Iranian president calls for "wiping out Israel"

Hardly Sin. I have great affection for the English, I lived there for 1.5 years and I still have many English friends. It wasn't meant to be an insult. Sorry if it came over that way...

I sense that you want to demonstrate that Israel is a major recipient of US aid? Of course! Weren't Syria, Egypt and Iraq all Soviet recipients as well ( at least historically )? The name of the game has always been to supply resources to that country who you think will best match your interests. Your chart of American aid, without any historical context of the doctrine of Soviet containment, is spurious at best. It suggests that you are biasing your information selectively. Perhaps my quib was directed to expose that...

And, as I had also said, I think that all (okay, most) aid is all bullshit. I think that it distorts economics and politics. I think the best way for countries to extract themselves from poverty is for us to do the right thing and allow them access to our markets. Particularily in the area of agriculture.

By the way, Britain suffered economically for years after WWII due to dependace (or fixation) on maintaing it's former colonies and most importantly, because it followed poor economic policies and nationalised much of it's heavy industry. Only under Thatcher, was this finally corrected. AND I know that you don't like her - no need to reply...

You may disagree with people, but there's no need to insinuate that people with whom you disagree deserve physical violence.

Just a shout out to Saeb Erekat for being a bigger person here than most of us lot.

@Bumpy
What? The Soviet Union? What's that? Oh you mean heaven on earth for some people until 1989?
Last time I dared mention the USSR in general and its impact on the United States' evil, imperialistic foreign policy, I was insulted, threatened but worst of all, had the subject of the entire thread changed to a history of the Bush family's nazi ties and how Karl Rove's grandfather was a gauleiter!? All these allegations were backed up with credible sources obviously...

i totally agree with what akeiri is saying

Hmm, when I think Russia and Romania those certainly aren't the first thoughts to pop into my mind.


Indeed. Thought we'd covered that already. Not to worry, carry on.

*sigh*. You disappear for a couple of hours only to return to another thread discussing the Israeli-Palestinian issue. *Sigh*. Whatever happend to Iran guys? Or the original topic.

OK. It's behind us.

When does Israel pay the aid back at the interest rates we got?

Sorry mate. I'm a Cockney. We're like that. Like the old sayin' goes: If a Cockney don't insult you, then he don't like you. It's all maff an' trousers anyway. I haven't clumped anybody in years (if you forget about the time I got arrested on the UBahn for thumpin' somebody a couple of years ago... I was not myself that day... so it don't count).

If you need a shoulder to cry on mate, or even just to talk, don't hesitate to PM me

Just to address something that was said earlier. Zionism IS terrorism. Zionism has nothing whatsoever to do with judaism. The following links give info about the JEWISH fight against zionism.

www.jewsagainstzionism.com
www.nkusa.org/
www.whatreallyhappened.com/jews_against_zionism
www.doublestandards.org/jaz1.html

Peace

Again, this thread was never about Israel, it was about unbelievably undiplomatic statements made by the head of a country.

And the def of Zionism is:a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state:

Zionism is a movement, people are terrorists.

Well... returning to the subject of this thread. Let's just hold on a second and pause for reflection. As you all know by now, I am not one to abide a hypocrit.





Not a whisper. Nobody said "Oh my God! How can you say those things?"

A little perspective people, please.

A few more as a taster (I got hundreds):




What was it that bad man in Iran said again? Sorry, I can't get a cigarette paper between his words and these.

What you've posted is completely pointless. Apart from the fact that if you want, I can go find thousands of quotes from Arab leaders talking the same kind of nonsense, the point is that Ahmadinejad's declarations as a world leader were completely unacceptable and anyone who would've advocated the destruction of another country would've been shunned just the same.

Just accept the fact that he's the tip of the anti-Israeli iceberg in the Middle East, that he simply fucked up and should've kept his mouth shut.

Well maybe, if we finally put some firm heat on Israel for a change, this iceberg will start to melt...As to Iran, I think they´ve made a colossal and amateurish mistake, what better reason to isolate them even more and put an end to their nuclear ambitions!

Jules mate. I knew you'd twist whatever I post into whichever way you want to read it. Your prerogative.

What I am not trying to demonstrate here is that a certain Prime Minister, former Prime Ministers, Presidents and persons of authority in Israel have called for this or that and, I am certainly not condoning Ahmadinejad's remarks from Tehran. What I am trying to demostrate is the hypocrisy. In my humble opinion both sides are just about as bad as each other. I, personally, am not advocating the wiping out of any nations or peoples. I just wish that we could somehow reign in the extremists and get peace in the region. With Tel Aviv and Tehran taking these stands I don't see much hope for that.

I was on Jane's last night having a read, and they were coming up with a rather frightening synopsis: A Russian-Chinese-Iranian pact. How far do we want to rock this boat?

