Some of you called me a liar when I told you that this guy wants to wipe Israel off the map. Now you can eat your words.



His comments that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust was a "myth" drew widespread condemnation from the West.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4107270.stm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel


http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/060523a.aspx

Some of you called me a liar when I told you that this guy wants to wipe Israel off the map. Now you can eat your words.

You were called a liar when you said this:

You are forgetting that Iran's leader said he intends to blow Israel off the map.

There's a big difference between saying "I think something should happen", and "I intend to do something".


His comments that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust was a "myth" drew widespread condemnation from the West.

Condemnation is exactly what those words deserve.

In my opinion, by saying that, he is implicating himself. The fact is, they hate Israel. Infact, Iran was probably behind the attacks on Israel a couple of days ago.


You were called a liar when you said this:


There's a big difference between saying "I think something should happen", and "I intend to do something".



Condemnation is exactly what those words deserve.

In my opinion, by saying that, he is implicating himself.

Implicating himself in what?


The fact is, they hate Israel.

Who's "they"?


Infact, Iran was probably behind the attacks on Israel a couple of days ago.

I have no doubt that Iran is very pleased that the world's attention is not on them, and their nuclear aspirations, at the moment.

Oh here ya go vile.




http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04052006/144/iran-world.html


http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/israel/index.html

Now, when Iran's President Mahmoud

ADVERTISEMENT
Ahmadinejad says he would like to blow Israel off the map, Germans wring their hands and worry.

Read your links. What is it you're trying to say sisko?

Yeah, and I hate black people and think they should be taken care of. Should I be punished because of an opinion and not an action?


...Whoops, bad example...

Read your links. What is it you're trying to say sisko?



Now, when Iran's President Mahmoud


Ahmadinejad says he would like to blow Israel off the map, Germans wring their hands and worry.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04052006/144/iran-world.html

Sisko, the article you linked to, twice now, is an editorial, and the writer is taking as much license with the Iranian President's remarks as you do.

This came from Aljazeera.net. I suspect they accurately reported the Prez of Iran here:


Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

Wednesday 26 October 2005, 19:03 Makka Time, 16:03 GMT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.


Here's your source (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm)
__________________

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

How do you interpret this statement?

It appears to be calling for the annihilation of Israel & Jews. Do you read it differently?

It appears to be calling for the annihilation of Israel & Jews. Do you read it differently?

Not really, but I would hope that drastic action isn't taken because of what a message "appears" to say. It could very well be simply meaningless political rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. I'd be a lot more comfortable taking military action if he had said "I intend to destroy Israel" or something more clear cut. Going to war because you think your enemy is producing weapons you'd rather they didn't have, only to find out you overestimated the threat is bad, but going to war because you misread someone's intentions isn't any better.

There is no such saying in Farsi. And Ahmadinejad doesn't even call them Israel, he calls them the Zionist regime.

Some of you called me a liar when I told you that this guy wants to wipe Israel off the map. Now you can eat your words.

You're the one who should eat his words.

You alleged that Iranian President Ahmadinejad had said that (this is an exact quote) --- ""he intends to wipe Israel off the map"".

You have not shown and can not show where he made such a remark.

As has already been pointed out to you once, there is a great deal of difference between saying something deserves to happen and saying "I myself intend to make something happen".

I don't get the motivation to defend this guy and parse his words for him. He said it. I don't know why some of us have a stake in pretending he didn't. The scary part is, world leaders actually present a softer version of their true intentions for public consumption (yeah I know, it's an Arab thing.....he's saying this for the Arab Street...... blah blah blah)

Vile, you're usually so direct with your opinions, but in this case your response is filled with "Not really..... what a message "appears" to say.....It could very well be...."
You have that luxury to speculate what he might do. But if your neighbors plot against you, attack you, shoot rockets at you and say you should be wiped off the map, will you accept my intrepretation of what he might have meant?

When the leader of Iraq used this same phrase, word for word, in 1967, I wonder if people were shilling for him then.

I don't get the motivation to defend this guy and parse his words for him. He said it. I don't know why some of us have a stake in pretending he didn't. The scary part is, world leaders actually present a softer version of their true intentions for public consumption (yeah I know, it's an Arab thing.....he's saying this for the Arab Street...... blah blah blah)

I don't get why you think anyone here's defending him. Maybe you could show me.


Vile, you're usually so direct with your opinions, but in this case your response is filled with "Not really..... what a message "appears" to say.....It could very well be...."

And you are usually more level-headed than to suggest we should act on what we think he meant.


You have that luxury to speculate what he might do.

Quite so.


But if your neighbors plot against you, attack you, shoot rockets at you and say you should be wiped off the map, will you accept my intrepretation of what he might have meant?

Are we still talking about Iran?


When the leader of Iraq used this same phrase, word for word, in 1967, I wonder if people were shilling for him then.

There you go, being less than level-headed again.

All I'm saying Brooks is that we shouldn't get involved in another war until we are a bit more certain of who's a threat and who isn't. Trusting in an interpretation of a madman's phrase isn't very smart.

I don't get the motivation to defend this guy and parse his words for him. He said it. I don't know why some of us have a stake in pretending he didn't.

I don't know why some people are trying so hard to make the case that he stated that "he intends to" wipe Israel off the map when he made no such statement.

There is a difference between saying something deserves to happen and saying "I intend to do" something.

Keep the words 'he intends to' somewhere handy,theyll be used quite a bit over the next few days.

