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   » Statements by Iran

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Statements by Iran
LiberalPrisoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11293

posted 14 December 2005 11:19 AM      Profile for LiberalPrisoner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speeches made by presidents of countries do not come out by accident. They surely know at the time of writing what the world reaction is likely to be.

I was completely amazed by today's speech of Mr. Ahmadinejad of Iran, suggesting that Israel should be moved to Europe or anywhere else but where they are. His argument that Israel existence is somehow an atonement for Europe's 'crime' of the Holocaust must prove that Balfour and the Brits were either prophets or psychics when they set up the Jewish homeland well before Hitler came to power prior to WWII.

Iran must know that speeches like this does not win them any friends in Europe, and that it significantly worsens the chances of successful outcome of ongoing diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran not to enrich uranium (which frankly does seem more and more to me to be intended to be used to make fuel for nuclear bombs rather than for merely peaceful purposes).

Why does Iran persist in sabre-rattling while at the same time claiming to want nukes only for peaceful purposes? There is a profound disconnect happening here.

Or does the Iranian government genuinely believe that by lighting the fuse of WWIII that the rest of the Arab world will magically join in some kind of divine jihadic orgy and wipe out the crusader menace?

How do we explain their leader's statements?

Please, no trollish answers here - I am genuinely disturbed about this whole Iran-nuke situation and find it increasingly impossible to sympathethise with those who argue 'why shouldn't Iran also be allowed to have the bomb?' This plays right into neocon hands who want to invade and grap yet another oil-rich country.

Is the Iranian government suicidal?


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 December 2005 11:29 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Every time Ahmadinejad opens his mouth his brain, to the extent he has one, falls out. However, while his statement about the Holocaust is despicable, his point about a European Jewish state is not a new one. Despite the Balfour declaration, etc., it was the guilt in the west as a result of the Holocaust that led to the creation of Israel. However, that guilt would have been better assuaged by the creation of a Jewish state out of German territory. Not only would that have been less disruptive than placing a westernized state in the heart of the middle east, but it also would have removed the religious factor, making the Jewish state more secular.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: josh ]


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

posted 14 December 2005 11:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moving this to the Middle East forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 14 December 2005 12:02 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
By his stupidity, he has given George W. Bush and his administration a sword to use against him. A gilded, gift-wrapped sword, I might add.
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 14 December 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland has an interesting commentary on the Western sickness of anti-semitism bequeathed to the Muslim world: Jonothan Freedland column.

I agree with josh that it is a tragedy, in many ways, that a solution for the Holocaust survivors in DP camps was not found on European soil.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
By his stupidity, he has given George W. Bush and his administration a sword to use against him. A gilded, gift-wrapped sword, I might add.

I'm starting to wonder if maybe that's what he wanted. I mean, what else could explain it? He knows that the US is dying to bomb them and give the Republicans yet another Goldstein to distract the American public from their colossal fuckups. Why on earth would he poke them like this?

Edited to correct a major malapropism. Ha!

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 December 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From all I've read, Ahmadinejad is not that subtle. He is a fundamentalist ideologue, much more blunt and hard-line even than Khamenei, who is confrontational enough.

What we have to be hoping for is resistance from the reformers in Iran, but things have not been looking good on that front for a few years.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 December 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think, in fact, that the clown's remarks increases the chances of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than any U.S. attack. And given his remarks, an Israeli action would be given nodding approval in many quarters.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 14 December 2005 12:28 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see how Iran is attempting "to light the fuse of WW3", as that would require Iran to first actually posess nukes, and lots of them, which the U.S. and certainly Israel have stated they will never allow to happen.

Perhaps Ahmadinejad is taking lessons from Lil'Kim.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 December 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
frankly I think he's cerifiable
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 14 December 2005 12:47 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
By his stupidity, he has given George W. Bush and his administration a sword to use against him. A gilded, gift-wrapped sword, I might add.

Yep. What a bonehead!

The PLO has given up the idea of obliterating Israel in favour of a two-state solution long ago...and Hamas is moderating its approach. Is the president of Iran somehow more Palestinian than the Palestinians?

Admadinejad and Dubya deserve each other. Both of them seem damned well determined to push their respective countries over the edge of the abyss.

I agree that Europe would have been a better setting for a Jewish homeland, but it's too late to turn back the clock. The best that can be hoped for is a one-state solution. But while Admadinejad is at it, maybe he could make the same room for Jews in Elam that a predecessor of his made for them many centuries ago when Assyria exiled Israel.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 14 December 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
From all I've read, Ahmadinejad is not that subtle. He is a fundamentalist ideologue, much more blunt and hard-line even than Khamenei, who is confrontational enough.

What we have to be hoping for is resistance from the reformers in Iran, but things have not been looking good on that front for a few years.


Iran's reformers tend to be a neo-liberal bunch. They're big on bourgeois freedoms but don't seem to care very much about the poor and working class masses. The fundamentalists have cornered the populist economic agenda. If the reformes really want to be relevant to most everyone in Iran then they need to move to the left and adopt a populist political persona.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 14 December 2005 12:54 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mind you, Ahmedinejad has encountered massive resistance to his political program even from the Iranian establishment, which is smarter than him.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 12:56 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
I think, in fact, that the clown's remarks increases the chances of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than any U.S. attack. And given his remarks, an Israeli action would be given nodding approval in many quarters.

Why is that you can't make Iran responsible for it's own (or any other nation for that matter)crap without turning it around or standing on its head to somehow drag Israel into the equation. In my opinion your logic is equally as faulty as Iran'. He is a fundamentalist seeking desperate approval. Israel/Palestine are mere cannon fodder.Iran could care fucking less about the Palestinians (other than financing terror it has done, like all other ME countries precious little to actually aid them). I wish there was actual peace in the Middle East once and for all. but in my opinion the hate would continue and whatever was obtained (land, state etc) would never be enough. I am sick of this anti-Israel rhetoric crap...."Israel is the cause of all the problems." Your post is a classic. A madman threatens Israel with anhiliation, denies the Holocaust, and suggests it should never have existed" and you agree partially (Israel should never have existed)!!! When are you going to call a spade a fucking shovel? But that would require logic, facts and reasonableness to prevail over idealogy wouldn't it?

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 14 December 2005 01:03 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Why is that you can't make Iran responsible for it's own (or any other nation for that matter)crap without turning it around or standing on its head to somehow drag Israel into the equation. In my opinion your logic is equally as faulty as Iran'. He is a fundamentalist seeking desperate approval. Israel/Palestine are mere cannon fodder.Iran could care fucking less about the Palestinians (other than financing terror it has done, like all other ME countries precious little to actually aid them). I wish there was actual peace in the Middle East once and for all. but in my opinion the hate would continue and whatever was obtained (land, state etc) would never be enough. I am sick of this anti-Israel rhetoric crap...."Israel is the cause of all the problems." Your post is a classic. A madman threatens Israel with anhiliation, denies the Holocaust, and suggests it should never have existed" and you agree partially (Israel should never have existed)!!! When are you going to call a spade a fucking shovel? But that would require logic, facts and reasonableness to prevail over idealogy wouldn't it?

C'mon. Josh's remark about the possibility of Israel bombing nuclear sites in Iran is timely enough. Sharon has committed himself to act on Iran's nuclear program by March if IAEA has failed to resolve matters surrounding uranium enrichment. Do you really believe Ahmadinejad's remarks haven't factored into Sharon's election-driven timetable? How would you feel if you were an Israeli? You'd want to bomb the Iran's nuclear sites to Kingdom Qom...and the sooner the better.

