Am I the only one who agrees with Iran?

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by FlyersFanyes Iran is a threat to the US. It's also a threat to many other nations. The leader of that country has said many times what his intent is and he has said this publically and LOUDLY. Wipe certain countries off the planet and attack others. That's his motto.

MEMRI, anyone?? I hear Rich23 mentioning that organisation almost every day. Did the Iranian president actually say those words, or was it an invention by MEMRI???

So you postulate that the Iranian president is really a peaceful man, and all the bad things he says are lies developed by MEMRI? Do you really think Mehr, Iranian Voice, or al-Jazeera send their coverage to MEMRI before it's transmitted to our networks?

You ever been to the middle east? I have, 26 months spend mainly in Baghdad, Ramadi, and Kirkuk. 90% of middle-eastern arabs hate Israel. The Iraqis hate Israel. The Iranians in Iraq hate Israel (and there's plenty of Iranians in Iraq; they are there unofficially, and it's a toss-up as to whether they're organized or not. They are careful not to wear Hezbollah colors). Many soldiers going to Iraq are taught to say a few words in both standard Meso-Arabic (Iraq's primary language) and Farsi (Iran's primary langauge). Some of the words we learned are "Christian", and "Not Jewish". Because if you're captured and you're Jewish, you're dead.

The point I'm making is, you sit in your comfy chair and expect your speculations to be taken seriously, without knowing the reality of the situation. Is the government straightforward with us? Hell no. But there's a serious leap between recognizing that, and assuming every shred of international input we hear is a carefully manufactured lie. If that were the case, it would be logical for me to consider you an agent of disinformation, since you have not proven otherwise. But in that way lies madness.

When the US invaded the island of Okinawa, Japanese civilians made suicide attacks on US forces.

Was that hapening in united states?NO

It was estimated that the invasion of Japan would cost the Allies 1 million casualties and the Japanese at least 5 million. The atomic bombs proved to the Emperor of Japan that his people had lost the war. When he called for them to surrender he prevented those 5 million Japanese casualties.

The war was lost any way, the only time when japan managed to atack on us soil
was on pearl harbor.
The chances of japan atacking us soil at the time the bomb was droped wass 0% and that procentage is very acurate,but ohh well they droped the bomb and killed people in mass, children , old people were killed, and thanks to that nuke people are still boren with disorders many of them have cancer, so yes thanks for saving them.

An inciendiary attack on Tokyo created a firestorm that killed almost as many people as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

that atomic bomb killed more than you think, many people died after, people are dieing today from it, and people will continue to die from it, the atomic bomb comes in the form of cancer I guess , it kills many on spot, and it will kill many after, radioactivity go's away hard.

At the time of their surrender the Japanese were still in control of Manchuria and it's Chinese population. At the time of their surrender Japan was preparing to launch balloons carrying bacterialogical weapons at the US mainland. There were plans in progress to launch a plane from a submarine to contaminate the water supplies of several West Coast cities.

The only time japan was able to strike was on the date it struk pearl harbor and that is it, and all that with the knolege of the white house knowing what is going to hapen and not preventing it.

Immediately after 9-11 not too many US citizens would have complained if we had nuked someone.

But he did consider using nuclear capabilities right after 911, that tells me all I need to know, even thinking of nuking a country , the man must be insane.

Ok so I'll address your Pearl Harbor comments.
From what you posted I guess that any country except for the US has the right to attack any place that the US leaves undefended. I don't care if Roosevelt sent an engraved invitation to Japan inviting them to attack Pearl Harbor. They still chose to attack it and almost every place else in the Pacific. Face the facts. Japan saw that Europe was busy with the Germans and didn't have the resources to defend their interests in the East. Their attack was just a greedy land grab to expand their empire, nothing more. The US Navy was the only thing that could have possibly stood in their way, so they attacked Pearl Harbor to remove that threat.

yes they atacked with the knolege of the us goverment knowing what is going to hapen and not preventing it, birocracy was to blame, but clasified documents later relised proved the contrary, they knew exactly where and when.
United states was hardly capable of reciving a hit on it's soil, exept for the so called sneak atack, there was no war in united states, the use of nuclear weapons
was not necesary at the time, it was a call so they can see it in motion more as a experment on people.

Let Iran have it's nukes. If they mean what they say there won't be a problem. I'm betting that they don't. When they pop one off let them get what's coming to them. If I was Europe right now I'd reconsider my views. Their current missiles can reach Europe, they can't reach the US.

I would not worry about their nuclear capability, or are they going to shoot with their power plant? maybe drop one of their reactors when they are above europe,
europe does not need to reconsider, in fact iran has nothing with europe, europian nations are always in contact with the iranian president, negociations for economic trading are going to be booming in the future, in stead of making enemies why not make friends, so we can get that cheap oil in europe, anbd all this not by making war and by taking everything with force, but by making bussines with the middle east, better to make friends than enemies, No one dies, you get what you want, everyone is happy.



[edit on 5-9-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by rich23
I have to say that the response to this thread is, in general, living down to my expectations.

Ahhh....rich23 how ya been?

I have thought long and hard on this, and I believe I have a suitably question for you.

Yes the war in Iraq is messed up, and I don't think that my government is being completely honest about it ( I think it was a combination of bad intel and the wish for a base of operations/friendly Arab country to help spread a pro-west message).

But my question is, how does the mistakes of George Bush equate into Iran having an un-checked nuclear development? This is the point I want you to address. If you want to talk about the mistakes made in Iraq, I got a few for you, but this is not the topic. The entire world is concerned with Iran's nuclear development, and their actions are not helping ease anyones stress.

Nuclear development is like the security line in an airport, you don't mess around in it.

Oh and PS

when someone makes a stupid remark, just ignore them, it makes everything easier.

Originally posted by Astygia


So you postulate that the Iranian president is really a peaceful man,

Did you read my post?? Did I say that he's a peaceful man? No... If I tought he was peaceful, I would've said it... don't you think

and all the bad things he says are lies developed by MEMRI?

That's what I'm asking. I'm not 100% sure whether MEMRI did the translation before it reached the western media. It seems like that though, and that's just my opinion.

Do you really think Mehr, Iranian Voice, or al-Jazeera send their coverage to MEMRI before it's transmitted to our networks?

Of course I may be wrong. But it looks that MEMRI translates the coverage of those stations and that most the Western media use that as their source. Not that they send their stories to Memri to be translated.

And yes, I know that the majority of people living in the Middle East hate Israel. You don't have to tell me that.

It seems like it is an uphill battle just to clarify That Iran didn't really threaten to wipe Israel off the map. It was a propaganda hoax!
it was a mistranslated statement (intentionally)

but boy, does that lie get some mileage...

Now we know what we need to do...

THE NEOCONS WANT TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP... I read it in a paper...

now discuss...

Well, from viewing some posts in this thread, it is apparent that the US is not the only country with a failing educational system.

Iran can make nukes to their hearts content...all they need to do is give 60 (or is it 90) days notice before withdrawing from the NPT.

Also the technology availible today for creating nuclear power is much safer when light-water reactors are used. The spent fuel can not be used to produce weapons.
So why is Iran bothering with heavy water reactors when other countries offered to give iran light water reactors?

Why is Iran blocking IAEA access to selected nuclear sites?

Why doesn't Iran withdraw from the NPT? (north Korea did before saying they had developed a nuke)

What would people here suggest happen to Iran if it made nuclear weapons without
withdrawing from the NPT?

Whats a neocon?
Some new word for a part of an american political party or something? Just want to know what you mean before I have a chance to look into it.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
It seems like it is an uphill battle just to clarify That Iran didn't really threaten to wipe Israel off the map. It was a propaganda hoax!
it was a mistranslated statement (intentionally)

Source (other than someone's blog) please.

Originally posted by donk_316
Irans president... wants to have a debate with Bush Jr...

How would that work out? One doesn't speak english and a translator would be required for the other.

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Did you read my post?? Did I say that he's a peaceful man? No... If I tought he was peaceful, I would've said it... don't you think

That's what I'm asking. I'm not 100% sure whether MEMRI did the translation before it reached the western media. It seems like that though, and that's just my opinion.

Of course I may be wrong. But it looks that MEMRI translates the coverage of those stations and that most the Western media use that as their source. Not that they send their stories to Memri to be translated.

And yes, I know that the majority of people living in the Middle East hate Israel. You don't have to tell me that.

Al-Jazeera and Mehr broadcast directly network affiliates in Lebanon, which are then broadcast to the United States (those two stations are forbidden from broadcasting directly to American media due to the usually explicit and violent content). Iranian Voice is a hardline media outlet that deals mainly with fundamental (read: extremist) Islamic topics, and is completely banned from the US. MEMRI does not intercept and translate everything going to our media. No disrespect intended, but I'd like to know how it "seems" that way to you.

The reason for my explanation of things there was that people seem to think that Iran doesn't "really" hate the Jews, or anything else, and it's all some big misunderstanding. The hatred many Middle-Eastern Muslims have for Jews is deeply historic and cultural, not something we can sum up or debunk in a few paragraphs.

