babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Iran president calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Iran president calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map"
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 October 2005 10:37 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel

This type of rhetoric, coming from the president of a religious state, does no one any good.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 October 2005 10:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No kidding.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ranngyn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10736

posted 26 October 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for Ranngyn        Edit/Delete Post
So what else is new? Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran speculated that collateral damage of dead palestinians would be worth it, if a nuke strike were to take out the Jews.

"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world",

So, the Iranian regime is building nukes. I wonder if they will strike, once they have their bomb.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Ranngyn ]


From: A lee shore | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 26 October 2005 11:41 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is obvious demagogy, and I wouldn't be overly concerned about Iran using the bomb against Israel. The real danger is the encouragement and support Iran could provide to terrorists who want to attack not only Israeli, but other "Jewish" targets, as at the AMIA in Buenos Aries.

And, of course, the fact that this will also shore up the most hardline Zionists and encourage the "preventive" ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel proper and the Occupied Territories.

Altogether shitty, but no great surprise.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 26 October 2005 11:41 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maniacs like this tend to bolster my support for the failed non-proliferation treaties. No country can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Not Iran, India, the US, Pakistan, China, France, or any other country. None of them. It only take the elevation of one psycho/zealot to the position of president (or equivalent), one moment of stupidity, and a bunch of like-minded sycophants surrounding him/her before nukes get used again.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 26 October 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
This is obvious demagogy, and I wouldn't be overly concerned about Iran using the bomb against Israel. The real danger is the encouragement and support Iran could provide to terrorists ...

And I’m almost certain it does so already. It seems that Iran is like a funnel for ‘zombie’ fighters coming to Iraq. This country opposes itself to the rest of the world and wants to become a leader of dogmatic Islamic movement. I wonder what right and authority has he to speak this way of another country, I mean, who the heck is this donkey? The world’s political and possible economic blockade of Iran sounds like a good solution.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 October 2005 01:07 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
I wouldn't be overly concerned about Iran using the bomb against Israel.

And, of course, the fact that this will also shore up the most hardline Zionists and encourage the "preventive" ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel proper and the Occupied Territories.



The fact that you twisted this threat into preemptively blaming "hardline zionists" (classic straw man) for "ethnic cleansing" (a highly controversial and deliberately politically loaded expression) illustrates a profound bias.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 October 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you think he is a CIA mole?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 October 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

The fact that you twisted this threat into preemptively blaming "hardline zionists" (classic straw man) for "ethnic cleansing" (a highly controversial and deliberately politically loaded expression) illustrates a profound bias.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]



Ummm, I didn't see it that way. I think she indicated that this statement would be causual, or at least simbiotic.

And it is ethnic cleansing.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 26 October 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
This is obvious demagogy, and I wouldn't be overly concerned about Iran using the bomb against Israel. The real danger is the encouragement and support Iran could provide to terrorists who want to attack not only Israeli, but other "Jewish" targets, as at the AMIA in Buenos Aries.

And, of course, the fact that this will also shore up the most hardline Zionists and encourage the "preventive" ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel proper and the Occupied Territories.

Altogether shitty, but no great surprise.



So I would suppose that in the event Iran does attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, you would understand and support Israel's immediate nuclear retaliation? Or would you support a UN Force going in and ending Iran's nuclear program by whatever means necessaary? Or should we simply do nothing and see what happens?


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 October 2005 04:06 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As much as I have no use for the regime in Iran, they are not going to attack Israel out of the clear blue with nuclear weapons. The one country in the region that has nuclear weapons is Israel. And that is a country that has been willing to engage in preventative war and attacks, as witnessed by the 1981 attack on Baghdad. So, if there is any country in the region to worry about when it comes to nuclear weapons, it is Israel.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 26 October 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
As much as I have no use for the regime in Iran, they are not going to attack Israel out of the clear blue with nuclear weapons. The one country in the region that has nuclear weapons is Israel. And that is a country that has been willing to engage in preventative war and attacks, as witnessed by the 1981 attack on Baghdad. So, if there is any country in the region to worry about when it comes to nuclear weapons, it is Israel.

AFAIK Israel has not yet threatened anyone with nuclear weapons. I think that is a whole other discussion. What should be done about this particular threat. Nothing is an option.


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 October 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Neither has Iran. And they've shown this type of bellicosity for over a quarter of a century. And it would make little sense for them to use it since it could kill just as many non-Jews as Jews. It wouldn't bother me if Iran joined the nuclear club. And it certainly should not be a pretext for the neo-cons to blackmail and bamboozle the world into another war.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 26 October 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Today the following quote from a speech that the President of Iran gave calls for Israel to be wiped of the map from a new wave of Palestinian attacks
quote:
"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.



This afternoon the following from cnn

CNN Suicide bombing kills at least 5 in Israel

quote:
JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for an apparent suicide bombing that killed at least five people in the northern Israeli city of Hadera, Israel authorities said.

The dead and wounded lay amid bloodstained trees and produce stands in the open market after Wednesday afternoon's terror attack


I hope that I am wrong but the new wave of attacks may have begun.

I hope that it is an isolated incident and not a prelude to more

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: miles ]


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 October 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Neither has Iran. And they've shown this type of bellicosity for over a quarter of a century. And it would make little sense for them to use it since it could kill just as many non-Jews as Jews. It wouldn't bother me if Iran joined the nuclear club. And it certainly should not be a pretext for the neo-cons to blackmail and bamboozle the world into another war.

I guess what you are (and have been)saying is the ranting,raving financing (of terror) and threatening of an unstable fundamentalist state presently close the completion of it's nuclear weapons program is nothing to worry about but Israel on the other hand, is hostile and more worrisome because it dared to take out Saddam's nuclear weapons producing plant??? And fortunately, you do not live next door to this "neighbour" so you can afford to not be worried.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 26 October 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, I do hope it was clear that I was utterly opposed to the Iranian president's call, and to the succour (and possibly concrete help) it could give to terrorists attacking "Jews" in Israel or elsewhere int he world. Like, duh.

But such sabre-rattling WILL shore up "hard-arsed Zionism", by which most people would understand those who refuse to seek out a peaceful solution and disregard the world's call to withdraw from the Occupied Territories.

And yes, I DO consider that "ethnic cleansing". I also see attacks such as the bombing of the AMIA as a violent anti-semitic act. Re-duh.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 26 October 2005 06:16 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
OK I see your point now.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 October 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Saber-rattling. How fun.

It would probably be a good idea for all the Middle East and nearby countries to sit down and negotiate some kind of peaceful-nuclear-power agreement, like Venezuela and Brazil are doing so that Venezuela doesn't have to undertake the capital expense of building a nuclear plant.

