News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Lisa!]

I didn't say that. I believe that, given a field of candidates, the people vote for the one that closest shares their ideas on how things ought to be. Israel is only one of many aspects of this.

A filed of candidates? What if all these candidates share the same views on certain issues? If you ask me all candidates less andd more share the same views as the regime. for no better reason that they got the chance to compete with others in that election! I just remeber 1 of them whom you can say (1 of minister during Khatami presidency) who had almost different views but well I can guess why people didn't vote for him...
Anyway although people might share the same view with Dr. Ahmadinejad( ) o Israel issues but I don't think the majority of them even thought of that as a factor when they wanted to elect him!

I think I can understand why women would want to vote for him - from what I've read, he's been quite supportive of reform that treats women less harshly than before

Why do you think that was women who voted for him? And then again I want to say other condidates seemed to have a same plans on women issues. I mean all of them showed themselves very supportive of women, young people,...(at least all of them say they are)
Anyway as I said before please explain what you mean by 'harsh treatment'. Then I can reply to this post later!

(and I hope that's what the majority of women want).

And I hope Iranian women excuse you for underestimating them!

I have no idea however, what percentage of the voting public is female; I've imagined this fraction to be small, but I hope I'm wrong.

Why do you think like that? Women've have the right to vote since the 1st minute of 1979 and as far as I know nobody's been going to take thsi right from themEven sexist males!
I wanted to say however their votes might be affected by men around them(only uneducated women and you know the number of educatedwomen is beating the men's during the last years) but I guess the media could have a bigger effect as it has on men's views as well. Anyway even that way nobody can force them to elect someone else!

And I'm sure his strongly anti-American agenda resonated with a lot of people, but this is mostly second-hand information and some speculation.

Iranian might be anti-american administration but not anti-american.I also don't think Ah. is the same way. Oh Iranian try to make a distinction between US administration and its people. Luckily they're not here to read your posts and reconsider...

Also, maybe I'm just terribly disappointed because I always thought Karroubi had a good chance, and I was rooting for him (didn't care for either Ahmadinejad or Rafsanjani).

Karroubi? Oh well yah! and what's so nice about him?

But you're the best preson to tell us why someone who was so loyal to al Khamenei did so well, especially in the second round.

Why are you so afarid of Khamenei? I prefer him to Rafsanjani anyway.
You people seem so strange. Again what makes him a better choice? If you asked me about the 1st round, your question'd make more sense to me. Remeber:
1. Rafsanjani and Khamenei's been together since 1st days(or perhaps before) the revolution
2. You seem to forget that some time ago we had a discussion on what Iranian leaders think of Israel. Rafsanjani's quotes were the 1s that people here had arguments about.
To be honest I always thought 1 of the reasons of Ahmadinejad was to have a rival like Rafsanjani but that's my opinion anyway!

By killing these terrorist, is that classed as bush killing inocent arabs when they kill these terrorist hell in world war 2 they leveled germany to kill the bad guys and bush is doing pressision attacks against the terrorist.

I beg your pardon? This sentence must have a problem or else I'm notsure if I get it correctly.

 

[Cyrus]

He only said but Bush already did lots of things worse than that and I don't see anyone here to be worried about that. Come on dear! Just think for a minute instead of talking and talking.-----------------------
By killing these terrorist, is that classed as bush killing inocent arabs when they kill these terrorist hell in world war 2 they leveled germany to kill the bad guys and bush is doing pressision attacks against the terrorist.

Enough of the nonsense. Like I said, stop making disparate arguments. I find that people who have nothing to talk about bring up Hitler and WW2 all the time and usually have nothing relevant to contribute. Do you actually have something relevant to say? Then again, with a name like bartman fartman, your probably some 13 year old kid...

side: you need to fix your english, it is horrible.

One more nonsense post like that and Ill have the mods delete it.

 

[Bystander]

#157

From #62,


Quote:
Originally Posted by edward
The president of Iran does appear to be a bit crazy, at least to westerners. But that does not mean that he is crazy enough to bring about his own incineration.(snip)


and, from #3,


Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrusabdollahi
Iran has 53,000 suicide bombers on stand by.


and, from WHO, http://www.who.int/mental_health/pre.../en/index.html ,

suicide rates run 20-30 per hundred thousand for males 15-34 years of age.

Crazy enough? Arguably crazier than "the average bear."

So you are then saying that we should invade Iran because they have a high pecentage of crazy suicidal Isalmic people who are ruled by a maniac. These crazy suicidal people may at some point build some nukes and put them on missiles, and their maniac president may launch those missiles.(snip)

Mind-reading again? And, wrong again. Typing your conclusions from these points into my keyboard doesn't make them my conclusions.

This thread has proceeded as a series of sound bites with no syntheses of arguments, so, let's remedy that:

1) Cyrus says there's a "suicide corps;"

2) Edward asserts that A-jad isn't crazy enough to self-destruct;

3) WHO lists suicide rates;

4) HST's decision to use nuclear weapons in war was based in part on Imperial Japan's use of suicide tactics at Okinawa, the attendant "blue" casualty rate, known preparations for suicide tactics in defense of the Japanese home islands, and the projected "blue" and "red" casualty rates;

5) "suicide corps" are very rare items in military history (there are very risky MOSs, but practitioners generally have every intention of staying alive to enjoy their victory parades);

6) Hirohito did NOT want Japan destroyed;

7) people have referred in this thread to the "apocolyptic" end times of Islam (maybe correctly, maybe not);

8) altruistic suicides occur in unusual circumstances, Chernobyl, assorted survivals at sea, mom throws baby from burning building, kind of stuff;

9) don't wanta mess up the justification, but some people have got the idea by now that this is not a formal debate occurring in a vacuum with "discovery" rules, and that it is permissible to take advantage of common knowledge of history, current events, and other real world circumstances, making the number of points to consider in "resolving" the "A-jad question" far longer than "Israel, Bush, Xians, 'fair is fair'."​

I listed points 1-3 as a question of the assertion that A-jad has both oars in the water, and whether the populace of Iran is going to exhibit normal human survival behavior or follow a buncha crazy, bearded old farts over a cliff --- add whatever experience with, and knowledge of abnormal human behavior you may have to those points and draw your own conclusions; for instance, Hitler expected (so the story goes) the people of Germany to die with him defending the Reich and survival behavior kicked in. Hirohito didn't want Japan destroyed, and though people probably (bad thing about history, you never know) would have fought to the death, surrendered.

What's the situation in Iran? A-jad and the crazy old farts in bathrobes set up a suicide corps? Someone's nuts, them, the corps, or them and the corps. A-jad, crazy old farts, suicide corps, and nuclear weapons? Not a good situation.

Let nature take its course (UN, sanctions, the usual diplomatic nothing)? Nip it in the bud with surgical strikes? Full scale intervention? Doing nothing and finding out they are nuts is the American way. Nipping it is more the Israeli inclination (Iraq), but the global perspective's changed. Full scale intervention isn't worth the effort --- plus, the internal climate isn't clear --- would they rather do without the crazy old farts, or are they just as crazy.

Looks like a trainwreck, so do we sit back and watch it happen, take steps to prevent it, knowing that those steps involve thousands of human deaths and might not be necessary, or hope it ain't a trainwreck, knowing that is was preventable if it occurs, and that lower loss of life could have been realized by taking appropriate action? Classical ethics problem. Politicizing it doesn't help. Analysis may or may not establish whether it really is going to be a train wreck, but the human elements involved (western analysis of eastern culture, an apocolyptic religion, assorted animosities) argue against that. What's the "cost effective" action? No actuary tables on that, sorry --- we've got "horseshoe nail" history, and such projections from "turning points" are likely to be as accurate as any other prognostications --- do better tossing a coin.

Suicide corps, goosestepping parades, military exercises, weapon demonstrations? Someone's going to die. Probably not in the next couple years --- give the dems time to move in and really screw it up.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bystander, do you see ANY evidence that Iran is mooting a suicide corps? Looks to me that the fellow you refer to as A-jad is playing the classic middle east strongman role. Just as Saddam couldn't admit in public that he didn't have any effective WMDs, so A-jad can't admit in public that he's not going to go to his grave defying the crusaders of the UN and the great satan USA.

The thing is, what are our options? Our "boots on the ground" are already overstressed; the Marines just announced they are going to forceably re-up their recent retirees. As a one-time thing maybe so, but it's eating the seed corn and we just aren't up for any new broad attack across the desrts of Iran, so much wider than those of Iraq, and every damn bit as unfriendly, to say nothing about a much better prepared army (look what their clients the Hizbulah did to the IDF).

Nukes? Are you kidding? Pariah with every nation on earth?

So where is this big suicide thing going to come from?

 

[Bystander]

Bystander, do you see ANY evidence that Iran is mooting a suicide corps?

That's Cyrus' point --- read posts before putting words into peoples' keyboards.

Looks to me that the fellow you refer to as A-jad is playing the classic middle east strongman role.

Nasser and Suez? Saddam and Kuwait? Arafat and bounties, bribes, survivor benefits to families of suicide bombers? Bin Laden and WTC? Assads vs. Israel & Lebanon? Are you agreeing that A-jad is dangerous?

Just as Saddam couldn't admit in public that he didn't have any effective WMDs, so A-jad can't admit in public that he's not going to go to his grave defying the crusaders of the UN and the great satan USA.

Hence, the need for analysis --- "opinions are like ..."

(snip)Nukes? Are you kidding? Pariah with every nation on earth?

That's the question in the OP --- are they that f'ing crazy? You'll have noticed by now their respect for the UN.

So where is this big suicide thing going to come from?

What "big suicide thing" are you "typing" about?

 

[Hurkyl]

Bystander, do you see ANY evidence that Iran is mooting a suicide corps?

Evidence is good to have! It would be good to know the results of any attempts to verify or dismiss his claims.

Looks to me that the fellow you refer to as A-jad is playing the classic middle east strongman role.

But since you seem to be asserting that he doesn't have a "suicide corps", I'll call you on that.

(1) There's a precedent in the area for using suicide bombers in conflicts.
(2) It appears that Iran supports the use of suicide bombing.
(3) There is historical precident for using suicide attacks on a large scale in armed conflict. (http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html)

It's certainly plausible that he might say he has a "suicide corps" when he, in fact, does not. But that is certainly not evidence such a suicide corps does not exist.

(look what their clients the Hizbulah did to the IDF)

What did they do to the IDF? I had the impression that they didn't really manage to do much beyond sending people in Northern Isreal to the bomb shelters.

Nukes? Are you kidding? Pariah with every nation on earth?

You sure that will happen? I must admit I'm rather cynical about the Western and Muslim worlds' responses. I really have no idea about the rest of Asia and Africa. And, of course, it didn't stop Kim from developing nukes. Of course, it doesn't matter whether I or you think Iran will become a pariah; it only matters what the leaders of Iran think, and if they think it will be worth it.

 

[bartman fartman]

Enough of the nonsense. Like I said, stop making disparate arguments. I find that people who have nothing to talk about bring up Hitler and WW2 all the time and usually have nothing relevant to contribute. Do you actually have something relevant to say? Then again, with a name like bartman fartman, your probably some 13 year old kid...

side: you need to fix your english, it is horrible.

One more nonsense post like that and Ill have the mods delete it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like what i say don't read it, and i have said nothing out of the rules so why would they delete my post,before you tell people to stop makeing desperate arguments you have to stop makeing excuses for terrorist,its americas pollicies or its iraq that's why the terrorist attacked,well let me fr...n tell you something pal there's no excuse for 911 and 911 hapened before we invaded any muslim country.

 

[Cyrus]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like what i say don't read it, and i have said nothing out of the rules so why would they delete my post,before you tell people to stop makeing desperate arguments you have to stop makeing excuses for terrorist,its americas pollicies or its iraq that's why the terrorist attacked,well let me fr...n tell you something pal there's no excuse for 911 and 911 hapened before we invaded any muslim country.

You should spend some time reading some history before opening your mouth, you sound foolish. This is exactly what I am protesting, your nonsense arguments with no relevance!... What's your point? Are you trying to make a claim that 911 is linked to Iran? Do you even know who was behind 911? I think you do not.

BTW: Everyone is still waiting for links to those things you said Iran has made statements about...

 

[bartman fartman]

Enough of the nonsense. Like I said, stop making disparate arguments. I find that people who have nothing to talk about bring up Hitler and WW2 all the time and usually have nothing relevant to contribute. Do you actually have something relevant to say? Then again, with a name like bartman fartman, your probably some 13 year old kid...

side: you need to fix your english, it is horrible.

One more nonsense post like that and Ill have the mods delete it.

You said we won't talk to syria in a earlier post why should we talk to syria, how many times did the clinton administration try to and fail should we keep wasteing are breath with 2 faced dogs.

 

[Cyrus]

You said we won't talk to syria in a earlier post why should we talk to syria, how many times did the clinton administration try to and fail should we keep wasteing are breath with 2 faced dogs.

That about seals your fate here Mr. Fartman. Come back when you grow up and learn something about the middle east.

Adios.

P.S. I have reported your posts and requested they be deleted or you stop posting until you have something to contribute other than hand waving. Sorry, but you are getting to be ridiculous.

 

[Hurkyl]

i have said nothing out of the rules

Sure you have. For example:

anybody that thinks egnoring iran is the right thing to do needs to gro a brain.

You've made personal attacks.

well let me [bleep] tell you

Foul language.

look it up on some credible web sights I am sure youl find it dude.

And you refuse to give sources for your claims.

 

[bartman fartman]

That about seals your fate here Mr. Fartman. Come back when you grow up and learn something about the middle east.

Adios.

P.S. I have reported your posts and requested they be deleted or you stop posting until you have something to contribute other than hand waving. Sorry, but you are getting to be ridiculous.

What am i suppose to contribute, i said we should leave it to the experts what else can i do about this situation,as i said if you can't stand what i write you don't have to read it.

 

[Cyrus]

You need to start providing links and not just making vague generalizations.

 

[Hurkyl]

Ah, here we go, I found some references. I think they're all from late October of last year. I still can't find the one I'm looking for, though.


"Ahmadinejad declared Wednesday that Israel is a "disgraceful blot'' that should be "wiped off the map"."

http://irannewsblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_irannewsblog_archive.html



"The attack came hours after Iran's state-run media reported comments from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and saying a new wave of Palestinian attacks would destroy the Jewish state."

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/10/flying-blind.html



He also played down an international outcry over his controversial call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" by insisting what he said was nothing new.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=124163&region=6



"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at regime rallies.

http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/509506.htm



Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map" raises the ante in Iran's negotiation over its nuclear policy with the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- who all reacted strongly to the Iranian president's statements.

http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzt.html

 

[Hurkyl]

Aha, I found it!


... a speech made last month by Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president and an important figure in the regime. Speaking on "Jerusalem day," Rafsanjani said: "The day is approaching in which the Islamic world will possesses atomic weapons ... a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counterstrike will only cause partial damage to the Islamic world."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/01/28/mullahs/index.html

 

[bartman fartman]

Ah, here we go, I found some references. I think they're all from late October of last year. I still can't find the one I'm looking for, though.


"Ahmadinejad declared Wednesday that Israel is a "disgraceful blot'' that should be "wiped off the map"."

http://irannewsblog.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_irannewsblog_archive.html



"The attack came hours after Iran's state-run media reported comments from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (search) calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and saying a new wave of Palestinian attacks would destroy the Jewish state."

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/10/flying-blind.html



He also played down an international outcry over his controversial call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" by insisting what he said was nothing new.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=124163&region=6



"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at regime rallies.

http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/509506.htm



Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map" raises the ante in Iran's negotiation over its nuclear policy with the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- who all reacted strongly to the Iranian president's statements.

http://www.spacewar.com/news/iran-05zzzzt.html

Thanks dude

 

[moose]

My worry is that Iran is using a large portion of its economy towards its nuclear goals (whatever they truly are). This is worrysome because Iran's economy sucks right now.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

Population below poverty line:
40% (2002 est.)

Inflation rate (consumer prices):
13.5% (2005 est.)

That, coupled with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Human_Rights" of Iran should be cause enough for worry.

Also, look at this statement along with a fact.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear;_ylt=A0SOwj2JYLZDmXQBDwXlWMcF

Iranian officials repeatedly have said the country's nuclear program is intended solely to generate electricity

Now, if they want to use it to generate electricity, why are they spending so much money to have nuclear power plants when
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iran

Iran is the second largest oil producer globally with approximately 9% of the world's oil.

Why can't Iran simply help out its economy and use what they have for energy? It would cost much less and wouldn't cause such a fuss. It doesn't make sense. Is it somehow cheaper for them to create nuclear power plants?

EDIT: What Hurkyl posted isn't very comforting either ;)

What is the possibility of Iran giving a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group to use the weapon on Israel?

 

[Bystander]

Use copy, control-c, and paste, control-v.

Edit: also, you'll want to be careful what sources you use, particularly on the web --- "bible code" and "Jihad Watch" ain't likely to be regarded as being too reliable. They're useful for purposes of gauging public interest in the subject, but apt to be rather heavily "colored, embroidered," and otherwise modifying facts to reach desired conclusions.

Edit2: Okay, gang, not to drag things off on a tangent, but cautioning bf re. religious propaganda sites jogged my memory regarding the B'Hai, always shoving "the Shah did this, and the Shah does that" leaflets under my lab and office doors in grad school. Got the same leaflets about Khomeni on my doorstep a couple years later.

http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/bahai/intro8.htm

The question is, "Is there a residual animosity toward Israel in Iran over 'the Bab' being buried in Haifa?"

 

[Anttech]

Aha, I found it!


... a speech made last month by Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's former president and an important figure in the regime. Speaking on "Jerusalem day," Rafsanjani said: "The day is approaching in which the Islamic world will possesses atomic weapons ... a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counterstrike will only cause partial damage to the Islamic world."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/01/28/mullahs/index.html

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 am still waiting for the link to this speech he supposedly made

 

[Anttech]

Bystander, do you see ANY evidence that Iran is mooting a suicide corps? Looks to me that the fellow you refer to as A-jad is playing the classic middle east strongman role. Just as Saddam couldn't admit in public that he didn't have any effective WMDs, so A-jad can't admit in public that he's not going to go to his grave defying the crusaders of the UN and the great satan USA.

The thing is, what are our options? Our "boots on the ground" are already overstressed; the Marines just announced they are going to forceably re-up their recent retirees. As a one-time thing maybe so, but it's eating the seed corn and we just aren't up for any new broad attack across the desrts of Iran, so much wider than those of Iraq, and every damn bit as unfriendly, to say nothing about a much better prepared army (look what their clients the Hizbulah did to the IDF).

Nukes? Are you kidding? Pariah with every nation on earth?

So where is this big suicide thing going to come from?

Some sanity

 

[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