It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What does this racist iranian poster mean?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Hey, I'm trying to find out why such religious extremism exists in that part of the world and find solutions to it that are more long-term. Maybe some of you are mistaken if you think this is not an open-ended discussion. I want to hear people's thoughts about the root cause of this problem. Instead, people seem to not want a discussion, but to attack others for their opinions and insert words in my mouth that I never said. I never said that we should all convert to Islam and I never said that Bush is the cause of all these problems and I never said that you guys were small minded and brainwashed. I explicitly stated what I thought were the cause of these problems and that it is the extremist Muslims who are brainwashed, yet, people only read what they want to and respond to elements that enable them to argue about something. Why does this have to be an argument, why can't it be a discusison instead?

Thomas, you are not a xenophobe, the choice of words was too strong and I apologize, noone deserves labels. My humblest apologies.


If you cannot win an argument, use the race card!

This coming from the man who starts a thread "What does this racist iranian poster mean?"


And to 27jd, I agree with your observation that we should not accept the extremist elements of their religion. There is a fine line between displaying one's identity and taking away the rights of another, and any custom, activity, or law should end when it starts alienating the rights of another.

Grady, I live in a different Manhattan, and my thoughts are that the dominant voices in America are neither African nor Islamic in origin.

Any more points of clarity?




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Well, ok. I'll bring my marbles back, then.
Actually, I've lost my marbles.


Seriously, I have to go to locate burnt animal flesh for lunch, so I really did need to leave out of the thread. Thank you for the nice apology, I whole heatily accept.
And, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for all the mean, nasty things I was thinking about you.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Instead, people seem to not want a discussion, but to attack others for their opinions and insert words in my mouth that I never said.


I think our point is that many of the people on these forums souly place blame on the US. My point, is that these people are dangerous and any concern we have is well placed.


I can't even express the frustration that all you xenophobes are causing me


Being seriously concerened about a madman who apparently wants to destroy the US is xenophobic?


This coming from the man who starts a thread "What does this racist iranian poster mean?"


Maybe racist was a bad choice of words. Perhaps anti-semetic or insane would have been a better choice.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by Dronetek]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I wasn't sure what everybody was getting bent out of shape over. I thought Xenophobe was a crappy video game from the '80s.


I'm still not sure I understand what that poster is trying to show.

Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I support Iran in all its rights to develop nuclear weapons for the purpose of being able to fulfill Mutual destruction between itself and any agressor.

If they do attack Israel and burn it down with a nuclear fire they will be destroyed as well. All of the other ancient cultures have been sucked down the fabric of time into history. Maybe it is time for these two ancient cultures, (Persian and Jewish) to take a hike as well and let the ideologies of modern human cultures and civilizations advance the world into a new era of human history.

The Chinese have already adapted to the new world thinking. The Arabs while they're internal politics may be slightly awkward for others to accept, they seem to get along better with the foriegn world. Indians are getting along fine.

Maybe once they have removed themselves from the world like civilizations of old, the world can make a united attempt at stabalizing Africa, where so many resources unknown wait to be discovered and where there is much more land than has not been developed can be used to grow so much food that few humans left in the world will go hungry.

The world continues to worry about these 2 pieces of land in the Middle East when there is a whole continent, second largest on the planet, which has no great ancient civilizations to identify with, except the Egyptians. The world continues to hand them weapons instead of education and encourages them to destabalize their societies. If we handed out as many books as we sell guns to the people of this continent, and built schools on a massive level to help them learn from the books we could breed a generation of humanity that would be able to take us into the future of mankind.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
And to 27jd, I agree with your observation that we should not accept the extremist elements of their religion. There is a fine line between displaying one's identity and taking away the rights of another, and any custom, activity, or law should end when it starts alienating the rights of another.


The problem though, is that quite a large portion of them are fairly extreme. In Pakistan, a father is pretty much able to slaughter his wife or children if he even thinks they may dishonor him in the future, and his punishment is financial restitution to the family. Only recently did that law change to where the father may face some jail time if the maximum punishment is ordered for his crimes. Many countries in that region have governments that base their authority on archaic, brutal religious fundamentalism.

It's easy to find the root of the problem, children see murder, brutality, etc. from birth, and are indoctrinated from the start. There is no choice for them, when the children start to grow older and more independent, they are not able to start looking for their own answers to life's questions, because they are afraid of what will happen to them if they do. They are ruled by fear, and those who live their lives in fear amidst violence either become passive and withdrawn (the reason you don't see alot of muslims speaking out against violence in those countries), or they become violent and respect only those who also dish out violence. It's human nature. Look at children who come from extremely abusive homes, either they are quiet and terrified their whole lives, or they only respect the abusive parent and grow up just like them. In both cases the child will have extreme trouble adapting to a normal, healthy relationship.

Wanna fix the problem? I guess you'll need to clone Dr. Phil, a billion times.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
DYeps, let us think about that for one split second, shall we?

What you are saying is that, regardless of the fact that Iran has made it clear that it has intentions of destroying Israel, is not in threat of being attacked for no good reason, and is a threat to not only the region but the security of the entire world, it should be allowed to develop nuclear weaponry.
Furthermore, you are saying that, because the Jewish people have been around for thousands of years, it is ok for them to be attacked for no good cause, and removed from the face of the earth.
You are seriously in need of assistance, I fear, or maybe you simply don't think thoughts very thoroughly before hitting the keyboard.
Since you don't care about the innocent people who don't live in your neighborhood, how about this; such a war would most probably drag the rest of the world down with it, and will probably effect someone very near and dear to you, if not even you.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Thomas Crown,

You may not sound xenophobic, but you do sound the slightest of a bit bigoted by stated that you're "I am not sending my kids to Tel Aviv with bombs strapped to them. I am not celebrating in the streets whenever someone's children are splattered on the sidewalk, markets, coffee shops or pizzarias. I am not the one who is calling for the destruction of a nation simply because it exists, and I am not the one who is chanting anti-(insert name of country here) chants because of a missile attack to kill terrorists struck houses in my anti-American, pro-bin Laden community. " All of this sounds nothing but propaganda so carefully spoon fed to the western nations readily as we prepare to justify a future invasion of these Middle Eastern Nations, which, in turn, will also greet us as liberators; which throws every pre-concieved notion that they abhored our culture, ideology, and generaly, everything about the west, right out the window; but, it won't matter at this time, the western public will simply 'forget.'

Exactly how is it that Muslims are a culture? A religious ethos does not constitute the definitive of a culture. The Iranian culture is tatamount to many reformed and democratic western nations and yes, this does include it's excessively deligerent leaders whome are not paramount to our own. We complain about Iranians funding --unsubstantialy, mind you-- foriegn terrorists simply becuase CNN dictates as such, or, we hear that Iranians are readily prepared to wipe Isreal off the map, however, what we don't hear, is that our own goverment decided to attack our own people to justifity an illegal war -- operation northwoods.

People seem to be lacking perspective, and more importantly, objectivety.




You don't live in the US, do you?

Oh, I see you claim to live in Manhattan.

You don't get out of the condo much do you?


I've wondered the same about you sometimes, then, however, I realize that it would be non-sensical to state this as it has nothing to do with the topic nor does it detract from anyones arguments.




Maybe racist was a bad choice of words. Perhaps anti-semetic or insane would have been a better choice.


How do you construe racism from that poster? You've nay analysed it, simply, walked into this thread with a pre-concieved notion of Anti-Iraniaism; the same token of bigotry you label of Iranians, you express yourself. Don't be a hypocrite; you sound fallacious in every mean.




The problem though, is that quite a large portion of them are fairly extreme. In Pakistan, a father is pretty much able to slaughter his wife or children if he even thinks they may dishonor him in the future, and his punishment is financial restitution to the family. Only recently did that law change to where the father may face some jail time if the maximum punishment is ordered for his crimes. Many countries in that region have governments that base their authority on archaic, brutal religious fundamentalism.


A large portion of Iranians are fairly extreme? Exactly how will you be substantianing this baseless remark? I do hope with statistical reports, or cultural non sequitur arguments? This is laughable, as laughable as you someone carry upon this culture, that of Pakistans as if it's remotely similiar, or somehow, based upon the simple principle. Nay have you realized that both cultures and regions of the world have attempted to free themselves from burdens of two seperate entities, and each society normality is relative therein.