Ahmadinejad: Supporters of Israel will face wrath of Islamic ummah

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned countries or leaders who have taken measures to acknowledge the Zionist regime under pressure or due to lack of sound understanding that they will be confronted with the wrath of the Islamic ummah and will forever be disgraced. Speaking at a conference dubbed "World without Zionism" here Wednesday which was attended by thousands of students, he said any country which acknowledges the Zionist regime will actually be acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. Ahmadinejad referred to the Zionist regime's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of Palestinian territory and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel. Pointing to the evil attempts of the US and Israel to saw discord among warring forces in Palestine and other parts of the Islamic world, the president said such attempts were aimed at forcing some Islamic countries to acknowledge the existence of Israel. .

External Source
Make of this what you will...
Presendecy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran's president is alot more intelligent than Bush and he does speak well and makes valid points. I am defo on Iran's side, how dare Bush threaten the Iranian people

Dognooz song for Iran
video.google.com...

Originally posted by donk_316
I just read a report on the recent visit of Irans president while he was in Malaysia and he makes some very valid points about

TEHRAN, Iran -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the UN Security Council as Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with U.S. President George Bush on world issues.
The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.
"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.
"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.
Ahmadinejad rejected any suspension of enrichment, even if UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked for it during an upcoming visit to Iran.
"The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path. ... No one can prevent it," he said.
Iran last week responded to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program. Iranian officials said the Islamic country did not agree to halt enrichment -- the key demand -- before engaging in further talks. continues

And the fact he wants to have a debate with Bush Jr is awesome..Ofcourse the blundering baboon would never agree to it as he obviously could string enough words together to HAVE a debate. but i digress.

the report i read:
ctv.ca

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by sanctum]

Mod Edit: CAP title

[edit on 3-9-2006 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by pepsi78

The war was lost any way, the only time when japan managed to atack on us soil
was on pearl harbor.

This statment is also not correct.
The Japanise invaded the Alute islands during WW2 and held them for a time.

Iran has repeatedly called for TV debate with US,

they demand dialogue in the open so that all the people can hear what all sides have to say.

US should be rushing to accept such an invitation.

Iran accuses US of lies and spin on the nuclear issue. They claim BUSH has no evidence for what he says. He is only scaring the american public into supporting Iran invasion. They say US is trying to create fear in minds of public to justify their next military attacks.

Iran accuses the Israeli onwed US media of brainwashing the public.

Wars are ignited to keep arms trade making trillions of dollars.

Iran's own news media:

www.tehrantimes.com...

www.irna.ir...





[edit on 5-9-2006 by mr conspiracy]

Originally posted by rich23
Good luck with this thread. If it takes off you'll get a lot of people wanting to take you on.

I had quite a good go with a thread asking WHY Iran is a threat to the US... when you ask people to come up with solid evidence, it's easier to see that there's very little solid stuff to go on. It's mostly propaganda and repetition...

Not really, the problem is that people like you don't want to believe the facts, you prefer to believe "it is all propaganda" even when it comes from the horse's mouth.... shame on you, you should be "denying ignorance", not embracing it.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by golddragnet
Iran's president is alot more intelligent than Bush and he does speak well and makes valid points. I am defo on Iran's side, how dare Bush threaten the Iranian people
..................

I usually read people making claims that the U.S. president can't speak english, etc, etc, etc, yet usually those same people don't have a basic understanding of the English language and their grammar sucks. I guess it is some kind of projection of themselves these people keep proclaiming...

BTW, when someone says that a political figure is intelligent and that political figure is looking for the extermination of a nation, stating so several times to the world...all i have to say is... How can people be that naive...this man is intelligent because he wants the destruction of another nation?....

Anyways...this is one article from the Middle East but i am certain some will try to claim "it is propaganda"....

2 - 9 November 2005
Issue No. 767
Region

When he said Israel should be "wiped off the map", it is not clear that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was aware of the fallout the statement would generate. The president's words have caused a storm of criticism and made headlines worldwide.
.............
Reformists, however, are not happy. Former president Mohamed Khatami criticised Ahmadinejad, saying, "those words have created hundreds of political and economic problems for us in the world," the Iranian news agency (IRNA) said. According to some reports, senior officials in the reformist camp have hinted that Ahmadinejad may have not been fully aware of the impact of his speech, which he addressed to a domestic audience of conservative Iranian students at a routine conference in Tehran ahead of the pro-Palestinian rally of Jerusalem Day, which always takes place on the last Friday of Ramadan. Some have begun to wonder whether Ahmadinejad has the political wisdom or acumen to lead Iran at such a crucial juncture.

Ahmadinejad himself refused to back down. He took part in Friday's rally and cheered by hundreds of thousands of supporters, insisted on his comments saying, "my words were the Iranian nation's words." He has also reportedly recalled the Iranian ambassador to Moscow as a result of his statements downplaying Ahmadinejad's comments.

While it is not uncommon for senior Iranian officials to criticise Israel, Ahmadinejad's comments, coming at a time of international suspicion regarding Iranian intentions, are likely to confirm fears that the recently elected president is reverting to a hard-line foreign policy. Over the preceding eight years of President Khatami's moderate style of government, reformists adopted a successful policy of reconciliation with both the West and the Arab world. During Khatami's era, Iranian officials stated more than once that they would accept what the Palestinians would agree to; a stance regarded at the time as a softening of Iran's position, leaving the path open for a two-state solution.

Ahmadinejad's defiant comments seem anything but pragmatic, leaving analysts with raised eyebrows as to their ultimate meaning. The timing of the comments is also significant, coming weeks before a crucial meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), from which Iran may be referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Adding fuel to fire, Ahmadinejad also said Sunday that, "Iran will not return to a full freeze of its disputed nuclear fuel activities," and that "Western demands for such confidence-building measures are unacceptable."

According to Iranian analyst Mohamed Sadeq Al-Husseini, Ahmadinejad's comments might well represent as a clear and bold message that Iran, unlike Syria, has decided that "attack is the best policy of defence." The message, according to Al-Husseini is that "Iran will not give up its legitimate right regarding peaceful nuclear activities." Al-Husseini argues that the message is not only directed at the US, "which is trying hard to curtail Iranian diplomacy [in its endeavour to reach a peaceful solution]," but also European negotiators, "which Tehran believes have procrastinated [in nuclear negotiations] and thus deserved to be blamed."

weekly.ahram.org.eg...

Originally posted by Astygia

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by FlyersFanyes Iran is a threat to the US. It's also a threat to many other nations. The leader of that country has said many times what his intent is and he has said this publically and LOUDLY. Wipe certain countries off the planet and attack others. That's his motto.

MEMRI, anyone?? I hear Rich23 mentioning that organisation almost every day. Did the Iranian president actually say those words, or was it an invention by MEMRI???

So you postulate that the Iranian president is really a peaceful man, and all the bad things he says are lies developed by MEMRI? Do you really think Mehr, Iranian Voice, or al-Jazeera send their coverage to MEMRI before it's transmitted to our networks?

You ever been to the middle east? I have, 26 months spend mainly in Baghdad, Ramadi, and Kirkuk. 90% of middle-eastern arabs hate Israel. The Iraqis hate Israel. The Iranians in Iraq hate Israel (and there's plenty of Iranians in Iraq; they are there unofficially, and it's a toss-up as to whether they're organized or not. They are careful not to wear Hezbollah colors). Many soldiers going to Iraq are taught to say a few words in both standard Meso-Arabic (Iraq's primary language) and Farsi (Iran's primary langauge). Some of the words we learned are "Christian", and "Not Jewish". Because if you're captured and you're Jewish, you're dead.

The point I'm making is, you sit in your comfy chair and expect your speculations to be taken seriously, without knowing the reality of the situation. Is the government straightforward with us? Hell no. But there's a serious leap between recognizing that, and assuming every shred of international input we hear is a carefully manufactured lie. If that were the case, it would be logical for me to consider you an agent of disinformation, since you have not proven otherwise. But in that way lies madness.

let me tell you why they hate israel, even though i already wrote this a couple of pages back in the discussion, imagine this scenario:

you a are a palestinian, your sitting in your house, then you hear some voices, you go outside, you see a tank a bulldozer a few soldiers and a few "settlers", just look what they call them, settlers like this is an open land with nobody in it and they're trying to colonize it, nevertheless, the soldiers comes and talks to you, he says "oh hey mr. palestinian, well you have a really nice house, but i'm sorry you have to take your stuff, get the hell out of this house that you built over the years with your hardwork and money, so our mr. israeli settler can live in it instead of you" and then he goes and says "unless your willing to withstand the consequences" and you see the tank turning it's aim on your house, then the bulldozer starts to move to the house, you panic, you go inside the house take as much stuff as you can and you take your children and family, and you get out of hte house to give the key to the mr. israeli settler, who suddenly had more right to this house just because the israeli government pays hima monthly salary to stay in that house. you don't recieve any payment any reimbursement for the house, and your then lying in the streets. now please tell me, what the hell will you do now, when you see your kids having no clothes, no home having to sleep in the streets, and why so that the mr. israeli settler has suddenly more right to the house that you built with your own money and sweat. well lets go back a little in time to the time when prime minister rabin was the pm of israel and ask him what he would be, and he'll say "i'll be a terrorist" and don't tell how do you know that, because he said that when aske that exact question in a press meeting. look bakca few pagesx and you'll find a whole post with 3 exaamples of why the hell palestinians and arabs keep on hating israel. and you'll see american sources and western sources that show what the israeli's are doing in palestine every day.

btw most of what you hear on CNN or fox or much of the media all over the world except in a few countries, are biase and are half truths, and are one-sided.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by golddragnet
Iran's president is alot more intelligent than Bush and he does speak well and makes valid points. I am defo on Iran's side, how dare Bush threaten the Iranian people
..................

I usually read people making claims that the U.S. president can't speak english, etc, etc, etc, yet usually those same people don't have a basic understanding of the English language and their grammar sucks. I guess it is some kind of projection of themselves these people keep proclaiming...

BTW, when someone says that a political figure is intelligent and that political figure is looking for the extermination of a nation, stating so several times to the world...all i have to say is...

How can people be that naive...this man is intelligent because he wants the destruction of another nation?....

Anyways...this is one article from the Middle East but i am certain some will try to claim "it is propaganda"....

2 - 9 November 2005
Issue No. 767
Region

When he said Israel should be "wiped off the map", it is not clear that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was aware of the fallout the statement would generate. The president's words have caused a storm of criticism and made headlines worldwide.
.............
Reformists, however, are not happy. Former president Mohamed Khatami criticised Ahmadinejad, saying, "those words have created hundreds of political and economic problems for us in the world," the Iranian news agency (IRNA) said. According to some reports, senior officials in the reformist camp have hinted that Ahmadinejad may have not been fully aware of the impact of his speech, which he addressed to a domestic audience of conservative Iranian students at a routine conference in Tehran ahead of the pro-Palestinian rally of Jerusalem Day, which always takes place on the last Friday of Ramadan. Some have begun to wonder whether Ahmadinejad has the political wisdom or acumen to lead Iran at such a crucial juncture.

Ahmadinejad himself refused to back down. He took part in Friday's rally and cheered by hundreds of thousands of supporters, insisted on his comments saying, "my words were the Iranian nation's words." He has also reportedly recalled the Iranian ambassador to Moscow as a result of his statements downplaying Ahmadinejad's comments.

While it is not uncommon for senior Iranian officials to criticise Israel, Ahmadinejad's comments, coming at a time of international suspicion regarding Iranian intentions, are likely to confirm fears that the recently elected president is reverting to a hard-line foreign policy. Over the preceding eight years of President Khatami's moderate style of government, reformists adopted a successful policy of reconciliation with both the West and the Arab world. During Khatami's era, Iranian officials stated more than once that they would accept what the Palestinians would agree to; a stance regarded at the time as a softening of Iran's position, leaving the path open for a two-state solution.

Ahmadinejad's defiant comments seem anything but pragmatic, leaving analysts with raised eyebrows as to their ultimate meaning. The timing of the comments is also significant, coming weeks before a crucial meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), from which Iran may be referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Adding fuel to fire, Ahmadinejad also said Sunday that, "Iran will not return to a full freeze of its disputed nuclear fuel activities," and that "Western demands for such confidence-building measures are unacceptable."

According to Iranian analyst Mohamed Sadeq Al-Husseini, Ahmadinejad's comments might well represent as a clear and bold message that Iran, unlike Syria, has decided that "attack is the best policy of defence." The message, according to Al-Husseini is that "Iran will not give up its legitimate right regarding peaceful nuclear activities." Al-Husseini argues that the message is not only directed at the US, "which is trying hard to curtail Iranian diplomacy [in its endeavour to reach a peaceful solution]," but also European negotiators, "which Tehran believes have procrastinated [in nuclear negotiations] and thus deserved to be blamed."

weekly.ahram.org.eg...

i don't think he said "wipe israel of the map" he said wipe the zionist regime of the map, translation: regime change.

btw the middle east people, it's true they have some bad feelings against israel, but all they really want is just to live a normal life, get on with thier lives and forget about everything. but everybody wants to see an independent palestine.

Have you guys not see what they teach the people over in iran? No wonder, they chant death to America all day everyday. Even the kids want to see dead Americans. Imagine one of these bafoons were to have a weapon of mass distruction. They would use it on the States in a heart beat.