What will Iran bomb first?

[Pardalis]

What Hitler [] Ahmadinejad said:

"If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it."

Full Source: 1.2 Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad

Again, he also said this:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ..."

Kind of contradictory, isn't it?

BTW, what does "keep the Zionist" mean, exactly? What does the opposite of "keeping the Zionists" imply?

 

[Oliver]

Again, he also said this:

"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it ..."

Kind of contradictory, isn't it?

Of course they don't recognize it. Their argument is that it's completely
ignoring the Palestinian people [Their fellow Muslims so to speak]. So why
should they recognize it if they don't want to and actually see Israel as
an invasion and occupation?

[Is there some kind of "Israel-recognizing law" somewhere that forces
elected governments to recognize Israel? Never heard of it.]

Here is the Supreme Leader - answering your question:

"We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...terpretation_of_speech_as_call_for_referendum

Ahmadinejad said the same:

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[43][44][45][46] Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[47]

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

​

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...terpretation_of_speech_as_call_for_referendum

Where is the threat? Could it be that there is a lot of exaggeration because
"loud" voices don't want such a solution, loving the status quo?

 

[FireGarden]

once more:
To compare someone with Hitler when the topic has nothing to do with it IS GODWIN!

And once again: You think that the way to respond is to say "Godwin" and move on.

I'll show you what I think should be done:

You're one of those "pacifists" who go out of their way to apologize for the real Hitlers of our time.

Ooh, look! a comparison to Hitler.
On what basis do you make that comparison? On the basis that Iran has spoken about the end of Israel, which was led by a man who also spoke of the end of Israel?

Your comparison is incorrect.
Ahmadinejad has not launched an attack and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Bush has. On the continuum from saint to Hitler, Bush is closer to Hitler than Ahmadinejad is.

I don't have to run away from your comparison -- I can argue against it.

Why don't you move over there, since you like them so much?

Because I'm British not Bushish.
And it is amazing that you think I should prefer Iran to Britain because I refuse to accept Ahmadinejad is a genocidal madman.

Actually, it was rather easy in 2006, they stopped because of international pressures.

Israel gave in to international pressure? You're joking.

America sent Israel more weapons, even moving them through Britain which led to some criticism of the British government. America (and others) went on and on about Israel's right to defend itself. In the end, they had to admit the cost to Israel was too great. They had to stop the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6479377.stm

Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.

Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".

He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.

Do you have any counter evidence to support your claim? If not, I'll take Bolton's interpretation over yours.

You seriously think America is a target on the other side of the Atlantic? That's the topic of this thread? I thought the US option was a joke, you know, a planet X kind of an option...

America has forces and bases not too far from Iran.

For them the existence of Israel, its very presence in the region is a catastrophe, it's unacceptable.

If by "catastrophe" you mean "Nakba", then how would you describe being driven from your own home?

If America wasn't such a staunch defender of Israel, and if they hadn't armed them, Israel would have been invaded on all sides. If America wasn't there, Israel would have been successfully invaded and eradicated by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq along time ago.

My proof? Read a history book. Israel wasn't a year old and they tried to invade it, ...

Perhaps you could detail America's help to Israel in 1948. And also address the Arab Peace plan, which recognises Israel within the 1967 borders.

No, my point is that some "pacifists" who pretend to love democracy go out of their way to apologize for regimes that stand against the very idea of democracy.

There you go again with the hyperbole: "against the very idea of democracy."

The Iranian government is voted in. The Supreme Leader is elected by the assembly of experts, who themselves are elected for an 8 year term. (From a government approved shortlist).

Is that a perfect democracy? I don't like it. But it's not for me to tell them how to live their lives. The Iranians have changed it in the past -- even since 1979 -- and they can change it again.

 

[Pardalis]

Of course they don't recognize it. Their argument is that it's completely ignoring the Palestinian people [Their fellow Muslims so to speak]. So why should they recognize it if they don't want to and actually see Israel as
an invasion and occupation?

You're not answering my question. If they will never recognize it, then the outcome of a referendum suggesting a two state solution is out of the equation for them.

