Iraqi Deaths Fall by 50 Percent

[SLCPUNK]

You are quoting Ahmadinejad to back up your points? 

yeah, and? It invalidates the rest of what i said?

Not exactly. I can see where you are coming from with some of it even if I do not agree , but Ahmadinejad's quote does not make your position stronger considering his track record - ie. no gays in Iran, the Holocaust is a myth, wanting to wipe Israel off the map, women are the most free in Iran, and so on.........

That's not his track record, it's the medias interpretation (propaganda) of his track record.

I watched his speech at Columbia. I know what he said. Are you saying the interpreter blatantly lied?  If that is your argument I am not sure you are living in reality.

I have to wonder if you listened to the speech as poorly as you read the prior statement? ^^

[polluxlm]

You are quoting Ahmadinejad to back up your points? 

yeah, and? It invalidates the rest of what i said?

Not exactly. I can see where you are coming from with some of it even if I do not agree , but Ahmadinejad's quote does not make your position stronger considering his track record - ie. no gays in Iran, the Holocaust is a myth, wanting to wipe Israel off the map, women are the most free in Iran, and so on.........

That's not his track record, it's the medias interpretation (propaganda) of his track record.

I watched his speech at Columbia. I know what he said. Are you saying the interpreter blatantly lied?  If that is your argument I am not sure you are living in reality.

Did he say Holocaust was a myth at Colombia? That Israel should be eradicated?

Ahmadinejad, and his party's record speaks for itself. His quotes and speaches have been widely distributed. This man has had numerous chances to "clarify" his positition, but has steadfastly refused to repudiate quotes made in his name. No amount of revisionist interpretation is going cleanse the record of this "petty and cruel dictator".

He did clarify his position at Columbia.

Being widely distributed is hardly an argument when it's based on falsehoods from the propaganda media.

[fuckin crazy]

He did clarify his position at Columbia.

He didn't clarify anything, but instead threw a bunch of red herrings and dodged a bunch of hard questions.

Being widely distributed is hardly an argument when it's based on falsehoods from the propaganda media.

You want to cling to this argument, but as of yet, have not offered shred of evidence of these "falsehoods from the propaganda".

I'm about as liberal as they come, however, I would never "through the baby out with the bathwater" in an attempt to discredit one fascist to the benefit of another. I think all tyrants deserve the fate of Il Duc?.

[polluxlm]

He did clarify his position at Columbia.

He didn't clarify anything, but instead threw a bunch of red herrings and dodged a bunch of hard questions.

Well, that's your subjective opinion.

Being widely distributed is hardly an argument when it's based on falsehoods from the propaganda media.

You want to cling to this argument, but as of yet, have not offered shred of evidence of these "falsehoods from the propaganda".

I'm about as liberal as they come, however, I would never "through the baby out with the bathwater" in an attempt to discredit one fascist to the benefit of another. I think all tyrants deserve the fate of Il Duc?.

I am concerned with the truth, not sides. The Iranian government is ludicrous, no doubt, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Western powers construct lies so they can justify bombing a country and exploit their resources.

And here's the evidence for my propaganda claim:

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

[fuckin crazy]

And here's the evidence for my propaganda claim:

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

One of the Secretaries of his Party/Government made the claim for the destruction of Israel; Ahmadinejad is too coy to fall into that trap. Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to distance hinself from the remark, and chose not to. To me, that is an implicit acceptance of the remark.

[freedom78]

Being widely distributed is hardly an argument when it's based on falsehoods from the propaganda media.

You want to cling to this argument, but as of yet, have not offered shred of evidence of these "falsehoods from the propaganda".

I'm about as liberal as they come, however, I would never "through the baby out with the bathwater" in an attempt to discredit one fascist to the benefit of another. I think all tyrants deserve the fate of Il Duc?.

I am concerned with the truth, not sides. The Iranian government is ludicrous, no doubt, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Western powers construct lies so they can justify bombing a country and exploit their resources.

And here's the evidence for my propaganda claim:

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

While I share your concern about the ratcheting up of rhetoric intended to bring a West v. Iran military conflict, there are to problems here.  First, Prison Planet is hardly a credible source for anything.  That said, I'm willing to believe that a direct translation of Ahmadinejad didn't read "Wipe Israel from the map."  My second point, however, is that it doesn't really matter.  "Wipe Israel from the map" strikes me as a Western (American?) colloquialism, and one which he wouldn't use.  And there's really no tangible difference between that phrase and what it is claimed a direct translation of his speech says: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."  Sure, one might read as "we're coming to get you," while the other is more a call to arms against a perceived enemy, but they're both overtly hostile, and seem to reflect his belief that Israel should not exist, whether it's through an extermination of its Jewish population or simply a fading away of Israel as a political entity. 