Such an agreement could extend to the sharing of electrical power, which would (obviously) make the people in the region aware of their interdependence on each other in a more tangible fashion and calm the bellicosity and rhetoric that goes on.

One can, of course, dream.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 October 2005 03:21 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's a splendid idea, Doc. Perhaps if there were more uniters than dividers in the region, such ideas would have the chance to become more than dreams.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 27 October 2005 03:28 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm, so I guess I posted this on the less popular ongoing thread concerning the same issue.

I'm not interested in taking sides in this conflict -- both parties have blood on their hands. However, a very underreported aspect of this incident is the Israeli stance which may be seen, by some, as provocative.

quote:
:
Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president
Ewen MacAskill and Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday October 27, 2005
The Guardian

~~snip~~

Israel views Iran as its main security threat in the Middle East. The defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, has said Tehran could be capable of developing a nuclear weapon within months and that there is a need for urgent action to prevent that.

Israel has issued thinly veiled threats against Iran's nuclear programme if diplomatic efforts fail and is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs from the US that could be used to destroy the facilities. The Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, raised the question of the nuclear programme with the visiting Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Jerusalem yesterday. Russia is selling nuclear fuel for the reactors to Iran, despite Israel's objections.



From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 October 2005 03:56 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
Hmm, so I guess I posted this on the less popular ongoing thread concerning the same issue.

Darn, here I thought you were avoiding my incisive question.!

quote:

I'm not interested in taking sides in this conflict -- both parties have blood on their hands.

But in Iran's case the blood is Iraqi, or are you referring to something else?

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 27 October 2005 04:09 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
But in Iran's case the blood is Iraqi, or are you referring to something else?

I didn't see your question, so I am not avoiding someone with a great name like yours. And why can't we all just get a'bong'?

Iran is rumoured to recently be spilling blood in Iraq for it's own cause. Whether or not that is true, I don't know.

I meant to implicate a larger and more historic sense of "blood spilling" in the middle east. In other words, that both the Israeli government and the governments of Arab/Muslim/Persian governments have been spilling one another's blood for far too long.

It is well worth remembering that during the Ottoman Empire, such was not the case. There is precedent for the peoples to exist in harmony and prosperity.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 27 October 2005 08:41 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel has issued thinly veiled threats against Iran's nuclear programme if diplomatic efforts fail and is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs from the US that could be used to destroy the facilities. The Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, raised the question of the nuclear programme with the visiting Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Jerusalem yesterday. Russia is selling nuclear fuel for the reactors to Iran, despite Israel's objections.


So you are equating a threat by Israel to elimintae the ability of Iran to make a nuclear weapon that could be used against it, with Iran threatening the very existance of Israel itself? Seems fair to me.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 October 2005 09:02 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought we were talking about heightened tensions from sabre-rattling on all sides. Bush has been openly aiming at Iran since shortly after 9/11, and is openly supporting Israel's aggressive stance; no surprises there, and no surprise that the Iranian right wing would respond in the same bully-boy terms.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 October 2005 09:44 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

I guess what you are (and have been)saying is the ranting,raving financing (of terror) and threatening of an unstable fundamentalist state presently close the completion of it's nuclear weapons program is nothing to worry about but Israel on the other hand, is hostile and more worrisome because it dared to take out Saddam's nuclear weapons producing plant??? And fortunately, you do not live next door to this "neighbour" so you can afford to not be worried.

[ 26 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


Capability and history. Israel certainly has the capability and it has a history of attacking its neighbors. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq. Acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is far down the list of worries, in my view. The rhetoric of its leadership and its willingness to sponsor terror, as with the Buenes Aires bombing, is of far greater concern. Resolution of the Palestinian conflict, not an attack on Iran, is the best way to defang the theocrats in Tehran.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 27 October 2005 09:56 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Josh I could not agree with you more.

Skdadl, while Israel's stance is "aggressive" surely it is understandable. I mean how would you feel if someone with the capability publicly claims that you should be wiped off the facef the earth? Israel and I suppose Jews in general have learned the sad lesson that silence in the face of grave threat is itself a death sentence.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sandy47
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10648

posted 27 October 2005 10:27 AM      Profile for Sandy47     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As Joshua Frank said in an earlier article re an attack on Iran by the US/Israel, it is likely just 'tough talk'.

quote:
The officials in Tehran aren't helping their cause much, though. But perhaps they saw what happened to Saddam when he bent over and touched his toes for the US government prior to the invasion. Iran is still calling for the annihilation of Israel, and Bush and his buddies in Tel Aviv love it. Of course, the Iranian government believes they're being threatened. ­ Israel has nuclear weapons and has openly spoken of the need to rid the Iranians of its oppressive regime. Even Vice President Dick Cheney has warned of Israel's threat to Iran.

http://www.counterpunch.com/frank10222005.html


From: Southwest of Niagara - 43.0° N 81.2° W | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 27 October 2005 10:32 AM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Josh I could not agree with you more.

Skdadl, while Israel's stance is "aggressive" surely it is understandable. I mean how would you feel if someone with the capability publicly claims that you should be wiped off the facef the earth? Israel and I suppose Jews in general have learned the sad lesson that silence in the face of grave threat is itself a death sentence.



I think Israel needs to be very careful. I think it needs to communicate with the Palestinians, and every Arab country around it, that it does have Nuclear Weapons, and that radiation from Israel in case of a strike on Israel will affect all of them. Radiation from Iran, will be far more severe. They should also make it clear that if Jerusalem is hit with a nuclear device Mecca would be an acceptable target. And then it should say, "We will leave the protection of Israel in your hands."


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 27 October 2005 10:56 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ahmadinejad's speech to thousands of students at a "World without Zionism" conference...

I am more worried about the conference. It is astonishing the resources put towards preaching this hatred. For example, most Indonesian Muslims hate Jews for no rational reason.

