yeah, i'm sure it was just a mistake assholes. the original headline was Iran Leader says U.S. planned 9/11 attacks.
- Corrections
Published: September 24, 2010
A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.
:evil: :evil:
Infuriating.
"we made a little boo-boo. totally by accident, we changed the whole context of what was said, and ran with it as the headline".
what a fucking JOKE.
Yup.
As if to make my point for me, lol.
Thank you mainstream media for agreeing to go ahead and discredit yourself.
:roll:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What is so funny about the furor you all seem to be working yourselves into is that when it comes down to it there really isn't that much of a difference between saying that the US government perpetrated 9/11, and endorsing such a view as one of three possible explanations, as if it is equally plausible and deserving of investigation. Ahmadinejad likes to dress up his lunacies in this rhetoric of academic skepticism, as in "there are these three theories about 9/11, and each of them are valid, and deserve to be studied," or "there are all these different theories about whether the holocaust happened, or about how many Jews were killed, etc., etc., and they are all valid, and deserve equal recognition and investigation." Perhaps this isn't as morally repugnant as simply asserting wild 9/11 conspiracies as fact, or outright holocaust denial, but it is certainly not that much further down the ladder. What is so funny is that some of you are so easily taken in by such a worn-out, thread-bare, and frankly childish rhetorical trick.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
yeah, i'm sure it was just a mistake assholes. the original headline was Iran Leader says U.S. planned 9/11 attacks.
- Corrections
Published: September 24, 2010
A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.
:evil: :evil:
Infuriating.
"we made a little boo-boo. totally by accident, we changed the whole context of what was said, and ran with it as the headline".
what a fucking JOKE.
would you expect anything less from a newspaper like the new york times
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
What is so funny about the furor you all seem to be working yourselves into is that when it comes down to it there really isn't that much of a difference between saying that the US government perpetrated 9/11, and endorsing such a view as one of three possible explanations, as if it is equally plausible and deserving of investigation. Ahmadinejad likes to dress up his lunacies in this rhetoric of academic skepticism, as in "there are these three theories about 9/11, and each of them are valid, and deserve to be studied," or "there are all these different theories about whether the holocaust happened, or about how many Jews were killed, etc., etc., and they are all valid, and deserve equal recognition and investigation." Perhaps this isn't as morally repugnant as simply asserting wild 9/11 conspiracies as fact, or outright holocaust denial, but it is certainly not that much further down the ladder. What is so funny is that some of you are so easily taken in by such a worn-out, thread-bare, and frankly childish rhetorical trick.
i'm not taken in by anything. i'm more interested in facts. the fact is that he didn't say that the United States had planned the attacks, which is what the article said.
When Ahmadinejad pointed out that there were currently three theories in existence regarding the 9/11 attacks - one of which being government complicity - he was simply making a statement of fact - regardless of whether he was intentionally being a shit-stirrer or not. Britain and the U.S have been stirring shit up with regards to Iran for the past 5 - 10 years, so why shouldn't he give us a dose of our own medicine? At least his statements are based on facts, such as the following:
'A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act."'
What is so funny about the furor you all seem to be working yourselves into is that when it comes down to it there really isn't that much of a difference between saying that the US government perpetrated 9/11, and endorsing such a view as one of three possible explanations, as if it is equally plausible and deserving of investigation. Ahmadinejad likes to dress up his lunacies in this rhetoric of academic skepticism, as in "there are these three theories about 9/11, and each of them are valid, and deserve to be studied," or "there are all these different theories about whether the holocaust happened, or about how many Jews were killed, etc., etc., and they are all valid, and deserve equal recognition and investigation." Perhaps this isn't as morally repugnant as simply asserting wild 9/11 conspiracies as fact, or outright holocaust denial, but it is certainly not that much further down the ladder. What is so funny is that some of you are so easily taken in by such a worn-out, thread-bare, and frankly childish rhetorical trick.
i'm not taken in by anything. i'm more interested in facts. the fact is that he didn't say that the United States had planned the attacks, which is what the article said.
end of story.
