View Full Version : Hamster Wheel (politics ad nauseam)


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Maple 01
23rd Oct 2005, 09:59
Hmmmm, being a history bloke I find if you replace insert new incomer's race or nationality here with Jew/Black/Polish/Italian the same hysterical arguments were being made from Victorian times to the 1970s

The UK is very Borg-like, people find themselves being assimilated sooner or later - and no bad thing too!



Stafford
23rd Oct 2005, 10:23
Maple,

Up until recently I would have agreed with you. I have a number of close friends of Caribbean and Pakistani descent with broad black country accents and they are as Brit as I am.

This until the influx of radical Islam of course. Every border in the world where radical Islam meets other cultures is a disaster area.

Now we have invited it into our society and we have seen the results. The objectives of our new "immigrants" are totally different to our valued immigrants of the last few decades in particular. My own pedigree is somewhat suspect I think, but I'm really good looking for all that !;)

1DC
23rd Oct 2005, 10:29
As long Britain remains the soft touch that it is today then the way of life will continue or get worse. If we made it hard to get an easy life then those who are coming for the handouts would stop coming and the existing residents who have carved out a life of living on benefits would have to start working, if this happens then life will get better for everyone.
A firm and fast decision on asylum seekers followed by instant deportation, if turned down, would be a start. If people asking for asylum were given easy access to the country to allow them to apply legally were given a decision within seven days and then either stay or leave immediately I fancy many wouldn't even apply.This would means that the loopholes in our laws, which never seemed to be there 25 years ago, would have to be closed so that sensible decisons cannot be overturned or put into limbo so the defendents can coninue to be given handouts and/or disappear into the country to change identity and become illegal.
Of course if this was attempted then the politically correct brigade would come up with a scheme where the first people out would be the "Reddo's" of this world, people here legally and contributing to the community.

Wyler
23rd Oct 2005, 10:48
There is another problem area here as well. I agree that a lot of immigrants come here to earn an honest crust. Unfortunatley, a lot of so called respectable employers here take them on and pay stupidly low wages. This in turn makes it more attractive for those on benefits to stay on benefits. In this area the builders are employing Polish tradesmen, legally, and paying them less that 4.50 per hour.
In the SE, fruit pickers make no secret of paying immigrant workers low wages. If we were to legislate against that then the price of fruit would go up and there would be hell to pay.
It is a vicious circle.

PanPanYourself
23rd Oct 2005, 11:07
SASless,

Muslims have a right to be incensed over the burining of two dead bodies.

The insurgents calling themselves muslims burned the bodies of coalition troops and dragged them through the streets. There was media outrage of course. But two wrongs don't make a right SASless. I think we should all be outraged by such behavior no matter which side commits it.

Senior officials in the American military have acknowledged that these acts, if true, are atrocities and said they will be investigated thoroughly. That is the right response, yours isn't. Your response is, these bastards are doing worse so they have no right to complain. All muslims aren't terrorists, and showing utter disregard for their beliefs is just making you more enemies.

I kind of get the impression that some people on these forums want to see the ultimate fight between good and evil, with Bush as the second coming and Bin Laden as the antichrist, and Islam as evil, all this paving the way for end times. These are scary radical fundamentalist people, and I'm afraid they're multiplying.

maxter
23rd Oct 2005, 11:19
Stafford

Quite a proportion of those released from Gitmo and other detention centres are now deceased

1%, 10%,50%,99% killed? Based on what evidence do you make this claim? Not saying you are wrong, but I regard myself fairly well read on these conflicts and have not seen anything other than one vague comment by a U.S. 'spokesman'.


One thing that has intrigued me is that the justification for the war has moved on to 'we are saving them from evil', yet many people try to justify the actions in Abu Graib etc, by the same standards as the despots,tyrants,scum that we are fighting. We know they are evil, that is why we are fighting them. Why judge ourselves at their level? We may as well never have been there if we do not uphold a much higher standard.

I do believe that the troops over there do as a general rule, but that is no excuse to excuse those that cross the line.

I strongly believe they do not get the level of guidence and direction needed from our leaders. This is especially so, in my opinion, from the U.S when there is official sanctioning of the supposed 'CIA renditions etc. If the leadership does not set an exemplary example in any team, from small business to 'super power goverments', the standards down the chain of command will always decline.

African Tech Rep
23rd Oct 2005, 11:46
Just wanted to say – Tilewood I object to that remark – It’s the BRITISH that are leaving not just English.
Metro man – too b****y true – I’m living in one of those “ex colonial countries” and have visited others – in not one can it truthfully be said things are better now than they were.

The sad thing is should my wife have a different skin colour and not be married to me it would be easier for her to get into the UK than it is – and when there she would get more benefits than she would now.
One rule, as it was explained to me, is that I would have to Prove I have sufficient funds to support her – yet if she was an asylum seeker she would get a place to stay and spending money from the government.

Not saying we can’t move back – just that it seems it’ll be harder for us than (in the terms of govt regulations) than for someone with no connection with the UK who managed to get in on the back of a truck.

Maple 1 – I wish – but you tried finding a Chippy lately – last visit LOTS of kebab’s / Curry’s / Chinese, but finding a Chippy = not a hope – they are assimilating us.

Caudillo
23rd Oct 2005, 12:11
Redsnail,

My point was simply that people may be comcerned about the fact that there is so much foreign immigration - the question of their race and whether they are illegal is something else.

360 Degree Mason,

Calm down dear, it's only an emotive argument.

I don't recall saying anything about immigration being the exculsive preserve of Europeans. As I have been at pains to point out - the concern may be simply that some people are worried about the ramifications of large numbers of foreigners immigrating into their country. Neither do I recall ever having mentioned race, in fact, I have been consistently trying to point out that race is not necessarily an issue here.

RJM
23rd Oct 2005, 12:15
Maybe we could find some Hindus to fight. They wouldn't object so much to the burning of dead bodies. :hmm:

This is a war, and terrible things are done by both sides to both sides. That's one of the reasons why there has to be a concerted move towards peace. I believe there is, but we, including the media, must have the stomach to complete the process.

redsnail
23rd Oct 2005, 12:18
"foreign immigration"

Is there another sort?

frostbite
23rd Oct 2005, 12:30
"Hey Frostbite, why not include the number of people who left the UK in the same period?"

I didn't because I don't know it - but you are free to, if you do.

DeBurcs
23rd Oct 2005, 12:52
Why is it ok for Europeans to Migrate to wherever the hell THEY please on this planet, but expect the non-europeans (who where all here before them) to stay where THEY areAnecdotally speaking, it would appear "Europeans" (and I'm sure you are speaking loosley there - we all know what you mean ;) ) generally only want to migrate to/from/between countries that other "Europeans" already have developed and made civilised and where similar values are upheld. What's wrong with that?

I'd say they generally don't want to go to other places not so described. So, having chosen not to go to those places, why would they want to then bring them in in the form of immigration?

Some people seem to choose to see this as evil.

The one good side of the UK being swamped by....... whomever, is for the time being, not as many foreigners' eyes are on Australia. We're watching closely and trying to learn from your mistakes.

We need (the right sort of) immigrants. You're welcome to come on down as long as you promise not to whinge incessantly.... :ok:

Don't forget to grab the Royal Family Jewels from the Tower or wherever they are, before you leave...

Oh and bring your aircraft carriers.

Techman
23rd Oct 2005, 13:05
Well frostbite, the net immigration figure for 2004 is 223,000. No doubt you knew that but chose the more whingeable number.

Wedge
23rd Oct 2005, 13:12
Oh, immigration again.

The rather non-PC (PPRuNe Correctness) post from Hairy Mary is not a view, it's merely a statement of fact.

I fail to see what reasonable objection any 'Englishman' could have to providing housing, healthcare and employment to any 'indiginous' citizen of the nations of HM British Empire, which was born in the first place through Imperialism, slavery and the plundering of other nations' resources. That's how we got rich in the first place, anyone care to disagree with that?

Not to mention the fact thats there is no such thing as an 'indiginous' Englishman, we're all immigrants if you go back far enough - whether we are Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Jewish or any other or a combination thereof. And black people have been here for centuries.

Third world citizens or Eastern Europeans want to come here because of our thriving economy and generous welfare system. That's a reasonable aspiration for anybody isn't it? To want to travel from poverty to build a new and better life in a new country. All of us here, were we in the same position would do the same.

There can't be any reasonable objection to our throwing of a few scraps from our table to the people whose wealth we plundered in the first place. Unless your objections are borne out of good old British Imperialism or plain old racism.

That said, the reality is that we don't have the capacity or infrastructure to accommodate them all, and must take greater steps to ensure that those that do come here do so legally, and those that jump the queue are returned promptly to the back of it.

DeBurcs
23rd Oct 2005, 13:17
Unless your objections are borne out of good old British Imperialism or plain old racism.No, never.

"Racism." The word which will always beat the best-intentioned into silence, unless of course, he's non-white.

Thank you for reminding us.want to come here because of our thriving economy and generous welfare system. That's a reasonable aspiration for anybody isn't it? To want to travel from poverty to build a new and better life in a new country. All of us here, were we in the same position would do the same.

There can't be any reasonable objection to our throwing of a few scraps....Okay well I hope you enjoy your future but then maybe you're at just the right age to miss the worst.

Gunship
23rd Oct 2005, 13:53
Gents I do doc checking for airlines to the UK and Europe and I was astonished to see the amount of new passports issued for West Africans to the UK ... untill ....

I started to work on the French and Belgium routes.

Problems mate - big problems.

I can count on my one hand of the thousands I have seen to Europe that are skilled workers.

That is one thing : The UK at least get lawyers / barristers or whatever you call them and so on.

I really feel sorry for you guys.

Now try and get a work permit or residency permit in West Africa ... they do not want you mate !

Gotta buy yourself one ... only way.

DC Meatloaf
23rd Oct 2005, 14:40
So, are the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Iraqi terrorists only muslims when their bodies are burned, not when they're out committing atrocities? Mainstream Islam seems to rightfully disown these especially murderous sects/affiliations when they manage to kill lots of innocents. Does the muslim community's "furor" (doesn't need that extra "u") over this latest event mean that they really considered these Taliban fellow muslims all along? Or do they get incensed at any cremation, regardless of religious affiliation?

TheFlyingSquirrel
23rd Oct 2005, 14:45
SASless - please delete this thread - you're a highly respected pilot and ppruner - I think this would be the right option here - it's just getting too ugly - IMHO of course.

Stafford
23rd Oct 2005, 14:46
Agreed 7gcbc

But we're there now and prosecuting an action to allow free democratic elections to take place. So, given that the world is the way it is, I'd rather see the truth in ALL sectors of the debate rather than listen to the liberal rubbish spouted every time a muslim gets his ire up.

I'm kind of angry that my fellow human beings are being butchered by Islamists all over the world and then having to listen to hand wringing liberals justify why they think the terrorists are doing the evil that they do.

Afghanistan and Iraq have a fleeting chance to adopt democratic process after centuries of religiously motivated self flagellation. On a point of order, I'll probably have a giggle when the democracies aren't quite in the GWB or Liar Blair model, but at least the populations there will hopefully not be seen as personal toys by future leaderships.

The killers in Syria are also on warning notice from all sides having assassinated Rafik Hariri, the Iranian regime is on a death wish heading, and Gaddafi is one of our best friends now having turned Queens evidence on his erstwhile dealings with Blairs favourite Irish terror group among others. The world is changing but the libs want it all without a price as usual.

Another point is that the Islamic community professes to claim that any muslim who committs suicide, kills innocent and unarmed non combatants etc is in fact in total contravention of the teachings of Islam. So they are in fact regarded by the majority of decent muslims as non muslims anyway ?

OneWorld22
23rd Oct 2005, 16:11
I'm kind of angry that my fellow human beings are being butchered by Islamists all over the world

Many Muslims will just turn that around, I'm sure they're sick of fellow muslims being butchered by western forces...Face it, we're in a sh**ty situation whatever way you look at it and the line between the two sides is not as black and white as some seem to think.

haughtney1, your posts seem to imply that soldiers should not be held accountable for their actions in the field and that everything, rules, morals etc should be suspended in battle. Dangerous that is...

I agree with Drapes, Sun Tzu was a w**ker!

SASless
23rd Oct 2005, 17:03
TFS,

The discussion is not ugly...the issue under discussion is ugly.

War is an ugly thing...terrorism is an ugly thing. Sometimes in life one must confront ugly issues. That is healthy for the society and the members of the society that is confronted by such ugly affairs.

The internet allows one to say things that one would not normally say in direct contact with others in a more personal venue. That is not a good thing.

I consider the current thread to be a move in the right direction...an ugly issue is being discussed in a mostly intellectual manner by the posters.

As long as the posters stick to topic and play the ball and not the player then this is a good discussion of current events.

Thus TFS....I will not remove the thread. The Mod's can do as they wish....they usually do thus I shan't steal their thunder in that way.

What is it you find to be ugly about this discussion? The images of a human being being burned to death by terrorists or something else?

haughtney1
23rd Oct 2005, 17:11
haughtney1, your posts seem to imply that soldiers should not be held accountable for their actions in the field and that everything, rules, morals etc should be suspended in battle. Dangerous that is...

Yep dangerous...which is why NCO's and officers exist to provide leardership and direction...

I'd say its also a damn sight more dangerous to lose...all because of some rules that a committee of lawyers made up in the comfort of a drawing room somewhere. Checks and balances yes. but make no mistake, if you fight you fight to win..end of :suspect:

I agree with Drapes, Sun Tzu was a w**ker!
Someone has to on this...no one else has:p

Jetlegs
23rd Oct 2005, 17:17
SASless, stop pretending that you haven't noticed the moderators cleaning up your thread.
Place was like a pigstie and The Squirrel merely commented the bleedin' obvious. Pretty disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise and to try and make out TFS as a stupid softie on the basis of what your thread looks like now as apposed to what it looked like when Squirrel made his post.
Agitprop?

Your thread was bound to turn ugly and did so on cue.

Surprise :rolleyes:

Jimmy Breeze
23rd Oct 2005, 17:58
I think the whole thing is a shame
So far the allies havent done too badly, I mean there has been some friendly fire and some civilian casualties.. as always.
However all the negative claims we can make against the various ways listed in the first post, describing how some deaths have been carried out have now been undermined a little bit.

I hate to attempt to break it down so simply but without instances like this we could claim taking a moral high ground. But having taken acts like this we are sorted of lowering ourselves to 'their level'

Its never quite that simple, that was one instance caught on camera, who's to say there weren't more.
We always report on when something bad happens to one of our guys but who is gonna do the reporting when it comes to the torture and/or death of a captured militant?
We only look through a pretty narrow glass and unfortunately 9 times out of 10 we only hear what our governments and press would like us to.

Please stop me if I dont have this right but is there a law in the US where the government can deny the media printing news if they deem it nessecary?

Paterbrat
23rd Oct 2005, 18:29
When the issues of Muslim atrocities is treated with the same breathless horror then this type of reporting may begin to seem even handed. The constant Mea Culpa and breastbeating 'Oh look how terrible we are' looks to becoming the staple diet of press fodder theses days. :rolleyes:

Jimmy Breeze
23rd Oct 2005, 18:36
'this type of reporting'

I've only read the one article on the internet myself?
I havent seen it on tv nor seena massive fuss made over it in any newspapers. I'm not saying it hasnt happened I just havent been looking.

How are they really going wild over it?

Attila
23rd Oct 2005, 19:02
At the risk of moving this thread very slightly off track, I would like to say that there does seem to be one set of rules for "us" and another set for "them," whoever "us" & "them" may be.

Salman Rushdie springs to my mind, followed by the recent riots at a Coptic Church following a so-called "anti Islamic" play.

Jimmy B

No fire is "friendly", it is all deadly and without conscience.

Jetlegs

Normally, when the Mods edit a post, they usually have the good grace to add a sentence stating that they have done so. Haven't seen that here anywhere, have I missed something??

Capt.KAOS
23rd Oct 2005, 19:38
The difference between the two burnings is the fact that the US is pretending to liberate dictatorial Muslim states, implementing Democracy1.01, bringing freedom and McDonalds, better life yada yada.

I said it before and I say it again; how can you pretend to be on moral highground if you use the same methods?

Both sides seem to be approaching each other more and more.

SASless
23rd Oct 2005, 20:17
Kaos.....

The politics are not an issue....the issue is the lack of complaint or utterance of disgust towards the burning to death of a living human being while there is all sorts of press bluff and bluster over the burning of two dead bodies for sanitation reasons.

Why no upset about Western sensitivities....afterall he was a living human being until murdered by terrorists in such an ugly manner.


How are you able to ignore the manner of that poor man's death and rant about GWB, The Americans....or whatever?

West Coast
23rd Oct 2005, 20:30
Kaos
You're back. Haven't seen much of you since you kept mixing up foggy bottom and the DoD. Would you rather see Afghanistan under Taliban rule still to make your rant somewhat accurate?


"Both sides seem to be approaching each other more and more"

May not have made the press back then, but what of any atrocities committed by Americans and liberators of other nationalities during the liberation of YOUR country? If These guys are guilty, then they will be punished. Don't paint with such a wide brush because of the actions of a few, it shows your bias.

Your at a disadvantage developing your opinions via press reports and Google.

African Tech Rep
23rd Oct 2005, 20:53
Lets get this right – if a Muslims body is burnt he goes to hell ?

Wish someone had told the terrorists on the planes on 9/11.

OK – make it SOP to burn all terrorists bodies – lets see how their Imam persuades them they’ll sit with Allah then.

Capt.KAOS
23rd Oct 2005, 21:27
...press bluff and bluster over the burning of two dead bodies for sanitation reasons. Not only the press, SASless. Even Karzai condemned the desecration of the bodies and the U.S. military declared the alleged abuse "repugnant" and vowed to investigate.

The death of the 4 contractors was just as repugnant and widely covered. It even triggered a massive military campaign not much later on Fallujah.

SASless
23rd Oct 2005, 21:49
Kaos,

That was a previous incident where four DEAD bodies were burned.

This incident is the one where a LIVING human was burned to death by Terrorists dousing him in gasoline (petrol) and torching him. It was not a quick nor painless death Kaos....but a horrible, lingering, horrific death.

I pray that if the burning of four dead bodies called down the wrath of the armed forces then this response should be a dose of DuPont's finest that will set records.

To put it into redneck parlance....it is time for an old fashioned Rat killing.

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 00:27
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Primetime/abc_ptl_nazitwins2_051019_t.jpg


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), defender of Free Speech in the USA, says these two teen aged girls are spreading evil ideas. The two sisters, who go by the stage name of "Prussian Blue", sing songs that promote White Supremacist ideas.

The same ACLU sees nothing wrong with Gangster Rap artists singing about Blacks killing Police Officers, calling women "HO's" and bragging about drug use and other criminal acts.

Is there something about White Free Speech that is different than Black Free Speech?

Idunno
24th Oct 2005, 00:39
Don't you get it yet SASless? White men and Christians are evil.
Islam is peaceful.
Gangsta Rappers are COOL, and probably got abused by an evil White Christian somewhere in their childhood.

Jerricho
24th Oct 2005, 00:47
I rarely get involved in these threads, but I saw the interview a couple of nights ago with these little darlings............

I especially liked the bit where they were on stage throwing "Nazi salutes" left and right while singing one of their lovely little songs.

The world is officially f*cked up.

Ozzy
24th Oct 2005, 00:53
Had a look at their website. Seem to be not nice people. Snoop Dog's web site seems fine compared to the girl's site...

Ozzy

Idunno
24th Oct 2005, 01:14
I bet they're crap. No chance of world domination then - unless they find an army, eh?
So whats the big deal. Let them sing their little ditties until their hearts content - or they grow titties (couldn't resist that).

I know which I'd prefer to meet in a dark alley, and it ain't this ****:-


http://photo.sing365.com/music/Image.nsf/PicUnid/37683939BC4DE12448256CF10010326A/$file/50+Cent+1.jpg

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 01:18
We do not have to agree with what they are saying....either bunch of them....but the issue is why the ACLU is offended by theirs and not by the Gangsta Rappers and other groups that are preaching hate?

It proves plainly that the ACLU is not the defender of Free Speech but rather selects their defense of Free Speech so long as it is of a socialist or liberal point of view.

They attack the display of the ten commandments and ignore Gangsta Rappers preaching murder of police officers and white people despite the Ten Commandments saying "Thou shall not kill".

They defend abortion on demand....and oppose the death penalty...thus endorsing the killing of the innocent and protecting convicted murderers.

I actually get some enjoyment out of these two blonde headed darlings doing this......as it really gets up the nose of the ACLU crowd. This will be an thing to watch over the months ahead.

The girls and their mom will be made to be evil....while the ACLU makes absolutely no mention of the Gangsta rappers, Gang Bangers, and other Black generators of mayhem and murder. Just Watch.....I will be proven right on this.

Jerricho
24th Oct 2005, 01:21
SASless, I'm betting it's not just the ACLU they have offended or upset with their Neo-nazi carrying on. :rolleyes:

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 01:30
Jerricho,

Maybe this will put it into perspective....the White Supremacist danger is grossly overstated....as compared to the Gangsta Rapper bunch.

The link takes you to an article that has some interesting statistics....

Personally, I view both bunches as being wrong....but do watch how the media hypes the story.

http://www.vdare.com/fulford/herbert.htm



An excerpt from an ACLU Position Paper on Free Speech.....

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.

prospector
24th Oct 2005, 01:30
And what do the suicide bombers do to their bodies??

Is this not repugnant to their religious beliefs,?? do we hear any howls of righteous indignation that many times they are killing as many muslims as anybody else. Would this not upset the waiting virgins that these martyr's are brainwashed into thinking will be waiting for them?? How often have any of these people complained about muslim bodies being incinerated by actions of car bombers, train bombers etc.

They may complain, and perhaps they should. My complaint would be against all the bleeding hearts that give these hypocritical people any credence.

Prospector

Davaar
24th Oct 2005, 02:09
We-ull, Earl's Momma was in to see me 'bout them thar Dixie Chicks, singin' "Earl's Gotta Die" then hittin' on him wid da funny honey. Momma says Earl was a good ole lovin' boy, good to his Momma, an' he hain't no missin' man that doggone nobody miss at all, an' them sexist po-lice doan do nuttin' to fin' he-um, out theah in da bayou, callin' foah his Momma.

scatboy3
24th Oct 2005, 02:18
Yep HERE (http://whiteriderradio.com/community/index.php) is a fine example of these peoples websites. I can't really find them acceptable.

barit1
24th Oct 2005, 02:36
Of course they're unacceptable. But that's not the point; you and I don't have to listen - we turn and walk away. Just like we do from Gangsta Rap.

Blacksheep
24th Oct 2005, 03:56
I'm one of those immigrant people.
An English immigrant.
From Africa.
I don't pay income tax but I'm not a sponger.
I export my labour to Asia and import the income.
Which helps Britain's balance of payments.
"Welcome to my country" said the brown faced gentleman behind the Immigation counter at Terminal 3.
"Wa'alaikum Salaam" I replied.

Its a brave new world. I call it "The Global Village".

PA-28-180
24th Oct 2005, 05:00
Barit1...THANK YOU! Why do all these fools seem to forget that little button on the TV,Radio (fill in the device of your choice) that says OFF. Since they can't seem to figure this one out, I'm not even going to mention CHANGE THE CHANNEL.
BTW...how do you think the Browns will do this year? :D

PanPanYourself
24th Oct 2005, 06:19
There is a thread with a similar title to this one in which some are whinging that the press is making too much fuss over the desecration of 2 muslim bodies. An American contractor was burned alive so there are some who will say no mention should be made of the 2 muslim bodies desecrated by coalition troops.

To this I say bullshit! The press, for all its faults, has done a fine job of reporting the atrocity against the contractor, now they will do a fine job of reporting the atrocities against the 2 muslims. Its all fair and even. But there are some who want coalition troops to have free reign to wreak havoc and not be held accountable for their actions.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'm writing in the interest of peace. Committing such acts will only make both sides more bitter and make more enemies. As long as muslims are treated like a lower form of life there will unfortunately be much more death and destruction.

If you want to talk about double standards in the press, its amazing how the US seems to count every single priceless American life that is lost in Iraq and little mention is made of other human losses, even British losses are given very little attention in the American press. When a plane crashes... HOW MANY AMERICANS WERE ON BOARD??? Then they ask how many PEOPLE, if ever.

I'm proud to say I feel the same horror, outrage, and sadness at the loss of each HUMAN life regardless of nationality or religion. Unfortunately for some on this forum, that is not the case.


http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/Movies/2000A/2000.html

N380UA
24th Oct 2005, 06:26
For once I have to completely agree with SAS. Shocking I know, but when he's right he's right. With this issue as such, he proves however my point of double standard practices in the USA.
Free speech is not exclusive to the US. However I found that such organizations such as the ACLU anywhere seem to be a bit one sided. It is said "Your freedom ends where it infringes on mine" yet the so called Gangsta Rappers are allowed to glorify their "way-of-life"!
Ok! So be it. Then let Prussian Blue glorify their "way-of-life" too!!!
And on the by by, don’t mix up whit supremacy with Nazi or even neo-Nazi. Completely different cans of worms there.

tilewood
24th Oct 2005, 06:58
If you want to see why we white English are a
little reluctant to celebrate our multi-cultural country, then just look at the scenes coming out of Birmingham this weekend.

Asians and Blacks rioting on the streets and murdering each
other. It seems an illegal black African immigrant woman was
assaulted.


But that's OK because it's only the whites who are racist!

Welcome to Britain 2005.

419
24th Oct 2005, 07:59
A line from the all time classic song :* "Fu*k the police" by Niggaz With attitude.

" Without a gun and a badge, what do you got?
A sucker in a uniform waiting to get shot "

What would have happened if a pop group which consisted of white men, released a song with a similar title?

prospector
24th Oct 2005, 08:12
You may well say bullshit.

But please explain why there is no outrage when a suicide bomber blows himself and his car up in amongst a crowd of Muslims, it is ok if a muslim incinerates another muslim, as long as it is "the other Muslim" either a Sunni, or a Shi'a, or a kurd?? why such a diatribe of crap when an American tries to clear the air and dispose of a rotting body?? do muslim bodies not stink after they are dead??? Why is it such an insult when somebody else creates the inferno that disposes of a body? with the number of muslims that choose to live in America, it may well be that someone in the squad in question was a Muslim, funny that, a Muslim can live in America, and have freedom of religion and speech.

There are many more apologist press who would rather make a bit of money on a so called scoop than think about the effect their one sided reporting will cause. Who was looking after the welfare of this, I hate to say, Australian journalist as he took this film, was it the Islamic militants? hopefully they will capture him and he can take a movie of his own beheading.

Prospector

TheFlyingSquirrel
24th Oct 2005, 08:22
for :mad: 's sake ! Not again ! This is becoming 'so' not the place to be !

prospector
24th Oct 2005, 08:23
And when an English newspaper can print" The minority ethnic population makes up 82.6% of the wards population" then one must wonder how popular Enoch Powell would have been in this day and age.

The riot was between Asians and blacks, why is it that the racist white police have to intervene?? Is it England??

Prospector

MysticFlyer
24th Oct 2005, 08:28
Wake up!

Mason 360 is sitting on the answer, by definition - the craft.

Play groups up against each other, make them (the not so crafty) believe it's a matter of faith (mixed with racial hatred), in the meantime we'll secure the wealth while they finish each other off. (Biggest industries - Owning governments, Banking, oil and supplying Dept.'s of Defence or is it Offence?)

Those who control Money will control, and those who control the money will smile, because they can change governments, having realized that, next up was......yes mind control, yes we decide for them what is best for them, what they need and believe they need.

Colonialisation, liberation, greed, love for money, dependance as opposed to independance.

There are ONLY two religions - good and evil, as in - light and darkness....but read the inscription carefully -wisdom is needed! (Polarisation in any other direction equals love for money and we know how unscrupelous this makes man - thus also a religion towards the darker shade.)

Remember...the craft has degrees (though not 360!), on the surface it was meant to be looking like a great fraternity for good meaning men, as with colonisation, but not all agendas and motives are as advertised!

We can thus continue....but I urge you to think with all of this....he who lives by the sword...

Political history always repeats itself!:{

The relevance of all of this...go figure.....

prospector
24th Oct 2005, 08:41
Blacksheep,

Global village, a nice thought, how long before we can rid the world of people like Robert Mugabe, Osama bin Laden, who would have us believe there is only one village, and it will be run the way they wish it to be run.

If nobody, anywhere, could have any job weilding any political power until they had been a citizen of the world for at least 60 years, and hold power for no more than 5 years, I do believe it would perhaps be possible to have a version of Global Village that may work.

Prospector

Standard Noise
24th Oct 2005, 09:36
Maybe the ACLU have had the misfortune to hear their music!

Wedge
24th Oct 2005, 10:40
If you want to see why we white English are a little reluctant to celebrate our multi-cultural country, then just look at the scenes coming out of Birmingham this weekend.

I'm white English, so please remember that before you decide to speak for me and millions of others like me that we don't all share your opinions. I'm very happy to celebrate our multi-cultural country.

Asians and Blacks rioting on the streets and murdering each other.

A hysterical and totally innaccurate misrepresentation of what happened. In fact exactly the kind of irresponsible "rumour, myth and speculation" that the Police say led to the unrest in the first place. The kind of tactic the BNP have used many times in often succesful attempts to stir up racial tension and rioting - see Oldham and Burnley. The latest BNP tactic is to time a provocative march in Keighley on November 5th to coincide with the Muslim festival of Eid. BNP leader Nick Griffin will appear at Leeds Crown Court three days before to stand trial for Inciting Racial Hatred.

But that's OK because it's only the whites who are racist!

Really? On what basis do you reach this 'logical' conclusion?

I can see you have strong views on this, but you've not yet told us what policies you think should be implemented on immigration. Please tell us.

ORAC
24th Oct 2005, 10:54
Asians and Blacks rioting on the streets and murdering each other....A hysterical and totally innaccurate misrepresentation of what happened.

BBC:

An 18-year-old man has died in hospital after he was shot close to the scene of weekend rioting in Birmingham. Two men have been arrested over the incident on Sunday in the Newtown area but police do not yet know if it is linked to the weekend violence.

Saturday's rioting involved youths from the black and Asian communities and was said to have been sparked by a claim that a girl of 14 had been raped......

The violence on Saturday night culminated in the stabbing to death of a 23-year-old man.

A total of 35 people were taken to hospital with police reporting up to 80 separate criminal incidents. Five people were arrested. Of those injured, nine remain in hospital, one with a fractured skull. A number of petrol bombs were also thrown and at least 12 gunshots were reported.

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 10:55
Is there something about White Free Speech that is different than Black Free Speech?
Yes – only whites can be racist – everyone else is “telling it like it is”

Jerricho – sorry - Isn’t the job of the ACLU to defend “civil liberties” and fight for the right of free speech for all – regardless whether or not they agree with what is said.

ORAC
24th Oct 2005, 11:10
No idea, I´m Irish (South, not North), or British, being born in Islington. Also a supporter of immigration, if you search my previous posts. But to imply this wasn´t a racial riot or that people died is flying in the face of the facts.

feet dry
24th Oct 2005, 11:11
ORAC,

Not sure of the point you are trying to make; considering that the population within a 50-mile radius of Birmingham city centre is approximately six million people, the numbers referred to are not symptomatic of vast numbers of the local population tooling up for the final chukka.

tony draper
24th Oct 2005, 11:21
As I recal the LA Riots may have been triggered by Police brutality but mainly reflected the Black poulations resentment for the Korean population who seemed of own and run all the businesses in the area, I suspects a similar thing is happening in Birmingham,something triggers the confict and the oportunity is taken to demonstrate that resentment physically, of course ethnicity is involved to claim otherwise is ludicrous.

tilewood
24th Oct 2005, 11:26
Wedge

Please tell me exactly what it is you and the government suggest the rest of us have to 'celebrate' about multi-cultural Britain in 2005.

Should we celebrate the loss of free speech?
The lowering of educational standards in inner cities?
The knife, drug, and gun culture ?
The 'yardies'
The fear of offending the muslims
The ghettos in our cities
Should we celebrate the thousands who are here illegaly
Should we celebrate the costs incurred to the NHS, and the extra taxes the rest of us have to pay to support them.

I would suggest nobody minds controlled immigration, but our country is rapidly becoming lawless and unpoliced. It is just not PC to say it.

PileUp Officer
24th Oct 2005, 11:27
A line from the all time classic song "Fu*k the police" by Niggaz With attitude. " Without a gun and a badge, what do you got? A sucker in a uniform waiting to get shot " What would have happened if a pop group which consisted of white men, released a song with a similar title?

I actually bought that album last week and if you actually listen to the lyrics within the context of the song then you realise the true meaning of song isn't exclusively to 'kill pigs'.

I'm not particularly into rap but a LOT of the lyrics in this music are taken out of context by people who don't understand it.

This also happens a lot in punk music. True modern punk music promotes tolerance and is inherently anti-racist/sexist/homophobic yet most people see the image the media projects: "anarchists" (in the media sense of the word)who want to destroy everything, swear a lot and promote violence.
It simply isn't the case

Edited: For rushed grammar

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 11:30
I cannot believe the attitude of some on this board.

These brainwashed children are singing about how Naziism is acceptable, not about sh*gging "Ho's".
I know which I find more offensive and evil.

These two girls have been made to be the "acceptable" face of the neo-nazi's, the fact that grou[s of people still exist is something I find to be utterly abhorrent.

There is a long argument about the why's and wherefore's of what constitutes "Free Speech" and the differences between what is acceptable in society.

But Nazi's are an awful lot more dangerous than any rapper and any statistics are meaningless, especially when you take into account the lives that were destroyed by the holocuast and WW2 in general.

The white supremacists are luckily a minority group, but with stunts like these, theyll become more mainstream. That should frighten anyone with more than half a brain.

Evil doesn't even come into when describing these scum.

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 11:41
The concept being argued is "Free Speech"....and should that concept apply to all of us equally. What you find offensive might differ from me....but we each (in the USA) have the right to express ourselves freely. I find that right granted to us by the First Amendment is specifically for "political" speech.

Thus I would suggest the ACLU should be protecting the Prussian Blue's and not the Gangsta Rappers for the one group is promoting a political concept whereas the other is endorsing criminal behaviour and not a political theme.

Just because we find the "speech" as being offensive....does not withdraw the right from the speaker. Even the ACLU says that....and I usually find what the ACLU is saying (protecting) to be offensive.

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 11:50
Pan,

Where was the outcry when British Troops bulldozed tens of thousands of corpses into mass graves at concentration camps at the end of WWII? No effort was made to identify the bodies, notify next of kin.

Are those British (and American) troops guilty of atrocities?

If you have taken ground and are using it for legitimate military purposes....and you happen to have two corpses laying in the middle of it....what are you supposed to do? The unit commander asked the villagers to come retrieve the bodies and they refused.

I would suggest the villagers are the villians in this....they refused to honor the traditional and religious requirements while being of the same faith as the two dead men.

Where is your angst over that?

The bodies were burned for sanitation reasons....and later the PsyWar troops used that against the enemy. Sounds fair to me.

I am loosely described as being a Christian....and I am not offended by this at all.

I am offended as a human being, at the horrific deeds the terrorists are committing.

Nice try at being cute....but not very effective.

N380UA
24th Oct 2005, 12:27
Darn! Again I have to agree with SAS! And y'all know how I hate to agree with him. But he's right!

PanPanYourself
24th Oct 2005, 12:42
Maxalt, I know you've been drowned with criticisim and silenced by the majority in other threads but theres really no need to spread your hatred into new threads.

Don't you get it yet SASless? White men and Christians are evil.
Nobody ever posted anything to that effect.

Islam is peaceful.
As much as any major religion can possibly be.

Gangsta Rappers are COOL
Nope, they're about as stupid as these skank bitches.

I happen to agree with SAS on this issue and your grovelling for his approval will get you nowhere.

Wedge
24th Oct 2005, 12:48
I did not imply these riots weren't borne out of racial tension. Nor did I deny somebody had died as a result.

Asians and Blacks...murdering each other

This is a hysterical misrepresrentation, and that's what I was objecting to.

Should we celebrate the loss of free speech?

Who said that we had lost 'free speech'? - You've spoken your mind perfectly clearly on this thread without fear of censorship. Unless there are other things you'd like to say but feel stifled in doing so? You have a forum here were you can say pretty much what you like within the accepted boundaries.

The lowering of educational standards in inner cities?

Are you suggesting that this lowering is a direct result of immigration? If so, on what basis do you draw this conclusion?

The knife, drug, and gun culture?

The same question applies.

The 'yardies'

Gang and concomitant gun culture among the Afro-Caribbean community is a grave concern, but it's a slur on the black community to tar all of them with the same brush. Are we responsible for white gang culture and gun crime?

The fear of offending the muslims

I don't fear offending anyone. I'm opposed to Islam, and I'm opposed to Christianity.

The ghettos in our cities

These ghettos you speak of - are presumably the result of a failure to implement satisfactory polices to integrate immigrants and provide them with adeqaute opportunites? Or are you suggesting all immigrants are happy to live in 'ghettos'? I've not seen any evidence in the UK of genuine ghettos anyway.

Should we celebrate the thousands who are here illegaly

No, I've already said that illegal immigration should be clamped down on.

Should we celebrate the costs incurred to the NHS, and the extra taxes the rest of us have to pay to support them.

I refer you to my opening post. Given that British colonialism is responsible for our country's wealth, is it not a reasonable, in fact laudible, aspiration for the 'children of the Empire' to want to come to live here to make a better life for themselves?

You've avoided the main question however - what changes would you make to our immigration system?

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 12:48
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), defender of Free Speech in the USA, says these two teen aged girls are spreading evil ideas. The two sisters, who go by the stage name of "Prussian Blue", sing songs that promote White Supremacist ideas.

How is what the ACLU saying wrong? They are promoting hatred. That is pretty evil, where does anything about Gangsta rappers come into the comments from the ACLU?

The discussion on free speech is a different and difficult one.

Capt.KAOS
24th Oct 2005, 12:50
Where was the outcry when British Troops bulldozed tens of thousands of corpses into mass graves at concentration camps at the end of WWII? No effort was made to identify the bodies, notify next of kin.

Well, that ends this thread by Godwin's Law*

* Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

Jimmy Breeze
24th Oct 2005, 13:03
The flaming bodies going to hell is another reason why suicide bombers won't make it. Again showing how it is comdemned by thier religion.

In reference to how bad it is that someone was burnt alive - and it is bad, dont get me wrong. Don't forget that its not like we just let it go and we are all friends, there is a war going on out there. If you can think of more retaliation i'd love to hear it

....it is time for an old fashioned Rat killing.

What the hell is that supposed to mean.
Aside from the current war what do you propose?
setting traps with cheese?

larssnowpharter
24th Oct 2005, 13:03
I am not impressed by lack of respect on the part of either party towards the dead of another.

If you go to Baghdad you will find a few British garveyards from the period 1919 to 1940 that have been vandalised and defiled. One is at:

33:16:17N 44:28:38E or, the way I find it: MB 51318156

I understand these were the old graveyards from the Hinaidi base. They are, I am told by the Commonweath Graves Commission, under their care. Apparantly they have one guy who tries to keep an eye on things but - in the current circumstances - it's all a bit difficult. Not surprising, really.

Perhaps the press might like to go and take some piccies of these sites and comment on the lack of respect shown to the British dead. Better still, start recovering the bodies and bring them back to blighty where they might receive some respect.

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 13:13
Jimmy,

If you had ever participated in an old fashioned Southern corn crib rat killing...you would understand the concept. It amounts in modern terms to erradicating vermin....with great zeal and effort with the ultimate goal being to cleanse the area of said vermin who are causing the problem. It is Vector Control in Spades.

One should note....the effort is targeted towards the vermin and not all the critters on the place....just the rats and mice. No quarter given to the rats and mice.....once identified as being a rat or mouse....one hunts them down, chases them down, and frees their rodent spirits to seek whatever reward they have earned in their life.

That is what I mean by the comment "time for an old fashioned rat killing".

Idunno
24th Oct 2005, 13:15
Hear Hear.
And as has been pointed out to PPY before - he keeps forgetting that the contractor was burned ALIVE.

Jimmy Breeze
24th Oct 2005, 13:16
I'm with PanPan on this.
No one is above anyone else in this and for the press to report the murdered contracter and the burnt muslims equally is fine.
Too much fuss has been made over the latter being reported.

No one here is arguing that either side's actions were good, but it would be nice to see the allies trying to be more civilised.

In reference to the WW2 bulldozing, I think it would be fair t say things have changed since then, standards are somewhat different.

when an American tries to clear the air and dispose of a rotting body

In the middle of nowhere in the desert?
It wouldnt have been difficult to bury two dead bodies in the manner requested.

Here is a quote from a report, with link

US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions.

An investigation by SBS's Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies.

It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban.

According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being "cowardly dogs". "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be," the message reportedly said.

"You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."

The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours.

Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged".

US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area.

SBS said Australian special forces in Afghanistan were operating from the same base as the US soldiers involved in the incident, although no Australians took part in the action.

The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/film-rolls-as-troops-burn-dead/2005/10/18/1129401256154.html

barit1
24th Oct 2005, 13:19
SAS got it right about ACLU and others of their stripe, believing the Ten Commandments and the white supremacy goofs are dangerous, but NWA and gangsta rap are not.

William F. Buckley (decades ago) stated that at some point in our future we'd become convinced that the Constitution is unconstitutional. Are we there already?

Techman
24th Oct 2005, 13:22
How old is the constitution?

PanPanYourself
24th Oct 2005, 13:26
And as has been pointed out to PPY before - he keeps forgetting that the contractor was burned ALIVE.
~Idunno
Idunno, your posts are getting even more inaccurate and pointless, if thats even possible.


An American contractor was burned alive so there are some...
~me.

Maybe you should try reading people's posts before replying to them. But no, you're too fixated on your holy war against non-christians.

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 13:27
Jimmy,

You miss one small wee slightly important point....the Taliban and Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention in the sense they are "protected". They however are covered by the very Geneva Convention you cite.....as non-uniformed combatants they are subject to summary execution. I would suggest that same lack of protection applies to their stinking dead bodies. If their own kind do not care to retrieve the bodies when given an opportunity as per the Geneva Convention then all is fair.

The troops were in a combat situation....needed the use of that ground for their operations and did not have an expedient means to deal with the bodies. I would have dragged the bodies off a fair distance and left them to rot myself. Burning bodies don't smell much nicer than the rotting ones from my experience thus I would imagine they made a tactical blunder by doing that.

I suggest we care too much about Muslim sensitivities and too little about the Terrorists heinous acts.

Jimmy Breeze
24th Oct 2005, 13:27
Nope, they're about as stupid as these skank bitches.

True

Why is there an innate need for people to take sides?
No one ever seems to agree that both sides have faults
Gansta Rap is weak and dying out
White supremacy has been weak for a long time.

Its not like Gansta rap went through the same problems when it came out.
Plus stopping the provoking of hate is the new fashion. Standards have changed since the 80's gansta rap.

Idunno
24th Oct 2005, 13:28
where does anything about Gangsta rappers come into the comments from the ACLU? Errr...thats the POINT. They don't bother the Gangsta Rappers when really they should.:suspect:

PPY, you seem to lack a sense of IRONY. Are you a Yank?
Nobody said Whitemen and Christians are evil on the thread? No, they just say it every day in the big wide world - which is where I live.

I'd like to discuss how peaceful Islam isn't, but theres another thread for that, you gang-banger.

Hiya Techman. How old are you?

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 13:30
It wouldn’t have been difficult to bury two dead bodies in the manner requested.

Possibly not – but also it’s possible it would have caused the troops to leave their dug outs and be nice targets for snipers – after all most burial parties need to stand to dig, but you can throw petrol and incendiaries.
Besides it appears the other Muslims were given that opportunity and didn’t want to do so.

In both cases people did wrong – in both cases it was the Muslims that did the most wrong.
They should not set fire to people – they should have collected their dead.

N380UA
24th Oct 2005, 13:31
Capt.KAOS

Although I haven’t heard of Mr. Godwin's Law prior, I have noted the amount of reference made to the third Reich on just about every other thread on JB. Though in some cases those references have some merits, more often then not I found that folks comparing any argument with Hitler, Nazism, the SS or any other particulars of the third Reich are not very educated on the events of that era. But be that as it may, Godwin's notion of " whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress" does prove itself.

Idunno
24th Oct 2005, 13:37
Jimmy Breeze: I'm with PanPan on this. Jimmy, you're with PPY and Scatboy on EVERYTHING. Maybe you're just 3 usernames for the same bloke. You seem to be on the Net together at the same time quite a lot - coincidentally. And you 3 keep turning up on the same threads complimenting each other, back slapping, and gang banging.

PPY = JB = Scatboy/ATR??

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 13:40
Why should they bother them? They are what they are, they're talking cobblers and we all know it.

These little pop tarts are trying to be something else. They have been pushed into the limelight and are being controlled by a very dangerous organisation to try and spread their political ideals. Something I don't see rappers doing.

There is no real comparison between Rap (how much have you ever actually listened to? The vast majority is harmless drivel about how cool they are or how much money they have. Some is bad I will admit, but it certainly isn't on general release.) and the vile sentiments coming out of the mouths of these children.
That is what is dangerous. These girls have been brainwashed and they are being used to try and do the same to others of their generation.

Are these the same two girls who were on Louis Theroux's show a while ago?

Arguments about everyone being allowed to say anything is too simplistic in this day and age. The ideals that the first amendment was written to protect are still valid, but the pressure on them is far greater than ever before. Sometimes a measure of control is healthy. Where you draw the line on that though is a totally different matter...

PanPanYourself
24th Oct 2005, 13:45
Nope, we wouldn't stoop to your level Maxalt=Idunno=Brainwashed.

Unlike you, we can actually find real people to agree with us.

The fact that we're online at the same time, posting on various threads proves that we're more than one person.

You will never see Maxalt and Idunno online at the same time. Unless this guy has 2 computers sitting next to eachother, and no life whatsoever.


Heres a thought, why don't you try posting something non-combative and not hateful. Maybe somebody other than your alternate nickname will agree with you then. It'll be a strange feeling the first time it happens, but you'll get used to it.

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 13:46
Idunno – can you get a bit sillier?

I invite the Mods to post my IP – and they can confirm if any of the others mentioned have an IP similar to mine.

Also if you do a search you’ll find a topic on which, myself and PPY disagreed quite a bit – but we managed to keep the debate rational – you really should find it and learn.

Jimmy Breeze
24th Oct 2005, 13:47
If we're online at the same time how can it be the same person?
And its everything because its the same single issue.
Even the one about the girl band you keep trying to have a go at Islam. Its only that hate i'm against, be it for any group.

All points considered about leaving the area to dig holes due to snipers and such. I'm not saying its a MUST that they bury them but even in the area that they were in would have been fine.
My only concern is that they burnt the bodies to purposely insult the Taliban.
All's fair if you want to look at it as they burnt one of ours so we'll do the same, but the Allies can do a better job of being civilised about it.
Regardless of what reasons it was done for my problem is with the fuss at the reports being made. It seems fine to report it to me. We don't always have to take a side, just look at both.

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 13:57
I know this will spoil Idunno’s theory – but

JB – it doesn’t yet appear they did this – it appears PsyOps got involved as an “afterthought” and if they really had wanted to insult the Taliban they most probably wouldn’t have offered the villagers a chance to collect and bury the bodies.

It would have been far different had they dragged to the bodies to the town (village) square, laid them out the wrong way and burnt them. This would have been an insult – what appears to have happened is some guys did their best to get rid of the bodies in a non insulting way and when they couldn’t do that did something that corrected their problem without putting themselves in extra danger.

The problem with the reporting is more seems to be said about this than the burning alive of others by Muslims.

Techman
24th Oct 2005, 14:04
Does anybody know what the local and arab media made of this?

Idunno
24th Oct 2005, 14:06
All 3 gangbangers on the same thread within minutes of each other.

If you aren't the same person, you must be joined at the hip.

And JB, since when is it "Hateful" to tell the truth? Maybe if it contradicts YOUR world view I guess, huh!

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 14:16
Or could it just be we are at the computer at the same time ? – but in different countries.

Incidentally is your plan to take over any thread that Muslim is mentioned in ?

Oh BTW - you mentioned four posters earlier - then it became "all three".

Techman
24th Oct 2005, 14:23
Well, maxalt/Idunno/whoever. Where I come from there is an old saying that goes something like this:

"A thief thinks every man steals"

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 14:38
Techman = nice one

But don’t worry about it too much – I think Idunno and Maxalt are two different people – Idunno has found his opinions to have been ridiculed by many others – now if he can persuade himself all the others are in fact the same person he can then belive he is in the right as he and max agree thus making 2 – while everyone else is really only one person – thus it’s 2 to 1.

Anybody know any psychiatrists Mid Atlantic based ?

Playtime_fontayne
24th Oct 2005, 14:53
Quite right, Say again.

The fact that these two children are having this kind of S**t fed to them by adults is sick.

Read this article : www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4330


I despair, i really do!:confused:

Lance Murdoch
24th Oct 2005, 14:58
Personally I think that all these groups are chips off the same block. There should be complete free speech and people can then judge for themselves. The right to be heard and the right to be taken seriously are not the same thing!

Darth Nigel
24th Oct 2005, 15:02
Good sh!t-stirring here...

The ACLU has defended the "First Amendment" on both sides of the coin -- for rap music on the one and for the Ku Klux Klan on the other (for the non-North American folk, the KKK is an organization known for dressing in white cloaks and hoods, and maintaining vigilante "justice" against uppity black folk -- they were more popular in years gone by, but have somewhat suffered a decline since so many of their members ran for office as Republicans)
(sample rap music case (http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/aclusuesschooldistrictover.htm) )
(sample Klan case here (http://www.acluohio.org/press_releases/1999_press_releases/1999.08.03.htm) )
(there may be others -- this was a quick Google search)

The ACLU stance is that certain speech is hateful and nasty, and citizens really shouldn't make hateful statements... but that citizens have certain legal rights which the Government shouldn't suppress merely because the statements made are somewhat crass.


That is, the fact that citizens with rights also have responsibilities is often ignored. I swear there ought to be a test.

Binoculars
24th Oct 2005, 15:07
What can I say except that I totally agree with SASless? :{

And I just read the "interview" with these angelic girls.
There is also the discussion of the lack of "Prussian Blue" coloring (Zyklon B residue) in the so-called gas chambers in the concentration camps. We think it might make people question some of the inaccuracies of the "Holocaust" myth.
That really sounds like the words of a twelve year old, doesn't it?

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 15:53
Binos

What are some of your favorite groups, either current or past? our all-time favorite is Barney the purple dinosaur!

Sounds a bit more like 12yr old girls – now.

Why do I get the idea that the above quotes are “the real girls” – the rest / lyrics etc being more their parents voice.
Although I will agree it probably will be their voice when they grow up.
But that's why the ALCU is there - to let them voice their opinions when they are adults.

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 16:31
But....if there was a test....and some litmus test that eliminated hateful speech...deceitful speech....absolutely false statements...and mis-leading statements....what would the politicians have to leak to the press, utter at press conferences, and spew out at every photo op?

It is absolutely correct that freedom comes with responsibility and liability. It is a shame that we cannot sue for damages caused by those that abuse that freedom.

Caslance
24th Oct 2005, 17:59
I think we all know what you meant by that comment, SASless....... :yuk:

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 18:15
There is a fundamental difference between a politician bending the truth and a neo-nazi group claiming the holocaust never happened.

This drives me absolutely nuts, especially after my Grandmother went through the camps during the war, only surviving because she was young, blonde and attractive. The stories she tells of Auschwitz are horrific, but somehow it's acceptable to have these scum twisting the minds of children to further their cause, to say that millions of people are lying and that it never actually happened?

Do me a favour.

As I have said, you cannot equate neo-nazi's with dodgy politicians, actually in a way you can, Hitler and his henchmen were all for free and fair elections weren't they?:yuk: They never used lies, deceit, torture, rape and murder to further their own ends.....

As society we have to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Gansta rap, I find objectionable, but as long as it remains just a bunch of people spouting crap and not actioning their words, then leave them to it.
Lying politicians, well there are ways to deal with them. Get the evidence and impeach them. Again objectionable but not in the same galaxy as the subject of this rant.

General society if polled would I believe say that these fools should be outlawed and if I had my way, wiped out. How many were killed during WW2 to defeat this ideology? and now we let them spout their vile message in the name of "free speech." Surely the fact that we all went to war to to defeat this way of thinking means it should no longer be allowed a place in our society.

Luckily I live in a country where incitement to hatred is not acceptable. Whilst King Tony may not be my favourite person, this is about the only piece of recent legislation that I find myself agreeing with.

BenThere
24th Oct 2005, 18:23
Do you s'pose there's any conjecture or intellectual angst expressed on al-Jazeera or in the Daily Crescent about 'hearts and minds'-affecting conniptions among Americans and Western nationals, Hindus and Sikhs, Thai Buddhists, Philippino Catholics, Balinese and others caused by Islamist attrocities and murder?

SASless
24th Oct 2005, 18:35
General society if polled would I believe say that these fools should be outlawed and if I had my way, wiped out.


Just like the Jews, Gypsy's, Mentally ill, in Germany and the Occupied countries during WWII?

As some have said....as long as it is speech and not actions then we have to endure it....nothing says one cannot act against that kind of talk by taking "legal" action against them. Protests, civil legal action, filing criminal complaints when laws are violated all are appropriate responses.

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 19:02
I wonder how many people actually agree with the views put forward by the girls (or at least some of views) – but are too scared to say anything due to the reaction they will get ?

I’ll start – from an interview with them

“What do you think is the most important social issue facing the white race right now? Do you have any songs that address this issue?
Not having enough white babies born to replace ourselves and generally not having good-quality white people being born. It seems like smart white girls who have good eugenics are more interested in making money in a career or partying than getting married and having a family. And yes, we are working on some new songs about this issue.”

I tend to agree with this.

I still belive I’m actually agreeing with something their parents are saying – and the girls are just annunciating for them.
Should that be enunciating ?

barit1
24th Oct 2005, 19:15
the KKK ... suffered a decline since so many of their members ran for office as Republicans

Oh -
You mean like Sen Byrd? (D-WV)

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 19:16
Which is all very well, but they like to use violence and intimidation against their "enemies". Why is decent society not allowed to do the same if it is in the good of society as a whole?
I think the Yanks proved to their cost in Vietnam, that no matter what weapons you have, if you haven't got the will, then you will lose. These people have that conviction, so we need to be equally as forceful in dealing with them in return. This is what makes them so dangerous.
Fanatics of any kind are dangerous people. It doesn't matter what colour they are or what ideology they follow.

These people are so dangerous, that extreme measures could well be the only way to deal with them. It's almost impossible to tackle extremism with one hand tied behind your back.

As for double standards by wiping them out, eye for an eye..... I'm not a bleeding heart liberal in any way shape or form. There is no place in society for these people and my views are probably over the top compared to most, but I will not apologise for them.
The difference is, that these people choose to believe in racial hatred and would kill or at the very least marginalise other racial groups. Whereas I don't remember the Gypsy's, Poles, Jews, Mentally ill, dissdent or just plain unlucky from being slaughtered, despite posing no actual or tangible threat.
Their supposed crimes were an excuse to massacre millions for financial and political gain, basically they were killed for no real reason.
Wiping out neo-nazi's and their ilk would be a boon to society. A very dangerous argument and one with lots of holes in, but emotion and passion come to the fore when confronted with discussions like this. It's lucky (for them) that I'm not a position to actually do anything about it.

Does this make as bad as them? Not in my eyes but others may have different thoughts on it.

con-pilot
24th Oct 2005, 19:23
It seems like that it is now a new tactic being used by all the far sided groups wither far left or far right. Actually it is an old tactic that has resurfaced via the internet. This tactic is of course the “Big Lie!”

If someone tells a “Big Lie” long enough and to enough people it, the lie, suddenly becomes the truth. Despite fact that there is absolutely no truth in the “Big Lie” it becomes fact. Some of the “Big Lies” I am referring to are very serious because they temp humanity to forget very valuable lessons learned from history.

Perhaps the most dangerous “Big Lie” is; the holocaust carried out by Germany and other countries under Nazi control during World War II never happened.” And that “Hitler and his Nazi Party were just misunderstood good guys and it is all plot by Zionist’s to discredit Hitler true place in history.”

Here are some more “Big Lies” that many people in the world now except as the truth.

Global warming.

The Muslim religion is inherently evil and all Muslims want to either kill or convert everyone on earth to Islam.

9/11 was a Zionist plot.

9/11 was Zionist and CIA plot.

President Bush knew about 9/11 before hand but took no action to prevent the attack.

The United States never landed on the moon. (My favorite.)

The biggest problem about what happens when people buy the “Big Lie” is that they pass the lie on to their children, as is the case of the two 13 year olds. It is not the children’s fault, it’s the parents that need to be taken to task. Hopefully by the time these two girls grow up they will be able to see the truth, only time will tell.

Sorry, one more; the ALCU will defend both sides willingly.

Huck
24th Oct 2005, 19:24
Standards have changed since the 80's gansta rap.

As a humble redneck living on the Alabama/Mississippi border, I listen to more "urban" music than most (when in Rome, that sort of thing) and I quite enjoy it, actually.

Same subjects as the hard rock of my youth: chasing tail, getting tail, losing tail; fast cars and fried chicken, loving mamma and acting tough with your buddies. As for cop-killing: how 'bout Clapton (or Marley first) shooting the sheriff? Or Freddy Mercury putting guns to heads and pulling the trigger? It's art, so whatever.

(...) so many of their members ran for office as Republicans

Might not want to go down that road, DN. Plenty of democrats have a dusty white robe in the back closet - Sen. Bird, for one.... Even got one on the Supreme Court in the 30's, Hugo Black, from my hometown of Birmingham....

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 19:27
“What do you think is the most important social issue facing the white race right now? Do you have any songs that address this issue? I tend to agree with this.

What's the deal with racial segregation? How can you agree with the theory of whites being superior. This means that you automatically think that other races are inferior. Racism in one.

It is not an"important social issue", why should race even need to be mentioned? Social problems can be broken down into race sometimes. South Africa being an example, but the root causes are nothing to do with the colour of a persons skin, rather than the situation a person finds themselves in.

I find nothing more offensive than someone spouting off about how Africa's problems are down to the fact that it is Black people in charge. How to completely gloss over and trivialise what is an incredibly complex problem.

If that's the reaction you thought you might get, then good. It is the one that should be put up when such idiotic comments are made.

Jimmy Breeze
24th Oct 2005, 19:38
Cheers SASless,

excuse my ignorance
but isn't that what is happening in Afganistan already?

Dead_Heading
24th Oct 2005, 19:38
It seems like smart white girls who have good eugenics


Eugenics isn't used in that context. Eugenics is something you STUDY, not something you have.

Jimmy Breeze
24th Oct 2005, 19:42
Idunno - Fair enough that you have your own opinion, but you keep trying to tell us its fact.
All Islam is hateful is a fact? Its the truth?
Or is it your opinion?

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 19:48
Say again

The quote didn’t say anything about “supremacy”.

If you accept there are different races is one of them not “white”?
Each race is allowed to have “important social issues” aren’t they?

Lets leave African problems for another thread shall – except I’m interested to find out if you mentioned it because of my location or previous posts.

Thank you DH – it’s a good point – maybe they should have said “genetics”?

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 20:04
There is no denying the fact that there are white people, black people etc. What I'm talking about is the relevance of talking about them individually in this way.

Whilst I am white, I don't think about social issues that only affect me because of my colour, but issues that affect society as a whole, not just certain segments of it. I am British, so I think about British issues and problems. I like to live in an inclusive society that welcomes all people of a similar mindset. i.e. Not Nazi's. Race is an irrelevance to me.

I didn't mention African problems because of you specifically, I could just have easily used anywhere else, but having lived in different parts of Africa myself I think I know more about them than for example about problems in Bolivia or any other place I have no experience of.

The fact they don't even know the correct terminology says volumes about these people. Good catch D_H. I hadn't even noticed it!

reynoldsno1
24th Oct 2005, 20:15
I lived in a flat in a Victorian terrace in Sarf East London in the early 80's. My neighbours were a family of Afro-Caribbean origin, and another of Pakistani origin. I never had a problem with either, and we happily lent & borrowed tools, advice and anecdotes. However, the tension between these two families was palpable, and they often confided in me their intense dislike for each other - based, it appeared to me, purely on racial grounds. This situation did not appear to be unique.

The events in Birmingham hardly come as a surprise then...

I is white, BTW...

Capt.KAOS
24th Oct 2005, 20:43
You mean like Sen Byrd? (D-WV) Yeah, and Harry Truman once donned the hood and robe, but that was only for a very short time...

African Tech Rep
24th Oct 2005, 20:54
So if we accept there are white people / black people / coloured people etc – it follows that each of these ethnic groups are allowed “social problems”.

There does seem to be a reduction / slowdown in the rate of birth of white people – and a corresponding rise in the rate of birth of coloured people whilst black people actually seem to be relatively stable, possibly due to an increase being offset be deaths.
(I am talking perceptions here – not figure based facts).

Thus to me it follows the quote I gave of what they said is relatively accurate – the relevance of talking about different races can be debated on another thread.
I also don’t belive that the ability to use correct terminology automatically makes valid or not – although it does help in getting a message across.

I do belive Say Again has reinforced my belief that there are probably many more people who agree with parts of what these girls and their parents are saying but are too scared to say anything – as soon as I indicated a “tendency” to agree with something they said I was “branded” a white supremacist and racist

I do not agree with some of what they said but also I don’t agree with the (now ex) “anti apartheid” brigade – conversely we have black and coloured neighbours who we have no problems with and white neighbours who we do have problems with and I invited non white people to my wedding (although they didn’t come – but them again much of my family didn’t as it was too far for them) – thus I don’t consider myself a racist or supremacist but some seem belive I become one simply by saying a comment made by them is not all wrong.

Any and all comments welcome – I for one am interested in this.

PS
Took me b****y ages to re-find these posts due to thread merge – any chance of some indication or warning – this thread will be merged in x hrs or something ?

Reynolds 1
I spent some time in Manor Park, Slough – I lodged with a Pakistani (or Indian family – not sure I ever found out which) a friend lodged with a Jamaican on the “other side” of the estate.
I was amazed to told just before I left they were surprised we hadn’t been attacked – seems we were constantly crossing “no mans land” when we visited each other – our survival was put down to neither side disliking us as much as they disliked the “others”.

Say again s l o w l y
24th Oct 2005, 22:55
Not having enough white babies born to replace ourselves and generally not having good-quality white people being born. It seems like smart white girls who have good eugenics are more interested in making money in a career or partying than getting married and having a family. And yes, we are working on some new songs about this issue.”

You then state you agree with it. What the hell is "good-quality white people" supposed to mean?

I find that statement to be offensive. If you look more closely, you'll find there to be slowdown in the birth rates of professional white people as well when compared to the "working class". Shall I write a song about it and get some teeny boppers to make it more palatable, whilst I secretly plot to have everyone who earns less than £30K or wears Burberry sterilised to fit my model of what civilisation should look like? (Drapes need not answer that!!)

I'm glad people are scared to speak openly about hatred and other forms of abuse. Would you openly talk about peadophillia and agree with it in general conversation in the street or pub? You'd find yourself strung up by a baying mob within minutes. Mind you in the case of those like that, it wouldn't be any loss.
Why is this sort of garbage anymore acceptable?

If however, someone can come up with a reasoned argument, then by all means go ahead, but just spouting some offensive second hand clap trap is liable to get a reaction. As it should.

Racial issues as shown in other posts are not just between white people and other groups, but across the whole spectrum, none are more acceptable than others, though some dislike may be easier to understand, for instance my Grandmother won't talk to Germans or Russians after what the two countries inflicted on our family during the war. Do I share these prejudices, no, but do I understand them. Yes. Understanding is the key, not just agreeing to some nonsensical drivel written by some sub-normal morons.

African Tech Rep
25th Oct 2005, 12:32
I would have thought we could all agree there are “good quality white people” as well as good quality black and coloured people – there are also a lot of “bad quality white / black / coloured people” – in America I guess they would be called trailer park trash – in the UK the closest might be dole spongers.

If we changed white for Caucasian would that be better?
On my travels it has appeared to me that many “caucasian” girls were more interested in a career that babies, whilst many “coloured” girls belive it is their duty to get married and raise a family.
(I have dated girls of different races – and as mentioned lived with some different races as lodger)

In the future it seems entirely possible (at least to me) that we would not have this conversation as there will be no “white” people left – I would liken this to the extinction of white tigers ie it’s bad – I’m NOT saying white people or tigers are superior – simply saying lose one of them and we lose some diversity and this would be bad.

One of my Uncles would not buy anything Japanese – I wouldn’t dream of trying to persuade him too, his stories still make me feel guilty when I do.
My wife’s Grandfather walked out of his daughters wedding because the groom invited a black person who attended – I spent HOURS persuading him to come to our wedding as I wanted to (and did) invite my coloured and black friends.
To me these two racial issues are vastly different.

As myself and Reynolds1 have indicated there are Racial issues between many groups, not just white vs everyone else and these affect everyone – you have these issues in the UK as we do in SA and while they may have a UK or an SA or even a US “slant” only thinking about one part of it is to me an insular approach.

To me you are proving my original point – that it is possible and likely many people agree with PARTS of what these girls and parents are saying but are too scared to admit it – face it you are capable of reasoned and rational debate but your first action was to brand me a Racist and White Supremacist, your second was to bring Paedophilia into the discussion.
Wouldn’t it have been better to discuss either the accuracy of the statement or the relevance without using provocative accusations and terms, rather than the method used which was not designed to attempt to change my “tendency” but just to belittle me and shut me up.
The method chosen seems sure to ensure we will never know the real amount of support these people have and harms both groups – supporters can’t get a hearing and detractors lose the chance of persuading supporters they are wrong.

Say again s l o w l y
25th Oct 2005, 13:06
It is entirely possible that these lunatics have got one or two points that may be sensible, but the over-riding message is so foul, that I cannot see beyond the overall message to see the parts of it.

I am in no way calling you anything, how can I, we've never met and let's face it making assumptions about people on an internet bulletin board is flawed logic.

I certainly don't consider you to be a supremacist, if I gave that impression I apologise, but agreeing with a statement without proviso's is liable to get a reaction from those that are sensitive to issues such as these.

The comment about paedophillia is there to try and illustrate how offensive statements like these are.

I still find the comments about good quality and bad quality very worrying and not just a little bit frightening.
What constitutes "good quality"? How do you quantify it? What shall we use to measure a persons "quality"? Where is the cut off point between good, medium and poor? What do we do with the "poor" quality individuals? Sterilise them? Kill them, ban them from procreating?
Oh, now why don't we just build gas chambers as they are cheaper than bullets.......... You see where this sort of comment can lead.

We are what we are because of not despite our diversity. Look what happens when you condense the gene pool. You end up with mutations and idiots. The Hapsburg's for instance. Look at the problems dog breeders are having nowadays. There are so many genetic disorders that selective breeding is being banned in certain areas.

So with that in mind, what constitutes good "eugenics"? Whatever the hell that means.

It isn't genetics that define us, but society and no amount of breeding will fix some of the problems the world faces today.

African Tech Rep
25th Oct 2005, 14:30
What's the deal with racial segregation? How can you agree with the theory of whites being superior. This means that you automatically think that other races are inferior. Racism in one. Your post – but your apology is accepted if not really needed as it helped condense my thoughts on the subject I questioned.

The main point being that we now seem to agree that some of their points are “sensible” but many are ignoring this due to the “over-riding message” and those that wish to discuss them are shot down and rarely get the chance to discuss the sensible points – I think I’m thick skinned but know many “thin skinned” people who wouldn’t dream of admitting even a tendency to agree with anything these girls say due to the likely reaction.

Yep – quantifying “good quality” is difficult and could lead to a heated debate but I’d be surprised if anyone could say they have never meet a “bad quality person” - after all wouldn’t you define these girls parents as “bad quality” – I don’t belive it has anything to do with education or money, my wife’s ex boss is $ millionaire and degree educated yet because of his actions I consider him “bad quality”.
I also belive there is an argument for banning certain people from procreating – how you chose who to ban is a “tricky” subject, but look around some of slum camps in India and here (and other places) look at the number of kids there and then tell me there’s no problem, alternatively just look around your local pubs – have you really never thought “that guy shouldn’t be allowed children” – I also belive there should be a limit on the number of children you can have, mine is two because that’s the number I can afford and belive I can look after (I currently have one) but I’m not suggesting the limit is based on finances only.

We are what we are because of not despite our diversity – isn’t this sort of my argument – that we need the diversity and could be in danger of losing part of it.
But I think the bigger “danger” is the lack of discussion about this – this lack of discussion being caused by the fact that if it raised as a topic the “raiser” immediately has terms like White Supremacist thrown at them and thus people are put off discussing it.

I’m not sure I’ve given “proviso’s” – I have given explanations of why I tend to agree and made it [hopefully] clear I haven’t hung a black guy from one of my trees lately – I tend to think you read into the quote things that weren’t there.

Everything these girls say is an issue for some people – some of it is even “sensible” – we will never get resolution without debate – almost none of what they say is debated by anyone especially our “policy makers” because they are too scared of the reaction.

Oh – before anyone says anything – I’ll happily take them for a tour of a concentration camp then a quick trip to meet some survivors – but I won’t happily ignore them as this would only lead to them “entrenching their position” and in the long run make things worse.

PS
I did once take a guy I was working with in Germany to a concentration camp – after this he would admit it happened (before basically not) – but he also pointed out that it wasn’t only Jews that went through there – I like to think we both learnt something.
Strangely he was an American.

Say again s l o w l y
25th Oct 2005, 14:47
Just a quick point, if the people within the "slum camps in India" had been given the same opportunities and support that we have been lucky enough to recieve, what might they have achieved?

Poverty is no marker of a persons worth, if that was the case, then Paris Hilton would be up there with the greats of history. I think we all know that that isn't really the truth!

Any definition of quality is a subjective matter, like beauty for instance.

It certainly wasn't just Jewish people who ended up in the camps, my family aren't and many of thm found themselves in different camps during the war.

Discussions like this will always create strong reactions because they are about ideology, not just about whether Man U or Arsenal are better than each other.

Debate is fine, but we have to be aware of the possible repercussions of them I'm all for stifling the words of Nazi's, The less people that hear their message, the better. I like it if they were all put in a sound proof (and preferably air-tight) room and left for all eternity. Though people still need to be taught about them, so that we never forget how evil they once were.

Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.

Caudillo
25th Oct 2005, 15:05
Check this out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361260.stm

He later told them to get lost, and that the newspapers were allowed to ridicule him, and he had to take it.

Whatever happened to the simple and unoffensive principle of "when in Rome" ?

African Tech Rep
25th Oct 2005, 15:40
Say again – they haven’t and to a certain extent can’t be with education etc being finite resources – whilst I’m not saying kill everyone in them it is a visual prompt to demonstrate a problem.
A problem that is not really being acknowledged and thus will just get worse. Some groups will happily walk through those camps with AK47’s and flamethrowers – if they feel their thoughts and feelings are being ignored / ridiculed one day they will put this into action – in fact here we have had a number of slum fires so maybe they are.

Strong reactions are fine – but the first reaction should be debate not ridicule.

Are we not ignoring the mistakes of the past by forcing the current Nazi’s (now under different names) to be insular and not addressing their points?
Maybe – just maybe – if we listened and talked they would agree some of their points are rubbish and some we would agree are valid.

Claudillo – how nice of some Muslims to try yet again to enforce their beliefs on non Muslims.

"We hope there will be understanding of Muslims' feelings about Mohammad. And we hope there will be an apology from Jyllands-Posten," Mascud Effendy Hutasuhut, counsellor at the Indonesian embassy in Denmark, told Danmarks radio.
I hope one day these Muslims will understand other peoples feelings. Doubt it though - cause eventually they will get their way

Say again s l o w l y
25th Oct 2005, 16:51
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but mine is that the less we hear about these groups from mainstream sourses the better.

As someone once said, "Any publicity is good publicity" and they need it to further their aims.

I don't see Nazi's up for a debate do you? When was the last time you heard of them actively seeking out other groups of differing viewpoint to try and learn. They are insular and isolated and that is a good thing. It would be better if they didn't exist, but I fear this is not possible, so isolation is the best we can hope for.

The problem with fanatics like these is that rational argument and reasoning have little or no effect on them. Their beliefs are sacrosanct. As in this case are mine.

These people are almost the only ones that provoke such a strong reaction from me and to be honest, Napalm is too good for them.

ORAC
25th Oct 2005, 16:56
Iraq voters back new constitution - The Iraqis' handling of the poll was endorsed by UN officials

Iraqis have passed their country's new constitution, according to official results from a referendum dismissed by the opposition but commended by the UN.

Sunni "No" campaigners had hoped to block it by taking two-thirds of the vote in at least three provinces, in line with electoral rules. But they won in only two, with the swing province of Nineveh returning 44% "Yes" votes, the official count shows...... In all, 78% of voters backed the charter and 21% opposed it in the vote on 15 October, electoral commission officials said. Approval of the constitution clears the way for elections to a new Iraqi parliament in December......

Election official Farid Ayar described the vote as "100% correct" with "no cases of fraud that could affect the results of the vote"......

A senior United Nations official in Iraq, Carina Perelli, said the election had been conducted to the highest standard.

"It has been audited, controlled - it has been done really in a very professional way," she said. "The result is accurate. It has been checked according to the processes that we all follow when we have elections."

African Tech Rep
25th Oct 2005, 17:40
Say again

Only some of them, the radical entrenched ones, are not up or “too far gone” for debate.

I am convinced that SOME of what they say has a valid basis quietly agreed with by many who are scared to annunciate their thoughts.

An example would be me – do you think your original reply would make me more or less likely to debate this one point where I tend to agree with them with you or one of “them” ?
If I am more likely to find them and discuss with “them” – is not this giving them a chance to “persuade me to their cause” taking my agreement on ONE point as a basis.

When someone says they agree with even one point they should be debated with in a way that doesn’t “push them” towards joining a group.

It’s not just you in whom it provokes a strong reaction – but that reaction could be doing more damage than good.

Say again s l o w l y
25th Oct 2005, 22:38
But you are debating these points!

The fact that many may agree with their sentiments but don't know enough about these scum to realise it is a good thing.
If they get their message out and people hear a bit of it and think "actually there are parts I agree with, tell me more...." then we face a situation where more people may be attracted towards extremism. These people can be very persuasive (again look at Germany in the 30's) especially when it comes to blaming peoples problems on other groups. Many are willing to listen to this as they are eager for someone else to blame for their own problems in life. Basically they are looking for easy solutions.
If you allow groups such as neo nazis to get their message out, the they will grow and become even more dangerous.

Isolation is the only way to deal with them, if they don't have the oxygen of publicity, then eventually they will die away. That is what I want to see.

I'm absolutely not endorsing totally free speech here. (unless you agree with me that is!)

African Tech Rep
26th Oct 2005, 06:55
I am – but as I said before I’m also “thick skinned” – would I do the same in a pub = good question – almost certainly not unless I was sure of the people I was talking to.

Note number of people on this forum vs number of us in this debate – is it that no one else is interested or that some don’t want to join in for fear of being “branded”?
Imagine the “policy makers” – they can’t really debate any of issues because if they do they’ll be branded and probably lose votes – yet we’ve agreed (I belive) that some of the concerns are “sensible”.

We don’t have to listen to their entire diatribe – but I belive we should be less judgemental of those who bring up one of their points as a concern.

Isolating them isn’t actually working 100% - every country seems to have a version – but my point is more based around the lack of debate about their sensible points than the whole message.
And wasn’t Germany relatively isolated in the 30’s ?

My original question was “I wonder how many people actually agree with the views put forward by the girls (or at least some of views) – but are too scared to say anything due to the reaction they will get ?” – I think this has been answered – JB is normally a place where opposing views get strong replies yet in this one we are strangely alone, is it lack of interest or lack of willingness to be involved in a discussion that may end (start ?) with a branding of Racist etc.

We seem to be moving onto how to deal with the whole message or more precisely the “radicals” – maybe Isolation is answer to them, if I walked into a pub with a Nazi uniform on and announced there was no holocaust I would expect to be isolated (and maybe hospitalised) – but if I raised a concern that not enough white babies are being born should I get the same reaction? – I think not – at least not as the initial reaction,

And to get back to the ACLU question (the original thread) – either we allow free speech for all or we limit it for all – what we seem to be doing is limiting for one group more than for others.

Capt.KAOS
26th Oct 2005, 09:06
Now for something completely different:

Plamgate is about to open this week and will rock Washington:

1. 1-5 indictments are being issued (Libby, Rove?). The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.

2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.

3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.

4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.

It is very possible that the White House has known the fact that the Niger Yellow Cake papers were fraud before Bush used it in the SOTU. Therefore sending US troops into war on faked documents.

Libby did not hear about Plame's background from journalists as he always stated, but from his boss Cheney, who on his turn heard it from CIA boss Tenet when he asked him for that information.

The can of worms will be opened as will be revealed that the Italian intelligence source SISMI, who gave the Niger Papers directly to the White House, had a meeting in 2001 with Douglas Feith, Micheal Ledeen, Larry Franklin. All neocons whom I have mentioned many times in the past and co-responsible for the Iraq War strategy.

In Sep 2002 the head of SISMI had a meeting with Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The Niger claims surfaced shortly thereafter.

Isn't it time to ask for an accounting from the Berlusconi government about the hoax perpetrated on the American people?

To be continued.....

OneWorld22
26th Oct 2005, 22:08
Bloody disgraceful comments.:mad: :mad:

Imagine a country's leader sputing this hateful spite. Can we really sit back and allow this country to arm itself with Nuclear weapons?


From the Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4380306.stm)

Iran leader's words 'sicken' UK

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'
The UK Foreign Office is to summon a senior Iranian diplomat to protest against his president's comments about destroying Israel.

Hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map".

The Foreign Office will call in Iran's London chargé d'affaires on Thursday. It said the comments were "deeply disturbing and sickening".

The remarks have heightened concerns over Iran's nuclear intentions.

At least five people were killed in what police say was a suicide bomb attack in northern Israel on Wednesday.

An FO spokesman said this showed "the horrible reality of the violence he [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] is praising".

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has said Iran is regarded as "a clear and present danger".

He said it was clear that Iran was trying to develop a programme to make nuclear weapons.

Iran denies this, but insists it has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.

At least five people died and up to were 30 wounded in the bomb attack near a market place in Hadera, northern Israel.

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad group said it carried out the attack in revenge for Israel's killing of its senior leader, Luay Saadi, on Monday.

soddim
26th Oct 2005, 22:16
These sort of comments should be taken aboard by those who criticise Israel for their hard-line stance against terrorists and their hyper-sensitivity to defence of their borders, such as they are. The whole Arab world seems to find it difficult to allow them to survive.

Live and let live.

captain cumulonimbus
26th Oct 2005, 22:26
I really don't think its fair for us,sitting in England,the USA or anywhere else in the first world to pontificate on what iran or anybody else says.We do not know the hardships and mindsets of these people,and,more importantly,why they think like this.Could it be because they've also seen the footage of little children with stones for defence getting shot by US-supplied israeli soldiers? Could it be because they've seen the footage of people-old men,ladies-being beaten and dehumanised at checkpoints? Could it be because they've seen the results of entire families being displaced,or even worse,buried under the rubble because the israeli army has decided to bulldoze the houses of relatives of suicide bombers?Could it be because they've seen families' olive groves-their only livelihood and inheritance-being wantonly and needlessly destroyed in order for the IDF to build an obsrvation post?

Hopefully that makes some more of us think why precisely it is that arabs think the way they do about our israeli brothers and sisters.

(and by the way,i'm totally uninvolved and i support neither side,being a far-removed westerner)

colmac747
26th Oct 2005, 22:30
The bottom line is that he shouldn't have remarked as he did.

Just wonder if it'll come out that his words were mis-construed:8 :suspect:

West Coast
26th Oct 2005, 23:18
I wondered how long it would take for the first apologist to show up. Thanks for the article OW, chilling is all I can say. I wonder if this will cement action against the Iranian nuclear program.

Maple 01
26th Oct 2005, 23:34
Could it be because they've also seen the footage.....etc....apologist, Jews to blame etc.... bla......

Er, no, because the Arab world has been trying to 'drive the Jews back into the sea'* since 1947, a little before the 'unbiased' broadcasts of the 'impartial' western media started doing their best to stir up anti Israeli emotions around the world


*Copyright Colonel Nasser 1967

Those of a pedantic nature might like to point out that Iranians are technically Persians and not Arabs but I can’t see a real difference in their foreign policy goals – something about if it looks like a duck……

Kaptin M
26th Oct 2005, 23:41
I feel certain that Israel and Iran can work this out between themselves - one way or another - WITHOUT the unsettling, destructive, meddling intervention of Bush and Co.
Look at the mess Iraq is now in because of that fool of a man.

Neither country - Iraq, nor Israel - want to subject their citizens to unnecessary warfare.
In all probability, Ahmadinejad's comments were made in retaliation for increased pressure wrt their nuclear (or nucular, for pro-Bushies) energy for power programme, to antagonise Bush, which in turn will further unify the Arab states.

Techman
26th Oct 2005, 23:47
Oh Kaptin, now you are just being an apologist. Why not use this excellent opportunity to further ramp up the rhetoric.

And as Britain has been chosen as the point man, I see they wasted no time.

TheFlyingSquirrel
26th Oct 2005, 23:58
A friend of mine got searched at a Saudi Airport - he had a world map in his possession - the customs officer took the map, and returned with Israel covered by a large sticker ! Honest !

tony draper
27th Oct 2005, 00:09
Watched a item on one of the news progs a couple of nights ago,reporter going round talking to I suppose Iranians we would call the educated middle class, nobody more fed up with the beards there than those people,they are smart enough to realise what is holding up progress and freedom in that part of the world are the Mullahs and Clerics who hold sway over the minds of the masses.

gaypilote
27th Oct 2005, 01:16
Shocking phot&news story from Iran earlier this year. (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/10/shocking_new_ph.html)

6000PIC
27th Oct 2005, 01:43
This is a very pointed , arrogant , not - so - unexpected, and crowd pleasing statement ..., I wonder how well this is being taken internally , if reported at all by IRNA . What a bunch of fools people can be . I`m talking about those wanting to stir up a fight , now you may have it...

He has become much more dangerous in the eyes of CIA , MI6 , Mossad , and the American Administration with this statement -, he has just stuck his head above the parapet and will reap the benefits. Look for a RESPONSE soon.


Good on you .

scatboy3
27th Oct 2005, 01:44
Images from South Lebanon, Qana and the April War of 1996 (http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/320/324/324.2/hizballah/images-south.html)

CSilvera
27th Oct 2005, 02:35
Re the post above me:" All these images have been contributed by the foreign affairs office of Hizballah in Beirut." Postings from a recognized terrorist group kind of says it all, doesn't it? In any case, the wipe Israel off the map sentiment is not new, and certainly not espoused only by Iran.

Idunno
27th Oct 2005, 02:40
Scatboy and Techman.
The usual suspects.

Wherever a mullah is maligned they rush to respond.

Now, how long for Jimmy Breeze and African Tech Rep to add their spin?:yuk:

ORAC
27th Oct 2005, 06:46
CNN: Sunni groups join forces for Iraq vote

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's Sunni Arabs, who turned out in larger numbers for a constitutional referendum after boycotting January's parliamentary vote, are now flexing their political muscles for the December 15 assembly election,

Sunni Arab officials told CNN. Three Sunni Arab groups -- the General Conference for the People of Iraq, the Iraqi Islamic Party and the Iraqi National Dialogue -- have formed a coalition, representatives of those groups said...... The name of the new Sunni Arab coalition -- the Iraqi Accord Front -- has been submitted to Iraq's electoral commission for participation in December's election, an Iraqi Islamic Party spokesman said.

A spokesman for the General Conference party, Sheikh Imad al-Deen Mohammed, said the coalition will "urge people to participate and vote during the coming general elections and to play a good role in the next government."

The new assembly will be the permanent legislature. Its members, who will serve four-year terms, will choose the president, prime minister and Cabinet. Sunnis stayed away from the January 30 election, picking up few seats in the assembly. Over the year, many Sunnis decided to participate in the political process.....

Participation in the December 15 election for a parliament will benefit Sunnis, Khalilzad told the daily White House press briefing.

"More than 50 articles in the draft constitution require implementation laws to be passed in the next assembly," he said. "So being in the next assembly will also effect possible changes in addition to the normal amendment process." Khalilzad said "success" in the ethnically and religiously diverse Iraq depends "on a national compact" and he believes the "ratification of the constitution signals major progress toward that goal."

He said the constitution is a working document, a fact that should assure opponents have "avenues for further changes" when the new parliament convenes. "Like the U.S. Constitution, this is a living document that can be adjusted," he said......

PanPanYourself
27th Oct 2005, 06:58
Idunno man, seriously how old are you? Grow the hell up! The very nature of an open forum is such that people are supposed to post their opinions. If you have a problem with that then you know where to go. You are the only usual suspect popping up all over the place with absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say. As usual I don't expect you to have an open mind and consider the opposing viewpoint with any degree of fairness or objectivity.

After the screw up of epic proportions in Iraq can we really blame Iran for wanting nuclear weapons so as to have a gaurantee against the Texas cowboy?

That being said, this Ahmadinejad f*cker looks and acts like one scary son of a bitch. However, his comments concerning Israel are just hostile words and every world leader is guilty of that. Especially the Bush administration. I remember reading a while back that upon hearing news of his dropping approval rating Dubya cussed out his entire staff, even saying "I don't have to take this shit, I'm the f*cking president", very confidence inspiring in the most powerful man in the world. And then theres the footage of him giving the finger to the camera just before going live in front of the whole country.

There are some on this forum getting a hard-on right now about the opportunity to f*ck up another country. But if you f*ck with Iran I think the water will boil over...

DeBurcs
27th Oct 2005, 07:04
What's the difference between a "gay" Iranian and any other Middle Eastern guy?

The gay ones push back.

Don't worry about Israel, they have enough nukes to do the job properly. Unlike the Iranians whose first effort will probably implode on the launch pad in the custom of all good Middle East/Far East wannabes.

Curious Pax
27th Oct 2005, 07:32
A truly nasty and evil statement, no doubt about it, however such posturing seems to be the norm in that part of the world. Hopefully he is doing the equivalent of a gobby schoolboy when challenged - mouths off, but runs in the opposite direction at the same time. I wouldn't be surprised if at the same time as spouting this rhetoric for home consumption he is also quietly retreating on the nuclear issue. His electorate will be to busy being impressed by the noise to notice. With a bit of luck the West, whilst getting his representatives in for a b*ll*cking will also be taking a deep breath and counting to 10 before launching into something we will all regret.

If however he is serious, and plans to do something about it, the afternoon picnic that is Iraq will soon be overshadowed several fold. However if that is the case you can bet that he wouldn't have made the same comments if the US hadn't got most of their troops tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 07:42
Sorry CC – got to object to this remark
Could it be because they've also seen the footage of little children with stones for defence getting shot by US-supplied Israeli soldiers?

I don’t know if there has been more – but I was there when one of these was heavily televised and meet family of one of the Israeli troops.

The facts were
1 – Father or shot kid sent him out to throw stones at Israelis (here son – have some stones – throw at troops)
2 – Israeli troops ceased fire so kid and father could get out of area – Palestinian forces didn’t.

Also had CNN in hotel so saw what they showed – it was spun LOTS.

Unfortunately I wasn’t a “far-removed westerner” – I was working there – first week wonderful – then the troubles started (there had been some sort of ceasefire) – learning to be suspicious about every bus and only really feeling “safe” when in work – trying to “comfort” people who had just heard of another suicide bomber near where their loved ones were while at the same time trying to contact loved ones to see if they were OK.

captain cumulonimbus
27th Oct 2005, 08:10
Yes,and how,African Tech Rep ,do you think Israel's policy of "conscription or jail" differs from the Palestinians' policy of getting their kids to fight?

There are many,many young Israelis (jews) who are apalled at having to be forced by their government to go and do ITS bidding.I don't,quite frankly,see the difference.

MReyn24050
27th Oct 2005, 09:02
captain cumulonimbus

You are talking a load of complete b******s. You will find that 98%, if not more, of young Israelis certainly do not consider that they are "forced by their government to go and do ITS bidding" as you say. They are proud to be defending their home country, not just against terrorist attack, but from people such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called for Israel 'to be wiped off the map'

Wyler
27th Oct 2005, 09:25
Powerful words but just words (for now). I was working in Jordan just before the 1st Gulf War and King Hussein was walking a very thin line between the West and his own people. What he said for Western consumption and Home consumption were worlda apart. Thats politics I guess.

The biggest concern is whether Bush & Co are clever enough to realise that or whether they will seize upon it as an excuse to ramp things up. I personally think that would be a huge mistake at this stage because kicking off with Iran will be a whole different ball game.

Also, the ordinary thinking people, as said, don't want this and no where the problems lie. Same in Jordan. The people I worked with had no love for Saddam and did not want conflict. In fact, in my travels the majority of Muslims I have encountered are nothing like as confrontational and hostile as they are made out to be. They have different outlooks, sure, but thats hardly an excuse to stigmatise them all.

Dave Martin
27th Oct 2005, 10:11
The facts were
1 – Father or shot kid sent him out to throw stones at Israelis (here son – have some stones – throw at troops)
2 – Israeli troops ceased fire so kid and father could get out of area – Palestinian forces didn’t.

Care to provide some supporting evidence for this?

Interesting news last week that Israel has finally agreed to stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields, closely accompanied by an article on the siezed Palestinian homes, taken over by Israeli troops as monitoring posts who are then kind enough to leave piles of sh1t in amongst all the crockery and cutlery before they leave. Not uncommon apparently. You don't have to be taking lives to makes peoples lives a misery and to inspire hatred. Degrading a nation will do the same thing.

None of the above excuses the comments from the Iranian leader, but putting them in context, Israel gets a very rosey PR picture in the USA, a mediocre one in Europe, and a very negative one in the Middle East. Sadly there is ample evidence to support each perspective, and with the evidence that is supplied, the perspectives drawn (and perhaps political points to be gained) it is hardly surprising that these comments come out.

Plenty of quotes coming out of Israel over the years to the effect that Palestinians should be wiped off the map also - the level of hatred is universal and no particular race within the Middle East has a monopoly on it. Further ratcheting up the rhetoric and threatening war on Iran is going to be of no more help than Ahmadinejad rhetoric on Israel.

Paterbrat
27th Oct 2005, 10:44
To my knowledge and I could be wrong, no Israeli leader has ever been quoted as wishing for any other country to be 'wiped off the map'.

I do know that many such sentiments have been aired by their enemies though and I have lived long enough amongst those enemies to know that the enmity and intolerance constantly displayed amongst the majority towards that country has been enough to convince me that their stance of defense though strength is one of simple common sense and a desire to survive.

The fanatacism and demonstrations of child exploitation by the government of Iran during the Iraq Iran war to me does not bode well if they do in fact develope a nuclear device. Their attitude towards such basic things as Diplomatic protection between nations in their treatment of the US diplomatic crisis in Tehran simply serves to convince me that they are not trustworthy and as such should be viewed with concern.

N380UA
27th Oct 2005, 10:53
According to a CNN online pole the majority agrees with Israeli Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres that Iran should be expelled from the UN. The very same organization which has actually made the Israeli State possible. Weird ain't it? But if we were to expel Iran from the UN based on some numbnuts comments then on what premise could the world allow Israel to be a member of the UN whilst being in violation of several UN resolutions? The same question could be put to the US.

Likewise, I would like to ask the honest question to all Muslims, Arabs on this board; If Israel would not be a Jewish nation in the Middle east would all Muslim nations be (more or less) peaceful and prospering nations?

Further more, regardless if one likes Israel and/or Jews, that nation is recognized just as such. What does it really take to make all of you live side by side more or less without killing each other? Because lets face it, no rhetoric will put away Israel. And the demand to Israel to pull back to the 1954? boarders is equally unlikely to be seen.

Paterbrat
27th Oct 2005, 10:58
I suppose that the position that the 'numbnuts' held could be of interest to some?

Curious Pax
27th Oct 2005, 11:41
N380UA - that Israel is a Jewish nation is just a handy rallying point for Muslim countries that are looking for a common enemy. Even if all the countries in the region were devoted members of the Pink Panther sect there would still be conflict due to the shortage of natural resources (water if I remember rightly) but things probably wouldn't be quite so polarized. I cite Kashmir and Kurdistan as examples.

ncbcisis
27th Oct 2005, 12:14
...and yet generally across the Arab world excluding Israel of course, locally produced regional maps depict "Palestine" as the country where one finds Israel.

It's going to take more than just peace on all sides to rectify that scenario into a workable solution for all parties concerned.

PanPanYourself
27th Oct 2005, 12:51
CNN also quotes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying "anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of (Iran's) fury."

These kinds of statements always puzzle me. I mean, what the hell can Iran really do to the rest of the world? Its like a midget threatening to beat the crap out of a whole rugby team, ie. just plain silly. There are plenty of countries out there that could wipe Iran off the face of the planet with the press of a button if they shared this guy's psychotic blood-lust. My question is what the hell is he thinking!?? Are we supposed to be scared?

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 12:55
CC – one difference is that the Israeli conscription doesn’t start at about six years old.
Another could be that I honestly did not meet one Israeli who objected to being conscripted – but then I was in Israel and anyone who did object would probably have left to avoid it – on the other hand there are non Israeli residents who went to Israel as they felt it was their duty to defend it.

Dave – wish I could but even if I searched the net and found something it would most likely be in an Israeli paper / web site and thus no-one would belive it.
For the father son bit you only have to look at how things are and assess the facts – ie kid throwing stones – daddy knowing where he is – not far from home – daddy only gets involved after shots start being fired etc.
For the cease fire – this was common knowledge in Israel and I was “fortunate” enough to be with an Israeli family who had a son involved – this is what he told his mother and no matter what you say about Israelis or Jews one person they don’t lie to is their mum.
Not the best “proof in the world – but if you think about why would they lie – the family will be just as proud of their son for defending his country if he said “yes mum it was a mistake – we did shoot him” and they knew my position – ie my residence at the time was a predominately Muslim country and I have no press contacts etc.
One reason this version got very little airing outside Israel is that an army spokesman saying “this is what we did” is c**p visuals when compared with a dead kid and wailing mother.

As mentioned I got there just before the troubles started – I left well after the US advised all Americans to leave – I couldn’t leave - the UK Govt wouldn’t issue the same advice as the US and leaving without this mid project is effectively resigning. Due to this some Israeli’s “took pity on me” I suppose due the fact there weren’t many foreigners there and going for a walk was becoming increasingly unsafe.

Where I live now has a large Lebanese population – one of these is “ex Army” (for those who don’t know the “Army” and Hezbollah are / were just about the same thing) – even he has said this version is more likely than the Israeli’s choosing to shoot a kid. But he also points out that the actual shooting part of war is now far less important than the publicity war.
Some fathers do send their kids out to throw stones at the troops and quite often it’s organised – a factor is the Israeli ROE which is (was ?) live for live – rubber / tear gas for others.
Other fathers say last prayers with their sons prior to the son blowing himself to bits.

Other than abiding by JB’s ROE you can criticise Israel as much as you like – but bear in mind that sometimes what you see on CNN / BBC etc may not be 100% accurate and that the Israeli’s are in a difficult situation – one that the UK and it’s WW2 allies set up.

My view “tainted” by having been there for a while is that the Israelis were trying far harder than the Palestinians to live together without killing each other.

Paterbrat – I also don’t remember Israeli’s “wishing” for other countries to be “wiped off the map” – but I’m sure there’s a few quotes out there to the effect that if they have to Israel will wipe their attackers (both prospective and actual) off the map – aka what they said would happen if one Chemical Scud hit them – this could be where “misinterpretation” comes in.

Idunno
27th Oct 2005, 13:01
Are we supposed to be scared? Are we supposed to ignore him?

Iran is the nation which sparked - and heads - the global Islamic revolution, whose weapon of choice is terrorism.

They don't need nuclear weapons to be a serious threat to world peace and stability.

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 13:01
PPY – a midget with a phial of the right stuff can take out a stadium – same midget with a nuke can cause the “fires of fury”.
I think we should be if not scared – very worried.

PanPanYourself
27th Oct 2005, 13:16
Idunno,
Are we supposed to ignore him?
Nope, never said that.



ATR,
same midget with a nuke can cause the “fires of fury”.
Yes but said midget should realize that launching a nuke will bring retaliation in kind, which can only end in Iran being wiped off the face of the planet. Or is that what he wants?

He has no cards to play, everybody knows it, but hes betting large anyway. Baffles me is all.

High Wing Drifter
27th Oct 2005, 13:48
At least they are words and not actions. Just think of the mess if he used the West as a role model!

Dave Martin
27th Oct 2005, 14:10
African Tech Rep,

Have to say we are coming from very different outlooks on what the IDF will admit to when civilians are killed, and I think we'll have to agree to differ on that. Needless to say there are far more recent cases of IDF soldiers getting off very lightly in such circumstances. I think you are extending a minority of cases to justify a civilian shooting, and at the end of the day we are talking kids with stones.

Other than abiding by JB’s ROE you can criticise Israel as much as you like – but bear in mind that sometimes what you see on CNN / BBC etc may not be 100% accurate and that the Israeli’s are in a difficult situation – one that the UK and it’s WW2 allies set up.

I would be very sceptical of anything I saw on CNN regarding Palestine/Israel. This issue is far too complex and emotive to be summed up in TV reporting. But as much as you say the Israelis are in a difficult situation, would you not also agree the Palestinians are in a far more difficult situation? Being denied a functioning economy even water supply, their entire land considered a military zone?

My view “tainted” by having been there for a while is that the Israelis were trying far harder than the Palestinians to live together without killing each other.

You are right by tainted then. Mine is tainted not by personal experience, but a very close friend of mine is heavily involved in human rights issues and reporting from the occupied terriritories. Her experiences are from grass roots level. When not being directly threatened or attacked the lives and life chances offered to the people she stays with are just plain miserable.

To get back on thread, I would say the comments from the Iranian leader are out of line, but probably entirely intended for the domestic audience, and essentially with nothing to back them up.

Paterbrat
27th Oct 2005, 14:17
When the actions of a government that actively conscripted trained and used children as mass suicide attackers in mass formations; that has been caught redhanded as a 'non participant' in the first gulf war laying mines in the open water of the Persian Gulf; that has been actively promoting supporting and directing Hizbollah a known terror organisation; is a government whose leader's statements are of very real concern to other nations, particularly when it is seeking the 'ultimate weapon' while having lied consistantly to the UN about it's efforts in that direction; that ignores world agreements on Ambasadorial contacts between nations generaly recognised by the rest of the world; whose human and civil rights records are consistantly bad,
makes bellicose statements on world forums, these are of real concern and due note should be taken.

Caslance
27th Oct 2005, 14:23
Does anyone know the Farsi for "you're either for us or against us......"? :ooh:

Ozzy
27th Oct 2005, 14:27
I feel certain that Israel and Iran can work this out between themselves - one way or another I agree. I am counting on Israel to not sit back and wait for Iran to get it's nukes operational....

Isn't the dick_head who made this statement one of the guys behind the taking of the US Embassy hostages (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/list_of_hostages.phtml) in 1979?

Ozzy

Dave Martin
27th Oct 2005, 14:30
Wow, Ozzy, you give credence to people believing any old garbage - something to do with smoke meaning fire.

That theory has been thrown in the deep end, it should never have got the media coverage it did in the first place.

Do you really expect Iran to attack Israel anyway?

And given that it is most likely not going to happen, you would quite happily see Israel launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran, with all the ensuing carnage it will cause? Afterall, someone earlier was mentioning how much of the Iranian population is pissed off with the religious zealots, who Ahmadinejad's statement was clearly intended. Are these moderate Iranian's going to be merely colateral, simply because of one stupid statement?

Darth Nigel
27th Oct 2005, 14:32
Where does this differ from Bush's "Axis of Evil" crap? Other than, of course, the comments being directed against "us" (for some value of us) rather than against "them" (for some values of them).

Really not sh!t-disturbing here -- I saw these comments as no different in intention from a lot of the cr@<hidden> political rhetoric that litters the basement of the "Global War On Terror" from people like RUmsfeld, Wolfie, Perle (back in the day)... -- only substantive difference is that Israel is the target rather that terrorist states like Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, France and parts of New England. Yet when "we" say stuff like this, it shows determination, when "they" say it, it shows what horrid people "they" are.

Of course, methinks most of you are taking advantage of Danny's well-known ideological leanings to express bigoted comments in an environment where any opposition will be dinged :E (not that I'd do any different).

Ozzy
27th Oct 2005, 15:44
Wow, Ozzy, you give credence to people believing any old garbage - something to do with smoke meaning fire Eh? What people?

Do you really expect Iran to attack Israel anyway? I would not be surprised if it did. This dick_head was one of those involved in the taking of the US hostages in 1979. (Actually just shows how long Islamic terrorists have directed their hate at the West). Not only that but he also suggested storming the Soviet embassy at the same time!* So he can be said to be quite willing to take pre-emptive actions.

And given that it is most likely not going to happen, What do you base the probability of such an event not occurring versus occurring? And what is that probability?

Are these moderate Iranian's going to be merely colateral, simply because of one stupid statement? If moderates are working in the factories assembling nuclear weapons then they won't be collateral...

*http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ahmadinejad.htm

Ozzy

airship
27th Oct 2005, 16:03
heard somewhere east of Baghdad recently:

"Oh Allah, please help me keep my big goddamned mouth shut..." :{

Dave Martin
27th Oct 2005, 16:19
Ozzy,

Isn't the dick_head who made this statement one of the guys behind the taking of the US Embassy hostages in 1979?

Just asking for a bit more evidence behind this claim. Afterall, it's a pretty bold claim, and one which conveniently slipped from the news after the "smoke" had been released.

Suggest you might want to read a bit wider on the events of 1979. If you are going to start accusing the Iranians of heinous acts, it might be worth remembering the US's (surprise surprise) involvement.

The probability I place on it happening is due to the ability of Iran, the incentive, the language from simialr countries and their subsequent lack of action.

Guaranteed we'll kill a lot more people than just anyone workign in "alleged" nuclear weapons plants.

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 16:54
Hi Dave – there is a difference between what is admitted to by both sides, and while IDF troops may “get off lightly” PLO troops don’t seem to get “censured” at all.
You’ll note (I hope) that I only “extended” that case because it was something I feel I know a bit about and too be honest I was very disappointed by the news those in western countries got – I’m sure your friend like me has stared in disbelief at the TV knowing that what she is seeing and many people are believing is no where near the truth – but it is good visuals.

At the end of the day we weren’t talking “kids with stones” – that was the beginning – the end was with PLO fighters and live rounds shooting at and being shot at by IDF forces.

Actually I think the Palestinian problems are to an extent their own making – they seem very unwilling to compromise (or did – they have a new leader who may change this) – whist not strictly Palestinian (more Muslim) one of the things that struck me was the wailing wall where there is a Muslim area and a Jewish area, to enter the Muslim area you must prove you are Muslim (they ask questions) to enter the Jewish portion you simply have to cover you head (they hand out caps), other holy sites are the same where under Israeli control they allow other to visit and pray whereas the Muslims I belive have indicated they would only allow Muslim prayer.
Lets not forget that Jerusalem is in four “unofficial” quarters (no barriers) – Muslim and Jews live there together and were doing so with little tension until the fanatics started again.

I also don’t think we should lose track of how Israel was created post WW2 – the Israeli’s didn’t “set up” the problem - the Allies (esp UK) did.

I agree with you comments about the Iranian leaders comments – but would also say it’s going to inflame the situation and make it more likely that should they get close to obtaining something to back up the words Israel will be pre emptive – they have been so before.
It was a very stupid statement that could have far reaching consequences which may involve al of us.

Ozzy
27th Oct 2005, 17:15
Just asking for a bit more evidence behind this claim.

http://www.babnet.net/en_detail.asp?id=1262

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2394

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050630-124235-3835r.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/print.php?storyid=2684

A thoroughly dislikable idiot who is quoted as saying "We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy" and "The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end," an apparent reference to Iran's arch-foe the United States, continuing with "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."; who "interrogated" US Embassy hostages and demanded harsher treatment for them; who was involved in planning an attempt on the life of Salman Rushdie; and who denys being involved in the US Embassy hostage taking...

Ozzy

Paterbrat
27th Oct 2005, 17:23
Dave Martin's apparent inability to recognise some of the acts the Iranians actualy have been involved in seems to indicate either extreme myopia or support for the theory that this is just harmless chat. A position some would equate with either extreme optimism or support for the statement.

Ozzy
27th Oct 2005, 18:00
There's another thoroughly dislikeable idiot for you then. And for you Junkie so it appears, and for you!:ok:

But I did not read of Sharon demanding that Iran be wiped off the map. DId you?:rolleyes:

Ozzy

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 18:10
LOAJ – you sure Sharon did that ?
Who drew the boundaries of Israel ? – ensuring there was a nice big bit not inside these boundaries from which they could be shelled quite easily.
The Allies made a promise – the Israeli’s ensured they kept it.
It’s complex and can’t be broken down to “Sharon was bad” / “Israeli’s are bad” etc.

Ozzy
27th Oct 2005, 18:23
he's near as dammit done it to the Palestinians How close is "near as dammit" then Junkie? What does that mean? That 99% of Palestinians have been wiped from the map? What are you smoking man? Oh, and can I have some of it too?:ok:

Ozzy

nutcracker43
27th Oct 2005, 19:04
My Iranian colleagues tell me that this madman who is now their president used to be the fellow who applied the coup de grace at executions.

Anybody who believes that Iran and Israel will be able 'to work it out' is simply not being realistic. One has to live there to appreciate the problems.

Can't agree more with OW22 and his comments. Regrettably it extends to most of the Muslim civilisation as well!

NC43

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 19:09
DAB – regardless of numbers and methods I think we can all agree that the Jews were persecuted by the Nazi’s – yellow star etc, lots of pics of this around.
A result of this was that the Allies gave them a “homeland” post WW2 – hence the current problems – the location and thus the problems wasn’t totally decided by Jews – it was decided by the Allies based partly on the Old Testament.

I have heard it said that the holocaust wasn’t actually that bad for the Jews – out of it they got what they wanted – a homeland.

And one thing we can be sure of – they will fight to keep it – using any means at their disposal – hence these Iranian comments being dangerously stupid.

Edited to say – where did DAB’s post go :confused:

Ozzy
27th Oct 2005, 19:17
Junkie, I'll answer your questions once you answer mine.:ok: :8

Ozzy

OneWorld22
27th Oct 2005, 19:20
Fightin' talk from Blair at the EU summit. And he's 100% correct.

Speaking after a one-day EU summit, Mr Blair said the Iranian leader's sentiments were "completely and totally unacceptable".

He said: "Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue - it isn't acceptable."

Mr Blair said he had never heard of the president of a country saying that they want to wipe out another country.

"If they continue down this path, then people are going to believe that they are a real threat to our world security and stability.

"They may believe... the eyes of the world will be elsewhere, but I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks."

Mr Blair added: "Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?"

colmac747
27th Oct 2005, 19:22
Yeah - couldn't believe "our" Blair was so pointed...the man's changed, ah'll tell ya, the man's changed:bored:

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 19:23
For me I think it’s a no to all four.

My point being “we” the Europeans, especially the UK, set up a situation – Sharon’s actions were a response to what we did to them and the situation we left them in.

You can say his response was wrong – but a result of it is that Israel still exists – which doesn’t seem to have been part of the “big plan”.
I’m not sure you can “it’s Sharon’s fault” / “he was bad” without at least acknowledging “our” part in the setting up of the situation.

Root cause of current problems = Allied government actions post WW2
Root cause of entire problem = Old Testament.

Danny
27th Oct 2005, 19:24
Just had to delete one arsehole transplant who was rejected by his body, namely Dr. Augustas Ball, who thinks it appropriate to post links to revisionist websites in an attempt to promote his obvious lack of morality and mentality by trying to associate the Israel/Palerstinian situation with his own anti semitic tendencies. Shame really as 500+ posts disappearing off this website probably mean much more to him than they ever did to me.

As usual, this kind of thread brings out the apologists who prefer to raise old issues in some sort of tit for tat attempt to outdo each other. Well, I've had enough of it and anyone who doesn't like my politics or views is free to fcuk off to another website. My viewpoint is that of someone who has actually served in the Israeli army and whilst they are not paragons of virtue in everything they do, anyone who claims that they have policies where they deliberately go out to kill women and children has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I know that in my time we did everything possible to avoid innocent casualties but, as in any combat situation, it is not always possible. It is never deliberate but sh!t happens.

So, the apologists for the murderers that indoctrinate civilians to go out and indiscriminately blow themselves up in crowded civilian areas can go and sjove their politics up their collective backsides. No thanks to funding and rhetoric from the Mullahs in Teheran the ideas of martyrdom have come home to roost London as in many other places.

It may just be rhetoric for home consumption but there are enough speeches that are not translated into English for the followers of suicide bombing to pay attention to and dream of their virgins in paradise. I'm sure the Israelis will do what they have to do when the time comes to deal with any nuclear threat from Teheran. They know full well that they can never rely on anyone else, not even the US, when it comes to their survival. No doubt the apologists will fail to note that the world would have had a much different problem on their hands had the Iraqis not had their nuclear reactor taken out in the '80's and Saddam was invading Kuwait.

Someone mentioned earlier about Iran attacking Israel. Well, they have been doing so through their proxies, the Hizbollah, for many years as well as glorifying and promoting suicide bombers. Heck, they have even been implicated in supplying and training the bombers who are attacking the British forces in Iraq. Yes, Iran, a theocratic state with nuclear ambitions. No thank you. That the Israelis have a nuclear deterrent is one thing but a bunch of unelected mullahs who are not adverse to preaching death and destruction and funding the terrorist organisations that are the bain of our lives today with nuclear weapons and the fanaticism and belief in afterlife to use them... errr, I don't think so.

tony draper
27th Oct 2005, 19:25
Palestinian land? I was under the impression the Gaza strip originaly belonged to Egypt.
:cool:

Jimmy Breeze
27th Oct 2005, 19:47
Not the most sensible comments for someone trying to develop a nuclear programme.


PS. Don't worry Idunno, I'm not gonna get into this one
too busy preparing my food supplies to wait out "the global islamic revolution"



:eek:

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 19:52
Danny – thanks for answering the question about DAB’s post

I wondered why the ROE on this subject – you’ve just answered this one as well.

I am tempted to say it would be nice if you joined in the debate – you obviously have far more knowledge about the true situation than many of us (at least from the Israeli point of view) and at the risk of “knocking Israel” one thing they have been very bad at just lately is getting their side of the story over.

It’ll also be interesting to see how various people argue against you – I think it’ll be different to how they argue against those of us who can’t delete their post.

Shalom

barit1
27th Oct 2005, 21:21
Anyone concerned with the Israel/Iran faceoff might do well to re-read this 1934 address (http://www.votd.com/churchil.htm).

Idunno
27th Oct 2005, 21:51
PS. Don't worry Idunno, I'm not gonna get into this one
too busy preparing my food supplies to wait out "the global islamic revolution" Yeah, you do that. I believe this constitutes personal abuse - so it's gone.

Dave Martin
27th Oct 2005, 22:11
Ozzy,

Yes, I do seem to be missing something here.

Point to me where Ahmadinejad was involved in the interogation or took part in taking the hostages? I am happy to be corrected, but as far as I am aware the man has a very loose connection at best to this event, being more an item of news to discredit an election and one which was subsequently dropped.

A dislikeable asshole? I agree wholeheartedly. He gets my vote there along with most conservative politicians from every religion, Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Jew. But his comments are little different from those rebounding from both sides, aimed between religious groups and between, from Bush's rhetoric strongly backed up with overwhelming and seemingly indiscriminate military might, with the one exception that the Iranian leader shows no current or near-term ability to back up his apparent opinion with any military action.

On the contrary, our sabre rattling in the region, quite removed from our borders has been backed up by action of the strongest kind, yet we look to Iran as defining evil beyond belief? To the point where we would happily launch pre-emptive strikes? In all likelihood driving radical Islam even further into the drivng seat of Iranian politics and marginalising the substantial moderate voice? At a time when diplomatic relations between Muslim countries and Israel have never been stronger?

African Tech Rep,

The difference I derive is that the Palestinains are seeking to gain back land which is widely agreed should be theirs and that Israel could easily cede.

At the same time Israel is actually grabbing more land rather than submitting, despite being in a dominant position....this is not an even battle in terms of political power, military power, territorial stakes or casualties suffered.

As for kids with stones you are wong. There are still kids with stones, and there will continue to be. Throwing rocks at armoured bulldozers as they flatten Palestinian olive groves to build the "security wall". It isn't the kid hurling the rock that threatens peace in the region, but extremism on both sides of the security wall, and the absolute lack of future the Palestinian people face as a result of both.

As for the Palestinians not having the political will: when you live under occupation in the conditions they do, try and find me any knowledgable political scientist who will claim it is possible to build a functioning civil, lawful and political society which can build and improve on its situation from grass roots.

Your claim that Palestinians are to blame is like blaming the starving Ethiopian's for their malnutrition or Zambian women for their AIDS epidemic. They suffer and perpetuate through no inate fault of their own, due to the conditions that are imposed on them. The blame is far more complex than claims that Palestinian resistance means the problem is one of their own making.

To take a pragmatic approach: Israel is suffering from a victim mentality, which is rational based on the Holocaust and regional enemity towards it's statehood, but irrational given it's power, hegemonic support, and internationaly recognised statehood (though not within the current confines).

It is certainly up to Muslim nations to correct the rational insecurity by NOT making claims that came out of Iran this week. The overall trend has been positive however, with diplomatic relations between Israel and certain Muslim nations achieving what was unheard of 5-10 years ago. Pre-emptive strikes on Iran will erase this in a flash.

Likewise, it is up to Israel to similarly show good will - withdrawal from the Gaza is nothing when land is being claimed in the West Bank, or when the US can reportedly wash its hands of the Iranian Issue when Israel is apparently considering pre-emptive action against Iran. Rhetoric from Iran and Israel is regressive.

Danny,
My issue with the IDF, in the same way as with our forces in Iraq, is this. It's all very well saying shit happens, but the shit shouldn't be happening in the first place. With more political will from the Israeli side would the IDF be in the position it is at the moment?

We presently have a situation where a Palestinian born on a slice of land has no right to return to that land. At the other end of the spectrum, someone who has never set foot on that same slice of land as a right granted by the state to occupy it simply due to their religion.

Is this fair? Is this a policy that should be supported by the state of Israel? Is it one that will in any way engender support or a olution to the current issues in the region?

It is a chicken and egg situation, and while neighbouring countries might not be doing much to help, I fail to see any intention by Israel to make the political sacrifices necessary either.

Your point on Osirak is moot. It has been argued that the bombing of Osirak took the Iraqi nuclear program far underground to where it could no longer be monitored at all.

I find a nuclear armed Israel every bit as dangerous as a nuclear armed Iran.

African Tech Rep
27th Oct 2005, 23:24
Dave – if we only look at the Palestinians – yes - Israel is dominant – but it also a country surrounded by enemies which have made more than one attempt to erase it.

Who actually moved the Palestinians – us and Egypt / Syria etc – a major cause of the displacement was a request by the Arabs that the Palestinians get out the way so they could attack Israel – the Palestinians did this and the Arabs eventually lost – in the process Israel used the win to increase it’s security – this was not long after we Brits dropped them deep in the proverbial.

The particular incident we were discussing started with “kids with stones” and ended with live gunfire from both sides.
There are still kids with stones and while it’s only stones the Israelis seem quite passive – it’s when the shots are fired from behind the kids we get situations like the ones that started the discussion.

Israel was built from “grass roots” and their original conditions were similar to the Palestinians now – difference is it was UK Forces and we were supposed to be there to protect them.

If you want to use Ethiopia’s famine and Zambian Aids you should look at the cause of these – both are caused primarily by the leaders in those countries – Ethiopia could grow enough to sustain itself – Zambia could have far better Heath care – these differ with Palestinians primarily in that is corruption and tribal wars that is a cause whereas in the Palestinian situation it is intransigence – in all these the “leaders” have much to answer for.

People said Israel should give back some of the land they control – they are doing it – now people are saying “more more” – one problem is to give back as much as some would like will be political suicide for the Israeli who does it – go too far and they will vote to power someone who say “NO” – at least right now they are trying.

Yep – Iran attacks Israel or vis versa and it’s back to square one (if we’re lucky) – which makes the recent comments even more stupid – Israel as you say has a “rational victim mentality”(key word rational) – if they now get intel about weapons grade uranium / plutonium are the Israeli’s now more or less likely to strike?
The Iranians need to get rid of this guy and denounce him – won’t happen so with him in power and possibly getting Nukes what would you do in the Israeli’s position ?

Israel was moving towards peace – may be a bit on their terms but they were trying – One idiot has just thrown the biggest spanner he could find in the works – if it all falls apart I hope (but doubt) he will get his share of the blame.

Sorry – Israel have had nukes for a while now and not used them – Iran has basically said as soon as they get one to work they’ll test it on Israel.

You could liken Israel to a cornered dog – if you taunt that dog really it’s your fault if you get bit – but it seems many would blame the dog.

Pontious
28th Oct 2005, 00:37
Personally I think Israel should be given the 'Green Light' to carry out a re-run of Osirak'82 raid only more widespread this time and that as an insurance policy, Israel should be afforded NATO membership. If the Ragheads in Tehran want to dance they'll find no shortage of partners to oblige.

Cheap house in the Gulf, anyone? All offers seriously considered.

:ok:

ex_matelot
28th Oct 2005, 01:58
Just read this..

Well said Danny.

Ozzy
28th Oct 2005, 02:07
Point to me where Ahmadinejad was involved in the interogation or took part in taking the hostages obviously your mouse is broken Davey boy. Just click on a few of those links I gave and read others posts. No excuse for you mate.

Ozzy

Buster Hyman
28th Oct 2005, 03:10
Sadly, methinks it might be time to line up for your Crusade/Jihad tickets very soon. This is gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. :(

N380UA
28th Oct 2005, 07:56
Danny

I wasn’t able to read the post of Dr. Augustas Ball as it was deleted before I hade the chance. So I'm not able to judge for myself as to the contents of his posts in conjunction with DAB being terminated.

We all agree that Israel has a difficult stand and that it has to, on occasions, defend itself from hostile intentions and terrorist attacks. We westerners and probably many Arab States fully recognize the sovereignty of the Israeli State and its right to be. If Iran is doing any more than talk stupidity then any military action by Israel is well justified and unquestioned.

I appreciate you, Danny, as a fine human, pilot and soldier fighting and standing up for what you are convinced is the right thing to do in any and every aspect of your life. As in other discussions regarding Turkey joining the EU the issue similarly turned to religion. In this case Turkey being the only European nation following the Islam. Emotions always run high on that subject regardless of the context. As for many people religion is the basis of their lives the very doubt about their religion is a direct question of their right of existence. Thus, a conflict is preset.

Every once in a while though comes a day when we, individually or as a nation have to account for what we have done or do. No nation is "clean" and without faults this includes Israel and Jews as much as Iran and Muslims. Again, as someone who hasn’t read (any) DABs post I cant help but wonder whether his/her statements were of anti-Semitic sentiments (continuous in previous posts) or whether it was a "mirror" being held up at the face of Israel and those of Jewish fate. I'm not objecting to the termination of DAB but wonder if it was appropriate based on his/her different views.

If it was not clearly inequitably anti-Semitic, one may certainly ponder on his or her upcoming termination if not inline with the mainstream opinion.

Spuds McKenzie
28th Oct 2005, 09:05
I'm with Buster on this one. Serious stuff is concocting there.
Anyone who had hoped that the moderate clerics in Iran might win the upper hand eventually (including me), must realise, that Khomeinis long shadow is still casting over the region long after his death.

This is a real threat (as opposed to other ones, if you know what I mean...), which rather sooner than later has to be dealt with, one way or the other.

Cheerio
28th Oct 2005, 09:30
I have an idea! Why doesn't the West support a puppet dictator in an adjacent country, supply him with arms to prosecute war against Iran, and.......

ORAC
28th Oct 2005, 09:30
JDW - 04 Oct: Iran remains on cusp of entering satellite club

The launch into space of Iran's first satellites - reconnaissance satellite Mesbah (Lantern) and research satellite Sina-1 - has been postponed from the scheduled date of 30 September due to a malfunction in the Sina-1 satellite.

The press chief of the Russian Space Troops, Colonel Alexei Kuznetsov, told the Itar-Tass news agency that the launch was postponed because of a delay in the manufacture of the Sina-1, which was assembled by Polyot of Omsk.

However, when the launch does go ahead in the coming weeks, it will make Iran the 43rd country to possess its own satellites and a member of the much more exclusive club of countries with spy satellites.

Kommersant (http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=527&id=621811)

The Russian Space Forces have launched Sinah-1, the Iranian first spy satellite.......

Launched into the near-polar orbit, the Iranian satellite can photograph the surface of the earth from the Arctic to the Antarctic with the 3-meter resolution (all the continents will be in the lens of the camera). On top of that, the orbit is sonar-synchronous (Sinah-1 will always be in the sonar rays to recharge its batteries), which will make it possible to photograph the surface in daytime.......

Dave Martin
28th Oct 2005, 09:39
Ozzy

obviously your mouse is broken Davey boy. Just click on a few of those links I gave and read others posts. No excuse for you mate.

Ahh, mouse working fine mate. You are merely rehashing media reports of 5 hostages taken at the time of his election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinezhad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis
Draw your attention to point 4.1

Just about anything could be deemed as true if you read news reports without following them up at later dates. Similar reports have people actually believing Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, yellow cake deals in Niger and that mobile weapons labs were found in Iraq. Taking these reports on face value or mixing fact with fiction is exactly the kind of stuff that gets Mike Moore in trouble, and a little sad to see this kind of thing rehashed here.

Granted, the guy is an a$$hole, and clearly politically inept when it comes to foreign policy, but slinging mud like this (amid similar claims that he is not democraticaly elected) belittles the real substance of claims against him.

ORAC
28th Oct 2005, 09:42
BBC: Iran stands firm on Israel remark

Iran has defended its president's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map", saying this has been its foreign policy since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Ahead of an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki said Iran did not recognise the "illegitimate Zionist regime"..... Mr Mottaki said the demonstration in Tehran on Friday would illustrate the anger of the Islamic world about the existence of Israel.

African Tech Rep
28th Oct 2005, 11:18
N380UA – DAB’s post was basically a link to a site that attempts to prove the Holocaust never happened, using arguments such as all the pictures were actually of typhoid patients and gas chambers didn’t exist as it would have been an inefficient way – a bullet in head requiring less fuel etc.

I did follow the link (although I only scanned the referenced site) – hence my reply – if you wish I can PM it to you (it automatically saved in my IE history list) – but in my opinion it was not only “inequitably anti-Semitic it was also off topic and brought nothing useful into the debate.

ORAC – your post seems to show we can no longer say “one idiot” – seems they have now admitted his word are their idea of foreign policy.

When whatever happens does occur I hope we hear a lack of “Oh – poor Iranians” comments – Doubt it though – there will always be some who think Israel should wait until they have been nuked before taking action.

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 11:21
There seems to be a general feeling amongst some here that this is a one off unfortunate comment, almost slip of the tongue. Unforunately it is a common rant from the very top man and goes on down throughout the population who it has been pointed out earlier democraticaly? elected him.

Here is a nation who have for some considerable time persued agressive anti Israeli and anti Western policies; who have for years made a secret/lied about what their nuclear policies actualy were to the UN commision while at the same time asking why should they not have the bomb.

It would seem rather shortsighted not to take them seriously and actively seek to prevent a Nation who seems not to respond to checks and balances the rest of the world do respond to, from acquiring a weapon they may well use irresponsibly with devasating consequences for all of us. The attempted prevention of weapons falling into a hooligans hands happens on a village level, a town city and national level, why not on a global level.

N380UA
28th Oct 2005, 11:30
Danny, ATR et-al

Thank you fort he information on that subject. In This case it was quite right not to only delete the post but to terminate DAB altogether. Thank you for your offer of sending my those links but I don’t think this to be necessary.

As I mentioned, not having seen the post it was a bit odd to have someone terminated for what I thought was simply stating ones view on current global political issues.

Dave Martin
28th Oct 2005, 11:59
African Tech Rep,

What exactly makes you think Iran is in a position to "nuke Israel"?

Why would Muslim countries who claim one of their major beefs with Israel is it's treatment of the Palestinians launch a nuclear strike on a nation that is in effect....Palestine? Or have they developed some kind of radiation within their apparently non-existent nuclear arsenal that discriminates by religion?

And just where are these nuclear weapons that Iran is 1) in posession of, or 2) will be in possession of within the next 5 years?

Is it not more likely, and has it not been more likely for some time that Israel or Pakistan would be the countries most likely to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes in the region?

The US has for some time being threatening attacks against Iran, a fellow member of the UN, and has had the means to deliver on those threats. Iran is not in a position to do so.

Or am I simply pointing out the logical flaws in the train of thought here?

Does this situation really just call for more rhetoric, warmongering, threats of nuclear strikes and gnashing of teeth from our side?

There are two solutions. Turn the other cheek to this morons statement, supported by universal condemnation, and the Iranians will see him to be quite toothless - further weakening his position.

Or, we can support Israel in launching a potentially nuclear strike on Iran....please tell me just what fantastic end-goal that will achieve?

frostbite
28th Oct 2005, 12:06
Even the 'arch-Jew' Gerald Kaufman has described Israel as 'a bandit nation'.

Says it all, for me.

Ozzy
28th Oct 2005, 12:08
Or am I simply pointing out the logical flaws in the train of thought here? Who said these Islama fascists are logical?:confused: If they were logical they would not tip their hand by publically demanding that a nation state be wiped out! Nope, they don't live in the real world.

Ozzy

Idunno
28th Oct 2005, 12:14
ATR, after crossing swords with you (so to speak) on another thread about the 'peaceful nature of Islam' its strange to see you on this thread arguing from what appears to be an opposite position to the one you previously took. Is this a road to Damascus conversion? Or are you feeling conflicted about the whole situation?

Dave Martin, you ask why the Iranians would nuke an Israel full of Palestinians? Perhaps your blinkered mindset can't grasp the reality of the situation, but hardline Islamo-Fascism would blow up the whole goddamn world - including themselves - if they thought they could wipe out Israel. These are the same people who encourage their children to carry out suicide missions against the enemy. The Palestinians would simply be martyrs for Allah - all in a good cause.

And why hasn't Pakistan, or indeed Israel nuked anyone else yet? I would say for a combination of reasons, not least of which being the global security policies of the United States, who make it clear that such attacks would be 'frowned upon'.

In GW1 Israel was under attack from Saddams Scuds, and everyone held their breath for an Israeli nuclear counter-strike. It didn't happen, which convinces me that (a) The Israelis have enough restraint to possess such weapons justifiably, and (b) that the US was also pulling them back by the coat tails.

Neither (a) nor (b) apply to the Ayatollahs, and thats why they will never get their bloody hands on a nuke - not while the US has an ounce of interest left in geo-political developments.

Wedge
28th Oct 2005, 12:18
All the Iranian President has done is to express the true Arab agenda towards Israel, but for a change he's done it in public.

Israel is the antithesis of almost all Middle-Eastern Arab nations, a functioning democracy, where women can walk the streets without having to cover themselves up, meanwhile public beheadings and torture are commonplace in Saudi Arabia.

That said, the policies of Likud have set the so-called 'peace process' back in my view, regardless of the fact that Likud are in power because of the Israeli populations' exasperation and desperation at suicide bombs. Israeli forces do sometimes cross the line of what is acceptable. There could be more done on the Israeli side to engender even a modicum of trust between the Israeli and Palestinian governments. While Sharon ostensibly demonstrates a progressive line over Gaza, he tightens his grip on the West Bank.

It's true that Israel ultimately is responsible for her own actions, and that it is Israel who will have to defend herself when her existence is threatened. If this means recourse to nuclear weapons then so be it. It's also true that Israel would not be able to defend herself, or even exist, without American support.

I don't see a solution to this problem. Israelis will have to continue to live with the constant threat of suicide bombs on buses, in Cafes, restaurants and clubs for as long as Palestine is oppressed. Palestinians will continue to live in squalor for as long as the extremists are prepared to employ terrorist tactics.

I can't see the Bush adminstration invading Iran, whatever their nuclear capability, for two reasons: The declining support for the war in Iraq, which has been an unmitigated disaster for America, and the continuing cost of war in Iraq prohibits funding for a similar war in Iran, which would be equally disastrous tactically and strategically. The most we will see is targetted American bombing raids to remove suspected nuclear installations.

ORAC
28th Oct 2005, 12:18
BBC: Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity."

Tens of thousands of Iranians took part in the rally in Tehran which Iran organises every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan to show solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire. Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

Joining the protest, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "My words were the Iranian nation's words. "Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid," Mr Ahmadinejad told the official Irna news agency......

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 12:18
Dave M why should one suppose that Iran is not in a position to nuke Israel? The weapon does not have to be either home grown or that large. They certainly have the financial means and there is certainly a potential market place for them to get them.

Neither Pakistan nor Israel have threatened to wipe anybody off the map.

Why so certain Iran is not in a position to deliver on it's threats?
Or are these simply flaws in logical thought?

Just which side has the knashing of teeth rhetoric warmongering and threats come from or am I missing something?

The cheek turning has for a long time been performed just how long does that have to go on? The Iranians and their leader would both I have no doubt dispute your bland assertions as to their toothlessness however authoratively you might speak for them; and just what fantastic goal do you see when the Iranians do reach their stated objectives? Please tell us do.

Dave Martin
28th Oct 2005, 12:22
Ozzy,

Sadly a vast over simplification.

There is a logic to Ahmadinejad's statement.

It might not be shared by us, but when addressing a "World Without Zionism" Conference, a statement from a hardline conservative Muslim politian stating Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that ought to be "wiped off the map" is not entirely surprising.

Just as Western politicians alter the party line when addressing different audiences, you will hear all kinds of things said - not necessarily intended to be persued, but if it wins applause and support then it will be said.

As for the assumption we can expect Iran to nuke Israel, with non-existant nuclear weapons....well....hey, if you want to go and bomb Iran on these grounds, be my guest, take a leaf straight out of Tony Blair and George Bush's book, go emulate that stunning success in Iraq and watch the region sink even further into Islamic fundamentalism, see Israel get destroyed and possibly a few other western nations, not to mention a few million lives.

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 12:35
Ahh well, so much for logical discussion. If you don't like it simply ignore it, useful debating technique used by many who don't like unpalatable facts.

Ozzy
28th Oct 2005, 12:46
There is a logic to Ahmadinejad's statement. I see, hmm, and the logic that's behind these Islama Fascists who encourage thier children to blow themselves up in the middle of crowded markets, buses, and bars? Where's that. No Dave, you can't justify that logic is at work on that scale of mass killing...or will you try?

Ozzy

Widger
28th Oct 2005, 12:53
In many countries wher the government is concerned about it's popular appeal, they often raise "morale" buy spouting rhetoric such as this to cover up serious domestic issues.

Examples include the USSR, with Nikita stating "we'll bury you", what did we do? We battened down the hatches, cut them off, and waited. The whole system fell apart of it's own volition from inside.

Next example, Argentina in 1982. We did not attack Argentina, we took back what was ours, sat and waited. The Junta fell apart from pressure inside the country.

Iranian statements such as this are exactly the same. They would not dare to attack Israel because they know that the response would be mutually assured destruction. It is just that....rhetoric spouted to cover up internal strife. We should sit quietly, cut them off and wait. That country will go the way of all the others, when they look around at the affluence of their peaceful neighbours. Radicalism will never win in the long run because the human psyche will not tolerate it.

I am also convinced that Saddam was using the same words. By shouting at the "Great Satan" he was stirring up support to deflect internal problems. If we had sat and waited, that regime would have imploaded as well.

This is just my humble opinion. An external reaction is what any tyranical regime wants because it unites the populace around the rulers!

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 12:55
I suppose by that token people should have just sat and waited Hitler out? Both Iraq and Iran have and did actually act on utterances in the recent past.

Capt.KAOS
28th Oct 2005, 12:56
"Iran seeks to soften Ahmadinejad comment on Israel" - Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-10-28T122109Z_01_SCH752579_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml)

Surely Ahmadinejad realises that if Israel is wiped out, Iran will be turned into a place with a lot of parking lots. These kinda soundbites are used every week in most of Iran's mosques. Kinda of standard exclamation together with Allah Akbar...

Widger
28th Oct 2005, 13:00
Paterbrat,

The difference is that Hitler invaded Poland! Iran has not invaded anyone yet. (notwithstanding the ding-dong between them and Iraq in the 80s).

If they invade or launch an attack...then they will get the result they are after!

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 13:05
Problem is Capt K that your logic does not seem to have struck a resonant chord with the many Martyrs who go bang with monotonous regularity these days.

Errr Widger the attacks, blatant in Iraqs case, and secretive or through intermediaries in Irans, have definitely been there, not merely rhetorical.

Widger
28th Oct 2005, 13:16
Paterbrat,

Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were kicked out. Local Kuwaiti populace very grateful and other Gulf nations breathe a sigh of relief. Since 1991, Iraq steadily isolated and deteriorating. No-one for the populace to blame apart from the regime itself. GB and TB invade Iraq and suddenly, there is another focus for the anger! As far as I am aware, Iran is not occupying any other country than itself. I agree that there are problems with insurgency etc but that does not constitute an Invasion and If Iraq had not been invaded in the first place...it would not be a problem to our troops.

Dictatorships and Fanatics will always come to grief. Outside interference will always make things worse. This is why the British were so successful in India, because we were not an occupying force! Take Saudi Arabia for instance. They have a big problem with internal issues. Were the West to start and meddle in Saudi affairs, the "Great Satanic Twins" would then become the focus of attention, taking the pressure on the current regime to reform.

African Tech Rep
28th Oct 2005, 13:18
Dave – I don’t think Iran is currently in a position to nuke Israel – but do think they are hoping to work towards gaining this capability.
Where are the Nukes they could get within the next five years – try the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Pakistan hasn’t nuked anyone yet because the ones they are most likely to it to can do the same back – they could though decide to help their “brothers” in Iran with the technology / equipment needed – especially now they can be sure it would be used for what they consider “a good use”.

The point is this threat – especially now supported by the Iranian Govt will make the Israeli’s more nervous and they did blow to bits another suspected nuclear threat.
I doubt very much if the Israeli’s will carryout a pre emptive nuclear strike – they have always indicated nukes are a second strike option to them – ie One Chemical Scud = we will use Nukes – but I don’t doubt they will if they feel it necessary launch a pre emptive conventional strike if Iran gets anywhere near being able to carry out the threat and the words coming from Iran makes the likelihood of this greater.

Idunno – told you to read the posts – I was crossing swords with you because you were wrong in your original argument– in this case it’s Iran that’s wrong – Conflicted I think not – Balanced maybe.

Widger – just one tiny point – don’t think the Kurds were too happy about our “sitting and waiting”.
And considering the possible consequences can’t see Israel taking a “wait and see” policy for too long.
If we had been in position to stop Hitler before the invasion of Poland should we not have done so ? – in that case we weren’t, in this case the Israeli’s are.
Oh & don’t forget Hitler didn’t invade Poland – Hitler and Russia invaded Poland as they had the same aims at the time.

Dave Martin
28th Oct 2005, 13:18
Sorry Peterbrat, but I don't have the time nor the means to respond to your posts on demand. Patience is a virtue you seem to lack.

why should one suppose that Iran is not in a position to nuke Israel? The weapon does not have to be either home grown or that large. They certainly have the financial means and there is certainly a potential market place for them to get them.

Why should one suppose it is? That is the kind of assumption that got is into Iraq. If you still follow that line of reasoning then I lose hope. You seem to have swallowed the latest threat to world peace, hook line and sinker.

We have no proof, no indication, no motive to nuke Israel, but hell, we'll just make a random assumption that Iran must be able to attain a small nuclear device. Well done.

Neither Pakistan nor Israel have threatened to wipe anybody off the map.

Might do well to look at recent history regarding India and Pakistan. The closest we have come to nuclear war since the Cold War. Perhaps we should have bombed them? They were doing far more than making a stupid statement at a politically heated rally - they mobilised forces on a long running stand-off.

Israel itself makes no bones of the Samson solution.

Why so certain Iran is not in a position to deliver on it's threats?

Firstly, I don't take it as being a direct threat.

Iran has not threatened itself to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, nor has it mentioned deploying a nuclear arsenal to do so. It is an almighty step to take from one man saying Israel "ought" to be eliminated to threatening to do it himself, by nuclear means. If that wasn't the case then the very rhetoric the US has used against Iran would have meant Iran no longer existed as a nation years ago.

Iran has not been shown to have nuclear weapons, nor has it been showen to be in the process of assembling nuclear weapons, and by all accounts, if Iran's nuclear program was as advanced as some would like to claim, Iran would be many years, possibly decades away from creating a nuclear arsenal.

Just which side has the knashing of teeth rhetoric warmongering and threats come from or am I missing something?

Initially from Iran. Followed by people like yourself suggesting we should do exactly the same in return. Clever, intellegient, well thought out political reasoning.

The cheek turning has for a long time been performed just how long does that have to go on?

Indefinately, until there is either a change in tact by the Iranian or a direct threat backed up with clear intent and means is made.

Going in with guns blazing will not move this in the right direction and responding to what is typically blunt Middle Eastern diplomacy in kind will also not achieve any peaceful end goal.

Don't get me wrong, his comments ratchet this up and are clearly a step on the wrong direction, but they are a long way from constituting a direct threat that requires nuclear pre-emption, let alone conventional attacks!

Again, by your rationale, the cold war should have ended in nuclear armageddon. Afterall, one superpower could hardly have been expected to keep turning the cheek to the other superpower? Just get it over and done with now, yes?

fantastic goal do you see when the Iranians do reach their stated objectives? Please tell us do.

Care to enlighten me on the IRANIAN's stated OBJECTIVE? (see my first point)?

Ahmadinejad statement is offensive, ignorant and way way out of line, but it is nothign more than a statement and must be seen in the physical and political context that it was made in.

The diplomatic response so far has been solid, sound and adequate ( the Palestinian response was "Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," [Saeb Erekat]). Ahmadinejad has done himself political damage externally for potentially very little internal gain. That is far more effective then any military strike would be.

If a military response did occur it would be simply be an attempt to use what is essentially an unfortunate diplomatic incident as an excuse to achieve what certain states wish to do for their own foreign policy reasons. If you are willing to buy into that kind of weltpolitik then this is a regression by both sides into an era I would rather not return to.

Ozzy,

When did I try to justify their logic?
Please, do tell me. I'm really interested.

Your rhetoric is way out a limb as well, bordering on irrelevence. Suicide bombers occur for a huge number of reasons, again, you simplify the issue to blaming a bunch of mad Muslims who brainwash their children to blow themselves up. Sri Lanka might well be a better example of that.

You seem quite happy to deny Israel achieves the same destruction (currently running at about 3 Palestinians to every 1 Israeli). Ones killing is justified, ones isn't?

Open your eyes to both sides of the argument.

African Tech Rep,

You highlight the obvious flaw in this idea yourself though -

Pakistan hasn’t nuked anyone yet because the ones they are most likely to it to can do the same back

So why would Iran nuke a nuclear capable Israel, an Israel that contains a nuclear arsenal sufficient to erase Iran of the surface of the planet, an arsenal that Iran couldn\'t hope to match in a hundred years?

And Pakistan is hardly likely to supply a spare missile or two to Iran for two reasons.

1. Israeli/Pakistani diplomatic relations are currently at the best they have been in history. This is the result of continued, long-running efforts. The political capital gained as a result is immense and not likely to be squandered on a whim by Pakistan, given the gravity of the "fallout" a nuclear weapons deal with Iran would have. So Pakistan would certainly not consider this a "good cause" as you claim.
2. This argument that countries are happy to punt off their hard earned nuclear assets to untrusted neighbours is far from sound. Muslim brotherhood is not monolithic.

I doubt very much if the Israeli’s will carryout a pre emptive nuclear strike

So do I, but there are plenty of people who will be pushing to use this statement as an excuse to do just that.

The angle predominant on here seems to be that we should find any old excuse to attack Iran and it shouldn\'t be backed up with any hard evidence.

African Tech Rep
28th Oct 2005, 14:08
Dave – if you really belive Iran isn’t trying to achieve nuclear capability you are far more trusting than I.

You average suicide bomber wouldn’t say no – I won’t use a nuke I’ll only use explosives so there is a will amongst some to use it if they can get it.

Your focusing on Nukes – there are other ways of wiping countries off the face of the earth, but nukes fit with the wording used.

What is your interpretation of “hard evidence” ? – is it when they show pics of an Iranian nuke or when they actually use one or when there is a “reliable” report they are near to obtaining one.
They are unlikely to call the BBC in to see their nuke, but this is possible – the Israeli’s sure as hell aren’t going to wait until one is used and I’m not sure we should either.
What would constitute a reliable report – not BBC / CNN, CIA / MI6 that’s for sure.

The predominate angle here is a senior Iranian has just threatened another country with annihilation, thus making his country a confirmed threat and adding to the instability in the area.

If I threaten Israel you can laugh it off - if Iceland threatens Israel you can laugh it off – if Iran threatens Israel I think it should be taken seriously.

Ozzy
28th Oct 2005, 14:09
You seem quite happy to deny Israel achieves the same destruction (currently running at about 3 Palestinians to every 1 Israeli). Ones killing is justified, ones isn't? Where did I express my happiness? Where did I deny your assertion? Your approach is typical of luvvy, hand wringers - put words in other people's mouths. It is you who cannot see the other side of the case.

Ozzy

Dave Martin
28th Oct 2005, 14:34
*yawn*

the logic that's behind these Islama Fascists who encourage thier children to blow themselves up in the middle of crowded markets, buses, and bars? Where's that. No Dave, you can't justify that logic is at work on that scale of mass killing...or will you try?

The same logic that could justify a nuclear preemptive strike by Israel, something that would kill a hell of a lot mroe people than have been killed in the intifada.

So you seem quite willing (you obviously missed the clear meaning of "happy" in the context of my last post) to describe what you call Islama fascism (???) and paint Iran as being the apaprent proponent of, but unwilling to think the their presidents venting spleen and the receptive audience might be at least partially the result of similar world outlooks held within Israel.

Ahh, "luvvy, hand wringers". :ok:

Paterbrat
28th Oct 2005, 14:43
Deve Mertin I was referring to previous posts which you ignored, however your assumptions, which are broad and numerous, seem to serve you well.

Your rather circular method of debate simply turns around and around. You were the one who initialy proposed Iran does not have the means, quote ' What exactly makes you think Iran is in a position to "nuke Israel"? ' I simply responded to that assumption, but then you seem to know these things.

As for your 'We have no proof, no indication, no motive to nuke Israel, but hell, we'll just make a random assumption that Iran must be able to attain a small nuclear device.' There is plenty of evidence that they are seeking one, they have stated they are, and have made their feelings towards Israel quite clear from top to the bottom of their society.

Yes I certainly did say 'Just which side has the knashing of teeth rhetoric warmongering and threats come from or am I missing something?' There has been a very long period of that from Iran and a mere response from the West to the latest ones from the top elicits your disparaging remarks on bellicose statements

'Initially from Iran. Followed by people like yourself suggesting we should do exactly the same in return. Clever, intellegent, well thought out political reasoning.' is your riposte.
A moment if you would be so kind. Please quote any of my posts that have suggested anything other than a supporting of efforts to prevent nuclear weapon production by Iran. I have certainly suggested nothing other than serious attention be paid to their efforts to gain them. I have never suggested we should do 'exactly the same in return'. Not clever, not intelligent, and certainly not well thought out by you quite apart from inaccurate.

Containment and non proliferation I believe is a general commitment sought by most Nations or is that completely dead? My rationale is containment and prevention not Armageddon. I think you will find it is the Iranian brand of thinking which gravitates towards suicide Martrydom and anihalation, but then you do seem to keep missing that.

Dave Martin
28th Oct 2005, 15:32
The assumption that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons (quite different from having a nuclear weapons program) is very well backed up.

Given the pressure from the US, I would expect that the day Iran was to assemble an arsenal, that they would be quite forthright about it.

So to that end, the conventional wisdom is that despite the debate as to whether Iran seeks or is in the process of creating nuclear weapons, it does not at this time, nor in the immediate future have that ability and cannot constitute a nuclear threat to Israel. Hence, comments from the Iranian leader such as he has made have to be taken in context of where and when they were made and that he is essentially toothless to make them occurr even if he was threatening them directly himself.

The response from the West (diplomatic I mean) has been fine, and I have stated that quite clearly. Its the response of users on here that astounds me. In much the same way the shooting of the Brazilian in London brought about a knee-jerk "got what he deserved" reaction, comments from the Iranian leader seem to elicit an "Iran is going to bomb, therefore must be bombed itself" mentality.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression you would support bombing or further sabre rattling by the west as a means to change Iranian attitudes to their own nuclear proliferation. This to me is beligerence against Iran which is only promoting their strategy and also promoting the politics of their leader.

It is not the Iranian brand of thinking that gravitates towards armageddon. Extremist factions within the country push towards that, but an equal section of society certainly fights against it. Likewise, in Israel and the US there is a very strong, religious dominated sector who would be quite happy to see Iran annhilated, nuclear armed or not.

Capt.KAOS
28th Oct 2005, 15:44
Sir Paterbrat, martyrs will always be created for reasons only they can comprehend. State vs State wars will occur less and less.

As for your Hitleronomy, you are guilty according...Godwin's Law of Nazi analogies... (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/) ;)

Caslance
28th Oct 2005, 15:48
Let's not forget that in these troubled times there are religiously-motivated zealots with influence on Governments - in both East and West - who would welcome nuclear war with open arms because they believe it would hasten the Apocalypse and fulfil various prophecies promulgated by sundry religions.

They all tell themselves and anyone who will listen that only the Bad Guys would suffer because God Is On Our Side, naturally. :rolleyes:

Of course, the really scary thing is that they actually believe it.......

There's never been a shortage of loonies, but these days they have a large say in running the various asylums.

African Tech Rep
28th Oct 2005, 16:48
Dave – just a couple of points

1 – they (the Iranians) don’t need “an arsenal” – they just need one or two.
Israel ain’t that big.

2 – I’ve not heard any Israeli enunciate thoughts that they would like Iran (or any country) “annihilated” – pacified / to stop attacking them yes – but annihilated No.

Idunno
28th Oct 2005, 17:03
Idunno – told you to read the posts – I was crossing swords with you because you were wrong in your original argument– in this case it’s Iran that’s wrong – Conflicted I think not – Balanced maybe. Wrong about Islam being (quote) "A Religion of Peace"(end quote)?
I think not - and this man Ahmedwotsits words just add further evidence to the argument.
He's just another Apocalyptic Islamic Warrior of Allah.

I think you're just a contrarian. You know I'm right.

PanPanYourself
28th Oct 2005, 17:33
Idunno, your opinions tend to contradict prevailing wisdom.

You're always ready to degrade all 1.3 billion muslims because of the tiny, misguided, and nasty fraction of the whole, made up mostly of arabs like this Ahmadinejad nut.

If there is a contrarian among us its most certainly you, and I hope you know it.

Ozzy
28th Oct 2005, 17:58
So from your posts Dave I conclude that, and please let me know if this conclusion is wrong, you believe The President of Iran really, really did not mean what he said when he called for Israel to be wiped from the map. It follows therefore, that you also believe he does not mean it when he said he was speaking for the entire Iranian nation. Further, you believe that the "thousands of Iranians [who] staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction."* did not really mean what they said. Continuing, you don't really think he meant it when he said "They are free to say but their words lack any credit," when asked about global reaction to his comments.

No, you think it is just empty rhetoric and he is saying these things only for the fun of it and to maintain his popularity with fellow Islama Fascists.

Did I get it right?

Ozzy

*http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.reaction/index.html

nutcracker43
28th Oct 2005, 18:19
Pan Pan Yourself, what is this prevailing wisdom of which you speak? Islamic awareness began, for most people, on Sep 11.

To say that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion is to believe that the moon is made of cheese. True that the more educated in Turkey are perhaps secular in their outlook but the majority of the peasant class follow the religion without deviation and that means that the Qaran is the word of Allah...no interpretations allowed. To follow the Qaran as written plus the religion it spawned is to accept fascism, in other words it is a fascist religion, period.

Consider a political party, highly intolerant of others not of their belief, intensly militaristic, anti semetic and subjugates more than 50% of their own population. Would you not say that that party was fascist...Islam is all of these things. The clerics will tell you that you are reading things out of context and provide the relevant hadiths to prove their point. I am not a cleric but I have lived in the ME longer than I care to remember; I have many Muslim friends as well but it is they as individuals who are the decent sensitve people I like and admire, definitely not their religion.

I am fed up listening to the hand wringers and apologists who keep telling us how peaceful and tolerant it is. Even Karin Armstrong, a supposed expert on Islam and an ex nun, tells how the explosion of Islam out of Arabia was akin to a tribal raid.

Perhaps the moon is made of cheese.

OneWorld22
28th Oct 2005, 18:39
Good grief, that nutjob Presient actually took part in the 200,000 strong anti-Israel rally today! :confused:

Just to assure the world that he didn't just have a brain fart the other day he defended his remarks today:

My words were the Iranian nation's words.

Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid

A Palestinian spokesman has rounded on Iran over this

Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments

And Egypt has also come out saying the comments

the weakness of the Iranian government

That's positive but the silence from the other Muslim states is not so promising. Nothing from Saudi, Indonesia, Libya, Tunisia, Morcocco, Algeria, Kuwait etc etc

And Turkey ahs been dissapointingly shy condemning this, calling on the President,

to display political moderation

Astrodome
28th Oct 2005, 18:43
the silence from the other Muslim states is not so promising And you expected differently ????

OneWorld22
28th Oct 2005, 18:46
No, to be honest. I was maybe a tiny bit hopeful that the likes of KSA and one or two others might comment....

African Tech Rep
28th Oct 2005, 18:55
Nutcracker is correct in that for most people Islamic awareness began on 9/11 – this could be said to “skew” the perception of it as they only started to notice it due to a terrorist attack.

For those who don’t know Idunno refers to a previous thread (that I can’t find now – maybe hamsterwheel ?) in which he as memory serves me argued Islam is a religion of hate and not peaceful – this was argued with quite intensely.
Later at the closing of the thread he brought in “tolerance” – this being a different argument that the original and one I think he has a better chance of being supported on.

We have done the “interpretation” stuff so I don’t want to start it again except to say that in my opinion neither the 9/11 perpetrators or this Iranian guy are true followers of Islam – they are simply using Islam to extend their aims.

One last thing for Nutcracker – your argument would carry more weight if you could spell Quran (alt Koran).
Qaran is a newspaper in Somalia.

nutcracker43
28th Oct 2005, 19:09
ATR,

Thanks for that, finger trouble I'm afraid. But thanks for your observation

NC43

Astrodome
28th Oct 2005, 19:13
neither the 9/11 perpetrators or this Iranian guy are true followers of Islam The deafening silence of most Muslim countries, 'clerics', and opinion formers in condemning, and putting into operation whatever the equivalent of excommunication is, would rather suggest differently.

One is also minded to recall the celebrations in the UK by Muslims following 9/11.

African Tech Rep
28th Oct 2005, 19:14
NC43
Glad to be of service – normally wouldn’t mention it – but in this sort of debate it becomes important.

I’ve seen a few people with good points have those points overlooked due to aforementioned “finger trouble”.

Astrodome – IMHO those taking part in the celebrations and those not speaking out against what the Iranian said are also not true followers.

I do not belive there are many truly good followers of Islam – praying four times a day and slaughtering the odd sheep doesn’t make one a true follower neither does flying planes into a tower or threatening another country.
What does make a good follower is the same as any religion – how you live your life.

There are many “bad followers of Islam” out there – there’s also quite a few people who claim to be good Christians who aren’t.

To many this maybe a semantics thing – but I for one would like to hear less “Muslims are bad” and more “Misguided and hypocritical people claiming to be Muslims did ……..”

nutcracker43
28th Oct 2005, 19:51
JTR

What worries me are those who are the true followers...easy to say, and I have heard it said by some of my Muslim chums, that they are not really Muslims because Muslims do not behave in that way. When it has been suggested that perhaps a fatwa be issued there is generally an uncomfortable shuffling of feet. and loads of reasons why this would be difficult.

I was in Iran on 9/11 and the English speaking press was unequivical in their condemnation as were my Iranian chums...it was noticeable that the horror felt and the sympathy given was from the more secular element of the group. The more religious were silent for their own reasons.

Is another WMD destruction scenario about to unfold with regard to Iran? One thing is for certain, with a mindset such as theirs they cannot be allowed to develop such weapons.

3 slips and a gully
28th Oct 2005, 19:53
Remember Raygun's....My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
(During a microphone check, unaware that he was being broadcast. (August 11, 1984))