Iran - DPChallenge Forums

02/20/2007 02:06:33 PM · #26

Matthew,

I think the thing you are missing here is that the American President doesn't want you dead just because you are not a Muslim. He doesn't make speeches every day about how he wants to destroy an entire country. The Iranian government is of the belief that the world must be in chaos for the infamous 12th imam to return to earth so they can all be saved. It would be interesting to see how you would handle this

The thing that simply amazes me about this is that you don't have to be in the CIA to know what they (the terrorists) are trying to do. Just a few minutes searching will get you hours of video of iot coming right out of their mouths. The Iranian president has stated flatly that he will annihilate Israel, then the west, in that order. They want you and me and all of our friends and family and children dead unless you believe as they do. This is not rocket science. They don't want to talk about it, you can't reason with them. You believe or you are dead.

I hope you feel the same way after they fire a nuclear laden rocket to Israel. When you see that mushroom cloud over that little country to the south of you, remember that you are on the list and are next. (you are closer then I am and it would be easy to wipe out London first) When it happens, rest assured the American men and women will be there to pull you out, as we do with all of our allies (time after time)

Even if you are ungrateful

Hopefully people like you not running anything because while you are still trying to figure out why you can't talk to these people, they will be nuking every country that is not of their faith. (Sounds a lot like that Hitler guy from the 30's and 40's, sure glad he never got a nuke)

Baron152

Canon EOS-40D

02/20/2007 02:29:51 PM · #27

Originally posted by jhonan:

[quote=theSaj][quote="jhonan"]
Iran has not stated that they intend to invade Israel, or that they intend to attack the US. Obviously any sovereign country has the right to defend itself if it is attacked.

Just as Iran would have the right to defend itself if it is attacked pre-emptively by either the US or Israel.

Johan,

Straight for tne mouth of the terrorist leader of Iran in Oct 2005

"Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day."

In Dec 2005,

"Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Last week, he also expressed doubt about the killing by the Nazis of six million Jews during World War II, but Wednesday was the first occasion when he said in public that the Holocaust was a myth.

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting."

April 2006,

"The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

I could go on, but why

02/20/2007 03:41:54 PM · #28

Originally posted by theSaj:

Problem with legality, is it's also subjective based on morals; with the added aspect that it's often influenced by $$$.

International laws tend to be developed at a a time when we wish to avoid making mistakes a second time. Morality as an excuse tends to be assessed when we are working out whether or not to avoid complying with the law.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I'd like to see a lot more solidarity from the international community against Iran. Which we're not seeing and not likely to see.

But what if the morality of the majority sees the threat against Iraq as immoral? Does the US have some exclusivity on moral assessment?

Originally posted by theSaj:

Is there anything more likely to get you shot in the back then continuing negotiating when the other party has no desire too?

It's not like we haven't been at the negotiating table before. Sometimes you have to walk away. Such negotiations are quite common in any market bazarre in the middle-east.

Remind me, which is the party that refuses to talk to the other on the basis that they are part of the axis of evil, and which is the party that says that it is willing to talk just as soon as the other is done with its local politics?

Originally posted by "theSaj":

And even more that have not. When diplomacy reaches a point where it is ineffective and one or more parties have no desire to negotiate than is ceases being useful...at least for the time being.

I don't even know how you could assess this. There are a million acts of diplomacy being carried out every day. Each of them is responsible in part for helping the world get along - war only ever happens when the normality, which is diplomacy, fails catastrophically.

Originally posted by theSaj:

One biased political speech designed to present one's side in the hopes of gaining sympathy for one's cause is only partial in it's ability to allow people to understand.

What does this mean? Are you saying that presenting a lucid presentation of one's opinion fails in some way, if you have any point of view at all? If you believe that speech is fundamentally incapable of passing information, no wonder that you cannot grasp the importance of communication in international relationships.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I read the article, it's a well present political speech. But I also pointed out a number of dualities inherent in it.

When/where?

Originally posted by theSaj:

I also questioned the use of certain one sided statistics. 65,000 jumpbed to 600,000 in a couple of decades. So were there always 1.5 millions arabs in Palestine? How many Arabs were in Palestine in 1918? How many in 1850?

Likewise, the Arabs are stating the past is no excuse. The fact that the Jews were there before means does not mean they are eligible to be there again.

When a displaced people who have no place go need a place to go. The likelihood, and not all that irrational choice, is to the place where they originally came from.

What do you mean? The place where their great great great (x20) grandfathers lived? Where do people "originally" come from? Why not the place before that, or the place before that?

Originally posted by theSaj:

The fact that the Arabs refused to share even half of a New Jersey sized piece of land that wasn't very populated to begin with. While numerous other Arab states have taken over much larger tracts of Palestinian land. Leaves one question why one is acceptable and the other is not.

Again - I am not sure I understand fully without any references. However, you continually speak in terms of nations. Think of people. When "your" land is taken away, where do you go - if you were turfed out of your home, could you go and "share" with your neighbour indefinitely?

You yourself are willing to fight, willing to defend your rights using a handgun, to protect "your" rights to *music* (even if you only ever bought a right to use it in specific ways) - think how you might feel if your family home, land, way of living, access to family and a thousand other perceived "rights" were taken away from you by a country invading by force in contravention of international law.

02/20/2007 04:02:58 PM · #29

Originally posted by theSaj:

The problem with illegal is that it's not always immoral. For example, the U.S. declaring war on Germany could have been considered considered illegal. Germany did not actually attack the U.S., Japan did. Sure they were allied.

This is factually incorrect (aside from the fact that the UN did not exist until after WWII). Germany first declared war on the United States four days after Pearl Harbour, and only then did the United States declare war with both Germany and Japan. The League of Nations (the precursor to the UN) was too weak and ineffective by 1941 to declare anything "illegal" by any nation.

02/20/2007 05:07:07 PM · #30

Originally posted by Baron152:

Straight for tne mouth of the terrorist leader of Iran in Oct 2005

No - that is a translation. Please look at the wiki previously referred to (by way of summary) for the issues over translation of Ahmadinejad's words.

While you probably disagree with his politics (as do I in various ways), please understand the difference between a terrorist and a democratically elected leader of a nation state with a different viewpoint.

02/20/2007 05:25:01 PM · #31

From the Wikipedia article:

"In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: 'But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away.' Bronner stated: 'So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question.'"

Ideologically, the Iranian president wants Israel to stop existing. There seems to be some subtle phraseological issues between "wiping off the map" and "wiping away", but I don't see how this position could be interpreted in any other way than an expressed wish for Israel to cease to exist in one respect or another.

02/20/2007 05:29:06 PM · #32

Originally posted by Baron152:

Matthew,

I think the thing you are missing here is that the American President doesn't want you dead just because you are not a Muslim.

Arguable - you are "either with us or against us" - I am against in large part, and therefore presumably part of the terrorist problem.

Originally posted by Baron512:

He doesn't make speeches every day about how he wants to destroy an entire country.

Well - he did about Iraq for a while (regime change is exactly the same as that which Iran calls for Israel), then he failed to take action to stop civilian destruction in Lebanon, he branded three states the "axis of evil", and so on.

Originally posted by Baron512:

The thing that simply amazes me about this is that you don't have to be in the CIA to know what they (the terrorists) are trying to do. Just a few minutes searching will get you hours of video of iot coming right out of their mouths. The Iranian president has stated flatly that he will annihilate Israel, then the west, in that order. They want you and me and all of our friends and family and children dead unless you believe as they do. This is not rocket science. They don't want to talk about it, you can't reason with them. You believe or you are dead.

Maybe part of the problem is that people swallow the information provided to them by their leaders without sufficient critical analysis.

Originally posted by Baron512:

When you see that mushroom cloud over that little country to the south of you, remember that you are on the list and are next. (you are closer then I am and it would be easy to wipe out London first) When it happens, rest assured the American men and women will be there to pull you out, as we do with all of our allies (time after time)

Even if you are ungrateful

Without wishing to be demeaning, I take from your basic misunderstanding of geography a certain lack of worldliness. As for your platitudes about being the world's rescuers, your history seems to be somewhat lacking (say, Vietnam - my tour guide in Vietnam was a south Vietnamese pilot who trained in Texas to fly fighters, but spent several years in a communist reeducation camp after the US retreat). As a general comment, if you cause the storm, you may not be so welcomed as rescuers.

02/20/2007 05:41:58 PM · #33

Originally posted by Louis:

Ideologically, the Iranian president wants Israel to stop existing. There seems to be some subtle phraseological issues between "wiping off the map" and "wiping away", but I don't see how this position could be interpreted in any other way than an expressed wish for Israel to cease to exist in one respect or another.

It is a far cry to call for the deconstruction of Israel, to claiming that this amounts to a call to genocide, or for nuclear or other military aggression. I agree that the statement is aggressive, but calling for the elimination of a state founded on Jewish religious principles (while hypocritical given the nature of Iranian constitution) is not quite the immediate threat that its translation makes it sound. It does not justify war.

Personally, I think that the creation of Israel was incredibly short sighted and represented massive self interest on the parts of mainly the British, but also the US and other allied states, in the 1920-50s. It is far better for religious people to be integrated into secular states, rather than for religious states to be created for them. Integration of Jews is what existed peaceably for thousands of years in the middle east - and what we have lost now. Israel as a concept is a backwards, retrograde step - it is founded on principles that we reject in other religious states. If reformed as a secular state with a state religion, it would be far less objectionable (as would Iran).

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

02/20/2007 05:54:18 PM · #34

Originally posted by Matthew:

Apparently history does indeed keep repeating itself...

02/20/2007 05:57:13 PM · #35

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Apparently history does indeed keep repeating itself...

Are you talking about the oppression of the Jews in Europe in the 1930s and 40s, and accusing me of being a sympathiser of the oppressors? Please don't mince your words.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

02/20/2007 06:02:03 PM · #36

You make a similiar argument to those before you.

Leader X says all the Jews have to go.

Armchair General says Leader X isn't really serious, just misunderstood and frankly the Jews are bringing it on themselves

Jews go up against the wall (or up the chimney).

Armchair General says 'oops, I was wrong'.

Pretty ludicrous characterization of Israel by the way. Lots of Christians live in the Jewish state. Lots of Muslims live in the Jewish state. Lots of secular folks claiming no religion live there. In that regard, it is a secular Western nation.

It is not founded on principals we reject in other states. It embodies many of the principles Western states espouse, which goes a long way towards explaining why people like the leadership of Iran would like to see if go away.

Message edited by author 2007-02-20 18:11:39.

02/20/2007 06:30:12 PM · #37

Originally posted by routerguy666:

If that was what was being said - vilification due to nationality or religion, then I would be against it (indeed that is what I am against). However, we are talking about a state established under religious principles. Calling for reform in respect of the Israeli state (in my case, predominantly in respect of the occupied territories, where oppression on religious and national grounds is systemic) is very very far from persecuting Jewish people for their religion.

Originally posted by routerguy:

Pretty ludicrous characterization of Israel by the way. Lots of Christians live in the Jewish state. Lots of Muslims live in the Jewish state. Lots of secular folks claiming no religion live there. In that regard, it is a secular Western nation.

Lots of Jewish people and Christian people live in Iran - if those are the only important qualifiers, then your assessment applies equally to Iran. However, I acknowledge that (other than in the occupied territories) Israel is at least nominally a secular state applying broadly Western principles.

Originally posted by routerguy:

It is not founded on principals we reject in other states. It embodies many of the principles Western states espouse, which goes a long way towards explaining why people like the leadership of Iran would like to see if go away.

While Israel may be a secular state (outside the occupied territories), xionism cannot be defended without dependance on the religious origins of the state's creation. If Iran called for the US to be turned over to it based on a religious claim to that territory, no doubt you would have similar reservations as the arabs (even though your ancestors have occupied the US for less than a quarter of the time that the arabs occupied Palestine).

Message edited by author 2007-02-20 18:31:18.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/20/2007 07:02:40 PM · #38

Originally posted by "Matthew":

I used to be known in these parts as legalbeagle

Honestly had I seen this the first time I wouldn't have bothered to reply. Your views on all things Jewish are well established, and it does not suprise me to see you side with someone calling for their eradication or, at least, trying to wrap his anti-semitism in the guise of reason and logic with which you wrap your own.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

02/20/2007 09:12:38 PM · #39

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by theSaj:
The problem with illegal is that it's not always immoral. For example, the U.S. declaring war on Germany could have been considered considered illegal. Germany did not actually attack the U.S., Japan did. Sure they were allied.

This is factually incorrect (aside from the fact that the UN did not exist until after WWII). Germany first declared war on the United States four days after Pearl Harbour, and only then did the United States declare war with both Germany and Japan. The League of Nations (the precursor to the UN) was too weak and ineffective by 1941 to declare anything "illegal" by any nation.

I retract my example in light of the corrected information. I did not realize that Germany had in fact declared war prior to the U.S. doing so.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/20/2007 09:40:59 PM · #40

Originally posted by "matthew":

Okay, in this regards I'll interpret it as follows. The U.N. was created to allow for dialog as well as precipitate action as necessary when dialog fails. So that a repeated of WWII would not occur. (In which diplomacy was continued far too long without action.)

As such, the U.N. has distanced itself since it's orgin and became extremely passive in nature. Preferring the like minded attitude of the League of Nations to do nothing to stop that which necessitates action.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Not all diplomacy is aimed toward the avoidance of war. It can be argued that every war is a failure of diplomacy. The fault of which may lie on either side or both sides.

Originally posted by "matthew":

*sighs*

*lights up a cigarette* (even though he doesn't smoke)

I imagine you would never use such an argument if a Republican was expressing his view point. In no way did I say he was not eligible to have his view points. Nor did I say that his entire speech was without basis.

