i agree with the iranian president - do you?

[andyandy]

In the guardian today i was reading an article - well written and well argued....from another anti-war left-wing journo i presumed....the last couple of paragraphs got a little religious tho...which i thought a little strange for the guardian.....so i looked at the writer - would you believe it? It's only the president of Iran! Mr mahmoud "let's blow Israel off othe map" Ahmadinejad.......well....
here's the link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1772198,00.html

and here are some quotes....

If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is 'monotheism' or belief in a single God and no other in the world.


If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?


I urge you all to read the full article....I would post more but it'll get snipped :)

From what i know of president ahmadinejad he is a pretty repulsive figure....anti Israel to the point of threatening to blow the county off the map, a holocaust denier who believes the whole thing was exagerated by the jews to gain international sympathy, very conservative, anti-feminist, anti-western and very religious almost to the point of fundamentalist.....

however, before i realised who had written the article i would have said that i agreed with just about every point he makes....i've re-read it since then to find a few points which read slightly differently with the benefit of context.....

....this does make me change my opinion of him though ..because he is able to express his opinions intelligently - something which i had never given him credit for....

so my question is - what do you think? read the whole article - do you agree?

oh damn....there already appears to be a post about this lol
moderators feel free to delete this one :)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56593

[Cain]

In the guardian today i was reading an article - well written and well argued....from another anti-war left-wing journo i presumed....

Doesn't this show how corrupt and rotten the left has become? Oh, snap!

I did like this comment:

Let's get a few things clear straight away - Ahmadinejad's election, in my view, was a disaster for Iran; his attitude towards Israel is disgraceful, and his folly in pursuing nuclear weapons can only bring ruin upon his country.--------------That said, his criticisms of the Bush administration are not only correct, but so painfully obviously correct, that it almost beggars belief that someone who calls themselves 'Christian' could ever vote Republican again. The will be many American's on here filled with righteous indignation at this letter, and to an extent I can sympathise with their view - but there will be a huge number of people across the entire world who will agree with him, at least in part.

[Jocko]

Doesn't this show how corrupt and rotten the left has become? Oh, snap!

I wouldn't say that, I but I would venture to suggest that it shows Ahmadinejad is getting his script from the DNC. Not literally, of course, but it does read like a Dean stump speech in many ways. Only a bit more lucid. ;)

Nothing innately wrong with that, of course. Every party has its kooks. But be careful who you lionize, because they don't just leave when they've outstayed their welcome.

[pipelineaudio]

congratulations andyandy, youve run into the islamic concept of al-Taqqiya

though everything else seems to be a strict interpretation, taqqiya seems to enjoy quite a liberal amount of leeway in translation

[andyandy]

congratulations andyandy, youve run into the islamic concept of al-Taqqiya

though everything else seems to be a strict interpretation, taqqiya seems to enjoy quite a liberal amount of leeway in translation

you'll have to elaborate on that point....my Iranian/Persian(?) is a little rusty

al-taqqiya.....?

[pipelineaudio]

you'll have to elaborate on that point....my Iranian/Persian(?) is a little rusty

al-taqqiya.....?

In the Koran, under The Bee

16:106 Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom

To me this says, "hey you better not lie about being a muslim, unless your life is in IMMENENT danger by stating so."

Its the old "horizontally challenged" girls or mopeds joke. Or a very good safety net to keep from martyring oneself needlessly. Interpreted that way, I dont see the harm

but instead, it seems to have a VERY VERY wide interpretation

You get groups like CAIR the council on islamic american relations, which will justify any lie to the west with taqqiya

Or most dangerous, the Takfir, who can as it appears the 911 guys did, to not follow islamic tennets in order to spread islam. We all heard the stripper/alcohol stories, etc.

Then of course you get the notion that it is interpreted to become a form of warfare "calculated deception" http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/discus/messages/299/537.html?1128779110

[Elind]

....this does make me change my opinion of him though ..because he is able to express his opinions intelligently - something which i had never given him credit for....



I think the word to use is not "intelligently", since many ass...les can be intelligent. The word is hypocritically; but you don't appear to make the distinction.

[andyandy]

I think the word to use is not "intelligently", since many ass...les can be intelligent. The word is hypocritically; but you don't appear to make the distinction.

well...i was talking about the article as a stand alone - about my opinions of its author before i knew who wrote it.....I thought that it was an intelligently written piece....should i then change my opinions on the intelligence needed to write it once i realised who it was by? No - of course not. So my opinion should stand - even if that is perhaps slightly uncomfortable.....

i agree he is a hypocrit.......but that is not mutually exclusive from intelligent....so i shouldnt need to make the distinction :D

[andyandy]

In the Koran, under The Bee

16:106 Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom

To me this says, "hey you better not lie about being a muslim, unless your life is in IMMENENT danger by stating so."

Its the old "horizontally challenged" girls or mopeds joke. Or a very good safety net to keep from martyring oneself needlessly. Interpreted that way, I dont see the harm

but instead, it seems to have a VERY VERY wide interpretation

You get groups like CAIR the council on islamic american relations, which will justify any lie to the west with taqqiya

Or most dangerous, the Takfir, who can as it appears the 911 guys did, to not follow islamic tennets in order to spread islam. We all heard the stripper/alcohol stories, etc.

Then of course you get the notion that it is interpreted to become a form of warfare "calculated deception" http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/discus/messages/299/537.html?1128779110

really interesting post....damn, Allah was clever! OUR god never thought of that....... :D

[hgc]

I agree with the part where he says Bush is a follower of Jesus. I've heard that too.

[rocketdodger]

I don't know who said it but I seem to remeber a quote that is something like

"The path to hell is paved with righteousness"

With all I know about human behavior now, I wouldn't trust anyone proposing such lofty goodness farther than I can spit. Not even that far.

[Elind]

i agree he is a hypocrit.......but that is not mutually exclusive from intelligent....so i shouldnt need to make the distinction :D
Well...I think one has to make the distinction because it is context that matters more than sentence structure. I'm sure that UBL has said a few things that you or I might have said about GWB, but that does not make his quotes quotable or "intelligent" or "agreeable".

[Mike B.]

Forget it.

Read this gem from the letter:

"Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: 'Do you not want to join them?'"

Reading this, even if I didn't know who wrote it is, would make me think the writer is a religious bigot.

[Elind]

Nuff said.

[BPSCG]

It's an invitation to convert to Islam, with an implicit death threat against the President of the United States if he does not. Nothing more, nothing less.

Explanation here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1628906#post1628906).
Confirmation here (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm).

[a_unique_person]

I would agree with some of his evaluation of Dubya, but it would be nice if he could apply these critical thinking skills to himself as well. He might be surprised.

[Banbury]

I have yet to see a single politician who is not a hypocrit. It's part of the job description.
The biggest hypocrisies are the USA's demands of another country not to build nuclear weapons and Bush calling Ahmadinejad a right wing religious nutjob. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm certainly no friend of Iran as it is now, but the USA don't look better from where I am standing.

[Skeptic]

:halo:

Does anybody here not realize that the purpose of this letter is simple propaganda--to make himself out to look "peace-loving" and "moderate" in the eyes of the useful idiots in the west, as he continues rearming with the goal of genociding his enemies--precisely as Hitler and Stalin did?

Sheesh.

The idea in this thread seems to be, "well, he threathened a second holocaust (oops--first, I mean, the first is a zionist lie, according to him), and funds Islamic terror, and wants a worldwide chalifate, and to convert everybody to Islam by force or kill them... but he hates Bush, so he can't be *all* bad, can he--let's talk with him!".

[FireGarden]

It's an invitation to convert to Islam, with an implicit death threat against the President of the United States if he does not. Nothing more, nothing less.

Explanation here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1628906#post1628906).
Confirmation here (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm).

Rubbish

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.

Monotheism and Justice. As preached by Jesus, who was named 9 times in the letter. That's 9 more mentions than Mohammed.

[BPSCG]

RubbishYou really need to click on the "confirmation" link above before denouncing it as "rubbish." It's from the man himself, or rather, his government's news agency, which is pretty much the same thing.
Monotheism and Justice. As preached by Jesus, who was named 9 times in the letter. That's 9 more mentions than Mohammed.Jesus never recommended killing anyone for any reason. Muhammad recommended killing non-Muslims if they would not accept Islam.

Do you think Ahmadinejad was recommending Bush follow Jesus's teachings or Muhammad's in that regard? He can't follow both.

[Mike B.]

The biggest hypocrisies are the USA's demands of another country not to build nuclear weapons and Bush calling Ahmadinejad a right wing religious nutjob.

Could you please provide a quote where Bush called, Amadinejad a "right wing religious nutjob?"

[FireGarden]

You really need to click on the "confirmation" link above before denouncing it as "rubbish."
I did click on it.

I also read it. That's where I got the quote. They are Najad's own words.

Maybe you should read the article not the headline!

Do you think Ahmadinejad was recommending Bush follow Jesus's teachings or Muhammad's in that regard? He can't follow both.
As far as Najad is concerned, they are one and the same.

He quotes the Quran, but says "All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well."

[Skeptic]

Reading this, even if I didn't know who wrote it is, would make me think the writer is a religious bigot.

Jsut between you and me, it seems like the "official last chance" Ahmawhatshisname gives Bush to convert to Islam or else. Now that that's out of the way, unless Bush converts (which seems unlikely), Ahmanidinnerjacket would be, in his own eyes, justified in any agression against the "stubborn infidel".

[BPSCG]

I did click on it.

I also read it. That's where I got the quote. They are Najad's own words. Then you apparently missed the first paragraph, which says, ...his letter to President George W. Bush did not concern the nuclear dossier, but rather was an invitation to Islam and the prophets culture.

As far as Najad is concerned, they are one and the same.Believe that at your peril. When the Islamists are sawing your head off, try telling them, "Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and Jesus and Muhammad's teachings are one and the same!"

[FireGarden]

Then you apparently missed the first paragraph, which says, ....

Something written by a journalist rather than a quote of the President. The President said:

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.

The journalist (and maybe you agree?) may feel that Moneotheism and Justice are synonymous with Islam.

Ahmadi-Najad said what he said.

[BPSCG]

Something written by a journalist rather than a quote of the President. The President said:

The journalist (and maybe you agree?) may feel that Moneotheism and Justice are synonymous with Islam.

Ahmadi-Najad said what he said.I'm not going to chase the same arguments across two threads; I've already responded to this in the other related thread. In any case if you think an Iranian "journalist" working for the official Iranian "news" agency writes anything that isn't exactly what the government wants, please tell me:

What you're smoking, and;
Where I can get some.But in the other thread, please.

[FireGarden]

Well, excuse me.
You want to limit discussion to one thread... fine.

But I didn't start a second front. I resent the implicaton. You posted to this thread before me. You brought the argument here, not me.




Anyway...

FireGarden is smoking.
(Period)

[andyandy]

:halo:

Does anybody here not realize that the purpose of this letter is simple propaganda--to make himself out to look "peace-loving" and "moderate" in the eyes of the useful idiots in the west, as he continues rearming with the goal of genociding his enemies--precisely as Hitler and Stalin did?

Sheesh.

The idea in this thread seems to be, "well, he threathened a second holocaust (oops--first, I mean, the first is a zionist lie, according to him), and funds Islamic terror, and wants a worldwide chalifate, and to convert everybody to Islam by force or kill them... but he hates Bush, so he can't be *all* bad, can he--let's talk with him!".

like you "realise" that it is propaganda? wow....you're so much cleverer that everyone else....i never even thought of that :D

whether or not it's propaganda is irrelevant to the thread post. It's a well written and well argued essay on a variety of topics and i largely agree with what he says in it. I made the point therefore that i was impressed by his intelligence - something which i had not given him credit for. Maybe he did mean it for propaganda - quite possible - but it's not what the post is about.

based on the essay again - which is what we're talking about - he takes a pretty balanced view on Bush and the US in the essay. There is no suggestion of hate. There's nothing in it especially controversial.

so i do agree with what he says in the letter - my question was in the post - do you?

[Ziggurat]

There's nothing in it especially controversial.

Really? It's not controversial to imply that there was a US government conspiracy regarding 9/11, either in the execution or some subsequent cover-up? I always though it was.

so i do agree with what he says in the letter - my question was in the post - do you?

So you agree with him when he states: "Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed."

My answer: I don't agree at all.

Oh, and what really was the purpose of the letter? It was, in essence, a call for Bush and the US to convert to Islam. Quiz time: historically, why do Islamic leaders call on enemy states to convert to Islam? When you figure out the answer, you'll understand this letter a whole lot better than you evidently do right now.

[Nyarlathotep]

Truthfully, I have to agree with BPSCG on this one. If it is a Muslim tradition that one has to give an infidel a chance to convert to Islam before killing him and given that Ahmadinajad is the head of an Islamic state that is hostile to the US and given that he has said himself that the letter was a "call to Islam" then the letter does indeed smack of that chance. And the fact that he told his own people that it was a "call to Islam" makes more sense beccause that is who he would have to justify it to.

If I were the head of the Secret Service I would be on high alert, right now.

[andyandy]

.


"Really? It's not controversial to imply that there was a US government conspiracy regarding 9/11, either in the execution or some subsequent cover-up? I always though it was."

show me where he implies that in the letter......


" Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed."

he makes a good argument for the failings of liberal democracy many of which are well founded. but I've never claimed in my posts to agree 100% with everything in it....just the vast majority.....my challenge to you was to try and imagine you'd read the article without being aware of who had written it....are you really claiming that you disagree with it all? That it isnt well written?

"Oh, and what really was the purpose of the letter? It was, in essence, a call for Bush and the US to convert to Islam."

*sigh* i posted about this already. The purpose of the letter is irrelevant to the OP.

[Elind]

Your comments are becoming irrelevant. The guy is a woo and you are begining to sound like an apologist for woos.

[peptoabysmal]

So... It looks as if some folks who would normally be upset by a religious rant will agree with almost every paragraph if it contains criticism of President Bush? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

The entire "letter to President Bush" was a religious rant with some left wing media throw up on it for spice.

The last three paragraphs are basically a re-affirmation of Jihad:
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: 'Do you not want to join them?'
Translation: The only way to enlightenment is through Allah

Mr. President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.
Translation: Or else!

[Art Vandelay]

based on the essay again - which is what we're talking about - he takes a pretty balanced view on Bush and the US in the essay. There is no suggestion of hate. There's nothing in it especially controversial. That you agree with this says more about your extremism that his "moderation". It's not balanced, it's not uncontroversial, and if you think there’s no suggestion of hate, you’re sorely lacking in subtext reading skills. This letter is full of misrepresentations and outright lies aimed more at attacking the US and Israel than illuminating the issues.

I have yet to see a single politician who is not a hypocrit. It's part of the job description.
The biggest hypocrisies are the USA's demands of another country not to build nuclear weapons and Bush calling Ahmadinejad a right wing religious nutjob. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm certainly no friend of Iran as it is now, but the USA don't look better from where I am standing.That’s because you’re standing in Lunatic Left Land. Your position has absolutely no basis in reality.

Jesus never recommended killing anyone for any reason. Muhammad recommended killing non-Muslims if they would not accept Islam.

Do you think Ahmadinejad was recommending Bush follow Jesus's teachings or Muhammad's in that regard? He can't follow both.To be fair, not recommending killing anyone is not quite the same thing as recommending not killing anyone.

[Art Vandelay]

"Really? It's not controversial to imply that there was a US government conspiracy regarding 9/11, either in the execution or some subsequent cover-up? I always though it was."

show me where he implies that in the letter......” September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration?” Etc.

he makes a good argument for the failings of liberal democracy many of which are well founded. How so?

*sigh* i posted about this already. The purpose of the letter is irrelevant to the OP.You can’t ask us to ignore the context of the letter. “I don’t like crackers” means something completely different from Louis Farrakhan versus someone ordering soup. It’s absurd for us to not take the identity of the author into account.

BTW, am I the only one for whom phrases such as "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful," are now indelibly linked to such phrases as "death to America"?

[Skeptic]

whether or not it's propaganda is irrelevant to the thread post. It's a well written and well argued essay on a variety of topics and i largely agree with what he says in it.

Well, apart from the part where he--in slightly veiled language--gives Bush one last chance to convert to Islam or else.

[andyandy]

” September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration?” Etc.

How so?

You can’t ask us to ignore the context of the letter. “I don’t like crackers” means something completely different from Louis Farrakhan versus someone ordering soup. It’s absurd for us to not take the identity of the author into account.

BTW, am I the only one for whom phrases such as "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful," are now indelibly linked to such phrases as "death to America"?

hmmm...just to clear things up....the article that was printed in the guardian....and the article posted on their website are not the same, the one which i read in the guardian appears to have been rather heavily edited - all that 9-11 conspiracy stuff must have been left on the cutting room floor....

well....i suppose there's good lessons here - don't post a link without first checking it says what you think it says, and beware edited documents....

My post therefore is slightly irrelevant to anyone who didnt read the guardian's article in the paper.....i accept that the reason i agreed with most of it was because it had been edited to fit the guardian's political landscape.....sheesh.....i'm pretty pissed off about that :mad:

paragraphs that failed the cut

September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution.

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d' etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-á -vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

wow....i hold my hands up....my mistake :boggled:

[FireGarden]

If it is a Muslim tradition that one has to give an infidel a chance to convert to Islam before killing him

But what if it isn't?
What if it is a tradition to send a letter, but then get upset if your courier is killed (along with some missionaries)

In early 7/628 the Prophet (peace be on him) sent Harith ibn Umar with a letter to the Governor of Busra in al-Sham. Harith ibn Umar never reached Busra. On his way he was met at a place called Mu'ta by Shurahbil ibn Amar, a chieftain of the Ghassanid tribe, who became so infuriated with the content of the letter that he murdered the Prophet's messenger in cold blood. Even by ancient standards this constituted a gross violation of acceptable practice. The news of Harith's death was received with great sorrow in Madina. During the same period, the Prophet (peace be on him) sent fifteen men for the purpose of teaching Islam to Dhat al-Talh north of Madina towards the outskirts of al-Sham. Here too the messengers were put to death in cold blood. These murders led the Prophet to rally his Sahaba (Companions) and march against Mu'ta…

http://www.salaam.co.uk/bookshelf/review.php?option=29


That's what the Muslims believe.
So, if Ahmadi-Najad wants to follow the script, he needed his courier and some missionaries to be killed before the letter even reached Bush. Too late for that.

given that Ahmadinajad is the head of an Islamic state that is hostile to the US

Iran has a justifiable grievance with the US given America's support of the Shah and Saddam Hussien, and the US sabre rattling combined with their doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence.

given that he has said himself that the letter was a "call to Islam"

He said it was a call to Monotheism and Justice.

[Mike B.]

hmmm...just to clear things up....the article that was printed in the guardian....and the article posted on their website are not the same, the one which i read in the guardian appears to have been rather heavily edited - all that 9-11 conspiracy stuff must have been left on the cutting room floor....

well....i suppose there's good lessons here - don't post a link without first checking it says what you think it says, and beware edited documents....

My post therefore is slightly irrelevant to anyone who didnt read the guardian's article in the paper.....i accept that the reason i agreed with most of it was because it had been edited to fit the guardian's political landscape.....sheesh.....i'm pretty pissed off about that :mad:

paragraphs that failed the cut

September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution.

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d' etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-á -vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country's progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

wow....i hold my hands up....my mistake :boggled:

What does this say about the basic fairness of the Guardian when it comes to the US?

[Ziggurat]

.
show me where he implies that in the letter......


I did. That's the rather obvious implication of the section I quoted about 9/11. I see in your subsequent posting you're catching on, though. so that's good.

he makes a good argument for the failings of liberal democracy many of which are well founded.

No, actually, he doesn't. He makes claims about how the US, a particular country which is liberal and democratic, is failing, and then declares that these failures are generic to democracy and liberalism without any real argument at all. The solution he's proposing within the letter is theocracy. Do I buy any of his argument? Nope.

are you really claiming that you disagree with it all? That it isnt well written?

No, actually, I don't agree with it, and no, it isn't well written. It reads like the petulent, incoherent grievances of a spoiled teenager who wants to fight "the man". I grew tired of that kind of delusional self-righteousness a LONG time ago.

[andyandy]

What does this say about the basic fairness of the Guardian when it comes to the US?

fair point....i'm pretty disappointed with the guardian....It's the most liberal paper in the UK - and there is definitly an anti-Bush slant to some articles - but when those are written by journalists then its easy enough to take that into consideration when you're reading the article. In the same way, if I read the daily telegraph or daily mail I'd take into account the right-wing bias....

however, to misrepresent what is in effect a political document is pretty shoddy - especially as the edits significantly changed the tone of the whole letter - the guardian's article as i mentioned in my OP is well argued and pretty non-controversial - but it acheives that because all the controversial parts were cut!
in fact....i'm gonna write them a letter :mad:

[Skeptic]

fair point....i'm pretty disappointed with the guardian....

I don't know why you'd expect anything else from "The Guardian". I mean, it's not as if the Iranian president is significantly less credible, or significantly more antisemitic/anti-US, than the Palestinian or Iraqi "sources" The Guardian regularly quotes.

"The Guardian" is considered the paper for intellectuals, academics, etc.--the group known as the "chattering classes"--in the UK. For that group, "Bush/israel bad, Islamic genocidal terrorism understandable" had long ago became gospel truth. They're not going to disappoint their audience.

[andyandy]

I don't know why you'd expect anything else from "The Guardian". I mean, it's not as if the Iranian president is significantly less credible, or significantly more antisemitic/anti-US, than the Palestinian or Iraqi "sources" The Guardian regularly quotes.

"The Guardian" is considered the paper for intellectuals, academics, etc.--the group known as the "chattering classes"--in the UK. For that group, "Bush/israel bad, Islamic genocidal terrorism understandable" had long ago became gospel truth. They're not going to disappoint their audience.

again i largely agree.....but normally when you read a paper whether it be left wing or right wing you can try to take it political slant into account....and so i know that a guardian article on US foreign policy will always be negative, just as I know that a daily mail article on asylum seekers will always be jingoistic.....

but when it's a misprepresentation of an official political primary source then that's a different matter entirely.....you trust primary sources - because you expect them to be free from editorial manipulation.....

I've written to the editorial for all the good it will do......

[Art Vandelay]

No, actually, he doesn't. He makes claims about how the US, a particular country which is liberal and democratic, is failing, and then declares that these failures are generic to democracy and liberalism without any real argument at all. And on top of that, he engages in the equivocation of "democracy hasn't solved everything" = "democracy hasn't solved anything".

Iran has a justifiable grievance with the US given America's support of the Shah and Saddam Hussien, and the US sabre rattling combined with their doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence.At the time of the Iran-Irag war, the US had a legitimate causus bellus against Iran, and Iran therefore does not have a justifiable grievance due to our support of their enemy. Iran has made treaty obligations to restrict is nulcear program, and therefore has no justifiable grievance due to our "sabre rattling" attempts to make sure that they are in compliance.

That leaves the Shah, a grievance half a century old. We have much more recent grievances against them, such as abducting US citizens, causing the death of eight servicemen, supporting terrorism, and threatening Israel.

He said it was a call to Monotheism and Justice.Monotheism = worship of one God. Islam = the one true path to the worship of the one God. Ergo Monotheism (note the capitalization) = Islam.

[Roadtoad]

1.) I wouldn't trust Iran with cab fare to Hell. I sure as hell wouldn't trust their "President," someone whose election was rigged up by the mullahs.

2.) The letter may sound reasonable, but their actions have made things abundantly clear. Nyar is correct in saying that the Secret Service needs to be on very high alert. You're not dealing with a rational mindset here. (Bush's notwithstanding.)

[FireGarden]

Monotheism = worship of one God. Islam = the one true path to the worship of the one God. Ergo Monotheism (note the capitalization) = Islam.

The capitalisation is down to me.
Original
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.

Does that damage your argument?

monotheism = Islam= Christianity = Judaism


How anyone can believe that a letter which doesn't even mention Mohammed is an invitation to Islam is beyond me. Go to the websites that advertise Islam on the web... How many of those fail to mention Mohammed?

That leaves the Shah, a grievance half a century old.
He was toppled in 1979. When did the Iran-Iraq war start? 1980? Don't worry, it's just a coincidence.

At the time of the Iran-Irag war, the US had a legitimate causus bellus against Iran, and Iran therefore does not have a justifiable grievance due to our support of their enemy.
That's an insane conclusion.

Anyway, American support of Saddam didn't stop them selling weapons to both sides of the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Faced with undeniable evidence of his involvement in the scandal, Reagan expressed regret regarding the situation on national television on Wednesday, March 4, 1987. In his speech, Reagan stated that his previous assertions that the US did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect.

[pipelineaudio]

Thus spake Magna Cum Laude Graduate of the CAIR Institute for American Dhimmitude

[Bob Klase]

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world?...

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?

Of course no one would rationally argue that the world wouldn't be better if more was done to combat poverty, illness, disease, etc, etc etc. But agreeing with the writer that those are good things does not mean you have to agree that he's doing anything better.

If Jeffery Dalmer had written a letter saying that more should be done to prevent murder and cannabalism in the US, I think most people would agree with him. And most would think that he could have done more to not murder and cannabalize.

All divine religions share and respect one word and that is 'monotheism' or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

So is he saying that he wants to kiss and make up with Israel?

