Ahmadinejad says Israel will be wiped out

[ecoli]

Valid points. I admit I'm looking at this more as a "hypothetical" than a "real".

 

Oh, I realize that. I'm just saying that there is a difference between what Ahmadinejad is doing vs. a threat that we can be 100% sure is coming. Obviously we would want to take completely different actions in either case. That deosn't mean we shouldnt take the current situation seriously, though.

[Bettina]

Valid points. I admit I'm looking at this more as a "hypothetical" than a "real".

 

If you were dealing with North Korea, I would agree completely with you, but I am very distrustful of a religiously fanatical backed country like Iran.

 

"Hypothetical" to Iran can easily turn real if "allah" wishes.

 

Bettina

[LazerFazer]

@ecoli:

 

Very valid points you've made there. I just need to clarify a few of my unclear points.

 

I've mentioned 'you' quite a few times, especially with relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I didn't mean YOU personally, but rather I meant, for example, that the Israeli civilians haven't done anything to wrong the Palestinians, and as such they should not be made to suffer because of the actions of their governments.

 

Excuse me' date=' but I didn't mean to make it sound like I'm making fun of the Islamic faith.

[/quote']

 

Oh, sorry. I guess I was worked up and took it the wrong way. *blushes*

 

I wish they authorities of the religion were more vocal and adament about condemming the actions of the terrorist. From what I hear on the news' date=' it sounds like the leaders of the Muslim world (at least in the Middle East) are all leaders of the terrorist organizations. I hope this is not true.

[/quote']

 

Well, that’s a problem. Islam, unlike other religions, does not have a set hierarchy of religious leaders. In effect, everybody is on the same religious leaders, so it's difficult to get a 'leader' to condemn the attacks. I'm assuming you meant a leader of a Muslim nation should condemn the attacks, so I'll respond with that in mind. As far as I know, Muslim leaders have condemned suicide attacks every time they've occurred. I'll try to find some proof of this, but it might take some time.

 

I think outsiders should get involved with rebuilding' date=' but I don't think too many people are trying to move on this one... maybe they think it'll promote bad relations with Israel... I'm just not sure.

[/quote']

 

Very valid point there. The international community needs to take action to help the people of Palestine. How can a nation with 50% of the population living under the poverty line be expected to help themselves out of 'the hole' so to speak. But yes, perhaps they are afraid of provoking not only Israel, but also their staunch ally, the US. And since the US apparently doesn't need approval for anything it does, they could be afraid that they'll be next on the 'To Do' list.

 

The problem is that if Israel takes the initiative and stop responding to terrorist attacks' date=' then many people will die before the terrorists get the message... if they get the message at all.

[/quote']

 

Yup, agreed. What I propose is that an international peace keeping force be established and sent to the region, acting as a buffer and thereby ensuring that a) Israeli forces do not continue with their policy of collective punishment and b) Palestinian suicide bombers do not kill innocent civilians.

 

I'm not making this up' date=' if that's what you're thinking.

[/quote']

 

Oh, don't worry. I also studied the history of the conflict, and I know this did in fact happen.

 

The nation of Israel IS the people of Israel.

 

Well' date=' what I meant was at least he hasn't proposed that the world kill off every single Israeli or Jew. Now THAT would definitely be cause for concern. More so than just calling for the eradication of a state. And yes, I agree that they Israeli people will not be content living under a foreign power, but at least they'll still be alive.

 

But overall, I do agree with most of your points. You're an interesting debate partner. Rational, open-minded, and at least you don't hold any prejudice towards Muslims, Arabs, etc.

 

And yes, if there was a distinct, direct, and certain threat, then I would support the use of either force or economic sanctions to diffuse the situation. The thing with sanctions though is that the local population is also harmed in the process, so more focused economic sanctions are required, rather than the Oil embargo that was placed on Iraq, for example.

 

@bettina

 

Now you are proving to be a tough nut to crack. It seems that your hatred for terrorists has exploded into a blind hatred of all Muslims. You fail to realize that those people calling for the eradication of Israel and of the West are a very small minority within Islam. I wonder if they would even be considered Muslims, considering they are not exactly preaching the ideal form of Islam. You want evidence? Fine, I'll give it to you.

 

Exhibit 1

 

If you want more evidence, check out my previous posts. Or you could read a translation of the Quraan (as I suggested earlier) so that you see first-hand what Islam really teaches. Once again, don't bring your unwarranted, misinformed, sophomoric prejudices where they are not welcome. First get a clue, and then make an INFORMED decision. And no, CNN and FOX news don't count.

 

@Pangloss

 

Some well-thought-out posts there' date=' Lazer.

[/quote']

 

Thanks.

 

I don't mena to put words in your mouth' date=' because you haven't actually said this (so please straighten me out if this isn't what you meant), but why would it be okay to say that we should have stopped Germany before WW2, but it's not okay to stop Iran before they get the bomb? Aren't the two situations roughly and reasonably analogous?

[/quote']

 

Well, I stand corrected. Yes, the situations are analogous. I guess if Iran were to acquire/produce a nuclear weapon, they would probably not hesitate to use it. But what I'm saying is, don't just assume they're making weapons. Give them the benefit of the doubt, at least until there's solid evidence. I would assume that it’s not easy to hide an assembly site for a nuclear weapon. As I said, the enrichment could be for peaceful purposes, such as fuel for power stations.

 

I'm not really taking major issue with you' date=' by the way. I'm enjoying the discussion. I feel like I have to say that, feeling somewhat responsible for raising the Nazi thread-killing spectre, for which I hope I will be forgiven.

[/quote']

 

Oh, don't worry. No hard feelings. I enjoy the debate as well, but I tend to get frustrated when people call Islam a religion of warmongers. And no forgiveness required for inserting the Nazi thread in here. I guess it made me see some sense.

 

Oh, and by the way, I was just wondering. Anybody here living in/lived in the Middle East before? What's your thoughts on Islam, and how do you perceive it?

 

Cheers,

LazerFazer

[ecoli]

@ecoli:

 

Very valid points you've made there. I just need to clarify a few of my unclear points.

 

I've mentioned 'you' quite a few times' date=' especially with relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I didn't mean YOU personally, but rather I meant, for example, that the Israeli civilians haven't done anything to wrong the Palestinians, and as such they should not be made to suffer because of the actions of their governments.[/quote']

 

ahh, gotcha. Acutally, I should have realized that was what you meant. It does suck, but it is always the common people that suffer because the idoicy of governmental desicions.

 

 

 

Oh, sorry. I guess I was worked up and took it the wrong way. *blushes*

no biggie, its a type-based forum... happens all the time.

 

 

Well, that’s a problem. Islam, unlike other religions, does not have a set hierarchy of religious leaders. In effect, everybody is on the same religious leaders, so it's difficult to get a 'leader' to condemn the attacks. I'm assuming you meant a leader of a Muslim nation should condemn the attacks, so I'll respond with that in mind. As far as I know, Muslim leaders have condemned suicide attacks every time they've occurred. I'll try to find some proof of this, but it might take some time.

 

I didn't know that about the lack of hierarchy, thanks for the info. I guess that becomes a major problem, then, when the terrorist leaders speak in the name all Muslims, and then Muslims don't have to voice to speak against that because of the lack of real religious leadership.

 

I would like to see a source that shows Muslims speaking against the terrorist actions, I hope one exists... take all the time you need on that one.

 

Yup, agreed. What I propose is that an international peace keeping force be established and sent to the region, acting as a buffer and thereby ensuring that a) Israeli forces do not continue with their policy of collective punishment and b) Palestinian suicide bombers do not kill innocent civilians.

 

Hmmm, interesting idea. I wonder if the UN would agree to it, or even tougher, would Israel agree. Unfortunately, I can't see them trusting an internation force to keep the peace. The UN has been very short with them for the past few years.

 

Well, what I meant was at least he hasn't proposed that the world kill off every single Israeli or Jew. Now THAT would definitely be cause for concern. More so than just calling for the eradication of a state. And yes, I agree that they Israeli people will not be content living under a foreign power, but at least they'll still be alive.

 

I see what you mean, but I think that he has, in a way, threatned the life of every Israeli, even if he hasn't targeted Jews specifically. War with nuclear weapons targeted to Israel... you can pretty much kiss that region goodbye.

 

You can be sure Israel would use its own nukes too... that doesn't sound pretty to me.

 

In one of the wars (1967, IIRC) Israel was almost pushed to the nuclear option, as a last resort. Luckily they were able to pull of some pretty impressive ground manuvres, so it didn't come to that. But the point is, Israel would use nukes to defend itself, if it came down to it.

 

But overall, I do agree with most of your points. You're an interesting debate partner. Rational, open-minded, and at least you don't hold any prejudice towards Muslims, Arabs, etc.

 

Same to you, my friend... same to you. I have actually enjoyed our debate. I love debating because I'm forced to quesiton my opinions and beliefs... which either stregthens the right ones, or replaces the erroneous ones. This has been one of the better debates I have been in.

 

If I held grudges against Muslims, then I would be forced to label myself a hypocrite! I believe everyones beleifs are sacred to themselves... except when they embrace fanatism to a point of intolerance for others. And I have a few good friends that are Muslim, so I don't think they'd like me very much if I didn't tolerate their religion.

 

And yes, if there was a distinct, direct, and certain threat, then I would support the use of either force or economic sanctions to diffuse the situation. The thing with sanctions though is that the local population is also harmed in the process, so more focused economic sanctions are required, rather than the Oil embargo that was placed on Iraq, for example.

 

right, I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt the local population unless faced with absolutely no other choice.

[Bettina]

@Once again, don't bring your unwarranted, misinformed, sophomoric prejudices where they are not welcome. First get a clue, and then make an INFORMED decision. And no, CNN and FOX news don't count.

 

Hmmm....No-one made you a moderator so please don't tell me what I can and cannot post. When a mod tells me to stop...I will stop but until then, I will post my opinion.

 

I am also a little unclear which side your on, but CNN is good enough for me as a news source as the BBC seems good enough for you. The following link describes the protest against america and israel in the millions.

 

I see Islam and religion in general for what it is, but Islam is by far the worst.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384264.stm

 

Bettina

[Douglas]

First get a clue, and then make an INFORMED decision. And no, CNN and FOX [/b']news don't count.

On the political spectrum, CNN is left, and FOX is right. Do we need to go to Aljazeera ?

[ecoli]

Hmmm....No-one made you a moderator so please don't tell me what I can and cannot post. When a mod tells me to stop...I will stop but until then' date=' I will post my opinion.

 

I am also a little unclear which side your on, but CNN is good enough for me as a news source as the BBC seems good enough for you. The following link describes the protest against america and israel in the millions.

 

I see Islam and religion in general for what it is, but Islam is by far the worst.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384264.stm

 

Bettina

 

 

I don't think posting that link is helping your argument very much... according to the BBC, Palestine, Egypt and Turkey have all spoken out against Ahmadinejad's words. I particularly like this quote...

 

"In principle, we are way beyond this type of political rhetoric that shows the weakness of the Iranian government," said an official at the Egyptian embassy in London.

 

I think this guy is right... it definately shows a weakness on the part of Iran that they can't get it together.

 

"What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map," - Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat

 

I completely agree. This is getting ridiculous. The Iranians are really ready to die for this cause... and they will if it comes to fruition.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that Palestine and Egypt spoke out against that position.

[ecoli]

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that Palestine and Egypt spoke out against that position.

 

Niether did I until Bettina posted that link... it's comforting to know. It bodes well for Israel's relationship with it's neighbors.

[Tiger's Eye]

Hehehehe. I agree with you guys in saying that there is a great discussion going about. Very interesting reads (we've got some essays going on here! )

 

Right-o....

 

What about 'the people not of the book' hindus' date=' buddhists, etc. ? Religions are no different than race, culture, etc. Another way to classify people in a group, which make it easy to justify killing them as a group. Especially when said group is regarded as inferior.

[/quote']

 

That's an excellent question, and honestly, I do not know the answer to it. Sry. I don't think that the Muslims would have any reason to kill hindus, buddhists (isn't this a philosophy? I mean, there is no god. It's a way of living, so to speak), etc. since they really haven't done anything. But still, very good question. . In addressing another point that you brought up, I'm not so sure that the Quraan says anything about any other group (or religion) being inferior to Islam. As I recall, one good example used in this forum was that religion is like a product that is advertised to be the best for everyone. Yes, that may be true, but at the same time, there is no religion (or product; i take that back, MOST products) that says another religion is inferior, as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

I said MOST civilized countries' date=' Saudi and Iran are civilized, so they should consider going from a theocracy to a democracy. Countries don't have rights, people do.

[/quote']

 

Perhaps it would be fair to say that Saudi and Iran should consider to change from a theocracy to a democracy, however Saudi (not too sure bout Iran) is a country that was first united by it's religion of Islam, which is why the government was heavily created upon Islamic Law in the first place (if my knowledge is correct). To change it's government would take a very long time and would be very difficult. I'm not too sure how some of the Muslim community would take such a change. I could be wrong, maybe there would be no problem at all. But then again....ahhh, so confusing When I said it was the country's right, I was talking about the country's national sovereignty (sp?), since yes, it's people who have rights. However, the country does have certain power within its own borders: the power to create and implement the laws that they wish to have, power to control its national issues how they want to, etc. (though some country's totally abuse this power...). This national sovereignty should be respected, so i mean, if they want to remain being a theocracy, then so be it. It's a national issue, not really an international one.

 

Again, cheers ( ) on the great points.

 

Hmmm....No-one made you a moderator so please don't tell me what I can and cannot post. When a mod tells me to stop...I will stop but until then' date=' I will post my opinion.

 

I am also a little unclear which side your on, but CNN is good enough for me as a news source as the BBC seems good enough for you. The following link describes the protest against america and israel in the millions.

 

I see Islam and religion in general for what it is, but Islam is by far the worst.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4384264.stm

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Of course everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Perhaps LazerFazer’s words were a little harsh… (unwarranted, misinformed, sophomoric…what vocab LOL), however, I can understand his frustration. I suppose that everyone is naturally biased, but I do think that you may be missing the two sides of the picture. You think that because the leader of Iran declared that Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’ in the name of Islam, that this means that all Muslims think the same way. I don’t know how else to tell you, but this is not the case. Until you actually come to really understand the religion of Islam, I don’t think you can make a truly justified opinion about it, though, again, you are entitled to your own opinion.

 

As far as media is concerned, I’m sure CNN is just as valid to you as BBC is valid to us. However, media does still have its biases. Like, for example, I know that CNN in the US (I’m not too sure what it’s called) is somewhat different from the CNN International that we get elsewhere in the world. I found differences quite striking, so this also may hinder the info that one may get. I dunno, sometimes I think that CNN is being ‘leaned’ on, so to speak, by a greater power (just like the Egyptian newspapers ). Power of the press is more like power of the government. I watch both CNN and BBC, but I tend to like BBC better. Gives more…widespread opinions. But all in all, no news station/source is perfect.

 

Niether did I until Bettina posted that link... it's comforting to know. It bodes well for Israel's relationship with it's neighbors.

 

Yup. Definitely is true. I think that Palestine also condemned Iran’s comments, saying that it “did recognize Israel”. Oh, here is what was said: "Palestinians recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments." -- Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

 

These are just some newsflashes (relatively) in case you guys were interested.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4387852.stm (Iran 'not planning Israel attack' ) Interesting…

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm

 

L8er,

 

Tiger

 

*Applause for ecoli and LazerFazer! You guys have made excellent posts and make this thread worth reading *

[Skye]

The problem is that the Palestinian Authority doesn't speak for groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah.

[JohnB]

While I can't really add anything to this debate...

 

I would like to say that it is especially pleasant to see this topic debated so rationally. I have seen many similar threads in many forums and virtually all descend into an "asbestos suit required" type thread.

 

I would just like to commend all participants for their civility and debating skills.

 

Cheers.

[YT2095]

IMO, bellicose rhetoric such as that by the Iranian leader, is little different to that used elsewhere in the world, consider the "Axis of Evil" comment made by Bush not so long ago, that`s as equaly pugnacious.

To me it demonstrates imaturity on the part of these leaders, and therefore, such comments are better ignored

[LazerFazer]

Alright, I don't have much time, so I'll try to be quick.

 

Well, I don't think it should be ignored. While these comments may demonstrate immaturity on the parts of the leadrs, the same comments sometimes betray their intentions of the leader. Although in this case, I question the ability of Iran to invade, and hold control of, Israel. Also, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments MIGHT be hinting at a possible nuclear strike, assuming they DO acquire at least one nuclear warhead. In any case, I doubt the Iranian president is so blind to the facts that he would even CONSIDER an attack on a staunch ally of the US. It would be suicide, in all senses of the word.

 

@JohnB

Cheers for the vote of approval

 

@skye

I don't quite get your point. How would the Palestinian Authority fit in to the equation with Iran and Israel?

 

@Tiger's Eye

Cheers also for the vote of approval. Hope there's many more threads like this that are 'worth reading' . You also made some excellent posts there and contributed to the discussion. I'm in agreement with all your points, except one... but I'll address that later.

 

@bettina

Thanks for bringing in that news article. See, you found your own evidence of so-called 'terrorist' nations actually condemning the comments made by Mr. Ahmadinejad. As for me not being a moderator, thats true, but I was just recommending that you do a bit of research on Islam before making certain comments that you HAVE made over the past few days. The only thing I can tell you is that the leader of Iran does not represent the views all Muslims around the world. Don't take the comments of one man as your base for judging all Muslims, because it just isn't true.

 

LazerFazer

[YT2095]

The only thing I can tell you is that the leader of Iran does not represent the views all Muslims around the world. Don't take the comments of one man as your base for judging all Muslims' date=' because it just isn't true.

 

LazerFazer[/quote']

 

perhaps you misunderstand some typical eveyday parlance, to state that England has taken this stance or America holds this position, or indeed if Iran states such-and-such etc...

it`s USUALY understood that the LEADER has taken this position and not the whole country, there were millions of people here against the war in Iraq for example. so I think she understands this

 

simply put, if the representative is a jackass, it doesn`t mean the rest of us are even though when worded, it can sound like that if taken literaly

[ecoli]

@skye

I don't quite get your point. How would the Palestinian Authority fit in to the equation with Iran and Israel?

 

He said that because the article mentioned that some PA leaders spoke out against Iran's comments. However, the PA's sentiments do not refelct on Hamas and Hezbollah, two known terrorist organizations.

[Severian]

The conference title seems OK to me. Since Zionism is a form of nationalism and I see nationalism as a bad thing, I think "A World without Zionism" would be better than we currently have. The remarks about wiping Israel of the face of the Earth were a bit out of line though.

[ecoli]

The conference title seems OK to me. Since Zionism is a form of nationalism and I see nationalism as a bad thing, I think "A World without Zionism" would be better than we currently have. The remarks about wiping Israel of the face of the Earth were a bit out of line though.

 

While I know what you mean about nationalism being bad, I would argue that a little nationalism actually helps a country.

 

However, in this case I don't beleive the conference that was held was about eliminating nationalism for the global and regional good. I'm pretty sure it was about wiping out the current Zionist movement AKA the country of Israel.

[YT2095]

what`s wrong with Nationalism?

[LazerFazer]

it`s USUALY understood that the LEADER has taken this position and not the whole country' date=' there were millions of people here against the war in Iraq for example. so I think she understands this

[/quote']

 

While I know this, and obviously so do you, it appears that bettina doesn't. SHe seems to be making most or all of her inferences about Islam based on the comments of one person, and she is rejecting any other evidence that we've proposed contradicting her claims. So I just want to clarify that for her.

 

LazerFazer

[Skye]

@skye

I don't quite get your point. How would the Palestinian Authority fit in to the equation with Iran and Israel?

My post was in reply to the posts discussing the PA rejecting Ahmadinejad's statements. I meant that the PA doesn't have the ability to control the militant groups, so you can't put too much weight in its words.

[bascule]

The conference title seems OK to me. Since Zionism is a form of nationalism and I see nationalism as a bad thing, I think "A World without Zionism" would be better than we currently have. The remarks about wiping Israel of the face of the Earth were a bit out of line though.

 

Zionism is "a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine," therefore "A World without Zionism" would entail... wiping Israel off the map...

[ecoli]

what`s wrong with Nationalism?

 

too much nationalism can lead to ethnocentrism and imperialism... but nationalism is a great tool for uniting behind a country or a goal. For example, there was a great nationalistic effort to put a man on the moon, and for the human genome project. It's the kind of thing americans need to switch to alternative energies.

[YT2095]

Riiight, so it`s ethnocentrism and imperialism that are bad things then?

 

it did make me wonder, because I see nothing wrong with Nationalism at all

[ecoli]

Riiight, so it`s ethnocentrism and imperialism that are bad things then?

 

I can't tell whether you're being serious or not. Just to be same I won't give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Ethnocentrism is the belief that you're race (but it could be country, nationality, w/e) is superior. This belief could cause one to look down upon a member of a different national group, and lead to a wish to dominate over it (leading to imperialism) Think China and the spheres of influence it was carved into by US, Europe and Japan.

 

As for imperialism, that's pretty obvious. It's bad if you're the one being taken over. But Imperialism is usually driven by nationalism. A feeling that your country has the right to take over a different country or territory because your way is better then those savages.

 

This could lead to some nasty effects, like US imperialistic policy in the Philipeans... the indegenous peoples there were treated very poorly by the soldiers... especially for sex.