I didn't see Josh being anti-Israel and I didn't see him give Iran a pass. Quite the contrary.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Alan Avans ]


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:

The PLO has given up the idea of obliterating Israel in favour of a two-state solution long ago...and Hamas is moderating its approach. Is the president of Iran somehow more Palestinian than the Palestinians?

I agree that Europe would have been a better setting for a Jewish homeland, but it's too late to turn back the clock. The best that can be hoped for is a one-state solution. But while Admadinejad is at it, maybe he could make the same room for Jews in Elam that a predecessor of his made for them many centuries ago when Assyria exiled Israel.


The PLO and Hamas . Jihad have not given up the idea of obliterating Israel. If you read their propaganda, watched their TV that would be obvious to you too. Secondly Israel was created because of intolerance to Jews, which btw existed in the Arab/Muslim world as well. Do you really think Jews will flourish under a "one-state solution" (meaning Arab/Muslim dominance?) Fortunately a one-state will never happen. But what will is a multi-state solution with freedom and tolerance for all. Hopefully those democratic principles will evolve in Arab states which have resisted them to date.


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

posted 14 December 2005 01:07 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:
C'mon. Josh's remark about the possibility of Israel bombing nuclear sites in Iran is timely enough. Sharon has committed himself to act on Iran's nuclear program by March if IAEA has failed to resolve matters surrounding uranium enrichment.

This what Josh posted:
quote:
very time Ahmadinejad opens his mouth his brain, to the extent he has one, falls out. However, while his statement about the Holocaust is despicable, his point about a European Jewish state is not a new one. Despite the Balfour declaration, etc., it was the guilt in the west as a result of the Holocaust that led to the creation of Israel. However, that guilt would have been better assuaged by the creation of a Jewish state out of German territory. Not only would that have been less disruptive than placing a westernized state in the heart of the middle east, but it also would have removed the religious factor, making the Jewish state more secular.

And sharon's comments were in response to threats from Iran. I suspect they are both blustering. But iran is the real loose cannon.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
LiberalPrisoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11293

posted 14 December 2005 01:11 PM      Profile for LiberalPrisoner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are all pointing out what Iran achieved with this statement.

My (still unanswered) question is: what were they trying to achieve? A break-off of negotiations? To goad Israel? What?


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 14 December 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree that Israel, on Palestinian lands in the Middle East, should never have existed. I think the GUILTY PARTIES in the Holocaust (in Germany and elsewhere in Europe) should have been the ones to accept losing part of their territory to create a Jewish Homeland, if the DPs themselves found it safer to establish their own homeland rather than to reintegrate their former countries.

Sure hope that doesn't make me an anti-semite or a friend of right-wing religious nuts in Iran. There isn't much point wishing for what might have been, as then I'd go back to the Treaty of Versailles and war reparations which had more disastrous outcomes still.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 December 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think there's anything strategic involved. It's just Ahmadinejad being a loose canon. Although, I'm sure the mullahs share his views.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 14 December 2005 01:21 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
very time Ahmadinejad opens his mouth his brain, to the extent he has one, falls out. However, while his statement about the Holocaust is despicable, his point about a European Jewish state is not a new one. Despite the Balfour declaration, etc., it was the guilt in the west as a result of the Holocaust that led to the creation of Israel. However, that guilt would have been better assuaged by the creation of a Jewish state out of German territory. Not only would that have been less disruptive than placing a westernized state in the heart of the middle east, but it also would have removed the religious factor, making the Jewish state more secular.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So what is it in Josh's remarks exactly that constitutes "anti-Israel rhetoric-crap" (or something like that)? Can he indulge in a little alternative history-making without being burdened "anti-Israel"? Were any of his facts wrong? Do you really believe the state of Israel would have come into existence on the strength of the Balfour Declaration regardless of the events of World War II?

And why shouldn't Germany have been required to cede a portion of German territory + financial reparations to European Jews for a Jewish homeland? Hmm?

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Alan Avans ]


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 December 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:

Iran's reformers tend to be a neo-liberal bunch. They're big on bourgeois freedoms but don't seem to care very much about the poor and working class masses. The fundamentalists have cornered the populist economic agenda. If the reformes really want to be relevant to most everyone in Iran then they need to move to the left and adopt a populist political persona.


Alan, while I know what you mean, I really react to your calling freedom "bourgeois," and I think you're oversimplifying the politics and potential of educated urbanites in Iran. It would be a terrible political mistake, I believe, to treat their cultivation and potential as derisory - the longer I think about that, the more offensive a notion I find it.

Plus "adopt a populist political persona" - what on earth could that mean? The workers who have migrated to Tehran in huge numbers are indeed a different constituency from the middle class, but then they are now a different constituency as well from the villagers. Talking about a "populist" political stance sounds like the kind of distracted panic that Democrats in the U.S. are currently engaged in because they know they're not communicating with the American far right. And watching their pathetic efforts to catch up with the evil Republican organizers should be a learning experience for us all. Lame mimicry isn't working.

I'm no expert on the Iranian reformers, but I've read enough to think that you are selling them short. They're in retreat at the moment, but I assume they are learning.

And there are lots of doubts about how Ahmadinejad got elected. I wouldn't panic yet.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:

And why shouldn't Germany have been required to cede a portion of German territory + financial reparations to European Jews for a Jewish homeland? Hmm?[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Alan Avans ]


Israel was created by the UN, it EXISTS, WHERE it is. Now get over it!

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 14 December 2005 01:39 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
I don't think there's anything strategic involved. It's just Ahmadinejad being a loose canon. Although, I'm sure the mullahs share his views.

I would agree but I think he is desperate to establish himself (as he is inexpereinced) and what better way than to resort to the tradition of Israel bashing.

I also agree with SKADL's ananysis. I think there are plenty of reformers just waiting to get the chance.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 14 December 2005 01:59 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Israel was created by the UN, it EXISTS, WHERE it is. Now get over it!

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


I'm feeling inspiration...I'll save it for another thread, Peech.

If the UN ever wants to revisit the case of where to redomicile Israel (in the event that Israel sinks into a depleted aquifer or slides into the Red Sea) I've got the perfect suggestion:

First we'll take Manhattan...Brooklyn...then we'll take...Broward County + Boca Raton.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 14 December 2005 02:05 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Le Marais and parts of Belleville in Paris, Golders Green in London, Once and Villa Crespo in Buenos Aires...
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:

First we'll take Manhattan...Brooklyn...then we'll take...Broward County + Boca Raton.


Wel if you want to get technical...maybe Miami Beach would have been an ideal homeland!!

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 December 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
I think he is going to get whacked by the Israelis and most of the world will breathe a sigh of relief...

A Holocaust denier with an atom bomb program who talks about whiping a Jewish country off the face of the Earth.

On this one, I have to be 100% with the Israelis. One Auschwitz was enough.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2005 04:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
I am sick of this anti-Israel rhetoric crap...."Israel is the cause of all the problems." Your post is a classic. A madman threatens Israel with anhiliation, denies the Holocaust, and suggests it should never have existed" and you agree partially (Israel should never have existed)!!! When are you going to call a spade a fucking shovel? But that would require logic, facts and reasonableness to prevail over idealogy wouldn't it?

You have completely misrepresented josh's statements on this thread. Get a hold of yourself and your temper, now.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 December 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
I have to agree with Peech.

A Holocaust denier should never ever be agreed with. What the Iranian nutbar said is pure anti-Semitic hatred. Nothing justifies it. Nothing justifies agreeing with even the slightest part of what he said.

The UN, the EU, most chancelleries in most democratic countries have pointed out time and again in reaction to the Iranian president's hateful rhetoric that nothing justifies calling for the destruction of a state. Israel was created by the UN in the region where it is today for fully justifiable reasons and to even accept the slightest legitimacy of the arguments comign out of the mouth of a Holocaust denier that it should never have been created, or should have been created elsewhere or should somehow be moved is foolish.

Some people are so driven by their dislike of the Jewish presence in the Middle East they are driven to see some substance, however limited or twisted, in the ramblings of the Iranian president. It saddens me to read some of this nonsense. Supposed leftwing or progressive people agreeing with the ramblings of an open anti-Semitic Holocaust denier.

He deserves jail, or being overthrown, not discussion or debate.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 14 December 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Denying the Holocaust is definitely anti-semitic hatred.

So is saying the Jews (in Israel or anywhere else) should be driven to the sea.

But questioning whether the decision to found a State of Israel when and where it was founded was a sound or just one is absolutely not anti-semitism.

I might agree with Jean-Marie Le Pen that the sky is blue, and I certainly agree with the reactionary Pope Benedict about Schwarzenegger and the death penalty, but that doesn't mean I agree with such persons' outlooks or views.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]


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

posted 14 December 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
You have completely misrepresented josh's statements on this thread. Get a hold of yourself and your temper, now.

Thanks Michelle for the wise words (again!)
I aplologize to Josh if I misrepesented his posts which I am quoting the sentences I take issue with below, I leave it to others to determine what the logical inferences are:
quote:
Despite the Balfour declaration, etc., it was the guilt in the west as a result of the Holocaust that led to the creation of Israel. However, that guilt would have been better assuaged by the creation of a Jewish state out of German territory. Not only would that have been less disruptive than placing a westernized state in the heart of the middle east, but it also would have removed the religious factor, making the Jewish state more secular. .......I think, in fact, that the clown's remarks increases the chances of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than any U.S. attack. And given his remarks, an Israeli action would be given nodding approval in many quarters.

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

posted 14 December 2005 04:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
He deserves jail, or being overthrown, not discussion or debate.

If you don't want to discuss what he said, then please do feel free to leave the thread.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 14 December 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
If I'm out of line, fine. I won't pursue this.

1.) Just for the record, all the Medieval-brained fundamentalists, their sadistic, deluded, stinking hypocritical murderer-rapist-torturer henchmen, this oafish crud Ahmadinejad, are blotches on the world. I wish they would fall from power. Crazy statement. (Ahmadinejad's i mean.)

But, the drift here, it's so typical of why discussing "The MIDDLE EAST" is so difficult. Because some people want to make it so. Pointlessly. (Or not so pointlessly?)

The quote that started it all:

quote:
I think, in fact, that the clown's remarks increases the chances of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than any U.S. attack. And given his remarks, an Israeli action would be given nodding approval in many quarters.

Peech's post:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by josh:
I think, in fact, that the clown's remarks increases the chances of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than any U.S. attack. And given his remarks, an Israeli action would be given nodding approval in many quarters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why is that you can't make Iran responsible for it's own (or any other nation for that matter)crap without turning it around or standing on its head to somehow drag Israel into the equation. In my opinion your logic is equally as faulty as Iran'. He is a fundamentalist seeking desperate approval. Israel/Palestine are mere cannon fodder.Iran could care fucking less about the Palestinians (other than financing terror it has done, like all other ME countries precious little to actually aid them). I wish there was actual peace in the Middle East once and for all. but in my opinion the hate would continue and whatever was obtained (land, state etc) would never be enough. I am sick of this anti-Israel rhetoric crap...."Israel is the cause of all the problems." Your post is a classic. A madman threatens Israel with anhiliation, denies the Holocaust, and suggests it should never have existed" and you agree partially (Israel should never have existed)!!! When are you going to call a spade a fucking shovel? But that would require logic, facts and reasonableness to prevail over idealogy wouldn't it?


Something else that josh said that's apparently problematic:

quote:
Every time Ahmadinejad opens his mouth his brain, to the extent he has one, falls out. However, while his statement about the Holocaust is despicable, his point about a European Jewish state is not a new one. Despite the Balfour declaration, etc., it was the guilt in the west as a result of the Holocaust that led to the creation of Israel. However, that guilt would have been better assuaged by the creation of a Jewish state out of German territory. Not only would that have been less disruptive than placing a westernized state in the heart of the middle east, but it also would have removed the religious factor, making the Jewish state more secular.

Point to where josh agreed that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Point to where he gave the Iranians a free ride on this one.

You can't because he didn't.

Why did he "drag Israel into the equation"? Maybe because Ahmadinejad was talking about Israel? Might that have something to do with it?

And maybe it's just a statement of fact that it might have been better at the very beginning for European Christendom to atone for its progroms by ceding some of its own territory. And after the Holocaust there was another opportunity to atone to the Jews, instead of blithely sending them off to the already problematic Middle East.

And regardless of this, Israel is an established fact, and nothing josh said could possibly be seen as supporting Ahmadinejad. (Especially the parts about Ahmadinejad being a moron, asking to be smacked by his enemies, for which, josh said, most of the world would either applaud or regard with indifference.)

If people can't discuss simple, innocuous matters of fact and opinion without being called a second Hitler, ... ah forget it.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 December 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Miami Beach would have been an ideal homeland!!

Iy is too muggy in the summer (to quote a character from a old robin hood comedy when asking for palestine as a homeland)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2005 05:05 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for that, thwap. You are absolutely right.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 14 December 2005 05:11 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see what's so hard to understand. He's pandering to his base, just like Bush. It's not international politics, it's domestic politics. And getting the US and/or Israel annoyed is if anything a bonus--having the external enemy putting pressure on Iran always strengthens the reactionaries. Again, just like Bush.
And even if the US and/or Israel do a bombing campaign, I'm sure he doesn't give a shit about Iranian deaths, just like Bush and US deaths. It would just strengthen his hold on power.

And there's no way Sharon or the Bushmen would want to kill him--if there were no Ahmadinejads they'd have to invent them. They feed off this stuff, too.


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

posted 14 December 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

The PLO and Hamas . Jihad have not given up the idea of obliterating Israel. If you read their propaganda, watched their TV that would be obvious to you too. Secondly Israel was created because of intolerance to Jews, which btw existed in the Arab/Muslim world as well. Do you really think Jews will flourish under a "one-state solution" (meaning Arab/Muslim dominance?) Fortunately a one-state will never happen. But what will is a multi-state solution with freedom and tolerance for all. Hopefully those democratic principles will evolve in Arab states which have resisted them to date.


Once upon a time Zionist used to demand that all The Arabs states give up thier war against Israel, they said only then could there be peace, and they would give up the land they occupied to its owners.

So, for all intents and purposes all the Arab states did so, but for the trifiling matter of a few signatures on documents, there has been no Arab armies fighting Israelis for 20 years.

But then the Zionists demanded that for there to be peace, the miltant Palestinians under Yasser Arafat in the PLO would also have to give up their war, so that their would be peace, and they would give up the land they occupied to its owners.

So, the PLO did this, but then the Zionists demanded that this was not good enough, and the even smaller miilitant group Hamas would also have to give up their war, so that their would be peace, and they would give up the land they occupied to its owners.

Now it seems that Hamas may agree to give ups its war, and now Peech you are saying even this is not good enough, and the even smaller miilitant group Islamic Jihad would also have to give up their war, so that their will be peace, so that Israel will give up the land it has occupied to its owners.

I imagine that there will be a day where the Zionists will insist that the Palestinians institute an absolutely police state, using some as yet unheard of technology, to control totally the minds of its people, so that not even one child might think of harming an Israeli, in order so that their will be absolutely no violence, and then Israel will give up the land it has occupied to ite owners.