Take away Iran's nukes and they will still continue to tarnish Islam with violence and hatred.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 27 October 2005 11:20 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Iran president is a mere fanatic, who is also mindless with looks of a donkey. Iran’s clergy hates its own people and puts dogmatism in front of the citizen’s well-being. Just like it happened during the 2003 earthquake that took lives of tens of thousands of people:

“Israel's president is calling on Israeli citizens to find ways of donating to Iranian relief indirectly through international humanitarian organizations, despite Iran's rejection of aid from the Jewish state.
"I am sorry about the decision of the rulers of Iran to reject the humanitarian good will of the citizens of Israel," said the Iranian-born Moshe Katsav, according to a report in the daily Yediot Aharonot. But he added, "I distinguish between Iran's rulers and the Iranian people."
The Iranian Ministry of the Interior ruled out accepting any aid from the "Zionist regime."
In the wake of the rebuff, Israeli officials and non-governmental organizations vowed to continue private efforts to collect funds for Iranian victims. But the most urgently needed help — from Israel's vaunted military rescue teams — was never given a chance.“

How many more lives could be saved if not for the degrading dogmatism of the clergy that wants so desperately position itself as a ‘beacon’ of hate and religious fanaticism. It needs to be quarantined, and antibacterial treatment be applied in order to stop this virus from spreading too far.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 27 October 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Israelie government has to take Iran's threat seriously ... any country would if threatened by someone. A look over the last few thousands years of history should be more than enough to convince anyone that saber rattling isn't always just empty words.

Having said that, I notice that the Iranian president's words have generated a lot of international support for Israel. I wonder how much they paid him to say it?


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
neo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10738

posted 27 October 2005 12:01 PM      Profile for neo        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
..Having said that, I notice that the Iranian president's words have generated a lot of international support for Israel. I wonder how much they paid him to say it?

You mean that Iran is in bed with GWB?


From: does it matter | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 27 October 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yes its all a Jewish/American conspiracy don't you know.
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 October 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nobody said that, jpj, so knock it off.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 12:44 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Capability and history. Israel certainly has the capability and it has a history of attacking its neighbors.

All in defencive or preemptive defence from imminent attacks. So here the real threat is NOT Israel but Iran itself. An unstable extreme regime with potential nuclear arms making a direct threat. It seems to me that the UN security council ought to be the ones to take action. (hich has been woefully inept and has Syria as one of it's members.....)

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 October 2005 12:58 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, marching to Beirut was defensive and preemptive. And bombing Bagdhad was of course in furtherance of the "Only Israel Can Have an Atomic Bomb in the Region" doctrine. Why don't we just have one set of rules for Israel and another for everyone else.

And what is with this "unstable" business. The mullahs have been in power for over a quarter of a century. They don't seem to be in danger of losing it anytime soon.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 October 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[daft drift] The UN Security Council is essentially inactive because of the flawed Big 5 Veto system, not because of the presence of a relatively powerless country on the council. [/daft drift]

I repeat my heedless cry: No nukes for all!


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 27 October 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Yes, marching to Beirut was defensive and preemptive. And bombing Bagdhad was of course in furtherance of the "Only Israel Can Have an Atomic Bomb in the Region" doctrine. Why don't we just have one set of rules for Israel and another for everyone else.

And what is with this "unstable" business. The mullahs have been in power for over a quarter of a century. They don't seem to be in danger of losing it anytime soon.


Josh is right. If Israel tries to disarm Iran, Israel will again be blamed for being aggressive. Israel should leave the entire problem in the hands of the surrounding Arab Nations and the UN. OTOH if Iran launches a Nuclear strike, Israel should launch as many nuclear missiles as it takes to remove the threat of a second attack. Then the entire Arabic world may join together to deal with the nuclear fallout in it's heart. But this problem is one that directly impacts on every Arabic nation and on the Heart of the Muslim world. It is time we let them sort it out.
The only things the Western world should do is end any aid to Russia until it stops selling nuclear technology, and make it clear that there will be no aid, no help, and no trade with any country that uses a first strike nuclear weapon.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Ichy Smith ]


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 October 2005 02:01 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Memo to Ichy: Iran is not part of what you call "the Arab world."
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 27 October 2005 02:03 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Nobody said that, jpj, so knock it off.


it was humerous sarcasm Michelle, based on this statement:

quote:
Having said that, I notice that the Iranian president's words have generated a lot of international support for Israel. I wonder how much they paid him to say it?


chill out a bit.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 October 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
Josh is right. If Israel tries to disarm Iran, Israel will again be blamed for being aggressive. Israel should leave the entire problem in the hands of the surrounding Arab Nations and the UN. OTOH if Iran launches a Nuclear strike, Israel should launch as many nuclear missiles as it takes to remove the threat of a second attack. Then the entire Arabic world may join together to deal with the nuclear fallout in it's heart. But this problem is one that directly impacts on every Arabic nation and on the Heart of the Muslim world. It is time we let them sort it out.
The only things the Western world should do is end any aid to Russia until it stops selling nuclear technology, and make it clear that there will be no aid, no help, and no trade with any country that uses a first strike nuclear weapon.

This mutually assured destruction bullshit is the same insanity that drove the US and Soviet arms races from the 1950s through the 1980s. It laid waste to the Soviet economy and has permanently distorted the US's.

It has warped both countries' cultures, it has wasted the resources that could have cured all the diseases of this world a hundred times over. It has taken millions of human beings who could have served the world in so much more peaceful ways and instead placed them into large military forces that must stand ever-ready against threats that may never materialize.

And you propose doing all this to the Middle East plus Iran? You propose doing this to a region already warped by tensions that never get a chance to ratchet downwards? You, sir, are a sadist.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 04:05 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Yes, marching to Beirut was defensive and preemptive. And bombing Bagdhad was of course in furtherance of the "Only Israel Can Have an Atomic Bomb in the Region" doctrine. Why don't we just have one set of rules for Israel and another for everyone else.

And what is with this "unstable" business. The mullahs have been in power for over a quarter of a century. They don't seem to be in danger of losing it anytime soon.



Take off the rose glasses....go to Iran and see how unstable and free it actually is. You should get down and kiss the earth and be thankful that Israel took out the plant in Iraq....because you might nor have been able to post your altruistic post otherwise.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Memo to Ichy: Iran is not part of what you call "the Arab world."

Absolutely true. But is is part of the Middle East?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 27 October 2005 04:11 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
...furtherance of the "Only Israel Can Have an Atomic Bomb in the Region" doctrine.

Pakistan is in the region and they've had the bomb for many years. So much for doctrine.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 October 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is Turkey? I think I would say no, although they both share borders with Arab countries, and Turkey of course gets drawn into USian ME machinations too. But Turkey is too far north; Iran is off the peninsula, on the other side of the gulf. They are both more Central Asian than Middle Eastern.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 October 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pakistan is definitely NOT in the Middle East.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Uh huh, so actually my original facetious jibe at the conflation of ethnic and regional descriptors turn out to be more valuable than I intended.

Scooter. Pakistan is in Asia. Israel is as close to France as it is to Pakistan. France is not a regional Middle East power, though it does have nuclear delivery systems capable of hitting Tel Aviv. Why would you mention Pakistan?

