Thats the one The reason russ 'ignores' me , is because he got shown up for being a bit of a ****wit tbh He cites the UN for being the be all and end all in terms of 'truth' yet argues against the very same UN when it came to the Israeli atrocities etc And dont get him started on deflection , I dont think the old fella knows what it means. He asks you a direct question and when you answer it and show him up he calls it deflection, then when you ask him to show what youy have deflected he will say he is ignoring you, then come back and post funny as **** he is
Swing and a miss Dev. Your discreditation attempt is noted as you not having anything more worthwhile to debate for your stance so you are reduced to trying to discredit character
Not so jacky, you have been blabbering on about this "misinterpretation" for months and now you are accusing people of delibarate mistranslation of a phrase which has not been denied by the man who stands accused of saying it. The fact that he has not cleared the matter up speaks volumes, except to a select few who are in a state of denial about what was "Inferred". The whole world can see what Iran are all about but you have decided in your infinite wisdom - despite abundant eveidence to the contrary - that Iran and it's rulers don't want to see the end of Israel. It's a sick joke and it does you no credit to perpetuate this lie about a translation gone awry.
Are you deliberately ignoring thing I post or just naturally ignorant. Go back to the Iran/Israel thread where you will find a post by me showing his denial of what he was inferred to have said and his further clarification that his desired "regime change" was much in the same mould as that of the end of the soviet union. on the subject of al-jazeera here is a very concerning article further supporting what I have been saying. What is being played out with Iran is a game of political chess over who has the political sway over the region and any war started will be for that purpose and while being justified by spurious claims of atomic weapon building that will not be the reason. Another Iraq springs to mind http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/201112411011569936.html
You have to be careful JI. If you hand him his arse on a plate russ will put you on ignore dont say I didnt warn you
No, the conversation about it earlier, maybe on another thread, put it in my head so i decided to have a look
Is "Regime change" now ok as long as it's the Iranians threatening to do it? Were you not anti Regime change when it was the west in Iraq or Libya? As for me being ignorant, that's as may be but at least i'm not in denial, and as I said earlier I always have you to keep me straight on Israel and Iran and who the "baddies" are.
Ps Jacky, any "Proof" that the Guardian mistranslated the words "deliberately" or is that just another in your long line of paranoid ramblings?
*sigh* Forget not getting the right end of the stick in this debate, you havent grasped the stick at all. The Guardian had a story about how media outlets had mistranslated Ahmadinejad, not my "paranoid" ramblings that they had mistranslated him. Catch up please, this old ground is tedious and what are you prattling on about am I pro or anti regime change. You can't just generally be pro or anti regime change in all cases. Each case is unique and must be treated indicidually based on its own merits and pretenses. But it was a clever attempt at character assassination but I am going to need you to back it up by showing me where I have advocated regime change in Israel. I haven't, I have basically just shown him being mistranslated to be shown to be saying something much more serious than he actually was. Also did you read the al jazeera article. So the Israeli lobby in Washington's biggest concern is not Iran acquiring the nuclear technonolgy, but them acquiring it and not using it and so showing up their claims and hot air for what it is??? Sort of blows your entire stance to smithereens don't you think
So go on commit yourself Jacky, is he right in his call for regime change in Israel? If so why? Is Israel controlled by some tinpot dicatorship or is it run as a democracy? what's his stance on the uprisings of the Arab spring? What are his views on Syria? Iran under this nutjob sees only Israel as "evil", any nation which is Muslim and who runs a similar intolerant regime will be welcomed with open arms in Iran as long as they want an end to Israel. Let him take on Israel on his own and see how he does, I suspect we will have another 6 day or Yom Kippur war but moreso. The man is a ****ing oaf and a holocaust denier and the fact that he actually has people in the west believing his ****e saddens me greatly. He has infuriated many nations with his racist/bigoted/xenophobic rants, but I suppose he was mistranslated on purpose by the UN interpreters too.
Dear oh dear. Again with the same rubbish. I have taken no stance on regime change. I was basically showing that he was mistranslated, how are you not getting this. I am demonstrating how media outlets have lied and are untrustworthy. Just because you live in a "your either for or against" world doesnt mean everyone exists in one. You are confusing my defence of Iran for an attack on Israel. Another example about how your whole approach has been flawed from the start.
I am getting it Jacky, you are not so i''ll explain. You are arguing that he was misquoted and that he did not want Israel wiped off the map, but you now say that all he wants is "regime change"? Ok so far? Is he right to call for regime change or not? And if he was part of the mob who forced that change through what do you suppose he would do to Israeli citizens? Would they be allowed to remain in Israel or would they be shunted off in railway carriages to repeat an earler chapter in Jewish history (which he has openly disputed is fact)? What IS THE DIFFERENCE between Regime Change and wiping Zionism from the pages of history? Was he behind the attacks on UK embassies or wasn't he, how likely is it that he was involved in some way? If you believe that there was no tacic approval given WHAT EXACTLY are you basing that opinion on? I'm all ears.
please log in to view this image Banner on side of Shahab-3 Missile says: Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world. Some of the missiles had banners saying, Israel should be wiped off the map and We will trample America under our feet, Death to America, and Death to Israel. The banners and verbal attacks prompted a number of European military attaches, from France, Italy, Greece, and Poland, to leave the parade. One diplomat is quoted as saying, there was a common position among the European Union members that, if the military parade included any slogans that attacked our allies, we would leave. Leaders around the world on Thursday condemned a call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel be "wiped off the map," and a top Iranian official said that mass demonstrations in his country on Friday would rebuff the rising criticism from abroad. "I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to . . . wipe out another country," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a summit outside London of the 25 leaders of the European Union's member states. Blair said Ahmadinejad's comment was "completely and totally unacceptable." In a joint statement, the E.U. leaders "condemned in the strongest terms" the Iranian president's call, saying it "will cause concern about Iran's role in the region and its future intentions." President Jacques Chirac of France told reporters that Ahmadinejad risked Iran "being left on the outside of other nations." Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Israel, called the Iranian president's statement "unacceptable." The statement was widely reported in the Arab world; leaders there reacted for the most part with silence. Most Arab countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel. But the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said, according to the Associated Press: "We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and . . . we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable." U.S. and European leaders have grown increasingly worried about the bellicose attitude of Iran at a time when it is pursuing a nuclear program that they have said may be intended to produce a nuclear weapon. The E.U. has engaged in contentious and so far unsuccessful negotiations with Iran to try to persuade it to drop parts of the program that could be used to make bombs. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and aimed at generating electric power for its citizens. Iran's foreign minister said mass public demonstrations were planned for Friday in Tehran, the Iranian capital, to show support for the country's president. Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted on state-run television saying that the "Zionist regime is illegitimate" and that "the world will see the anger of the Islamic world against this regime." Ahmadinejad made his remarks in a speech Wednesday to 4,000 students attending a conference called "The World Without Zionism." He was quoting the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the 1979 Islamic revolution that established Iran's theocratic government and made fierce opposition to Israel a matter of political orthodoxy. Ahmadinejad also called the 1948 establishment of Israel, on territory also claimed by Palestinians, the fall of "the last trench of Islam." Virulent anti-Israel sentiment remains strong in the hard-line circles from which Ahmadinejad emerged to win the presidential election in June. "Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade in Tehran a month ago. Six of the missiles, which, with a 1,250 mile range, could reach Israel, were the high point of the parade. "We Will Trample America Under Our Feet," read another banner. The landslide that carried Ahmadinejad into office was grounded in promises of economic improvement, tapping broad public appetite for social justice similar to the sentiments that fueled the 1979 overthrow of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Since taking office in August, Ahmadinejad has moved to share the wealth from Iran's oil exports, offering legislation to establish what officials call a "love fund" to distribute cash to newlyweds. But as a foreign policy novice, he has stumbled frequently in dealings with the outside world. The strident tone of a speech he delivered to the U.N. General Assembly in September alienated many of the diplomats who Iran was trying to influence before a possible vote on its nuclear program. "He has not yet moved from a leader of an ideological faction to the presidency of the country," said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a political science professor at Tehran University who has known Ahmadinejad since childhood. By contrast, Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was known for erudition and for softening Iran's international image with frequent calls for "a dialogue between civilizations." At Friday prayers last week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, appeared to subtly distance himself from the new president and at the same time urged Iranians to give his government time "to get on with it." "It is a short period of time since the establishment of the government, some two or two-and-a-half months," Khamenei said. He then continued on to attack Israel and the "war-mongering and extremist American administration, attempting to create an empire and to dominate the world." In Tel Aviv, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said: "I don't see such a crazy declaration being made by a head of state, a member of the United Nations. . . . It is unbearable. He cannot remain a member." In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Iran must "start behaving in a responsible manner as a member of the international community, cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, end its support for terror, and stop oppressing its own people." Still maintain it's just Ahmadinejad "lost in translation", Jacky?
Where did you copy and paste that from? I cannot read persian so I cannot read the slogan on the missile, can you translate it from what is said? Am I to rely on whatever the source was for that article for a truthful interperetation on what is there so i will need to know the source. Still none of you have commented on the revelations that the US Israeli lobby recognise, their words not mine, Iran would never commit national suicide by using a nuclear device. Also they further state that their primary concern is that Iran will acquire the technology and not use it showing up their claims of doom for what they are. Basically they want war with Iran before they acquire the technology not out of fear of them using it but of them not using it and being internationally shown up to be the war mongering liars they are.
I have posted that photo before Jacky but we are dealing in semantics and as I already said i'm willing to accept that he did not say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, but he did say that he wanted to wipe the Zionist regime from the pages of history (or in your words, change the regime). Do you think any Israelis would be left after he "changed the regime" or is he planning a new holocaust? Why do Iran require Nuclear weapons? To defend themselves from Israel? Seems a bit pointless seeing as how Israel have shown no interest in Nuking Iran. In fact i'm hard pressed to think of any reason why Israel would contemplate any such action, as for them being war mongering liars I seem to recall the last few wars involving Israel were started by their neighbours. Would I be correct?
Iran with nuke = no US invasion but proves the US and the Israeli's correct. Iran without Nuke = US invasion but proves the US and the Israeli's wrong. Iran's buggered either way, really.
