clives said:

You're up against worldnetdaily and fox news on this one, bFTE, two media centers that continue to propagate the myth.

i'm curious. How is it a myth? These are the words of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah themselves. 

These are the words of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah themselves

.

Incorrect translation. He keeps talking about it, because he wants regime change in Israel.

He's referring to Zionism, not Israel as a location.

It's no different than saying, 'I want neoconservativism to dissapear". 

The orginal translation was incorrect, and yet, as clives say, two media centres continue to run with it because it serves thier purposes.

The retraction is never as powerful as the original accusation anyways? 

no idea why I put a ? at the end.. 

I can't believe we're agreeing on something.

This calls for a celebration. 

Just got home and about to pour a martini, I'll give you a virtual cheers. 

i'm curious. How is it a myth? These are the words of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah themselves.

Depending on what you read and believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

There has been a lot of discussion on the translation,
with Amhadinejad himself saying that he never called
for the destruction of Israel.

I dunno what to say other than that. There's never been
any mention of him declaring himself or the nation of Iran
as the catalyst for the end of times, as far as I'm aware.

Probably because that's not a popularly held belief in Islam. 

You guys really don't think it possible if not probable that if Iran had the refinement capability up to 20.X % required for a dirty bomb or worse the 90 something % for a real nuke they would give one to Hezbollah or Hamas to detonate somewhere in Israel? 

For the Shia the coming of the 12th Imam or the Mahdi is intrinsic to their beliefs. To the Sunni not so much. 

CharlieBox said:

.

Incorrect translation. He keeps talking about it, because he wants regime change in Israel.

He's referring to Zionism, not Israel as a location.

It's no different than saying, 'I want neoconservativism to dissapear".

I was pretty sure that the "wiped from the pages of history" thing was refuted but that most experts maintain that it translates at least to "wiped away."

Right. I'm sure he meant that he wants them all to convert to Islam. 

You guys really don't think it possible if not probable that if Iran had the refinement capability up to 20.X % required for a dirty bomb or worse the 90 something % for a real nuke they would give one to Hezbollah or Hamas to detonate somewhere in Israel?

You think it's probable? 

I think it's more than a possibility. Maybe not probable, but I think if they thought they could get away with it they might try. 

I was pretty sure that the "wiped from the pages of history" thing was refuted but that most experts maintain that it translates at least to "wiped away."

Zionism, not Israel..

C'mon man.. He is talking about a political/harline religious movement, not a race of people or a country or a geographical location.

When he talks about that stuff, he often has a poster with the word 'Zionism', a circle around it and line crossed through it. 

Just to clarify, it's not the 'wiped away' part that is lost in translation, but WHAT he is referring to that he wants to be wiped away. 

D rock 007 said:

For the Shia the coming of the 12th Imam or the Mahdi is intrinsic to their beliefs. To the Sunni not so much.

Yeah, it is intrinsic to their beliefs. What's not intrinsic
is that they are the ones who will bring this about, or
that they must perform some sort of large scale act
of violence or sacrifice or whatever you want to call it
for it to happen.

D rock 007 said:

I think it's more than a possibility. Maybe not probable, but I think if they thought they could get away with it they might try.

I doubt it. We say we have no relations with Iran and
yet we seem to know when they're capable of doing certain things with
their uranium and when they test things. I find it highly unlikely that we
would be left in the dark if they were able to create an actual, credible
threat to us or our allies, much less give it away without anyone being
the wiser. 

I mean, fuck, Bush was an evangelical Christian, which means he believes both in the coming of Christ and Judgement day and ALSO in the act of attempting to convert people to Christianity.

I remember people talking about how Bush thought the world was going to
end so he might as well be the one to do it and that's why we invaded Iraq
and all kinds of crazy shit.

And yet, strangely, he didn't try to end the world OR spread Christianity throughout the world. 

He said "the occupying regime," not Zionism.

I don't know. I guess I'm a little more inclined to see it as a threat thinly veiled with rhetoric and diplomatic backstepping. 

I mean, fuck, Bush was an evangelical Christian, which means he believes both in the coming of Christ and Judgement day and ALSO in the act of attempting to convert people to Christianity.

Do you think Bush actually was, or possibly he was just using it to gain followers?

And yet, strangely, he didn't try to end the world OR spread Christianity throughout the world.

Money and Power were his causes, not any theology. (regardless of how 'Christian' he is) 

He said "the occupying regime," not Zionism.

Yep, and what regime was occupying Moscow for years?

It's no different. He said it will vanish from the pages of time, just like communism in Russia.

1. He never said he hated Israelis or Israel as a state
2. He also never said he was going to do it (make it vanish).

He always talked about it being inevitable, like it will happen naturally (people will wake up and rebel against it). I, the UN wasn't such a useless organization lacking any power, and if the US didn't use it's veto so many times when concerning resolutions against Israeli actions, the process would have likely already begun. 

CharlieBox said:

Do you think Bush actually was, or possibly he was just using it to gain followers?

Money and Power were his causes, not any theology. (regardless of how 'Christian' he is)

That's exactly my point. People say a lot of things. People genuinely believe
a lot of things. When it comes to action, though, it's usually different from
those beliefs and words for a lot of reasons.

It's no coincidence that the older, more seasoned terrorists are never the ones who are doing the suicide bombing.
Sure, they believe that killing yourself and innocents in the name of Allah will get you into God's Kingdom and you'll
have however many virgins. At least, maybe. If they did wouldn't you think that they'd have killed themselves
by now?

I mean, that sounds like a pretty good deal. Why would you just sit around and tell
other people about how awesome it was? Why wouldn't you get a piece of that sweet,
sweet action? 

IF the UN.. 

CharlieBox said:

Yep, and what regime was occupying Moscow for years?

It's no different. He said it will vanish from the pages of time, just like communism in Russia.

1. He never said he hated Israelis or Israel as a state
2. He also never said he was going to do it (make it vanish).

He always talked about it being inevitable, like it will happen naturally (people will wake up and rebel against it). I, the UN wasn't such a useless organization lacking any power, and if the US didn't use it's veto so many times when concerning resolutions against Israeli actions, the process would have likely already begun.

He said that the Ayatollah had said that "the occupying regime [b]must be[b] wiped away."

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What process would the UN likely have already begun if the US hadn't used it's veto power? 

damn tagfail 

No, the process of Israel unraveling would have already begun if the US didn't continually interfere.

Not to mention that just because he says something must happen doesn't
mean that he thinks he's the one who has to do it. People say that we have
to do things here all the time.

"WE HAVE TO STOP OBAMA AND HIS SOCIALIST REGIME BEFORE HE MAKES US ALL HAVE ABORTIONS!"

Most people don't consider that a threat on the president's life. 

I don't think that you honestly don't see a difference. 

Yeah, there is a difference. The two situations aren't exactly the same.

The similarity is that the person who's
saying that we must do something or
that something must happen is not
likely the person who will effect that
change, mostly because they aren't
the people who have the power to do so.

The only way that Iran could guaranteed wipe away the Israeli government
would be a nuclear weapon, which would destroy a shitload of the area itself
and make it more or less useless, and it would also make them the target of
intense violence which would ultimately end their regime, as well.

Honestly, you're putting too much stock into his hatred of Jews.
He's not a fan of Jews. A lot of Persian people aren't. It's not
exactly a secret. Hell, even if Ahmadinejad did hate Jews enough
to want to destroy Israel, he'd also have to have the support of
a lot of the people around him in order to do so, because it would
mean the end of all of them as well. 

quote]He said that the Ayatollah had said that "the occupying regime [b]must be[b] wiped away."[/quote]

I know that he is a world leader and your first reaction to a statment like that would be to add: by force if necessary. Based on the past actions of the US and it's seemingly perpetual state of war since the end of WWII, I can understand why you would infer that.

BUT the thing is that the use of force isn't nesecarily implied.

If I said to you that Geroge Bush must be removed from power, I could mean many things. You would give me the benefit of the doubt that I don't mean by force. The first reason you would think that would be because I obviously don't have the means to do it. Because of that, you'll go to the next possible options and think that I could have meant 'the American people must vote him out of power', or 'he must be impeached'.

I agree that a world leader shouldn't be talking like that because of the spin that can be added to it (Statements like those are usually left to professors and journalists), but at the same time one shouldn't imply things that aren't said.

It is only because of his position, and slightly due to your conditioning, that you assume he means through the use of force if necessary. That being said, he's never threatened the use of force whatsoever. Is is honestly worth invading someone over a statement like that?

As for the UN, they have drafted countless resolutions trying to stop Israeli agression, and the US VETOs them almost every time. I'm not going to spend time linking cause I've done it too many times before on here, but just google those resolutions and all the VETOs the US has used against them. 

CharlieBox said:

I know that he is a world leader and your first reaction to a statment like that would be to add: by force if necessary. Based on the past actions of the US and it's seemingly perpetual state of war since the end of WWII, I can understand why you would infer that.

BUT the thing is that the use of force isn't nesecarily implied.

If I said to you that Geroge Bush must be removed from power, I could mean many things. You would give me the benefit of the doubt that I don't mean by force. The first reason you would think that would be because I obviously don't have the means to do it.

And you're not actively seeking out the means to do so. I might look at you with a closer eye if you said that while placing a large order at a gun shop.

I agree that a world leader shouldn't be talking like that because of the spin that can be added to it (Statements like those are usually left to professors and journalists), but at the same time one shouldn't imply things that aren't said.

Like I said, I think it's intentional. I think he and the Ayatollah take one step beyond the border of threatening language and then jump back and do the "hey that's not what we meant" dance.

It is only because of his position, and slightly due to your conditioning, that you assume he means through the use of force if necessary. That being said, he's never threatened the use of force whatsoever. Is is honestly worth invading someone over a statement like that?

Thinly veiled speech + actively seeking nuclear weapon. It should be taken seriously. As much as you like to assume about my conditioning, please end it there and don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about invading Iran.

As for the UN, they have drafted countless resolutions trying to stop Israeli agression, and the US VETOs them almost every time. I'm not going to spend time linking cause I've done it too many times before on here, but just google those resolutions and all the VETOs the US has used against them.

I know about this. It sounded like you were hinting at something much larger than "stopping Israeli aggression." 

Thinly veiled speech + actively seeking nuclear weapon. It should be taken seriously.

First of all, it's nuclear power. There is no proof that he wants nuclear weapons.

Second, have you ever stopped and listened to the way that the US/Irsael talks? The threats they make on a seemingly daily basis? If weapons is in fact what he wants, it's hard to blame the guy.

What he has said pales in comparison to the the threats directed at him.
At least try to be a bit impartial and look at the situation for what it is. 

KNW said:

Are you saying that, maybe, private enterprise doesn't always have the best interest of the public in mind? That's commie talk, gerf.

I've never said that, commie. I've said that free markets with competition and non-collaboration between competing corporations leads to more efficiency in a market. Now, if the market is truly competitive, the efficiency ultimately benefits the consumer.

There are a few drawbacks. Many markets would be most efficient with slavery. So, the government can ban slavery, institute minimum wages. Some markets would give all profits to their stakeholders and owners. Competition prevents those companies from flourishing.

There's enough laws already against fraud, insider trading, collaborating, etc. It's when governments think they need to prop up markets or artificially change ones that would otherwise work better in a free environment (in the long run).

Now, the medical industry is your obvious example of what you want to regulate outside the free market system. I've never quite said that free markets are best for universal care. I've said that regulations for stating prices would be good for them. My biggest qualm is giving a government the final decisions for my personal medical care, which is ultimately what liberals are pushing these days. 

My biggest qualm is giving a government the final decisions for my personal medical care...

Yea about that... Thats not what its doing. 

I've never said that, commie.

One thing I've always wanted to know: What's McCarthy's dick taste like? 

gerf said:

My biggest qualm is giving a government the final decisions for my personal medical care, which is ultimately what liberals are pushing these days.

What's the difference between Government denying your treatment and a private corporation?
Your whole argument hinges on the assumption that a public option is going to deny more treatment than a private company. 

Imo some of Ahmadinejad's bluster is idle chest beating for the benefit of anti western elements in the middle east. Like Kim Jong Il, his diatribes seem calculated to provoke a hostile response.

However, his rhetoric is sharp enough that, when taken along with Iran's nuclear program, should be a subject of concern. 

What's the difference between Government denying your treatment and a private corporation?

better dead than red? 

Speaking of Iran, did any of you read about that Iranian math student who spent 20 minutes telling off Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?
Some Iranians are so surprised that they think it was staged. 

What's the difference between Government denying your treatment and a private corporation?

If the Government has control, then you have no option. If a corporation has a say, I can still get care, and sue them in court, and/or switch coverage if I'm not pleased with them. The Government can decide that they're not allowed to be sued, and you're SOL. Also, once my body is the property of the Government, they'll use that to pass laws requiring weight loss, diets, compulsory care, or, not to be dramatic, lack of care after a certain age.

So yeah, a few price regulations is a MUCH better idea than a bureaucracy deciding how to deal with my mind and body. 

Conservatism: Where every mole hill is a mountain covered in extremely slippery oil. 

The government insurace plan is an option. OPTION. Meaning that private industry will be out there doing its thing but will be regulated a bit more closely. The government option is the supposed to be the lowest common denominator. Functioning somewhat similar to minimum wage. Unless you are using a slippery slope argument, I dont understand where you getting this government control over your body stuff from. 

I dont understand where you getting this government control over your body stuff from.

theyre gonna wipe out competition by undercutting them on price, and then we wont have a choice ZOMG!!!1! 

If a corporation has a say, I can still get care, and sue them in court(tort reform), and/or switch coverage if I'm not pleased with them(pre-existing condition).

The Government needs to keep the people happy or they get fired. 

If a corporation has a say, I can still get care, and sue them in court(tort reform), and/or switch coverage if I'm not pleased with them(pre-existing condition).

holy shit, Swimfan with a good point, sans paranoid schizophrenia. amazing! 

/head 'spodes 

awesome :) 

I am pretty amazed at the general nonsense that people continually believe about Ahmadinejad and Iran.
With the available data on the internet and in print it should be pretty clear that Iran does not have nuclear weapons,
and the evidence that they're trying to make them has been pretty much nonexistence since 2003.

Couple that with even a minute rational assessment of the logistics and consequences of nuking Israel
and you should realize that you have been led to absurd conclusions about other people's lives pretty much exclusively by fear and ignorance.

Mahmoud is no saint, but he isn't Hitler either.
He's a guy that understands the exact tactics being used by our media against him
and how to use them in a similar fashion to drum up fear of a similar (though arguably less absurd) scenario.

Or, you know, he's a hellbent, raving anti-Semite with the support of 60 million suicidal Persians and a finger on the proverbial trigger just waiting. 

Same could be said about the healthcare "debate" SBW 

Or, you know, he's a hellbent, raving anti-Semite with the support of 60 million suicidal Persians and a finger on the proverbial trigger just waiting.

But this makes for a MUCH better action movie. 

death panel jobs pay pretty well 

Everytime I hear death panels I think of some doctor pulling a giant crank that I would pull and a hole would open up underneath them, causing them to fall to their death on to some spikes or something.

Sometimes I think of the gladiator arena too. That'd be more entertaining.

THUMBS DOWN 

gerf said:

My biggest qualm is giving a government the final decisions for my personal medical care, which is ultimately what liberals are pushing these days.

Oh, that's good, because no one outside of your doctor, the private enterprise that runs your hospital, and your insurance company will have any say on what treatment you get.

'Government' people aren't involved in the least when it comes to universal care, other than to make sure the funding is there at the end of the year.

However, on the gambling issue in Ohio, unless every voter there is an uneducated retard, they had to have a valid reason for choosing to go with the monopoly. If the company spent the advertising dollars to get it's message out there and succeed, then it has to be a triumph of capitalism over government intervention, right?

Unless those voters were duped; in which case, this is exactly the kind of reason government intervention in the economy occurs.

So which is it? A triumph of capitalism, or an abuse of the system that proves the reason for invention?