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.

 

World leaders' quotes on Obama election win (including Iran's!)

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit

So he is an Anti Semite eh? He wants all the Jews dead eh? Ok then why doesnt he start with the 3% that is in his own country?



He, and the whole Islamist state HAVE been doing just that. There were 125,000-150,000 Jews in Iran on the eve of the Revolution in 1979. There are fewer than 40,000 there today (the highest estimate I can find). Who knows why the have been leaving since Iran became Islamist. Maybe they find the climate inhospitable.

Wikipedia: Persian Jews
Jewish Virtual Library: Jews of Iran




Why would he drop a nuke on Israel when it has the holiest of Muslim sites there?


I haven't said he would. But his predecessor, the "Liberal Cleric" Rafsanjani said Iran could survive a nuclear war that "obliterated Israel." He said this at a conference hosted by Achmedinejad himself, as new president. The title of the conference was "A world without Zionism." It was at this conference that A-jad said "Israel should be wiped off the map."

Iran Could Wipe Out Israel

So maybe you ought to ask him. Who knows, maybe he envisions using conventional forces to wipe out israel.




I urge you to read up on some history before scathing me the facts are simple. Iran has invaded NO ONE in the past 100s of years.


And other than the Afghanis, no one has .... INVADED Iran since it invaded the Ottoman Empire in 1725 and India in 1739. So, what's your point? That Iran today is so paranoid that it needs to finance insurgents in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon to defend itself?



We have been screwing with them heavily for the past 100 even giving Sadam Hussein chemical weapons to drop on them when Iraq invaded them. Call me what you want but dont forget to call me this...... right.


I'll settle for calling you strident.

Funny you bring up the chemical weapons, which Hussein famously dropped on the Kurds in his own country. then I got to thinking about how Iran treats its own minorities. Wikipedia gives a brief overview. Ethnic persians are right at 50% of the population, but totally control all government jobs and the apparatus of government. Ethnic non-persians seem to have trouble getting a trial before their hanging dates. And the government frequently confiscates houses and property of minorities without any due process whatever.

Wikipedia quoting Amnesty International:

Despite constitutional guarantees of equality, individuals belonging to minorities in Iran, who are believed to number about half of the population of about 70 millions, are subject to an array of discriminatory laws and practices. These include land and property confiscations, denial of state and para-statal employment under the gozinesh criteria and restrictions on social, cultural, linguistic and religious freedoms which often result in other human rights violations such as the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience, grossly unfair trials of political prisoners before Revolutionary Courts, corporal punishment and use of the death penalty, as well as restrictions on movement and denial of other civil rights.


wikipedia article

But pardon me for wandering off topic in an international policy thread. Personally, I think it typifies the sort of culture that the Islamic revolution has created. Does that sound like a pacific government that mourns the fact that it has no official relations with the USA, and wishes peaceful coexistence with all peoples?

all the bets.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]




posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
If nothing else you are persistant and it is actually kinda nice to have a good debate about this with good facts. Although I disagree with your overall assesment You do bring some facts that may or may not play into effect. So with that lets go down the line....





Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
He, and the whole Islamist state HAVE been doing just that. There were 125,000-150,000 Jews in Iran on the eve of the Revolution in 1979. There are fewer than 40,000 there today (the highest estimate I can find). Who knows why the have been leaving since Iran became Islamist. Maybe they find the climate inhospitable.

Wikipedia: Persian Jews
Jewish Virtual Library: Jews of Iran



Question have these Jews that are no longer in Iran have they been killed or have they left on their own free will? Also what about the Jews that represent in the Iranian government? My point to you is where as you say that Iran wants to eliminate all the Jews I say that is not true it is propaganda. Listen even if they dont like Jews that does not mean they want to eliminate them and frankly if they dont want Jews or gays or whatever in their country then isnt that their choice or is it American law is to be the law of the world?




I haven't said he would. But his predecessor, the "Liberal Cleric" Rafsanjani said Iran could survive a nuclear war that "obliterated Israel." He said this at a conference hosted by Achmedinejad himself, as new president. The title of the conference was "A world without Zionism." It was at this conference that A-jad said "Israel should be wiped off the map."

Iran Could Wipe Out Israel

So maybe you ought to ask him. Who knows, maybe he envisions using conventional forces to wipe out israel.


Ok in this same article it points out exactly what I said above.


"The application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel - but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world," So if they dont want to nuke Iran because they dont want to kill their holy sites then what does he mean by "wipe them off the map" Well lets hear it from the man himself.... BTW there is 6 parts to this interview I recommend watching them all
www.youtube.com...