1. I don't get why you think anyone here's defending him. Maybe you could show me.
2. And you are usually more level-headed than to suggest we should act on what we think he meant.
3. All I'm saying Brooks is that we shouldn't get involved in another war until we are a bit more certain of who's a threat and who isn't.
4. Trusting in an interpretation of a madman's phrase isn't very smart.1. He said something ridiculous and dangerous. You're minimizing it.

2. I don't recall making this suggestion.

3. I still don't remember wanting to do that.

4. Oh, now I feel better. He's only a madman who is only suggesting destroying Israel.
Did you really say that?


Please see signature line. Not the one I usually send people to, the other one.

1. He said something ridiculous and dangerous. You're minimizing it.

No, I'm refusing to act on fear.


2. I don't recall making this suggestion.

3. I still don't remember wanting to do that.

Fine, what exactly do you think the proper reaction to his statement would be?


4. Oh, now I feel better. He's only a madman who is only suggesting destroying Israel.
Did you really say that?

If I didn't, you quoted the wrong guy. :)


Please see signature line. Not the one I usually send people to, the other one.

Brooks, I don't like his words any more than you, but I don't think they warrant anything more than a verbal rebuke and a watchful eye on Iran in the future, which is a foregone conclusion anyway.

1. He said something ridiculous and dangerous. You're minimizing it.
Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

While such things are "ridiculous and dangerous", notice how you don't see him saying "Iran will take action against the Zionist regime," and his speechwriters seem to realize what a bad idea that is. You can assume all day that Iran wants and plans to do that eventually, but his rhetoric appears to be nothing more than appealing to his citizenry.

Although, I see a war with Iran in the not-too-distant future as a possibility, due to his nuclear and Israeli policies and words.

Apparently, the idiom wipe does not exist in the Perisan Language(s) -- at least that's what the language experts are claiming.

So can anyone explain how he could possibly have made that statement?

Looks like most people were once again duped by FOX news.

ROTF

Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."Fine, he also said "wipe Israel off the map". I don't think the world would be so concerned with the statement you mentioned.

While the world twiddles it's collective thumbs, waiting for the US to do something about his nuclear program, maybe we can't afford to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Getting into the semantics of the language he used is missing the point.

His statement had a general meaning - they hate Israel and believe they should be wiped out. It was a rhetiorical statement - he wasn't saying Iran was going to do it but for the head of state to make such a statement is beyond terrible.

Dop, did you read what Aljazeera reported? That's not coming from Fox News.

Getting into the semantics of the language he used is missing the point.

His statement had a general meaning - they hate Israel and believe they should be wiped out. It was a rhetiorical statement - he wasn't saying Iran was going to do it but for the head of state to make such a statement is beyond terrible.

Wiped off the map....I see a big pencil turned upside down eraseing Israel off the map, restoring the region to what it was before the west created the jewish state.

Dop, did you read what Aljazeera reported? That's not coming from Fox News.

They also reported that his words were misunderstood...

More hate from Iran...

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7927

Tehran, Iran, Jul. 16 – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described Israel on Sunday as “satanic and cancerous” and praised the Lebanese group Hezbollah for its “jihad” against the Jewish state.

“This regime is an infectious tumour for the entire Islamic world”, Khamenei said in a speech that was aired on state television.

--------------

I think it's clear that biggest cancer in the middle east is in fact Iran.

bwahahahaaaa...

As Israel murders hundreds of innocents with no real military targets you blame them man using words...

Your bombs...your responsibility...
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-have-just-received-these-pictures.html

bwahahahaaaa...

As Israel murders hundreds of innocents with no real military targets you blame them man using words...Have you read a thing over the last few days? Some Arab countries are even blaming hezbollah for what's happening now.

Israel has been aiming specifically for terrorist headquarters and warning areas before some of the attacks.
Hezbollah, on the other hand, in shooting missiles randomly into cities with no strategic targets

Hezbollah installations are in residential areas,Israeli planes dropping leaflets is not working,as the IDF attacked civilians trying to cross into Syria,Friday I think,so their afraid to leave,afraid to stay.

Hezbollah installations are in residential areas,Israeli planes dropping leaflets is not working,
Yesterday you didn't believe they dropped leaflets, so we're making progress.
A couple years ago, Israel killed the leader of Hamas. Unfortunately, they also killed his son. Why would a man who knows he's a target, and claims he is at war, be travelling with his son? Is that Israel's fault?

If these terrorists are going to be hiding among women and children this is going to happen.

Apparently, the idiom wipe does not exist in the Perisan Language(s) -- at least that's what the language experts are claiming.

So can anyone explain how he could possibly have made that statement?
It's been publicized the day this hit the news that Farsi has no such "wiped off the map" phrase. The fact that it was translated that way by every major English news source means he said something to the effect of "Israel must be eliminated."

Dop, did you read what Aljazeera reported? That's not coming from Fox News.
Shh, when it comes to politics...Dop isn't the "thinking type."

While the world twiddles it's collective thumbs, waiting for the US to do something about his nuclear program, maybe we can't afford to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.
You're preaching to the choir here, I have no qualms about going in and blowing up their nuclear program ASAP.
Israel has been aiming specifically for terrorist headquarters and warning areas before some of the attacks.
Hezbollah, on the other hand, in shooting missiles randomly into cities with no strategic targets
::Watches as guerilla runs out of allForums with his fingers in his ears:: "La la la I can't hear you."

Dop, did you read what Aljazeera reported? That's not coming from Fox News.

Yes -- I've read several sides to the story but that's not the point.

