Iran's President Launches Blog

02bunced writes "The BBC is reporting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has started his own blog, the launch of which was announced on Iranian State TV. This is perhaps slightly ironic, given that the Iranian Government actively censors blogs on the Internet."

Comments

what's ironical...

[ajboyle]

what's ironical is that ironical isn't a word

Re:what's ironical...

[Petskull]

...and that sentences end in periods.

Re:what's ironical...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Re:what's ironical...

[sneezinglion]

According to the oxford english dictionary:
ironic, a.
Pertaining to irony; of the nature of or cotaining irony; =ironical

ironical, a.
1. Of the nature of irony or covert sarcasm; meaning the opposite of what is expressed.
2. That uses or is addicted to irony.

also see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironical& db=*

Re:what's ironical...

[Canthros]

For being ignorant of the English language, or for being too lazy to check a dictionary before making a stupid claim?

Re:what's ironical...

[wizbit]

Right, so his action is hypocritical, not ironic. /grammernazi

Re:what's ironical...

[wdr1]

Couldn't it be slightly ironic? A censor espousing free speech?

That seems like it would fall into the the definition on dictionary.com:

ronic Audio pronunciation of "ironic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rnk) also ironical (-rn-kl)
adj.

      1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
      2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
      3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.

ironically adv.
ironicalness n.

        Usage Note: The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply "coincidental" or "improbable," in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

He had to start his own blog, the infidel CmdrTaco kept rejecting his "Was there a Holocaust?" poll.

Re:He Had No Choice

[ettlz]

He had to start his own blog, the infidel CmdrTaco kept rejecting his "Was there a Holocaust?" poll.

Hmm. Suddenly "pwn j00" takes on a very, very dark meaning.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Rei]

Just for your reference, here's a nice page on the sticky issue of translations and how they've been spun against Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad, like many people in the middle east, believes that the number of Jews killed by Germany during WWII is frequently greatly overstated. While, in the opinion of most (including myself), this is an unjustified viewpoint, it is certainly much more defensible than the "there is no holocaust" claim that a lot of people think he made. He talks about the "myth of the Holocaust" in reference to the claim that "six million Jews" were killed. His comments were that people have created this myth of six million Jews being killed and then using it to justify everything that Israel has done ever since, and that even if that was true, this is an unfair line of reasoning.

Oh, and as per the "wipe Israel off the map" comments, that's a much worse mistranslation. He never used any language even close to that. He talked about his hope that the "occupying regime" would fall, akin to how the Shah fell, Saddam fell, and the Soviet Union fell. His speech was completely passive (didn't discuss any involvement from Iran) and spoke nothing of harm to the people in the state of Israel.

Anyways, my point is... you don't have to agree with him, but it's only fair to accurately represent what he says.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Overly Critical Guy]

Mood: anti-semetic
Listening to: the sounds of Nazi gas chambers

lol so israel and hezbollah stopped fighting. i didn't think it would last that long but the evil j00s of israel needed to see the wrath of iran

yestreday i saw that britney spears video lol !!! shes total white trash and a true american. go to youtube and check it out

so i'm out to get some suits fitted, ttyl

Re:He Had No Choice

[Boronx]

There isn't really anybody who claims that there weren't a large number of Jewish people slaughtered in WWII. "6 million is way over exaggerated" is in fact the standard holocaust denier line from the neo-nazis to Mel Gibson.

Re:He Had No Choice

[BobTheLawyer]

There are almost no Holocaust deniers who say that "there was no Holocaust" - instead their standard operating procedure is to claim the numbers were exaggerated, say the deaths were an unintentional or inevitable part of the wider war, and to claim there is uncertainty about the history without making the slightest attempt to read the extensive literature (which must amount to literally millions of pages). Those who take this approach *are* denying the reality of the Holocaust, as it is generally understood, whether they admit it or not. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric - his use of the word "myth", his attempts to setup a Holocaust Conference, fits right in with the likes of David Irving, and it is not at all unfair to say that he is a Holocaust denier.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

so i'm out to get some suits fitted, ttyl

Oh come on now, we all know you don't wear suits. That's about as bad of an excuse as saying you're returning some videos.

Re:He Had No Choice

[badasscat]

Ahmadinejad, like many people in the middle east, believes that the number of Jews killed by Germany during WWII is frequently greatly overstated. While, in the opinion of most (including myself), this is an unjustified viewpoint, it is certainly much more defensible than the "there is no holocaust" claim that a lot of people think he made.

Whether or not there was a holocaust is wholly dependent on the "number" of Jews killed. That's the whole point. If six Jews were killed instead of six million, that's not exactly a holocaust, is it? Playing this sort of numbers game is what the holocaust deniers do to try to get you to admit that there was no holocaust.

I just saw Mike Wallace's interview with this guy last night. While he didn't say the holocaust was a "myth" this time, he did say "if there was a holocaust, where did it take place?" as if he's just throwing the idea out there for the sake of argument. He also played the same numbers game that all of the holocaust deniers play. And there is no point in debating the translation - he has a personal translator with him at all times so that the translation cannot be argued.

as per the "wipe Israel off the map" comments, that's a much worse mistranslation. He never used any language even close to that. He talked about his hope that the "occupying regime" would fall, akin to how the Shah fell, Saddam fell, and the Soviet Union fell.

The guy is a master of double-speak. Mike Wallace directly challenged him on this "wipe Israel off the map" comment and he never once denied it. Wallace asked him what he meant by that and he refused to answer, repeatedly, basically saying it was a 3 page answer and Wallace wasn't giving him the time he needed. Eventually he did say that Israel should not be located where it is - that sounds a lot like "wipe Israel off the map" to me.

Whenever he was asked an uncomfortable question, this was basically how he responded - Wallace also asked him yes or no if he'd like to re-establish a relationship with the United States, and his initial stab at it was "well, let us ask first who broke off ties in the first place?" Wallace asked him again, regardless of who broke off ties, yes or no would he like to re-establish them? He then launched into another history lesson. Wallace interrupted - "yes or no, why won't you answer the question?" Then he got mad - "is this multiple choice? These are complicated questions!" This is basically the guy's MO - say all kinds of crazy things, then when he's pressed for clarification, launch into a life story that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand in an attempt to confuse.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Lord Ender]

Your post is the worst attempt at "journalism" I have ever sean. Not only did you fail to sensationalize the issue, but you actually managed to spin the story in anti-sensational way. I hope you don't plan to have a career in media, because you have no chance.

In fact, your post is downright anti-social. If people let these "facts" get in the way of the real truthiness, the "us-vs-them" mentality of the American people could vanish, putting an end to popular support of war and the congressional-military-insustrial-media complex itself! Where would this country be if we didn't spend one fifth of our income funding wars and debts on past wars? Clearly, War is what Jesus wants, or he would not have miracled GWB into office. How dare you defy the One True God with your "facts!"

Re:He Had No Choice

[iggymanz]

why is it bad to say the initial numbers given right after ww-ii might have been exaggerated? The number of estimated deaths at Auschwitz, for example, has gone from millions to under one million in my lifetime. Millions of pages of textbooks from Jewish/Pro-Zionist educators, however well intentioned, might be a biased source. Yet sadly people who should be for honest historical truth turn into foaming rabid zealots if anyone wants to discuss or examine evidence. Revising or questioning an inaccurate historical account is neither anti-semitic nor an act or racial hatred, though of course there are those hate groups that engage in "revisionism" for the purposes of promoting anti-jew hate. But there are other folk like myself who are fascinated with history, and really want to know the numbers of Jews and other groups of people who were tortured, enslaved and mass-murdered by the Nazis and those who allied with them, and how many died in what manner. Making that subject taboo has exactly the opposite of the intended effect.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

There are almost no Holocaust deniers who say that "there was no Holocaust"

There are actually people who believe the Holocaust didn't happen. This type of word play feeds the mentality of those who seek to minimize the Holocaust. There is no reason to increase the number of Holocaust deniers by redefining the word deny.

You are minimizing those who believe the Holocaust never happened. We need to expose those who lie about their true beliefs and moderate them for public consumption but this type of logic doesn't help.

Re:He Had No Choice

[mike2R]

I think it's the fact that the overwhealming majority of those who question the number of deaths are not doing so as unbiased historians, even if they try to pretend that they are. I'd call it a learned reaction: denial of the holocaust == politicaly motivated cant which cannot be justified by the sources.

Re:He Had No Choice

[flosofl]

Current mood: Megalomaniacal

Re:He Had No Choice

[Himring]

Not to mention the fact that not one of the defendants of the Nuremburg trials used any sort of defense which claimed that there neither was a holocaust, nor that the numbers were minimal. Those men seemed to understand, quite well, and agree with the prosecutors, that a horrific holocaust had indeed taken place. Their defense was, mainly, that they were simply following orders when proven to have participated....

Any sort of holocaust denials are post-war or, rather, post Nuremburg to say the least....

Re:He Had No Choice

[Citizen of Earth]

Anyways, my point is... you don't have to agree with him, but it's only fair to accurately represent what he says.

Similarly, Khrushchev didn't say "We will bury you"; he said "We will outlive you". Not that he was correct in either case.

Re:He Had No Choice

[FlopEJoe]

'Oh, and as per the "wipe Israel off the map" comments, that's a much worse mistranslation.'

The only reason he never said the words, "wipe Israel off the map," is because "Israel" is not on any Iranian map.

Re:He Had No Choice

[mickwd]

The parent post makes a point about the translation of Ahmadinejad's speech from, I guess, Farsi (?) to English, and then you complain about Ahmadinejad's use of the English word "myth" ?

Not that I want to defend Ahmadinejad or his views, but your post appears to show that you've missed the point the parent post was trying to make.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Thangodin]

Apparently you missed the photo of the billboard in Tehran, with Nesrallah's face on it and the quote for Ahmadinejad, translated into English by the Iranians themselves. Yes, it says "Israel must be wiped off the map." That's what he said, and that's what he meant. Nesrallah told a reporter that it would be better if all the Jews came to Israel, so that he could kill them all there.

This is what they say, and this is what they mean. Take them at their word.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Citizen of Earth]

Whether or not there was a holocaust is wholly dependent on the "number" of Jews killed. That's the whole point.

I think you need to weight in 'quality' as well as 'quantity'. The mere existence of concentration camps with mass-killing chambers demonstrates that the Nazis implemented and utilized a system specifically to carry out genocide, and their extreme rhetoric demonstrates the specific target of the genocide. Now, if they had only managed to kill six Jews with this machine, it would be a pretty paltry genocide. But, IMHO, the systematic killing of as few as 10,000 Jews would definitely be a genocide. Are any of the holocaust deniers claiming lower numbers than this? It's interesting that Ahmadinejad is at the center of the Nazism of the 21st century.

Re:He Had No Choice

[mangu]

why is it bad to say the initial numbers given right after ww-ii might have been exaggerated? The number of estimated deaths at Auschwitz, for example, has gone from millions to under one million in my lifetime.

If someone ever had an interest in underestimating the true numbers and downplaying the magnitude of the Holocaust, it would be the Nazis themselves. At their trial in Nurenberg and Auschwitz, the Nazi leaders gave numbers in the millions. Why should we assume any lower numbers?

Re:He Had No Choice

[LihTox]

If someone ever had an interest in underestimating the true numbers and downplaying the magnitude of the Holocaust, it would be the Nazis themselves.

Not if they were proud of the Holocaust (which they probably were), and if they expected no greater sentence for having killed millions of Jews, instead of "only a million" (or whatever).

Just saying....

Re:He Had No Choice

[iggymanz]

You'll find that the real Jew-haters will have other tell-tales of their agenda (and its a mistake to call it a political motivation, it's way more serious than that). For example, there's a large/infamous site out there saying at top "this is not a hate site" where they talk about numbers in Holocaust, but they also for example have pictures of famous present day Jewish folk next to some of history's criminals who supposedly had some Jewish ancestry to "demonstrate" some imagined genetic predisposition to evil, as well as "proofs" that everything and anything wrong with the world is due to Jewish people, and plenty of other spiteful hateful garbage like that.

But anyone ought to be free to question or investigate the number of deaths, and it's wrong to automatically assume they are jew-haters (which by the way is much more serious problem than a mere political motivation) or label them as such. And just because a Jew-hating scumbag should use someone's reestimation (sure, call it a revision) shouldn't mean others with a rational brain can't engage in legitimate historical research. It does not make the Nazis somewhat less monsters if 900,000 rather than 1,500,000 Jews were murdered at a particular camp, or if 4,300,000 rather than 6,000,000 were victims of the Holocaust.

This is very similar to the problem of anyone criticising an action of Israel as being labelled anti-semite by some of our well-meaning but overzealous famous national reporters who are so afraid of a repeat of the evil and horror of Nazi 1930's and 40's. Well, any good person doesn't want to see a repeat either, but no country/government should be above criticism of their actions

Re:He Had No Choice

[isellmacs]

I just saw Mike Wallace's interview with this guy last night. While he didn't say the holocaust was a "myth" this time, he did say "if there was a holocaust, where did it take place?" as if he's just throwing the idea out there for the sake of argument.

My understanding is that when the US gave Israel to the jews, it wasn't exactly US soil, and he contests the right that the US had to give it; that they should have given a peice of US soil for the jews, or that of Germany, where it took place.

The guy is a master of double-speak. Mike Wallace directly challenged him on this "wipe Israel off the map" comment and he never once denied it. Wallace asked him what he meant by that and he refused to answer, repeatedly, basically saying it was a 3 page answer and Wallace wasn't giving him the time he needed. Eventually he did say that Israel should not be located where it is - that sounds a lot like "wipe Israel off the map" to me.

Seems to me often those who want short yes or no questions to complicated answers usually want them so they can twist them around for their own motives. And the Israel not being where it is, sounds more like "it should be on different (US or German) soil" to me.

Whenever he was asked an uncomfortable question, this was basically how he responded - Wallace also asked him yes or no if he'd like to re-establish a relationship with the United States, and his initial stab at it was "well, let us ask first who broke off ties in the first place?" Wallace asked him again, regardless of who broke off ties, yes or no would he like to re-establish them? He then launched into another history lesson. Wallace interrupted - "yes or no, why won't you answer the question?" Then he got mad - "is this multiple choice? These are complicated questions!"

This once again shows how complex issues being broken down into multiple choice are an insult to the original question. It sounds like he doesn't trust the united states, and that he's very leary of trying to re-establish a relationship with an untrustworthy country that would very likely stab him in the back. Seems like a valid viewpoint, however, either a yes or no would be taken as a different meaning. If he says yes, that locks him into a position that the US would try and exploit. If he says no, then once again the US would try and exploit him in a different manner, such as "see, he doesn't want peace!" even though it was the US who broke off relations first as I understand it.

Alot of these things aren't just yes/no answers. If you don't understand and take into context the full meaning and implcations of both the questions AND the answers, then its just propaganda and spin waiting to happen.

Re:He Had No Choice

[krell]

"And the Israel not being where it is, sounds more like "it should be on different (US or German) soil" to me."

The most clear thing is that he wants the Jews under the soil, and soon.

Re:He Had No Choice

[autophile]

Whenever he was asked an uncomfortable question, this was basically how he responded - Wallace also asked him yes or no if he'd like to re-establish a relationship with the United States, and his initial stab at it was "well, let us ask first who broke off ties in the first place?" Wallace asked him again, regardless of who broke off ties, yes or no would he like to re-establish them? He then launched into another history lesson. Wallace interrupted - "yes or no, why won't you answer the question?" Then he got mad - "is this multiple choice? These are complicated questions!" This is basically the guy's MO - say all kinds of crazy things, then when he's pressed for clarification, launch into a life story that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand in an attempt to confuse.

Not that I'm defending Ahmadinejad, but really, at first, I wasn't sure which politician you were talking about. I don't think any political interviewee likes being hit with yes or no questions, and certainly wouldn't just say yes or no given such a question.

--Rob

Re:He Had No Choice

[iggymanz]

some leaders did that, others not, anyway who would trust anything those monsters said at face value? We know there's some other concentration camps where the opposite is likely [known numbers way low], because true extent and types of crimes hidden as Allies came. I'm just interested in what really happened, and if known death toll goes up or down so be it.

Re:He Had No Choice

[HermMunster]

And if it had been 6 million muslims killed in the same manner would he be saying the same thing?

Re:He Had No Choice

[killjoe]

No he has specifically asked both the US and Germany to relocate israel to their land. I think that's a reasonable request the arabs had it long enough. The US can easily move it someplace in Nevada and nobody would even notice.

Re:He Had No Choice

[HermMunster]

Once you purport the idea of pro zionist you must also understand how that same thing applies to pro extremist and terrorists.

Re:He Had No Choice

[krell]

"No he has specifically asked both the US and Germany to relocate israel to their land"

What if the millions of people who live in that country refuse to submit to the ethnic cleaning? Will you shoot them if they do not get into their cattle-cars peacefully?

"The US can easily move it someplace in Nevada and nobody would even notice."

Why not level Tehran and build "The New Israel" there? It seems like the Iranian president is making such a big stink and demanding to move a country against its will. Let him be the one to say the price for his outrageous demands. Or what if the indiginous people of Iran (who are NOT Muslims) decide that he can take his Islamic terrorist dictatorship and move it to Antarctica?

Re:He Had No Choice

[HermMunster]

Had Hitler survived instead of taking the easy way out, it would not have been unjustified to put him to work carrying the bodies of the Jewish people and placing them in dignified graves with his own bare hands. Then after that put him on trial for his crimes against humanity. If you think about the long hours carrying the deceased human beings under forced guard you'd understand the impact that the taking of each life would have had on him.

Anyone who calls for the extermination of the Jewish people is just as bad and deserves no less than what happened to Germany at the end of the war, and after. (This not to say that every German deserved what happened to them).

Just as the act of talking about killing important people in the US in particular the President is a crime so should just the proposal of killing anyone, including the Islamic people desiring to wipe Israel off the map.

The people of Israel have done far far less against humanity than the Islamic people have over the centuries. The christians are no better than the Islamic people in that they have murdered hundreds of millions in the name of their beliefs.

But the facts stand. The Islamic believing people have indeed murdered millions if not hundreds of millions of people in the name of their belief. That vastly outweighs any crimes against humanity that the modern Jewish people have committed, while enduring the deaths of millions of their own people during WWII.

When there's evil it doesn't matter if it comes from Christians or Islamic people because the end result is the same. Crimes against humanity.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple. Yes, you are entirely right. It is important to get the numbers right, and it is wrong to treat every question about those numbers or events as if it were a Holocaust denial.

But whether it was 100000, 1 million, or 10 million doesn't change the gross horror of slaughtering innocent people -- not as unintended civilian casualties during war activities, not under the euphemism "collateral damage", but as a simple matter of political choice. It was Jews and many other ethnic groups and people of various religious and political views. It was genocide of innocent people on an industrial scale. Though for different reasons and with different targets, it has happened other places: Cambodia, the Soviet Union under Stalin. It is important to get the facts right about these horrible events, to try to foresee and stop it happening in the future.

Accurate numbers matter to history, but they don't actually change the horror of the political decisions made, and the industry set up to perform a mass extermination.

Just like I don't care *exactly* how many people of the Bahai Faith, Zoroastrianism, or political opposition have been imprisoned, tortured, or executed by the current Iranian regime. It would be historically important to have a precise accounting, but it is still a violation of human rights for which the Iranian regime is responsible, and for which it should be ashamed.

The greatest irony in all this is that Ahmadinejad rightly makes a big deal of how the Iranian revolution justly overthrew the brutally oppressive regime of the Shah, yet the regime of which he is now a part turned right around and started oppressing its own people again in new ways -- exactly contrary to the point he was trying to make about past injustices in the Holocaust not automatically justifying the actions of the state of Israel today. The Shah was a brutal despot. That doesn't excuse what the current Iranian government is doing.

He was a hypocritical idiot. Now he's a hypocritical idiot with his own blog. So what? They're a dime a dozen these days.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

To the mod who made that 'flamebait': WOOOOSH!

Re:He Had No Choice

[Eccles]

My understanding is that Krushchev effectively did say, "We will bury you", but meant it as "We will be present at your funeral," i.e. that socialism would replace capitalism.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Did any of you guys listen to the Sean Hannity show last week? Hannity had an interview with Mike Wallace who had an interview with the Iranian president recently. I was stunned when I heard Mike Wallace repeatedly saying Ahmadinejad was "a very reasonable man", "he didn't intend to nuke Israel", and "I don't believe he's an anti-Semite".

I laughed so hard when Mike Wallace got impatient on Hannity and said "Sean, Sean, listen to me. I AM JEWISH!!!"

Re:He Had No Choice

[happyemoticon]

Personally, my only beef with the way the holocaust is generally portrayed is that it is not very holistic (excuse the pun if you will).

• 5-6 million Jews

Okay. But (pulled from wikipedia):

• 1.8 -1.9 million non-Jewish Poles
• 500,000-1.2 million Serbs
• 200,000-800,000 Gypsies
• 200,000-300,000 people with disabilities
• 80,000-200,000 Freemasons
• 100,000 communists
• 10,000-25,000 homosexual men
• 2,500-5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses

Thus, the number of non-Jews killed is around 2.8 million at the low end, and 4.5 million at the high end. It really doesn't get mentioned to any extent. And what I've never heard anybody shed a tear over is the total of 62 million people in graves because of World War II itself. What I'd really like to hear, actually, is why this kind of thing goes unmentioned, especially in primary and secondary education.

It's really hard for me to swallow that x number of people can die and it's a tragedy and .5x people die in the same manner for similar reasons and nobody gives a shit, and 10x people die a few miles away and it's not even really talked about.

Is it because the Hebrew people were hit hardest by percentage, and that they have no homeland to speak of to retreat to? False premises. Romani were hit hardest in raw percentages, and are also wanderers as a people. So is it because most cultures LIKE Jewish people more than the Romani? It's basically true: hardworking people of scientists, engineers, lawyers, and leaders vs. lazy people who live by stealing, trickery and exploitation. I wish somebody would fess up to it, though.

Is it because more Jews were killed in raw numbers? Well, more people were killed by the war in raw numbers, so that leads to the rather disgusting idea that Jewish lives are worth ten times what the lives of non-Jews are. I don't think anybody actually believes this, but the horror of the war itself is completely and utterly ignored, it really makes me wonder.

Is it because the Jewish portion of the Holocaust makes for good, simple rhetoric in tolerance and religious freedom? I guess that's true, but it really comes off as, "Don't hate the Jews," rather than, "Don't hate people who are different than you." See our treatment of Muslims.

Is it because the Jews were the primary targets of the holocaust? This probably has a lot to do with it. But seriously, if the primary term is 6 million, and the secondary terms add up is 4.5 million, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that the secondary terms are a significant portion of the final number.

Is it because you can learn from the Holocaust, but you can't learn from the war? You can learn plenty from the war in my opinion, but not everybody agrees on what that is. You can learn, for example, that it's a bad idea to fight a land war against Russia. Or that it's a bad idea to cripple the loser in a war to the point where they turn to extremists for hope - but nobody really likes the idea that the Treaty of Versailles was the cause of all that death. Or that ultra-nationalist wars for resources end in massive amounts of death.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Jagasian]

Your post seems to imply that a Christian or a Muslim is inferior because of the bad deeds of other Christians or Muslims. Shouldn't we be judging people on an individual basis?

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I don't agree with everything this guy is advocating but your response is biased.

And there is no point in debating the translation - he has a personal translator with him at all times so that the translation cannot be argued.

Let me see if I understand your argument: Since he has a personal translator at all times it is impossible that any part of the translation was incorrect. This translator is some super translator incapable of making any mistakes, yes? I actually don't think anything was lost in translation but I just found your logic interesting and I think it's reflected in the rest of your post.

He also played the same numbers game that all of the holocaust deniers play.

If you're referreing to the interview with Mike Wallace please point out where he 'played the numbers game' because if he did I missed it.

he did say "if there was a holocaust, where did it take place?"

Again, I'm not agreeing with the guy, but it's a logical argument. Arguably, the main justificiation to the establishment of Israel is the Holocaust. He's saying if the Holocaust was false then logically Israel has no right to exist, else if the Holocaust was true then the perpetrators should be the ones who should make reperations to the victims - not Palestininas.

Whenever he was asked an uncomfortable question, this was basically how he responded - Wallace also asked him yes or no if he'd like to re-establish a relationship with the United States, and his initial stab at it was "well, let us ask first who broke off ties in the first place?" Wallace asked him again, regardless of who broke off ties, yes or no would he like to re-establish them? He then launched into another history lesson. Wallace interrupted - "yes or no, why won't you answer the question?" Then he got mad - "is this multiple choice? These are complicated questions!" This is basically the guy's MO - say all kinds of crazy things, then when he's pressed for clarification, launch into a life story that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand in an attempt to confuse.

First, don't you think it's unreasonable to demand a "yes or no" answer to such a complex question? He's not asking whether the guy had rolls for breakfast, he's asking whether he wants to reestablish relations with the United States and when he tried to give his answer Wallace demanded a yes or no response - and he did eventually respond that he wanted conditional relations with the US. That response seems much more reasonable to me than a plain 'yes' or 'no'.

Second, you claim that he got mad. Please specifically state which part of the video gave you the impression that he got mad? He was smiling the entire time. I assume you think he got mad because he refused to simply answer 'yes or no' to what he claimed was a 'complex question'?

P.S.: The entire interview is available on YouTube.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that when the US gave Israel to the jews

My understanding is that you're a jabbering idiot with the historical knowledge of a special-needs fourth grader.

Where did you go to school, son?

Re:He Had No Choice

[killjoe]

"What if the millions of people who live in that country refuse to submit to the ethnic cleaning? Will you shoot them if they do not get into their cattle-cars peacefully? "

Maybe the same thing could be done to them that they are doing to the palestenians. Make their lives misrable for thirty years or so and see if they leave on their own. Also kill a thousand or so every year, torture a bunch of them every year, and lock up 10 thousand or so without charges and trials. Deny them water, deny them movement, deny them ambulance service.

"Why not level Tehran and build "The New Israel" there?"

Same problem as before. They would be surrounded by people who hate them most (granted most the world dislikes them). In the US they would be loved.

Re:He Had No Choice

[fireman sam]

The problem with judging people on an individual basis is they can turn around and declare you an anti Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Zionist/Neo-con/Gay/Lesbia n/Midget (please circle the appropreate) and all of a sudden, you judgement on the individual has become a judgement on the individual's race/religion.

For an example of this see the One Nation Party. They attempted to intruduce a system of social welfare that did not care about your race, but rather your circumstances. This system was seen to be racist against the Australian Aboriginals and the leader of One Nation (Paulene Hanson) is now back in her fish and chip shop.

Re:He Had No Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

This is basically the guy's MO - say all kinds of crazy things, then when he's pressed for clarification, launch into a life story that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand in an attempt to confuse.

Sounds like my grandfather at dinner time!

Re:He Had No Choice

[einpoklum]

"Romani... lazy people who live by stealing, trickery and exploitation."

Yeah, you're not a racist at all.

Re:He Had No Choice

[TaGirl_Keri]

And The US doesn't censor blogs? Grow up, the US Censors EVERYTHING.

Re:He Had No Choice

[RevAaron]

As far as Nazi tall-tales go, I think the worst is the idea that the KZs like Auschwitz, etc were not death camps but in fact holiday camps- places where Jews, socialists and other enemnies of the regime could enjoy a healthy vacation for free at the expense of the state, out of the way where they couldn't interfere with the war effort, but still well taken care of. I'm not making this shit up- that's the NSDAP/AO's line at least, which is more or less a party of one guy, maybe a few more, but still... that's just vile.