If only the allied forces wouldn't have stopped Hitler as soon as they did...
Man... what a miss...
Imagine, what a wonderful world we would have, with out Israel...
Too bad Hitler was too blind to see that sharing power with us would be a better solution to the world...
After all, he had the balls to do what you brother Kza thinks (and I am sure most of the world population, but they are just like Jeeves here, to yellow to say/do it).
All though you have the balls to say it, it means nothing if you are not up to do it.
So sign up today (if you are not already), its never too late to correct the mistakes of the past you know...

(If you are not american, I am sure there is a local branch)

Oh and how clear and simple you pointed out the reason to all this:
I mean, it was infornt us all the time, so clear... and we didn't see it...
Wow... thats deep man... I'll have to go meditate and pray about this one...


What can I say... poetry... *with tears in my eyes*

Clarification 1: Apparently people were pissed off at this.. Isnt it great people have the freedom to have different beliefs and are able to express them here? If someone came up to me and said hey Im a jew and I think all christians are wrong and all christians need to denounce christ in order for the prophesy to continue, I would be interested, I would accept what you are saying but I wouldnt believe it and I wouldnt be pissed off, but I would be happy because at least your interested in the prophesys. If you came up to me andd said your a muslim and you think all christians are infidels and in order for the prohesy to be fulfilled we have to convert to islam, then I would be stoked. I would have a genuine interest in discussing the matter further. I wouldnt be pissed off in fact I would stick up for your right to believe in whats sacred to you. Thats the whole point. We are all greatful to be in a society that involves freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Im happy to hear jews and muslims and even catholics and any other religion express their views, because without tolerance, my views, or nobodys views for that matter wont get heard.

But having said all that, at least my expression of religion is constrained to speech, im not sending gunships into palestine to kill babys and I didnt kill Jesus,and im not claiming someone elses land as my homeland under the name of my religion, so I think I can feel good about that.

Anyway, if you were pissed off by my comment above, then just reply, and we can discuss it online, dont bottle your intolerance and misunderstanding inside, dont hold a grudge, join in the discussion, its only through understanding, communicating, sharing each others beliefs, that we can reach a state of peaceful coexistance between the religions.

OK, I really cannot be bothered to read 6 pages of posts, but today I was asked the easiest and cheapest way to connect our company in Iran to our main office in Munich, and do you know for local (Iranian) legal reasons we cannot use any providers in Iran apart from the local providers, and all data traffic must be clear for all to see, including orders etc. Ahh.. this SUCKS !

Neither did the Jews. If I remember correctly it was Roman soldiers who killed him. But I guess that doesn't matter anyway.

Kza, I do hope you will turn up at more Curry Nights in the future. I'd like to understand if some of your posts really reflect what you think... (and offline seems more suitable than online for that)

Right! That's it! Tomorrow we bomb Rome. Bastards!

@tom_a
Well I would hope most people agree at least with the bit you quoted above, But yeah I dotn mind discussing this topic offline, im more and more convinced, as time goes on, that these topics are better discussed online though. Peoples attention spans are not quite as long as they seem to be online, and if something takes more than about 3 sentences to say you end up getting cut off (or walked away from) mid way through making a point, and people just end up with a misunderstanding of what you were trying to get across.
Religion and politics have always been things said to avoid discussing over drinks and with a topic that combines them both I guess it applies doubly so. When im out I really do enjoy keeping things light, especially after a beer or two I tend to lose even more interest in heavy shit and run the risk of wording my points sloppily which increases the potential for misunderstanding even more, but theres always exceptions I guess. And it tends to bore the shit out of anyone else at the table. See you on curry night

I never said they did. All I listed were some things that I have never done and would never do.
But may I assume from your reply that you recognize "the jews" as being guilty of the other two items in the list?

I put the jews in speech marks because I think its very very very important to distinguish between jewish people and the state of israel. I have no problem at all with jewish people and strongly support their right to belong to that religion. As I support the rights of anyone to belong to any religion they choose.
The state of Israel on the other hand.. Heh, lets just say that change is inevitable.

Let me see, Bush and Blair advocated the destruction of Iraq?

They just called it "Introduction to democracy, American Style"

You got any quotes on that?

Iran leader: Move Israel to Europe

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed doubt that the Holocaust occurred and suggested Israel be moved to Europe.

His comments, reported by Iran's official IRNA news agency from a news conference he gave on Thursday in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, follows his call in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map," which sparked widespread international condemnation.

Watch this spot, they want the bomb. What happened to the superior soft-power tactics lauded by France, Germany and the UK?

How dare anyone disagree with Sin. He has "patents", he has "staff", he has "connections", he has all the answers (which are always correct), he is "not a dustman" so has a right to patronise and insult anyone he likes. His eloquent use of the English language is only to be admired and his opinions to be worshipped.

Having said that, I am with you on this one!

Do you know, I heard this guy give an interview on CNN or something, he's pretty crazy but he said something I really couldn't disagree with. It was something along the lines of:

We want Nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but even if we didn't who is America to say that we cannot have them. They have them, and they are a country that have been involved in wars almost continually for over 100 years. They say they don't trust us, well I have good reason not to trust them.