Exactly. One must question why the media/governments/etc. perpetuate these twisting of words if it's not to 'prepare the ground'... just like Iraq. Instill fear and hatred in people's mind and presto, you have a gun ho country ready for a 'justified' war.
What is so funny is that some of you are so easily taken in by such a worn-out, thread-bare, and frankly childish rhetorical trick.
That's because we're all simpletons Yosi.
As for the issue of gullibility, the media lied about Ahmadinejad stating he wanted Israel wiped off the map, and they lied when they claimed Ahmadinejad said the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the work of the U.S government, but you believed them on both occasions.
What Ahmadinejad Knows
Iran's president appeals to 9/11 Truthers.
By BRET STEPHENS
Let's put a few facts on the table.
• The recent floods in Pakistan are acts neither of God nor of nature. Rather, they are the result of a secret U.S. military project called HAARP, based out of Fairbanks, Alaska, which controls the weather by sending electromagnetic waves into the upper atmosphere. HAARP may also be responsible for the recent spate of tsunamis and earthquakes.
• Not only did the U.S. invade Iraq for its oil, but also to harvest the organs of dead Iraqis, in which it does a thriving trade.
• Faisal Shahzad was not the perpetrator of the May 1 Times Square bombing, notwithstanding his own guilty plea. Rather, the bombing was orchestrated by an American think tank, though its exact identity has yet to be established.
• Oh, and 9/11 was an inside job. Just ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The U.S. and its European allies were quick to walk out on the Iranian president after he mounted the podium at the U.N. last week to air his three "theories" on the attacks, each a conspiratorial shade of the other. But somebody should give him his due: He is a provocateur with a purpose. Like any expert manipulator, he knew exactly what he was doing when he pushed those most sensitive of buttons.
He knew, for instance, that the Obama administration and its allies are desperate to resume negotiations over Iran's nuclear programs. What better way to set the diplomatic mood than to spit in their eye when, as he sees it, they are already coming to him on bended knee?
He also knew that the more outrageous his remarks, the more grateful the West would be for whatever crumbs of reasonableness Iran might scatter on the table. This is what foreign ministers are for.
Finally, he knew that the Muslim world would be paying attention to his speech. That's a world in which his view of 9/11 isn't on the fringe but in the mainstream. Crackpots the world over—some of whom are reading this column now—want a voice. Ahmadinejad's speech was a bid to become theirs.
This is the ideological component of Ahmadinejad's grand strategy: To overcome the limitations imposed on Iran by its culture, geography, religion and sect, he seeks to become the champion of radical anti-Americans everywhere. That's why so much of his speech last week was devoted to denouncing capitalism, the hardy perennial of the anti-American playbook. But that playbook needs an update, which is where 9/11 "Truth" fits in.
Could it work? Like any politician, Ahmadinejad knows his demographic. The University of Maryland's World Public Opinion surveys have found that just 2% of Pakistanis believe al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks, whereas 27% believe it was the U.S. government. (Most respondents say they don't know.)
Among Egyptians, 43% say Israel is the culprit, while another 12% blame the U.S. Just 16% of Egyptians think al Qaeda did it. In Turkey, opinion is evenly split: 39% blame al Qaeda, another 39% blame the U.S. or Israel. Even in Europe, Ahmadinejad has his corner. Fifteen percent of Italians and 23% of Germans finger the U.S. for the attacks.
Deeper than the polling data are the circumstances from which they arise. There's always the temptation to argue that the problem is lack of education, which on the margins might be true. But the conspiracy theories cited earlier are retailed throughout the Muslim world by its most literate classes, journalists in particular. Irrationalism is not solely, or even mainly, the province of the illiterate.
Nor is it especially persuasive to suggest that the Muslim world needs more abundant proofs of American goodwill: The HAARP fantasy, for example, is being peddled at precisely the moment when Pakistanis are being fed and airlifted to safety by U.S. Marine helicopters operating off the USS Peleliu.