And no one lived happily ever after.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 December 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I was referring to the foolishness of debating whether an open Holocaust denier can ever have a legitimate point that maybe Israel should never have been created or should be forcibly moved elsewhere. We all know what that really means in the mouth of a fascist.

Debate on how people should react to the dangerous rantings of Holocaust deniers is a legitimate matter. Debating whether a Holocaust denier has a point, not on whether the sky is blue, but on one of the most central events in modern Jewish history, is on the other hand quite foolish.

Simplistic equation: no Holocaust, no Israel in 1948. Deny the Holocaust, ...

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 14 December 2005 05:28 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2005 05:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you are saying that If a Holocaust denier makes note of the fact that a cloudless sky in the daytine is blue, we should not make note of our agreement on this point?

What if the Holocaust Denier admits quite plainly that they are a Holocuast Denier? Are we to take issue with them on this point also?

The facts of the world are shared by all of us, how they are interpreted is what is important.

[ 14 December 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 14 December 2005 05:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nobody is debating whether or not he was right about denying the Holocaust, Critical Mass2.

If you can't follow the debate in this forum without sidetracking it like this, then your current alias is going to go the way of your previous ones.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 December 2005 05:35 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Whatever...

He's not some guy in a back alley who forgot to take his meds. Get real. He has an atom bomb program and he funds movements that use suicide attacks against civilians.

And he is an open Holocaust denier. Your academic take on the issue could be better used for another topic.

And threats to remove people from Babble for simply expressing an opinion calmly should not be made so lightly.

And yes the sky is blue today. And no, a Holocaust denier can have little to say that is intelligent or useful on issues involving Jewish people.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Knock it off, CM2. Last warning. No one is agreeing with him about Holocaust denial, and if you keep implying that they are, you will be banned from posting to this forum.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 December 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No one is agreeing with him about Holocaust denial, and if you keep implying that they are, you will be banned from posting to this forum.

I never wrote anywhere that anyone here agreed with Holoucaust denial. I fail to see why you choose to write that mistaken point.

My problem is that I find it foolish for anyone to venture the argument that a Holocaust denier, something we have all agreed the man truly is, may have a point, no matter how indirect, on Israel's physical existence, or more globally on the history of Jews and the Holocaust.

I don't think he does have a point.I don't think an Ernst Zundel-like president can. I don,t see why anyone calmly voicing that idea would deserve being expelled from a discussion forum. Hey, but it's a board that you moderate and you make the rules and I'll abide by them if you point out where I have violated them

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 December 2005 05:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not threatening to ban you for "simply expressing an opinion calmly". I'm threatening to ban you for the same reason other accounts of yours in the past have been banned - because you're disrupting this thread with hysterical denunciations of things nobody has said.

You're lucky I even bothered to warn you.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 December 2005 05:49 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
hysterical denunciations of things nobody has said

As I wrote, that would be against the rules. You're the moderator. It is your job to ensure we follow the rules we all agreed to abide by. If you point out where I did any of that, I will edit out any offending comments.

From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sunny Beasty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10923

posted 14 December 2005 05:57 PM      Profile for Sunny Beasty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re:"My (still unanswered) question is: what were they trying to achieve? A break-off of negotiations? To goad Israel? What?"

That is the million dollar question. I posed this same question last week after the President made similar comments. Like this one it was also sidetracked by the Israeli - Palestinian debate.

My personal view is that the new Iranian leadership is internally asserting itself against the moderate factions. Externally, they seem to be making a play for leadership of the Islamic World by posing as the most militant vis a vis the West and Israel. I think it's going to backfire, but they seem to have gambled otherwise.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You do know that the devide between Shia and Sunni islam are about as great as the devide bewteen the Catholics and the Protestants. I can't really see a Catholic making a play for Leadership of the Christian world -- maybe converting thm perhaps.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 14 December 2005 06:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think he is telling the US to fuck off.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 06:50 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
THWAP:
FYI: "dragging Israel into the eqaution" meant BLAMING Israel for some of reamarks made by Iranian president.

So, please don't put words in my mouth, just read my last post above. Thanks

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 14 December 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So, for all intents and purposes all the Arab states did so, but for the trifiling matter of a few signatures on documents, there has been no Arab armies fighting Israelis for 20 years.

No you're right they no longer have to do that because their puppets can perform better with terrorist and murder missions which THEY finance and reward! And funny if ALL aggression has ceased against Israel, then how come people are dying and PLEASE don't reply with that "cycle of violence" rhetoric!Once again what is the solution?

BUT let's talk about the topic, the Iranian president's threats without somehow blaming Israel (which is my point!)

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


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

posted 14 December 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tryin to eqquate a few stray bombers with the 1973 war is to maim common sense.

Sorry Peech there will always be somebody somewhere who will want to wipe Israel of the map. You can not make the absolute elimination Arab violence a precondition to the return of their property communally, or some other negotiated solution.

If you keep raising the bar of compliance you ensure the violence wil continue, as it has, because almost all factions and states recognize Israel, demanding that every last single one abandon violence is to ensure its continuance.

You can not keep raising the bar of compliance. It become a cheat. A way to justify the occupation.

[ 14 December 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 14 December 2005 07:11 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Cue:
You know what, I actually agree with you on that point. And my understanding is that no matter what is said publicly there are always negotiations going on in the background(as there should be!) But judging from the past you might agree it will be difficult. Especially since th PA does not really have a real mandate. Perhaps after their election (where maybe more popular groups such as Hammas etc might have a voice)and post Sharon or Likud their might be a chance for compromise. Now it's apparent no one wants to compromise. I am eternally hopeful!

I also believe that Iran's comments are academic and irrelevant, and therefore my comments (in reaction) may have been hasty (hence my apology to Josh which seems to have fallen on deaf ears, here.)

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 14 December 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Given that you accused josh of agreeing with Admadinejad, and of saying that Israel is the cause of all the problems, ... what words exactly did I put into your mouth?
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by thwap:
Given that you accused josh of agreeing with Admadinejad, and of saying that Israel is the cause of all the problems, ... what words exactly did I put into your mouth?

These are YOUR words:

quote:
If people can't discuss simple, innocuous matters of fact and opinion without being called a second Hitler, ... ah forget it.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sunny Beasty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10923

posted 14 December 2005 07:35 PM      Profile for Sunny Beasty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re:"You do know that the devide between Shia and Sunni islam are about as great as the devide bewteen the Catholics and the Protestants. I can't really see a Catholic making a play for Leadership of the Christian world -- maybe converting thm perhaps."

Yes I realize this, I was just tossing out some possible motivations for him to make such a statement. Since most of the (largely Sunni) Arab nations surrounding Israel have at least agreed "in principle" to negotiate with Israel (including the HAMAS, which has put out feelers) and two, Eygpt and Jordan, have full relations; it seems Persian Shia Iran wants to "out-Arab" the Arabs.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2005 07:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I believe it first put out feelers in 1997, when Sheik Ahmed Yassin told his Moussad handler that a thirty year truce was possible upon withdrawal from the occupied territories, while he was in prison.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 14 December 2005 07:52 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Fine, fine, I tagged that on to show how ridiculous things get.

It was an exaggeration, but given the thread that it was a part of, I can see how you thought I was accusing you of that.

You didn't say josh was the second-coming of Hitler.

You just said that he agreed with Admadinejad that Israel shouldn't exist, that the Iranian government is blameless, and that everything is Israel's fault.

I stand corrected.

The main point is that it remains entirely permissable to discuss the reality that Zionism arose in response to European Christian racism and murder of Jewish people, and that it is, as josh said, not a new idea to think that maybe the Jewish homeland should have been carved out of the lands of the Europeans as opposed to being taken from the Arabs in Palestine.

And that josh never said that he agreed with anyone who said given the above theory, Israel should be eliminated.

Explaining resentment does not equal justifying terrorism. The people who tried to explain the anger of 9-11 were not trying to justify it.

[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: thwap ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
OK THWAP. Thanks for that clarification. I understand and agree with most of your thoughts above. I think we can never justify any acts of terrorism (I know you do not as well.)A good film to see which brings things back to the NA perspective is "The Weather Underground." A doc on the Weather Men. Most of the survivors of this group believe they were misguided and that nothing ever justifies or explains away acts of murder. It's a real eye opener.

Again I know that wasn't your point and I believe that you, Cue, Josh, myself and many others here are searching for solutions. And that's what's meaningful.


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

posted 14 December 2005 08:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok. Great! Now that we are talking solutions. Where are we going to put all these people?


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

posted 14 December 2005 08:11 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think Florida has been discussed.
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2005 08:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Peech, we already have that.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2005 08:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Somwhere warm, no doubt but close to shopping. How about Chiuhuahua, its near El Paso.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 December 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I like the Italian Riviera, myself. Since G doubluah , the USA and NA has become a dangerous place!
From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 December 2005 08:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its to close to the Pope.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 14 December 2005 08:50 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
OK THWAP. Thanks for that clarification.

Again I know that wasn't your point and I believe that you, Cue, Josh, myself and many others here are searching for solutions. And that's what's meaningful.


Group hug!

A solution for Iran would be for the US to drop the confrontational rhetoric. (Canada, on the other hand, should cut diplomatic ties or some such suitable substitute, until the Iranian government apologizes for the rape and murder of Zahra Khazemi, and punishes her killers.) I always thought that the Iranian reformers were being undermined by the belligerant outbursts from the United States.

I've really got to get around to reading a good book about Mossadeq. Iran had a democracy (of sorts at least) and it was destroyed by the United States and replaced with the brutal, corrupt autocracy of the Phalevi regime.

It has been European and US imperialism that has undermined secular democrats, and created the conditions for fundamentalism.

Just look at how the loud thirty-percent of Americans rally to their moronic war-mongerer and their own brand of fundamentalism when they feel threatened and when democracy appears futile.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 December 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It has been European and US imperialism that has undermined secular democrats, and created the conditions for fundamentalism.

This is why few people who follow Middle Eastern politics believe that the USA is going to do anything to bring democracy to the region.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 16 December 2005 12:44 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
Why do so many people have such a problem admitting that Israel has a right to exist?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2005 07:28 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Peech. You were banned yesterday, remember? Guess I'll have to do the IP address as well.

Damn, it's an IP that changes slightly with each login. Well, I'll just ban the accounts as you create them, then.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2005 07:56 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm. It appears I was wrong. Peech and JKR have very similar IP addresses and the same service provider in a US city, so I figured that the coincidence was too great.

But I looked through their previous posts, and they have very different posting patterns. And both their IP addresses have remained stable (didn't change with each login).

So, I apologize, JKR. I thought it was too big a coincidence that you have exactly the same unfamiliar service provider, very similar IP addresses, and that you suddenly showed up in the same thread that Peech was banned from yesterday and continued in the same vein as him. So, I'll unlock your account.

But I will warn you: If you keep up with that kind of trolling question, making a blanket generalization about people on this forum, I WILL ban you.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 16 December 2005 08:00 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Hi Peech. You were banned yesterday, remember? Guess I'll have to do the IP address as well.

Damn, it's an IP that changes slightly with each login. Well, I'll just ban the accounts as you create them, then.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


Why was Peech banned?

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2005 08:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's funny, I told myself that the first person who was going to post after me would be ohara, questioning me.

And look who's here!

Do a search. I'm not getting into it here.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2005 08:32 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back to Ahmadinejad: I agree with Rufus and Sunny's posts above that he is mostly playing to his base within Iran, much as Bush does in his public pronouncements (however distinct those may be from the deeper logic of the administration).

The external or international logic seems seriously mistaken, though. The obvious next step is going to be an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, and even from what I read in the msm, that is likely to come soon, within the next two or three months.

I really wonder at Khamenei allowing Ahmadinejad to froth in public this way. I thought that Khamenei was much more crafty about international politics.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2005 02:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's funny, I told myself that the first person who was going to post after me would be ohara, questioning me.

And look who's here!

Do a search. I'm not getting into it here.


Why, by the way, was Peech banned? Where was the action? Is it this thread?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 16 December 2005 03:02 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hmm. It appears I was wrong. Peech and JKR have very similar IP addresses and the same service provider in a US city, so I figured that the coincidence was too great.
But I looked through their previous posts, and they have very different posting patterns. And both their IP addresses have remained stable (didn't change with each login).
So, I apologize, JKR. I thought it was too big a coincidence that you have exactly the same unfamiliar service provider, very similar IP addresses, and that you suddenly showed up in the same thread that Peech was banned from yesterday and continued in the same vein as him. So, I'll unlock your account.
But I will warn you: If you keep up with that kind of trolling question, making a blanket generalization about people on this forum, I WILL ban you.


Scary. Very scary. A smashing success, Michelle.

quote:
that he is mostly playing to his base within Iran ...
His base? His base has some sorta moderating effect on this loser? C'mon you guys. Whats worse??? What if you are wrong and this is the leaders foreign policy project? What evidence suggests it isn't? Is it so impossible an idea that this man means what he says and aims to bring his rants to fruition? Would his base stop him if he did? Do you not agree with the near-world condemnation of this goof?
quote:
I really wonder at Khamenei allowing Ahmadinejad to froth in public this way. I thought that Khamenei was much more crafty about international politics.
Apparently not. What EXACTLY would he be crafting in this POS's absence?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I doubt that Khamenei wants to provoke Israeli bombing raids in January/February, although that now seems to be in the cards.

I told you I don't understand this. Khamenei has rebuked Ahmadinejad in the past.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's funny, I told myself that the first person who was going to post after me would be ohara, questioning me.

And look who's here!

Do a search. I'm not getting into it here.


I don't think that was quite right. Joseph Goebels is a historic figure whom actually is credited with the famous maxim, "if you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed."

Associating someone with it does not necessarily imply support for the Holocaust or antisemetism, but a kind of Karl Rovian approach to political propoganda.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 16 December 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Khamenei has rebuked Ahmadinejad in the past.
No doubt to play to his base, right?
quote:
I told you I don't understand this
Then why not condemn it with full force? Is there somesorta nuance we need to embrace here? Please, tell me, for it seems Ahmadinejad would argue with you on that one.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 16 December 2005 03:24 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Hi Peech. You were banned yesterday, remember?

That's odd. The other thread says "you need another time out" which is a suspension, not a banning, isn't it?

As to his/her offence, I took it to be saying

quote:
propaganda! Which is EXACTLY what this "apartheid Israel" bullshit is.

Saying that something is propaganda is not a banning offence, surely.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilf, I think you're being disingenuous with your selective quoting. I wouldn't have banned him if that's all he'd said and I think you know that.

I also think that if the sides were switched, you'd see exactly what was wrong with saying that another babbler's posts conform to the philosophy of Goebbel's propaganda. And I'm pretty sure that certain others would be screaming bloody murder at the "nazi comparison". I can't even believe we're having this discussion. Peech was suspended before, and I think it's reasonable that if you come back after a suspension and pull those kind of attacks that you really don't need to be here at all anymore.

Seriously, do you folks think it should be a suspension and not a banning? Do we really want to get into another situation where someone goes through the revolving Middle East Forum door, attacks people, gets suspended, comes back, attacks again, gets suspended, comes back, etc.?

I wrote "a break" yesterday because I wanted to cool down a bit before deciding whether it warrants a banning. And if the usual participants (and in particular, the people he has attacked) feel like he should come back, then I guess I can go with that.

I'm just really concerned about this forum falling back into the gutter again, that's all. I'm also concerned that there are one or two posters in particular who are constantly being attacked and called anti-semites and (occasionally) compared to nazis, and I feel that on a progressive board, you should be able to oppose colonialism and oppose the occupation without being subjected to that.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I agree with Wilf on the specfics of this case. But I can see how the general attack upon Al Q. had that tenor.

I think its too bad, because I always felt that Peech meant well, despite his paranoia about Al Q.

I would plead for a suspension, and then one more chance.


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

posted 16 December 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, and that was directly following an attack on josh the day before in another thread, so I felt like I was seeing a pattern and that it was time to cut it off.

I'd be interested in hearing what al-Q has to say about it, if he feels comfortable with it. I think he's probably been the most attacked in this forum, and you'd be a close second, Cueball.

And to be fair, probably ohara and Peech are close runners up too.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 16 December 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm just really concerned about this forum falling back into the gutter again, that's all.
I would suggest giving Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt has more to do with it that anything Peech could ever have said.

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 16 December 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Two points.

Peech was suspended before, and I think it's reasonable that if you come back after a suspension and pull those kind of attacks that you really don't need to be here at all anymore.


Too often people who question suspensions or bannings try to point to one specific comment and claim that it was insufficient and the moderator has over-reacted. In fact most of the bannings that I've seen have occurred because of a pattern of behaviour, not a single transgression. I know Michelle just said that but I decided to be redundant.

quote:
Seriously, do you folks think it should be a suspension and not a banning?

Whatever is decided, can I suggest that the policy be formalized? How many suspensions are allowed before it becomes a permanent ban? Otherwise we're going to see this discussion go on endlessly.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2005 03:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
caoimhin wrote:

quote:

No doubt to play to his base, right?


Not in my reading of Khamenei. Khamenei doesn't need to play to a base in the way that Ahmadinejad or George Bush needs to. He has much more personal power, although he also has to gauge things more intelligently. Especially in terms of international balances, he has to be smarter than Ahmadinejad.

(Bush, of course, doesn't have to be smart at all. He's got the American military-industrial complex behind him. That would be Cheney and Rumsfeld, who are supposed to be smart, although recent events would cast doubt on that as well. Stay tuned.)

quote:
Then why not condemn it with full force? Is there somesorta nuance we need to embrace here? Please, tell me, for it seems Ahmadinejad would argue with you on that one.

Um ... have I said anything complimentary about Ahmadinejad in this thread? Ever?

What do you mean, "condemn it with full force"? I don't think you've been reading me often, caohimin, or you'd know by now that I don't recite ritual denunciations of things. I don't take loyalty oaths either, and I am deeply suspicious of anyone who does (outside of those who must, like police, the military, and elected and appointed officials).

I'm doing my best to write intelligently to this issue. To me, intelligently does not mean joining in any kind of group moan.

I'm not interested in demonizing anyone or starting wars anywhere. I'm interested in thinking through an international situation that may be about to blow up in our faces.

Well: not our faces. Sadly, though, there are likely to be some innocent faces blown up before this affair is over, and for those innocents, I weep. Much good that is going to do them, of course.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
I would suggest giving Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt has more to do with it that anything Peech could ever have said.

Who the hell has done that?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Who the hell has done that?


Exactly. caiomhin, are you here to actually take part in this discussion, or issue drive-by smears? Because the latter really isn't necessary.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 16 December 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I would like to know is what idiot running any country, would make statements such as have been made in the past by the Iranian leadership, knowing that the stuff is completely radioactive in the EU and North America, where the power base of the world currently resides.

If the Iranian government wants the (generally lukewarm at any given time) support in North America for the cause of the Palestinian Arabs, and by extension curbing the arrogance and nose-thumbing that the Israeli government is famous for, the road Ahmadinejad is taking is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

Suggesting that Israel be moved, never mind threatening to nuke the place, is often associated with genocidal intentions even if there have been cases made that a chunk of Germany should have been given to the Jews as compensation.

I have defended Iranian "democracy" as being fairly advanced by Middle Eastern standards, but I certainly am not going to defend the Iranian government now given the way the hard-liners made a farce of the election results, initiated the renewed persecution of gays and lesbians (kicking it into high gear I should say), and now have got a blistering idiot running the show that has worse foot-in-mouth disease than Bush.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 December 2005 04:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agreed, Doc, except I'd go further - I'd say that the Iranian President has worse than foot-in-mouth disease. I understand that the way politics and world issues is discussed in North America might not be the same way it is discussed in South Asia and the Middle East, due to either cultural differences or different standpoints. And I'm also betting that Holocaust denial doesn't have the same kind of shock value there that it does here since it might not be as central to history in Iran or other parts of the world as it is in Europe and North America.

But this guy is (presumably) well-educated, and as a world leader, should be able to figure out that denying the Holocaust is an incredibly offensive thing to do. But the guy is obviously playing nasty domestic politics, pandering to antisemitic sentiments in Iran, and trying to whip up a common enemy in order to gain more support.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 December 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, Ahmadinejad is not well educated, and he probably wasn't fairly elected, either.

He is a raw fundamentalist. But education isn't the issue: Khamenei is a fundamentalist too, but he is very well educated in the ways of the international community.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Agreed, Doc, except I'd go further - I'd say that the Iranian President has worse than foot-in-mouth disease. I understand that the way politics and world issues is discussed in North America might not be the same way it is discussed in South Asia and the Middle East, due to either cultural differences or different standpoints. And I'm also betting that Holocaust denial doesn't have the same kind of shock value there that it does here since it might not be as central to history in Iran or other parts of the world as it is in Europe and North America.

But this guy is (presumably) well-educated, and as a world leader, should be able to figure out that denying the Holocaust is an incredibly offensive thing to do. But the guy is obviously playing nasty domestic politics, pandering to antisemitic sentiments in Iran, and trying to whip up a common enemy in order to gain more support.


I had considered that his statement was for Iraqi consumption. Letting Iran's Shia allies in Iraq, since they will no doubt form the next government, that doing something hasty like recognizing Israel would be frowned upon. There no doubt be US pressure for such.

But that is just conjecture.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 16 December 2005 05:14 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Wilf, I think you're being disingenuous with your selective quoting. I wouldn't have banned him if that's all he'd said and I think you know that.

I also think that if the sides were switched, you'd see exactly what was wrong with saying that another babbler's posts conform to the philosophy of Goebbel's propaganda.


I didn't read him as saying that. Maybe I'm being too literal, a common fault among lawyers, but I think posters should be banned for what they say, not what they imply.

Peach wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

"The Right has no problem with Israeli Apartheid, just as they had little to say about South African apartheid."

Speaking of the "right" who was it that said if you repeat a lie often enough it can become a truth???
Oh yes now I remember: Joseph Goebbels the minister of...propaganda! Which is EXACTLY what this "apartheid Israel" bullshit is.


So Peech didn't say that al-Qa'bong's posts conform to the philosophy of Goebbel's propaganda. He said this "apartheid Israel" is propaganda.

He also noted that Goebbels said if you repeat a lie often enough it can become a truth. Was he implying that this is what al-Qa'bong does, or was he implying that this is what the sources al-Qa'bong quoted do? I don't know, and there's a big difference.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 16 December 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
posted by josh: I think, in fact, that the clown's remarks increases the chances of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than any U.S. attack.
How many times must I remind Babblers that using the term "clown" as a slur is coulrophobic and slimes the reputation of this noble profession and vocation. In fact, clowning is the very antithesis of politics, if you know anything at all about clowns in history.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sunny Beasty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10923

posted 16 December 2005 05:53 PM      Profile for Sunny Beasty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Re:"Letting Iran's Shia allies in Iraq, since they will no doubt form the next government, that doing something hasty like recognizing Israel would be frowned upon. There no doubt be US pressure for such."

No doubt the US will be pressuring the pro-Iranian Shia government of Iraq to recognize Israel. I also have very little doubt that the Iraqi response will be "fuck off". The US uis going to find that that controlling a Muslim democracy is a lot more difficult than controlling pliant dictators like Mubarak of Eygpt , the King of Jordan, and Musharaff of Pakistan.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 16 December 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'd be interested in hearing what al-Q has to say about it, if he feels comfortable with it. I think he's probably been the most attacked in this forum, and you'd be a close second, Cueball.


In itself, the Goebbels comment isn't a bannable offence, although when one considers that Peech's last suspension was for suggesting that I liked the Holocaust, his Goebbels reference might not be as innocent as it would otherwise appear.

Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with someone referring to an historical figure when making an argument, as long as the reference is done intelligently, and isn't something mindless, such as saying "You and Saddam are just like Hitler."

I don't think Peech ought to be banned this time around, although I'm quite sure he will write something to earn himself a permanent ban at some later point.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 16 December 2005 08:48 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't it possible that most of the President's supporters in Iran agree with what he said? Simple as that? Not the middle-class types playing popsongs at living-room parties, of course not, but he's defined himself as against them. And not the international audience, because he (thinks he) doesn't need them either. In fact he needs them (ie us) to beagainst him, and this is the easiest way to assure that.

Who is favoured, in Iran, by constructive engagement with Western countries...? Those middle-class types in the suburbs, not the President. He has just as much interest in maintaining the divide between Iran and the bien-pensant West as the fundies on our side do. We could just as well ask why Bush labelled Iran "evil" at precisely the moment when it was shifting toward a liberalish common ground.


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 December 2005 09:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
How many times must I remind Babblers that using the term "clown" as a slur is coulrophobic and slimes the reputation of this noble profession and vocation. In fact, clowning is the very antithesis of politics, if you know anything at all about clowns in history.


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

posted 16 December 2005 09:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
Isn't it possible that most of the President's supporters in Iran agree with what he said? Simple as that? Not the middle-class types playing popsongs at living-room parties, of course not, but he's defined himself as against them. And not the international audience, because he (thinks he) doesn't need them either. In fact he needs them (ie us) to beagainst him, and this is the easiest way to assure that.

Who is favoured, in Iran, by constructive engagement with Western countries...? Those middle-class types in the suburbs, not the President. He has just as much interest in maintaining the divide between Iran and the bien-pensant West as the fundies on our side do. We could just as well ask why Bush labelled Iran "evil" at precisely the moment when it was shifting toward a liberalish common ground.


A lot of people in the Middle East, and elsewhere, even those who take no issue with the validity of the Holocaust agree that Israel waa a European idea, and that it was not right for Arabs to be shunted out of the way to make way for the European Jews, and also agree that whatever Europeans did to the Jews, it did not make it right to cause suffering to other people whom were more or less completely unrelated to Hitlers campaign to assuage European opinion and feelings of guilt.

This is true even of those who now agree that Israel is there now, and might as well stay. Saying such does not change the historical analysis.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 16 December 2005 10:01 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's funny, I told myself that the first person who was going to post after me would be ohara, questioning me.

And look who's here!

Do a search. I'm not getting into it here.


You are clairvoyant. Im not sure what to search for


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 16 December 2005 10:15 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
OK I found it I think though if this is it its hard to believe:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
"The Right has no problem with Israeli Apartheid, just as they had little to say about South African apartheid."

Speaking of the "right" who was it that said if you repeat a lie often enough it can become a truth???
Oh yes now I remember: Joseph Goebbels the minister of...propaganda! Which is EXACTLY what this "apartheid Israel" bullshit is.


Not to be hyper critical Michelle but I dont see how this staement refers to al-Qa'bong.

If this is what Peech was banned for I would sit down if I were you and re-think it. This was purely a statement of fact. I hope bias isnt at play here.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: ohara ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 December 2005 01:54 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This was purely a statement of fact.

Fact, opinion.

Potato, potatto.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 17 December 2005 04:13 AM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
There's no way to know why Ahmadinejad made these deplorable statements. His statements should be taken at face value, as this is how statements from world leaders are received by the world. The international community should repuduate these statements to the greatest extent possible. They have greatly harmed Iran. These statements have taken away all credibility from Iran's government. International actors such as the UN, EU, and US, no longer have to give any respect whatsoever to a regime that would make such heinous statements. These statements have gone a long way in isolating Iran from the world community. What a pity. Hopefully the people of Iran will rid themselves of this neo-NAZI ASAP. If not, Iran will be a pariah nation. And justifiably so.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: JKR ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 17 December 2005 10:20 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Fact, opinion.

Potato, potatto.



From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 17 December 2005 10:52 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Fact, opinion.

Potato, potatto.



I think that would be a wonderful motto for the Middle East forum. If eveyone could remember that one person's fact is another person's opinion, we'd have less to argue about.

In journalism schools these days, they admit that "objectivity" is a beguiling fiction. Writers who separate their emotions from their work are inevitably boring. Hunter Thompson spoke for a whole profession when he said: "The only thing I ever saw that came close to Objective Journalism was a closed-circuit TV set-up that watched shoplifters in the General Store at Woody Creek, Colorado."

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


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

posted 17 December 2005 11:12 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
OK I found it I think though if this is it its hard to believe:

Not to be hyper critical Michelle but I dont see how this staement refers to al-Qa'bong.

If this is what Peech was banned for I would sit down if I were you and re-think it. This was purely a statement of fact. I hope bias isnt at play here.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: ohara ]



How does it realte to Al Q. Ok, perhaps you are unfamilliar with the format. When you select the "quote" function from the UBB options bar, it takes the a quote from the post that you are responding too, and inserts a "quote" from that persons posting in your post idenfying it as quote from that person by the phrase: Originally posted by al-Qa'bong.

Notice this also occurs in this post wherein I have quoted your post. Rest assured everything I have said here is not some kind of disembodied meta-message, nor is it likely that the reference to Herr Dr. Joseph Goebels was an exercise in Derridian deocontextualization, but that I, in this post, and Peech in his post was directly responding to the person whom was quoted.

I highly doubt that the reference to the good doctor was intended as a secret encoded metaphor for space aliens or the NSA.


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

posted 17 December 2005 11:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

I think that would be a wonderful motto for the Middle East forum. If eveyone could remember that one person's fact is another person's opinion, we'd have less to argue about.

In journalism schools these days, they admit that "objectivity" is a beguiling fiction. Writers who separate their emotions from their work are inevitably boring. Hunter Thompson spoke for a whole profession when he said: "The only thing I ever saw that came close to Objective Journalism was a closed-circuit TV set-up that watched shoplifters in the General Store at Woody Creek, Colorado."

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


Yes, it is nice to be able to insert oneself into a debate on the level of an omniscient moralist who simply disposes of the need to determine a moral and political reality by simply erasing the probability of truth. It is no doubt satisfying to be able to imbue oneself with the sense of personal superiority that goes with claiming the ethical high ground while at the same time avoiding the moral dilema posed by determining a truthful narrative from the conflicting narratives.

Tell me, Wilf, was it a Holocaust, or was there substance to the slogan "work will set you free," which adorned the gates of Auschwitz -- just a difference of perspective really, isn't it? I mean death is a kind of freedom is it not?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 December 2005 12:19 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What a pity. Hopefully the people of Iran will rid themselves of this neo-NAZI

One can be a racist yahoo without being a "neo-Nazi," and calling someone a "neo-nazi" in this instance says more about the accuser than it does about the accused.

quote:
Tell me, Wilf, was it a Holocaust, or was there substance to the slogan "work will set you free," which adorned the gates of Auschwitz -- just a difference of perspective really, isn't it? I mean death is a kind of freedom is it not?

Slow down there, buddy. I think all that Wilf is arguing is that the Holocaust is just an opinion.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


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

posted 17 December 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More or less what Ahmadinejad was suggesting.

Well you know! Potato, potatto. Right?

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 17 December 2005 01:24 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Slow down there, buddy. I think all that Wilf is arguing is that the Holocaust is just an opinion.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]



Wilf is arguing that the Holocaust is just an opinion? Help me understand what you mean by this so that I dont get the wrong idea. Thank you.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 17 December 2005 01:42 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of several of the recent posts on this thread. But I doubt that's what Wilf meant, or what Al-Q meant to suggest he meant. Of course, this could merely be the result of dispensing with the concept of objective truth.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 December 2005 01:45 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Help me understand what you mean by this so that I dont get the wrong idea.

Would your having the wrong idea be fact, opinion, or tradition?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 17 December 2005 02:07 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The more pertinent question is what would be the fallout if he doesn't have the wrong idea.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 December 2005 02:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I might note that the fallout from these statements by Iran could well be literal in the not-too-distant future if rash decisions are made in the Middle East.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 December 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh, this is what is being talked about:

quote:
I think that would be a wonderful motto for the Middle East forum. If eveyone could remember that one person's fact is another person's opinion, we'd have less to argue about.

Is it for instance just an opinion that in 1948, the Zionist booted out 700,000 Arabs. Fine, a discourse is often engaged in whereby its is put forth that the Arabs "chose to leave." The Arabs in question generally contest this idea.

Wilf's statement can be construed that this is really just a matter of opinion. I ask, does historical reltavism only exist for Arabs, and not Europeans, wherein we have established through close scrutiny of the evidence that the Holocaust did in fact happen, and that it is not just a matter of opinion as expressed by Ahmadinejad, when he states: "Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the of Jewish people by the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said.

More or less then, if we accept the idea that what we are discussing is opinion and not substantiated facts, or facts that could be determined to be "facts," as Wilf would have, then why are we condmening the Iranian presidents opinions, as denial, since really all of these exchnages about the Middle East are really about opinions, according to him.

However I doubt very much that Mr. Day believes that the Holcaust is really an event, which one eithet believes in or not, as mere opinion, but like myself and you no doubt agree is a very real fact.

Why is it that, in the instance of a discussion of the Arab complaint and its conflict with the Zionists, we are urged to suddenly to apply a historical relativist approach, where all things can be reduced to a matter of competing perspective, and not "facts" that can be etermined to be true or false, within a margin of error?


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

posted 17 December 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems to me that the denial of the idea that there is a factual narrative, (wherein everything is just a matter of "opinions,") that can be pursued beyond such pat truism as the "cycle of violence" etc. (read: both sides are wrong) are simply a formula for moral equivocation and politcal laziness.

Interestingly this morally superior view is also a convenient manner to remove the "European factor" from the discussion, as we become, yet again those whose superior judgement and wisdom (not to mention latent power) allow us to ponitficate "objectively" on the moral corruption of both sides, who are hobbled by the fact that they can not see that their dispute is merely a matter of biases and opinions, and our judgements are really only benign interventions for the good of all.

The other part of the point which the Iranian presidet raised, from his twsisted and not very well educated Islamic fundametalist mindset.

In esence: In this manner Wilf expressed the underlying cultural and imperialist bias in the discourse where we dispute the Iranian presidents "opinions," but he is not allowed to dispute ours, which we call "facts," the denial of which we deem to be racism.

The Holocaust is a fact. So is the Nakba. Those are the facts. My opinion is that the former does not justify the latter.

[ 17 December 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 17 December 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is unbelievable.

al-Qa'bong, I don't know what kind of a game you're playing, but this is your first and last warning - you say something like that about Wilf, or any other participant in this forum again, even if you're just being sarcastic or making a point, you will be gone. The rules apply to you as well.

ohara, yes, I'm sure you're VERY "hopeful" that it's not bias on my part.

Peech was banned/suspended (I haven't decided which yet) for quoting al-Qa'bong's post about "Israeli apartheid", and then saying that he is following Goebbel's advice that if you lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Now, I realize that Peech left himself a little loophole where he could have just barely enough plausible deniability so that a really good defense lawyer - like, oh, say, Wilf Day, whose participation in this forum seems to consist mostly of showing up once in a while to criticize the moderation - could manage to squeeze a technicality out of that and claim that he shouldn't be banned. al-Qa'bong talked about "Israeli apartheid" in his post. Peech quoted al-Q, said that "Israeli apartheid" - what al-Qa'bong said - is a lie. Fine, good enough. Then Peech said that it was Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes a truth and that makes it propaganda. And then he said that's exactly what "Israeli apartheid" - al-Qa'bong's quote - was. I mean, give me a great big fucking break if you think that after he quoted al-Q saying "Israeli apartheid" and then told us that calling it "Israeli apartheid" is like Goebbel's propaganda, that he didn't mean in any way to link al-Qa'bong's posts with nazi-like propaganda.

This board isn't a criminal court, and posting on babble is not some kind of god-given right where you have to prove to a jury, with a painstaking trial and arguments that last for days on end with each word parsed within an inch of its life, that a person's post is banworthy.

Peech's behaviour was atrocious, two days in a row, in two different threads, towards two different posters. Yes, I'm sure ohara finds it "hard to believe" - he always finds it "hard to believe" when someone on his side gets banned, even when they do something that he'd be screaming bloody murder about if someone on the other side did it. (Gee, ohara, no whining about nazi comparisons this time, huh? What a shock.) And yet, they support me strongly whenever I suspend or ban someone on the pro-Palestinian side of the debate.

This is bloody ridiculous. I'd sure like to see Wilf Day try moderating this forum. I don't think he could do it. At least not even-handedly. I sure as hell don't think ohara could do it without turning it into an Israeli Tourism Board flyer. What I do know is, when I ban or suspend a pro-Israel poster, I get tons of flak and accusations of bias and every thread in the Middle East Forum sidetracked with it from the pro-Israeli side - and either quiet approval - or in this case, some arguments for leniency from the pro-Palestinian side.

When I ban or suspend a pro-Palestinian poster, I get private messages from pro-Israeli posters congratulating me on my wisdom and thanking me - and, shockingly, silence from Advocate Wilfred - and I get the occasional protest from the pro-Palestinian posters (usually by private mail) but it's usually accompanied by at least some recognition that the person did something wrong but requesting that I be more lenient.

So, basically, if I were to follow the advice of ohara, I would have to conclude that no matter what a pro-Israeli poster does, it's never enough for banning, and that taking any action against them is proof of "bias". Whereas any pro-Palestinian poster who crosses the line should be banned immediately, and that would show great wisdom and discernment on my part.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

So, for those who have been e-mailing me and demanding an explanation for my actions, or demanding it in this thread, this is it. Don't keep asking me to explain - I've done so enough times. You're quite free to disagree with me, but ultimately, I'm the one who has to make the call, and I'm not convinced that I made the wrong call here.

This thread is long enough, and will likely never get back on track, so I'm closing it.


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