1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "The statements of the Iranian President aren't important at all except to those who want to use them for propaganda purposes to drum up hatred and ill-feeling against Muslims in general and Iranians in particular."
If by "world citizen" you mean I should support the efforts of certain groups to expand their influence and power over the entire world, I'll pass. The statements of the Iranian President aren't important at all except to those who want to use them for propaganda purposes to drum up hatred and ill-feeling against Muslims in general and Iranians in pa ...[text shortened]... 's dangerous and we should topple his government?" Know anybody who thinks like that, Ivanhoe?
Ivanhoe: "The statements of the Iranian President aren't important at all except to those who want to use them for propaganda purposes to drum up hatred and ill-feeling against the West in general and Jews in particular. "
Please take good notice of the differences and the simularities, marauder.
Originally posted by ivanhoe(Shrug) He's the elected President of Iran; what does that tell you about the feelings of the average Iranian toward the State of Israel? What does it tell you about the likelihood of success of the threats and bullying that the US is directing toward Iran? If a peaceful resolution of the problems of the Middle East are ever going to be acheived, there needs to be a wide ranging settlement of all the issues, not the one-sided hostility against Muslims that you always support.
Marauder: "The statements of the Iranian President aren't important at all except to those who want to use them for propaganda purposes to drum up hatred and ill-feeling against Muslims in general and Iranians in particular."
Ivanhoe: "The statements of the Iranian President aren't important at all except to those who want to use them for propaganda ...[text shortened]... t in general and Jews in particular. "
Please take good notice of the differences, marauder.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: " .... not the one-sided hostility against Muslims that you always support"
(Shrug) He's the elected President of Iran; what does that tell you about the feelings of the average Iranian toward the State of Israel? What does it tell you about the likelihood of success of the threats and bullying that the US is directing toward Iran? If a peaceful resolution of the problems of the Middle East are ever going to be acheived, there ...[text shortened]... ttlement of all the issues, not the one-sided hostility against Muslims that you always support.
My comments are not directed at Muslims, but at fascists, "les barbes" ["the beards"], who disguise themselves as Muslims.
You need to see the difference between Muslims and the "beards", the Islamists or Jihadists. If you do not see any differences you will get seriously confused, marauder, in assessing the situation in Islamic countries and as a consequense of that you will be unable of putting my stances and comments in the correct perspective.
Again, you need serious updating.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou need updating; the Crusades ended about 800 years ago. I am unconcerned about Jihadists if they limit their activity to their own countries and I really don't care how "fundamentalist" the various governments of the Middle East are or aren't. In the end, absent the type of Western meddling you invariably support, such groups will be driven from power by progressive elements in their own countries. The expressed hostility of Western governments and radical Christians like yourself only serves to strengthen these elements and weaken the progressive forces. Thus, Western policies, coupled with the one-sided support of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is a boon to the Fundamentalists, not a burden.
Marauder: " .... not the one-sided hostility against Muslims that you always support"
My comments are not directed at Muslims, but at fascists, "les barbes" ["the beards"], who disguise themselves as Muslims.
You need to see the difference between Muslims and the "beards", the Islamists or Jihadists. If you do not see any differences you will g ...[text shortened]... putting my stances and comments in the correct perspective.
Again, you need serious updating.
Please give your thoughts on a Nuclear Free Middle East Zone as proposed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in the thread I started.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "I am unconcerned about Jihadists if they limit their activity to their own countries .... "
You need updating; the Crusades ended about 800 years ago. I am unconcerned about Jihadists if they limit their activity to their own countries and I really don't care how "fundamentalist" the various governments of the Middle East are or aren't. In the end, absent the type of Western meddling you invariably support, such groups will be driven from p ...[text shortened]... Free Middle East Zone as proposed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in the thread I started.
😵
marauder: " ... radical Christians like yourself"
Oh boy, I support the course taken by the United Nations. I support the E3-Iran negotiations, which intend to give Iran the possibility of producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and which give a chance to solve the Iran issue peacefully. I support the moderate Islam and moderate secular forces in and outside Iran. Man, I am such a radical ..... an extremist. I condemn the statements made by Holocaust denyers. Man, I am so radical .... sometimes I wonder whether I can become as moderate as the marauder ...... 😀
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou're full of it, Ivanhoe; name a "moderate" Muslim you support. When I quoted an article from a Westernized Muslim women who was a college professor in England you called her a supporter of Al-Qaeda just because she opposed Bush's policies. If you really wanted a peaceful resolution of the issues in the Middle East, you'd call for a withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and of the US from Iraq. You'd support a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East rather than the present policies of the West which you concede will likely lead to war with Iran. You condemn statements made by Muslims, but are silent on statements made by Sharon calling for war against Muslim states.
marauder: "I am unconcerned about Jihadists if they limit their activity to their own countries .... "
😵
marauder: " ... radical Christians like yourself"
Oh boy, I support the course taken by the United Nations. I support the E3-Iran negotiations, which intend to give Iran the possibility of producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes a ...[text shortened]... m so radical .... sometimes I wonder whether I can become as moderate as the marauder ...... 😀
Yeah, you're a real "moderate", Ivanhoe.
3 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672I don't consider the Saudi royal family as "progressive". The primary goal of the "jihadists" is to take over Muslim lands from the present rulerswho they consider (with good reason) corrupt, Western puppets (like the Saudis) or corrupt, neo-fascists (like Saddam was). If the West hadn't been supporting these types of regimes for more than half a century, there never would have been a 9/11 (and don't bother screeching that I'm "justifying" 9/11 since I'm not; I'm stating historical truth). I tend to think that members of the human race desire freedom and thus believe that countries left to their own devices, esp. in the information age we are in, will eventually move to freer, less theocratic societies. But as I pointed out above, this "natural" process is inhibited when a country lives in fear and the people tend to turn to those who are the most reassuring. As I pointed out to Ivanhoe. Western meddling in Muslim countries in general and the continued support of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is the primary impetus to the wave of radical Islamic Fundamentalism that is now such a strong political force in the Muslim world. Remove those two factors and the Fundamentalists have little to offer.
The problem with Jihadists is that they like to take the fight to western streets and blow up civilians. If they didn't, they wouldn't be jihadists - jihad necessarily involves killing infidels. And when you say that the progressive elements in a country would drive out despots - well, I have to disagree with you. The Saudi royal family is propped ...[text shortened]... hat's an AWFUL lot for one country to concede. What tangible things does Israel get in return?
Their is a constant attempt to re-write history and to paint Muslims as the "bad guys". Your "story" of the Israelis and Palestinians fits right in with such myth making. Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza illegally 38 years ago; for 38 years it has ignored UN Security Council Resolutions to withdraw from that land, to not build settlements there, to not annex parts of Jerusalem, etc. etc. etc. (you never hear our self-declared supporter of the UN, Ivanhoe, mention that). Naturally you blame Arafat for everything and Hamas doesn't want peace but Sharon does. This is BS. The harsh fact of the matter is that most Arabs don't think that the Jews should have an independent state in Palestinian and most Israeli Jews don't think the Palestinians should have an independent state in Palestine. Both are going to be disappointed with the ultimate obvious solution (two independent states) but that's what's going to happen. Israelis have no right to dictate the political arrangements inside Arab Palestine and Palestinians have no right to dictate political arrangements inside Israel. An eventual compromise almost always leads to both sides getting less than they want, but the 100% support the US gives Israel gives them 0 incentive to bargain at all.
Israel's nuclear weapons are a threat to the entire region and make the Western position that Arab states developing nuclear weapons are a "threat to peace" hypocritical. The proposal by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for a nuclear weapons free zone would remove the threat of nuclear holocaust from the equation. I'd say that would be a good thing. What does Israel get in return? Peace and security; which all the nuclear weapons the've built, all the successful sneak attacks they've accomplished, all the oppression of Palestinian, all the ignoring of international law and everything else they've done in the last 57 years has failed to gain them.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Bold points originally posted by sasquatch672
The problem with Jihadists is that they like to take the fight to western streets and blow up civilians. If they didn't, they wouldn't be jihadists - jihad necessarily involves killing infidels. And when you say that the progressive elements in a country would drive out despots - well, I have to disagree with you. The Saudi royal family is propped ...[text shortened]... hat's an AWFUL lot for one country to concede. What tangible things does Israel get in return?
The problem with Jihadists is that they like to take the fight to western streets and blow up civilians. If they didn't, they wouldn't be jihadists - jihad necessarily involves killing infidels.
You quite clearly don't understand the term "jihad". The fact that every pious muslim is indeed a "jihadist" yet only a minute percentage ascribe to your idea of a jihadist underlines the misunderstanding of many western observers.
I absolutely agree with you that Israel should withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank. It's such a tiny slice of land, and once again, religious nuts (in this case Jews) read a religious document (the Torah) and interpret part of it to mean that those lands were given to them by God and not only are they their birthright, it would be a sin to abandon them. Palestine deserves its own sovreign state. But Hamas (I misspoke yesterday, Hezbollah is Iran's state-sponsored terror group) has a foothold in Paelstinian society it's hard to imagine their hard-liners ever choosing peace with Israel. As I noted yesterday, the two sides were so close with the Oslo Accords, and Arafat began the Second Intifada because peace with Israel would havemeant he was marginalized.
Indeed, but if Israel would just give back the settlements and apologize for the oppression, then perhaps the palestinians could be persuaded to take a more diplomatic approach to their relationship with Israel.
If the Palestinian Authority got serious about policing their own, they could offer Israel real security. And Israel is just downright scary right now. They're really taking George Bush's philosophy - if you can attribute such a profound word to Bush - and running with it. Then again, I understand where they're coming from. You say - and I agree - that no physical evidence of Iran's uranium-processing ability has been presented to the public. But even the progressive, younger elements of Iranian society are taking great pride in Iran's progress toward the development of nuclear weapons.
A police without a state is like a dog without an owner. How can you expect a dog to gaurd your home, when you have no home.
But really, doesn't this all came back to one state and it's affairs. What's everyone's problem with Israel? Can that problem be fixed? Would everyone calm down if it was?
I don't think anyone would claim that anyone else is out there to wipe out the jews for the hell of it. Indeed, Iran's president was wrong to say what he did, but would his radical notion gather support for his party if the political situation in Israel was resolved?
That's an AWFUL lot for one country to concede. What tangible things does Israel get in return?
Peace, or some semblance of it, and getting the political upper hand in future confrontations for unwillingly ending something that could have been ended any time during the last 38 (perhaps 58) years.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder:"When I quoted an article from a Westernized Muslim women who was a college professor in England you called her a supporter of Al-Qaeda just because she opposed Bush's policies."
You're full of it, Ivanhoe; name a "moderate" Muslim you support. When I quoted an article from a Westernized Muslim women who was a college professor in England you called her a supporter of Al-Qaeda just because she opposed Bush's policies. If you really wanted a peaceful resolution of the issues in the Middle East, you'd call for a withdrawal of ...[text shortened]... haron calling for war against Muslim states.
Yeah, you're a real "moderate", Ivanhoe.
No, marauder. You are giving an unacceptable twist to my words. She was not an Al Qaeda supporter because she "opposed Bush's policies". That would be a ridiculous stand to take. That is your bad memory playing tricks with you. I gave other reasons for my observations.
marauder: "If you really wanted a peaceful resolution of the issues in the Middle East, you'd call for a withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank and of the US from Iraq."
In other words: People who really want peace should agree with you. If they do not agree this means they want war, but are not willing to admit it. ...... *I really should adress my paranoia* 🙄
marauder: "You'd support a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East ...."
I dó support such a proposal within the scope of an all embracing Middle East peace treaty.
marauder: "the present policies of the West which you concede will likely lead to war with Iran. .... "
You keep repeating that the present policies towards Iran are merely "a policy of the West". That is incorrect. It is not merely a policy of the West. As I pointed out and showed you, ElBaradei of the UN's IAEA expresses the same views. Russia and China are IAEA members and support the IAEA's approach. It is also their policy. You are only prepared to view the West and in particular the US administration's actions and stances in all this. This too narrow perspective of yours will necessarily and unevitably lead to a warped and therefore flawed view on these world issues. Russia's important role for instance is not at all considered in your views.
Furthermore I have not acknowledged that the present US and the EU policies will likely lead to war. It is again an unacceptable twist in your interpretation of my stances. You are again leaving out the actions, stances and policies of other important parties in these developments, namely Russia and China. On top of that you completely ignore Iran's responsibilities to avoid war.
I have stated that if we analyse the actual developments in the Iran issue a military action of some sort seems inevitable. This is something completely different. I cannot share your obviously premature conclusion however that this will be the exclusive result of the "policies of the West".
marauder: "You condemn statements made by Muslims, but are silent on statements made by Sharon calling for war against Muslim states."
I am not silent on Sharon's statements. You must have missed my comments.
Do you think "Sharon is calling for war", as you choose to put it, just for the fun of it, just because he is a war monger ?
marauder: "Yeah, you're a real "moderate", Ivanhoe.
Yes, I am.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoePeople who really want peace support a solution that relies on both sides to make concessions. You don't. You insist that Muslims must give in in virtually every case first before Israel or the West concede anything. Such an unreasonable position is a sure path to war unless one side caves in entirely which is not going to happen here. So you remain full of it; the "peace" you want requires one side to prevail in virtually every particular; since that is unobtainable, your position is warlike and you do constantly support military action when done by the West or Israel. That's the facts, Ivanhoe.
[b]marauder:"When I quoted an article from a Westernized Muslim women who was a college professor in England you called her a supporter of Al-Qaeda just because she opposed Bush's policies."
No, marauder. You are giving an unacceptable twist to my words. She was not an Al Qaeda supporter because she "opposed Bush's policies". That would b ...[text shortened]... s a war monger ?
marauder: "Yeah, you're a real "moderate", Ivanhoe.
Yes, I am.[/b]
Do you think they'll ever be peace with the US occupying Iraq or Israel occupying the West Bank? If you do, you're a fool. If you don't, then you should support the end of those occupations. Pretty simple.
You applied conditions to the Nuclear Free zone i.e. that certain organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad support an all-embracing peace treaty that you well know would make it impossible to acheive. This is a typical trick of yours, Ivanhoe; to say you support something in principle (like "peace"😉 while attaching unreasonable conditions that make it unobtainable. No treaty has ever required all internal political groups of a nation to acquiese in the treaty as you well know. You are deliberately being disingenous.
You continue to pretend that the policies you support toward Iran are UN policy when that is not true. The matter has never went before the UN Security Council; where is the legal basis of your claim? In fact, the US has threatened to bring the matter before the UN Security Council on many occasions but failed to do so. Why? Because the US government knows that Russia and China and others don't support the West's policy and would veto any bid for sanctions against Iran. Stop pretending there is some united front on this issue; there isn't.
You can twist in any way you want, but you have said the likely outcome of present policies is war. You'll, of course, blame it on Muslim Iran for not doing everything they were told to do. You won't be able to pretend the UN backed it. You'll just be left justifying perhaps tens of thousands of dead as the logical outcome of policies you support. But it won't be your fault, of course; you're "moderate".
2 edits
Iran's president although controversial seems quite clear of
presenting 'an' imputative argument.
Furthermore, he is using media to both attract attention and
present a platform for discourse.
What is more frightening is his ability to make you look past
the diatribe of media representation and ask yourself a real
question that offers 'an' integrated alternative.
If he'd left a PO box no. at the end of the speech, he might
have even found one.
5 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder, now you are going way overboard in your assessment of the Iran/Middle East situation and your interpretations of my stances. It is becoming annoying and sometimes it becomes absolutely ridiculous. I will show you why.
People who really want peace support a solution that relies on both sides to make concessions. You don't. You insist that Muslims must give in in virtually every case first before Israel or the West concede anything. Such an unreasonable position is a sure path to war unless one side caves in entirely which is not going to happen here. So you remain ful ...[text shortened]... l outcome of policies you support. But it won't be your fault, of course; you're "moderate".
marauder: "People who really want peace support a solution that relies on both sides to make concessions. You don't."
I don't ? What in the world makes you think this ? I support the "Roadmap to Peace" which also includes concessions of the Israeli side. You are simply dead wrong.
marauder: " You insist that Muslims must give in in virtually every case first before Israel or the West concede anything."
I insist ? Please, show me where I stated such utter nonsense. .... and this time I insist on adressing you this issue and giving proof for my alleged stance.
We have now reached the end of the annoying part.
marauder: "Such an unreasonable position is a sure path to war unless one side caves in entirely which is not going to happen here."
It is becoming ridiculous now. Since I do not take the stance you described you cannot possible accuse me of being responsible for the consequenses.
marauder: "and you do constantly support military action when done by the West or Israel."
I do ? You simply make it up as you go along.
marauder: "That's the facts, Ivanhoe".
No, marauder. Your above statements are a description of your flawed interpretations of the facts.
marauder: "Do you think they'll ever be peace with the US occupying Iraq or Israel occupying the West Bank? If you do, you're a fool. If you don't, then you should support the end of those occupations. Pretty simple."
I do not support a permanent occupation of Iraq, nor the permanent occupation by Israel of the "occupied territories". The former will end if "the job is done" and the latter subject is being adressed in the road map and eventually will be settled in the context of a peace treaty.
marauder: "You applied conditions to the Nuclear Free zone i.e. that certain organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad support an all-embracing peace treaty that you well know would make it impossible to acheive."
Now your "analyses" is becoming absolutely and utterly ridiculous. How do you think the situation will look like if an all embracing "peace" treaty will be signed which does NOT adress the groups supported and financed by regional countries, participants in this peace treaty, which would entail this "Nuclear Free Zone". You think this will mean peace, if these terrorists groups will be allowed to continue their suicide actions and other attacks on Israel ? Are you for real ? This is unacceptable. We are now in the middle of the utterly ridiculous part of your "analyses". How can there be peace in the Middle East without disarming and disbanding the terrorists groups, marauder ?
marauder: "This is a typical trick of yours, Ivanhoe"
Now things are becoming annoying again.
marauder: "to say you support something in principle (like "peace"😉 while attaching unreasonable conditions that make it unobtainable."
... "unreasonable conditions" ...... get off ...... in fact you are claiming Israel should accept a "peace" treaty and get rid of their nuclear arms and at the same time the other side is allowed to continue the war .... 🙄
You want Israel to give up its nuclear arms. In exchange for what ? It seems to me you do not offer anything in return. No recognition of the Jewish State of Israel. No secure borders, no dismantling of the terrorist groups. Not even a true peace treaty, nothing. You simply want Israel to give up his nuclear arms and to enable the Arab states and the terrorist groups they arm and support ideologically and financially to continue their war against Israel. How stupid do you think the Israelis are ?
... and on top of this you accuse me of performing "tricks". Get off.
Your constant accusations on my adress are not only annoying but utterly ridiculous and devoid of any realistic approach of the situation.
marauder: "Stop pretending there is some united front on this issue; there isn't."
Strawman. I did never claim there is a "united front". What I claimed was that the policy expressed by IAEA's Elbaradei is supported by the US, the EU, Russia and China.
You still do not understand the role Russia and China are playing otherwise you would not have accused me of "pretending" there is a "united front". Of course there isn't. Damn, even within the EU there are differences of opinion. Even in my own country there are. But this does not change the fact that Russia, China, the US and the EU want Iran to meet the demands of the IAEA, a UN agency, and the obligations mentioned in the NPT.
marauder: " You can twist in any way you want, but you have said the likely outcome of present policies is war."
You are now slightly but essentially changing and adjusting your claim. Who is disingenuous here ?
marauder: "You won't be able to pretend the UN backed it. You'll just be left justifying perhaps tens of thousands of dead as the logical outcome of policies you support."
Get rid of your Cristal Ball, start analysing this complex international situation, and stop your annoying accusations, based on a flawed assessment of the situation and on a ridiculously flawed interpretation of my stands.