Pakistani nukes are a threat to India. Period.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 04:19 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
But Turkey is too far north; Iran is off the peninsula, on the other side of the gulf. They are both more Central Asian than Middle Eastern.

Details schmetails.....

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually not really, what is being suggested here by Scooter shows an extreme distortion of geo-political realities, probably founded on a false conception of Islamic unity.

How can anyone miss the significance of the fact that one of the most blood thirsty wars of the twentieth century, something that makes all of the Arab/Israeli wars seem puny in comparison, was the war between the Persians and the Arabs of the 1980's?

Its origin is an 800 year old conflict that goes back to the Mongols.

Talk about eurocentrasism!

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 27 October 2005 04:29 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh never said that Iran was free. He said the government was stable. He is right. Stable does not necessarily have a positive connotation.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 27 October 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
yes its all a Jewish/American conspiracy don't you know.

I think you need to lighten up. If you ever played sports, you'd know one of the first rules is never to say something that the opposing coach can use to fire up his own team against you ... you don't give them a quote to post in their locker room. The Iranian president just gave the people he considers his enemy something they'll be able to quote for years. If he didn't get paid, he's at least entitled to thank-you letters from the Israelie hardliners (and yes, that statement was also intended to be ironic).


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually not really, what is being suggested here by Scooter shows an extreme distortion of geo-political realities, probably founded on a false conception of Islamic unity.

How can anyone miss the significance of the fact that one of the most blood thirsty wars of the twentieth century, something that makes all of the Arab/Israeli wars seem puny in comparison, was the war between the Persians and the Arabs of the 1980's?

Its origin is an 800 year old conflict that goes back to the Mongols.

Talk about eurocentrasism!

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Not to mention the fact that in some senses the struggles between Sunni and Snia factions in Iraq, are in a sense part of the same age old conflict.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:

I think you need to lighten up. If you ever played sports, you'd know one of the first rules is never to say something that the opposing coach can use to fire up his own team against you ... you don't give them a quote to post in their locker room. The Iranian president just gave the people he considers his enemy something they'll be able to quote for years. If he didn't get paid, he's at least entitled to thank-you letters from the Israelie hardliners (and yes, that statement was also intended to be ironic).


My friend who deserted the Iranian army after two years in the front line during the Iran/Iraq war, felt similarly about Saddam, whom he thought was much abused by the USA, whom he thought were ingracious, and should have paid him well for his services.

Sharon might want to ponder this fact and look to Florida, wherein sits Manuel Noriega in a jail cell, and remind himself that those who have been bought can also be sold.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 06:12 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Sharon might want to ponder this fact and look to Florida, wherein sits Manuel Noriega in a jail cell, and remind himself that those who have been bought can also be sold.

Congratulations Cue! You've managed to turn a thread dealing with the racist, hate-filled threats of genocide uttered by a homicidal tyrannical terror-sponsored "state" leader into a diatribe about how Sharon is a criminal. Well done!
(edited to ad saracism)

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 27 October 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The whole mess scares the shit out of me.

The bulk of the US Army's fighting capacity is on the ground in between the two countries, to boot. Despite rosy assurances, we can assume they will be there for a long time to come.

That means a lot of things, none of them good.

If things in the region start getting nastier in too many places at once, the US will find itself in an even worse place than they are right now. I shudder to think of what the outcomes will be.

Of course, the worst case will be that the US will launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran to distract us all from the looming indictments against numerous White House staff. It would be an appallingly stupid thing to do, but this is GWB after all.

Another worst case would be Iran taking a more overt and active role in Iraq - possibly even an invasion with local Shia help. The US is powerful, but not local - the outcome would not be certain. If other regions fire up at the same time, we might end up with WWIII before we know it.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 27 October 2005 07:38 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:

I think you need to lighten up. If you ever played sports, you'd know one of the first rules is never to say something that the opposing coach can use to fire up his own team against you ... you don't give them a quote to post in their locker room. The Iranian president just gave the people he considers his enemy something they'll be able to quote for years. If he didn't get paid, he's at least entitled to thank-you letters from the Israelie hardliners (and yes, that statement was also intended to be ironic).


I don't know, it seems to me that jpj was being sardonically humerous. It's Michelle that misunderstood his humour. I'm pretty sure she gets it now.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 11:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Congratulations Cue! You've managed to turn a thread dealing with the racist, hate-filled threats of genocide uttered by a homicidal tyrannical terror-sponsored "state" leader into a diatribe about how Sharon is a criminal. Well done!
(edited to ad saracism)

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


Rather, I was simply contextualizing the aformentioned "hate-filled threats of genocide uttered by a homicidal tyrannical terror-sponsored "state" leader," to other "hate-filled threats of genocide uttered by a homicidal tyrannical terror-sponsored "state" leader."

Given that one is threatening the other, it seems to make sense that one would also talk about the other, que no?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 October 2005 11:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, there are better ways of telling someone you disagree with what they've written. Please use them.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 11:19 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Given that one is threatening the other, it seems to make sense that one would also talk about the other, que no?

You're not comparing apples to apples but apples to compost (and just for clarification by compost I mean the Iranian President)

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 October 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Peech, there are better ways of telling someone you disagree with what they've written. Please use them.

I think Cue knows I mean him no disrespect, au contraire.(I highly respect him, just disagree.)

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 11:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps, you are right.

You are asserting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is homocidal. By this do you mean that he is latently homocidal, or that you actually know that he has killed people, as an act of war or otherwise.

No need for me to link to sites describing Sharon's activities in Quiba, or at Sabra and Shatila, to prove that Sharon has shown a particullarly murderous side directly.

Didn't he direcly supervise the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, and in fact monitor the whole operation by video link from his office?

Can you say, and present evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has acted similarly? If so perhaps you could find some material to show that he is more than a mouthy guy, and is actually homocidal?

XOXOXOX

Cue

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 11:32 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

If some someone threatens to "wipe" an entire nation off the map (genocide) then should we wait until he actually does it before calling him what he is?
Your "examples" of Sharon's "crimes" are controversial, historically disputed and one point of view for the alleged vicarious responsibility of acts done by 3rd parties. Poor comparison.
As for our gregarious energetic buddy in Iran...If he quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....
And finally what the heck is an Anti Zionist convention for? (Which he was the keynote speaker at) Certainly not a love in.

PS:
if the allies had assassinated Adolph Hitler or Beneto Mussellini would they be maniacs?
Because the dear old Sheik you refer to was a murderer ( although I don't favour targeted killings.......)

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 27 October 2005 11:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Even you have asserted that you are opposed to the policy of targetted killing, and I assume that there is some moral basis for this, and in this regard, have you now changed you position on this mode of conducting politics? But that is an aside.

