Time to kick Iran

[plumjam]

All of you guys arguing against Oliver presumably witnessed, like the rest of us, the whole lying propaganda debacle in the case of Iraq that has resulted, so far, in the deaths of a million people.
At least one of you has admitted that you were wrong to go along with it all.

Now that the same strategy of lying propaganda is being used by the same administration to beat the war drum to attack another (oil rich) country, what in the hell are you guys doing believing and/or defending the same old BS ?

I thought this was supposed to be a critical thinking forum. That includes examining when/where you were mistaken in the past, and attempting to learn from it.
It doesn't include swallowing whatever the current government line is, out of, perhaps some sense of "patriotism" or emotional attachment to a particular view of yourself and your relationship to your own particular society.

Please try to start being skeptical.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Oliver, I am sorry to repeat my question, but, I would like your answer on the topic.

Do the sentences like these look like

I hereby declare that this sinister regime (Israel) is the banner of Satan. It is the banner of the great Satan. All it does is to implement the orders of the criminal America and England.

They think that the peoples are the same as they were 100 years ago. They are not aware that things have changed in the world. Today, all the peoples have awoken. The Iranian people is the standard-bearer of this awakening for all the peoples.

As we can see, from the southernmost point in South America to the eastern most point in Asia, all the peoples are shouting a single cry. With placards in their hands and clenched fists, they shout:

DEATH TO ISRAEL!

DEATH TO ISRAEL!

DEATH TO ISRAEL!"

Does it look like a message of peace to Israel?

Does it look like a message of peace to America?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Now that the same strategy of lying propaganda is being used by the same administration to beat the war drum to attack another (oil rich) country, what in the hell are you guys doing believing and/or defending the same old BS ?

Who is advocating war against Iran?
Not me..

 

[plumjam]

Who is advocating war against Iran?
Not me..

Good. I am pleased.
Are you advocating an attack?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Welcome to free speech, UW.

By that I mean that everybody on this planet is free to
speak whatever they want in my opinion. But this alone
is no threat.

But, if the guy speaking, and saying " death to Israel ", is also the president of a nation where they have full uranium enrichment cycle, that could be a source of fear, especially if you live in Tel Aviv, right?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Good. I am pleased.
Are you advocating an attack?

Mm..
I think it should be considered the very last resource, if Tehran does not abide to sanctions.
But, before tat, I think many other things should be done:
- Bush accepting the offer of a debate in Iranian television, and make things clear with them;
- make a very good offer that allows Iranians to really have enriched uranium with the uranium enriched in Russia;
- allow Mr. A speak in many other Universities;
- push for a fair solution of the Israelo- Palestinese conflict;
- work in order to have a permanent member from an Islamic country ( or a rapresentation of Islamic countries ) within the UNSC;
- try to get Syria on their side;
- try to build consensus with other powers in order to isolate Iran with more sanctions

 

[plumjam]

Mm..
I think it should be considered the very last resource, if Tehran does not abide to sanctions.
But, before tat, I think many other things should be done:
- Bush accepting the offer of a debate in Iranian television, and make things clear with them;
- make a very good offer that allows Iranians to really have enriched uranium with the uranium enriched in Russia;
- allow Mr. A speak in many other Universities;
- push for a fair solution of the Israelo- Palestinese conflict;
- work in order to have a permanent member from an Islamic country ( or a rapresentation of Islamic countries ) within the UNSC;
- try to get Syria on their side;
- try to build consensus with other powers in order to isolate Iran with more sanctions

I agree with most of that. But I don't think an attack should be considered, even as a last resort. There is no way to be sure an attack wouldn't escalate into an all out war, including a steep rise in terrorism in the west.
Can you see, Matteo, that by arguing about what Ahmadinejad did or didn't say in some particular speech or interview you are in some small way defending the demonisation strategy being used by the US government against him in order to strengthen their case for attacking Iran?
In other words, you are playing along with the US agenda.

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, I agree that most of the above are reasonable and plausible. But as a return from Iran's government... What would be reasonable to expect from them as a sign of good faith?

 

[Matteo Martini]

OK, I agree that most of the above are reasonable and plausible. But as a return from Iran's government... What would be reasonable to expect from them as a sign of good faith?

In my opinion:
- stop calling Israel the " banner of Satan ";
- make it clear that they will not go to war against Israel;
- be ready to recognize Israel, if the Palestinian issue is solved, make a declaration on that;
- accept the offer to move the enrichment process in Russia, at least, for a certain amount of time, let' s say, 5-10 years;
- stop calling Israel the " banner of Satan ";
- stop calling Israel the " banner of Satan ";

As you see, Correa, nothing about the domestic policy of Iran..

 

[Matteo Martini]

I agree with most of that. But I don't think an attack should be considered, even as a last resort. There is no way to be sure an attack wouldn't escalate into an all out war, including a steep rise in terrorism in the west.
Can you see, Matteo, that by arguing about what Ahmadinejad did or didn't say in some particular speech or interview you are in some small way defending the demonisation strategy being used by the US government against him in order to strengthen their case for attacking Iran?
In other words, you are playing along with the US agenda.

I am playing along with nobody.
Nobody forced Ahmadinejad to say " death to Israel ".
And, it would be so easy for him to avoid all these problem.
Just go ahead, and say, in front of the world community, that they will not attack Israel.
Making it clear.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Now that the same strategy of lying propaganda is being used by the same administration to beat the war drum to attack another (oil rich) country, what in the hell are you guys doing believing and/or defending the same old BS ?

Did you see the same video? Did you see the same speech? How is that 'defending the same old BS?'

It doesn't include swallowing whatever the current government line is

Did you see the same video? Did you see the same speech? How is coming to our own conclusions about that 'swallowing' the government line?

Please try to start being skeptical.

If you are a skeptic, I am the nordic princess.

 

[Correa Neto]

In my opinion:
- stop calling Israel the " banner of Satan ";
- make it clear that they will not go to war against Israel;
- be ready to recognize Israel, if the Palestinian issue is solved, make a declaration on that;
- accept the offer to move the enrichment process in Russia, at least, for a certain amount of time, let' s say, 5-10 years;
- stop calling Israel the " banner of Satan ";
- stop calling Israel the " banner of Satan ";

Sounds reasonable also. But I doubt we will ever see them in the near future. But, again, the same is valid for some of the measures we agree the current USA government could take.

As you see, Correa, nothing about the domestic policy of Iran..

At the risk of a derail, I say not necessarily.

For example:
It seems Iran's government, just like many authoritarian (as well as aspiring authoritarian, or authoritarian tendencies or demagogic or any combination of the former) regimes have as an integral part of their internal policy the constant use of an external enemy as a diversion. This enemy is the cause of all evils and sufferings, not the government's flawed policies. In Iran's case, USA and Israel are the enemy. So, the "DOWN WITH USA AND ISRAEL" line is, as a matter of fact an internal doctrine, its a domestic policy intermingled with an external one. And I guess the banners of USA and Israel are not the only ones who suffer with this sad policy.

 

[plumjam]

Did you see the same video? Did you see the same speech? How is that 'defending the same old BS?'



Did you see the same video? Did you see the same speech? How is coming to our own conclusions about that 'swallowing' the government line?



If you are a skeptic, I am the nordic princess.

You're someone who believes the propaganda claim that Islam isn't a religion.
Just as a start, try being skeptical with that.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You're someone who believes the propaganda claim that Islam isn't a religion.

What propaganda claim is that? I don't think I have. Infact, I feel I have looked into it more then you ever will, and still refuse to.

Let me explain it to you. There are three ways of looking at the world.

First; there is a world which is created by God, but only gives a few set of rules, but overall you can live an individualistic life which is divorced from God. Thus, religion.

Second; there is a world which is not created by God, and is simply the Atheists way of looking at it.

Third; The Earth is God's property, and you attempt to please him on his property. When I say 'please' I am not talking about simply people blowing themselves up, so please do not try to use that as a way to get around me. Thus, it is a 'way of life' and not a religion.

This doesn't make it bad, but you seem to like to imply that I am making it a 'bad thing' so you can claim some higher ivory tower over me.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

HE.. didn't say that. I'm pretty sure he's the one who explained it's a umbrella religion (that is, ther eare many branches and ideas of what Islam could be)

Oh, incidently. Are you going to actually answer his post?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, I am sorry to repeat my question, but, I would like your answer on the topic.

I agree that it is fair to say that Ahmadinejad is at least naive
concerning his views about the Holocaust:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,418660,00.html

And it's fair to say that Ahmadinejad isn't very wise in chosing
the right words concerning the removal of a Regime - or even
in quoting them.

Nevertheless: Ahmadinejad doesn't have a violent record, does he?

And secondly: Iranians have every right to bash Americans since
they have their fingers onto their land since decades - and you
wouldn't think otherwise if America would topple the Italian Regime
just because they aren't obeying, wrong?

 

[Oliver]

*snip* I thought this was supposed to be a critical thinking forum. That includes examining when/where you were mistaken in the past, and attempting to learn from it. *snip*

It IS a critical thinking forum - as long you don't touch
patriotic issues that doesn't need to be examined since
this would be " u n p a t r i o t i c ".

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Are you going to answer my question Oliver?

And who here is attacking Mahmoud because it is the patriotic thing to do?

 

[jsiv]

Welcome to free speech, UW.

By that I mean that everybody on this planet is free to speak whatever they want in my opinion. But this alone is no threat.

If you interpret this being a threat nevertheless, you should drop your believe in free speech and -expression, because your argument would be worthless if you believe in free speech for yourself as long people don't say anything that bothers you.

It's not that simple though, is it.

The concept of "free speech" is generally intended to protect people from the government, not to give the government free reigns to do and say whatever it pleases. Ahmadinejad is not stating his opinion as a private individual, he is speaking on behalf of the government as its official spokesman. With this in mind, his statements are worrying and worthy of condemnation.

Another thing you seem to conveniently have left out is that free speech is not absolute. Most countries have limits on it, especially when it comes to public incitement (which is what the Iranian government through Ahmadinejad is doing.)


Will you condemn Iran's statements, Oliver?

 

[jsiv]

I agree that it is fair to say that Ahmadinejad is at least naive concerning his views about the Holocaust

Ahmadinejad is in no way naive. He knows exactly what he's saying and doing. Stop apologizing for him.

And it's fair to say that Ahmadinejad isn't very wise in chosing the right words concerning the removal of a Regime - or even in quoting them.

The only reason you seem to feel that he's not "choosing the right words" on that particular issue is because he is not actually saying what you think he is, nor does he have the goals you think he does.

You want him to be something that he isn't.

Nevertheless: Ahmadinejad doesn't have a violent record, does he?

Yes he does, most notably against Israel and Iraq.