[Art Vandelay]

How anyone can believe that a letter which doesn't even mention Mohammed is an invitation to Islam is beyond me. How about actually presenting an argument, rather simply declaring yourself to be incredulous of the opposing point of view?

How many invitations to Christianity don't mention Paul? Hmmm? Does that make them not invitations to Christianity?

That's an insane conclusion.Oh, well, as long as you have a well-constructed argument.
:rolleyes:

[andyandy]

I did. That's the rather obvious implication of the section I quoted about 9/11. I see in your subsequent posting you're catching on, though. so that's good.

lol....i've already posted about the two articles being significantly different....so no need to be patronising :D - magnanimity is a virtue don't you know? :)


No, actually, he doesn't. He makes claims about how the US, a particular country which is liberal and democratic, is failing, and then declares that these failures are generic to democracy and liberalism without any real argument at all.


again....this has a significantly different implication to the article printed in the guardian which highlighted failings of the democracy and liberalism...without laying any claim to these being generic....



No, actually, I don't agree with it, and no, it isn't well written.

again....we're talking about very different articles....! there are well written and well argued paragraphs within his letter with regards to global inequalities, human rights, contradictions in US foreign policy etc. Although you seem to have taken a position of disagreeing with every single sentence of the letter solely because of its authorship.....

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

So you disagree with that?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?

And this?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth - including minerals - is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

And this?

so.....i can only assume you'd like more illegal detentions, more flouting of international law, greater military expenditure at the expense of humanitarian work, and an increased exploitation of the poor......:D

[FireGarden]

How about actually presenting an argument, rather simply declaring yourself to be incredulous of the opposing point of view?

I did present an argument.
Ahmadi-Najad says it was a call to monotheism and justice. And a call to Islam would include mention of Mohammed being the prophet of God.

I would expect a call to Christianity to include a mention of Jesus. Or do you think it could be done by only refering to Moses?


and yes, this is an insane conclusion:
At the time of the Iran-Irag war, the US had a legitimate causus bellus against Iran, and Iran therefore does not have a justifiable grievance due to our support of their enemy.
They can't feel a grievance because the US had cause for war? You're mad.


BTW,
I suppose the context made it obvious what I meant above. But the equation should have been
monotheism = Islam or Christianity or Judaism

:)

[Polaris]

I agree with ol' Ahmadi whole-heartedly. I don't think women should be allowed to go outdoors without a tent on themselves. I don't think Bahais should be allowed to exist on the face of Allah's dunn earth without being persecuted to the fullest extent of the Shariah. I don't think Israelis have the right to live. And I don't think Islamic fundamentalist whackos should be prevented from having the most destructive weapons ever devised.

Now when do I get my free trip to Qom?

[Huntster]

..He quotes the Quran, but says "All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well."

"One way or the other".

I suppose you subscribe to "the other".

No, thanks.

[Art Vandelay]

I did present an argument.
Ahmadi-Najad says it was a call to monotheism and justice. And a call to Islam would include mention of Mohammed being the prophet of God.You did not say that. You just said that Mohammed was not mentioned. This isn't much more of an argument. You have no support your assetion that a call to Islam would include a mention of Mohammed.

I would expect a call to Christianity to include a mention of Jesus. Or do you think it could be done by only refering to Moses?We aren't discussing Christianity and Jesus. We're discussing Islam and Mohammed.

They can't feel a grievance because the US had cause for war? You're mad.I never said that they can't feel a grievance. I said that they don't have a legitimate grievance. The US was justified in retaliating against Iran.

But the equation should have been
monotheism = Islam or Christianity or JudaismIf Muslims believed that Christianity or Judaism are just as valid forms of worship, then why aren't they Christians or Jews? Why would Muslims try to convert Christians and Jews to Islam? I think that it is quite reasonable for me to believe that in this guy's mind, monotheism = Islam.

[FireGarden]

You did not say that.
It's been a long time since I've said anything new in this thread. I've been repeating my argument over and over.

You have no support your assetion that a call to Islam would include a mention of Mohammed.

You're joking!
I actually said (and in response to you, not to other posters) "Go to the websites that advertise Islam on the web... How many of those fail to mention Mohammed?"

http://www.al-islam.org/invitation/2.htm

How does someone become a Muslim?

The basic requirement to become a Muslim is to say, "Ashhadu an laa ilaaha illa Allah wa ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasul Allah," which means, "I testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

So you believe there can be an invitation to Islam that doesn't tell you how to become a Muslim?

We aren't discussing Christianity and Jesus. We're discussing Islam and Mohammed.

Actually,
You brought up the point by making an analogy of

How many invitations to Christianity don't mention Paul? Hmmm? Does that make them not invitations to Christianity?

I corrected your analogy, because an omission of Mohammed in an invitation to Islam is more like an invitation to Christianity with an omission of Jesus.

If Muslims believed that Christianity or Judaism are just as valid forms of worship, then why aren't they Christians or Jews?

Because they believe Mohammed is the prophet of God.

Why would Muslims try to convert Christians and Jews to Islam?

Because they believe Islam is more correct of the three.

[Huntster]

I did click on it.

I also read it. That's where I got the quote. They are Najad's own words....

Really?

Do you imagine that when George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or any other President speaks, that they speak "their own words"?

I suppose you'd call me "gullible".

...As far as Najad is concerned, they are one and the same.

He quotes the Quran, but says "All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well."

The letter was a classic attempt at rallying the dissent in the enemy's lands against their leader.

You have clearly illustrated where you stand.

You're an idiot, and a big part of the problem. Thank God, Allah, or your lucky stars that you live in the West and not in Iran.

Of course, this post will do nothing but spur on more of your drivel.

Keep writing. Make it clear for all.

[FireGarden]

The letter was a classic attempt at rallying the dissent in the enemy's lands against their leader.

Funny!
I could agree with that.

Ahmadi-Najad's letter may have been addressed to Bush, but it may well have been meant for Christians in the US -- in the hope they agree that Dubya isn't as Christian in his actions as he is in his words.


But is it an invitation to Islam?
I don't think so!

[Huntster]

Funny!
I could agree with that.

Ahmadi-Najad's letter may have been addressed to Bush, but it may well have been meant for Christians in the US -- in the hope they agree that Dubya isn't as Christian in his actions as he is in his words....

So, it was addressed to JWB and to U.S. Christians?

You are somehow exempt?

How is that? Do the Iranian intelligence people know something that the rest of us Americans don't know?

...But is it an invitation to Islam?
I don't think so!

Me, neither.

I think it was an attempt to bolster political enemies of GW, both here and abroad. It was weak, especially since the election is so far away. Of course, that doesn't count if you're an idiot. But, then, if you're an idiot, even a simple letter will work.

There are plenty of idiots out there............

And idiots vote...........

[LW]

What if it is a tradition to send a letter, but then get upset if your courier is killed (along with some missionaries)

Thet's an interesting new hypothesis.

Would you like to support it by going through the history of Muslim warfare, looking through the instances where such letters were sent, cataloguing how often the couriers were killed, and comparing the results based on this?

[FireGarden]

LW
My point to Nyarlathotep was that sending a letter, then having the invitation to convert turned down is not cause for war.

Anyway,
The only example I am aware of where the courier gets killed, is the one I gave.


When Nyarlathotep said "If it is a Muslim tradition that one has to give an infidel a chance to convert to Islam before killing him," he may have had in mind something like your interpretation of the tradition.

But he says he agrees with BPSCG. Perhaps he is unaware of BPSCG's position in the other thread, which makes it sound like it is Muslim tradition to kill unbelievers, but to offer them a chance to convert first.

BPSCG's opinion of the tradition being summed up rather well with:

Bush is plenty Christian enough for Ahmadinejad. Just the way Anne Frank was plenty Jewish enough for Hitler.

ETA: link to post
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1629472&postcount=15

[Huntster]

Clearly, this was a document drafted for the Western media. I have stong suspicions that it has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with treachery.

Even if it is an accurate questioning of justice, would it be just to acknowledge that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons?

More, even if you believe that to be the case, are you ready to deal with the results?

I'm commonly referred to on this forum as a "woo". I'm not this "woo".

The genie has grown. It doesn't even stay in the bottle anymore. The NPT is meaningless. We've gone way beyond that, and the U.N. hasn't been any help containing her.

We can't even confirm what happened to Saddam's collection of goodies, not to mention Soviet stockpiles.

We will treat this "letter" as an official document. Unfortunately, we have no choice as civilized people.

That's the difficulty dealing with liars.

I'd like to think that the children of those who "went the distance" was enough for it to not recurr in just a couple of generations.

Apparently, I'm not clued in. Folks will buy into anything that offers false hope, as long as that false hope applies directly.

[Ziggurat]

Although you seem to have taken a position of disagreeing with every single sentence of the letter solely because of its authorship.....

Nothing of the sort. I didn't claim I disagreed with every sentence, but then again, I haven't bothered to analyze every single sentence. I get the overall message pretty clearly, and the overall message is quite wrong. But I'll address a number of the specific complaints from the letter that you bring up:

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country.

That's standard treatment for all prisoners of war, and therefore cannot, in and of itself, form the basis of a complaint about Guantanamo.

There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate.

Not so. There is indeed monitoring by the International Red Cross.

No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

They are considered unlawful combatants. In other words, they are prisoners of war who do not qualify for Geneva convention protections. Don't like that classification? Fine. But it's simply wrong to claim that it's not know what they are.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too.

No, actually, they rather pointedly did NOT confirm their existence. Quite the contrary, the European investigation was able to turn up NO evidence that they existed. So that claim is an outright lie.

I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system.

In other words, because the writer doesn't know, it's presumed that this is all extrajudicial. You'll have to excuse me for not accepting that as a valid argument.

So you disagree with that?

Considering that half of it is irrelevant or simply false and the other half is completely subjective, yeah, I'd say I basically disagree.

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today?

I don't know. Neither does the author of the letter. But let me point out a few things. First off, most generally, there's generally a tradeoff in everything we do. Yes, if we spent less on defense, we might be able to spend more on education. But the line of "reasoning" here suggests we should just cut defense spending to zero, and obviously that won't work. So when judging the tradeoff, you've got to actually know what you're getting in exchange for what you're giving up, and no argument to that effect actually exists here. It's merely an appeal to a certain sort of pacifist emotion, but that's it.

More specifically, let's consider a few of those items: assistance to poor countries generally doesn't work. In fact, it often has a negative relationship with development there. Why? Because the primary problem in most poor countries is corruption, and aid generally can't fix that but usually makes it worse instead. Or how about "extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts": how exactly do we do that? When those situations get really bad (as in Rwanda, Darfur, the Congo, etc), there's only ever BEEN one answer that actually works: military force, and lots of it. So the author is, in effect, saying, don't spend money on the military, instead spend it on fixing a problem that can only be solved by the military.

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented.

No, some of them are. Lots of them are not. And I'm getting my information from a good friend who grew up in Africa and recently managed to get out of that hellhole.

They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress.

I found a sentence I agree with. Wow! Too bad it's a vague platitude.

Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don't they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth - including minerals - is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

And who, exactly, is looting it? Why, their own rulers, fellow Africans. But this also betrays an ignorance of economics. The raw materials that Africa supplies aren't actually worth that much, just like the iron that makes up the bulk of your car represents a small fraction of the cost of the car. Most wealth is not created by extracting natural resources from the ground, but by processing those resources into something people can use. Africa may do plenty of the former, but they do very little of the latter. Until that changes, they're never going to get wealthy. And why doesn't it change? Why aren't there manufacturing plants all over the place in Africa like there are in China? The labor costs are certainly lower. But nobody wants to invest in manufacturing in Africa, and the reason is quite simple: corruption. Corruption is what makes aid futile, it's what leads to rulers stealing the wealth of their countries, and it's what prevents their economies from growing at a fast pace. That's not our fault, and we can't fix it for them.

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

Funny, but the author didn't really list actions, but rather results. It's a cute little slight of hand: you're supposed to assume that our actions led to those results, then the author can properly castigate us for those actions being unchristian. But the actions which led to the aforementioned results AREN'T ours.

so.....i can only assume you'd like more illegal detentions, more flouting of international law, greater military expenditure at the expense of humanitarian work, and an increased exploitation of the poor......:D

Assume anything you'd like, makes little difference to me if you delude yourself. But if you actually want to know what I REALLY think about any particular topic, and why, rather than just caricaturing me as the evil warmonger, you might want to consider asking.

[andyandy]

That's standard treatment for all prisoners of war, and therefore cannot, in and of itself, form the basis of a complaint about Guantanamo.

well....for a start they're not even regarded as prisoners of war. And to be held 4 years without access to legal representation is hardly something unworthy of criticising as you seem to imply.



Not so. There is indeed monitoring by the International Red Cross.


yep....fair enough - he seems to be being a little economical with the truth here - unless he doesn't regard the ICRC as a legitimate international body....
It is important to note that only group allowed to monitor detainees is the red cross - and in order to gain that access they had to agree to report any findings direct to washington.


They are considered unlawful combatants. In other words, they are prisoners of war who do not qualify for Geneva convention protections. Don't like that classification? Fine. But it's simply wrong to claim that it's not known what they are.

It's a valid point to highlight that there is confusion as to the legal staus of the detainees. It's also become apparent as some of the detainees are released that there are a number who were not criminals or war-combatants or al-queda operatives - but who were scooped up anyway and who have spent years in jail illegally.
There's plenty to be said on Guantanamo.....but it would be deserving of its own thread....suffice to say, it should be a pretty scary prospect that under the "enemy combatant" definition, any government or regime can "declare war" on any cause or any group of people - and use this justification for circumventing any due lawful process of the land....that's my opinion....maybe not yours....:D


No, actually, they rather pointedly did NOT confirm their existence. Quite the contrary, the European investigation was able to turn up NO evidence that they existed. So that claim is an outright lie.


There is plenty of evidence uncovered by investigators that point to the use of secret jails, illegal rendition and "ghost flights" in Europe. Amnesty international and the BBC are two parties that spring to mind.


In other words, because the writer doesn't know, it's presumed that this is all extrajudicial. You'll have to excuse me for not accepting that as a valid argument.

the sentence is I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system.
that's a pretty airtight sentence - he's expressing a personal opinion.




I don't know. Neither does the author of the letter. But let me point out a few things. First off, most generally, there's generally a tradeoff in everything we do. Yes, if we spent less on defense, we might be able to spend more on education. But the line of "reasoning" here suggests we should just cut defense spending to zero, and obviously that won't work. So when judging the tradeoff, you've got to actually know what you're getting in exchange for what you're giving up, and no argument to that effect actually exists here. It's merely an appeal to a certain sort of pacifist emotion, but that's it.

well....again it's a relevant point - seeing as the war in iraq has been morphed into one for "freedom and democracy" - ie. that it's being conducted for the good of the iraqi people. Because that is the reasoning, then its pertinent to ask whether the huge military expense in bringing about this "freedom and democracy" couldn't have been better spent elsewhere on other people's wellbeing. And i think most rational people would agree that the $300 billion plus spent in iraq could have had a far greater positive impact on a far greater number of people if spent elsewhere. (as a quick example - 316 million people in sub sahara live on less than 1 dollar a day - so just from the iraq expenditure each and every man woman and child could receive $950 - the equivilant to almost 3 years wages....)


More specifically, let's consider a few of those items: assistance to poor countries generally doesn't work. In fact, it often has a negative relationship with development there. Why? Because the primary problem in most poor countries is corruption, and aid generally can't fix that but usually makes it worse instead.

you claim that assistance to poor countries generally doesnt work and therefore seem to conclude that we shouldnt have aid to poor countries. Well that's a huge generalisation -

the provision of more condoms to sub sahara is "negative"? - at the moment on average a man has access to 4 condoms a year - so it's hardly surprising that unprotected sex, and the spread of STDs is rife.

The provision of more malaria drugs to prevent some of the 900,000 preventable deaths of malaria in sub sahara is "negative"?

Sure I agree that aid has to be well managed - and that corruption is an issue when money is going through governmental coffers - but this is no reason to argue that aid is primarily a negative force in development. Again this is an issue that is deserving of its own thread.....


Or how about "extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts": how exactly do we do that? When those situations get really bad (as in Rwanda, Darfur, the Congo, etc), there's only ever BEEN one answer that actually works: military force, and lots of it. So the author is, in effect, saying, don't spend money on the military, instead spend it on fixing a problem that can only be solved by the military.


well....this is a tricky one - but military force to "solve" the problem is something of a last resort....and then that should be with the UN or with NATO and not unilaterally....



No, some of them are. Lots of them are not. And I'm getting my information from a good friend who grew up in Africa and recently managed to get out of that hellhole.


lol. You're implying that the majority of Africans are lazy? And you're basing this on feedback from......one person :D i don't really need to deconstruct this......


And who, exactly, is looting it? Why, their own rulers, fellow Africans. But this also betrays an ignorance of economics. The raw materials that Africa supplies aren't actually worth that much, just like the iron that makes up the bulk of your car represents a small fraction of the cost of the car. Most wealth is not created by extracting natural resources from the ground, but by processing those resources into something people can use. Africa may do plenty of the former, but they do very little of the latter. Until that changes, they're never going to get wealthy. And why doesn't it change? Why aren't there manufacturing plants all over the place in Africa like there are in China? The labor costs are certainly lower. But nobody wants to invest in manufacturing in Africa, and the reason is quite simple: corruption. Corruption is what makes aid futile, it's what leads to rulers stealing the wealth of their countries, and it's what prevents their economies from growing at a fast pace. That's not our fault, and we can't fix it for them.

Again sweeping generalisations....there is corruption in africa - but to claim that this is the primary reason for the poverty in the continent is simply not true.
debt is a major factor - in 2000 the developing world spent $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it received in grants.....
illnesses like AIDS and malaria are major factors
chronoc water shortages are a major factor
and under-investment in infrastructure is a major factor. The "looting" of the wealth of Africa is taken place by multi-national companies who extract vast quantities of raw materials from the continent for vast profit after refinement. It is pertinent to ask why there isn't investment in infrastucture to allow countries to refine their raw goods and therefore greatly boost their economies.

A simple cry of "corruption!" - doesnt suffice - there's plenty of stable democracies like Ghana, Senegal and Mali, to name a few, who could benefit from infrastrure investment - but that doesnt happen on a meaningful scale - why? because it would be detrimental to our own economies to do so....so let's not pretend that none of the poverty in Africa is "our fault".....



Assume anything you'd like, makes little difference to me if you delude yourself. But if you actually want to know what I REALLY think about any particular topic, and why, rather than just caricaturing me as the evil warmonger, you might want to consider asking.

well....after your last post i guess i do know what you really think - and i wouldt caricature you as evil or warmongering....just ill-informed....:)

[Elind]

well....after your last post i guess i do know what you really think - and i wouldt caricature you as evil or warmongering....just ill-informed....:)

I read most of the above. Unfortunately it is you who is not only ill informed but naiive to a fault. Was it not you that just recently found themselves having to eat words (to your credit) after quoting that paragon of unbiased reporting called "The Guardian"? Sorry Andy, but you have too many fantasies.

[Ziggurat]

well....for a start they're not even regarded as prisoners of war.

That's correct: they have LESS rights than POW's. Since the listed complaints are applicable to POW's (who are not tried for any crimes, and can be held indefinitely), why would they be applicable to the prisoners at Guantanamo? That was my point, and you missed in completely. Which suggests to me you really haven't been thinking about this issue with any seriousness.

And to be held 4 years without access to legal representation is hardly something unworthy of criticising as you seem to imply.

Let me make this as plain as I can: POW's are not charged with crimes, they do not have access to legal representation, and they can be held indefinitely. These prisoners are considered to have fewer protections than POW's covered by the Geneva convention. EVEN IF you disagree with that classification, there still remains NO basis on which to grant them MORE rights than those granted by the Geneva conventions. So yeah, I do find that point unworthy of criticising, because it shows a profound misunderstanding of both the realities of war AND the law.

It is important to note that only group allowed to monitor detainees is the red cross - and in order to gain that access they had to agree to report any findings direct to washington.

That's another misunderstanding. The ICRC ALWAYS reports directly to the government controlling such prisoners and does not make the details of their reports public. That is a long-standing policy regardless of the government involved, and is not in any way, shape, or form special to Guantanamo or the US.

It's a valid point to highlight that there is confusion as to the legal staus of the detainees.

He's confused. That doesn't mean that US courts are confused.

It's also become apparent as some of the detainees are released that there are a number who were not criminals or war-combatants or al-queda operatives - but who were scooped up anyway and who have spent years in jail illegally.

Sure. But that's a separate complaint. And it's not a simple matter, either: we've also released prisoners who went on to commit terrorist acts after being released.

There's plenty to be said on Guantanamo.....but it would be deserving of its own thread....suffice to say, it should be a pretty scary prospect that under the "enemy combatant" definition, any government or regime can "declare war" on any cause or any group of people - and use this justification for circumventing any due lawful process of the land....that's my opinion....maybe not yours....:D

No, it isn't my opinion. I hold a rather different one: an enemy which does not abide by the rules of the Geneva convention deserves none of the protections of said convention, and so when we capture enemies of this sort, they should never have more rights than POW's have under those conventions.

There is plenty of evidence uncovered by investigators that point to the use of secret jails, illegal rendition and "ghost flights" in Europe. Amnesty international and the BBC are two parties that spring to mind.

I already told you that European investigators pointedly did NOT find any evidence of secret jails. And yet, you're still making that claim. Where did that claim come from? The press. What was their source? We don't know, and they won't say. There's actually pretty much NO evidence of this stuff, just accusations.

Similar problems with "illegal renditions". Plenty of evidence that renditions have happened, but where's the evidence that they were illegal? Again, pretty much just accusations at this point. The laws on these sorts of thing aren't always obvious, and legality can hinge on all sorts of technicalities which I wouldn't trust a journalist to be able to figure out. What would be a conclusive piece of evidence that a rendition was illegal? A court ruling to that effect. And I'm pretty sure there aren't any to that effect.

As for a "ghost flight", well, you'll have to specify what you mean, and why they're bad, because I'm not familiar with the term.

the sentence is I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system.
that's a pretty airtight sentence - he's expressing a personal opinion.

You missed my point. Whether or not HE knows something tells us nothing about the reality of the situation. His professed ignorance may be completely honest, and yet the situation may be completely above board. So if he wants to argue that something nefarious is going on, he's got to actually show evidence to that effect. In other words, he cannot argue a point based solely upon his own ignorance, which is what that statement amounted to.

And i think most rational people would agree that the $300 billion plus spent in iraq could have had a far greater positive impact on a far greater number of people if spent elsewhere.

Really? Have you polled them? How do you tell a rational person from an irrational person? Or is their answer to how to spend that money what determines if they're rational or not? But I'm not among that hypothetical majority, I don't agree with that asesment, and the truth has never been a popularity contest anyways.

(as a quick example - 316 million people in sub sahara live on less than 1 dollar a day - so just from the iraq expenditure each and every man woman and child could receive $950 - the equivilant to almost 3 years wages....)

Wow - you SO missed my point.

How, exactly, do you spend $300 billion in aid? How much of that do you think gets siphoned off by kickbacks to western contractors? How much of it finds its way into the hands of dictators? How much of it gets stolen by local warlords? How much of it turns into actual, lasting improvements in the lives of those poor people? Given the negative correlation between aid and development, I'd say pretty close to none of it.

you claim that assistance to poor countries generally doesnt work and therefore seem to conclude that we shouldnt have aid to poor countries. Well that's a huge generalisation -

No, actually, I'm NOT claiming that we shouldn't aid poor countries at all. My claim is that most aid doesn't work, and even with the aid that DOES work, more doesn't mean better. In other words, I don't think it's possible to spend $300 billion on Africa in a productive manner. The infrastructure just isn't there to handle that kind of influx meaningfully, and it would end up just feeding the rampant corruption that grips most of the continent.

the provision of more condoms to sub sahara is "negative"? - at the moment on average a man has access to 4 condoms a year - so it's hardly surprising that unprotected sex, and the spread of STDs is rife.

Giving out condoms won't hurt the situation, but neither will it help much. The problem is behavioral. Using a condom is a choice, and too many people make the wrong choice. They could be awash with condoms and that alone couldn't fix the situation. Solutions to these problems are NOT simple, despite the wish that they were so.

The provision of more malaria drugs to prevent some of the 900,000 preventable deaths of malaria in sub sahara is "negative"?

Sure, it would be good to have lots of malaria drugs. But who distributes them? Who pays for the doctors and nurses to administer them? A lot more than drugs has to flow to make that happen - money has to flow too. And money flow, ESPECIALLY money flow from outside in what amounts to a grant, is the perfect breeding ground for corruption. From the dictator down to the mayor of some jungle village, people will be dipping their hands in for a take of that money, and they'll get it, because you can't run the program without giving them a cut. But by giving them a cut, you're making corruption worse. Which makes it harder and harder for them to form their own economy. Aid, even the best intentioned aid, has a nasty tendency to create dependency. Sometimes more good can be done than harm, but it takes a lot of effort, a lot of time, and a lot of organization to ensure that's the case. And it simply isn't possible to do that with aid on the scale you're talking about. We know this because we can't manage the aid we already give out well enough to keep it from doing harm.

Sure I agree that aid has to be well managed - and that corruption is an issue when money is going through governmental coffers - but this is no reason to argue that aid is primarily a negative force in development.

