President Ahmadinejad's Speech at Columbia University

[GreasyDogMeat]

This is what one of my sisters said before breaking down in tears in my mosque when we heard news of yet another Israeli atrocity. My brothers? They're enraged. The word "JIHAD" was heard repeatedly. Me? I just sat there feeling like crap, cursing my powerlessness.

 

Jesus. I thought that was just a stereotype.

Unfortunately not

 

Ooo I hate you so much right now!

 

Nobody click on that damn link! Except Yuusha... check it out man!

[Pop]

On the contrary, that site is made of win, and good.

[Tigranes]

Look, I did not join this forum with the preconceived notion that I was smarter or more intelligent than everyone else here. But I do think that I just might be a bit more 'informed' with what's really going on between Israel and Palestine. I firmly believe that most 'western' people are not privy to these kinds of information due to the subjectivity of the western media.

 

But what you say you are - 'just a little bit more informed perhaps' - is very different from what you do - which is hurl derogative insults at the Architect (regardless of whether he 'deserved' it or not). Also, yes, it is valuable to have a different point of view like yours which is not as inundated by western media; but you have to understand that the kind of information YOU receive is biased in its own way. It is indeed biased of certain western media to highlight every single UK/US troop death in Iraq while speaking of massive civilian sufferings there in an almost 'historical' discourse. But it is also very biased to speak of Israeli war crimes and atrocities, while claiming that Palestinian folk are just honourable, underdog heroes. Both sides are up to their neck in mud, including your Ahmadinejad.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in 20th century Muslim faith, state and people. But I am convinced that the right way to understanding the troubles of many Muslims in contemporary society does NOT lie in a one-dimensional condemnation of the West. To that end lies Al Qaeda, of senseless policies of hate and anti-West reactionism that cannot create but only destroy. I do think Western foreign policy in regards to Muslim nations are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the unique characteristics of the Muslim epistemology and try to impose their own value systems. There are indeed some Western men who think their idea of freedom of speech and expression, their idea of democracy, their idea of capitalist society, are the best in the world and it is a crime NOT to impose this on everybody in the world. (Not pointing fingers at all, this is just an extreme example.) But the correct way for the Muslim people, or the Middle Eastern people, or etc, to combat this influence and assert their own future is not through angry condemnation of the West, because if taken too far, you become blind to your own doings. How is a Palestinian suicide bomber honourable, if an Israeli war criminal is not? The very reason people find it so hard to take sies on the P-I debate is that through decades of conflict, both sides have committed so many atrocities it's hard to just champion one.

 

The world is not one of binary oppositions it is not one of black and white. I do not question your desire to assert the Muslim (or the Palestinian, etc) in the face of a world stage that in areas is extremely unjust towards it. But there are ways towards getting there, and you have to be careful that in fighting the thing that you hate, you do not become just like it in the process. The policies of Al Qaeda or the Ahmadinejad; the Gush Emunim of Israel; the Society of the Muslim Brothers in 60-70's Egypt; the particular elements in the American Fundamentalist movement in the 80's that ended in the Scandals of whatsitsname; they have all fallen prey to this trap, and in the end they have ended in failure, and cannot even face history and say, I have had integrity and honour.

[Sand]

Misinformed?

 

Well this is how I see it, after WW2 Britian and the US carved up the ME and placed Israel smack dab in the middle, pissing off the Arabs. Few years later, 6 Day war in which Israel kicked butt, pissing off the Arabs even more. A few years later terrorism starts to rise as a means to fight Israel. Israel fights back, pisses off Arabs even more. US backs Israel, pissing off the Arabs even more. Arabs try to retaliate the best they can using underhanded techniques, pissing off US, Israel, and the western world. People die by atrocities done by both sides, neither side wants to compromise, both sides are hellbent to wipe each other out. It has "Shakespeare Tragedy" written all over it.

 

Right or wrong, that is how I see it. No one is innocent, and everyone is guilty. If that is being misinformed, oh well, that is how it is.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Sand

[Atreides]

Right or wrong, that is how I see it. No one is innocent, and everyone is guilty. If that is being misinformed, oh well, that is how it is.

You must judge them all! JUDGE THEM ALL!!!1!

[Rosbjerg]

first of all there is no such thing as an objective coverage of a story, never have - never will be. Your sources maybe bias or you haven't seen the entire scope of a certain situation.