Oh if the Larry King interview is not good enough here is one done by Brian Williams...

www.youtube.com...

The fact is he feels that force should NOT be used that in fact their should be elections that ALL the Palestinians should be able to vote on. That vote is to be should Israel be allowed to take their land. Keep in mind that was Palestinian land until Israel claimed it as their own in the 50s. Now in Israels defense they have won a few wars since then to solidify their place in the middle east so in a sense that land is now theirs. However that doesnt mean it still doesnt tick people off and that people may have opinions in regards to it. My point is is that it is not the job of America to ensure that Israel keeps their land. It is up to them with our assistance in the form of selling them weapons, logistics, and lending them money if they so need. But to go fight a country because they pose a threat to Israel is not right at all. Frankly I dont think Iran is a threat and even if they were it is still not out job to be fighting all their wars. Just to let you know I feel this way about any country including the likes of Georgia or any other that does not have direct implications on America itself.





And other than the Afghanis, no one has .... INVADED Iran since it invaded the Ottoman Empire in 1725 and India in 1739. So, what's your point? That Iran today is so paranoid that it needs to finance insurgents in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon to defend itself?



Iran was invaded by Iraq in the early 80s with the backing of the US government. As far as funding insurgents let me ask you a hypothetical question. If Russia invaded Mexico we would probably fund some insurgents in Mexico now wouldnt we. In fact if I remember right we funded insurgents in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded didnt we? We have funded all sorts of insurgents in South America to overthrow elected governments to install puppet governments havent we? Once again I recommend you read up on history and not the talking points that our government both Democrats and Republicans feed us. Most wars are used for one reason and one reason only.....to make someone money period.



I'll settle for calling you strident.

Funny you bring up the chemical weapons, which Hussein famously dropped on the Kurds in his own country. then I got to thinking about how Iran treats its own minorities. Wikipedia gives a brief overview. Ethnic persians are right at 50% of the population, but totally control all government jobs and the apparatus of government. Ethnic non-persians seem to have trouble getting a trial before their hanging dates. And the government frequently confiscates houses and property of minorities without any due process whatever.

Wikipedia quoting Amnesty International:

Despite constitutional guarantees of equality, individuals belonging to minorities in Iran, who are believed to number about half of the population of about 70 millions, are subject to an array of discriminatory laws and practices. These include land and property confiscations, denial of state and para-statal employment under the gozinesh criteria and restrictions on social, cultural, linguistic and religious freedoms which often result in other human rights violations such as the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience, grossly unfair trials of political prisoners before Revolutionary Courts, corporal punishment and use of the death penalty, as well as restrictions on movement and denial of other civil rights.


wikipedia article

But pardon me for wandering off topic in an international policy thread. Personally, I think it typifies the sort of culture that the Islamic revolution has created. Does that sound like a pacific government that mourns the fact that it has no official relations with the USA, and wishes peaceful coexistence with all peoples?

all the bets.




Hmm in a time when our government is nationalizing banks which in turn is nationalizing housing and a time when our government is nationalizing our auto industry, our airline industry, our insurance industry, and many others in the form of "bailouts" I dont think your or I should be dogging on the way any country does business. The fact is in America we are on the path of being either rich or poor. The middle class will not exist at this rate. As far as minorities America is just NOW coming to its full promise of all men are created equal. The election of Obama was a huge steps. I notice you keep mentioning gays when in America gays still arent even allowed to have civil unions with eachother all for "religious resons" that almost sounds like Iran doesnt it? We still have a ways to go before we can claim moral authority in the racial and minority area but we have making large steps now and it makes me proud as an American.

As far as property confiscations have you heard of eminent domain? The fact is government can take a mans land at any time for a purpose they deem necessary. I dont feel we own our own land anyways. We rent it from the government in the form of property taxes and the fact you have to get a permit for anything you want to do with your own land.

And last the chemical weapons Iraq dropped on the Kurds...where did those come from? Oh yeah our government.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by asmeone2

Of course it hasn't got anythign at all to do with the fact that he's the first president in decades to show a willingness to actually talk with the 'enemy' instead of spout on about his willingness to blow them away.

Total Crap. Every president since the revolution in 1979 has offered formal relations, and been refused.


That is total crap, my friend! Bush never even tried to be diplomatic w/Iran. McCain said (while criticizing Obama's view on foreign policy) that the time for diplomacy has come and gone, while speaking about Iran. He was just going to continue to be "Bush-like" in his foreign relations...that is be lazy and threaten with explosive destruction and hard line sanctions. Obama's willingness to be diplomatic is a VAST change...and Iran knows this, thus the first time Iran has congradulated a US president elect since Carter.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Aggie Man]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
So with that lets go down the line....

Question have these Jews that are no longer in Iran have they been killed or have they left on their own free will? Also what about the Jews that represent in the Iranian government? My point to you is where as you say that Iran wants to eliminate all the Jews I say that is not true it is propaganda. Listen even if they dont like Jews that does not mean they want to eliminate them and frankly if they dont want Jews or gays or whatever in their country then isnt that their choice or is it American law is to be the law of the world?



You're welcome to believe whatever you want about Iran. Just because someone doesn't believe the official version of the German extermination of Jews during WII ( as per Achedinejad ) doesn't automatically make them an anti-semite. But when you couple that one fact with another (his letter to Angela Merkel remarking on the way germany has been 'falsely accused' of genocide) and another (calling for the end of israel) it doesn't make him antisemitic per se.

But he spends a lot of energy on ill will toward people for various reasons, who coincidentally happen to be Jewish. I ask, how would his behavior be different if he were anti-semitic????




The fact is he feels that force should NOT be used that in fact their should be elections that ALL the Palestinians should be able to vote on.


How about a vote in Iran, Iraq and Turkey to see if the Kurds could secede from those states and set up an independent Kurdistan? Maybe some of the other groups in Iran (who collectively are close to a majority in all measures except political representation) would like votes of their own......or we could proceed with the idea that many nations contain unhappy minorities.

Or maybe not. But there's a case to be made on both sides.



That vote is to be should Israel be allowed to take their land. Keep in mind that was Palestinian land until Israel claimed it as their own in the 50s.


Not entirely true. Some cities, like Haifa were not majority-occupied or ruled by palestinians before 1948. Some cities like Safed, have been majority or entirely jewish since the 1500's.

Actually, when you get down to it, the Palestinians have never tuled that land.... there has NEVER been a palestinian state there in the past 1000 years. Before the British, it was ruled by the Ottoman TURKS. So the Palestinians didn't own it in any kind of a national sense.

On a private level, many of them were deprived of their land illegally. Almost like the jews had been in Europe. Hypocritical and Cynical, certainly; personally I feel like the current violence is a natural consequence of founding a state on bloodshed. But does this justify a whole new wave of blood, this time jewish flowing through the streets? And if Hamas isn't interested in a state like Lebanon was, with a vibrant blend of minorities, why would Jews ever willingly put their own future to an Islamist vote. Not picking sides here, just pointing out how things are on the ground.

Maybe we should give it back to the Ottomans..... Then Russia back to the Romanoffs, Austria back to the Hapsburgs, etc., ad nauseum. would that end the bloodshed---or guarantee it?



Now in Israels defense they have won a few wars since then to solidify their place in the middle east so in a sense that land is now theirs. However that doesnt mean it still doesnt tick people off and that people may have opinions in regards to it. My point is is that it is not the job of America to ensure that Israel keeps their land.


Any more than it is the job of IRAN to ensure that palestinians get theirs?



But to go fight a country because they pose a threat to Israel is not right at all.


Would it be right, from my previous example, to fight Venezuela (or offer to), if they were on the verge of seizing dutch territory? If not, why not? If it would be justified, why not for Israel? Is israel less worthy of our defense than Korea or Vietnam?



Frankly I dont think Iran is a threat and even if they were it is still not out job to be fighting all their wars. Just to let you know I feel this way about any country including the likes of Georgia or any other that does not have direct implications on America itself.


I can understand your viewpoint; I disagree with it. I think that the fate of many nations around the world have implications for America. I mentioned the way Czechoslovakia was swallowed by Germany in 1938; I think that was a failure on many levels. A failure of foresight, courage, and even morals on the part of her allies.




Iran was invaded by Iraq in the early 80s with the backing of the US government.


And Lebanon was invaded by Syria with Iranian assistance and backing, to the point of training troops and buying them weapons.


As far as funding insurgents let me ask you a hypothetical question. If Russia invaded Mexico we would probably fund some insurgents in Mexico now wouldnt we.


But Iran had insurgents fighting in Iraq BEFORE we invaded. In fact saddam's daughters told BBC that Saddam was more worried about Iranian insurgents than he was about the possibility that Bush would really invade.

..... Which, if true, brings up the possibility that the US-led coalition invaded Iraq to forestall its collapse into Iran's sphere of control....and interesting idea, but for another thread, another day.



In fact if I remember right we funded insurgents in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded didnt we?


Yes, just like the Soviets did in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Cuba, Egypt, Angola, Niger, Somalia, Columbia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, China, Bangladesh, Nepal, and a few others.




