Ahmadinejad and Pierce Morgan on CNN, I agree 90% with Ahmadinejad

What the heck did I just watch? Oh yeah, a guy that can't even speak on his own behalf about anything. Perhaps, Piers should have asked before asking this clown questions? "What does the Ayatollah think?" Everybodys know that this guy is President of none other than the title he holds, and not Iran. In other words, he is dragged around on a tight leash by his theocratic handlers in Iran. Furthermore, he could not state his position on some of the more controversial issues that was said in the past. Simple questions should be followed with simple answers, and none of the tangents that Mr. Ahmadinejad was going on to shirk the questions. I thought Piers Morgan did a great job holding his feet to the fire, and would not settle for his philosophical musings that lead to no where.

I have heard so much support for this guy, and not only on ATS but elsewhere. It is truly dissappointing, because this guy is nothing more than a puppet and an empty suit. His views on democracy, the Palestinian crisis, Israel, the Holocaust, Syria, the Middle East, ect. was a bunch of quasi-scholarly gobbly gook. He was given another opportunity to reclarify his position on a whole myriad of issues that not only affect his country, but could have implications on the world. Nothing of any substance on those issues, but the same old double speak. He and are Iran are blowing it, and the war machine lingers. War is on the horizon, and this man has not done anything to smooth things over. He gets no accolades from me. Just another two-bit politician ducking and dodging questions, and speaking with a forked tongue.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by ClicheCalvicade

 

Bleeding heart hypocrite argument. A link without context, just a picture. Nothing more needs to be said.

I'd say that was the best denial of reality I seen on here all day. Do you plug your ears too when something doesn't suit you?

That picture is the context.

And that is what I heard from the Iranian president too...

Humanity is f##ked... Because we allow ourselves to be led...... By anyone but ourselves.. Because if we actually took charge of our own lives then that would make us personally responsible for who we are..

The very moment humanity decides to take personal responsibility for our own lives rather than blaming something or someone else???? I fricken shudder!

America had the best chance at doing this.... Look at the constitution.... Then your fu$kwitt ancestors.... After fighting a fricken war... Thought that they would let other rich power vampires take over your responsibilities as a free citizen under the constitution coz you are too lazy too think for yourselves and they are too rich and drunk with power to let you....

They let you keep ya guns though... Well done America... The land of sooo much promise and leadership is now sponsored by ATNT... Or whatever..

I will no longer give a crap whatever happens in America because it is defunct, nor take any notice of what comes out of the mouth of "Dr" Ahmadinejad.... Because some of you bought that crap...

God help us all

reply to post by McGinty

Note: You infer this image is inaccurate, so please provide your own proof via link (with context!), or you are guilty of preciesly that which you accuse LostPassword of.

I infer no such thing, that is your interpretation.

What my point was: If a dictator comes out and says the sky is blue, do you all kiss his ass because the sky is blue? No? Then why would you kiss his ass when he says something as self evident as: "The Palestinians deserve an own nation."

That's why it is important to note what he is NOT saying rather than what he is saying, as is the case with all liars and cheats - read between the lines.

Asleep much?

reply to post by MrInquisitive

No, it shows how Israel has taken land from the Palestinians. What else needs to be said? Why is this a bleeding heart argument? I guess, according to you, bleeding heart arguments are based in facts.

Okay, lets get something straightened out. You get your panties in a bunch because of what the Iranian president said about, from his perspective, FOREIGN POLICY.

What else needs to be said? How about a multiple-front war waged on Israel by several nations with the intent to wipe Israel from existence? No? How about you bleeding hearts use relativism and proper time periods to put your sources and the information you're looking at into perspective?

Try refuting the argument made by this picture, i.e. the time-lapse maps of Israeli vs. Palestinian territory, rather than just a snarky comment.

The picture makes no argument. It's just a picture. You claim land was taken away, the Israelis can claim they took the land after attackers intended to, as incomprehensible and horrid as it sounds, take away their country and lives.

You try refuting the FACT that you are getting yourself involved in a discussion about matters you know NOTHING about, except for what you read on the internet - written by bleeding hearts.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

Madaba Mosaic Map: Palestine, 565 A.D.

Palestine 1650

reply to post by penninja


That's quite the side step. If you'd like to play that ballgame; how about the amount of 'Christian' churches across the globe? If you'd like to include Religion, then so be it. Do the math. US military bases along with every Christian denomination in the world and see what number you come up with. Then do the math for every 'Iranian' military bases along with Islamic temples and I will guarantee the number will slap you in the face. You my friend are either misinformed; or worse.. ignorant.

Pictorial Bible Map - 1856 Palestine

reply to post by LostPassword

Posts like this make me sick..whats worse is the # of people who supported youw ith a star...it's proof of the quality of character and intelligence on ATS and how low, over all, it has become.