I simply made the point that if there is no such word as wipe (idomatic or not) in the Persian languages, then how could his statement possibly be translated as wipe Israel off the face ... without either ...

1) Being completely incompetent in translating the language
b) Exaggerating
2) Outright lying
c) All the above

LOL, man I love watching the leftists allying themselves with islamic jihadists. "he didnt say wipe!". Besides hate for america, what do you marxists have in common with any islamist? Seriously, besides fighting "the man", what do you gain if they win besides a knife across your godless throats? when american imperial agression finally stops, do you expect a big group hug with them? Wake up, if anything they hate godless marxists more then they hate christians

LOL, man I love watching the leftists allying themselves with islamic jihadists. "he didnt say wipe!". Besides hate for america, what do you marxists have in common with any islamist? Seriously, besides fighting "the man", what do you gain if they win besides a knife across your godless throats? when american imperial agression finally stops, do you expect a big group hug with them? Wake up, if anything they hate godless marxists more then they hate christians



I love the simplistic view the right has of the world, The right is right!

No hugs expected, if Isreal was not created by the west in 47 there would be no problem, they are the unwelcome invaders in this region. And if we kept our nose out of other countries business we would not be hated.

I love the simplistic view the right has of the world, The right is right!

No hugs expected, if Isreal was not created by the west in 47 there would be no problem, they are the unwelcome invaders in this region. And if we kept our nose out of other countries business we would not be hated.


who thinks simplistically? if we just butt out and Israel was never created there would be no problems? you sir are ignorant. you buy into the lie that american foreign policy is somehow the bane of human existance and if only it were different, there would be no problems. wake up. countries and terrorists use that as an excuse to do what they do like criminals here use thier rough childhood as an excuse to commit crimes. The funny thing is in both caes it is peop-le like you who are there to reinforce their weak and transparent arguments as to why they act like the scum of the earth, and you who justify it. If you ask me, you and your ilk ar ethe reasons we have so many problems in the world. you are weak and gullible.

You dont get out of Cali much Trav,do ya.

.... man I love watching the leftists allying ....... what do you marxists have in common with any ....


C'mon Trav -- you can do better than that. You sound like you're tripping over your leftist foot.

You would be hard pressed to find a real modern-day leftist that aligns with Marxism.

It's the new millennium (2006) -- bone up a bit.

who thinks simplistically? if we just butt out and Israel was never created there would be no problems? you sir are ignorant. you buy into the lie that american foreign policy is somehow the bane of human existance and if only it were different, there would be no problems. wake up. countries and terrorists use that as an excuse to do what they do like criminals here use thier rough childhood as an excuse to commit crimes. The funny thing is in both caes it is peop-le like you who are there to reinforce their weak and transparent arguments as to why they act like the scum of the earth, and you who justify it. If you ask me, you and your ilk ar ethe reasons we have so many problems in the world. you are weak and gullible.



Nuke the world , eh Trav. My way or the fry way.
Its people like you who are the problem, try not upsetting the balance and you will see that things work a lot better.
You walk a strange walk with two right feet.

It's been publicized the day this hit the news that Farsi has no such "wiped off the map" phrase. The fact that it was translated that way by every major English news source means he said something to the effect of "Israel must be eliminated."


Shh, when it comes to politics...Dop isn't the "thinking type."

While I'm sitting here not thinking ... maybe you can answer the original question ... did he or did he not say he would wipe Israel off the map? It's a simple yes or no question. Is that too many choices for you to handle?

every major English news source???? You better do some homework on that one dude (did I get it right this time -- :D) or start posting a link to every one of those English news sources.

ROTF

While I'm sitting here not thinking ... maybe you can answer the original question ... did he or did he not say he would wipe Israel off the map?
When was that the "original question" from you despite only posting in this thread once, where that question was absent?

Besides, that is not a simple yes or no question, as Ahmadinejad was interpreted as saying that, but Farsi speakers denied the existence of such an idiom. So he did not say that exactly, but we can infer that he said something to the same effect, which explains why it was put out as "wiped off the map."

Meanwhile you sit around wanking it to DailyKos while Iran is pushing for it's nuclear program even more.

You better do some homework on that one dude
Perhaps the statement was farfetched, and I am not about to check every source, but I'd be willing to bet that the major staple news organizations (such as members of the AP) reported it as such.

Also; I am male, you got that right. Dop, you are a good writer and have made a tidy sum of money through the years, I have no doubt you are an intelligent person, but you say some unorthodox things about the politics and world events of today.

I love the simplistic view the right has of the world, The right is right!

No hugs expected, if Isreal was not created by the west in 47 there would be no problem, they are the unwelcome invaders in this region. And if we kept our nose out of other countries business we would not be hated.Well you can continue to harp on the past and achieve nothing, or you can try to come up with a viable solution for the situation we have today and now.

And where exactly did Trav advocate nuking the world?

When was that the "original question" from you despite only posting in this thread once, where that question was absent?

Besides, that is not a simple yes or no question, as Ahmadinejad was interpreted as saying that, but Farsi speakers denied the existence of such an idiom. So he did not say that exactly, but we can infer that he said something to the same effect, which explains why it was put out as "wiped off the map."

Meanwhile you sit around wanking it to DailyKos while Iran is pushing for it's nuclear program even more.


Perhaps the statement was farfetched, and I am not about to check every source, but I'd be willing to bet that the major staple news organizations (such as members of the AP) reported it as such.

Also; I am male, you got that right. Dop, you are a good writer and have made a tidy sum of money through the years, I have no doubt you are an intelligent person, but you say some unorthodox things about the politics and world events of today.

