Tuesday, 12 December 2006

iranianagain

Iran Threat

So Mr Blair says it´s a threat.

What this Ahmani..ni..(? I can never remember) says is bad, holocaust denial is crazy, and it´s never good to call for a country to be destroyed... but beyond rhetoric, this country can´t threaten anyone much.

The Iranian president Ahm..etc is a small fish in the International community, and all this attention makes him look strong at home. The only regional power that has WMDs, and regularly attacks neighbours, oppresses people and threatens others, is Israel.

So it is Iran which feels threatened, not Israel. However, governments of both countries are helped by acting as if the opposite were true: Israel threatened, and Iran scary. It´s rubbish.

And to criticise Israel is not anti-semitic; it´s the government I don´t like.

I have exactly the same respect for Jewish beliefs as I do for other religions, like Christianity and Islam: They´re all bullshit, and you´d have to be a complete idiot to believe any of it. Really. Get a brain. Seriously!

Bye!!
Ahmadinejad! It just won´t stay in my head.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

and what if they get WMDs, as they appear to be trying to do? Prob not good for a country which wants to destroy another country having the ability to do so...

Sunni Kay said...

Iran may not have nukes yet, but they are working on it, and any country with nukes or working on getting them is not a small fish. What scares me even more is that I find their leader absolutely, certifiably isane and a threat to the world even without nukes.

I don't agree with your take on the Isrealies at all. They fight for what they feel is their's, just as you or I would. Those neighbors are others trying to take what the Isrealies have, and do not play nice themselves. All of that said, based on some events in the Isreali region, I can almost see why you may have drawn your short-sighted conclusion however.

I do agree that cirtizing the Israeli government is not anti-semetic, and if anyone acusses you of that they are even more judgemental than you :P

discoriggall said...

ok. They are 10 years or so away from getting 'nooks', and if we don't threaten them, no doubt the populace will elect a more sane leader, as they had been doing up until Iran was put into the Axis of Evil, by the - sorry - certifiably stupid leader of the free world. He's a dumb ass for doing that.

Again, you're mistaking rhetoric for meaningful intent. If they had "nukes" tomorrow, they would not use them to destroy Israel, as this would result in their own destruction. President Ahman..n.. whatever has proven himself, while dislikeable, to be more intelligent than we thought, not bent on self destruction.
Please read up on Iran, it has a wonderful history, with a developed intelligensia and civil society, and was becoming perhaps the first genuine islamic-liberal democracy. At the moment this has taken a few steps backward, but these things happen, for example:
America elected right wing war mongerers too, remember. America has attacked two countries since 2000, and Iran has attacked none. Who has killed more civillians? The UK/US alliance, or Iran?

Let's forget rhetoric and look at actions. And if you think that civillian deaths are an "unintended consequence of war", then frankly you are morally corrupt. If we know an action will kill, how can we argue we didn't mean it? We knew that children would be killed, so how can knowing that make an action justifiable. Have our actions improved the lives of anyone? Be careful when you consider your answer.
The Israeli government does not need to oppress and kill innocent Palestinian civillians to protect itself. If stopping terrorism is the aim, then I would say that after 30 odd years, perhaps they try another tactic. Wouldn't you agree?
If Britain had acted like Israel in Northern Ireland... well what do you think?

Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt are not trying to take back land! The 1967(hope that's right) borders are generally agreed. And if you think the Palestinians are trying to take Israeli land, well it was taken from them forcibly after WW2. Now Israel exists, I wouldn't change that, but for god's(!) sake, they should share it! Would that be so bad? And don't tell me they are trying to share it - Israel has continued to expand.

Last point, about WMD. Poor little President Kim in N.Korea, is standing there saying "look at me! I'm a mad dictator with Nukes!!! LOOK AT ME!!!"... and he's not getting half the scorn a democratic leader of a non nuclear (but with intentions) country. Priorities? Anyone?

Sunni Kay said...

"Again, you're mistaking rhetoric for meaningful intent. If they had "nukes" tomorrow, they would not use them to destroy Israel, as this would result in their own destruction"

That is of course asuming that their current leader is not certifiably insane, which I believe he is. He may or may not point them at Israel. You can second guess the insane.

"Please read up on Iran, it has a wonderful history, with a developed intelligensia and civil society, and was becoming perhaps the first genuine islamic-liberal democracy. At the moment this has taken a few steps backward, but these things happen, for example:
America elected right wing war mongerers too, remember. America has attacked two countries since 2000, and Iran has attacked none. Who has killed more civillians? The UK/US alliance, or Iran?"

Well, that would be the countable deaths now wouldn't it? Just because the insane leader of Iraq hasn't jotted all his killings down and publicized it doesn't mean he hasn't done it. I don't think he is as innocent as you paint him in this matter.

As far as the "war monger" Americans elected, you simply can not just down play his reasons for doing what he did, and when he did it. You made no mention of those, yet you will defend a man who constantly states facts that are truly against what history and science have shown to have actually occurred. I don't think that Bush has ever done anything quite like that.

"Let's forget rhetoric and look at actions."

I think I just did.

"And if you think that civillian deaths are an "unintended consequence of war", then frankly you are morally corrupt. If we know an action will kill, how can we argue we didn't mean it? We knew that children would be killed, so how can knowing that make an action justifiable. Have our actions improved the lives of anyone? Be careful when you consider your answer."

Um...who said that no one knew, or realizes innocents would die? I don't think I have ever heard that said on this side of the pond. I agree that their deaths are a high price to pay, and that I have been repeatedly torn between the right and the wrong in the loss of their lives. As far as what is justifiable, and what does improve and what doesn't? It will be generations before those answers are known. It will primarily be up to the people of those countries in the end. They will have to decide what they are going to do with the opportunity they have been given first. Despite all of that the world is a better place without Saddam, any way you look at it. It will be even better if Osama can be taken out of the picture as well.

"The Israeli government does not need to oppress and kill innocent Palestinian civilians to protect itself. If stopping terrorism is the aim, then I would say that after 30 odd years, perhaps they try another tactic. Wouldn't you agree?"

Actually, I would agree. In fact, I am pretty sure that they are open to suggestions that may work, but no one has thrown one out there that is feasible as of yet. If you have any suggestion, please voice them to the Isreali government! It is always better to try and help when one can right?

"If Britain had acted like Israel in Northern Ireland... well what do you think?"

I think they did, but it was a very, very, long time ago. It didn't work then either.

"Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt are not trying to take back land! The 1967(hope that's right) borders are generally agreed. And if you think the Palestinians are trying to take Israeli land, well it was taken from them forcibly after WW2. Now Israel exists, I wouldn't change that, but for god's(!) sake, they should share it! Would that be so bad? And don't tell me they are trying to share it - Israel has continued to expand."

Expand? How so? TO where exactly? Their borders have remained the same for as long as I can remember. If you wouldn't let Palestine have it back, then how would you appease them, and make them be happy with not getting what they want? Isn't that what all of this is over anyway?

"Last point, about WMD. Poor little President Kim in N.Korea, is standing there saying "look at me! I'm a mad dictator with Nukes!!! LOOK AT ME!!!"... and he's not getting half the scorn a democratic leader of a non nuclear (but with intentions) country. Priorities? Anyone?"

Not this is one point we can agree on. I have been wondering the exact same thing for many years. I think he is yet another evil the world should be done with.

Anyway, my final point is it is a lot easier to complain about how someone else does it than it is to actually fix the problem at hand. If you can't bring anything constructive to the conversation than maybe you should spend your energies thinking about what would be constructive as opposed to wasting all of them complaining and accusing others of being morally corrupt. Just a thought.

Wouter said...

"Despite all of that the world is a better place without Saddam, any way you look at it. It will be even better if Osama can be taken out of the picture as well."

I'm sorry Sunni Kay, but that's rubbish. One: Iraq is not a safer place to live now that Saddam's gone. On the contrary. There's a civil war raging, with hundreds of civilian deaths each week. Saddam certainly was a dictator, but at least people got to walk on the streets without having to worry about possible car bombs at any time anywhere. Two: who says Osama is still alive? Nobody knows for sure. So I'm sure him being alive or death wouldn't change all that much about the global security situation.


"In fact, I am pretty sure that they are open to suggestions that may work, but no one has thrown one out there that is feasible as of yet. If you have any suggestion, please voice them to the Isreali government!"
Perhaps stopping sooner with their war on Lebanon in July 2006 would've been a step in the right direction. If the whole world crying out for stopping the Israeli bombing campaign isn't a suggestion to the Israeli government, I don't know what is.


"Expand? How so? TO where exactly?"
Again, Lebanon, July 2006. What do you think was the whole aim of that war? Getting Hezbollah to stop firing Katyusha rockets into Israel? If you believe in Santa Claus maybe... Stopping their own bombing campaign would've been a much easier and cheaper (in terms of human toll, as well as financially) solution.

You might think I'm out to get you, or the US. I'm not. I know the things I wrote are one-sided. But that doesn't mean they're less true.

How can starting wars and killing people lead to peace and tranquillity, ever?

discoriggall said...

Hello Wouter!
... thanks for the slightly more reasonable than me comment. I don´t have anything to add, I think!
Everyone should look at this cartoon, though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1970972,00.html

Sunni Kay said...

Wouter:

"I'm sorry Sunni Kay, but that's rubbish. One: Iraq is not a safer place to live now that Saddam's gone. On the contrary. There's a civil war raging, with hundreds of civilian deaths each week."

There was civilian death under Saddam too. Did you forget about what he did to his own people? I am not so sure that their odds are worse now than they were then.

"Saddam certainly was a dictator, but at least people got to walk on the streets without having to worry about possible car bombs at any time anywhere."

Maybe they could walk the streets, but not past Saddam. Especially if there were women among those walking past him. Besides, if you catch main stream media, there are still a load of people walking the streets.

"Two: who says Osama is still alive? Nobody knows for sure. So I'm sure him being alive or death wouldn't change all that much about the global security situation."

I believe it would make the world a safer place, but not as much as some would hope, and not as much as I would like. Mainly because some other whack job would be there to take his place. He may be dead, but the world will always wonder until a body is found.

"Perhaps stopping sooner with their war on Lebanon in July 2006 would've been a step in the right direction. If the whole world crying out for stopping the Israeli bombing campaign isn't a suggestion to the Israeli government, I don't know what is."

I wouldn't say the whole world was at them to stop, but I will grant you that a there were more saying stop than there were saying go. I honestly think that is because no one likes war. There are just some of us who see the the occasional necessity involved. There are times it just needs to be done.

"Again, Lebanon, July 2006. What do you think was the whole aim of that war? Getting Hezbollah to stop firing Katyusha rockets into Israel? If you believe in Santa Claus maybe... Stopping their own bombing campaign would've been a much easier and cheaper (in terms of human toll, as well as financially) solution."

Yes, I really do believe that their reasons were self-defense. Most humans will defend themselves no matter what the cost. Governments run by humans are no different. Santa Claus or no Santa Claus, that is the way of survival.

"You might think I'm out to get you, or the US. I'm not. I know the things I wrote are one-sided. But that doesn't mean they're less true."

Never once thought that. It takes all kinds. Unfortunately, only history can show which opinions were the right ones in the end.

"How can starting wars and killing people lead to peace and tranquillity, ever?"

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Wouter said...

"Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire."

Last time I checked, water or foam seemed better aids.

discoriggall said...

oh god... I I I don't know where to start.

FIRST: "history will judge right and wrong" is a completely meaningless phrase. WE judge right and wrong, NOW. This history saying is brought out basically to say... 'well in a few years people might forget all the innocent people we killed.' They won't. You bomb a country to shit, people don't forget. I live in Europe, I can see this.
How can I decide anything, if I have to wait for "history" to judge it?

SECOND. Sunny says "Maybe they could walk the streets, but not past Saddam. Especially if there were women among those walking past him. "
You're confusing Saddam with the Taliban, right? I'm not sure women were oppressed especially under Saddam. If the new democratic government turns out to be seriously Islamic in nature perhaps women WILL be oppressed again. Hooray! Well done us.

THIRD.... you'll have to wait, I've decided to write a little explaining what freedom is, but it's not done yet. But suffice to say there is freedom of restraint, which Iraqis have now, and other sorts of freedoms they don't

and lastly...

Sunni Kay said...

Wouter:

Water and foam only work best on small blazes. When blazes get out of hand you often have to set a back fire.

discoriggall:

"WE judge right and wrong, NOW. This history saying is brought out basically to say... 'well in a few years people might forget all the innocent people we killed.' They won't. You bomb a country to shit, people don't forget. I live in Europe, I can see this.
How can I decide anything, if I have to wait for "history" to judge it?"

Deciding how you feel and judging what is occurring are two different things. You can decide at any time, but you can't judge (at least not properly) until you have all the facts. That doesn't often happen until much after the fact.

"You're confusing Saddam with the Taliban, right? I'm not sure women were oppressed especially under Saddam. If the new democratic government turns out to be seriously Islamic in nature perhaps women WILL be oppressed again. Hooray! Well done us."

I am not confusing the two. There are many times Saddam did as he would with women. Many stories of rape. His closest "friends" were much the same way. People would also be imprisoned and tortured for what would be considered "no reason" in our countries. There weren't usually trials to speak of either. Woman may not have been as oppressed as in Afganistan under the Taliban, but all people lived in relative fear in Iraq.

As far as oppression in the future for women in a political arena. It is too early to call that one, but I don't see it happening. The US is still far to involved for that to occur.

"you'll have to wait, I've decided to write a little explaining what freedom is, but it's not done yet. But suffice to say there is freedom of restraint, which Iraqis have now, and other sorts of freedoms they don't"

I'll wait. Actually I can't wait to see what you have to say next, especially on freedom. To close I will say that there are freedoms that may not be fully available now, but that has a lot to do with a government still in the making and an insurgency that still must be squashed. It will come.