@ Hutcho

I haven't time for a proper reply so here's a short one: it isn't just the US that thinks nukes in the hands of Iran is a very bad idea. Germany, France and the UK have been actively trying to prevent that for a while as well.

Slight difference. The UK, US, France, Russia, et al are not Holocaust deniers and haven't suggested the complete iradication of a country (Israel).

If Iran gets one, because they are Shia and not Arab, other Arab countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will also seek such weapons to maintain a "balance." This will further distabilise the region into a weapons race that could end up in a mushroom cloud. And as Iran is a key supporter of terrorists like Hezbolah, who's to say they don't get the bomb and use it?

Furthermore, Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He is directly contradicting his country's international obligations.

The balance of power is already destabilized because Israel has the bomb.

Oh, they might deny it, but it's no secret.

The fact that Israel has nukes may be one of the few things that has maintained a balance:



The pic's text is tongue in cheek of course.

It's true actually. And of course, we know that there is only one country that has used nukes in a war...

Right, it's not like they're sitting on an ocean of oil and natural gas or anything.

So, the more nukes in the world the merrier, eh?

Forget the USA is even part of this political discussion. UK, France, Germany, Russia, UN are all trying to stop Iran from getting nukes. Why?

With thanks and apprechiation to the French for having helped Israel to build Dimona! By the way, Isreal is NOT a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iraq and Iran are).

It was said that French engineers used to laugh at the Osirak (Tammuz 1) construction sight in Iraq when Saddam told him that he wanted to blow up Tel Aviv with the bomb the French were enabeling him to build. "What you do with it is not our business", Chirac said. In one one of his few trips outside the middle east, Saddam is shown around a French nuclear facility with his oil-for-food buddy Chirac:

I wonder if the French, Italians, British, Chinese, Germans, Australians, Canadians, Fins, Poles, Soviets or Japanese had the bomb in WWII whether they would have used it or not...

@ Bumpy

Two of those countries even helped make the 1st US nukes:

Besides, the bombs the US used against Japan were fission bombs. Modern nukes are much, much, much more powerful:

The US' use of fission bombs 60 years ago vs. Iran having nuclear weapons today isn't quite like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing a really tiny crab apple with a mutant apple the size of a building.

Wiki

"There will NEVER be peace in the middle east.. They've been warring for the past 2500+ years and they ain't gonna stop anytime soon... Just Face it.."

ALthough i',m inclined to agree with the first statement (but because of outside interference, NOT infighting..), the same could be said for Europe, and we've kinda settled down recently...

just an observation

Well they didn't, so who knows?? Bit of an irrelevant point, really...

actually theres evidence that the Germans were testing semi-nuclear weapons a long while before the Americans but gave up on the project for some reason or another...

An interesting article about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty:

@ Hazza

You'll find little disagreement with that quote or defense of US nuke policy here. The problem is that two wrongs certainly don't make a right.

Can anybody here actually say they would be happy if Iran had nuclear weapons. That it would be a good thing for the world at large? The two major nuclear powers have been disarming themselves from the nuclear legacy of the cold war in measured, mutual, verifiable steps. More countries getting nukes stands in the way of total disarmament of those powers.

No - of course it wouldn't be a good thing. But how can the US expect countries to refrain from getting nukes when it doesn't have a consistent policy across the board? It was actually Syria that raised a draft resolution when it was still in the security council, asking for a ban on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This was vetoed (no prizes for guessing by whom).

For a policy like this to work, it needs to be done consistently.

Fair call.. I was just paraphrasing what I heard him say on this interview, and he was talking about America.. the point is maybe that all these western countries should get rid of their Nuclear arsenals before they go around telling other people that they are not allowed to have them.

I'm not sticking up for this crazy Iranian guy. I watched another show about him the other day where he was telling the people to prepare for the return of some religious figure, which would basically be the equivilant of some western leader telling people to prepare for the second coming of Jesus.

Ahh heres the link I was looking for:
Netanyahu calls for preemptive strike against Iran!

Jebus is returning, you all just wait and see

Well as DW says, I´d rather us have the bomb than Iran, with their record of state sponsored terrorism. DW I disagree though with your view that Israel´s nuclear option is a stabilizing factor. As your cartoon points out, most (if not all) muslim countries in the middle east/mediterranean oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands (I mean the West Bank and Gaza. Gaza is back in Palestinian hands but still not really independent.) It´s that and the blatant one-sided politics of the U.S. ref the Israeli/Palestinian issue, that IMO have provided so much fuel to the fire.

Reacting to the most recent utterances of Ahmadinejad, Paul Spiegel, President of the Central Consistory of Jews in Germany, has demanded that Germany ends diplomatic relations with Iran. Not the way to go imho, shutting off all dialog won't make things better, on the contrary, isolation would benefit extremism.