They pretend they will accept any outcome but not this one, I call that disingenuous, they may say they want democracy, they don't mean it. They only will accept the outcome where Israel disappears, and probably its population along with it, since Kamheni views them as rsponsible as the "Zionists".

Who are Israelis? They are responsible for usurping houses, territory, farmlands and businesses. They are combatants at the disposal of Zionist operatives. A Muslim nation cannot remain indifferent vis-a-vis such people who are stooges at the service of the arch-foes of the Muslim world.

Maybe that's what they mean by "keep the Zionists". Since they know already it's out of the question, then "not keeping them" means "getting rid of them", forcefully?

Tell me, and please try to answer this one for once, how will a one state Palestine treat their former "captors"? Wouldn't this be Rwanda all over again?

And once again: You think that the way to respond is to say "Godwin" and move on.

You have no point to make with this comparison. Leave Hitler out of this, unless anyone has murdered 12 million people in a genocidal premeditated and organized extermination policy, a comparison with him is bunk.

Ooh, look! a comparison to Hitler.

Yes, it was intentional.

Because I'm British

Your country has alot to be responsible about in the conflict. So you're a hypocrite? You prefer to remain in a country responsible for this and to support the "good guys" by yelling from the stands?

Good thing Britain allows you to do that, you wouldn't like to be a dissenter in Iran.

If by "catastrophe" you mean "Nakba", then how would you describe being driven from your own home?

They've had sixty years to get over it. It's no longer a matter of if this decision to implant Israel was right or wrong anymore, it's there now, no matter if we like it or not. The Muslim world should live with it. It's a matter of living side by side, and making peace progress. The people who are against peace are blowing themselves up.

Perhaps you could detail America's help to Israel in 1948. And also address the Arab Peace plan, which recognises Israel within the 1967 borders.

Again, every peace plan was undermined by extremists.

The Iranian government is voted in. The Supreme Leader is elected by the assembly of experts, who themselves are elected for an 8 year term. (From a government approved shortlist).

That's not a democracy, no matter how much you want it to be, not when the supreme leaders decide which parties run. You're ridiculous.

Is that a perfect democracy?

It's not a democracy.

But it's not for me to tell them how to live their lives.

A revolution is not what I would call "a choice".

The Iranians have changed it in the past -- even since 1979 -- and they can change it again.

Since the only progressist Kathani has been museled by the leaders, and any dissenters are being imprisoned or executed, it may take a while.

 

[Oliver]

Goury? Would you - in your own description - define the Term Democracy, please?
And after that, define Iran's form of Government?

ETA: Also, provide the threat and dangerous speeches from Iranians Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad.

And in your dishonest Bias about the Iranian irrational nukethrowing genocide wannabe-Hitler's,
would you like to tell us what you think about their solution:

"We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.[42]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...for_referendum

 

[Pardalis]

please try to answer this one for once

I guess it was too much to ask.

 

[WildCat]

There you go again with the hyperbole: "against the very idea of democracy."

The Iranian government is voted in. The Supreme Leader is elected by the assembly of experts, who themselves are elected for an 8 year term. (From a government approved shortlist).

Is that a perfect democracy? I don't like it. But it's not for me to tell them how to live their lives. The Iranians have changed it in the past -- even since 1979 -- and they can change it again.

This is an example of why it's pointless to discuss anything with you here - you are not a rational person. By that definition of democracy Saddam's Iraq was a democracy, the Soviet Union was a democracy, etc etc.

The fact is, you are nothing more than an apologist for Islamic thugocracies and you don't value actual democracy in the slightest and by extension basic human rights, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, equality between the sexes - the whole basket of goods that generally comes with truly democratic nations. This is why you are revealed as a hypocrite every time you whine about the wart on the nose of Israel or the US, and give a free pass to the cancer infecting damn near every Muslim nation on the face of the earth.

The problems in the Missle East aren't caused by Israel, nor the US, but by governments using the Muslim religion to stifle democracy and human rights while justifying totalitarianism and terror.

 

[Oliver]

I guess it was too much to ask.

What was too much to ask? You mean the contradictory thing?
I answered that - and even if it's contradictory in your definition,
doesn't mean that a contradiction is a threat.

Is it?

Anyway: What would happen if Iran really starts their Nuke-Program
again and actually "changes the Game". Your only Argument is:

I love democracy and freedom, therefore I will not allow any freedoms
for Iran to their right to have nuclear technology.

Don't you see how ridiculous your argumentation is?

 

[Pardalis]

Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people.

Here he clearly rejects the entire Israeli people, and their rights. They don't even exist in his mind. Want to talk about human rights? The Israeli people have existed for over 60 years, what Ahmadinejad accuses the Israelis of doing to the Palestinians, he wishes done on them as retaliation.

Not what I call peace, it's called revenge. Peace is about diplomacy, about compromise. A two-state solution would be a compromise, a one state solution would not. Believe me, a state with two diametrically different nations doesn't work.

That's what I'm talking about when it's irrelevant to be arguing if what happened in 1948 was legitimate or not. Israel exists now, it's a political entity that can't be discarded.

The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims.

Iran has nothing to say about "human rights" if they keep killing women and homosexuals.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews

What does "native" Palestinians mean? Oliver, try to read between the lines for once.

He's rejecting again the Israelis as a whole, in his mind, the are not legitimate Palestinians, since they have usurped the land.

should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government

First of all, he doesn't state the question of the referendum, so we can't know really what he means by it. This idea of referendum is meaningless unless he states what it will be about.

Secondly, he seems to only accept a one state government as a possibility, the idea of a two-state solution is completely ignored, and therefore, he is being disingenuous and not interested in peace talks unless it has to do with the only solution he wishes. It's not a negotiation if there is only one option on the table.

Thirdly, let's say a referendum has for option a two-state solution (I doubt Iran will recognize such a referendum, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend they would) if a majority of people find that a two-state solution would be best, what then? They have stated that Israel will never be recognized.

 

[Pardalis]

What was too much to ask? You mean the contradictory thing? I answered that

No you didn't.

Your only Argument is:

I love democracy and freedom, therefore I will not allow any freedoms
for Iran to their right to have nuclear technology.

That's not my argument, that's your strawman.

Iran is bound by international treaties not to proliferate.

 

[Oliver]

No you didn't.

That's not my argument, that's your strawman.

Iran is bound by international treaties not to proliferate.

No, Iran is not bound. They signed the treaty in good will. They didn't have to do that. You agree?

4.1 Iran's nuclear program and the NPT

 

[Pardalis]

No, Iran is not bound. They signed the treaty in good will. They didn't have to do that. You agree?

To sign is to bind.

You're still avoiding my point, BTW.

 

[Oliver]

To sign is to bind.

You're still avoiding my point, BTW.

*lol* Gee, you're avoiding the whole OP by not answering what Iran's
retaliation will be! And now you complain I didn't answer the question
about "sounds contradictory" the way you'd like to hear???

 

[Pardalis]

Nice non-answer, again.

 

[FireGarden]

They pretend they will accept any outcome but not this one, I call that disingenuous, they may say they want democracy, they don't mean it.

Evidence?
We have evidence that America pretends it wants democracy because when the vote didn't go America's way, they decided to boycott Hamas.

You have no point to make with this comparison. Leave Hitler out of this, unless anyone has murdered 12 million people in a genocidal premeditated and organized extermination policy, a comparison with him is bunk.

If you think the comparison has to be that exact, then why did you use the phrase "real Hitler"?

Your country has alot to be responsible about in the conflict. So you're a hypocrite? You prefer to remain in a country responsible for this and to support the "good guys" by yelling from the stands?

I criticise Britain, too.
And there you go again: implying that I should leave because I don't think my nation is perfect. That's mad.

And there you go again: thinking that I must believe Ahmadinejad is a good guy if I refuse to accept that he isn't a genocidal madman.

They've had sixty years to get over it.

Try going through it, then tell them to suck it up.

It's no longer a matter of if this decision to implant Israel was right or wrong anymore, it's there now, no matter if we like it or not. The Muslim world should live with it.

They've offered to. Look up the Saudi Peace plan, which every Arab government has agreed to.