The fact that aid IS correlated with SUBSEQUENT lower rates of economic development should clue you in that maybe we don't know HOW to manage aid well, and that as performed now, maybe it really IS a negative force.

well....this is a tricky one - but military force to "solve" the problem is something of a last resort....and then that should be with the UN or with NATO and not unilaterally....

Last resort, sure. Like it was a last resort in Rwanda. That had the nice little effect of making sure it wasn't resorted to at all.

As for unilateral vs. multilateral, I think you need to get a clue. NATO is just an alliance of certain states with common interests. More countries joined the coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq than are members of NATO, so I don't see how on earth you can claim that a NATO action is somehow less unilateral than our invasion of Iraq was.

And as for the UN, well, their failures in military matters are legion (just look at the current mess in the Congo). It's nice to have UN authorization for public relations reasons, but they are, first and foremost, in the business of protecting the sovereignty of governments, regardless of how terrible those governments are or what crimes they commit.

lol. You're implying that the majority of Africans are lazy? And you're basing this on feedback from......one person :D i don't really need to deconstruct this......

No, you just need to actually read it.

I said nothing about most. I said a lot. Ahmadinejad, however, applied the term "hard working" to Africans in general - and while that can be read as not literally meaning every single one, it's GOT to mean at least the vast majority.

Again sweeping generalisations....there is corruption in africa - but to claim that this is the primary reason for the poverty in the continent is simply not true.

Sure it is.

debt is a major factor - in 2000 the developing world spent $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it received in grants.....

And how do you think that debt was acquired? What was it acquired for? Why haven't they been able to use the loans they've received in order to actually build economies which can repay those loans? Corruption, my friend. It was corrupt dictators who took out those loans. It was corrupt government officials who squandered that money, investing in worthless projects with little to no economic returns, but which filled the pockets of their cronies. That debt didn't spring out of nowhere, and the money that was lent didn't disappear on its own, either.

illnesses like AIDS and malaria are major factors
chronoc water shortages are a major factor
and under-investment in infrastructure is a major factor.

AIDS has only been a significant factor in the last two decades. It cannot explain Africa's failure to develop during the decades between WWII and the 90's. As for malaria and water shortages, sure, they're problems. But why do you think those problems haven't been successfully addressed? It's not for lack of aid, and it's not like other countries and regions outside of Africa (such as India) haven't struggled with similar problems and managed to progess anyways. Why do you think there's an under-investment in infrastructure? Not for a lack of cash - that's where all those debts you complain about come from.

The "looting" of the wealth of Africa is taken place by multi-national companies who extract vast quantities of raw materials from the continent for vast profit after refinement.

Damned well better be vast profits if there are vast expenditures, otherwise it just won't happen. This complaint smacks of ignorance about economics: if these corporations were not extracting these materials, would Africa be wealthier? Not unless they learn to do something with those resources themselves. But we're not actually stopping them from doing that. They're doing that themselves.

It is pertinent to ask why there isn't investment in infrastucture to allow countries to refine their raw goods and therefore greatly boost their economies.

Simple: corruption.

Let's say you've got a bunch of money, and you want to build a factory somewhere to use cheap labor to make, say, some plastic toys of a saturday-morning cartoon to sell to rich kids in the US. Where are you going to build that factor? Not Africa, that's for damned sure. Why not? Because transportation infrastructure sucks, because you have to bribe officials at every turn, because you can't get your shipments in OR out of the country without paying off customs officials who will harass you because you've got the money. Labor may be cheap, but the cost of doing business is not. So instead, you build it in China, or the Philipines, or somewhere were corruption doesn't turn profits into losses. You don't invest in factories in Africa because it's just too corrupt.

And without factories, in turn, what African leader is going to invest heavily in things like roads? They're costly, doubly so because of (wait for it)... corruption! And why would you poor all that money into a project unless there's a payoff to you, as ruler? You can't get increased tax revenues, at least not quickly, because even if the roads are there, nobody wants to build the factories. And you can't afford to sink money into such long term investments, because you've got to keep your cronies happy NOW, or they'll stage a coup.

A simple cry of "corruption!" - doesnt suffice - there's plenty of stable democracies like Ghana, Senegal and Mali, to name a few, who could benefit from infrastrure investment - but that doesnt happen on a meaningful scale - why? because it would be detrimental to our own economies to do so....so let's not pretend that none of the poverty in Africa is "our fault".....

That makes absolutely no sense, and is rather obviously contradicted by ACTUAL economic data.

First off, investors don't generally care about how well the economy of their country as a whole does, they care about how their individual investments do. If they can get a better return on investing in another country, they'll do that. And that's exactly what DOES happen. We've invested HUGE amounts of money in China, for example. If the lack of investment were about protectionism, that's the last thing we'd want to do. But it's not. Nobody invests in Africa (as opposed to giving aid) simply because it's not profitable - there is not and has never been ANY other reason for avoiding investment in Africa. And it's not profitable because it's corrupt.

I will agree, however, that the west is not completely blameless. There is something we're doing wrong regarding Africa which could help them considerably, something pretty obvious to anyone who has thought about the problems of Africa which you somehow managed to overlook, and that's agricultural subsidies. That is the ONE place where we're actually at fault, and where we could make a substantial positive impact on the continent by changing our ways. Of course, if you want to do that, the country you REALLY need to talk to is not the US, but France.

[aerocontrols]

....this does make me change my opinion of him though ..because he is able to express his opinions intelligently - something which i had never given him credit for....

So is it your belief that heads-of-state generally write all their own material, or do you uniquely trust Ahmadinejad to have done so?

Even if the 'original' letter you linked to was the actual letter with no omissions, your statement above strikes me as unreasonably credulous.

[Ralph]

[I]If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger? [/I

So how much has Iran spent on " investment & assistance for poor countries,promotion of health,combating different diseases,education and improvement of mental & physical fitness,assistance to the victims of natural disasters, etc etc....."

With all that oil that's being "looted" from them at 70 bucks plus per barrel I'd think they should be spreading all kinds of goodwill in Africa & elsewhere.

( weapons,expolsives, etc. for terrorist organizations don't count.)

[andyandy]

i disagree with just about all of points....but it's late so i'll just address a few....maybe i'll lokk at the rest in the morning :D




Let me make this as plain as I can: POW's are not charged with crimes, they do not have access to legal representation, and they can be held indefinitely. These prisoners are considered to have fewer protections than POW's covered by the Geneva convention. EVEN IF you disagree with that classification, there still remains NO basis on which to grant them MORE rights than those granted by the Geneva conventions. So yeah, I do find that point unworthy of criticising, because it shows a profound misunderstanding of both the realities of war AND the law.

The whole crux of the issue is over whether it is legitimate to declare and open ended "war" and then use that as a justification for circumventing national and international due process....and that of course brings into question the status of the detainees. Is it acceptable that enemy combatants or POW are captured and held indefinitly? Would it be acceptable for german wwII POWs/enemy combatants to be still detained without trial? There are some fundamental principals of human rights that need to be addressed. I find it hard to believe that you regard the status of prisoners in guantanamo to be beyond question.......

there's plenty of debate on the legality of the detention at guantanamo....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51007-2005Jan31.html

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the Bush administration must allow prisoners at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to contest their detention in U.S. courts, concluding that special military reviews established by the Pentagon as an alternative are illegal.



http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1985
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is to call for the closure of the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.
He is reported to have serious doubts about whether the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" - as they are known - is legal or fair.
In a speech in London later on Wednesday he will say the camp's continued existence is "unacceptable".
But in the strongest worded condemnation yet from a British government official, Lord Goldsmith will say: "The existence of Guantanamo remains unacceptable.
"It is time, in my view, that is should close. Not only would it, in my personal opinion, be right to close Guantanamo as a matter of principle, I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many - right or wrong - of injustice.
"The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol."




Sure. But that's a separate complaint. And it's not a simple matter, either: we've also released prisoners who went on to commit terrorist acts after being released.

how is it a seperate compaint? it highlights the problems of detaining indefinitly without trial....(or do you believe as you imply, that "enemy combatants" can be held forever without due legal representation?)
If you are arrested for a crime you didnt commit then you would expect to have the ability to defend yourself.....the fact that many people have been detained and then released without charge only serves to highlight this point.


No, it isn't my opinion. I hold a rather different one: an enemy which does not abide by the rules of the Geneva convention deserves none of the protections of said convention.

that's a very dangerous train of thought....even if the "enemy" does not abide by the geneva convention, that's no justification for breaking it....


I already told you that European investigators pointedly did NOT find any evidence of secret jails. And yet, you're still making that claim. Where did that claim come from? The press. What was their source? We don't know, and they won't say. There's actually pretty much NO evidence of this stuff, just accusations.

well...this hinges on the definition of "investigators" - taken to mean "some person, people or group who investigates" - then his point is a valid one - as i mentioned before, the press and amnesty have investigated the issue and there is plenty of evidence to support their assertions.

Similar problems with "illegal renditions". Plenty of evidence that renditions have happened, but where's the evidence that they were illegal? Again, pretty much just accusations at this point. The laws on these sorts of thing aren't always obvious, and legality can hinge on all sorts of technicalities which I wouldn't trust a journalist to be able to figure out. What would be a conclusive piece of evidence that a rendition was illegal? A court ruling to that effect. And I'm pretty sure there aren't any to that effect.

again we get down to issues of legality....seeing as the term "enemy combatant" is still much debated legally in Europe (eg. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith see above) then the legality of rendition on european soil is worthy of question......







How, exactly, do you spend $300 billion in aid? How much of that do you think gets siphoned off by kickbacks to western contractors? How much of it finds its way into the hands of dictators? How much of it gets stolen by local warlords? How much of it turns into actual, lasting improvements in the lives of those poor people? Given the negative correlation between aid and development, I'd say pretty close to none of it.



No, actually, I'm NOT claiming that we shouldn't aid poor countries at all. My claim is that most aid doesn't work, and even with the aid that DOES work, more doesn't mean better. In other words, I don't think it's possible to spend $300 billion on Africa in a productive manner. The infrastructure just isn't there to handle that kind of influx meaningfully, and it would end up just feeding the rampant corruption that grips most of the continent.



Giving out condoms won't hurt the situation, but neither will it help much. The problem is behavioral. Using a condom is a choice, and too many people make the wrong choice. They could be awash with condoms and that alone couldn't fix the situation. Solutions to these problems are NOT simple, despite the wish that they were so.



Sure, it would be good to have lots of malaria drugs. But who distributes them? Who pays for the doctors and nurses to administer them? A lot more than drugs has to flow to make that happen - money has to flow too. And money flow, ESPECIALLY money flow from outside in what amounts to a grant, is the perfect breeding ground for corruption. From the dictator down to the mayor of some jungle village, people will be dipping their hands in for a take of that money, and they'll get it, because you can't run the program without giving them a cut. But by giving them a cut, you're making corruption worse. Which makes it harder and harder for them to form their own economy. Aid, even the best intentioned aid, has a nasty tendency to create dependency. Sometimes more good can be done than harm, but it takes a lot of effort, a lot of time, and a lot of organization to ensure that's the case. And it simply isn't possible to do that with aid on the scale you're talking about. We know this because we can't manage the aid we already give out well enough to keep it from doing harm.



I think you're painting with far too broad a brush....there is corruption, and aid has to be well managed to ensure that it does not create corruption. I agree. But to imply that corruption is endemic in the whole of Africa and therefore largely negates the positive benefits of aid - is simply too much of a generalisation. I'll give again the examples of Ghana, mali and senegal as countries with stable democracies to refute your implication that Africa is inherently corrupt.




I said nothing about most. I said a lot. Ahmadinejad, however, applied the term "hard working" to Africans in general - and while that can be read as not literally meaning every single one, it's GOT to mean at least the vast majority.


you said (i'm quoting from memory....) " some Africans are hardworking but a lot aren't" - this certainly gives the impression that you believe the majority of africans are not hardworking.....if that wasnt your implication then maybe you could clarify what it is....

and your evidence for refuting Ahmadinejad's claim that in general africans are hard-working is your 1 person survey? lol :D




And how do you think that debt was acquired? What was it acquired for? Why haven't they been able to use the loans they've received in order to actually build economies which can repay those loans? Corruption, my friend. It was corrupt dictators who took out those loans. It was corrupt government officials who squandered that money, investing in worthless projects with little to no economic returns, but which filled the pockets of their cronies. That debt didn't spring out of nowhere, and the money that was lent didn't disappear on its own, either.



AIDS has only been a significant factor in the last two decades. It cannot explain Africa's failure to develop during the decades between WWII and the 90's. As for malaria and water shortages, sure, they're problems. But why do you think those problems haven't been successfully addressed? It's not for lack of aid, and it's not like other countries and regions outside of Africa (such as India) haven't struggled with similar problems and managed to progess anyways. Why do you think there's an under-investment in infrastructure? Not for a lack of cash - that's where all those debts you complain about come from.



Damned well better be vast profits if there are vast expenditures, otherwise it just won't happen. This complaint smacks of ignorance about economics: if these corporations were not extracting these materials, would Africa be wealthier? Not unless they learn to do something with those resources themselves. But we're not actually stopping them from doing that. They're doing that themselves.



Simple: corruption.

Let's say you've got a bunch of money, and you want to build a factory somewhere to use cheap labor to make, say, some plastic toys of a saturday-morning cartoon to sell to rich kids in the US. Where are you going to build that factor? Not Africa, that's for damned sure. Why not? Because transportation infrastructure sucks, because you have to bribe officials at every turn, because you can't get your shipments in OR out of the country without paying off customs officials who will harass you because you've got the money. Labor may be cheap, but the cost of doing business is not. So instead, you build it in China, or the Philipines, or somewhere were corruption doesn't turn profits into losses. You don't invest in factories in Africa because it's just too corrupt.

And without factories, in turn, what African leader is going to invest heavily in things like roads? They're costly, doubly so because of (wait for it)... corruption! And why would you poor all that money into a project unless there's a payoff to you, as ruler? You can't get increased tax revenues, at least not quickly, because even if the roads are there, nobody wants to build the factories. And you can't afford to sink money into such long term investments, because you've got to keep your cronies happy NOW, or they'll stage a coup.



That makes absolutely no sense, and is rather obviously contradicted by ACTUAL economic data.

First off, investors don't generally care about how well the economy of their country as a whole does, they care about how their individual investments do. If they can get a better return on investing in another country, they'll do that. And that's exactly what DOES happen. We've invested HUGE amounts of money in China, for example. If the lack of investment were about protectionism, that's the last thing we'd want to do. But it's not. Nobody invests in Africa (as opposed to giving aid) simply because it's not profitable - there is not and has never been ANY other reason for avoiding investment in Africa. And it's not profitable because it's corrupt.



lol.....im getting tired.....:) suffice to say i disagree with the characterisation of africans and african leadership as inherently corrupt....
but i'm gonna have to come back to this tomorrow....:)


I will agree, however, that the west is not completely blameless. There is something we're doing wrong regarding Africa which could help them considerably, something pretty obvious to anyone who has thought about the problems of Africa which you somehow managed to overlook, and that's agricultural subsidies. That is the ONE place where we're actually at fault, and where we could make a substantial positive impact on the continent by changing our ways. Of course, if you want to do that, the country you REALLY need to talk to is not the US, but France.

The ONE place where we're actually at fault? lol.....it's definitely one of the places....i didnt refer to it because we are talking about Ahmadinejad's letter.....but i agree it is a major factor in the region's problems - although it's not just France's fault - but the whole EU....

[andyandy]

So how much has Iran spent on " investment & assistance for poor countries,promotion of health,combating different diseases,education and improvement of mental & physical fitness,assistance to the victims of natural disasters, etc etc....."

With all that oil that's being "looted" from them at 70 bucks plus per barrel I'd think they should be spreading all kinds of goodwill in Africa & elsewhere.

( weapons,expolsives, etc. for terrorist organizations don't count.)

i agree completely - he's a hypocrite of the first order - an absolute bastard.....

but the OP was concerned about looking at what was in the article without knowing who had written it....and then assessing the points made.....not about comparing what mr "i'm gonna blow israel off the map" wrote and what he actually does.....

[Ziggurat]

The whole crux of the issue is over whether it is legitimate to declare and open ended "war" and then use that as a justification for circumventing national and international due process....and that of course brings into question the status of the detainees.

Again, this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of war and the law. There's no "circumventing" of due process involved here. International law provides NO protection WHATSOEVER to those who engage in war and do not abide by the Geneva conventions. And WE weren't the ones who declared this war, either: Al Qaeda did a long time ago, it just took us a while to realize how serious they were. Didn't you know that?

No, what this debate REALLY is about, for those who are actually serious, is whether there SHOULD be some NEW due process procedure set up for this kind of situation. And there are good arguments to be made, in many different directions, about what exactly the laws should be. But debates about what the law should be are quite distinct from debates about what the law is.

Is it acceptable that enemy combatants or POW are captured and held indefinitly?

It always has been.

Would it be acceptable for german wwII POWs/enemy combatants to be still detained without trial?

If Germany were still at war with us, hell yes. When Al Qaeda wants to sign the surrender papers, then I'll consider releasing prisoners. Do you honestly not understand this difference?

There are some fundamental principals of human rights that need to be addressed. I find it hard to believe that you regard the status of prisoners in guantanamo to be beyond question.......

Beyond question? Nope, never said that. I'm just a stickler for the RIGHT questions. And none of the questions you raised were the right ones.

there's plenty of debate on the legality of the detention at guantanamo....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51007-2005Jan31.html


"Green's ruling directly conflicts with one issued by another federal court judge in Washington two weeks ago."

Call me when the Supreme Court rules Guantanamo is illegal.

"It is time, in my view, that is should close. Not only would it, in my personal opinion, be right to close Guantanamo as a matter of principle, I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many - right or wrong - of injustice.

Notice something about your own source? He wants it closed "as a matter of principle" based on his "personal opinion", not as a matter of law, and he concedes that this is largely a PR issue (it's a "symbol"). That may indeed be a good enough reason to close the place down, but this is really a public relations issue being fought here, NOT a legal issue.

how is it a seperate compaint?

Umm... because it wasn't included in the quote I was responding to? And because whether or not you've imprisoned the wrong person is a separate question from whether your treatment of an actual guilty party is acceptable?

(or do you believe as you imply, that "enemy combatants" can be held forever without due legal representation?)

Again: of COURSE they can! On what possible legal basis would you extend MORE rights to an unlawful combatant than to a POW?

If you are arrested for a crime you didnt commit then you would expect to have the ability to defend yourself.....the fact that many people have been detained and then released without charge only serves to highlight this point.

German POW's were released at the end of the war without charges, too. Was it wrong to imprison them without trials or charges? Nope. This is a war. It is DIFFERENT than ordinary crime, and the laws ALREADY treat it differently.

that's a very dangerous train of thought....even if the "enemy" does not abide by the geneva convention, that's no justification for breaking it....

You're clueless. The Geneva conventions EXPLICITLY do not apply to all conflicts and all combatants, EVEN those involving signatories to the treaty. Saboteurs dressed as civilians, for example, can be summarily executed even if they surrender. Doing so isn't violating the treaty. So there's no "violating" the treaty at all when you don't offer its protections to those the treaty specifies are not protected. How on earth can it make us any safer to extend protections to enemies who will extend NO protections of ANY kind in our direction? My train of thought isn't dangerous: our enemy is.

again we get down to issues of legality....seeing as the term "enemy combatant" is still much debated legally in Europe (eg. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith see above) then the legality of rendition on european soil is worthy of question......

Sure. Go ahead and question. Just don't pretend that you've already got a definitive conclusion, which is what your letter, even the guardian-edited one, does so proudly.

[Elind]

No, what this debate REALLY is about, for those who are actually serious, is whether there SHOULD be some NEW due process procedure set up for this kind of situation.


Don't we already have one? What is it, 50%?, of the Guantanamo crowd have already been released and some of those can't be because the countries that they would be sent to, which are members of the new human rights comittee of the UN, can't be trusted not to kill them.

Then there is the Moussauwi (spelling?) insane guy, but still dangerous, who not only admitted guilt but still took 4 years to convict at the cost of how many millions that could have been, at the very least used for ammo to kill more of his ilk.

Andy boy is not worth the debate. He is a pie in the sky idealists who would kill us all through his belief of whatever editorial he happens to read that day.

[Nyarlathotep]

L

But he says he agrees with BPSCG. Perhaps he is unaware of BPSCG's position in the other thread, which makes it sound like it is Muslim tradition to kill unbelievers, but to offer them a chance to convert first.



It is almost universally the tradition of violent religious fanatics to offer unbeleivers the choice of conversion or death. Ahmadinajad is supported by exactly that brand of fanatic. So it seems only prudent to take his letter as being the way that choice is delivered.

[Banbury]

Could you please provide a quote where Bush called, Amadinejad a "right wing religious nutjob?"

I think you know perfectly well, that Bush wouldn't say that loud right in the middle of the diplomatic conflict. I was paraphrasing the whole PR campaign against Ahmadinejad. In absence of prove of Iran's nuclear weapons program the Bush administration resorts to character assassination, like Ahmadinejad's alleged involvment in the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Again I'm not trying to defend Iran or Ahmadinejad, but I don't think that Bush is the one who should throw the first stone.

[Skeptic]

Look, the whole point of this article is for Iran's president to try and LOOK reasonable for the useful idiots in the west, so as to use their influence in the media and academia (in particular) weaken public support for not letting Iran have nukes, thus buying time for Iran to reach the point of no return.

That some of the useful idiots, like the editors of the "Guardian", fall all over themselves to make the "reasonable" article look far more reasonable than it actually is (by leaving out the holocaust-denying stuff, for instance), is, naturally, only to be expected. This is hardly the first time western intellectuals and "progressive thinkers" praise and whitewash genocidal dictators in ways that even the genocidal dictators themselves didn't demand. (See their treatment of Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, and, before 1939, also of that other moderate peace-loving man, Hitler).

But a nicely-phrased letter whose goal is to sucker the usual useful idiots into doing whatever they can to help the "moderate" Iranians againt "western agression"--that is, to help Iran get the nukes it needs to genocide the jews (first) and terrorize the rest of the world (later)--hardly changes the fact that Iran's president is, as he openly says, a genocidal maniac intent on using nuclear weapon for a second (er, first) holocaust.

[a_unique_person]

Andy boy is not worth the debate. He is a pie in the sky idealists who would kill us all through his belief of whatever editorial he happens to read that day.

If there was proof that the alternative worked, you might have a case.

[Art Vandelay]

In absence of prove of Iran's nuclear weapons program the Bush administration resorts to character assassination, like Ahmadinejad's alleged involvment in the Iran Hostage Crisis.It's not exactly "character assassination" if it's true.

Again I'm not trying to defend Iran or Ahmadinejad, but I don't think that Bush is the one who should throw the first stone.You are trying to suggest that Bush is as bad as Mr. A, which means that you are either trying to downplay the latter, or libel the former.

You're joking!
I actually said (and in response to you, not to other posters) "Go to the websites that advertise Islam on the web... How many of those fail to mention Mohammed?"But that’s not an argument. That’s an imperative followed by an interrogative. Furthermore, it suffers from the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

So you believe there can be an invitation to Islam that doesn't tell you how to become a Muslim?It’s rather rude to ask questions that assume your claims.

Actually,
You brought up the point by making an analogy of

I corrected your analogy, because an omission of Mohammed in an invitation to Islam is more like an invitation to Christianity with an omission of Jesus.
1. I remember you mentioning Jesus. Perhaps it was in the other thread.
2. It’s rude to refer to stating your opinion as a “correction”.
3. Muslims don’t worship Mohammed, so your “correction” falls flat.
4. There are in fact “invitations to Christianity”, such as ID and C.S. Lewis speeches, that don’t mention Jesus.

Because they believe Mohammed is the prophet of God.Not ”the”, “a”.

Because they believe Islam is more correct of the three.So then, someone who is writing an invitation to monotheism is presumably writing an invitation to what he considers the most correct form of monotheism, no?

[Elind]

If there was proof that the alternative worked, you might have a case.

:hypnotize

[andyandy]

Don't we already have one? What is it, 50%?, of the Guantanamo crowd have already been released and some of those can't be because the countries that they would be sent to, which are members of the new human rights comittee of the UN, can't be trusted not to kill them.

Then there is the Moussauwi (spelling?) insane guy, but still dangerous, who not only admitted guilt but still took 4 years to convict at the cost of how many millions that could have been, at the very least used for ammo to kill more of his ilk.

Andy boy is not worth the debate. He is a pie in the sky idealists who would kill us all through his belief of whatever editorial he happens to read that day.

lol:D i'm not surprised at the strength of opinion - but there's no "pie in the sky idealism" here - just a genuine desire to gauge opinions on a variety of extremely compex topics. The thread topic was intentionally controvesial to provoke debate and i'm sorry if you don't believe the debate is worth having - but it's at the heart of the US war on terror....ie...the need to "win hearts as well as minds." - the fact that there are sections of the iranian president's speech with regards to Guantanamo, developing world policies and military policy that have resonance outside of the US should be a cause for introspection and not vitriol....even if you believe that the prisoners at guantanamo are being held legitimately and that detention without trial is acceptable, you should at least also accept that this is a controvesial issue around the world which contributes rightly or wrongly to anti-american sentiment - and therefore guantanamo should not be above question. It's not simply a case of "these are bad guys they don't deserve any rights" - because using that logic you may as well do away with the court system althogether - and lock people away for as long as you like without the need to go to trial. Under Bush in Iraq, the US has proclaimed its mission for democracy and freedom very vocally. Guantanamo is something which undermines this image . You can agree or disagree as to whether this is fair or justified, but you should recognise the resonance of all that guantanamo symbolises.....

