quote:

---

Tehran, 8 Feb. (AKI) - A senior adviser to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mohammad Ali Ramin, has revealed that the November 2005 speech on the need to "wipe Israel off the map" and the subsequent denial of the Holocaust, had been decided in accordance with the country's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Seyyed Khamenei

---

Unified at last.

quote:

---

Mohammad Ali Ramin’s comments have not been welcomed by some sectors of the hardline Pasdaran or Revolutionary Guards. In a note on the internet site Baztab, former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohsen Rezaii, accused Ahmadinejad’s counsellor of being "on the payroll of international Zionism."

---

Iran's supreme leader says to hit U.S. global targets if attacked.

U.S. and Israel would attack Iran's nuclear sites in the coming weeks.

War or the fall of this radical regime before the end of 2007 ?

quote:

---

Iran also staged a new round of military drills Wednesday and test-fired missiles, showing an unyieldingness to the international pressure.

---

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:
Infidel

[ 08 February 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

---

Centerfield,

You've been made aware of the incorrectness of the "Wipe Israel off the map". Why do you persist in perpetuating it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Five bucks says this one gets him banned.

You in, Legless?

---

Ahmadinejad's comments are open for discussion and interpretation. I can't ban someone because they interpreted a world leader's remarks in a different way than the majority of people on this board.

Who exactly gives a crap what this man has to say about Jews, Israel, the Holocaust? He is neither a threat to them nor relevant to any solution of any issue regarding them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
My viewpoint, however, is that anyone who can make a statement in November 2005 and not bother to clarify the confusion about it for the next 15 months - is an asshole.

---

I saw a video of a guy talking about Iran (not sure where I got it, sorry).

He recalled a story about talking to people on the street in Tehran and the feelings about Bush/Ahmadinejad was something along the lines of "We don't understand why they don't get along better, they're both crazy sabre rattlers."

quote:

---

All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away."

---

However, unionist suggests because Ahmadinejad is just an "asshole", we can safely just ignore him.

Another demagogue who is peddling lies, hoaxes and half truths.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]

Pretty nice group of people. But as I chatted about politics with lots of folks during smoke breaks, and while there was much mention of how a good muslim respects other faiths, and that that is specified in the Koran, holocaust denial, or at least questioning, came up more than once, and not because i broumght up the topic (full disclosure, I'm a WASP). Similarly I spent quite a number of hours driving around with a Muslim business colleague last summer, who is, again, relatively liberal. He doesn't drink or samoke, he's married, but as a young man he pretty much ran through the available range of vices, which he has now put behind him. Let's his kids go out on Halloween, watches western movies and Bugs Bunny, again, all things which he said, if you were devout enough, would be no nos. Sweet guy, pretty open minded and liberal. But again, he seemed preet convinced that the holocaust was some kind of a hoax.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

So she criticizes me, incoherently.

quote:

---

On that point, Unionist, I'd parry and say that MAhmoud's words are extremely dangerous. He is just a stone's throw away from the Arabian peninsula, borders an increasingly unstable Pakistan and a collapsed Afghanistan. Iran also straddles the Kurdish areas, and the Kurds are becoming increasingly radicalized and violent. Iran is relatively close to Israel and borders a state that is in such chaos that no fair predictions can be made. He may only speak about driving Israel into the sea, but a radicalized command structure in Iran (kind of like the United States) is a potentially destabilizing regional force.

---

Isn't the same true for Israel where a racist Deputy PM has called nuking Iran and the ethnic cleansing of native Arabs (which essentially transalates into "wiping Palestine of the map")?

But I ain't never gonna be convinced that the tactical decision amongst some leftists that we must never criticise America's adversaries makes sense. While the Iranian prez's comments might have been slightly more ambiguous than reported, inviting David Duke to his country for a holocaust denial jamboree makes him a complete asshole in absolute terms.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

---

Papul bull:

quote:

---

On that point, Unionist, I'd parry and say that MAhmoud's words are extremely dangerous.