I posted the question here ...

http://www.allforums.net/showpost.php?p=211057&postcount=23

and because it's not in a yes/no form ... that doesn't mean you aren't invited to take a shot at answering it.

The media has political agenda that drives how they interpret such statements. Never trust the media. Instead, turn to the real pros ... the professors at the universities for example. See what they have to say.

and I don't wank the dailykos -- in fact, I've never been on that site (it is a site isn't it?) in my entire life.

I do my own thinking.

Oh -- and please note that after I posed the question, everyone backed off the wipe statement ... geeeesh .... this is too easy ... anyone wanna play for money? LOL

and because it's not in a yes/no form ... that doesn't mean you aren't invited to take a shot at answering it.
You asked me the question, so I assume you wanted an answer from me.

The media has political agenda that drives how they interpret such statements. Never trust the media.
Which explains why you post things that link to "The Media." ::rolleyes::

Instead, turn to the real pros ... the professors at the universities for example. See what they have to say.
I agree with your idea that professors are venerable sources of opinion, but do you really drive to Berkeley every time you have a question? :D Kidding.

and I don't wank the dailykos -- in fact, I've never been on that site (it is a site isn't it?) in my entire life.

If you've been around allForums, you've undoubtedly clicked a link to it once or twice. Here we have you linking to the DailyKos in this thread: The Dop-DailyKos Konnection (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=15330&page=2&highlight=dailykos)

Oh the drama is killing me.

Nuke the world , eh Trav. Its people like you who are the problem, try not upsetting the balance and you will see that things work a lot better. No, you are the problem in this discussion. Anyone who would say "if Isreal was not created by the west in 47 there would be no problem," clearly demonstrates no possibility of objective thought on all matters Israeli.
Your agenda clearly goes well beyond the current situation.

If Isreal was not created by the west in 47 there would be no problem, they are the unwelcome invaders in this region. .

There'd be *no problem*??

Well, i'm not sure about that.

But we can surmise that there ARE 25 things that would be so --------


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/07/11/p9326


One wonders: What would the world look like today, if the state of Israel had not been created in 1948? Its improvident formation seems to have set in motion a chain of events, mostly negative, in the affairs of Mankind. In the movie, “Click,” the lead character finds a “universal remote” that allows him to rewind to different parts of his life and to change what had happened. If I possessed such a “universal remote” and could stop President Truman from aiding and abetting the establishment of an Israeli state, then, it is my speculation, (a theory), that the following 25 propositions would probably be our present day reality. They are:

1. The U.S. would not have any enemies in the Islamic World.
2. There would be no Al-Qaeda Terrorist Network.
3. Gasoline would be selling for less than $1 a gallon.
4. There would have been no 9/11.
5. There would be no USA Patriot Law.
6. There would be no Homeland Security Agency.

7. The Israeli Lobby’s “unmatched power” over the U.S.’ foreign policy, for over four decades, would not had existed. (Its support for the Iraqi War was deemed by the experts to be “critical.”) (3)

8. There would also not have been any Neocon ideologues; like Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, et al, to help, (along with other “Special Interests”), to push the U.S. into an illegal war with Iraq. (4)

9. Iran would not be the next target for U.S. aggression. (No Israel. No “A Clean Break” document. No Israeli Lobby. No Neocons. No need for the U.S. to attack Iran.) (5)

10. The Zionist fink, Jonathan Pollard, wouldn’t be in prison for stealing U.S. military secrets and hawking them to Israel.

11. The three million-plus Palestinians, who were forcefully dispersed from their homeland, since 1948, by the Israeli Occupation Forces, (IOF), would, instead, be living happily there today, in a free and independent state of Palestine. There would be no Apartheid Wall, or as a corollary, a Hamas organization. (6)

12. Jerusalem would have a vibrant Christian population. (7)

13. Rachel Corrie of Olympia, WA, would be alive and well. (8)

14. The 2,544 Americans who have died in Iraq would be alive; and the 18,777, who have been seriously wounded there, would be fully participating in our Republic. U.S. taxpayers would have an additional $295 billion, (the cost of the war), in the treasury to use to serve the social needs of the people. Universal Health Care would be a real possibility and Social Security would not be in jeopardy. Iraq would be at peace. There would be no Gitmo Bay detention center, or an Abu Ghraib Prison, or a reason for the Bush-Cheney Gang to gut Habeas Corpus. No need for it to also employ torturers, or chemical weapons, or hold detainees without charges or trial. The Geneva Convention would be respected. The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, who have died as a result of the war, would instead be alive today. (At the following footnote, see horrific photos of some of the Iraqi dead.) (9)

15. The battle to save our planet, its fragile ecosystem, its fast vanishing animal life and plants and to combat global warming, would be issue “No. 1.” (10) Instead, we are perpetually bombarded with propaganda about defending “Israel’s security.”

