Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 116
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran? Page 3 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Remember the song: "The girl can't help it."


me:
You just did it again. a) Ducked the issue. (b) misquoted me.
I stated the issue in italics, which means emphasis -- but you still missed it???

nona37
Actually, I referred to your statement which you ended with a period.
Last time I checked, that means end of sentence, does it not?

Ummm, yes, a period means the end of a sentence.

Ummm, look again. The emphasized statement was the NEXT sentence. Ummmm, after the period. I now have good reason to question your honesty

Here's another whopper:

Me:
It may be obvious today, but you denied it yesterday when
you claimed our invasion was legal because Bush followed American
law.

nona37
Ok, this is where you are messing up with your logic. I declared
the obvious. The US did indeed break an international law according
to the laws of the UN, however, the US was justified in their
actions according to US law, meaning, Congress gave the President
justification to invade Iraq. How is this contradicting myself?


Now your misrepresenting yourself. Good grief. You used yesterday's excuse to claim we had not committed a war crime, BECAUSE our invasion was within our laws. Message 127.

You keep dancing around two very simple facts:
1 The war criminal is the aggressor.
2 We are the aggressor in Iraq

Which of those two do you disagree with? Sorry if I couldn't squeeze all that into a single sentence, before --- you know -- the period that ends a sentence.

Ok, now I'm going to educate you about how the guard is activated
as well as mobilized. Here goes.

I already know, Darlin. You had denied it was possible for them to be FEDERALIZED. Message 134.


Read my lips: By what right does Israel hold land that was
stolen from Arab Muslims? Land that Israel NEVER had a right to
in the first place, legally or morally?

According to many as well as the link I provided, The UN dealt with
this issue, if you would have viewed the link and the information,.


1) The UN has no legal authority in such a matter.
2) You link never addresses the issue either.

But, your moral position is perfectly clarified here:

I'm still trying to determine what underlying moral principle(s) you are applying (if any). ...

When dealing with war of any kind, there are no morals involved.


I appreciate your honesty. You apply NO MORAL PRINCIPLES to the issue of right and wrong. And you had earlier acknowledged believing that "Might Makes Right" ... but have declined yet another question: If you believe all that, what makes you morally different than a terrorist?
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 118
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 8:22:53 PM

tableguy
Bearded.I dont want to get into this discussion, but i will.

You may regret doing so.

Israel did not steal this land from the arabs.It was given to them

I never said Israel stole it. I did say the land was stolen, and it was. Check your history. The "partitioned" land had a majority population of Arabs, and a portion was carved out to include a majority of Jews -- we call this Gerrymandering. And Israel never had a right to the land anyhow, at any time in history.

Israel has all the biblical rite to this land.

A mere assertion with no basis in fact. But thank you! That is precisely why Muslim extremists are now coming to kill us. You've just said it's a religious war, justified by the Bible.

Lying about our own Bible to justify the military subjugati0n of a different religion. How totally shameful of us.

There is no Biblical right to that land, and never has been. And millions of anti-Zionist Jews insist the Promised can ONLY be given by God. Not the United Nations. (Right, a significant number of Jews also deny Israel's right to that land. Look it up.)

1) Jews attained that land by following God's orders to exterminate the Canaanites.! Today, we call that mass-genocide. The Biblical Canaanites were also known as the Phoenicians ... Did you study the Phoenicians in high school? One of the most advanced civilizations on the planet at the time. .... Slaughtered. Biblical right?

2) If that's not enough for you, during the past 2500 years, Israel ruled that land for only 300 years. Do the math.

They slaughtered an entire civilization to get the land, then ruled it for less than 300 years. And you call this a Biblical Right???

It gets worse.

Of modern cultures (excluding Rome), who was the first to drive Jews out of Jerusalem?
Christians. The crusades.

Who committed the holocaust?
Christians.

After the Crusaders drove the Jews out of Jerusalem, who allowed them back in?
Muslims.

Those are all facts. Before Bin Laden gets to spin them even worse.

Now you know why they're coming for us. You don't have to agree with their tactics. But can you honestly blame them? THIS is their reward for allowing the Jews back into Jerusalem?

Now, please tell us your views on the slaughter of the Canaanites, as being some sort of Biblical right.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 119
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 8:33:33 PM

jed451
Sorry, Mr. President, but Iraq looks a lot like Vietnam
by Ronald Bruce St. John


Thanks, Jed. Hopefully, we won't lose near as many lives. But the Viet Cong was not capable of launching terrorist attacks on our soil.

I keep recalling those news photos ... the frenzied escape of our embassy personnel and other (mostly civilians) from that rooftop in VietNam. Our defeat here could be equally humiliating. And who will rebuild the prestige and honor of America in the Free World, which has been destroyed by our current President? Before or after the collapse of our economy?
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 120
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 9:15:18 PM
quote]I keep recalling those news photos ... the frenzied escape of our embassy personnel and other (mostly civilians) from that rooftop in Vietnam. Our defeat here could be equally humiliating.

I really believe it is a no win situation The U.S. could stay there the next 100 years and see the same madness going on.Not to mention more American and Iraqi civilian dead.


And who will rebuild the prestige and honor of America in the Free World, which has been destroyed by our current President?


Excellent question I for one like Obama it would be a start to reversing the Bush policies.I would also like see Congress take back its power to declare war and only Congress!No more of these 'resolution's" authorizing the use of force.I really want to see the government going back to following the Constitution it has strayed from it too long regardless of party.


Before or after the collapse of our economy?


I believe that is occurring now.A total collapse no a recession yes.
 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 121
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:09:22 PM
bearded.At this point i cannot challenge what you are saying, but at a later date i will. Since 1949 israel had to defend itself from all its arab neighbours including egypt, syria jordan,lebanon bolstered by many of the arab league countries The one outcry was ,send the israelis into the sea.Fifty nine years later,Israel is still around with a vibrant economy, nuclear weapons and probably has the best armed forces in the area.With all the arab nations having one and only one item on their agenda,drive them into the sea.They are still around.The arabs invaded in 1956 in 1967 at odds of 20 to 1 but israel is still around.Israel has a very modern society, a vibrant economy and much like us in canada/usa a bright future.No wonder there are those who are jealous and will do all to disrupt it.Make no mistake, the powers in question are trying to disrupt our future. In that way the can explain theres ......
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 122
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 10:46:23 PM

tableguy
bearded.At this point i cannot challenge what you are saying, but at a later date i will..

Challenge all you like, but you'll be wrong. Everything I posted is historical fact. Much of it is that same Bible you obviously never read. It is total, undeniable, fact that the Jews acquired their "Promised Land" by committing mass genocide.

Since 1949 israel had to defend itself from all its arab neighbours including egypt, syria jordan,lebanon bolstered by many of the arab league countries The one outcry was ,send the israelis into the sea.

Switching stories are you? What about that so-called biblical right you claimed at first?
As I explained, Israel has no right to the land which was stolen from Arab Muslims. The Palestinians were raped, and you're expecting them to lay back an enjoy it. By what right do you demand that? Is this the "superior morality" of western civilization?

Fifty nine years later,Israel is still around with a vibrant economy, nuclear weapons and probably has the best armed forces in the area.With all the arab nations having one and only one item on their agenda,drive them into the sea.They are still around.

Uhhh, yeah. Thanks to U.S. Military support. Have you noticed yet that we invaded Iraq? It's been in all the papers. Do you really expect anyone to believe that Israel could have survived on its own, against forces 100 times larger than it, without U.S. military support? On 9/11, we began paying the price for that interference. Today, we pay an even higher price, in American lives and treasure -- while Israel risks NOTHING. Uncle Sam or Uncle Sucker? The American sheeple don't even care.

But you say say murder is okay, if the aggressor gets away with it. Arguments like yours are what give him credibility among the vast majority of non-extremist Muslims. Why not just send all your assets to Osama Bin Laden? None Dare Call It Treason.

You seem to be impressed by the relative wealth of Israel. Does that mean YOU have the right to pillage any of your own neighbors who are poorer than you? Do you have any IDEA how ridiculous that sounds?

No wonder there are those who are jealous and will do all to disrupt it.

Would you call a bank "jealous" for wanting its money returned after a bank robbery? A husband "jealous" for wanting his wife's murderer imprisoned?

This is the same arrogance that brought down the Roman Empire. Do you have even a shred of moral sensitivity?

And some wonder why we are so hated.

 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 123
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/8/2008 11:34:38 PM

jed451
I really believe it is a no win situation The U.S. could stay there the next 100 years and see the same madness going on.Not to mention more American and Iraqi civilian dead.

Agree. Did you know that McCain has already justified a 100-year occupation? Fighting a battle that benefits only Israel?

Is it not madness? We are the world's strongest military power, fighting Middle-Ages goat herders who mostly don'tt have even running water, but we can't even control the single city of Baghdad!

Excellent question I for one like Obama it would be a start to reversing the Bush policies.

Tough call. Consider this if you will. The Republicans are going to get one of the soundest thrashings in American political history, which means we'd have Obama and a Democratic Congress. With Obama being so far to the left, the consequences could be as bad as FDR. (The last recession was the shortest and mildest ever, BECAUSE Democrats agree to forego their typical massive increase in social welfare spending -- as the deal in return fro Bush's tax increase.)

Anyhow, I'd still prefer another depression over Bush's foreign policy. Breadlines are better than caskets. If that was our only choice. But it's not.

Because our government is so far out of control, we are much better off in general with a DIVIDED government -- I don't care which way you split it, one party holding congress and the other holding the White House. The only remaining Check and Balance.

So .... if we assume the Democrats will have big Congressional gains, then McCain in the White House will be a clamp on domestic spending, and the Congress will shut him down in Iraq.

Make sense? Even better, if we add Congress into the equation, then Bush policies are totally doomed, regardless who wins the White House!

I would also like see Congress take back its power to declare war and only Congress!No more of these 'resolution's" authorizing the use of force.I really want to see the government going back to following the Constitution it has strayed from it too long regardless of party.

I had already read that part, when I suggested our best outcome might well be a McClain Presidency with a Democratic Congress. That would provide the check-and balance we'd both like to see.

With all due respect to all our Canadian friends here -- my five years living in your country are among the very best years of my life BECAUSE it was Canada -- but a Parliamentary system, where any single party holds a governing majority (no coalitions) -- is virtually an elected dictatorship.

Likewise in the US, where one party controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches is a virtual dictatorship.

Thanks, Jed. I learned a lot for myself , in responding to your thoughtful entry.
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 124
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:05:38 AM

So, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al should probably be subject to the same sentences we handed out at Nuremberg

Let's not forget Bremmer....the instigator of the nullifing of the initial free national elections and local elections, who then installed pro-american politicians...never mind his unilateral move to instantly create 400,000 unemployed (with guns and training)

... we have to do it economically....


...it does make me wonder what is going on.

Economic warfare...that's what's really going on....

6 months before invasion, Iraq demanded euros for their oil....they would no longer trade their oil in USD....which is a grave threat to the American economy because the American economy (value of the USD) is based on profits made by trading and exchange rates. Oil is the worlds largest traded commodity....so for a country to stop trading the denomination that...if you will..."makes the boat float"....it is indeed a threat to national security. Hence an invasion to show the rest of the world....."this will happen to you if you stop trading oil in USD".

One only has to look at the S.A. - U.S. relationship to see the obvious.

The ponzi scheme has got ary and it's time to fess up before it's too late.

If Iran is invaded (who is demanding euros) then the rest of the world will really know the game is up.....America is toast.....all hail China....(their "coming out" party is just a few months away)

The clock is ticking.....
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 127
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:16:58 AM

nona37
Bearded Romantic:I am going to touch on the points which are not going to be repeated
over and over and over, which is in all actuality what you are doing,

How can you repeat something you've never answered?

I feel you think I can be browbeaten into changing my mind, common
sense will tell anyone at this point of debating with me, it's not going to happen, unless you can prove me wrong lol

You've been wrong on everything you've bothered to answer --admittedly not very much. And I really have no time to keep going and finding the message number that proves you wrong ... on your own statements here.

So you are stating that any country who starts a war is a war criminal?
Even with the blessing of their own country? I don't think so.

Well, you're still wrong, for the same reason when you first said it. It's very rude of you, and terrible debate technique, to avoid responding at all ... or to repeat the same answer that has already been shot down in flames.

One more time(sigh): Hitler had the blessing of his own country .... every military aggression in recorded history has had the blessing of it's own country!!! So, today your position is that there are no war crimes. Ever. Nuremberg was a colossal error. According to you.

No surprise. Yesterday you claimed to know more about the National Guard than .... rhe commander of the National Guard.

It gets goofier:

I have already admitted the breaking of the international law by the US according to the UN with the invasion of Iraq,
.
On my planet -- called Earth -- people who break laws are called criminals. What are they called on your planet?

however, according to the US laws of our nation, we are not war criminals.

Same fallacy (yawn). Hitler, etc., etc., etc. No such thing as a war criminal. yada yada yada.

Even if we are considered war criminals by the laws of the UN, what is the
UN going to do, invade us? I will wait with much gaited breath on that one and excuse me as I laugh..

You're repeating yourself again -- still claiming that Might Makes Right. (yawn)


The UN has no legal authority in such a matter.

But yet you want to utilize this worthless entity the UN in your plight to drive home points such as "The Un partitioning US land to Mexico"? lol

That's an outrageous lie.
The first two times, I graciously assumed you were confused when you totally distorted my point. The third time ... I'll assume it's a deliberate lie. Sorry. Oh yeah ... LOL

If you believe all that, what makes you morally different than a terrorist?

That's simple. I do not run around shooting innocent civilians. I do not behead innocent people. I do not run around disguising myself as someone in the population only to expose a bomb and kill myself as well as all around me.

You're repeating yourself again. And ignoring "if you believe all that"

You keep trying to compare morals referencing me and terrorists.
Terrorists have no morals. I understand that morals do not exist during times of war.

Once again, merely repeating yourself (yawn). You've already acknowledged that there are NO underlying moral principles behind your position .... which means (by definition) no right or wrong ... even though you keep arguing that there IS a right and wrong here! Apparently, you don't understand morality either.

Even goofier!

I also understand that there are no atheist's in foxholes..

I AM an atheist. You're wrong again. So you're now batting 0 for 12.

And if you're gullible enough to swallow the atheists-in-foxholes fairy tale, then I can now see why you're so confused regarding Iraq, morality, terrorism, military aggression, the defense of our homeland ... did I miss any?

Here's the deal. I'll allow you the last word. Take your best shot. You can lie again. Repeat yourself for the fourth time. Ignore any and all rebuttals. Whatever. I've completed my job here. (several times).
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 128
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:22:04 AM
SORRY, just one more!

I personally do not want to deal with religion and this issue

You haven't dealt with anything else. \

The land was given to them no matter how much propaganda is fed into the minds of the Palestinian sympathizers.


Third time: Given by whom? It was the Arab Muslims who owned it.

How about I give your car to somebody. Same thing.
 atlantaman123
Joined: 8/21/2007
Msg: 129
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/9/2008 4:27:01 AM
Nona, I didn't read the entire thread, but here is at least one big correction...

Many Ukranians and even Russians fought along side of the Germans, and welcomed their "liberation" from communism. Does that mean they were not bad invaders? lol


'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
by Arash Norouzi

Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.

On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism." Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.

Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote – they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomenei, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

The Speech and Context:

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism." One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran – the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise." This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

The Origin:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.

The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.

It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth." In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth." or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth." The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.

The Reaction:

The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's president has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.

Following news of Iran's remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel's destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is "preparing another holocaust for the Jewish state" is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.

The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the "map" reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth." Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has "called for the destruction of Israel." as do senior officials in the United States government.

President George W. Bush said the comments represented a "specific threat" to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, "the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our ally Israel." Former presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran "talks openly about destroying Israel." and insists, "The president of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth." In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as "the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, 'It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.'" The consensus is clear.

Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview in September 2006:

"Q: Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

"A: We need to look at the scene in the Middle East – 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza – what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.

"Q: Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

"A: Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.

"Q: You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

"A: What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago...

"Q: So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

"A: Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people."

The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad's interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN's Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter's face with his standard "Don't the Palestinians have rights?, etc." retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the "map" comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, "as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map."

Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled "Words of Hate: Iran's Escalating Threats" released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, "Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel." These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.

As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to the Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:

"It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that 'We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.'"

The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. "They speak proudly and openly of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world." Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: "We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

Media Irresponsibility:

On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post's headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out', while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out'.

Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter's Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel's days are numbered], and the AP's Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel will be wiped out].

The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to "Haaretz Service and Agencies." are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed "the Jewish state" to "Israel" in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.

The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.

He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except "He called for elections" became "He said elections should be held..."

It gets more interesting.

The quote used in the original AP article and copied in the Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked.

There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was:

"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated."

Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."

In the IRNA's actual report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be "wiped out." And how will it be wiped out? "The same way the Soviet Union was." Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.

What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.

This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century.

Iran's president has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive." With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise "vanish from the page of time."
 oddandy
Joined: 3/5/2008
Msg: 131
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:14:07 PM

We should learn from the words of Winston Churchill


Yes, the great Winston Churchill. Here's some of my favorite Churchill quotes:

I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.
Commenting on Gandhi's meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

I do not admit... that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia... by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place.
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
Churchill to Asquith, 1910

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Writing on 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

What an endearing man.
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 132
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:25:42 PM

I understand what morality is. I also understand that morals do
not exist during war overall. Even I as a supporter of war will be
the first to say that murdering and maiming people is not moralistic,
however, I accept these facts of war, what I mean is that the acts
of war are not moralistic, however, war overall has been proved
within world history to be morally necessary.



Non Causa Pro Causa


I do agree that China will get involved, they are a looming threat, not only militarily but economically.

They already are....they own billions of US debt....as do the Saudis...both of them don't buy American products (apart from debt)....they sell non-renewable trinkets (crap and oil) to America (in USD) to keep the US economy afloat (but just barely).

70% of the US economy is consumer spending....(hence Bushs megre handout to the average Joe after giving tens of billions to his cronies)....who spend it on imported products.

China can afford to dump a trillion or so USD and flood the market...driving down the value of the USD....which would emplode the US economy. There is a fine line China must walk to do it correctly.

China has about 5,000 years of history to work from....US about 250....that and the sheer number of people both sides have is indeed worrisome.

If Chinas goal is to topple the US as the world super power they will do it without firing a single rifle shot.

The value of the USD is based on trading and exchange rates and oil is the largest traded commodity.

If Iran (who had lots of oil) refuses to sell that oil in USD....that would present a clear and present danger to the USD....thus the US economy.

So....once again the US government is presenting bold face lies instead of the truth...

....just like Iraq.....
 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 133
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:54:13 PM
I knew that you would bring up the U.S as far as supporting Israel.The US also supports the arab nations.You call it genocide and you call the US as a hated nation.That is absolute gaul.Hiding in hospitals, sending women and chidren as suicide bombers,hiding in refugee camps, thats gaul.For god sakes look at the poverty the 18th century living condition the people have to put up with.What a joke ,my arab brethern.No body wanted the palestinians, my arab brethern.When we came to these shores we displaced the native americans(indians) was that wrong, perhaps.But today we have skyscrappers, ballfields, highways etc.Almost the same scenario.If there was no Israel, sheep would still roam the land."Hawajahs" would still be looking for work.
And you still talk about having the land stolen.What land.You are welcome to go to that land and live As far as the US is concerned,for all you consider they do wrong, I would not want to count on help from the arab brethern in case of a disaster.I know the first aid would come from the US .We all have to live in peace,lets put our resources in education(and i dont mean if you kill one israeli and another, how many have you killed), in the economy of that region, then we can all move forward(sounds uthopian)
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 135
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 2:35:17 AM

Here's some of my favorite Churchill quotes:


Wow. I never knew he was such a hateful bigot.
 oddandy
Joined: 3/5/2008
Msg: 137
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 9:07:29 AM


Here's some of my favorite Churchill quotes:



Wow. I never knew he was such a hateful bigot.


Neither did I until a couple of years ago, which is why I like pointing these quotes out to people - 'tis an excellent example of how our opinions and perception of "truth" can be wholly manipulated simply by what is and is not pushed by the press and the version of history widely disseminated for public consumption. There's a lesson for us all in this.
 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 140
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 5:57:21 PM
Perhaps it was a calculated move to attack iraq and then iran to gain a hold of the region.Oil, interest in the region, could be a reason.The looming threat of china, could also be a reason.We know, in the larger scheme of things,sphere of influence is important. This could be a preemptive strike in the middle east. Israel has no ambition to bomb or attack iran unless,it feels threatened
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 141
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 7:14:58 PM

I do believe that America was happy after Desert Storm. Meaning, the troops kicked ass took names and was able to come home and had the full support it seemed of the US


But even then, world opinion was turning against us.

It was mostly the video footage of our planes strafing Iraqi soldiers .... as they fled BACK toward Iraq.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 142
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 7:24:59 PM
Whiskeypapa
Explain how a country with limited conventional weapons can be a threat to a nuclear armed country with the latest technology to detect an attack and respond imediately. It seems its' only "threat" is standing up for the oppressed Palestinians.

This entire thread is totally insane. WE -- not just this thread -- are considering the bombing of Iran.
But it was Arab states proposing a nuclear-free zone in the entire middle-east -- approved by the UN --- something else for Israel to totally ignore, while the Rogue Nation (United States) natters about launching another war, while still losing the current war.

WE are the war criminals.


I will now be accused of not supporting our troops. (snort)
 tableguy
Joined: 11/12/2007
Msg: 143
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:41:31 PM
Would you beiieve the arab states.
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 144
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:42:59 PM

Why not just be straightforward and out with it.

That's complicated....you'd have to re-educate most of the population....re-write history to show the truth...and show why we are doing the things we're doing because of history.

That can of worms is really freaking big.

Why scare and terrorize people to believe our demises are imminent unless we keep warring?

Because it's easier. Besides....it's easier for a democracy-styled corporate controlled government to champion individual rights over collective rights because it's easier to control an individual than a collection of individuals...their mantra being..."let them fight amongst themselves about us...it keeps them busy while we do as we please to further our own agenda."

And aren't we always saying that competition is good?

Indeed they are saying that....yet they hand out taxpayer money like candy in no-bid contracts to administration-friendly corporations...who then sub-contract the job to another...reaping a nice chunk of change whilst doing no work whatsoever.

... we don't seem to want to compete with them........we want to eliminate them, murder them if we can.

Good ole Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys...still alive and kickin....and not just in the US government....the WTO....the IMF...the FAO....the OAS....the SSP....etc...the whole corporate-controlled ball of wax....nasty shit I say....


Outdoor2, then if this is all just business, why the war-mongering?

In the words of Col. Jessup...."You can't handle the truth!"

I trust you can...but can others?
 Outdoor2
Joined: 4/1/2006
Msg: 145
view profile
History
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:51:30 PM
Edit: Re: "others"
whiskeypapa and bearded_romantic can clearly handle it.
 bearded_romantic
Joined: 6/12/2006
Msg: 147
What Would Be the Consequence of the US or Israel Bombing Iran?
Posted: 4/10/2008 9:39:01 PM

me:
It is total, undeniable, fact that the Jews acquired their "Promised Land" by committing mass genocide.

Thats a very strong statement! Genocide! You are kind of throwing the word genocide around dude.

I appreciate your concern. Perhaps you don't know that the Old Testament Jews acquired their so-called "Promised Land" by exterminating the entire Canaanite civilization (those who did not escape with their lives) ... as ordered by God.

What would your word be for slaughtering an entire civilizationCanaanites? Here's what I find inn Wikipedia -- a general definition and the official definition of the United Nations.

"Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]

But the religious bigots in America now claim the KORAN is barbaric!
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >