Support NeoGAF

[APF]

Note that by calling me a "Zionist" you are implying you would support me being "eliminated from history" or however Ahmadinejad put it. Fantastic.


The Stealth Fox: You douchebag, YOU STILL HAVEN'T HEARD WHAT I'M SAYING! My point was, he's coyly toying around with this idea rhetorically. That's a far cry from .... ARGH!

 

[DSWii60]

I'm a "Zionist" now, as well as a "neocon?" I... see...

Yet Ahmadinejad calls the Holocaust a myth, and he's not a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite... He calls for the elimination Israel as a state, yet that's not calling for killing Jews, ethnic cleansing, or suggesting anything even remotely supportive of a war against Israel, not to mention having nothing to do with his pursuit of nuclear weapons, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything and I can't believe you even mentioned it, guh. I... see...

The Islamist Defense Force has set up a very strong reality-distortion field in these parts.

He doesn't call the Holocaust a myth, he says that it has been spiced up (kind of like what you've done in your post above) so that there was justification for the creation of a state on other people's land because people felt bad for what the Jews had gone through.

He doesn't call fall the elimination of Israel as a state, he calls for the elimination of the current "Zionist regime."

As Dies Irae pointed out and as I have pointed out previously, Jews in Iran have many rights e.g. their own representative in parliament even though there are only 10,000 of them in a population of around 60 million.

There has been no proof that Iran want to create nuclear weapons (the prove we have is similar to the "proof" that Iraq had WMDs). Sure they want nuclear power, but thats their right to do so as according to the NPT.

I purposely went a bit over the top in defending Ahmadinejad and Iran in this post. Maybe this will incite a reply from you, whereas you've been avoiding my posts in this thread so far.

Edit: @ your post above about him "coyly toying with rhetoric" read my post from a page back:

As far as Ahmadinejad saying that he wants Zionists wiped out of history meaning that he is a anti-Semite and wants all Jews dead in code according to APF, this is BS. If this were the case, he would come out and say it. Its not like he hasn't said controversial things before, saying all Jews need to be killed wouldn't actually cause that much controversy as according to the average person he said "he wants Israel wiped off the map" and its not much of a jump from that to all Jews.

I could do exactly what your doing and say that Bush invading Iraq and Afghanistan and now threatening Iran means in code that Bush wants to declare war on all Muslims, but of course that isn't true, just like Ahmadinejad wanting all Jews dead isn't true.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

The Stealth Fox: You douchebag, YOU STILL HAVEN'T HEARD WHAT I'M SAYING! My point was, he's coyly toying around with this idea rhetorically. That's a far cry from .... ARGH!

Oh, so now you have a more nuanced position, because you didn't say anything about "coyly toying with rhetoric"....

Original post that was under dispute and caused your ISLAMIST DEFENSE FORCE bitching

"Note what isn't there, the word "Zionist" which you believe was part of this quote. No, it did not say, "Zionist regime," nor did it explicitly say, "Jews." But how can the Jewish rule of the Jewish state be eliminated from the pages of history, without... killing the Jews? Simply invade their country and forcibly remove them? The credulity certain people want to give Ahmadinejad as being an honest and misunderstood speaker would be naive if it didn't largely come from the same Defense Squad this sort of spin always comes from, when it comes to people in a certain part of the world trying to tiptoe around what we all know they're thinking but they don't want to come right out and say in public because they realize they can have their cake and eat it too, with doucebags mindlessly defending obvious hints phrased in obvious ways for obvious benefit."

You asked such a question because you wanted to make a god damn point, you freakin tool!

You didn't INSINUATE ANYTHING ABOUT COYLY TOYING WITH RHETORIC until later on.Stop changing your position, you douchebag! ARGH! You write in freakin' riddles, for god sakes! Is this how you expect to convince people?

Edit: You didn't add in "coyly toying with rhetoric" when you talked with mandark, you added it around post 101 I think, but still, that wasn't what you originally stated.

 

[Mandark]

Note that by calling me a "Zionist" you are implying you would support me being "eliminated from history" or however Ahmadinejad put it.

Maybe that's the root of the misunderstanding here.

Ahmadinejad didn't say "Zionists" or "the Zionists" or "Zionist people". If he had, it would be a lot more plausible that he was using the phrase as a wink-wink term for "Jews", and "removing" for ethnic cleansing.

 

[DSWii60]

Maybe that's the root of the misunderstanding here.

Ahmadinejad didn't say "Zionists" or "the Zionists" or "Zionist people". If he had, it would be a lot more plausible that he was using the phrase as a wink-wink term for "Jews", and "removing" for ethnic cleansing.

See that's the point. He does say anything except for "the regime who have poked their nose into Qods (Jerusalem)." All that means is that he doesn't want the current regime in Israel to be in Jerusalem.

 

[Tamanon]

So, does anyone think Ahmadinejad would be happy with a different Jewish regime there?

 

[SRG01]

So, does anyone think Ahmadinejad would be happy with a different Jewish regime there?

I think most Middle Eastern countries, Iran included, would be happy if Israel allowed right of return to the displaced Palestinians. That is, by far, one of the biggest contentions.

On the other hand, we might in the future see something along the lines of Eygpt, which signed a peace accord with Israel decades ago.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

So, does anyone think Ahmadinejad would be happy with a different Jewish regime there?

no lol

btw I commend you for actually spelling his name out

oh yeah and being a jags fan.

 

[Mandark]

A full right of return would have almost the same effect as Israel packing it in, because there would instantly be more Muslim Arabs than Jews, so you'd have a de facto transformation from Israel to Palestine.

 

[SRG01]

A full right of return would have almost the same effect as Israel packing it in, because there would instantly be more Muslim Arabs than Jews, so you'd have a de facto transformation from Israel to Palestine.

Hence the South Africa apartheid analogies.

I mean, no one can really deny that the Arabs were kicked out so Israel could settle in the land. Nor can anyone really deny that Israeli Arabs live a mostly disconnected/2nd-rate life compared to the relative luxury of Jewish Israeli citizens.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. The problem is that the longer Israel -- and the rest of the Arab countries -- don't put up at least some sincere form of reconciliation, the longer the unrest will continue.

 

[APF]

Maybe that's the root of the misunderstanding here.

Ahmadinejad didn't say "Zionists" or "the Zionists" or "Zionist people". If he had, it would be a lot more plausible that he was using the phrase as a wink-wink term for "Jews", and "removing" for ethnic cleansing.

The problem is, we're getting intertwined into a bunch of different ideas here, making disentangling it all a tricky proposition for some. In the quote he says, "the regime;" in the text he says, "Zionist regime;" in commenter's posts, there is a suggestion of removing Zionists; in another post, I'm called a Zionist; etc.

AFA Ahmadinejad not suggesting the Holocaust was a myth, that's just flatly incorrect, that is, unless of course you're asserting that this silly misunderstanding is yet another silly mistranslation by those silly folks in the entire pantheon of modern media, including the vaunted BBC, etc.

AFA the "wiped off the map" comment, he at least isn't particularly ashamed of that interpretation:

The United States is convinced that nuclear energy is just a smokescreen and that what Iran really wants is the bomb. Then Wallace tried to get the president back to his most inflammatory statement regarding Israel.

"You are very good at filibustering," Wallace remarked. "You still have not answered the question. You still have not answered the question. Israel must be wiped off the map. Why?"

"Well, don't be hasty sir," the president said. "I'm going to get to that. I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government."

"Fabricated" following the Holocaust, which he's said may also have been fabricated.

Last December, Ahmadinejad said the Europeans had created a myth of the Holocaust.

"What I did say was, if this is a reality, if this is real, where did it take place?" Ahmadinejad replied.

"In Germany," Wallace said.

"Who — who caused this in Europe?" Ahmadinejad asked.

"In Europe. If I may … so …what you're suggesting — one moment — what you're suggesting then, that Israel should be over in Germany because that's where the holocaust took place?" Wallace asked.

"I'm not saying that, mind you," the president replied.

Now, even FlightyF had a stronger condemnation of that translation, which is telling. So to reiterate, basically I'm right: he wants to have it both ways, and imply the worst, while allowing the Islamist Defense Force folks to wave their hands and spin away, because there is some sort of ideological necessity in carrying his water.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I don't think I EVER insinuated that he didn't believe that the Holocaust didn't occur. I think he did say that. He said that in the Spiegel interview also. If he believes that the Holocaust didn't occur based on his version of "truth", that further legitimizes (from his point of view) his criticism of Israel.

Hand-waving aside, APF seeks to actually refute a point presented by a few posters instead of, you know, hand-waving.

Your cute little snippet really doesn't show anything that suggested systematic ethnic cleansing of Jews. Hand-waving. Red herring. Bias. Spinnington. Sony PR.

If there is indeed a collective group called Islamic Defense Force, they certainly are too nice in their tone of their posts. They need to post more like you: they need to embed insults in their posts, accuse people of such things, speculate on people's intentions, and hide their arguments in such a way that no one can respond to them. Kind of like Slurpy, but much more eloquent in their responses.

Then maybe they'll gain a few more ears.

 

[Mandark]

What's telling to me is that he responded to the question by talking about Israel's government, but that's my reading of it.

I just think it's a leap from "we're going to get rid of Israel as a Jewish state" to "we're going to wipe out the Jews." Heck, I think it's a stretch from "We're going to war with Israel" to "we're going to kill all the Jews."

 

[APF]

What's telling to me is that he responded to the question by talking about Israel's government, but that's my reading of it.

I just think it's a leap from "we're going to get rid of Israel as a Jewish state" to "we're going to wipe out the Jews." Heck, I think it's a stretch from "We're going to war with Israel" to "we're going to kill all the Jews."

You mean, it's telling in the sense that he's perfectly content allowing that interpretation to lay unmolested, while he tangents into a red herring. The point--again, as I've restated it a hundred times--is that he uses code-words--like people do here: "Zionist," "Neocon," etc--and deliberate phrasing; his speeches--well-constructed as they are--coyly hint at ideas which rile-up his conservative base in order to shore up support (this sounds oddly familiar), while allowing him to maintain plausible-deniability and cause folks who Just Don't Want War to leap to his defense. When he says, "[t]hey have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews," the Islamist Defense Force jumps in front of that bullet, to suggest what, in this case? That he's just talking about some undefined "massacre" that really might not have taken place, but that isn't the Holocaust because duh I don't see that word there so don't you look silly, Mr. Zionist, Mr. Neocon, Mr. you-know-what-I'm-calling-you-wink-wink. No. If you believe in "code words," as you have said countless times you do, then how can you deny the reality Ahmadinejad is continually speaking in such a way? Why, because it's not Harpers and Mother Jones making the accusation? Please.

When Ahmadinejad talks about eliminating the people who happen to be in a certain place at this time, and the suggestion is, oh no, he's just saying the "Zionist" government (ie: the government of Israel that believes Israel should exist) will collapse under its own weight, outspend itself, that the people themselves will revolt against the idea that they should have own state, that the people will simply move and therefore there won't be a point in having a government... this is all nonsensical. The comparisons he draws in that speech are nonsensical. So there has to be an underlying implication he's trying to suggest, namely its destruction via external forces. Once we travel down that path--the right path, the one that is clearly being suggested--it's not so difficult to read the OMG SECRET CODE of what he's wink-winking. What's bizarre is the spin from people who what, believe if they admit the truth that's bringing us closer to war? It is entirely possible to admit the clear suggestion without believing that suggestion is a cause for war, or that war is a good idea or should even be considered in the first place. They're entirely different conclusions.

 

[Dies Iræ]

Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map; that was a mistranslation by Iran itself. His intent, for all purposes, based on his administrations precedent, is to eliminate the current Israeli status quo: a US client state perpetuating horrendous acts of international, state sponsored terrorism against internal Arab populations (Palestinians), and border Arab states (Lebanon). This all prerequisites an understanding of Zionism: which is the belief in the right of a state of Israel to exist. Ahmadinejad is anti-Zionist, not anti-Jew. Moreover, there are many non-Jewish Zionists. Both Bush and Chomsky are Zionists, as am I. This is why we must distinguish between Zionists who ignore Israeli crimes and those who do.

Ahmadinejad's position is correct - Israel, in its current form, must be destroyed. But, again, this is much more complex than people like APF would like to have anyone know. This isnt about literally "wiping Israel off the map", it's about eliminating the institutions, systemic views, and other machinations which are creating this horrible state of affairs.

 

[APF]

The projectionism of some of the posts here remind me of the apocryphal "hippies who blamed 9/11 on global warming."

 

[scorcho]

the amount of intra-state conflicts we're seeing in africa is directly related to global warming.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

When Ahmadinejad talks about eliminating the people who happen to be in a certain place at this time,

And wipe the Israeli govt off hte map means this? First of all, the original quote was "wipe Israel off the map", it does not say Jewish people, nor does it say Zionist govt. The quote stated earlier in the thread was REGIME, hence it's completely rational to assume that he's talking about a regime, you tool.

When he says, "[t]hey have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews," the Islamist Defense Force jumps in front of that bullet, to suggest what, in this case? That he's just talking about some undefined "massacre" that really might not have taken place, but that isn't the Holocaust because duh I don't see that word there so don't you look silly, Mr. Zionist, Mr. Neocon, Mr. you-know-what-I'm-calling-you-wink-wink.

This is probably the most laughable post I've ever read. Insinuating that by my same logic, I shouldn't assume he's talking about the holocaust? Man, you're stupid. You've ignored all context whatsoever, prior evidence, only to insinuate the same damn thing. We have prior evidence that he's talking about the holocaust. However, we have NOTHING that insinuates that he wants the systematic extermination of the Jewish ethnicity.

and the suggestion is, oh no, he's just saying the "Zionist" government (ie: the government of Israel that believes Israel should exist) will collapse under its own weight, outspend itself, that the people themselves will revolt against the idea that they should have own state, that the people will simply move and therefore there won't be a point in having a government... this is all nonsensical. The comparisons he draws in that speech are nonsensical.

Oh, so what he's saying is nonsense now? So I guess we shouldn't assume anything he says is true, period, by your own standards? I guess he doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map then. He's really lying you know. It's all nonsensical. It's "impractical" that he wants to wipe Israel off the map". He's just "coyly" toying with the idea, he doesnt' really mean it. Thanks for refuting your own point, idiot.

Tell me, why should we believe some of what he says is true about his own beliefs and not all of his beliefs? He clearly (previously) said that he desired the deconstruction of the Israeli government, but now he wants to wipe all the Jews off the map, am I right? Those are two opposite "final solutions", am I right APF?

So which one is toying, and which one expresses actual desires, tool? Sounds like APF's captain of the irrationality defense force... misrepresenting ideas and constantly shifting points. Or should I say "the belligerent foreign policy defense force". Which is more appropriate?

So, through subjective uses of the word impractical and subjectively labelling my opponents criticisms as stupid, I too can seem smart.

So in conclusion, you're definitely wrong.

 

[scorcho]

my...mind...is...explo-

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i1DoYxdYKXISuFW3fYXFNistVjsg

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — It is Iran's version of "Schindler's List," a miniseries that tells the tale of an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helps Jews escape the Holocaust — and viewers across the country are riveted.

That's surprising enough in a country where hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust even took place. What's more surprising is that government media produced the series, and is airing it on state-run television.

The Holocaust is rarely mentioned in state media in Iran, school textbooks don't discuss it and Iranians have little information about it.

then again, the prognostications of one lune who lacks popular support or power makes up the whole of the monolithic Iranian government.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

APF, is "not wanting a regime to exist" a code word for "killing all the Jews" or is "killing all the Jews" a code word for "not wanting a regime to exist"?

 

[APF]

The Stealth Fox: I don't think you're actually able to comprehend what I'm saying, which is one of the reasons I'm frustrated replying to your posts.

scorcho: What is that link in response to? Is the director of that film going to speak at Columbia? Because that *would* be an interesting talk.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

The Stealth Fox: I don't think you're actually able to comprehend what I'm saying, which is one of the reasons I'm frustrated replying to your posts.

I'm frustrated too, because I don't think YOU'RE trying to understand what I'm saying. Your mouth is emptying fecal matter.

 

[APF]

WTF?

 

[The Stealth Fox]

WTF?

You heard me. Fecal matter. You're obvious speechlessness is an implicit concession that I've won!

I'm saying something but I'm not really saying anything!

 

[scorcho]

one part of the article does make a related point -

The show's appearance now may reflect an attempt by Iran's leadership to moderate its image as anti-Semitic and to underline a distinction that Iranian officials often make — that their conflict is with Israel, not with the Jewish people.

About 25,000 Jews live in Iran, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel. They have one representative in parliament, which is run mostly by Islamic clerics.

The series could not have aired without being condoned by Iran's clerical leadership. The state broadcaster is under the control of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, who has final say in all matters inside Iran.

then again, i see no reason why Ahmadinejad shouldn't have the ability to voice his opinions in this country, or even travel down to Ground Zero.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

It's a PR stunt!

 

[The Stealth Fox]

WTF?

And APF, I don't think you quite got it. I added a title to the post to make it clear what I was trying to do.

 

[APF]

scorcho: that was my intuition as well. As for your other point, who is preventing him from voicing his opinion? No one. Isn't that therefore what is known as, a "straw man" argument?

 

[scorcho]

are we that insecure as a country that we should worry that Ahmadinejad visits ground zero or gives some university lecture?

 

[scorcho]

scorcho: that was my intuition as well. As for your other point, who is preventing him from voicing his opinion? No one. Isn't that therefore what is known as, a "straw man" argument?

straw man is stretching it, as there's been a wealth of commentary articulating just that point. i could be mistaken, but i could've sworn i saw a couple of your posts argue to the effect of why he shouldn't be allowed in this country from the other ground zero thread. i'm too lazy to actually research this now, so take it as pure conjecture.

 

[APF]

No, I never said he shouldn't be allowed into the country for the purpose of fulfilling his obligations towards the UN, or for diplomatic reasons, etc. You're off base here.

edit: I just wanted to add, your post is a good example of, someone makes a minor and specific point, and GAF'ers are so desperate to devour anyone who even approaches a dissenting voice, that they ascribe all sorts of erroneous beliefs and behaviors to that minor dissent. This community is not always very "reality-based."

 

[The Stealth Fox]

that they ascribe all sorts of erroneous beliefs and behaviors to that minor dissent. This community is not always very "reality-based."

Maybe it's because people believe your minor dissent is inconsequential to the topic at hand, and as a result, people are trying to figure out where you're getting at, and hence, you get assumptions left and right.

Kind of like how I told you that holocaust denial can be done to delegitimize a state, but then you assumed I was being an apologist for anti-semitism.

Stupidity can be contagious.

 

[scorcho]

No, I never said he shouldn't be allowed into the country for the purpose of fulfilling his obligations towards the UN, or for diplomatic reasons, etc. You're off base here.

edit: I just wanted to add, your post is a good example of, someone makes a minor and specific point, and GAF'ers are so desperate to devour anyone who even approaches a dissenting voice, that they ascribe all sorts of erroneous beliefs and behaviors to that minor dissent. This community is not always very "reality-based."

looking back at the thread, the quote that gave me the impression is this -

The issue is inviting someone on our own State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, to the site of the largest terrorist attack on our country, at a time when tensions between our two nations are incredibly high, for the purposes of some gadfly photo-op.

which i took face-value as your view that he shouldn't be there. my mistake, which is more due to my haphazard reading skills and aversion to reading an entire-fucking-thread than 'desperation to devour' you.

dissenting views are fine, which is what i was trying to make a point with concerning Ahmadinejad. again, wasn't making a reference to your views, but an overal one.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm suprised at the level of blind hatred and ignorance towards Ahmadinejad and his views. Absolutely, he's an islamic fundamentalist. That's very, very bad.

But he's neither a holocaust denier nor anti-semetic nor a nuclear weapons tycoon. Iran's conference was not to deny the holocaust, but rather to discuss current views and alternatives. That's really an important aspect to history - challenging accepted norms. Regarding his anti-semitism, there are tens of thousands of Jews living with full civil rights in Iran. One has even been elected, democratically, to the Iranian Parliament. Finally, regarding his alleged nuclear weapons programme, it is perfectly legal for any state on Earth to enrich uranium for energy production. You can argue Iran's secretly using it for weapons, but that's both hypocritical and unproven.

'holocaust revisionism' is considered holocaust denial. you can argue till you are blue in the face against that distinction, but its the simple truth.

wikipedia says it best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II — usually referred to as the Holocaust[1] — did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship.
Key elements of this claim are the explicit or implicit rejection of the following: that the Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews and people of Jewish ancestry for extermination as a people; that between five and seven million Jews[1] were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder such as gas chambers.[2][3]
Many Holocaust deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead.[4] Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from legitimate historical revisionists who use established historical methodologies.[5]

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

The always informative Juan Cole (one of the most respected American scholars on the Middle East) had a good post this past summer on the whole Ahmadinejad deal. Here's some of the more interesting commentary...

He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.'

If Ahmadinejad is a genocidal maniac who just wants to kill Jews, then why are there 20,000 Jews in Iran with a member of parliament in Tehran? Couldn't he start at home if that was what he is really about?

I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or "Iran"!) has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." There is no such idiom in Persian

It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad's own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.

These propaganda efforts against Iran and Ahmadinejad also depend on declining to enter into evidence anything else he has ever said-- like that it would be wrong to kill Jews! They also ignore that Ahmadinejad is not even the commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.

Anyone who reads this column knows that I deeply disagree with Ahmadinejad's policies and am not interested in defending him on most things. I profoundly disagree with his characterization of Israel, which is a legitimate United Nations member state, and find his Holocaust denial monstrous. But this quite false charge that he is genocidal is being promoted by Right-Zionists in and out of Congress as a preparatory step to getting up a US war against Iran on false pretences. I don't want to see my country destroyed by being further embroiled in the Middle East for the wrong reasons. If the Israeli hardliners and their American amen corner want a war with Iran, let them fight it themselves and leave young 18 year old Americans alone.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

 

[scorcho]

too much information. let's just agree that Ahmadinejad wants to kill all Jews in Israel and leave it at that. it makes the rest of this thread so much easier to read.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0427/p01s03-wome.html

'mistranslation' my ass.

 

[siamesedreamer]

Any truth to the rumor they cancelled it (like as of 10 pm last night)?

Can't find any confirmation link.

 

[Rur0ni]

Any truth to the rumor they cancelled it (like as of 10 pm last night)?

Can't find any confirmation link.

I heard this also, and that he has ties to 9/11 lol, "American Blood is on his hands" was a quote. Least that's what my father came to tell me he heard on the news last night.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

too much information. let's just agree that Ahmadinejad wants to kill all Jews in Israel and leave it at that. it makes the rest of this thread so much easier to read.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0427/p01s03-wome.html

'mistranslation' my ass.

No, IDIOT, he's coyly toying with the idea!

Spoiler

even there's no indication as such lol, making a claim more complex by bringing back a minor talking point first page, when a certain someone himself propagated a discussion on what he said and meant, and then suddenly bring back "coyly toying" after whining and bitching about what he said and meant

 

[siamesedreamer]

I heard this also, and that he has ties to 9/11 lol, "American Blood is on his hands" was a quote. Least that's what my father came to tell me he heard on the news last night.

What news?

All I can find is the Bloomberg report from 9/20 that was wrong.

 

[Mooreberg]

I hope someone gets tasered

"I'd like to answer that question."

 

[APF]

I do appreciate the irony in saying exactly what I meant and why, only to have a slew of morons posting red herrings and attacking straw men because those are far easier to wave away.

 

[Mandark]

The end of Israel as a Jewish state is no more a "clear path" towards genocide than the end of Algeria as a French colony, or Kirkuk as an Arab city.

 

[APF]

Oh, so just ethnic cleansing then. No biggie, thanks Mandark.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Point shifting is fun!

 

[Y2Kev]

No news of cancellation on Spectator yet.

 

[Mandark]

There's another, more populous ethnic group with competing claims on the land. Genocide wouldn't be a necessary step towards that group achieving political dominance. See?

 

[APF]

There's another, more populous ethnic group with competing claims on the land. Genocide wouldn't be a necessary step towards that group achieving political dominance. See?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7935337&postcount=194

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Hey, that annihilation doesn't have to come from the nuclear weapons he's developing. It could come from economic, or from social reasons. Or everyone could just decide to move one day! See? So there's no reason to be alarmed by this rhetoric, it's perfectly cool, nothing to see here. Ok, so maybe I can see your point that it's a little I dono... "jerky" or something. Yes, the guy's kinda a jerk, ok, you got me. But yeah, that whole annihilation thing, you shouldn't read anything into it or anything. It's certainly not saber rattling to make people like me terrified that Israel may take it seriously, and leap to assent to his demands at the negotiating table. No no no, we're gonna be real strict at that table, just you see.

 

[Mandark]

1) Ahmadinejad says that Israel as a Jewish state will cease to be.

2) Israel has a Jewish population.

3) Israel will remain a Jewish state as long as it has a Jewish population.

4) So in order to end Israel (as a Jewish state), this population must be removed.

5) This could happen by either the Jews up and leaving, or someone committing mass murder against them.

6) The first scenario in (5) is completely ludicrous, so the second scenario is the only plausible one.

7) Therefor, a call for the end of the Jewish state implies a violent end for the Jewish people.

8) Because Iran is developing nuclear weapons, these would be the tools of genocide in the hypothetical second Holocaust.


Accurate? Not accurate?

 

[Stoney Mason]

So Iran is building nuclear weapons so they can nuke Israel and the US and Israel can nuke them?