Again, every peace plan was undermined by extremists.

Your grasp of even recent history was shown to be weak when you commented on the end of the 2006 war.

That's not a democracy, no matter how much you want it to be, not when the supreme leaders decide which parties run. You're ridiculous.

It's not a democracy.

I was responding to your hyperbole, which had the Iranians being "against the very idea of democracy."

I also said I didn't like the Iranian form of government.

 

[FireGarden]

No you didn't.



That's not my argument, that's your strawman.

Iran is bound by international treaties not to proliferate.

Iran is allowed nuclear technology under the NPT.
They are allowed to enrich Uranium under the NPT.

It has not been proven that they have a nuclear weapons program.

 

[Pardalis]

Evidence?
We have evidence that America pretends

Again, this is not about America. Go see a doctor about that.

it wants democracy because when the vote didn't go America's way, they decided to boycott Hamas.

Hamas is a terrorist organization.

If you think the comparison has to be that exact, then why did you use the phrase "real Hitler"?

To give you a piece of your own medicine, to show you how sterile a referrence to Hitler is.

And there you again: thinking that I must believe Ahmadinejad is a good guy if I refuse to accept that he isn't a genocidal madman.

That's a strawman BTW, I don't expect you to say he's a genocidal madman, I atl least expect you to stop bending over for him every step of the way and be critical of him.

Try going through it, then tell them to suck it up.

It doesn't matter what happened, Israel is there now. Try to live in the present.

They've offered to. Look up the Saudi Peace plan, which every Arab government has agreed to.

Then why the stall? If everybody is in agreement, then why is the peace process so hard?

What's that noise? Oh, right, another Hamas kamikaze blowing himself up.

Your grasp of even recent history was shown to be weak when you commented on the end of the 2006 war.

Hizbollah were the ones surprised by Israel's response.

I was responding to your hyperbole, which had the Iranians being "against the very idea of democracy."

I also said I didn't like the Iranian form of government.

Good.

 

[Oliver]

Iran is allowed nuclear technology under the NPT.
They are allowed to enrich Uranium under the NPT.

It has not been proven that they have a nuclear weapons program.

Pardalis doesn't seem to care.

[Indeed, he cares more about his Freedoms and Rights]

 

[FireGarden]

Again, this is not about America. Go see a doctor about that.

Tell you what... Let's make it easy for you!
Everytime someone says something about America which you cannot answer, simply say "Niwdog!" and pretend that answers it.

To give you a piece of your own medicine, to show you how sterile a referrence to Hitler is.

LOL
You have such a black and white view of the world that I wonder why you bother with the concept of comparison. All you need is the concept of things being identical.

That's a strawman BTW, I don't expect you to say he's a genocidal madman, I atl least expect you to stop bending over for him every step of the way and be critical of him.

I have been critical of him. Maybe you missed it. But you keep wanting me to think he will nuke Israel or "push them into the sea" or some such.

It doesn't matter what happened, Israel is there now. Try to live in the present.

Hey, my comments were more than 60 seconds ago. Suck it up. Live in the present.

Then why the stall? If everybody is in agreement, then why is the peace process so hard?

What's that noise? Oh, right, another Hamas kamikaze blowing himself up.

Perhaps you ought to be looking into what the settlers are doing to IDF soldiers at the moment. That might clue you in to one reason you seem to have overlooked:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1025585.html

Israel has already bitten off more than can it can give back. Turns out that facts on the ground are double edged.

Hizbollah were the ones surprised by Israel's response.

That has nothing to do with your original claim.
Ctrl-F search the page for Bolton gets your original claim and my answer.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Iran's rhetoric is not helping, it's provocation, making things unnecessarily escalate. If they want peace, they should shut up, or tone it down. They have their part of responsibility in this mess too, it's sad that you only see America as the culprit, and making all kinds of contorsions to apologize for Iran.
[..]

Well, I have to agree on this one.
Just noting that it is just one stupid guy (who unfortunately, happens to be the President) to say this things.
Claiming that all the Iranians see Israel as an enemy is false (I hope - too bad we do not have any Iranian in this forum).