Lastly, I'd say that the absence something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I doubt Bush has said he wants to "Wipe Iran off the map."  Do you believe he doesn't?

[polluxlm]

And here's the evidence for my propaganda claim:

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

One of the Secretaries of his Party/Government made the claim for the destruction of Israel; Ahmadinejad is too coy to fall into that trap. Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to distance hinself from the remark, and chose not to. To me, that is an implicit acceptance of the remark.

That's pure assumption, invalid in any form as an argument. The evidence is pretty clear, he never said Israel should be wiped off the map in the way Western media has scrupulously portrayed it . In fact, the alleged quote is just another quote from the former Ayatollah, used to enhance a point.

[fuckin crazy]

And here's the evidence for my propaganda claim:

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

One of the Secretaries of his Party/Government made the claim for the destruction of Israel; Ahmadinejad is too coy to fall into that trap. Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to distance hinself from the remark, and chose not to. To me, that is an implicit acceptance of the remark.

That's pure assumption, invalid in any form as an argument. The evidence is pretty clear, he never said Israel should be wiped off the map in the way Western media has scrupulously portrayed it . In fact, the alleged quote is just another quote from the former Ayatollah, used to enhance a point.

The only assumption I made was that he was coy. The rest is fact or logical conclusion.

[polluxlm]

While I share your concern about the ratcheting up of rhetoric intended to bring a West v. Iran military conflict, there are to problems here.  First, Prison Planet is hardly a credible source for anything.  That said, I'm willing to believe that a direct translation of Ahmadinejad didn't read "Wipe Israel from the map."

I agree with your skepticism of the source, but I have seen this case been made in several smaller outlets, so I stand confident behind it's integrity.

My second point, however, is that it doesn't really matter.  "Wipe Israel from the map" strikes me as a Western (American?) colloquialism, and one which he wouldn't use.  And there's really no tangible difference between that phrase and what it is claimed a direct translation of his speech says: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."  Sure, one might read as "we're coming to get you," while the other is more a call to arms against a perceived enemy, but they're both overtly hostile, and seem to reflect his belief that Israel should not exist, whether it's through an extermination of its Jewish population or simply a fading away of Israel as a political entity. 

Lastly, I'd say that the absence something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I doubt Bush has said he wants to "Wipe Iran off the map."  Do you believe he doesn't?

No, I don't doubt that many Iranian leaders would probably be delighted to see another holocaust, or at the very least, a victory in conventional war.

But this is not what has been said, and while I'd very much like a change of government in Iran, I simply can't ignore that our leaders is deliberately manipulating the populace to gain support for another power grab. This is not what I've been taught is the civilized way, and I'm not prepared to abandon such principles because of "goal justifies the means" rethorics. Especially not when those rethorics are based on dishonesty.

And just so that it is said, Iran pose no threat to the world, with or without nuclear capabilities. I find that notion so ridiculous that it frightens me people are falling for it. The West got the world by the balls. They dictate policy wherever they please, and if somebody refuses to play ball they get a visit either from a black agent with a gun or 200.000 killers in uniform. They all know this. And if somebody should be stupid enough to launch nukes....well what do you think would happen to them? That's right, and the Iranian leaders know this very well. It's a defensive strategy on their behalf, nothing more.

People need to start focusing on why certain countries possess such hatred of us. Nobody is born with evil thoughts. If enough people started doing that we would be calling for our Presidents head, not Irans.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Anybody who knows a little bit how israel is constructed (and what are the basis of this state) knows that, one day, soon enough, the state israel, as we know it, will disapear.
Parameters like demography, globalization, world travel, countries mash up (EU, south asia ...) clearly show that the idea of "israel" as we know it, does not have any future.
It'd be like creating a country for "redheads" today.

I'd like your opinions on the last part of my post (as we stopped on ahmadinejads) :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some big powers still behave like the victors of the World War and regard other states and nations, even those that had nothing to do with the war, as the vanquished, and humiliate other nations and demand extortion from a condescending position similar to that of the master/servant relationship of the medieval ages. [/i] "

Many things have to be done, at the same time, concordantly:
1- Take a drastic turn in how Super powers regards other countries. In less than a year, both the US and France have shown disgusting manners, from the speech of the French President Sarkozy in Africa saying that "the african man has not entered history yet" to the amazing hypocrizy of the west regarding the Iran case (start with basing all arguments on AIEA, then when AIEA says things are ok and Iran is working with them, base arguments on *experts*, then talk about homosexuals) - oh and burmas is under dictature for 20 years now, but no one moves ....
2- Change our point of view on israel and palestine.
3- Impact all out international institutions with this new state of mind : IMF (starts with the new socialist french president of IFM), World Bank, UN ... smaller, poor, weaker countries need a voice ! Get rid of the security council.

