Originally posted by TrueBrit
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I see this argument repeated by the Iranian apologist crowd quite often on ATS.
How exactly does "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" and "wiped off the map" differ in this context?
On one hand "wiped off the map" implies the abolition of the modern Israeli state to be replaced by a greater Palestine.
On the other saying that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" is a more melodramatic reference to the abolition of the
Israeli state to be replaced by a singe Palestinian state.
It means the same thing.
No, literally it really doesnt. I dont know about you, but when I say something, I say what I mean, not some cryptic BS. If what the Iranian head
honcho said, was that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" then THAT is precisely what he meant. That and nothing else.
Do not interpret, just read and comprehend. Its plain enough language after all.
How about Iran stops sponsoring terrorist organisations and quits playing games with a nervous world regarding their "peaceful" nuclear ambitions?
Iran has played no games what so ever with its nuclear program. They have every right to create nuclear power stations and infrastructure, and I have
to say, I am glad that they are making this choice to continue. Even the Iranians dont want to use oil right now, and that says something.The nuclear
power they are producing is going to make life much cheaper and easier for the nation as a whole, which can only be a good thing for its people.
And as for the deliberately inflamatory reference to "peaceful" nuclear ambitions, very well done, that was particularly childish. The reality of the
situation is that no one has ever been able to prove that the Iranians have, are working on, or have aquired the requisite parts to make a nuclear
weapon, and until that proof exists, the only reason to suggest such a thing is outright xenophobia.
Iran has done their part as well to bring the rhetoric and saber rattling to where it is now, to pretend otherwise is naive or disingenuous.
For the record I believe that diplomacy, not force is the solution to the current quagmire.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)
Either your preference for diplomacy is false, or your attitude toward nuclear power production in Iran is. Having both is a completely unresolveable
position. If you wish a diplomatic solution, you have to accept that the Iranians must be allowed nuclear power, and quit being so afraid of them that
you assume that thier every nuclear effort must be negative. You cannot have it both ways.
Please project your self analytic garbage elsewhere.
The topic is Netanyahu: I Will Attack Iran Alone if Necessary, not what you believe I am thinking. Ad Hom's are against the T&C so save it for
somewhere else
edit on 7-11-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)