What Ahmadinejad knows is that there will always be a political place for what Michel Foucault called "the sovereign enterprise of Unreason." This is an enterprise whose domain encompasses the politics of identity, of religious zeal, of race or class or national resentment, of victimization, of cheek and self-assertion. It is the politics that uses conspiracy theory not just because it sells, which it surely does, or because it manipulates and controls, which it does also, but because it offends. It is politics as a revolt against empiricism, logic, utility, pragmatism. It is the proverbial rage against the machine.
Chances are you know people to whom this kind of politics appeals in some way, large or small. They are Ahmadinejad's constituency. They may be irrational; he isn't crazy.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You keep saying that the "wiped off the map" thing is a lie, but you've never explained how the change in translation amounts to a change in meaning. When he talks about the "Zionist regime" he is pretty clearly talking about Israel as a political entity, and not about any particular Israeli government, so it really isn't at all clear to me how his statement, regardless of the translation used, does not amount to a call for Israel's destruction.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't think this thread suggested he was. He know exactly what he is doing. He knows the media will twist his words, etc. My (and it would seem others) point of this discussion is how the media/governments are lying when supposedly quoting him. One should question this.
You keep saying that the "wiped off the map" thing is a lie, but you've never explained how the change in translation amounts to a change in meaning. When he talks about the "Zionist regime" he is pretty clearly talking about Israel as a political entity, and not about any particular Israeli government, so it really isn't at all clear to me how his statement, regardless of the translation used, does not amount to a call for Israel's destruction.
Regime = regime. It means the leadership of the country - those people responsible for perpetuating the occupation, amongst other things. Pretty simple really. But then you know that already, except the facts don't suit your purpose of toeing the party line by pretending that Iran is a threat to Israel so that you can feel justify in attacking them.
ahmandinejad is like the US and Israel's wet dream ... a guy who actually has practically little or no threat but can be used to drum up so much propaganda and hate ... he is like the #1 option when they wanna wag the dog ...
Do you guys actually follow what goes on in Iran? Or do you really just uncritically assume that anyone the US doesn't have a good relationship with must be the good guy?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And B, you're fooling yourself if you really believe that Ahmadinejad's opposition is only to Israel's current (or recent) governments. Yet again you are missing the forest for the trees. If you look at the whole breadth of comments made by Ahmadinejad and others in the Iranian leadership it is very clear that what they are talking about is an end to Israel, not an end to the Netanyahu government.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Do you guys actually follow what goes on in Iran? Or do you really just uncritically assume that anyone the US doesn't have a good relationship with must be the good guy?
who says iran is the good guy? ... we just don't think he's the threat to world peace as some countries claim them to be ... especially when you look at those countries records on human rights abuses ... that's all ...
Ok...maybe...it just seems like people are very quick to jump to his defense, despite the fact that, objectively, he is really a very bad guy. I get that some people feel that attacks on him are somehow feeding a mental buildup to war, and are therefore interested in disarming (so to speak) this effort, but from my perspective a lot (actually most, if not all) of the accusations made against him are absolutely on point, and those rushing to his defense are making themselves apologists for an absolutely disgusting and dangerous man.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Ok...maybe...it just seems like people are very quick to jump to his defense, despite the fact that, objectively, he is really a very bad guy. I get that some people feel that attacks on him are somehow feeding a mental buildup to war, and are therefore interested in disarming (so to speak) this effort, but from my perspective a lot (actually most, if not all) of the accusations made against him are absolutely on point, and those rushing to his defense are making themselves apologists for an absolutely disgusting and dangerous man.
the guy has done nothing but further propogate anti-islamic sentiment in the west and around the world ... what has he actually done to warrant dangerous man title? ... his words are no more damaging than what many GOP candidates are mouthing these days ...
Ok...maybe...it just seems like people are very quick to jump to his defense, despite the fact that, objectively, he is really a very bad guy. I get that some people feel that attacks on him are somehow feeding a mental buildup to war, and are therefore interested in disarming (so to speak) this effort, but from my perspective a lot (actually most, if not all) of the accusations made against him are absolutely on point, and those rushing to his defense are making themselves apologists for an absolutely disgusting and dangerous man.
just a quick question, how can someone be objectively bad? what exactly has he done aside from starting a nuclear power program? he has not attacked his neighbors has he? how can we get a clear picture of who he is when his words are always twisted into a maunfactured context by our media?? unless there is a scale of badness or some form of mesurement, then badness is subjective....
sorry to interrupt, but having done some research both qualitative and quantitative, the confusion of those terms drives me nuts...
carry on...
and let us not get into discussing apologists....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Well, he stole an election, crushed his opposition, imprisoned and tortured thousands of his own people (not to mention those he's killed), he systematically violates Iranian human rights (especially those of women), I don't want to even imagine what it's like to be gay in Iran, his government funds/arms/trains Hezbollah and Hamas, both terrorist organizations, he's supported the Iraqi insurgency in Iraq (according to the US military, which I think is telling the truth).
That's not to mention all the other stuff we've been discussing (secret nuclear weapons program, holocaust denial, spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Well, he stole an election, crushed his opposition, imprisoned and tortured thousands of his own people (not to mention those he's killed), he systematically violates Iranian human rights (especially those of women), I don't want to even imagine what it's like to be gay in Iran, his government funds/arms/trains Hezbollah and Hamas, both terrorist organizations, he's supported the Iraqi insurgency in Iraq (according to the US military, which I think is telling the truth).
That's not to mention all the other stuff we've been discussing (secret nuclear weapons program, holocaust denial, spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.).
i don't think anything you mentioned warrants the dangerous man tag except for funding of terrorist organizations ... you got any proof of that? ... if you believe iran is funding these organizations then you must also believe that the CIA and Mossad as well ... as every nation has their own agenda - some of it public and some of it not so public ...
seems the evidence is on the side that ahmidenijahd is just your typical state leader. all state leaders are assholes: you're going to find something wrong with any of em.
based on facts tho, the real danger in the region seems to be the United States, not Ahmadinejad.
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
(this days before Iraq invaded Kuwait)
and started 2 more, desert storm and operation iraqi freedom.
so why are we so concerned with Iran now? anything specific?
Ok...maybe...it just seems like people are very quick to jump to his defense, despite the fact that, objectively, he is really a very bad guy. I get that some people feel that attacks on him are somehow feeding a mental buildup to war, and are therefore interested in disarming (so to speak) this effort, but from my perspective a lot (actually most, if not all) of the accusations made against him are absolutely on point, and those rushing to his defense are making themselves apologists for an absolutely disgusting and dangerous man.
Netanyahu is a disgusting and dangerous man. Where's your criticism of him?
What is this, 1st grade?! "I'm rubber you're glue..."
I'm no fan of Netanyahu, not by far, but I don't find him to be disgusting, nor do I think that he's dangerous (at least not in the same sense). That said, I'm not a fan.
But what about you and Ahmadinejad? What's your opinion of him?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
You keep saying that the "wiped off the map" thing is a lie, but you've never explained how the change in translation amounts to a change in meaning. When he talks about the "Zionist regime" he is pretty clearly talking about Israel as a political entity, and not about any particular Israeli government, so it really isn't at all clear to me how his statement, regardless of the translation used, does not amount to a call for Israel's destruction.
israel is a political entity, as all nations are.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What is this, 1st grade?! "I'm rubber you're glue..."
I'm no fan of Netanyahu, not by far, but I don't find him to be disgusting, nor do I think that he's dangerous (at least not in the same sense). That said, I'm not a fan.
But what about you and Ahmadinejad? What's your opinion of him?
I asked where is your criticism of Netanyahu - who, judging from his track record, is a far more dangerous and odious individual than Ahmadinejad. I don't see what's juvenile about that.
As for Ahmadinejad, I think he's mostly just a shit stirrer, but certainly no threat to anyone.
The fact that we're even having this discussion about Ahmadinejad is simply just another example of trying to turn reality on it's head.
Netanyahu has clearly stated that he is opposed to any eviction of settlers. And he resigned as finance minister after voicing his opposition to the eviction of settlers around Gaza in 2004. He has also been desperatley trying to push for and justify an attack on Iran.
I'd say that judging from the facts, Netanyahu is a far bigger threat to peace than Ahmadinejad.
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/9
'A vocal supporter of ethnic cleansing (a war crime) within Greater Israel, Netanyahu has called for "mass deportations of Arabs from the territories" and gained notoriety for his extra-judicial killings of "suspected militants" with missiles from helicopter gun-ships in populated areas. Under his leadership more than 2500 Palestinian prisoners were tortured (several died), more than 250 Palestinian homes were demolished, 6500 housing units were established in illegal settlements within occupied Palestinian territory - in total, the number of illegal settlers increased 9 per cent, in direct violation of the 4th Geneva Convention and key UN Resolutions, including 242 and 338. All in less than three years as Prime Minister from 1996-1999.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu
Prime Minister Netanyahu emphasized a policy of "three no(s)": no withdrawal from the Golan Heights, no discussion of the case of Jerusalem, no negotiations under any preconditions
In a video from 2001, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."[87]
In a speech at Bar-Ilan University, Netanyahu said about the September 11 attacks: "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," and that the attacks - "swung American public opinion in our favor."
From the inception of the Oslo accords, Netanyahu opposed them. During his term as prime minister in the late 1990s, Netanyahu consistently reneged on commitments made by previous Israeli governments as part of the Oslo peace process, leading American peace envoy Dennis Ross to note that “neither President Clinton nor Secretary [of State Madeleine] Albright believed that Bibi had any real interest in pursuing peace.”[93]
In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo Accords]," "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."
I'm no fan of Netanyahu, not by far, but I don't find him to be disgusting, nor do I think that he's dangerous (at least not in the same sense). That said, I'm not a fan.
318 children were murdered in operation cast lead and over 800,000 children are living in nightmare conditions in their Gaza Prison.
i find that disgusting and dangerous to their wellbeing.
Comments
Yup.
As if to make my point for me, lol.
Thank you mainstream media for agreeing to go ahead and discredit yourself.
:roll:
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
end of story.
This from the Washington Post in 2006:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01669.html
'A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. Twelve percent believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon. Distrust percolates more strongly near Ground Zero. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government "consciously failed to act."'
Exactly. One must question why the media/governments/etc. perpetuate these twisting of words if it's not to 'prepare the ground'... just like Iraq. Instill fear and hatred in people's mind and presto, you have a gun ho country ready for a 'justified' war.
That's because we're all simpletons Yosi.
As for the issue of gullibility, the media lied about Ahmadinejad stating he wanted Israel wiped off the map, and they lied when they claimed Ahmadinejad said the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the work of the U.S government, but you believed them on both occasions.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Iran's president appeals to 9/11 Truthers.
By BRET STEPHENS
Let's put a few facts on the table.
• The recent floods in Pakistan are acts neither of God nor of nature. Rather, they are the result of a secret U.S. military project called HAARP, based out of Fairbanks, Alaska, which controls the weather by sending electromagnetic waves into the upper atmosphere. HAARP may also be responsible for the recent spate of tsunamis and earthquakes.
• Not only did the U.S. invade Iraq for its oil, but also to harvest the organs of dead Iraqis, in which it does a thriving trade.
• Faisal Shahzad was not the perpetrator of the May 1 Times Square bombing, notwithstanding his own guilty plea. Rather, the bombing was orchestrated by an American think tank, though its exact identity has yet to be established.
• Oh, and 9/11 was an inside job. Just ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The U.S. and its European allies were quick to walk out on the Iranian president after he mounted the podium at the U.N. last week to air his three "theories" on the attacks, each a conspiratorial shade of the other. But somebody should give him his due: He is a provocateur with a purpose. Like any expert manipulator, he knew exactly what he was doing when he pushed those most sensitive of buttons.
He knew, for instance, that the Obama administration and its allies are desperate to resume negotiations over Iran's nuclear programs. What better way to set the diplomatic mood than to spit in their eye when, as he sees it, they are already coming to him on bended knee?
He also knew that the more outrageous his remarks, the more grateful the West would be for whatever crumbs of reasonableness Iran might scatter on the table. This is what foreign ministers are for.
Finally, he knew that the Muslim world would be paying attention to his speech. That's a world in which his view of 9/11 isn't on the fringe but in the mainstream. Crackpots the world over—some of whom are reading this column now—want a voice. Ahmadinejad's speech was a bid to become theirs.
This is the ideological component of Ahmadinejad's grand strategy: To overcome the limitations imposed on Iran by its culture, geography, religion and sect, he seeks to become the champion of radical anti-Americans everywhere. That's why so much of his speech last week was devoted to denouncing capitalism, the hardy perennial of the anti-American playbook. But that playbook needs an update, which is where 9/11 "Truth" fits in.
Could it work? Like any politician, Ahmadinejad knows his demographic. The University of Maryland's World Public Opinion surveys have found that just 2% of Pakistanis believe al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks, whereas 27% believe it was the U.S. government. (Most respondents say they don't know.)
Among Egyptians, 43% say Israel is the culprit, while another 12% blame the U.S. Just 16% of Egyptians think al Qaeda did it. In Turkey, opinion is evenly split: 39% blame al Qaeda, another 39% blame the U.S. or Israel. Even in Europe, Ahmadinejad has his corner. Fifteen percent of Italians and 23% of Germans finger the U.S. for the attacks.
Deeper than the polling data are the circumstances from which they arise. There's always the temptation to argue that the problem is lack of education, which on the margins might be true. But the conspiracy theories cited earlier are retailed throughout the Muslim world by its most literate classes, journalists in particular. Irrationalism is not solely, or even mainly, the province of the illiterate.
Nor is it especially persuasive to suggest that the Muslim world needs more abundant proofs of American goodwill: The HAARP fantasy, for example, is being peddled at precisely the moment when Pakistanis are being fed and airlifted to safety by U.S. Marine helicopters operating off the USS Peleliu.
What Ahmadinejad knows is that there will always be a political place for what Michel Foucault called "the sovereign enterprise of Unreason." This is an enterprise whose domain encompasses the politics of identity, of religious zeal, of race or class or national resentment, of victimization, of cheek and self-assertion. It is the politics that uses conspiracy theory not just because it sells, which it surely does, or because it manipulates and controls, which it does also, but because it offends. It is politics as a revolt against empiricism, logic, utility, pragmatism. It is the proverbial rage against the machine.
Chances are you know people to whom this kind of politics appeals in some way, large or small. They are Ahmadinejad's constituency. They may be irrational; he isn't crazy.
He talks about regime change. Now.. where have I heard this before... Ah yes... Bush and his administration... Regime change in Iraq...
Regime = regime. It means the leadership of the country - those people responsible for perpetuating the occupation, amongst other things. Pretty simple really. But then you know that already, except the facts don't suit your purpose of toeing the party line by pretending that Iran is a threat to Israel so that you can feel justify in attacking them.
who says iran is the good guy? ... we just don't think he's the threat to world peace as some countries claim them to be ... especially when you look at those countries records on human rights abuses ... that's all ...
the guy has done nothing but further propogate anti-islamic sentiment in the west and around the world ... what has he actually done to warrant dangerous man title? ... his words are no more damaging than what many GOP candidates are mouthing these days ...
sorry to interrupt, but having done some research both qualitative and quantitative, the confusion of those terms drives me nuts...
carry on...
and let us not get into discussing apologists....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
That's not to mention all the other stuff we've been discussing (secret nuclear weapons program, holocaust denial, spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.).
i don't think anything you mentioned warrants the dangerous man tag except for funding of terrorist organizations ... you got any proof of that? ... if you believe iran is funding these organizations then you must also believe that the CIA and Mossad as well ... as every nation has their own agenda - some of it public and some of it not so public ...
based on facts tho, the real danger in the region seems to be the United States, not Ahmadinejad.
the US funded 1 war http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... _iraq.html
green lighted another...
(this days before Iraq invaded Kuwait)
and started 2 more, desert storm and operation iraqi freedom.
so why are we so concerned with Iran now? anything specific?
Netanyahu is a disgusting and dangerous man. Where's your criticism of him?
I'm no fan of Netanyahu, not by far, but I don't find him to be disgusting, nor do I think that he's dangerous (at least not in the same sense). That said, I'm not a fan.
But what about you and Ahmadinejad? What's your opinion of him?
israel is a political entity, as all nations are.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I asked where is your criticism of Netanyahu - who, judging from his track record, is a far more dangerous and odious individual than Ahmadinejad. I don't see what's juvenile about that.
As for Ahmadinejad, I think he's mostly just a shit stirrer, but certainly no threat to anyone.
The fact that we're even having this discussion about Ahmadinejad is simply just another example of trying to turn reality on it's head.
Netanyahu has clearly stated that he is opposed to any eviction of settlers. And he resigned as finance minister after voicing his opposition to the eviction of settlers around Gaza in 2004. He has also been desperatley trying to push for and justify an attack on Iran.
I'd say that judging from the facts, Netanyahu is a far bigger threat to peace than Ahmadinejad.
http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in- ... -with-iran
Netanyahu uses holocaust remembrance day to promote war with Iran
April 13th, 2010
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48365520100510
Israel primed for war on Iran - Netanyahu deputy
Mon May 10, 2010
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/9
'A vocal supporter of ethnic cleansing (a war crime) within Greater Israel, Netanyahu has called for "mass deportations of Arabs from the territories" and gained notoriety for his extra-judicial killings of "suspected militants" with missiles from helicopter gun-ships in populated areas. Under his leadership more than 2500 Palestinian prisoners were tortured (several died), more than 250 Palestinian homes were demolished, 6500 housing units were established in illegal settlements within occupied Palestinian territory - in total, the number of illegal settlers increased 9 per cent, in direct violation of the 4th Geneva Convention and key UN Resolutions, including 242 and 338. All in less than three years as Prime Minister from 1996-1999.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu
Prime Minister Netanyahu emphasized a policy of "three no(s)": no withdrawal from the Golan Heights, no discussion of the case of Jerusalem, no negotiations under any preconditions
In a video from 2001, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."[87]
In a speech at Bar-Ilan University, Netanyahu said about the September 11 attacks: "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," and that the attacks - "swung American public opinion in our favor."
From the inception of the Oslo accords, Netanyahu opposed them. During his term as prime minister in the late 1990s, Netanyahu consistently reneged on commitments made by previous Israeli governments as part of the Oslo peace process, leading American peace envoy Dennis Ross to note that “neither President Clinton nor Secretary [of State Madeleine] Albright believed that Bibi had any real interest in pursuing peace.”[93]
In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo Accords]," "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."
318 children were murdered in operation cast lead and over 800,000 children are living in nightmare conditions in their Gaza Prison.
i find that disgusting and dangerous to their wellbeing.
what do you call it?
pretty disgusting don't you think?
and speaking of human rights violations. Israel violates Palestinian human rights every single day.
every
single
day
Talking of secret nuclear weapons programs....? :think:
take 2 states in the middle east. one is known for its aggression (Israel) and one is known for its isolationism (Iran).
Israel is spending billions of dollars in the US to shape public opinion, the other very little.
the concern is about Iran. Americans make good sheep it seems.
think for yourself. question authority.