As for other countries in that region -which would obviously included India and Saudi Arabia-- which are exclusive of American support, and which are inclusive, and of those, which are also brutual monarchies or dictatorships; and which are democracies?

Your view of extremisim stems from your ignorance of societal norms in Pakistan which does not construe the morality of honour killings, but at the same time, dictate that you find this to be an accepted normality in Pakistan and surrounding cultures, something which it is not.




It's easy to find the root of the problem, children see murder, brutality, etc. from birth, and are indoctrinated from the start.


I was never aware that children are indoctrinated from murders, brutality, and other such variables you propose. In actuality, one cannot be indoctrinated, as this term constitutes a level of education to be habituated into the acceptence of murder and brutality as a normality, and if this is so, then you're statement that they are human is not correct, as you clearly junction between the western world and that of thiers; you've stated, blatantly, that the choices these persons make are due to their violent nature and enviroment, which states that the more phenomenal violent nature that takes place in the United States of American must occur on conclusions of another, human, reason which is exclusive of America's brutal and violent history. You're starting to sound a bit confusing with your sociology of these people.




They are ruled by fear, and those who live their lives in fear amidst violence either become passive and withdrawn (the reason you don't see alot of muslims speaking out against violence in those countries), or they become violent and respect only those who also dish out violence. It's human nature. Look at children who come from extremely abusive homes, either they are quiet and terrified their whole lives, or they only respect the abusive parent and grow up just like them. In both cases the child will have extreme trouble adapting to a normal, healthy relationship.


No, it's due to the fact that many of those Muslims are disconnected that the west impies as a normality in those countries, not becuase they are conceptualy habituated or indoctrinated into the acceptence of such violence.

Your entire argument is non sequitur. Those raised under violent premises and conditions are not wholly accountable to your assessment. Your administration of postulate nature about these people is unjustified in analysis. As for your statement that they become either violent -deliquent- in nature, or passive, does not include the numerous examples of those who have chosen the side of diplomacy, or even rational choices made my persons; rational choice theorists propose that delinquents/diplomacy are meditated between possible outcomes of an act of delinquency/diplomacy in consequentiality; if I were to engage in ‘x’ activity with ‘y’ outcome, what are the odds that ‘x’ activity will subsequently lead to ‘y’ outcome; and of this ‘y’ outcome, what are the chances of greatest risk and rewards of ‘x’ activity. This is exclusive of this so-called indoctrination which you tout as axiomological. If anything, it just sounds bigoted upon your part. As Americans would pity upon Africans centuries back as savages with no soul nor sense of ethics and morality.

And to think, i'm just starting to discourse here...

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
I found this poster today and I just wondered what the Iranian apologists have to say about it.

To me, it looks like take down American first, than Israel will follow. Note this was the poster from their holocaust denial conference.





Imagine the uproar is Bush gave a speech with the same poster, but replacing the us and Isreali balls in to Africa and a cresent moon.


I guess someone on this message board is offended by this because of their ethnic background, it's funny, but last time I checked, there is a lot of racism towards the "terrorist" arab people, esspecially from the Jewish people.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Has anyone translated the stuff at the bottom of the image? Just wondering what it says.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Well, if the poster wasn’t from Iran I could possibly understand why some of you would have a hard time understanding its meaning, however since it is from Iran's government the meaning should be crystal clear.

For those in denial of the poster, and for those apparently incapable of comprehending basic symbolic meaning, let me help you out.

The poster is trying to tell us that the US and Israel have to be destroyed so the world can be rid of them.

Comprende?

[edit on 25-1-2006 by WestPoint23]


Dae

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

For those in denial of the poster, and for those apparently incapable of comprehending basic symbolic meaning, let me help you out.

The poster is trying to tell us that the US and Israel have to be destroyed so the world can be rid of them.

Comprende?


Hmm, dont think I totally agree with you there, it says, "A world without Zionisim" and my guess on the symbolisim would be "is a world without USA and Israel". Its a common expression, " A world without blah blah is a world without blah blahs."