Who did Palestine take that land from? Who did your ancestors take the land you're sitting on from?

Someone owned the land before you, and you, indirectly, took it from them, so you better give your land back before you go pointing your finger at someone else for doing the exact same thing.

Herodotus; the 'Father of History', does not mention jews at all in his 'Histories'.

Now it is clear from all the mentions that Herodotus gives of Palestine and its people that they did not have a particularly odd monotheistic religion (which the Bible claims they did) as if they had done so: it is the kind of thing that Herodotus was and is apt to mention. However none of his informants mention this and thus neither does Herodotus. Indeed the only mention we have of a temple is of a pagan one; to Aphrodite, who was apparently much favoured by the locals in Ascalan; modern Ashkelon, who were supposedly jews at this time according to the Biblical narrative. This is certainly an odd omission not easily argued against.

The only mention we have of unusual religious practices is in the practice of circumcision among both the Syrians of Palestine and the Phoenicians who are directly suggested to have derived their practice from Egypt. This is often taken as 'proof' that the 'Syrians of Palestine' were jews, but this cannot be done for the precise reason that we have no way to know that the 'Syrians of Palestine' were jews or even followed a monotheistic or quasi-monotheistic religion! To blandly assume the connection is to make a conclusion a priori and then 'see' the 'evidence' for it.

Indeed the fact that Herodotus mentions that circumcision was also used among the Phoenicians removes any basis what-so-ever for making the connection as it tells us of plurality of use: in other words if more than one people in the same area used circumcision then how can it be used as evidence of the existence of a specific people when more than one people in the area was using it? The idea that the 'Syrians of Palestine' are simply equatable with jews is further condemned to the dustbin of history by Herodotus' clarifying remark:

'Phoenicians who have contact with Greece drop the Egyptian usage, and allow their children to go uncircumcised'.

This tells us quite directly that the Phoenicians behaved rather like Hellenizing jews of the same general period. To explain briefly: at around this time the Tanakh tells us that the jews had two generalised factions. One were the cultured jews; the Hellenizers of a sort, who tended to; as Herodotus says, abandon the mark of covenant (circumcision) and to a large extent Judaism in favour of Greek practices. The other were the religious fanatics (like the Prophets Ezra and Nehemiah) who held that anything non-jewish was inherently evil and demanded that circumcision be practised.

What this means is that because Herodotus clearly identifies the Phoenicians as behaving like Hellenizing jews and not the 'Syrians of Palestine' you cannot claim that the Phoenicians and 'Syrians of Palestine' are distinguishable from each other. In other words you cannot claim that the 'Syrians of Palestine' are jews precisely because the Phoenicians in Herodotus' account are actually behaving more like the jews of the Tanakh than the 'Syrians of Palestine' who are the claimed jews of the Christian and jewish historical cosmos.

reply to post by Hawking


No.It' pronounced Piers as in Piers.

reply to post by LostPassword


Get a load of this gut wrencher, from Patrick Clawson joking about false flags. "Iranian Submarines sometimes go down, sometime they might not come up, who would know why" (laughter).

The other argument oft propounded; although this time by Zionists and their apologists, is that Palestine is an 'invention' of the Emperor Hadrian's: thus dating the name to after the jewish kingdoms that are claimed to have existed. Thus; in jewish eyes, meaning that Palestine is an 'invention' and gives rise to the common claim that the Palestinians are an 'invented people'. This is absolute cobblers as Herodotus clearly says Palestine and Syrians of Palestine in the original Greek: he does not say an approximate or substitute. Thus the region was called Palestine long before the jews turned up and declared Yahweh had given the land to them.

To argue; as many jews do, that there was a jewish kingdom of substance before Herodotus is rather difficult precisely because the only evidence we have is from jewish religious writings written after the fact. When I say only evidence it might surprise some as it is one of those great historical shibboleths that tend to exist in any age: however the strange thing about the 'Kingdoms of Israel' is that aren't mentioned textually by anyone else. It is rather like the 'holocaust' in a sense in that it is all assumption and very little substance: yet 'everybody knows' it existed.

In essence then it is very difficult to reasonably argue that the jews are mentioned at all; even by inference, in Herodotus' 'Histories' without reasoning a priori.

Did the jews exist in Palestine at this point as some argue?

Quite possibly, but then at the same time convincing arguments have been put forward that they didn't.

However I tend to err on the cautious side here and suggest that the simplest possible solution is the likeliest in that the jews of antiquity were a tiny tribal conglomeration and not 'states' or 'kingdoms' per se, but rather rose to power later and then imposed their religion on other Semites for a time. Perhaps the closest we can get to the probable scenario in my view is the spread of Islam from Arabia that was accomplished by military means. So then that would place the spread of Judaism as a kind of failed attempt at spreading a barbaric tribal religion by the sword.

Rather different to the 'glorious' history of 'ancient Israel' isn't it?

I too agree, but I'll take it to 95%. If Israel wants a war with Iran ( an enemey with a army, navy, airforce,) then let Israel keep poking and proding them. We all know it will be a false flag, that will be blamed on Iran, Or another Muslim country around them.

Israel's course of action is to eradicate the Arabs that surround them. Or cause them to eradicate themselves or get America to do it. My question is what will Saudia Arabia do if a war breaks out between Israel/Iran? Side with America, side with Iran? Israel must be squirming pretty bad these days.

Israel's hidden side is now being seen crystal clear, their war mongering nation. Who in all respects has no friends, is being shown to the world what their about. And the world is getting the message. All my life I've dealt with seeing Israel on the nightly news. And none of it was ever good news.

The news dealing with Israel for the most part, is Israel whining about something THEY think is wrong.Or they think should change. I mean the whine from this nation is intense & unrelenting. Like a giant baby, who needs constant attention.( BRAT)

I do not support Israel, I boycott their products sold in the U.S. There's some good sites out there that can show & tell you the products produced in Israel. I implore all of you to do as I and stop supporting the nation that wants us to fight their enemies for them. It;s high time the youth of Israel was offered up for the war sacrifice. Time for some of them to come home mamed, mentally spent, and a broken human.

Time for Israel to grow a set. Offer up their own youth, and shut the freak up for a damn change. They arent the only folks on this rock. But they damn sure want to be.It's pretty obvious that Israel is the only nation in the middle east that don't want peace.....I want MY TAX DOLLARS spent in MY COUNTRY on MY ROADS and MY SCHOOLS, I want MY TAX DOLLARS SPENT ON MY PEOPLE. Not some damn war mongering tribe from Israel

Originally posted by LostPassword
I just watched whole interview with Ahmadinejad and Pierce Morgan on CNN

I agree with good 90% of what Ahmadinejad was saying.

Even if you assume he lied just to make himself look good and civilized,

The fact is, Iran is not an empire with bases and wars around the world. And if
they help freedom fighters "terrorists" in Occupied Palestine and occupied
Afghanistan and Occupied Iraq.

I for one can't even blame them for it, because they know they are targeted next.

DISCLAIMER: I am not muslim.
I am not persian.

edit on 25-9-2012 by LostPassword because: (no reason given)

Ahmadinejad is insane. It won't be long before Israel turns his nation into burnt toast. They don't need the US to do it. Like Iraq all they really have is bluster and pomp, no real power. In an instant their own people, young people that is, will turn on them and turn Iran into a secular democracy once the attack begins. But back on topic. Ahmadinejad lives in a little world that only people like him can see. I don't agree with him on most everything.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by abdel
I think Ahmadinejad backed off too much regarding the Holocaust merely citing the difficulty of independent investigation instead of challenging the figures.
I believe the Holocaust happened but the figures have been grossly inflated and many of the non-Jewish victims such as gays, disabled, homeless, union activists and other trouble makers are completely forgotten about, where are the Holocaust monuments remembering the dead gypsies?.

edit on 25-9-2012 by abdel because: spelt Gypsies wrong in my haste

Being a non-Jew myself, I'd have to surmise that 1) the Gypsies have no made an effort to keep this understanding front and center as the Jewish people have; the Jews were also front and center in Nazi rhetoric 2) where do you get off calling victims of the Holocaust "trouble makers"?

Uh, the non-Jews who were victimized by the Nazis didn't have the massive political, media and financial support of the diaspora in England, the US and other countries. The commentor you quote also failed to mention the Slavs as victms of the Nazis. About three times as man Slavs died at the hands of the Nazis as did Jews.

And yes, the Jews won't let anybody forget about their holocaust -- The Holocaust to them. That is part of their very effective PR effort to use this as an excuse for anything they want to do, including building nuclear weapons and ethnically cleanse another people -- not to mention threatening a war against yet another nation because it may, too, want nuclear weapons. It doesn't, however, give it any moral justification of its thuggish policies. Any people that go about developing nuclear weapons clandestinely and against international prohibitions and who commit ethnic cleansing and continue to illegally occupy and oppress a people for over 50 years and now are threatening war against another nation that has not waged an aggressive war in hundreds of years (Iran) are definitely trouble makers in my book. Like I said, I don't care that they previously suffered during WWII. A lot of people suffered. I care about the here and now.

People who continue to use the holocaust as an excuse for Israel's illegal and immoral actions need to rethink their sense of morality and entitlement for Israel. Just about the rest of the world has had enough of it already.

Firstly, I'm no anti-semitic, I do not have anything against Israeli's or anybody of Jewish decent.

Agreed. And, the fact is whenever a journalist, reporter, politician, whomever, publicly makes negative or even realistic and truthful comment about Israel, they're ultimately pinned as anti-Semites. It's quite ridiculous actually..

This belongs in every Iran thread