 

Yuusha, you're Indonesian and muslim - this doesn't mean that you know more about a conflict closer to Europe than the western world. You may have heard alot about it, because this is a conflict that is of great interest in most Muslim societies, but then again - how can you be sure your sources are not biased?

 

Then there's also the problem of subjective information collection - you want to believe a specific truth and therefore you seek out various articles that support your claims - this isn't hard - but then again, just because you can find 50+ examples of Israliens massacres doesn't make every single Israli evil and doesn't mean the Palestinians haven't commited equal atrocities. (and most definitely not saying the Israli are "inoccent here, far from it! I'm just saying that maybe the Palestinians aren't that inoccent either)

The argument of "who was there first" is flawed as well - because occupation of an area is almost always preceeded by driving others out, and more often than not, forcefully- the Palestinians did the same, so the cultural group who owned the region before them should therefore hold the same right to drive the palestinians out of the region, right?. Besides both Egypt and Turkey (even France and England for some years) held the region once as well - do they have the same rights to conquer it and defend their former territories? wouldn't this be the honourable thing to do in your opinion?

 

-

 

I think everyone in this conflict is insane - this however is my opinion and in no way a truth. The point I'm trying to convey here is; don't forget you'll always have a partial/bias view of events - and judge others opinions likewise and equally. It makes for a better discussion.

[Sand]

"Who is there first" is irrelevant. "Who has the biggest guns" is not.

[Yuusha]

@Volourn:

Well said, GMD.

 

I just gotta say one thing. The poster Yuusha seems full of hate. So much so Yussha is basically dehumaning an entire country (even two). Gah. And, at that time, claims that it feels bad when it happens to Yussha' people.

 

Look in the mirror. That's all.

Wow..... Such wisdom.... I mean... Wow.... Look in the mirror... Wow... Yeah...

 

Dehumaning or dehumanizing?

------------------------

 

 

@Aram:

Also, I'm confused. This was some sort of Jedi mosque?

Rage is the path to the darkside, young padawan.

But master.... The call of the dark side is strong.....

------------------------

 

 

@Calax:

question: what happens if the bombings stop?

 

general answer thus far: media coverage also stops as everything is going fine. Said media coverage is somthing both sides want so they allow at least some of the bombings to continue so that the american and international medias stay on it to keep donations pouring in. At least thats how a highschool history teacher explained it to my class.

In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon killing 17,500 people. No photographs of the victims were ever displayed in Western newspapers. No minutes' silence were held in any Western city.

 

Over 1500 Palestinians (mainly women and children) were killed in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Christian militia while Israeli forces sealed the exits and illuminated the area. The USA had arranged a deal where the Palestinian leadership left Lebanon for Tunisia, promising that the families left behind would be protected by "the International Community".

 

As a reminder, the refugee camps were in Lebanon because the inhabitants had been expelled from their homes in Palestine either in 1948 (when the State of Israel was set up) or 1967 (when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied).

 

The Israeli Defence Minister in charge of the invasion, one Ariel Sharon, was found to be responsible for the massacre by a court in Israel. Such a person might expect to be tried for war crimes. In fact, he became Prime Minister of Israel and, twenty years later, was called "a man of peace" by the USA president, George W Bush.

 

To add further insult to the pain and indignation felt by Arabs, between 1982 and 1983, the USA vetoed six separate United Nations resolutions condemning the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. One of the reasons the USA gave in 2003 when it invaded Iraq was "to uphold the authority of the United Nations".

 

In September 2002, the anniversary of a terrorist attack in the USA (known in the West as 9/11 even though most of the world's countries write that date as 11/9) was remembered with silences held around the country and in Europe. A few days later, the 20th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres that still anger the Arabs was completely ignored in the Western media.

 

These double standards are a major cause of resentment against the West.

 

I wonder if your highschool history teacher is aware of this....

------------------------------------

[Yuusha]

Sorry...

 

Double post

Edited October 6, 2007 by Yuusha

[Yuusha]

@Tigranes:

But what you say you are - 'just a little bit more informed perhaps' - is very different from what you do - which is hurl derogative insults at the Architect (regardless of whether he 'deserved' it or not). Also, yes, it is valuable to have a different point of view like yours which is not as inundated by western media; but you have to understand that the kind of information YOU receive is biased in its own way. It is indeed biased of certain western media to highlight every single UK/US troop death in Iraq while speaking of massive civilian sufferings there in an almost 'historical' discourse. But it is also very biased to speak of Israeli war crimes and atrocities, while claiming that Palestinian folk are just honourable, underdog heroes. Both sides are up to their neck in mud, including your Ahmadinejad.