Innit.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
A large portion of Iranians are fairly extreme? Exactly how will you be substantianing this baseless remark?


I never said I was focusing on Iran in my remark, but the muslim community in general. Young liberal Iranians are a minority in the Islamic population as a whole. And why exactly would I need to substantiate anything for you? Either agree or disagree, I couldn't care less. Your asking for "substantiation" is nothing but a pathetic sham. Is there really any substance I can provide to change your views? I think not, that and the fact I don't care what you believe make it a pointless endeavor.



This is laughable, as laughable as you someone carry upon this culture, that of Pakistans as if it's remotely similiar, or somehow, based upon the simple principle. Nay have you realized that both cultures and regions of the world have attempted to free themselves from burdens of two seperate entities, and each society normality is relative therein.


What is laughable, or maybe just sad, I haven't decided yet, is how little sense is made by what you have stated above. I have no idea how to respond, because I have no real idea what the heck you meant. In fact, I feel a bit dumber now myself, having read it.



As for other countries in that region -which would obviously included India and Saudi Arabia-- which are exclusive of American support, and which are inclusive, and of those, which are also brutual monarchies or dictatorships; and which are democracies?


I never once said I agree with America supporting any of them, go back and read where I said the WORLD has FAILED in making sure everybody everywhere gets a fair shot.



Your view of extremisim stems from your ignorance of societal norms in Pakistan which does not construe the morality of honour killings, but at the same time, dictate that you find this to be an accepted normality in Pakistan and surrounding cultures, something which it is not.


Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Any? At all?


"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."
Hina Jilani, lawyer and human rights activist

Women in Pakistan live in fear. They face death by shooting, burning or killing with axes if they are deemed to have brought shame on the family. They are killed for supposed 'illicit' relationships, for marrying men of their choice, for divorcing abusive husbands. They are even murdered by their kin if they are raped as they are thereby deemed to have brought shame on their family. The truth of the suspicion does not matter -- merely the allegation is enough to bring dishonour on the family and therefore justifies the slaying.
web.amnesty.org...







I was never aware that children are indoctrinated from murders, brutality, and other such variables you propose. In actuality, one cannot be indoctrinated, as this term constitutes a level of education to be habituated into the acceptence of murder and brutality as a normality, and if this is so, then you're statement that they are human is not correct, as you clearly junction between the western world and that of thiers; you've stated, blatantly, that the choices these persons make are due to their violent nature and enviroment, which states that the more phenomenal violent nature that takes place in the United States of American must occur on conclusions of another, human, reason which is exclusive of America's brutal and violent history. You're starting to sound a bit confusing with your sociology of these people.


They are indoctrinated into the religion, and also witness attrocities from birth, sorry if I confuse you, but that doesn't seem too hard to believe by reading your posts. Sure America is a violent society, but kids are NOT gathered around the public square to watch executions regularly, now are they? Most violence takes place at night, away from the eyes of children, not intentionally in front of them. Your pathetic attempt to utilize the grammar of a seemingly intelligent individual is failing miserably, and you are missing every point I was trying to make.




No, it's due to the fact that many of those Muslims are disconnected that the west impies as a normality in those countries, not becuase they are conceptualy habituated or indoctrinated into the acceptence of such violence.

Your entire argument is non sequitur. Those raised under violent premises and conditions are not wholly accountable to your assessment. Your administration of postulate nature about these people is unjustified in analysis. As for your statement that they become either violent -deliquent- in nature, or passive, does not include the numerous examples of those who have chosen the side of diplomacy, or even rational choices made my persons; rational choice theorists propose that delinquents/diplomacy are meditated between possible outcomes of an act of delinquency/diplomacy in consequentiality; if I were to engage in ‘x’ activity with ‘y’ outcome, what are the odds that ‘x’ activity will subsequently lead to ‘y’ outcome; and of this ‘y’ outcome, what are the chances of greatest risk and rewards of ‘x’ activity. This is exclusive of this so-called indoctrination which you tout as axiomological. If anything, it just sounds bigoted upon your part. As Americans would pity upon Africans centuries back as savages with no soul nor sense of ethics and morality.


