Time to kick Iran

[Pardalis]

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

Naive? Oh for ****'s sake Oliver.

There is no debate about the Holocaust, it is an established fact.

Anyone who tries to doubt or infer that anything different happened IS A FREAKING LUNATIC.

There's no naïveté about it Oliver, Ahmadinejad know perfectly well what he is saying, and you're willing to bend over backwards for this madman is trully sickening.

From your own link:

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.
On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation ...

It can't be more crystal clear Oliver.

 

[Oliver]

reply to above post first please. It is only 1am over in your area.

This is becoming quite comical. Oliver, you pointed out that he says 'They Shout'. That is true.

But then what happens, he then allows 'them', as in, his audience, to shout 'DEATH TO ISRAEL'!

It would be like George Bush giving a speech in his inaugural saying

'In the Bible belt, With placards in their hands, they shout

KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS!'

Only to have the entire crowd shout 'KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS!'.

I have no doubt if that happened you would be on here in a shot talking about stupid Americans and a terrible president who allowed this to happen. If some lunatic then replied saying 'But Bush didn't actually say 'I shout 'KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS'' you would quite rightly think them very silly indeed.

Sorry Oliver... you are just.. a raving nutcase!

I guess you meant this message of yours. Well, if this is enough
evidence for you for a threat and the intention to nuke Israel,
then you completely ignore that:

A. Ahmadinejad isn't in control of the nuclear program
B. He isn't the head of the country
C. Iran allows access to the Nuclear Site
D. There is no evidence for a WMD-Program

So you prefer to ignore all of the above points out of emotions
rather than out of rationality?

 

[Oliver]

Naive? Oh for ****'s sake Oliver.

There is no debate about the Holocaust, it is an established fact.

Anyone who tries to doubt or infer that anything different happened IS A FREAKING LUNATIC.

There's no naïveté about it Oliver, Ahmadinejad know perfectly well what he is saying, and you're willing to bend over backwards for this madman is trully sickening.

From your own link:
It can't be more crystal clear Oliver.

I know it's a fact. But obviously Ahmadinejad doesn't know that
for sure. Maybe he's a Skeptic?

But kidding aside: Did you read the whole Interview?

 

[Gurdur]

Pardalis, why you insist on continually allowing yourself to be manipulated is beyond me. I suggest you better radically change your assessment.

 

[Oliver]

Pardalis, why you insist on continually allowing yourself to be manipulated is beyond me. I suggest you better radically change your assessment.

What does this mean? Do you have an own opinion or do you
have to rely on off-topic remarks till the end of your days?

Meaning: What is your evidence that Iran is a threat?
Oh, I may have forgotten that some people in here didn't
do their homework and actually research the things they
feel to comment on ...

 

[Pardalis]

I know it's a fact. But obviously Ahmadinejad doesn't know that for sure. Maybe he's a Skeptic?

Do you realize the gravity of what you are saying Oliver?

But kidding aside

Holocaust denial is no kidding matter Oliver. You as a German should know that better than anyone.

Pardalis, why you insist on continually allowing yourself to be manipulated is beyond me.

The reason why I keep responding to that little twerp is that his kind of rhetoric is the exact same thing I hear very often by the same brand of useful idiots I see everyday on the street.

I suggest you better radically change your assessment.

I'm not sure I follow, what do you suggest?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I guess you meant this message of yours. Well, if this is enough
evidence for you for a threat and the intention to nuke Israel,
then you completely ignore that:

A. Ahmadinejad isn't in control of the nuclear program
B. He isn't the head of the country
C. Iran allows access to the Nuclear Site
D. There is no evidence for a WMD-Program

So you prefer to ignore all of the above points out of emotions
rather than out of rationality?

You are still avoiding my question. Would you defend Bush if he said the above at a DC rally? Would you say he did not say 'I shout 'KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS' but justify it by him saying 'They shout 'KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS!'. Would you defend the crowds free speech?

Would you be calling for his impeachment? I would.

 

[Oliver]

Do you realize the gravity of what you are saying Oliver?

Holocaust denial is no kidding matter Oliver. You as a German should know that better than anyone.

The reason why I keep responding to that little twerp is that his kind of rhetoric is the exact same thing I hear very often by the same brand of useful idiots I see everyday on the street.

I'm not sure I follow, what do you suggest?

Of course I know that the Holocaust is a serious issue. But that
doesn't mean that I go Banana if someone says he doesn't believe
it. I rather tend to educate people who honestly are uncertain.

So did you read the full Interview between "Spiegel" and Ahmadinejad
yet or did you stop while reading about the Holocaust-conversation?

 

[Pardalis]

Of course I know that the Holocaust is a serious issue. But that doesn't mean that I go Banana if someone says he doesn't believe it. I rather tend to educate people who honestly are uncertain.

Ahmadinejad is not "honestly uncertain". Please get help Oliver, you are sinking lower and lower every day.

Now answer UW.

 

[Gurdur]

.....The reason why I keep responding to that little twerp is that his kind of rhetoric is the exact same thing I hear very often by the same brand of useful idiots I see everyday on the street.

And you keep on responding mostly in a way that he can easily handle (through evasion and coyly hinting that he is still open to discussion) and which actually furthers his aims of gaining attention and wanting to be taken seriously.

Begin to see the problem yet? Does the term "enabling" ring a bell here?

I'm not sure I follow, what do you suggest?

I was referring to a previous objection you made only about 2 weeks ago to one of my posts on the same subject, where you insisted he was not such a bad bloke. I was heavily suggesting that you re-examine that assessment.

 

[Oliver]

You are still avoiding my question. Would you defend Bush if he said the above at a DC rally? Would you say he did not say 'I shout 'KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS' but justify it by him saying 'They shout 'KILL THE HOMOSEXUALS!'. Would you defend the crowds free speech?

Would you be calling for his impeachment? I would.

We already know that Bush said those things already:

"Axis of Evil"
"Terrorstates"
"Evil Regimes/Dictators"
"those regimes"

etc...

So I see no difference between calling for a regime-change coming
from Iran or coming from the US. Both sides are pretty much shouting
the same untrue garbage to adjure the voting lemmings - meaning
that rationality isn't the white house's nor Iran's strength.

So I tend to rely on evidence instead. And just like in Iraq, there is
no evidence that Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon - or the ridiculous
claim that Iran poses a threat to the US.

Even if this would make a good joke coming from a reasonable Regime.

So? What's the evidence that Iran poses a nuclear threat besides
wishful thinking and witch hunting? --- Right, there is none.

 

[Pardalis]

And you keep on responding mostly in a way that he can easily handle (through evasion and coyly hinting that he is still open to discussion) and which actually furthers his aims of gaining attention and wanting to be taken seriously.

Begin to see the problem yet? Does the term "enabling" ring a bell here?

I was referring to a previous objection you made only about 2 weeks ago to one of my posts on the same subject, where you insisted he was not such a bad bloke. I was heavily suggesting that you re-examine that assessment.

I keep hoping he will eventually see the gravity of what he is saying, because I do think he is a good bloke.

But now I see that it is useless, if he doesn't understand the root cause of Holocaust denial he will never understand how flawed Ahmadinejad's and Iran's policies about Israel are.

 

[Oliver]

Ahmadinejad is not "honestly uncertain". Please get help Oliver, you are sinking lower and lower every day.

Now answer UW.

Well, what would you like to do about that? He is free to think
whatever he wants about the holocaust. His argument was that
Palestinians are paying the price for the Holocaust - while they
had nothing to do with it. And BTW: "No matter if the Holocaust
is true or not".

What do you personally think about this argument?

 

[Gurdur]

I keep hoping ...

And thus you keep enabling.

 

[Pardalis]

Well, what would you like to do about that? He is free to think whatever he wants about the holocaust. His argument was that
Palestinians are paying the price for the Holocaust - while they
had nothing to do with it. And BTW: "No matter if the Holocaust
is true or not".

What do you personally think about this argument?

Israel is there to stay.

 

[jsiv]

Oliver, is your personal opinion that the Palestinians shouldn't suffer for Germany's actions during World war II and that Israel should be shut down and all the Israelis moved to somewhere in Europe or Alaska?


(Starting to wonder if I'm on ignore.)

 

[Undesired Walrus]

We already know that Bush said those things already:

"Axis of Evil"
"Terrorstates"
"Evil Regimes/Dictators"
"those regimes"

etc...

So I see no difference between calling for a regime-change coming
from Iran or coming from the US. Both sides are pretty much shouting
the same untrue garbage to adjure the voting lemmings - meaning
that rationality isn't the white house's nor Iran's strength.

So I tend to rely on evidence instead. And just like in Iraq, there is
no evidence that Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon - or the ridiculous
claim that Iran poses a threat to the US.

Even if this would make a good joke coming from a reasonable Regime.

So? What's the evidence that Iran poses a nuclear threat besides
wishful thinking and witch hunting? --- Right, there is none.

Still not answering my question.

 

[marksman]

Don't bother. Oliver's not interested in discussing even the things in his own posts. His only goal is derail every post he contributes to unless it is criticizing Bush. I'm saddened to see how easy it has been for one person to destroy this forum.

 

[Gurdur]

Don't bother. Oliver's not interested in discussing even the things in his own posts. His only goal is derail every post he contributes to unless it is criticizing Bush. I'm saddened to see how easy it has been for one person to destroy this forum.

Pretty much correct, seconded.

 

[plumjam]

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?

He didn't say it in this thread, no. But I wasn't referring to this thread. He argued in another thread that Islam is not a religion.