While doing that, we can
- slowly widthdraw amezrican troops from iraq
- limit presend to UN toops (if possible no british/american kids in there)
- ask for REGIONAL help: Iran, Saudis, Syria must step in
- re-construction should be focused on local growth, and Total, Exxon, any other western companies MUST KEEP THE FUCK OUT this place.


The Biggest mistake to make would be to keep a presence there and "promote our democracy". Not only our actions must shift, but also our words, i have never heard such bullshit in the past 5 years, and our leaders speech actually got into kids mind, i even read, online, young people posting things like ?: " arabs and africans dont understand democracy, they can't behave or be organized, we have to teach them" ....

thx,

[fuckin crazy]

Anybody who knows a little bit how israel is constructed (and what are the basis of this state) knows that, one day, soon enough, the state israel, as we know it, will disapear.
Parameters like demography, globalization, world travel, countries mash up (EU, south asia ...) clearly show that the idea of "israel" as we know it, does not have any future.
It'd be like creating a country for "redheads" today.

I'd like your opinions on the last part of my post (as we stopped on ahmadinejads) :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some big powers still behave like the victors of the World War and regard other states and nations, even those that had nothing to do with the war, as the vanquished, and humiliate other nations and demand extortion from a condescending position similar to that of the master/servant relationship of the medieval ages. [/i] "

Many things have to be done, at the same time, concordantly:
1- Take a drastic turn in how Super powers regards other countries. In less than a year, both the US and France have shown disgusting manners, from the speech of the French President Sarkozy in Africa saying that "the african man has not entered history yet" to the amazing hypocrizy of the west regarding the Iran case (start with basing all arguments on AIEA, then when AIEA says things are ok and Iran is working with them, base arguments on *experts*, then talk about homosexuals) - oh and burmas is under dictature for 20 years now, but no one moves ....
2- Change our point of view on israel and palestine.
3- Impact all out international institutions with this new state of mind : IMF (starts with the new socialist french president of IFM), World Bank, UN ... smaller, poor, weaker countries need a voice ! Get rid of the security council.

While doing that, we can
- slowly widthdraw amezrican troops from iraq
- limit presend to UN toops (if possible no british/american kids in there)
- ask for REGIONAL help: Iran, Saudis, Syria must step in
- re-construction should be focused on local growth, and Total, Exxon, any other western companies MUST KEEP THE FUCK OUT this place.


The Biggest mistake to make would be to keep a presence there and "promote our democracy". Not only our actions must shift, but also our words, i have never heard such bullshit in the past 5 years, and our leaders speech actually got into kids mind, i even read, online, young people posting things like  : " arabs and africans dont understand democracy, they can't behave or be organized, we have to teach them" ....

thx,

I agree with much of the latter part of your post, though, I don't think it is that simple ... international affairs never are.

Regarding the former, It would be like forming a country for redheads ... if they had lived there for ten or twelve thousand years. Israel is a State. Irael will remain a State. Israeli and US relations are intimately intertwined; the US would never allow Israel lose her national identity ... nor should it.

[freedom78]

But this is not what has been said, and while I'd very much like a change of government in Iran, I simply can't ignore that our leaders is deliberately manipulating the populace to gain support for another power grab. This is not what I've been taught is the civilized way, and I'm not prepared to abandon such principles because of "goal justifies the means" rethorics. Especially not when those rethorics are based on dishonesty.

And just so that it is said, Iran pose no threat to the world, with or without nuclear capabilities. I find that notion so ridiculous that it frightens me people are falling for it. The West got the world by the balls. They dictate policy wherever they please, and if somebody refuses to play ball they get a visit either from a black agent with a gun or 200.000 killers in uniform. They all know this. And if somebody should be stupid enough to launch nukes....well what do you think would happen to them? That's right, and the Iranian leaders know this very well. It's a defensive strategy on their behalf, nothing more.

People need to start focusing on why certain countries possess such hatred of us. Nobody is born with evil thoughts. If enough people started doing that we would be calling for our Presidents head, not Irans.

I generally agree with this, though I haven't seen any evidence that the anti-Iranian rhetoric from the US government is actually swaying public opinion toward a pro-war stance.  Just because I haven't seen it, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so if someone has seen a poll indicating increasing support for US action against Iran () then I'd appreciate seeing those numbers.  Of course, the real question is whether the Bush admin will manage to start a conflict a.) without Congressional approval and b.) with little public support.  I doubt the public support will be there.  I seriously doubt people in this country will be so quick to believe any "evidence" provided by Bush, and they don't have Colin Powell as their uber-credible spokesman, anymore.  What concerns me much more is the categorization of parts of the Iranian military as terrorist organizations, which Bush could use as reason to initiate a conflict as part of the "war on terror."  While he's a kook, Gravel was right when he said "I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it." 