Oh my god do you have it wrong, I clearly said it was human nature, and that Americans raised in such conditions turn out the same. When did I once say they were savages with no souls? Also, maybe you would share when you obtained your education in psychology, because as a parent who has attended parent education classes, I learned about the two basic ways children mature in those situations. Of course there are certain variables, but those are the two major types of behavior, as accepted by the psychology community, but obviously not by Luxifero, so I suppose I wasted my time listening to all those pesky "experts".



And to think, i'm just starting to discourse here...


I really hope so, because so far your "discourse" is way "off course".




[edit on 25-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Hmm, dont think I totally agree with you there, it says, "A world without Zionisim" and my guess on the symbolisim would be "is a world without USA and Israel". Its a common expression, " A world without blah blah is a world without blah blahs."


Not all Israelies, and certainly not all Americans are Zionists.

While Israel, and America are the biggest Zionist nations it is the foriegn policies at issue.

Zionism is an ism like terrorism.

Zionism is Anti-Arab.

You do not have to wipe out all the people to get rid of the extremism.

They would love to see America end its Zionism and end the extremism.


Dae

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Not all Israelies, and certainly not all Americans are Zionists.

While Israel, and America are the biggest Zionist nations it is the foriegn policies at issue.

Zionism is an ism like terrorism.

Zionism is Anti-Arab.

You do not have to wipe out all the people to get rid of the extremism.

They would love to see America end its Zionism and end the extremism.


I was giving my view on what I thought the poster meant, not my views personally
But this reminds me of something I heard, "You dont have to be jew to be a zionist, but it helps" a spin from the "You dont have to be mad to work here, but it helps"



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Zionism is Anti-Arab.


What? I dont think so.

Here’s what Wiki says about Zionism.


Zionism is a political movement and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation is believed to have originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed at various times in history. While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe.

Zionism


So for Iran to say a world without Zionism would be just another way to say a world without a Jewish state.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Well, the image is of an Hourglass. Sand spills from the top to the bottom and represents time gone by. They imply that the USA is a grain of sand, its time spent since it's fallen to the bottom. Broken as it fell. Israel, another grain of sand, falling down to join the USA.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I thinking the meaning of the poster is clear without anyone translating the arabic test.

The fall and the destruction of the US would lead to the fall of Israel.

I mean they wanted us to get the picture Notice the big words in English "The world without Zionism" English isnt exactly the native language in Iran. Imagine Bush giving a speech with a huge poster with giant letters in arabic saying "A world without Islam" No matter the picture or subtext the message would be pretty clear.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Of course the poster is presenting the image that the world will be in harmony without America and Israel which is perceived relating to Zionism, that many of the world's troubles, especially Muslims have been linked ot Zionism.
Whatever.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
If that poster was printed in America it would feature Iraq and Iran as the dropping balls and some line like "A World without Terrorism" and be touted as the patriotic symbol of 'freedom'. Put that poster next to this one and show someone outside America which one seems worse and you'll get a majority pointing to Americas version - US Patriotism against the middle east is looked at no differently than middle eastern patriotism against the US and Iran. Both look like war for many and rewards for few.

This is called the view of the other side, something Americans never seem to understand.

Obviously the poster suggests there would be a world of peace (they probably only mean in their region) without America and Isreal and i would suggest that comes from the precieved military threats towards Iran in this sprint towards peak oil and a global energy crisis.

Racist? No.
Different view point? Yes.

This is why there will be a war soon - a 'showdown' really.
Both sides think they are right and both sides think the answer is destorying the other since no one has bother trying a different option that looks forward (but why do that when fossil fuel is such a great stock option?).

Fact is thou, Iran can't strike first without being completely wiped out so to them, they are the prey and America (wanting the oil) and Israel (wanting the power) are the hunters.

If you get your US flag knickers in a knot over that then you have blinders on and some big surprised in the future - here's a tip, i wouldn't buy that big SUV you have your eye on no matter how discounted they get and what tax breaks your offered (not unless you want to fuel it with more dead bodies).



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join