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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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.

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...

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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".

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!

Re:what's ironical...

[Petskull]

...and that sentences end in periods.

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...

[Denial93]

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

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.

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.

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

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: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=*

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

[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.

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!

Fiendster

[krell]

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

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: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!

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

[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.

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.

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:Poll on the blog

[Foobar of Borg]

You forgot:
(e) CowboyMahmoud!

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?

[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: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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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]

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.

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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.

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?