Guest BlackJesus Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [b]To review again .... because it is obvious some people around here are = [color="#808080"]"A few sandwiches short of a picnic"[/color] ... Essentially what Adman said was this ..... [/b] [size=3][color="#808000"][center][b]In I'm Slow (gop) terms: [/b] [i]"Khaman accurately predicted the downfall of 3 previous regimes in history that were brutalizing their people. Our US backed Shah, Saddam, and the Soviets. He has also wisely predicted that the regime that now holds Jerusalem should vanish. This is a wise thing to call for a regime change in Palestine and Palestinians and Jews should be allowed to vote in their own leaders with the 5 million Palestinians having a say." [/i][/center][/color][/size] [size=3][color="#4169E1"]* (according to the 1967 intl recognized borders E Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians) * If there were general elections in Israel/Palestine .... and refugees allowed to return .... the Palestinians would outnumber the Jews and vote in their own leadership. [/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Tigers... honest question... why is it impossible to understand/admit that your initial impressions in this case were incorrect/misinformed? why not choose to learn from this, instead of burying your head in the sand? again, honest question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ONYX Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [quote name='BlackJesus' post='430187' date='Jan 20 2007, 02:40 PM'][b]Is this the answer to how old you are ??? What the hell are you doing on dads computer ? Go eat your boogers or something and leave this hard "reading" stuff to the Adults.[/b][/quote] [color="#FF0000"][b] I've been on this board a while and read some crazy ass things but the"Go eat your boogers" crack, is an instant classic hands down. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//24.gif[/img] [/b][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='430190' date='Jan 20 2007, 02:46 PM']Tigers... honest question... why is it impossible to understand/admit that your initial impressions in this case were incorrect/misinformed? why not choose to learn from this, instead of burying your head in the sand? again, honest question...[/quote] Because common sense tells me that MEMRI does not translate for the enitre world. Even if it was lost in translation, Iran's hate for Israel is well documented and BJ's semantics on this message board will not change that fact...no matter what he said she said bullshit goes on. Am I supposed to believe just because one little comment may have been mis-translated that now all of a sudden Iran does not support even if only internally the total destruction of a Jewish state? bah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 I would just like a picture of BJ holding his breath until he gives himself a stroke trying to make everyone believe his fanatical beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='430196' date='Jan 20 2007, 03:01 PM']Because common sense tells me that MEMRI does not translate for the enitre world.[/quote] [b]No shit sherlock ..... and hence why some people now have the correct translation .... and MEMRI still puts forth the wrong one. The article Ben posted stated that the initial error actually came from an Iranian news agency .... who then later corrected the mistranslation ... but by that time .... the Western pro-Israeli media had already ran off with it. How many newspapers from non-western nations do you read ??? Do you speak any other languages so that you can widen your sources for news ??? something tells me you limit yourself to probably under 5 major US sources for information ... [/b] [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='430196' date='Jan 20 2007, 03:01 PM']no matter what he said she said bullshit goes on.[/quote] [b]"No matter" ...... it does matter .... you have been spreading this lie on here .... and now when caught can't admit you spoke without doing any actual research .... you just gobbled up the shit the news fed you like most other people. [/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='430196' date='Jan 20 2007, 08:01 PM']Because common sense tells me that MEMRI does not translate for the enitre world. Even if it was lost in translation, Iran's hate for Israel is well documented and BJ's semantics on this message board will not change that fact...no matter what he said she said bullshit goes on. Am I supposed to believe just because one little comment may have been mis-translated that now all of a sudden Iran does not support even if only internally the total destruction of a Jewish state? bah.[/quote] perhaps, just perhaps, what BJ claims is correct. that all iran, or any other arab nations want, is for israel to stay within their previously agreed borders and not their continued expansion. why is this so hard to believe? if one passage as notorious as this can be so blatantly misrepresented, why not the rest? i'm not suggesting that you should change your entire world view over one passage or one thread on a message board, rather that closing your eyes to new insight/information does no one any service at all. yourself included. if nothing else, my suggestion would be to just take this tidbit and keep it in mind. perhaps you will find other occasions where the standard story line is less than accurate, on this subject or others... (though i know you don't want to join the ranks of the loony conspiracy theorists...) anywho, no angst intended, that's my .02 fwiw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='430198' date='Jan 20 2007, 03:02 PM']I would just like a picture of BJ holding his breath until he gives himself a stroke trying to make everyone believe his fanatical beliefs.