawman on this forum. Most if not all of us concede and condemn American crimes. If you are honest about this then you are simply in the wrong forum.

And I'm sorry to point it out, but Iran is better than the US in terms of aggression against other countries. That's what the facts say. [And no, this has nothing to do with human rights in Iran - even if you love to make this irrelevant point concerning the topic] Why is Iran's oppression of women and minorities irrelevant when we are talking about your bias that Iran is good? Are you just counting the hits and misses? You say that you are countering the bias that "Iran" is bad, isn't killing people because of sexual orientation "bad"? Isn't oppressing women "bad"? Isn't hosting conferences denying the Holocaust "bad"? You started an emotionally ladened thread telling us just how bad Holocaust denial is but you think it wrong for others to point out that Iran is big into Holocaust denial when it comes to dealing with your bias in favor of Iran.

Bottom line, you don't like your hypocricy exposed so you like to play games where you make the rules to exclude your bias.

[Darth Rotor]

In Italy, we say..
"There is no more deaf person than a person who does not want to hear".
How much true!!
My irony meter broke again, but at least it wasn't Ion posting that. Then I might have had flying shards of glass from the cover.
Trying to convince Pardalis that the Government of the US is not precisely interested in the development of democracy in the third world is like trying to convince a Jeovah`s Witness that the world was not (literally) made in six days.
Matteo, if you go back to 2002 and 2003, a consistent theme espoused by Cheney, Rummy, Bush, Wolfowitz, and others was precisely the democratic evangelization concept: turn Iraq into a democracy and you can help spread democracy in the middle east. Granted, spreading democracy at the point of a bayonet is a debatable technique, but that was a core policy justification for that war. See also the big deal made about purple thumbs in the first Iraq election, post war, and the continued issed of elections in Afghanistan (as screwy as they have become) since that war began.
We are wasting our time here, Oliver..
You are providing a source of innocent merriment, so it's not a complete waste.

DR

[WildCat]

Yet And I'm sorry to point it out, but Iran is better than the US in terms
of aggression against other countries.
Does Iran arm, train, and fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Hamas?

[WildCat]

Plus a retaliation by Iran is legitimate after a first strike by Israel, no?
What Israeli action against Iran is Iran retaliating against by funding, arming, and training terrorist groups to attack Israel?

[RandFan]

Does Iran arm, train, and fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Hamas?Thank you.

[Oliver]

What Israeli action against Iran is Iran retaliating against by funding, arming, and training terrorist groups to attack Israel?


In light of the US and Israel doing the same thing in Iran*, you
don't have any argument at all. Therefore an attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities is a military first strike - and Iran has every
right to defend themselves, like it or not.

*Sources:

Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf (http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf:+The)

Fueling the Iran-Iraq Slaughter: (.S. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Hypocrisy & So Much More (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2292)", ZNet

Iran: CIA, U.S. Army ‘terrorist organizations’: Lawmakers in Tehran take a diplomatic offensive against Washington (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047176/)", MSNBC,

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml)", Telegraph, 25 February 2007

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html), April 3, 2007

Car bomb in Iran destroys a bus carrying Revolutionary Guards (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/world/middleeast/15tehran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)", The New York Times

Showdown with Iran: the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK) (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/mek.html)", PBS Frontline, October 23, 2007

Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all)". The New Yorker.

U.S. Is Said to Expand Covert Operations in Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881_pf.html)". The Washington Post.

Spy Games in Iran: U.S. Half Steps Mask Indecisive Policy", by David Ignatius, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102231.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post), July 2, 2008

Memo to Uncle Sam: Iran Is Not Your Enemy, Ali Eftagh, (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2008/07/memo_to_uncle_sam_iran_is_not.html) Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post), July 1, 2008

[gtc]

All those references seem to be related to the US Oliver.

[mrbaracuda]

Maybe he handles them as the super-satanic-brother-states?
You know, the small satan and the big satan together to rule the world!

Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all)". The New Yorker.

U.S. Is Said to Expand Covert Operations in Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881_pf.html)". The Washington Post.

Spy Games in Iran: U.S. Half Steps Mask Indecisive Policy", by David Ignatius, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102231.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post), July 2, 2008

Memo to Uncle Sam: Iran Is Not Your Enemy, Ali Eftagh, (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_ettefagh/2008/07/memo_to_uncle_sam_iran_is_not.html) Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Post), July 1, 2008

Not to mention these are all based on 'I rely on anonymous sources for my latest claims'-Hersh, which renders his would-be relevant articles pretty much void.
Like I said before, once a truther, always an i.....

[Oliver]

Maybe he handles them as the super-satanic-brother-states?
You know, the small satan and the big satan together to rule the world!

Not to mention these are all based on 'I rely on anonymous sources for my latest claims'-Hersh, which renders his would-be relevant articles pretty much void.
Like I said before, once a truther, always an i.....


So what? Hersh DID reveal a lot of scum regarding foreign policies,
that's what he's famous for. That's a matter of fact, not a matter
of "Twoof". :boggled:

[WildCat]

So what? Hersh DID reveal a lot of scum regarding foreign policies,
that's what he's famous for. That's a matter of fact, not a matter
of "Twoof". :boggled:
40 years ago...