Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Majority of the world backs Iran

Photoshop, my arse!

Read the nice gentleman's speech to the World Without Zionism conference held in Tehran in October 2005.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4164

It concludes as follows:

Today the unity of the front in Palestine on its goals is a pressing necessity. The issue of Palestine is by no means finished. The issue of Palestine will only be resolved when all of Palestine comes under Palestinian rule, when all the refugees return to their homes, and when a popular government chosen by this nation takes the affairs in its hands. Of course, those who have come to this land from far away to plunder this land have no right to participate in the decision-making process for this nation.

I am hopeful that just as the Palestinian nation continued its struggle for the past ten years, it will continue to maintain its awareness and vigilance. This phase is going to be short-lived. If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the annihilation of the Zionist regime and it will be a downhill route.

I warn all the leaders in the Islamic world to beware of this conspiracy. If any of them takes a step towards the recognition of this regime [Israel">, then he will burn in the fire of the Islamic umma (nation) and will have eternal shame stamped on his forehead, regardless of whether he did this under pressure by the dominant powers, or lack of understanding or naiveté or selfishness or worldly incentives.

The issue of Palestine is the issue of the Islamic world. Those who are closeted behind closed doors cannot make decisions on this issue and the Islamic nation does not allow this historical enemy to exist at the heart of the Islamic world. ​
 
Two little things, Mr Calling:

1. Your naive suggestion that the pic was 'photoshopped'
2. Mr A's Islamist project of eliminating Israel
 
Refer me to the "eliminating Israel" thing, chars . . . I can see "annihilation of the Zionist regime" in the extract you copied, but I'd like to have seen the annihilation of Tony Blair's regime as well, and that wouldn't have involved eliminating the UK ?
 
The joy of semantics. I'll leave you with your belief that "annihilation of the Zionist regime" = "eliminating Israel" because I suspect we're wasting each others time.
 
That's really helpful, isn't it? Dhimmishop evening class: Week 1.

Foolishness like yours cannot be genuine. You don't exist in the real world. You are obviously a silly Islamist cyber-confection, created using Dhimmishop.
 
fela fan said:
yeah but what johnny has overlooked is the new american embassy in baghdad... i think it's bigger than the vatican, either way it's massive.

Not the sign of a nation intending to leave in a hurry. All that bullshit political electioneering about the US possibly 'pulling' out is part of the great con that so many fall for.
Click to expand...

I was talking about Iran taking control of Basra.

In that context, I mentioned a debate I heard, wherein they discussed what might happen if the US decided to pull out.

If. A hypothetical. I said the same thing in the original post. So if you want to bang on about the US staying, it isn't in response to anything I said.
 
rachamim18 said:
The moral ? The world does not always know what is best for it. A man who denies the Holocaust and says that Israel should be exterminated , and who leads a govt. that believes the movie Chicken Run and Tom and Jerry cartoons are Jewish conspiracies should not be allowed to have nuclear potential. He should not even be allowed to drive a compact car but that is besides the point.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
rachamim18 said:
The supposition of the title works if 2 prerequisites are present: I) The majority of the world's population lives in the majority of the world's nations. They do not. II) ALL of those govts. directly reflected the opinions of those people. It does not. In fact, EVEN IF they did, vioting a regime into office does not mean the citizenry agree with every decison made there after.

So...MOST of the world does NOT support Iran, not by a long shot.

Let us imagine though, for the sake of discourse that the majority of the world DOES support Iran. IF one was alive and thinks back to the very late
70s and then early 80s one can remember a similar dynamic with the Iraqi Program. The OSIRAK and OSIRIS Reactors .

As the world sat twiddling its thumbs, gnashing its teeth wondering what to do, Israel acted. Israel took out the Prgram in a perfect aerial operation but when it was done, almost immediately came a cacophony of pitched whining and moves to Saction Israel in the UN. Most of the world was against it.

Fast forward almost a decade and Hussein, on top of iniating a terrible war with Iran had invaded Kuwait and threatened mass destruction (remember he DID gas his own citizens in the north as well as exterminate entire villages in the south). The world, at that moment, quietly whispered Israel was correct and that they had indeed been WRONG.

The moral ? The world does not always know what is best for it. A man who denies the Holocaust and says that Israel should be exterminated , and who leads a govt. that believes the movie Chicken Run and Tom and Jerry cartoons are Jewish conspiracies should not be allowed to have nuclear potential. He should not even be allowed to drive a compact car but that is besides the point.
Click to expand...

This from a man who thinks Mandela should be hung.:rolleyes:
 
London_Calling said:
The joy of semantics. I'll leave you with your belief that "annihilation of the Zionist regime" = "eliminating Israel" because I suspect we're wasting each others time.
Click to expand...
Just out of interest, how would one go about "annihilating the Zionist regime"? And is this, and the effects of this, something you would support?

Also, you say you support this for the UK as well, again, what would be the effects of the process of annihilating the British regime?
 
London_Calling said:
What are you on about - have a coffee.
Click to expand...
Well, you took exception at JHE for claiming Ahmadinejad wanted to eliminate Israel, and seemed to suggest that "annihilating the Zionist regime" was not only not as bad, but something to be supported. I was just wondering whether you knew exactly what that would entail (as I have an image in my own mind of that) and why exactly you would support that? You also support the annihilation of the British regime, I wonder if the means by which that will be achieved will be similar to the means Ahmadinejad would use to annihilate the Zionist regime?

Here's a clue: America "annihilated the Iraqi regime"...
 
I thought he said that the Zionist regime should be "removed from the pages of time".

That is clearly ambiguous.
 
Barking_Mad said:
I thought he said that the Zionist regime should be "removed from the pages of time".

That is clearly ambiguous.
Click to expand...
Well I could ask the same question to that, how would they be "removed" from the pages of time?

My personal opinion on Ahmadinejad is that he is basically full of shit and likes to talk big. I have no doubt that he poses no threat to the UK, however, I do think he has the potential to pose a genuine threat to Israel and as such it is entirely understandable that Israel feels threatened by Iran (esp if they are after some nukes). Would Iran actually attack Israel? Very doubtful imo. Iran would surely suffer the same fate as Saddam's Iraq.

However, I don't think any sane person should actually want Iran to attack Israel. This is the impression London_Calling has given me, and I would like him to let me know whether that's an incorrect impression. An Israel-Iran war would be the bloodiest conflict this century and I think it would be highly hypocritical for someone who opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars to appear to support such a conflict...

...like I said, I could be mistaken about what he's said...but it'd be nice to get that cleared up
 
CyberRose said:
Here's a clue: America "annihilated the Iraqi regime"...
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a good analogy - grim though the invasion and especially its aftermath have been.

In the case of the invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Baathist regime, the invaders, rightly or wrongly, did not want Iraq to cease to be a country. In fact, it might well fall apart into its three or more components, but that was not the invaders' objective. The objective was to have a different Iraqi regime - one that was magically both democratic and friendly/obedient to the US.

In the case of Mr A's, and many other people's, objection to Israel, it is precisely the Zionist project - having a Jewish country - that is considered illegitimate. For anti-Zionists (and there are plenty of them around), Israel is an illegitimate polity. The Jews have stolen a slither of Arab Muslim land. The Jews must not be allowed to keep it.

The Israeli state - the wicked 'Zionist regime' - is there to maintain the Jewish country - the wicked 'Zionist entity'. That's the whole point of Israel and it is precisely what its enemies object to. They don't want, say, an Israeli Labour government, they want the end of Israel.
 
The analogy doesn't fit your interpretation of what Ahmadinejad supposedly wants, but it does fit London_Calling's...
 
London Calling: I will have you know that the speech in question was corroborated by other members of the regime who disavowed Ahamdinejad's remarks saying they merely represented Ahmadinejad's own personal views and not those of the Iranian Govt. One would think that if it was as you say, there would no reason whatsoever to issue such remarks.

Then, the very next day (after the speech), Ahmadinejad led a march of the organisation he cofounded (in his university days, the group that took the US Embassy and its personel hostages). He announced more than once, on tv,etc., that the speech was indeed accurate and that he stood by the remarks.

Foreigner:"Rachamim is a man who thinks Mandela should be hung.": Tell me, do you support terrorism? Do you laud people whose bombs disembowel babies and elderly? Do you throw roses at a man who led a group committed to passive non-violent resistance into bomb spewing hatred?