But to try to declare it an unbiased statement and give it the weight of sola scriptura. You provided it as an argument for understanding. However, to provide a single side of the argument and declare it to be the necessary evidence is poor logic indeed.

So the fact that you are flipping out because I merely stated that there is a clear bias of concern on the part of the speech maker. I could easily find an Israeli speaker and you would likely claim that they were biased and not understanding the situation.

Sorry...to argue with me that King Abdullah's speech wasn't biased to his own cause is like arguing with me that the sky isn't blue and the grass isn't green. Sure there are exceptions. There may be facts. But the presentation is for the sole benefit of his cause and NOT an unbiased presentation.

Originally posted by "Matthew":

What do you mean? The place where their great great great (x20) grandfathers lived? Where do people "originally" come from? Why not the place before that, or the place before that?

Because, the vast majority of both Jews and Arabs in Palestine were immigrants who came in recent times. (Last 50-150 yrs)

That's what makes it relevant.

I made a number of points. For example, King Abdullah claimed the region was named after the Philistines. And had been so since before the time of the Jews. However, only a very small area along the coast was actually the land of the Philistines. And the land of Judea as a whole was not referred to such until the Romans did so as a slight to the Jews.

In fact, the Philistines were not even Arab. They are believed to be non-Semetic and possibly from the regions of southern Greece.

Originally posted by "Matthew":

No, but if I bought an acre of land from my neighbor and built my own house on it. That should be fine.

What you seldom here about Jewish settlements is that much of the land is actually purchased. Paid for...

Originally posted by "matthew":

You yourself are willing to fight, willing to defend your rights using a handgun, to protect "your" rights to *music* (even if you only ever bought a right to use it in specific ways) - think how you might feel if your family home, land, way of living, access to family and a thousand other perceived "rights" were taken away from you by a country invading by force in contravention of international law.

All fallacies in the above statement aside. There is a lot of land in Texas that is empty. If that was settled in then i wouldn't begrudge. And if the individual bought my neighbor's house I would not begrudge. But we don't hear it presented that way.

***

But let's talk population because that seems to be the biggest argument.

In the early 1900's there approx. 64,000-94,000 Jews living in Israel/Palestine. There were approx. 500,000-600,000 muslims. (Depending on who's figures you take. But it's a ballpark avg.)

In 1947 there wre 630,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Muslims. Both side added approx. 600,000 of it's members to the population.

Now, the other side of the coin seldom talked about. The expulsion of Jews from Arab lands. Many of which could trace their ancestry to being in said regions back before the dawn of Islam.

Jews in Arab lands have been reduced by more than 99% since 1948.

In the Arab nations the estimated population in 1948 was between 750-850,000+. As of 2001 there are less than 6,500 Jews in those lands. In addition, there were approx. 250,000 in other non-arab muslim nations (ie: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey) it's estimated that only 30,000-70,000 Jews remainin in those lands as well. And that was at 1948. How many of the 600,000 Jews in Israel during 1948 came from neighboring muslim countries?

So perhaps the Jews can give back Israel. And the Arabs can give back all the lands in their terriorities to the Jews. Or we can consider the exchange fairly even. Or better yet, decide to live in peace and harmony then it wouldn't really matter.

Israel has expressed interest in such repeatedly, I do not think I have ever heard a Palestinian or Arab to express unequivical interest in such a thought.

Often it is said that the only reason the Jews had to leave their muslims homes was because of the declaration of Israel. [Mind you, most of the Arab states declared their existence on or about the same time.] But that's not quite accurate. A large part of it was that Colonial Europe (Britain, France, etc) were pulling out of the region. This led to even less protection in certain regions.

In truth, the real issue at hand is $$$...

Israel has done what few of the Arab countries with all their oil have been able to do. Build a successful and diverse economy, including agriculture, technology, services. Compare the small oil-lacking state of Israel to any of the smaller muslim nations without the vast oil supplies. And the differences are nigh incomparable. I truly believe this is one of the largest reasons why there is so much anger - envy.

But all of this is seldom mentioned in the newspapers. And I am not sure if Matthew has ever once in all the discussions on this matter even acknowledged these facts. Yet, I am criticized for expressing that the speech of King Abdullah that Matthew linked to is a somewhat biased expression.

*shrug*

Originally posted by "matthew":

Arguable - you are "either with us or against us" - I am against in large part, and therefore presumably part of the terrorist problem.

Sometimes...I do wonder. But nah...I think you may be unwittingly aiding and abbetting but not intentionally. It's no different than picking up a hitch-hiker without knowing they just robbed a bank. You're not guilty of being an accomplice.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Yup...we Europenized and socialized. And look what happened. Now we don't like to do what needs to be done to get the job done. We bugger out and curse the poor souls to suffer because we're too selfish.

