Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Once we have a muslim superpower, all will be well in the world. You've been radicalised by your mates in the taxi queue I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) And which country is ran by islamic fundamentalists that claim they would wipe Israel off the face of the Earth if they had the capability? Iraq was never a real problem, fighting in Afghanistan is pointless, but Iran, they are the greatest threat to World Peace imo. Leave them to their own devices and there will be a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East. They want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, for starters. Other nations have sought equality on a global stage and have done so without threatening to wipe another country off the face of the planet More on this widely reported western lie... Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic" Palestinians should Decide on Two-State Solution Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.' As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed. If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about? I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn't have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing. I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or "Iran"!) has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations. It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad's own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing. These propaganda efforts against Iran and Ahmadinejad also depend on declining to enter into evidence anything else he has ever said-- like that it would be wrong to kill Jews! They also ignore that Ahmadinejad is not even the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces. Anyone who reads this column knows that I deeply disagree with Ahmadinejad's policies and am not interested in defending him on most things. I profoundly disagree with his characterization of Israel, which is a legitimate United Nations member state, and find his Holocaust denial monstrous. But this quite false charge that he is genocidal is being promoted by Right-Zionists in and out of Congress as a preparatory step to getting up a US war against Iran on false pretences. I don't want to see my country destroyed by being further embroiled in the Middle East for the wrong reasons. If the Israeli hardliners and their American amen corner want a war with Iran, let them fight it themselves and leave young 18 year old Americans alone. So here are some things Ahmadinezhad has said that make clear his intentions, and which are translated by the United States government Open Source Center. He is hostile to Israel. He'd like to see regime change (apparently via a referendum on the shape of the government ruling over geographical Palestine, in which all "original" residents of any religion would get a vote). Calling for a referendum on the dissolution of a government is not calling for genocide. Ahmadinejad also says he has no objection to a Jewish state in and of itself, he just thinks it should be located in, say, German territory set apart for the purpose, rather than displacing Palestinians from their homes. He may be saying unrealistic things; he is not advocating killing Jews qua Jews, or genocide. Note that Ahmadinejad below (click link) denies being an anti-Semite (why deny it if he supposedly glories in it?); points out that he supports Jewish representation in the Iranian parliament; and compares his call for an end to the Zionist regime ruling over Jerusalem to the Western call for the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. Was Ronald Reagan inciting to genocide when he called for an end of the Soviet regime? http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadineja...ti-semitic.html Edited October 1, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Sorry, my bad, Ahmadinejad is clearly a top bloke and isn't anti-semitic at all, and he just wants nuclear power for civil uses. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Interesting piece that. Incidentally I remember reading Michael Moore years ago advocating a Jewish homeland in Bavaria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Once we have a muslim superpower, all will be well in the world. You've been radicalised by your mates in the taxi queue I reckon. A serious Muslim superpower may make the west and Israel pause for thought rather than rushing in. Why should any religion form a super power? This is 2009 ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Making it about Islam / the need for a Muslim superpower is just muddying the waters imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Making it about Islam / the need for a Muslim superpower is just muddying the waters imo This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Once we have a muslim superpower, all will be well in the world. You've been radicalised by your mates in the taxi queue I reckon. A serious Muslim superpower may make the west and Israel pause for thought rather than rushing in. Why should any religion form a super power? This is 2009 ffs. It would be good for the world Imo for a country like Iran to get this nuclear deterrant. It would not only give them standing in the world, but also in the region. Why aren't the yanks in china, Russia or chasing Al Queda in Pakistan.... Because those countries are stronger and not walkovers. With a nuclear deterrent would come strength dignity stronger leadership and just maybe a bit more thought and balance in the middle east. What a load of bollocks. I doubt one serious political commentator would agree with a single word of that. We're in a period where we're trying to reduce nuclear arsenals with the ultimate aim of disposing of them altogether (probably impossible I accept), and you're advocating nuclear proliferation and an arms races in the most unstable part of the world. Madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think it would further destabilise the region in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Making it about Islam / the need for a Muslim superpower is just muddying the waters imo This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. I'm looking forward to the soil wars of Waterworld It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... "This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And American people must be patient. " Bush - Sept. 16, 2001 Edited October 1, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Making