Mandela, as the leader of the military arm of the ANC (Spear AKA O. w. Sizwe) did all that and more. That after he was released he repudiated that choice and those actions is a given. It still does not erase all the hurt he caused. His violence claimed lives from every race, not just white Afrikaners...as if that would be ok as well. Indiscriminate violence for political ends is illegal under International AND S. African Laws. In addition murder has no statute of limitations. That you would not favour justice is most curious.

As for "ignoring" me, if you find it so difficult to avoid the usage of vile insults then I certainly support your ignoring me. Indeed, ignorance suits you (sic).


Barking: "Barking thought Ahamdinejad hads said 'remove Israel from the pages of time'.": That was an English translation that took great liberty with the wording and idiomatic usage of stated phrases. The words actually, meaning words spoken by Ahmadinejad, were from a speech by the late Ayatollah Khomenei and indeed they argued for the destruction of Israel, as in ANNIHLATION. Again, the Iranian Govt. said as much when it disavowed the words, and Ahmadinejad also said as much when he publicly repeated the words more than once at the parade the next day and said they were his and he meant them.
 
Mandela, as the leader of the military arm of the ANC (Spear AKA O. w. Sizwe) did all that and more. That after he was released he repudiated that choice and those actions is a given. It still does not erase all the hurt he caused. His violence claimed lives from every race, not just white Afrikaners...as if that would be ok as well. Indiscriminate violence for political ends is illegal under International AND S. African Laws. In addition murder has no statute of limitations. That you would not favour justice is most curious.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Mandela was not the leader of Umkhoto We Sizwe. I challenge you to find some real textual evidence of this....I know that there isn't any.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I was talking about Iran taking control of Basra.

In that context, I mentioned a debate I heard, wherein they discussed what might happen if the US decided to pull out.

If. A hypothetical. I said the same thing in the original post. So if you want to bang on about the US staying, it isn't in response to anything I said.
Click to expand...

I wonder would happen if the US actually withdrew? Right now pretty much everybody in the region hates the infidel invaders far more than they hate each other. If the US did withdraw then I think it'd actually put the Iranians in a rather tricky position. Do they try to set up a puppet regime in Southern Iraq? If they do, they run a very real risk of ending up in the same mess as the US is in. If they don't though, they potentially have a civil war next door.
 
nino_savatte said:
Wrong, Mandela was not the leader of Umkhoto We Sizwe. I challenge you to find some real textual evidence of this....I know that there isn't any.
Click to expand...

Apparently Rachamim knows better than anyone else about the history of Mandela and the ANC.
he saw a programme on C-SPAN about it, don't you know? :D
 
Ahmadinejad s makes a nice bogey man for the states and the US and Israel make a great bogey men/team for the iraninan goverment :hmm:
unfortunately the revolutionary guard may well have there own ideas and the various non state players in the region have ideas as well.:(
the two leaders may end of inspiring somebody to do something even more stupid than normal behavior in the middle east.
rachaman talking about ex leaders with a terrorist background pot calling kettle colour check over:hmm:
 
ViolentPanda said:
Hardly, and you may have noticed the smiley, indicating I wasn't being serious. :)
Click to expand...
I had actually mentioned it in my draft reply (how posh!) and would have said that I suspect you don't take "annihilating Zionism" seriously, but then that could also suggest you don't want to see an end to Zionism which you probably do so I left it out!

But then nothing does.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. All out war against Israel and occupation of that land...that's one (slightly deranged) method...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

weltweit
Anniversary of the End of WWII in the Pacific ..
2
Replies
34
Views
768
blossie33
blossie33
weltweit
The Mashco Piro people of the Amazon
2
Replies
52
Views
636
Elpenor
Elpenor
Boris Sprinkler
Welcome to the new world order
Replies
1
Views
287
Boo Radley75
Boo Radley75
G
Gross Neglect Manslaughter of The Homeless !
2
Replies
46
Views
893
Terraform
Terraform
Cloo
  • Poll Poll
The White House ballroom's time is up
2 3
Replies
67
Views
1K
Cloo
Cloo
Back
Top Bottom