[Ziggurat]

lthe need to "win hearts as well as minds."

What does "win hearts and minds" really mean? Typically it's used to mean convince people that you're the ones they should support. But being nice doesn't always do that. Sometimes people back the mean and nasty side BECAUSE it's mean and nasty, and you don't win those hearts and minds by being soft and cuddly. Sometimes, winning hearts and mines means sending the message that you cannot be intimidated, that you will not back down, that you are stronger than your enemy, and that you are willing to use that strength to strike your enemy down. Winning hearts and minds NEVER consists of showing weakness, equivocation, and fear.

- the fact that there are sections of the iranian president's speech with regards to Guantanamo, developing world policies and military policy that have resonance outside of the US should be a cause for introspection and not vitriol.

Oh, believe me, I think it's cause for PLENTY of introspection, but probably not the kind you're thinking of. Why do so many people buy into the same anti-capitalist, western-guilt bull that this looney is spouting? What's wrong with western civilization that so much of it won't even stand up to defend its own values? I do indeed think that question is worth a lot of introspection.

[andyandy]

Look, the whole point of this article is for Iran's president to try and LOOK reasonable for the useful idiots in the west, so as to use their influence in the media and academia (in particular) weaken public support for not letting Iran have nukes, thus buying time for Iran to reach the point of no return.

That some of the useful idiots, like the editors of the "Guardian", fall all over themselves to make the "reasonable" article look far more reasonable than it actually is (by leaving out the holocaust-denying stuff, for instance), is, naturally, only to be expected. This is hardly the first time western intellectuals and "progressive thinkers" praise and whitewash genocidal dictators in ways that even the genocidal dictators themselves didn't demand. (See their treatment of Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, and, before 1939, also of that other moderate peace-loving man, Hitler).

But a nicely-phrased letter whose goal is to sucker the usual useful idiots into doing whatever they can to help the "moderate" Iranians againt "western agression"--that is, to help Iran get the nukes it needs to genocide the jews (first) and terrorize the rest of the world (later)--hardly changes the fact that Iran's president is, as he openly says, a genocidal maniac intent on using nuclear weapon for a second (er, first) holocaust.

I agree completely....
the contents of the letter parts of which have some resonance with the European left are probably designed to exploit anti-US sentiment in the continent and to drive a wedge through any consensus for a multilateral approach to the Iranian nuclear issue....

therefore i think it is really important to look at what parts of the letter have resonance, and to look at the reason behind that.....

I think that the greatest failure of the "war on terror" has been in the field of international public relations - which have afforded extremists ammunition for their cause......From that perspective the letter is cleverly crafted to exploit these grievences - in the middle east its over Isreal, in Europe it's over military involvement, Guantanamo and political unilateralism, in South America its over the historical involvement in South American politcs, in Africa its over the continued poverty of the continent whilst the west prospers....

It seems pertinent to address these grievences to understand the reasons why they have resonance....because to win a "war on terror," or to survive a likely new age of mass proliferation it's necessary to cut off the oxygen of radicalism -hatred and resentment of a system, country or way of life....and to do that the causes of those grievences have to be acknowledged.....

[Elind]

lol:D i'm not surprised at the strength of opinion - but there's no "pie in the sky idealism" here - just a genuine desire to gauge opinions on a variety of extremely compex topics.

I disagree. The issue is not "extremely" complex. No doubt you would have said the same in the 30's, but the fact is many did not.

The thread topic was intentionally controvesial to provoke debate and i'm sorry if you don't believe the debate is worth having

As to intentionally controversial; nothing wrong with that. I do it, everyone does it, if one wants to get past page one; but I wouldn't be bothering if I didn't think it worth having. I do however think that changing your opinion may not be a realistic goal; but there are other readers here. On the other hand, I may be wrong.:blush:


- but it's at the heart of the US war on terror....ie...the need to "win hearts as well as minds." -

That is a crock of you know what, and illustrates exactly why I don't think you are really debatable on common ground. This is a clash of cultures, political nationalism, and religion(s). The hearts and minds that could be won were won a long time ago. The others are our enemies, by their own words and actions. I realize that sounds crude to an idealist, but history is on my side in terms of effective solutions, or endgames.



the fact that there are sections of the iranian president's speech with regards to Guantanamo, developing world policies and military policy that have resonance outside of the US should be a cause for introspection and not vitriol....

We can probably both agree that there are improvements required in the propaganda arena, but you do need to realize that there are different audiences. He has his. We have ours, and they are defined by the differences mentioned above.


even if you believe that the prisoners at guantanamo are being held legitimately and that detention without trial is acceptable, you should at least also accept that this is a controvesial issue around the world which contributes rightly or wrongly to anti-american sentiment - and therefore guantanamo should not be above question.

Could have been spun better earlier in that regard. As to now. Screw em.

It's not simply a case of "these are bad guys they don't deserve any rights" - because using that logic you may as well do away with the court system althogether - and lock people away for as long as you like without the need to go to trial.

True they don't. They should be happy they didn't end up pushing poppies through the ground. Our guys in similar siluations would have.



Under Bush in Iraq, the US has proclaimed its mission for democracy and freedom very vocally. Guantanamo is something which undermines this image . You can agree or disagree as to whether this is fair or justified, but you should recognise the resonance of all that guantanamo symbolises.....

It resonates two ways. One is to you, which you call complex. The other is to the types in Guantanamo, which understand, and dare I say respect, very well in very simple terms.

[Art Vandelay]

the fact that there are sections of the iranian president's speech with regards to Guantanamo, developing world policies and military policy that have resonance outside of the US should be a cause for introspection and not vitriol."Introspection" is when you look at yourself. It's rather odd to say that in understanding why other countries are hostile towards us, the first place we should look is at ourselves, rather those other countries. It is this attitude, that the default position should be that it is our fault, no matter what "it" is, that prompts so much exasperation on the part of conservatives towards liberals. If other countries have a problem with us not wanting Israel to be destroyed, then we should looking at them, rather than looking at ourselves.

It is also hypocritical for Muslims, after making such a mess of Africa, to blame America for its state. That would be like the Pope blaming Muslims for the Irish Troubles.

[Elind]

Amen

[FireGarden]

But that’s not an argument. That’s an imperative followed by an interrogative. Furthermore, it suffers from the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

What?
The only counter-example to my claim that you have found is the letter itself. But that's the very point of discussion!

There are in fact “invitations to Christianity”, such as ID and C.S. Lewis speeches, that don’t mention Jesus.

Intelligent Design is a call to Christianity?

And CS Lewis, as much as he was talking to the secular world, was talking to people who where already Christian!

Anyway, Flicking through the Screwtape letters....

Letter One... "Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defence against Christianity"

Letter Two.... "I note with great displeasure that your patient has become a Christian."

So which faith is being promoted is clear from the start.


"Abolition of Man" talks about a kind of ideal (in the sense of Plato) morality, which all human cultures are in tune to. In what sense, then, does it invite non-Christians to become Christians?

This quote from his biography indicates how widely Lewis believed truth was spread.

I can't find a pro-Lewis site that quotes it, but here's an article on Lewis and Tolkein (who helped convert Lewis to Christianity)

probably one of the worst is found on page 276 of C.S. Lewis: A Biography, by Roger Lancelyn Green. Lewis stated, "I had some ado to prevent Joy and myself from relapsing into Paganism in Attica! At Daphni it was hard not to pray to Apollo the Healer. But somehow one didn't feel it would have been very wrong - would have only been addressing Christ sub specie Apollinis."

http://www.seekgod.ca/lewis.htm

So fine..
Show me where CS Lewis invites people to Christianity specifically (ie: not just to Christian values) without mentioning Jesus.

And can you find an omission of Jesus as telling as this one?

If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour?

Mohammed is conspicuous by his absence from that list! It must have been an intentional omission. As if Mohammed being a prophet was neither here nor there in Najad's argument. How can he be inviting anyone to Islam?

So then, someone who is writing an invitation to monotheism is presumably writing an invitation to what he considers the most correct form of monotheism, no?
I thought you said it was rude to ask questions that assume your claims.

My answer is no.
If Ahmadi-Najad was writing an invitation to Islam, he would have mentioned Mohammed (and even Islam itself -- which only appears in the letter in reference to the the Islamic republic and the revolution which founded it. Not as a religion.) He would have mentioned some of the differences in beliefs between Islam and Christianity. Instead, he says that what he quotes from the Quran is also represented in the Good Book -- the Bible.

He is clearly asking Dubya to act more like the Christian he professes to be.


So, I answered your question (even though it was "rude"). Would you please answer this:

Do you believe there can be an invitation to Islam that doesn't tell you how to become a Muslim or what being a Muslim entails? Can you give such an example?

[andyandy]

"Introspection" is when you look at yourself. It's rather odd to say that in understanding why other countries are hostile towards us, the first place we should look is at ourselves, rather those other countries.


i wasnt implying that it's a one way process......or that it's somehow "all the US's fault" - of course that's not the case....but when dealing with hostilities, one of the questions that has to be asked is "why are they hostile?" - this at the very least allows you to understand the situation from a different perspective. :)

[Elind]

i wasnt implying that it's a one way process......or that it's somehow "all the US's fault" - of course that's not the case....but when dealing with hostilities, one of the questions that has to be asked is "why are they hostile?" - this at the very least allows you to understand the situation from a different perspective. :)

"Why are they hostile"?:boggled:

Has it ever occured to you that they are more hostile to their own than to us? They kill, rape, mutilate many more of their neighbors than us every day. But you seem to think that it is WE who should win their hearts and minds?

This is why I think you are incapable of rational thought.

[BPSCG]

I find FireGarden and andyandy to be two representatives of a certain world view, that AV and Elind have touched on.

It's a denialist view, that, on being shown the face of monstrous evil, can't conceive that that evil could have come into being without some instigation on the part of the object(s) of its hatred. And as such, it can't conceive that such evil actually exists, despite having been shown time and again throughout history that it does.

This world view believes that if someone hates you with a really violent loathing, it must be because you have somehow caused him to hate you like that. After all, none of us individually have enemies who would love to kill us unless we have done something to richly deserve it; why should nation-states be any different?

And so we turn away from the evidence of evil. We make excuses for it, we explain away obvious threatening behavior, we put the most benign possible interpretation on ugly statements. We end up saying that "Herr Hitler is a man I can do business with," and we explain away the Soviet Union's subjugation of eastern Europe as an understandable need for a buffer from a dangerous - though conquered, destroyed, and prostrate - Germany, and we acknowledge the mullahs have legitimate grievances against the west as we rebuild a destroyed downtown Manhattan.

All this gives us comfort, because if we can persuade ourselves that these monsters in fact mean us no harm, we do not have to face the fact that there are indeed people who will kill us the moment they believe they can get away with it. And we do not have to think about the ugly and frightening prospect that we will someday have to fight them, to save our very lives.

[Skeptic]

i wasnt implying that it's a one way process......or that it's somehow "all the US's fault" - of course that's not the case....but when dealing with hostilities, one of the questions that has to be asked is "why are they hostile?" - this at the very least allows you to understand the situation from a different perspective. :)

Bernard Lewis has it about right.

Islam went through 1000 years of constant success and expansion, making (in practice if not in theory) military might the evidence of Allah's favor and proof of the superiority of the believer. Then it went through 400 years of decline and retreat (generally speaking, with some exceptions), in which the infidels surpassed it in every sphere, from quality of life to military might to literary and scientific pursuit.

As usual, the reaction to this varied. The reaction of the fundamentalist Muslims--bin Laden, Ahmawhatshisface, Hamas, etc.--is that the west, and the infidel jews and Christians, must be destroyed by Jihad. Hamas, for example, sees the "liberation of Palestine" as only a stepping stone towards an all-Islamic Europe and, eventually, a world-wide Chalifate. The same is true of bin Laden and other Islamists. When they speak of the "liberation", they usually don't mean the liberation of "Palestine"--they mean the liberation of Spain, that is, conquered Al-Andalus, from the infidel Christians.

It has nothing to do with the west's behavior, with this or that policy. It has to do with the fact that the west was succesful and the Islamic world was not, for the most part.

P.S.

There was a big fight, incidentally, between Lewis and the late Said. Said claimed, in a talk in mid-2001, that Lewis demonizes Islam, making it seem as if Islamists are out to blow up skyscrapers. Said gave that as an example of the paranoid fantasies Lewis has about Islamists.

As they say, Lewis might be paranoid for all I know, but that doesn't mean the Islamists aren't really after him (and after you and me, for that matter).

[pipelineaudio]

I find FireGarden and andyandy to be two representatives of a certain world view, that AV and Elind have touched on.
.

I dont know, andyandy seems to mean well but wouldnt understand the suffering that his backing of questionable entities would cause, like the guy in his avatar for instance.

Firegarden sounds like a walking talking CAIR representative

[FireGarden]

I find FireGarden and andyandy to be two representatives of a certain world view, that AV and Elind have touched on.

It's a denialist view, that, on being shown the face of monstrous evil, can't conceive that that evil could have come into being without some instigation on the part of the object(s) of its hatred. And as such, it can't conceive that such evil actually exists, despite having been shown time and again throughout history that it does.

What paranoid delusions.
Why don't you stop blathering like a mad man and tell me how listing the prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph and Jesus Christ -- And then leaving out Mohammed! -- is an invitation to Islam.

If a Muslim says "Merry Christmas" to you in mid-winter.... Is that an invitation to Islam too?

[Mike B.]

i wasnt implying that it's a one way process......or that it's somehow "all the US's fault" - of course that's not the case....but when dealing with hostilities, one of the questions that has to be asked is "why are they hostile?" - this at the very least allows you to understand the situation from a different perspective. :)

My problem with this is that it is always highly selective on who had to do the soul-searching.

I mean is "The Guardian" asking Islamic countries to ask themselves about why there is "Islamo-phobia?"

And I don't mean that paper specifically.
Anyone can come up for a reason to hate someone.

I think it comes down to mental masturbation as well. After 9/11 there were many calls for this type of "soul searching." Yet the real reasons for 9/11 usually had to do with the person's own political philosophy.

I think the cartoon controversy is a perfect example of why this is a dead end. I jokingly asked if Denmark should ask, "Why do they hate us?" and then self-flaggelate themselves for years.

[andyandy]

I find FireGarden and andyandy to be two representatives of a certain world view, that AV and Elind have touched on.

It's a denialist view, that, on being shown the face of monstrous evil, can't conceive that that evil could have come into being without some instigation on the part of the object(s) of its hatred. And as such, it can't conceive that such evil actually exists, despite having been shown time and again throughout history that it does.




lol....it's not denialist or apologist to attempt to understand human behaviour...actions have motivations and reasons - and to pretend that they don't is naive....to so neatly divide the world up into "good" and "evil" - is comforting but false....looking at instances of hatred through history doesnt support your assertion that "evil" exists in a vacuum....people and their actions are influenced by the environment in which they exist....

Say you're a local politician and have an unacceptably high level of burglary and theft in your constituancy - what do you do? Two things...get tough on the crime - harsh penalties for all those caught, and then you look at the reason why so much crime is being commited. That doesnt mean you're condoning criminal behaviour - just that you want to understand the reasons behind it so you can tackle it more effectively.

Maybe after some research you find that your area has a heroin problem, and is also an area of great social deprivation...so you conclude that these two factors might be contributing to the crime wave - and so you also implement schemes to attempt to reduce drug use and to improve social conditions....a two pronged approach that's hardly extreme left wing ideology as you seem to imply - in fact look in old Tony's labour manifesto and you'll find it right there - "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."

let's look at the current diplomatic hostilities between the west and Iran over nuclear issue......

say for example that Iran tomorrow announced a "mother of star wars" weapon and defence system that they'd been working on in secret for some years now. This MoSW system included a defence shield rendering all conventional and nuclear weapons redundant. The MoSW also included a post-nuclear device unstoppable by any missile defences, able to reach anywhere in the world, and with a blast radius of 1000km. Instantly nuclear diplomacy which has driven global politics for over 50 years is dead.

A few years later following a leak in technology plans, Pakistan and then later Saudi Arabia also get the MoSW.....The three countries sign a treaty to limit any future development of their MoSW, and agree to gradually disarm - in return for an agreement from the other 190 odd countries that they won't pursue MoSW technology....they also demand that the old UN security council is replaced by the new MoSW elite club - to reflect the change in global politics....

As a (i presume) patriotic American would you be happy with this situation? To have your international relations dictated by a foreign state? What if, under duress the US signed up to such a treaty - and then watched as the MoSW states singularly failed to uphold their part of the bargain to disarm over the next 50 years - and not only that, continued to test and upgrade the MoSW system whilst applying crippling oil sanctions on any country that tried to develop their own MoSW system.

If after half a century of this existence as part of the political underclass, what if US scientists cracked how to develop MoSW? Would you think that it was fair to be threatened with sanctions to enforce a treaty that the MoSW powers had failed to honour? Would you support your leaders who promised to restore American national prestige and its political clout?

If this situation was applied to the UK, then I would. I'm sure most people would.....
does that make me evil? :D

[Elind]

does that make me evil? :biggrin:

No, you seem to be one of the nicest apologists and appeasers here. I have no doubt you mean well, but you are fundamentally wrong and history is littered with your arguments, and the victims of them.

[andyandy]

No, you seem to be one of the nicest apologists and appeasers here. I have no doubt you mean well, but you are fundamentally wrong and history is littered with your arguments, and the victims of them.

come on....back handed compliments wont get u anywhere.....:D

address the last post! How would you feel if you were an american in the above example?

[Ralph]

lol....it's not denialist or apologist to attempt to understand human behaviour...actions have motivations and reasons - and to pretend that they don't is naive....to so neatly divide the world up into "good" and "evil" - is comforting but false....looking at instances of hatred through history doesnt support your assertion that "evil" exists in a vacuum....people and their actions are influenced by the environment in which they exist....

Say you're a local politician and have an unacceptably high level of burglary and theft in your constituancy - what do you do? Two things...get tough on the crime - harsh penalties for all those caught, and then you look at the reason why so much crime is being commited. That doesnt mean you're condoning criminal behaviour - just that you want to understand the reasons behind it so you can tackle it more effectively.

Maybe after some research you find that your area has a heroin problem, and is also an area of great social deprivation...so you conclude that these two factors might be contributing to the crime wave - and so you also implement schemes to attempt to reduce drug use and to improve social conditions....a two pronged approach that's hardly extreme left wing ideology as you seem to imply - in fact look in old Tony's labour manifesto and you'll find it right there - "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."

let's look at the current diplomatic hostilities between the west and Iran over nuclear issue......

say for example that Iran tomorrow announced a "mother of star wars" weapon and defence system that they'd been working on in secret for some years now. This MoSW system included a defence shield rendering all conventional and nuclear weapons redundant. The MoSW also included a post-nuclear device unstoppable by any missile defences, able to reach anywhere in the world, and with a blast radius of 1000km. Instantly nuclear diplomacy which has driven global politics for over 50 years is dead.

A few years later following a leak in technology plans, Pakistan and then later Saudi Arabia also get the MoSW.....The three countries sign a treaty to limit any future development of their MoSW, and agree to gradually disarm - in return for an agreement from the other 190 odd countries that they won't pursue MoSW technology....they also demand that the old UN security council is replaced by the new MoSW elite club - to reflect the change in global politics....

As a (i presume) patriotic American would you be happy with this situation? To have your international relations dictated by a foreign state? What if, under duress the US signed up to such a treaty - and then watched as the MoSW states singularly failed to uphold their part of the bargain to disarm over the next 50 years - and not only that, continued to test and upgrade the MoSW system whilst applying crippling oil sanctions on any country that tried to develop their own MoSW system.

If after half a century of this existence as part of the political underclass, what if US scientists cracked how to develop MoSW? Would you think that it was fair to be threatened with sanctions to enforce a treaty that the MoSW powers had failed to honour? Would you support your leaders who promised to restore American national prestige and its political clout?

If this situation was applied to the UK, then I would. I'm sure most people would.....
does that make me evil? :D



Let's do what you're suggesting in your post. Reverse the rolls as they currently exist. Iran - as it exists right now - finds itself in a position of complete military superiority over the US & Israel.

What do you think would happen?

I think an honest assesment of what Iran would do under these circumstances might help you understand the point BPSCG is trying to make about the difference between good & evil.

[andyandy]

Let's do what you're suggesting in your post. Reverse the rolls as they currently exist. Iran - as it exists right now - finds itself in a position of complete military superiority over the US & Israel.

What do you think would happen?

I think an honest assesment of what Iran would do under these circumstances might help you understand the point BPSCG is trying to make about the difference between good & evil.

since the whole example is conjecture lets not try and cloud its point....it's a thought experiment. In that situation how would you feel as a patriotic American?

[rocketdodger]

since the whole example is conjecture lets not try and cloud its point....it's a thought experiment. In that situation how would you feel as a patriotic American?

The situation you described is incomplete andy. There are some facts that you leave out.

The west is not preventing Iran from doing anything. We are simply saying if you want our assistance in any way, including trade, you have to abide by the rules we make. Thus, if the roles were reversed, and for some reason the U.S. was an industrially tiny country unable to progress on its own, we would have no cause to be angry at all. A man has no right to be angry at the bank for denying him a loan because he has a negative history.

Furthermore, I don't think the roles couldbe reversed. There is no reason at all to think that an Islamic nation, no matter many resources they were given, would advance to the same level as the west in technology.

[Ralph]

since the whole example is conjecture lets not try and cloud its point....it's a thought experiment. In that situation how would you feel as a patriotic American?

Speaking not as a patriot American but simply as a human being--I would be very afraid for what was going to happen to myself--and the world as a whole--should your little thought experiment becomes reality.

I'll refer again back to what BPSCG is trying to say about the nature of good & evil.

Now---how do you think Iran would behave - towards-Israel-towards the US-and towards it's neighbors if it suddenly found itself sitting where the US sits today as far as military power is concerned?

[andyandy]

*sigh*
are you just going to talk around in circles? - it's an invented scenario... it doesnt have to be something that will actually happen....and there are no caveats of "well....if my country was really **** then i'd have no national pride anyway so i'd not really be bothered...." - in the example, the US exists as the US....there are no ifs or buts....it's a
thought experiment

so answer it! In that situation would you want your leader to develop MoSW?

sidenote....
Furthermore, I don't think the roles couldbe reversed. There is no reason at all to think that an Islamic nation, no matter many resources they were given, would advance to the same level as the west in technology.

lol....your true colours are a'showing :D Countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are full of half-wits are they? dumb muslims yeah? Not like us clever christians in the west.....

[Elind]

come on....back handed compliments wont get u anywhere.....:D

address the last post! How would you feel if you were an american in the above example?

OK. As to the first point; I'll just call you a wimp who has no principles if they cause conflict with anyone elses.

As to the second, I note that you haven't addressed any of my earlier attempts to address your thoughts more specifically. In your latest ramblings I note the following "As a (i presume) patriotic American would you be happy with this situation? To have your international relations dictated by a foreign state?"

I'd like to remind you that most of the world has come to the conclusion that preventing nuclear proliferation is a good idea, and Iran is one of those who agreed to that in the past. They are currently violating that agreement while simulatneously acting like any gutter regime and, I would add, preaching that the second coming is soon upon us. Has it ever occured to you that they might like to help it along?

You are a wimp with fake principles.

[Nyarlathotep]

since the whole example is conjecture lets not try and cloud its point....it's a thought experiment. In that situation how would you feel as a patriotic American?

Okay. Given your scenario I am not going to feel anything as a patriotic American because there will no longer be such a thing. I would be a thrall to the Iranians either as a loyal subject or a Dhimmi or I would be dead. That, I believe, is the point Elind and others were trying to make.

[FireGarden]

Andy's point is not that Iran wouldn't abuse its position of power. Quite the reverse. He's asking, "How would you feel if Iran was the dominant power and was abusing that power?"

Elind and the others seem to be implying that the difference is: "America doesn't abuse its power. Or not as much as Iran would, anyway."

Given your scenario I am not going to feel anything as a patriotic American because there will no longer be such a thing.

Are you saying that if Iran put in place a Shah of America, then there would be no American insurgents/freedom fighters?

I think there would be plenty!

[BPSCG]

What paranoid delusions.
Why don't you stop blathering like a mad man and tell me how listing the prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph and Jesus Christ -- And then leaving out Mohammed! -- is an invitation to Islam.You seem content to take this letter as being the only statement Ahmadinejad has ever made. In effect, you are taking it out of the context of everything else he has ever said.

So let's have a look at some of the other things he's said:"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world."

"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.”

“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”

“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, ... The World without Zionism.”

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.

"Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.

"How comes that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not?" Now, does your interpretation of his letter to Bush as being a peaceful call to be a better Christian seem consistent with the tone of all these other statements?

[FireGarden]

BPSCG,
Don't move the goal-posts. You said the letter was a call to Islam. I'm not here to defend Ahmadinajad or say that he is a man of peace. All I say is that the letter is not an invitation to Islam. Neither is the letter threatening.



The rest of what you post is a whole different topic, perhaps best discussed in another thread. My main comment is that both the US and Iran are bellicose. I've not denied it.