We have funded all sorts of insurgents in South America to overthrow elected governments to install puppet governments havent we? Once again I recommend you read up on history and not the talking points that our government both Democrats and Republicans feed us.


Some people consider me fairly well-read; perhaps as well read as you. I just reach different conclusions from yours.




all wars...to make someone money, period.


Just because WII was fought by the japanese to make them richer, does that mean we shouldn't have fought them?

Is it possible for america to be involved in a war, anytime, anywhere, without us being the bad guy?




Hmm in a time when our government is nationalizing banks which in turn is nationalizing housing and a time when our government is nationalizing our auto industry, our airline industry, our insurance industry, and many others in the form of "bailouts" I dont think your or I should be dogging on the way any country does business.


Hmmm. So we are not entitled to have an opinion on "the way any country does business." Does that apply to Ahmedinejad as well? Or is that just a rule for Americans????

You're pretty sure that Iran is none of our business; but Israel IS Iran's.

I'm just trying to figure out which rules the US should be playing by, and why they don't apply to anyone else.

Isn't that what the neo-cons are always accused of, wanting america to play by a separate set of rules??

.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

That is total crap, my friend! Bush never even tried to be diplomatic w/Iran.


I've posted two sources saying he has tried to do so.



I'm two sources ahead of you.

.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Ahmadinejad slammed for Obama letter

Heres what Tehran thinks about this.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about Iran. Just because someone doesn't believe the official version of the German extermination of Jews during WII ( as per Achedinejad ) doesn't automatically make them an anti-semite. But when you couple that one fact with another (his letter to Angela Merkel remarking on the way germany has been 'falsely accused' of genocide) and another (calling for the end of israel) it doesn't make him antisemitic per se.

But he spends a lot of energy on ill will toward people for various reasons, who coincidentally happen to be Jewish. I ask, how would his behavior be different if he were anti-semitic????



Its not that the Iranian president (dont know how to spell his name) doesnt necessarily believe that the holocaust didnt happen. As he states in the interview he just has a few questions about it

A. 60 million civilians died in WW2 6 million of them being Jews. Why is there such a focus on the massacre of the Jews.

B. If the Holocaust happened in Europe then why did the Palestinians lose their land over it.

C. Why is it if anyone has questions or wants to look into the holocaust they get labeled and anti semite?

Those are the questions that he poses and that is straight from his mouth. But if he didnt do those interviews and you just listened to what our government told us you would think he is Hitler part II. I dont trust our government anymore so I tend to look into things instead of making a blind judgment.






How about a vote in Iran, Iraq and Turkey to see if the Kurds could secede from those states and set up an independent Kurdistan? Maybe some of the other groups in Iran (who collectively are close to a majority in all measures except political representation) would like votes of their own......or we could proceed with the idea that many nations contain unhappy minorities.

Or maybe not. But there's a case to be made on both sides.

The Iranians do vote for their leadership of course except for the clerics. They have a theocracy and that is how they choose to live. Who are we to tell them how to live or not. You can call their elections rigged but many could say the same about our own elections. I happen to feel that Iraq should vote and split if voted on but that in just my opinion.




Not entirely true. Some cities, like Haifa were not majority-occupied or ruled by palestinians before 1948. Some cities like Safed, have been majority or entirely jewish since the 1500's.

Actually, when you get down to it, the Palestinians have never tuled that land.... there has NEVER been a palestinian state there in the past 1000 years. Before the British, it was ruled by the Ottoman TURKS. So the Palestinians didn't own it in any kind of a national sense.

On a private level, many of them were deprived of their land illegally. Almost like the jews had been in Europe. Hypocritical and Cynical, certainly; personally I feel like the current violence is a natural consequence of founding a state on bloodshed. But does this justify a whole new wave of blood, this time jewish flowing through the streets? And if Hamas isn't interested in a state like Lebanon was, with a vibrant blend of minorities, why would Jews ever willingly put their own future to an Islamist vote. Not picking sides here, just pointing out how things are on the ground.

Maybe we should give it back to the Ottomans..... Then Russia back to the Romanoffs, Austria back to the Hapsburgs, etc., ad nauseum. would that end the bloodshed---or guarantee it?


Well the deal is during WW1 Britain promised local tribal leaders all over the middle east that if they helped the British fight the Ottoman Empire after the victory the British would give them their own country. They actually betrayed them they put in puppet governments as I pointed out earlier for the resources especially oil. Top this all the other betrayles and interventions by not only the British and the French but the US also is a big reason why these people do not trust us or like us. As I stated above the Jews have earned Israel in my eyes after the victories in the Yom Kippur war and the 6 day war. That is how this world is its called spoils of war. You and I just differ because I feel that if Israel chooses to have that land then they need to deal with the problems that come with it and that is having to deal with the fanatics. When America won its liberty we didnt continue to go to France to keep fighting our battles. We stood on our own.




Any more than it is the job of IRAN to ensure that palestinians get theirs?


If Iran chooses to then yea. Listen Mexico tried invading the US did we go crying to France to help us or the British? No we took care of it ourselves. If a country cant stand on its own then it doesnt need to stand. Its just like General Motors and the bailouts. If they cant run a company they need to be allowed to go under. They shouldnt get bailed out.



Would it be right, from my previous example, to fight Venezuela (or offer to), if they were on the verge of seizing dutch territory? If not, why not? If it would be justified, why not for Israel? Is israel less worthy of our defense than Korea or Vietnam?


I dont think we should of fought both of those wars. Those war were for profits. WW2 was really the only justified war in my eyes in the 20th century and that is because we were attacked. That is the only war our shores were attacked. Vietnam and Korea were worthless wars.



I can understand your viewpoint; I disagree with it. I think that the fate of many nations around the world have implications for America. I mentioned the way Czechoslovakia was swallowed by Germany in 1938; I think that was a failure on many levels. A failure of foresight, courage, and even morals on the part of her allies.

I agree. Czechoslovakia never should of been given in the name of appeasement. The Munich agreement was a blunder. The moment they allowed Hitler that country they should of started massing. But the two situations are different. Iran has not invaded anyone nor have they asked for land in the name of blackmail.




Just because WII was fought by the japanese to make them richer, does that mean we shouldn't have fought them?

Is it possible for america to be involved in a war, anytime, anywhere, without us being the bad guy?

As I stated above WW2 was a justified war on our end. Im not saying that if someone attacks you that you cant defend yourself. Im saying that all wars are to make someone rich but in this case the Japanese were the instigators. They got what they deserved. But also as I pointed out they were the only country to attack us first in the 20th century. Germany declared war on us not us on them so they too got what they deserved. But we had many other wars we fought and none of them were justified in my opinion because they didnt attack us.





Hmmm. So we are not entitled to have an opinion on "the way any country does business." Does that apply to Ahmedinejad as well? Or is that just a rule for Americans????

You're pretty sure that Iran is none of our business; but Israel IS Iran's.

I'm just trying to figure out which rules the US should be playing by, and why they don't apply to anyone else.

Isn't that what the neo-cons are always accused of, wanting america to play by a separate set of rules??


We can have an opinion sure we can. We just not have the right to push it on other countries. We can think what we want about Iran or Russia or whoever. But no where in the Constitution does it give America the right to force our way of life onto other people. American Exceptionalism as the neo cons call it should not exist. America plays by its own rules. We choose how we want to live. But because we choose our style of living doesnt mean that Iran wants to live that same way. I love the Neo Con Credo "The hate kill us cause of our freedom" Ummm no actually they immigrate here in droves because of our freedom. As I pointed out Iran doesnt stop people form coming here. We have plenty of Iranian citizens who live here. The people who choose to live there do at their own peril. They want that lifestyle. They may not like the idea of our type of society. Once again who are we to tell them theat hey you have to live like this.


If Iran wants to make Israel their business then let them. They do it at their own peril. First off Israel would own Iran in a war and second...well there is no second. But that is Irans choice and if they decide to attack or if Israel does first then let them have at it. I dont think it will come to that however. The people of Iran wont allow it. They are already sick of their government. But if Israel or the US attacks them that is a game changer. It will put the Iranian people right in Ahmadenijads hands. That is not where we want them. Divide and Conquer as Napoleon says.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I agree with other posters, Obama needs to try and talk to Iran and see if they can overcome their differences and even try to gain influence there.


I dont trust Russia and Putin, but I trust the current American regime a lot less, they are nothing but corrupt robbers and liars.


[edit on 8-11-2008 by Horus12]



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by Aggie Man

That is total crap, my friend! Bush never even tried to be diplomatic w/Iran.


I've posted two sources saying he has tried to do so.



I'm two sources ahead of you.

.


How hard did he try? I don't care what the sources eluded to, Bush has not acted diplomatically towards Iran.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man


How hard did he try? I don't care what the sources eluded to, Bush has not acted diplomatically towards Iran.




How have they acted to us?


Basically, when you say you dont care what the sources referred to, what you are saying is that you .....don't really care what the truth is......you've already reached your conclusion. How convenient. But pardon the rest of us if we cannot rest on the same assumptions as you.




To elude means to escape capture.

The word "alluded" means to refer to something indirectly. News articles with sources are making a direct reference, not an indirect one.
.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join