it about Islam / the need for a Muslim superpower is just muddying the waters imo This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... No it wasn't, it was an ill-advised semi-literate Texan hick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Why is it the most unstable part of the world....oil Who causes most of the instability.... USA Russia etc if a strong responsible power could emmerge I think it would improve the region. The middle east is unstable because of religious fundamentalism more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Why is it the most unstable part of the world....oil Who causes most of the instability.... USA Russia etc if a strong responsible power could emmerge I think it would improve the region. I don't think Iran fit the bill at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Making it about Islam / the need for a Muslim superpower is just muddying the waters imo This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... No it wasn't, it was an ill-advised semi-literate Texan christian fundamentalist hick. FYP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Making it about Islam / the need for a Muslim superpower is just muddying the waters imo This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... No it wasn't, it was an ill-advised semi-literate Texan christian fundamentalist hick. FYP Not once have I defended the US, I'm at least as concerned by what is happening over there as I am by Iran, it's extremely depressing. Two wrongs don't make a right though and all that. In any case, I don't think Bush used the term in the context it was taken in, he's too stupid to even have known what the historical meaning is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Why is it the most unstable part of the world....oil Who causes most of the instability.... USA Russia etc if a strong responsible power could emmerge I think it would improve the region. I don't think Iran fit the bill at present. I really don't know the truth regarding thar statement because other than media scaremongering, I don't know too much about them. Are they less stable than India, N Korea or Pakistan? Are they as aggressive as the yanks or Russia in Georgia or china in wherever it was. I do understand your point but also can't help thinking that a strong nuclear Iran may bring some balance to the area. Not that it will ever be allowed to happen. I know what you're getting at (although it's moot anyway because you're right in that it'll never be allowed to happen) but I also agree with Renton that we should be moving away from having nuclear weapons rather than increasing the number of countries having them as a means to creating stability. I'm not one of these people who is comfortable with what I see as the double standards of the west though so I can also see why the likes of Iran and Syria are keen on having their own nuclear capability (even if it worries me). The main reason I made my previous comment about them not fitting the bill is to do with the way in which the regime treat their own people. How can trust people like those in power when they have so little regard for their own populace on so many levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Making it about Islam / the need for a Muslim superpower is just muddying the waters imo This is what irks me most about these islamic states. It's like we're going back to medievel times of the crusades/Moors etc. If we're going to have a fight let's make it over something tangible like oil. It was a "secular" state that declared their war to be a crusade though.... No it wasn't, it was an ill-advised semi-literate Texan christian fundamentalist hick. FYP Not once have I defended the US, I'm at least as concerned by what is happening over there as I am by Iran, it's extremely depressing. Two wrongs don't make a right though and all that. In any case, I don't think Bush used the term in the context it was taken in, he's too stupid to even have known what the historical meaning is. I was just kidding on really. I've been reading some more of Bush's quotes... "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) "Do you have blacks, too?" To Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso Edited October 1, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 (edited) I suppose you shouldn't laugh in one sense because it's so serious but some of the shit he came out with is hilarious. Fwiw, I bet he's not even particularly religious. Edited October 1, 2009 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21624 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 "Do you have blacks, too?" To Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso I like to think Bush Jnr was a bit of a one off, but then I'm reminded of Reagan....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I suppose you shouldn't laugh in one sense because it's so serious but some of the shit he came out with is hilarious. Fwiw, I bet he's not even particularly religious. His slips of the tongue are funny, like saying Afghan fighters "have no disregard for human life", but when he came out with stuff like "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system" it's scary that he was saying what he believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I suppose you shouldn't laugh in one sense because it's so serious but some of the shit he came out with is hilarious. Fwiw, I bet he's not even particularly religious. His slips of the tongue are funny, like saying Afghan fighters "have no disregard for human life", but when he came out with stuff like "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system" it's scary that he was saying what he believed. Two terms though. A lot of people clearly misunderestimated him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Some corkers here by the way: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7809160.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Once we have a muslim superpower, all will be well in the world. You've been radicalised by your mates in the taxi queue I reckon. A serious Muslim superpower may make the west and Israel pause for thought rather than rushing in. This is why there is a rush to judgement over Iran. The west doesn't want balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think it would further destabilise the region in all honesty. Ideally there will be no region left to destabalise after the Iran nuke launches in 2011... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now