Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plan for peace in current conflict....lol
truroute
Posts: 251
"The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first."
Best quote I've heard all day.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4CC21D25-66EA-45BC-B627-168C47D936CF.htm
Best quote I've heard all day.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4CC21D25-66EA-45BC-B627-168C47D936CF.htm
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Do you know what he is referring to? He is referring to the Zionists that want to expand to Greater Israel (Syria, Sinai, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon). That's what he means when he means Zionism, and if our governments can label them terrorists, then I suppose that gives him the right to label Olmert a Zionist.
See what you want to see then buddy.
Yea like wise, chum, pal, amigo, compadre, friend!
Every time Israel is mentioned it's outside of the quotes, because he didn't say it. What he said was regime
re·gime also ré·gime ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-zhm, r-)
n.
A form of government: a fascist regime.
A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
A prevailing social system or pattern.
The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.
OH shit, a dictionary. Havent seen one in years. Go pat yerself on the back oh' enlightened one. (find "yerself" in dictionary)
People like you are so funny to me. Thinking for yourself and outside the box of either side's bs is great. But you try sooo freakin hard that you start beleiving the other-other side just cause they're the underdog. (sorry for crap wording, I havent seen a thesarus for years either)
What he means is that Israel, as it is now, should be wiped off the map. He means Israel should no longer exist at all, in any form. Are you really going to try to defend such genocidal statements? That's just sad. A new low.
That is not in his statements. There is a big spin to this report. I'm not defending Nasrallah, just pointing out the blatant alteration of facts. Ignore the reporters obvious bias and look at what Nasrallah really said, that's what you should be doing.
That quote is funny....To stop this conflict, kill this regime, but we need to stop firing first. Bo basically, stop fighting, then start fighting again. comon.
I or no one else on this thread has tried to twist anything. the link is from Al Jazeera.
Sometimes its good to look at things w/ face value.
When does he suggest the use of physical force to "eliminate the Zionist regime"?
He doesn't, however you say he says "kill this regime". Way to put words in his mouth. Like I said I'm not defending him, but you aren't taking it at face value.
Look at what Nasrallah really said? I'll do that. I'm sure he says exactly the same sort of genocidal garbage that liberals are supposed to oppose, not apologise for. Only thing is we're talking about what the president of Iran said, not what Nasrallah said. I wonder why I even indulge in these pointless debates when the people I'm talking to don't even know enough to keep all the actors straight.
OK, you got me. Stupid me was taking what he said in the recent past about this same issue and applying it to his current statement about the same thing.
He's also said that Israel should be wiped off the map. Those are his exact words. Are you going to argue that he thinks this should be done non-violently? Cause I can tell you that Israelis aren't about to up and leave, and while I think Ahmedinijad is crazy as shit I don't think he's so stupid as to not know this. Oh by the way we're talking about a man who has called for a conference to discuss whether the Holocaust really happened. Are you going to defend Holocaust denial as well? Or maybe you'll say he only wanted to discuss it and hasn't yet denied the Holocaust? Or maybe you'll say that Hassan Nasrallah said it? Wake up. We're talking about a man with ambitions to destroy another nation, to execute genocide. We're talking about a man that wants to aquire nuclear weapons and may well use them. This is a man that arms and supports terrorists. What kind of liberal are you? Oh, and as to your "he said regime not state" nonsense, Hitler never talked about killing all the Jews either. The nazis used nice euphimisms like giving the Jews "special treatment." Anybody with eyes can see that this guy is a genocidal maniac. Honestly people like you disgust me.
Yea, that's what I meant. It could have just as easily been Nasrallah though. Are they really any different to you?
Your reachin' bud.
WOW! Theres a dictionary on the intraweb!!
reach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rch)
v. reached, reach·ing, reach·es
v. tr.
To stretch out or put forth (a body part); extend: reached out an arm.
To touch or grasp by stretching out or extending: can't reach the shelf.
To arrive at; attain: reached a conclusion; reached their destination.
intra-web? You must mean inter-net.
You should spend more time on that dictionary. Intra means contained within a single entity, usually a country, an intranet is the internal network of an individual organization. Inter means spanning across autonomous entities. Such as the Internet, or Intercontinental, etc...
So, perhaps you have a dictionary stored on your intranet, which is unlikely, or maybe you just don't know the implications of those prefixes. Either way, eat it.
10 char
"Oh yeah, that's what I meant. My bad guys." (insert stupid hick voice) Yeah, it could have just as easily been Nasrallah. I believe it was I that pointed that out. And yes they are different to me. For one I can distinguish between different people, and secondly, Nasrallah is a thug who just happens to have more powerful patrons. Ahmedinijad is the president of the state that is the biggest supporter of terrorist in the world, and which is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. The difference to me is that between a SS commandant and Hitler. But you're right that in terms of them both being truly genocidal maniacs, yes there is no difference.
I don't think there is much backing up the claim that he wants nukes. Maybe I'm just naive, but maybe he just wants clean and efficient energy. He said he would respond to the incentives package by august. So we'll see what he says. And what happens if Kahane wins a majority government in Israel, are we going to treat them the same way?
Are you insane? Retarded? Or just plain ignorant? Every intelligence agency in the Western world is saying Iran wants nukes, and Iran just stated that under no circumstances will they give up their nuclear program. And don't come back at me with "well we were wrong about Iraq." Intelligence agencies have been tracking Iran's progress on this since the mid-90's but people were just too stupid to see the danger until now. If he just wanted energy he would have agreed to the proposal that Russia enrich uranium for Iran and then give it to them. But he didn't. Also, it's sort of damning when Iran denied for years that they had any sort of uranium enrichment program, and then when they were finally caught red handed they tried to say it was only for peaceful purposes. AND, they've been developing their nuclear capability in seperate, secret, bunkers all over Iran, that are clearly meant to protect their facilities from military attack, which would only be forthcoming if they were developing a military nuclear capability. And as for Kahanists taking over the government in Israel, you ignorant shmuck, they're a fringe group with no support whatsoever in the mainstream. They can't win a majority in government because their political party is banned and can not run. Honestly, you know nothing about the topics you presume to speak on.
So you think Iran just wants to nuke Israel? Ok. I don't see how they would bennefit from that. It seems logical until you go to the next step. What happens after Iran launches a nuke? They get seriously fucked up by everyone else. Is that going to serve their cause? No, I don't think so. They aren't Nazi germany. There is a major difference between the german army and Iran. If Nazi germany had of launched a nuke that would have started WW2 a lot quicker. I could be wrong, but I'm certainly not taking CNN's word for it.
Kahanism is an aspect of Israel's soceity. In order to truly understand a people, you have to look at them as a whole, not as individuals. Assuming they will never grow in popularity, especially in this time, is ignorant and short-sighted. You might aswell say we'll never need more than 640k. By not acknowledging societies as a whole, you unjustly come to the conlusions that Israel is pure and the entire arab world is racist and beligerent. If Kahanism is not popular then why does Israel have 250,000 settlers on Palestinian land? and what differentiates an authorized and unauthorized outpost?
I don't think they would benefit from nuking Israel, but then I don't think their leaders are entirely rational. They've said in the past that Israel could not survive a nuclear attack but that Iran, due to its much greater size, could. Their right about that. Combine this with their cult of death (see suicide bombers, and the waves of unarmed child martyr soldiers Iran used against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war) and the belief that their messiah will come after the world is plunged into chaos (the hidden imam) and you may just have a country crazy enough to use nukes even though they would get nuked back.
As for Kahanism, I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are almost certainly the most marginal political group in Israel. They are even more marginal that Israel's Arab citizens, who, unlike the Kahanists, hold seats in the Knesset. I don't disagree that you can't understand a society by looking at individuals alone. But this is exactly what you're doing. You're taking an exceptionally small fringe group, that has been completely rejected by the rest of the society and saying, "look, Kahanists exist in Israel. This society must be sick to the core." This is completely ridiculous. You are looking at a few individuals and then judging the rest of society. Saying that the Kahanists will take over Israeli society is like saying the KKK will take over American society. Anything is possible, but it is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. With regard to the settlers, your question reflects the dirth of knowledge you have about the topic. There are many reasons why there are settlers in the West Bank. To begin with the majority of Israelis in the West Bank moved there for a better quality of life. Most of the large settlements are suburban cities close to major Israeli population centers within the green line. The government gives people tax incentives to live in the West Bank, housing is more affordable, and many of the communities there are quite suburban settings ideal for raising children. It's basically the same reasons why people choose to live in suburbs everywhere. Granted people also feel a connection to the land there because of its religious significance, but they aren't crazy. Most settlers are religious, (though certainly not all. A significant portion of them are entirely secular.) right of center, and entirely peaceful. It is only a very few settlers that belong to the Kahanist fringe. To label the settlers as Kahanists is simply not in keeping with reality, and betrays your ignorance of the Israeli reality.
Stop firing upon us, so we have time to reload, and get Iran's bigger better weapons in here, then fuck that peacelovin ceasefire. Anyone who falls for Iran and their cronies shtick is an idiot.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I think they've learned some lessons from Arafat and the Palestinians - call a "hudna", get Israel to stop attacking, get some bigger, better weapons, and then do it all over again. Pretty sad that only Israel and the US actually recognize it for what it is.