Re:He Had No Choice

[BobTheLawyer]

I'd think there is an obvious difference between deaths in war, which sadly have happened throughout human history, and deliberately targetting certain groups for extermination. I'm sorry you don't understand that. The mass murder of Jews tends to be highlighted for several reasons: the Nazis were obsessed with Jews more than any other group and the sheer number of Jews killed was so great - both as an absolute number and a percentage of the Jewish community in Nazi-occupied territory. Before the Holocaust, there was a huge and culturally rich Jewish commnunity in Germany and Eastern Europe. Afterwards it was almost totally destroyed.

None of this should minimise in any way the suffering of the other groups targetted by the Nazis, or indeed those who were killed in the war. I've no idea why you think the horror of the war is "ignored" - this is a very strange idea. I'm also not sure why you think there's something radical about the idea that the Treaty of Versailles led to World War II - is there any school history class that hasn't written an essay on the subject? And, for what it's worth, the current consensus amongst historians is that this is an unsatisfactory explanation.

After the Holocaust there was an understanding that a State should never be permitted to commit genocide. Sadly, after Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur, saying "never again" rings a little hollow.

Re:He Had No Choice

[BobTheLawyer]

Yuck. The idea that the number of estimated deaths at Auschwitz has been reduced is a standard Holocaust denier line.

Every history of the period I've ever read puts the figure at just over one million - both the postwar books by Hilberg etc and the more recent stuff. The four million figure was invented by the Soviet Union (and used in its museum at Auschwitz) to maximise the number of Soviet (non-Jewish) victims. This figure was not, to my knowledge, ever given any credence by Western historians. So it is a lie to claim that the number of estimated deaths has gone down.

I am assuming that you did not know the background - however, if you really want to learn some history, read Gilbert, Noakes and Pridham etc and take dubious unsourced websites with a huge pinch of salt.

Re:He Had No Choice

[the honger]

"i'm so ronery"

Re:He Had No Choice

[mike2R]

I don't disagree with you in principle, I was just giving my opinion of the reasons why people have an instinctive distrust of anything which hints at holocaust denial - people have heard it many times before from who's motives are "political" (meant in a broad sense - wanting to commit genocide and rehabilitate Hitler and his policies is fundamentally a political ambition).

An analogy (purely about peoples reactions, absolutely no comparison intended about motives):
How much time does your average slashdot reader spend seriously looking into to some "scientific" theory of Inteligent Design? Very little in my experience since we know it's going to be pseudoscience.

Re:He Had No Choice

[richlv]

it seems that you have missed the point quite seriously. i think the original poster was trying to show that thinking like this gives no basis for singling out the damage done to a particular nation.
you seem to undertsand that, but miss the fact that original poster agrees with you.

Re:He Had No Choice

[richlv]

this is why slashdot should have longer expiry times for modpoints. i could not comment, but giving one to you would be something i'd do immediately.

Re:He Had No Choice

[everythingeverything]

(which must amount to literally millions of pages).

Actually the true number of pages on the subject has been grossly over-estimated, and most of the pages on the subject were written inadvertantly by people writing about other things. Strange but true.

Re:He Had No Choice

[nettrust]

He really had no choice... It's interesting to hear that this is reality... :)

Re:He Had No Choice

[iggymanz]

the "evidence" for such outrageous claims comes from ignoring the transformation Auschwitz went from being primarily prison/slave-labor facility to death machine. Sure, in the "early" years they operated like a prison in the sense of having excercise and doctors and allowing letter-writing and marriages, etc. And yes they used Zyklon B for delousing clothing. But in the "later years", the mountains of evidence show how an mass murder machine was built from early experiments (on gypsies, Russian POW, enslaved Polish people) to genocide against mainly Jewish people.

Ironic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Close though.

Governmentisement?

[metasecure]

When clicking through to the address referenced by the BBC story ( www.ahmadinejad.ir ) , and then clicking "English" (at the bottom left of the page) it takes you to http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/index.aspx , which does not contain the blog and reads like a big advertisement for the "National Integrated Services Network". I wonder if they will survive a slashdotting.

Re:Governmentisement?

[eliot1785]

The blog seems to be down. It was up yesterday, but it got linked to by the Drudge Report (think: Slashdot effect times 100) and seems to have gone down from that. I went there yesterday and got the real blog, but it couldn't load the content from the database because there were too many connections. Since then they seem to have taken it down entirely.

If you don't want to wait, though, you can have more fun at www.president.ir ...

Re:Governmentisement?

[schmu_20mol]

If you click on the USA/English flag in the top right corner you actually see the blog.

Re:Governmentisement?

[andrewman327]

Who cares about democracy, have brought the /. effect to the Middle East! This is a great day for the free world.

Re:Governmentisement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, is there any doubt as to what OS the terrorists and bad guys like to use?

I do find it funny that they would use Windows.

Re:Governmentisement?

[GmAz]

Well, if they do survive getting slashdotted, I bet they will think they have become the most popular website ever.

Re:Governmentisement?

[nodata2]

Their servers just got Shocked and Awed!

Re:Governmentisement?

[camg188]

Another blog is reporting that when you visit his blog, it tries to install a virus. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Re:Governmentisement?

[tgraupmann]

Too bad terrorist states don't have communism. Just make all the terrorists into farmers. And they'd have to file permits to travel, of which would get denied... And who says the USA blogs aren't censored. Nobody stops a blog entry, but you could still get fired for posting it...

Re:Governmentisement?

[andrewman327]

I'm not censored at all. I just think that pharmaceutical companies are truly amazing corporations that need...

Ok, the boss is gone. What were we walking about again?

Re:Governmentisement?

[corbettw]

Tim, is that you? What are you doing wasting time on /.? Get into my office, you're fired!

Even more ironic

[melonman]

is the fact that it's hosted on Windows (which we know from the .NET error page it was showing this morning).

Re:Even more ironic

[PFI_Optix]

I wonder if piracy can get your hand cut off there...

Re:Even more ironic

[orasio]

Piracy is punishable by death in many places, unless you get to become a corsair.
Infringing of Microsoft copyrights, though, is probably a civil issue. Some people say that the nights and weekend you will need to work while reboo^H^H^H^H^Hadministering windows2003 server is enough of a punishment, but I think it's too harsh.

Re:Even more ironic

[megaditto]

It is not ironic, it is fortunate. Which any luck MS will be put on terrorist enablers list for helping Iran develop weaps of mass attraction. It is even better that is was not FreeBSD that is supporting terrorists. Time to start selling the FeedomBSD sticker (I support our ports).

But seriously, MS does not care much who uses the software and for what, as long as they pay through the roof for it. MSN and Yahoo have no problem helping the Chinese put dissidents in jail, either.

Re:Even more ironic

[Ansonmont]

Not with the new saws!!
-A

Re:Even more ironic

[ScentCone]

But seriously, MS does not care much who uses the software and for what, as long as they pay through the roof for it. MSN and Yahoo have no problem helping the Chinese put dissidents in jail, either.

Whereas the folks at Ubuntu are discouraging the Iranian government from using their software... how? I can't seem to find any press releast or PR bit that suggests that totalitarian, fascist theocracies shouldn't further their oppression by using their distro.

Re:Even more ironic

[Jugalator]

And even more ironic is that Bush doesn't have a blog, but this guy does. :-)

Re:Even more ironic

[megaditto]

Perhaps by not actively cooperating with the Chinese Govt?

Good folks of OSS (i.e. you and me) can chose to say "Fuck off" to the Chinese Govt with impunity not available to the profit-driven corportations (as in 'Cooperate, or No business in China for your company').

Re:Even more ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas the folks at Ubuntu are discouraging the Iranian government from using their software... how?

By encouraging dissent?
Ubuntu: Live CD + secure shredder + Tor anonymizer package (at least for Dapper).
Windows: 40-bit encryption in China/Iran, lack of anonymizer, registry+history+FS logging by default, and active surrender of internet data.

ironical?

[Scorpion_1169]

just asking.

Re:ironical?

[Rei]

Notice how they quietly changed it to "ironic" in the post. ;)

Re:ironical?

[Valen1260]

I did, and was about to post similar. It doesn't seem to have made it to the main page yet. At least some editor is paying attention.

Re:ironical?

[sneezinglion]

This is the second comment regarding ironical. Ironical is a word. Not a common one, but a word.

Look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironical& db=*

I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[Anonymous Coward]

...wishing I had a president as well spoken as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And a guy who reads books.

Re:I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[Anonymous Coward]

wishing I had a president as well spoken as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And a guy who reads books.

I'd settle for a president who can read

my pet goat indeed

Re:I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[Anonymous Coward]

wishing I had a president as well spoken as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And a guy who reads books.

I'd settle for a president who doesn't censor my blog

Re:I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[PFI_Optix]

He wasn't always like he is now.

Re:I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[halivar]

Yeah, poets make great heads of state. Maybe you should try reading some history books, and be smart, too. Start with Depression-era German politics.

Well spoken != good.
Well spoken == good at lying to you.

Re:I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Who cares if he executes gays and has the human rights record of Stalin with a bad hangover! He "reads books".

Well, one book, anyway. His thugs like to burn other books, torture journalists and threaten to murder Booker Prize-winning authors.

You're sickening, son.

Sorry you were born without a conscience.

Re:I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well spoken != good.
Well spoken == good at lying to you.

well, i tend to agree that nearly all powerful people who are running thier mouth likely don't have the self interest of the common man at heart, i think you underestimate this guy.

yes, he lies. but he mixes in quite a lot of truth, too.

for example, did the usa not fun iraq in a war to take on iran and kill the family and friends of joe-6-pack iranian?

the usa clearly did, no? so the usa CLEARLY allied itself with forces bent on the destruction of iran and the death of 100s of thousands of iranians.

would you consider a nation that financed a war against your nation to be terrorists? yes? well, so does he... and the good ole usa happens to be the financier.

from their perspective, the usa is rationally considered to be a terrorist organization just as an entity that finances (bin laden) wars against the usa is considered terrorist.

is the usa citizenry so blind that they think they can finance a war and kill untoll numbers of people for almost a decade and then have said nation appreciate the usa?

surely, we aren't that self centered.

anyway, the guy is very scary and will get his nukes unless military action is taken. his neighbor was forcefully taken over under false pretenses... by the same nation that funded an 8 year war against his nation in years prior. if this guy knows one thing, it is that nuclear weapons are his only guardian agaisnt the united states of america.

unfortunately, his view has been shown to be entirely rational.

not that he's a good guy and cares about j0e-6-pack in iran. he likely doesn't. but he knows charges can be trumped up and his nation can be overthrown and he can be thrown in jail UNLESS he has a nuke.

no, he's not dumb and he can't be entirely dismissed as a liar. he is, but he tells some truth, too.

Re:I was thinking last night how sad it was...

[halivar]

yes, he lies. but he mixes in quite a lot of truth, too.

The best liars only speak the truth. In America, we call them "spin doctors."

for example, did the usa not fun iraq in a war to take on iran and kill the family and friends of joe-6-pack iranian?

You had me until "and." The US not only stopped funding him after the mustard gassing of Iranian civilians, we also cut diplomatic ties. We started treating Saddam like one of the bad guys, because he was.

anyway, the guy is very scary and will get his nukes unless military action is taken

I disagree. We only need to wait him out. No matter how eloquant he may be, and no matter how well he may stir up his Islamo-fascist consticuency, the fact is that he has failed to deliver on any of the domestic economic reforms he promised when he ran for office. Iranians continue to live in absolute squalor, and all he can do is point at the "Great Satan" as a justification for why he can't spend that enormous oil wealth on his own people.

unfortunately, his view has been shown to be entirely rational.

No, he isn't rational. He's charismatic. It's a poor substitute, but most people don't notice the difference, anyway. That's the way it is with sociopaths.

Just fyi

[Anonymous Coward]

And last night, on the News Hour, I heard him say that the holocaust was a myth.

Poll on the blog

[neonprimetime]

The blog includes a poll asking if users think the US and Israel are trying to trigger a new world war.

Is there an option for Iran = yes, US and Israel = No?

Re:Poll on the blog

[Gospodin]

For those of you who don't read Farsi, it's simple multiple choice:

Question: Are the US and Israel are trying to trigger a new world war?
(a) Yes.
(b) Definitely.
(c) The Great Satan must die!
(d) No.

(If you chose (d), please supply your name and home address here to receive free literature: _____________________.)

Re:Poll on the blog

[sosume]

Actually, he's polling whether it will create a word war . Apparently the worLd war has already started.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Rei]

Yeah, those crazy Iranians -- waging war by not waging war. Trying to destabilize the world by maybe, possibly, couldbe developing a handful of nuclear weapons to compare to Israel's 200-400. Those sneaky bastards!

Re:Poll on the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran not waging war? Who do you think is bankrolling Hezbollah? Wake up, man.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Foobar of Borg]

You forgot:
(e) CowboyMahmoud!

Re:Poll on the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, have you seen those thousands of crazy Americans and Israelis chanting 'death to
Iran, Atheism will dominate the world' on the telly? Neither did I.

I did see the reverse many times however.

Posted cowardly.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Rei]

Depending on the source, Iran gives ~100 million dollars per year to Hezbollah (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1 2790.htm) by Bolton's estimate, which is probably quite high. The US gives 3B$ of mostly military aid to Israel, 3B$ of indirect aid, and various military freebees to Israel. So, if you want to call proxy wars as "waging war", then they're only a bit player by comparison. Of course, I was referring to direct warfare -- you know, invading countries, overthrowing their governments, installing regimes that employ massive death squads, etc.

Re:Poll on the blog

[superwiz]

I think you are confusing the concepts of "fighting" a war and "waging" a war. Shooting back is not waging a war. While you can easily argue on either side of the palestinian question when discussing Israel, there is no doubt that this Lebanon-Israel war was waged by Hizbulah. Israel was at peace with Lebanon until Hizbulah crossed the border and killed 8 soldier and kidnapped 2. That was clearly an act of war. So you can't say that Israel "waged" this war. It did fight it with a lot of American help though. But the original discussion talked about Iran helping to "wage" wars -- not helping to fight them.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Rei]

Well, lets just take a look at what Americans did when we were going to invade Iraq:

http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/theprinceofbombs.jp g
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-30/free-republic- protest-3.jpg
http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.probush.082705.g rab.jpg
http://www.beyondsatire.us/files/Pro-war.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www. brumm.com/antiwar/feb16/images/032-DefeatEvilProWa r2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brumm.com/antiwar/feb1 6/032.html&h=480&w=640&sz=103&hl=en&start=6&tbnid= Z_lFLjYPEHUHrM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq %3D%2522pro-war%2522%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3 D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-30/free-republic- protest-1.jpg
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/28/xinsr c_5620802281138515300128.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~bobbyfoto1/sitebuilderc ontent/sitebuilderpictures/wegavepeace.jpg

Of course, that's not nearly as bad as what you see in Israel. There was the October 2000 riots which involved thousands of Jews chanting "Death to Arabs" while they ransacked arab property, for example. Oy, I could go on for hours about the sort of stuff you get in Israel. Tons of speeches by all sorts of politicians and army leaders referring to them as vermin, worms, cockroaches, a disease, etc. Sh'a Tova even carried a comic strip for children which said "Yes, a good Arab is a dead Arab." Here's a nice article, although it's only a start.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Rei]

Er, article was truncated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism

Re:Poll on the blog

[operagost]

Karma-whoring on Slashdot: provide made-up statistics with no citations to support your straw-man argument.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Rei]

While you can easily argue on either side of the palestinian question when discussing Israel, there is no doubt that this Lebanon-Israel war was waged by Hizbulah. Israel was at peace with Lebanon until Hizbulah crossed the border and killed 8 soldier and kidnapped 2.

Yes, it's amazing how effective American media spin is, isn't it? Um, no, the situation isn't that simple. Your comment reminds me of what you see all the time about the various middle east conflicts on American TV -- things to the effect of "A suicide bombing ripped through SomeIsraeliCity today, breaking a period of relative calm in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" when several dozen Palestinians, mostly children, had been killed in the "period of relative calm" (just no Israelis). It's enough to drive one batty.

Anyways, aside from the generalized rant...

Leading up to this point: Regular exchanges of fire occur across the border in both directions, sometimes with ground incursions and/or Israeli bombing raids. Much of it centers over the Sheeba Farms region, which is occupied by Israel and which they've been settling (it's important because of its water resources). Attacks occur weekly.

May 23rd: Bush meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Several participants at the meeting later report that Bush encouraged Olmert to attack Lebanon and Syria. Israeli officials reportedly balked at the latter part, but considered the former part.

May 26th: A car bomb in Sidon kills two high-ranking officials of Lebanese Jihad.

May 28th: Lebanese guerellas fire rockets across the border in retaliation. Israel counterattacks and kills one Hezbollah soldier.

June 10th: Mahmoud Rafeh is arrested by the Lebanese police for the car bombing. He confesses to the crime and states that he was part of a Mossad-sponsored cell in Lebanon. Throughout the next month, members of the cell are arrested one by one. This is widely accepted in Lebanon, as the Mossad has a history of such attacks (the most famous of which was probably when they formed a fake Egyptian terror cell in Egypt that bombed US interests in the country, leading to a diplomatic row between the US and Egypt -- the Lavon Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair))

June 23rd: Tensions on the northern border escalate when violence expands in Gaza when the Israeli army invades and siezes two sons of Palestinian activist Ali Muamar to put pressure on him.

June 24th: In retaliation, Hamas sneaks into Israel via a tunnel, kills two Israeli soldiers, and captures a corporal. They seek a prisoner exchange (Israel holds about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners, including many women and children)

June 27th: Abbas convinces Hamas to agree to a document endorsing a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel, a major concession.

June 28th: Israel returns to Gaza in force to find their soldier. Numerous Hamas legislators are arrested, which creates an outrage coming the day after they agreed to accept Israel.

Early July: Sporadic fire and counterfire picks up in the north, partially triggered by tensions in the south.

Jul 12th: The trigger occurs. Hezbollah rockets are fired and the Israeli army attacks; both agree on this much. Hezbollah and the Lebanese army say that the Israelis were ambushed in a town on Lebanese territory; the Israelis say that the attack occured on a border outpost in Israeli territory. Either way, three Israeli soldiers are killed and one is captured.

Israel invades en masse. Open warfare begins on the northern border.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Rei]

What made-up statistics? Israel's number of nuclear weapons? Actually, "100-400" better represents the range. Check out the Federation of American Scientists discussion of the topic. They low-ball the number compared to other's that I've read, but they have a pretty nice discussion of the issue.

For some background on the subject, you might find the history of Mordechai Vanunu interesting. The capture was especially interesting.. He was quite clever, apart from his weakness for women. Because he did this while being moved, Israel had to change their prisoner transportation policies.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the article on wikipedia and found it lacking but that's really beside the point.

What I really don't understand is what point you are trying to make. Are there Israelis and Jews who are rascist? Most definitely, just like their Arabs, Turks, Africans, and Iranians (Persians) who are just as racist. What's the point? Are you really implying that Israel deserves all of the blame for the past fighting?

For me the key point has always been this: the vast majority of Arab governments and their people don't believe in Israel's right to exist. It's hard to make peace with someone, who despite the terrible suffering of their own people, refuse to accept their neighbor's right to exist.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Valdrax]

What's the point? Are you really implying that Israel deserves all of the blame for the past fighting?

For me the key point has always been this: the vast majority of Arab governments and their people don't believe in Israel's right to exist. It's hard to make peace with someone, who despite the terrible suffering of their own people, refuse to accept their neighbor's right to exist.

Why does all of the blame have to belong to only one side?

Re:Poll on the blog

[gnuLNX]

Because one side is commiting all the crimes. Leave Israel alone and they will leave you alone. I personally don't support the recent cease fire. I think Israel should have done a full on invasion of lebanon and rooted out Hezabolla completely...at what ever cost. I think the US, and great Britain need to impose even strong sanctions on Syria and Iran. It's time for the middle age thinking to be removed from the hate breading ground of the middle east. The world will welcome them to the modern times, but fighting over land because it's "holy" is just stupid and ignorant...on both sides.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

For me the key point has always been this: the vast majority of Arab governments and their people don't believe in Israel's right to exist.

Well, ask yourself this: would Israel still "exist" if it changed it's name to something ethnically neutral (eg. "Neutralia") and gave the Palestinians full citizenship (ie. was no longer predominently Jewish)?

If Israel's "existence" depends on being named after a particular ethnic group and being populated predominently by that ethnic group then asserting that Israel has a right to "exist" is nothing more than an assertion that Israel has a right to racial/ethnic discrimination.

Think about it. Did apartheit South Africa have a "right" to exist? Did Nazi Germany have a "right" to exist? The South Africans and Germans certainly had some rights as individuals and the land they were one was going to exist no matter what but their governments did not have any inherent "right" to exist and they certainly did no have a "right" to pursue the policies that they pursued.

If by "Israel has a right to exist." you mean that the people living in Israel have certain rights as individuals then you are quite correct but, if you mean that that part of the world should be segregated along racial/ethnic lines and that certain ethnic groups should be discriminated against, then you are very very wrong.

Re:Poll on the blog

[mirio]

I'm not quite sure what the parent's point is with regard to the pictures of pro Iraq War demonstrators in the US. People (especially foreigners) seem to forget that the US is a country of 300,000,000 people. You can find people that support almost any cause imaginable. It is impossible to stereotype Americans into any one idealogy or groupthink. Yes, there were quite a few pro-war demonstrators, but I think it was very few. I know I saw FAR more anti-war protesters in and around Atlanta than I ever did pro-war protesters.

You link to 10 pictures and you think that this is somehow a reflective of 300,000,000 people. Whatever.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Jagasian]

Israel commits no crimes? Israel continues to trespass on and steal Arab land. In, Texas, for example, it is legal to shoot somebody that trespasses on your land. Apparently many Arabs hold the same principle. What would America do if armed settlers from Iran started colonizing the most valuable parts of the USA?

Re:Poll on the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to forget a tiny little thing.
What you have mentioned are individuals going amuck, or groups going amuck.

Its quite different when the state shuts down the factories, shops, schools and universities and orders you to go protest.
THAT is what is happening in Iran and the arab countries.
Its so difficult to explain totalitarian regimes to people living in democracy. Everyone thinks its about black uniforms, sticks and guns...

Re:Poll on the blog

[stupidfoo]

Wow... what an amazingly convuluted recollection of events.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Foobar of Borg]

Wow... what an amazingly convuluted recollection of events.

In other words "Wah! This analysis doesn't fit my preconceived notions, so I'll just insult him! Waaahhh!"

Re:Poll on the blog

[youknowmewell]

Shebaa Farms is not part of Lebanon. Lebanon's and Hezbollah's claims to that area are recent changes in policy (at least for Lebanon). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms

"In 1967, following the termination of the Six Day War, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242 (1967),[11] later reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 338 (1973),[12] calling for all four of the following:

1. The "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (in French, which was a translation of the English, "retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés lors du récent conflit"). Note: The UN regards this territory as Syrian territory occupied by Israel (not Lebanese territory, subject to Resolution 242). There is a dispute as to whether the language requires withdrawal from "all" Lebanese territories. The French text uses "des," meaning "from the." The English text -- which is authoratative -- delibately omits the "the," leading to a dispute about the meaning of the sentence. The drafting process was in English; the French was only a translation of the English. So expression ' ' means 'all occupied territories' because an expression 'occupied in the recent conflict' in this context plays role of 'the' in Russian language. The practice at the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon. In the case of 242, that binding version was in English. (See statement by Arthur Goldberg, US Ambassador to the United Nations at that time, and an author of the resolution: "The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all,' 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'... There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242(1967) specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency ..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, no. 2, 1973)). The disputed territory was not mentioned by the Lebanese government after the 1967 Six Day War, or the 1973 October War, as an occupation issue.] "

Re:Poll on the blog

[Valdrax]

Because one side is commiting all the crimes. Leave Israel alone and they will leave you alone.

Spoken like a man who only has the superficial understanding of the conflict that the mainstream media covers. Israel is NOT in anyway innocent of all crimes. They've done everything from settle conquered land and drive out the natives in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to collective punishment in the form of mass demolitions of housing tracts where a terrorist lived to firing missiles and bombs into crowded markets and residential areas. Many of the Israeli settlers are just as much religious fanatics as some of the supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah and often do not treat their Palestinian neighbors as human, shunning them and occasionally using violence against them. Many harbor racist, anti-Arab attitudes, and the Palestinians' attitude about Israel is shaped by their contact with these Israelis (and the occupying IDF) first and foremost.

The Israelis occupy the Palestinian territories with a force that is notorious for having a hair trigger and killing innocents. The Palestinian economy is nonexistent because they can't move freely around their territory thanks to check-points, and they can't trade with neighbors with the borders shut. Unemployment in the Gaza Strip was 30% in 2005, before the recent siege. In the West Bank, Israel has built a barrier deep into internationally recognized Palestinian territory "to prevent terror attacks" that has cut a lot of prime Palestinian farmland off from its owners, and Israel has repeatedly refused to honor its obligations under the Oslo peace accord to withdraw ALL settlers from both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, instead funnelling more and more settlers into the West Bank to consolodate their grip.

The IDF is infamous for heavy-handed tactics against the Palestinians in most of the world (outside the US, anyway). Heavy civilian casualties are common. This is because terrorists live side by side with civilians. (Do you think they have a choice, if they want to resist occupation, by the way? I mean, it's not like they can build bases.) Israel likes to thump its chest about how terrorists use civilians as body shields (apparently because they commit the evil acts of living in apartments with their families and shopping in the public -- the bastards), but Israel is more than willing to fire that rocket or drop that bomb and chalk everyone else up as acceptable losses if it means cutting the next head off the Hydra.

They also have a policy of bulldozing down houses "that are harboring terrorists" without regard for any of the other families living there or the women and children of the accused terrorists. The UN and many human rights organizations have condemned these demolitions as collective punishment (in violation of the Geneva Convention and thus a war crime), but they've never been held to task for it thanks to US veto power. They've demolished apartment buildings, markets, schools, playgrounds -- they even bulldozed down the Gaza Strip's only zoo in Rafah. Jenin lost 10% of the housing in a city of 13,000.

Look at the current conflict in Lebanon -- there's a 10:1 Lebanese to Israeli civilian death ratio, Lebanon's economy has been utterly destroyed by the devastation to infrastructure, and relief supplies cannot get into most of the country thanks to the destruction of all bridges and major roadways. Hezbollah hasn't done a fraction of the level of damage that Israel has done, and yet they want more, more, more devastation and military occupation. They seem incapable of figuring out that occupying more land only breeds more hate and that moderate Lebanese are now crying that they will never recognize Israel's right to exist.

Honestly, what kind of idiots are they to think that bombing places that harbor terrorists will make less terrorists?

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think that -- by a long shot -- all of the blame rests on Israel's

Re:Poll on the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel tresspasses on Arab land in the same way that Texas trespasses on Mexican land.

We don't see Mexico encouraging terrorists to blow up Texans.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Rei]

Yes, that would be a perfectly cogent reply post. If only I had claimed that Lebanon claims Shebaa Farms instead of stating that much of the attacks had been centered on Shebaa Farms.

Next up: youknowmewell criticizes my claim that Martians have invaded earth to smuggle away green tree frogs.

Re:Poll on the blog

[superwiz]

Like I said, Palestinians are a different issue. You can argue that one either way. So I don't think I have to address your June 23rd, June 24th, June 27th and June 28th comments. Israel-Palestine conflict is incredibly convoluted. Honestly, I feel sorry for both people on that one.

As for the other points, let's see... you seem to rely on vagaries too much. Which makes me think you are taking a side and refusing to be objective. More specifically, where is the May 23rd info from? How is May 26th info related to Israel? I understand the reasons for suspicion... even for a strong suspicion, but without direct tie (like for instance killing of soldiers or civilians by a known source) this is at best a well-disguised espionage operation -- not an act of war. May 28th recount does indeed support your point that hostilities were happening on the border, but again the initiator of acts of war (the party WAGING the war) seems to be Hizbolah. I don't see how the Hizbolah (a shiite group) was forced to act from Lebanese terriotory to support Hamas (a suni group). So I really don't see the logic in the "Early July" comment. I also don't see why you downplay Isaeli casulty numbers instead of 8 soldiers killed (the widely accepted number) you claim 3 and instead of 2 soldiers kidnapped (also a widely accpeted number) you claim 1.

It seems clear that you want to make a situation more vague than it really is. There is really no question about the fact that Isael withdrew from Lebanon and didn't want to have anything more to do with it. It is also clear (a fact that you don't seem to mention in your timeline even though you do bring unrelated issues like Palestine) that this occured at the time when the international community was considering sanctioning Iran for its neuclear research. So Iran had the motif, the means and it saw an opportunity. A soldier who participated in the operation (after being captured) confessed to being trained in Iran. How is this anything but Iran using its proxy to wage war against an American proxy to divert attention?

Re:Poll on the blog

[budgenator]

The thought of both Israel and Iran having Nuc's is just to scarey; it would be like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany both being nuclear powers during WW II. I guess the only thing we can count on is the Palestintians getting fucked.

Re:Poll on the blog

[cold fjord]

Yes, it's amazing how effective American media spin is, isn't it? Um, no, the situation isn't that simple.

Hmmmm....., I wonder what happens when you drill down into one of your bland assertions?

June 23rd: Tensions on the northern border escalate when violence expands in Gaza when the Israeli army invades and siezes two sons of Palestinian activist Ali Muamar to put pressure on him.

You find something interesting about that here:

This is what the associated press reported: "On Saturday, Israeli commandos seized two Palestinians suspected of being Hamas militants in the army's first arrest raid in the Gaza Strip since Israel's withdrawal nearly a year ago. An Israeli army spokesman said the two men, arrested at a house near Rafah in southern Gaza, were in the 'final states of planning a large-scale terror attack' in coming days. The army did not provide details on the nature of the alleged plot. Hamas denied that the men, who were identified by neighbors as brothers, are members." Quite a different account than the one provided by Chomsky et al. (Lie number two). Chomsky has said in interviews that "we don't even know their names," referring to the arrested militants. But a quick check of newspapers reveals that their names are Osama and Mostafa Muamar, whose father is Ali Muamar, a notorious Hamas leader. According to press reports "local Hamas activists said the pair was ... known to be members of Hamas." (Lie Number three).

Nor was the arrest of these Hamas terrorists the origin of the crisis, as Chomsky asserts. Even Kofi Annan acknowledged that "Hezbollah's provocative attack on July 12 was the trigger of this particular crisis"; that Hezbollah is "deliberate[ly] targeting...Israeli population centers with hundreds of indiscriminate weapons"; and that Israel has the "right to defend itself under Article 51 of the U.N. chater."

I wonder if there is more?

June 24th: In retaliation, Hamas sneaks into Israel via a tunnel, kills two Israeli soldiers, and captures a corporal. They seek a prisoner exchange (Israel holds about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners, including many women and children)

Women and children? Hmmmm... Here is sonething about that....

The people in Israeli jails are there because they were involved in terrorist activities and many committed heinous crimes. In an effort to win greater sympathy for their gambit, Hamas has asked for the release of women and children, giving the impression that housewives and toddlers are being unfairly imprisoned. Out of the 109 women and 313 juveniles currently in prison, 64 women and 91 juveniles "have blood on their hands." Palestinian prisoners under the age of 18 threw Molotov cocktails, transported weapons and associated with terrorist organizations. The women planned suicide attacks, prepared bombs and assisted suicide bombers; they also attacked Israeli soldiers and joined terrorist organizations. Ahlan Tanimi, for example, brought the bomb that murdered 16 in the Sbarro pizza restaurant in Jerusalem. Kahira Sa'adi drove a terrorist to King George Avenue, where he blew up three people. Hanady Jaradats killed 21 in the Maxim restaurant in Haifa (Jerusalem Post, July 6, 2006).

I guess you're right, things aren't that simple.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Jagasian]

To this day, does Texas continue to expand its borders deeper into Mexico? To this day, Israel continues to expand its borders deeper into Arab land. So your comparison does not hold. If Texas continued to take Mexican land, to this very day, you can bet there would be some kind of militant conflict, just as there was conflict when Texas originally took land from Mexico.

Re:Poll on the blog

[infolib]

Yes, there were quite a few pro-war demonstrators, but I think it was very few.

You know, protesting usually takes place to protest against government policy. There was very little need for pro-war protesting since it carried widespread support by the president, congress and the public.

Re:Poll on the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo! Both great examples of subjective parties...

Re:Poll on the blog

[krell]

The second report is rather objective.

Ooops. Wrong link.

[krell]

I decided to visit it and was reading all the nasty stuff he said about Jews and Booze. Then I found out I was on Mel Gibson's blog by mistake.

Re:Ooops. Wrong link.

[SirSlud]

Zing! Hahaha, you'd get a funny by me if I didnt run out of mod points on friday.

Re:Ooops. Wrong link.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mel Gibson is a great man indeed:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson

Re:Ooops. Wrong link.

[morgan_greywolf]

I decided to visit it and was reading all the nasty stuff he said about Jews and Booze. Then I found out I was on Mel Gibson's blog by mistake.

Man! You just made me choke on my burger! ;) That was the funniest damned thing I've read all day.

i like

[namekuseijin]

i like the "Decapitations of the day" section. :P

Re:i like

[john83]

You should quit while you're ahead.

Re:i like

[onion2k]

I hope he posts his "Purity Test" score. I bet he'd do really well.

Re:i like

[Quila]

Hot burkha babe of the day?

Re:i like

[meadowsp]

What, something like this you mean?

Re:i like

[Cilibrin]

I like the TV Guide section, which features popular game shows such as Wheel of Torture.

Re:i like

[Trelane]

Man, I was shocked when I totally failed my Purity Test. Turns out I didn't know it, but I'd been cut and cut and cut until I'm now 80% water!!

Where's the irony?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Leaders have always tried to simulatenously exploit and control the power of whatever media was current at the time. Does anyone doubt that the skald who came up with the original version of Beowulf was paid off to chant about the virtues of the king -- and knew exactly what would happen if he didn't? Through the age of pamphlet, newspaper, radio, and TV, nothing changed; I don't see why we should be terribly surprised now that it's ON THE INTERNET (tm).

Re:Where's the irony?

[MrSquirrel]

Well, he also has a myspace. On it, he lists his favorite activities as "long walks on the sand dunes, researching nuclear weapons... I mean power plants, and torturing those with opinions different from mine".

Re:Where's the irony?

[Red Flayer]

Let's see. A tyranny that restricts others' use of communication media while at the same time fully exploiting it's potential for propoganda purposes. That is unusual.

Of course you were being sarcastic, but I think you miss the mis-spelling: obviously the submitter meant to type "Iranic".

Like 10,000 bombs, when all you need is a knife... isn't it Iranic... don't you think?

Re:Where's the irony?

[Bemopolis]

Are you sure that wasn't whitehouse.gov?

On second thought, I doubt it -- I don't think the US even pretending to do research on nuclear power.

Bemopolis

Re:Where's the irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was originally "Iranical", but they edited the post.

Re:Where's the irony?

[slofstra]

Was I being ironic or sarcastic? Is sarcasm simply a sub-class of irony? I believe dramatic irony involves a statement where the intended meaning is opposite or different from the literal meaning of the words. So I think I was being ironic. As opposed to the kind of irony imputed to the pres of Iran. Irony in an action occurs when an effect is different from what one would expect given the cause, or where a characteristic is incongruent with its context or situation. Irany, as you mention, would be Iranic irony.

Re:Where's the irony?

[Red Flayer]

I believe dramatic irony involves a statement where the intended meaning is opposite or different from the literal meaning of the words.

Dramatic irony is when a character is unaware of 'facts' that the audience is aware of -- so that the character says things or takes actions that are inappropriate to the audience, since they know the full story (like when Romeo commits suicide thinking that Juliet is dead).

A statement where the intended meaning is opposite to the literal meaning is a form of verbal irony, which is often sarcasm (depending on the intent).

Re:Where's the irony?

[slofstra]

Thanks for clearing that up...

Re:Where's the irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the same thing on bush's site. Except he misspelled nuclear.

So, how long ...

[kalidasa]

Before we start seeing a "The CIA is trying to prevent the world from reading my blog by using a distributed denial of service attack" posting when the real problem is that the site is hosted on Windows and has been slashdotted?

Re:So, how long ...

[hunterx11]

Hey man, deposing the elected leader of Iran and replacing him with a dictator is one thing, but messing with his blog is unacceptable!

an english is you not?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "ironical" is an adjective. Maybe if you put a "y" on it it'd be an adverb...

Ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even slightly ironic because it's in no way poignant. It's not touching, nor particularly distressing. It's just one more way for him to spew his hatred, because he's got a lot, and state- TV, radio, and newspapers, obviously weren't enough ways to pour bile out with.

Re:Ironic?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just one more way for him to spew his hatred...

I've read stuff he's written before and I have to say I do find he's quite elegant at expressing his hatred. Certianly refreshing compared to how our fearless leader expresses his:

Axis of evil (Hates those who don't agree with him)
Laws against gay marriage (hates homosexuals)
Wars (hates people who wear towels over their head)
Faith bases initiatives (hates atheists)
Hates Mexicans (border laws, etc)
Stoners, liberals, etc.
Non-rich people (tax cuts for the dicks!)

Those two should butt F each other.

Of course he rejected the poll.

[krell]

"He had to start his own blog, the infidel CmdrTaco kept rejecting his "Was there a Holocaust?" poll.

Of course it was rejected. The Iranian president forgot to include "Cowboy Neal" as one of the poll answers.

Re:Of course he rejected the poll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was rejected. The Iranian president forgot to include "Cowboy Neal" as one of the poll answers.

Oh shit man, you used your username (Krell). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just went public with a list of 34 Slashdot user names that he's got a Jihad against.

There's probably nothing to worry about ... but you just made the list.

Where's the irony?

[slofstra]

Let's see. A tyranny that restricts others' use of communication media while at the same time fully exploiting it's potential for propoganda purposes. That is unusual.

Next up...

[Russ Steffen]

So, does he have a MySpace page yet? Or is he a Facebook kind-of-guy?

Re:Next up...

[B11]

Will he add Tila Tequila as a friend?

Re:Next up...

[Fnkmaster]

I think Ahmadinejad is more down with the Friendster vibe.

Re:Next up...

[Denial93]

I can see it now: MySpace user sent to Guantanamo for having the wrong guy on his friendlist.

Re:Next up...

[mobby_6kl]

I'll be happy with simply this:

MySpace users sent to Guantanamo.

Re:Next up...

[B11]

Considering the the spooks are already trolling social networking sites, I wouldn't be surprised.

Re:Next up...

[ThePopeLayton]

probably mySpace because you have to be enrolled in a university first to get a Facebook account. And I don't think any Iranian universities qualify for a facebook account yet. Also if Iran censors blogs then myspace is probably blocked too. So next in line is for the govt to set up QueidaSpaceBook

Georg Greve blogged this - it's MS and it's down:)

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

His webserver is MS, and it was down earlier. From Georg Greve's blog: Technical difficulties all around

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no problem being dependent on US software, which in turn has no problem failing on him.

Looking forward to reading it

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I'm sure all his posts will be calm, reasoned, factual and well stated.

Re:Looking forward to reading it

[owlnation]

I'm sure all his posts will be calm, reasoned, factual and well stated.

Sure, that'd be nice. Though I don't see why his blog should be different from all the others.

Re:Looking forward to reading it

[Red Flayer]

Well, his opinion of American imperialism is reasoned, factual, and well-stated (remember the letter he wrote a few months ago?), as is his observation of the irony of Christians (purportedly) taking very un-Christian actions.

His response to American imperialism is a little less calm, but I suspect it is definitely reasoned pretty thoroughly.

Of course, it's quite possible to come to a logically correct conclusion that is still false, if one's precepts are false.

Re:Looking forward to reading it

[HermMunster]

But when it comes to muslims killing people--that's not enough justification for him to state that muslims are acting in a very un-mulsim way? How about him denying the terror and killing of civilians with weapons his country sold to the terrorists that launched rockets on civilian targets in Israel.

Nothing he says has any validity unless his words turn to action and that he applies them equally to his own people, the muslims, and the west. He's not well reasoned when it comes to that rather large missing section.

Re:Looking forward to reading it

[a.d.trick]

Well, his opinion of American imperialism is reasoned, factual, and well-stated (remember the letter he wrote a few months ago?), as is his observation of the irony of Christians (purportedly) taking very un-Christian actions.

This is pretty ironic considering that doing Christian evangalisation in countries like Iran means a rather swift visit from the police. After that foreigners are fortunate and get kicked out of the country, alive; native Iranians, not so much. I don't condone the US's imperialism for one moment, but it could be worse.

Not surprised

[Denial93]

His job basically amounts to representative/propaganda roles because he doesn't have any significant executive powers. And he's certainly more competent at it than a couple of other politicians. Try his letter to Bush for a preview of what he's going to write there.

Common method of propaganda

[Starker_Kull]

If you are going to crack down on a common method of dissemination of information, make sure you replace it with one of your own that repeats what you want to be heard, ad nauseam. Right out of Goebbel's playbook. For a guy who doesn't think the Holocaust happened, he sure seems comfortable using the same rhetoric and early tactics.

Re:Common method of propaganda

[ichigo 2.0]

For a guy who doesn't think the Holocaust happened, he sure seems comfortable using the same rhetoric and early tactics.

If one believed the holocaust never happened, then wouldn't that make it easier to use Goebbels' tactics?

Anyways, I have no doubt in my mind that he knows that the holocaust happened, he is just playing the propaganda game. But some of his comments have also been taken out of context, like "The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet." which to me sounds more like typical religious banter that prioritises a fictional god over the real world, and a veiled criticism of our double standards of free speech, because of how holocaust deniers are given jailtime here in Europe. He's also said a couple of times that Israel should be "wiped off the map.", which sounds bad, until you read the other comment he made at the same time: "If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel", i.e. he wants to wipe the state of Israel off the map, not it's inhabitants.

But it doesn't change the fact that he is an idiot. Any president who blathers on about god, prophets and religion as if it was in some way important, should be locked up, including that one guy with the cowboy hat. I just want to remind people that you shouldn't believe everything you read, the propaganda machinery is at full speed on both sides.

Re:Common method of propaganda

[hublan]

Right out of Goebbel's playbook.

Playing awfully close to Godwin right there. It is an age-old method that simply got perfected by Göbbels. The president of Iran isn't unique in it, practically everyone is doing it these days.

Mirror of the text from the blog

[02bunced]

Just in case it doesn't survive Slashdot...

In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate Oh Almighty God, please, we beg you to send us our Guardian- who You have promised us- soon and appoint us as His close companions.

During the era that nobility was a prestige and living in a city was perfection, I was born in a poor family in a remote village of Garmsar-approximately 90 kilometer east of Tehran. I was born fifteen years after Iran was invaded by foreign forces- in August of 1940- and the time that another puppet, named mohammad Reza - the son of Reza Mirpange- was set as a monarch in Iran. Since the extinct shah -Mohammad Reza- was supposed to take and enter Iran into western civilization slavishly, so many schemes were implemented that Iran becomes another market for the western ceremonial goods without any progress in the scientific field. Our Islamic culture would not allow such an infestation, and this was an impediment in front of shah and his foreign masters' way. Thus, they decided to make this noble and tenacious culture weak gradually that Iran be attached strongly to the west as far as its economy, politics, and culture was concern. After the implementation of this policy and the unreal and outward of upswing, the villagers began to rush to the cities. Upon the enforcement of the land reform, the status of the villages became worst than the past and villagers for earning some breadcrumbs, they were deceived by the dazzling look and the misleading features of the cities and became suburban and lived in ghettos.

My family was also suffered in the village as others. After my birth -the fourth one in the family- my family was under more pressures. My father had finished 6 grade of elementary school. He was a hard-bitten toiler blacksmith, a pious man who regularly participated in different religious programs. Even though never the dazzling look of the world was appealing to him, but the pressure of the life caused that he decided to migrate to Tehran when I was one year old. We chose to live in south central part of Tehran where is called Pamenar.

My father used to buy newspaper all the time. I remember one day, when I was in first grade, by looking through a newspaper - with the help of the adults in our house- I read the news of the capitulation passage by the shah's so called "parliament." Even though I did not understand the meaning of that issue at that time, but due to the protests and the objections of the religious schools of thoughts with the leadership of Imam Khomeini -Almighty God bless his soul- and the relentless reaction of the extinct shah, I realized that Mohammad Reza attempted to add another page to his vicious case history which was the humiliation and indignity of the Iranian people versus Americans. That was the year that the extinct shah slaughtered many followers of Imam Khomeini.

Imam Khomeini was released from prison. I never forget Imam Khomeini's speeches during those years which was very persuasive and appealing. You would hear the strong faith to Almighty God in his orations. He invited the people to pure Islam. His message was invitation to the belief of monotheism- Unity and Oneness of God- and also justice, elimination of oppression, injustice and sedition in the world. He was courageous and had a valiant heart. He spoke firmly and securely. His orations were simple and honest. The people accepted his guidance sincerely. Due to these characteristics, he was a beloved leader for every individuals-young or elderly. Of course he was a disgrace for shah's regime and his Americans masters. Notably, even among his enemies, he was respected with a special honor.

Eventually, the existence of Imam Khomeini was unbearable for the extinct shah and he could not tolerate him any more. Since they knew if they kill him-as they did a great number of his followers- the bloody uprising can not be controlled. Consequently they decided to exile him in order to separate the leader from his followers and to restrain th

Re:Mirror of the text from the blog

[truckaxle]

Telephone rings in the halls of power in Tehran Telephone caller: Hey is the Ahmadinejad dude there? Ahmadinejad: Yes this is he, may I help you. Telephone caller: Ahmadinejad it's me the Gaurdian.... And I have some good new and bad news? Ahmadinejad: Wow! I knew it, I knew it, lay the good news on me! Telephone caller: I am the Gaurdian and I have returned as promised. Ahmadinejad: This is so awesome I can't wait to tell Khomeini, he had his doubts you know. Err whats the bad news? Telephone caller: I calling from New York City!

Re:Mirror of the text from the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate Oh Almighty God, please, we beg you to send us our Guardian- who You have promised us- soon and appoint us as His close companions.

iow, speed the day that the iran gets nuclear weapons.

this guy is the equivalent of a world leader who actually thinks jesus talks to him... oh, that's george bush.

i hate to tell you folks, iran will *not* give up their nookular bomb aspirations, uh, i mean their "guradian", w/o military intervention.

Re:Mirror of the text from the blog

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony here is that Irans second biggest religion already believes that the 'Guardian' has arrived ('The Bab', Iran, 1844). Off course Ahmadinejad hates the Bahai's more than the Jews.

You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[neonprimetime]

Little did you know that because of the Patriot Act, anybody who visits that site is automatically tagged by an FBI database. They will now begin to track all your phone calls, intercept your emails, and monitor your credit card transactions.

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[sholden]

Because they weren't already...

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[RelaxedTension]

Except now you'll hear arguing between the FBI and the CIA over who should hang up and let the other record your call...

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[SpiritGod21]

What's sad is that the op was tagged Interesting instead of Funny...

What's more sad is that it's probably true.

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[metasecure]

Gee, it's a good thing i'm in Canada

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[RelaxedTension]

Ya, CSIS would never do anything like that...

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[paralaxcreations]

"begin to?"

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[ems2]

The FBI did Mexico. Canada must be next.

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[gQuigs]

Does that mean we are participating in a slashdotting of the FBI?

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[SaDan]

So, maybe we just slashdotted the FBI's data collection system?

KEEP CLICKING! Whee!!!

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[Anonymous Coward]

And you think that makes you safe? ROTFLMAO...

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[Kenshin]

Prepare for a strip search next time you cross the border.

They may check "you know where" for WMDs.

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, CSIS would never do anything like that...

Just watch me.

Love,
Pierre

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[Tweekster]

So?

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[Anonymous Coward]

They will now begin to track all your phone calls, intercept your emails, and monitor your credit card transactions.

So where's the problem? Any real PATRIOT would bend over at the mere suggestion.

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[budgenator]

But I only call the DHS hotline.

Re:You've just been tagged by an FBI database

[smittyoneeach]

Said one TLA to the other: "At least this one has no clue about the Orbital Mind Control Lasers."

I thought he already had a blog

[krell]

Isn't Ahmadinejad the guy who writes all the stuff for www.infowars.com ?

Possible security risk

[Das Modell]

According to this blog entry, the site tries to exploit an Internet Explorer vulnerability. I don't know if this information is accurate, and I use Firefox anyway.

American Double Moral Strikes Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is perhaps slightly ironic, given that the Iranian Government actively censors blogs on the Internet.

...and not adding the link to that blog is called patriotism, right?

Seriously, you americans with your display of double morals manage to lose more and more sympathy worldwide.

Link to that Blog: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

Re:American Double Moral Strikes Again!

[02bunced]

Hmm. In the original post I made of this story, I had linked to the blog. Must just have been removed in the editing process :(

Oh, and I'm a Brit!

Re:American Double Moral Strikes Again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you non-americans with your display of absolutely no morals whatsoever manage to lose more and more sympathy in America.

What do we need sympathy for? You're the ones in deep shit. :P

Re:American Double Moral Strikes Again!

[Atzanteol]

Yeah, a submitter not including a link is *definitely* the same thing as state sponsored censorship...

Slashdot, where showing ads on a web-page is just as evil as killing kittens in front of children.

Dances with Godwin.

[krell]

"Right out of Goebbel's playbook. For a guy who doesn't think the Holocaust happened, he sure seems comfortable using the same rhetoric and early tactics"

You are hitting upon one of the rules: those who deny the Holocaust tend to be those who think it really should have happened and that this sort of thing is a good idea. i.e. "It never happened before, so let's make it happen now!".

Ahmadinejad is actually a brilliant man

[UbuntuDupe]

I've read some of his stuff, and he actually seems very intelligent and capable of logical reasoning. You just, well, kinda have to get past his hatred of Jews, refusal to recognize Israel, fascist ideology, Holocaust denial, and slavish adherence to a pretty obviously false religion. (I think most of those are just to maintain his support from Iranians.)

Re:Ahmadinejad is actually a brilliant man

[digitrev]

I appreciate intelligence as much as the next guy, but doesn't the list of things you "kinda have to get past" render anything he says on those topics completely illogical and biased?

Re:Ahmadinejad is actually a brilliant man

[Anonymous Coward]

What about his obsession of locking people out of their own homes? It happened enough times to me and my family for us to leave the country without anything beside what we were carrying. He treats us Jews in his country like animals. In civilized places he would be considered an animal for what he does.

Re:Ahmadinejad is actually a brilliant man

[Daniel Dvorkin]

slavish adherence to a pretty obviously false religion

As opposed to all the other, true religions?

Or the One True religion (i.e., whichever one you happen to follow)?

Re:Ahmadinejad is actually a brilliant man

[UbuntuDupe]

As opposed to all the other, true religions?

Hey, I'm not claiming to have the one that's true here. I'm just saying, there are religions that say "there's some ghost behind the scenes pulling levers to control everything, whom we can't observe in any way except through unscientific signs", and there are religions that say, "as a factual, testable matter, the earth and all life was literally constructed in six days". His is the latter.

Re:Ahmadinejad is actually a brilliant man

[sgml4kids]

Seriously. We need the W3C (or at least CmdrTaco) to approve an tag.

Re:Ahmadinejad is actually a brilliant man

[killjoe]

"nd slavish adherence to a pretty obviously false religion."

Is there is a true religion? All religions are obviously false.

To me this guy reads smarter, saner, better spoken and more rational then GW. They are both delusional and they are both religious fundamentalists so they have a lot in common except that this guy hasn't really killed a lot of people (yet?). GW has already killed over 100,000 people in iraq and afghanistan so he is way ahead.

Hmmm.......

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that's not really ironical.

Great, what's next...

[Bullfish]

the Kim Jong show?

How do I submit this to The Daily Show?

[carpeweb]

This seems like a perfect item for Jon Stewart to cover. I can't figure out how to send info like this to Comedy Central, though, since the web site sucks and I'm too lazy to pursue beyond that. Anyone know if they are open to submissions?

Fiendster

[krell]

I think he's one link away from Kim Jong Il.

Wait Wait...

[necro81]

The folks at Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me are going to have a field day with this. The gag headlines almost write themselves.

This is an even bigger use of new media...

[Anonymous Coward]

...since they started selling ad space on the neck stumps of beheaded infidels.

Next Osama bin Laden will get a myspace account

[14CharUsername]

Then Tom will get sent to gitmo for being on bin Laden's friends list. Then everyone else on myspace will be carted off for having Tom on their friends list. Then we will finally be safe from the emo terrorists.

Re:Next Osama bin Laden will get a myspace account

[AngryUndead]

Wouldn't an emo terrorist want to suicide bomb some people, but then decide that nobody cares and life has no meaning anyway, so then go mope in his parents basement... again?

Least useful followers ever.

Re:Next Osama bin Laden will get a myspace account

[14CharUsername]

Yeah, then he'd go write a poem about how much he hates his life even more than he hates the infidel.

Irans Prresidents BLOG

[muggs45]

If you go to :michellemalkin.com (link can be found on the drudge report site) there is something "hinky" about his page.... Check it out....

Liberty for me, not for thee

[MikeRT]

It's good enough for him, but not his own people. This guy is a menace. He's neither stupid nor insane and is in fact the closest thing the region has ever seen to a leader who could fill in the shoes of a Middle Eastern Hitler. Read some of Mike Wallace's comments about him after an interview with him, if you think he is such a joke.

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[Anonymous Coward]

So doing the right thing will earn one the title "Hitler"?

Your message is "Reductio ad Hitlerum", nothing else.

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying Hitler wasn't insane?

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[14CharUsername]

Interesting logic there. He is smart, Hitler was smart. He is the leader of a foreign country, Hitler was the leader of a foriegn country. OMG!! He is teh Hitlar!!!

How about this logic. US says to the world that its planning on invading Iran (remember that axis of evil thing?). Everyone knows the US won't attack a country that has nukes. So the logical thing for Iran to do is develop nuclear weapons. Its simple cause and effect. US says it will eventually attack Iran -> Iran develops nuclear weapons. It's not ahmadinejad who's responsible for Iran's nuclear weapons programme. The man responsible for that can't even pronounce nuclear.

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[Riverman2]

It's no surprise when you consider the links the entire region has to hitler and the nazis. Why he gives a damn about the palestinian cause? Yasser Arafat served under a nazi commander, Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini. Arafat was a nazi, Ahmadinejad is a nazi. We never hunted down the nazi's over there in the middle east, we left them to brew trouble. Had we exterminated the nazis across the globe like we were supposed to, we might not be dealing with this today. The fucked up thing is that hitler was just using the arabs, the arabs were next on his hit list after the jews. So what the hell? What the hell.... Something deep down in me says the entire middle-east is going to be 10 million degrees before this is over.

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[Anonymous Coward]

As he would say: "I ran is proud deucing new clear whey puns!"

(If you don't get it, say it loud and real quick a few times)

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[killjoe]

I am really going to get it for this but....

Hitler set up concentration camps where he rounded up religious minorities.
Hitler hated homosexuals.
Hitler invaded neighboring countries.
Hitler had an official policy of torturing prisoners.
Hitler rounded up people without trials or juries or charges.
Hitler had a couple of allies but most of the world hated him although they were too scared or weak to attack him.
Hitler has a vision of a racially pure state and was a supremacist.
Hitler was charismatic and had a fervent following amongst his people.
Hitler occupied other people for extended periods of time subjugating the people who live there to humiliation and bondage.

Now which modern nation/leader is like hitler?

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[Anonymous Coward]

all right moron, so by your logic, north korea MUST have nuclear weapons as well as every clown out there that wants to get away with it, abuse people, threat other countries, etc. so that they can escape being attacked by anyone, be it the US of A or any other country right?

and btw, breaking news: hitler hated jews and so does the iranian president to the point of an obsession. and if you haven't noticed, the iranian clown has threatened to destroy Israel so that makes him a little on the hitler side ok?

now is your turn to start babbling about how I wrote as an anonymous coward and cry out loud that your logic is perfect and other ideas are not acceptable blah blah blah....

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[krell]

Castro, Pol Pot, and the Iranian president have several "checkmarks", but none have them all. If this is mindless Bush bashing: most don't apply at all to Bush, especially "Hitler was charismatic and had a fervent following amongst his people"

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[krell]

"It's not ahmadinejad who's responsible for Iran's nuclear weapons programme. The man responsible for that can't even pronounce nuclear."

1) Ahmadinejad actually had nothing to do with it, correct. Iran's nuclear weapons program started many years ago under Rafsanjani. You are not being logical. GWB had absolutely nothing to do with Iran's nuclear war program. In fact, he provides discincentive for Iran to continue.

2) Jimmy Carter, who was an actual nuclear engineer, pronounces the word "nuclear" as "nucular". I think that Carter knows more about "nucular" technology than you ever will. Besides, if you are going to add two extra letters onto the end of the word "program", you should not complain about how some pronounce words.

Re:Liberty for me, not for thee

[killjoe]

"Castro, Pol Pot, and the Iranian president have several "checkmarks", but none have them all."

Yes. So do Bush and Sharon.

"If this is mindless Bush bashing: most don't apply at all to Bush, especially "Hitler was charismatic and had a fervent following amongst his people""

It's a matter of degrees mostly. Bush tortured less people, rounded up less people, killed less people, invaded less countries, disliked homosexuals less, subjugated less countries, etc. He did most of the same things just less. Kind of hitler lite. Same great taste, less filling.

I Prefer al Zarqawi Mom's Blog

[aquatone282]

Check it out: al Zarqawis Moms Blog

One thing more

[Anonymous Coward]

Also forgetting to mention I was that of the virgins 70 hoping after death I am.

While the martyr I am not, the hand-cutting-off of thieves and the stoning of daughters immoral and the decapitating of infidels, along with (thank God) the pursing of weapons of the most nuclear shall lead me to this higher state.

The President's Myspace

[Anonymous Coward]

http://search.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=fin d.search&searchType=network&interesttype=&country= &searchBy=First&f_first_name=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad&S ubmit=Find&SearchBoxID=FindAFriend

Ahmadinejad is quite reasonable

[krell]

Yes, you are right. When you get past his genocidal ravings and prejudices, he's quite a reasonable guy. How can you not like a guy who looks like Gilligan without the hat?

Re:Ahmadinejad is quite reasonable

[RingDev]

That imagery would so win a fark photoshop contest!

-Rick

Re:Ahmadinejad is quite reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to a president who looks like Alfred E. Newman? And talks like him as well?

Is there a talk-back forum attached?

[mi]

I doubt he'd be so stupid as to expose his propaganda department to the voices and opinions of reason world-wide.

But TFA has no link to the blog — maybe, there is a forum, after all?

Re:Is there a talk-back forum attached?

[Atzanteol]

Linky: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

And there is a way to send feedback on the page.

Re:Is there a talk-back forum attached?

[mi]

Linky: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

Thanks, very informative!

And there is a way to send feedback on the page.

I see — but this is not really a forum — the responses do not get posted automatically and so, of course, no real criticism stands a chance of being let through...

Re:Is there a talk-back forum attached?

[Atzanteol]

I see â" but this is not really a forum â" the responses do not get posted automatically and so, of course, no real criticism stands a chance of being let through...

That is true. I would have been *very* surprised if there were an open forum (for the website of *any* national leader). It's entirely possible this just sends things to /dev/null and gives people the feeling they can feed-back..

Why not? Press distorts!

[redelm]

Why not hear the man directly? The more you've been inside news stories, the more you know how the press distorts information to sell ink, photons and electrons. Not usually outright lies, but frequent quoting-out-of-context, and occasional lies of omission. It is frankly amazing to see so much editorializing in simple news reporting.

Yes, there's some irony in the internal Iranian restrictions. But I'll take freedom in half steps. Positive movement is still positive. Besides, I think it is extremely important to listen to your critics and even enemies. They will very helpfully point out your flaws so you can fix them. When they lie, they reveal their own insecurities.

Iran has freedom for bloggers.

[krell]

"given that the Iranian Government actively censors blogs on the Internet."

Nothing to complain about, really. As long as the bloggers don't blog on the 'Net, they are free to blog anywhere they want, right?

It Isn't Ironic

[Doc Ruby]

There's nothing "ironic" about a dictator censoring media while putting out their own. It isn't even contradictory. "Dictator" means "commander", as in "speaking a command", as in "word is law". What they say is the official truth, they define reality by speaking it. Other people saying different "versions" of reality gets in the way, so they stop it.

The popular sense of the word "irony" has been ruined. People don't even blink while Alanis Morissette's "Ironic" asks "isn't it ironic?" about a list of situations that aren't ironic. It's not ironic if its words don't contradict the reality. Just because two events are inconsistent or surprising doesn't make irony.

I think irony has just been overloaded in our modern age, where lies outnumber truth, but reality stubbornly persists. When people's reality is defined by faith in lies rather than their own personal experience, there is no irony, because there is only irony.

Re:It Isn't Ironic

[circa1979]

Thats ironic, I was thinking the same thing

Re:It Isn't Ironic

[amliebsch]

The problem is a lack of a good word that means, roughly "a darkly amusing or farcical set of circumstances, often with tragic consequences." The term "poetic justice" fits sometimes, but only when the outcome is actually something akin to "justice."

Re:It Isn't Ironic

[Doc Ruby]

We say "that's funny" even when laughter is inappropriate. When we learn something faster than expected, sometimes we like it, sometimes we don't.

Whois infomation

[ems2]

domain: ahmadinejad.ir
remarks: (Domain Holder) Mahdi Ahmadi Nejad
remarks: (Domain Holder Address) Motahari Ave. at Raham St. Tehran, IR 1567718571
admin-c: nic38790h87
tech-c: nic38790h87
zone-c: nic38790h87
nserver: ns1.nisn.ir
nserver: ns2.nisn.ir
source: NICIR # Filtered

person: Mahdi Ahmadi Nejad
remarks: ---
address: Pasteur Sq., Pasteur St., Peresident Office
e-mail: president.irsite@gmail.com
phone: 64451
fax-no:
nic-hdl: nic38790h87
source: NICIR # Filtered

I feel for Google, now they unfortunately have to put up with Ahmadi Nejad. Maybe that we-can-read-your-email clause is useful.

Re:Whois infomation

[sprudel]

It's interesting that the registrar is "Mahdi Ahmadi Nejad", given all the speculation about his apocalyptic beliefs in the return of the Hidden Imam or Mahdi...

Re:Whois infomation

[14CharUsername]

google would only ever read his mail so they can serve him ads for enriched uranium.

Re:Whois infomation

[Conanymous Award]

Just a guess, but could it be 'Mahdi' is a diminutive/nickname form of Mahmud/Mahmood?

Amusing tho how easily one can find the Gmail address of the President of Iran. The obvious question now is, does this make Google evil? ;)

Re:Whois infomation

[Anonymous Coward]

The scary thing is that his first name is not Mahdi - it's Mahmud. Mahdi is the "hidden Imam" that's supposed to return in the end days. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ ixworld.html

Re:Whois infomation

[Anonymous Coward]

Mahdi is the title of the Coming One or the Messiah in Moslem lore. So yes, it is revealing of his beliefs (and vanity too?)

Re:Whois infomation

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Um. I know of (friend of a friend) a guy with the personal first name Mehdi, a variant spelling of Mahdi - and he's in high school. So I suppose it could just be another name or something. If you were Ahmadinejad would you use the conventional form of your name in your DNS registration? (Hence the broken last name.)

Or perhaps it's a family member.

Re:Whois infomation

[Krojack]

Just like them to curse our ways and all then turn around and use our tools and ways to better their lives..

Alternate link

[Anonymous Coward]

In case the site gets slashdotted, you can read all about it here

Is there an easier way?

[krell]

"Little did you know that because of the Patriot Act, anybody who visits that site is automatically tagged by an FBI database. They will now begin to track all your phone calls, intercept your emails, and monitor your credit card transactions."

That's cool. I bought a book (using my credit card) from an online bookstore a few weeks ago, and never received the book. I forgot the web site link. Now it's nice to know I call call up the FBI and have them tell me what the site was. I might use it also to find out that phone number I misplaced of that guy who called me about the car. But there should be an easier way to sign up for this convenient service other than clicking on Iranian blog links.

Re:Georg Greve blogged this - it's MS and it's dow

[KiloByte]

I've seen a similar view. I've been to IOI'96 -- a guy from the Iranian team actually defended the censorship, claiming they have only a single 56k link (as of 1996) for the whole country on purpose! For them, faulty software/network has its benefits as it pulls people away from the "American way of life".

Syndication

[skamp]

I'm surprised his weblog doesn't have an Atom feed. His engineers must still be working on it...

Re:Syndication

[clickclickdrone]

Oh for a +2 humnour mod point!

Blog includes a nice vuln, too

[blueZ3]

According to this blog (http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadin ejad-trying-to-infect.html) it looks like propaganda isn't the only thing the Iranian President is trying to spread. It looks like visitors (from Isreal only) using IE are getting a nice little installer attempt. Wonder what it does :-)

FDR wanna-be?

[tonycarboni]

It's the Ahmadinejad fireside blog, so you can feel better about World War... I mean the War on Terror.

Re:When do /. ers get a new poll?

[d_54321]

When on earth to we get a new poll
We ton't get one until we can spell "do."

The original version

[clickclickdrone]

Monday: Started my new blog. It's kewl!
Tuesday: Run out of things to say. Keep getting hassled by Americans telling me to westernise or die. Total drag.
Wednesday: Seems to be some sort of spat next door. Hope they don't lob any missiles my way.
Thursday: Man I love Battlestar Galactica. Double episode tonight!
Friday: Pizza! Maybe some behadings later.
Saturday: Bit sunny. Not bad. Got some emails from my buddy GWB saying be cool.
Sunday: Had a lie in. Just found out some Brit paper has been reading this blog so I'd better start thinking of something more interesting.
Monday: Hot damn, slashdotted. Server down for a bit but OK now. Will rewrite this later with some cool scary stuff to make the Americans tremble with fear like I'm some sort of extremist. heh heh!

Re:The original version

[Treeluvinhippy]

Thursday: Man I love Battlestar Galactica. Double episode tonight!

Ironic choice of a TV show, since BSG is essentially a sci-fi metaphor of the Jews leaving Egypt and searching for the Promised Land.

Bad link

[blueZ3]

Sorry. Try this:

http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html

Oh look

[d_54321]

A poll on his site:

a- Mohock jallom dirka dirka
or
b- Jihad mullah dirka allah dirka dirka jihad.

Hmm. I think I'll choose the dirka one.

Fleeing from the Zion tyranny....

[krell]

"Thursday: Man I love Battlestar Galactica. Double episode tonight!"

This one's pretty popular in Iran after the dubbers made sure to replace the word "Cylon" with the Farsi term for "Jew".

Start a World War?

[twitter]

Malhmold is not the only person who thinks the goals were larger than humiliating Hezbolla. Some say the Bush administration wanted Syria and Iran. Conquering that much of the middle east might indeed have triggered a war with Russia, Turkey and even China and Europe. It's a good thing that did not happen, but there's still time for Israel's incompetent and murderous military leaders to blunder themselves into a wider conflict. All they have to do is provoke Syria on the new border.

Re:Start a World War?

[ScentCone]

Malhmold is not the only person who thinks the goals were larger than humiliating Hezbolla.

What are you talking about? The Israelis never said they want to humiliate them. They said they want to crush them, disarm them, and remove them from the south of the country they're infesting with the militants and arms that are supplied by Iran through Syria (and which are so routinely shot at Israel).

The UN's years-old resolution for the disarming of Hezbollah is completely toothless and has achieved nothing. The Lebanese police and military have been not allowed to enter or influence events in the south of their own country because the foreign-backed militants there are too powerful. Dedicated to the destruction of a neighboring country, and completely unworried about the UN doing anything about them, is it any wonder that the Israelis decided that the latest cross-border attack killing a group of their soldiers and dragging two more back into Lebanon was the last straw? It's not about humiliating them (especially since they have no shame) - it's about stopping them. Permanently.

If anyone needs humiliating, it's their proxy sponsor, Iran.

Re:Start a World War?

[krell]

"It's a good thing that did not happen, but there's still time for Israel's incompetent and murderous military leaders "

That's it. Keep blaming the victims.

Re:Start a World War?

[dfenstrate]

It's not about humiliating them (especially since they have no shame) - it's about stopping them.

Forgive the following tangent....

Oh, they have shame, and they are very much humiliated, and that's a big part of the problem.

Arab culture, from what I understand, is very face/shame based. Intertwine that with Islam, which quite often militant professes it's the one true faith and the Muslims are the chosen among Allah's people or whatever, and you get pretty big problems.

See, it's very humiliating to think you're straight with your God, but be the losers in the world. For the most part, Arab/Muslim economies are underdeveloped or largely subsistent on oil sales or foreign aid. They make little themselves, but they have an insatiable appetite for all the western toys they've been exposed to, but cannot produce.

They consider Jews to be 'apes and pigs', yet for 2 generations and counting they have not been able to purge their little slice of the world of Israel, despite grossly outnumbering them. That's pretty humiliating.

The one thing they do have going for them- oil- they can't even get out of the ground without westerners and their technology.

Muslim Arabs are bested at every turn, and this humiliates them because of their face/shame based culture. Combined with the fact that they embrace a religeon that says 'this is the one true way, all others must submit to dhimmi status or be killed', and you get a bunch of violence.

On top of that access to women is also a huge problem. They keep their women more or less locked up and away from men, where they might have a taming effect as seen in the west. Moreover, the fact that you still see polygamy and honor killings over there means that the supply of women is somewhat short, so there is a good chance some young men will never get a women. Unmarried young men are often the biggest source of trouble in any society, and what better way to get rid of them than to send them off to some sort of war?

Finally, because of their lack of women, they frequently turn to sodomizing boys for their pleasure. No, I am not joking, trolling, or flamebaiting. Homosexuality is a capital crime, yes, but since pre-pubescent boys aren't 'men', a blind eye is turned frequently turned to the practive. Search for 'pedastry', 'pedophilia', 'muslim' or 'arab' if you don't believe me, before you respond.

So, you have the following pool from which to draw terrorists: sexually abused, humiliated, womenless young men. Don't you think anyone could find some suicide bombers among such a group?

Re:Start a World War?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it. Keep blaming the victims.

No one is blaming the Lebanese nor the Palestinians.

Re:Start a World War?

[krell]

Those two groups are the aggressors: the instigators of the violence.

Re:Start a World War?

[Anonymous Coward]

The (unprovoked) instigators are the Israelies, the victims are the Lebanese and the Palestinians. The Israelies have not been innocent bystanders in conflict in the middle east in many decades. For the past 30 or so years the Israelies have chosen territory (and dropping bombs on civilians) over peace*.

* In all fairness, it's not clear to me how independent the Israelie government is from the US government. We do largely pay all of their bills and hold most of their purse strings.

Re:Start a World War?

[arbarbonif]

This is interesting. I haven't heard a 'face/honor' basis for suicide bombers before. I may have to look into this.

But alas, I have no mod points for you.

Re:Start a World War?

[Mistah Blue]

Quite interesting... too bad I don't have mod points.

Re:Start a World War?

[Krojack]

I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood the part where Israel was sitting on its side of the border minding its own business and hezbollah came across and kill 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 more. If thats not "unprovoked" then what is?

Re:Start a World War?

[Krojack]

This would explain why hezbollah is shouting that it "WON" this war when in fact no one won, but they can't be seen that way.. its a win or lose.. and the only way they lose is if you kill every last one of them so there arn't any left to dance in the street shouting they won.

And yes I feel bad that innocent people died but I won't cry over them because they saw it coming and were warned to leave. No one is crying over the hundreds of thousands that died in england, france, russia, germany and other countries that had their cities bombed to rubble cuz of the nazi war machine.

Re:Start a World War?

[krell]

"I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood the part where Israel was sitting on its side of the border minding its own business and hezbollah came across and kill 8 soldiers and kidnapped 2 more. If thats not "unprovoked" then what is?"

To these antisemites, Jews provoke such reactions just by being alive. To them, there is no such thing as a Jewish victim.

working now it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to this blog site earlier, about 8:30 am EST, and got the 'no default page set' error, then under construction errors, etc etc.

Man, I would hate to be the sysadmin for HIS blog host...

Been There, Seen That

[N8F8]

I remember those supposed "blogs" from politicians before. Most are merely static sites put up to add a checkbox on someones list. Politicians are too busy unplugging the internet pipes to actually bother posting.

Trolls

[It's the tripnaut!]

Voices in Iran have no other medium to publicize their dissensions other than the Internet. This is one site where, hopefully, trolls will be heard out and not modded down. The chances of this happening are, of course, rather remote.

everyone is eating it up

[superwiz]

This guy has NO power. He is there to be a colorful distraction from the guy who really controls the country. His power is a little less than that of a US VP. He just happens to say outrageous things and the media eats it up instead of reporting on the real problems that are caused by the people actually running Iran -- the religious military dictatorship with the Ayatolla at its lead.

What's the point of interviewing a jokester and asking him what his vision is when his vision has as much to do with the running of the country as that of a press-secretary. The guy likes writting letters. That's why he was allowed to run for this postion. And, since he was the only one really allowed to run, he won. He is not the modern day Hitler. Hitler was a power-hungry maniac. This guy has no power. He just thinks he is so eloquent that he can convince people that black is white. Noone with guns in Iran reports to him. So he is irrelevant.

Re:everyone is eating it up

[WhiplashII]

Noone with guns in Iran reports to him. So he is irrelevant.

In the US or pre-Hitler Germany, you would be correct. The only people in those countries ready to kill people are in the military - and they would need a plausible reason to do so. Iran is different - Ayotolla controls the armies, but the president controlls the terrorists through his retoric. And terrorism is the problem, not the Iranian guard.

The pen is mightier than the sword, etc.

Re:everyone is eating it up

[superwiz]

I still think that he is in the position he is in because he was put there. He might be a good orator, but that is why is allowed to orate. All that makes him is a very good press secretary. We should put the blame where it belongs -- the regime. By going after the joker the press only gives the Ayatolahs a free hand.

Re:everyone is eating it up

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy has NO power.
His power is a little less than that of a US VP.

Well which one is it?

Re:everyone is eating it up

[superwiz]

They are synonymous. US VP's power is limited to breaking ties in case of a 50-50 Senate vote.... and to cheerleading. The president of Iran is just a cheerleader.

ironic?

[Enrique1218]

I wouldn't call it censorship and Iran President new blog ironic. Iran is authoritarian society and I call it par for the course. In Iran, you expect the president to talk and the people to listen, not the other way around. The true irony is that it is not much different in the US. Unlike in Iran, we can talk our mouths dry. Yet, our President (or our Congress, for that matter) just choose not to listen.

Website down already

[motiz88]

I've been closely following this AhmadineBlog since yesterday (trying to conduct some, er, security research on it). The website (hosted with nisn.ir) appears to have been disabled even before the /. post - now it redirects to NISN's home page.

Also: There's a lesson here about how a totalitarian regime can only survive by pretending to be something else ("freedom is slavery" and vice versa).

Comments?

[dlim]

That's odd... I see a form to "Add New Commenct", but can't find the Commencts section on the page. Clicking "Show All" just closes the form. Anyone else having problems with that feature?

Well, not a show...

[Anonymous Coward]

But how about a movie http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.2 0060812.NOTE12-4/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Movies/

Ahmadinejad's Blog tries to infect Israeli PCs

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahmadinejad's blog tries to exploit the "HTTP MS IE File DragDrop Embed Code" vulnerability to infect the PCs from Israel that visit the page.

More info:
http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html/

Long-range weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's something to ask yourself: Iran already has missles that can reach Israel. (Less advanced missles were fired from Iraq onto Israel back in the first Gulf War.) Why does Iran keep trying to create longer-range missiles? In particular, missiles that can reach London and Paris?

Javascript?

[Anonymous Coward]

With javascript off I get...

"To view the site you shuold enable Javascript!"

Someone's head will roll for that...

Holocaust deniers

[Chemisor]

In case anyone is wondering what this "denial of Holocaust" is all about and what exactly is being denied, there is a summary available.

You want his words, here they are

[Anonymous Coward]

From here:

"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

"'Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world.

"'In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight.

"'I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable.

The phrase "purged from the center of the Islamic world" is pretty damn close to "wiped off the map".

So much for your apology for genocide.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[14CharUsername]

Back in the middle ages european crusaders created a Kingdom of Jerusalem. This kingdom was purged from the Islamic world without the use of genocide.

You have to remember that we think of Jews in terms of the Nazis and the holocaust. People in the middle east think of them in terms of western crusaders invading the holy land.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[krell]

"You have to remember that we think of Jews in terms of the Nazis and the holocaust. People in the middle east think of them in terms of western crusaders invading the holy land."

The Jew-hating terrorists (Hamas, Hesbollah, Iran, etc) also think of them in terms close to those of Nazis and the holocaust. Their teachings and proclamations are filled with references to the inferiority and moral failings of Jews as a whole (and as individuals), without regard to "Western"-ness. The Palestinian government, as such, was closely allied to actual Nazi Germany during the 1940s.

"Back in the middle ages european crusaders created a Kingdom of Jerusalem. This kingdom was purged from the Islamic world without the use of genocide"
That's because there were only a few for the Muslims to murder. That Kingdom was a colony with a few governors, so to speak. It wasn't an entire nation living there. This is much different from the Israel situation, where they'd have to murder millions of Jews in order to "get rid of" the nation of Israel. The genocide by which the Arab invaders came into possession of Jerusalem in the first place (way before the Crusades) should be mentioned too (as long as you are going back in history)

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Anonymous Coward]

This is much different from the Israel situation, where they'd have to murder millions of Jews in order to "get rid of" the nation of Israel.

Right. We should not "get rid of" Israel.

Instead, we should require Israel to renounce ansolutely all racial, religious and ethnic discrimination. This would include giving the Palestinians full citizenship and changing Israel's name to something ethnically neutral (eg. "Mediterrania").

Isreal would still exist and no one would be murdered. Of course, Israel wouldn't be on the map anymore and it wouldn't have a Jewish majority. On the other hand, unless you believe in racial discrimination and segregation then you shouldn't want any country to try to segregate itself along racial or ethnic lines and you shouldn't want it to discriminate in any other way, either (eg. what it calls itself).

Re:You want his words, here they are

[quigonn]

The Palestinian government, as such, was closely allied to actual Nazi Germany during the 1940s.
And do you know why? Because the Germans, unlike the British, didn't treat the Arabs like shit. Antisemitism wasn't a problem at that time in Palestine, simply because there was no single ethnic group that claimed _exclusive_ ownership of the area that is now Israel. I think Theodor Herzl wouldn't be too happy with the way Israel has been implemented and Israel's policy of the last decades. In his book "Der Judenstaat" he even wrote that goodwill between Jews and Arabs is a precondition to a successful Jewish state.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[quax]

Don't want to make Iran look good, but believing in a ahistoric analogy won't help you either - as such you may want to take into account that Iran still has a sizable Jewish population that is free to exercise their religion http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html.

The anti-Zionism found in the Arab ME does not follow the pattern of a Nazi ideology that was racially motivated - nothing but the destruction of the inferior race will do in the mind of a convinced Nazi. The Qur'an on the other hand recognizes the other theistic religions - Judaism and Christianity - and mandates tolerance towards them.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[krell]

"Antisemitism wasn't a problem at that time in Palestine"

It was a big problem at that time, going all the way back to when the Arabs invaded and conquered the place. There were numerous pograms in the area in the first half of the 20th century.

" simply because there was no single ethnic group that claimed _exclusive_ ownership of the area that is now Israel."

Well, the British claimed ownership. Before them, the Ottomans, and before them the Arab empire.


Why wouldn't he? All they have done is fight back against numerous ongoing genocide attempts.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[krell]

"you may want to take into account that Iran still has a sizable Jewish population that is free to exercise their religion http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html [sephardicstudies.org]."

That is not a "fact". Iran is officially an Islamic state. This means that anyone who does not worship the Muslim god can go to hell. Jews and other non-Muslims are denied equal participation in society. They remain 2nd class citizens unless they convert to Islam.

"The anti-[Semitism] found in the Arab ME does not follow the pattern of a Nazi ideology that was racially motivated"

It merely substitutes rabid hatred based on race with rabid hatred based on religion. It's pretty much the same thing. I substituted "semitism" for "Zionism" in your sentence because it all boils down to hatred of Jews, and was around long before the "Zionist" movement.

"The Qur'an on the other hand recognizes the other theistic religions - Judaism and Christianity - and mandates tolerance towards them."

Like with any religion, there's a difference between the best selectively-culled ideals of "The Book" and what happens in practice. The history of Islam is one of horrific antisemitism. Arabia (Saudi Arabia) once had a sizable Jewish population until Muhammad (the founder of Islam) himself ordered all of them killed off. In keeping with Muslim teachings, being Jewish has pretty much been illegal in Arabia ever since. The "tolerance" for other faiths as per Islam was typically expressed in the destruction or desecration of most Jewish, Christian, etc places of worship once conquered by Muslims, and also in such matters as the fact that Jews had to play a special tax just for being Jewish, under the law of the old Muslim empire.

This is not "tolerance" except in the way that blacks were "tolerated" under Jim Crow and the KKK.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[krell]

"Instead, we should require Israel to renounce ansolutely all racial, religious and ethnic discrimination. This would include giving the Palestinians full citizenship and changing Israel's name to something ethnically neutral (eg. "Mediterrania")."

Other than the name change, that is pretty much what you have. Freedom to worship (or NOT worship at all) is present and protected. Israel is actually one of the few countries that grants full citizenship to its Palestinian citizens. Other countries like Lebanon and Syria imprison them in "refugee camps", even those native-born Syrian/ Lebanese citizens of Palestinian descent.

"Isreal would still exist and no one would be murdered."

Yet, it would be (as it is now) a secular state, one in which Muslims are free to be whatever kind of Muslim they want, or even quit Islam altogether (and the same freedom goes for the other faiths). This sort of religious freedom is anethema to the terrorists. The terrorists come in two overlapping groups: those who believe that Israel should be dominated and run by Arabs, and those who believe that it should be dominated and run by Muslims. The Iranians, who are non-Arabs, are in the latter group. A system that does not have complete Arab ethnic dominion and/or strict rule of Islamic laws as national policy will not appease any of them..

"Of course, Israel wouldn't be on the map anymore and it wouldn't have a Jewish majority."

The majority of the citizens there are Jewish at this time. Maybe things will change at a much later time, but merely changing the name does not change cold hard demographics.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[quax]

Just a quick comment on style: It'll help your argument if you provide some links to unbiased sources to back up the points you make.

It also does not help to argue against straw-man arguments that I did not make. I did not claim that Jews or Christians have the same rights as Muslims in Iran nor did I state tht they enjoy equal participation in society. I was merely pointing out that there is Jewish community in Iran and that they are free to practice their religion and that is indeed a fact.

"It merely substitutes rabid hatred based on race with rabid hatred based on religion. It's pretty much the same thing."

If you fail to see the difference in degree than I guess I am indeed wasting my breath. Race as defined by a Nazi ideology is a immutable attribute of an individual. In a Nazi's mind this person can not be converted to anything to make him "better" and is inborn inferior and only extermination is the cure.

Not all evil is created equal. In failing to differentiate you weaken yourself and diminish your chances of fighting it intelligently.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel is actually one of the few countries that grants full citizenship to its Palestinian citizens.

Well, yes, by definition Israel grants citizenship to it's citizens.

It has not, however, granted citizenship to the Palestinians in the land that it controls (eg. the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank) nor has it allowed Palestinians in refugee camps in other countries the right to return and become full citizens. This, despite the fact that it claims to believe in the principle that if someone has ancestors from hundreds or even thousands of years ago that lived in the region then they have a "right" to return.

Speaking of discrimination, only allowing someone to "return" to Israel if they're Jewish is on the same level as only allowing someone to live in a particular neighborhood (or drink out of a particular drinking fountain) if they're white.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[krell]

"It also does not help to argue against straw-man arguments that I did not make. I did not claim that Jews or Christians have the same rights as Muslims in Iran nor did I state tht they enjoy equal participation in society. I was merely pointing out that there is Jewish community in Iran and that they are free to practice their religion and that is indeed a fact."

The first sentence is contradicted by the second one. If the government punishes you and takes away some of your rights if you practice a certain religion, you aren't very "free" to practice it, are you?

"If you fail to see the difference in degree than I guess I am indeed wasting my breath."

You are indeed wasting your breath if you are trying to claim any sort of fundamental difference between hatred based on the victim's race and hatred based on the victim's religion.

" In a Nazi's mind this person can not be converted to anything to make him "better" and is inborn inferior and only extermination is the cure."

Even this most superficial of differences goes away if the victim says "No, I will NOT convert" and ends up being killed just like the ones being killed for being of the wrong "race".

"Not all evil is created equal. In failing to differentiate you weaken yourself and diminish your chances of fighting it intelligently."

The differences between these type of "evil" are superficial, and the two are exactly equal in their "evilness". I recognize the difference in definitions, but that does not make one any better (less evil) than the other.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[quigonn]

The British didn't claim _exclusive_ ownership. They added it as "yet another colony" to their Empire, but they didn't drive away the people who lived there. Nor did the Ottomans. In fact, the Ottomans empire's success was that they respected local cultures and integrated local structures into their governance system. And they gave Christians and Jews their "free space" where they could practice their religions. Same with the Arabs (just look at the situation of religious freedom before and after the Reconquista was finished).

Re:You want his words, here they are

[plague3106]

The Qur'an on the other hand recognizes the other theistic religions - Judaism and Christianity - and mandates tolerance towards them.

Hmm.. I've heard this both ways now. Some claim as you, others claim that it says you must first try to convert, then make a slave of (if they refuse to convert), and then finally kill (if they refused to become a slave) anyone that doesn't believe as they do.

Too bad I don't know the language its written in..

Re:You want his words, here they are

[killjoe]

"purged from the center of the Islamic world"

Purged from the center of the islamic world means moved to someplace else. He has already asked both Germany and the US to host the nation of israel. Nevertheless they both refused, they don't want the state of israel in their midst any more then anybody else does. The arabs got it and now they are stuck with it. Sucks for them.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[killjoe]

"Jews and other non-Muslims are denied equal participation in society. They remain 2nd class citizens unless they convert to Islam. "

THis is the same as muslims in israel. They don't enjoy full rights as jews do. For example they can be denied housing. They are treated differently in the courts.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Procrastin8er]

By Tolerance I assume you mean wear little badges that show you are not a muslim, like the ones you must wear in Iran...Sounds familiahr doesn't it.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Jews are in Iranian parliament?
Whereas in Israeli Knesset, there are 10 Arab representatives (out of 120 members).

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, talk about missing the point...

Someone mentions selective interpretation and misquotation, and your solution is to bring up MEMRI as a better source? Nice.

Did you first consider quoting a Mossad document directly, but thought it might be a little too obvious?

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Tiro]

Compare Khomeini's rhetorical bloviation with the actions of Israel, which literally wiped much of Lebanon off the map.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[quax]

No offense intended but you really are the ultimate poster boy for black and white thinking.

Exhibit A:

Even this most superficial of differences goes away if the victim says "No, I will NOT convert" and ends up being killed just like the ones being killed for being of the wrong "race".

Let's repeat this one more time: There is a sizeable Jewish community in Iran that indeed is not willing to convert, but yet they are not killed by the Iranian government. And that is what is meant by having the freedom to practice their religion.

It does not equate being free from discrimination on a religious basis Yet it is infinitely better than an eliminationistic ideology that employs all the government's resources to systematically kill humans like cattle. The fact that you can not see the difference is frankly startling and a little bit frightening. It is the difference between being dead or leading a fairly complete life practicing your religion in the open. How can you brush aside a difference so fundamental as life and death as superficial? It is like arguing that a kidnapper who does not kill is as bad as a murderer. Both are criminals but there is a reason why the law punishes them differently.

What it means is that you do not recognize that the situation can still get much worse for Jews in Iran. It follows that you do not understand that a policy that truly has the best interest of minority Iranians at heart has to be very well thought out so that it won't terribly back-fire.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Jagasian]

Are Jews and non-Jews given the same opportunity in Israel for immigration and citizenship? No. Can a Jew and a non-Jew be legally married in Israel? No. If an Israeli Muslim marries a Palestinian, can the Palestinian gain Israeli citizenship? No. There are many laws in Israel that discriminate against non-Jews. Most of these laws are in place due to Israel's official stated purpose: to forever remain a Jewish nation. If Jews and non-Jews were given total equality, then more non-Jews would immigrate than Jews, more non-Jews would be born than Jews, etc... The population, culuture, and government would slowly become non-Jewish.

Compare that with the USA. The first ammendment alone forbids such laws. So the USA is secular, while Israel is not. This isn't talked about much in the West, because criticizing Israel is not politically correct in many Western nations, especially the USA.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[quax]

This is a myth that has been thouroughly debunked.

Jewish Iran ex-pats have also spoken up to dispell this nonsense.

The original legislation is actually online but it is in Persian.

bablesfish won't help there :) http://www.ilna.ir/shownews.asp?code=305929&code1= 11

Enough independant scholars have combed over it to not leave a doubt that the "badge for Jews" story was a complete fabrication. What the legislation actually tries to promote is native Iranian clothing styles to strengthen the Iranian textile industry.

Nice try on your part though :-) Want to play some more?

Re:You want his words, here they are

[killjoe]

Why does that matter? They still don't have the same rights as jews.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[RevAaron]

I'm not accusing you of this sort of attitude per se, but your post hints at it, though there are many folks who think it, even if you don't...

Why the hell should I have to pick a side? Zionist or Islamist? I think the Khomeini's ideal world is wrong. The actions of Israel are wrong. I think crimes perpetrated by various theocratic Islamist regimes are wrong. But then again, I think the crimes perpetrated by all states, religious or not, made up of constituent individuals of all religions, nationalities and ethnicities. I am against actions I consider to be immoral.

Just because I condemn Israel doesn't mean I am waving a Hezbollah flag.
Just because I think the Palestinians should have their own soverign nation on the west bank doesn't mean I want Israel gone.
Just because I support Israel's right to exist doesn't mean I condone Israel killing civillians left and right.
Just because I think that if I had to pick a country to live in the Middle East, I'd pick Israel doesn't mean they are a perfect society.

Why do people insist on being so black and white? I'm sure I'll catch flak for it, but I consider myself a revolutionary left libertarian. So much of the left seems to have some sort of black-and-white disorder- they seem to think that if you think what Israel is doing in Lebanon and has done in various places in the past is wrong that you should put on a keffiyah and yell "Allah ackbar!" at protests. Maybe your average Trotskyist engaging in these kinds of activities forgot the basis of their espoused political philosophy, but I personally am against repressive, oppressive, fundamentalist theocratic regimes, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, etc.

Sorry about the long rambling post... No one is likely going to read it! :D

Re:You want his words, here they are

[rtb61]

How far do people want to reach back, nah, you see it was all the Minoans fault, they started everything, it was and always will be their fault, why else would their capital blow up (well, I can't pick on the neanderthals otherwise people will think I'm specist).

What was, was, people need to focus on what 'is' and the crimes currently being committed and apprehending and prosecuting those currently committing crimes. Pursing dead criminals is truly an exersize in futility, sure, politicians love to pursue it along with cries of nationalism, as a means of winning votes but that doesn't bring value to modern socio political discourse and seeking peaceful resolutions.

No secular state should ever bog itself down in the arguments between religious states, as religious states by definition are racist and prejudiced (one culture takes legal precedence over any another culture within that society) and by law secular states are forbidden from participating in or supporting those practices. Governments are about bureaucracy and administration not the interpretation of religious faiths, which through out history, when it has occurred, has only led to abuse.

Re:You want his words, here they are

[Tiro]

I think your post is sensible. The one thing that came out of the Lebanon disaster was that Israel and Hezbollah were both shown to be led by morons.

However, in my post I was trying to address the excessive demonization of Ahmenijad. People should keep his place in perspective, he does not even have a very powerful role in the Iranian system of government.

The Bush administration would like to send a revolutionary army into Iran, and that would end in disaster for both the US and Iran. They are trying to rally their base by demonizing Iran, and there are a lot of lies and half-truths being put on the airwaves, especially on talk radio, that follows their talking points.

No. It just sounds bad. Period.

[krell]

"He's also said a couple of times that Israel should be "wiped off the map.", which sounds bad, until you read..."

No, it just sounds bad, period. You just can't put a happy face on demand for ethnic cleansing / genocide.

"he wants to wipe the state of Israel off the map, not it's inhabitants"

And when the inhabitants refuse to get into the cattle-cars, never mind that the inhabitants themselves get "wiped out" for standing up for themselves. The same sort of language was used by Serbia in its wars against Kosovo and Bosnia...and plenty of inhabitants were killed there.

Re:No. It just sounds bad. Period.

[timmyf2371]

Well, all Iran would need to do is drop leaflets over Israel advising the citizens of the bombing campaign and telling them to move out. That way they can be sure that only hostile military forces remain.

After all, that was what Israel found to be an acceptable solution when they tried to wipe Lebanon off the map.

And the most disturbing post was...

[bladerunner009]

"All your Al Queda base are belong to me!"

Re:And the most disturbing post was...

[eosp]

Um...Al-Qaida means "The Base"...how funny is that?

oh joy

[mgabrys_sf]

This should be interesting for all of 2 minutes before it's "haxxored" into the ground. I'm also sure that any federal authorities would be interested in anyone linking to it as well because the department of homeland security is pretty savvy on all things internet to be sure and wouldn't be prone to over-reacting in the slightest.

But, for me - I'm looking forward to the sheer gross tonnage of parody sites that will emerge and the humor that they'll bring. Don't let me down folks!

I can save him a great deal of time...

[shadwwulf]

...by just creating an include "blogposts.txt" in the middle of a php page along with this script running as a cron job:

echo "Posted on: `date` Death to America and the rest of the world that isn't me!" >> blogposts.txt

Zionist conspiracy

[dskoll]

www.president.ir runs PHP, which as we all know, originated in the Evil Zionist Entity.

Therefore, Ahmadinejad has decided to convict himself on treason charges and execute himself.

I can't wait to read his 8.22.06 Entry.

[GigG]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768/

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

LOONS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yada. Yada. Yada.

The above statement was uttered from another pathetic sack of shit from another "secret remote location" somewhere in the desert. Another in a tired series of "Notice Me!" nonsensical prattle from displaced mutants streamed over Al-Jazeera television. "Coming up next after 'Camel Races from Qatar' another anti-Semitic rant from your friends at al-Qaeda! Take it away, Skip!" - "Tyrannical Western Civilization! Blessed Allah! Death! Vengeance! Holy this! Sacred that! Blah. Blah. Blah." Retread. Cry wolf. Really sad.

The latest grainy and haunting video of a riled-up Ayman al-Zawahri comes complete with images of the World Trade Center burning and a portrait of Mohammed Atef hanging dramatically behind him. Trouble is Atef has been dead since November of 2001, and well, 9/11 was a few months prior to that and nearly five years ago now. I'm no trend-spotter and I rarely check the pop culture meter to see what's hot and what's not, but seems to me like we have ourselves a washed-up entity trying desperately to hone in on the new hot commodity: Hezbollah.

Let's face it; al-Qaeda has a little David Lee Roth thing going on.

Much to the chagrin of the bin Laden clan, Hezbollah is front-page news right now. They have managed something the PLO, Hamas, and even their own hate-mongering coffee klatch could not accomplish - wake the sleeping lion Israel. That had to raise the collective ire over in the caves of Afghanistan: "We're the baddest! We're the tops on the terrorist hit list! Remember Spain? Remember London? What about 9/11? Look over here! Despise us! Shower us with fear!"

Okay, so now, predictably, al-Qaeda has thrown its turban into the ring over this IDF kill-fest. Why not? Anytime anything happens anywhere in the terrorist realm they take credit. We even talk about this has-been clique as if it is still a threat, in and of itself. Truth is al-Qaeda is so 2001. Give it up. The whole thing reminds me of Britney Spears, who was at her nubile jail-bate best in '01, and is now an ebony-quaffed pregnant white-trash harpy.

These guys cling to 9/11 as some kind of super-victory. C'mon already, 9/11 was a half-decade ago. Sarah Silverman is even goofing on it now: "American Airlines should advertise they were 'first through the towers'." If it weren't for the Bush Administration or Ann Coulter it would be ancient history by now. This reminds me of driving down Northern Blvd. in 1993 and seeing an aging sign celebrating the 1986 Mets. Enough already. Let's see some action and less yapping from these idiots.

What have you done to us lately?

"Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny," al-Zawahri continued. "Stand with us as we stand with you against this injustice that was forbidden by God in his book."

Notice the desperate cry for attention to cash in, connect his merry band of yesterday's news with the current crisis: "Stand with Muslims?" "Stand with us?"

Muslims = Us. This is akin to the Jerry Falwells of the world talking about their voodoo shit as if their myopic fantasies gel with the rest of Christendom.

This is the fatal flaw in being a revolutionary; you have to matter. You have to be in the spotlight. It's over for al Qaeda. They had their time. No one wants to hear from Ayman al-Zawahri anymore than they want to "Get Jiggy". It's over. Time to hate someone who matters.

Now Al Jazeera is another kettle of trout. They are a happening media event right now. Go where the action is, that's what I say.

To that end I recently contacted the advertising department of the station through Allied Media, which makes a pretty convincing argument about placing your ad campaign in their hands: "Al Jazeera is the largest and most controversial Arabic News Channel in the Middle East, offering news coverage 24 hours a day from around the world and focusing on the hottest regions of conflict. With programming focusing primarily on news coverage and analysis, the station has earned the loyalty of a l

Re:Why not? Press distorts!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully some of you caught his interview with Mike Wallace on 60 minutes yesterday... If not, here is a transcript -

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minute s/main1879867.shtml

Ahmadinejad++
Wallace--

Can someone post the english page, or en rss?

[gte910h]

I'd love to put this in my RSS feed. I am curious about this raw input into the political process.

don't view it with IE

[antibryce]

Apparently it tries to seize control of PCs using IE. Currently it looks like it's just targetting Israelis but I wouldn't take the risk.

Friendly fire

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many of his readers in Israel are actually Palestinian?

Oh yeah, that excuses war.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kill that 5-year-old Crusader!"

If your post is accurate, it just points out that Islam is stuck in the Middle Ages.

WARNING IE users!!

[minus_273]

Warning to IE users, the blog uses a backdoor to infect IE users. nice going slashdot. you've just helped propagate a bot net by posting the link on the front page..

Site is gone

[fractalVisionz]

The site is gone (well from what it used to be), we successfully slashdotted Iran. Woot.

I was hoping...

[Lazarian]

he would have gotten a MySpace page.

I'll tell you what he is...

[rolandog]

he's a page rank whore!

Let me explain the difference

[Bryansix]

I never forget Imam Khomeini's speeches during those years which was very persuasive and appealing. You would hear the strong faith to Almighty God in his orations. He invited the people to pure Islam. His message was invitation to the belief of monotheism- Unity and Oneness of God- and also justice, elimination of oppression, injustice and sedition in the world. He was courageous and had a valiant heart. He spoke firmly and securely. His orations were simple and honest. The people accepted his guidance sincerely. Due to these characteristics, he was a beloved leader for every individuals-young or elderly.

I read this and I think, what makes these people so different from the United States and its leaders who want seemingly the same thing only in reference to Christianity? Well, let me explain it so everyone can understand. The sect of Islam that is followed in Iran has no problem converting people through force and if they do not convert, well you know what happens. Shi 'a Islam is the national religion and the law is based upon it. No dissent is allowed.

In the US we see things differently. Even though elected leaders may hold onto faith so strongly that it affects the laws that are passed, there is no state religion. More importantly though, none of the currently followed sects of Christianity in this country find any value in converting people through violence. My beliefs are (and they are echoed thoughout this country) that accepting Christ is a personal decision that nobody can convince you to make. You have to want to accept Christ or it is meaningless. If this idea was present in Islam there would not be the problems that we have now. Islam and Christianity could co-exist if this one idea was widely held in the Middle East. Now there are sects of Islam that reject violence but they are not popular in the Middle East and only really flourish in the freedom that they find in the United States.

Re:Let me explain the difference

[nordicfrost]

Go read From the holy mountain by W. Dalrymple and be amazed at the similarities in Islam and Christianity. Jesus (No pun intended), they even share the same saints!

Re:Let me explain the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only three sects of Islam which are Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadi. Also they have nothing to do with violence; they have to do with who was the rightful heir to Mohammed.

What you are refering to is the political interpretations of a religion and not a religion itself. People tend to forget that Christians used to kill people if they didn't convert to Christianity. Also during this time Islam lived in relative peace with fellow Arabian Jews and Christians.
The anti-Semitic and anti-Christian feelings in the Middle East are a somewhat modern phenomena. Mainly created through the Israel-Palestine conflict and years of colonialization by Western powers.

Re:Let me explain the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a new revolation to you or are you just that stupid? Or are you saying since both religions share some of the same key figures and writings that they are non-different? Either way get your head out of your ass. Either that or troll elsewhere, whatever the case may be.

Re:Let me explain the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though elected leaders may hold onto faith so strongly that it affects the laws that are passed, there is no state religion

Come to Utah. All your fears will be absolved. God bless.

Re:Let me explain the difference

[Mistah Blue]

My friend, there are no similarities... and if you think there are, you have been misled by the Muslims.

VIRUS Warning

[dougman]

Link on the left of the new blog pops a "HTTP MS IE File DragDrop Embed Code" in Norton. Is this intentional or not? You decide.

Check out http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html

Re:VIRUS Warning

[zxking]

Well, earlier today I learnt how to use XSS vulnerabilities to hack websites and the Iranian President launches a blog written in PHP that accepts user input.

Guess I have to test all this knowledge on something. Maybe I will find

اسراءيل تعتزم الهجوم

Good luck figuring what all this UNICODE stands for.

Re:VIRUS Warning

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought he might like a big "I (L) Isreal" on his site, or maybe a nice GNAA Troll, I'm sure if there is one thing ahmadinejad would love it would be American "Gay Niggers"...

Thrown Into The Sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have religious leaders proclaim that killing jews, wherever they are, is not only permitted, but also a duty
When you have people saying that the Israelis should be thrown into the sea
When you have people as young as 15 (women as well) strapping bombs on themselves and blowing themselves up on a bus or in a market
When you have kindergarden children being taught to hate Jews (you should watch this movie

Well, then I guess your idea of peaceful-purging takes on a new meaning.

Next thing you'll be telling me that Islam is a religion of peace.

Re:Thrown Into The Sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your damn facts straight. Read, actually *read* the Qur'an and read the verses that supposedly call for killing of all non-muslims and read the verses around them (not just the one sentance that is constantly taken out of context). Your kind of ignorance is extremely dangerous because it operates by word of mouth and not by actual evidence and fact.

Re:Thrown Into The Sea?

[gnuLNX]

Why should we read the Qur'an. Why have plenty of Islamic radicals standing up to tell us that it promotes killing. I'm sure your right, so why don't you start by telling us the real interpretation. Why don't you make a public statement to counter what the radical groups say. Why don't you make a stand again Iran. See my point. All we hear is the negative side of your religion. It's time for Islam to clean it's own house. Come play in the modern world...drop the burkas and miltant jihad crap. It's old BS from the middle ages and it has no place in this world....I don't care what you profit's tell you.

Re:Thrown Into The Sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the other person replied - why should I read the Quran?
I'm sure it is like the bible - a book with a shitload of pages, strories, and events, so much that anyone can look through it and find something to support a particular point of view, either peacful or violent.

I'm not the one taking a particular sentence out of context; on the contrary -- I am one of those who stands to suffer at the hands of those who take it out of context, either by a blown-up plane, or a car bomb somewhere.

So, you put your clerics under check, and don't expect any tolerance while your people blow things up.

Re:Thrown Into The Sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you by default accept the version of Islam that those whom even the media terms "extremists"? I mean really, that just blows my mind.

And please, don't tell me that all we hear is the negative side of the religion. For one, even if that were true, shouldn't you be a bit suspicious? There's almost never one side to a story. And second, that is simply not true though it is widely publicized as such. Ever since 9/11 muslims have been speaking out all over the world against those who twist Islam for violent purposes. Just do a google search for "muslims speak against terror". However, I will concede that much of it does not make the evening news. Unfortunately it seems that the media would rather show terrorists at work than ordinary muslims speaking against those terrorists. Sensationalism wins.

Re:Thrown Into The Sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, thats very easy to say "put your clerics in check"....you know, because all the other religions have very simply removed all splinter sects. Yeah, why didn't I think of that??

And please..."your people blow things up"??????

Re:Thrown Into The Sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Next thing you'll be telling me that Islam is a religion of peace."

Or that blacks aren't inherently criminals? The smug bigotry and racism which pores off the pages of any American discussion forum when the topic turns to Islam is an embarrassment and disgrace, and an indicator popular sentiment really haven't changed that much since the days of lynch mobs and Japanese internment. Only the target of vilification has changed. Comments such as yours are beneath contempt morally and a moronic cliche intellectually.
Do yourself and everyone here a favour and study the history of Christianity you dumb, self-absorbed prick.

Re:Thrown Into The Sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have muslim community leaders, along with muslim MPs, writing a letter which makes excuses for the would be terrorists, and saying that we shouldn't be surprised if there will be acts of terror due to UK's foreign policy, then yes, it is the religion, especially when over 80% of UK muslims identified themselves first as muslims and not as citizens.

I'm sorry, but no other religion has a pirate-cleric (don't remember his name) speaking publicly and freely against the west, and incites for violence.

If UK muslims can't be lawful UK citizens, then perhaps they should renounce their citizenship, and move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, where they can "freely" exercise their beliefs. Iraq will probably be an option pretty soon, as soon as they are done blowing each other up (that's right, I said it again).

Iranian blogger detainment

[FleaPlus]

This is perhaps slightly ironic, given that the Iranian Government actively censors blogs on the Internet."

Indeed. In fact, they don't just censor blogs... they detained at least 50 bloggers last year.

Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[mangu]

From your reference: "Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate."

What he calls "occupied Palestine" is the state of Israel. He may not have used the words "wipe Israel off the map" literally, but he used words to that exact same meaning. Different from Iran, and almost every other Arab or Islamic country, Israel is a true democracy where changing the regime of government happens in every election where the people chooses so.

Ahmadinejad, like many people in the middle east, believes that the number of Jews killed by Germany during WWII is frequently greatly overstated.

So, where would Ahmadinejad and the other people in the Middle East draw the line? Genocide is wrong, but being a serial killer is not? If he thinks its OK to kill people as long as they stop short of six million, why do they complain so much every time someone is killed by the Israeli Defense Forces?

The simple fact is that the creation of the state of Israel is justified by the Holocaust of WWII. There is no other way that the survival of Israeli people and culture can be assured without an independent state, and there is no other region of the world that could be used by the Israeli people other than their own historic region. The Jewish ghettos in Europe suffered massacres during centuries, and the Indian reservations in the USA show what happens when a nation with its own culture is inserted in another nation.

If Ahmadinejad thinks the Palestinian people have such distinguishing features that they must have an independent country, then maybe he should set an example by giving the Kurds their independence from Iran. There is much more difference between the Kurds and Iranians than between the Palestinian and Jordanian culture. The difference between Jordanians and Palestinians is merely political, if Jordan were made a true democracy, there would exist less cultural difference between them than between Democrats and Republicans in the USA.

If anybody looks beyond the "nice page" you link, and take a look at its home page, he will see what kind of racist propaganda the is.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Knara]

The simple fact is that the creation of the state of Israel is justified by the Holocaust of WWII. There is no other way that the survival of Israeli people and culture can be assured without an independent state, and there is no other region of the world that could be used by the Israeli people other than their own historic region.

Wow. Now, while I would have to agree that killing large amounts of people based on their ethnicity is a Bad Thing(tm), how exactly does that entitle them to their own country? Furthermore, how does it make the survival of that ethnic group the responsibility of everyone in the world? How many ethnic groups have faded from history over time? What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups? And what about the other groups that the Nazi's rounded up and killed en masse. Do the Gypsies and the homosexuals get their own homelands, too?

Additionally, "the only one they can use"? It was kind of in use before they came back. How was that area more appropriate (ignoring the geopolitical reasonings by the US and what not) for use than any other in terms of letting them set up a government and economy? For that matter, there's probably a lot of other more appropriate (and easier to survive in) places than where they are now. If they'd been given part of Brazil, you think they'd be having the problems they have now? Unlikely.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[mangu]

how does it make the survival of that ethnic group the responsibility of everyone in the world?

The fact that we are not animals. We are rational and, therefore, we become conscious of the suffering of others.

How many ethnic groups have faded from history over time? What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups?

The fact that they aren't extinct yet.

And what about the other groups that the Nazi's rounded up and killed en masse. Do the Gypsies and the homosexuals get their own homelands, too?

If the Gypsies had an original homeland, yes. But, different from Jews, their culture was never associated to any particular land. Homosexuals are not a nation. I'm not saying that any group of people have a right to their own land, only those groups which came to exist associated with a land, like Germans, Italians, Scots, Tibetans, Navajos, Kurds, Armenians, etc.

It was kind of in use before they came back.

Palestine was a British dominion in 1948, which they got as a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WWI. When the United Nations decided for the creation of Israel, Palestine was partitioned in two countries: Jordan, which got most of the territory, was assigned to the Arabs, and Israel to the Jews. So, if you are willing to roll back history cancelling the effect of foreign domination on that land, it should be given to the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist in the 1920s.

For that matter, there's probably a lot of other more appropriate (and easier to survive in) places than where they are now.

The same can be said of Palestinians.

If they'd been given part of Brazil, you think they'd be having the problems they have now? Unlikely.

Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians?

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Knara]

The fact that we are not animals. We are rational and, therefore, we become conscious of the suffering of others.

If you feel it is necessary and proper for us to be guiding the fates of other countries, I suppose.

The fact that they aren't extinct yet.

Israel would be extinct without our aid, obviously. This, however, does not mean the Jews would be extinct. You're committing the common error of equating Jews with Israel. This had not been the case for almost 2000 years until mid-last-century.

If the Gypsies had an original homeland, yes. But, different from Jews, their culture was never associated to any particular land. Homosexuals are not a nation. I'm not saying that any group of people have a right to their own land, only those groups which came to exist associated with a land, like Germans, Italians, Scots, Tibetans, Navajos, Kurds, Armenians, etc.

See above. By your logic we should be not only evacuating the US to allow the native american tribes to take back their ancestral homelands, but seeking out the proper persons who are the true heirs to Babylon.

So, if you are willing to roll back history cancelling the effect of foreign domination on that land, it should be given to the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist in the 1920s.

Not only that, but really if you want to go the whole way on that, the Caananites had it first, even by Jewish reckoning. I have no problem giving the land back to their descendants. Do you?

The same can be said of Palestinians.

Sure. Except that the Palestinians were there for the Jews' 2 millenia absence from the place.

Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians?

Simply put, because there's more usable, unoccupied land in Brazil than in the middle east. But that wouldn't satisfy the people who believe, rather irrationally, that the Jews *need* a state (as if a concentrated effort by a organized nation state couldn't conquer them just as well all in one place as Nazi Germany did with them spread out across Europe), nor the American evangelicals who believe the return to existence of Israel is a sign of imminent messianic return.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"The fact that we are not animals. We are rational and, therefore, we become conscious of the suffering of others."

But not the palestenians or the lebanese right?

"Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians"

Why doesn't the US give up land to host israel? That would make a lot of sense. We have a lot of land, we love the jews and the jews love us. It's a marriage made in heaven.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[mangu]

we should be not only evacuating the US to allow the native American tribes to take back their ancestral homelands, but seeking out the proper persons who are the true heirs to Babylon.

I believe the native American tribes should be given a better deal. Not giving back all their former territory, because there are people there with claims to it, but at least allow more rights to the current areas that are their "reservations". Look into vital statistics like infant mortality and living expectancy of people living in the reservations to see what I mean. The same discrepancy occurs between Palestinians living in refugee camps and Israeli citizens. Both situations are wrong, IMHO.

The Babylon culture is extinct. If you mean the genetic heirs, that's all of us. It can be easily demonstrated that in a few centuries every person who leaves descendants will be an ancestor to every living person.

there's more usable, unoccupied land in Brazil than in the middle east.

Google maps show otherwise. Look around southern Lebanon, the Golan heights and Galilean panhandle. You can easily see what is Israel and what is either Syria or Lebanon. Clue: Israel is green. The same can be seen in Israel's borders with Jordan and Egypt. Every land is "usable" if you care to go the effort that the Israelis go to grow things in the desert. Now take a look at Brazil. All the land that isn't the Amazon forest is divided into land plots. You cannot find any area the size of Israel inside Brazil that isn't either part of someone's land or a natural preservation area. If you take the care to follow news from Brazil, you will realize that land ownership is a very delicate issue, with many conflicts between land owners and landless peasants.

that wouldn't satisfy the people who believe, rather irrationally, that the Jews *need* a state

But it would satisfy the people who believe, rather irrationally, that the Palestinians *need* a state? Granting that they really need a state, and I believe they do, why cannot they resolve their differences with the government of their state, which is Jordan? They tried to bring down the Jordan government in the 1970 "black september" and failed. I don't know the exact proportions, but not all Palestinian refugees came from Israel, or from the West Bank. Many came from Jordan after the failed coup against king Hussein.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many ethnic groups have faded from history over time? What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups?

The fact that they aren't extinct yet.

I really don't get this need to preserve ethnic groups.

To the extent that ethnicity is about culture, let people make the choice of what culture to have as individuals. If some Chinese guy likes Jewish culture then let him incorporate as much Jewish culture into his life as he wants. If everyone decides they like pop culture better then Jewish culture and no one incorporates Jewish culture into their lives then that's fine too. Maybe some government could fund a museum of Jewish culture but no government should ever try to force any culture on anyone. That's a choice each person should make as an individual.

To the extent that ethnicity is about race, let people have kids with whoever they want and live wherever they want regardless of race. If it turns out that some people have a lot of ancestors of one particular race then that's fine but if they don't then that's fine too. On no account should any government enforce breeding or segregation policies to try to "preserve" any race.

The flip side of preserving one race or culture is destroying other races and cultures so it goes without saying that no government should try to actively destroy any races or cultures but if anyone is guilty of that it would be the Israeli government trying to destroy the Palestinians both as a race and as a culture.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[truckaxle]

What makes the Jews more special

I can think of a few...

The jews have contributed disproportionately to science and our understanding and betterment of the world. Think Feynman, Bohr, Feigenbaum, Gell-Mann, von Neumann, Minsky, Von Braun, are just a few that come to mind.

The jews have taken a small strip of the middle east and have started a free society where none existed before, with a elections and a free press to a degree unimagined anywhere else in the area. They have sidelined their radicals where the surrounding areas have elevated their radicals to leadership positions. As a contrast the palestinians teach their children to hate and practice jihad from grade school.

The jews have made their land productive. Today they still make dispropotion contributions to Science, Medicine, Agriculture, Engineering, etc. Check the number of Nobel Peace prize winners as compared to other middle eastern countries.

It was kind of in use before they came back. How was that area more appropriate (ignoring the geopolitical reasonings by the US and what not) for use than any other in terms of letting them set up a government and economy?

The US had very little or nothing, to do with the creation of israel. Secondly the arab population of palestine at the turn of the century was around around half a million, today it is over 4 million.

btw I am not jewish and I do not even know any ethnic jews.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[turgid]

As travel becomes easier and cheaper and education becomes more ubiquitous, countries as we know them will become irrelevant.

In a few decades, these petty squabbles over plots of land will be viewed by the majority, not just lunatics on medication like myself, as ridiculous.

God will be abolished.

BTW, a crisp, new 5-pound (Sterling) note to the first person to hack Mustafa Dinnerjacket's web site with anti-Islamic blasphemy and/or profanity. It runs on Microsoft, so it can't be that hard.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[tcstoehr]

> If they'd been given part of Brazil, you think they'd be having the problems they have now? Unlikely. Actually, it's extremely likey. The Jews would have prospered in a corner of Brazil as they have elsewhere. Yet the native Brazilians would not, as we see today. Sooner rather than later the Jews would be blamed for not only the poverty and lawlessness of Brazil, but every government in South America would be blaming the Jews for "holding them down" not to mention all of the other ills of their society. I don't know why it would be any different.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the Gypsies and the homosexuals get their own homelands, too?

yes. have you been to san francisco?

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point. Homosexual people have probably been persecuted for far longer than Judaism has existed. I think they should have their own homeland (should any wish to go there). The only question is where should such a country be situated. I think, perhaps, somewhere in the Bible Belt in the US. I'm sure they will be very welcome. We will of course have to make sure they are very well armed. Nuclear weapons are a must of course.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Brightest Light]

I respect the Israelis for winning the Six Days' War. I believe that they earned their right to exist then, and I do not discount that in any way. However, since the 1970's, Israel has been on the US Taxpayer dole to the tune of EIGHTY FOUR BILLION DOLLARS of foreign aid from 1949 until 1997. This does NOT include the billions of dollars a year Israel has recieved since then to this very day - I believe on the average of 2 BILLION dollars a year. Israel may have prospered, but you and me and all the other US Taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for it.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Israel would be extinct without our aid, obviously.

A common misconception.

You do realize Israel only started receiving aid in 1973, and even then, it was due to an emergency and fear of a crisis, and no real crisis, don't you?

Israel would definitely survive without US support, and the support it received has indeed enlarged the economy and improved the army (of both Israel and the US) but it has also costed Israel the cancellation of weapons trade with China, the development of fighter jets, and many other projects.

Not only that, but really if you want to go the whole way on that, the Caananites had it first, even by Jewish reckoning. I have no problem giving the land back to their descendants. Do you?

Not that I think any of the "who was here first" has any relevance, but just as an anecdote: There are no Caananites left.

Simply put, because there's more usable, unoccupied land in Brazil than in the middle east.

Israel was mainly a large desert waskteland before the Jews arrived. Inhabited by Arab tribes mainly doing agriculture. There was a lot of "usable, unoccupied land". Once Jews came and brought their work and money with them, this land became prosporous and attracted inhabitants from surrounding Arab countries. Jews and Arabs had no bad relations before this settlement, and any other country set up would probably be just as bad.

But that wouldn't satisfy the people who believe, rather irrationally, that the Jews *need* a state (as if a concentrated effort by a organized nation state couldn't conquer them just as well all in one place as Nazi Germany did with them spread out across Europe), nor the American evangelicals who believe the return to existence of Israel is a sign of imminent messianic return.

There is a wide consensus that one of the main reasons for hatered of Jews and the Holocaust in Europe was that they were a nation without a country. They were spread all over Europe with strong nationalistic ties but not always only to their country. Having people in a European country during the strongly nationalistic era of the 1920's and 30's, who are not pure nationalists but are also a nation of their own produces a lot of anger and hatred.

Not only this - but having no nation, there is no solution for a persecuted family.
Israel gives this solution to Jews, like there's a solution to almost every other nationality in the world.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

But not the palestenians or the lebanese right?

The only reason Hezbollah has any fighters left is because Israel is being compassionate to Lebanese citizens, and tries to pinpoint Hezbollah fighters and rocket launchers amidst residential areas full of citizens. These citizens are sometimes not allowed to leave by Hezbollah, because they need them as Human shields.

Can Israel be more compassionate to the Lebanese?

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[mangu]

let people make the choice of what culture to have as individuals. If some Chinese guy likes Jewish culture then let him incorporate as much Jewish culture into his life as he wants. If everyone decides they like pop culture better then Jewish culture and no one incorporates Jewish culture into their lives then that's fine too.

And that's exactly the whole point in the existence of the state of Israel: let those who wish to incorporate the Jewish culture in their lives be free to do so. Also, let them incorporate only as much of the culture as they wish. You can buy ham and bacon in Israel if you want to, differently from Iran where it's illegal to disobey the mandates of the Quran.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[truckaxle]

Yes the US is a major underwriter of Israel with no end in sight. At least we get something from that in the form of a staunch ally, economic partner, and technology exchange.

We also pay huge sums to the Palestinians and Egyptians. From what I remember the combination of aid to the Palestinians and Egyptians are of same order of magnitude as we fund Israel. However the Palestinians openly danced for joy on Sept 11 and the Egyptians encourage and foster anti-American sediment in their government operated media outlets.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, let them incorporate only as much of the culture as they wish.

Unless the amount is "none" (eg. a Palestinian) in which case "right of return" doesn't apply. Sure, some guy from New York city gets to "return" because he probably had an ancestor from thousands of years ago who lived there (and his mom incorporated more than "none" Jewish culture into her life) but the Palestinian who are living there now (in the West Bank) or used to live there until they were forced out into refugee camps don't have a prayer of getting to "return" to be full citizens with equal rights.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"Can Israel be more compassionate to the Lebanese?"

Yes. They can also be more compassionate towards the palestenians.

Again you just don't care about the suffering of arabs. Most likely because you are a jewish supremacists.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexual people have probably been persecuted for far longer than Judaism has existed. I think they should have their own homeland (should any wish to go there). The only question is where should such a country be situated. I think, perhaps, somewhere in the Bible Belt in the US. I'm sure they will be very welcome.

Actually, Kansas City has had an active gay community longer than places like San Francisco.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[i41Overlord]

The jews have contributed disproportionately to science and our understanding and betterment of the world. Think Feynman, Bohr, Feigenbaum, Gell-Mann, von Neumann, Minsky, Von Braun, are just a few that come to mind.

Von Braun? He wasn't Jewish, he was a German.

Or do you mean another Von Braun?

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Mistah Blue]

Quite simple my friend... God gave the nation of Israel title to the land forever; not the people that would eventually become Muslim, not Christians, not Buddhists... but Jews. You can go ahead and not believe that *fact*, but that will be your problem and anybody else who chooses not to recognize Israel's title to the land it resides on, as well as the Golan, West Bank, and Gaza.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[krell]

"but every government in South America would be blaming the Jews for "holding them down" not to mention all of the other ills of their society. I don't know why it would be any different"

...and Hugo Chavez, who blames Jews for all the evils of the last 2000 years, would be rallying the South American nations to kill all the South American Jews...ahem "eliminate the Zionist entity occupying Brasil".

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups?

There has not been an organized industrial annihilation of humans as the nazis did with the jews. That's the difference. And as long as there is anti-semitism there will be the threat of another holocaust, as anti-semitic stereotypes are largely based upon misinterpretation of capitalism, and can always lead to the "assumption" that killing of the jews will solve the problems in capitalism. As was the case with the germans.

Also I should note that your statement of "who lived there before" is just as the nazi "Blut und Boden" ideology.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Yes. They can also be more compassionate towards the palestenians.

Again you just don't care about the suffering of arabs. Most likely because you are a jewish supremacists.

How can Israel be more compassionate to the Lebanese and Palestinians, and still survive?

If Israel stops shooting at Hezbollah, to stop harming citizens, then Hezbollah will continue to kill and kidnap Israelis. If Israel does not respond, then they will escalate for as long as Israel does not respond.
If Israel removes the checkpoints in the Palestinian territories, then Palestinians will be back to blowing up in Israel.
The only real thing Israel is doing wrong is settling near Palestinian population centers, out of the "green line". And note that Israel is working on correcting this, and dismantling those settlements (though at great loss of life, as every settlement evacuated truly becomes a basis for Palestinian attacks).

So, how do you propose Israel should act?

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"How can Israel be more compassionate to the Lebanese and Palestinians, and still survive?"

Only people who are completely detached from reality believe that the survival of israel is at stake. Israel has one of the biggest armies in the world, it also has over 300 nukes. Israel is backed by the US who is willing to kill every single human being on the planet in order to assure the survival of israel.

"If Israel stops shooting at Hezbollah, to stop harming citizens, then Hezbollah will continue to kill and kidnap Israelis."

"So, how do you propose Israel should act?"

Obey all 50+ UN resolutions it's in violation of. Stop tortuing people. Stop stealing land. Stop jailing people without charges and trials. Stop jailing children. Stop assassinating people. Stop destroying other peoples property.

In other words act like civilized people. Those things are immoral you know, I think even the god of the jews probably doesn't approve of torturing and stealing.

I don't expect any of these words to have any effect on you however. You are a bigot and a supremacists. You don't register the suffering of any human being who is not a jew. To you the only suffering that matters is that of the jew and in order to ease their suffering the jews are justified in causing any degree of harm to any number of non jews. Two soldiers kidnapped? Destroy an entire nation, kill a thousand people, displace a million people. To you that's fair because "the fingernail of one jew is worth the lives of every arab in the world".

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Only people who are completely detached from reality believe that the survival of israel is at stake. Israel has one of the biggest armies in the world, it also has over 300 nukes. Israel is backed by the US who is willing to kill every single human being on the planet in order to assure the survival of israel.

Are you realizing the silly paradox you are raising in your own statements?

You are saying, Israel has no problem of survival because it has a large army it can use.
Then you are saying, Israel must not use that army, because it should be more compassionate.

Israel survival is at stake if it cannot use the army, as you are proposing, to prevent attacks from Hezbollah and the Palestinians.

Obey all 50+ UN resolutions it's in violation of.

Israel obeys every reasonable resolution of the UN. The UN has a history of bias against Israel in its resolution, and many of them are not implementable, not without tramendous risk to the interests and even survival of Israel.

Stop tortuing people.

Israel uses torture only in the rare cases of "ticking time bombs" where the torture is necessary to save lives. Do you agree with the use of torture in "24", where Pallmer uses torture to find out the location of the nuke?

Stop stealing land.

Israel has not only stopped to "steal land", it is giving back all the land it has settled for many years, because it is out of the agreed "green line". Not that any of it is working for Israel, as every land given back is used to attack and kill more Israelis.

Stop jailing people without charges and trials.

Israel does not do this.

Stop jailing children.

Israel will stop arresting Juveniles, when the Palestinians stop sending Juveniles to try and kill Israelis.

Stop assassinating people.

Israel's assasination policy has proven extremely effective in the fight against terror. The terrorist success against Israel has dropped incredibly in the past few years, and much of this success is attribute to the assasination policy.
Israel is at war with the Palestinian militants, who aim and plan to murder its citizens, and has every right to preemptively act against them in order to save dozens and hundreds of innocent Israelis.
It is a sad fact that they hide amongst civilians, but that does not buy them immunity from Israeli attack.

Stop destroying other peoples property.

Again, Israel is at war, and property is only destroyed as part of war, and as retaliation to suicide bombings.
One of the main incentives for suicide bombers is that their families are financially rewarded. Being unable to retaliate against a suicide bomber, a proper retaliation and a counter-measure to the financial reward is to destroy the homes of the families that send terrorist bombers to kill civilians.

In other words act like civilized people.

Would you ask Churchil to do that in WWII?

Those things are immoral you know, I think even the god of the jews probably doesn't approve of torturing and stealing.

Pacifism is nice, but it doesn't work. Israel is at war, and many of the things you mention are true, but simply justifiable and are a last resort in the fight Israel is in. If Israel does not apply these measures, it will lose the war and not survive.

I don't expect any of these words to have any effect on you however. You are a bigot and a supremacists.

You keep using ad-hominem attacks, without basing them on anything. Though your statement about the "even the god of the Jews" sounds to me like you're the bigot.

You don't register the suffering of any human being who is not a jew.

Again, would you say that to Churchil, about the suffering of the Germans?

To you the only suffering that matters is that of the jew and in order to ease their suffering the jews are justified in causing any degree of harm to any number of n

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"You are saying, Israel has no problem of survival because it has a large army it can use.
Then you are saying, Israel must not use that army, because it should be more compassionate."

No I am saying it should not abuse that army or use it to enforce apartheid.

"Israel obeys every reasonable resolution of the UN. The UN has a history of bias against Israel in its resolution, and many of them are not implementable, not without tramendous risk to the interests and even survival of Israel."

Is that like only obeying "reasonable" laws or only obeying laws you approve of. Israel should obey all resolutions.

"Israel uses torture only in the rare cases of "ticking time bombs" where the torture is necessary to save lives. Do you agree with the use of torture in "24", where Pallmer uses torture to find out the location of the nuke?"

Bullshit. Israel routinely tortures people. I mean every day.

"Israel will stop arresting Juveniles, when the Palestinians stop sending Juveniles to try and kill Israelis"

Does it charge them and try them or simply jail them and torture them?

"One of the main incentives for suicide bombers is that their families are financially rewarded. Being unable to retaliate against a suicide bomber, a proper retaliation and a counter-measure to the financial reward is to destroy the homes of the families that send terrorist bombers to kill civilians."

Civilized nations don't do this. If I murder or rape or steal the govt does not destroy my parents house even if they fed me or gave me money. Only barbaric states do this.

" * Retreated to internationally recognized borders, despite the offensive rocket threat by Hezbollah.
        * Ceased all hostilities.
        * Ignored and passed by many attacks on Israel.
        * Even did a diplomatic exchange after Hezbollah killed 3 of its soldiers and kidnapped another.
        * Israel can not ignore further acts of war by Hezbollah"

Well that's a pack of lies.

Anyway you have proved my point. You are a jewish supremacist. You are willing to justify any action, any act of barbarism, torture, stealing land, destroying property (are all lebanese your enemy? were every one of those million homeless lebanese your enemy?), any and all kinds of horrible things done as long as they are done by jews against arabs.

Just another racist pig in a world full of them. There is no difference between a nazi white supremacist or a member of the KKK and you. Both of you see yourselves as victims in a "war" and both of you don't see your "enemies" as human beings who suffer. Only the suffering of the jew matters to you and killing or harming all arabs in order to ease that pain is reasonable to you because "they are the enemy". Congratulations a billion muslims all over the world is now your enemy, a fifth of the world hates your guts and most the rest find you repugnant, uncivilizes, brutal, uncaring scum. Good luck with that.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

No I am saying it should not abuse that army or use it to enforce apartheid.

"Apartheid"? Please explain how Israel or its army is similar to the Apartheid.
Please explain how Israel could be more compassionate and still survive.
Stop spewing buzz words and chimes.

Say what actual actions you think Israel should do - and what the consequences you think there will be.

If you don't know - which you probably don't - then try not to speak or form an opinion out of ignorance, like the rest of the herd.

Is that like only obeying "reasonable" laws or only obeying laws you approve of. Israel should obey all resolutions.

A person should indeed not obey every law.
Germans should not have obeyed German law in WWII.
Morals and the good of your nation and human kind are more important than law.

Bullshit. Israel routinely tortures people. I mean every day.

Then cite sources. Show this torture was not used to directly save the lives of many from the next terrorist attacks. And you still haven't answered my question about Pallmer's torture in "24".

Does it charge them and try them or simply jail them and torture them?

It tries them and charges them - and their punishment is sitting in Israeli jails - which is exactly what they're doing.

Civilized nations don't do this. If I murder or rape or steal the govt does not destroy my parents house even if they fed me or gave me money. Only barbaric states do this.

Suicide bombings are barbaric. The families receive large financial incentives after such actions. Destruction of the house is not esthetic and not appealing, but its a practical counter to the financial backing and its problematic morality is negligible with comparison to the terrorist act itself and the possibility of prevention such future acts.

Well that's a pack of lies.

If they are lies - then cite sources to explain how they are lies.

You are merely throwing vague empty statements like "Israel is evil", "Those are lies" without saying what is true or citing sources.

You are obviously speaking out of ignorance, and you obviously have built your opinion of Israel and the conflict by listening to propaganda and others' opinions. You have little to no knowledge of the actual facts, and as such: You are in no position to judge Israel or its actions.

Anyway you have proved my point. You are a jewish supremacist. You are willing to justify any action, any act of barbarism, torture, stealing land, destroying property (are all lebanese your enemy? were every one of those million homeless lebanese your enemy?), any and all kinds of horrible things done as long as they are done by jews against arabs.

No, I am willing to justify acts of war as long as they are done as a part of a just war. And almost the entire world, including Arab countries, agree that Israel is fighting a just war.
I am beginning to wonder if you know what the word "supremacist" means.
As for your question: "are all lebanese your enemy? were every one of those million homeless lebanese your enemy?".
Its a good question - and it has a good answer. Israel only destroyed the Lebanese homes that were hosting Hezbollah terrorists and their weapons.
If Israel had wanted, and if the citizens of Lebanon were actually Israel's enemy, then Israel could have flattened out the entire south Lebanon and a whole lot more than 1000 Lebanese would be killed.
Israel managed to harm few civilians despite Hezbollah's hiding amongst civilians.

Just another racist pig in a world full of them. There is no difference between a nazi white supremacist or a member of the KKK and you.

Oh really? What similarities do you see?

Both of you see yourselves as victims in a "war" and both of you don't see your "enemies" as human beings who suffer.

We are victims of the war, and so are the Lebanese who are human beings who suffe

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

""Apartheid"? Please explain how Israel or its army is similar to the Apartheid."

You don't need me to explain it. Both Nelson Mandella and Bishop Desmond Tutu have called it apartheid.

" * What can Israel do to ease the suffering of the Arabs while still surviving?"

I already told you. End the apartheid is palestine, obey all UN resolutions, act like civlized people. The israeli experiment has failed. It is a nation which can only survive if it wages a perpetual war. You keep saying that the occupation of palestine is war and that israel is at war with the palestenians. That's a thirty year war!. If israel is at war then it should treat all palestenians prisoners as prisoners of war and yes that means no torture and full geneva rights.

If israel is not able to survive without waging a perpetual war against it's neighbors then it's a failure. Democracies are not supposed to wage thirty year wars. Civilized people find a way to get along even if it means compromising sometimes.

I will repeat myself. You are jewish supremacist. You are no different then any skinhead or any member of the KKK. You will excuse anything done by israel. Anyting at all. Torture, killing, kidnapping, destroying of an entire country (twice!), apartheid, occupation, stealing land and murder. You see nothing wrong with anything israel is doing. You can't even admit that israel could be a little wrong.

Racist pig that's all you are.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

You don't need me to explain it. Both Nelson Mandella and Bishop Desmond Tutu have called it apartheid.

Appeal to authority, eh?
Why can't you make a single point based on facts or citings?
You keep appealing to authority, slogans, propaganda and generalisms.

Is it simply that you don't have the facts, and you are just repeating 2nd hand propaganda, out of sheer ignorance?

I already told you. End the apartheid is palestine, obey all UN resolutions, act like civlized people.

And I already explained: There is no apartheid, and there's no similarity between the apartheid and the Palestinian territories. Obeying all of the UN resolutions would mean the destruction of the state of Israel, so that's not practical either. Acting like a "civilized people" is a luxury people in the state of war don't always have. Just ask the British and Americans in WWII.

The israeli experiment has failed.
It seems to be economically successful and serves its purpose of serving as a refuge for Jews around the world from persecution. So what is this based on?

It is a nation which can only survive if it wages a perpetual war.
The situation is improving though. Peace with Egypt and Jordan already done. Peace with Syria and Lebanon is possible in the future. The Palestinians will probably take longer, but they're a difficult nut, they just won't cease the violecne.

You keep saying that the occupation of palestine is war and that israel is at war with the palestenians. That's a thirty year war!

Indeed.

If israel is at war then it should treat all palestenians prisoners as prisoners of war and yes that means no torture and full geneva rights.

The Palestinians have self-government and the war is of limited scale and not against the Palestinian people - but against the Palestinian militant organizations. Israel does not use torture except when life is under immediate threat. Again, if you think otherwise, bring citations or shut up.
What Geneva rights does Israel not give the Palestinians?

If israel is not able to survive without waging a perpetual war against it's neighbors then it's a failure.

Its more of the neighbours waging perpetual war against Israel than the other way around, but us in Israel hope for the arab nations to eventually come to the conclusion that Israel is a fact and here to stay - and sign a peace contract.

Democracies are not supposed to wage thirty year wars. Civilized people find a way to get along even if it means compromising sometimes.

Israel did find the way - the Palestinians didn't. See the Camp David accords as an example. Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians pretty much everything they asked for, and Clinton approves of this. The Palestinians declined and instead started the second violent streak of the intifada.

I will repeat myself. You are jewish supremacist.
Yes, you keep repeating the same propaganda and slogans, without anything behind them.

You speak out of ignorance, and judge without facts.

You are no different then any skinhead or any member of the KKK.
Hah. You are stupid.

You will excuse anything done by israel. Anyting at all. Torture, killing, kidnapping, destroying of an entire country (twice!), apartheid, occupation, stealing land and murder. You see nothing wrong with anything israel is doing. You can't even admit that israel could be a little wrong.

Actually, I already admitted a wrong Israel did, so now you are a liar too. I said Israel was wrong in settling the territories beyond the green lines, and that Israel is now correcting this, even though the Palestinians are making sure it is not beneficial for Israel.
Torture is in some cases justified (See "24" Pallmer torture as an example). Killing of terrorists plotting to blow up buses and restaurants is justified. Kidnapping terrorist leaders to try them in a court of law is justified. Israel never destroyed a country,

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"Appeal to authority, eh?"

Yes. Both Nelson Mandella and Bishop Desmond Tutu know a little about apartheid. But who am I kidding. I am talking to a racist pig. You probably don't even consider them human beings.

"Obeying all of the UN resolutions would mean the destruction of the state of Israel,"

IN that case the israeli experiment should be ended. A country which can only exist as long as they don't obey international law should not be allowed to exist. By saying that you are admitting that the israeli expirent is a failure.

"What Geneva rights does Israel not give the Palestinians?"

You know. The ones where they are not allowed to be tortured and they are to be granted basic human dignitiy. That one.

I am especially happy to see you excuse torture and occupation and a thirty year war against the people you are occupying. I guess that's all part and parcel of the jewish religion huh? I guess the god of the jews has no problems with torture or killing or apartheid.

Your posts show exactly how morally corrupt the jewish supremacists are.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Yes. Both Nelson Mandella and Bishop Desmond Tutu know a little about apartheid. But who am I kidding. I am talking to a racist pig. You probably don't even consider them human beings.

And yet you can't show a single line of similarity between Israel and the apartheid.
As I said, your whole standing and opinion is based in what you heard from others, and you have no idea what the actual facts are.
You feel free to be a judge of a case you have no facts on.

IN that case the israeli experiment should be ended. A country which can only exist as long as they don't obey international law should not be allowed to exist. By saying that you are admitting that the israeli expirent is a failure.

There's a difference between UN resolutions and "international law". The UN is not an impartial organization, and its standing is affected by political interests and by the power of the Arab nations.

Israel obeys international law, but the UN resolutions which are out of line will not be obeyed.

You know. The ones where they are not allowed to be tortured and they are to be granted basic human dignitiy. That one.

They are granted self government, and torture is only used against time-ticking human bombs who have a proven track record of operating murderous operations.
So what dignity and torture are you talking about exactly?

I am especially happy to see you excuse torture and occupation and a thirty year war against the people you are occupying. I guess that's all part and parcel of the jewish religion huh? I guess the god of the jews has no problems with torture or killing or apartheid.

Israel does not want to occupy the Palestinians, and it does not want to use torture. Israel rarely uses torture as a last resort to prevent a terrorist bombing killing dozens of innocent civilians. The torture targets are always proven murderous terrorists.
Israel is working on stopping the occupation, but if the Palestinians had ceased their violence, then the occupation would long be over. Each time Israel retreats from any occupied territory, the Palestinians use that area as a source for terrorist activity.

Your posts show exactly how morally corrupt the jewish supremacists are.

Your post show how ignorant fools are filling the internet with blatant nonsense.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"And yet you can't show a single line of similarity between Israel and the apartheid."

You mean other then refugee camps, devestating poverty, and lack of human rights? Anyway both Mandella and Tutu have been to both locations and can make a sound judgement about it. As a jewish supremacists you are not allowed to consider that they are capable of making such a comparison.

"There's a difference between UN resolutions and "international law". The UN is not an impartial organization, and its standing is affected by political interests and by the power of the Arab nations."

Which arab nation has veto rights?

"Israel does not want to occupy the Palestinians"

Lie

"it does not want to use torture."

Lie.

"Israel rarely uses torture as a last resort to prevent a terrorist bombing killing dozens of innocent civilians. "

Lie.

"The torture targets are always proven murderous terrorists."

Lie.

"Israel is working on stopping the occupation"

Lie.

"if the Palestinians had ceased their violence, then the occupation would long be over."

Lie.

"Each time Israel retreats from any occupied territory, the Palestinians use that area as a source for terrorist activity."

Lie.

Are your pants on fire yet Mr Jewish supremacist.

Like any other racist pig you probably believe all that shit. Just like the neo nazis believe that white people are genetically superior.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

You mean other then refugee camps, devestating poverty, and lack of human rights? Anyway both Mandella and Tutu have been to both locations and can make a sound judgement about it. As a jewish supremacists you are not allowed to consider that they are capable of making such a comparison.

Mandella and Tutu are politicians that like you, may have some idea about the Apartheid, but have no idea whatsoever about what goes on in the Palestinian territories.

You do realize that the refugee camps are what the Palestinians based, and that there is a lot of money flowing in, even from Israel, to the Palestinians, but instead of setting up nice cities and residential areas, they use it for their corruption and to buy weapons?

Property, again, is only devestated as part of the war that the Palestinians are forcing on Israel.

You really should go look "supremacists" in the dictionary, little boy.

Which arab nation has veto rights?

A veto right is not necessary to pass resolutions. All it takes is controlling all oil sources and a huge part of the world economy.

"Israel does not want to occupy the Palestinians"

Lie

You have no idea, so why do you bother talking?
Do you know what Ehud Olmert, recently elected, was elected about? Do you know what was his proposed plan at all??

"Lie, lie, lie"

Yeah, you are very convincing now. No, YOU lie. How is that? Oooh, so convincing.

"Israel is working on stopping the occupation"

Lie.

The facts speak for themselves. But why would you want to complicate yourself with the facts?

Are your pants on fire yet Mr Jewish supremacist.

Like any other racist pig you probably believe all that shit. Just like the neo nazis believe that white people are genetically superior.

You really really should go do some reading. The actual facts may surprise you.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

Both Tutu and Mandella have visited the occupied territories. They saw first hand the kind of treatment the palestenians get at the hands of the israelis. Again as a racist you are not capable of accepting such facts. That's the problem with jewish supremacists. To them the suffering of other people don't count. To them goyem are not even humans.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

I wonder why you think I am Jewish at all.

I also wonder why you take the words of politicians before the facts.

Maybe it is because you have a set agenda - and you won't let the facts distract you?

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"I also wonder why you take the words of politicians before the facts."

I love your lies. Your lies tell so much about you. First of all Desmond Tutu is a bishop not a politician. I love how you completely dismiss anything and everything Nelson Mandella and Bishop tutu say because you think they are politicians. Amazing, simply amazing how the racist mind works.

"I wonder why you think I am Jewish at all"

I didn't call you jewish, I called you a jewish supremacist. Many fundamentalist xtians also subscribe to the supremacist theory. You coul dvery well be a xtian fundamentalist as well as a jew.

"and you won't let the facts distract you?"

Facts like torture (which you admit israel conducts), perpetual war, stealing of land, apartheid, massacres of civillians, and mass kidnappings are kind of distracting huh?

The odd thing is that you admit that israel tortures people and steals land and you are fine with that. They are at war, they torture prisoners of war, they massacre civillians during the conduct of that war and you are fine with that. Amazing how the racist mind works.

Your posts show exactly how ugly racists are.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

I am neither Jewish nor Chrisitian.
I am an atheist.

I believe in the equality of all human beings, but also in the right of a nation to defend itself against attacks.

I don't believe in black and white morals.

Torture itself is obviously a bad thing, but in some contexts, it is the lesser evil.

I never admitted Israel steals land. In fact I repeatedly said Israel is giving back land.

Israel is not massacring civilians, and it never has. All of the accusations of massacres were always proven false after the fact.

With all respect to Mandella and Tutu, while they may know what "Apartheid" means, they don't know much about what actually goes on in Palestine.

In the Apartheid, for example, there weren't a lot of black people planning to suicide with bombs on them, in order to kill the whites.
In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were a majority.
In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were non-civilians and had no autonomous regime.
In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were not allowed to marry whites.
In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were not allowed to use "white busses".

The lines of similarity between the Apartheid and the Palestinian situation are much smaller than the lines of difference. The situation with Jews in arab nations, for example, much more resembles the Apartheid.

Basically every single fact about the Apartheid does not apply to the situation here, so why do you even bother?

Perpetual war is conducted by the arabs, and constantly it is the arabs who initiate war with Israel. When they lose, they blame Israel for war mongering, forgetting who it was who planned, initiated, and carried on with the violence.

"Mass kidnappings" and other baseless accusations will not get a serious consideration without any sources.

You know: Outragous accusations require outragous evidence.

Try to cite some facts and sources, not politicians who have their own agendas and interests.

You might discover that you have no sources, simply because your whole opinion is based in a single-sided view of the situation, some lies, and a lot of cherry-picking of the events that occured.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"I am an atheist."

Mmm. An atheist zionist. That's weird.

"I believe in the equality of all human beings, but also in the right of a nation to defend itself against attacks."

Unless of course they are palestenians defending against people stealing their lands or lebanese or syrians, or iraqis, or iranians right? I mean arabs don't have the right to defend themselves because they are not white. Only jews have the right to defend themselves. Besides that the jews may kill any number of civillians they want while defending themselves. For example if two jews get kidnapped then jews can in retaliation kill a thousand arabs and leave another million homeless because they are defending themselves.

"Torture itself is obviously a bad thing, but in some contexts, it is the lesser evil."

Ah yes good old moral relativism. Torture is bad except when it's good. It's only good when done by white people against brown people right?

"Israel is not massacring civilians, and it never has. All of the accusations of massacres were always proven false after the fact."

BHAHAHAHAAHA. Man you made my day with that one.

"With all respect to Mandella and Tutu, while they may know what "Apartheid" means, they don't know much about what actually goes on in Palestine."

Respect? You have no respect for them. They are just politicians. They should not even be listened to.

"In the Apartheid, for example, there weren't a lot of black people planning to suicide with bombs on them, in order to kill the whites."

True they comitted other forms of violence. They used knives and guns.

"In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were a majority."

Muslims are the majority in the west bank and gaza they will soon outnumber the jews in Israel.

"In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were non-civilians and had no autonomous regime."

Is Palestine the israelis kidnap and torture Palestenians parliment members.

"In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were not allowed to marry whites."

In israel non jews are not allowed to own land and are not allowed to live in jewish only neighborhoods.

"In the Apartheid, for example, the blacks were not allowed to use "white busses"."

In palestine arabs are not allowed to travel freely form one part of palestine to another.

"Perpetual war is conducted by the arabs, and constantly it is the arabs who initiate war with Israel. When they lose, they blame Israel for war mongering, forgetting who it was who planned, initiated, and carried on with the violence."

It's israel who is occupying palestine and stealing their land. You admitted to that. The palestenians are trying to get their land back and get their independence.

"You know: Outragous accusations require outragous evidence."

No they don't. All it takes is a simple google search and a non racist mind. You are incapable of either.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Mmm. An atheist zionist. That's weird.

No, its not.

"I believe in the equality of all human beings, but also in the right of a nation to defend itself against attacks."

Unless of course they are palestenians defending against people stealing their lands or lebanese or syrians, or iraqis, or iranians right? I mean arabs don't have the right to defend themselves because they are not white. Only jews have the right to defend themselves.

Notice that all along in this argument you are the only one who brings up the issue of race or color. So who is the racist again?

If the Lebanese are attacked they have a right to defend themselves.
But the Lebanese are not attacked, because Israel does not attack countries. The Lebanese attacked Israel, not the other way around. So Israel invoked its right to defend itself and went on a mission to destroy the attackers.
That's the difference between offense and defense. Its simple enough for you to understand (I think).

Israel does not attack the Iraqis, or the Syrians, or anyone else either.

The Palestinians are not attacking because of land theft. They are attacking because they are raised in Hamas-controlled schools preaching hate. They are attacking because their families have a large financial incentive for them to do so. They are attacking because they are driven by hate. Kinda similar to the hate you seem to be exhibiting.
Hate is easy to create, and difficult to remove.
And it is easy to create mob hate against any party, by blaming all troubles on it, be it true or false.
Israel is responsible for a lot of the Palestinian problems, but not as much as the leadership passing on the hatred is giving it credit for.

Besides that the jews may kill any number of civillians they want while defending themselves. For example if two jews get kidnapped then jews can in retaliation kill a thousand arabs and leave another million homeless because they are defending themselves.

I already explained this to you, but I'll try to make it simpler:

• Israel attacks those who attack it.
• Hezbollah attacked Israel.
• Israel was not willing to surrender to Hezbollah attacks, and decided to free its men by means of force, and to crush Hezbollah.
• Since Hezbollah attacked first, Israel is the defender.
• The death or displacement of Lebanese civilians was not an Israeli goal and in fact Israel could buy cheap bombs that kill a lot of civilians, but instead Israel buys expensive precision bombs.
• The precision bombs are bought with great financial effort, in order to minimize civilian casualties (unlike Hezbollah who shoot to kill civilians indescriminately).
• Unfortunately, Hezbollah is hiding amongst civilians, so destroying them inevitably kills civilians.

Would you oppose World War II, because civilians got killed?

"Torture itself is obviously a bad thing, but in some contexts, it is the lesser evil."

Ah yes good old moral relativism. Torture is bad except when it's good. It's only good when done by white people against brown people right?

Its only good when it prevents worse evils (such as a terrorist bombing of a bus full of men, women and children). For example, the torture used in "24" by Pallmer.
You still haven't answered the simple question: Do you support or do you not support the torture as used in "24"?
If choosing the lesser evil is moral relativism, then yes, I am a moral relativist.

"Israel is not massacring civilians, and it never has. All of the accusations of massacres were always proven false after the fact."

BHAHAHAHAAHA. Man you made my day with that one.

Why don't you cite a source?
The so-called "massacres" in Jenin and Qana were already shown to be false.

"With all respect to Mandella and Tutu, while they may know what "Apartheid" means, they don't know much about what actua

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"But the Lebanese are not attacked, because Israel does not attack countries. The Lebanese attacked Israel, not the other way around. So Israel invoked its right to defend itself and went on a mission to destroy the attackers."

Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers on lebanese soil. Israel retaliated by bombing the airport and killing 49 civillians which is a war crime. I am all for defending yourself but you are for killing civillians in response to attacking military targets.

"Israel attacks those who attack it."

Israel attacks civllians in response to military strikes.

"Hezbollah attacked Israel."

Nope, they arrested two soldiers which were in their country illegally.

"Israel was not willing to surrender to Hezbollah attacks, and decided to free its men by means of force, and to crush Hezbollah."

They killed a thousand civillians and destroyed an entire country while only killing a handful of hezbollah.

"The death or displacement of Lebanese civilians was not an Israeli goal and in fact Israel could buy cheap bombs that kill a lot of civilians, but instead Israel buys expensive precision bombs."

Israel used cluster bombs and 6000 lb bombs. That's hardly precision. If they were not total pussies they would have gone in there with people instead of using bombs in the first place. If they were not aiming for civillians then they are the most inept force in the history of manking.

"The precision bombs are bought with great financial effort, in order to minimize civilian casualties (unlike Hezbollah who shoot to kill civilians indescriminately)."

What financial effort? All their arms come from welfare from the US. We give them the aid so they can buy the weapons from us.

"Unfortunately, Hezbollah is hiding amongst civilians, so destroying them inevitably kills civilians."

That's been proven to be a lie already so no need to discuss this".

"Would you oppose World War II, because civilians got killed?"

I oppose the israeli slaughter of civillians period. I also oppose the israeli occupation of palestine, the israeli torture of human beings, the israeli stealing of land etc.

"Muslims are the minority in Israel, including the territories."

Barely. They are the majority in the west bank and gaza by a long shot. Very soon they will be the majority when you add israel.

"Muslims have self rule in the territories."

No they don't. If they elect people israel does not like then israel kills them. Israel also controls the water supplies, the airports, taxes, the roads, the ports etc.

"Hah. You are full of shit. I live in Israel, and I lived next to arabs who owned land in our Jewish neighborhood."

The muslims are not allowed to live in jewish only neighborhoods. They can keep the land they owned but they can't buy new land.

"Some limitations on travel are placed due to security reasons. But they are allowed to travel, just through security checkpoints which unfortunately prove their necessity time and time again."

Why are there limitation of people trying to go from one part of their country to another? They are not going into israel why does israel kill them anyway?

"No, Israel has taken land in the context of war (this is an almost universal consequence of war), and is giving it back now. It never "stole" land, and all the war-taken land is being given back."

ISrael stole the land. If as you say they won the land in a war then it is their duty to make all those people full citizens. That's what civilized nations do. For example the indians in the US are citizens. Israel is not a civilized nation so it does not do that.

"The Palestinians have a great peace offering and yet they choose continuous violence."

Nope. They have been given offers of basically reservations where they will be locked up. Their best plan so far involved 67 borders with israel controlling 85% of the water supplies and all of east jerusalem. Great for the jews sucks for muslims.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers on lebanese soil. Israel retaliated by bombing the airport and killing 49 civillians which is a war crime. I am all for defending yourself but you are for killing civillians in response to attacking military targets.

Talk about lies! Even the Hezbollah did not claim it was on Lebanese soil. It was on Israeli soil, in internationally recognized Israeli borders.

And no, Hezbollah didn't just kidnap 2 soldiers. Hezbollah:

• Killed 5 soldiers
• Kidnapped 2 soldiers
• Opened fire on Israeli military and civilian targets

Israel attacked civilian infrastructure as part of a war, while attempting to minimize casualties. It was all about harming the mobility of Hezbollah (thus Bridges, airport) which was obviously crucial at the time. If Israel wanted to harm civilians, many many thousands would be dead in the first hours of the war.

Hezbollah shot at both military and civilian targets, and that is an act of war, as recognized not only by Israel, but also by the UN and even the arab nations!

Israel attacks civllians in response to military strikes.

Israel attacked both Hezbollah and civilian infrastructure in use by Hezbollah. Also, Israel attacked the homes that hosted Hezbollah's fire towards Israel.

Nope, they arrested two soldiers which were in their country illegally.

Where the heck do you bring this crap from? Even Hezbollah admitted they entered Israeli territory to kidnap the Israeli soldiers and kill 5 others!

They killed a thousand civillians and destroyed an entire country while only killing a handful of hezbollah.

Bullshit, Israel killed hundreds of Hezbollah men. You are buying Hezbollah's lies. Israel published a list of hundreds of names of dead Hezbollah men.

Israel used cluster bombs and 6000 lb bombs. That's hardly precision. If they were not total pussies they would have gone in there with people instead of using bombs in the first place. If they were not aiming for civillians then they are the most inept force in the history of manking.

Israel used large bombs too, but in the minority of cases. Israel used them on a known HQ building of Hezbollah, hosting a meeting of Hezbollah leaders. That's a very justifiable act of war.
If Israel sent ground troops in earlier, it would not have minimized civilian casualties whatsoever, but it would get a lot more Israeli troops killed. So what's the point?

What financial effort? All their arms come from welfare from the US. We give them the aid so they can buy the weapons from us.

Israel gets US aid dollars with which it can buy things. It chooses to buy precision bombs and not stupid bombs - in order to more effectively target militia, and spare innocent lives.

That's been proven to be a lie already so no need to discuss this.

Huh? That's been proven true with video shots of Hezbollah's weaponry inside mosques, houses, and neighborhoods.
CNN reporters also report that when reporting in Lebanon, Hezbollah people control exactly what the cameraman film, and destroy the tapes of those who filmed whatever it is Hezbollah did not want.

I oppose the israeli slaughter of civillians period. I also oppose the israeli occupation of palestine, the israeli torture of human beings, the israeli stealing of land etc.

Great, you keep avoiding the real questions.
So in World War II, you'd let Hitler take over Europe, and most of Asia, because you must "think of the poor German children who die!".

Barely. They are the majority in the west bank and gaza by a long shot. Very soon they will be the majority when you add israel.

What the heck does that have to do with anything??
They are the majority in Gaza and they have their own parliament and government in Gaza.
How soon will 3.5 million people become 6.5 million people?
I think Israel will disengage from them comple

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

" * Killed 5 soldiers
        * Kidnapped 2 soldiers
        * Opened fire on Israeli military and civilian targets
"

Hezbollah didn't fire on israeli civillian targets till after israel struck the airport. Hezbollah was acting like a responsible military force and targetting the military. Israel responded by comitting war crimes.

Besides which israel killed a thousand civillians and left a million people homeless. The fact that you don't find that repugnant tells a lot about you.

"Israel attacked both Hezbollah and civilian infrastructure in use by Hezbollah. "

Like airports, bridges, roads, milk factories, water treatment plants, television stations, electrical facilities right? I have news for you just because it's possible for a member of hezbollah to drive on the road or cross a bridge or to drink some water that does not give you the right to destroy something that's used by civillians.

Airport was a perfect example of this. There were no hezbollah at the airtport, israel killed 50 people waiting for planes.

The fact that you don't find that repugnant tells a lot about you.

"So in World War II, you'd let Hitler take over Europe, and most of Asia, because you must "think of the poor German children who die!"."

I oppose the israeli slaughter of civillians period. I also oppose the israeli occupation of palestine, the israeli torture of human beings, the israeli stealing of land etc.

The fact that you don't oppose any of these tells a lot about you.

"Israel does not assasinate anyone in the territories, except those who actively engage in planning, funding or sending terrorists to Israel to kill innocents."

What the hell are you talking about. Every year they launch missilies and kill women and children indiscrimantely.

The fact that you don't find that repugnant tells a lot about you.

"As for security checkpoints between Palestinian territories, they are put in place to make sure arms and explosives aren't passed freely between the territories, as the borderline between Israel and the entire"

The palestenians have the right to arm themselves, they have the right to transport arms from one part of their country to another, they have the right to defend themselves against israel stealing their land.

". I am not sure about the facts here "

NO you are not. YOu are completely clueless.

"So aside for the water control issues, for which I have not got all the facts, the Palestinians pretty much got everything else you said they didn't get."

REally? Did they get east jerusalem? Did they get israel to obey all UN resolutions against them? Did they control over their own water supplies? Did they all of the west bank and gaza? Did they get control over the ports? Did they get control over the airspace? Did they get the removal of all settlements?

No they got jack shit which is why they didn't take it. Nobody wants to be confined to reservations.

"Though you have not a single shred of evidence that I have any hate for muslims, arabs, or any dark skinned people."

Your words have been enough. You are clearly a racist. I think your cheering of the deaths and torture of arabs is ample evidence. Your refusal to condemn israel for torturing and occupying palestenians is also ample evidence.

This is typical of all racists. They refuse to admit it. You are no different any member of the KKK.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Hezbollah didn't fire on israeli civillian targets till after israel struck the airport. Hezbollah was acting like a responsible military force and targetting the military. Israel responded by comitting war crimes.

That's a lie too.
Hezbollah shelled northern Israeli cities immediately before the abduction, as well as in random spurs during the last 6 years.

Besides which israel killed a thousand civillians and left a million people homeless. The fact that you don't find that repugnant tells a lot about you.

War is repugnant. Hezbollah started this war.

How many civilians died in World War II, and how many left homeless?
Does this mean World War II was an unjust war? Does this mean the British and Americans were war criminals?
No, in war civilians die.

Like airports, bridges, roads, milk factories, water treatment plants, television stations, electrical facilities right? I have news for you just because it's possible for a member of hezbollah to drive on the road or cross a bridge or to drink some water that does not give you the right to destroy something that's used by civillians.

If Hezbollah use the airport and bridge to transfer the abductees away from Israeli reach, it sure does. Funny that you mention "Television stations" when obviously you refer to Hezbollah's TV station.

Airport was a perfect example of this. There were no hezbollah at the airtport, israel killed 50 people waiting for planes.

Airport could be used to bring weapons, to fly the abductees away, or to bring in other forms of support for Hezbollah fighting, which translates to Israeli casualties. Israel will obviously try to minimize its causalties in a war, even before trying to minimize civilian casualties of the enemy.

The fact that you don't find that repugnant tells a lot about you.

Who says I don't?
It doesn't matter if its repugnant or not.
To keep the peace, one must fight wars.
When fighting wars, people, including civilians, die.

I oppose the israeli slaughter of civillians period. I also oppose the israeli occupation of palestine, the israeli torture of human beings, the israeli stealing of land etc.

AGAIN you evade the question. AGAIN you evade whether or not you'd support World War II.
Amazing!

If you don't support the allies in World War II, then you're an idiot.
If you do support the allies in World War II, then you support Israel in this conflict.

The fact that you don't oppose any of these tells a lot about you.

I don't oppose just wars, despite the fact they always kill civilians.

What the hell are you talking about. Every year they launch missilies and kill women and children indiscrimantely.

No. You are confused. Hamas kills women and children indescriminately. Israel kills Palestinian militants. Now, sometimes the women and children that are also in the house, behind which the militants are hiding, also die. Sometimes that happens, and Israel avoids that, even sometimes giving up on opportunities to kill large-scale terrorists. But the intel is not always accurate, and sometimes women and children are around the militants or sometimes there's just no other way to get rid of the threat.

The palestenians have the right to arm themselves, they have the right to transport arms from one part of their country to another, they have the right to defend themselves against israel stealing their land.

They don't have any right to arm themselves, when those arms are used against Israel. What kind of fool are you? Would any country let its enemies arm themselves freely with arms that have an obvious intent to be used to murder you?

Again, you are confused, Israel is only giving back land now.

NO you are not. YOu are completely clueless.

No, I have gaps in my knowledge, and so do everybody.
The difference between me and you, is that when there is a gap in my knowledge,

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

The difference between me and you is that I am not a racist pig. That and I don't get all my news on fox, I don't believe in the supremacy of any one race over another, I find war crimes to be repugnant, I find torturing people to be repugnant, I find destruction of milk factories and water treatment facilites (hey the hezbollah could use those to DRINK!) to be repugnant.

There is a lot of difference between me and you. You are sick, racist, war pig.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[Peaker]

Will you lose your freedom and your life to avoid the repugnant war?

No you would become a hypocrite and destroy milk factories and water treatment facilities if that's what it takes to beat your enemy in a war.

You are one of the self-rightous-as-long-as-it-doesnt-concern-me people, who look at all wars from aside and say: "Hey, stop that war, its evil!".

Its a good thing there weren't many of you around in World War II.

Re:Informative??? FLAMEBAIT!!!

[killjoe]

"Will you lose your freedom and your life to avoid the repugnant war?"

False choice.

"No you would become a hypocrite and destroy milk factories and water treatment facilities if that's what it takes to beat your enemy in a war."

If that's what it takes to defeat your enemies then you are a sorry son of a bitch. It show exactly how inept and evil the IDF has become when they have to resort to destroying milk factories and attacking journalists in order to try and win a war (a task they failed at).

"You are one of the self-rightous-as-long-as-it-doesnt-concern-me people, who look at all wars from aside and say: "Hey, stop that war, its evil!"."

It does concern me. It is because of Israel that so many people hate the US.

Isn't the Iranian Presidential Blog WMD?

[WillAffleckUW]

Weapons of Mass Distraction?

Just for that, our Fearful Leader has decided to attack Iceland!

Memo:

[acomj]

Dear mr. President.

There is a new threat on the horizon. "slashdoters" are masses of technically adept, socially inept people from around the globe. The slashdoters seem well read on constitutional issues although seem to deride copyright and patent laws. Its seems they've turned to islam, and are reading the new iranian presidents blogs. No good can come of this..

That or they're trying to take it down the blog through their "slashdot" effect (en mass loading of a web site).

We can't if they're for us or against us. They all should be monitored but we'll need a big budget increase do to there numbers.

Major
I.m. short

Re:Memo:

[budgenator]

In breaking news report on Al Jeezera, the Great Satan, the United States Of American has just launched a cyber-attach on the Iran Presidents personal website. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows revenge against the infadels and has ordered all 357 computers with an internet connection in Iran to use http://whitehouse.gov/ as their homepage.

Godwin

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I hear Hitler had a blog.

Umm

[johansalk]

Is he on myspace?

BLOG SITE INFECTED......

[muggs45]

I messed up before ... this is the link with the information on Amadinnerjackets site. http://olehgirl.blogspot.com/2006/08/pres-ahmadine jad-trying-to-infect.html From what I gather it is only going after "certain" addresses....

What's next, his own reality TV show?

[andre3001]

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 5 other Middle Eastern dictators share a summer beach house in Ft. Lauderdale. Can they survive the summer without blowing each other up? Find out this season on MTV's new series: "Confessions of a Mujahideen Surfer""

Islamic Fascists vs. Corporate Fascists

[fracskul]

I watched the 60 MInutes interview. He's a scary guy, seems very smart.

After doing a little research, it appears he is a figurehead to appease the citizens of Iran that want a "democracy".

The imams actually run things.

I would rather have the corporate fascism we have here in the U.S., than the religious tyranny they have in Iran.

Legally

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> This is perhaps slightly ironic, given that the Iranian
> Government actively censors blogs on the Internet.

You don't get it. He is the government!

If he wants to, he can legally kill you. Even here, his agent would claim diplomatic immunity.

How hard can that be?

[bongey]

tuesday: destroy israel. jihad wednesday: destroy israel... thurs: mess with US and nukes, destroy israeal, jihad fri: get nukes then destroy israel

Israel sholuld be in Germany or Poland

[Anonymous Coward]

After the war other countries took large pieces of land from Germany and Poland anyway, it would have been easier to create a Jewish state over there, where the Jews lived in large numbers for centuries. Arguments in favor of this solution:
1) Germans Must Pay, they, and not the Arabs, made the Holocaust
2) The Extermination Camps were in Poland and Germany not in Palestine or Saudi Arabia, those places where the extermination camps were rightfully belong to the Jewish People.
3) The Second World War was lost by Germany not by Arabs, why should the Arabs pay for the defeat of Germany?
3) Germans lost already lots of territories in Central and Eastern Europe, losing a few more tens of thousands of kilometers would not make any difference.
By the way, I am neither an Arab nor a Muslim, but an atheist from a country in Central Europe.

Re:Israel sholuld be in Germany or Poland

[krell]

"1) Germans Must Pay, they, and not the Arabs, made the Holocaust"

The Palestinian governing authorities at the time of Hitler strongly supported the Holocaust, even to the point of sending Arabs into Europe to wipe out European Jews. More recently, when Israel was founded, nearby Arab countries forced their Jews to leave (to go to Israel)

" but an atheist from a country in Central Europe"

I won't hold your religious faith against you. They should just leave Israel right where it is. The Arabs and Muslims just have to let go of their age-old hatred of Jewish people. Then there will be no problem. To move Israel would be to institute ethnic cleansing/genocide.

Re:Israel sholuld be in Germany or Poland

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info. Anyway the involvment of Arabs in the Holocaust was minor compared to that of Germans (Nazi Germany came up with the idea and implemented it; a few volunteers from Arab countries did not change anything)
My main point is that the CREATION OF ISRAEL in 1948 is the cause of all troubles. It was the main cause of the massive migration of Jews to that area; from a minority they became a majority and were able to enforce their rule on other native inhabitants of the land. True, there was some Jewish migration before that, but it was insignificant compared to what followed after the creation of Israel. In my opinion the historical argument, i.e. that thousands of years ago, the Jewish people happened to live in that area, means nothing. I can give you lots of examples in Europe, where the ethnic composition of a region or another has changed completely in a few centuries, yet nobody thinks that it is appropriate to change the ethnic structure back through forced migration (similar to the one which happened in Israel)
I agree, now it is TOO LATE, a massive Jewish immigration to Israel already took place, the Jews are now a majority in an area where a hundred years ago they used to a minority.
However, in 1948 it would have been easier to create a Jewish state in Europe, in Galitia, the Jews were already a majority over there and other could have joined; the migration would have been directed to Galitia not to Palestine. The World would be different today.

They did claim exclusive ownership.

[krell]

"The British didn't claim _exclusive_ ownership. They added it as "yet another colony" to their Empire."

The 2nd sentence is the more true one, and contradicts the first. The British Empire, like any empire, was not too tolerant toward sharing sovereignty of their colonies.

" In fact, the Ottomans empire's success was that they respected local cultures and integrated local structures into their governance system. And they gave Christians and Jews their "free space" where they could practice their religions."

Only to a slight degree. The Ottomans, while less vicious toward their Jewish subjects than Arabs, did do such things as punish Jews with special taxes (to encourage them to convert and get free of the tax) and in other ways denied them full participation as first-class citizens. The only way to get decent treatment was to convert to Islam.

" Same with the Arabs"

The Arab empire was not known for its respect for local cultures and governance systems. They were horribly brutal and oppressive, and always advanced on a wave of bloodshed, plunder, rape, and the typical crushing of local culture. Just because they were not as bad as Middle Ages Europe does not make them any sort of model of civilized behavior.

"(just look at the situation of religious freedom before and after the Reconquista was finished)."

There was none before and after the hated invaders were tossed out.

Re:They did claim exclusive ownership.

[greatcelerystalk]

The tax you referred to is called 'jizyah,' and it's a tax imposed on all adult, non-Muslim males living under an Islamic government; the tax was applied to Jews, Christians, and other accepted religious groups (dhimmis). If I remember correctly, the Sabeans and the Zoroastrians were the other groups.

The tax was supposed to provide impetus to convert to Islam.

Re:They did claim exclusive ownership.

[prophecy]

Interestingly enough, see how the Ottoman's treated the Armenians...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

Re:They did claim exclusive ownership.

[quigonn]

"(just look at the situation of religious freedom before and after the Reconquista was finished)."

There was none before and after the hated invaders were tossed out.

Do you even know what the Reconquista was? The Spanish regained the Iberian peninsula, to drive away the Moorish emperors. Under the Moorish, everybody was free to exercise his religious beliefs. Then the Spanish came, and either killed the Muslism or forced to convert them to Christianity, and drove away the Sephardim (i.e. the local Jews). That's what I'd call less religious freedom, and at that time (in these days, not quite anymore) Islam was definitely more tolerant towards other Abrahamitic religions.

Re:They did claim exclusive ownership.

[krell]

"The Spanish regained the Iberian peninsula, to drive away the Moorish emperors. Under the Moorish, everybody was free to exercise his religious beliefs"

Not at all. The Moors had the typical punishment for non-Muslims (to encourage them to convert), and Muslim religious dictates (such as diet) were forced on non-Muslims as well as Muslims. It was a typical colonial government in that the subjects chafed under colonial rule and could not wait to kick the invaders out.

"Then the Spanish came..."

They did not "come". They were the indiginous people. The Moors were the invaders, not the Spanish. Yes, the Spanish were even less tolerant to religious freedom when they won their land back, but this does not change the fact that the Moors (governing under Muslim law) were not tolerant either. One outrageously unjust system being even worse than another outrageously unjust system does not make the less-bad one "good", and it is entirely untrue that under the Moors that "everybody was free to exercise his religious beliefs".

Iran President != Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, people slime this guy for propaganda (and rightly so!) and then spew their own kind of irrational propaganda.

look, the jews in germany didn't finance an 8 year, fight in the mud, inhale chemical weapons, blood bath against the germans. the united states did that to iran.

the jews didn't invade, conquer and then publicly display the battered president of germany's neighbor - all under a 100% false premise. not a lick of truth, people... but that united nation's speech sounded real good - but was totally false. the united states did that to iran.

the next time a usa speech sounds good, who will listen?

i don't think i need to delve into the israel state issue - and yeah, the holocaust happened. then again, so did israel taking control over the land that is now israel. uh, the usa supported and financed that, too.

hitler headed a vastly superior military force and picked on the militarily weak in his society and the surrounding countries, none of whom was a real threat to hitler.

the president of iran is up against the world superpower and the regional superpower financed by the world superpower.

i think if country A had financed an 8 year blood bath and then taken over canada under a false premise, the good ole usa would be seeking the ultimate physical guardian, too - a nuclear weapon - if they didn't already have it.

you see, this is the problem with invading countries under entirely false premises when you claim to know the truth and have nothing but falsehoods - you lose credibility.

the guy isn't pro western society. the guy is part of a religion that tends to treat people badly. the guy may well eventually drop a nuke on israel (which is very bad).

but he isn't even close to hitler in his current incarnation and the busheviks' false war on iraq removes much of the usa's credibility in dealing with iran's pusuit of their "guardian" - nuclear weapons.

unfortunately, this guy is likely smarter than the busheviks.

you see, this guy is playing to the soviets, the chinese and their friendly countries to paint the west and israel as war mongers. after all, war mongers start wars under false premises, right? no decent nation would rush to war w/o FACTS, right?

the usa attacks iraq under a false premise, israel obliterates lebanon and historically kills 10 muslims, including children, for each israeli killed and iran will use this information to lobby for "big brother" - the soviet union and china - to demand that the usa and israel stop aggressively trying to destroy nations... starting with - your guessed it - iran and its pursuit of nuclear energy (yeah, right!) - i mean "the guardian of allah."

since the usa lacks credibility under the incompetent mismanagement of gwb II, the people on the "other side" will have good reason, in their own minds, to protect iran.

and so it goes... the next 50 years look to be tough years.

Re:Iran President != Hitler

[jb.hl.com]

and so it goes... the next 50 years look to be tough years.

I'm trying to be optimistic about there being another two months, personally.

the power of slashdot

[cashman73]

Let's add a link to his blog to the front page of slashdot,. . . . . . just to insure that the site's bandwidth shoots through the roof and the server comes crumbling down in a smoldering blaze of molten silicon! ;-)

It does not mandate tolerance.

[krell]

It does not mandate "tolerance" other than in a begrudging (i.e. intolerant) fashion that includes punishing people for not being Muslims. The Q'uran also includes the demand for "Shariah": a rule of Muslim law over all, in which non-Muslims have to obey Muslim laws, and only Muslims have a say in how things are run. Do you think the Jim Crow South was tolerant of the rights blacks?

Re:It does not mandate tolerance.

[plague3106]

First... Do you think the Jim Crow South was tolerant of the rights blacks?

I don't appriciate you attempting to label me as some kind of racist. If you read my post, you'd see that I've heard people say the same which you say about the it, and I've heard just as many say it claims the opposite.

I think you missed that in my post.. two sets of people are saying the same book says the same thing. Perhaps this is one of those things like in the bible... some claim that it says homosexuality is ok ('knowing' someone supposedly means slept with) others say it does not..

Re:It does not mandate tolerance.

[krell]

No, I was not godwin'ing you by implying you were a southern racist. I was using the southern Black situation as a comparison to show that treatment of Jews and other non-Muslims under Islamic law (and the rule of the old Arab Empire) was inhuman, demeaning, and not justifiable in any way).

What's different with the Bible situation is that, with the Q'uran, you had the guy who wrote the book directly founding an empire and running it the way it should be (according to him). This empire followed his decrees into relatively recent historic times. In other words, the well-documented historic legacy of Muhammad's own oppressive Arab empire leaves little doubt as to how Muhammad wanted his own book he wrote to be interpreted.

That's a lot more justification for fundamentalist brutality: a one-two punch.

Re:It does not mandate tolerance.

[quax]

Links please. Muslims obviously tell this story a bit different http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_301_350/shar iah.htm.

Re:It does not mandate tolerance.

[quax]

According to this dissertation (from the University of Berlin)

http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/al-awabdeh -mohamed-2005-07-07/HTML/chapter5.html#N1045A

Chapter 5 paragraph 7 discusses the covenant known as Thimmi.

According to Thimmi, Christian and Jewish people that live in the Muslim countries have the right to practice their religious rituals and they are equal to Muslim people in terms of personal rights. It is therefore stated that "not a single instance can be quoted to show that the Holy Prophet ever brought the pressure of the sword to bear on one individual, let alone a whole nation, to embrace Islam."

The text goes on to discuss that this Islamic principle was often compromised in practice.

I'm not worried I only drink pure grain alcohol

[wsanders]

mixed with rain water. Do not avoid women, but do deny them your essence

-Jack

If 1300 years old = modern

[krell]

"The anti-Semitic and anti-Christian feelings in the Middle East are a somewhat modern phenomena"
Only if you consider something that dates back to 700 AD as being "modern". Muhammad and his followers slaughtered large numbers of Christians and Jews for the crime of being Christians and Jews (to say nothing of what they did to the pagans they conquered). Islamic law mandates punishment and oppression for these "people of the book". Also, there are several more sects of Islam than the three you named.

Iranian Developers using Using Visual Studio?

[vileMuncher]

"content="Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 7.1"

Comments?

Blog comments?

[autophile]

I wonder if he'll get this as a comment in every post he makes:

"From: uk furniture

I am interested, please let me know more"

--Rob

speaking from personal experience :(

Iran President != Hitler (why? No silly moustache)

[krell]

"i think if country A had financed an 8 year blood bath and then taken over canada under a false premise"

The problem with such unrelated analogies that if you can't even get the name of Iraq and Iran straight, then who even knows what you are saying? Do you mean Canada, or did you mean to say China? Does any of it have anything to do with anything?

..."busheviks. you see, this guy is playing to the soviets"

IS playing to the Soviets? IS??? What does Lenin have to do with it?

"hitler headed a vastly superior military force and picked on the militarily weak in his society and the surrounding countries, none of whom was a real threat to hitler."

None of them was any threat to Hitler. That is, if you don't count Britain and the USSR. I guess we can't count those anyway. We're playing your make-believe history. Was Hitler surrounded by such weak countries as Grand Fenwicke, the Shire, Lilliput, and Oz?

"the usa attacks iraq under a false premise"

What false premise is that? Specifically?

"...the soviet union and china....

Again with mentioning a country that does not even EXIST? Tell me, dear AC, I wonder if you have any revelations about the impact of Genghis Khan and his Mongol Hordes on this situation. Do you think Ceasar or Napoleon will send troops to Lebanon?

"the next time a usa speech sounds good, who will listen?"

I bet if you were the speechwriter, and did not know the difference between Iran and Iraq, and constantly spoke of the Soviet Union as a modern global player, it sure would be quite interesting.

except for yours....

[krell]

"Is there is a true religion? All religions are obviously false."

Except for yours, right?

Re:except for yours....

[killjoe]

I am an atheist. This means I believe in one less god then you.

Re:except for yours....

[krell]

"I am an atheist. This means I believe in one less god then you."

You have just declared your religion. I have yet to declare mine. For all I know, I could have several gods.

Re:except for yours....

[killjoe]

Atheism is a religion in the same way as darkness is light.

If you believe in multiple gods then stand corrected, either way I believe in less gods then you. The fact you think atheism is a religion seems to point to you being some sort of a religious fundamentalist, most likely a xtian fundamentalist, probably from one of the red states, probably a republican. Statistically speaking of course.

Re:except for yours....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an agnostic, not from America, and I think atheism is a religion, since disbelief in any Gods is still a form of belief. There is no evidence for the non-existence of God, so you are going on faith alone.

It's an interesting fact that everyone with a religion "knows" why their religion is different to all the rest. Atheists are no different. If you really want to have no religion, admit that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not, and thus become an agnostic.

First post seen on the blog comments section

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFA! CAMLELZ111!!

But there's a BIG difference!

[krell]

"Anyone who calls for the extermination of the Jewish people is just as bad and deserves no less than what happened to Germany at the end of the war, and after."

The Iranian president has a lot of defenders here on Slashdot. Much of the defense I've seen on this item rests on the idea that "he only wants to MOVE Israel, not wipe it out". To those who think that there is a big difference:

1) Do you doubt for an instant that if the Israelis refused to budge, that the ones appointed by Iran to "cleanse the area" would not hesitate to kill those who insisted on staying in their home (i.e. most Israelis)?

2) Iran's supposedly nice and peaceful "We just want them to move" (imagine George Carlins sarcastic smooth voice using this in a joke!) intentions are belied by seeing Iranian foreign policy in action: they fund terrorists that mainly kill Jewish civilians. Often, these groups kill Jews no matter where they are (even outside of Israel).

net slum gains resident

[wardk]

wow, just when you thought the virtual toilet was full of turds already

I think I trust the BBC's translations.

[hullabalucination]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/46163 36.stm

After all, they have native Farsi speakers on staff as they do Farsi broadcasting to Iran:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/

Who are "Anneliese Fikentscher" and "Andreas Neumann" who supposedly did these translations and what are their qualifications for translating Farsi? I can find no vouchers for the authenticity of the translations presented or even that they are translating from primary Farsi source materials.

At last an informed decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again the slashdotters trample over free-speech.

I for one welcome President Mahmood Ahmadinejad blog, which will give an opportunity to hear a second set of views, and a set of views from a well informed source. During the current offensive by Israel / USA against Palestinians living in Lebannon President Mahmood Ahmadinejad's comments were censored by the media in our country (Ireland) and by the media in the UK which we also receive.

And well done for handling the slash-dot effect.

300M but only a few driving

[majid_aldo]

too bad the people high up in government only represent the needs of israel.

interesting anagram, too

[Ksisanth]

Mahdi Ahmadi Nejad: Hidden Imam Jaahad.

So where's this guy's website?

[fireweaver]

So where's this guy's website?

Vote Early and Vote Often

[Bryansix]

Note that you can vote "No" as many times as you like. So vote early and vote often to send Iran a message. If only 2% of people vote yes then maybe they will wake up.

President of Iran never claims mistranslations

[Anonymous Coward]

Rei wrote:

Oh, and as per the "wipe Israel off the map" comments, that's a much worse mistranslation. He never used any language even close to that. He talked about his hope that the "occupying regime" would fall, akin to how the Shah fell, Saddam fell, and the Soviet Union fell. His speech was completely passive (didn't discuss any involvement from Iran) and spoke nothing of harm to the people in the state of Israel.

I listened to the Mike Wallace interview last night (August 13, 2006) broadcast on the CBS program "60 Minutes" (you can order a videotape of the intervew at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minute s/main13504.shtml) . Mike Wallace specifically asked him the question, and Ahmadinejad evaded answering, time again. Ahmadinejad did not say that he had been mistranslated. He did not accuse the press of mistranslating him.

Roughly seven minutes into the interview (Ahmadinejad's word are spoken by a translator) is the following dialog exchange, which I have transcribed as best as I could by listening to the program.

Ahmadinejad : ...The time of the bomb is in the past. It's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialog, and cultural exchanges.
Wallace (narrating): But dialog and cultural exchanges do not sound like his policy toward Israel.
Wallace: Israel, you have said -- time and again -- "Israel must be wiped off the map." Please explain why, and what is Iran doing about that?
Ahmadinejad : Well, allow me to finish with the nuclear dossier first [ed - he is referring to an earlier question of Wallace]
Wallace: No, you've -- you've finished with that, you've finished with that.
Ahmadinejad (smiles): No it's not finished sir. We're not finished. We are just begininng.
Wallace (laughs): Ho ho, that's what I was afraid of! But go on.
Ahmadinejad :The Americans are overly sensitive. And of course the American governement. I don't know why they're opposed to Iranian progress.
Wallace : "The United States is against Iranian progress and development."
Ahmadinejad : That is true. That is what I am saying--
Wallace ; You know that's not so.
Ahmadinejad : --well, I'm going to explain. Before the Revolution, the German, French, American governments, and the Canadian government had signed contracts with us to produce nuclear fuel inside Iran. But immediately after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, their opposition started. Right now, they are opposed to our nuclear technology. Now why is that?
Wallace (narrating) Because the U.S. is convinced that nuclear energy is just a smokesceen -- that what Iran really wants is The Bomb. Then I tried to get the president back to his most inflammatory statement.
Wallace(to Ahmadinejad ): You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question...you still have not answered the question. "Israel must be wiped off the map." Why?
Ahmadinejad: Well, don't be hasty sir. I'm going--
Walace: No, I'm not being hasty.
Ahmadinejad: --to get to that. I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government. ...

You can find a similar version, produced by CBS (with the benefit of professional transcribers!), at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minute s/main1879867_page2.shtml.

Ahmadinejad had a chance to say "I didn't say that!" or "I've been misunderstood."

He didn't.

Whoops, almost forgot my evidence!

[Brightest Light]

http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_is rael.htm

Re:Iran President != Hitler (why? No silly moustac

[arbarbonif]

Just for grins, I'll answer for the AC...

"i think if country A had financed an 8 year blood bath and then taken over canada under a false premise"

The problem with such unrelated analogies that if you can't even get the name of Iraq and Iran straight, then who even knows what you are saying? Do you mean Canada, or did you mean to say China? Does any of it have anything to do with anything?

Canada == Iraq, US == Iran, Country A == US... So we financed an 8 year bloodbath betwixt Iran and Iraq, then invaded Iraq. ..."busheviks. you see, this guy is playing to the soviets"

IS playing to the Soviets? IS??? What does Lenin have to do with it?

soviets == Russia. Habits die hard?

"hitler headed a vastly superior military force and picked on the militarily weak in his society and the surrounding countries, none of whom was a real threat to hitler."

None of them was any threat to Hitler. That is, if you don't count Britain and the USSR. I guess we can't count those anyway. We're playing your make-believe history. Was Hitler surrounded by such weak countries as Grand Fenwicke, the Shire, Lilliput, and Oz?

USSR was no threat (In fact was an ally). Britain was no threat until Churchill came to power, because Chamberlain was a pussy. I don't think France or Poland or Austria was planning on invading Germany, or was even an actual threat... And really, the invasion of USSR was just stupid/meglomaniacal (never start a land war in Asia)

"the usa attacks iraq under a false premise"

What false premise is that? Specifically?

I assume this would be the WMDs that the government has categorically said that it turns out that Iraq didn't have.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

"...the soviet union and china....

Again with mentioning a country that does not even EXIST? Tell me, dear AC, I wonder if you have any revelations about the impact of Genghis Khan and his Mongol Hordes on this situation. Do you think Ceasar or Napoleon will send troops to Lebanon?

see above
"the next time a usa speech sounds good, who will listen?"

I bet if you were the speechwriter, and did not know the difference between Iran and Iraq, and constantly spoke of the Soviet Union as a modern global player, it sure would be quite interesting.

While I can't really disagree with your response... (AC had some issues with clarity) I do think that the invasion of Iraq and the truly horrible PR associated will damage the international credibility of the US

Basically if you are going to destroy the AC on points at least TRY and attack what he meant, rather then pedantically focussing on what he said, it wasn't that hard to figure out.

Disclaimer- I am not the original poster, nor do I necessarily agree with the points. I just get annoyed at mischaracterizations.

Mike Wallace, a Jew, interviewed Iran's president.

[Futurepower(R)]

Mike Wallace interview on 60 Minutes of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Iranian Leader Opens Up Ahmadinejad Speaks Candidly With Mike Wallace About Israel, Nukes, Bush.

Mike Wallace was VERY disrespectful. Maybe it was not such a good idea to have a Jew interview the Iranian president. If I were Les Moonves, CEO of CBS, I would be thinking about firing Wallace for his lack of professionalism. However, Les Moonves is a Jew, also. They are both disposed by their culture to be sworn enemies of Iran. There should have been a statement on the show about the conflict of interest.

I am against violence of any kind. However, that said, I thought that the Iranian president was quite a reasonable man.

Getting a story on SlashDot

[DrCode]

In the Name of God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate Oh Almighty God, please, we beg you to send us our Guardian- who You have promised us- soon and appoint us as His close companions.

Ah, so that's what's been missing from my SlashDot submissions.

Sample Content

[Tablizer]

Thursday June 30
Jews Suck! Nuke 'em
-------
Friday July 1
Zionists and America must die die die!
-------
Saturday July 2
Long live Bin Laden. Nice aim, plane boy!
-------
Sunday July 3
Even my cat hates Jews. I put a picture of a jew in her litter box, and she pooped 27.3% more than normal. I can afford these kinds of poop tests because I am the president, you know.
-------
Monday July 4
Had a bright red shiney button installed on my desk today in preparation for The Bomb. Any week now....he he, I am giddey like a school girl over my coming Mega Mushroom Maker.

Re:Sample Content

[Mistah Blue]

This is supposed to be funny?

Re:Sample Content

[Krojack]

Yeah I'm against this guy and everything he says but I did laugh at this some.. the first 3 are true and i didn't laugh as much but the 4th and 5th made me laugh.

"60 Minutes" inteview -- Ahmadinejad didn't deny

[Anonymous Coward]

I listened to the Mike Wallace interview last night (August 13, 2006) broadcast on the CBS program "60 Minutes" (you can order a videotape of the intervew at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minute s/main13504.shtml ) . Mike Wallace specifically asked him the question, and Ahmadinejad evaded answering, time again. Ahmadinejad did not say that he had been mistranslated. He did not accuse the press of mistranslating him.

Roughly seven minutes into the interview (Ahmadinejad's words are spoken by a translator) is the following dialog exchange, which I have transcribed as best as I could by listening to the program.

Ahmadinejad : ...The time of the bomb is in the past. It's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialog, and cultural exchanges.
Wallace (narrating): But dialog and cultural exchanges do not sound like his policy toward Israel.
Wallace (to Ahmadinejad ): Israel, you have said -- time and again -- "Israel must be wiped off the map." Please explain why, and what is Iran doing about that?
Ahmadinejad : Well, allow me to finish with the nuclear dossier first [ed - he is referring to an earlier question of Wallace]
Wallace: No, you've -- you've finished with that, you've finished with that.
Ahmadinejad (smiles): No it's not finished sir. We're not finished. We are just begininng.
Wallace (laughs): Ho ho, that's what I was afraid of! But go on.
Ahmadinejad :The Americans are overly sensitive. And of course the American governement. I don't know why they're opposed to Iranian progress.
Wallace : "The United States is against Iranian progress and development."
Ahmadinejad : That is true. That is what I am saying--
Wallace ; You know that's not so.
Ahmadinejad : --well, I'm going to explain. Before the Revolution, the German, French, American governments, and the Canadian government had signed contracts with us to produce nuclear fuel inside Iran. But immediately after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, their opposition started. Right now, they are opposed to our nuclear technology. Now why is that?
Wallace (narrating): Because the U.S. is convinced that nuclear energy is just a smokesceen -- that what Iran really wants is The Bomb. Then I tried to get the president back to his most inflammatory statement.
Wallace(to Ahmadinejad ): You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question...you still have not answered the question. "Israel must be wiped off the map." Why?
Ahmadinejad: Well, don't be hasty sir. I'm going--
Walace: No, I'm not being hasty.
Ahmadinejad: --to get to that. I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government. ...

You can find a similar version, produced by CBS (with the benefit of professional transcribers!), at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minute s/main1879867_page2.shtml .

Ahmadinejad had a chance to say "I didn't say that!" or "I've been misunderstood."

He didn't.

A serious reply to a joking question

[Sun]

According to an Iranian friend, the Iranian law does not allow copyright protection to non-Iranians. The answer is that the punishment for piracy may be severe (I don't know), but according to Iranian law, installing a copy of Windows without paying for it is not piracy.

Shachar

Re:Iran President != Hitler (why? No silly moustac

[krell]

"I assume this would be the WMDs that the government has categorically said that it turns out that Iraq didn't have"

Actually, they have found hundreds of them.

Re:Iran President != Hitler (why? No silly moustac

[arbarbonif]

Not according to the official report of the CIA. (as linked)

They did find some 500 badly degraded chemical rounds, several years later than that report, that 'could not currently be used as originally intended' http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5 547.html

I don't really consider that as a sufficient risk to warrant an invasion...

I'm kinda bummed I didn't get a response on the whole Hitler angle. heh...

Re:Iran President != Hitler (why? No silly moustac

[krell]

There was kind of a cumulative effect going on, with Saddam Hussen funding much international terrorism, firing on patrols hundreds of times (cease fire? WHAT cease fire?), other significant violations of the cease fire, the extremely large numbers of deaths due to starvation because Saddam blocked food shipments, and Iraq's strong support for Al Qaeda and similar groups.

Re:Iran President != Hitler (why? No silly moustac

[arbarbonif]

The problem is that that isn't what it was sold on.

The best reason for the war is that to set up a pro-US arab secular democracy in the Middle East would be great for the US and likely for the world. Now I don't think that we are going to actually pull it off, but it is a laudable goal.

Now I realize that Bush couldn't really say that diplomatically so he went for the 'low-hanging' fruit of WMDs as a public reason, which when it turned out to be not an issue it left him with a large credibility problem. And he is perhaps the most incompetent PR president since Nixon (and maybe worse than him), so he was unable to come up with an alternate justification that could stick.

The humanitarian angle applies far better for other countries, we would be occupying a goodly chunk of Africa if that is the standard (let alone North Korea). The violating the cease fire is an ok justification, but a little weak since it's not like anything particularly significant had just happened, so why did we invade when we did?

It seems to me that the biggest problem with the war is a combination of really bad PR and some kind of naive belief that "Freedom solves everything, so if we heap some freedom on the Iraqis they will be all happy and stuff" (Which lead to some strategic problems when it didn't happen).