But, being a liberal and SLAG FAIRY and the rest, I would also give you this link: (On the grounds that Ahmadenajad's comments, though bellicose, are not so to the degree you suggest.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking

Ahmadinejad wants regime change in Israel. Not genocide.

Are you saying that the US can ask for (and fight for) regime change in foreign countries, but Iran cannot?

[Ziggurat]

Ahmadinejad wants regime change in Israel. Not genocide.

In a word: no.

Ahmadinejad wasn't talking about the particular government in Israel. He was talking about eliminating the entire state - he said that, and that's what he meant. That is not simply regime change. We have NOT destroyed the state of Iraq. We have changed its government. The claim is rather obviously different.

Now, if you want to enter apologist mode, the argument to make is that removing the state doesn't have to mean killing or even moving the people there. Which in a literal sense is true. But as a practical matter it's rather obviously false.

LOTS of Israelis are willing to fight and die to preserve their state. They have proven so again and again. The only POSSIBLE means to remove the state, then, is to kill lots and lots and LOTS of Israelis. And that's going to mean lots and lots and LOTS of dead Iranians and/or arabs too, because the Israelis can and will fight back. In the wake of such a conflict, if the state of Israel loses, how can anyone think that genocide and/or ethnic cleansing would not be the actual result? How on earth can you actually sit there and try to excuse Ahmadinejad? In short, how much of a tool are you, exactly?

[Nyarlathotep]

Are you saying that if Iran put in place a Shah of America, then there would be no American insurgents/freedom fighters?

I think there would be plenty!

Sure, up until the point they killed them all and their families too. Such draconian measures tend to put down rebellions very quickly. So if I joined them, I would still not going to feel much of anything as a patriotic American because I would be dead.

[Nyarlathotep]

Ahmadinejad wants regime change in Israel. Not genocide.


Calling for a country to be "wiped off the map" sounds a lot more like a call for genocide than regime change to me.

[rocketdodger]

so answer it! In that situation would you want your leader to develop MoSW?


I already answered you ... in the case that our country was capable of doing it alone, hell yes I would want them to. But this is NOT THE CASE. My ethical beliefs prevent me from demanding assistance, which is in effect exactly what Iran is doing.


lol....your true colours are a'showing :D Countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey are full of half-wits are they? dumb muslims yeah? Not like us clever christians in the west.....

First of all, I challenge you to show me any advancement made by those countries that has nothing to do with the western SECULAR economy. I am not singling out Iran. No muslim nation on this planet would be anywhere without the assistance of the west. It just so happens that (for good reasons) Iran has been "denied the loan" that alot of other nations got.

Second, I challenge you to show me a CHRISTIAN nation that is any better off than the muslim nations. You cannot. That is because all the countries where christianity is the primary religion are just that -- countries where christianity is the primary religion -- not countries where christian law is forced upon the citizens.

Yes muslims are dumb. But so are christians. What makes you think that any of the progress the west has made has anything to do with christianity? It does not. All our progress is contingent upon the fact that we were able to put religion where it belongs -- in the personal lives of those that choose to follow a religion -- and remove it from where it does not belong -- in the lives of everyone else.

Andy have you read Atlas Shrugged?

[pipelineaudio]

BPSCG,
Ahmadinejad wants regime change in Israel. Not genocide.


Holey roley poley moley!

[FireGarden]

Ziggurat,
What does Ahdmadinajad intend? Well, look at the examples he lists of other regime changes:

The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left.

Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map [note: author quoting the translation he is criticising] and this was a very wise statement.

So that's the kind of regime change he wants. You don't think it's possible? He makes exactly that point. It doesn't seem possible that the regime will fall. But he says it must (with the implication that it is inevitable).

He does not call for genocide.

LOTS of Israelis are willing to fight and die to preserve their state. They have proven so again and again. The only POSSIBLE means to remove the state, then, is to kill lots and lots and LOTS of Israelis. And that's going to mean lots and lots and LOTS of dead Iranians and/or arabs too, because the Israelis can and will fight back. In the wake of such a conflict, if the state of Israel loses, how can anyone think that genocide and/or ethnic cleansing would not be the actual result?

You think that's the only way to acheive regime change. Yet Iraqis have proved they are willing to fight and die to preserve their state. The Soviets proved the same.

Did regime change in those cases lead to genocide and/or ethnic cleansing? Those are the examples he lists.




Calling for a country to be "wiped off the map" sounds a lot more like a call for genocide than regime change to me.
That's the whole point of the article I linked to. Read it. He has been mistranslated. And the point of the mistranslation is to make you think what you're thinking.

[rocketdodger]

Are you saying that the US can ask for (and fight for) regime change in foreign countries, but Iran cannot?

Yes, we can, and I will tell you why.

I do not know of a single instance in history where a nation has willingly gone from being a genuine free republic/democracy to anything else. However, history is full of instances of nations willingly going from everything else to genuine free republics/democracies.

What does this tell you? It tells me that, although our morals may be as subjective as everyone elses, most people prefer living in a free country.

I would not claim that we support such regime changes out of the goodness of our heart. But I would claim that even if we support such changes out of profit (a very ferengi approach), they at least have the side effect of helping the citizens of these countries get closer to freedom. Or at least they should, the U.S. has made some pretty lame decisions regarding regime changes....

[SuperCoolGuy]

What paranoid delusions.
Why don't you stop blathering like a mad man and tell me how listing the prophets Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph and Jesus Christ -- And then leaving out Mohammed! -- is an invitation to Islam.

If a Muslim says "Merry Christmas" to you in mid-winter.... Is that an invitation to Islam too?

Being a former Muslim, I can tell you, Muslims don't consider Christianity and Judaism true monotheistic religions. When we say "Be monotheistic", it means be Muslim.

Christianity --> Jesus, son of God. No dice.
Judaism --> God in the OT taking human form to argue with Abraham or wrestling Jacob. No dice.

Muslims consider Christians and Jews (and Saebians) as better than Hindus or various pagan religions because of the proximity to Islam.

But Muslims view Islam as the true monotheistic religion. No statues, no pictures, no human forms.

To get a Christian who already believes in "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph and Jesus Christ" to convert to Islam, you have to make them REAL monotheists like Muslims, i.e. reject Jesus' divinity.

Muslims have a very real and specific concept of monotheism. And they consider Christians not to really be monotheists (except for maybe Thomas Jefferson and the like).

Bottomline, it doesn't matter what I (American) or you think. That letter was to the Muslim world, saying "I'm a Muslim leader. I'm the good guy. Look how nice I am. You guys in the West should recognize that liberalism has failed and you need to turn to Allah, er God, to make things good. Start being real monotheists (convert to Islam). Look how great I am for pointing this out."

[FireGarden]

Sure, up until the point they killed them all and their families too. Such draconian measures tend to put down rebellions very quickly. So if I joined them, I would still not going to feel much of anything as a patriotic American because I would be dead.
Does this really illustrate your mindset?

Are you so convinced that no rebellion could succeed? That the dominant power must always remain dominant? Why bother joining the rebellion, then?

Perhaps you should go watch Star Wars! Gain some optimism!

[Ziggurat]

Are you saying that if Iran put in place a Shah of America, then there would be no American insurgents/freedom fighters?

I assume that you're trying to create a parallel to a historic situation you believe occured in Iran. However, your understanding of the history of Iran is simply wrong. The position of the Shah as ruler of Iran stretches back a very long time. In 1925, Reza Khan staged a coup whereby he claimed this title. He was aided by the British, not the Americans, but he also subsequently thwarted British attempts to control him.

His successor was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. The incident you are most likely refering to was in 1953. There was an ongoing power struggle between the Shah and Mossadegh, who had been appointed Prime Minister. The Shah had the constitutional authority to dismiss the Prime Minister, but Mossadegh refused. There were some limited violent conflicts that resulted in the Shah leaving the country for a short time and Mossadegh's eventual surrender and arrest. The CIA aided the Shah during this conflict, but the Shah was ALREADY the Shah. We did not make him the Shah.

[FireGarden]

Being a former Muslim, I can tell you, Muslims don't consider Christianity and Judaism true monotheistic religions. When we say "Be monotheistic", it means be Muslim.
I'm from a Muslim family myself. And, being an atheist, I have first hand knowledge of what an invitation to Islam looks like. (Tends to involve gifts of the Quran and many pamphlets! :)).

To get a Christian who already believes in "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph and Jesus Christ" to convert to Islam, you have to make them REAL monotheists like Muslims, i.e. reject Jesus' divinity.

Where did Ahmadinejad try to encourage Bush to reject the divinity of Jesus?

That letter was to the Muslim world, saying ...

If it had a subtext (or two), then the main one would be telling Americans that their President's acts aren't as Christian as his words.

[rocketdodger]

I also have a rhetorical question that may get people thinking:

IF the entire world converted to Islam, do you honestly think that would placate Iran?


See, this whole issue actually has nothing to do with Islam. Right now, Islam is the best front to use, nothing more. The real issue is greed and power.

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat,
What does Ahdmadinajad intend? Well, look at the examples he lists of other regime changes:
...
"the occupying regime must be wiped off the map"

Perhaps you're not familiar with Islamist rhetoric, but the "occupying regime" means the STATE of Israel, no a particular government. It has always meant the state of Israel, and has been used continually despite many changes in that government. Israel is also frequently referred to as the Zionist entity. But that always means Israel, never simply the government of Israel. This is a rhetorical tool, a conscious decision not to use the term Israel in order to demonstrate the belief that the state of Israel is inherently illegitimate in a way that no other state in the world is. The only possible reason to claim this means anything other than the removal of the STATE of Israel, and not simply a change in the government at the top (which gets changed on a fairly rapid basis on it own) is ignorance or a deliberate intent to deceive. I accept the latter from you, though I suspect the former from the writers of that article.

He does not call for genocide.

Not in so many words, no. He's just calling for a result that can only be achieved through genocide. Totally different thing, right?

You think that's the only way to acheive regime change.

In a democracy? Yes.

Yet Iraqis have proved they are willing to fight and die to preserve their state.

There's a fundamental difference between a democratic government and a dictatorship. If the dictatorship is toppled by force, the state can survive. A democratic government, however, cannot be toppled by force without destroying the state. Israel is the latter, Iraq and Iran are the former.

During our invasion, the majority of Iraqi army units simply dissolved without fighting. As for the current guerilla fighters, there's no basis on which to claim that they're fighting to preserve their state. Some of them are explicitly trying to rip the state apart. Some are fighting to try to revert to a previous government (Saddam's), but since that government is already dead, that's not fighting for preservation. And some are fighting in the hopes of creating an Islamist state, but that too isn't preserving anything. The only Iraqis fighting to PRESERVE a state are the current government forces fighting the guerillas. So you're partly right: there are a lot of Iraqis who will fight to preserve their state. But there weren't very many who fought to preserve Saddam.

That's the whole point of the article I linked to. Read it. He has been mistranslated. And the point of the mistranslation is to make you think what you're thinking.

I get that's what the article is trying to convey, but it's essentially wrong. The translation provided (wiped off the map) is indeed not literal. But it is in essence correct: they want the state of Israel to cease to exist. That call has been clear and consistent from leaders of Iran going back to when Khomeini first took power. It's not even anything new. That has ALWAYS been their position.

[FireGarden]

I do not know of a single instance in history where a nation has willingly gone from being a genuine free republic/democracy to anything else.
You can't think of any dictators that were voted into power? Since I fear Godwin's Law, I will leave it at that...



Ziggurat,
I didn't know that about the Shah. Wiki mentions the "coup controversy" on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran

Where it says the Shah went to Italy for a while.

This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax says:
Operation Ajax was the first time the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in a plot to overthrow a democratically elected government. The success of this operation, and its relatively low cost, encouraged the CIA to successfully carry out a similar operation in Guatemala a year later.

Which leaves the first wiki page claiming it was the democratically elected government that staged the real coup, because it refused to be changed by the monarch!

Anyway,
The hypothetical situation still stands. Change it to Iran supporting Queen Liz choosing her favorite government over good old Tony, with Tony refusing to step down!

[pipelineaudio]

I'm from a Muslim family myself. .

color me surprised

[Ziggurat]

You can't think of any dictators that were voted into power? Since I fear Godwin's Law, I will leave it at that...

If you're thinking of Hitler, he wasn't. He was appointed, not elected, to his chancellorship.

Which leaves the first wiki page claiming it was the democratically elected government that staged the real coup, because it refused to be changed by the monarch!

Well, yes. That's what happens when you try to exercise power beyond your constitutional authority: you're no longer acting with the power that your elected office grants you, and you therefore no longer have any claim to democratic legitimacy. If the vice president offs the president and seizes power, he can't exactly claim legitimacy because he was voted into office.

The hypothetical situation still stands. Change it to Iran supporting Queen Liz choosing her favorite government over good old Tony, with Tony refusing to step down!

What do you mean, the hypothetical still stands? You had to rewrite it from the ground up, and its implications are now totally and completely different! That's not still standing, that's getting demolished completely and replaced with something wholely new.

[FireGarden]

Perhaps you're not familiar with Islamist rhetoric, but the "occupying regime" means the STATE of Israel, no a particular government. It has always meant the state of Israel, and has been used continually despite many changes in that government.
Has there been a fundamental change in the regime?

If the dictatorship is toppled by force, the state can survive. A democratic government, however, cannot be toppled by force without destroying the state. Israel is the latter, Iraq and Iran are the former.
I don't agree.
Even if I did agree, that doesn't seem to be Ahdmadinajad's view. He listed the examples he listed. He must have thought they applied.

The only Iraqis fighting to PRESERVE a state are the current government forces fighting the guerillas. So you're partly right: there are a lot of Iraqis who will fight to preserve their state.

Amazing how you can see the motives of people you've never met. You don't think that some of those fighting against American forces could be fighting to have an Iraq which is independent of America and its (as they see it) puppets in the Iraqi government?

The translation provided (wiped off the map) is indeed not literal. But it is in essence correct: they want the state of Israel to cease to exist.
So it's not a translation, it's an interpretation. A very biased and loaded interpretation. One that conveys the views of the interpreter as much as it does the original text.

It's not even anything new. That has ALWAYS been their position.

On that we can agree, because Ahmadinajad is paraphrasing Khomeini's views. As well as updating the examples Khomeini himself gave.

The regime change is not intended to be genocidal. You may you believe the regime change can only be achieved through genocide. Ahmadenajad's views are clear. He gave examples of what he wanted.

[FireGarden]

If you're thinking of Hitler, he wasn't. He was appointed, not elected, to his chancellorship.

Still within the rule of law, though, wasn't it?
Or are you claiming it was a coup?

[rocketdodger]

You can't think of any dictators that were voted into power? Since I fear Godwin's Law, I will leave it at that...



There has never been a dictator voted into power by a free democratic nation that explicitly put forth their entire agenda before the election, so your statement has no bearing on my argument at all.

My point was that there has never been a free society that willingly decided to revert to a non-free society.

[Ziggurat]

Still within the rule of law, though, wasn't it?
Or are you claiming it was a coup?

The appointment was. A number of critical subsequent actions and events quite definitely were not. My point being, the people DIDN'T really choose him. It was, in effect, and accident of history which he exploited.

[Ziggurat]

Has there been a fundamental change in the regime?

Depends what you mean by that. Have government policies varied dramatically? Yes, so maybe it has had fundamental change. Is the government still essentially representing the interests and wishes of its citizens? No, that's been pretty consistent. I guess if you think Iran is calling for change to a regime where that's no longer the case, then you can cobble together an argument. Not much of one, though.

Even if I did agree, that doesn't seem to be Ahdmadinajad's view. He listed the examples he listed. He must have thought they applied.

Really? I don't see why. I don't see why he couldn't be just using examples for purely rhetorical reasons, in the hopes that you will compare inequivalent situations based on purely superficial similarities.

Amazing how you can see the motives of people you've never met. You don't think that some of those fighting against American forces could be fighting to have an Iraq which is independent of America and its (as they see it) puppets in the Iraqi government?

But they don't have that right now, so even if you ascribe that motive to them, they aren't fighting to PRESERVE it, are they?

So it's not a translation, it's an interpretation. A very biased and loaded interpretation. One that conveys the views of the interpreter as much as it does the original text.

Just as your source does. Which is closer to the truth? I'm afraid the original translation is. Map or no map, Iran has stated consistently that it wants the entire state of Israel to cease to exist. Make of that what you will.

The regime change is not intended to be genocidal.

I don't care if it's not INTENDED to be genocidal. It would be. And that's enough to make that fruitcake an exceedingly dangerous person to have holding a nuclear weapon. If he ends up starting a nuclear conflagration, it's not much consolation if he can say after the fact, even if it's honest, that he didn't really intend to get millions of people killed. He's still increasing the risk of exactly that happening.

[FireGarden]

My point was that there has never been a free society that willingly decided to revert to a non-free society.
So, if they were led there without being told that's were they're going, then it doesn't count. Even though they were willing travellers on the journey.

Nobody read the signs. Nobody realised they were sinking into dictatorship?

Ziggurat,
On Hitler... What kind of uproar greeted Hitler's appointment? The argument seems to be that Hitler was unpopular in Germany before and during the war. Didn't seem that way at his rallies.

Really? I don't see why. I don't see why he couldn't be just using examples for purely rhetorical reasons, in the hopes that you will compare inequivalent situations based on purely superficial similarities.

I was hoping we were agreed on why he used the examples he used -- Khomeini chose them for him, years ago. He thinks they apply. Because he's not comparing the two regimes because of their style of government. He's comparing them because both of them seem/seemed eternal and unbeatable.

The main crux of his argument is "Don't imagine that things must stay the way they are. Nobody believed the Soviet Empire would crumble, but we saw it happen to such an extent that if you want to see that empire, you have to go to the library."

But they don't have that right now, so even if you ascribe that motive to them, they aren't fighting to PRESERVE it, are they?

So it would be inappropriate to use them as examples of people fighting for freedom? The difficulties of regime change aren't limited to people defending what was. You have to worry about them fighting against the alternative to be pushed upon them.

Just as your source does.

Most certainly not "just as my source does"!
My source compares and contrasts three different "translations". (and links to them)

Including the MEMRI translation, which is so biased it even leaves out details in its "translation" such as references the Shah's security services and America's support of Saddam -- infomation that readers of the free press shouldn't be burdened with, no doubt!

To compare my source to yours is unjust.

And you even admit that your source doesn't provide a literal translation! So I assume you call it "original" in the sense that you might refer to an original novel -- innovative work of fiction.

I don't care if it's not INTENDED to be genocidal.

I've already described Ahmadenajad and Bush as bellicose. I do not describe either as genocidal.

Many people warned that the chaos that exists in Iraq today would be the inevitable result of an invasion. I agreed with them.

I hold Bush and Blair responsible for the consequences of their actions. Even the consequences they did not wish or forsee. Even the consequences they tried their best to avoid.

I do not claim that they intended this chaos and mass murder that has been the result of their actions. Neither did I accuse them of such intentions before the war.

I don't think I've expressed the difference clearly, so please try a little harder to understand what I'm saying.

[Ziggurat]

So it would be inappropriate to use them as examples of people fighting for freedom?

That's a completely different argument, and that's not what we were talking about.

But no, there is no logical sense in which you can claim that the insurgents in Iraq are fighting for freedom. They are not. Freedom, in the context of political power (which is what this is really about), means either having individual rights under the law (constrained power of government) or to having democratic recourse to determine what the laws should be (power in the hands of citizens). The terrorists and insurgents are not fighting for either of these things, but are fighting against them, and have made no secret about that. When the majority of Iraqis vote in an election for a government and a constitution, those who fight to overturn both cannot be called freedom fighters.

Many people warned that the chaos that exists in Iraq today would be the inevitable result of an invasion. I agreed with them.

Sure. Just as many people warned that the situation in Iraq under Saddam was already incredibly bad and violent. Any impression to the contrary was a result of a deliberate censoring of the news which the press corps cooperated with in order to maintain access. Things were bad to begin with, but now they have a chance (for the first time in decades) to get better instead of worse. If war breaks out with Israel on a scale which could destroy the state of Israel (which, once again, is the only way the state of Israel is going to cease to exist), there is no "better" to get to. It will ONLY get worse, and it won't stop getting worse until millions of people are dead. The two situations aren't even remotely similar.

[FireGarden]

The two situations aren't even remotely similar.

You miss the point.
The reason I compare the two is because I do not denounce Bush (much as I hate him) by saying he intended what he has achieved. The same applies to before the war.

You are denouncing Ahmadenajad as genocidal on the grounds that his actions may lead there. I don't want a semantic argument.

I'm trying to move away from that and tell you why I don't call Ahmadenajad genocidal. I don't think he's planning it. I don't think he wants it. If things start going that way, I reckon he'll try to avoid it. It's not just Israeli nukes he'd have to worry about, is it?

Can you see the distinction?
The intentional "error" of translation aims to make people think Ahmadenajad is planning to kill millions and start WW3.

Whereas what he actually said is that Israel is not eternal, it can be changed.

[andyandy]

As to the first point; I'll just call you a wimp who has no principles if they cause conflict with anyone elses.

i have principles like anyone else - some i would happily die for.....so don't demean yourself with cheap insults that would embarass a pre-schooler...:D




As to the second, I note that you haven't addressed any of my earlier attempts to address your thoughts more specifically. In your latest ramblings I note the following "As a (i presume) patriotic American would you be happy with this situation? To have your international relations dictated by a foreign state?"

I'd like to remind you that most of the world has come to the conclusion that preventing nuclear proliferation is a good idea, and Iran is one of those who agreed to that in the past. They are currently violating that agreement while simulatneously acting like any gutter regime and, I would add, preaching that the second coming is soon upon us. Has it ever occured to you that they might like to help it along?

you're still refusing to answer the question....it's not too hard - just a yes or no is required.....:)

of course preventing nuclear proliferation is a good idea....when did i argue that it wasn't? I was highlighting the double standards that the west practises when dealing with the issue. The US, UK etc. have singularly failed to uphold their part of the Nuclear NPT....which seriously undermines their moral authority on the issue. The US is in violation of the NPT.....does that mean sanctions should be imposed on it?
I agree whole heartedly that the world would be a safer place without Iran having the bomb....that's not in doubt. But if you'd tax yourself to answer the thought experiment you might see that things are never quite as black and white as we'd like....

[Ziggurat]

You are denouncing Ahmadenajad as genocidal on the grounds that his actions may lead there. I don't want a semantic argument.

Let me be clear: I am not denouncing Ahmadinejad because his actions may lead there, I'm denouncing him because if he gets his way, they WILL lead there. That difference is more than just semantics. I don't ultimately care if you want to use a particular label or not, as long as you can see clearly the essential truth: he is a source of extreme danger to the world.

[Ziggurat]

The US, UK etc. have singularly failed to uphold their part of the Nuclear NPT....which seriously undermines their moral authority on the issue. The US is in violation of the NPT.....does that mean sanctions should be imposed on it?

Actually, no, the US isn't in violation. The NPT calls for eventual disarmament, but there are no procedures or statutes within it which place any timetable requirement on this eventual disarmament. There are accusations that we are not following the spirit of the treaty, and that's arguably true (but I don't think that part of the treaty was ever realistic to begin with), but we are not, in fact, in violation of the actual treaty contents. Iran is.

[andyandy]

I already answered you ... in the case that our country was capable of doing it alone, hell yes I would want them to. But this is NOT THE CASE. My ethical beliefs prevent me from demanding assistance, which is in effect exactly what Iran is doing.

well....at least you're brave enough to answer it :D I think a majority of people would support their leaders in trying to gain MoSW....that's why villification of Iran and Iranians for trying to get the bomb is seen as hypocritical within Iran. I agree from my perspective, or from the west's...the world is a much safer place without any more nuclear proliferation - and so we should try to stop it happening - but we should at least acknowledge this hypocracy :)
I wouldn't agree that Iran is demanding assistance from the west - certainly not to build the bomb....do you mean in the wider economic sense? It's not as far as i'm aware....You'd have to expand that point if you want me to accept it :)



First of all, I challenge you to show me any advancement made by those countries that has nothing to do with the western SECULAR economy. I am not singling out Iran. No muslim nation on this planet would be anywhere without the assistance of the west. It just so happens that (for good reasons) Iran has been "denied the loan" that alot of other nations got.

well....you've constructed something of a straw man by claiming capitalism for secularism and for the west.....The oldest civilisation we know is of the middle-eastern sumerians - who were religious, and who showed the first examples of capitalist economy.....:D

Second, I challenge you to show me a CHRISTIAN nation that is any better off than the muslim nations. You cannot. That is because all the countries where christianity is the primary religion are just that -- countries where christianity is the primary religion -- not countries where christian law is forced upon the citizens.

Christian countries don't force christian laws upon their citizens? lol. Abortion? Gay rights? There are plenty of christian countries who force christian values on their populace....
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gustamala, Honduras, Mexico, Nigaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Portugal...plus a whole host of african countries....
and you can't be claiming that there is seperation of church and state in the US.....:D


Andy have you read Atlas Shrugged?

No...but if you tell me more about it i might :)

[andyandy]

Yes, we can, and I will tell you why.

I do not know of a single instance in history where a nation has willingly gone from being a genuine free republic/democracy to anything else. However, history is full of instances of nations willingly going from everything else to genuine free republics/democracies.

What does this tell you? It tells me that, although our morals may be as subjective as everyone elses, most people prefer living in a free country.


lol :D are you serious? Ever heard of the Weimar republic?

