I just puked a little. Dude, search around on the BBC or Wikipedia or anywhere for God's sake.
Iran is definitly not a political paradise.
Although i don't think they're the only country in this situation, which is why i see some hypocrisy in the talk against Iran alone, China still occupy a complete country and we say/do nothing to change that, anyway, Iran sure is not defendable.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Although i don't think they're the only country in this situation, which is why i see some hypocrisy in the talk against Iran alone, China still occupy a complete country and we say/do nothing to change that, anyway, Iran sure is not defendable.
i too would liek to see the western world apply change on dozens of fronts. all at once.
Please don't pretend that the 2000/2004 election controversy equates to "non-elected leader" in the same way that an imposed absolute ruler equates to "non-elected leader".
Ok, so there is a check on his power? Not to mention Congress and the Constitution.
There are "small trickles" of every one in every nation today. The "small trickles" in Iran are full-on rivers and their population is drowning.
1) 2000/2004 lead us to have an "un-elected leader". I do understand though that it is much different than say an election in Iran.
2) There is the possibilty for checks, but with both the legislative giving a rubber stamp to anything this administration says, I wouldn't call it effective check. The judicial branch just decides to look the other way when appropriate.
3) I did intend to put the small trickles in every government in the planet, and worse in some countries.
Here it is, the exact quote. Read down ... And its even from a news source that you probably wouldn't attack.
Note where he says "wiped off the map".
Let me know if you need any help.
Umm, that's an arabic website, do they speak Farsi? Or are they just repeating the same thing over and over again?
One thing I've noticed about Al-Jazeera is they quite often take a story from CNN or CBC and just copy it on to their website. There is no credit to this article anywhere unfortunately. They don't state the source, however if you research what that Ayatollah Khomeini actually said, who Ahminijad is quoting, you will see that story is bullshit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i too would liek to see the western world apply change on dozens of fronts. all at once.
we're not changing anything, we're just talking about it, condemning only one front. If medias wouldn't suck that much, there would be place to have a special about at least a dozen different "front" in a 5 week days schedule.
Plus i don't think it's our responsability and duty to change anything out there, but informing people about ONE front constantly and repeating the same thing over and over again, sure lead to demonization of this front alone. Note how the current ennemies are all of muslim origins, when there's plenty of every races, religions and origins to talk/condemn about.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Umm, that's an arabic website, do they speak Farsi? Or are they just repeating the same thing over and over again?
One thing I've noticed about Al-Jazeera is they quite often take a story from CNN or CBC and just copy it on to their website. There is no credit to this article anywhere unfortunately. They don't state the source, however if you research what that Ayatollah Khomeini actually said, who Ahminijad is quoting, you will see that story is bullshit.
Well, you have one source that says he didn't say it, while every other source I've found says he did. Only someone who has already made up his mind would err on the side of going with the one source.
What is your motive, anyway? Are you a president of the guy's fanclub? His intent in making those comments was clear and plain, even to other countries in the Middle East. You're making random comments about Farsi as if that somehow proves that the guy's motives were pure. OK, so maybe he didn't say "wipe" ... Or maybe he did and he was actually talking about his arse, not Israel.
Cripes ...
Umm, that's an arabic website, do they speak Farsi? Or are they just repeating the same thing over and over again?
One thing I've noticed about Al-Jazeera is they quite often take a story from CNN or CBC and just copy it on to their website. There is no credit to this article anywhere unfortunately. They don't state the source, however if you research what that Ayatollah Khomeini actually said, who Ahminijad is quoting, you will see that story is bullshit.
Wow. This wins. Hands down. Most dishonest point ever made on this board.
Well, you have one source that says he didn't say it, while every other source I've found says he did. Only someone who has already made up his mind would err on the side of going with the one source.
What is your motive, anyway? Are you a president of the guy's fanclub? His intent in making those comments was clear and plain, even to other countries in the Middle East. You're making random comments about Farsi as if that somehow proves that the guy's motives were pure. OK, so maybe he didn't say "wipe" ... Or maybe he did and he was actually talking about his arse, not Israel.
Cripes ...
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Do you want me to go find 800 that don't agree with yours?
By the way, no one here knows what the fuck you just searched for. Help us out a little, will ya?
I searched for what he said in Farsi, instead of the "wipe israel off the map" a poor english translation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Excerpt from:
I am Iranian, and I can tell you Cole is wrong.
Let’s start with simple fact, that is not directly relevant. He writes that Khomaini said the Shah government “must go”. But “az bain bayad berad” does not mean “go”, it litterarly mean something like “must cease to exist”, and the most direct translation would be “must be destroyed”.
Now to the latter part:
“bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
The translation is not perfect, the dear Professor is not convewing the action implyied the sentence, as I or any Iranian would read it.
I am not a translatior, but I can tell you that here is a clear note in that sentence that Israel must be made to wanish from the face of time.
Maybe this is not a theat, as it was not directed to Israel, but to his followers, but it clearly is an decleration of intent. The intent is to make Israel cease to exist.
The word map is not litterarly in there, but “wiped of the map” is a less exagerated translation that Professors Coles translation is underreporting the wording.
Now to the context. Here Cole is not a little of the mark, he is insane and ignorant.
Exactly as Hithens wrote the qute is not that ‘the occupation of Jerusalem must end, just as the occupation of Gaza ended’, implying that Iran want Israel to give Jerusalem to Palestine. The qute is that the “regime that is occupying Jerualem” must be destroyed.
Now call me crazy, but doesn't this support the assertion that Iran's president in fact WAS calling for Israel's destruction?
we're not changing anything, we're just talking about it, condemning only one front. If medias wouldn't suck that much, there would be place to have a special about at least a dozen different "front" in a 5 week days schedule.
Plus i don't think it's our responsability and duty to change anything out there, but informing people about ONE front constantly and repeating the same thing over and over again, sure lead to demonization of this front alone. Note how the current ennemies are all of muslim origins, when there's plenty of every races, religions and origins to talk/condemn about.
my point is not only is it not our job, but even if it was there isn't enough hours in a day to focus on every shitty regime on the planet.
Excerpt from:
I am Iranian, and I can tell you Cole is wrong.
Let’s start with simple fact, that is not directly relevant. He writes that Khomaini said the Shah government “must go”. But “az bain bayad berad” does not mean “go”, it litterarly mean something like “must cease to exist”, and the most direct translation would be “must be destroyed”.
Now to the latter part:
“bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
The translation is not perfect, the dear Professor is not convewing the action implyied the sentence, as I or any Iranian would read it.
I am not a translatior, but I can tell you that here is a clear note in that sentence that Israel must be made to wanish from the face of time.
Maybe this is not a theat, as it was not directed to Israel, but to his followers, but it clearly is an decleration of intent. The intent is to make Israel cease to exist.
The word map is not litterarly in there, but “wiped of the map” is a less exagerated translation that Professors Coles translation is underreporting the wording.
Now to the context. Here Cole is not a little of the mark, he is insane and ignorant.
Exactly as Hithens wrote the qute is not that ‘the occupation of Jerusalem must end, just as the occupation of Gaza ended’, implying that Iran want Israel to give Jerusalem to Palestine. The qute is that the “regime that is occupying Jerualem” must be destroyed.
Now call me crazy, but doesn't this support the assertion that Iran's president in fact WAS calling for Israel's destruction?
Not at all, let me point out some trickery in what you just said:
He calls for the destruction of the Zionist regime so that the occupation of palestinian land may halt. That is very similar to Bush's declaration to destroy Saddam's regime. What's so bad about that? It's incredibly unrealistic that Iran could ever destroy Israel, assuming that is their intent is really narrow minded.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Not at all, let me point out some trickery in what you just said:
He calls for the destruction of the Zionist regime so that the occupation of palestinian land may halt. That is very similar to Bush's declaration to destroy Saddam's regime. What's so bad about that? It's incredibly unrealistic that Iran could ever destroy Israel, assuming that is their intent is really narrow minded.
If indeed its trickery, it isn't mine. It is the Iranian translators'.
If indeed its trickery, it isn't mine. It is the Iranian translators'.
Well it's clear by any account that the Iranian president is calling for the destruction of the regime and not the state. There is a major difference in the two. I don't agree with either, however based on accepted practice it's not that bad of a thing. I mean, the US has done and continues to threaten to do it, so it must be accepted that any country can threaten another's regime and it's not considered a threat of genocide or totalitarian rule or fascism or anything of the such. Else we must recognize the US for what it really is. No more hipocracy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well it's clear by any account that the Iranian president is calling for the destruction of the regime and not the state. There is a major difference in the two. I don't agree with either, however based on accepted practice it's not that bad of a thing. I mean, the US has done and continues to threaten to do it, so it must be accepted that any country can threaten another's regime and it's not considered a threat of genocide or totalitarian rule or fascism or anything of the such. Else we must recognize the US for what it really is. No more hipocracy.
Except that no, its not clear. That piece I just posted, a quote from an Iranian source, that you provided, stated that the intent was to express a desire that Israel cease to exist. NOT just the destruction of the Israeli government itself. Maybe you're right and "wipe off a map" isn't the best translation. However, the intent is the exact same. The country should cease to exist. Not just the Zionist regime, whatever that means. By the way, "Zionist regime" could mean just Olmert ... Or maybe Olmert and his cabinet ... Or maybe the entire Israeli governmental apparatus. Or just maybe, Israel period.
Except that no, its not clear. That piece I just posted, a quote from an Iranian source, that you provided, stated that the intent was to express a desire that Israel cease to exist. NOT just the destruction of the Israeli government itself. Maybe you're right and "wipe off a map" isn't the best translation. However, the intent is the exact same. The country should cease to exist. Not just the Zionist regime, whatever that means. By the way, "Zionist regime" could mean just Olmert ... Or maybe Olmert and his cabinet ... Or maybe the entire Israeli governmental apparatus. Or just maybe, Israel period.
You are taking an individuals perception of the translation and attempting to make it the Iranian intent. Which doesn't work with me, and hopefully not the majority. Eliminating a regime is historically accepted, thus it is not as you stated. Ultimately I agree that Zionism needs to be eliminated. If you don't, then I'll consider you a reborn-career-racist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are taking an individuals perception of the translation and attempting to make it the Iranian intent. Which doesn't work with me, and hopefully not the majority. Eliminating a regime is historically accepted, thus it is not as you stated. Ultimately I agree that Zionism needs to be eliminated. If you don't, then I'll consider you a reborn-career-racist.
You can go ahead and call me whatever you'd like ... I am not the person making a fool of himself in this thread, although admittedly I have done so in the past, when I took the bait and let inflammatory posters get under my skin. Your commentary about Zionism does irk me, though, because you so flagrantly disregard the counterarguments people make about that topic.
And for the record, I was referring to that Iranian persons' EXACT WORDS. Not the commentator's perception of them. are you arguing that not all Iranians think Israel should be destroyed? If so, at least we can agree on that.
You can go ahead and call me whatever you'd like ... I am not the person making a fool of himself in this thread, although admittedly I have done so in the past, when I took the bait and let inflammatory posters get under my skin. Your commentary about Zionism does irk me, though, because you so flagrantly disregard the counterarguments people make about that topic.
And for the record, I was referring to that Iranian persons' EXACT WORDS. Not the commentator's perception of them. are you arguing that not all Iranians think Israel should be destroyed? If so, at least we can agree on that.
Yea, I am argueing that. See what I like to do is hop on ICQ and find someone in the region to talk to and get some insight into the common perception. I haven't done this as of yet with Iran, but that would be a place to start if you are serious about understanding the conflict. If you are set in what you believe than keep reading the headlines of mainstream american news.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yea, I am argueing that. See what I like to do is hop on ICQ and find someone in the region to talk to and get some insight into the common perception. I haven't done this as of yet with Iran, but that would be a place to start if you are serious about understanding the conflict. If you are set in what you believe than keep reading the headlines of mainstream american news.
Dude, we've had this discussion before ... You refuse to get the Jewish perspective on these issues, coming up with all sorts of excuses about Jewish people being big hard-to-find meanies, but now you're telling me that I rely too much on American news? Your point is very well-taken, but I think you should have to practice what you preach as well.
If I can say one more thing ... My commentary was about Iran's president specifically. And yes, his intent was super-clear to most people. This man has no business getting nuclear weapons. I was NOT trying to argue that every single person in Iran shares his views.
Dude, we've had this discussion before ... You refuse to get the Jewish perspective on these issues, coming up with all sorts of excuses about Jewish people being big hard-to-find meanies, but now you're telling me that I rely too much on American news? Your point is very well-taken, but I think you should have to practice what you preach as well.
If I can say one more thing ... My commentary was about Iran's president specifically. And yes, his intent was super-clear to most people. This man has no business getting nuclear weapons. I was NOT trying to argue that every single person in Iran shares his views.
The Jewish perspective is quite rampant on this forum. All I have to do is talk to an American to get a Jewish perspective.
You are right, Iran has no business with nuclear weapons. Neither does Israel or the United States of America. But the hipocracy continues. The holier than thou bullshit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Wasn't the Iranian president democratically elected?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Wasn't the Iranian president democratically elected?
Basically, the answer is yes, although his regime (and all Iranian regimes since the Shah) are not democratic. How much genuine choice do the people have over there? Would it be possible to elect a regime that was not Islamic? The country is de facto run by clerics. Electing people like the president is a pretext.
Basically, the answer is yes, although his regime (and all Iranian regimes since the Shah) are not democratic. How much genuine choice do the people have over there? Would it be possible to elect a regime that was not Islamic? The country is de facto run by clerics. Electing people like the president is a pretext.
The same applies to the United States.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You know, I am suprised. They say we should learn from history else we are doomed to repeat it.
Most sources would agree that WW2 was born out of the Treaty of Versailles which put economic and political pressure on Germany. If it wasn't for that pressure Hitler wouldn't have motivated his population to go to war, even with Herman Goerring setting fire to the Reichstag. We should learn from that. Those kinds of pressures aren't a good thing.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I just puked a little. Dude, search around on the BBC or Wikipedia or anywhere for God's sake.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
Here it is, the exact quote. Read down ... And its even from a news source that you probably wouldn't attack.
Note where he says "wiped off the map".
Let me know if you need any help.
Iran is definitly not a political paradise.
Although i don't think they're the only country in this situation, which is why i see some hypocrisy in the talk against Iran alone, China still occupy a complete country and we say/do nothing to change that, anyway, Iran sure is not defendable.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
i too would liek to see the western world apply change on dozens of fronts. all at once.
1) 2000/2004 lead us to have an "un-elected leader". I do understand though that it is much different than say an election in Iran.
2) There is the possibilty for checks, but with both the legislative giving a rubber stamp to anything this administration says, I wouldn't call it effective check. The judicial branch just decides to look the other way when appropriate.
3) I did intend to put the small trickles in every government in the planet, and worse in some countries.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Umm, that's an arabic website, do they speak Farsi? Or are they just repeating the same thing over and over again?
One thing I've noticed about Al-Jazeera is they quite often take a story from CNN or CBC and just copy it on to their website. There is no credit to this article anywhere unfortunately. They don't state the source, however if you research what that Ayatollah Khomeini actually said, who Ahminijad is quoting, you will see that story is bullshit.
we're not changing anything, we're just talking about it, condemning only one front. If medias wouldn't suck that much, there would be place to have a special about at least a dozen different "front" in a 5 week days schedule.
Plus i don't think it's our responsability and duty to change anything out there, but informing people about ONE front constantly and repeating the same thing over and over again, sure lead to demonization of this front alone. Note how the current ennemies are all of muslim origins, when there's plenty of every races, religions and origins to talk/condemn about.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Well, you have one source that says he didn't say it, while every other source I've found says he did. Only someone who has already made up his mind would err on the side of going with the one source.
What is your motive, anyway? Are you a president of the guy's fanclub? His intent in making those comments was clear and plain, even to other countries in the Middle East. You're making random comments about Farsi as if that somehow proves that the guy's motives were pure. OK, so maybe he didn't say "wipe" ... Or maybe he did and he was actually talking about his arse, not Israel.
Cripes ...
Wow. This wins. Hands down. Most dishonest point ever made on this board.
I found 157 sources saying what I said.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=een+rezhim-e+ishghalgar-e+qods+bayad+az+safheh-ye+ruzgar+mahv+shavad&meta=
Do you want me to go find 800 that don't agree with yours?
By the way, no one here knows what the fuck you just searched for. Help us out a little, will ya?
I searched for what he said in Farsi, instead of the "wipe israel off the map" a poor english translation.
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1146752555.shtml
Excerpt from:
I am Iranian, and I can tell you Cole is wrong.
Let’s start with simple fact, that is not directly relevant. He writes that Khomaini said the Shah government “must go”. But “az bain bayad berad” does not mean “go”, it litterarly mean something like “must cease to exist”, and the most direct translation would be “must be destroyed”.
Now to the latter part:
“bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
The translation is not perfect, the dear Professor is not convewing the action implyied the sentence, as I or any Iranian would read it.
I am not a translatior, but I can tell you that here is a clear note in that sentence that Israel must be made to wanish from the face of time.
Maybe this is not a theat, as it was not directed to Israel, but to his followers, but it clearly is an decleration of intent. The intent is to make Israel cease to exist.
The word map is not litterarly in there, but “wiped of the map” is a less exagerated translation that Professors Coles translation is underreporting the wording.
Now to the context. Here Cole is not a little of the mark, he is insane and ignorant.
Exactly as Hithens wrote the qute is not that ‘the occupation of Jerusalem must end, just as the occupation of Gaza ended’, implying that Iran want Israel to give Jerusalem to Palestine. The qute is that the “regime that is occupying Jerualem” must be destroyed.
Now call me crazy, but doesn't this support the assertion that Iran's president in fact WAS calling for Israel's destruction?
my point is not only is it not our job, but even if it was there isn't enough hours in a day to focus on every shitty regime on the planet.
Not at all, let me point out some trickery in what you just said:
He calls for the destruction of the Zionist regime so that the occupation of palestinian land may halt. That is very similar to Bush's declaration to destroy Saddam's regime. What's so bad about that? It's incredibly unrealistic that Iran could ever destroy Israel, assuming that is their intent is really narrow minded.
If indeed its trickery, it isn't mine. It is the Iranian translators'.
Well it's clear by any account that the Iranian president is calling for the destruction of the regime and not the state. There is a major difference in the two. I don't agree with either, however based on accepted practice it's not that bad of a thing. I mean, the US has done and continues to threaten to do it, so it must be accepted that any country can threaten another's regime and it's not considered a threat of genocide or totalitarian rule or fascism or anything of the such. Else we must recognize the US for what it really is. No more hipocracy.
Except that no, its not clear. That piece I just posted, a quote from an Iranian source, that you provided, stated that the intent was to express a desire that Israel cease to exist. NOT just the destruction of the Israeli government itself. Maybe you're right and "wipe off a map" isn't the best translation. However, the intent is the exact same. The country should cease to exist. Not just the Zionist regime, whatever that means. By the way, "Zionist regime" could mean just Olmert ... Or maybe Olmert and his cabinet ... Or maybe the entire Israeli governmental apparatus. Or just maybe, Israel period.
You are taking an individuals perception of the translation and attempting to make it the Iranian intent. Which doesn't work with me, and hopefully not the majority. Eliminating a regime is historically accepted, thus it is not as you stated. Ultimately I agree that Zionism needs to be eliminated. If you don't, then I'll consider you a reborn-career-racist.
You can go ahead and call me whatever you'd like ... I am not the person making a fool of himself in this thread, although admittedly I have done so in the past, when I took the bait and let inflammatory posters get under my skin. Your commentary about Zionism does irk me, though, because you so flagrantly disregard the counterarguments people make about that topic.
And for the record, I was referring to that Iranian persons' EXACT WORDS. Not the commentator's perception of them. are you arguing that not all Iranians think Israel should be destroyed? If so, at least we can agree on that.
Yea, I am argueing that. See what I like to do is hop on ICQ and find someone in the region to talk to and get some insight into the common perception. I haven't done this as of yet with Iran, but that would be a place to start if you are serious about understanding the conflict. If you are set in what you believe than keep reading the headlines of mainstream american news.
Dude, we've had this discussion before ... You refuse to get the Jewish perspective on these issues, coming up with all sorts of excuses about Jewish people being big hard-to-find meanies, but now you're telling me that I rely too much on American news? Your point is very well-taken, but I think you should have to practice what you preach as well.
If I can say one more thing ... My commentary was about Iran's president specifically. And yes, his intent was super-clear to most people. This man has no business getting nuclear weapons. I was NOT trying to argue that every single person in Iran shares his views.
http://www.iran.org/
The Jewish perspective is quite rampant on this forum. All I have to do is talk to an American to get a Jewish perspective.
You are right, Iran has no business with nuclear weapons. Neither does Israel or the United States of America. But the hipocracy continues. The holier than thou bullshit.
Wasn't the Iranian president democratically elected?
Basically, the answer is yes, although his regime (and all Iranian regimes since the Shah) are not democratic. How much genuine choice do the people have over there? Would it be possible to elect a regime that was not Islamic? The country is de facto run by clerics. Electing people like the president is a pretext.
The same applies to the United States.
Debatable.
You know, I am suprised. They say we should learn from history else we are doomed to repeat it.
Most sources would agree that WW2 was born out of the Treaty of Versailles which put economic and political pressure on Germany. If it wasn't for that pressure Hitler wouldn't have motivated his population to go to war, even with Herman Goerring setting fire to the Reichstag. We should learn from that. Those kinds of pressures aren't a good thing.