I don't see how you can assert that the actions of troops directly under his command at Quiba are the acts of 'third parties.'" But that is an aside.

I am also not at all convinced that allies operating under the auspices of a joint "operational" command (as was the case at Sabra and Shatila) in combat, or in civilian control operations, are not directly culpable for each others actions. But that is an aside.

Asides, aside, I am asking you has Mr. Ahmadinejad, to your knowledge, been involved similar massacres of innocent civilians, irrespective of the whatever 'technical' defences Mr. Ahmadinejad might put forth to defend his actions?

Towit: To your knowledge has Mr. Ahmadinejad actually expressed his alledged "homocidal" nature through any direct means.

It is a serious question.

[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 27 October 2005 11:56 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Threaten to commit mass murder= threaten to commit
ho·mi·cide = 1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another
I would say that the declared intention that an entire nation must be and will be "wiped out " (with his nation's continued de fact assistance) is sufficient.

BTW this is also disturbing and quite telling:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/10/27/iran-un051027.html

quote:
Arab states maintain silence after Iran's anti-Israel remark

Arab states remained silent after a declaration from Iran's president that Israel should be "wiped off the map.Egypt's Foreign Ministry and cabinet officials said they had nothing to say about the matter, while Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher also had no comment. It's believed officials in the Arab world are reluctant to upset relations with Iran."


[ 27 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 28 October 2005 12:00 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Take off the rose glasses....go to Iran and see how unstable and free it actually is. You should get down and kiss the earth and be thankful that Israel took out the plant in Iraq....because you might nor have been able to post your altruistic post otherwise.

Hang on, I thought it was the USA, not Israel, that was defending our freedom from...uh, Denmark?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To utter death threats is a far less serious crime than homocide. It is, in Canada, known as "uttering," and is rarely even prosecuted. There are similar laws throughout the world. I have never heard any case where "uttering" (actually a very, very common practice,) is considered tantamount to murder.

Uttering is very offensive, and also scary. However it is not homocide.

If I were a CA prusuing a case, wherein a person was charged with "uttering," I think it would be prudent to establish that said person had shown previous tendencies to act on such threats, as to make him a danger to others.

That is what I am asking here Peech: What do you know about Mr. Ahmadinejad, which indicates that he might actively pursue the course of action described.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 28 October 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
Iran president is a mere fanatic, who is also mindless with looks of a donkey. Iran’s clergy hates its own people and puts dogmatism in front of the citizen’s well-being. Just like it happened during the 2003 earthquake that took lives of tens of thousands of people.

When I see pictures of Ahmedinijad, I see the same blank eyes, the same expression on his face -- oddly both hysterical and insanely calm at the same time -- that I see in pictures of George W. Bush. We certainly already know that Bush has no compunctions about sacrificing lives in war for his own weird combination of self-interest and messianism. And Bush's callous response to a recent "natural" disaster in his own country has had catastrophic effects on his own citizens.

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
Iran president is a mere fanatic, who is also mindless with looks of a donkey.[b/] Iran’s clergy [b]hates its own people and puts dogmatism in front of the citizen’s well-being. Just like it happened during the 2003 earthquake that took lives of tens of thousands of people:

This verges on hate speech. I can't imagine the uproar if I said Sharon looks like a turtle, and that the Rabbi's of Israel hate their own people.

I have no doubt that Mr. Ahmedinijad is not a nice man, but the animalization of persons, carries heavy racist overtones.

A Donkey? Why? Because he has a big nose, in comparison to English people?

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 12:21 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:

Don't give up your day job.....If I threaten to kill you it is an assault,
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42801.html
it is also a separate offence of threatening
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/45360.html
Both can be punishable by up to 2 years in jail
and they are prosecuted daily. The courts are filled with these offences. We haven't included incitement to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder which is punishable by life, or conspiracy to commit genocide etc etc. Secondly if a nation threatens to attack another it is often considered an act of war and wars are caused by such events.
SO simply because this maniac hasn't fulfilled his desires yet (but Iran has a history or funding, supplying weapons to and paying for "suicide" murder missions as well as terrorism we shouldn't take HIM seriously because HE hasn't ACTUALLY done it yet? Is that your theory in a nutshell?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 12:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse me. You are asserting that a two year jail term is some how comparable with the potential life sentence metted out to murderers. You are showing me that the state considers these crimes are equitable?

Two years is peanuts. In fact the two year sentence is a particular category of sentence that is well known as a slack sentence, given that the actual term is usually less than six months served, and sometimes three.

Why waste my time with that research that is have a I have offered you a golden opportunity to dig up some actul dirt on Mr. Ahmadinejad?

That is what I was really looking for. I thought it might be interesting.

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 12:38 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
We haven't included incitement to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder which is punishable by life, or conspiracy to commit genocide etc etc.

Sorry for "wasting" yout time.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 12:45 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Prove the conspiracy, please. So far it is just uttering.

quote:
Secondly if a nation threatens to attack another it is often considered an act of war and wars are caused by such events.

And this is an absolutely absurd way to defend your position since Israel has "threatend" to attack Iran and Syria almost on a monthly basis for years.

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 12:53 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
CUe:
I like you but you know beans about law it is NOT uttering it's threatening. (Utters are on cows.)
Also if he, at a meeting of like minded peope at a "world without Zionists (Jewish Nationalists) conference, encourages them and promises them that "we" will wipe Israel off the map by.....and through ...specific means it is a conspiracy or at least incitement and nothing to do with cows.
And it never ceases to amaze me how you mange to drag in your unfounded points of view about Israel being the aggressor every chance you get. If Israel acted according to your logic (waited until the tanks rolled into Tel Aviv) perhaps Israel wouldn't exist. But alas then we'd all have nothing to post about here at Babble.

PS:
some refernce for Israel's (unfounded) monthly threats would be useful .....

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1) It is bad form to try and win an argument by trying to establish that one persons point of view is invalid because they fail in a specific point of knowledge unrelated to the topic. The issue of wether the charge is "Uttering" or "Threatinging" is irrelevant to the point;

2) It is particullarly bad form when, in fact you are wrong, because 264.1 of the criminal code is called: "Uttering threat," commonly reduced in the legal vernacular to simply "Uttering."

Please read your link.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 28 October 2005 01:03 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

This verges on hate speech. I can't imagine the uproar if I said Sharon looks like a turtle, and that the Rabbi's of Israel hate their own people.

I have no doubt that Mr. Ahmedinijad is not a nice man, but the animalization of persons, carries heavy racist overtones.
...
A Donkey? Why? Because he has a big nose, in comparison to English people?