---

I would also suggest that taking these exceedingly dangerous words to represent the intent of the Iranian people is equally dangerous. Continue to pay attention and act only on the extremists factions words is ultimately giving the bulk of the control to the extremes.

Could we perhaps suggest what a moderates voice in Iran is saying for a change, or are we intent on only ever listening to the extremes. Actually, I'd be quite impressed if certain Ahmadinejad fans (Jeff for example) actually knew how the more moderate players within Iran are and their standpoints on the issues.

Minkepants provided the article linke to this headline:

quote:

---

Critics of President Ahmadinejad's defiance of the U.S. and U.N. become bolder.

---

tis a good start. oh, and minke:

quote:

---

Sweet guy, pretty open minded and liberal. But again, he seemed preet convinced that the holocaust was some kind of a hoax.

---

I've seen a similar attitude from some of my muslim friends here as well, though it's directed a bit differently. None of them were alive during the holocaust, yet they feel like they (and their generation) are being punished for the holocaust. I'm not sure if it's a denial or conviction that the holocaust was a hoax, but the beleif that they are receiving punishiment for it is pretty consistant.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

But I ain't never gonna be convinced that the tactical decision amongst some leftists that we must never criticise America's adversaries makes sense. While the Iranian prez's comments might have been slightly more ambiguous than reported, inviting David Duke to his country for a holocaust denial jamboree makes him a complete asshole in absolute terms.

---

In fact, Harper just called all Arabs "terrorists" devaluing their lives, dreams, hopes, ambitions, the entire gamut of human worth, and hardly a peep except over the politcal value of his action. So, while Canada's PM devaluing an entire people is seemlingly acceptable, we have a total obesession over what one Iranian may or may not have said about Israel.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
When his comments and arguments are challenged, Jeff House disappears... only to show up when such challenges are no longer current and lay more of his edicts and disappear again when challenged and so on and so on....

Another demagogue who is peddling lies, hoaxes and half truths.

---

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Isn't the same true for Israel where a racist Deputy PM has called nuking Iran and the ethnic cleansing of native Arabs (which essentially transalates into "wiping Palestine of the map")?

There is what I call a new racism where anti-Islamic hatred is acceptable and Islamic peoples are carefeully watched for every word theysay. But, then, if you are Israeli and Jewish and equally racist, well, that is okay, because you are not Islamic. If that is not true, why the obsession with what one guy says while the other, a open and virulent racist with much more authority than the first, is virtually ignored?

---

Ummm, you know all that stuff...what do you call it...Oh, yeah. Those SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS that go against Israel. And the left's constant scrutiny and blasting of Israel. Israel is just as criticized as the Islamic world. You're merely seeing it from the paradigm that is most convenient for you and your worldview. And that's okay. I'm taking a neutral stance on the issue.

However I will agree that Israel can potentially be dangerous to regional stability. In fact I don't believe I stated anything to the contrary. I just feel that Israel is potentially more restrained (politically and militarily) in the longer term than Iran.

quote:

---

I would also suggest that taking these exceedingly dangerous words to represent the intent of the Iranian people is equally dangerous. Continue to pay attention and act only on the extremists factions words is ultimately giving the bulk of the control to the extremes.

Could we perhaps suggest what a moderates voice in Iran is saying for a change, or are we intent on only ever listening to the extremes. Actually, I'd be quite impressed if certain Ahmadinejad fans (Jeff for example) actually knew how the more moderate players within Iran are and their standpoints on the issues.

---

But I'm not arguing that. I'm saying it is dangerous because Iran's people, like the people of Canada and America, Britain and others, very rarely get their voices heard when it comes to the issues that may ruin their lives. Mahmoud's words are dangerous because he is a loose cannon. Luckily, the safety net is that the various revolutionary-Islamic institutions that have existed since the 80s are fairly split on the issues. Likewise, pre-revolutionary institutions have stood the test of time and may temper any executive decisions and choices. Iran is, fortunately, a stable democracy with a culture that is acclimated to democratic norms. It stretches back to Mossadegh, and quite frankly, many strong western democracies don't have that long an experience with the norms of democracy. Additionally, the revolution (despite it's rhetoric) did enshrine some democratic principles. Which is important, because those further put a break on Mahmoud.

Again, I do stress that I'm fully aware of the many reform, liberal, and other movements that seek to normalize the state and are against the president's more vociferous comments.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

quote:

---

Mahmoud's words are dangerous because he is a loose cannon.

---

Agreed that he is... But no more so than a figure like Pat Robertson is within the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

However, unionist suggests because Ahmadinejad is just an "asshole", we can safely just ignore him.

---

No, jeff, my conclusion was that he is an asshole - not my premise. It's incautious to conflate the two. The reason we should ignore him is that he is impotent personally, and his country is non-aggressive historically. Iran as a "threat" is a big-lie concoction of U.S. imperialism and its Israeli stooges - and those internationally who need a Devil to constantly confirm their faith in "God" (be that money, chauvinism, comfort, world domination, racism - you know, whatever it is that creepy bastards worship).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Agreed that he is... But no more so than a figure like Pat Robertson is within the US.

---

Nah, the view of North American moderates is hopelessly skewed, too. If you watch Faux news, they are constantly raving about the liberal bias of NBC and the New York Times: the New York times which did a media blackout on the East Timor genocide for two decades; NBC which gives an entire hour to the revolting manchild Tucker. Carlson.

This of course serves to say that the acceptable political spectrum runs from royal to navy blue, and serves the times and NBC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

On that point, Unionist, I'd parry and say that MAhmoud's words are extremely dangerous. He is just a stone's throw away from the Arabian peninsula, borders an increasingly unstable Pakistan and a collapsed Afghanistan. Iran also straddles the Kurdish areas, and the Kurds are becoming increasingly radicalized and violent. Iran is relatively close to Israel and borders a state that is in such chaos that no fair predictions can be made. He may only speak about driving Israel into the sea, but a radicalized command structure in Iran (kind of like the United States) is a potentially destabilizing regional force.

---

Yours is one based on pre-conceived biases that lack any consideration beyond the anti-American and anti-Israeli side of the issue. Unfortunately for your argument I was laying forward the dangers of Iran.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Unfortunately for your argument I was laying forward the dangers of Iran.

---

quote:

---

Quite different actually. He is the president of that country.

---

Gov'ts authorities and setups vary from nation to nation... The president of Iran does not have the degree of authority that a president in our world does... More sits with unelected figures. Ya, the comparisson is a little loose, but in both cases they are prominent extreme figures that too many people are paying far too much attention to. It seems like both men are heavily critisized by the moderates of their nations.

as you said yourself:

quote:

---

Additionally, the revolution (despite it's rhetoric) did enshrine some democratic principles. Which is important, because those further put a break on Mahmoud.

---

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I'm open to argument. What national interest does Iran have in committing aggression against any country? When was the last time Iran attacked any other country? All I need is a reminder here, as I'm no expert.

---

Well, their interest is becoming the primary regional power. Although they did not attack, there were large plans for attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan. Likewise, Iran has been vastly contrained due to sanctions and an American military presence in Pakistan, a completely loopy Afghanistan, and a hostile Sunni regime in Iraq. Likewise, they have no reason for attacking neighbouring Azerbaijan. Although, they were doing suppressive maneuvers against the minorities of Iran. However, Khatami managed to curb such things through his sage usage of the political institutions of Iran.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

However, we must take into account that aggression is not always marked by recent historical evidence. To ignore potentiality is far more dangerous than ascribing all isssues to a binary America v. the world view.

---

Sorry. I go by evidence. Your post is worse than speculation. It is rationalization. Even your phrase "recent historical evidence" is calculated to deceive, suggesting there is some less-recent evidence. How about a straight answer. When was the last time Iran attacked any other country? Don't be shy to say, "thousands of years ago". We're grown up. We can recognize "potential threats" - like Iraq's potential for producing WMD. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have now paid for that imaginary "potential" with their lives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
... completely lacks facts ...

---

Right on! Who needs facts to assert that Iran is a "potential" danger? Just look at them! Holy crap! Where's my gun?

ETA: Hang on there, I'm not done. Papal Bull says there is no "recent historical evidence" of Iranian aggression against other countries. I take that as a research challenge. Have we checked the fossil record? Papyrus scrolls? Hieroglyphics? When the United States of America is called upon to defend LIBERTY, it does not just put on the brakes and hesitate because of the mere lack of "evidence" - oh no! That would be betrayal of the very principles which the White Founding Fathers bequeathed unto us, to deliver Freedom and Free Markets to the world, over the corpses of their children if need be! Three cheers! Down with Iran, the next target on the Axis of Evil dance card!!!

Not sure if I've made my point yet, PB. Let me know if you require some further elaboration, and I'll be pleased to accommodate you.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

there is no "recent historical evidence" of Iranian aggression against other countries

---

quote:

---

And, lest i forget, MSNBC retains nazi pig Pat Buchanan as one of it's commentators, because he's "mainstream"

---

You do realize that Patrick Buchanan has been opposed to the war in Iraq since day one, and a harsh critic of the neo-Cons for even longer.

I don't think Iran, or its people, or even its mullahs want to nuke Israel or the world. Mahmoud..... that's another story. The fact that he's having his leash yanked in very reassuring.

It's not unreasonable to think that history can pivot on one headcase. If MacArthur had beaten Truman, or Goldwater had beaten LBJ, the US probably would have nuked China and Viet Nam. Not to mention if Nixon had gone toe-to-toe with the missile crisis (shudder) we probably wouldn't be having this chat.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Iran isn't exactly innocent within the Iraq insurgency by any means and they have a huge interest in setting up a friendly Shi'a dominated Iraqi parliment.

---

Ah, the Iraq insurgency is aggression against Iraq?

So Iraq was invaded by... Iran?

Thanks for that ray of light.

Now I see more clearly that Iran, by helping the Iraqis to resist, is actually the aggressor, while the U.S., by murdering the Iraqis, is the aggrieved party.

Nope. Follow the link. He said that gas vans at Treblinka wouldn't have worked, that we should just leave old SS men alone (he said that over 20 years ago), wrote a famous speech for Reagan calling the SS "victims" of WWII, said that Hitler was a "Soldier's soldier," [even though, during wartime he managed to rise only to the impressive rank of corporal], and a great statesman, and on and on and on. The fact that such a disgusting pig is allowed on ALL the major news channels makes me want to retch. Sorry for the intemperate language , but...

Anywho, sorry to digress from the thread, but, since you asked, here you go.
Pat is excrement

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
The imperialists need a wedge issue, a way into Iran. And by gum, imperialists can go where water can get. And you're not helping the cause to liberate Iranians from their oil, unionist.

---

Sorry, I'll keep trying. Hey, haven't those Iranians been kidnapping Christian kids and using their blood to bake Matzos? And what about that gunboat they sank in the Gulf of Tonkin? ATTACK THE BASTARDS!!!!

quote:

---

Nah, the view of North American moderates is hopelessly skewed, too. If you watch Faux news, they are constantly raving about the liberal bias of NBC and the New York Times

---

heh, I missed this comment... Did you just call Faux news the moderates?

quote:

---

Ah, the Iraq insurgency is aggression against Iraq?

---

Yes, there are active elements within Iraq (shi'a) that are going around slaughtering Sunni Iraqi's (these are the death squads as the US media refers to them as... Many Sunni's have taken to the net in a colloborative effort to share ideas to defend their homes, including a permanent rotating 'sniper' look out 24/7)... That is very much agression vs Iraq and it's citizens.

quote:

---

Did you just call Faux news the moderates?

---

Read the preceeding posts. My point was one establishment press (FAUX) portrays another (NYT, NBC) as diametrically, radically opposed, when in fact their propaganda is largely identical. This serves to project a false image of democratic diversity within the established outlets, while also ghettoizing any view outside their limits as extreme.

You dig?

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

...However I will agree that Israel can potentially be dangerous to regional stability.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]

---

No shit Sherlock.

quote:

---

Ummm, you know all that stuff...what do you call it...Oh, yeah. Those SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS that go against Israel.

