Is Ahmadinejad the New Hitler?

[SDW2001]

Many comparisons have been drawn between 2006's Iran and 1938's Nazi Germany. I'm seeing more and more comparisons based on Ahmadinejad's openly calling for Israel's destruction, etc. Most recently, I've seen Baker and Hamilton compared to Neville Chamberlain. That may be going a bit too far, though the idea of approaching Iran and Syria for "help" doesn't exactly sit well with me. It's not in their interests to assist us in any way, nor should we let Iran off the hook with its nuclear program in trade for their "assistance" in Iraq.

I think there are certainly parallels between 2006 and 1938, ones which may result in war. Ahmadinejad, like Hitler, has come out and said exactly what he wants to do. He wants Israel gone just as Hitler blamed Jews for his nations plight. He's fanatical, perhaps moreso than Hitler. Worse, he just may feel that he was put in power to bring about The Apocalypse in the name of extreme Islam. That said, the situation is different. His power has been diminished somewhat after the recent elections. There are major moderate elements in Iranian society as well, those that believe his extremist rhetoric is not helping the country in general.

Now I know there will be those posters here who scream that it's all the MSM's fault for "misinterpreting" Ahmadinejad's remarks. I think that's way off base as his remarks have been repeated in different verbage several times. In addition, he seems all to eager to "discuss" the "myth" of the holocaust. If he doesn't wish to destroy Israel, what does he want to do?

Of course, the real question is what to do about Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Clearly, this man and this regime cannot have nuclear weapons. We must do anything required to prevent that. I'm quite pessimistic about diplomacy working effectively, under any US Administration. You can't negotiate with a man and/or an ideology where a central belief is the duty to bring about the end of the world. I think it's going to come to war, even if it's a massive air operation directed at his nuclear and dual-use sites. Obviously if he attacks Israel....well, then the end of the world is likely upon us.

Your thoughts? Is this a valid historical comparison? Why or why not?

[groverat]

Someone watched that insipid Zucker video, I see.

There is zero evidence that Ahmadinejad has apocalyptic views at all, and such an idea was already foisted by right-wing kooks (October 19th ring a bell? Millenialists often forget their own failed predictions, but the sane among us remember.) and proven to be nonsense.

The idea that Iran and 1930s Germany are on a military par compared to the rest of the world is a complete joke.

Similarities:
- They are strong, fiery leaders that we do not trust.
- They both dislike Jews (I think it is fair to say on Ahmadinejad's part, definitely Hitler's).
- They are fantastic orators.

[SpamSandwich]

Someone watched that insipid Zucker video, I see.

There is zero evidence that Ahmadinejad has apocalyptic views at all, and such an idea was already foisted by right-wing kooks (October 19th ring a bell? Millenialists often forget their own failed predictions, but the sane among us remember.) and proven to be nonsense.

The idea that Iran and 1930s Germany are on a military par compared to the rest of the world is a complete joke.

Similarities:
- They are strong, fiery leaders that we do not trust.
- They both dislike Jews (I think it is fair to say on Ahmadinejad's part, definitely Hitler's).
- They are fantastic orators.

I agree, every time the guy is shown in one on one interviews with western reporters, I hear none of the hyperbolic nonsense fed to us by the politicians. Anyone who knows Farsi care to add to this?

[Chucker]

Is Ahmadinejad the New Hitler?

No, Hitler had a brain.

[sammi jo]

Ahmadinejad is a fundie, meaning he's out of touch with reality, as all fundies tend to be, no matter what the faith. And by disputing (the extent of?) the Holocaust, and apparently invited other Holocaust skeptics to Iran for a conference, he's eliminated any doubts as to that absurd stance. But there's still something that doesn't quite fit in all this... It looks more as if Ahmadinejad is against the concept of Zionism, rather than the Jews as a people/religion; he is on record of referring to "Judaism as a 'noble faith'" and talking about the Jewish people "as my brothers and sisters" in the same speech. This makes little sense when we look at what we are dished up with in the US mainstream re. Ahnadinejad (and lots of other Middle East strories too numerous to go into here).

Then there's is also the issue of translation: virtually everything reaching the West from the Middle East goes through the Middle Eastern Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org/). Are the news items and translations coming out of this agency reliable and accurate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html)? Considering that the founders of MEMRI, Meyrav Wurmser and Yigal Carmon, are both hardline pro-Israel ideologues aligned with Israel's Likud party. Carmon is MEMRI's president; Wurmser left her position as executive director in early 2002 to direct the Center of Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. Full article here. (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1511)

The potential power of inter-language translation as a propaganda tool is immense, and the temptation to (ab)use it is no less. Are the MEMRI folks taking advantage? You bet. Alterations to reality, both subtle and blatant, are without a shadow of doubt an ongoing theme.

Is Ahmadinejad the New Hitler? Only if he starts killing Jews.. and where is the evidence of that?

[dmz]

No, the Iranian president, unless that wikipedia entry is wrong, basically cannot unzip his fly [in any significant way] without permission from the Supreme Leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_president) It looks to be a domestic policy sort of role, anything else and he is either watching his step or taking orders.

In contrast with most republics, the effective head of Iran's political establishment is not the president, but rather the Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts.

I think the world has been barking up the wrong tree on this one.

[e1618978]

No, Hitler had a brain.

I think that Ahmadinejad is smart enough - what makes you think he is stupid? The biggest thing that made Hitler dangerous was his drug addiction, which made him aggressive and paranoid (he would not have invaded Russia, for example, if he was not wacked out on speed).

[SDW2001]

I agree, every time the guy is shown in one on one interviews with western reporters, I hear none of the hyperbolic nonsense fed to us by the politicians. Anyone who knows Farsi care to add to this?

You're kidding, right? It surprises you that the man says different things to the West than to his own people?

[SDW2001]

Someone watched that insipid Zucker video, I see.

There is zero evidence that Ahmadinejad has apocalyptic views at all, and such an idea was already foisted by right-wing kooks (October 19th ring a bell? Millenialists often forget their own failed predictions, but the sane among us remember.) and proven to be nonsense.

The idea that Iran and 1930s Germany are on a military par compared to the rest of the world is a complete joke.

Similarities:
- They are strong, fiery leaders that we do not trust.
- They both dislike Jews (I think it is fair to say on Ahmadinejad's part, definitely Hitler's).
- They are fantastic orators.


He has called for Israel's destruction on several ocassions. He is pursuing nuclear weapons. He's a holocaust denier. You mean to tell me it's ridiculous to compare him to Hitler?

Certainly Iran does not yet have the military power as to be compared to Germany. However, acquiring the bomb would change that quick, now wouldn't it?

[mydo]

I work with a woman from Iran. I'll ask her what's up with this guy.

[dmz]

Shameless book plug -- William F. Buckley recommended it a couple months ago in a column. Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror (http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Enemy-Jihadist-Ideology-Terror/dp/0300113064/sr=8-1/qid=1166588387/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6197852-3458415?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Mary Habeck (http://apps.sais-jhu.edu/faculty_bios/faculty_bio1.php?ID=267), Associate Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins.

None of the standard "Evildoers" nonsense -- one of things that she addresses in Jihadi ideology is how "they" see Israel (as well as the UN) as a Western salient. Period. I would throw the 'supreme leader,' who pulls Ahmadinejad's pull string, into that mix. As well as Mr. Personality himself.

Also, Patrick Buchanan weighs in on Man of the Year. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/person_of_the_year_ahmadinejad.html)

[mydo]

I'm one of those that believe that "Israel" is a red herring for all of these countries. The leaders blame everything on Israel or "The West" or ... Do you think some out of work Iranian that can't get a government job because he's from the wrong family really thinks Israel is the most import issue facing the world?


Can you say "scapegoat" for government failure?

[midwinter]

Zionism. It's not Judaism.

[Nightcrawler]

Ahmadinejad is definitely not a new Hitler. But he can become one, if he successfully dethrones Iran's supreme leader and the experts-assembly and combines all these powers in the president, declares the end of the iranian republic and turns the presidency into a life-long dictatorship, and changes his rhetoric and actions about destroying Israel, into one about destroying Judaism and its followers...

Nightcrawler

[MacRR]

I think people should stop comparing other people to Hitler.....

[thuh Freak]

I think people should stop comparing other people to Hitler.....

Yea. Besides godwinning any discussion, it diminishes hitler's evil. not even in the same league. call me when someone invades a sovereign nation, and sets up detention camps.

[@_@ Artman]

Amy Goodman interviews Scott Ritter-Part1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EawPGrVz9o)

Amy Goodman interviews Scott Ritter-Part2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCQa9aTvN_Y)

"Well, when we say “Supreme Leader,” first of all, most Americans are going to scratch their head and say, “Who?” because, you see, we have a poster boy for demonization out there. His name is Ahmadinejad. He’s the idiot that comes out and says really stupid vile things, such as, “It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the world,” and he makes ridiculous statements about the United States and etc.

And, of course, man, he -- it’s a field day for the American media, for the Western media, because you get all the little sound bites out there, Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. But what people don't understand is, while he can vocalize, his finger is not on any button of power. If you read the Iranian constitution, you’ll see that the president of Iran is almost a figurehead."

[ArchiMark]

SDW2001,

I do think it IS a valid comparison for a variety of reasons, many already mentioned.

To everyone,

It is shocking to me that those of you that posted here saying that it's not a valid comparison because Ahmadinejad hasn't implemented his ideas is ridiculous.

The world would be a far different place today if the world had taken Hitler's ideas more seriously in the early '30's.

It is painfully obvious now that if instead of appeasers like Neville Chamberlain, someone like Winston Churchill had dealt with Hitler early on, history could look much different now and millions of people (including some of my wife and my relatives) would have survived WWII.

