Who Told Vorderman People Care What She...
News2 mins ago
The right to exist
If Iran is found to be developing a nuclear weapons program ,would you condemn Israel if it got in first and obliterated the whole damn place? It would send a pretty convincing message to all the other sheet wearers.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
By the way, Im-a-dinnerjacket never actually said that thing about wiping Israel of the map. A complete mis-translation.
To quote his exact words in farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Pretty much what Bush/Blair said about Saddam and what the monkey man is now saying about Iran.
But hey, why bother with facts when you can buy into the crap fed you by the self serving power and money hungry maniacs in the US administration.
To quote his exact words in farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Pretty much what Bush/Blair said about Saddam and what the monkey man is now saying about Iran.
But hey, why bother with facts when you can buy into the crap fed you by the self serving power and money hungry maniacs in the US administration.
This might be of interest:
Right up to when she joined Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council a few weeks following 9/11, Hillary Mann had conducted secret negotiations with an Iranian diplomat at the U.N. This diplomat had signaled Tehran's willingness to "cooperate unconditionally" with America's impending retaliation against Iran's neighbor to the east, Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, whom the Iranians despised almost as much as their immediate neighbor to the west, Saddam Hussein.
Mann saw it as an offer that "could have changed the world."
Flynt Leverett, sitting high up in the State Department at the time, saw similar offers coming across his desk from longtime enemies Syria, Libya and Sudan.
Were these rogue regimes looking to advance American interests?
Are you kidding?
But, just like Iran, these states were hoping to take advantage of the suddenly changed strategic circumstances to come in from the cold and rehabilitate their relations with an angry America, something only Libya later achieved by surrendering its nuke program.
With a Bush administration looking to shake up the Middle East's calcified dictatorships by applying a "big bang" to the region, Iran's offer of unconditional cooperation could have been put to magnificent use in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But the White House decided to pass on Iran's offer, confirming that regime's worst suspicions. Tehran subsequently - and quite rationally - accelerated its pursuit of the bomb as protection from anticipated U.S. invasion.
Found here:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/oct/28/doing -it-the-hard-way-with-iran/
As always, things are rarely as they seem.
Right up to when she joined Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council a few weeks following 9/11, Hillary Mann had conducted secret negotiations with an Iranian diplomat at the U.N. This diplomat had signaled Tehran's willingness to "cooperate unconditionally" with America's impending retaliation against Iran's neighbor to the east, Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, whom the Iranians despised almost as much as their immediate neighbor to the west, Saddam Hussein.
Mann saw it as an offer that "could have changed the world."
Flynt Leverett, sitting high up in the State Department at the time, saw similar offers coming across his desk from longtime enemies Syria, Libya and Sudan.
Were these rogue regimes looking to advance American interests?
Are you kidding?
But, just like Iran, these states were hoping to take advantage of the suddenly changed strategic circumstances to come in from the cold and rehabilitate their relations with an angry America, something only Libya later achieved by surrendering its nuke program.
With a Bush administration looking to shake up the Middle East's calcified dictatorships by applying a "big bang" to the region, Iran's offer of unconditional cooperation could have been put to magnificent use in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But the White House decided to pass on Iran's offer, confirming that regime's worst suspicions. Tehran subsequently - and quite rationally - accelerated its pursuit of the bomb as protection from anticipated U.S. invasion.
Found here:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/oct/28/doing -it-the-hard-way-with-iran/
As always, things are rarely as they seem.
There are not many countries in the world that support Israel. Their greed in land grabbing has exceeded all expectations. Only the USA backs them up but most Arab nations know from the conference a fair deal with never be struck. It may be left to the next summit conference which will take place in Russia.
For Israel to attack Iran may meet stronger resistance than originally for the latest defensive ground to air missiles have been installed in Iran by Russia so the conflict could easily escalate.
For Israel to attack Iran may meet stronger resistance than originally for the latest defensive ground to air missiles have been installed in Iran by Russia so the conflict could easily escalate.
I think a good analogy can be made with the above and our Police Force.
A standard British policeman is authorised, or licensed to carry a truncheon (baton) and a form of either gas or pepper spray. A baton is classified as "offensive" full stop if a civilian had one in public. That means there are few little defences in law to get them off the hook. Pepper spray is actually classified as a firearm. Also remember many now carry proper guns.
Why??? Becaused they are deemed in law to be moral and upstanding and have sworn to the crown to use these weapons with just cause etc.
However, it must be said that some coppers are bent and possibly just as criminal as to whom the weapons are meant for. But on the whole they are not abused or used illegally. Even door bouncers have to be licensed nowadays, but are not allowed weapons. So it is fair to say, near enough everybody in security has some form of vetting and training to give them a right in law to use certain tactics.
Iran has no moral code. That is not a racist nor value laden statement, it is a fact. Putting Englands' problems aside and horrific Christian acts in History, even marxists will probably admit Iran has atrocious human rights and overall is not a nice place.
Iran is therefore like a criminal in the UK. Do we want criminals to have batons and pepper spray? No we bloody don't!! Why? because when they do have them they are used for their criminal means and gains and right over wrong must be adhered to. The good guys must come down on the filth who carry weapons.
Even if a marxist is tolerant of islam, are you telling me they really trust this nations? Would you trust a rehabiltated violent thug with a weapon? A rehabiltated kiddy fiddler with your child??? I doubt it very much.
Therefore you can not let this rogue, barbaric nation have the bomb. They have no moral fibre. Yes, you may want the
A standard British policeman is authorised, or licensed to carry a truncheon (baton) and a form of either gas or pepper spray. A baton is classified as "offensive" full stop if a civilian had one in public. That means there are few little defences in law to get them off the hook. Pepper spray is actually classified as a firearm. Also remember many now carry proper guns.
Why??? Becaused they are deemed in law to be moral and upstanding and have sworn to the crown to use these weapons with just cause etc.
However, it must be said that some coppers are bent and possibly just as criminal as to whom the weapons are meant for. But on the whole they are not abused or used illegally. Even door bouncers have to be licensed nowadays, but are not allowed weapons. So it is fair to say, near enough everybody in security has some form of vetting and training to give them a right in law to use certain tactics.
Iran has no moral code. That is not a racist nor value laden statement, it is a fact. Putting Englands' problems aside and horrific Christian acts in History, even marxists will probably admit Iran has atrocious human rights and overall is not a nice place.
Iran is therefore like a criminal in the UK. Do we want criminals to have batons and pepper spray? No we bloody don't!! Why? because when they do have them they are used for their criminal means and gains and right over wrong must be adhered to. The good guys must come down on the filth who carry weapons.
Even if a marxist is tolerant of islam, are you telling me they really trust this nations? Would you trust a rehabiltated violent thug with a weapon? A rehabiltated kiddy fiddler with your child??? I doubt it very much.
Therefore you can not let this rogue, barbaric nation have the bomb. They have no moral fibre. Yes, you may want the
Wardminter - Iran does indeed have a moral code - it is just not the same morals as us.
I don't believe you have morals - you have on various occasions mentioned that you would like to torture certain people, you show a lack of understanding of many foreign cultures and you are highly offensive to many people.
I am sure you believe yourself to be moral though.
Again, you claim to be making factual statements whereas you are giving your opinion.
I don't believe you have morals - you have on various occasions mentioned that you would like to torture certain people, you show a lack of understanding of many foreign cultures and you are highly offensive to many people.
I am sure you believe yourself to be moral though.
Again, you claim to be making factual statements whereas you are giving your opinion.
the Americans have changed their minds. They think now that the Iranians gave up the programme years ago. Just as well they realised this before igniting yet another war
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/asia/ci a.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/asia/ci a.php
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News4 mins ago
B B C Late To The Party And Of Course...
News7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