Ok ok.... Mr. The Architect, I'm sorry if I 'hurt'..... your feelings. I promise I'll be good from now on. Happy now?

 

I suppose the information I receive IS biased to a certain degree. But I have to point out that I don't just watch Al Jazeera and other Islamic broadcasts, I also watch CNN, BBC, VoA and the likes while also surfing the net. Meaning that I pretty much have a kinda balanced sources of news from both sides (although I kinda agree with Sand about how 90% of CNN's content is an insult to his intelligence).

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in 20th century Muslim faith, state and people. But I am convinced that the right way to understanding the troubles of many Muslims in contemporary society does NOT lie in a one-dimensional condemnation of the West. To that end lies Al Qaeda, of senseless policies of hate and anti-West reactionism that cannot create but only destroy. I do think Western foreign policy in regards to Muslim nations are fundamentally flawed in that they ignore the unique characteristics of the Muslim epistemology and try to impose their own value systems. There are indeed some Western men who think their idea of freedom of speech and expression, their idea of democracy, their idea of capitalist society, are the best in the world and it is a crime NOT to impose this on everybody in the world. (Not pointing fingers at all, this is just an extreme example.) But the correct way for the Muslim people, or the Middle Eastern people, or etc, to combat this influence and assert their own future is not through angry condemnation of the West, because if taken too far, you become blind to your own doings. How is a Palestinian suicide bomber honourable, if an Israeli war criminal is not? The very reason people find it so hard to take sies on the P-I debate is that through decades of conflict, both sides have committed so many atrocities it's hard to just champion one.

I do not find Suicide bombers to be honorable because Islam clearly forbids the act of suicide. It practically means a one way ticket to hell with no chance of parole. And I am not anti western, I'm just against the US' foreign policy. I mean I like bands like System of a Down, Metallica etc and the reason why I joined this forum was basically because I'm a huge fan of KOTOR 1 & 2.

 

Well the US seems to have no trouble championing just one side. Should I repost my list of US vetoes in favor of the Israelis?

 

The world is not one of binary oppositions it is not one of black and white. I do not question your desire to assert the Muslim (or the Palestinian, etc) in the face of a world stage that in areas is extremely unjust towards it. But there are ways towards getting there, and you have to be careful that in fighting the thing that you hate, you do not become just like it in the process. The policies of Al Qaeda or the Ahmadinejad; the Gush Emunim of Israel; the Society of the Muslim Brothers in 60-70's Egypt; the particular elements in the American Fundamentalist movement in the 80's that ended in the Scandals of whatsitsname; they have all fallen prey to this trap, and in the end they have ended in failure, and cannot even face history and say, I have had integrity and honour.

Well yeah I agree about the black and white thing. But out of curiosity, can you tell me how you would deal with the situation if you were in my place? I mean you're obviously very intelligent and seem to have high moral standards (This isn't sarcasm. I mean every word).

Edited October 6, 2007 by Yuusha

[GreasyDogMeat]

@Volourn:

Well said, GMD.

 

I just gotta say one thing. The poster Yuusha seems full of hate. So much so Yussha is basically dehumaning an entire country (even two). Gah. And, at that time, claims that it feels bad when it happens to Yussha' people.

 

Look in the mirror. That's all.

Wow..... Such wisdom.... I mean... Wow.... Look in the mirror... Wow... Yeah...

 

Dehumaning or dehumanizing?

------------------------

 

 

@Aram:

Also, I'm confused. This was some sort of Jedi mosque?

Rage is the path to the darkside, young padawan.

But master.... The call of the dark side is strong.....

------------------------

 

 

@Calax:

question: what happens if the bombings stop?

 

general answer thus far: media coverage also stops as everything is going fine. Said media coverage is somthing both sides want so they allow at least some of the bombings to continue so that the american and international medias stay on it to keep donations pouring in. At least thats how a highschool history teacher explained it to my class.

In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon killing 17,500 people. No photographs of the victims were ever displayed in Western newspapers. No minutes' silence were held in any Western city.

 

Over 1500 Palestinians (mainly women and children) were killed in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Christian militia while Israeli forces sealed the exits and illuminated the area. The USA had arranged a deal where the Palestinian leadership left Lebanon for Tunisia, promising that the families left behind would be protected by "the International Community".