As one Holocaust survivor answered when asked "What lesson should we should learn from the Holocaust?", he said that "when someone says publicly that they want to kill you, believe them!", meaning act on it before it's too late.


Sammi Jo,

Your comment that Ahmenijad is only 'against zionism, not the jews' is a fundamentally flawed and ultimately a racist, anti-semitic argument. That is because while it sounds inocuous to say that as if you're just against some 'idea' (ie zionism'), not a whole people is ridiculous in this case, as it was the zionist movement that lobbied the British to gain back the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Israel (and even more area than the current borders were historically part of Israel). Therefore, if you are against the idea of zionism, then you're really saying that you're against the idea of a Jewish country. And if you're against the idea of a Jewish homeland then you're really against the concept of the Jewish people existing in the world with a home like any other people and thus it is inherently a racist, genocidal concept.

Would you say that about France, Germany, Italy, etc that the people in those countries don't deserve a homeland??? You'd (or others) I doubt would ever say that, but somehow it has become OK to say that about Israel.

ShawnJ,

Most of what I just addressed to Sammi Jo also could apply to your comments as well.

Shame on you too for your smug, cavalier, racist, and bigoted positions...you probably wouldn't feel the same way if your family was brutally murdered by Hitler and his henchmen.

And yes, you are 'splitting hairs'...Ahmadenijad has said that he wants to wipe 'Israel off the map'. His intentions are to get rid of the Jewish people there, and occupy it with either Iranians and/or other Arabs thus making it a Muslim country and extending 'his empire'.

Israel was NOT stolen from anyone. If anything it was just returned to the Jewish people after having been stolen from them by other countries, from the Romans through the Ottoman Empire.

Also, if you (and most others) really knew your history, you'd know that it was the Arab world that rejected the UN Partition plan in '48 that proposed to create a Jewish homeland called 'Israel' AND an adjacent Arab state for the so-called 'Palestinians'. I say so-called Palestinians as there is no real Palestinian people. The word 'Palestine' is an old Roman name for the area used by the Romans after they conquered it. Actually, 'the Palestinians' were Arab people associated with greater 'Trans-Jordan' and other Arab countries. A

The Arabs rejected the UN plan in '48 as they wanted NO homeland at all for the Jews in the area. So who are really the racists and ones causing the problems in the area???

Not too many years ago, a similar thing happened when Arafat met with then President Clinton and Barak from Israel. Israel agreed to a plan that gave the Palestinians about 95% of what they wanted from Israel. Arafat not only rejected this offer but did not want to do any negotiations. What kind of 'negotiating partner' is that??

Recently, Israel pulled out of Gaza, and the only thing Israel has gotten in return is a daily stream (yes, it is literally daily!) of rockets into it's neighboring communities.

Anyway, the point is that I'm sick and tired of hearing from either racists/anti-semites or just as bad in the end, supposed non-racists/non-anti-semites who don't know the real history of the area either directly attacking Israel's right to exist or indirectly doing the same thing by 'splitting hairs' about whether 'just mentioning eliminating a country from the map' (and thus it's occupants..) is the same as 'wanting to wanting to return a country to some other people'.

Ironically, the arguments used here to dismiss Ahmadinejad's threats on the one hand and yet support his positions are similar to the 'Big Lie' tactics used by the Hitler and the Nazi's. Hmmm... is it just a coincidence that the Arab countries were on the side of Hitler and the Nazi's during WWII and that they have been using this technique as part of their propaganda compaign's since WWII?????

The bottomline is that Israel and the Jewish people have the right just like every other country in the world to exist and to have a homeland and they don't need to justify this all the time to anyone!

Mark

[MarcUK]

Israel was NOT stolen from anyone. If anything it was just returned to the Jewish people after having been stolen from them by other countries, from the Romans through the Ottoman Empire.

Get real, they were hardly the first civilization in that area, so they must of stole it from....

I demand we return Israel to the Akkadians.

Infact, if I start a new religion and claim to be a descendant of the Akkadian empire, this land belongs to me and my followers.

And while were on the path of returning land to its rightful owners, I do believe Silicon Valley belongs to the Indians.

[SpamSandwich]

Don't get me wrong, anyone who willingly invites David Duke to their anti-Israel tea party has a screw loose, but I'm just sayin'...

[ArchiMark]

Hey MarcUK, read the 'Old Testament' for starters....


Get real, they were hardly the first civilization in that area, so they must of stole it from....

I demand we return Israel to the Akkadians.

Infact, if I start a new religion and claim to be a descendant of the Akkadian empire, this land belongs to me and my followers.

And while were on the path of returning land to its rightful owners, I do believe Silicon Valley belongs to the Indians.

[ArchiMark]

Hey MarcUK,

First read the 'Old Testament' for starters....

Second, think you meant "we're" not "were"...

Third, since you're so concerned about land being in the hands of their rightful owners, why don't you start a movement to :

- return England to the Celts,
- return India to the Aryans,
- return France to the Romans or the Franks or maybe the Gauls

Fourth, if you read carefully, my location is 'Silicone Valley' not 'Silicon Valley'....

Fifth, they're not 'Indians' but 'Native-Americans', 'Indians' are from India.....

So think it's you that needs to 'get real'.....


Get real, they were hardly the first civilization in that area, so they must of stole it from....

I demand we return Israel to the Akkadians.

Infact, if I start a new religion and claim to be a descendant of the Akkadian empire, this land belongs to me and my followers.

And while were on the path of returning land to its rightful owners, I do believe Silicon Valley belongs to the Indians.

[MarcUK]

Hey MarcUK, read the 'Old Testament' for starters....

hehe, when you've been round here a bit more, you'll probably wish you hadn't said that :lol:

[AsLan^]

Hey MarcUK,

Third, since you're so concerned about land being in the hands of their rightful owners, why don't you start a movement to :

- return England to the Celts,
- return India to the Aryans,
- return France to the Romans or the Franks or maybe the Gauls



Isn't this your whole argument?

[SDW2001]

The dissolution of a state is not necessarily analogous to ethnic genocide.

I'm not splitting hairs-- there's just a difference between wanting to erase from the world a group of people and wanting to return a state to the people it was basically stolen from.



Guess we're just like Hitler, too!



I hear Hitler was a big Holocaust denialist. :???:



I'd say yeah. Basically without merit.



Um.

*Why* would that make Iran in 2006 analogous to post-WWI Germany?

Go on...

1. Right, because no Jews would die if Israel was "wiped off the map." Actually, you ARE splitting hairs.

2. So you think that he can be trusted with nukes? Or, you're saying that there's no difference between the US having nukes and Islamo-fascist having them?

3. Uhhhh.....

4. Why? Your saying that it's not just inappropriate, but ridiculous. I don't think you've supported that position.

5. Because it would alter their military capabilities to a high degree.

[SDW2001]

Amy Goodman interviews Scott Ritter-Part1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EawPGrVz9o)

Amy Goodman interviews Scott Ritter-Part2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCQa9aTvN_Y)

"Well, when we say “Supreme Leader,” first of all, most Americans are going to scratch their head and say, “Who?” because, you see, we have a poster boy for demonization out there. His name is Ahmadinejad. He’s the idiot that comes out and says really stupid vile things, such as, “It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the world,” and he makes ridiculous statements about the United States and etc.

And, of course, man, he -- it’s a field day for the American media, for the Western media, because you get all the little sound bites out there, Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. But what people don't understand is, while he can vocalize, his finger is not on any button of power. If you read the Iranian constitution, you’ll see that the president of Iran is almost a figurehead."

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!

Post extraordinarily biased, liberal crap. Yes, I mean Scott Ritter. Check!

Say Ahmadinejad was mistranslated or make it seem as if it's all the MSM jumping all over it and/or that he has no real power. Check!

By the way, did you even watch the interview? He is either completely deluded or incredibly stupid. "Iran poses no threat." :lol:

[AsLan^]

"Iran poses no threat." :lol:

What threat does Iran pose to the U.S. ?

Specifically please.

[ArchiMark]

Just to make sure that my point is clear...

My point is that there is an incredible double standard in the media and others when it comes to judging and criticizing Israel.

I have never seen any of those same standards applied to any other country in the world, not that it would make those criticisms of Israel legimate if they were applied to other countries.

In fact, my point in referencing those other countries was to illustrate how ludicrous the argument is that Israel should destroy itself and give itself over to its enemies, when I can think of no other nation that would do that or even consider doing that.

For those of you interested in learning about some other 'interesting bits of history' that are conveniently overlooked by most, read the article in the recent 'New Yorker' magazine that traces the history of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians that took place in the late 19th and early 20th century. It will curl your hair reading about what happened there.

Also, you'll notice the amazing lengths to which Turkey has gone even to today to either deny or diminish what happened to the Armenians has parallels to today and the attempts by Ahmadinejad and others in the Arab world to rewrite history by denying the Holocaust happened and other bizarre twisting of historical events.

Isn't this your whole argument?

[AsLan^]

I disagree with the notion that simply because an ethnic group exists that they are entitled to homeland. This is certainly not the way the world has worked in the past as you yourself have pointed out, what makes Israel so different?

What's with the accusations of racism, bigotry, and antisemitism. Are the Israeli state and Jewish people the same thing? Does one cease to exist without the other?

It seems fairly obvious to me that the reason Iran has beef with Israel is not because of the Jewish people but because of the way the Israeli state has conducted itself in the last 50 years and continues to do so.

You speak of a double standard in the media as if it were a bad thing for Israel, but only Israel gets away with the stuff it does on a regular basis, and its defenders label any who object: racist, bigot, or antisemitic. We had a thread about that a while ago too when the Israeli state was busy murdering a 1000 Lebanese.