---

That has nothing to do with my argument. Nevertheless, perhaps you could compare and contrast the enforcement of UN resolutions against Israel and, say, Iraq?

quote:

---

You're merely seeing it from the paradigm that is most convenient for you and your worldview. And that's okay. I'm taking a neutral stance on the issue.

---

quote:

---

FM could you post a link to show where Harper called all Arabs terrorists.

---

Absolutely. "a battle between a democratic state and terrorist groups who seek to destroy both it and its people is not a matter of shades of grey."

http://www.judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0534

Israel is a "democratic state" while Palestinians and Lebanese, and by extension all Arabs, and by extension of all of Islam, are "terrorists". Why didn't he just substitute "terrorists" with "cock roaches"? It is the same intent.

It is an utterly racist comment to curry favour among sectarians. It would be no different if he made the same comment to the Orange Order with reference to Catholics.

It is shameful that a Canadian Prime Minister would stoop to this level of racism but it is more shameful that he appears to have gotten away with it.

And the reason he has gotten away with it is because it is fashionable and acceptable to be racist against Islamic peoples who happen to be predominantly darker skinned compared to Israelis and Westeners. It is not so coincidental that those darker skinned "terrorists", who it is now okay to hate, also live in lands that are resource rich.

It is also very dangerous. Because when this all backfires, and it will backfire, the white conservatives who politely applaud Harper today, will be blaming Jews tomorrow.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:
When his comments and arguments are challenged, Jeff House disappears... only to show up when such challenges are no longer current and lay more of his edicts and disappear again when challenged and so on and so on....
Another demagogue who is peddling lies, hoaxes and half truths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
This is an absolutely unacceptable personal attack. Lay off, now. No one is required to show up and post on demand. People can post as little or as often as they wish.

---

I first noticed Jeff's pattern when he explicitly or by clear implication (I do not really remember, but hope his and my posts are in the database) suggested that Arabs are unable to conduct their own affairs and bring democracy without Western (US) interference.

My challenge to Jeff then remained unanswered. The pattern continues.

But yes, Michelle, "People can post as little or as often as they wish." Drop anything and do not account.

quote:

---

What national interest does Iran have in committing aggression against any country?

---

Ideological/religious objectives perhaps.Btw I don't consider President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as representing the people of Iran.Only the radical misfits.

Originally posted by unionist:

quote:

---

When was the last time Iran attacked any other country?

---

When was the last time Israel attacked any other country and was the aggressor?

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949 that was the war for independence,the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign. The Six-Day War in 1967 and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria.Were they the aggressor in any of these ?

Time for some new leaders who are less erectile and are ready to bring peace to the situation instead of dominance of the Middle East.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

Iran, with no history of attacking anyone in modern history -- but having been invaded once with the support of the US, now finds itself facing an Israel shouting "ATTACK! ATTACK!" to an insane US already surrounding Iran with weaponry of every sort, while still digesting Afghanistan and Iran -- is suspected of being a threat? The worm really has turned.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949 that was the war for independence,the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign. The Six-Day War in 1967 and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria.Were they the aggressor in any of these ?

---

It's hard to treat this as a serious question, but let's pretend you're just an ignorant person seeking knowledge.

No one attacked Israel in 1956 - Israel made a secret agreement with France and Britain to attack Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. They finally backed off under pressure from Eisenhower, who wasn't part of the deal. Yet.

Likewise, in 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground.

In 1973, Egypt and Syria simulaneously advanced into Sinai and Golan respectively - which were territories still illegally occupied by Israel after 1967. So Israel was not the initiator of this war - but it was most certainly the aggressor and occupier.

You seem to not care about the Israeli war against Lebanon in 1982, the invasion which led to many years of occupation and the massacres of Sabra and Chatila.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

Yes, there are active elements within Iraq (shi'a) that are going around slaughtering Sunni Iraqi's (these are the death squads as the US media refers to them as... Many Sunni's have taken to the net in a colloborative effort to share ideas to defend their homes, including a permanent rotating 'sniper' look out 24/7)... That is very much agression vs Iraq and it's citizens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
FM, just for the record, I would appreciate seeing exactly what Israel's Deputy PM actually stated.