Hence, I believe we are obligated to every Iraqi to stick it through to the end.

Originally posted by "Matthew":

It is far better for religious people to be integrated into secular states, rather than for religious states to be created for them.

Actually the larger portion of Israel are supportive of a secular state. And in fact, they tend to have the controlling end of things.

Were it not so, and the religious controlled...do you really think a religious state of Israel would allow itself to be refused right of access to the Temple Mount?

Originally posted by "Matthew":

Integration of Jews is what existed peaceably for thousands of years in the middle east - and what we have lost now.

We who are naive need to read a bit more. Or re-define peaceably. As there are numerous accounts of violence against the Jewish people through out the middle-east. Sure there were periods of peace. Interspersed with periods of brutality and mass-murder. (Kind of like Europe)

I really would like to know your documentation of peace. Or is are you merely accepting Jordan's King Abudallah's speech at total face value. (No, we Arabs/Muslims never harmed a hair on a Jews head until 1948. Only Christians killed Jews.) Revisionist history is always fun.

Originally posted by "matthew":

Israel as a concept is a backwards, retrograde step - it is founded on principles that we reject in other religious states. If reformed as a secular state with a state religion, it would be far less objectionable (as would Iran).

If you're going to make such accusations. Please at least state the specific charges. It'd help for all to understand.

Many of your statements are made with a strong accusational stance that often hints at ethnic prejudice. Of which, you often criticize me for my comments regarding islamic fascism. But you make broadly without even limiting it to fascist elements.

Sometimes I do wonder if you're just stubborn or are in fact anti-semitic (anti-Jewish). Because you tend to be an apologist for almost everything that relates to Islam and Muslims but absolutely refuse to deliver the same courtesy or respect to the Israeli people.

That said, I take you at your word that you are not. And from personal dialogues, I don't think that's the case. I am hard pressed to understand why you do not consider the great many other factors in this entire situation. Nor why your level of condemnation is sorely focused on Israel. You're bending over backwards to give Iran and Abhminjad the benefit of the doubt and leaning forward enough to touch the proverbial toes in condemnation of Israel.

Please name me a single Muslim nation existant today that did not displace another group of people. The only difference is they are the controlling faction and have essentially eliminated any voices of dissent. This is easy to do when your methodology is "convert or die". However, since Israel chooses a secular stance and does not force it's inhabitants to convert. This is not the case.

Originally posted by "matthew":

While Israel may be a secular state (outside the occupied territories), xionism cannot be defended without dependance on the religious origins of the state's creation.

So is this the truth you're getting at Matthew? Are we going back to your hatred and dislike of religion and the blaming it of all the woes?

I am sure Karl Marx and Lenin would be quite in agreement with you. However, their religion free state is perhaps culpable for the most murders in history (possibly excepting the other communist non-religion preferred state, namely China).

So I find it quite hard to blame all the woes of the world and failures merely on religion. As those ideologically religion-free states seem to be plagued even worse than all but the most extreme religious states.

Originally posted by "matthew":

If Iran called for the US to be turned over to it based on a religious claim to that territory, no doubt you would have similar reservations as the arabs (even though your ancestors have occupied the US for less than a quarter of the time that the arabs occupied Palestine).

Funny you mention that, because islamo-fascists have made that claim for this nation. That said. If Native Americans moved into Manhatten buying up all the buildings and real-estate with their casino money.

I sure wouldn't see the justification for expulsion of all Native American tribes for their reservations. Nor would I think what they did was unfair.

If people in the Bronx & Queens decided that there were too many Native Americans buying up Manhatten and tried to push them all into New York Harbor but got their butts kicked. And the end result was that the Native Americans now controlled segments of both the Bronx and Queens. I wouldn't really condemn them. I mean, you start a fight and try to wipe them out...and lose. Ouch....but I'd feel the same way about it as I would when the bully picking on the nerd gets kicked in the balls, punched in the face and knocked unconscious. Not much sympathy.

References:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

02/21/2007 05:33:20 AM · #41

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by "Matthew":
I used to be known in these parts as legalbeagle

Honestly had I seen this the first time I wouldn't have bothered to reply. Your views on all things Jewish are well established, and it does not suprise me to see you side with someone calling for their eradication or, at least, trying to wrap his anti-semitism in the guise of reason and logic with which you wrap your own.

I thought that you were being unusually polite. Now you know, you can revert to name calling.

