Lost In Translation Iran's president

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Oct 30 2007, 12:42 PM) [snapback]532468[/snapback]</div>

Jeez, what is this love affair you have with Iran and their support of terrorism? You honestly believe they are not in search of nukes or if they are you think they should be allowed to get them.

Below is an article of Iran calling for Israel's destruction and the UN's condemnation of Irans call for Israel's destruction...

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2170.cfm

please explain in your own words how Iran feels towards Israel/Zionism? Do you support Iran's support of terrorism around the world? Do you think we should stand by as Iran supports terrorism?

 

Iran's president seems to say different things at different times, depending on the audience. He takes a very hard line when speaking at home, then softens and blurs it when speaking overseas. Politicians always do this, but his spinning is more pronounced.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Oct 30 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]532483[/snapback]</div>

Has he called for Israel's destruction?
Does his country support terrorism?
Do you think he should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Oct 30 2007, 09:42 AM) [snapback]532468[/snapback]</div>

While it is to our perpetual sorrow that we start wars over misunderstandings between languages, I think this particular piece attempting to mollify an inflammatory statement is a bit of a reach. If the Australian Prime Minister, for example, said, in English, in a public speech that "the democratic regime occupying Washington DC must be eliminated from the pages of history" the world would properly wonder if Australia were contemplating war against the United States. "Eliminate", "vanish", "wipe away" - there's no escaping that, however translated, the principal sentiment is actively hostile, connoting ACTION.

The President of Iran has amply demonstrated he is a bellicose thug; anything he says, even something as innocuous as "it's such a beautiful day" should be regarded with a cautious eye.

The real and extreme danger, in my view, is that identical bellicose thugs occupy Washington DC, and the world may burn if these twin morons start hurling bombs (and I'm afraid it won't be the Iranian moron who throws the first one).

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 30 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]532502[/snapback]</div>

The trick is that we should not let the Iranians get the nuclear bomb to throw first or second. The fact that you equate President Bush on the same level as Armedjihad says all that needs to be said.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 30 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]532502[/snapback]</div>

I would like to ask you the same questions as I asked another person:

1. Do you think Iran is a terror supporting nation?
2. Do you think that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
3. Do you think that Iran has called for Israel's destruction?

Yes or no responses will be adequate.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 30 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]532486[/snapback]</div>

My original post addressed none of the questions you ask, nor do I possess any specialized knowledge of the topic. I therefor respectfully allow my original post to stand as is.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 10 30 11:07) [snapback]532516[/snapback]</div>

Are you calling people names again? I thought you didn't want us to do that. You can't have it both ways.

 

Let me get this straight. When you say "we", you're not including yourself, any family members, or anyone you actually know right?

Yes. Terrorists relative to US and Israels interests.

No, but then I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons.

Yes they have.

Let's add a two more questions:

4. Is there incontrovertible evidence that if a nuclear weapon were to be had by Iran, would it be used? (Note, since you bring it up every other breath, the Holocaust does not count as incontrovertible evidence as future actions by future tyrannical maniacs)

5. If nuking Tehran were the only way to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, would you be in favor of it.

Since you won't answer, I'll answer for you.

Dbermanmd:
4. Yes. Hitler did it. The crazy guy in Tehran will do it.

5. Yes. I hate Ira(q)nians. They are all terrorists(except for the anesthesiologist who I work with). To vaporize them would guarantee no more violence to Israel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 30 2007, 05:02 PM) [snapback]532576[/snapback]</div>

I must admit i am playing with words with his last name - my bad. But, given his continual threats to wipe Israel off the map, given his countries continuing support of terror (Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria), given his countries mad race to develop nuclear weapons - I think that the play of words on his name is pretty darn accurate and good.

Now, how about answering some of my questions posted above?





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 31 2007, 12:39 AM) [snapback]532764[/snapback]</div>

Not that it is any of your business - I have two family members currently fighting this war on terror - one who is an active agent in the FBI and another with the CIA.

I dont understand your terrorist comment - relative to the US and Israel. JEEEEEEEZ. is it ok for iran to support terror? and if it is NOT alright for them to do so - what would you want to do about it? And is it ok for them to support terror relative to Israel's or the US's interests or for that matter anyones interests???

If you do not believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, to what extent would you prevent them from getting them?

now let me answer your questions: and for future reference do NOT EVER speak for me...

1. Iran would use a nuke if they had it or they would export it for others to use - yes they would. It would be similar to giving Hitler a nuke in 1936. Why take the chance (this is a question for you to answer - mind you no other world leader with nukes has ever threatened annihilating another country as Arhmadjihad has numerous times)

2. would i use nukes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat - i would be a lot smarter than that in that i advocate preventing them from getting nukes NOW - through non nuclear means.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Oct 30 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]532553[/snapback]</div>

ducking for cover --- fine -- it would have been better to answer the questions posed since they directly relate to your post. Why did you enter this fray in the first place? Feel free to answer the questions if you are up to it. Either way, the points are obviously well made an irrefutable.

The answers really do not require special knowledge either. He are some of the answers...

Does Iran support terror - yes
Should Iran be allowed to posses nuclear weapons - no
Has Iran called for the destruction of the State of Israel - a sovereign member State of the UN - yes



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Oct 30 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]532557[/snapback]</div>

I think he wanted a response to his post.

You should care about the President of iran for a lot of reasons since he is calling for the murder of millions of people. The way people should have cared about Hitler in the 1930's. History does repeat itself.

You obsession with neocons is amusing and self defeating. You have created a world full of false constructs.

How many civilians have we killed? And do you not give any responsibility of their deaths to the enemy who chooses to fight amongst them. Before you answer this question, you should read the Geneva Conventions on Warfare and see what they say.

Who is saying we should invade iran??? all i hear is that we should prevent them from developing nuclear weapons - what do you think of that specific question - NOT should there be nuclear weapons at all - JUST - should we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons?? a yes or no answer would be best.

Do you really trust the IAEA - what about NoKo, India, Pakistan? what about the nuclear program in Syria that israel just destroyed that they had NO knowledge of. What if Iran does not allow the IAEA full access to its programs? Should the US and or the modern world place its safety and security in the hands of the IAEA - this is a real important question for you to answer?

again - DID IRAN THREATEN TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP? and if they did should that be taken seriously? and if they did should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons? and should any nation that supports terror be allowed to have nuclear weapons? or do you think that iran doe NOT support terror?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 10 31 05:12) [snapback]532838[/snapback]</div>

Hey, it's not like your nickname isn't clever or well earned. Take your pick - either we make fun of people's names, or we don't.

 

Why is it that you are allowed to ask for yes or no answer? Yet you never answer the yes or no questions?

That's why I answered for you. Because I knew that you would not play the game the you would engage in the same game that you offer up.

Try again.

YES OR NO. If you don't answer YES or NO. NEVER AGAIN ASK A YES OR NO QUESTION.

4. Is there incontrovertible evidence that if a nuclear weapon were to be had by Iran, would it be used? (Note, since you bring it up every other breath, the Holocaust does not count as incontrovertible evidence as future actions by future tyrannical maniacs). In fact, feel free to have your CIA/FBI relative play.

5. If nuking Tehran were the only way to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, would you be in favor of it.

If you do not believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, to what extent would you prevent them from getting them?

Follow the noko recipe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 31 2007, 11:21 AM) [snapback]532910[/snapback]</div>

I will let the moderators make the decision re this. But i like the fact you stick up for whatever his name is. Good work.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 31 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]532934[/snapback]</div>

4. Yes Iran would use a nuke if they had it and or they would export it for others to use - NO DOUBT in my mind.
5. Yes. But again, i would prevent them from getting close to it by striking at them today - no hesitation.

Your turn. try answering the moderators question and mine now.

 

Can we see the evidence? Did you have NO DOUBT in your mind that Iraq and WMDs? And please don't give me the old argument that Hilary, MI1, the russians, the french thought so too. We're the only ones to have acted on this BS. Before we act again, can we make sure it's not some paranoid BS evidence again?

I knew if you had the option to, you'd nuke a city.

See my answering for you wasn't that far off.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 31 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]532978[/snapback]</div>

now try answering my questions...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 31 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]532983[/snapback]</div>

Sure.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes

=

dbermanmds willingness to nuke Tehran.

I understand perfectly.

What would I do?

See Noko.

dbermanmds response:

It won't work. Nuke em.

Yeah I understand that your fear and hate makes gives you genocidal ideation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 31 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]532989[/snapback]</div>

In English Please...