[/quote] [b][size=5]Tigers Johnson = [img]http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f255/blsmoove/retard.jpg[/img][/size] [color="#000080"]so maybe I shouldn't make fun of you that much ... it is clearly laid out here for anyone to see what was said .... and how you were wrong as was the other foaming at the mouth dipshits on here who believe whatever the US media tells them to think. so carry on .... [size=3][color="#9932CC"][center][img]http://birdonthemoon.com/you_win_the_prize-thumb.jpeg[/img][/center] hell happily dance in circles shouting "bomb Iran" while the wind blows the small propeller on your multi colored retard hat. [/b][/color][/color] [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 lol Once again....like a child. Tigers Johnson does'nt agree with me so I will make fun of him on an internet board hahaha I am 10 years old. Anyways if there are any adults who want to read on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='430200' date='Jan 20 2007, 03:10 PM']perhaps, just perhaps, what BJ claims is correct. that all iran, or any other arab nations want, is for israel to stay within their previously agreed borders and not their continued expansion. why is this so hard to believe? if one passage as notorious as this can be so blatantly misrepresented, why not the rest? i'm not suggesting that you should change your entire world view over one passage or one thread on a message board, rather that closing your eyes to new insight/information does no one any service at all. yourself included. if nothing else, my suggestion would be to just take this tidbit and keep it in mind. perhaps you will find other occasions where the standard story line is less than accurate, on this subject or others... (though i know you don't want to join the ranks of the loony conspiracy theorists...) anywho, no angst intended, that's my .02 fwiw[/quote] I don't know if you read this article since it was buried on the first page...but it sites several times over the past 50+ years that Iran has claimed to want destroy Israel. So not getting caught up in semantics like BJ would like, point is whether he said wiped off the map or not it has long been Iran's stance. IRAN SAYS IT WANTS TO DESTROY ISRAEL. WHY IS EVERYONE SHOCKED? Repeat Offenders by Efraim Karsh & Rory Miller Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.31.05 Discuss this article (5) Printer friendly E-mail this article Last week, in an address to the delightfully named "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."[b] On one level it was refreshing to see that Iran's new president, unlike many Western politicians, does not view elevation to high political office as mutually incompatible with expressing deeply held convictions. But even more unusual than a politician speaking honestly was the international community's rush to condemn a Muslim leader's call for the destruction of the Jewish state. Of course the responses from individual world leaders--such as Kofi Annan, who expressed "dismay," and Tony Blair, who proclaimed his "real sense of revulsion" at Ahmadinejad's "completely unacceptable" words--are to be welcomed. So too is the response of the 25-member European Union, whose leaders, meeting at the time in London, issued an immediate condemnation noting that "calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community." All this does beg a question, however: Why single out Iran for such exceptional opprobrium at this particular moment? Annan portrayed the comments as contrary to the spirit of the international body he leads, saying that "under the United Nations Charter, all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Blair, meanwhile, argued that Ahmadinejad's statement was unprecedented. "I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to wipe out--not that they have got a problem with or an issue with, but want to wipe out--another country," Blair explained. Both men could use a history lesson. The U.N. Charter was introduced in 1945, and since that time Arab and Muslim leaders have expressed the desire to obliterate the Jewish state with impressive regularity. No sooner was the State of Israel proclaimed on May 14, 1948 than it was invaded by neighboring Arab states, with Arab League Secretary-General Abdel Rahman Azzam proclaiming that "this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Such rhetoric has been used by a long line of Arab leaders. During the 1950s and '60s it was Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, the self-styled champion of pan-Arabism, who led the call for Israel's destruction. "During the crusaders' occupation, the Arabs waited seventy years before a suitable opportunity arose and they drove away the crusaders," he proclaimed in late May 1967. "Recently we felt that we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God's help, we could triumph ... our main objective will be the destruction of Israel." Nasser's goal was ultimately frustrated when Israel routed its Arab adversaries in the shortest war in modern history. But the baton passed to a new generation of aspiring pan-Arab champions, notably Syrian president Hafez Assad and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. For his part, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini emphasized the need to destroy the Jewish state well before coming to power in 1979; and during his reign the destruction of Israel evolved into one of the most fundamental tenets of his revolutionary creed. Since Khomeini's death in June 1989, Iran's approach toward Israel has remained uncompromising, with both conservatives and leading reformers in total agreement on the issue. After meeting Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yasin in 1998, Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed that Iran would not recognize Israel "even for one hour" and would "continue to struggle against this cancerous growth." In 2000, he explained that the only "remedy" for Israel was "to destroy the root and cause of the crisis," and in a statement reported by Reuters later in the year he called Israel a "cancerous tumor" which "should be removed from the region." The next year, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, widely regarded as a pragmatist, noted that Israel was more vulnerable to nuclear attack than Muslim countries "because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." For his part, former president Mohammed Khatami, often held up as Iran's leading moderate, has described Israel as "a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world" and argued that "all of Palestine must be liberated." And let's not forget the PLO. Since its establishment in 1964, the organization's publicly stated objective has been the destruction of Israel. In June 1974, the group introduced a new phased strategy whereby it would use whatever land Israel surrendered as a springboard for further territorial gains, until the "complete liberation of Palestine"--in other words the destruction of Israel--"could be achieved." Yet in November 1974, Yasir Arafat became the first non-head-of-state to address the U.N. General Assembly; and in 1975, the year Israel suffered the ultimate indignity of the Zionism-is-racism resolution, the PLO established another precedent when it was invited to sessions of the U.N. Security Council on the same basis as member states. In 1980, just weeks after Fatah, the PLO's dominant constituent group, had reiterated its objective of liquidating Israel, the European Community issued the Venice Declaration that called for the PLO's "association" with the political process. Given this history, it is hardly surprising that despite their official commitment to peace with Israel within the framework of the Oslo process, Arafat and his PLO successors have never truly abandoned their commitment to Israel's destruction. Instead they have embarked on an intricate game of Jekyll-and-Hyde politics, constantly reassuring Israeli and Western audiences of their peaceful intentions while at the same time denigrating the peace accords to their Palestinian constituents as a temporary measure to be abandoned at the first available opportunity. Neither this duplicity nor the war of terror launched in September 2000 seems to have much discredited the PLO as a peace partner in the eyes of the international community. Against this backdrop of six decades of international acquiescence in the face of constant calls for Israel's destruction Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have legitimate reasons to feel that he has been singled out a bit unfairly these last few days. Indeed, while the international community's uncharacteristically harsh response to his comments was certainly welcome, one wonders whether it was motivated by real concern for Israel's safety--or by the West's growing frustration with Iran's dogged drive toward nuclear weapons. Whatever the reason, we can all hope that the West will now take a stand against all those who call for the destruction of Israel. Otherwise, there will be only one lesson from this tawdry affair: that countries should feel free to advocate genocide against the Jewish people--as long as they aren't developing weapons that can be turned on London, Paris, or Moscow once they've finished the job in Tel Aviv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 This isnt about agreeing and disagreeing, this is about the search for truth and what was and wasnt said, and how that effects the belif system of people and how these belif systems can lead us down a very dangerous path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' post='430203' date='Jan 20 2007, 08:19 PM']I don't know if you read this article since it was buried on the first page...but it sites several times over the past 50+ years that Iran has claimed to want destroy Israel. So not getting caught up in semantics like BJ would like, point is whether he said wiped off the map or not it has long been Iran's stance. IRAN SAYS IT WANTS TO DESTROY ISRAEL. WHY IS EVERYONE SHOCKED? Repeat Offenders by Efraim Karsh & Rory Miller Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.31.05 Discuss this article (5) Printer friendly E-mail this article Last week, in an address to the delightfully named "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."[b] On one level it was refreshing to see that Iran's new president, unlike many Western politicians, does not view elevation to high political office as mutually incompatible with expressing deeply held convictions. But even more unusual than a politician speaking honestly was the international community's rush to condemn a Muslim leader's call for the destruction of the Jewish state. Of course the responses from individual world leaders--such as Kofi Annan, who expressed "dismay," and Tony Blair, who proclaimed his "real sense of revulsion" at Ahmadinejad's "completely unacceptable" words--are to be welcomed. So too is the response of the 25-member European Union, whose leaders, meeting at the time in London, issued an immediate condemnation noting that "calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community." All this does beg a question, however: Why single out Iran for such exceptional opprobrium at this particular moment? Annan portrayed the comments as contrary to the spirit of the international body he leads, saying that "under the United Nations Charter, all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Blair, meanwhile, argued that Ahmadinejad's statement was unprecedented. "I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to wipe out--not that they have got a problem with or an issue with, but want to wipe out--another country," Blair explained. Both men could use a history lesson. The U.N. Charter was introduced in 1945, and since that time Arab and Muslim leaders have expressed the