[andyandy]

If you're thinking of Hitler, he wasn't. He was appointed, not elected, to his chancellorship.


He gained 30% of the popular vote....second only to Hindenburg - and upon the death of Hindenburg he was the consensus successor - Hitler rose to power within the democratic process - not without it.

[andyandy]

Actually, no, the US isn't in violation. The NPT calls for eventual disarmament, but there are no procedures or statutes within it which place any timetable requirement on this eventual disarmament. There are accusations that we are not following the spirit of the treaty, and that's arguably true (but I don't think that part of the treaty was ever realistic to begin with), but we are not, in fact, in violation of the actual treaty contents. Iran is.


The NPT’s calls on nuclear weapons states “to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.” Article VI of the NPT explicitly obliges signatories “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

38 years after agreeing to these conditions, the U.S still spends $40 billion a year to field, maintain and modernize nuclear forces, including an arsenal of 10,000 warheads.

You believe that the US has upheld its part of the NPT bargain? :D

[Ziggurat]

You believe that the US has upheld its part of the NPT bargain? :D

I said we haven't violated the NPT - I'm not sure what exactly you mean by upholding the NPT bargain, but I doubt that definition is legally enforceable.

If you actually pay close attention, you'll note that the section you quote is essentially unenforceable. There is no objective criterion by which to establish whether or not an effort is good faith, there are no requirements that efforts actually produce results, and there are no consequences for a failure to make said effort. Iran's obligations are not so loose: it faces specific and objective requirements (that it has violated), and it faces specific consequences for those violations (such as sanctions). That may be unfair, but that's the way the treaty is written.

[rocketdodger]

I wouldn't agree that Iran is demanding assistance from the west - . . .


I mean that they contend they should be able to pursue a nuclear program without facing sanctions. Any sanctions would of course be economic sanctions, so in effect they are demanding that we let them pursue a nuclear program AND help them by trading with them.

I don't specifically mean assistance in building a nuclear program, although I think that is also implied. Does Iran have the capability to manufacture every single component needed for a nuclear program on their own? I highly doubt it.

Think of it this way -- if all trade with Iran was completely cut off (which would never happen because of smuggling, etc), do you think they would get very far?



well....you've constructed something of a straw man by claiming capitalism for secularism and for the west.....The oldest civilisation we know is of the middle-eastern sumerians - who were religious, and who showed the first examples of capitalist economy.....:D

Yeah but that has nothing to do with here and now. I don't think you can argue this with me because almost by definition religions are anti-progress. It is almost a tenant in every religion that man trying to advance himself is against the will of "god." To the extent that any religious society progresses, it is never in line with the official doctrine of the religion.



Christian countries don't force christian laws upon their citizens? lol. Abortion? Gay rights? There are plenty of christian countries who force christian values on their populace....
Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gustamala, Honduras, Mexico, Nigaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Portugal...plus a whole host of african countries....
and you can't be claiming that there is seperation of church and state in the US.....:D

First of all, all those countries you listed are nobodies. What they contribute to the "western economy," if anything, is a direct result of investment by the real economic powerhouses -- who are all pretty much secular. I am not talking about country versus country here, I am talking about economy versus economy.

Second, don't try to use the problems in the U.S. as counter-examples in my arguments, because I have beaten you to the punch. I know that the christian morons in this country are a problem and are trying their hardest to drag us into barbarism once again. BUT, we are still ALOT more secular than the muslim nations, and the extent of our economic progress is a direct result.
[/QUOTE]



No...but if you tell me more about it i might :)

I don't know what else to tell you besides the fact that it (and Rand's other work, the Fountainhead) are must reads. They should change the way you see the world.

[Ralph]

*sigh*
are you just going to talk around in circles? - it's an invented scenario... it doesnt have to be something that will actually happen....and there are no caveats of "well....if my country was really **** then i'd have no national pride anyway so i'd not really be bothered...." - in the example, the US exists as the US....there are no ifs or buts....it's a
thought experiment




To answer your question Andyandy...If I lived in a country who's affairs were dictated by another country because they had the MOSW system and we didn't...then yes---If my own country could acquire an "equalizer" I would want it.

Perhaps now you could explain how the US is dictating how Iran runs its country........other than "we don't want you killing the Jews" or "we would like it if you stopped supporting murdering terrorist organizations" of course.

You also never answered my other question.

[Ralph]

[QUOTE=andyandy;1646580




and you can't be claiming that there is seperation of church and state in the US.....:D




Are you suggesting that there's little difference between the US and Iran as regards separation of church & state?

[andyandy]

I said we haven't violated the NPT - I'm not sure what exactly you mean by upholding the NPT bargain, but I doubt that definition is legally enforceable.

If you actually pay close attention, you'll note that the section you quote is essentially unenforceable. There is no objective criterion by which to establish whether or not an effort is good faith, there are no requirements that efforts actually produce results, and there are no consequences for a failure to make said effort. Iran's obligations are not so loose: it faces specific and objective requirements (that it has violated), and it faces specific consequences for those violations (such as sanctions). That may be unfair, but that's the way the treaty is written.

i agree the treaty is very one-sided - and as you have pointed out almost un-enforceable in law on the criteria established for the nuclear powers....."good faith" is about as non-specific a phase as you could find - so i don't think the US has to worry about santions any time soon :)
The US, USSR, UK etc. have failed to uphold their side of the bargain (so far at least) - by failing to make significant steps to disarm - and indeed continuing research and development of new nuclear weapons....and this failure undermines the west's moral authority on the issue...
if i'd signed a treaty with Mr X where we both made reciprical agreements and then if 40 years later Mr X still hadnt fulfilled his side of the bargain - indeed hadn't even made any real effort to ....then i might question whether i should still honour my side of the bargain :)


i would like nothing better than for Iran to not develop nuclear weapons - but i really can't see any way in which they won't....or how nuclear proliferation can be stopped in the long run...once technology is out there it always spreads :(

[andyandy]

[QUOTE=andyandy;1646580




and you can't be claiming that there is seperation of church and state in the US.....:D




Are you suggesting that there's little difference between the US and Iran as regards separation of church & state?

er....no! :D

of course not....i was posting in reply to an assertion that countries which are christian do not force any of those christian values upon their populace....

[Ziggurat]

i would like nothing better than for Iran to not develop nuclear weapons - but i really can't see any way in which they won't....

You should be able to see a way rather clearly which could prevent them from developing nuclear weapons: war. Now, it's a DIFFERENT question whether there's a way to stop them at a cost we're willing to pay, and it's not clear exactly how high that price would be, but we certainly can stop them if we want to badly enough.

or how nuclear proliferation can be stopped in the long run...once technology is out there it always spreads :(

In the long run? Democratization. There are a number of countries with developed nuclear industries but no nuclear weapons (Japan and Germany come to mind). For democracies, having the capability to make nuclear weapons doesn't automatically create incentive to actually do so - having an alliance with a nuclear power is as much as most of them need. But there isn't a single dictatorship that doesn't have a strong incentive to acquire nuclear weapons if it ever gets a nuclear industry. In the current post-cold-war environment, democratization is our only long-term hope. But the NPT has nothing to say on that issue.

[andyandy]

To answer your question Andyandy...If I lived in a country who's affairs were dictated by another country because they had the MOSW system and we didn't...then yes---If my own country could acquire an "equalizer" I would want it.

Perhaps now you could explain how the US is dictating how Iran runs its country........other than "we don't want you killing the Jews" or "we would like it if you stopped supporting murdering terrorist organizations" of course.

You also never answered my other question.

I think you've hit the nail on the head....if inadvertantly....

Nuclear weapons are seen as an "equaliser." Nuclear diplomacy has been the lynch-pin of post war international relations - illustrated by the cemention of the nuclear armed states as the permanent members of the UN security council....To gain nuclear weapons is to gain access to this elite group....
Iran is a country with few allies, surrounded by some very hostile nuclear armed enemies....
it's not hard to see the attraction of nuclear weapons as a deterrent from attack
Iraq was attacked precisely because it did not have the capabilities to launch a nuclear strike, north korea is free from any meaningful aggression precisely because it does.....

[andyandy]

You also never answered my other question.

what was ur other question? i've been fielding arguments from so many flanks i can't remember... :D

[Ralph]

what was ur other question? i've been fielding arguments from so many flanks i can't remember... :D

How would Iran behave if THEY had the boomers,the ICBMs,the Raptors, and the carriers and the US had some Scuds & some "stealth hovercraft"?

[andyandy]

You should be able to see a way rather clearly which could prevent them from developing nuclear weapons: war. Now, it's a DIFFERENT question whether there's a way to stop them at a cost we're willing to pay, and it's not clear exactly how high that price would be, but we certainly can stop them if we want to badly enough.



In the long run? Democratization. There are a number of countries with developed nuclear industries but no nuclear weapons (Japan and Germany come to mind). For democracies, having the capability to make nuclear weapons doesn't automatically create incentive to actually do so - having an alliance with a nuclear power is as much as most of them need. But there isn't a single dictatorship that doesn't have a strong incentive to acquire nuclear weapons if it ever gets a nuclear industry. In the current post-cold-war environment, democratization is our only long-term hope. But the NPT has nothing to say on that issue.

yeah i agree....

it is technically possible to stop Iran - but the price would be huge......i can't see how it would be feasible to carry out....it'd probably require nuclear weapons....you'd be talking about all out war....and that would drag most of the middle east into it.....

i agree democratization offers the best hope of nuclear control - but there are too many dictators out there to have much confidence that it can stem the tide anytime soon.....
the trouble with human achievements is that they diminish so quickly with time.....

Edmund Hillary became the first guy to climb everest after 3 decades of failed attempts from some of the world's greatest mountaineers....now 50 years later old grannies stroll up there before lunch time, descend and then nip back up because they left their waterproof at the summit.....

as time progresses, nuclear technology becomes more and more accessible to more and more nations....the 21st century is likely to be one where the (relative) stability of a limited nuclear elite gives way to a much more unstable multi-polar nuclear world.....

[Ralph]

I think you've hit the nail on the head....if inadvertantly....

Nuclear weapons are seen as an "equaliser." Nuclear diplomacy has been the lynch-pin of post war international relations - illustrated by the cemention of the nuclear armed states as the permanent members of the UN security council....To gain nuclear weapons is to gain access to this elite group....
Iran is a country with few allies, surrounded by some very hostile nuclear armed enemies....
it's not hard to see the attraction of nuclear weapons as a deterrent from attack
Iraq was attacked precisely because it did not have the capabilities to launch a nuclear strike, north korea is free from any meaningful aggression precisely because it does.....

Even a nutcase like Kim-Il-Jong isn't running around threatening to attack other countrys with a nuke.

The same can't be said for Iran.

I really don't care about "understanding" their motives. I don't care about US "hypocrisy" as in "we have nukes and you can't".

I do care about what I feel could become a larger death toll than WW2 if the Iranians are allowed to develop a workable nuke.

I DO agree with Ziggurat in that they CAN be stopped. It's just a matter of having the will to do so.

[Skeptic]

Ahmadinejad wants regime change in Israel. Not genocide.

His demands for "regime change" vary from (a) forcing all the jews in "occupied Palestine" (i.e., all of israel) to leave the place for Alaska or elsewhere, as he suggested a couple of weeks back, to (b) claiming he will soon bomb israel with nuclear weapons and kill all the jews there, as he said a few months ago and continually since.

I dunno... sounds like a bit more than "regime change" to me, unless by "regime change" you mean the destruction of israel and the expulsion and/or killing of all jews there. This, of course, is his explicit, and often-stated goal, which he repeatedly says in just these words.

[andyandy]

How would Iran behave if THEY had the boomers,the ICBMs,the Raptors, and the carriers and the US had some Scuds & some "stealth hovercraft"?

well....the simple answer is i don't know :D I'd much rather that the US was the global superpower than Iran - there's no question about it....
it depends if you believe that the Iranian president's rhetoric is empty bluster or meaningful policy....
i would hope the former, but would acknowledge the possibility of the latter.....

I've never been arguing that i would like for Iran to have the bomb -
merely that you can understand why they want one....

[andyandy]

Even a nutcase like Kim-Il-Jong isn't running around threatening to attack other countrys with a nuke.

The same can't be said for Iran.

I really don't care about "understanding" their motives. I don't care about US "hypocrisy" as in "we have nukes and you can't".

I do care about what I feel could become a larger death toll than WW2 if the Iranians are allowed to develop a workable nuke.

I DO agree with Ziggurat in that they CAN be stopped. It's just a matter of having the will to do so.

ok....this thread is veering wildly off topic but never mind :D - how would you formulate a viable plan to prevent Iran developing a nuke? I've discussed this at length before, and i can't see any workable solutions short of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran - which would unleash the very genie we're all trying so hard to keep in the bottle....:)

[Nyarlathotep]

merely that you can understand why they want one....

I don't care to understand why they want one. It's irrelevant. I do understand that if they GET one, lots of people are dead. Goodbye Tel Aviv and if they can pull it off by giving the technology to their friends, goodbye New York. That, honestly, is all I need to understand regarding Iran and nukes.

[Elind]

Andy's point is not that Iran wouldn't abuse its position of power. Quite the reverse. He's asking, "How would you feel if Iran was the dominant power and was abusing that power?"

Do you think that is not understood? The counter point is that Andy has no principles of his own, except that everyones principles are equally valid. Typical New Age stuff. I read a comment today that reminded me of him. "...has a warped sense of social consciousness".

Elind and the others seem to be implying that the difference is: "America doesn't abuse its power. Or not as much as Iran would, anyway."


Sometimes perhaps, and yes. Which side do you choose?

[Ralph]

ok....this thread is veering wildly off topic but never mind :D - how would you formulate a viable plan to prevent Iran developing a nuke? I've discussed this at length before, and i can't see any workable solutions short of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran - which would unleash the very genie we're all trying so hard to keep in the bottle....:)

I'm not a military expert but I believe we have the ability to put a halt to their program (if we don't wait too long) using conventional weapons.

Manufacturing a bomb is a complicated and very large scale process. I don't think it's necessary to destroy the whole thing--just some key links in the chain.

[Elind]

I've never been arguing that i would like for Iran to have the bomb -
merely that you can understand why they want one....

Duhh! Even Hitler wanted one, and might have had it in another year or two. Just what is your point?:confused:

[Elind]

Iran is a country with few allies, surrounded by some very hostile nuclear armed enemies....

And yet you can have these discussions without questioning why that is, not to mention whose fault it is?

BTW, which are the hostile nuclear armed enemies again? Israel perhaps, but then again Israel has never called for the elimination of Iran. The US perhaps, but the US has never called for the elimination of Iran; although Iran has called many deaths to the US.

Russia? You must be kidding? The EU? Pakistan? India? China (don't make me laugh)?

[Elind]

i have principles like anyone else - some i would happily die for.....so don't demean yourself with cheap insults that would embarass a pre-schooler...:D
Smilies aside, I've come to wonder about your age myself. I tried polite and even kind. You thought it funny so I came back to reality. Your principles you may die for, but I doubt I share them, as vague as they are.


you're still refusing to answer the question....it's not too hard - just a yes or no is required.....:)
Age is catching up to me. What was that question?

The US is in violation of the NPT.....does that mean sanctions should be imposed on it?
You want to pretend to be a lawyer now? I don't think so. The P in NPT stands for Proliferation. The good guys in the UN wouldn't have called the US to task by now if you were right; along with everyone else in the club.

The US has reduced its stockpile by thousands, for good practical reasons. NPT does not stand for nuclear disarmament, however hard you wish for it.

That's a fact of life.

[Elind]

I wish we could get KK to join in here. Double the fun.:rolleyes:

[FireGarden]

Which side do you choose?
Frankly, neither!

I'd go for Europe, which had genuine intentions to solve the problems in Iraq without war. And Europe is already an economic power. It could happen.

I don't include Blair in that.
There's some controversy as to why Jack Straw was fired. He had said war with Iran was inconceivable. His replacement refused to use those words.

[andyandy]

Duhh! Even Hitler wanted one, and might have had it in another year or two. Just what is your point?:confused:

good old Godwin - he'll win you all kinds of arguments :)

my point is that the world doesnt so neatly fit into compartments for "good" and "evil" which you seem to to suggest with your posts. There is widespread support within Iran for the devlopment of the nuclerar program. It is valid to look at why that is. If the roles were reversed there would be a lot of Americans supporting a position to gain nuclear weapons....

[andyandy]

And yet you can have these discussions without questioning why that is, not to mention whose fault it is?

BTW, which are the hostile nuclear armed enemies again? Israel perhaps, but then again Israel has never called for the elimination of Iran. The US perhaps, but the US has never called for the elimination of Iran; although Iran has called many deaths to the US.

Russia? You must be kidding? The EU? Pakistan? India? China (don't make me laugh)?

how many hostile nuclear enemies do you want? Isn't two enough?

[andyandy]

You want to pretend to be a lawyer now? I don't think so. The P in NPT stands for Proliferation. The good guys in the UN wouldn't have called the US to task by now if you were right; along with everyone else in the club.

The US has reduced its stockpile by thousands, for good practical reasons. NPT does not stand for nuclear disarmament, however hard you wish for it.

That's a fact of life.

The US has reduced its stockpile by thousands, ......but the 10,000 it has left are fine to keep yeah?

A cornerstone of the NPT is nuclear disarmanment by the nuclear powers however hard you may with it isn't...

[rocketdodger]

Andy it occured to me that you may be asking the wrong question. I understand your desire to get us all to see why Iranians might desire nuclear weapons given the current state of the world. But I think you should also be asking the question "does it matter what they want?".

Furthermore, I think your little thought exercise can never be successful, and I will tell you why. You are trying to get us to think like Iranians, and that is valid goal. The problem is, we will never think like hardline Iranians because they are crazy. ALL of the problems Iran has right now were caused by their own messed up behavior, they are in no way a victim. There is simply no correlation.

[andyandy]

Andy it occured to me that you may be asking the wrong question. I understand your desire to get us all to see why Iranians might desire nuclear weapons given the current state of the world. But I think you should also be asking the question "does it matter what they want?".

The OP was concerned with the ability to look at things from a different perspective....
with regards to the question "does it matter what they want?" it is of course a crucially important question...but one out of the rather narrow remit of the OP....if you want an answer....well....it probably matters a lot to them....but ultimately if you subscribe to a utilitarian apporach to global politics - which seems to be the best fit we have - then no it doesn't matter. But that's not to say it's not a valid exercise to understand their position.



Furthermore, I think your little thought exercise can never be successful, and I will tell you why. You are trying to get us to think like Iranians, and that is valid goal. The problem is, we will never think like hardline Iranians because they are crazy. ALL of the problems Iran has right now were caused by their own messed up behavior, they are in no way a victim. There is simply no correlation.

My point was that it's not just "crazy hardliners" who support their countries nuclear development - if you follow through the MoSW example, then there would be plenty of "moderates" who would want their country to develop that weapon.

"crazy" is quite a loose term - are you implying that because the hardliners are 100% irrational that no rational mind could ever hope to understand even a fraction of their thought process? i think this is a little too black and white....

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does appear to be an exceptionally nasty man - (only today there are reports of moves to label christians and jews at his behest....)
and he may possess a deeply irrational mind - but that doesnt preclude us from attempting to see how that mind works.....to understand is not to justify - but to be better prepared. Your argument seems to be one for ignorance - which suggests that we should not try to learn anything about Ahmadinejad, my argument would be one for inteligence - and i'd suggest that the more we know, the better prepared we are.

[Elind]

Frankly, neither!

I'd go for Europe, which had genuine intentions to solve the problems in Iraq without war. And Europe is already an economic power. It could happen.


You know what they say about best or genuine intentions......

[Elind]

The US has reduced its stockpile by thousands, ......but the 10,000 it has left are fine to keep yeah?
Damn right.

A cornerstone of the NPT is nuclear disarmanment by the nuclear powers however hard you may wish it isn't...
I don't wish it isn't. What gave you that idea?

[Ziggurat]

The US has reduced its stockpile by thousands, ......but the 10,000 it has left are fine to keep yeah?

A cornerstone of the NPT is nuclear disarmanment by the nuclear powers however hard you may with it isn't...

Let me ask you a question: if the US were to eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile, would that increase or decrease the incentive for dictatorships to acquire nuclear weapons?

The answer: it would increase the incentive. If we did not have nuclear weapons, then acquiring nuclear weapons gives a dictator WAY more leverage against us, our allies, and even neutral countries than it does if we have a large stockpile, because power is largely relative. Dictators always want more power. And as we've already talked about, the threat of dictators acquiring nuclear weapons will always exist as long as there are dictators. It is a fantasy to think that it is safe for us, or even safer for the world in general, if we give up our nuclear stockpile. It is not. So if that ambiguous and unenforceable component to the NPT has to be put on hold indefinitely, so be it. I put actual world peace a few steps ahead of moral posturing.

[Almo]

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

I'd wouldn't say that Liberalism has failed. This Iraq stuff is not the result of Liberalism. Wester-style democracy may have failed temporarily, as I'd say the US Government is clearly disfunctional right now, and I don't see other western democracies taking us to task for it.

I'd say Mahmood makes some very good points in his letter in general. I'd also say that it does appear that people are turning to God. But this is not necessarily a good thing, as religions tend to lead to bigotry and hatred.

[Elind]

Let me ask you a question: if the US were to eliminate its entire nuclear stockpile, would that increase or decrease the incentive for dictatorships to acquire nuclear weapons?


You already answered this of course; but I'll add that the answer is obvious except to those with hypothetical principles.:boggled:

Seriously though; have you spent any time next door in the religion room? Andy reminds me so much of a political version of KK that I almost wonder if we shouldn't merge the sections.

After all; is there a difference between wishful thinking about a god, or a hypothetical vision about how humans "should" be as opposed to how they are?

[Elind]

how many hostile nuclear enemies do you want? Isn't two enough?

A truly idiot comment. You are digging your hole deeper. I retract whatever niceties I may have inadvertently made earlier. I think you are sad and don't really belong here, but that will play itself out in due course.

[Elind]

I'd wouldn't say that Liberalism has failed. This Iraq stuff is not the result of Liberalism. Wester-style democracy may have failed temporarily, as I'd say the US Government is clearly disfunctional right now, and I don't see other western democracies taking us to task for it.

I'd say Mahmood makes some very good points in his letter in general. I'd also say that it does appear that people are turning to God. But this is not necessarily a good thing, as religions tend to lead to bigotry and hatred.

Wow.:jaw-dropp

[Elind]

I find FireGarden and andyandy to be two representatives of a certain world view, that AV and Elind have touched on.

It's a denialist view, that, on being shown the face of monstrous evil, can't conceive that that evil could have come into being without some instigation on the part of the object(s) of its hatred. And as such, it can't conceive that such evil actually exists, despite having been shown time and again throughout history that it does.

This world view believes that if someone hates you with a really violent loathing, it must be because you have somehow caused him to hate you like that. After all, none of us individually have enemies who would love to kill us unless we have done something to richly deserve it; why should nation-states be any different?

And so we turn away from the evidence of evil. We make excuses for it, we explain away obvious threatening behavior, we put the most benign possible interpretation on ugly statements. We end up saying that "Herr Hitler is a man I can do business with," and we explain away the Soviet Union's subjugation of eastern Europe as an understandable need for a buffer from a dangerous - though conquered, destroyed, and prostrate - Germany, and we acknowledge the mullahs have legitimate grievances against the west as we rebuild a destroyed downtown Manhattan.

All this gives us comfort, because if we can persuade ourselves that these monsters in fact mean us no harm, we do not have to face the fact that there are indeed people who will kill us the moment they believe they can get away with it. And we do not have to think about the ugly and frightening prospect that we will someday have to fight them, to save our very lives.

Bump: I wish I could have said it as well.

[Rob Lister]

It was well said.

[Huntster]

Indeed.

[Elind]

Quick to the bat you be.

[Skeptic]

I'd wouldn't say that Liberalism has failed. This Iraq stuff is not the result of Liberalism. Wester-style democracy may have failed temporarily, as I'd say the US Government is clearly disfunctional right now, and I don't see other western democracies taking us to task for it.

I'd say Mahmood makes some very good points in his letter in general. I'd also say that it does appear that people are turning to God. But this is not necessarily a good thing, as religions tend to lead to bigotry and hatred.

Of course, this is precisely the reaction that Ahmanedijad wants to get: western intellectuals thinking that, because the guy in office is not to their liking, or is doing a crappy job, that western democracy as an institution had "failed" and that it might be a good idea to take advice on how to "improve" it from a genocidal holocaust-denying religious fanatic.

Or, at least, one should take the "moderate" position that this "failure" of democracy (tans.: can you believe the people elected some guy I can't stand again?!?!) should make us not have these "racist" and "hubirs-filled" thoughts that, imperfect as liberal democracy may be, it is infinitely superior to totalitarian theocracy and may act against it.

It is precisely this "argument" about the "obvious failure" of capitalism, or democracy, or liberalism, etc., that led many intellectuals to not oppose (or in fact welcome) Hitler in the 30s or not oppose (or in fact welcome) Stalin in the 50s or not to oppose (or in fact welcome) Pol Pot & co. in the 70s.

But, of course, for all their talk, not one of these intellectuals ever actually goes and lives in one of those "non-failed" Marxist, or Fascist, or Theocratic, or whatever, dictatorships.

They merely supported them, so that OTHER people will suffer under them, while as the western intellectual feels "cutting edge" and "progressive" with his pro-dictatorship views, or "brave" and "speaking truth to power" with his anti-democracy views.

[FireGarden]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does appear to be an exceptionally nasty man - (only today there are reports of moves to label christians and jews at his behest....)

And today there are reports doubting the accussation. The original story is no longer available online, but I've not actually found a retraction. See my post in the relevant thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57109

If the story was false, then was it misunderstanding or deliberate demonistation? That's a whole new topic!

[FireGarden]

Double post, mid edit

[andyandy]

so you all reckon that ignorance is better than knowledge? That the less we know about those that we oppose the better? Wow.....I didnt realise that was "denialist" - i thought that would be common sense. You don't seem to be able to grasp the point that to try to understand is not to justify - but to be better prepared. If you want to be able to predict what a man will do, how best to gain an advantage over him, you need to be able to understand what he thinks - and his rationale for his actions. That doesn't mean that you have to at any point accept that rationale or modify your own principals.....but you reckon that we'd be better prepared knowing less? lol.

sounds like a bit like the fundies' approach to me....the less you understand the more you "know"

[Ziggurat]

so you all reckon that ignorance is better than knowledge? That the less we know about those that we oppose the better?

Not at all - rather, the line of questioning and the implicit assumptions contained within those very questions are leading you not towards knowledge but towards delusion. For example, you asked about the US's failure to abide by the spirit of the NPT - which is true, but so what? Your questions contains a hidden assumption that it is how well we abide by the spirit of the treaty, and not other factors, which has a large effect on how other countries view nuclear proliferation issues, and so you've already biased yourself towards thinking that our failure to disarm is a problem. But this is false, dictatorships think about nuclear proliferation primarily in terms of raw power, and remaining a nuclear superpower has been the only acceptable course of action available to us.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the point that to try to understand is not to justify - but to be better prepared.

But you AREN'T getting any closer to understanding. That's the whole point. You're just kidding yourself about the nature of the problem. And that doesn't get you prepared at all.

[Ralph]

so you all reckon that ignorance is better than knowledge? That the less we know about those that we oppose the better? Wow.....I didnt realise that was "denialist" - i thought that would be common sense. You don't seem to be able to grasp the point that to try to understand is not to justify - but to be better prepared. If you want to be able to predict what a man will do, how best to gain an advantage over him, you need to be able to understand what he thinks - and his rationale for his actions. That doesn't mean that you have to at any point accept that rationale or modify your own principals.....but you reckon that we'd be better prepared knowing less? lol.

sounds like a bit like the fundies' approach to me....the less you understand the more you "know"

The reason you're taking heat Andyandy isn't because of this "we need to understand our enemy" thing..(which is coming across as a bit of a dodge on your part).

It's because of the whole point of your original post.......that you actually AGREE with much of what Amahwatever is saying and you think he makes a lot of sense.

How much more do we need to "understand" about this guy at this point?

Do we need to go into deep psychoanalysis?..............Do we need to find out if he was emotionally traumatized when his mom took his rubber ducky away from him when he was a kid?

How about another "thought experiment"?

Let's assume we have a window of opportunity - a year or so--where we can destroy their ability to manufacture a nuke by conventional methods.

It won't be a one raid thing like Osirak. It'll be a massive bombing campaign involving not only possible bomb making sites but the neutralization of Irans air defense capabilities and their command & control centers.

There will be deaths.....some civilian.....but the total death toll will be in the four figure range.....and it won't involve the use of nukes.


Do we proceed with this....or do we continue our psychoanalysis and allow Iran to develop working nukes?

[andyandy]

The reason you're taking heat Andyandy isn't because of this "we need to understand our enemy" thing..(which is coming across as a bit of a dodge on your part).

It's because of the whole point of your original post.......that you actually AGREE with much of what Amahwatever is saying and you think he makes a lot of sense.

How much more do we need to "understand" about this guy at this point?

*sigh* have you read on in the thread? I based my opinion that i agreed with a lot of what Amahwatever (lol - much easier :) ) was saying on an a published article in the Guardian. Now, I still stand by my OP assertions that in that article there is is much i agree with - over guantanamo, failures in Africa etc....however as was later established, the article i read was not the full letter (as published on the guardian website) - but one which was very severely edited to cut out a lot of stuff with which i would not agree with....i've held up my hand and acknowledged my mistake....regardless, the OP was never about trying to legitimise Amahwatever - it was just to further our understanding of who he is, what he represents and what resonance his views have. there seems a tendency to argue for ignorance on this thread - which i think is flawed.

The reason that I've carried on this thread though is to try and break through this almost religiously held notion by some that to try and understand is to try and justify - that's simply not the case. There are plenty of people, groups and parties who carry ideas and beliefs that are pretty hard for people to comprehend, however i would always maintain that the more we know, the better prepared we are in whatever we decide to do....


Do we need to go into deep psychoanalysis?..............Do we need to find out if he was emotionally traumatized when his mom took his rubber ducky away from him when he was a kid?

lol....well, like i said, the more we know the better prepared we are - maybe his views stem from that childhood trauma of losing his duck.....maybe we could give him a new one - and he'd stop being so angry :D
A flippant response to a flippant response - but with a valid point - knowledge is power - you want to know how best to manipulate or predict what someone's going to do? You need to know how their mind works....


Let's assume we have a window of opportunity - a year or so--where we can destroy their ability to manufacture a nuke by conventional methods.

It won't be a one raid thing like Osirak. It'll be a massive bombing campaign involving not only possible bomb making sites but the neutralization of Irans air defense capabilities and their command & control centers.

There will be deaths.....some civilian.....but the total death toll will be in the four figure range.....and it won't involve the use of nukes.


Do we proceed with this....or do we continue our psychoanalysis and allow Iran to develop working nukes?

you shouldn't try and present "knowledge" and "action" as mutually exclusive arguments....of course they're not. I've already posted on - even though it moves out of the scope of the OP - I would hold a utilitarian perspective - and so your thought experiment was accurate then it would something that would deserve strong consideration.
if it was known that Iran was only several months away from a bomb, if it was known that nuclear capabilities could be knocked out for many years, if nuclear weapons did not have to be used and if it was certain that such an assualt would not spark war within the middle east, then i'd support it....

[FireGarden]

and if it was certain that such an assualt would not spark war within the middle east,

And if it was certain that disrupting oil supplies wouldn't really, really upset China....

[Skeptic]

The problem with "attempts to understand" Iran is that Iran had both reasonable goals (such as more foreign trade) and genocidal, "crazy" goals (such as the genocide of the jews).

The "understanding" inevitably declares that the "crazy" goals are just rhetoric, or means, whose real purpose is to achieve the "real" ends, or the "reasonable" goals. in reality, however, it is obvious that Iran's "reasonable" goals are merely means for the end, namely, the "crazy" genocidal goals.

This was the mistake made with Hitler: surely, no reasonable person could really mean to kill all the jews and take over the world, which are "crazy" goals. It's just rhetoric to help remilitarize Germany, his "reasonable" goal. So if Germany will be allowed to rearm, it will leave the jews and the world alone, because that antisemitic rhetoric was just "means" to that end.

In reality, of course, the truth was the exact opposite: it was the remilitarizing of Germany that was the means for the real end, which was precisely taking over the world and killing all the jews, as Hitler said all alone.

Same here. Surely, nobody would be crazy enough to really try to genocide the jews with nuclear weapons--that's just rhetoric to get a nuclear plant for peaceful purposes. Wrong. Getting the nuclear plant is the means for the end of the nuclear genocide of the jews, as Ahmanijad keeps saying openly.

I have the amazing suggestion to actually BELIEVE what he is saying. I think he means it, and the rationalizations in the west that "this is all rhetoric" are mere cowardice, intentional blindness from people too scared to face the awful truth.

[BPSCG]

This was the mistake made with Hitler: surely, no reasonable person could really mean to kill all the jews and take over the world, which are "crazy" goals. It's just rhetoric to help remilitarize Germany, his "reasonable" goal. So if Germany will be allowed to rearm, it will leave the jews and the world alone, because that antisemitic rhetoric was just "means" to that end.

In reality, of course, the truth was the exact opposite: it was the remilitarizing of Germany that was the means for the real end, which was precisely taking over the world and killing all the jews, as Hitler said all alone.

Same here. Surely, nobody would be crazy enough to really try to genocide the jews with nuclear weapons--that's just rhetoric to get a nuclear plant for peaceful purposes. Wrong. Getting the nuclear plant is the means for the end of the nuclear genocide of the jews, as Ahmanijad keeps saying openly.

I have the amazing suggestion to actually BELIEVE what he is saying. I think he means it, and the rationalizations in the west that "this is all rhetoric" are mere cowardice, intentional blindness from people too scared to face the awful truth.And the Europeans and the Chinese are extending the latter-day parallel with their recognition that although Ahmadinejad may be a crazy man, they can do business with him. In fact, they are falling all over themselves to do so. I guess the events that led to World War II are no longer fresh enough in Europe's collective mind.

[FireGarden]

Getting the nuclear plant is the means for the end of the nuclear genocide of the jews, as Ahmanijad keeps saying openly.

So openly that he has to be misquoted in order to get the point across.

Oh I know, I know....
"wipe off the map" is the same as "remove from the page of time," people only use the former for emphasis. Get real! They use the former because the latter (his real words) don't convey the message they want him to have said. Especially when his comparison is to the Soviet Empire that "can only be seen today in libraries."

Heck,
You put that comparison against what he actually said, and people will start thinking that he's not actually after genocide at all.

[andyandy]

I have the amazing suggestion to actually BELIEVE what he is saying. I think he means it, and the rationalizations in the west that "this is all rhetoric" are mere cowardice, intentional blindness from people too scared to face the awful truth.


well..i would suggest that the only "intentional blindness" is what seems to prevent people from actually being prepared to analyse the character of an individual or group of people upon whom they've already reached conclusions on. Neither of us can say if what he's saying is rhetoric or something which he plans to carry out....it would seem logical therefore to try to understand the workings of his mind further so we can both reach a more informed conclusion.

is someone "cowardly" for attempting to gain more information on an issue?
Perhaps you're scared of the "awful truth" that you might be wrong....why not expand your mind and find out?

[Skeptic]

Oh I know, I know....
"wipe off the map" is the same as "remove from the page of time," people only use the former for emphasis.

Yes, amazingly enough, I think that when he says he wants to wipe israel off the map, he means the genocide of the jews there.

How unfair and biased of me.

[Skeptic]

well..i would suggest that the only "intentional blindness" is what seems to prevent people from actually being prepared to analyse the character of an individual or group of people upon whom they've already reached conclusions on. Neither of us can say if what he's saying is rhetoric or something which he plans to carry out....

There is conclusive, indeed overwhelming, evidence to support the hypothesis that he means just what he says. He repeatedly, constantly, and emphatically says that he will destroy israel by hook or by crook (and, specifically, by nuclear weapons). While, perhaps, saying it once to a crowd of old-timers from the Islamic revolution time might have been excused as rhetoric, he constantly repeats the same threat to all and sundry.

In addition, when we look at his actions, his open support of Palestinian terorrism, recruiting of suicide bombers under banners of "israel must be wiped off the map", and, above all, he is obviously doing everything he can to go nuclear ASAP for--as he openly says--just this "wipe of the map" goal.

So far, everything he says AND everything he does supports the view that, yes, he really DOES mean what he says.

On the other hand, what evidence, if any, is there to support the opposite hypothesis--that he isn't serious and is merely using is as rhetoric? None whatever, apart from what--in effect--is the claim that he simply couldn't be so genocidal / evil / crazy, all evidence to the contrary be damned. But that is not evidence; that's an article of faith. People, history shows, could--and were--as evil, crazy, and genocidal as he is very often.

When all the evidence points in the direction of one hypothesis, and none whatever in the direction of a second hypothesis, the only reasonable conclusion is that the hypothesis supported by the evidence is to be accepted: that, yes, he means it.

To remain "open minded" in such a situation is a bit like remaining "open minded" about whether evolution or creationism is correct. It sounds "skeptical" and "fair", but this ignores the all-important fact that, in both cases, there are mountains of evidence in favor of one hypothesis and none whatever in favor of the other.

Clearly, when this is the situation, such "fairness" and claims that we "don't really know" is not much more than simple refusal to accept the obvious truth.

[Huntster]

....I guess the events that led to World War II are no longer fresh enough in Europe's collective mind.

Nor are those lessons remembered or recognized by many individuals; European, Asian, or American.

[FireGarden]

Yes, amazingly enough, I think that when he says he wants to wipe israel off the map, he means the genocide of the jews there.

You must have noticed my sarcasm. If I thought he said it, then I too would think he meant it.

Anyway,
A group of Israelis plan to sue Ahmadenajad. So what he said and meant may end up debated in court.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5006402.stm

[Elind]

well..i would suggest that the only "intentional blindness" is what seems to prevent people from actually being prepared to analyse the character of an individual or group of people upon whom they've already reached conclusions on. Neither of us can say if what he's saying is rhetoric or something which he plans to carry out....it would seem logical therefore to try to understand the workings of his mind further so we can both reach a more informed conclusion.

is someone "cowardly" for attempting to gain more information on an issue?
Perhaps you're scared of the "awful truth" that you might be wrong....why not expand your mind and find out?

You are persistent in your own blindness that's for sure.

I suspect that you either don't understand the subtlety of the English language, or you think you are playing people for fools and your "expand your mind" comment is insulting, unless you are inviting everyone for a drag of something.

The meanings of your favorite word are listed below. Most people here are using the first few defintion and know exactly what they mean. Yours is one of the following ones. If you don't understand the distinction you should try another language.

un·der·stand http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dunderstand) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifr-sthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifndhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif)
v. un·der·stood, (-sthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/oobreve.gifdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif) un·der·stand·ing, un·der·stands
v. tr.
To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp. See Synonyms at apprehend (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apprehend).
To know thoroughly by close contact or long experience with: That teacher understands children.

To grasp or comprehend the meaning intended or expressed by (another): They have trouble with English, but I can understand them.
To comprehend the language, sounds, form, or symbols of.
To know and be tolerant or sympathetic toward: I can understand your point of view even though I disagree with it.
To learn indirectly, as by hearsay: I understand his departure was unexpected.
To infer: Am I to understand you are staying the night?
To accept (something) as an agreed fact: It is understood that the fee will be 50 dollars.
To supply or add (words or a meaning, for example) mentally.

[Roadtoad]

I'll be blunt. I don't trust the f***er. And assuming he got the bomb, what would stop him from dropping it on Saudi Arabia? Or getting in touch with friends who'd pop it off in China? Or perhaps here in the States?

Someone, eventually, is going to have to go in, kick his @$$, and take his toys. And it's only a damned fool who thinks Iran's president and mullahs are crazy. What's so frigging scary is they're extremely rational. Their goals are not "crazy," they're evil. And that's what needs to be adressed.

[Elind]

I'll be blunt. I don't trust the f***er.

You mean Andy Yandy really, don't you?

[Roadtoad]

You mean Andy Yandy really, don't you?

Him either.

[a_unique_person]

I'll be blunt. I don't trust the f***er. And assuming he got the bomb, what would stop him from dropping it on Saudi Arabia? Or getting in touch with friends who'd pop it off in China? Or perhaps here in the States?

Someone, eventually, is going to have to go in, kick his @$$, and take his toys. And it's only a damned fool who thinks Iran's president and mullahs are crazy. What's so frigging scary is they're extremely rational. Their goals are not "crazy," they're evil. And that's what needs to be adressed.

If they are extremely rational, then they'd realise they would be wiped off the earth if they did try it.

[a_unique_person]

I don't care to understand why they want one. It's irrelevant. I do understand that if they GET one, lots of people are dead. Goodbye Tel Aviv and if they can pull it off by giving the technology to their friends, goodbye New York. That, honestly, is all I need to understand regarding Iran and nukes.
I think you need to understand a lot more than that. We will disagree/agree on various aspects of this, but you cannot write off this issue as being as simple a matter as you state it.

[Roadtoad]

If they are extremely rational, then they'd realise they would be wiped off the earth if they did try it.

I said "rational," not "smart."

[BPSCG]

I think you need to understand a lot more than that. What else does he need to understand?

[Elind]

If they are extremely rational, then they'd realise they would be wiped off the earth if they did try it.

But are they extremely rational? They, the leadership at least, believe they doing God's work and have their own versions of the "second coming", within their own lifetimes.

If we think GWB has a problem with religion, these guys are potentially everyone's worst nightmare.

[andyandy]

well....it seems we have some problems with understanding (To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp) Ahmadinejad's mind....is he 100% rational or completely crazy? Or someplace inbetween?

[Elind]

This is a side issue and relevant only to specific tactics. We should assume he means what he says and should act accordingly.

[a_unique_person]

But are they extremely rational? They, the leadership at least, believe they doing God's work and have their own versions of the "second coming", within their own lifetimes.

If we think GWB has a problem with religion, these guys are potentially everyone's worst nightmare.

"Rational" wasn't my claim.

[Elind]

On rereading I agree that you are correct. I'm not sure what you meant except the supposition "if".

Sorry.

[Huntster]

If they are extremely rational, then they'd realise they would be wiped off the earth if they did try it.

Difficult to gauge, what with all the martyrdom going on over there.

Frankly, I don't think they're very rational. They're simply begging for a stealth air raid right now.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep :
I don't care to understand why they want one. It's irrelevant. I do understand that if they GET one, lots of people are dead. Goodbye Tel Aviv and if they can pull it off by giving the technology to their friends, goodbye New York. That, honestly, is all I need to understand regarding Iran and nukes.
I think you need to understand a lot more than that. We will disagree/agree on various aspects of this, but you cannot write off this issue as being as simple a matter as you state it.

Do you live in Tel Aviv or New York?

[Skeptic]

Of course, any day now stage 2 of the "nuclear Iran show" will come on-line:

1). Ahmajenidad will mumble something about "peace" or "negotiations" or "understanding", saying he is sorry for previous "misunderstandings".

2). The useful idiots will rush to kiss his butt, screaming how this "proves" that "soft power works", and how the evil, evil neo-cons were just mean to this pure, honest man, portraying him as a genocidal holocaust-denying antisemite for no good reason. His speeches and actions will be forgotten for the time of the negotiations.

3). Once Ahmajenidad "negotiated" (e.g., delayed a military strike) long enough, he would declare triumphnatly that, alas, the negotiations will fail and his nation will continue to go for the bomb--but, hey, useful idiots, thanks for the time I needed to do that.

4). The disappointed useful idiots would blame their too-tough negotiated positions, or the neo-cons, or the jews (*cough* zionists *cough*), or anybody and everybody for the failure in negotiations, except for their stupidity in believing a genocidal maniac could ever negotiate in good faith.

[andyandy]

There is conclusive, indeed overwhelming, evidence to support the hypothesis that he means just what he says. He repeatedly, constantly, and emphatically says that he will destroy israel by hook or by crook (and, specifically, by nuclear weapons). While, perhaps, saying it once to a crowd of old-timers from the Islamic revolution time might have been excused as rhetoric, he constantly repeats the same threat to all and sundry.

In addition, when we look at his actions, his open support of Palestinian terorrism, recruiting of suicide bombers under banners of "israel must be wiped off the map", and, above all, he is obviously doing everything he can to go nuclear ASAP for--as he openly says--just this "wipe of the map" goal.

So far, everything he says AND everything he does supports the view that, yes, he really DOES mean what he says.

On the other hand, what evidence, if any, is there to support the opposite hypothesis--that he isn't serious and is merely using is as rhetoric? None whatever, apart from what--in effect--is the claim that he simply couldn't be so genocidal / evil / crazy, all evidence to the contrary be damned. But that is not evidence; that's an article of faith. People, history shows, could--and were--as evil, crazy, and genocidal as he is very often.

When all the evidence points in the direction of one hypothesis, and none whatever in the direction of a second hypothesis, the only reasonable conclusion is that the hypothesis supported by the evidence is to be accepted: that, yes, he means it.

To remain "open minded" in such a situation is a bit like remaining "open minded" about whether evolution or creationism is correct. It sounds "skeptical" and "fair", but this ignores the all-important fact that, in both cases, there are mountains of evidence in favor of one hypothesis and none whatever in favor of the other.

Clearly, when this is the situation, such "fairness" and claims that we "don't really know" is not much more than simple refusal to accept the obvious truth.



we have
1) A politician having made statements on a subject
2) A track record that does nothing to contradict that statement...

and then you jump straight to
3) therefore said politician will 100% carry out said statement.....

i think you're being slightly disingenuous.....or politically naive :)
First off, politicians often make statements of intent they have no intention of keeping - I'm sure you don't believe that politicians always tell the truth - it sometimes suits them to pander to interest groups either within or outside their country.
Secondly, even if a politician makes a statement of intent, there's no guarantee that they have the political capital to follow through on their statement. Ahmadinejad is the president but the ultimate political power in Iran rests with Ali Khamenei as the Supreme Leader....

It is, I admit prefectly possible that Ahmadinejad means what he says, and maybe even that he has the political support to carry out his intentions - but it's by no means 100% certain as you seem to imply.

[andyandy]

The problem is, we will never think like hardline Iranians because they are crazy.


What's so frigging scary is they're extremely rational. Their goals are not "crazy," they're evil.

well isn't it quite an important "side issue" when it comes to international Iranian relations.......:D

[Skeptic]

It is, I admit prefectly possible that Ahmadinejad means what he says, and maybe even that he has the political support to carry out his intentions - but it's by no means 100% certain as you seem to imply.

It isn't?

"The clear-thinking Englishman, who sees the future, who stays away from adventures, it seem highly unlikely that a man who rose so fast so quickly in the world [Hitler] would take such crazy risks. They had the hope and belief that he will first try something else--and in the meantime he could be negotiated with.

But we [Refugees from Hitler in England], on the other hand, knew that the more irrational something seemed, the more certain it is. Each one of us saw in his mind's eye a murdered friend, a tortured acquintance... apart from us, only a tiny number of Englishmen realized the danger... As before, I was doomed to see with a broken heart what will come."

--Stephan Zweig, "The World of Yesterday", describing England in 1938/9.

[Elind]

It is, I admit prefectly possible that Ahmadinejad means what he says, and maybe even that he has the political support to carry out his intentions - but it's by no means 100% certain as you seem to imply.

:confused:

Do you think international relations should be based on what people like you think could be, maybe, or on what leaders of countries say?

[Nyarlathotep]

It is, I admit prefectly possible that Ahmadinejad means what he says, and maybe even that he has the political support to carry out his intentions - but it's by no means 100% certain as you seem to imply.

I always try to live by the old maxim "Hope for the best, prepeare for the worst". I HOPE Ahmadinejad's comments are a lot of bluster and hot air or that he otherwise doesn't mean what he says. But we would be idiots not to assume he means exactly as he says.

[andyandy]

It isn't?

"The clear-thinking Englishman, who sees the future, who stays away from adventures, it seem highly unlikely that a man who rose so fast so quickly in the world [Hitler] would take such crazy risks. They had the hope and belief that he will first try something else--and in the meantime he could be negotiated with.

But we [Refugees from Hitler in England], on the other hand, knew that the more irrational something seemed, the more certain it is. Each one of us saw in his mind's eye a murdered friend, a tortured acquintance... apart from us, only a tiny number of Englishmen realized the danger... As before, I was doomed to see with a broken heart what will come."

--Stephan Zweig, "The World of Yesterday", describing England in 1938/9.

have you ever heard of Godwin?

[andyandy]

I always try to live by the old maxim "Hope for the best, prepeare for the worst". I HOPE Ahmadinejad's comments are a lot of bluster and hot air or that he otherwise doesn't mean what he says. But we would be idiots not to assume he means exactly as he says.

that's fair enough - there's nothing wrong with assuming he means what he says.....my problem is with people claiming that they "know" 100% what Ahmadinejad's going to do...and using that as a reason to dismiss any attempts to analyse the individual or the issues....
oh...and people who make lazy and emotive historical comparisons - i have a problem with them too......

[Elind]

have you ever heard of Godwin?

Have you ever heard of flawed logic? This mention of Hitler was not made with reference to you. ( A definition of Godwin's law) It was a quote from someone who saw what others came to realize only much later. That is called learning from history and in the case of today's Iran it is a regrettably very valid analogy, notwithstanding your appeasment logic.

[Elind]

...and people who make lazy and emotive historical comparisons - i have a problem with them too...... Referencing Hitler in regard to someone who denies the holocaust is what you call lazy and emotive historical comparisons?:shocked:

That's a sorry ass opinion to hold.

[Nyarlathotep]

that's fair enough - there's nothing wrong with assuming he means what he says.....my problem is with people claiming that they "know" 100% what Ahmadinejad's going to do...and using that as a reason to dismiss any attempts to analyse the individual or the issues....
oh...and people who make lazy and emotive historical comparisons - i have a problem with them too......


Whether one claims to know 100% that he plans to do what he says or if simply assumes the worst and takes him at his word, is a distinction without a difference. The end result and the way you deal with him ends up being the same either way.

[Roadtoad]

Whether one claims to know 100% that he plans to do what he says or if simply assumes the worst and takes him at his word, is a distinction without a difference. The end result and the way you deal with him ends up being the same either way.

Either way, you have a responsibility as a citizen, and as a leader, when you hear this sort of thing from someone like Ahmadinejad to take measures to prepare, just in case he isn't making an idle threat.

[Skeptic]

have you ever heard of Godwin?