No, not at all. People make fun of Bush or Chretien etc. It’s sort of like a caricature, i don't see why not. He also seems stubborn ( ) like a donkey, isn’t he?

Peace dude.


From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 01:12 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:
It's bad form to incorrectly state facts
S. 264 is called ASSAULT

Uttering threats=Assaults

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat (IS GUILTY OF ASSAULT)
Please read the link correctly.

Any ways case closed because your buddy in Iran encouraged genocide not an "assault" with or without use of parts of the cow's anatomy.(not its arse either)
PS:
BTW You started this whole discussion by comparing the dearie in Iran's commnets to uttering threats.... a bad analogy I guess eh?

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 01:16 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This verges on hate speech. I can't imagine the uproar if I said Sharon looks like a turtle, and that the Rabbi's of Israel hate their own people.

I have no doubt that Mr. Ahmedinijad is not a nice man, but the animalization of persons, carries heavy racist overtones.


How a person looks is irrelevant. Is it "rascist" to call someone a donkey? I don't know. But, it certainly doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 01:19 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
I like you but you know beans about law it is NOT uttering it's threatening. (Utters are on cows.)

Ah...[lightly tap, tap, tap on the shoulder]...excuse me, but "udders" are on cows.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 01:20 AM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Sven:
oops.Got carried away by the sound of it.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 01:25 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
PS:
some refernce for Israel's (unfounded) monthly threats would be useful .....

It's certainly not the policy goal of Israel to "wipe Iran off of the face of the earth", publicly or privately. If it truly was, Iran would be gone now.

Problem is, this is the president of Iran explicitly saying it's Iran's (or, at a minimum, his) goal to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and Iran doesn't (yet) have the ability to do so.

Except for the most rabbid Israel-haters, what will all the critics of Israel say after Israel is wiped of the face of the earth with Iranian nukes?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 02:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
[QB]

PS:
some refernce for Israel's (unfounded) monthly threats would be useful .....

My pleasure.

I am sorry, I am not going to play the game of trying to decide whose threats are "founded" and "unfounded." A threat is a threat, however it is justified.

More or less monthly threats against Syria and or Isral, a start, but not the end:

9/30/1997

[QUOTE]The Israeli newspaper Yedaoun Ahronote quoted Israeli officials as saying that it would be necessary to launch a nuclear strike against Syria in order to counter an expected Syrian offensive in which chemical weapons will be used.


Arabic News

Sunday, September 27, 1998:

quote:
A leading member of the opposition Labour party in Israel has said the government should consider a pre-emptive strike against the recently developed Shehab-3 missiles in Iran.

BBC

Monday July 2, 2001

quote:
The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, increased the risk of a wider Middle East conflict yesterday when he sent warplanes on a revenge raid on Syrian army positions in Lebanon.
Guardian

06/10/2003

quote:
Israel launched its first air raid on Syria in more than 20 years yesterday, flattening what it said was a terrorist training camp 10 miles from Damascus.



Telegraph
LONDON, October 7
quote:
LONDON, October 7 (IranMania) - The recent Israel threat to Iran that it would use force to destroy Tehran's peaceful nuclear program should remind the world community of the state of jungle in which powerful states seem intent on reducing the world.

Turkish Weekly

December 22, 2003

quote:
Israel is considering an operation to destroy the nuclear capabilities of Iran, now regarded as the Jewish state’s number one enemy, Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Israpundit

Friday September 3, 2004

quote:
Israel's threats against Syria after the Beersheba suicide bombings would "exacerbate the deteriorating situation in the region," the Syrian foreign minister said yesterday.
Guardian

2004-09-28

quote:
Israel accused Syria on Monday of "directing terrorism" and warned it could face pre-emptive strikes against militants on its territory, but stopped short of saying it killed a Hamas leader in Damascus.


China Daily

Monday, February 28, 2005

quote:
JERUSALEM: Israel has attacked Syrian targets in the past and will do so again if it feels this will stop Damascus-based groups from attacking Israeli targets, a senior defense official said Sunday, accusing Syria of being behind a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv over the weekend.

Daily Times

"Men prefer one big lie, to a mass of small truths"


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 28 October 2005 02:05 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Except for the most rabbid Israel-haters, what will all the critics of Israel say after Israel is wiped of the face of the earth with Iranian nukes?

Not a lot, they have their own nukes and would reply in kind. Most likely there wouldn't be much left of the middle east, and most of the rest of the world would be too busy dealing with radiation poisoning and nuclear winter to have much time to think about it.

The question is how serious people think the president is. That he's stupid he's shown (whatever he believes, it was a dumb thing to say for a number of reasons). But is he any more likely to act on it than Reagan (who was also stupid) was when he called the USSR the evil empire and made jokes about bombing it?


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 02:14 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Cue:
It's bad form to incorrectly state facts
S. 264 is called ASSAULT

Uttering threats=Assaults

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat (IS GUILTY OF ASSAULT)
Please read the link correctly.

Any ways case closed because your buddy in Iran encouraged genocide not an "assault" with or without use of parts of the cow's anatomy.(not its arse either)
PS:
BTW You started this whole discussion by comparing the dearie in Iran's commnets to uttering threats.... a bad analogy I guess eh?

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


Assault is not homicide, do you understand. That is why there is a seperate and much more severe charge called homocide (aka murder,) there are various levels of assault and "Uttering threats," is the very lowest level of assault charge.

Homicide is not even in the same section of the code:

Homicide

quote:
Homicide
222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

...

Punishment for murder
235. (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life


It does not say, senteced to 2 years, or any such mamsy-pambsy thing.

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 02:15 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, I think there's a big difference between examples you cited and an unequivocal expression of a goal to eliminate an entire country.

Personally, I think the likelihood of Israel getting nuked and destroyed, if it's enemies had the means, is unsettlingly high.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 02:17 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
The question is how serious people think the president is. That he's stupid he's shown (whatever he believes, it was a dumb thing to say for a number of reasons). But is he any more likely to act on it than Reagan (who was also stupid) was when he called the USSR the evil empire and made jokes about bombing it?

Reagan was joking. This guy isn't.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 02:26 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is that this statement is a direct response to ongoing and persistant threats made by Israel and its principle backer the US to impinge on Iran's soveriegnty, and even, (as stated repeatedly by a huge number of high ranking American politicans) to overthrow the government by force, if necessary.