desire to obliterate the Jewish state with impressive regularity. No sooner was the State of Israel proclaimed on May 14, 1948 than it was invaded by neighboring Arab states, with Arab League Secretary-General Abdel Rahman Azzam proclaiming that "this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Such rhetoric has been used by a long line of Arab leaders. During the 1950s and '60s it was Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, the self-styled champion of pan-Arabism, who led the call for Israel's destruction. "During the crusaders' occupation, the Arabs waited seventy years before a suitable opportunity arose and they drove away the crusaders," he proclaimed in late May 1967. "Recently we felt that we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God's help, we could triumph ... our main objective will be the destruction of Israel." Nasser's goal was ultimately frustrated when Israel routed its Arab adversaries in the shortest war in modern history. But the baton passed to a new generation of aspiring pan-Arab champions, notably Syrian president Hafez Assad and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. For his part, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini emphasized the need to destroy the Jewish state well before coming to power in 1979; and during his reign the destruction of Israel evolved into one of the most fundamental tenets of his revolutionary creed. Since Khomeini's death in June 1989, Iran's approach toward Israel has remained uncompromising, with both conservatives and leading reformers in total agreement on the issue. After meeting Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmad Yasin in 1998, Khomeini's successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed that Iran would not recognize Israel "even for one hour" and would "continue to struggle against this cancerous growth." In 2000, he explained that the only "remedy" for Israel was "to destroy the root and cause of the crisis," and in a statement reported by Reuters later in the year he called Israel a "cancerous tumor" which "should be removed from the region." The next year, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, widely regarded as a pragmatist, noted that Israel was more vulnerable to nuclear attack than Muslim countries "because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." Then he added, "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." For his part, former president Mohammed Khatami, often held up as Iran's leading moderate, has described Israel as "a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world" and argued that "all of Palestine must be liberated." And let's not forget the PLO. Since its establishment in 1964, the organization's publicly stated objective has been the destruction of Israel. In June 1974, the group introduced a new phased strategy whereby it would use whatever land Israel surrendered as a springboard for further territorial gains, until the "complete liberation of Palestine"--in other words the destruction of Israel--"could be achieved." Yet in November 1974, Yasir Arafat became the first non-head-of-state to address the U.N. General Assembly; and in 1975, the year Israel suffered the ultimate indignity of the Zionism-is-racism resolution, the PLO established another precedent when it was invited to sessions of the U.N. Security Council on the same basis as member states. In 1980, just weeks after Fatah, the PLO's dominant constituent group, had reiterated its objective of liquidating Israel, the European Community issued the Venice Declaration that called for the PLO's "association" with the political process. Given this history, it is hardly surprising that despite their official commitment to peace with Israel within the framework of the Oslo process, Arafat and his PLO successors have never truly abandoned their commitment to Israel's destruction. Instead they have embarked on an intricate game of Jekyll-and-Hyde politics, constantly reassuring Israeli and Western audiences of their peaceful intentions while at the same time denigrating the peace accords to their Palestinian constituents as a temporary measure to be abandoned at the first available opportunity. Neither this duplicity nor the war of terror launched in September 2000 seems to have much discredited the PLO as a peace partner in the eyes of the international community. Against this backdrop of six decades of international acquiescence in the face of constant calls for Israel's destruction Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have legitimate reasons to feel that he has been singled out a bit unfairly these last few days. Indeed, while the international community's uncharacteristically harsh response to his comments was certainly welcome, one wonders whether it was motivated by real concern for Israel's safety--or by the West's growing frustration with Iran's dogged drive toward nuclear weapons. Whatever the reason, we can all hope that the West will now take a stand against all those who call for the destruction of Israel. Otherwise, there will be only one lesson from this tawdry affair: that countries should feel free to advocate genocide against the Jewish people--as long as they aren't developing weapons that can be turned on London, Paris, or Moscow once they've finished the job in Tel Aviv.[/quote] i see where you're coming from, and i do not mean to start a pissing match at all, so i'll leave it be at this. just because others in history have stated their beliefs in their way, does not mean that the current iranian leader has done so in the same manner. whodey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 I can understand what you mean, but he is considered a hard-line isolationist amongst his followers, so common sense tells me he holds the same beliefs as leaders before him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.