Er, I didn't call YOU Hitler (or a Nazi), I said there are similarities between IRAN'S LEADER and Hitler, which is (a) true, (b) something else entirely. I am comparing him to Hitler because, er, he repeatedly said he would kill all the jews with nuclear weapons and does everything he can to acquire them.

So far, Andy, the evidence for my point of view is:

(1) The judgement of history (a cliche, but in this case an appropriate one)
(2) Everything Iran's leader says
(3) Everything he does.

The "evidence" for your view is:

(1) The logical possiblity that he doesn't mean it.
(2) Shouting "Godwin!"

...which is as good as no evidence whatever, since it is no evidence whatever.

I say I win the evidence war this time, alas. I wish I didn't.

[FireGarden]

I say I win the evidence war this time, alas. I wish I didn't.

You reckon your argument is that you think Ahmadenajad means what he says.

But, actually, your argument is that he means what you think he said.

He did not say Israel should be wiped of the map.
I linked this before: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

If you disagree with it, then tell me where it is wrong.

Ahmadenajad uses comparisons to the Shah (who people said could never be removed); the Soviet Empire (who could believe we'd see it fall?); and Saddam (who talked so arrogantly, you'd think he was immortal).

ie: He's making comparisons to regimes that seem unbeatable. But unjust regimes don't last, they must collapse.

He never used the form "wiped from the map," his words are "removed from the arena of time."

And the comparison makes it clear what he means. The main crux of his argument is "Don't imagine that things must stay the way they are. Nobody believed the Soviet Empire would crumble, but we saw it happen to such an extent that if you want to see that empire, you have to go to the library."

No implication at all of genocide.

To go from what he said to "he wants to nuke israel" (when he even denies wanting nukes at all) is very strange.

Iran's FM said it was about regime change in Feb 06
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/21/content_522405.htm

"He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," Manouchehr Mottaki

[andyandy]

Er, I didn't call YOU Hitler (or a Nazi),

If you think that Godwin's law being invoked implies that the individual (ie. me) has been compared to Hitler....then you obviously don't understand it....:D - try this explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is, in Internet culture, an adage originated in 1990 by Mike Godwin that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]

It is considered poor form to arbitrarily raise such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such deliberate invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful.





I said there are similarities between IRAN'S LEADER and Hitler, which is (a) true, (b) something else entirely. I am comparing him to Hitler because, er, he repeatedly said he would kill all the jews with nuclear weapons and does everything he can to acquire them.


So far, Andy, the evidence for my point of view is:

(1) The judgement of history (a cliche, but in this case an appropriate one)
(2) Everything Iran's leader says
(3) Everything he does.



...which is as good as no evidence whatever, since it is no evidence whatever.



wow.....your justifications are as lazy as your analogies....

your point of view that Ahmadinajad will for 100% certain launch a nuclear strike against Israel is supported by evidence from....

1) The judgement of history

and you give the analogy of Hitler....to prove that men can do truly evil acts. But that does not prove that Ahmadinajad will do such a thing - it just proves that men are capable of atrocities....

(2) Everything Iran's leader says

I already addressed this. We've established (I hope) that politicians don't always tell the truth. I hope you're not naive enough to belive that they do. Again - it's more than possible that he means what he says, but not certain.

3) Everything he does

We've established that he is anti-semitic (or at least anti-Israeli) and nationalistic, ok.....but there's no direct correletion between anti-semitism and genocide. because hitler was anti-semitic and commited genocide does not mean that every anti-semite will....

The "evidence" for your view is:

(1) The logical possiblity that he doesn't mean it.
(2) Shouting "Godwin!"

1) My point is that there is a possibility that he doesn't mean it, and that even if he does mean it he may not have the political power to follow it through.
This would appear to be a fairly obvious point....but one which you seem hell bent on ignoring.....

2) It gets tiresome when people use spurious analogies to avoid answering specific posts....Iran is not post World War, post weimar, post depression Germany. 1930s reparation-centric international diplomacy is not equivilent to United Nations nuclear diplomacy. Anti-religious, Ayrian supremist Hitler is not ultra-religious anti-Israeli Ahmadinajad. German post democracy dictatorship is not the same as Iranian limited democratic autonomy within a theocracy.....


I say I win the evidence war this time, alas. I wish I didn't.

lol....those who have to "declare" themselves victors normally haven't made a strong enough case.....:D

[rocketdodger]

No implication at all of genocide.



Ok lets just try to figure out where everyone stands in this thread. It is clear that people disagree over what A's statements mean. Does anyone actually disagree that we should be sharpening our swords right now?

[andyandy]

You reckon your argument is that you think Ahmadenajad means what he says.

But, actually, your argument is that he means what you think he said.

He did not say Israel should be wiped of the map.
I linked this before: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

If you disagree with it, then tell me where it is wrong.

Ahmadenajad uses comparisons to the Shah (who people said could never be removed); the Soviet Empire (who could believe we'd see it fall?); and Saddam (who talked so arrogantly, you'd think he was immortal).

ie: He's making comparisons to regimes that seem unbeatable. But unjust regimes don't last, they must collapse.

He never used the form "wiped from the map," his words are "removed from the arena of time."

And the comparison makes it clear what he means. The main crux of his argument is "Don't imagine that things must stay the way they are. Nobody believed the Soviet Empire would crumble, but we saw it happen to such an extent that if you want to see that empire, you have to go to the library."

No implication at all of genocide.

To go from what he said to "he wants to nuke israel" (when he even denies wanting nukes at all) is very strange.

Iran's FM said it was about regime change in Feb 06
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/21/content_522405.htm

"He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," Manouchehr Mottaki

it seems to be a case of people believing a conclusion, and then fitting the facts to support it, whilst dismissing anything that challenges that view....which is what makes arguing with christian fundies such a frustrating experience :)

[andyandy]

Ok lets just try to figure out where everyone stands in this thread. It is clear that people disagree over what A's statements mean. Does anyone actually disagree that we should be sharpening our swords right now?

well....it depends what you mean by "sharpening our swords..." :)
but if you mean that the situation in iran is something which is of great concern, and so requires both military and diplomatic considerations, then i'd agree....

[rocketdodger]

well....it depends what you mean by "sharpening our swords..." :)
but if you mean that the situation in iran is something which is of great concern, and so requires both military and diplomatic considerations, then i'd agree....

Good, that gives me hope. Since you have the dhali lama as your avatar I think alot of people assume you are the hari-krishna type that would rather be killed than kill in self defense.

[andyandy]

Good, that gives me hope. Since you have the dhali lama as your avatar I think alot of people assume you are the hari-krishna type that would rather be killed than kill in self defense.

lol :D

i thought the lama would rile neo-cons and christians alike....so i thought he'd be a good choice....

i'd certainly prefer peace and conciliation to war and hostilties....but pragmatism dictates that in certain situations agression shouldn't be ruled out.....:)

my problem is with this false certainty of opinion on Iran......

to borrow from a post i read earlier (who borrowed from Voltaire)

Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde

Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.

[Skeptic]

(sigh)

Here are SOME of the Iranian leader's quotes, from the jerusalem post web site:

#

# "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

# "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

# "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

# "If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

# "Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

# "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

"Annihilated"... "destroyed"... "will burn" ... "wiped off the map" ... but I'm sure it's just rhetoric and he doesn't really mean it, or it was all mistranslated, or that just his, er, unconventional way of saying he just wants regime change, you know, a new elections in israel, or something.

[Roadtoad]

Oh, sure. And I'm quite certain that with all this "rhetoric," he'd like nothing more than to be Allah's instrument of Israel's destruc... er, change.

Iran may not have been actively engaged in battle with Israel, but that doesn't mean they haven't offered support in the past to terrorists and other thugs. That Ahmadinejad is upping the ante at this point, particularly when Iran needs decent agriculture, when it needs industry, when it could use decent medical care, tells me a lot. My thought is the "revolution" could be close to an end, and the second wave is about to hit.

[FireGarden]

JP --- "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

Memri says "Zionist regime"

MEMRI --- "...or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]"


"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago, and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them. Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations,”

JPost (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961353170&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) splits this between holocaust denial and threats against Israel. Other sites give it as a single quote from Feb 11 2006.

It asks they remove what they created 60 years ago. Which was a Zionist state. They did not create people 60 years ago. Asking that the Zionist state be removed is not asking for genocide.


"Wipe off map" quote. If you disagree with the website I linked to earlier, then tell me where it is wrong.

If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

He's talking about the purpose of Israel, not the purpose of the people.

And, in case we don't know what he means by Israel, you even provide another quote which defines it.

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

He says Israel is a tyrannical regime. He does not say Israel is the Jews. Regimes can be destroyed without genocide.

This is the best you can do to back up your claim that "Getting the nuclear plant is the means for the end of the nuclear genocide of the jews, as Ahmanijad keeps saying openly."

[Meadmaker]

He says Israel is a tyrannical regime. He does not say Israel is the Jews. Regimes can be destroyed without genocide.


The problem with this reasoning is that the Jews say Israel is the Jews, and they're willing to fight for it. The only way to annihilate Israel is to annihilate enough Jews that the survivors can't remain in power. Regimes can indeed be destroyed without genocide, but this particular regime cannot.

Is there seriously any doubt that the Iranian president would like to see Israel annihilated, and that this goal could be accomplished by any means other than killing large numbers of Jews?

And I think it's quite silly to say that "annihilate" is totally different than "wipe off the map".

[Huntster]

Ok lets just try to figure out where everyone stands in this thread. It is clear that people disagree over what A's statements mean. Does anyone actually disagree that we should be sharpening our swords right now?

I don't trust the Islamic fundmentalist government in Iran for a number of reasons.

Swords should always be kept sharp and at the ready. They have little use when they're dull, and there is always somebody out there that needs deterence.

[Ziggurat]

Memri says "Zionist regime"

Zionist regime = Israel. They never use the word "Israel" among each other because that legitimizes Israel's existence. So they have their own term for it. But you're simply ignorant if you think that they mean something other than Israel by that term. They do NOT simply mean the government, they mean the whole country.

[BPSCG]

Hey, FireGarden, lemme ask you sumpin': If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Ahmadenejad does not want to destroy Israel.

But there seems to be a worldwide misperception that that's exactly what he wants to do. Surely, someone in Teheran has brought that to his attention.

So here's what I want to ask you: Why do you think he hasn't come out and said something along the following lines:

"It has been brought to my attention that faulty translations of my speeches have led to a wide misconception that I want to see Israel destroyed. That is a terrible, terrible falsehood. Neither I, nor the government I represent, nor the people of Iran wish to see Israel destroyed. Israel has the right to live in peace and not be attacked or threatened by its neighbors. We hold no animosity towards the nation of Israel, its government, or its inhabitants, and condemn in the strongest possible terms anyone who would disagree. Islam is a religion of peace, and as Muslims, we have an obligation to live peacefully with all our neighbors, even those who do not follow the teachings of The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

"Kumbayah."

[FireGarden]

The problem with this reasoning is that the Jews say Israel is the Jews, and they're willing to fight for it. The only way to annihilate Israel is to annihilate enough Jews that the survivors can't remain in power. Regimes can indeed be destroyed without genocide, but this particular regime cannot.

There aren't any Jews that would be happy with a one-state solution which doesn't guarantee a Jewish majority? And this will always be the case?

Ahmadinajad was responding to your argument when he gave other examples (Soviet Union etc) that seemed eternal and impossible to change.

Regimes can be destroyed (or annihilated) without genocide.

wiki page on the one state solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binational_solution)

Association for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel (http://www.one-democratic-state.org/)

It could happen... Even in Israel!

Zionist regime = Israel. They never use the word "Israel" among each other because that legitimizes Israel's existence.

And yet Israel is put into the translations.

But you're simply ignorant if you think that they mean something other than Israel by that term.

I'm willing to accept that Israel is the topic of discussion. Israel is defined, by Ahmadenajad, as a regime. Not as "the Jews".

Even one of Skeptic's chosen quotes says so. By Skeptic's own argument, then, we should assume Ahmadenajad means what he says: Israel, to him, is a regime.

[FireGarden]

So here's what I want to ask you: Why do you think he hasn't come out and said something along the following lines:

His foreign minister said: "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," ...."He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."

Iran denies wanting to "wipe Israel off the map" (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/21/content_522405.htm)


(Does that sound familiar, by the way?)

Israel has the right to live in peace and not be attacked or threatened by its neighbors. We hold no animosity towards the nation of Israel, its government, or its inhabitants, and condemn in the strongest possible terms anyone who would disagree.
Strawman.
I didn't claim he said that. Israel to Ahmadenajad is a tyrannical regime. He does not think that tyrannical regimes should be left in peace.

That doesn't mean he wants to nuke the Jews.

[Ziggurat]

His foreign minister said: "Nobody can remove a country from the map.

Not true. The UN has done exactly that:
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=94461
But you yourself have pointed out that this phrasing isn't a literal translation. So the defense is meaningless. Countries most certainly can be destroyed, it's happened before. and his "denial" doesn't actually deny that they want to destroy Israel.

This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," ...."He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."

Sorry, but when you're talking about a democratic country, you cannot distinguish between the regime and the country as a whole. So we're back to appologists like this foreign minister skirting around the issue, pretending for a western audience in English that they don't really want what they tell each other in Farsi all the time: the destruction of Israel. And you bend over backwards to try to make sense of this deception.

I didn't claim he said that. Israel to Ahmadenajad is a tyrannical regime. He does not think that tyrannical regimes should be left in peace.

Remember that line from Princess bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Well, I couldn't give a damn if he thinks Israel is tyrannical. It isn't. Iran is. Getting rid of a democratic "regime" is equivalent to destroying the country, because you cannot do one without doing the other.

That doesn't mean he wants to nuke the Jews.

Perhaps not. Funny thing, though: since nuking Israel is pretty much the easiest way to accomplish what he says he wants accomplished, I'm rather inclined to take the possibility seriously. Leaders of despotic regimes, particularly those who subscribe to messianic, expansionist, and violent religious ideologies, aren't exactly people I'm interested in giving the benefit of the doubt to.

[Ziggurat]

And yet Israel is put into the translations.

Yes. Because that is what it means.

I'm willing to accept that Israel is the topic of discussion. Israel is defined, by Ahmadenajad, as a regime. Not as "the Jews".

Their Jewishness just happening to be coincidental. Ahmadenajad does not simply want the removal of the current government. He wants the destruction of the country as a country. You can quibble about whether or not that technically requires genocide, you can whine all you want to that it's not their Jewishness that he really hates, it simply doesn't matter: he wants to destroy a country, and the only POSSIBLE way for that to happen is for lots and lots of people to die very violently. There simply is no way of getting around that, no matter how many word games you want to play.

[BPSCG]

(Does that sound familiar, by the way?)It does, actually, but probably not the way you intended. With all the translation problems you claim are going on here, you want us to accept at face value an English translation of a Chinese newspaper quoting an Iranian speaking Farsi.

I'm frankly inclined to believe that what the Iranian foreign minister said was something like, "Anyone know where I can get some good orange beef and eggdrop soup around here...?"

In any case, let's look at what the FM said:

"Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament.
"How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," he said.
The natural question here is, "What did Ahmadinejad actually say then, if he was misunderstood?" But the FM doesn't answer that.

What he does suggest is that it's not possible to "remove a country from the map." Not that they wouldn't want to, but that it's simply not possible.

Look, if they wanted to make a clear-cut statement that they wish Israel no harm, they could do it. But they don't. They make filthy threats, then when called on it, back off the bare minimum they think they need to. If your next door neighbor was talking like this about you, you'd call the cops.

Strawman.
I didn't claim he said that. Israel to Ahmadenajad is a tyrannical regime. He does not think that tyrannical regimes should be left in peace.

That doesn't mean he wants to nuke the Jews.Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt.

[FireGarden]

But you yourself have pointed out that this phrasing isn't a literal translation. So the defense is meaningless.

It isn't meaningless, because of the question I assume he was asked at the news conference. And because the other translation was the most widely spread.

Sorry, but when you're talking about a democratic country, you cannot distinguish between the regime and the country as a whole.

Rubbish.
The regime can be changed without genocide, whether it is democratic or not. I linked to sites that talk about a one-state solution. It could happen.... Even in Israel.

So we're back to appologists like this foreign minister ....And you bend over backwards to try to make sense of this deception.

Foreign minister of Iran. You reckon a statement from him is apologetics? He's telling you what the position of his country is. That's his job.

Oh, I see.
When they say something that can't possibly fit into your worldview, we have to assume they are lying.

Getting rid of a democratic "regime" is equivalent to destroying the country, because you cannot do one without doing the other.

I don't agree.
Some people (both Jews and Palstinians) are already talking about it. They think that a two-state solution will not answer the security concerns of either party. It will just be a recipe for more and more fighting. They want a one-man one-vote system, that doesn't guarantee a majority for either ethnic group and protects which ever group is the minority.

Read the links I gave earlier. Google turns up more.

Funny thing, though: since nuking Israel is pretty much the easiest way to accomplish what he says he wants accomplished

But then it wouldn't be the West that was responsible for genocide of the Jews. It would be Iran. And by his own argument, a piece of Iran would have to be given up to create a Jewish homeland.

Isn't that what he says?
He asks "If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel?"

We assume that he means what he says, don't we?

[Meadmaker]

There aren't any Jews that would be happy with a one-state solution which doesn't guarantee a Jewish majority? And this will always be the case?



I've never met one.

This might not always be the case, but it will certainly be the case as long as Israel is surrounded by undemocratic regimes. Maybe, at some time in the far future, when other states in the Middle East have representative governments that respect the human rights of their own people, the people of Israel will change what they want from their own government. Right now, they know that Ahmadinajad wants to kill them.

If it's all that interesting, I suppose onecould discuss whether killing Israeli Jews is an end in itself, or a means to an end, but either way, left to his own devices, he would kill plenty of Jews.

[FireGarden]

you want us to accept at face value an English translation of a Chinese newspaper quoting an Iranian speaking Farsi

He was speaking English at a conference in Europe. Read the article. Ziggurat picked up on it. I'm not surprised that you missed it.....

I'm frankly inclined to believe that what the Iranian foreign minister said was something like, "Anyone know where I can get some good orange beef and eggdrop soup around here...?"

...You do seem have many comprehension problems.

What he does suggest is that it's not possible to "remove a country from the map." Not that they wouldn't want to, but that it's simply not possible.

You're clutching at straws!

Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt.

What denial?
The etiquette here is to show me where I made the claim you think I made.

Until then your argument is indeed a strawman.

[FireGarden]

I've never met one.
What did you think of the links I gave?

[Ziggurat]

It isn't meaningless, because of the question I assume he was asked at the news conference. And because the other translation was the most widely spread.

It's a non-denial denial. He denies one particular phrasing of the charge, but that doesn't really address the substance: does Iran want Israel destroyed? Can't answer that question based on his response.

The regime can be changed without genocide, whether it is democratic or not. I linked to sites that talk about a one-state solution. It could happen.... Even in Israel.

Only if the Israelis chose that. It's quite clear that the vast majority will never choose that, and nothing Ahmadinejad is doing is actually aimed at convincing them make that choice. So it makes no sense to claim that what he really wants is Jews and Palestinians living happily together under one superfun state of religious harmony.

Foreign minister of Iran. You reckon a statement from him is apologetics? He's telling you what the position of his country is. That's his job.

No, that ISN'T his job. His job is to tell us what his bosses wants us to think the position of his country is. Those two need not be synonymous. In regards to middle eastern despots, it can easily be 180 degrees apart. Lying to your enemies is a well-respected and religiously justified tradition in Islamist circles.

But then it wouldn't be the West that was responsible for genocide of the Jews. It would be Iran. And by his own argument, a piece of Iran would have to be given up to create a Jewish homeland.

Isn't that what he says?

What a nonsensical argument. Look, either you're right and he doesn't want to kill the Jews, or I'm right and he does. If you're right, the question is irrelevant. But if I'm right, it's nonsensical: if he wants to kill most of the Jews in Israel, and if he manages to do so, do you seriously think he would feel constrained by his prior statements to build a homeland for the few survivors inside Iran? Of course such a person wouldn't. So this argument makes absolutely no sense on any basis. If that's the typical logic you're using to arrive at your conclusion, I've just got to say: wake up and smell the reality, because you've done more than enough drugs to last a lifetime.

[Skeptic]

Memri says "Zionist regime"

Of course; since Ahmanidejad does not recognize israel exists, he calls it the "zionist regime" in, you guessed it, "occupied Palestine".

To "change the zionist regime" means wiping israel off the map,since it is israel itself--not its government, for example, or its army--which is the "zionist regime" (a/k/a the "zionist entity").

Your "explanation" that he didn't say israel but rather "zionist regime" actually makes it worse for him; it shows that he not only wants israel destroyed, but doesn't even deign to accept that it exists.

Your "explanation" has the same logic as saying that if someone theathened to "kill that pig Firegarden" he is merely threathening to kill a pig, and therefore it not threathening murder because killing a pig isn't murder.

[Meadmaker]

What did you think of the links I gave?

I think it is an organization founded in Switzerland, whose board members have mostly Arab names, and none of them have an email address that ends in .il, and there are no physical addresses on the web site.

[Skeptic]

do you seriously think he would feel constrained by his prior statements to build a homeland for the few survivors inside Iran?

Oh, he already suggested Alaska, and I guess Madagascar is next, for obvious reasons.

I fail to see the point, though, since if what he wants happens and israel is destroyed and the refugee jews rebuild themselves in Alaska, it would only be a matter of time until some Arafat II would declare that Alaska was always holy Palestinian land to the last grain of earth and the jews must leave it or else.

[FireGarden]

I think it is an organization founded in Switzerland, whose board members have mostly Arab names, and none of them have an email address that ends in .il, and there are no physical addresses on the web site.

Bio of Israel Shamir (http://shamir.mediamonitors.net/) Who is listed as a member of the board.

After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz and Al Hamishmar newspapers and worked in the Knesset as the spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party (Mapam).

[..] As the first Palestinian Intifada began, Shamir had left Israel for Russia, where he covered the eventful years 1989-1993. While in Moscow, he reported for Haaretz, but was sacked for publishing an article calling to the return the Palestinian refugees and the rebuilding of their ruined villages.

[...] In 1993, he returned to Israel and settled in Jaffa.

[...] Shamir (50) lives in Jaffa, he is father of two sons.

Is he Israeli enough?


It's quite clear that the vast majority will never choose that, and nothing Ahmadinejad is doing is actually aimed at convincing them make that choice.

He supports the Palestinian resistance, which may well change the mind of Israelis. You say "never", he says "people have said never before."

So it makes no sense to claim that what he really wants is Jews and Palestinians living happily together under one superfun state of religious harmony.

That's not what I say he's saying. My one-state example was in response to the claim that the only way to get fundamental change in Israel is genocide. It is not the only way. Israelis may choose to give up Zionism.

No, that ISN'T his job. His job is to tell us what his bosses wants us to think the position of his country is.

Pointless discussing this.
I will not conclude he is lying just because that would fit your argument.

Lying to your enemies is a well-respected and religiously justified tradition in Islamist circles.

Pointless discussing this.
I will not conclude he is lying just because that would fit your argument.

What a nonsensical argument.

Not nonsensical.
It indicates that he believes genocide is a crime. And so detracts from the idea that he would commit such a crime.

Oh wait...
He only wants us to think that he thinks it's a crime...

Or..
You want us to think that he wants us to think that he thinks it's a crime...

What a joke!






To "change the zionist regime" means wiping israel off the map,since it is israel itself--not its government, for example, or its army--

Some Israelis disagree.
There can be a state, populated by Jews, which is not Zionist.

That would be a fundamental change. Something I would call a regime change. I would not call something that was merely a change of government a regime change.

[Ziggurat]

He supports the Palestinian resistance, which may well change the mind of Israelis.

Oh, I get it. He supports Palestinian efforts to kill Israelis, and that's supposed to encourage Israelis to conclude that these are people they can live with peacefully. Yeah, sure. Pass some of whatever you're smoking.

Not nonsensical.
It indicates that he believes genocide is a crime.

No, actually, he did NOT say that. He said that if Europeans feel bad about the holocaust, they're the ones who should do something about it. He didn't say that HE would feel bad about repeating it, or even that Europeans SHOULD feel bad about it.

[Roadtoad]

I don't trust the Islamic fundmentalist government in Iran for a number of reasons.

Swords should always be kept sharp and at the ready. They have little use when they're dull, and there is always somebody out there that needs deterence.

Don't waste a sword when a pocket knife will do.

[Huntster]

Oh, he already suggested Alaska, and I guess Madagascar is next, for obvious reasons.......

Is that like Bill O'Reilly suggesting Alaska as the prison capital of America?

We kinda like it up here pretty well as it is. We already have our population exploding because of the cultural refugees fleeing the illegal alien invasion, rampant crime, and ideological insanity of America.

[FireGarden]

No, actually, he did NOT say that.
Yes he did say that, he called it a crime. The JPost (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961353170&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull) gives the quote in full.

If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?

In fact, he called it a huge crime. And he names the punishment. People tend not to call the actions they favour "huge crimes."

Oh, I get it. He supports Palestinian efforts to kill Israelis, and that's supposed to encourage Israelis to conclude that these are people they can live with peacefully.

The old cliche that you only make peace with your friends.

There are Israelis who believe they can live in peace with the Palestinians -- let alone those further removed from the violence.