BS: Live and let live?

Subject: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:45 AM

Iran calls for Israel's destruction


Discussion? This is the country that the EU said it would stop from getting nuclear weapons, so the US should not worry about it...

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 11:30 AM

The liberal opposition in Iran were winning before the Gulf war made it easy for the ayatollahs to call them traitors.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 11:40 AM

One thing no one has figured out is how to utilize a nuclear strike and not have it affect one's own survival. Nowadays it would take a real death wish - and for one's people - to begin the madness. When the US did it, it was pretty safe, as far as retribution was concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 11:49 AM

Scary political view from another mad bastard, IMO. I agree that Iran should be expelled from the UN. However, I do not think the US should take action against Iran unilaterally. If there is to be another Gulf War (as opposed to Iraq War), and the UN sets out 'guidelines' or 'rules of engagement', it does seem that support from the international community would be there. I suppose now that the dance will commence while yet another country creates--IMO continues to create--nuclear weapons. Frankly, I do not see what the question is--no offense, Bruce. I am a very basic kinda guy. This sonuvabitch has to go. Sooner rather than later would be good because it will save lots of kids from getting killed in another bloody war. And that's where this will lead, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

I agree that the remarks are repugnant and reprehensible, but can someone please tell me how Iran could possibly pose a nuclear threat against Israel? If Iran nukes Israel, it will be impossible to confine the destruction to just Israel and, more specifically, Jews in Israel. Any nuclear strikes against Israel will create massive destruction and loss of life in Muslim Countries, and also for Muslims living within Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:06 PM

CarolC,

And the Iranians would care how much? Look at how many Palestinians they took in after 1948...

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:24 PM

I think they would care because, unlike the question of whether or not to take in Palestinians in 1948, they would be putting their future in jeopardy if they used nukes on large numbers of Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:59 PM

When god nuked Soddom & Gommorah he gave the 'good guys' a heads-up. Perhaps Iran will send busses in for the muslim folks before bombing Jerusalem. It would be Jerusalem, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:24 PM

I don't think so. Jerusalem is one of Islam's most holy locations. But maybe that was your point.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:30 PM

Indeed. Perhaps the razing of Jerusalem would give the Abramic trinity a common cause upon which they could collaborate?

what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:33 PM

CarolC the non-Jews caught up in the struggle would be declared as martyrs by the 12 'Old Gits' of Iran and be guaranteed their place in paradise - so nothing to worry about there, all part of the game. The 12 'Old Gits' are prepared to wind up 12 year old kids to kit themselves up with explosive vests to make the ultimate sacrifice - The 12 'Old Gits' wouldn't even come close to following such a course of action, such is the steadfastness of their, so called, own beliefs.

The question in point is how can you have the elected leader of one country which is a member of the United Nations - an international body erroneously held in extremely high regard by most on this forum - stating with the utmost clarity that he desires the elimination of a fellow member state recognised by the United Nations - Of course you can't, this tosser has got to be brought before the United Nations Security Council and forced to explain his remarks very clearly - he then has to be sent on an extremely humiliating world tour explaining to the population of the world at large that he had fucked up right royaly and further explain that he did not mean a single word of what he said. This process of humiliation to end with Iran signing a peace treaty with Israel, the signing being done by this TWAT in Jerusalem. This populist tosser has done more harm to cause of the Palestinians in five minutes than Tosser Arafat did in a fuckin' livetime.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:45 PM

CarolC the non-Jews caught up in the struggle would be declared as martyrs by the 12 'Old Gits' of Iran and be guaranteed their place in paradise

And similarly, the 12 'Old Gits' of Iran would be declared as martyrs and guaranteed their place in paradise after being eliminated by angry Muslims (some of whom have their own nuclear weapons) from other countries.

Interesting fantasy you've come up with there, Teribus (if somewhat juvenile), but not very likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:04 PM

Nuclear weapons come in lotsa sizes. Israel itself has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. I said once before on this forum that my biggest fear regarding the Gulf War--when missiles were hitting Israel--was that some would contain chemical or biological warfare agents. If that had happened, the Middle East would have become a place of death, lots of it, because Israel would have had no choice BUT to use nuclear weapons on the countries that had sworn to destroy it. I suspect that Israel's nuclear arsenal is larger than it was then when best estimates were between ten and twenty. Recent estimates suggest over a hundred. If that ridiculous sonuvabitch got close to using a nuke on Israel, do you actually think that he'd live to tell someone to launch it, drop it or secrete it in Israel? The Mossad would have his balls for bookends. And Iran would be a radiation zone for for a good 10,000 years.

I know many folks here dislike the military of any country, and in some ways I agree. However, only a really stupid person would underestimate the will of the Israelis or their abilities. Their pilots are amongst the best in the world, and their special forces people are certainly on par with the SAS, JTF2, Seals or GSG9. If it gets more heated, Hashemi-Rafsanjani would meet his maker sooner than he'd like.

He is a very dangerous man, and his remark that the complete destruction of Israel would only cost 'damages'--hey, fuck that. He'll be removed if this isn't satisfactorily put to bed, and he'll no longer be the number two man in Iran. I cannot believe that any country would publicly suggest the use of atomic weapons--and in the process alienate the civilized world. Parabellum 101. "There's a hole in his head where his brains used to be, and now he's a fuckin' hero." (With apologies to Pat Sky.)

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:04 PM

So they've got a stupid bugger as president in Iran as well? They aren't exactly unique in that respect.

Unlike some others at least this guy hasn't currently got a massive nuclear arsenal, or hundred of thousands of troops occupying other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:43 PM

CarolC, are you wearing your Jihad t-shirt today?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:06 PM

CarolC have you heard one murmer of condemnation relating to the President of Irans speech from another muslim country? - I haven't.

So where are your, "angry Muslims" going to come from?

Please remember that this is nothing new, Iran and Iraq have been spewing out this anti-Israeli venom and providing support for terrorist organisations for decades. Only recent improvement has been that since March 2003 Iraq has been removed from the equation - no doubt there are some here that will be able to explain how that came about.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:59 PM

I haven't looked yet, Teribus, so no, I haven't. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened though.

However, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting that other Muslim countries will be angry about Israeli Jews getting nuked (although I have no doubt that the idea of such a thing happening would horrify the majority of Muslims in the world). I am talking about Muslim countries getting angry about Muslims getting nuked.

Enlightened self-interest. That's the key motivator. Iran assures it's own destruction if it nukes Israel. There is no reason for them to do that, the Iranian president's repugnant rhetoric notwithstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:44 AM

"Enlightened self-interest. That's the key motivator. Iran assures it's own destruction if it nukes Israel. There is no reason for them to do that, the Iranian president's repugnant rhetoric notwithstanding."

Tell me CarolC does the concept of 'Martyrdom' ring any bells?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:35 AM

Oh, we just don't understand what he said...


(from the article today on CNN)


Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was among the protesters as Iranian officials tried to play down his comments.
...
Iran's Moscow embassy, often used by Tehran to issue statements on foreign policy, said that Ahmadinejad did not mean to "speak up in such sharp terms."
....
"It's absolutely clear that, in his remarks, Mr. Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories," Reuters quoted the embassy statement as saying.

.........

Meanwhile, a day after the global condemnation, tens of thousands of Iranians rallied in Tehran and other cities as part of al-Quds -- Jerusalem -- Day protests, The Associated Press reported.

Demonstrators held banners with anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian slogans. One banner read "Death to Israel, death to America," AP said.

The state-organized rallies were first held in 1979 after Shiite Muslim clerics took power in Iran.







Peace,
   Good points- but more insane things have been done in the name of religious hatred. The whole idea of nuclear deterrence is that the other side is NOT willing to suffer being attacked by nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:55 AM

Washington Post Editorial...

IRANIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used words Wednesday that have not been heard from a senior Iranian official in some time. "Israel," he declared, "must be wiped off the map." What's more, "anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury." ... But Mr. Ahmadinejad's recent predecessors generally avoided such rhetoric, partly because the goal of eliminating Israel has been disavowed by the Palestinian leadership and partly because Iran sought to improve relations with the West.

These vile words won't necessarily be followed by actions, though Iran possesses missiles that can reach Israel and sponsors terrorists who carry out suicide attacks in its cities. They do, however, send the clearest signal yet that Iran's new government has no intention of seeking accommodation with Europe or the United States, or of accepting a more peaceful Middle East in which Israel lives alongside a democratic Palestinian state.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Grab
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:28 AM

CarolC have you heard one murmer of condemnation relating to the President of Irans speech from another muslim country? - I haven't

Teribus, quoting from this BBC article:-

"Egypt said they showed "the weakness of the Iranian government". A Palestinian official also rejected the remarks... Turkey's prime minister called on the Iranian president "to display political moderation"."

I reckon if even the Palestinians say he shouldn't have said that about Israel, then he's *really* out there on his own! :-/

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 12:31 PM

Hi Grab,

At the time I posted the passage you quoted, there had been no statements made by those referred to in the link you provided to the BBC News story.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:05 PM

Tell me CarolC does the concept of 'Martyrdom' ring any bells?

Yes, but have you ever noticed that the ones at the top never offer to get themselves martyred? That should tell you something.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:06 PM

Some of youse guys are pretty young and don't remember: this is the same country (Iran) that gassed (Kurds and others) its own people 10/15/20??? years ago--repeatedly. Don't rely on their "enlightened self-interest" to stop the madness....Which Tom Lehrer song has the line about "...we will all glow together when we go..."? These folks keep trying this trick--over and over the Jews were persecuted through the centuries; they dispersed, hunkered down, survived, came back. Then Hitler attempted his "final solution"--and instead of extinction, they raised up, returned home, developed their own army. Every time someone tries this s**t the Jews get stronger and more determined. The ayatollahs have lost focus on the big picture. They're cruisin' for a bruisin'; seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot. Thought that action was reserved fer us Yella Dawg Demuhkrats. Nice to be mistaken.          Tw

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:11 PM

Iran has been making anti-israeli statements for many many years. The powers that be, have pounced on this merely as the excuse for an iranian invasion that was inevitable from the start prior to these hateful remarks made by the Iranian president.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Grab
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:20 PM

No worries Teribus, I just wanted to update on where things were so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:25 PM

Iran's behavior has been no more bloody than our own in that respect, Tannywheeler. The US was supporting both sides of the Iran/Iraq war against each other, at the cost of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. And how many times have we heard people here in the US, including some of our own politicians, saying something along the lines of "let's nuke 'em and turn the whole damn country into a parking lot", whenever someobody does something we don't like?

The Ayatollahs may be self described "religious leaders", but they are also politicians. They need a country to lord it over. It's what politicians live for. And I would suggest that not even the most rabid of Islamic fundamentalists would believe they would become a "martyr for Islam" and go to paradise after their death if they turned some of Islam's most holy sites into parking lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:33 PM

...or maybe we did understand.



President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- marching with the protesters -- signaled he stood by his remarks, even as Iranian officials tried to defuse the issue.

"My word is the same as that of (the) Iranian nation," he told the official IRNA news agency.

"They are free to say but their words lack any credit," he said, when asked about global reaction to his comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:52 PM

How is that these shit-for-brains psychos seem to gravitate uphill? Do they, like Hussein, just terrify those they meet along the way until they are at the top?

I know the question seems naive, but it never ceases to startle me when it turns out yet again that a drooling maniac has wormed his way to the seat of power in some country or other, such as our own.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Tannywheeler
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:54 PM

Yo, Amos---maybe we could get a grant to study the phenomenon...Tw

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:56 PM

What gives America the right to police the world ? When you look at what Israel, which to me is an American state has done to the true owners on the lands there I feel Iran is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM

Any attack on Israel would be a Chemical or Nuclear attack against a major population centre, other than Jereselum. Irael would retaliate, probably with Nuclear strikes against Iranian millitary targets.

The Iranian Leadershp know they would not suvive an attack on Israel, both physically and politically. They might be somewhat rabid, but the current lot are not quite mad enough to do it. The next lot is another question....

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:50 PM

I think too many people here are confusing issues.

1) A world leader has advocated the use of nuclear weapons to desimate a people and destroy a sovereign nation. He has advocated mass murder.

Stop acting like Neville Chamberlain; he fucked up big time.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

did he actually say he wanted to use nuclear weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:56 PM

Peace, I think you are making incorrect assumptions about what some of us are doing on this thread. I, for one, do not excuse what the president of Iran has said. But I do question the idea that Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel. That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:10 PM

BTW, Bunnahabhain, I could see the possibility of a localized chemical attack, but not nuclear, even for cities other than Jerusalem. The fallout from the use of nuclear weapons would cause devastating consequences for both Jordan as well as Egypt. Both of those countries have diplomatic relations with Israel. They don't have a burning need or desire to see Israel destroyed, and I don't see them taking a nuclear attack on that country, with the resulting nuclear fallout on their own people, very kindly.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:27 PM

"anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

As you said, CarolC, "The fallout from the use of nuclear weapons would cause devastating consequences for both Jordan as well as Egypt. Both of those countries have diplomatic relations with Israel."

Why would this bother Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:52 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel

"Some demonstrators chanted "Israel is approaching its death" and wore white shrouds in a symbolic gesture expressing readiness to die for their cause.

A resolution was read at the end of the rallies backing "the position declared by the president that the Zionist regime must be wiped out."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki defended his president's comments, saying they represented Iran's long-held policy of not recognizing Israel."

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:07 PM

" ...Iran possesses missiles that can reach Israel and sponsors terrorists who carry out suicide attacks in its cities. They do, however, send the clearest signal yet that Iran's new government has no intention of...accepting a more peaceful Middle East in which Israel lives alongside a democratic Palestinian state. "

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:09 PM

Why would this bother Iran?

Because, strategically, beardedbruce, using nuclear weapons just doesn't make any sense for what the extremists in Iran have in mind. There are other ways of accomplishing the Iranian president's stated goal that don't guarantee Iran's complete destruction. Those are the methods I would be looking for them to use.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:15 PM

If ever a pretext for the pre-emptive bombing of Iran's (so-called PEACEFUL) nuclear facilities was required,
it was handed to Israel on a silver platter yesterday.

Stay tuned.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:57 PM

Carol,

That was not specifically addressed to you. And, I see I misspelled decimated.

Also, no, he didn't say 'nuclear'. However, 'wiped out' cannot likely be accomplished any other way. The response would certainly be nuclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:05 PM

Politicians often use intemporate language to infuence a specific audiance.

Remember the "Evil Empire" or the "Axis of Evil"

Throughout history, attempts have been made by the English to "wipe out" various nationalities or cultures, including the Scots and Irish.
Lets not get too excited about what was obviously meant for domestic consumption.

The fact that no progress on the "Palistinian problem" has been made by the nations who created it, must get frustrating after 50yrs of equivocation....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:14 PM

I actually think he said that Israel should be wiped off the map, not wiped out, there may or may not be a difference in meaning. My take on it would be that it should be regarded seriously by Israel and the United Nations.

As to Iran attacking Israel with either CB weapons, or with nuclear weapons at a later date. They wouldn't have to, they could do it annonymously by proxy through one of the terrorist organisations they support, that way they could claim to be not guilty of any wrong doing.

Oddly enough it was exactly that threat that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was perceived as being capable of in the post 9/11 threat evaluations.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:28 PM

However, 'wiped out' cannot likely be accomplished any other way.

I think I would have to disagree with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 08:59 PM

That is a game of semantics. That is NOT what's on the table with the remark. It is a statement meant to convey extermination of
a) the country, Israel
b) the Israeli people
c) both

The means is here nor there. The threat is clear. In my mind, the likely Israeli response is also clear. At some point, wise people do NOT wait for an attacker to follow through on a threat.

Personally, if someone is foolish enough to say, "I am going to punch you in the mouth," I nail him right away. I have never bothered waiting for him to actually throw the punch. Makes me a dirty sonuvabitch I guess. That's life.

Reminds me o the line in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly": If you're gonna shoot, shoot; don't talk.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:03 PM

"Food for thought"
Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that? [3]

David Ben Gurion....First Prime Minister of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:30 PM

"Wiped off the map" might not be a sensible way for a head of state to talk. But it needn't mean what it's been taken to mean.

Within the last few years a fair number of countries have been "wiped off the map". East Germany and West Germany, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia - and the list could be extended. Some day, when Ireland gets re-united and if Scotland gets its independence, the "United Kingdom" will have been wiped off the map.

What matters isn't so much countries, it's people. In principle there are two equatable futures for Israel/Palestine. One is for there to be two countries side by side, Israel and Palestine, one predominently Jewish, the other predominently Muslim and Christian. The other would be a reunited country within the historic boders of Palestine, shared by both peoples. The former appears more likely to be achievable, but there have always been those in both communities who would ideally choose the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:14 AM

One numb-brained Iranian idiot has handed on a plate the "justification" for a military adventure to another set of new age Neanderthals who have been throwing balls of crap from their own court in recent months.And if any one has in mind to point out that the "idiot" happens to be an elected Iranian leader, I would suggest that they take a glance [ even a casual one] at what they themselves have elected.The middle East is a tragedy. The powers in Europe --Britain, France, ---are far from guiltless in the matter of what has transpired. And the present interference by the most powerful "coalition" of WMD-possessing gangs ever seen in history has no moral justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 01:28 AM

Thats true, Boab, the elected Iranian leader wouldn't even be in power except that previous corruption led to the backlash by the voting populace.

As to the tone of this thread - I am dismayed. Is this the first time you have heard that middle eastern people blame the U.S. and Israel for their troubles?

Why is it that everyone automatically assumes that destruction must occur through war? What the Iranian leader said was re-enforcement of "an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem."

That is not unlike the desire of many other peoples who feel that there country has been stolen. Like Ben Gurion said, "They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" ...and why are we so threatened by their freedom to express their feelings?

My guess is that Israel and the United States will implode economically without one nuke ever being fired by Iran or any other country.

I totally agree with McGrath. Maps of the World are constantly changing. Wiping a country off the map doesn't automatically mean nuclear destruction. I think you are all feeding into the U.S. desire to invade Iran and the fear of nuclear warfare.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 02:53 AM

My guess is that Israel and the United States will implode economically without one nuke ever being fired by Iran or any other country.

This is what I think their (Iran and some other countries, as well as Bin Laden) long-term strategy is, in a similar fashion to what happened to the Soviet Union, which has been, as McGrath pointed out, "wiped off the map". I think they are conducting a very long, drawn out war of attrition. And I think they are winning.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,bani
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:35 AM

Testing and trying to live

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:45 AM

I Agree Carol, and my worry is our reaction to that strategy.

The time cant be far off when the powerfull will begin to take what they want in the way of energy resources, without the cover of "spreading democracy" or "world policemen".

Once that happens the vulnerable in our own countries become under threat.

Fascism ...Police state....Dictatorship, all horrors if we dont find an alternative way to live.
People are selfish and rather than face a cut in "living standards " many would settle for piracy and domination of our brothers and sisters.

All this is the inevitable result of "organised society", "progress", technology, but "organisation" of humanity to serve the purposes of our economic system is the most virulent of all.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: stevenrailing
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:23 AM

The worry i have is that if the Iraq war could fuel the fans of hate amongst muslim extremists in the UK to bomb us, what will happen in the UK if Iran is attacked?

more blood on Blairs hands. we should not send our boys to another war that does not concern us

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:50 AM

"He didn't mean wiping the Jewish people off the map. We don't have a problem with them," said Muhammad Ali Chitsaz, 36, a dentist. "We can have peaceful coexistence with them. What we are against is their treatment of the Palestinians. They should allow the Palestinians to return to their homeland and then decide the government on the basis of who is the majority." From this report about a big demo in Tehran yesterday.

It was a stupid and provocative way of putting it by the Iran president all right. But there are no grounds for interpreting it as some kind of call for genocide, and using it as a pretext for war.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:09 PM

From the Turkish Weekly:

"He said "Lots of hopeless people ask whether a world without America or Zionism is possible or not"? And then, added that the answer to this question is absolutely positive as the same thing was happened in Iran Monarchy case, USSR case and Saddam dictatorship case. He pointed out that the famous iron curtain collapsed and it can be found only in history books nowadays. He told that "A recent similar case is Saddam, who assumed himself immortal and eternal, but today his legs and arms are chained and he is adjudicated by his former collaborators today" and following these examples he made a quotation from the Imam Khomeini's speech and said "As the Imam said, the Occupier regime of al-Qods must be wiped off the map". Than he continued to defend the Palestinians right of having their own territories and own government."

So why is everyone so upset by this speech? He didn't say anything about killing the Jew or the Americans. It was clearly a reference to the governments of those people.

I'd like to wipe out the present government of the United States, myself, but that doesn't mean I want to kill anyone. I'm also quite sure that there are Jews in Israel who do not approve of Zionist politicians.

Take a deep breath, people and don't let fear control your mind. This is exactly what the Bush regime wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 01:59 PM

Good post Diana....

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:29 PM

"And then, added that the answer to this question is absolutely positive as the same thing was happened in Iran Monarchy case, USSR case and Saddam dictatorship case."

If memory serves, America was instrumental in the fall of these governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 12:46 AM

What David Hannam said, concisely and truthfully.The rest of us are merely point-scoring.....

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 11:43 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:11 PM

Iran has been making anti-israeli statements for many many years. The powers that be, have pounced on this merely as the excuse for an iranian invasion that was inevitable from the start prior to these hateful remarks made by the Iranian president.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 03:35 PM

"The powers that be, have pounced on this merely as the excuse for an iranian invasion"

The powers that be are the whole civilized world.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 04:12 PM

In retrospect the term 'the powers that be' was a vague notion by me, but equally as incorrect i think is to say the 'whole civilized world'.

The US tentacles spread far. Iran has being making anti-israeli statments for many many years, so why the huge interest by the US and certain members of the UN?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 04:24 PM

Now that was one "friend" Iran would definitely be better off withiout.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:18 PM

Right, Hannam. Like you give a shit about anyone who's not white.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:31 PM

must you always see everything in black and white peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:35 PM

When it comes to you and your racism, YES.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:39 PM

What a simplistic life and mindset you lead. Have a happy one anyway.

Next will be the dreaded headlines that Iran is undertaking a weapons of mass destruction programme. The US is a colonial monster, and is playing dangerously close to the edge here i think.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 01:53 AM

If the U.S. is a colonial monster, what does that make the Zionists of Israel? Seems to me they are doing a pretty good job of convincing the rest of the world that they are the good guys.

The Italians are actually protesting the remarks made by the Iranian president by organizing pro-Israel marches. Why is it that nobody seems to be able to understand the words of Ben Gurion, "They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"

Get ready folks, the U.S. is getting ready to invade Iran and this time they have created enough fear in the rest of the world to actually have support. It isn't WMD's this time its the nuclear threat that they have been harping about for months and now they have siezed on a statement taken out of context.

I am disgusted that so many would fall for this propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

"What a simplistic life and mindset you lead. Have a happy one anyway."

Doesn't change the fact that you are a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:08 PM

dianavan,

"statement taken out of context."?????????


Can you please tell us what you mean? How was it out of context? He even defended saying it, explaining that he meant it just as we had understood it.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 02:48 PM

Talking about things being taken out of context:

""They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" Ben Gurion

That is a statement of what Ben Gurion believes to be the Arab perception of the situation.

Now the Iranian President, at a Conference rejoicing under the banner World without Zionism, said something suggesting that it would be beneficial if Israel was wiped off the map. At the same time this man's country (a signatory of the Nuclear NPT - Israel is not) stands accused by the IAEA of being in breach of the NPT and is believed to be pursuing a course of action that will lead to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Now what context would you as an Israeli take those remarks to mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 04:04 PM

Maps get redrawn every day, and countries get wiped off the map with increasing rapidity. That doesn't mean the places and the people are destroyed.

The world map used to be dominated by something called "the British Empire". You won't find it there today. You won't find the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the USSR, or the Roman Empire...

"Lo all our pomp of yesterday is one with Nineveh and Tyre...

All wiped off the map, for good or ill. That's the way the world goes, and there's no reason to think it's stopped changing.

.........................

That quote from Ben Gurion was pretty obviously given by dianavan for whatb it was, his understanding of the way that Palestinian Arabs must inevitably feel. The ability to put yourselves in the shoes of your opponents, and see the world through their eyes is a pretty basic requirement for anyone who aspires to be a political leader. Well, it should be, because if you can't do that you are wearing a blindfold.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 05:25 PM

Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.

That is a statement of what David Ben Gurion thought of the treatment of the Palistinians.....and no amount of wriggling will alter it!!

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM

Iraq was also"believed" to be pursuing a course of action which would have led to the aquisition of nuclear weapons!!

This "belief" was based on lies and misinformation, and used to make a case for an illegal war of aggression...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Nov 05 - 10:14 PM

akenaton, 03 Nov 05 - 05:35 PM

"Iraq was also "believed" to be pursuing a course of action which would have led to the aquisition of nuclear weapons!!"

Absolutely correct ould son, that belief was so strong that all fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously for a Resolution to put the matter to rights and establish beyond doubt that this was not the case. The information they were acting on was supplied by their own inspectors - not by George W Bush, not by Tony Blair - FACT.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 08:18 AM

FACT my arse!!

Your so called facts are getting thinner by the day.

Nobody thought Iraq had a nuclear capability, not even the guys sent out to Niger to fabricate a reason for Bush and Blairs war.
And certainly not the UN inspectors ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM

" pursuing a course of action which would have led to the aquisition of nuclear weapons!!"

and

" had a nuclear capability"

are different things. The UN DID state that Iraq was in NON_COMPLIANCE with the last chance resolution. The UN inspectors stated that, on the deadline date specified in that resolution.

FACT

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 01:02 PM

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05r.html

"Iran's main intents lie in two efforts: one is asymmetric warfare, and the other is weapons of mass destruction," said Anthony Cordesman, strategic analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a public policy think tank in Washington.

Cordesman, author of "Iran's Developing Military Capabilities," a CSIS-sponsored report assessing Iran's armed forces, and a former high-ranking Pentagon official, also noted that in light of uncertainties about Iran's nuclear capabilities, a military strike on the Islamic republic would be "disastrous" and so a diplomatic approach is the way to go, even if that might not entirely stop Iran from pursuing a military alternative, he said.

Although the United States publicly says it prefers to deal with Iran through diplomacy for now, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a television interview earlier this year, did not rule out the possibility that Israel might hit Iran's nuclear facilities.

Cordesman's remarks come just days before foreign ministers from France, Britain and Germany - the so-called European Union 3 - will meet Iranian officials to negotiate a permanent halt to Iran's already-suspended uranium enrichment program. The step is a key part of both civilian and military nuclear programs."





"permanent halt to Iran's already-suspended uranium enrichment program"















still waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 05 - 01:41 PM

All fifteen members of the security council voted unanimously for a motion that provided n apparent way of stopping a pre-emptive American invasion, by kicking the issue into the long grass until Blix had had a chance to carry out inspections that would determine it one way or another.

The understanding was that the decision as to what to do about it still rested with the Security Council, without which an invasion would be illegal. Which it was in the opinion of virtually all experts in international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 06:48 AM

MGOH, what complete and utter twaddle:

"All fifteen members of the security council voted unanimously for a motion that provided n apparent way of stopping a pre-emptive American invasion, by kicking the issue into the long grass until Blix had had a chance to carry out inspections that would determine it one way or another."

I have to assume, judging by the content of the post, that the 'n' between provided and apparent is 'an' and not 'no'.

All 1441 said was that Iraq failed to comply in full with the letter and intent of the resolution they would face serious consequences, the US stated very clearly what they deemed those serious consequences to mean. Further the US reinforced that declaration of intent by placing an armed force of 250,000 men on Iraq's door step, it was the presence of those troops and the urging of the US administration at the time that got Blix & Co back into Iraq, nothing else - even Blix agrees with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Nov 05 - 08:21 PM

My God!!   were surely not still arguing about whether or not Saddam was complying.

Leaked documents have made it abundantly clear that the decision for war had been taken long before 1441.
All the play acting at the UN was simply an attempt to legitimise the process.

This is a tactic used by a few remaining pro war posters on Mudcat...get the discussion bogged down in pointless arguments which are impossible to prove.

The bastards wanted a war, they wanted to prove their strength to the American people, they wanted control of Iraq and eventually the whole Middle East
They were wrong and we were right. They created a catastrophy, killing thousands in the name of America and Britain.

One day they should be held to account, often the crimes of our leaders are covered up. we just move on to something else and the past is left to the historians.
But in this case, the Iraq war....we have them...it dosn't happen often, but we have them;   and if we've any guts we'll try them, lock them up and with a bit of luck lose the key!!....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 06:56 PM

Ake,

You are correct. The decision for war was when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and then did not comply with his obligations and the UN Resolutions. Had the US NOT made plans ( note the word- PLANS) to take action, we would have been failing in both reason and our international obligations. The TRIGGER that set off the ACTION was Saddam's non-complance with 1441. As stated by the UN. He was told what would happen if he did not comply, and chose not to.

Perhaps the people who should be held accountable are those who stated that there would be no action taken if he continued to violate the cease-fire terms....

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 08:08 PM

The USA failing to fulfil its international obligations? Perish the thought. For example it's obligations under the UN Charter.

"Serious consequences" quite intentionally left it open for those consequences to be determined at a future time. And the only body with the authority to determine what that action should be, and whether it was justified, was the Security Council, not the government of individual countries.

It was on that understanding that Resolution 1441 was approved, as a way of holding back the rush to war, and of putting additional pressure on Saddam to cooperate in demonstrating that he had in fact complied with earlier resolution to get rid of his weapons of mass destuction.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 07:09 AM

"of putting additional pressure on Saddam to cooperate in demonstrating that he had in fact complied with earlier resolution to get rid of his weapons of mass destuction. "


Which the UN determined, by his non-compliance, that he had NOT demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 10:57 AM

Just imagine for a moment a German chancellor would say Poland should be wiped from the map.
I'm sure you'd agree that he only meant to say a bit awkwardly that the map of the world changes every couple of years and that just theoretically that could happen to Poland as well. I'm sure you'd post that he has only said that for the home audience (they like to hear some strong words when drunk and wearing the brown uniforms). And then you'd say that people were not meant, only borders, and could the Poles not live equally well in just another friedly and humane country? Ake would find a quote from a Polish politician who said one could see that from a German point of view there could be some grievances due to former German land taken over by Poland.

Perhaps you are right and the nicest possible interpretation is the correct one. I hope so. But if I was a politician in Israel I'd at least consider the possibility that a less nice interpretation is meant. One interpretation is a threat with genocide.

At the very least I expect from a politician to consider how his words could be interpreted from an outside view. The present leader of Iran is a dangerous politician.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 12:13 PM

No more dangerous that our own "Dear Leader"!

Your example Wolfgang, has no similarity to the situation between Israelis/Palistinians, as you probably know very well.

I dont really blame the Israelis for trying to hold on to to land the were given and annexed. I blame the people who created the situation in the first place, and after 60yrs, dont make any real attempt to construct a solution.

Ben Gurion knew that a great wrong had been done to the people of Palistine and admitted it openly . He was a fine man!

If only our politicians and certain posters here were made from the same stuff...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 12:21 PM

Careful Wolfgang, if you keep putting such things in such simple and powerful terms, you might just get through to people.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 07:50 PM

Wolfgang - The last time I checked, Germany was not engaged in an ongoing struggle with Poland.

What the Iranian leader said was in the context of an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem.

They have always felt that their country was stolen and have never given up hope of reclaiming Jerusalem. Why is everyone so surprised and shocked?

Yes, he is dangerous but no more dangerous than George Bush and far less threatening.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 08:52 PM

"One interpretation is a threat with genocide."

That is indeed true. But it is not the only interpretation, although it has been widely reported in terms that implied that it was. The non-genocidal understanding of the words apears to have been that taken by ordinary Iranians, talking to Western reporters in Iran.

It was clearly a very stupid thing for the Iranian president to say, and any leader who is capable of that kind of stupidity is a danger, most especially to his own people.

I am reminded of when Bush shot his mouth off about how it was time to wage "a crusade" in response to 911.

At that time it would have been a very good idea for anyone writing in a Muslim context to explain that Bush's use of the term did not have to be interpreted in what would probably seen by many (most?) Muslims as the obvious way, as indicating a determination to wage a holy war against Islam on the part of a Christendom with massive miltary superiority, and equipped with a horrifying arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

In the same way it is a good idea now to suggest that the language used by another loose-mouthed president need not mean what it has been widely taken as meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:04 AM

As an example of a "dangerous" leader.

Today Blair attempts to introduce internment without trial to the UK.
A dangerous ploy to use terrorist scare tactics, not for party political advantage, but for personal advantage.

Whether Blair wins or loses todays vote , he will portray the opposition (both left and right ) as being "soft on terrorism".

Theis legislation is a real danger to our civil liberties, not just potential "wrong doers" but every one of us who wish to protest over any domestic matter.
It will also be counter productive as a deterrent to terrorism, as was proved in Northern Ireland.

The most dangerous man in Britain is not a "mad Mullah", but our mad Prime Minister...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:44 PM

Not only is it mad, it isn't even original. Can't Blair come up with any evil ideas of his own?

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 09:25 PM

Of those held at Guantanamo without trial, 73 have been sent to other governments (I think its called out-sourcing torture) and another 179 have been released. About 500 remain.

That means about 1/3 (after how many years of detainment without trial?) have been released from Guantanamo. Looks like they are trying to empty Guantanamo before outside pressure becomes to intense.

Are you saying that they are trying to legitimize this practice in Britain?

If Britain allows it, it will be considered the standard for the so-called 'free world.

It has to be stopped or none of us are safe from persecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:32 AM

Wolfgang - The last time I checked, Germany was not engaged in an ongoing struggle with Poland. (Dianavan)

You didn't get it. I thought that the 'brown uniforms' were a clear enough indication that I was talking about the chancellor of Germany in the 1930s.

Maybe Ake didn't get too so he couldn't see the many similarities.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:55 PM

Well it's a nice change to have someone not automatically taking every mention of Germany as implying a reference to the Nazi era.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:55 PM

How strange! I'm sorry about my posts of Nov. 9th. This must be the wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:10 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/11/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 10:24 AM

The Iranian president has added some clarifications to his former statement which makes some of the more charitable interpretations untenable now. The Jews have to disappear from where now is Israel and not just the state of Israel. Ethnic cleansing is the most benevolent interpretation I read now in his words.

The sickness bequeathed by the west to the Muslim world (opinion from the GUARDIAN)

Welcome to the world view of Neonazis, Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:45 AM

Bigotry Rules !!

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 14 Dec 05 - 11:48 AM

And 100 posts

Subject: RE: BS: Live and let live?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Dec 05 - 03:47 PM

The left-wing Green member of the European parliament, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has demanded that the Iran team may be forbidden to compete in the football world championship for which it has qualified as a reaction to Ahmadinejad's statements. Several Greens in the German parliament have supported that idea.

Wolfgang (who's sure that that will not happen)