If you read what I write, rather than making things up, my criticism is of Israel, Israeli foreign policy, and the unfortunate and ill thought circumstances in which it was established. I don't have any ill feelings towards Jewish people, I don't wish to eradicate anything - I just wish to change the way that Israel operates and I support strongly the reversion to pre-67 borders (upon which the single biggest thorn in peace for the region would be removed).

When I lament the creation of Israel, it is because it resulted in the mass immigration of Jewish people to one region under zionism - as someone who does not believe in god, the idea of zionism is anathema. It has resulted in segregation and conflict, when previously there was integration and toleration.

I seem to end up defending the surrounding states, and criticising Israel, because no-one else here appears to be willing to take a balanced view. It seems as though citizens of the US believe that any criticism of the state of Israel is an attack on Judaism and anti-semitic. Possibly as a consequence of that, probably as a consequence of the "war" on terror (predominantly against Muslim states), the actions of Israel appear to go unchallenged. I am highly critical of Ahmadinejad, of the constitution of Iran, of the failure to control terrorist support by various muslim states. However - I don't need to raise these issues in order to create balance - though perhaps I should, given that critical analysis of the surrounding middle eastern states seems to be absent, replaced by hysterical prejudice and name calling.

FWIW - there does appear to be a significant divide in the way that middle eastern issues are presented and comprehended in different countries - in the UK, my view tends towards mainstream, rather than significantly pro-either side. In the US, the racial/religious prejudice against Muslims and arabs (which I am told by some people does not exist) is readily apparent.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/21/2007 07:03:07 AM · #42

Originally posted by theSaj:

Not all diplomacy is aimed toward the avoidance of war. It can be argued that every war is a failure of diplomacy. The fault of which may lie on either side or both sides.

In order for diplomacy to have a chance, nations need to speak to one another.

Originally posted by "theSaj":

But to try to declare it an unbiased statement and give it the weight of sola scriptura. You provided it as an argument for understanding. However, to provide a single side of the argument and declare it to be the necessary evidence is poor logic indeed.

I asked you to try to understand the point of view, even if you disagree with it. Of course the presentation is one-sided (though less so than many), but if you can manage to turn on your ability to empathise, you might better understand the position.

If you would refer me to a well written and reasonable discourse justifying the creation of Israel and its expansion, I would be pleased to read it to better understand the issues using my ability to empathise. I would not expect to agree with it in all respects, in the same way as I do not agree in all respects with the Abdullah statement.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Matthew":
What do you mean? The place where their great great great (x20) grandfathers lived? Where do people "originally" come from? Why not the place before that, or the place before that?

Because, the vast majority of both Jews and Arabs in Palestine were immigrants who came in recent times. (Last 50-150 yrs)

No - before the 1920s, Palestine was only ever referred to as a geographic area. Palestine as an independent state has only been recognised very recently. The people there were Jordanians, Syrians, etc - Muslims, Jews, Christians etc. There was not one "type" or nationality of occupier for the preceding 1800 years - it was not a relevant concept. In contrast, concentrated immigration of Jewish people to Israel occurred during the 1940s from other states.

Originally posted by theSaj:

What you seldom here about Jewish settlements is that much of the land is actually purchased. Paid for...

I would be interested to know more.

Originally posted by theSaj:

You assume that the occupied territories were empty before Israel occupied them - if you get the chance to travel there, you might realise that it is an area full of farms and olive groves.

Originally posted by theSaj:

In 1947 there wre 630,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Muslims. Both side added approx. 600,000 of it's members to the population.

It is not unreasonable to expect a population to double in half a century. The relevant figure is the relative percentage change.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Now, the other side of the coin seldom talked about. The expulsion of Jews from Arab lands. Many of which could trace their ancestry to being in said regions back before the dawn of Islam.

No - I agree with you. But the circumstance that made this possible was the existence of a new state to which Jews could be expelled (and the presence of which generated the impetus to expel). I don't condone it. I lament the segregation that it has caused. I don't support a call for reversion and reintegration, nor the dismantling of Israel.

Originally posted by theSaj:

So perhaps the Jews can give back Israel. And the Arabs can give back all the lands in their terriorities to the Jews. Or we can consider the exchange fairly even. Or better yet, decide to live in peace and harmony then it wouldn't really matter.

Israel has expressed interest in such repeatedly, I do not think I have ever heard a Palestinian or Arab to express unequivical interest in such a thought.

I agree with you - except in relation to the Israeli land grab in 1967 and the occupation of the surrounding territories. I think that this has been the consistent call of most Muslim and Western nations.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But all of this is seldom mentioned in the newspapers. And I am not sure if Matthew has ever once in all the discussions on this matter even acknowledged these facts.

They are not all facts. I understand your argument. I acknowledge fully that Jews have been persecuted (as have people of pretty much every other religion) and that there has been a historical unfairness (as I have done many times before).

I think that the creation of a separate state for Jews was a mistake, and that the occupation of the occupied territories is untenable (this is, after all, why they are called almost universally, the "occupied" territories). I don't think that historical unfairness justifies modern retribution or compensation.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "Matthew":
Integration of Jews is what existed peaceably for thousands of years in the middle east - and what we have lost now.

We who are naive need to read a bit more. Or re-define peaceably. As there are numerous accounts of violence against the Jewish people through out the middle-east. Sure there were periods of peace. Interspersed with periods of brutality and mass-murder. (Kind of like Europe)

I really would like to know your documentation of peace. Or is are you merely accepting Jordan's King Abudallah's speech at total face value. (No, we Arabs/Muslims never harmed a hair on a Jews head until 1948. Only Christians killed Jews.) Revisionist history is always fun.

I was not responding to you, but I will answer.

All kinds of people have been persecuted at different times for different reasons. Jews were persecuted - less so in the Middle East than Europe. I am not denying that (nor did King Abdullah) - but you appear to be ignoring the fact that most Jews, most of the time, lived peaceably alongside people of other religions.

If you were to travel to the region, you would still see Jews living peaceably side by side with Christians and Muslims, Christian city quarters and Jewish city quarters within Muslim cities. Nowadays, the Israeli position has increased tensions that did not exist in the same way beforehand and reverse immigration has decimated the Jewish populations.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Many of your statements are made with a strong accusational stance that often hints at ethnic prejudice. Of which, you often criticize me for my comments regarding islamic fascism. But you make broadly without even limiting it to fascist elements.

I criticise a nation state - you criticise arabs and muslims (and presumably now, persians). Whereas I confine my criticism to policies, constitution and a government, you attribute negative characteristics to a broad swathe of people based upon their religion, race or nationality. There is no "fascist" Israel for me to restrict my comments to.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I am hard pressed to understand why you do not consider the great many other factors in this entire situation. Nor why your level of condemnation is sorely focused on Israel. You're bending over backwards to give Iran and Abhminjad the benefit of the doubt and leaning forward enough to touch the proverbial toes in condemnation of Israel.

I did not start by criticising Israel - I started by criticising the United States for apparently presenting misleading evidence to justify a military invasion of Iran long before necessary and without any serious attempt at diplomatic resolution.

I said that I understood Israeli concerns, but consider the threat to be hyper sensationalised - and just because Israel is nervous (understandably so), it does not justify a pre-emptive strike in respect of a risk that is disputed and 5 years away from potential delivery. There are better solutions.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Please name me a single Muslim nation existant today that did not displace another group of people.[/quote

Please name me a single body of people that has not displaced another body of people. It is impossible - this is not something limited to muslims.

[quote=theSaj]Are we going back to your hatred and dislike of religion and the blaming it of all the woes?

I don't blame religion for all of the world's woes: the real issues are largely land and money. However, zionism is a form of religious fundamentalism - it is an example of the way in which religion is objectionable, as is any religious justification for terrorist acts. Without religion, or rather, with more rationalism, the world would be a better place.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I am sure Karl Marx and Lenin would be quite in agreement with you. However, their religion free state is perhaps culpable for the most murders in history (possibly excepting the other communist non-religion preferred state, namely China).

Are you asserting a connection between secularism and disregard for the lives of the citizenry? Isn't there a slightly more obvious connection? There are other communist countries that have similar great claims to fame (eg Cambodia, Vietnam).

Originally posted by theSaj:

Funny you mention that, because islamo-fascists have made that claim for this nation.

Not quite the same - but why do you resist? Why not hand them some of those empty parts of Texas that you said you wouldn't mind sharing?

Flash

Nikon D700

02/21/2007 09:28:04 AM · #43

Iran defiant

â��With the deadline running out, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been unable to verify Iran's program is wholly peaceful after three years of investigationsâ�¦â��

02/21/2007 09:30:50 AM · #44

Originally posted by Matthew:

It is a far cry to call for the deconstruction of Israel, to claiming that this amounts to a call to genocide...

Is there such a thing as nationcide? Anyway, I can't imagine that the president infers nothing less than the displacement of a population. Given the climate of anti-semitism in the middle east, it is only a small leap to conclude that he is suggesting genocide. Bold anti-Israel statements are at least alarming, considering his statements on the Holocaust, his hypocrtical comments concerning European history, and the buffoonery of "The International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust". The popularity of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in Iran and the middle east, where in some countries it has been taught to school children as historical fact since 1948, underscores the climate of dangerous anti-semitism. The road to genocide in such a climate, with such a president, is short indeed.