Unionist thanks for the link, Sidra's ravings aside it does seem pretty clear as to what Ahmidinijad would do given the opportunity. Unless of course he is referring to the use of an eraser to do the wiping

---

Isn't this also an unacceptable personal attack?

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

When was the last time Israel attacked any other country and was the aggressor?

---

Where the fuck were you last summer? Deep in the bush with no access to phones, tv, internet, or newspapers? Do 1500 dead Lebanese civilians and a destroyed country count as "aggression"?

[ 10 February 2007: Message edited by: Centerfield ]

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

"Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence of the state. Thus we went off to the Sinai campaign. At that time we conquered most of the Sinai Peninsula and reached Sharm el Sheikh. Actually, we accepted and submitted to an American dictate, mainly regarding the Gaza Strip (which Ben-Gurion called 'the liberated portion of the homeland'). John Foster Dulles, the then-secretary of state, promised Ben-Gurion that an Egyptian army would not return to Gaza. The Egyptian army did enter Gaza .... After 1957, Israel had to wait 10 full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland.

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

---

I'll take an Israeli Prime Ministers word over your mYths and facts from the JVL.

[ 09 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Inside Iran
Venturing where no Canadian journalist should go, Doug Saunders sets out to explore the murky world of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What is the source of the volatile President's popularity and why is it suddenly beginning to fail him?
DOUG SAUNDERS

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

---

quote:

---

Inside Iran
Venturing where no Canadian journalist should go, Doug Saunders sets out to explore the murky world of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What is the source of the volatile President's popularity and why is it suddenly beginning to fail him?
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently being hotly contested.

---

These words put the chill in us all.

quote:

---

Jamkaran, once an obscure mosque on the outskirts of the holy city of Qom, is Mr. Ahmadinejad's other great construction site, and home to the extremist Shia sect whose beliefs provide the apocalyptic images in his speeches and pronouncements. Its spiritual powers, many Iranians fear, are inseparable from the nuclear powers being sought by the President

---

I hope Iranians can get rid of this apocalyptic leader and the extremist Shia sect.

Some will say the G&M is another biased rag that's doesn't tell the truth.But this rant is getting old and predictable.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FM could you post a link to show where Harper called all Arabs terrorists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. "a battle between a democratic state and terrorist groups who seek to destroy both it and its people is not a matter of shades of grey."

http://www.judeoscope.ca/article.php3?id_article=0534

Israel is a "democratic state" while Palestinians and Lebanese, and by extension all Arabs, and by extension of all of Islam, are "terrorists". Why didn't he just substitute "terrorists" with "cock roaches"? It is the same intent.

---

[ 10 February 2007: Message edited by: ohara ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centerfield:

However, its own national interests have remained paramount, even to the detriment of some ideological-religious objectives, such as its violent tendency to "export the revolution" characteristic of the regime's first decade.

---

Interesting that while I just cited facts for the various Israeli wars (who attacked whom, etc.), you had to dig into propaganda latrines to "justify" why Israel invaded. The point was simply: Who was the aggressor? You have Lebanon as the aggressor against Israel in 1982? Words and lives mean nothing to you.

As for Iran, it has never committed aggression against anyone. I'll take your feeble "exporting revolution" concoction above as an admission of that.

So we have:

Israel - frequent and continuing aggression since 1948, with cheerleaders like Centrefield not even bothering to look up the facts. How could Israel be bad? Can't be - a lot of them look like "us"!!!!!

Iran - never attacked anybody. Ever. No need to invent excuses like "self-defence" or "God told us in this holy notebook once to kill you and your livestock and make the desert green".

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
How "by extention" you read that Harper calls all Islam terrorists is beyond me.

---

quote:

---

unionist: Harper's problem is not that he believes all Arabs or Muslims are terrorist. His problem is that he believes all terrorists are Arabs or Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

So it's not racism. It's just racial profiling by the PM.

---

I think you missed my point. Harper does not want people to understand that "terrorists" can be Caucasian in race, English of tongue, and reside in the White House or in the Canadian Armed Forces Defence Staff. He wants "terrorist" to conjure up an image of foreign incomprehensible anti-U.S. bomb-makers.

ETA: On second reading, maybe I missed your point, and you were saying the same thing I was. Apologies if that's the case.

Furthermore, the problem of Bush and Harper and others is not "racism" in that sense. They love the Karzais and Mubaraks and Saudi oil sheikhs, and they hate White Anglo-Saxon Protestant progressive people worse than anything they can imagine.

[ 10 February 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

unionist: ETA: On second reading, maybe I missed your point, and you were saying the same thing I was.

---

I was. By claiming that only Arabs and Muslims are possible terrorists, the government of (Bush or) Harper can justify taking special discriminatory measures against that group of people. Maybe just a more clever racism.

quote:

---

Furthermore, the problem of Bush and Harper and others is not "racism" in that sense. They love the Karzais and Mubaraks and Saudi oil sheikhs, and they hate White Anglo-Saxon Protestant progressive people worse than anything they can imagine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Quite correct, ohara. Harper's problem is not that he believes all Arabs or Muslims are terrorist. His problem is that he believes all terrorists are Arabs or Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Interesting that while I just cited facts for the various Israeli wars (who attacked whom, etc.), you had to dig into propaganda latrines to "justify" why Israel invaded. The point was simply: Who was the aggressor? You have Lebanon as the aggressor against Israel in 1982? Words and lives mean nothing to you.

As for Iran, it has never committed aggression against anyone. I'll take your feeble "exporting revolution" concoction above as an admission of that.

So we have:

Israel - frequent and continuing aggression since 1948, with cheerleaders like Centrefield not even bothering to look up the facts. How could Israel be bad? Can't be - a lot of them look like "us"!!!!!

Iran - never attacked anybody. Ever. No need to invent excuses like "self-defence" or "God told us in this holy notebook once to kill you and your livestock and make the desert green".

To repeat the atrocious lie that Iran poses a threat to Israel is to pave the way for more murder and aggression. Only this time, I don't think it will happen. The U.S. may be led by butchers, but they must have some degree of self-preservation. Invasion of Iran will mean the end of the U.S. "as we know it".

---

These words put the chill in us all.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamkaran, once an obscure mosque on the outskirts of the holy city of Qom, is Mr. Ahmadinejad's other great construction site, and home to the extremist Shia sect whose beliefs provide the apocalyptic images in his speeches and pronouncements. Its spiritual powers, many Iranians fear, are inseparable from the nuclear powers being sought by the President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope Iranians can get rid of this apocalyptic leader and the extremist Shia sect.

Some will say the G&M is another biased rag that's doesn't tell the truth.But this rant is getting old and predictable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
It does little good to accuse harper of racism on such flimsy evidence. Either give some concrete examples or do not engage in what the ordinary reader will see as a strictly ideological propagandistic attack that has no proof to it.

---

Are you hallucinating or illiterate? See, I've given you a choice! Just to help you out, here's what I said:

quote:

---

Furthermore, the problem of Bush and Harper and others is not "racism" in that sense. They love the Karzais and Mubaraks and Saudi oil sheikhs, and they hate White Anglo-Saxon Protestant progressive people worse than anything they can imagine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Harper believes all terrorists are "Arabs", perhaps so, but "where's the beef"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Unionist, I know what you said your c laim is as hallucinogenic as Frustrated without the back-up. That is all Im saying. Harper believes all terrorists are "Arabs", perhaps so, but "where's the beef"?

---

I'd like to know why Sidra is chastised for personal attacks against House, but Petsy and Ohara get away with this kind of thing.

[ 10 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The best part of that was the students taping together all the documents that were shredded there, painstakingly sticking together all of those ribbons of paper, and proving incontrovertably that the embassy was being used as a CIA outpost for operations in Iran.

[ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]