Originally posted by abejnoodIf Ragnorak said it, it must be true.🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
What is that supposed to mean? And why are you talking in this situation? As Ragnorak has already observed, along with the rest of us, you indeed want Iran to be invaded. And why? Because you are too ignorant to understand the facts and fill yourself up to lies and propaganda?
Originally posted by ivanhoe.... and I was so generous to give you a rec for your first post. 😞
Look what is happening .... Ragnorak states a falsehood and you repeat it. I didn't advocate an invasion in Iran. I never did. I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked Ragnorak. Please post a link where I advocated such a thing, otherwise please retract your statement.
Originally posted by ivanhoe"It seems we can expect some political and maybe military fireworks in the Middle East in the nearby future."
Oh please. Where did I propose or advocate such a thing ? Please give me a link .... otherwise, please retract your statement.
Which was your opinion after you posted some news link stories which made Iran out to be world enemies.
D
3 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakIvanhoe: "It seems we can expect some political and maybe military fireworks in the Middle East in the nearby future."
"It seems we can expect some political and maybe military fireworks in the Middle East in the nearby future."
Which was your opinion after you posted some news link stories which made Iran out to be world enemies.
D
I indeed wrote the above words.
If you translate these into the following:
Ragnorak: "It was you that was making the point that Iran should be invaded."
...then it clearly shows I did not "make the point that Iran should be invaded".
This is an unacceptable misinterpretation of my words.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou have been posting negative news stories about Iran for ages. I haven't seen you posting news stories about the aid that Iran have given to the earthquake victims of Pakistan.
[b]Ivanhoe: "It seems we can expect some political and maybe military fireworks in the Middle East in the nearby future."
I indeed wrote the above words.
If you translate these into the following:
Ragnorak: "It was you that was making the point that Iran should be invaded."
...then it clearly shows I did not "make the point that Iran should be invaded".
This is an unacceptable misinterpretation of my words.[/b]
You selectively edited news stories to make Iran look as bad and dangerous as possible. Then you say that military fireworks can be expected in the middle east in the near future, as though the news stories that you quoted were justification for an invasion of Iran. Or what type of "military fireworks" were you referring to?
D
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakThis was my statement:
You have been posting negative news stories about Iran for ages. I haven't seen you posting news stories about the aid that Iran have given to the earthquake victims of Pakistan.
You selectively edited news stories to make Iran look as bad and dangerous as possible. Then you say that military fireworks can be expected in the middle east in the near ...[text shortened]... ion for an invasion of Iran. Or what type of "military fireworks" were you referring to?
D
Ivanhoe: "It seems we can expect some political and maybe military fireworks in the Middle East in the nearby future."
Please note I wrote: "..... we can expect some POLITICAL and MAYBE military fireworks in the Middle East in the nearby future."
Apart from the fact you chose to forget the words "political" and "maybe" and misinterpreting my words as a proposal or support for a policy to invade Iran, rather than an expression of my view of what I expect to (maybe) happen in the Middle East in the nearby future, I can tell you I was thinking of an Israely military action from the air, when I wrote "... and maybe military fireworks", to destroy the Iranian nuclear plants in Isfahan and perhaps other places. Because Israel performed the same kind of action against the nuclear plants built under the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, it is not at all delusional to take into account the possibility they will carry out the same actions against the nuclear facilities in Iran.
At the moment the political and diplomatic fireworks are in full operational mode as we have been able to read in the newspapers and to see on televison. Diplomatic, political and economic pressure is being built up against the Iranian regime by the international community. I sincerely hope this crises can be solved by the politicians and the diplomats. The election of the new ultra-right wing Iranian president however does not add to my hopes it will be done this way. On the contrary, the chances for a peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear energy/uranium enrichment/nuclear weapons issue have diminished considerably.
I wrote "... political and MAYBE military fireworks" because of the above reasons.
Originally posted by RagnorakAs well as Abejnood's point is made, sadly it is not the people of Iran with the finger on the button. Fact is, the state of Iran (meaning the government, the people in charge) is dangerous, and correctly classed as a rogue state.
You have been posting negative news stories about Iran for ages. I haven't seen you posting news stories about the aid that Iran have given to the earthquake victims of Pakistan.
You selectively edited news stories to make Iran look as bad and dangerous as possible. Then you say that military fireworks can be expected in the middle east in the near ...[text shortened]... ion for an invasion of Iran. Or what type of "military fireworks" were you referring to?
D
No one should make the mistake that the Iranian people stand fully square behind their president, and that he speaks for them in this matter.
Everyone who questions the legality of the Iraq war because of no UN backing and also questions the sovereignity of Israel is ignorant at best, if not hypocritical. Israel is a fully accepted member of the UN and as such all discussions about it's legality are moot. As a nation state it has every right to defend itself, has done so in the past (Iraq's nuclear ambitions) and will in the future. Although I rarely agree with the way Israel goes about this, I can fully understand it.
I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that given the possibility, the state of Iran (please note the distinction I made above) will use nuclear weapons against Israel, compounding its own hypocrisy by inflicting unimaginable suffering on neigbouring Palestinians.
Sadly, I find it hard to believe that the Arab world will be overly sad should Iran nuke Israel.
Originally posted by abejnoodI've worked with Muslims and people from around the world and from talking to them have come to the conclusion that the average person just wants to be left the hell alone to take care of their own business.
Unfortunatly, I have been unable to visit the site recently, and missed a debate on what the Iranian president said.
Apparently, there has been much discussion. However, it appears most of what people said are words against Iran comdeming it for what it said.
Being an Iranian, and one of only two subscribers, and perhaps the only one who regularly po ...[text shortened]... w, don't support any country or person over anyone else.
Well, that's my two cents, anyway.
So, I think your assessment is the correct one, thanks.
Originally posted by knightwestYo've got to be kidding me.
As well as Abejnood's point is made, sadly it is not the people of Iran with the finger on the button. Fact is, the state of Iran (meaning the government, the people in charge) is dangerous, and correctly classed as a rogue state.
No one should make the mistake that the Iranian people stand fully square behind their president, and that he speaks for t ...[text shortened]... Sadly, I find it hard to believe that the Arab world will be overly sad should Iran nuke Israel.
Iran nuke Isreal? Let me remind you that Isreal controls the U.S. Iran is not looking for a fight with Isral and the U.S. We don't even really want to fight Isreal. Our president is just a moron who wants to get some attention, an immmature child. People get the view that we are anti-Semite, anti Isreali. That is not true. Some of my best friends are Isreali, and many Iranians are friends with Jews and Isrealis and like them. What the president said does not represent the country. Bush's statements don't represent the 62 % of people who don't think he's doing a good job. Of course, everyone has some conflicts, but it means nothing as to wanting to kill each other. That is just an overblown propoganda technique used by America and Isreali governments to start a war with Iran.
Originally posted by abejnoodWell I am personally glad you at least now admit he said some
Unfortunatly, I have been unable to visit the site recently, and missed a debate on what the Iranian president said.
Apparently, there has been much discussion. However, it appears most of what people said are words against Iran comdeming it for what it said.
Being an Iranian, and one of only two subscribers, and perhaps the only one who regularly po ...[text shortened]... w, don't support any country or person over anyone else.
Well, that's my two cents, anyway.
awful things. And we have to agree, presidents usually don't
represent the majority opinion. However, he does command the
military and we here in the west have to take him at his word.
There will be dire consequences if he tries to carry out these threats.
His biggest problem doing just that is Israel holds the nuke card.
So my guess is its mostly bluster, with well timed money to his
favorite causes, like Hamas and the like. Hamas money was traced
right to Iran, so he is acting if indirectly.
2 edits
From the original post:
"Just because he of his own mind said this, means nothing about the will of the people. In fact, the blogging sites for Iranians that I have visited have all been angry with the President (who, in my opinion, cheated the people to become president and some things may have been rigged. But that's a different matter). I hope that it is not taken by Isrealis and Americans that the people of Iran agree with the president ( quite to the contrary, most of them dissaprove of it). However, it appears that people have taken it as such and some plans for war are already being laid out.
Also, his saying of forcing Islam on the world, that was also stupid and unnecessary. I mean, I'm an Iranian, and yet I'm an atheist and would hate to be forced into a religion. Speaking of which, Iran is not an Arab state. Iranians in fact don't get along very well with Arabs. We, from the peoples veiw, don't support any country or person over anyone else."
............................................................
The "people" of Iran elected him didn't they?
Of course he speaks for you!
He is your voice to the outside World just as Bush, as the elected Pres. of the US, speaks for America. That's how it works. We elect people and they act and speak on our behalf. The US election was very close last time and a very large percentage didn't want Bush, yet Bush it is and therefore he is our spokesperson to the World.
When he says something publicly he speaks for America unless he speficly states otherwise. A LOT of Americans (and many many Euros) speak out PUBLICLY with objections to Bush policies. It's all over the TV and print media. Marches are planned and public protest demonstrations carried out.
Is that what it's like it Iran right now?
Are their mass protests and a media blitz of outrage over what was said?
Somehow, I doubt it.
If Bush stated publicly that Iran should be wiped off the map their would be a public outcry in the US and indeed Worldwide. It's a little different for Irans leader. He gets a pass on his homefield and another pass from the many America/Isreal haters.
If i'm stuck being represented by the crazy "cowboy", surely you get full credit for the camel jockey in charge in your Country.
Originally posted by sonhouseI said this a month ago. I stand by this statement, I do not retract it, but now that I have read his speech and know what he REALLY said, I do not say he said some awful things. He didn't. Had he said them, I would have been wholeheartedly against it, but he didn't say those things, I read his speech and it was changed a lot to favor Isreal and the West. It all full of lies.
Well I am personally glad you at least now admit he said some
awful things. And we have to agree, presidents usually don't
represent the majority opinion. However, he does command the
military and we here in the west have to take him at his word.
There will be dire consequences if he tries to carry out these threats.
His biggest problem doing just th ...[text shortened]... , like Hamas and the like. Hamas money was traced
right to Iran, so he is acting if indirectly.
Originally posted by jammerI'm being represented by the cowboy right now as well, buddy. Currently I am living in America, though I definatly woudn't have voted for him if I were old enough to vote (By the way, I AM a citizen of the U.S.-- I was born here).
From the original post:
"Just because he of his own mind said this, means nothing about the will of the people. In fact, the blogging sites for Iranians that I have visited have all been angry with the President (who, in my opinion, cheated the people to become president and some things may have been rigged. But that's a different matter). I hope that it ...[text shortened]... the crazy "cowboy", surely you get full credit for the camel jockey in charge in your Country.
He does not represnt us-- the elction was rigged, and they found that out, but because the supreme leader said he should be president. Most of Iranians disagree with having him as our president because of his conservative views on Islam.
Originally posted by abejnoodis a video available online ? ...
I said this a month ago. I stand by this statement, I do not retract it, but now that I have read his speech and know what he REALLY said, I do not say he said some awful things. He didn't. Had he said them, I would have been wholeheartedly against it, but he didn't say those things, I read his speech and it was changed a lot to favor Isreal and the West. It all full of lies.