This statement is the first of its kind to come from Iran in a very long time, despite a continuous barrage of threats made against it. This point is even made in the article, which begins this thread:

quote:
Ahmadinejad's speech to thousands of students at a "World without Zionism" conference set a hard-line foreign policy course sharply at odds with that of his moderate predecessor, echoing the sentiments of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution.

To suggest that this billigerent statement does not come in the context of a persistant media campaign, including repeated threats of force against Iran, but out of the blue as if from some of primordial Persian racism against Jews is to wear Rose coloured glasses but be blind in one eye.

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 02:31 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
To suggest that this billigerent statement does not come in the context of a persistant media campaign, including repeated threats of force against Iran, but out of the blue as if from some of primordial Persian racism against Jews is to wear Rose coloured glasses but be blind in one eye.

I don't think it came out of the blue. I agree with that. But, I also believe it is a very serious threat (not "serious" in the sense of it merely being antagonizing but also in the sense that it is too likely that he would do it if he had the means).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 02:37 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I highly doubt it is an option.

First of all the primary grievance is the treatment of Palestinians, a favourite whipping horse of Arab and Persian hardliners for years. But nonetheless a cogent objective. They would die too.

Secondly, no Muslim would ever want to go down in history as the destroyer of the Al Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem the third holiest site in Islam, the place where Mohammed made his assent into heavan and met the spirit of Jesus. They would bomb Mecca too?

Anyone who suggests such is nuts.

The Iranians are just jockying for political breathing room, rousting the Americans and playing political games with the sentiments of their own people.

They have looked at Iraq, and looked a Korea, and they see the difference between having a credible Nuclear threat, and not having one, and they are acting on what they have observed.

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 28 October 2005 02:43 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I highly doubt it is an option.

First of all the primary grievance is the treatment of Palestinians, a favourite whipping horse of Arab and Persian hardliners for years. But nonetheless a cogent objective. They would die too.

Secondly, no Muslim would ever want to go down in history as the destroyer of the Al Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem the third holiest site in Islam, the place where Mohammed made his assent into heavan and met the spirit of Jesus. They would bomb Mecca too?

Anyone who suggests such is nuts.

The Iranians are just jockying for political breathing room, rousting the Americans and playing political games with the sentiments of their own people.

They have looked at Iraq, and looked a Korea, and they see the difference between having a credible Nuclear threat, and not having one, and they are acting on what they have observed.

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Perhaps you're right. I hope so.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 02:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Islamists plan (and the one that anyone who actually bothers to read what they say knows this) is wait the US out and survive. Their's is a holy mission given them by god, or so they believe. They think and believe, having observed history, that empires like that of the USA are temporary, and that their vision of spirtual enlightement will out in the end, and with the end of the US, so too will Israel end, as Israel's primary defence is the huge subsidies that the US feeds it. The Islamists are thinking in terms of centuries not, even decades or years.

Israel, now must make decision, make peace with the Arabs, and assert Palestinian rights as part of a negotiated process, and so rip the rug out from under the hardliners like Ahmedinijad who use this cause to fire-up Muslim ire and justify their autocracies.

Without the external threat of Israeli militarist expansionism, other, more liberal figures, will be able to find traction in the Islamic political landscape and make the types of changes that will bring peace to Arabs and Jews, and thus ensure the survival of both.

But should Israel not take the opportunity of their temporary military superiority as a window to forge a peace, and continue with its repressive policies against the Palestinians, then the war will continue, and then eventually they will lose, (when the vagueries of geopolitics tips the military balance against them) and so destory their own real desire for peace and security as Jews in the Middle East.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 October 2005 03:17 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Reagan was joking. This guy isn't.

Didn't his little joke almost start a nuclear war?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 28 October 2005 10:08 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Didn't his little joke almost start a nuclear war?

Only if you think that a two-day press dust-up was 'almost starting a nuclear war.' Granted it was a long time ago, but I don't recall there even being much of a Soviet condemntion of the stupid joke.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 28 October 2005 10:42 AM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
There are 100 times more Arabs in a region with greater territories then Jewish state and yet Israel is more superior then all of them. And I think that whatever Israel will do, such morons as Iran clergy will continue calls for its complete annihilation. Why is that? Out of their misery. They envy the progress and democracy of Israel and I believe it’s not Israel but they should stop their hate mongering and oppression of the Israel state. You don’t hear Israel calls for annihilation of Iran or Palestine or Syria etc. And I don’t think that Israel would ever loose to a country or a fanatical movement led by an angry donkey.
By the way, down in South Asia a donkey word has been used often traditionally to describe someone like Iran president: “Hey you, a donkey, son of a donkey”. It’s true.

From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 28 October 2005 11:50 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:

Only if you think that a two-day press dust-up was 'almost starting a nuclear war.' Granted it was a long time ago, but I don't recall there even being much of a Soviet condemntion of the stupid joke.

From what I remember, most of the dust-up was in the US and Europe; the Soviets hardly responded at all ... they were probably quite happy to see Reagon taking a lot of flak and saw no reason to provide a distraction.

But even if Iran gets nukes, don't you have the same MAD (mutually assured destruction) principle at work? If Iran nuked Israel, the response would destroy most of the middle east. Is the Iranian president (and whoever would have to agree in order to launch an attack) ready to sacrifice his country (and considering fallout most of the middle east) to get rid of Israel? I'm not sure he'd think wiping Israel off the map would be worth the death of 50 million muslims.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 01:48 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The point is that this statement is a direct response to ongoing and persistant threats made by Israel and its principle backer the US to impinge on Iran's soveriegnty, and even, (as stated repeatedly by a huge number of high ranking American politicans) to overthrow the government by force, if necessary.]

Iran has been calling for the annihilation of Israel and Jews therein for a long time. To say it is in response to Israel's "threats" is not only factually incorrect but just laughable. Secondly you started this whole line of argument by drawing an analogy from Iran's threat's of genocide to the CCC section of "assault by uttering threats" which (according to you)is so banal that it is "not usually prosecuted". I wont continue on with your red herring, straw man defences. Furthermore your "one-upping" style of arguing is very tiresome.

The Iranian President has threatened genocide which is a crime against humanity. How you can claim it is only a defensive measure is just nonsense.
BTW he continued today:

quote:
Iranian president stands by anti-Israel comments.

Iran's president has stood by his call to wipe Israel off the map, calling Western reaction to his remarks "invalid." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended an annual anti-Israel rally in Tehran on Friday. About 200,000 demonstrators attended the event, which comes at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan and marks Iranian support for the Palestinians.

Some people chanted "Death to Israel" and "Death to America," while others burned or trampled Israeli and U.S. flags.

"My words are the Iranian nation's words," Ahmadinejad told the state news agency, IRNA.