In addition to Congressional/public opinion problems Bush might have in starting such a conflict, there would be far less international support for it than there was for going into Iraq.  The US had much more trust from and clout within the international community, then, and I doubt we'd get any to go with us.  It would be a very lonely venture, and I've often wondered, if the UK hadn't joined us in Iraq, would we have gone? 

Anybody who knows a little bit how israel is constructed (and what are the basis of this state) knows that, one day, soon enough, the state israel, as we know it, will disapear.
Parameters like demography, globalization, world travel, countries mash up (EU, south asia ...) clearly show that the idea of "israel" as we know it, does not have any future.
It'd be like creating a country for "redheads" today.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  Certainly Israel will evolve, somewhat, as all countries do over time, but it will disappear?  I suppose a ridiculously optimistic view might see and eventual state of Israel-Palestine, but it seems more likely that there will be either a period of two states, first before any unification, or a long, slow fading off of violence, before full Palestinian political rights come to pass as part of a new, larger Israel. 

[JMack]

Anybody who knows a little bit how israel is constructed (and what are the basis of this state) knows that, one day, soon enough, the state israel, as we know it, will disapear.
Parameters like demography, globalization, world travel, countries mash up (EU, south asia ...) clearly show that the idea of "israel" as we know it, does not have any future.
It'd be like creating a country for "redheads" today.

I'd like your opinions on the last part of my post (as we stopped on ahmadinejads) :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some big powers still behave like the victors of the World War and regard other states and nations, even those that had nothing to do with the war, as the vanquished, and humiliate other nations and demand extortion from a condescending position similar to that of the master/servant relationship of the medieval ages. [/i] "

Many things have to be done, at the same time, concordantly:
1- Take a drastic turn in how Super powers regards other countries. In less than a year, both the US and France have shown disgusting manners, from the speech of the French President Sarkozy in Africa saying that "the african man has not entered history yet" to the amazing hypocrizy of the west regarding the Iran case (start with basing all arguments on AIEA, then when AIEA says things are ok and Iran is working with them, base arguments on *experts*, then talk about homosexuals) - oh and burmas is under dictature for 20 years now, but no one moves ....
2- Change our point of view on israel and palestine.
3- Impact all out international institutions with this new state of mind : IMF (starts with the new socialist french president of IFM), World Bank, UN ... smaller, poor, weaker countries need a voice ! Get rid of the security council.

While doing that, we can
- slowly widthdraw amezrican troops from iraq
- limit presend to UN toops (if possible no british/american kids in there)
- ask for REGIONAL help: Iran, Saudis, Syria must step in
- re-construction should be focused on local growth, and Total, Exxon, any other western companies MUST KEEP THE FUCK OUT this place.


The Biggest mistake to make would be to keep a presence there and "promote our democracy". Not only our actions must shift, but also our words, i have never heard such bullshit in the past 5 years, and our leaders speech actually got into kids mind, i even read, online, young people posting things like? : " arabs and africans dont understand democracy, they can't behave or be organized, we have to teach them" ....

thx,

I agree with much of the latter part of your post, though, I don't think it is that simple ... international affairs never are.

Regarding the former, It would be like forming a country for redheads ... if they had lived there for ten or twelve thousand years. Israel is a State. Irael will remain a State. Israeli and US relations are intimately intertwined; the US would never allow Israel lose her national identity ... nor should it.

I don't believe there exists any rational or common sense in many posts.? Maybe it's life expierence?? I wonder why I entertain some?? Even though we may not agree on certain issues or ideologies, we understand that you have to deal with what you have and it's not easy and there are so many variables involved that it makes things more complex then what some have posted or believe.? In actuality things could and probably would get worse if we were to do some proposed international affairs options?? Troubling to me is the anti-semitism undertones are really not hidden in a couple of threads by 1 or 2 posters and that's is wrong.? Just for the sake of others who may be a member of the fan site in general, it doesn't belong here.? Maybe I'm taking things out of contexts here? I'm tappin out..Later..JM

[SLCPUNK]

Regarding the former, It would be like forming a country for redheads ...

Bonaducistan?

[JMack]

Regarding the former, It would be like forming a country for redheads ...

Bonaducistan?

HaHA Any country that attacks better have a dental plan because there will be a lot of missing chicklets