 

As a reminder, the refugee camps were in Lebanon because the inhabitants had been expelled from their homes in Palestine either in 1948 (when the State of Israel was set up) or 1967 (when the West Bank and Gaza were occupied).

 

The Israeli Defence Minister in charge of the invasion, one Ariel Sharon, was found to be responsible for the massacre by a court in Israel. Such a person might expect to be tried for war crimes. In fact, he became Prime Minister of Israel and, twenty years later, was called "a man of peace" by the USA president, George W Bush.

 

To add further insult to the pain and indignation felt by Arabs, between 1982 and 1983, the USA vetoed six separate United Nations resolutions condemning the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. One of the reasons the USA gave in 2003 when it invaded Iraq was "to uphold the authority of the United Nations".

 

In September 2002, the anniversary of a terrorist attack in the USA (known in the West as 9/11 even though most of the world's countries write that date as 11/9) was remembered with silences held around the country and in Europe. A few days later, the 20th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres that still anger the Arabs was completely ignored in the Western media.

 

These double standards are a major cause of resentment against the West.

 

I wonder if your highschool history teacher is aware of this....

------------------------------------

 

You sir, are a MASTER DEBATER!

 

"Wow..... Such wisdom.... I mean... Wow.... Look in the mirror... Wow... Yeah... Dehumaning or dehumanizing?"

 

POW! You really destroyed that argument by... correcting spelling... owned!!

 

Page worth of replys mentioning your biased news sources... and you come back with a body slam of MORE biased news! Please tell me this extra news also didn't come from your well-infromed mosque!

 

You condemn Sharon, but is Yassar Arafat your hero? Please... I'd like to hear about how great a guy Yassar Arafat was!

Nevermind, you already think Ahmadinejad is a great guy.

[Hurlshort]

Bah Yuusha didn't address my question

 

Why do you keep ignoring the free love movement we've got going here? Pull up a bean bag chair, enjoy a brownie, and watch the stars move to some Pink Floyd.

[Dark_Raven]

Make war not love.

 

I have no love for Israel. <edit>We have jew lovers here, wouldn't want to get into trouble again.</edit>

 

I have no love for the terrorist states of Syria and Iran. With a Hitler in training with Ahmadinejad, world war 3 will be on the horizon if something is not done against them and their terrorist friends in the world.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Dark_Raven

[Gorth]

Page worth of replys mentioning your biased news sources... and you come back with a body slam of MORE biased news! Please tell me this extra news also didn't come from your well-infromed mosque!

What are your sources GDM, because frankly, your utter and complete unwillingness to accept that there may be more to an issue than your own (very) narrow perspective is scary. The second half of that post is quite well documented by just about anything (except perhaps Fox News). Try looking through things from BBC to Israeli news archives and your worldview might suffer irrepairable damage.

[GreasyDogMeat]

My problem is HIS unwillingness to accept other views. I'm not the one condemning entire countries of being evil or praising a man like Ahmadinejad.

[Calax]

My problem is HIS unwillingness to accept other views. I'm not the one condemning entire countries of being evil or praising a man like Ahmadinejad.

except that you are... you seem to be condemning Iran because of their leader.

 

All people have at least A redeeming quality if you look closely.

 

For example Ahmandinejad seems to have a green side to him and has rationed gasoline to remove the dependence on oil.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Calax

[GreasyDogMeat]

My problem is HIS unwillingness to accept other views. I'm not the one condemning entire countries of being evil or praising a man like Ahmadinejad.

except that you are... you seem to be condemning Iran because of their leader.

 

All people have at least A redeeming quality if you look closely.

 

For example Ahmandinejad seems to have a green side to him and has rationed gasoline to remove the dependence on oil.

 

My hope, as I've said a while back, is that the Iranian people will stand up and change the situation. I don't see how that is condemning all of Iran.

 

"All people have at least A redeeming quality if you look closely."

 

Yeah... I'm sure Hitler had his soft spots too. I just feel the genocide of homosexuals and his apocalyptic beliefs combined with him trying to aquire nuclar weapons outweigh his good side.

[DeathScepter]

GDM is right. No matter the redeeming qualities of people, Evil people are still evil people.

[Guest The Architect]

Oh, what's the matter, Yuusha? You haven't replied to my post yet. You know, the one with the link in it. Hmm, I wonder why. Have nothing to say on Ahmadinejad's Government's fascist behaviour towards his peoples dissidents, do you?

 

You didn't hurt my feelings, by the way. Any personal insults hurled against me won't, since I know I haven't said or done anything wrong to justify any sort of mean behaviour towards me. So feel free to continue insulting me if you want, but all you'll achieve is making me think less and less of you as a person.

 

Carry on.

[Tigranes]

I suppose the information I receive IS biased to a certain degree. But I have to point out that I don't just watch Al Jazeera and other Islamic broadcasts, I also watch CNN, BBC, VoA and the likes while also surfing the net. Meaning that I pretty much have a kinda balanced sources of news from both sides

 

A matrix of biased sources does not result in objectivity, because you come from a particular background and thought and you come with your own biases in analysing these coverages, because unless you believe everything every isngle oone of them say, you are applying your own standards of judgments on them. You are more likely to empathise with pro-Muslim sources; you are more likely to approach big name conservative Western media as deceptive, just to name examples. And if you hold any delusions about you making 'objective and rational' judgments about them 'purely on merit'.... nobody does that. Nobody can.

 

I am not anti western, I'm just against the US' foreign policy.

 

Sorry, I just start simplifying terms when I repeat them - I don't mean you hate western culture or something like that.

 

Well the US seems to have no trouble championing just one side. Should I repost my list of US vetoes in favor of the Israelis?

 

No, because that is completely and utterly irrelevant to this part of the discussion. Are you saying you should be horribly biased just because the US government or media is too? Really? I understand why you would say something like this, but I also think after thinking about it a bit more carefully and calmly you wouldn't really repeat it. As I say, becoming what you hate isn't a very nice thing.

 

Well yeah I agree about the black and white thing. But out of curiosity, can you tell me how you would deal with the situation if you were in my place? I mean you're obviously very intelligent and seem to have high moral standards (This isn't sarcasm. I mean every word).

 

*shrug* Not really... I may, but it is easier to hold higher moral ground when you personally don't have a direct investment int he issue. I mean, I'm Korean living in New Zealand, so I'm not exactly speaking from the heart of Texas as a Bush voter. Keep in mind I don't know exactly what your situation is, except that you are a committed Muslim living in Indonesia.

 

I do think that it is, and has been all of last century, a very difficult time to be a Muslim not only because of direct Western hostility or interference, which sometimes has existed definitely, but also because of continuing concerns about how to reconcile the Muslim tradition with new ideas of the social and the state, and to date it has proved extremely difficult to construct a position of a Muslim state or culture in the global world that is sustainable, defensible and actually Muslim (without contradicting itself). It's not easy to 'be' a Muslim and have a Muslim state and I imagine this will be the case for some time to come (without going too much into theory). I can't provide an answer on that, because I realise that the answers I give are often blindly rooted in Westernised ideals (not saying they're bad, but they aren't universally applicable).

 

But this is where I return to what I've been saying - I think the first step would be to have a purpose that has nothing to do with the West (or rather, US foreign policy). Rather than your primary purpose or motivation being, say, for Muslim nations to break out of the negative influences of US foreign policy or 'show those bastards something', I think the important thing is to conceptualise a proper Muslim identity and state and work to achieve *that*; the rejection of US foreign policy is only a side effect. That's not the most important thing. Showing them who's the boss isn't the main thing. But your comments are coloured with that extreme distaste and hostility and if that drives you primarily, it can only end with sorrow.

[Gorgon]

The withdrawal of Israli forces from Lebanon caused a massacre by local christian militia, this is estanblished fact, the actions of Israli forces within palestinean refugee camps however don't have any reliable second sources, they have unquestionably been heavy handed, but massacres of so and so many thousands of people has just not been reported by sources with some minimum of journalistic integrity.

[Gorgon]

I would like to add that although questioning sources is always prudent, you can get bogged down to the point that the discussion becomes about something else entirely.Threads become about how BBC and CNN are left wing and Fox rigth wing. It's a distraction.

 

You have to at least consider the validity of anything reported by a global news source or else be prepared to disprove it.

[Fionavar]

Let's please try to step lightly with the rhetoric and baiting, shall we? So far this thread is generally balanced (considering the source of course ) - let's try to keep it that way ...

[Yuusha]

@Fionavar:

Don't worry. I'll show proper respect.

 

 

@GreasyDogMeat:

My hope, as I've said a while back, is that the Iranian people will stand up and change the situation. I don't see how that is condemning all of Iran.

You're a patriot aren't you GDM? Unfortunately, you're not a TRUE patriot. You're a BLIND patriot. You refuse to see the fact that your government (and its allies) are capable of committing atrocities to any government that opposes it.

 

Here are some FACTS for you to digest:

 

Introduction

 

During 2007, there was tension between the USA and UK on one side and Iran on the other. In the Western media, Iran was being demonized as an aggressor. The following table shows what each side has done to the other since World War I. Only validated events (as opposed to accusations) are included.

 

Note that most Western media accounts of tensions between USA-UK and Iran take the events of 1979 (called "the hostage crisis") as their starting point. This is an example of looking at the world through American (specifically USA) eyes.

 

1920s and 1930s:

Acts Committed by USA-UK on Iran

• UK control of Iran's oil.
  
• UK pressure on the king of Iran to exclude other powers from development.
  

Acts Committed by Iran on USA-UK

Non existent

------------------------

 

1941-1942

USA-UK on Iran

• UK, USA and Russia occupy Iran and exile the king, placing his son on the throne.
  

Iran on USA-UK

Non Existent

-----------------------

 

1945

USA-UK on Iran

• Departure of foreign troops but no compensation as previously promised.
  

Iran on USA-UK

Non Existent

----------------------

 

1953

USA-UK on Iran

• UK and USA remove democratically elected government and replace with dictator (The Shah of Iran).
  

Iran on USA-UK

non existent

---------------------

 

1957

USA-UK on Iran

• USA sets up and trains Shah's secret police, SAVAK.
  

Iran on USA-UK

non existent

--------------------

 

1979

USA-UK on Iran

Non existent

 

Iran on USA-UK

• ran overthrows the Shah who flees to the USA.
  
• After the USA refuses to return the Shah, Iran takes 52 USA embassy staff hostage for 444 days.
  

--------------------

 

1980

USA-UK on Iran

• USA and UK arm Iraq when it invades Iran.
  
• USA fails to back UN condemnation of invasion.
  

Iran on USA-UK

Non existent

-------------------

 

1987

• USA seizes Iranian ship in international waters.
  

Iran on USA-UK

Non existent

--------------------

 

1988

USA-UK on Iran

• USA bombs oil facilities in Iran.
  
• USA warship shoots down Iranian passenger plane killing 286 people.
  

Iran on USA-UK

non existent

-------------------

 

1995

USA-UK on Iran

• USA imposes sanctions on Iran.
  

Iran on USA-UK

non existent

--------------------

 

2002

USA-UK on Iran

• USA threatens Iran with regime change.
  

Iran on USA-UK

non existent

-------------------

 

2007

USA-UK on Iran

• USA takes 5 Iranian diplomats hostage in Iraq. (Jan 2007 - ?)
  
• USA takes Iranian power station workers hostage in Iraq. (Aug 2007 - ?)
  
• USA threatens Iran with military action.
  

Iran on USA-UK

• Iran takes 15 UK sailors hostage for 13 days.
  

Still think Iran is evil?

-------------------------------

 

 

@Gorgon:

You have to at least consider the validity of anything reported by a global news source or else be prepared to disprove it.

Good point. But I just wanna say that I see a pattern in the global news source that I find loathsome. They tell you that a Jewish state is democratic but a Muslim state is evil; that Palestinians living in Palestine have no rights and no state but Jews living in the rest of the world can 'return' and live there as rights-bearing citizens; that Jesus wants you in Palestine unless you are a Palestinian or a Muslim; that Washington, London and Tel Aviv can produce nuclear warheads but that Tehran is a global threat for daring to enrich uranium; that legitimate resistance is terrorism but state terrorism is 'self-defense'; that the desert state of Syria is Nasrallah

Edited October 7, 2007 by Yuusha

[GreasyDogMeat]

Just about everything after 1979 has reason, or was a tragic mistake (shooting down the airline). After kidnapping embassy staff you honestly think the U.S. is going to be nicey nicey with Iran?

 

You also forgot to mention Iranian terrorists currently in Iraq killing U.S. soldiers, which makes me wonder whatever events you have failed to mention/copy and paste. http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_iran.html

 

Again, I don't remember calling Iran 'evil'. Your hero Ahmadinejad, on the other hand... You call me a blind patriot yet you are unwilling to admit anything negative about Ahmadinejad. Blind patriot indeed.

Edited October 8, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat