Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words
November 13, 2006... "Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear" Israel is "a contradiction to nature, we foresee its rapid disappearance and destruction."
October 19, 2006... "The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive" (as quoted by Iranian state television)
August 6, 2006... "They (Israel) kill women and children, young and old. And, behind closed doors, they make plans for the advancement of their evil goals." (as quoted by Khorasan Provincial TV)
August 4, 2006... "A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel." (as quoted by Malaysian news agency Bernama website)
August 2, 2006... "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented." (as quoted by Iranian TV) "Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame." (as quoted by Iranian TV)
May 11, 2006... Israel is "a regime based on evil that cannot continue and one day will vanish." (to a student rally in Jakarta, Indonesia)
October 10, 2009... "The Zionist regime wants to establish its base upon the ruins of the civilizations of the region...The uniform shout of the Iranian nation is forever 'Death to Israel.'..."
Some quotes for you. "Axis of Evil" is pretty tame in comparison, and fairly accurate.
Why not travel farther back in time, and convince everyone that Ghenghis Khan is after them ?
If we all get upset over Ghenghis Khan, we might be able to ignore the fact that every Friday for the last 30 years Iran shouts "Death to America! Death to Israel" after prayers.
You reap what you sow. Grow corn if you don't want conflict.
And? That in no way contradicts anything I wrote in the post you were replying to.
Yes, you did contradict yourself. Here is the quote:
Threats of war [against Iran], particularly ones based on such blatant dishonesty [by the US] and double standards as are on display in this case,
The US has not made a threat of war against Iran. Iran, on the other hand, has just made yet another threat of retaliation outside its borders.
Do you have any doubt that if the US were to shoot down a Chinese drone in US territory the US would be saying the same thing?
This statement shows your personal bias. You assume the Iranians are telling the truth, and you assume the US is lying. So far, the Iranians have claimed to have shot down a drone that was spying on them, and the US has admitted to losing a drone. Those are the claims. Im sure its no surprise to you that the US is operating in Iraq, right next door to Iran. It will also be no surprise to you, that the US will most likely say the drone malfunctioned, and the Iranians grabbed it. The truth of the matter will be some combination of the stories each side is going to tell. But you won't get that, because, you have already made emotional decisions and assumptions of truth and lies.
A US drone appears to have ended up in the hands of the Iranian officials. Thats all that can be reasoned to be correct thus far, after taking both sides of the story into account. The rest is your political bias.
I was just about to paste this
"KABUL, Afghanistan – "The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a U.S. unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status."
They may actually have one this time.
I'm not sure you understand what "sovereignty" means.
Just as no man is an island unto himself, no nation is either.
If the villagers decide they don't like the monster you just created in your laboratory, they will justify showing up at your door with torches. This is human nature.
Yes, your memory has hazed over a little bit. It took weeks before all of Iraq's radar sites were eliminated.
My comment above did not at all address the time to eliminate *all* radar locations. My comment was only concerned with the first strike, or initial action. The major question on this thread that seems to require being addressed is... "Is it at all practical to risk the political implications of flying drones over a sovereign nations territory as a ramp up to war." My opinion, and it is indeed only my opinion, is no, it is not. At least not concerning Iran.
Iran and Iraq ( before they were invaded), although not exactly the same, are in fairly similar situations military. As a first action the US didn't fly a few drones or a few aircraft over Iraq in an overly cautious attempt to map its radar stations. Yes of course they are mobile. Yes of course planes flew *at some point* in the war. But it was cruise missiles that began the first strike. Those cruise missiles given the current state of technology and communications are certainly capable of targeting and/or reporting the locations of any active radar stations that light up. Those get added to the map, more missiles are flown, and this process repeats until such time as planes and drones can be flown with a low probability of loss.
It's all just my 2 cents. Why fly a handful of drones, with no immediate intention to take action, risk having them shot down and used as a propaganda tool that would consolidate political opinions against you ? Makes no sense when you have the capability to consolidate backing for the action first, then hit a home run.
For the last decade or more, the talk has been all about drones. They are everywhere. Here, there, flying over the neighbors house. Its drone fever.
If the Iranian authorities show the world some parts... I'll recant the basis for my speculation. Until they have parts, I'm going with the most probable scenario that this is just another one of their fish stories. They are good at producing fish stories.
Perhaps my memory of the event is somewhat hazy, but if I recall correctly, when the second Iraq war started, the first strike was with cruise missiles from navy ships. Surely, cruise missiles would light up any radar defense stations, at which point, they would all be on the map. This is why I say it is not necessary to send in drones / piloted aircraft solely for information gathering purposes. Any radar site locations can be found during the cruise missile attack.
For arguments sake, lets say Iran knows this, and orders all radar stations to remain powered down during the cruise missile attack. They would be sealing their own fate with this action, and have no chance whatsoever of actually defending against the attack. This would call into question the logic of having a radar based defense system with an operational strategy of maintaining non-operational status. They might as well not exist at that point, and the cruise missiles will hit a different, more valuable, primary target.
Or one can not go in at all, and still f up the enemy badly. When and if this happens, there will be no ambiguity as to who did what. Until then, its all just propaganda from one side or the other.
Okay. So by your logic, its alright if I develop a nuclear bomb in my garage. And if my neighbors complain, and the police arrest me and shut me down for violating any number of laws, then the neighbors and the police are the aggressors ?
Iran is the one developing nuclear weapons in the neighborhood garage, against international laws, verified by international committees, and subject to international sanctions. That makes Iran the bad guy, not the international community for doing something about it.
If your neighbor, stood outside on his front lawn, and shouted "Death to the guy next door" on a regular basis, and then ransacked your house ( aka the British Embassy ) would you just smile and hand him food for energy to further his aggression towards you ? No. You wouldn't. You would treat him as the real potential threat to you his own actions have declared him to be.
In 2008 Iran used Russian S300s to shoot down several assault planes violating its airspace, which it tracked lifting off from Iraq some hours earlier, 5 hours later the price of oil crashed through the floor, and shortly thereafter, Lehman Brothers, who were heavily long oil, went bust.
Do you have any links to any "evidence" or "proof" of any of this ? Or is it just another narrative from a wonky conspiracy website ? Some real documented connections would make for an interesting read.
And you think a picture of a drone would change a damn thing?
In the post above, nowhere did I mention "pics." I said, "showing the world said drone" and "drone evidence"... not... "a picture of a drone." IF they actually have a downed drone, they could produce serial numbers from parts of said drone, which can be correlated with manufacturing and military records.
Media prints what its told to print in "press conferences". This bears virtually no resemblance to what is actually happening in the real world.
Difficult to argue with you on this one. One must consider the source of a message, before ascertaining the accuracy of its content. Failure to consider the source, and incentives for producing any particular message, generally does result in an inaccurate picture of events.
Theory. It's all just a bullshit theory. The ball is in Irans court *if* they actually have a drone. They have everything to gain politically by showing the world said drone. When said drone evidence doesn't appear, try not to cry. Just find a new reason to mold the geopolitical landscape to match your next theory.
The US is trying to fly as deep into Iran as they can before all the air defense sites 'light up', they're trying to locate all the air defence radars etc.
There is 0 incentive to fly into a territory to find radar sites *before* a conflict has started. Anti-radar munitions have been around since at least the 70's. If a conflict were to break out, the US could then send in aircraft / drones with ARMs and take out any sites that light up.
This is at least the 3rd time Iran has claimed to have downed a US drone. They have provided no proof for any of the claims.
Maybe Iran is getting ready to provoke a war, and knowing this, they are claiming a 3rd drone, even though they have not shown proof of any of them, so that after they provoke a conflict, and drones are used during said conflict, they can pick one up later as proof of the 3 as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims they have already made.
Last I checked, walled gardens were not legally forced by any major government
Right. They are attractive due to the average persons lack of IT mad skillz.
Those who master technology, by proxy, master those who consume technology.
We could make the same argument this Harvard professor has made, concerning any product really. We could be voicing outrage over the fact that if we want to make a margarita, we have to pay a blender manufacturer for the privilege, and afterwards, we are bound by the limited features of the blender model that we chose. It doesn't crush ice fast enough. It doesn't automatically apply salt to the rim of the glass. It doesn't clean puke out of the carpet. You get the idea.
If someone wants to master a particular piece of IT equipment, Amazon.com has a billion books for $0.50. If someone wants to join the lowest common denominator crowd, their are groups of people who already read those billion books who have a product for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing Koreans to counterfeit and/or pirate US companies products certainly won't create any jobs domestically.
Take a beginners course on production inputs.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words
... "Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear" Israel is "a contradiction to nature, we foresee its rapid disappearance and destruction."