16. If there was no Israel, then the “five dancing Israelis” on 9/11 wouldn’t have been arrested. They were nailed after “celebrating” in NJ, while watching the Twin Towers collapsed. (11)

17. U.S. taxpayers would be $140 billion richer! This is the staggering amount they have shelled out over the last 58 years to support the ultra-greedy interests of the Zionist Cartel. (3)

18. The 34 Americans onboard the USS Liberty, who were slaughtered by the IOF, on June 8, 1967, would be alive today; and the 174 others who had suffered injuries that day would not have had to endure their horrific experiences. The shame the U.S. carries for not having quickly defended the men of the Liberty, and retaliated against the Israelis for their deliberate attack on the vessel, would have been avoided. (12)

19. On June 13, 2006, the IOF killed ten Palestinians, including three medical workers and two children, in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, labeled the missile attack an example of “state terrorism.” Only God knows how many Palestinians the Israelis have actually wasted since 1948; or exactly how many refugees it has created, or how many homes, a la Oliver Cromwell, the IOF have demolished. None of this would have been possible without the dubious “state of Israel.” (13)

20. Paul Bremer, a coat holder for Henry “Iago” Kissinger, would have never been appointed Viceroy for an Occupied Iraq. No Israel. No Iraqi War. No Zionist Bremer as Viceroy of Iraq. (14)

21. One of the reasons the Warren Commission failed to properly investigate the murder of JFK was because of Arlen Specter (R-PA), a card carrying Zionist. He was then a “Special Counsel” to the Commission. He concocted the preposterous “Magic Bullet” theory, which shut down any real conspiracy-type probe. It is also interesting to note, that Jacob Rubenstein, aka, “Jack Ruby,” Lee Harvey Oswald’s murderer, had close ties to Meyer Lansky’s National Crime Syndicate. I believe the answer to who really plotted JFK’s killing, died with Oswald. In any event after JFK’s death, Israel’s nuclear weapons program, which he had opposed went ahead. U.S. aid to Israel also increased dramatically. (15)

22. There would have been no reason for a French Ambassador to refer to Israel as “that shitty little country.” (16) In fact, the Jews of the world would have been liberated to fulfill their deepest spiritual quest, as embodied in their religion - Judaism. According to the highly respected Orthodox Rabbi, Dovid Yisroel Weiss, “Zionism has hijacked Judaism.” The courageous Rabbi insists that, “Zionism creates anti-Semitism...And we know...Zionism is the root cause for the pain, suffering and bloodshed of the Jewish people...and, they, (the Zionists), are the greatest factory of anti-Semitism worldwide...Judaism and Zionism is not one and the same. They are diametrically opposite...We should not be mistaken one for the other. And, we shouldn’t be responsible for the actions of what the Zionists do...Now, another of the problems that emanate actually from the Zionist Movement is the fact that they are encroaching upon the rights of the Palestinian people, the indigenous people, who are living there. And, this is terribly wrong. It is against every concept of the Torah...So, whatever they are doing is totally wrong!” (17)

23. Thousands of Israelis have died attempting to build a nation in a land, Palestine, which belonged to another people, the Palestinians. Their deaths would have been avoided. (18)

24. The widespread spying on Americans, without a court order, by operatives of the Bush-Cheney Gang, would have never happened. (No Israel. No 9/11. No spying on U.S. citizens.)

25. On April 4, 2003, a European Union (EU) poll named Israel as the “greatest threat to world peace.” (19) On June 27, 2006, the IOF proved the EU right by reoccupying Gaza, savagely terrorizing the civilian population, blowing up their electric/water generating facilities, conducting a mass arrest of their elected officials, and also, without just cause, provoking the Syrians. In response to the repeated shelling by the IOF of Gaza, Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, wisecracked, “Nobody dies from being uncomfortable!” When he addressed a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress, on May 24, 2006, Olmert received 38 breaks of applause and 18 standing ovations from that entity of mostly lapdogs. This is also the same Israeli leader, who, paraphrasing George Orwell's “Animal Farm,” said that he had a “deep regret” about the effects of some IOF’s operations which had killed 14 innocent Palestinians in just nine days, but that the lives of Israeli citizens were “even more important.”

Notes:

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/clark06032006.html
2. http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/index.htm
3. http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf; and, http://www.counterpunch.org/christison06162006.html
4. http://batr.net/neoconwatch/archives/2004_12_01_neoconswatch_archive.html; and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/offtowar.html
5. Chalmer Johnson’s “Sorrows of Empire.”
6. http://www.ameu.org/index.asp
7. http://hcef.org/hcef/; Scott McConnell’s “Divided & Conquered,” TAC, 07/03/06; http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/publications/column_Feb2001.htm; and http://www.icahduk.org/documents/SupportSabeel.htm
8. http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
9. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/uncensored
10. http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/448
11. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
12. http://www.ussliberty.org/
13. http://www.pchrgaza.org/
14. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html
15. Peter Dale Scott’s “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK” and Stephen Green’s “Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relationship with a Militant Israel.”
16. http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/french-ambassador.html
17. http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm and http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/rabbi_weiss_rips_ariel_sharon_zionism and http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5200/index.php
18. http://wrmea.org/
19. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1022127,00.html
20. Ravi Nessman’s “Israel Steps Up Offensive,” AP, 07/03/06; Boston Globe’s “Agony of Gaza,” 07/07/06; and http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1095841.ece

If you've been around allForums, you've undoubtedly clicked a link to it once or twice. Here we have you linking to the DailyKos in this thread: The Dop-DailyKos Konnection (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=15330&page=2&highlight=dailykos)

Oh the drama is killing me.


I don't see the DailyKos link but I'll take your word for it.

More than likely, I googled a subject and gathered in whatever links showed up with DailyKos being one of them.

I stand by what I said ... I am not a participating member or follower of DK, never will be and if I end up on that site ... it's not by design.

So, now that you have tried to muddy the water by turning the subject to whether I visit DailyKos, I guess that means you don't have to address the original topic which is ... how can the Iranian dude say a word or infer an idiom that doesn't exist in his language?

The question is open to anyone because apparently you aren't going to answer it other than claiming you know what he meant even though he didn't say it.

... how can the Iranian dude say a word or infer an idiom that doesn't exist in his language?

Making this an argument over a particular word --**wipe** distracts us from the real issue;

He did not say that he "intends to" do anything to Israel.

Saying something deserves to happen and saying that YOU yourself are going to do something is different--------THAT is the bone of contention here.

gmsisko is wrong when he claims that Ahmadinejad said he intended to wipe --OR, insert any similar word you like-- Israel off the map

So, now that you have tried to muddy the water by turning the subject to whether I visit DailyKos
Don't you dare start.

The question is open to anyone because apparently you aren't going to answer it other than claiming you know what he meant even though he didn't say it.
I never said I "knew what he meant", so you're lying. I am saying that whatever phrase he used in Farsi was translated as "wiped off the map" because, most likely, the phrase may not translate into English but has the main idea of "getting rid of Israel."

I've already said that, but you misconstrued the meaning so why should I even bother?

gmsisko is wrong when he claims that Ahmadinejad said he intended to wipe --OR, insert any similar word you like-- Israel off the map
You're spot on here FT, but I think the real issue is the fact that he, his policy makers, and speechwriters, are appealing to the Iranian people with calls for the dissolution of a strong ally of the US. That is something to worry about while they further their nuclear ambitions, and what needs to be focused on, whether or not he claims to "intend" to attack or not.

Free, That It's a Wonderful Life* fantasy about Israel is the dumbest thing on this thread, especially the oil price stuff.

Here are others the article left out.
- Rachel Corrie probably would have offed herself in some other dumb way.
- The Palestinians probably would have been eradicated or absorbed by the Arabs who hate them.
- Iraq, and others, would have nuclear weapons and Iran would be glass.
- Dop and American would have to live among more Jews

*Look Free, it's Zuzu's petals

I think the real issue is the fact that he, his policy makers, and speechwriters, are appealing to the Iranian people with calls for the dissolution of a strong ally of the US.

I see them as FAR more of a bottomless money pit than an "ally" that actually cares a whit about the US, other than the fact that we are their unimagnibaly generous sugar daddy.

As for OUR politician's view of them, the ONLY use that any uber-conservative has for Israel is as the pit bull of the MiddleEast, keeping the Ay-Rabs in line so we can more easily access their oil.

Also, given the fact that Israel both (a) posseses nuclear weapons, and (b) has for 60 years demonstrated its hatred for all-things Muslim, do you BLAME any Muslim nation for fearing them and perhaps viewing their possible dissolution as a favorable development?

I see them as FAR more of a bottomless money pit than an "ally" that actually cares a whit about the US, other than the fact that we are their unimagnibaly generous sugar daddy.
Mmmmm...sugar daddy...

Also, given the fact that Israel both (a) posseses nuclear weapons, and (b) has for 60 years demonstrated its hatred for all-things Muslim, do you BLAME any Muslim nation for fearing them and perhaps viewing their possible dissolution as a favorable development?
Not at all. I'm in favor of the dissolution of Israel in the interests of peace and justice in the Middle East.

After 60 years of getting their asses handed to them by Israel, don't you think they'd smarten up & try to - at the very least - not antagonize Israel? Nobody says the Arab countries have to trade with Israel, or even be friendly .... Sometimes the Arabs come across like old drunks - climbing into the bottle night after night thinking "tonite will be different", and every morning waking with that sinking feeling of having lost to the jug yet again. Like those old drunks, they have to change their way of thinking & acting before any good changes are going to take place. Israel is not backing down from anything.

After 60 years of getting their asses handed to them by Israel, don't you think they'd smarten up & try to - at the very least - not antagonize Israel? Nobody says the Arab countries have to trade with Israel, or even be friendly .... Sometimes the Arabs come across like old drunks - climbing into the bottle night after night thinking "tonite will be different", and every morning waking with that sinking feeling of having lost to the jug yet again.

That's a bit like looking at someone having a son murdered by some maniac, harboring ill feelings toward the maniac for a long time, confronting the maniac on many occasions, getting very badly beaten by said maniac on each confrontation, and then commenting about the situation --"Aww, why doesn't that guy just forget about it and stop bothering that maniac. He gets whipped every time. He needs to just let the guy alone".

I am not calling Israel a maniac in this example....i'm just trying to put it in the perspective of the way that the Pals (and other Muslims) view what the Israelis have done, and where their anger comes from.

Israel is not backing down from anything.

Big deal.

Hand any nation of people (ESPECIALLY ones with a permanent chip on their shoulder) on earth 150 billion dollars in aid and military hardware, and THEY also would not "back down" from anything.

Hand any nation of people on earth 150 billion dollars in aid and military hardware.....The Arab nations could spend double that and Israel would still exist. There is more going on here than just money.

The Arab leaders are a lazy, non-creative group whose entire life is based on the geographical good luck of being born on top of oil. They have the money and the hate to destroy Israel, but lack the drive, fortitude or ingenuity.

The Arab nations could spend double that and Israel would still exist.

Maybe.

But the argument had nothing whatsoever to do with *existence*, but with "not backing down".


The Arab leaders are a lazy, non-creative group...

The seeming corrollary being that the Jews are industrious and creative.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

They have the money and the hate to destroy Israel, but lack the drive, fortitude or ingenuity.

You may be right.

While the Israelis have the the military and the hate to destroy the Muslims, and are not lacking in drive or fortitude. They will eventually destroy them, I beieve, but incrimentally. Also, when they destroy the Muslim world, they will destroy their own. But at least both sides will be able to grimly hold on to their hatred to the bitter end, no doubt.

1. The seeming corrollary being that the Jews are industrious and creative.
2. They will eventually destroy them, I beieve, but incrimentally.
1. I specifically referred to Arab leaders, not the Arab citizenry. Why the comparison to "jews".

2. The deaths to Arabs being caused by Israel doesn't match their birth rate, making that a very dumb statement.

1. I specifically referred to Arab leaders, not the Arab citizenry. Why the comparison to "jews".

Obviously, I thought there was a corollary to your quip.


2. The deaths to Arabs being caused by Israel doesn't match their birth rate, making that a very dumb statement.

Since it is quite posssible that the killing rate will one day rise, I view your response here as an example of a stupid statement.

I will wager that the rate of deaths will quickly rise if an Israeli nuclear devise is dropped on a Muslim nation.

Any amount you like.

The Arab nations could spend double that and Israel would still exist. There is more going on here than just money.

The Arab leaders are a lazy, non-creative group whose entire life is based on the geographical good luck of being born on top of oil. They have the money and the hate to destroy Israel, but lack the drive, fortitude or ingenuity.

Saudia Arabia could have ended America, Israel, and any other country in the world. But all they care about is, MONEY! They're not lazy,they're businessmen. They don't care about Palestinians, Lebonese, Israelis, or even citizens of their own country unless you make MONEY! Saudia Arabia would do anything for MONEY!

No, you are the problem in this discussion. Anyone who would say "if Isreal was not created by the west in 47 there would be no problem," clearly demonstrates no possibility of objective thought on all matters Israeli.
Your agenda clearly goes well beyond the current situation.

I have an agenda? The point is that if Isreal was not created there would be no crisis now, it shows how the artificial creation of a state simple does not work. The violence and hatred will continue as these two groups,I believe, will never come to terms.
What if the world community created a Hare Krishna state in the US, I am quite sure you would be upset about that, much like the arabs in the middle east. But that probably would be ok as long as it wasn't them damn Arabs.

US aid to Israel http://www.washington-report.org/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm

The world map has changed many times in the past 100 years. Every World War brought about new borders and new politics to go along with them.

....it shows how the artificial creation of a state simple does not work. Could you please give me an example of a natural state creation?

Since it is quite posssible that the killing rate will one day rise, I view your response here as an example of a stupid statement.
Okay, so if this soothsayer ability of yours pans out, then I will be wrong.

Saudia Arabia could have ended America, Israel, and any other country in the world. But all they care about is, MONEY! They can't end us. They can only force us to pollute Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico (some people here only care about money, too).

There is an argument that if Israel wasnt created,none of this violence would of occured,its a bit like putting a square peg into a round hole,but the fact that its now there and established as a nation,makes it unchangable.Israel is a magnet for Jews the world over,I seen on tv just this week 400 American Jews emigrate to Israel,with such a large percentage of its people born somewhere else,it would be impossable to dismantle.No,the only solution here is to find a middle ground,which both sides can accept,this is were US Foreign Policy should be focused,not taking sides,as usual.

No,the only solution here is to find a middle ground,which both sides can accept,this is were US Foreign Policy should be focused,not taking sides,as usual.Better yet, how about some other country get involved and not leave everything to the US. As usual.

We're in the situation at present because of US Foreign Policy,if US hadnt armed Israel to the teeth,they wouldnt be attacking Lebanon,compare their Armed Forces to any other country of similar size.

No, in that case, Israel would just be a large pile of sand and corpses.


Peace at last!


When it comes right down to it, someone has to lose. More than likely, everyone will lose; some more than others. Its almost like a sibling rivalry; no matter what you do, one side will feel unequally treated, and then the fight goes on. To put it bluntly: Its a real clusterfuck over there.

Up to now its the Palestinians who have been the losers,ignored by the West,used by the East,looks like Lebanons turn now.Never be peace until the Palestinians and Israeli come to an accommodation.

Up to now its the Palestinians who have been the losers,ignored by the West,used by the East,You left out betrayed by their leaders and misled by their militants.

You left out betrayed by their leaders and misled by their militants.
Dont you mean,mislead by their leaders and betrayed by their militants.

Although I think their leaders and militants are somewhat interchangable, your alignment does make more sense.

Could you please give me an example of a natural state creation?
Most countries live in peace with their neighbors as a result of ethnic ,political or religious similarities.
Would you not be upset with the creation of a Hare Krishna state in US with no input or regard to americans? You bet you would, but it seems the world expects and demands the arabs of this region to be ok with this arrangment.
Give your head a shake, you'd be lobing missiles at the the great state of Hare Krishna right now I bet. Don't expect the Arabs to feel any different.

Did Israel not give Gaza to the Pals? Did the pals not use Gaza to send missles into Israel?



Up to now its the Palestinians who have been the losers,ignored by the West,used by the East,looks like Lebanons turn now.Never be peace until the Palestinians and Israeli come to an accommodation.

There is an argument that if Israel wasnt created,none of this violence would of occured,its a bit like putting a square peg into a round hole,but the fact that its now there and established as a nation,makes it unchangable.Israel is a magnet for Jews the world over,I seen on tv just this week 400 American Jews emigrate to Israel,with such a large percentage of its people born somewhere else,it would be impossable to dismantle.No,the only solution here is to find a middle ground,which both sides can accept,this is were US Foreign Policy should be focused,not taking sides,as usual.

Expect the violence to continue, of course Israel is not going to go away. But to think the arab population is suddenly going to be ok with its existance is not likely to happen.

Did Israel not give Gaza to the Pals? Did the pals not use Gaza to send missles into Israel?
Right,big deal,Israel gave the Pals a rubbish [garbage] dump,up against Egypt,over a million Pals there,even Israel couldnt shift them all.

Why does Israel have to justify it's existence....??? Israel was there decades before Hezbollah.


Slim

Im not disputing Israels existance,everyone has a right to live in freedom and peace,but that goes for the Pals also.

Why does Israel have to justify it's existence....??? Israel was there decades before Hezbollah.


Slim

The arabs have been there centuries. Israel was created for a religious group and forced on the arabs, resentment and hatred resulted.
It exists and now has to deal with the reality created by its location.

Okay, so if this soothsayer ability of yours pans out, then I will be wrong.

Let me put it to you this way;

...you know that famous quote that some people like to use, the one that goes ---

"""When someone says they're going to kill you, believe them"

..........????

Well, it works both ways.

Israel is bristling with nuclear weapons.

When someone maintains a nuclear stockpile, believe that one day they will use it.

Free, you're very inconsistent.
Alphabet says very provocative things against Israel and you explain what he really meant or didn't mean.
Israel owns nukes so that's the same as saying they're going to kill the Palestinians with them.

Right,big deal,Israel gave the Pals a rubbish [garbage] dump,up against Egypt,over a million Pals there,even Israel couldnt shift them all.If it's such a dump, why did the Palestinians want it so badly, and why did the Israeli residents not want to leave?

Most countries live in peace with their neighbors as a result of ethnic ,political or religious similarities.......That's nice.
Do you remember the original question?

If it's such a dump, why did the Palestinians want it so badly, and why did the Israeli residents not want to leave?
You tell me Brooks.

Im not disputing Israels existance,everyone has a right to live in freedom and peace,but that goes for the Pals also.

True, and the palestinians have been sold down the river by their leaders, Arafat never wanted peace - he pulled away from it when he could have taken it. Why? because these people's existance is defined by armed struggle.

Abbas wants peace & has the right approach. He accepts Isreal, he denounces violence, denounces suicide attacks. Hammas is a terrorist organization who rejects Isreal & is committed to it's destruction.

Even before Hammas, Abbas had a challenge to rein in the militants.

The cause of palestinian suffering is the palestinians themselves. If Isreal has security & no more suicide bombings, rockets, cross border abductions and so on, their neighbours will have peace from Isreal. This is simply common sense. The Israeli's are far more sophisticated & educated people than their neighbors - it's far more likely that they want peace.

Unfortunatly Abbas will never succeed unless Israel put a deal on the table that he can sell to his people.

Unfortunatly Abbas will never succeed unless Israel put a deal on the table that he can sell to his people.

Wrong.

Abbas will never succeed because he has no ability to succeed. Any deal from Israel no matter how attractive it may be to the palestinians will always include the stopping of terrorist attacks on Isreal. Abbas cannot stop those because the issue is hijacked by terrorist groups like Hammas.

Right.
If Israel put a deal on the table,let it go to referundem in the P.A. controlled areas,if the people decide to buy it,Hamas would be isolated within their own community,theyed be finished after that,as you aware,any paramilitary group needs support of the community they claimto represent,to survive.

Right.
any paramilitary group needs support of the community they claimto represent,to survive.

which, sadly, is why hezbolah has lasted so long in southern lebanon

I have shown it, look at some of my links.

Look at some of the links othars have provided.

Now you my friend, you may eat your words.


You're the one who should eat his words.

You alleged that Iranian President Ahmadinejad had said that (this is an exact quote) --- ""he intends to wipe Israel off the map"".

You have not shown and can not show where he made such a remark.

As has already been pointed out to you once, there is a great deal of difference between saying something deserves to happen and saying "I myself intend to make something happen".

That's nice.
Do you remember the original question?

"Could you please give me an example of a natural state creation?'

I don't now the exact answer your looking for, look at the history of most countries. How many were created overnight to accommodate a religious group? There were no ties to region as most of the jews came from Europe, a more resonable solution at the time would have been to create a jewish state in Europe.
Seems a bit unusual to me if not unnatural.

Edit: Look at the GIf on travh's posts, like they said on Seasame Street, what does not belong here?

Right.
If Israel put a deal on the table,let it go to referundem in the P.A. controlled areas,if the people decide to buy it,Hamas would be isolated within their own community,theyed be finished after that,as you aware,any paramilitary group needs support of the community they claimto represent,to survive.

You're a dreamer.

You're a dreamer.
Thinking that the Palestinians will ever get a fair settlement,or Israel will ever get peace,your probably right.

Abbas will never succeed because he has no ability to succeed. Any deal from Israel no matter how attractive it may be to the palestinians will always include the stopping of terrorist attacks on Isreal. Abbas cannot stop those because the issue is hijacked by terrorist groups like Hammas. Do you know the last time that Israel offered to return (according to international law) the UN mandated 100% of Palistine? ....Never.

You are blaming the palistinians for letting the Israelis (against international law) steal their land?

If I came and stole your house at gunpoint and offered you 80% of it back for peace would you take it? What if the cops say "well its against the law but we can't do anything"?....Would you let me have it without a fight? And supposse I have far more advanced weaponry and body guards helping me take your house, would you give in or would youfight for whats yours? What if then I only offered you 50% of your house for peace?

It belongs to the Isreali's so long as they occupy it.