The state of Israel does not have any moral high ground to stand on, the IDF's daily conduct in Palestine is despicable and mirrors the exact behavior you and yours claim to be against.

[ArchiMark]

Even though it's been a long day, AsLan^, I'm going to respond to all your obvious racist, anti-semitic diatribe below...

I disagree with the notion that simply because an ethnic group exists that they are entitled to homeland. This is certainly not the way the world has worked in the past as you yourself have pointed out, what makes Israel so different?

OK, since you disagree, then let's turn the tables for a minute and see if you still feel the same way....

First, why don't you propose to the UN that Iran should be dissolved and be given to the Syrians. I mean why not, just because the Iranians (ie, Persians..) exists why should they have a homeland, right??

I would have said give Iran to the Kurds as they'd like a homeland, but that would violate your concept you state, wouldn't it?

What's with the accusations of racism, bigotry, and antisemitism. Are the Israeli state and Jewish people the same thing? Does one cease to exist without the other?

This question/concept you raise IS racist and anti-semitic on the face of it as I've stated in previous posts, I can bet you that you would NEVER post a statement like this about any other group, would you?? I say this because I've read a lot and I've never seen anybody say something like this about other groups or peoples...

It seems fairly obvious to me that the reason Iran has beef with Israel is not because of the Jewish people but because of the way the Israeli state has conducted itself in the last 50 years and continues to do so.

Oh really??? Can you name one specific instance where Israel harmed Iran or the Iranian people....

I know this is probably a hard concept for you to digest, but did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons that Iran and other Arab countries continually criticizes Israel and blames it for many of their problems is that by using Israel as a scapegoat it deflects criticism of the people from critically analyzing why their countries are in such a sorry state??? And thus realizing that it's their own dictatorial leaders that are oppressing them, not Israel.....

Oh and by the way, can you name one Arab country where this kind of open discourse could occur without severe repercussions???

You speak of a double standard in the media as if it were a bad thing for Israel, but only Israel gets away with the stuff it does on a regular basis, and its defenders label any who object: racist, bigot, or antisemitic. We had a thread about that a while ago too when the Israeli state was busy murdering a 1000 Lebanese.

Yes, it is a bad thing for Israel, as the media continually distorts what really happens there.

I don't know what news you're watching or reading, but I sure don't see where it "gets away with stuff" as you put it. Quite the opposite, in fact. If Israel suffers a terrorist attack, rocket attack, etc and then responds in self-defense (which any other country on the planet would do too), then the media presents it as "Israel attacks ...." without explaining that it was in direct response to a specific event that just happened.

As for "the Israeli state was busy murdering a 1000 Lebanese". this is ridiculous and you know it.

What other group besides Arabs are such weanies as to fight by embedding themselves in a civilian population, using woman and children for cover, then fire rockets into another country knowing that it would provoke a self-defense response, and then blame the country defending itself from attack as murderers????


The state of Israel does not have any moral high ground to stand on, the IDF's daily conduct in Palestine is despicable and mirrors the exact behavior you and yours claim to be against.


Yes, it does. Again, your twisting the situation around backwards and you're stating a moral equivalency that does not exist.

The reason that the IDF goes into Palestine is to deal with people who want to commit terrorist acts against the citizens of Israel. They have no other reason to be there.

Believe me, AsLan^, I know this for a fact, that the members of the IDF would MUCH, MUCH rather be at home with their families, working at their jobs, watching TV at night, posting on silly forums like this than dealing with neighbors that, not all, but too many of them are bent on their destruction.

[midwinter]

What threat does Iran pose to the U.S. ?

Specifically please.

Now, now. Everyone knows that 9/11 changed everything and that's all you ever have to say to justify warmongering!

[AsLan^]

I guess you're right, Palestine wasn't dissolved and half given to the Jewish people.

I guess I must be a racist if recognizing the difference between the ethnic origin of a people and the sovereignty of a state make one a racist.

I guess it is "ridiculous" that the IDF murdered 1000 Lebanese (and I know it).

Of course sitting children on your HMMWV's is perfectly acceptable, unlike those Arab "weenies", who you know, are civilians, and hide within civilian populations.

You know... it's funny you mentioned the Armenian genocide, then refer to the Palestinian refugees as "neighbors" and wonder why they might be fighting with Israel.

[AsLan^]

Now, now. Everyone knows that 9/11 changed everything and that's all you ever have to say to justify warmongering!

Ah yes, how silly of me. It seems my conditioning is beginning to wear off.

Looks like its off to Room 101 for some quick refresher training :D

[midwinter]

Ah yes, how silly of me. It seems my conditioning is beginning to wear off.

Looks like its off to Room 101 for some quick refresher training :D

Indeed, AsLan^! Hie thee to the place of conditioning—and don't forget to genuflect when entering the room! Just remember: Zionism = Judaism. Zionism = Judaism. Zionism = Judaism. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. And the 11th commandment: Criticism of the policies of the Israeli government is anti-Semitism.

[Nightcrawler]

The real question should be: Is Iran's supreme leader a new Hitler?

Iran's president Ahmadijenad is not much more than the PR-speaker of Iran's supreme-leader, he has no real executive powers.

That could change though if he managed to change the system.

Nightcrawler

[Tulkas]

I guess you're right, Palestine wasn't dissolved and half given to the Jewish people.

Finaly an honest answer. You are right, Palestine was not dissolved, as it never existed as a state. As for 'half', no, that is wrong. The largest portion of the Birtish Mandate was used to create TransJordan, a Muslim state. Would you like to dissolve that country as well, or just the Jewish one?

[Tulkas]

Ahmadinejad is definitely not a new Hitler. But he can become one, if he successfully dethrones Iran's supreme leader and the experts-assembly and combines all these powers in the president, declares the end of the iranian republic and turns the presidency into a life-long dictatorship, and changes his rhetoric and actions about destroying Israel, into one about destroying Judaism and its followers...

Nightcrawler
Probably a pretty accurate description. But, prior to Hitlers ascension, who would have thought a 'modern' western country like Germany would allow a single man to assume so much power. Charisma can change the equation dramatically.

[AsLan^]

Finaly an honest answer. You are right, Palestine was not dissolved, as it never existed as a state. As for 'half', no, that is wrong. The largest portion of the Birtish Mandate was used to create TransJordan, a Muslim state. Would you like to dissolve that country as well, or just the Jewish one?

It appears I have misspoken but the point of that sentence was to highlight the double standard between the Jewish people being entitled to their own state and the Arab peoples native to the Palestinian region not so entitled.

I have not advocated the dissolution of Israel, it's just that I don't see why they should have any special rights when compared to other ethnic groups.

[AsLan^]

Your comment that Ahmenijad is only 'against zionism, not the jews' is a fundamentally flawed and ultimately a racist, anti-semitic argument. That is because while it sounds inocuous to say that as if you're just against some 'idea' (ie zionism'), not a whole people is ridiculous in this case, as it was the zionist movement that lobbied the British to gain back the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Israel (and even more area than the current borders were historically part of Israel). Therefore, if you are against the idea of zionism, then you're really saying that you're against the idea of a Jewish country. And if you're against the idea of a Jewish homeland then you're really against the concept of the Jewish people existing in the world with a home like any other people and thus it is inherently a racist, genocidal concept.

Would you say that about France, Germany, Italy, etc that the people in those countries don't deserve a homeland??? You'd (or others) I doubt would ever say that, but somehow it has become OK to say that about Israel.
With regard to the whole Israel thing being discussed right now, this is the that paragraph piqued my interest in such a matter to begin with.

I was actually hoping SDW2001 might tell us what (specifically) he is afraid of in big bad Iran.

[e1618978]

It appears I have misspoken but the point of that sentence was to highlight the double standard between the Jewish people being entitled to their own state and the Arab peoples native to the Palestinian region not so entitled.

I have not advocated the dissolution of Israel, it's just that I don't see why they should have any special rights when compared to other ethnic groups.

It doesn't seem to me like they did - Britain took the shattered remains of the Ottoman empire after world war I and carved it up between groups. Israel is entitled to their area just like the Jordanians, and just like the Pakistanis (since Pakistan was created as a Muslum nation artificially, just like Israel).

[dmz]

It doesn't seem to me like they did - Britain took the shattered remains of the Ottoman empire after world war I and carved it up between groups. Israel is entitled to their area just like the Jordanians, and just like the Pakistanis (since Pakistan was created as a Muslum nation artificially, just like Israel).

Excellent comment.

[Tulkas]

It appears I have misspoken but the point of that sentence was to highlight the double standard between the Jewish people being entitled to their own state and the Arab peoples native to the Palestinian region not so entitled.

That was the idea. Split between the Jews and palestinian Arabs. The Arabs were given the larger portion, that is Jordan and the Jews the lesser portion.

But somehow, only the concept of the Jewish state is offensive to some. So, you are right, there is something of a double standard.

[AsLan^]

It's not that simple though.

Prior to the British Mandate, the Jewish population of the Palestinian region was around 10% and had been a minority for 1500 years.

Between 1917 and 1945 the Jewish population swelled to roughly 30% of the total population as a result of the Zionist movement.

The Jewish people were then given a share of the land that the Arab's did not consider equitable and conflict ensued.

The double standard lies in the fallacy that the Jewish people are somehow entitled to this land, despite not having possessed it for 1500 years, and that any who suggest otherwise are antisemitic or racist.

The real reason the Jewish people are entitled to that land at this point in time is because they took it over through military force. It's simple right of conquest, but nobody ever puts it like that, they'd rather pretend that Israel has some intangible and inalienable right to the region due to their ethnicity alone.

[dmz]

Wasn't the partitioning of India much more draconian?

