quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

but the strength of the points leads to the conclusion that his statement as reported in the media at the time was essentially correct.

That's debatable. I see no clear path one way or another and since I'm for the benefit of the doubt because they couldn't say for sure nor did they ask.

"The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no."

I am saying no also. He doesn't have the power to do anything in a real way, he's a low man on the totem pole concerning war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

It might interest you to discover that the source Anax relies upon for his claims about Ahedinnerjacket's alleged words is Ethan Bonner of the New York Times. There is reason to doubt Mr Bonner's objectivity in this matter.

Mr Bonner's son is (or was until quite recently) a serving member of the Israeli Defence Forces. Mr Bonner has a "financial/contractual relationship with an Israeli public relations firm, Lone Star Communications, which is believed to cater to the Israeli political right". (http://usfopo.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/another-day-another-nyt-ethan-bronner-scandal/)

For an in depth analysis of Bonner's delicate position, check out this piece by Max Blumenthal in the Columbia Journalism Review.

No wonder they want to censor the net. :)

I question the honesty of the media in general these days.. When you have things like that and the CIA admitting they had people inside news groups and paper media offices disseminating stories.. well hell who do you believe these days?

This whole war bit is ludicrous on many levels and that being one, more being the economic issue, no evidence for a nuke and Israel themselves saying butt the fuck out we can take care of ourselves, a person has to question the sanity of it all.

I'm gonna go with Israel and saneness.

Thanks for the link, I'll pass it off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

In a nutshell the answer is "no". If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word? Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel. The "off the map" remark in 2005 was just one to which the article relates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
It seems you accept various conspiracy theories, e.g. claiming the US planned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11

Something was planned even before WTC 1 & 2 were designed to catastrophically collapse.

Something was planned when first Al Qaeda reared its head.

Afghanistan was definitely selected as the target when Al Qaeda took root there.

Al Qaeda only could take root in Afghanistan because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

If I recall correctly, before invading Afghanistan the Soviets asked the USA whether they had a problem with that. The USA kinda indicated that they did not object. Then after the invasion the USA said: "We do object. You misinterpreted our not-objection", and subsequently the USA started to finance Al Qaeda. So clearly the USA had no part in the invasion, and the Soviets were innocent as well because they had USA permission to invade.

quote:

Countercoup

The Struggle for the Control of Iran

---

Author: Kermit Roosevelt
Published: 1979, McGraw-Hill
217 pages, black and white photos
ISBN: 0070535906

---

Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran is the controversial memoir of CIA man Kermit Roosevelt (aka Kim Roosevelt), grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. The book recounts his role in overthrowing democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh with triumphant zeal.

quote:

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time. Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere. It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan. One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair. The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
...and are probably the largest sponsors of international terrorism today that fund Hamas and Hizbullah.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Something was planned even before WTC 1 & 2 were designed to catastrophically collapse.

Something was planned when first Al Qaeda reared its head.

Afghanistan was definitely selected as the target when Al Qaeda took root there.

Al Qaeda only could take root in Afghanistan because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

If I recall correctly, before invading Afghanistan the Soviets asked the USA whether they had a problem with that. The USA kinda indicated that they did not object. Then after the invasion the USA said: "We do object. You misinterpreted our not-objection", and subsequently the USA started to finance Al Qaeda. So clearly the USA had no part in the invasion, and the Soviets were innocent as well because they had USA permission to invade.
Now, when two guilty parties are both screaming loudly that they are innocent, covering for each other and themselves, I am starting to get suspicious for I do not suffer from a lack of paranoia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
In a nutshell the answer is "no". If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word? Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel. The "off the map" remark in 2005 was just one to which the article relates.

Seems Orthodox Rabbis want Isreal off the map too!

Do you think they supported Hitler too?

[edited out a pointless number of images]

I do feel the pain.

Nah not really LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
In a nutshell the answer is "no". If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word? Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel. The "off the map" remark in 2005 was just one to which the article relates.

Seems Orthodox Rabbis want Isreal off the map too!

Do you think they supported Hitler too?

[edited out a pointless number of images]

I do feel the pain.

Nah not really LOL

R0 your blinding nonsense continues. You are a remarkably repetitive individual who has cited the Naturei Karta again and again and again.

Due to their extreme hatred of Israel, they are often wheeled out by pro-Palestinians to misrepresent what is in reality broad Jewish support of Israel. The Neturai Karta are in fact a tiny minority of Ultra-Orthodox extremists http://www.reutrcohen.com/2008/07/neturei-karta-fringe-group-with-close.html who received funding from the PLO http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/67415 and some openly served in the PA http://www.urielheilman.com/nkarta.html itself. Some have even suggested the Holocaust was deserved as Jews had turned away from their God, believe Hitler offered Jews a route out through Spain, that Zionists goaded Hitler into committing the Holocaust, and seem to subscribe to the common conspiracy theories that Jews control the world which R0 no doubt appreciates. They even lambasted the inncoent Jewish family killed in Mumbai in 2008. This sort of stuff earned them virtual excommunication from mainstream Judaism some years ago. Not exactly representative of Judaism I would think lol.

quote:

Neturei Karta stresses what is said in the mussaf Shemona Esrei of Yom Tov, that because of their sins the Jewish people went into exile from the Land of Israel ("umipnei chatoeinu golinu meiartzeinu"). Additionally, they maintain the view – basing it on the Babylonian Talmud [9] – that any form of forceful recapture of the Land of Israel is a violation of divine will. They believe that the restoration of the Land of Israel to the Jews should only happen with the coming of the Messiah, not by self-determination. Neturei Karta believes that the exile of the Jews can only end with the arrival of the Messiah, and that human attempts to establish Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel are sinful. In Neturei Karta's view, Zionism is a presumptuous affront against God. Among their arguments against Zionism was a Talmudic discussion about portions in the Bible regarding a pact known as the Three Oaths made between God, the Jewish people, and the nations of the world, when the Jews were sent into exile.

One provision of the pact was (1) that the Jews would not rebel against the non-Jewish world that gave them sanctuary; a second was (2) that they would not immigrate en masse to the Land of Israel. In return the (3) gentile nations promised not to persecute the Jews. By rebelling against this pact, they argued, the Jewish People were engaging in rebellion against God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

As far as Mossadeq goes R0, the CIA deposed him and put the Shah back in power because he was planning to nationalise the assets of the (mostly foreign) oil companies in Iran. For some reason, your then government weren't very taken with that idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


As far as Mossadeq goes R0, the CIA deposed him and put the Shah back in power because he was planning to nationalise the assets of the (mostly foreign) oil companies in Iran. For some reason, your then government weren't very taken with that idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
In a nutshell the answer is "no". If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word? Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel. The "off the map" remark in 2005 was just one to which the article relates.

Seems Orthodox Rabbis want Isreal off the map too!

Do you think they supported Hitler too?

[edited out a pointless number of images]

I do feel the pain.

Nah not really LOL

R0 your blinding nonsense continues. You are a remarkably repetitive individual who has cited the Naturei Karta again and again and again.

Due to their extreme hatred of Israel, they are often wheeled out by pro-Palestinians to misrepresent what is in reality broad Jewish support of Israel. The Neturai Karta are in fact a tiny minority of Ultra-Orthodox extremists http://www.reutrcohen.com/2008/07/neturei-karta-fringe-group-with-close.html who received funding from the PLO http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/67415 and some openly served in the PA http://www.urielheilman.com/nkarta.html itself. Some have even suggested the Holocaust was deserved as Jews had turned away from their God, believe Hitler offered Jews a route out through Spain, that Zionists goaded Hitler into committing the Holocaust, and seem to subscribe to the common conspiracy theories that Jews control the world which R0 no doubt appreciates. They even lambasted the inncoent Jewish family killed in Mumbai in 2008. This sort of stuff earned them virtual excommunication from mainstream Judaism some years ago. Not exactly representative of Judaism I would think lol.

yes the zionists who are in power at the end of the barrel of UK guns now the US are not exactly representative of Judaism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Seems Orthodox Rabbis want Isreal off the map too!

Do you think they supported Hitler too?
[...]
I do feel the pain.

Nah not really LOL

quote:

quote:

Neturei Karta stresses what is said in the mussaf Shemona Esrei of Yom Tov, that because of their sins the Jewish people went into exile from the Land of Israel ("umipnei chatoeinu golinu meiartzeinu"). Additionally, they maintain the view – basing it on the Babylonian Talmud – that any form of forceful recapture of the Land of Israel is a violation of divine will. They believe that the restoration of the Land of Israel to the Jews should only happen with the coming of the Messiah, not by self-determination. Neturei Karta believes that the exile of the Jews can only end with the arrival of the Messiah, and that human attempts to establish Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel are sinful. In Neturei Karta's view, Zionism is a presumptuous affront against God. Among their arguments against Zionism was a Talmudic discussion about portions in the Bible regarding a pact known as the Three Oaths made between God, the Jewish people, and the nations of the world, when the Jews were sent into exile.

One provision of the pact was (1) that the Jews would not rebel against the non-Jewish world that gave them sanctuary; a second was (2) that they would not immigrate en masse to the Land of Israel. In return the (3) gentile nations promised not to persecute the Jews. By rebelling against this pact, they argued, the Jewish People were engaging in rebellion against God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

Hope that clears the water a little better for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm not dismissing the subtleties. The article acknowledges them and gives an even handed account of both sides of the argument but the strength of the points leads to the conclusion that his statement as reported in the media at the time was essentially correct.

Your article concerning the translations is dated june of 2006. In august of 2006 on 60 minutes with mike wallace ahmadinejad explaned quite clearly what he said and what he meant.
Don't you think you might consider the primary source as the correct one since he is the one who said it?

In a nutshell the answer is "no".

That you have the ability to speak "ex cathedra" is quite convenient for your arguement but it fails the logic test.

If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word?


Hitler's writtings were quite clear about his intentions for the jews and the russians.

Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel.


Do you really think that because you say so it is so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm not dismissing the subtleties. The article acknowledges them and gives an even handed account of both sides of the argument but the strength of the points leads to the conclusion that his statement as reported in the media at the time was essentially correct.

Your article concerning the translations is dated june of 2006. In august of 2006 on 60 minutes with mike wallace ahmadinejad explaned quite clearly what he said and what he meant.
Don't you think you might consider the primary source as the correct one since he is the one who said it?

In a nutshell the answer is "no".

That you have the ability to seak "ex cathedra" is quite convenient for your arguement but it fails the logic test.

quote:


If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word?

Hitler's writtings were quite clear about his intentions about the jews and the russians.

quote:


Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel.

Do you really think that because you say so it is so?

quote:

“My own confidential Israeli source confirms today’s murder was the work of Mossad and MEK.” (The People’s Mujahedin of Iran [MEK]

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

“My own confidential Israeli source confirms today’s murder was the work of Mossad and MEK.” (The People’s Mujahedin of Iran [MEK]

Mossad and MEK on the same field.... talk about strange bedfellows... though I guess not if you think 'common goal'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

The above merely relates to their theological stance based on the Talmud, which is a Third Century interpretation by some rabbi's at the time. There are other stances which justify Zionism in religious terms which the majority of Orthodox Jews today support. The above has nothing to do with your attempt to pass them off as representative of mainstream Jewish opinion or the points I made about their extremist stance on the Holocaust for which they actually blame Jews. In fact the NK are reviled in much of the Jewish world today.

quote:



WHY ORTHODOX JEWS ARE OPPOSED TO A ZIONIST STATE

First some introductions:

1) What is "The People of Israel" ?

• The People of Israel have existed for thousands of years.
• They have their own particular, essential nature.
• The Torah is the source of their essential nature.
• Without Torah and Faith there is no People of Israel.
• Whoever denies the Torah and the Faith is no longer part of the People of Israel.
• The purpose of the People of Israel in this world is Divine Service.
• Their salvation is occupation in Divine Service.

2) What is Zionism?

• Zionism is a relatively new thing.
• It has only existed for a century.
• Zionism redefines the true essential nature of the People of Israel, and substitutes for it a completely contradictory and opposite character - a materialistic worldly nation.
• Their misfortune is lack of what other nations possess, i.e. a state and army.
• Their salvation is possession of a state and army etc.
• This is clearly spelled out in the circles of Zionist thought, and among the leaders of the Zionist State, that through changing the nature and character of the People of Israel and by changing their way of thinking they can set before the People of Israel "their salvation" -- a state and an army.

The People of Israel oppose the so-called "State of Israel" for four reasons:

FIRST -- The so-called "State of Israel" is diametrically opposed and completely contradictory to the true essence and foundation of the People of Israel, as is explained above. The only time that the People of Israel were permitted to have a state was........

SECOND -- Because of all of this and other reasons the Torah forbids us to end the exile and establish a state and army until the Holy One, blessed He, in His Glory and Essence will redeem us. This is forbidden even if the state is conducted according to the law of........

THIRD -- Aside from arising from exile, all the deeds of the Zionists are diametrically opposed to the Faith and the Torah. Because the foundation of the Faith and Torah of Israel is that the Torah was.....

FOURTH -- Aside from the fact that they themselves do not obey the Torah they do everything they can to prevent anyone they get under their power from fulfilling the......

The Zionists claim that they are the saviors of Israel, but this is refuted by twelve things:

FIRST -- If one

http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm not dismissing the subtleties. The article acknowledges them and gives an even handed account of both sides of the argument but the strength of the points leads to the conclusion that his statement as reported in the media at the time was essentially correct.

Your article concerning the translations is dated june of 2006. In august of 2006 on 60 minutes with mike wallace ahmadinejad explaned quite clearly what he said and what he meant.
Don't you think you might consider the primary source as the correct one since he is the one who said it?

In a nutshell the answer is "no".

That you have the ability to seak "ex cathedra" is quite convenient for your arguement but it fails the logic test.

If I was proping my stance on infallibility I would not provide links.

Your links have been shown to be wanting in candor.

How do I fail the "logic test"?


Logic requires facts all you have posted is opnion based on translations you have been shown to be faulty.

So until you can post facts to counter facts that have been presented then you are being illogical.


You cited the subsequent words of Ahmadinejad in 2006, and emphasised that he made those remarks at a later stage to the article which I cited. Thus I cited quite a number of other instances where he used threatening language toward Israel which you have completely ignored.

Let us first deal with your allegations that were addressed in the 60 minutes interview. Perhaps you might avail yourself of the interview before you disagree with it's content?


Here is another example in the same month as the interview you cite where he chants "Death to Israel" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

quote:


If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word?

Hitler's writtings were quite clear about his intentions about the jews and the russians.

That's not relevant, clearly I was positing a hypothetical.


Your hypothetical was shown to be full of shit so now it is not relevant...how convenient.

quote:


Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel.

Do you really think that because you say so it is so?

No, you've said such things in the past to me and others, why would you think such a bizarre thing? You don't have to take my word on a single thing, nor would I expect you too.

When I say something I back it up with facts not opinion. So far your post contain uninformed opinion unsubstantiated by any facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
If I was proping my stance on infallibility I would not provide links.

Your links have been shown to be wanting in candor.

quote:


How do I fail the "logic test"?

Logic requires facts all you have posted is opnion based on translations you have been shown to be faulty.

So until you can post facts to counter facts that have been presented then you are being illogical.

quote:


You cited the subsequent words of Ahmadinejad in 2006, and emphasised that he made those remarks at a later stage to the article which I cited. Thus I cited quite a number of other instances where he used threatening language toward Israel which you have completely ignored.

Let us first deal with your allegations that were addressed in the 60 minutes interview. Perhaps you might avail yourself of the interview before you disagree with it's content?

quote:


Here is another example in the same month as the interview you cite where he chants "Death to Israel" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

quote:


If you asked Hitler if he meant to harm Jews and he said "no" would you also accept his word?

Hitler's writtings were quite clear about his intentions about the jews and the russians.

That's not relevant, clearly I was positing a hypothetical.

Your hypothetical was shown to be full of shit so now it is not relevant...how convenient.

quote:

quote:


Ahmadinejad has an agenda, and obfuscation helps his cause. He has repeatedly threatened Israel.

Do you really think that because you say so it is so?

No, you've said such things in the past to me and others, why would you think such a bizarre thing? You don't have to take my word on a single thing, nor would I expect you too.

When I say something I back it up with facts not opinion. So far your post contain uninformed opinion unsubstantiated by any facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Personally, I vote for the Russians.

No one seems to even think about them.  All the suspicion is on the US and Israel.

But - despite Obama's exception for "terrorist" - US policy isn't to allow assassinations.  And, truthfully, I don't think we have a robust enough network in country to do the things that are being done.

Israel, I doubt as well, since their preferred methods before (with Iraq, and then Syria) is to wait until the weapons are at a critical juncture and then simply bomb the crap out of everything until nothing but dirt is left.  As well, it exposes their entire network to exposure, and if proof comes out that they are behind it, it would give a perfect excuse for an Islamic Jihad against them.

But the Russians ... ahhh, the Russians ...

While they have been selling things to the Iranians, they can't really want an unstable country with nukes on their doorstep, and they have a historical interest in the area.  As well, they are known to be ready and willing to "not play nice" (don't know if it's common knowledge what they did in Lebanon about the time all the US citizens were being taken hostage, but the result was that the "terrorist" decided it was safer just to leave Russians alone).  The actions against Somalia pirates is indicative of their attitude about screwing around with Russians.

Plus, since they are more or less seen as a "friendly" nation to Iran, they travel and move much more freely in Iran, and have a large, diverse population to draw from, that can melt into the different ethnic and linguistic peoples of Iran.

In other words, they have the ability, the need, and the opportunity.  Plus, they can always lay it on the doorstep of the US and/or Israelis.

I think it's the Russians killing the scientist.  What's your opinion?

Firm