Does this in itself justify war? No. And I'm not sure that ranting and chest-beating would any longer be used by the United States as justification for war. Without provacative evidence of impending doom or actions that could not go unanswered, it seems unlikely that the US is going to war with Iran over these issues.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Personally, I think that the creation of Israel was incredibly short sighted and represented massive self interest on the parts of mainly the British, but also the US and other allied states, in the 1920-50s.

There's a certain truth to this. If one understands history and motive, and has the intelligence to review facts in a detached manner, the nicest thing that can be said about the creation of Israel is that it was problematic. There was certainly self-interest on the part of the allied nations, but also, European Jewish leaders had long eyed Palestine as a homeland. During World War II, while the German government mulled over the goofy Madagascar Plan, Jewish leaders pleaded to be deported to Palestine, but to no avail.

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 09:31:56.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/21/2007 10:12:08 AM · #45

Originally posted by Louis:

This is a popular perception - but it appears to me to be inaccurate. I am not able to translate myself, nor to judge the reliability of contrasting translations of the same speeches. However, statements (apologies for drawing these from a wiki - time constraints!) such as:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way

and

BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.

indicate that the approach advocated by Iran is a one-state approach, not a massacre or displacement of Jews (and incidentally not the creation of a new Palestinian state as desired by the Palestinians). While it may be objected to on all kinds of grounds (it certainly would not be the approach that I would favour), it does not appear to be as incoherent and bloodlusting as it has been made to sound - again, not justifying allegations of evil or pre-emptive war.

Originally posted by Louis:

The popularity of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in Iran and the middle east, where in some countries it has been taught to school children as historical fact since 1948, underscores the climate of dangerous anti-semitism. The road to genocide in such a climate, with such a president, is short indeed.

I understand and agree that anti-semitism is rife in the ME, and this extends to school teaching. Incidentally, there is a strong dose of prejudice going the other way, too.

I am not sure that the road to genocide is particularly short given the practical obstacles to any attempt - the idea that president Ahmadinejad would use nuclear force against Israel is predicated on him being a madman - he is bellicose, prejudiced, and obstructive, but I don't see him as frothing at the mouth/desperate to kill Jews from a fundamental hatred whatever the cost. I see him as a right wing politician, and the nuclear desire is comprehensible (if undesireable for everyone else) given the conventional and nuclear forces threatening Iran.

Originally posted by Louis:

I'm not sure that ranting and chest-beating would any longer be used by the United States as justification for war. Without provacative evidence of impending doom or actions that could not go unanswered, it seems unlikely that the US is going to war with Iran over these issues.

But in Iraq, this is exactly what happened - hence my initial concern.

MadMordegon

02/21/2007 10:50:13 AM · #46

This situation is a good example of United States abusive foreign policy coming back to bite us. This touches on the overall situation of why much of the Middle East is so basackwards and mentally still living in the dark ages.

Operation Ajax

In 1953 the United States CIA overthrew the democratically elected nationalist and western-educated Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh because he took steps to nationalize Iran's oil industry, which had been controlled by Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now called BP). Control was then given back to the Shah of Iran. To this day, Mossadegh is one of the most popular figures in Iranian history.

In March 2000 then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."

We reap what we so.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

02/21/2007 01:17:02 PM · #47

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by Louis:
The popularity of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in Iran and the middle east, where in some countries it has been taught to school children as historical fact since 1948, underscores the climate of dangerous anti-semitism. The road to genocide in such a climate, with such a president, is short indeed.

I understand and agree that anti-semitism is rife in the ME, and this extends to school teaching. Incidentally, there is a strong dose of prejudice going the other way, too.

I am not sure that the road to genocide is particularly short given the practical obstacles to any attempt - the idea that president Ahmadinejad would use nuclear force against Israel is predicated on him being a madman - he is bellicose, prejudiced, and obstructive, but I don't see him as frothing at the mouth/desperate to kill Jews from a fundamental hatred whatever the cost. I see him as a right wing politician, and the nuclear desire is comprehensible (if undesireable for everyone else) given the conventional and nuclear forces threatening Iran.

Is Ahmadinejad even really in charge? The "Supreme Leader", Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, well, supreme.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/21/2007 01:43:48 PM · #48

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Is Ahmadinejad even really in charge? The "Supreme Leader", Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is, well, supreme.

From my limited understanding, he's the regime's mouthpiece. The Supreme Islamic Council (the true rulers) accepts or rejects presidential candidates. Prior to the 2005 election, all moderates were rejected. Ahmadinejad, previously Tehran's mayor, shined because of his hardline politics.

Edit: removed uber-quoting

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 13:45:23.

Flash

Nikon D700

02/21/2007 03:47:56 PM · #49

Iran / US allies ???