[SDW2001]

If you're reading ethnic genocidal intent into that-- he's gonna have to be a *lot* more explicit to before you can compare him to someone as blatant as Hitler.



Having or pursuing nukes has absolutely no bearing on a comparison to Hitler.



Hitler didn't deny the Holocaust. He's freakin' caused it. I don't see how the two are analogous.



Every one of your analogies just aren't right.

So either you're not quite the best advocate or it's plainly ridiculous.



Oh I see.

So anything that would "alter military capabilities to a high degree" is analogous to Hitler.

Persuasive. :p


Shawn,

You're splitting hairs. You really are. Here is a man who has a significant military capability and may develop the bomb soon. He has made statements such as "Israel should be wiped off the map" and "this regime's days are numbered." It doesn't get much more explicit than that. This man is fanatical, just like Hitler. He's told us what he wants to do, just like Hitler. He's convinced of the absolute supremacy of his religion, just like Hitler was convinced of the supremacy of the Aryan race.

Now again, I'm not saying that he can be compared to Hitler for sure, but you've gone a step further in saying it's a comparison worthy of ridicule. All I'm saying is it's an interesting comparison.

[SDW2001]

What threat does Iran pose to the U.S. ?

Specifically please.

Pardon me, but you're kidding, right? How does the ability to bring on WWIII sound?

[SDW2001]

You don;t have an analogy to stand on.



The Iranian army poses the same threat that Germany did post WWI?

How.



Um. Try "Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth."

A vague statement about the dissolution of a state is much different than clear calls for ethnic genocide.



Fanatical about what?



What?



You're not even trying now.

How are those two things analogous at all?



It's completely without merit.

Which analogy of yours has stood up to even the slightest criticism?


Look, I know you're in law school and feel you can out-argue anyone here, but you're really just playing games now.

I did not say the Iranian Army poses the same threat as the German war machine.

It doesn't matter if he said "Jews" or "The Jewish State." I'll guarantee you won't make a distinction either, not once he lobs a nuke at Tel Aviv.

Fanatical about his religion, as are the mullahs in power.

Hitler was convinced of the supremacy of the Aryan race. Ahmadinejad is convinced of the supremacy of Islam. Hitler believed that non-Aryans should perish. Ahmadinehad has said America and the UK will vanish because we've turned from God (hmm...which God, I wonder?). Ahmadinejad believes all non muslims are infidels, something his brand of Islam requires him to believe.

A fanatical and extreme ideology. A rising military power. Hostility towards the US and UK. What don't you understand?

[Tulkas]

The Iranian army poses the same threat that Germany did post WWI?

How.


Love splitting those hairs. Are they exactly the same? No. Germany was a broken country still climbing out of the disaster of WWI. Iran has vast oil riches, the second most significant military in the ME and a history of religious fanticism.


Um. Try "Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth."

A vague statement about the dissolution of a state is much different than clear calls for ethnic genocide.

If you would like to provide a reasonable, relatively peaceful method of forcefully disolving that state, then maybe your statement makes sense. Otherwise, calling for wiping Israel off the map doesn't leave too much wiggle room. Though watching the extremes of wiggling out of that statement is entertaining.

You make the same statements as David Duke, but not as convincingly.

[sammi jo]

SDW2001,

Sammi Jo,

Your comment that Ahmenijad is only 'against zionism, not the jews' is a fundamentally flawed and ultimately a racist, anti-semitic argument. That is because while it sounds inocuous to say that as if you're just against some 'idea' (ie zionism'), not a whole people is ridiculous in this case, as it was the zionist movement that lobbied the British to gain back the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Israel (and even more area than the current borders were historically part of Israel). Therefore, if you are against the idea of zionism, then you're really saying that you're against the idea of a Jewish country. And if you're against the idea of a Jewish homeland then you're really against the concept of the Jewish people existing in the world with a home like any other people and thus it is inherently a racist, genocidal concept.

Would you say that about France, Germany, Italy, etc that the people in those countries don't deserve a homeland??? You'd (or others) I doubt would ever say that, but somehow it has become OK to say that about Israel.

Mark

First, when you talk about "anti-Semitism", don't forget that 'semite' refers to a race, to which Middle Eastern Jews belong,.. but which also encompasses Arabs and others. Are you confusing a faith and a race here?

Judaism is a religious faith. Zionism is a political/geographical movement to create a state (a "Greater Israel") for the Jewish people. In the light of what happened during WW2, it is not surprising that the idea of a Jewish nation garnered wide international approval in the West. However, if that was the justification for the ultimate (re)recreation of Israel, why hasn't the international community extended that standard to all the other minority groups who suffered appalling losses in the Holocaust.. such as the Romani, Poles and other Slavs, the disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, dissenters, clergy, homosexuals etc.? In the creation of that nation state for that one group, don't forget that hundreds of thousands of people, especially Palestinians, were forcibly evicted from their homes and herded like cattle into concentration-camp like refugee facilities in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, where they and their descendants remain in exile to this day. The pogrom against the Palestinian people continues apace, and with the tacit approval of the West.

In the creation of a state in which one group is seen as preferred, or favored, is this not a form of apartheid? Israel is widely promoted as a 'beacon of democracy' in amongst a sea of middle eastern monarchies, dictatorships and theocracies... but do all groups within that country have equal rights. liberties and opportunities? (silly question, perhaps...)

Also, lest we should ever forget (I guess most people would rather not want to know, more like), some of the main forces responsible for the promotion of Zionist ideals were active terrorist organizations (Irgun Zvia Leumi, the Stern Gang, Hagganah) which indulged itself in numerous bombings and killings in the post WW2 years. Even a future Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, was an active member of one of these terrorist groups. (Extending *that* standard, can we ever expect to see Ayman Zarahiri or the shoe bomber run for political office accepted and embraced in the US and the west in general?). Oops.. do I get classified as a Jew hater for airing their dirty laundry? All terrorists are Muslims, don't forget..... just like "all drugs is white powder"... :rolleyes:

**

About 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. However, looking through the total death statistics of those killed in WW2 for non-conformity to "Aryan standards", the total figure is usually quoted at around double that... approx. 12 million, and some have estimated it to be as high as 45 million. Now, take a look through the websites of the two main organizations (SWC (http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=242023), ADL (http://www.adl.org/)) which have taken on the task of Holocaust awareness, and one will see that they are promoting it as solely a Jewish disaster (see the SWC logo, for starters). Yes,.... it was a "Jewish disaster", and the Jews suffered the largest losses of any one group.. but in the mainstream's virtually complete omission of every other group who were killed en masse at the hands of Hitler and the Nazis, the Simon Weisenthal Organization and the Anti Defamation League (and the mainstream media as a whole) verge perilously close to the land of (selective) Holocaust Denial. There is no denying that one. What are the reasons for this double standard? Are people throughout the world being edumacated that the other forgotten >6 million are of "lesser importance", or they are lesser people, or follow 'lesser faith(s)'? Or what? Can anyone offer some "enlightenment" here?

Ahmadinejad/rabid Jihadists, and the mainstream Western promoters of Holocaust" Awareness" seem to have more in common that we would like to admit.


(another oops... is this the end of the thread... did I just invoke Godwin's Law?)...

[Splinemodel]

Is Ahmadinejad the New Hitler? Only if he starts killing Jews.. and where is the evidence of that?

Killing Jews isn't the only awful thing that the Nazis did. They killed plenty of christians and slavs as well, not to mention the fact that they aggressively "annexed" most of central & western europe into their military state. These are not things that we should look on kindly.

The major similarity here is that Islamic nuts have been drinking the same "manifest destiny" egg nog that the Nazis were so fond of -- if you're not a conservative muslim (or pagan aryan) you're in for some turbulence. Iran deserves concern: they almost have nukes, and seem to have plans to use them. If European powers had more proactively halted [illegal] 1930's German arms build-up, who knows, a lot of death might have been prevented. To repeat, this is why people are concerned about Iran.

[sammi jo]

Killing Jews isn't the only awful thing that the Nazis did. They killed plenty of christians and slavs as well, not to mention the fact that they aggressively "annexed" most of central & western europe into their military state. These are not things that we should look on kindly.

see post above

The major similarity here is that Islamic nuts have been drinking the same "manifest destiny" egg nog that the Nazis were so fond of -- if you're not a conservative muslim (or pagan aryan) you're in for some turbulence. Iran deserves concern: they almost have nukes, and seem to have plans to use them. If European powers had more proactively halted [illegal] 1930's German arms build-up, who knows, a lot of death might have been prevented. To repeat, this is why people are concerned about Iran.

The "Iranian nukes" issue has been thrown around in the mainstream media for a couple of years now, especially when the situation next door in Iraq started going from bad to worse. But.... where is the undisputed evidence of of Iran enriching radioactive materials to weapon-grade? So far, it looks like another overblown WMD myth. Yes, Iran has a nuclear power program... and yes they have an Islamist "bad guy" as President.... (who looks to have fared none too well in the recent round of elections there). But look at Pakistan: they not only have an Islamist "bad guy" as President (Pervez Musharraf.. a bona fide military dictator/thug) but they have real, confirmed, nuts and bolts nukes, one of the most active Islamist (Madrassa) indoctrination and propaganda programs aimed at muslim youth, and never to forget: Pakistan's most senior intelligence official Mahmoud Ahmed (head of ISI) was the man who authorized the wire transfers of several hundred thousand dollars to Mohamed Atta, the alleged lead hijacker in the 9/11 attacks. It seems strange that the Bush Aministration has this all out attitude about Iran, whilst simultaneously embracing the Pakistani regime and never calling them both on international misdeeds re. nukes and a proven smoking gun relating to the attacks upon America.

Speculation time:
If anyone can prove here that Iran is without a shadow of a doubt pursuing a nuclear weapons program, then lets see it. Links, paperwork, video, testimony, whatever Otherwise... it looks like yet another festering dose of Bush Administration/NeoCon fearmongering to publicly justify more military action.

The US military will, at some point in the fairly near future, bomb sites in Iran that have been "designated" as "nuclear weapons processing facilities". But to justify such action without raising too many awkwards questions in Congress, some kind of attack upon US military etc. facilities will have to happen, or be reported as happened (whether it actually happened or not) .......which can then be easily blamed upon Iran. Our mainstream media will lap it up, as they invariably do so quickly and well, and the US public will be enraged enough to support a devastating "response". The "retaliation" will most likely be air-strikes upon Iran's alleged nuclear sites, as well as anything else to do with their nuclear program and support industries, be it alleged weapons, or civilian. In the slightly longer term, it won't matter an iota should anyone deliver evidence that the initial attack was a bogus Gulf of Tonkin style non-event, or an actual false flag "collateral damage" agenda promotion.. as they will be rounded upon by our weasel mainstream media as "wild conspiracy theorists", and the US Government as "supporters of the Islamist enemy". Similar things have happened countless times before in recent decades, and still nobody seems to get it...

A pragmatic outlook: it will happen again.

[SpamSandwich]

Then again, Israel may drop the first large payloads on Iran if the US doesn't first.

[AsLan^]

Pardon me, but you're kidding, right? How does the ability to bring on WWIII sound?

It sounds ridiculous.

Are you familiar with the acronym M.A.D.?

I'll assume that you are and remind you that should Iran attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, Iran would be practically guaranteed destruction from the Israeli retaliatory strike.

[SDW2001]

It sounds ridiculous.

Are you familiar with the acronym M.A.D.?

I'll assume that you are and remind you that should Iran attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, Iran would be practically guaranteed destruction from the Israeli retaliatory strike.


Now I see where you're coming from. The problem is that we are not dealing with people that will let MAD stop them. These aren't the Soviets. There are those in the Iranian government leadership that subscribe to the brand of Islam that calls for them to bring on the Apocolypse. Don't you see? They think the end of the world...them inlcuded...is a good thing. The only question remaining is "who is they?" It certainly seems Ahmadinejad is a "they" as are many of mullahs. Until you understand their worldview, you can't understand the threat. Islamofascists do not value life...they value death. That is the prime difference between the Soviets and "they."

[SDW2001]

see post above



The "Iranian nukes" issue has been thrown around in the mainstream media for a couple of years now, especially when the situation next door in Iraq started going from bad to worse. But.... where is the undisputed evidence of of Iran enriching radioactive materials to weapon-grade? So far, it looks like another overblown WMD myth. Yes, Iran has a nuclear power program... and yes they have an Islamist "bad guy" as President.... (who looks to have fared none too well in the recent round of elections there). But look at Pakistan: they not only have an Islamist "bad guy" as President (Pervez Musharraf.. a bona fide military dictator/thug) but they have real, confirmed, nuts and bolts nukes, one of the most active Islamist (Madrassa) indoctrination and propaganda programs aimed at muslim youth, and never to forget: Pakistan's most senior intelligence official Mahmoud Ahmed (head of ISI) was the man who authorized the wire transfers of several hundred thousand dollars to Mohamed Atta, the alleged lead hijacker in the 9/11 attacks. It seems strange that the Bush Aministration has this all out attitude about Iran, whilst simultaneously embracing the Pakistani regime and never calling them both on international misdeeds re. nukes and a proven smoking gun relating to the attacks upon America.

Speculation time:
If anyone can prove here that Iran is without a shadow of a doubt pursuing a nuclear weapons program, then lets see it. Links, paperwork, video, testimony, whatever Otherwise... it looks like yet another festering dose of Bush Administration/NeoCon fearmongering to publicly justify more military action.

The US military will, at some point in the fairly near future, bomb sites in Iran that have been "designated" as "nuclear weapons processing facilities". But to justify such action without raising too many awkwards questions in Congress, some kind of attack upon US military etc. facilities will have to happen, or be reported as happened (whether it actually happened or not) .......which can then be easily blamed upon Iran. Our mainstream media will lap it up, as they invariably do so quickly and well, and the US public will be enraged enough to support a devastating "response". The "retaliation" will most likely be air-strikes upon Iran's alleged nuclear sites, as well as anything else to do with their nuclear program and support industries, be it alleged weapons, or civilian. In the slightly longer term, it won't matter an iota should anyone deliver evidence that the initial attack was a bogus Gulf of Tonkin style non-event, or an actual false flag "collateral damage" agenda promotion.. as they will be rounded upon by our weasel mainstream media as "wild conspiracy theorists", and the US Government as "supporters of the Islamist enemy". Similar things have happened countless times before in recent decades, and still nobody seems to get it...

A pragmatic outlook: it will happen again.


Pragmatic? PRAGMATIC? :lol: Tell you what..anyone that thinks sammi's view is "pragmatic" raise your hand. No? Anyone? Someone?

sammi, I'm sorry but posts like this are the reason you've earned the name Samantha Joan Conspiracy in the past (for those non-old times, that was sammi jo's name pre-blackout).

Iran is pursuing nuclear power. I assume we agree on this? Now why might they do that? They are sitting on vast oil reserves. There is no reason to develop peaceful nuclear power in Iran. In fact, it could be said that by diverting time and resources to this endeavor, they're actually harming their oil based economy. Secondly, we have found evidence of uranium enriched beyond what is considered necessary for "peaceful" nuclear power, no?

Meanwhile, Iran is furiously upgrading their centrifuge capability. They are furiously upgrading their missile technology as well. Their government has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, has said the Israeli State must end, and that "we will soon a see a world without America and Israel."

Proof? You're right. But you'd have to be some kind of idiot to think they're pursuing nucelear power for peaceful reasons. In Iran, there are no peaceful uses for nuclear power.

[Splinemodel]

see post above
But.... where is the undisputed evidence of of Iran enriching radioactive materials to weapon-grade? So far, it looks like another overblown WMD myth.

The major difference between this being "another WMD myth" is that while Saddam claimed that he wasn't producing said weapons, I'm pretty sure Ahmadinejad publically claims to have nuclear capabilities.

For someone who's usually an alarmist, I'm a little bit confused as to why this doesn't trouble you. Maybe Iran has nuclear weapons, maybe they don't: I'm not really saying that we should invade Iran, but I just can't see how you don't find it a cause for concern.

It sounds ridiculous.

Are you familiar with the acronym M.A.D.?

I'll assume that you are and remind you that should Iran attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, Iran would be practically guaranteed destruction from the Israeli retaliatory strike.

You kind of have to hope that all that work on anti-missile missiles and other missile disabling technologies has reached a suitable level of performance. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of Israel left to retaliate -- I guess they will need to locate the retalitory missile base in Jerusalem. . . how ironic.

[SDW2001]

The major difference between this being "another WMD myth" is that while Saddam claimed that he wasn't producing said weapons, I'm pretty sure Ahmadinejad publically claims to have nuclear capabilities.

For someone who's usually an alarmist, I'm a little bit confused as to why this doesn't trouble you. Maybe Iran has nuclear weapons, maybe they don't: I'm not really saying that we should invade Iran, but I just can't see how you don't find it a cause for concern.

Exactly. I wonder if this was about a different issue...say Global Warming...would Sammi employ the same reasoning? Global Warming isn't proven either. However, most people of her political stripe are going totally batshit over it. Yet, while there is every reason to believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons and little reason not to...she doesn't seem concerned at all.

[MacRR]

I think Sammi is heavy on the CT side, too. Anyone who thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy makes me shake my head.

However, I think we should have been dealing with Iran instead of driving our military into la la land in Iraq. If Iran does in fact ramp up and lob a nuke, we'll have a real hard time dealing with it since our military is dealing with fuk'd up Iraq.

And how about North Korea?

And Global warming still has to be dealt with.

Multi-tasking is our friend!

[Tulkas]

sammi, I'm sorry but posts like this are the reason you've earned the name Samantha Joan Conspiracy in the past (for those non-old times, that was sammi jo's name pre-blackout).


OT: wasn't it SJO and Samatha Joe Olendale prior to that?

[SDW2001]

OT: wasn't it SJO and Samatha Joe Olendale prior to that?

It was Samantha Joan Ollendale then just sammi jo. Someone called her Samantha Joan Conspiracy one time. I liked the sound of it.

[MarcUK]

It was Samantha Joan Ollendale then just sammi jo. Someone called her Samantha Joan Conspiracy one time. I liked the sound of it.

I remember someone called you that rhymed with Sloopid Cumb Banker one time. I liked the sound of that too, but for the life of me I cant remember who it was.

[segovius]

Some facts to bring us all down to earth:

1) Ahmadinejad has no power. The Mullahs can and will remove him the moment it becomes politically expedient.

Right now both they (the religious leaders) and the US are playing a cat and mouse game with the western public as the patsy.

The Mullahs get to use Ahmedinejad as a kind of 'non-religious' puppet for themselves to dupe their populace (although the students have seen through it and are increasing protests by the day) and will offer him up as a sacrificial lamb when the time is ripe to talk to the US.

The US for their part get a bogey to continue the 'scare the sheep' program with and also as they know he will be made to fall on his sword in due course have a ready made excuse for diplomatic negotiations with the 'enemy' when he is kicked into touch: 'Iran is ok now he has gone' sort of campaign.

2) Ahmadinejad never said 'Wipe Israel off the map' and this is so well established now that anyone who continues to claim it is either woefully ignorant of the topic to the degree they have no right to discuss it or else deliberately perpetuating a lie for the own reasons.

3) The Holocaust Conference and Holocaust denial: I have yet to hear Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust. What I have heard him say is that Zionists use the Holocaust for political capital and that it is a subject which one is not allowed to question. In essence his statements boil down to "if there was a Holocaust why can it not be questioned?" in the same way as one is allowed to question the shape of the earth.

He may or may not feel that the Holocaust is a myth,certainly there are mythic elements - I was told many times when I was a child that Jews were made into soap in the camps for example, this was not true but everyone believed it at the time and questioning it brought the same reactions questioning other similar issues does now - and it may be that he is questioning there or else using the issue as leverage to fight Zionism (something that certainly needs to be done and is being done by many people including many Jews) or he may just be a racist.

In the end it doesn't matter - there are racists everywhere, in the IDF, in the White House, rampant in the UK, so what? I'd be happy to go after them all but in the meantime we should probably not give one group of fascists a free pass - especially based on racial considerations.

4) Interestingly, numerous Rabbis were invited to the conference and attended it giving very interesting speeches on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in WW2 and perhaps, less contentiously, the openly racist and often illegal activities that underpin the Zionist conception.

Basically it all comes down to one fact: you can have as much free speech as you like as long as we approve it.

The 'we' being the increasingly emasculated 'leaders' (though it is an offence verging on the obscene to anyone who ever really was a leader in any capacity from the Girl Guides or even below, to label them such) whose ability to construct unfeasible lies is matched only by the gullibility of their target audience......

This thread should really have been named: Are the section of the American public who have surrendered all semblance of logical sequential thought the new Stepford Wives?

Someone should then have posted just one word in reply: YES for example.

And a mod should have got in here hotfoot with a clunking big lock and banned us all* for being so stupid or bored to even bother replying.

* Except Mark UK - he is under God's protection by virtue of insanity.

[MarcUK]

theres no need to whisper, shout it out from the rooftops

BTW, if you dirty pubis exporting horse-urine drinking Barcelonians dont stop spreading this unfounded propaganda against me, i will be forced to chew up bits of paper and flick them at you with my steel rule. Until then have a happy Christmas.

[sammi jo]

It was Samantha Joan Ollendale then just sammi jo. Someone called her Samantha Joan Conspiracy one time. I liked the sound of it.

Before that, it was 'Sjollen'. And before that, it was 'guest'.

[MarcUK]

Before that, it was 'Sjollen'.

damn, i thought she was some hot sweedish chick, yet it was only you :no:

[MarcUK]

Hey MarcUK,

First read the 'Old Testament' for starters....



well, its been a while, but I read through Deuteronomy and Joshua again just to check,

I guess the question is have you read it?

the whole land of Israel was stolen by Joshie from various other peoples and an awful lot of people died, (you might wonder why they had to die - god promised he would destroy all the people they encountered and this happened pretty mercilessly at the start, but then as the story unfolds, alot of the people Josh encounters actually become slaves, or merge with the Israelites - either god break his promise, or he regretted the wanton destruction)

So the entire notion that todays state of israel has a 'biblical' right to exist is a bit suspect. Certainly ' people' have a right to exist - however if you are arguing that the land (of Israel) is being returned to its rightful owners, then it shows within the OT that the land we know today as Israel - was stolen by Joshua right from the beginning...

Assuming your ignorant enough not to understand the flight from Egypt story in context...

[MarcUK]

And its interesting to note that this Eleazor guy springs up again in Joshua, who dies right after Joshua tells his people to give up worshipping the strange Gods (Osiris), right at the end of the book. You paying attention Frank??? why would Jesus resurrect Eleazor again?

[ArchiMark]

Some facts to bring us all down to earth:

I would NOT call what you wrote 'fact's, segovius, more like mostly lies and nonsense....



2) Ahmadinejad never said 'Wipe Israel off the map' and this is so well established now that anyone who continues to claim it is either woefully ignorant of the topic to the degree they have no right to discuss it or else deliberately perpetuating a lie for the own reasons.

This IS A LIE!

Even your friends at Al Jazeera say that he said it!

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816


3) The Holocaust Conference and Holocaust denial: I have yet to hear Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust. What I have heard him say is that Zionists use the Holocaust for political capital and that it is a subject which one is not allowed to question. In essence his statements boil down to "if there was a Holocaust why can it not be questioned?" in the same way as one is allowed to question the shape of the earth.

Just because You didn't hear him say it, doesn't mean that he didn't say it!

Again, check out your buddies at Al Jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=17019


4) Interestingly, numerous Rabbis were invited to the conference and attended it giving very interesting speeches on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in WW2 and perhaps, less contentiously, the openly racist and often illegal activities that underpin the Zionist conception.

There is a small segment of ultra-orthodox Jews who have a very literal interpretation of the bible and what events need to occur for the Messiah to arrive. One of their beliefs is that the Messiah won't come while Israel is there.

That is the reason for their beliefs coinciding in this case with Ahmadinejad's, not for the other idiocy that you mention.


Basically it all comes down to one fact: you can have as much free speech as you like as long as we approve it.

The 'we' being the increasingly emasculated 'leaders' (though it is an offence verging on the obscene to anyone who ever really was a leader in any capacity from the Girl Guides or even below, to label them such) whose ability to construct unfeasible lies is matched only by the gullibility of their target audience......

This thread should really have been named: Are the section of the American public who have surrendered all semblance of logical sequential thought the new Stepford Wives?

Someone should then have posted just one word in reply: YES for example.

And a mod should have got in here hotfoot with a clunking big lock and banned us all* for being so stupid or bored to even bother replying.

* Except Mark UK - he is under God's protection by virtue of insanity.


Not sure what you're smokin' in your nargilah, segovious, but it ain't workin' for you....

[MarcUK]

There is a small segment of ultra-orthodox Jews who have a very literal interpretation of the bible and what events need to occur for the Messiah to arrive. One of their beliefs is that the Messiah won't come while Israel is there.

since when did ultra-orthodox Jews read the bible? :lol:

here you go, http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

[ArchiMark]

Umm, did you read the 3rd sentence in the first paragraph of the page you link to????

:???:

"But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings."


since when did ultra-orthodox Jews read the bible? :lol:

here you go, http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

[MarcUK]

Umm, did you read the 3rd sentence in the first paragraph of the page you link to????

:???:

"But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings."

i very much doubt you meant that in that context.

[sammi jo]

I think Sammi is heavy on the CT side, too. Anyone who thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy makes me shake my head.


You have a lot of head shaking to do, no matter who you believed planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

Was 9/11 not a CONSPIRACY by 19 middle eastern hijackers and other fundamentalist Islamic jihadists?
And is it not true that the THEORY is that those 19 middle easterners slammed three hijacked planes into American landmarks, and crashed a 4th one in the PA countryside?

C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.

!!

[MacRR]

huh?

especially this part:
C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.


cRaZylaDySAyWha?




You have a lot of head shaking to do, no matter who you believed planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

Was 9/11 not a CONSPIRACY by 19 middle eastern hijackers and other fundamentalist Islamic jihadists?
And is it not true that the THEORY is that those 19 middle easterners slammed three hijacked planes into American landmarks, and crashed a 4th one in the PA countryside?

C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.

!!

[sammi jo]

huh?

especially this part:

Quote:
C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.

cRaZylaDySAyWha?

Both the official story, and any "alternative explanation" (re. 9/11) are conspiracy theories. The crime involved more than one person (ie the plan was conspiratorial) and any account involves some degree of theorizing, especially since there are so many unknowns.

Incidentally: For everyone who assumes I am a "conspiracy theorist" (as regards the 9/11 attacks), you are all so wrong. Yes, I have my doubts (plenty of them) re. the US Government's honesty and transparency re. the attacks, and their own data proves that they have lied about events that day, on numerous occasions. However, I haven't put forward any 'conspiracy theory' re 'whodunnit'... because I, alongside 99.9999% of the rest of the people on this planet, do not know.

All I have done (to earn the title of 'sammi jo conspiracy' as SDW gleefully pointed out), is to ask questions. I assume that asking questions (especially awkward ones) isn't the correct thing in the era of "freedom fries".. (freedom's fried?).

Carry on.

[talksense101]

I would think the USA is heading towards a pre-world war 2 German model as opposed to Iran which is in the same state of affairs for the past few decades -- except that they have access to a crude blueprint of a nuclear power plant. Ahmadinejad is hardly a comparison to Hitler. The entire middle east doesn't like Israel either and they have made similar or stronger statements over various periods of time.

[ronaldo]

Here is an interesting article as to why there is no resolution to what goes on in the Middle East. This is why the United States and the rest of the world should just get the hell out of there and let the Arabs and Jews resolve their own problems.

[ronaldo]

Here is an interesting article as to why there is no resolution to what goes on in the Middle East. This is why the United States and the rest of the world should just get the hell out of there and let the Arabs and Jews resolve their own problems.

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

[SDW2001]

Some facts to bring us all down to earth:

1) Ahmadinejad has no power. The Mullahs can and will remove him the moment it becomes politically expedient.

Right now both they (the religious leaders) and the US are playing a cat and mouse game with the western public as the patsy.

The Mullahs get to use Ahmedinejad as a kind of 'non-religious' puppet for themselves to dupe their populace (although the students have seen through it and are increasing protests by the day) and will offer him up as a sacrificial lamb when the time is ripe to talk to the US.

The US for their part get a bogey to continue the 'scare the sheep' program with and also as they know he will be made to fall on his sword in due course have a ready made excuse for diplomatic negotiations with the 'enemy' when he is kicked into touch: 'Iran is ok now he has gone' sort of campaign.

2) Ahmadinejad never said 'Wipe Israel off the map' and this is so well established now that anyone who continues to claim it is either woefully ignorant of the topic to the degree they have no right to discuss it or else deliberately perpetuating a lie for the own reasons.

3) The Holocaust Conference and Holocaust denial: I have yet to hear Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust. What I have heard him say is that Zionists use the Holocaust for political capital and that it is a subject which one is not allowed to question. In essence his statements boil down to "if there was a Holocaust why can it not be questioned?" in the same way as one is allowed to question the shape of the earth.

He may or may not feel that the Holocaust is a myth,certainly there are mythic elements - I was told many times when I was a child that Jews were made into soap in the camps for example, this was not true but everyone believed it at the time and questioning it brought the same reactions questioning other similar issues does now - and it may be that he is questioning there or else using the issue as leverage to fight Zionism (something that certainly needs to be done and is being done by many people including many Jews) or he may just be a racist.

In the end it doesn't matter - there are racists everywhere, in the IDF, in the White House, rampant in the UK, so what? I'd be happy to go after them all but in the meantime we should probably not give one group of fascists a free pass - especially based on racial considerations.

4) Interestingly, numerous Rabbis were invited to the conference and attended it giving very interesting speeches on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in WW2 and perhaps, less contentiously, the openly racist and often illegal activities that underpin the Zionist conception.

Basically it all comes down to one fact: you can have as much free speech as you like as long as we approve it.

The 'we' being the increasingly emasculated 'leaders' (though it is an offence verging on the obscene to anyone who ever really was a leader in any capacity from the Girl Guides or even below, to label them such) whose ability to construct unfeasible lies is matched only by the gullibility of their target audience......

This thread should really have been named: Are the section of the American public who have surrendered all semblance of logical sequential thought the new Stepford Wives?

Someone should then have posted just one word in reply: YES for example.

And a mod should have got in here hotfoot with a clunking big lock and banned us all* for being so stupid or bored to even bother replying.

* Except Mark UK - he is under God's protection by virtue of insanity.


One fact to bring you down to earth: You're nothing but an apologist.

[segovius]

One fact to bring you down to earth: You're nothing but an apologist.

If you like. Care to address the points I raised anyway?

[midwinter]

You're nothing but an apologist.

Indeed.

So what I did was what a lot of Republicans did....as Rush puts it, we were "Carrying water for people that didn't deserve it." That really hits it on the head.

[MarcUK]

I was just doing my daily ritual of reading the tea-leaves and worshipping the pink astral unicorn in its dance across the heavens, i also watched a load of David Icke videos on youTube - so anyway, my point is, is that unless you seriously mentally ill like me, you probably won't want to read this article about Israel I came across. Ga-ga.

http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astrotheology.html#did%20israel%20exist

Also, the only non-biblical reference to a people known as the Israel(ites) claims they were situated where this map shows the city of Avaris - clearly nowhere near the modern state of Israel, and described as a small motley bunch of savages :D

http://www.nigli.net/akhenaten/legypt_1.jpg

[SDW2001]

Indeed.

It's amazing what you'll sieze upon as some sort of "evidence" of intellectual dishonesty. I said that I liked what Rush Limbaugh said on the subject, and then quoted him as I felt it summed up the situation well. Conservatives such as myself didn't want the Dems to takover, but we were also displeased with this new brand of Republican that seems to have emerged. The party's loss brought a sense of relief that we no longer had to choose the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Some of us, including me, think that the party's loss may actually be a positive as it may right the course of the party, so to speak. Finally, Rush's comment was intended to address the GOP's lack of adherence to its principles and the inability to articulate those principles in public. It was left to the rank and file party members to carry the message that wasn't being put our by the party's own leaders..hence the phrase "carrying water."

Sorry if that's too complex for you. It's probably easier to just gloat.

[segovius]

It's amazing what you'll sieze upon as some sort of "evidence" of intellectual dishonesty. I said that I liked what Rush Limbaugh said on the subject, and then quoted him as I felt it summed up the situation well. Conservatives such as myself didn't want the Dems to takover, but we were also displeased with this new brand of Republican that seems to have emerged. The party's loss brought a sense of relief that we no longer had to choose the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Some of us, including me, think that the party's loss may actually be a positive as it may right the course of the party, so to speak. Finally, Rush's comment was intended to address the GOP's lack of adherence to its principles and the inability to articulate those principles in public. It was left to the rank and file party members to carry the message that wasn't being put our by the party's own leaders..hence the phrase "carrying water."

Sorry if that's too complex for you. It's probably easier to just gloat.

Hmmm...still no addressing the issues you seem to be so vehemently sure are incorrect.

Why might this be?

Perhaps you cannot actually dispute the facts because they are irrefutable but because they are unpalatable to the world view that you have been conditioned to you manifest irritation and subsequent diversion?

Or is it because attacking the messenger rather than the message is the sole solution the right-wing mindset can apply to any problem it encounters whether that problem happens to be the facing of uncomfortable facts or confrontation with Nation States or individuals one disagrees with? I suppose violence is the leitmotif of the winger mindset whether it is 'intellectual' (I use the word loosely) or actual.

Or perhaps you don't really care about facts at all and it is merely about 'winning' and 'sides'. I favour this reading - the only use of a fact would be to signal that you need to attack from another angle.

[SDW2001]

If you like. Care to address the points I raised anyway?

You know, I really don't in this case because they all fall under one apologist umbrella. You don't believe Iran poses a threat to Israel and America. Or, you may be so anti-Israel and anti-Bush that you want to see Iran become more powerful and/or the State of Israel destroyed. Through such colored glasses, your point of view will be justified by ANY statement or event.

It's ironic, this view you have. During the lead up to the Iraq war, you ridiculed supporters of invasion because you and others believed the facts at hand and statements by the Bush Administration clearly indicated there were no WMD. Supporters of the invasion were told they were sheep. I mean, if we really listened to what was being said, we'd see that it was all a sham. Now, you're doing the same thing we were accused of.

At this point, Ahmadinejad could say that he will launch an attack on Israel in 10 minutes, and you'd say he's been mistranslated or that he meant something else. After all, what does "attack" mean? Maybe he meant a letter writing campaign. Let's not overreact here, people!

Look at the facts. The Holocaust is an established historical fact, yet he wants to "investigate" it and question it's existence. Why might that be? He has said he wants the Israeli "regime" to collapse...to be wiped off the map. He has openly talked about a world without America and Israel. He is pursuing nuclear power, yet he sits atop one ofthe world's largest oil deposits.

No sane person can look at what's going on and not be extremely concerned that this man may be another Hitler in waiting.

[groverat]

At this point, Ahmadinejad could say that he will launch an attack on Israel in 10 minutes, and you'd say he's been mistranslated or that he meant something else. After all, what does "attack" mean? Maybe he meant a letter writing campaign. Let's not overreact here, people!

If you cannot address the actual arguments and all you can do is fabricate bullshit arguments from thin air, why not just shut up and slink away?

No sane person can look at what's going on and not be extremely concerned that this man may be another Hitler in waiting.

I can and I am sane.

[segovius]

You know, I really don't in this case because they all fall under one apologist umbrella. You don't believe Iran poses a threat to Israel and America. Or, you may be so anti-Israel and anti-Bush that you want to see Iran become more powerful and/or the State of Israel destroyed. Through such colored glasses, your point of view will be justified by ANY statement or event.

It's ironic, this view you have. During the lead up to the Iraq war, you ridiculed supporters of invasion because you and others believed the facts at hand and statements by the Bush Administration clearly indicated there were no WMD. Supporters of the invasion were told they were sheep. I mean, if we really listened to what was being said, we'd see that it was all a sham. Now, you're doing the same thing we were accused of.

At this point, Ahmadinejad could say that he will launch an attack on Israel in 10 minutes, and you'd say he's been mistranslated or that he meant something else. After all, what does "attack" mean? Maybe he meant a letter writing campaign. Let's not overreact here, people!

Look at the facts. The Holocaust is an established historical fact, yet he wants to "investigate" it and question it's existence. Why might that be? He has said he wants the Israeli "regime" to collapse...to be wiped off the map. He has openly talked about a world without America and Israel. He is pursuing nuclear power, yet he sits atop one ofthe world's largest oil deposits.

No sane person can look at what's going on and not be extremely concerned that this man may be another Hitler in waiting.

I am not saying Ahmedinajad is not a danger or even a racist...he may well be for all I know.

I am not addressing the issue of him, I am addressing the issue of you.

You claimed he said he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map' and it is a fact that he did not say this. Yet you refuse to address this and keep saying it.

Maybe he does want to do that - who knows? I am not saying that he does or doesn't: I am merely saying that the arguments you present to support your views are factually incorrect.

And that this does not seem to bother you.

[lunocrat]

In terms of importance, the assembly elections eclipse Iran's Presidential elections of 2005. Iran's president Ahmadinejad, despite all his fiery talk and bravado, only holds 10% of power, given to him by the constitution. The supreme leader however, is the most powerful person in all of Iran. He is the person with the last say over Iran's internal and external policies, and its nuclear program.
Assembly Elections: Iran (http://www.meepas.com/Assembly_elections.htm)

[lunocrat]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
Iran's claim to need nuclear power may be genuine, given that it could run out of oil to export as soon as eight years from now, according to an analysis published on Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences.
_nuclear_study_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061226/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_study_dc)
http://www.news.com.au nuclear study (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20977916-1702,00.html?from=public_rss)

[SDW2001]

Hmmm...still no addressing the issues you seem to be so vehemently sure are incorrect.

Why might this be?

Perhaps you cannot actually dispute the facts because they are irrefutable but because they are unpalatable to the world view that you have been conditioned to you manifest irritation and subsequent diversion?

Or is it because attacking the messenger rather than the message is the sole solution the right-wing mindset can apply to any problem it encounters whether that problem happens to be the facing of uncomfortable facts or confrontation with Nation States or individuals one disagrees with? I suppose violence is the leitmotif of the winger mindset whether it is 'intellectual' (I use the word loosely) or actual.

Or perhaps you don't really care about facts at all and it is merely about 'winning' and 'sides'. I favour this reading - the only use of a fact would be to signal that you need to attack from another angle.

Was that an exceptionally long winded way of accusing me of not specifically laying out the issues in which I disagree with the Republican leadership?

[SDW2001]

I am not saying Ahmedinajad is not a danger or even a racist...he may well be for all I know.

I am not addressing the issue of him, I am addressing the issue of you.

You claimed he said he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map' and it is a fact that he did not say this. Yet you refuse to address this and keep saying it.

Maybe he does want to do that - who knows? I am not saying that he does or doesn't: I am merely saying that the arguments you present to support your views are factually incorrect.

And that this does not seem to bother you.

What a transparent, bullshit dodge that was. Maybe you should go back and reread what you posted above. It's a litany of reasons that Ahmadinejad is actually a victim.

By the way, he did say it according to wikipedia:

On October 23, 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained statements against Israel. According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that must be "wiped off the map".

In context, Khomeni was the one who said it and he was agreeing with it. He said, according to the NYT:

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.

So not only are you backing away from your litnay of apologies, you're also wrong.

[SDW2001]

Assembly Elections: Iran (http://www.meepas.com/Assembly_elections.htm)

Apology #37: He doesn't really have any power.

[SDW2001]

_nuclear_study_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061226/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_study_dc)
http://www.news.com.au nuclear study (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20977916-1702,00.html?from=public_rss)

Ahem....38

[segovius]

Ahem....38

Rational sane expert analyst: The moon is made of cheese.....

Deranged Lunatic: Then how do you explain the geological rock samples brought back from the moon by the NASA space program?

Rational sane expert analyst: (frothing slightly) hahahah - apology number 65432a......

[segovius]

What a transparent, bullshit dodge that was. Maybe you should go back and reread what you posted above. It's a litany of reasons that Ahmadinejad is actually a victim.

By the way, he did say it according to wikipedia:

In context, Khomeni was the one who said it and he was agreeing with it. He said, according to the NYT:

So not only are you backing away from your litnay of apologies, you're also wrong.

'According to widely publicized translations' - one could also claim your own views are 'widely publicized' given the amount of times you disseminate the same thing on these boards without variation, adjustment or relation to reality.

That would not however validate these views - nor would it make them any less cock-eyed and ill-informed than they are.

Actually the statement in question is widely publicized because one source - MEMRI - widely publicized it. Unfortunately for you (though you won't see it that way), MEMRI is an Israeli Intel group with a proven track record of lies and distortion.

Khomeini's quote was referring in part to the Shah's regime which he successfully opposed. Ahmedinejad was using this - as well as a Khomeini quote re the possible removal of Saddam's regime - as an example of how it is possible for evil regimes to be removed regardless of how much power they seem to have.

The fact is that there is a difference between wanting a regime 'wiped off the map' and wanting that for a Nation.

I too want Zionism 'wiped off the map'.

I want Neocons 'wiped off the map'.

I want racist fascists 'wiped off the map'.

I want stupidity and commitment to unthinking acceptance 'wiped off the map'.

[SDW2001]

Rational sane expert analyst: The moon is made of cheese.....

Deranged Lunatic: Then how do you explain the geological rock samples brought back from the moon by the NASA space program?

Rational sane expert analyst: (frothing slightly) hahahah - apology number 65432a......

Right, that's the same thing. You know what? You're right. Ahmadinejad has no real power. Don't worry about him. Everything will be OK. He doesn't really want to destroy Israel and America. He's just misunderstood. His nuke power plans are only peaceful. No worries, mate!

[SDW2001]

'According to widely publicized translations' - one could also claim your own views are 'widely publicized' given the amount of times you disseminate the same thing on these boards without variation, adjustment or relation to reality.

That would not however validate these views - nor would it make them any less cock-eyed and ill-informed than they are.

Actually the statement in question is widely publicized because one source - MEMRI - widely publicized it. Unfortunately for you (though you won't see it that way), MEMRI is an Israeli Intel group with a proven track record of lies and distortion.

Khomeini's quote was referring in part to the Shah's regime which he successfully opposed. Ahmedinejad was using this - as well as a Khomeini quote re the possible removal of Saddam's regime - as an example of how it is possible for evil regimes to be removed regardless of how much power they seem to have.

The fact is that there is a difference between wanting a regime 'wiped off the map' and wanting that for a Nation.

I too want Zionism 'wiped off the map'.

I want Neocons 'wiped off the map'.

I want racist fascists 'wiped off the map'.

I want stupidity and commitment to unthinking acceptance 'wiped off the map'.


There's just no talking to you. Have a nice day.

[jimmac]

There's just no talking to you. Have a nice day.

Funny how you seem to end so many conversations with this?;)

[SDW2001]

Funny how you seem to end so many conversations with this?;)

When it's true, it's true. What can I say? Do you care to chime in on the subject? I'd be interested to hear what you think.

[jimmac]

When it's true, it's true. What can I say? Do you care to chime in on the subject? I'd be interested to hear what you think.



" There's just no talking to you. Have a nice day. "
__________________

Of course the difference here is that I don't use this for everyone I talk to.

Just the ones who really aren't interested in what I say.;)

However I think it very unlikely we have another Hitler here.

[sammi jo]

There's just no talking to you. Have a nice day.

I take it that you have must have heard of MEMRI, and who set it up, how this "translation service" works, and who ultimately benefits?

May I preempt another lower-middle school "conspiracy theorist" accusation, again?

[SDW2001]

I take it that you have must have heard of MEMRI, and who set it up, how this "translation service" works, and who ultimately benefits?

May I preempt another lower-middle school "conspiracy theorist" accusation, again?

Oh here we go. Go ahead sammi, tell us all why was just mistranslated and why it's all a conspriracy.

[SDW2001]

" There's just no talking to you. Have a nice day. "
__________________

Of course the difference here is that I don't use this for everyone I talk to.

Just the ones who really aren't interested in what I say.;)

However I think it very unlikely we have another Hitler here.

jimmac, you're not going to flip this around and try to make the topic about my statement. That's not going to happen.

Now, care to support your claim about Ahmadinejad?

[segovius]

Oh here we go. Go ahead sammi, tell us all why was just mistranslated and why it's all a conspriracy.

Heheh......good to know that as civilization crumbles around are ears some things are entirely reliable and predictable.

Gives you a warm feeling somehow....like the band playing 'Abide With Me' on the deck of the Titanic.

[midwinter]

Oh here we go. Go ahead sammi, tell us all why was just mistranslated and why it's all a conspriracy.

Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html).

[segovius]

jimmac, you're not going to flip this around and try to make the topic about my statement. That's not going to happen.

Now, care to support your claim about Ahmadinejad?

Why? It's been supported already - why do you continue to ignore it? ANd then insanely keep asking for what has been supplied?

The onus is on you to refute the arguments so far put forward. When are you going to to this?

[jimmac]

jimmac, you're not going to flip this around and try to make the topic about my statement. That's not going to happen.

Now, care to support your claim about Ahmadinejad?

Why not? You've done that same thing plenty of times.

As for your answer Hitler had chrisma at just the right time ( economic depression ). Put that together with the germanic hisory of conquest and shake well. Those same conditions don't really exist in this area. Alot of complex conditions came together to make Hitler what he was.

[ArchiMark]

Hey Sammi Jo, you forgot to post this link on that webpage that addresses the inaccuracies in Whittaker's posting....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,778373,00.html


Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html).

[sammi jo]

Hey Sammi Jo, you forgot to post this link on that webpage that addresses the inaccuracies in Whittaker's posting....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,778373,00.html

I also forgot to post this link (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1511)

If I said the same thing about, AlManar, or Al Jazeera, for example, you would agree with me, rather than kneejerk about "conspiracy theory"....because it is acceptable to diss an Arabic source, and politically incorrect to question a source that slants reporting in Israel's favor.

Same ol'.... yawn, yawn.

:rolleyes:

[SDW2001]

Why not? You've done that same thing plenty of times.

As for your answer Hitler had chrisma at just the right time ( economic depression ). Put that together with the germanic hisory of conquest and shake well. Those same conditions don't really exist in this area. Alot of complex conditions came together to make Hitler what he was.

What is the "same thing?"

That said, I agree with your second point to an extent. But I'm not really talking about specific personal qualities (though Ahmadinejad is apparently quite charismatic). There are other similarities that are concerning, such as I have laid out.

[100mph]

Many comparisons have been drawn between 2006's Iran and 1938's Nazi Germany. ...


Are you familiar with the site called Google?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Reichstag+911&btnG=Search

[100mph]

P.S.

You also may want to check these out ;) :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_election_news/627344.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xiec27yF-Y
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16012.htm
http://www.thecorporation.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9el69vcUM
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[SDW2001]

P.S.

You also may want to check these out ;) :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_election_news/627344.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xiec27yF-Y
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16012.htm
http://www.thecorporation.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9el69vcUM
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

No, I don't. You're a fucking wack job.

[100mph]

No, I don't. You're a fucking wack job.

Yes, you obviously do… :D

[100mph]

Former Reagan aide compares Bush to Hitler. (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_Reagan_aide_compares_Bush_to_0109.html)

:D

[100mph]

"...

"Bush is like Hitler," Paul Craig Roberts writes in a column entitled The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?. "He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy."

"Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion," Roberts continues. "In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin."

... "