... "The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive" (as quoted by Iranian state television)
... "They (Israel) kill women and children, young and old. And, behind closed doors, they make plans for the advancement of their evil goals." (as quoted by Khorasan Provincial TV)
... "A new Middle East will prevail without the existence of Israel." (as quoted by Malaysian news agency Bernama website)
... "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented." (as quoted by Iranian TV) "Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame." (as quoted by Iranian TV)
... Israel is "a regime based on evil that cannot continue and one day will vanish." (to a student rally in Jakarta, Indonesia)
... "The Zionist regime wants to establish its base upon the ruins of the civilizations of the region...The uniform shout of the Iranian nation is forever 'Death to Israel.'..."
November 13, 2006
October 19, 2006
August 6, 2006
August 4, 2006
August 2, 2006
May 11, 2006
October 10, 2009
Some quotes for you. "Axis of Evil" is pretty tame in comparison, and fairly accurate.
Why not travel farther back in time, and convince everyone that Ghenghis Khan is after them ?
If we all get upset over Ghenghis Khan, we might be able to ignore the fact that every Friday for the last 30 years Iran shouts "Death to America! Death to Israel" after prayers.
You reap what you sow. Grow corn if you don't want conflict.
And? That in no way contradicts anything I wrote in the post you were replying to.
Yes, you did contradict yourself. Here is the quote:
Threats of war [against Iran], particularly ones based on such blatant dishonesty [by the US] and double standards as are on display in this case,
The US has not made a threat of war against Iran. Iran, on the other hand, has just made yet another threat of retaliation outside its borders.
Do you have any doubt that if the US were to shoot down a Chinese drone in US territory the US would be saying the same thing?
This statement shows your personal bias. You assume the Iranians are telling the truth, and you assume the US is lying. So far, the Iranians have claimed to have shot down a drone that was spying on them, and the US has admitted to losing a drone. Those are the claims. Im sure its no surprise to you that the US is operating in Iraq, right next door to Iran. It will also be no surprise to you, that the US will most likely say the drone malfunctioned, and the Iranians grabbed it. The truth of the matter will be some combination of the stories each side is going to tell. But you won't get that, because, you have already made emotional decisions and assumptions of truth and lies.
A US drone appears to have ended up in the hands of the Iranian officials. Thats all that can be reasoned to be correct thus far, after taking both sides of the story into account. The rest is your political bias.
You should re-read the article. Iran has threatened retaliation outside its borders, for the drone they just found.
I was just about to paste this "KABUL, Afghanistan – "The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a U.S. unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status." They may actually have one this time.
We can all party while waiting for the 12th Imam now I suppose.
with whom you have been exchanging death threats for decades
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Et tu Brute ?
I'm not sure you understand what "sovereignty" means.
Just as no man is an island unto himself, no nation is either.
If the villagers decide they don't like the monster you just created in your laboratory, they will justify showing up at your door with torches. This is human nature.
Yes, your memory has hazed over a little bit. It took weeks before all of Iraq's radar sites were eliminated.
My comment above did not at all address the time to eliminate *all* radar locations. My comment was only concerned with the first strike, or initial action. The major question on this thread that seems to require being addressed is ... "Is it at all practical to risk the political implications of flying drones over a sovereign nations territory as a ramp up to war." My opinion, and it is indeed only my opinion, is no, it is not. At least not concerning Iran.
... I'll recant the basis for my speculation. Until they have parts, I'm going with the most probable scenario that this is just another one of their fish stories. They are good at producing fish stories.
Iran and Iraq ( before they were invaded), although not exactly the same, are in fairly similar situations military. As a first action the US didn't fly a few drones or a few aircraft over Iraq in an overly cautious attempt to map its radar stations. Yes of course they are mobile. Yes of course planes flew *at some point* in the war. But it was cruise missiles that began the first strike. Those cruise missiles given the current state of technology and communications are certainly capable of targeting and/or reporting the locations of any active radar stations that light up. Those get added to the map, more missiles are flown, and this process repeats until such time as planes and drones can be flown with a low probability of loss.
It's all just my 2 cents. Why fly a handful of drones, with no immediate intention to take action, risk having them shot down and used as a propaganda tool that would consolidate political opinions against you ? Makes no sense when you have the capability to consolidate backing for the action first, then hit a home run.
For the last decade or more, the talk has been all about drones. They are everywhere. Here, there, flying over the neighbors house. Its drone fever.
If the Iranian authorities show the world some parts
Perhaps my memory of the event is somewhat hazy, but if I recall correctly, when the second Iraq war started, the first strike was with cruise missiles from navy ships. Surely, cruise missiles would light up any radar defense stations, at which point, they would all be on the map. This is why I say it is not necessary to send in drones / piloted aircraft solely for information gathering purposes. Any radar site locations can be found during the cruise missile attack.
For arguments sake, lets say Iran knows this, and orders all radar stations to remain powered down during the cruise missile attack. They would be sealing their own fate with this action, and have no chance whatsoever of actually defending against the attack. This would call into question the logic of having a radar based defense system with an operational strategy of maintaining non-operational status. They might as well not exist at that point, and the cruise missiles will hit a different, more valuable, primary target.
You can go in half-blind
Or one can not go in at all, and still f up the enemy badly. When and if this happens, there will be no ambiguity as to who did what. Until then, its all just propaganda from one side or the other.
Okay. So by your logic, its alright if I develop a nuclear bomb in my garage. And if my neighbors complain, and the police arrest me and shut me down for violating any number of laws, then the neighbors and the police are the aggressors ?
Iran is the one developing nuclear weapons in the neighborhood garage, against international laws, verified by international committees, and subject to international sanctions. That makes Iran the bad guy, not the international community for doing something about it.
If your neighbor, stood outside on his front lawn, and shouted "Death to the guy next door" on a regular basis, and then ransacked your house ( aka the British Embassy ) would you just smile and hand him food for energy to further his aggression towards you ? No. You wouldn't. You would treat him as the real potential threat to you his own actions have declared him to be.
And technology has stood completely still since the 1980s, therefore, this tactic is still the primary means with which to assess radar locations ?
The "Mismanagement, ignorance, misinformation, unknowns" in this case, being, the belief that one must violate airspace in order to assess defenses.
In 2008 Iran used Russian S300s to shoot down several assault planes violating its airspace, which it tracked lifting off from Iraq some hours earlier, 5 hours later the price of oil crashed through the floor, and shortly thereafter, Lehman Brothers, who were heavily long oil, went bust.
Do you have any links to any "evidence" or "proof" of any of this ? Or is it just another narrative from a wonky conspiracy website ? Some real documented connections would make for an interesting read.
And you think a picture of a drone would change a damn thing?
In the post above, nowhere did I mention "pics." I said, "showing the world said drone" and "drone evidence" ... not ... "a picture of a drone." IF they actually have a downed drone, they could produce serial numbers from parts of said drone, which can be correlated with manufacturing and military records.
Media prints what its told to print in "press conferences". This bears virtually no resemblance to what is actually happening in the real world.
Difficult to argue with you on this one. One must consider the source of a message, before ascertaining the accuracy of its content. Failure to consider the source, and incentives for producing any particular message, generally does result in an inaccurate picture of events.
Theory. It's all just a bullshit theory. The ball is in Irans court *if* they actually have a drone. They have everything to gain politically by showing the world said drone. When said drone evidence doesn't appear, try not to cry. Just find a new reason to mold the geopolitical landscape to match your next theory.
So *you* say. If you were supreme dictator of the galaxy, your opinion might carry some weight.
The US is trying to fly as deep into Iran as they can before all the air defense sites 'light up', they're trying to locate all the air defence radars etc.
There is 0 incentive to fly into a territory to find radar sites *before* a conflict has started. Anti-radar munitions have been around since at least the 70's. If a conflict were to break out, the US could then send in aircraft / drones with ARMs and take out any sites that light up.
This is at least the 3rd time Iran has claimed to have downed a US drone. They have provided no proof for any of the claims.
Maybe Iran is getting ready to provoke a war, and knowing this, they are claiming a 3rd drone, even though they have not shown proof of any of them, so that after they provoke a conflict, and drones are used during said conflict, they can pick one up later as proof of the 3 as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims they have already made.
+1
Last I checked, walled gardens were not legally forced by any major government
Right. They are attractive due to the average persons lack of IT mad skillz.
Those who master technology, by proxy, master those who consume technology.
We could make the same argument this Harvard professor has made, concerning any product really. We could be voicing outrage over the fact that if we want to make a margarita, we have to pay a blender manufacturer for the privilege, and afterwards, we are bound by the limited features of the blender model that we chose. It doesn't crush ice fast enough. It doesn't automatically apply salt to the rim of the glass. It doesn't clean puke out of the carpet. You get the idea.
If someone wants to master a particular piece of IT equipment, Amazon.com has a billion books for $0.50. If someone wants to join the lowest common denominator crowd, their are groups of people who already read those billion books who have a product for you.
An article briefly touching on the cozy relationship between Google, carriers, and your personal info:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/03/googles-nfc-plan-involves-data-sharing-targeted-ads-and-discounts.ars
Update .. branding guidelines here http://www.android.com/branding.html