• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

Ahmadinejad has said that Israel should be destroyed.
Iran, a nation sitting on vast energy resources, is developing weapon grade nuclear fuel.

Oh, and BTW, much of the rest of the world DOES care. You don't speak for everyone.


I speak for everyone outside the US and Israel if I say that no
one wants another Iraq - hyping an issue and in the aftermath
it was another hoax that threatens global peace even more than
resolving anything.

And I say that because I saw what happened in Iraq and how
dishonest it was. Another slip like that and it will take decades
to repair such a breach of trust concerning all the US-Allies.

Quite frankly - every report whining about Iran attacking US-
Soldiers in Iraq, doesn't have any impact or point at all. Because
Iraq was a failure in the first place. There was no Al Qaida and
no Iran - and if Iran really is intervening in Iraq right now, then
it's ones own fault.

Germany refused to help to put more pressure upon the Iranian
Government, mainly because they are interested in a diplomatic
solution - and also engaged in this way since 1,5 years.

Fact is that Iran never said it is about to build a nuclear weapon,
nor did they say that they will use such a weapon to "wipe Israel
off the map".

So if someone wants to play a Truther and connects some stupid
dots in a way that "Iran doesn't recognize Israel, therefore I'm
convinced that they will build a bomb and wipe them out", is no
reasonable conclusion at all - no matter how much patriots will
fall for it.

Maybe Bush should have chosen Iran in the first place - this way
he would have in the same way "succeeded" as in Iraq - or Vietnam.
 
The point is not if Iraq was or not a potential threat...

The point is if Iran is or not a threat. The way I see it, for USA interests, it is a plausible and potential threat, just like say, North Korea.

If there is a potential threat, the threatened will (unless if very unwise) make plans to deal with it. In this case, bombing. Note that letting word of bombing plans seep out is clearly part of a strategy.

One can discuss if the threat is real or not and how dangerous it is. But the "OMG! They made bombing plans!" line is quite moot...


Why do you think it's "Moot"? :confused:
Did you see the presidential debates?

I did hear "Iran is a threat. They want the bomb. We cannot tolerate
that. Military options are on the table" quite often. And this is Propaganda,
no matter if right or wrong.

If I was the Bush-Coward, I would personally travel to Iran to make a
deal on which all sides agree. But unfortunately, bragging does impress
the republicans much more than diplomacy, doesn't it?
 

Other delightful quotes:

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

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

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."


http://www.jewishphilly.org/page.html?ArticleID=142939
 


Don't play the Truther and get your facts straight:

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"

Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to "obliterate totally",[7] and "destroy completely", such as by powerful bombs,[8] or other catastrophes.[9]
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 eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[10]
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."[11]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[12]
Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. [13][14][15] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [16][17][18]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. 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. Bronner stated: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[11]
On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as an "occupying regime" being "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "Israel" being "wiped off the map". [19]
A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [20]
The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as "wipe out" by Reuters:
Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out."[21]
Iran's state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translated Ahmadinejad's comments as "Israel must be wiped off the map", [22]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech
 
If I tell you I'm going to kill you on a regular basis, and you know I'm waiting for the shotgun I ordered, do I really have to tell you how I'm going to do it?
 
Other delightful quotes:

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

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

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."


http://www.jewishphilly.org/page.html?ArticleID=142939


So what? Where does your quote say that they are about to build
a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel? Yes, you're right - nowhere. And
even if it did - until they do so, it's not our western worlds problem
at all to paint the doomsday scenario. Our goal should be to make
peace down there - and this includes to kick Israeli Fundamentalists
asses as well - if necessary.

Why? Because I don't feel comfortable with the Idea that Israel
poses a nuclear threat to their neighbors - even if I think that
Israel deserves their own state. But unfortunately - they chose
the violent way instead paying off all people involved and to
establish diplomatic agreements with their neighbors in the first
place.

Anyway - I'm opposed to interventions that aren't fair&balanced,
especially in terms of military prophylactic interventions that show
the Bully rather than the Diplomat.
 
Don't play the Truther and get your facts straight:

That's funny.

"...several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as an "occupying regime" being "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "Israel" being "wiped off the map".

That is such a huge difference in the big picture. I'm so glad you cleared that up.

"Iran's state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translated Ahmadinejad's comments as "Israel must be wiped off the map""

Better tell the Iranians at the RIB they are illiterate.
 
If I tell you I'm going to kill you on a regular basis, and you know I'm waiting for the shotgun I ordered, do I really have to tell you how I'm going to do it?


So violence is a solution for you? Remember Iraq? :confused: ...Vietnam? :confused: ...Mossadegh? :confused:
9/11? :confused: Castro? :confused: Cold war? :confused:
 
That's funny.

"...several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as an "occupying regime" being "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "Israel" being "wiped off the map".

That is such a huge difference in the big picture. I'm so glad you cleared that up.

"Iran's state-owned Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting translated Ahmadinejad's comments as "Israel must be wiped off the map""

Better tell the Iranians at the RIB they are illiterate.


Well, he's actually answering your nightmares.
Would you listen?

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/09/12/sot.ahmadinegad.itn.itn
 
So violence is a solution for you? Remember Iraq? :confused: ...Vietnam? :confused: ...Mossadegh? :confused:

The fact is, I prefer a diplomatic solution. The problem is, you consistently make comments denying there is even a problem. I never said attack Iraq or Iran. You assumed that was my position.
 
Oliver-
"unfortunately - they chose
the violent way instead paying off all people involved and to
establish diplomatic agreements with their neighbors in the first
place."

Could you explain what you mean exactly?
 
The fact is, I prefer a diplomatic solution. The problem is, you consistently make comments denying there is even a problem. I never said attack Iraq or Iran. You assumed that was my position.


The problem is aggressive politics. And no - it isn't Iran who
has a long history of violent politics against others. It's some-
one else. Guess who?
 
Why I think the "OMG They have plans to bomb Iran" is moot?

As I said before, I would be surprised if they hadn't...
And also because I think the discussion must be centered on the potential threat presented by Iran. Is it real? How dangerous it is?

Besides, having plans to bomb is not the same thing as bombing.

Its understandable if you disagree with the bombing; however, I see no reason for any fuss regarding the existence of (new) bombing plans.

Remember Osiraq.
 
Why I think the "OMG They have plans to bomb Iran" is moot?

As I said before, I would be surprised if they hadn't...
And also because I think the discussion must be centered on the potential threat presented by Iran. Is it real? How dangerous it is?

Besides, having plans to bomb is not the same thing as bombing.

Its understandable if you disagree with the bombing; however, I see no reason for any fuss regarding the existence of (new) bombing plans.

Remember Osiraq.


Okay - now I understand what you meant: That they indeed have
plans to have a nuclear counterweight in contrast to the estimated
250-300 nuclear weapons Israel has, right?

So? Sounds fair to me to have WMD's as well, doesn't it?
 
The problem is aggressive politics. And no - it isn't Iran who
has a long history of violent politics against others. It's some-
one else. Guess who?

That's kind of a chicken or the egg arguement that dates at least back to the end of WWII with the allies supporting the Shah. To say the modern Iranian government since '79 has not been at least part of the problem is looking at the relationship with blinders. The Islamic cleric based government has been anti-west and agressive since it's very creation.
 
Last edited:
How many of these Israeli nukes are aimed to USA or any of its millitary bases located at other countries?

And the Iranian nukes... They would be aimed at?
 
That's kind of a chicken or the egg arguement that dates at least back to the end of WWII with the allies supporting the Shah. To say the modern Iranian government since '79 has not been at least part of the problem is looking at the relationship with blinders. The Islamic cleric based government has been anti-west and agressive since it's very creation.


So?
"The western point of view always was anti-eastern."

"Why?"

"Because they are different."

"Does that mean that "Different" means I or we are good and they are evil?"

"Uhm ... No."


Your point?
 

Back
Top Bottom