News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Yonoz]

The original article is in the May 28th 2004 print edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper. I can provide the translation. Here's the closest thing to a news report I could find: Iran's promise: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_247793.html" .

On Saturday, June 26, only a few weeks ago, two security guards at the Iranian U.N. Mission were expelled from the United States, and allowed to sneak back to Tehran. The State Department says that they were "engaged in activities inconsistent with their duties." Sure. They were spies.

The pair had been observed by the FBI for months moving around Manhattan videotaping landmark buildings and other infrastructure. It took an alert transit police officer to arrest them when he saw them taking video images on the subway tracks. They claimed diplomatic immunity and were not charged with any crime.

In Tehran, as August began, the Islamic Republic's supreme guide Ali Khamenei, was answering questions from a hundred or so Islamic guidance officials, home from foreign postings for retraining. Most of his answers were trite slogans, but when he was asked, "Is our Islamic Republic at war against the United States," he paused before replying. "It is the United States that is at war against our Islamic Revolution."However, Khamenei's own newspaper was even more direct. Writing this July, it said, "the White House's 80 years of exclusive rule are likely to become 80 seconds of hell that will burn to ashes. Those who resist Iran will be struck from directions they never expected."

To these facts add that an Arab newspaper published in London and Beirut reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called "The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening," controlled by a Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer, Hassan Abbasi. The newspaper has a tape recording of Abbasi when he spoke of Iran's secret plans, which include "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

Are you still firm in that belief?

 

[Anttech]

Yonzo, this is not I was being told, I was told that Iran was going to destroy the "Anglo-Saxons"

This is different, albeit still Orwellian "the end of the Earth is nhy" type rubbish. Same old rhetoric...

I am still firm in my belief, yes.

Would you like me to post all the Open and direct threats Mr Bush has made to Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, even France and such?

 

[Yonoz]

Yonzo, this is not I was being told, I was told that Iran was going to destroy the "Anglo-Saxons"

To these facts add that an Arab newspaper published in London and Beirut reported that an Iranian intelligence unit has established a center called "The Brigades of the Shahids of the Global Islamic Awakening," controlled by a Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer, Hassan Abbasi. The newspaper has a tape recording of Abbasi when he spoke of Iran's secret plans, which include "a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."

This is different, albeit still Orwellian "the end of the Earth is nhy" type rubbish. Same old rhetoric...

Yes well you may notice that old rhetoric is coming out of mouths of people who want to have nuclear weapons.

I am still firm in my belief, yes.

I suppose Neville Chamberlain was firm in his too.

Would you like me to post all the Open and direct threats Mr Bush has made to Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, even France and such?

Yes I would.

 

[Anttech]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...l&q=bush+threaten+venezuela&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=M...ficial&q=bush+threaten+Iran&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=8...q=bush+threaten+North+Korea&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=X...icial&q=bush+threaten+Syria&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=a...ficial&q=bush+threaten+Iraq&btnG=Search&meta=

I am still looking for a link to a Bush threat to France, or rather old Europe. It is a little more difficult to get a good source for that compared to relative ease of finding the > 1.5 million hits on Google for 'bush threaten venezuela'

I suppose Neville Chamberlain was firm in his too.

*sigh* why do these threads always end up with direct comparisons to WW2

Edit: I suppose Bushes threats to Iraq were more like promises rather than Threats So apologies there..

 

[Anttech]

If you actually read Fartman's link, you will find that Ahmedinejan did not say anything about defeating Anglo-Saxons - those were the words of Hassan Abbassi.

Thats a Blog its not a speech. Can you verify he said that from somewhere other than the : regime-change-iran blog? All I see is links from other sources linking back into that obviously completely biased Blog

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...l&q=bush+threaten+venezuela&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=M...ficial&q=bush+threaten+Iran&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=8...q=bush+threaten+North+Korea&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=X...icial&q=bush+threaten+Syria&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=a...ficial&q=bush+threaten+Iraq&btnG=Search&meta=

I am still looking for a link to a Bush threat to France, or rather old Europe. It is a little more difficult to get a good source for that compared to relative ease of finding the > 1.5 million hits on Google for 'bush threaten venezuela'

You should know that every hit is a page containing the words "bush" "threat" and "venezuela". So looking at the actual results: "Bush Threatens To Block Venezuela From UN Seat" - not much of a war threat, is it?
"VENEZUELA: Bush's next oil war? Stuart Munckton ... Oil threat. According to a March 5 South Asia Media website report, Chavez repeated his threat to cease ...
www.greenleft.org.au"
I had to quote this one: "Venezuela President Calls Bush 'Mr. Danger'"
You get the picture. Please post links to actual sources.

*sigh* why do these threads always end up with direct comparisons to WW2

Maybe because we're at risk of allowing a similarly violent war/genocide to erupt.

 

[Anttech]

The second link, which you even quoted, but obviously were to lazy to open has a story regarding Bush threatening venezuela.

I am in work and I don't have time *right this minute* to spoon feed you sources, so you will have to wait until later today, sorry.

 

[bartman fartman]

If you actually read Fartman's link, you will find that Ahmedinejan did not say anything about defeating Anglo-Saxons - those were the words of Hassan Abbassi.

Whats the difference he's ahmedinejan mouth peice.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thats a Blog its not a speech. Can you verify he said that from somewhere other than the : regime-change-iran blog? All I see is links from other sources linking back into that obviously completely biased Blog

The link is to a blog, and it is completely unreferenced. I thought Fartman claimed that these were the words of Ahmadinejad. Even if the blog is accurate, they are not his words.

Whats the difference he's ahmedinejan mouth peice.

And even if Abbassi is Ahmadinejad's mouthpiece, it does not allow you to pass off one person's words as the words of another. You could easily have said something like "these were the words of Abbassi, the mouthpiece of Ahmadinejad". That would at least have been honest.

 

[Anttech]

The link is to a blog, and it is completely unreferenced. I thought Fartman claimed that these were the words of Ahmadinejad. Even if the blog is accurate, they are not his words.

He did claim that, you are correct.

I was also trying to find out if Hassan Abbassi even said that, we know that Ahmadinejad didnt. Or if Hassan is the chief strategist for the Iranian military, it all unreferenced as far as I can see

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, the Islamic world already has Nuclear weapons, 'Bartman Fartman' was asserting that Iran was going to go bulk with nuclear weapons, he said he wants to defeat the anglo saxons

I wasn't posting the link to support his posts.

This is in reference to way back when I said:

"I'm pretty sure that when this came up a while back, we had quotes of him actually saying he wanted nukes. (and wanted to nuke Israel, because while they could obliterate Israel, Israel could only damage the Muslim world)"

and cyrusabdollahi wanted a reference.

 

[kyleb]

Just the other day I stumbled across an article from political science professor on this subject; http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html" :

In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."
...

Those who would like to sway our opinions to serve their goals often play fast and loose with the translations and quote out of context, and our society is becoming shamefully susceptible to such manipulative scaremongering.

 

[bartman fartman]

This is my last post on this topic, nobody knows what irans intentions are only the future will tell what's going to happen, i say they should send a full inspection team into monitor the situation,if iran kicks them out then bomb the plants,heres my solution to the average man get a playstation or a xbox360 to keep your mind from worrying about the worlds problems.

 

[Evo]

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

I consider that worse than the other quote, he doesn't just want to wipe them off the map, he wants to erase their entire history, much more serious.

 

[Anttech]

I wouldn't conclude that he wants to erase history, rather a regime like that should never be allowed to exist again. Also he is talking about the regime not the people. To say that Israel should be 'wiped of the map' would mean the country and its people. Removing or making a regime vanish would not mean the people living under the regime, just the way these people are being governed. For example like Iraq, and the US led regime change there. The USA were not trying to get rid of Iraqi's but rather the regime that was in place there.

Anyway let's not try and kid ourselfs, A-jad is not being nice about Israel. But Israel and the USA are not being nice about Iran either.

 

[Yonoz]

Just the other day I stumbled across an article from political science professor on this subject; http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html" :

Those who would like to sway our opinions to serve their goals often play fast and loose with the translations and quote out of context, and our society is becoming shamefully susceptible to such manipulative scaremongering.

Great! He only said:

"this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

OH he was being prophetic... Pop the champagne! World leaders everywhere like to prophecise about what other nations must vanish from the page of time - and what self-respecting prophet doesn't possesses nuclear weapons?


BTW MEMRI's translations are highly accurate. I remember the reactions when I posted some MEMRI sources a while back, I hope they will be taken more seriously.

 

[Yonoz]

I wouldn't conclude that he wants to erase history, rather a regime like that should never be allowed to exist again.

Also he is talking about the regime not the people. To say that Israel should be 'wiped of the map' would mean the country and its people. Removing or making a regime vanish would not mean the people living under the regime, just the way these people are being governed. For example like Iraq, and the US led regime change there. The USA were not trying to get rid of Iraqi's but rather the regime that was in place there.

RIGHT... Everyone knows "must vanish from the page of time" is just a Farsi expression for "regime change". RIGHT.

Anyway let's not try and kid ourselfs

I believe you just did.

But Israel and the USA are not being nice about Iran either.

Oh we're not nice! Geez and I thought they were protesting the occupation.

 

[kyleb]

Great! He only said:
OH he was being prophetic... Pop the champagne! World leaders everywhere like to prophecise about what other nations must vanish from the page of time - and what self-respecting prophet doesn't possesses nuclear weapons?

Again, Iran has openly proclaimed support for a two state solution between Israel and Palestine. You are failing to distinguish between the Israeli nation and the Zionist regime.

BTW MEMRI's translations are highly accurate. I remember the reactions when I posted some MEMRI sources a while back, I hope they will be taken more seriously.

Professor Tilley didn't take issue with the accuracy of their translation, and neither do I. I wouldn't mind having a conversation about MEMRI in thread on the subject, but I don't see any reason to go off on that tangent here.

 

[Anttech]

RIGHT... Everyone knows "must vanish from the page of time" is just a Farsi expression for "regime change". RIGHT.

Im not to good at farsi (seems you are not very good at farce either ) but in English when someone specifically say "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." It usually means regime.. That would be the point of saying regime, in the sentence. Basic sentence construction.

 

[Yonoz]

Again, Iran has openly proclaimed support for a two state solution between Israel and Palestine.

They openly proclaim other things, somewhat conflicting.

You are failing to distinguish between the Israeli nation and the Zionist regime.

Tell me, what is the Zionist regime?

 

[Yonoz]

Im not to good at farsi (seems you are not very good at farce either ) but in English when someone specifically say "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." It usually means regime.. That would be the point of saying regime, in the sentence. Basic sentence construction.

So changing a light bulb in Farsi can also be translated into "vanishing it from the page of time" I suppose.

 

[kyleb]

If you switch it to a different style bulb and everyone forgets about the days when you used the old bulb.

 

[Yonoz]

If you switch it to a different style bulb and everyone forgets about the days when you used the old bulb.

Sounds to me like the person changing the bulb is driven by profound hatred and wishes to exact violence upon it. It does not sound like he wants to bring about a new era of lighting fixtures.

 

[Yonoz]

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1251wmv&ak=null" . Oh and it has agricultural uses too. And Pu has nothing to do with.

 

[kyleb]

I'm sorry Yonoz, I overlooked an earlier post from you:

They openly proclaim other things, somewhat conflicting.

Could you please cite the proclamations you are alluding to, in context?

Tell me, what is the Zionist regime?

The regime which continues the military occupation and civilian settlement of what little is left of Palestine while making supposed 'peace offers" that http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf which is then used as justification for establishing control over more land. That is the Zionism which many of us take issue with.

 

[Bystander]

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1251wmv&ak=null" . Oh and it has agricultural uses too. And Pu has nothing to do with.

Beria wanted to "look into the reactor" --- this problem may solve itself.

 

[Yonoz]

Could you please cite the proclamations you are alluding to, in context?

You know what proclamations I'm alluding to, they've been discussed extensively in this thread.

The regime which continues the military occupation and civilian settlement of what little is left of Palestine while making supposed 'peace offers" that http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf which is then used as justification for establishing control over more land. That is the Zionism which many of us take issue with.

That regime is democratically elected by the Israeli nation, therefor it is the Israeli nation you take issue with - which is perfectly reasonable to me. Now taking an issue with the "Zionist regime" is one thing, but when that regime is in fact a democratically elected government, saying it must vanish from the page of time could imply several things, none of the realistic ones seem right to me. And if they are not realistic, the man is dangerous none the less. Why don't you apply the same standards to the Iranian regime as you do to your own governments? You're arguing that Ahmadinejad was mistranslated? Come on! After all those holocaust remarks and all that US-Israel satan talk that man is still "goofing up" a speech like that? At best the man is an irresponsible narcissist and at worst he's a determined boundary-less fanatic. His masters are fanatics, we know that for sure. This thread is about how to deal with him, not whether he's a problem - that's been established.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)This thread is about how to deal with him, not whether he's a problem - that's been established.

--- and whose problem. We could all be falling for a deliberate distraction --- "talk big, grab small." Is the goal a Shia hegemony over the ME region of the Islamic world? Iran's navy is tailored to the Persian Gulf. Is the "plan" to "control" access to and from the Persian Gulf? Blockade Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Saudis, UAE, Oman to extract more fundamentalist Islamic policies from those states? "The Imamate of Tehran?"

 

[selfAdjoint]

--- and whose problem. We could all be falling for a deliberate distraction --- "talk big, grab small." Is the goal a Shia hegemony over the ME region of the Islamic world? Iran's navy is tailored to the Persian Gulf. Is the "plan" to "control" access to and from the Persian Gulf? Blockade Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Saudis, UAE, Oman to extract more fundamentalist Islamic policies from those states? "The Imamate of Tehran?"

Iran may have the best army and navy in the western islamic world (a term intended to eliminate Pakistan fro the argument), but if they decide to make war on the Sunni states that will certainly solve the US problem with the area. There will be general Sunni-Shiite war throughout the area and they will be far too busy trying to kill yeach other to worry about us. We'd better get going fast on eliminating our dependence on oil though...

 

[kyleb]

You know what proclamations I'm alluding to, they've been discussed extensively in this thread.

And we have just been discussing how those are taken out of context or misstranslated, so can you present what cite exactly which proclamations you are referring to?

That regime is democratically elected by the Israeli nation, therefor it is the Israeli nation you take issue with...

I take issue with my own democratically elected regime as well, but I want nothing but good for both our nations and our people; and, as contrary as I am sure it seems to you, that is precisely why I would also like to see the Zionist regime vanish from the pages of time.

 

[kyleb]

Iran may have the best army and navy in the western islamic world (a term intended to eliminate Pakistan fro the argument), but if they decide to make war on the Sunni states that will certainly solve the US problem with the area. There will be general Sunni-Shiite war throughout the area and they will be far too busy trying to kill yeach other to worry about us. We'd better get going fast on eliminating our dependence on oil though...

Yet there is plenty of east money to be made by promoting moderate insatiability while maintaining and fortifying the current oil interests in the region under the guise of national security. How can you expect ambitious buisnessmen to let go of deal like that?

 

[Anttech]

Iran may have the best army and navy in the western islamic world (a term intended to eliminate Pakistan fro the argument), but if they decide to make war on the Sunni states that will certainly solve the US problem with the area. There will be general Sunni-Shiite war throughout the area and they will be far too busy trying to kill yeach other to worry about us. We'd better get going fast on eliminating our dependence on oil though...

If this happens, the price of oil would go up so much it could have catastrophic consequences on all of our economics's. The same as if there is any invasion of Iran lead by the US or not.

100$/barrel anyone?

 

[Yonoz]

--- and whose problem. We could all be falling for a deliberate distraction --- "talk big, grab small." Is the goal a Shia hegemony over the ME region of the Islamic world? Iran's navy is tailored to the Persian Gulf. Is the "plan" to "control" access to and from the Persian Gulf? Blockade Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Saudis, UAE, Oman to extract more fundamentalist Islamic policies from those states? "The Imamate of Tehran?"

I have rarely studied the subject but I could offer a few directions. I suggest you start by viewing this clip: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1246wmv&ak=null" .
Notice the frequent mention of "unbalanced warfare". He is referring to the military aspect of what we know as an assymetric conflict - modern, paramilitary warfare, aimed at hurting the enemy where it hurts most. And to a democratic leadership with a free press that usually means: public opinion. They will use a mobile, enemy-losses-oriented strategy rather than classical territory-based strategy; different target priorities - special attention will be given to demoralisation effects, planned or dynamic; loads of small independent, capable ground and naval units just firing all those rockets like they're trying to get rid of them - and that's just in the Persian theater. This is a conflict that knows no boundaries, certainly not geographical ones. There will probably be activation of terror cells all around the globe. Any type of leverage on the US leadership can be pursued, specifically attacks on allies and American symbols in any country. There's no way to defend yourself completely against such attacks when you're such a dominant cultural presence on the planet. The attacks in Iraq will increase but American forces there will probably suffer the least casualties because they'll be facing the same adversaries. The international media will focus on Iran so they'll also be less restricted.
Note that it is the Chief of the Joint Staff of the Iranian armed forces that is speaking. Hizbullah is trained by the IRGC, and is a custom military for a static, vulnerable enemy, so there may be quite a few differences between the way Hizbullah and the Iranian armed forces operate, but seeing as the Chief of the Joint Staff stresses the cooperation between the armed forces and the IRGC, as well as the frequent mention of "unbalanced warfare", it seems very logical to me that they will be close to identical.

 

[Yonoz]

And we have just been discussing how those are taken out of context or misstranslated, so can you present what cite exactly which proclamations you are referring to?

Here's one for starters. Am I really going to have to prove to you the man has a big mouth?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/index.html"

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

I take issue with my own democratically elected regime as well, but I want nothing but good for both our nations and our people; and, as contrary as I am sure it seems to you, that is precisely why I would also like to see the Zionist regime vanish from the pages of time.

So do you not recognise Israel's right of existence?

 

[Anttech]

So do you not recognise Israel's right of existence?

Where did he say that? Unless you believe that Israel government is Zionist?

 

[McGyver]

Deal w Ahmadinejad: Debate Him, Sanction Him

When you bring truth and information front and center - solutions become much clearer. Regretably, the U.S. has a White House that favors firing first, and asking questions later. Now, the Middle East has a new powerful leader in Ahmadinejad, who has a similar philosophy.

A critical point to remember is that Ahmadinejad was elected by a slim margin, so he is expoiting this new "tough rhetoric" with Israel and the U.S. because it is politically popular, and strengthens his standing. As such, this is why SANCTIONS can hurt his popularity in Iran. But we also need China to go along. The Bush White House has yet to exercise its trading partner clout with China and bring them on board in foreign policy. The U.S. must not place short term economic deals ahead of far reaching world order and war. Similarly, the U.S. cannot fear $100 barrel oil as a counter threat from Ahmadinejad. If so, he wins the battle here of wills! In contrast, the broader oil interests will likely succeed in getting oil up to $100 before Bush leaves office.

What I see at stake is not so much matters of war, but matters of "WILL" and "STANDING." Sometimes, you have to be willing to make economic sacrifices for long term prosperity and sustainance. Thus far on the world stage, I see too many ill-intentioned countries in bed with each other, while they claim a committment to common policies agreed to be for the good of all. And at times, this is inclusive of U.S. activities. So - ask these nations to put their monery where their mouth is! With such foreign policy initiatives, the U.S. could actually forge public opinion towards their elected leaders if these leaders go back on their word. But, the U.S. must hold itself to a similar standard. The manner in which the Bush White House has unilaterally imposed its own (now known mistaken) views on Iraq, does make it harder to gain international consensus with tools like economic santions. Done right, these tools can be more affective than full out military confrontation.

I can compare the handling of such delicate affairs to that of teaching or coaching a group of challenged children. They don't know as much as you, the teacher, nor can they physically take over the class or team. But they will continue to test your leadership and convinction to the cause - in an effort to win the battle of wills. The moment you have to use FORCE to keep the order, they have WON and will continue to test you. FORCE is and always should be a tool of last resort, because once you play that hand, all you have left is more FORCE!

So - DEBATE I SAY! DEBATE Ahmadinejad! He's not as smart as he thinks.

 

[Yonoz]

Where did he say that? Unless you believe that Israel government is Zionist?

Well, duh.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Great really, I missed a lot I left to do some coursework I come back to find a thread that is so filled with intrigue and superb dialogue that it'll remain with me for a few years; I created a monster! I couldn't say anything at the moment accept to say this is amazing, I've never seen such back and forth and such intelligence in any thread I've ever posted. Suffice to say that reading these pages was an experience, that couldn't be covered in a book of the Middle East :) thanks all, absolutely incredibly informative. From the Jews to the Iranians and therefore on.

I'm, truly humbled by the wit opinion and learning here. On either side of the political fence, if only you guys and girls ran the world. It's like sitting in on a UN debate but with real reticence. Like discovering the complete works of Plato for the first time and being afraid to comment.

 

[Astronuc]

August 31st is the deadline for Iran to comply with UN Security Council demands to stop enrichment activities or face sanctions. It seems unlikely Iran will comply, but let us see.

I happened to catch the following two interviews regarding the conflict between the US (Bush Administration) and Iran over the Iran's enrichment program.

Interview-1:
A Conservative Perspective on U.S.-Iran Relations
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5736783

Conservative thinker Michael Ledeen holds the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, but prefers the term "democratic revolutionary" to "neoconservative." He discusses the current and future U.S. policy toward Iran, arguing that the United States should encourage change from within the country, rather than launching an all-out attack.

I agree that the change should come from within Iran, and the US should not use military force against Iran.

Ledeen refers to "Clerical Fascim",which apparently Senator Rick Santorum had modified to Islamo-Fascism, and Rumsfeld refers to the new fascism.

Ledeen considers himself a revolutionary who supports regime change in Iran. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and a cadre of neo-cons, William Kristol (Weekly Standard), Richard Perle, Michael Rubin (American Enterprise Institute), and others are advocating 'regime change' in Iran.

Interview-2:
Nuclear Weaponry, Yesterday and Today

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5736786
Foreign policy expert Joseph Cirincione is senior vice president for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. He s been called a nonproliferation guru. His soon-to-be-published book is called Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons.

Circincione sees two camps in the Bush Administration - one is the diplomatic group who appear to hope Iran will backdown from its position and comply with UN demands to stop enrichment development, and the second is a 'hawkish' or militant group that advocates military force against Iran with the hope that it will force a 'regime change' in Iran. The second camp sees the alternative, an acquiesence to Iran's nuclear program as unacceptable, and therefore the use of military force seems inevitable. The second camp will use the first camp as a façade as it did with Iraq in 2002.

Paraphrasing Cirincione, he sees the militant camp in the Bush Administration and the Neocons, who inflate the threat of Iran and their own role in history, as suffering from Grandiose Paranoia. The Neocons and the Bush Administration fail to understand nationalism. While one might consider Iran is deplorable, it is not expansionist, but a national (internal) and regional problem - not an existential threat. But the Neocons equate Iran = Nazi Germany and Ahmadinejad = Hitler.

Ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzhmNTQ0NDQ3MmIxZDlmZWVlNmViMzE0YjkzMTNiYmM=

 

[kyleb]

Here's one for starters. Am I really going to have to prove to you the man has a big mouth?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/index.html"

Professor Tilley's article touched on that as well:

A final word is due about Mr. Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust denial". Holocaust denial is a very sensitive issue in the West, where it notoriously serves anti-Semitism. Elsewhere in the world, however, fogginess about the Holocaust traces more to a sheer lack of information. One might think there is plenty of information about the Holocaust worldwide, but this is a mistake. (Lest we be snooty, Americans show the same startling insularity from general knowledge when, for example, they live to late adulthood still not grasping that US forces killed at least two million Vietnamese and believing that anyone who says so is anti-American. Most French people have not yet accepted that their army slaughtered a million Arabs in Algeria.)

Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has started to take hold in the Middle East not because people hate Jews but because that narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to "defend itself" by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East publics are so used to western canards legitimizing colonial or imperial takeovers that some wonder if the six-million-dead argument is just another myth or exaggerated tale. It is dismal that Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to belong to this sector.

Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." He actually said, "In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets." This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.

I recommend reading the whole article.

http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html

Regardless, even if he was outright denying the Holocost like Mel Gibson's dad, that wouldn't contradict Iran's offer to back a two state solution. In the interests of resolution I'd like to see that offer taken seriously.

So do you not recognise Israel's right of existence?

I quite certainly do recognize Israel's right of existence, and again it is in the interest of Israel's existence that I take issue with Zionism. Surely this perspective is not completely alien to you?

 

[Hurkyl]

I quite certainly do recognize Israel's right of existence, and again it is in the interest of Israel's existence that I take issue with Zionism. Surely this perspective is not completely alien to you?

This is self-contradictary -- what do you think Zionism is? The dictionary definition of "Zionism" appears to be little more than the idea that Israel should exist.

 

[kyleb]

I think Zionism is what the dictionary says it is, which is quite certainly more than an idea. Surely you are fairly familiar with the movement, or am I mistaken in my understanding that you are a Zionist?

 

[Anttech]

This is self-contradictary -- what do you think Zionism is? The dictionary definition of "Zionism" appears to be little more than the idea that Israel should exist.

ZIONISM

There are many "Zionisms"-religious, political, and cultural-all of which have in common the desire to see Jews from around the world settled permanently in a homeland in Palestine, the historical land of Israel. Religious Zionists believe that the gathering together of world Jewry into the land of Israel will fulfill biblical prophecy and bring on the millennium. Political Zionists seeks to build a nation state for the Jewish people, and cultural Zionists seek to strengthen Jewish cultural identity within their historic homeland. Jews who are not Zionists either oppose the existence of the Jewish state for religious reasons (they believe that Israel cannot come into being before the Messiah arrives) or for political reasons (as citizens of various nations they cannot give their primarily allegiance to a Jewish state, or do not wish to be associated with an expansionism that drives the Palestinians from their traditional home).
http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/glossary.htm

Its a lot more than just the existence of a country called Israel. It is to do with a whole belief system, it is to do with creating a state of Only Jews, on a land that was mostly Muslim before ww2. The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews. The perception within much of the world outside of Israel, and it seems the USA, is that this is unfair, and to me it looks like an appartite structure where instead of the black people being 'quarantined' it is Muslims being 'quarantined.'

I have seen pictures of Tel-aviv, and almost had to go there for work once or twice, but in the end I wasnt able to. It is a very nice city, somewhere I would like to visit. I have also seen pictures of Gaza, which to me looks like a war zone, and is poverty stricken.

What is wrong with this picture?

As long as it continues like this I see no solution, Palisten will become more radical, and Israel will feel even more justified in 'fencing off the animals.'

If Zionism is secular, and I have read this, based on communist ideals, then why is there such a huge divide? Well because it isn't based on communist ideals, and it isn't secular by nature.

 

[Bystander]

Okay, here's the Wiki link --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Rise_of_modern_political_Zionism --- looks reasonable --- doesn't say much more than that, "Zionism is a movement centered around return of Jews to a Jewish homeland, be it Argentina, Uganda, or Palestine," dating from the early to mid-19th century, and that that homeland be an autonomous state.

What's Wiki mis-stated, and what have I omitted or added to my "digest" of the article, that would support Kyleb and contradict Hurkyl?

 

[Anttech]

You have narrowed the definition down to only include the political aspect, ignoring the religious and cultural connotations, of what Zionism *means*.

 

[Bystander]

You have narrowed the definition down to only include the political aspect, ignoring the religious and cultural connotations, of what Zionism *means*.

By "religious and cultural connotations," you mean that "Zionism" means whatever the user wants it to mean? For instance, "expansionism," and, "creating a state of Only Jews," and, "The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews," none of which have any bases in fact. Might be interesting to see how much the Rothschilds paid the Ottomans, and/or other title holders for the land in the 19th century, and what sorts of reparations the British paid during the 1948 partitioning, but "taking land from Muslims" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[Anttech]

By "religious and cultural connotations," you mean that "Zionism" means whatever the user wants it to mean?

I certainly don't mean that, is that what you want it to mean?

"creating a state of Only Jews," and, "The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews," none of which have any bases in fact.

The meaning of an 'ism' and how one would implement that 'ism' are not the same thing. I hope you understand what I mean? As for facts, it is certain and it is a fact that land has been taken from Muslims and given to Jews in the ME, and more specifically in and around the land which is known as Israel.

 

[Yonoz]

Professor Tilley's article touched on that as well:


I recommend reading the whole article.

http://www.counterpunch.com/tilley08282006.html

Regardless, even if he was outright denying the Holocost like Mel Gibson's dad, that wouldn't contradict Iran's offer to back a two state solution. In the interests of resolution I'd like to see that offer taken seriously.

A world leader questions the darkest chapter in human history and that does not ring any bells for our dear Professor? Again, is this the type of person you think should have nuclear weapons - one that constantly speaks as if he's living in the time of the crusades and yet is not too familiar with the 20th century's greatest crime? Someone's overdosing on their SSRIs.

I quite certainly do recognize Israel's right of existence, and again it is in the interest of Israel's existence that I take issue with Zionism. Surely this perspective is not completely alien to you?

Seeing as the existence of Israel is the embodiment of Zionism, I find it hard to understand your stand.

 

[Yonoz]

it is to do with creating a state of Only Jews

That statement displays utter ignorance.

The whole system revolves around the participation of taking land from Muslims and giving this to the Jews.

Again, utter ignorance.

The perception within much of the world outside of Israel, and it seems the USA, is that this is unfair, and to me it looks like an appartite structure where instead of the black people being 'quarantined' it is Muslims being 'quarantined.'

Perhaps it looks that way to you because you are ill-informed.

I have seen pictures of Tel-aviv, and almost had to go there for work once or twice, but in the end I wasnt able to. It is a very nice city, somewhere I would like to visit. I have also seen pictures of Gaza, which to me looks like a war zone, and is poverty stricken.

And is Kosovo entirely its neighbours' fault?
While the dissonance between modern life in Israel and the state of the Palestinians is alarming and deeply saddening, you should not assume that Israel's advancements were made on the backs of the Palestinian people - give us a little more credit, please.
Glass houses.

If Zionism is secular, and I have read this, based on communist ideals, then why is there such a huge divide? Well because it isn't based on communist ideals, and it isn't secular by nature.

Zionism is neither secular nor communist. It is simply the realisation of the Jewish nation at its historical home.

 

[Yonoz]

The meaning of an 'ism' and how one would implement that 'ism' are not the same thing. I hope you understand what I mean? As for facts, it is certain and it is a fact that land has been taken from Muslims and given to Jews in the ME, and more specifically in and around the land which is known as Israel.

It certainly is a fact that land has been taken from Jews and given to Muslims in the ME, and more specifically in and around the land which is known as Israel. Jewish settlements were abandoned or massacred in the Arab Riots, War of Independence, return of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza pullout. The supposedly expansionist "Zionist Regime" has been de-expanding for the past quarter of a century.
EDIT: Furthermore, it is the right-wing Likkud Revisionist movement - followers of Zeev Jabotisnky who believed the State of Israel should occupy the entire "Land of Israel" - Eretz Israel - that has governed the biggest concessions and withdrawals. The vast majority of Zionists are not expansionists.