Israel on Thursday called for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations after Ahmadinejad told a conference called "The World Without Zionism" that he hoped Israel would be wiped "from the face of the Islamic world."


http://tinyurl.com/avfn2

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 28 October 2005 04:09 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This kind of nonsense happens when you're doing foreign policy as domestic policy. The US, Israel and many other countries do the same thing, especially the more tribal political groups (US Christian right, for instance).
When your basic political formation for domestic political success is based on tribalism, religion, supernationalism or a mix of these, your base backs you harder and your opponents are more intimidated when you have an external enemy to rant about. Just what those rants sound like are going to depend on the local rhetorical traditions; this guy's sound extreme to us, but I suspect it's relatively normal for the discourse community. A Chinese variant might sound sufficiently polite that few western targets realized it even was a rant. Doesn't make the Chinese so much less likely to nuke people.

The downside of this kind of thing, from the chimp in the White House to the, uh, donkey? in Tehran (equal opportunity animal slurs here) is that sometimes your ranting to your base at home will get international publicity. But that doesn't necessarily make it stupid--this guy knows that it doesn't much matter what he says, Israel and the US' foreign policy objectives will stay about the same and nobody else will do anything to stop them, so he may be right if he figures he gains more by energizing his base than he loses by swinging international opinion against him. I've long felt that the importance of international opinion is easy to overstate. What actual impact does it ever have?

Of course, this wouldn't be getting said in the first place if someone like Khatami were still in power. And how might someone like Khatami still be in power? Well, if it were more difficult to point to the external enemies. But of course the US, also doing foreign policy as domestic policy, insisted on loud and aggressive sabre-rattling just as the elections were taking place, which both shifted public opinion and hardened the resolve and increased the capacity of the ayatollahs to reassert control. So we end up with this jerk-off, because Bush found it more convenient to play to his base than to keep someone in Iran that business could be done with. Quite possibly the Wolfowitz types were deliberately trying to make sure they didn't end up with a moderate in Iran, just to make their plans to eventually invade more politically practical. Their politics depends on a polarized world. So does this Iranian guy's. They're symbiotes, really.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 04:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by venus_man:
There are 100 times more Arabs in a region with greater territories then Jewish state and yet Israel is more superior then all of them. And I think that whatever Israel will do, such morons as Iran clergy will continue calls for its complete annihilation. Why is that? Out of their misery. They envy the progress and democracy of Israel and I believe it’s not Israel but they should stop their hate mongering and oppression of the Israel state. You don’t hear Israel calls for annihilation of Iran or Palestine or Syria etc. And I don’t think that Israel would ever loose to a country or a fanatical movement led by an angry donkey.
By the way, down in South Asia a donkey word has been used often traditionally to describe someone like Iran president: “Hey you, a donkey, son of a donkey”. It’s true.

Actually Israel politicians have often spoken in very extreme terms about Arab people. For instance Benjamin Netanyahu and numerous other members of Likud and even Israeli officials have advocated the destruction of Palestinians as an entire ethnic group by transfering them out of Israel and the occupied territories.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 04:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech. I'd like a world without Zionism.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 28 October 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:
When I see pictures of Ahmedinijad, I see the same blank eyes, the same expression on his face -- oddly both hysterical and insanely calm at the same time -- that I see in pictures of George W. Bush.

Word.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Venus Man:

I doubt this will help your obviously fixed mind-set regarding Arab, Persian -- Israeli relations but, prominent Israel politicians calling for the destruction of the Palestinian people, as well as billigernt war like acts against Israel's neighbours ara a dime a dozen:

Lesson to learn: it is a mistake to say "never' in most afgurment, unless you are absolutrly sure it is true.

quote:
Prominent Israeli (Sharon's bets friend BTW) calls for the annihilation of Palestine and the invasion and conquest of Jordan.


quote:
In 1988, Zeevi established Moledet. His movement's platform consisted mainly in the transfer of Palestinian Arabs to the neighboring Arab countries. Zeevi was greatly disappointed by the Madrid Conference of 1991, and consequently withdrew from the Likud government of Yitzhak Shamir. He stayed in opposition for the following ten years. He disagreed strongly with the Avoda governments of 1992-1996 (led by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres) and 1999-2001 (Ehud Barak), however, he looked favourably on the Netanyahu government of 1996-1999 and supported it from the outside.

Zeevi made it quite clear that he supported forced transfer. He famously compared Palestinians to "lice" and "cancer". On different occasions, Zeevi also called for the invasion and conquest of Jordan and the resettlement of Palestinians into it1. It should be noted that Jordan had already signed a formal peace treaty with Israel at the time. More often than not, other Moledet party members had to follow up on these declarations with apologetic explanations that he was misunderstood and in fact Moledet supports only voluntary transfer.


Please note that it was after saying these thing, and without ever renoucing them, that Sharon gave him a senior cabinet post. Also that Sharon has never repudiated Ze'evi's staments, and that he spoke gloeingly of him as an hero Israeli soldier after he was killed by the PFLP.

But now on to the important questions of the day... what animal would you compare this gentleman too, just in the psirit of fun. He ha ha.

Rehavam Zeevi

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 October 2005 04:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Cueball. Clear some PM space.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 28 October 2005 04:47 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
This is obvious demagogy, and I wouldn't be overly concerned about Iran using the bomb against Israel. The real danger is the encouragement and support Iran could provide to terrorists who want to attack not only Israeli, but other "Jewish" targets, as at the AMIA in Buenos Aries.

And, of course, the fact that this will also shore up the most hardline Zionists and encourage the "preventive" ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel proper and the Occupied Territories.

Altogether shitty, but no great surprise.


A blessedly sane comment.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 06:27 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Peech. I'd like a world without Zionism.

I'd like a world full of spiritually enlightened people that is stateless and borderless and has no disease, no poverty, no weapons no crime....free doughnuts......
Dream on.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 28 October 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually Israel politicians have often spoken in very extreme terms about Arab people. For instance Benjamin Netanyahu and numerous other members of Likud and even Israeli officials have advocated the destruction of Palestinians as an entire ethnic group by transfering them out of Israel and the occupied territories.

Actually extreme politicains say extreme things. Thankfully Bibi (as he is known in Israel) is in extreme minority unlike in Iran where thousands took to the street to support and chant the "Death to Israel" . So what positive things can come out of the discussion in this thread??

[ 28 October 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 October 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I know he is in a small minority. That is why he was made Prime Minster, so that his very teenie, tiny itsy bitsy little fringe party (the likud) could begin the dismantling of the Oslo peace process.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 October 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh look! This is over 100 posts!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca