Iran's Ahmadinejad says Israel should be moved to Europe

The Jewish people did not want a part of Europe (even if they had been offered it), they wanted to ‘return’ to ‘their homeland’. This is the problem when faith based beliefs and the realities of geo-politics clash causing untold trouble.

Another example of this from the same region was the Crusades, when Christians were called upon by the Pope to ‘free’ the ‘Holy Land’ from the ‘heathen’ Muslims. A Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem was set up (but lasted only some 90 years). The thing was that the occupation by the Christian ‘Franj’ had the effect of galvanising Islam into opposition to the Christian occupiers. It also hastened the end of the Byzantine Empire and paved the way for strong Muslim powers like the Mamluk’s and Ottomans.

The thing is that there were Christians that wanted to work with the Muslim community just as there are Jewish people that want to work alongside the Palestinians. The problem was and is the extremists.

**

The thing is that there hasn’t been an independent Jewish state in the region since about 600 BCE. Jews still lived in the area but were under the control of Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greek/Macedonians, Roman/Byzantines, Arabs, French, Egyptians, Turks and British.

Imagine if all the Puritan Americans of British descent decided to ‘return’ to their UK ‘homeland’(past 200 years)? What if all of the people with a hint of Viking DNA decided to return to Scandinavia (past 1000 years)? But for a people that have been dispersed over some 2500 years to demand that ‘their’ state be re-introduced seems unusual. But it has happened.

What I don’t like is those that seem to demand that only Jews should be allowed to live in the ‘Jewish state’ of a Greater Israel.

What if the Puritan Americans of British descent decided to ‘return’ to the UK but then demanded it have no Catholics or Muslims or Hindus etc in it, and then work toward ‘transferring’ them somewhere else? The return would be bound to cause friction but returnees that believed in such an ethical and cultural cleansing could only lead to violent opposition.

**

PS - Point you have the audacity to ask Willow to explain her views when you are not willing (or is it unable) to explain your own?

 

And now he is saying that the holocaust is a myth.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/index.html

Lets seem, the holocaust is a myth, Israel must be destroyed, lets build nuclear weapons... can anyone see where this is going?

 

Likely not as far as "Iraq has WMD's and is an immediate threat to us", "Iraq was training Al Qaeda terrorists" and "This is a war which will not end in our lifetimes".

Keep ignoring the rabid ideologues presiding over our own ship of state to focus on mere diatribes by other less capable national leaders, there's civic duty PB style.

 

Bush = Hitler!

Very good lick, now can you post something equally off topic under my "Success in Afghanistan" thread? We've been waiting.

 

Typical and unsurprising retort from an intellectual midget, right on cue.

Bush does not equal Hitler. The consistency of principle, however, between his administration's disregard for international (and US Constitutional) law in the pursuit of:

unprovoked transnational aggression,
regime change,
the destruction of urban centres,
longterm occupation to prop up a fraudulently imposed puppet regimes,
the false association of all resistance with "terrorism"
as well as the official sanctioning and continuance of torture and rendition

and the similar excuses for such employed by Nazi's (and other colonialist leaders and nations) in their day is undeniable to all too many outside the delusional bubble of denial you and those like you inhabit.

As for your happy circle jerk of a thread on Afghanistan (nice "google" effort on your part by the way), it's obvious that any analysis deeper than an ABC poll of little more than 1000 people would have as little chance of dissuading you from your routine surface argumentation than hundreds of previous attempts in numerous threads in the past year or two have managed to do.

 

LOL. Ina, you flock to PB's every post like a fly to shit. Nice to see the term "groupthink" has empirical validity.

 

Iran has non compulsory elections the same as America and many other countries...therefore most Iranians do not vote as a result they are not happy with their government and their government reflects the views of those who bother to vote...those with agendas that are quite often disassociated with getting on with your life in a peaceful way with those around you....the words of a man who represents the people this way is not representational of the Iranian people...the people of Iran do not hold this view as a majority so don't despise them for what their leaders advocate at the moment...how about people learning how important and influential voting can be? How about convincing people in these parts of the world that voting counts for something?

 

Neither you nor I can say what the Iranian public thinks. I don't think his views represent the country, but they do represent the views of the government to a large extent. That's why I never said "Iran says", I said "He says".


Though from what I hear his recent statements have been well received.

 

Then you should feel proud that your kindred spirits in other countries are emulating your own defense of ideology-driven militancy. This is after all, the example you set for others with your every post.

 

www.getalife.com

 

Now there is some good advice for you to follow. You might want to visit www.getaclue.org while your busy "googling" for your next witty retort.

 

Nah, I'd say Iran shouldn't have Nukes. What with them saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. I say If you want nukes you have to at least publicy state that your in support of peace.

Look at Pakistan for example, sure they may be run by a General, but at lest he doesn't claim god put him in charge. And Indias more of a regional enemy then a sworn enemy. If you have a sworn enemy, no nukes.

Funny to see Mel Gibsons dad in Charge of Iran.

Iran and North Korea are completly different cases, while Kim Jong Il is a Maoist isolationist, he is going to continue this until he dies. NK isn't likely to use nukes aginst anyone, and has been reaching out to South Korea and to a lesser extent Japan in the past few years.

Iran is run by religious fundamentalists who have said that Israel's existance is an affront to god. Theres no telling whether or not Iran would start a nuclear war with Israel, we can't allow them to have the bomb.

Balbus, the US wasn't responsible for the rise of the Shah, Iran had one of the longest reigning monarchies in the history of the world. In 1941 the British and Russians forced the elder Shah to give the monarchy to his son.

The west did support the Shah for economic reasons, and it was opressive, but no more then Irans current government.

Stephanie, Iran isn't a democracy as all it's political candidates are selected by the Ayatollah.

Picking at western foreign policy objections isn't making the idea of Iran armed with nukes any less alarming.

 

“Balbus, the US wasn't responsible for the rise of the Shah, Iran had one of the longest reigning monarchies in the history of the world. In 1941 the British and Russians forced the elder Shah to give the monarchy to his son.”

I think you will find that most historians admit to the US involvement in the overthrow of the elected government lead by Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and the establishment of the Shah. Even US citizens that were involved are on record as to the part they, and the US played.

You could try the rather light but informative.
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471265179/104-3820505-8299955?v=glance&n=283155

“The west did support the Shah…and it was opressive, but no more then Irans current government.”

I find the meaning of this difficult to fathom.

Are you saying that the brutal repression of the Shahs regime was ok because the regime that followed is in your opinion just as bad?

The statement also seems to imply that oppression is the problem but just the loyalty of the oppressive government? Alright if done by the pro-American Shah wrong if committed by the anti-American mullahs?

Are you really saying that the Iranians should have just accepted the rule of the pro-American but brutal Shah because anything else was bonded to be as repressive? It should be remembered that the US backed the Shah in purging the leftists and centrists left which meant their was no other avenue for dissent besides Islamic militancy. So in a way the US brought about the rule of the mad mullahs.

**

Here is an extract from Boomerang by Mark Zepezauer

“Shah Reza Pahlavi entered a downward cycle of ever greater repression of the Iranian people, which stirred up ever more opposition to his rule. By 1976, Amnesty International announced that Iran had the worst human rights record on Earth, no small distinction on this particular planet. The secret police, SAVAK, trained by Israel and supplied by the U.S., were infamous for the use of torture and assassination. And meanwhile the Shah's personal corruption grew ever more blatant. Iran's vast oil wealth was squandered on palaces and ceremonies, used to enrich a small class of cronies and collaborators, and funneled into massive weapons purchases from the U.S.
Throughout the last years of the Shah's reign of terror, as opposition grew and the security forces massacred more and more demonstrators in the streets, U.S. support never wavered. In 1978 President Jimmy Carter toasted Reza Pahlavi, reading off some speechwriter's inane prose: "Iran under the leadership of the Shah is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership, and to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you." Within a year the Shah's leadership would be over, and some ten to twelve thousand of his people would be dead at his hands. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of protestors were killed on a single day, September 8, 1978, known as Black Friday in Iran. From that point on any compromise <4 with the Shah's regime became impossible”

 

I'm not denying the CIA's involvment in the overthrow of Iran's PM, I was simply saying the Shah was already present in Iran prior to his consolidation of power by overthrowing the PM.

And you make it seem like Iran's populist government was somehow superior to the Shah. It wasn't, it was ruled by the priesthood.

Only after the consolidation of power under the Shah was sufferage extended to women, which was one of the major causes of discontentment among the preisthood. I think he also started an exam before a person could become a cleric. These we're the major causes of the rift between the Shah and the Mullahs, not his human rights record.

Don't forget the UK was just as responsible for the consolidation of the Shahs power.

I was saying nothing of the sort, you're putting words in my mouth (keyboard). Human rights should be at the forefront of our foreign policy. Democracy is the only thing that will free the Middle East and end Islamic jihadism.

I was just trying to adress your assertion that the US was completly responsible for the rise of the Shah, and your rather wishy washy look at Irans populist PM.

No. My position is that Iran deserves democracy. Real democracy, not priest decided outcomes of priest backed races.

And until the day when democracy can reign in Iran, we have a responsibility to make sure the Ayatollah doesn't get his hand on weapons that would trigger a nuclear race in the middle east.

Well in hindsight the support of the Shah didn't pan out, but at the time it seemed like the best policy initiative to the US and the British.

The populists centralized the oil in Iran which had been promised to NATO countries, in a time when the Cold War was heating up. Both the Socialist parties and more importantly the priesthood we're gainning power in Iran.

The priesthood was determined to destroy Israel, and death to the west was also heating up amongst them. Instituting a pro-western country that would secure oil intrests and prevent Iran from becoming involved in the Suez Canal appeared in our best intrests.

The rise of the Iranian revolution also resulted in the crushing of centrist groups. The Ayatollah in Iran isn't any better for human rights or economic growth then the Shah.

It is much worse for Mid-East stablity having religious zealots whos stated foreign policy involves the desturction of their neighboors pursue nuclear weapons.

 

...is it ? really ?!

describe democracy then, will you ? when the freedom of speech has been replaced with the 'patriot act' ..or was it introduced with popular choice!

so, your politicians don't necessarily have to be church-goin, bible-followin with christian upbringin to be sworn in to the office ? have you had or will have a jew, muslim, hindu or pagan runnin your country ? black, hispanic ?

so its okay to introduce these kinda (short-sighted) policies just coz it serves your interest ? just like it was with al qaida chief, just like it was with saddam hussein ..and now they're all villains who should be destroyed

ever stop to wonder why the mideasterners dont support your administrations "calls for THEIR freedom" when in actual fact it is and was the short-sightedness on your policy makers who took away our freedom or strengthened the oppression by our rulers ?!

...and now you'd want us to have our freedom ? democracy ? and you get to define what democracy is and will be for us ..?

 

Do the words 'should be' ellude you?

Most of the provisions of the Patriot act are very positive, allowing the Federal government more power to stop money laundering and terrorist activities.

Of course there are several provisions which are very vauge and have been abused, such as the FBI using ISP records to charge people with copyright infrengments.

Our democracy having some flaws isn't relevant in the discussion of Iran's government. Considering the UAE deports people without trial convicted of religious crimes, you really shouldn't be shaking your finger.

A politician having a larger constituancy for being Christian is different then the pope selecting our presidents, which is what happens in Iran with the Ayatollah.

This isn't a matter of who's countries better, thats a childish argument.

When that intrest is averting a nuclear war, of course it is.

Yes our foreign policy objectives have been short sited on many many occasions, but that's all in hindsight.

And our foreign policy isn't as short sighted as say, deciding to build nuclear bombs to strike Israel, such as Iran

just because we've made some arguibly bad descions in the Middle East in the past doesn't mean we should allow the preisthood to start a nuclear arms race in an unstable region.

Iraq had a much higher turnout then we've ever had in the US. Especially enderaing is the fact that the Sunni minority turned out in very great numbers.

It's not like there haven't been many horribly oprresive governments proped up without US intervention (Iran) or success stories of US intervention in the Middle East. (Lebanon)

Besides, you're making a critical error in judgment. This isn't about US policies, this is about Iranian policies.

Iran deserves democracy, I'm not saying we should force out the priesthood, but until the priesthood is dismantled and Iranians are free and their government doesn't have a stated foreign policy of eradicating their neighbors, they shouldn't be allowed to posses nuclear weapons.

Of course I want you to have freedom and democracy. Democracy and fredom aren't vauge terms.

Nobody can define democracy for the Middle East. Democracy means the rule of the people.

But democracy can be easily destroyed.(General) Musharraf runs a democracy.

Freedom on the other hand, should be the founding principle of democracy, sufferage, protections of the fundamental rights of individuals, human rights.

This is what I wish for all the world, to be liberated under their own names, and the US should persue that. We're the most affluent nation on Earth and we owe it to Iranians.

You government isn't as concerning, because it isn't pursuing nuclear weapons, and is constitutionally elected. There are *many* flaws in the UAE's democracy, but you should be able to work thing out.

Iran on the other hand, may not be able to free themselves from the priesthood without our support. We need to stand behind Iranians, and at the same time, make sure they're insane priest backed government doesn't aquire weapons that could and probably would result in the deaths of millions of Middle Easterners.

 

Wow where do I start, there are so many dodgy sections in one reply it is difficult to know where to begin.

So Lodui let me get this strait,

I said “an Anglo-American plot overthrow the legitimate government and installed the rather brutal regime of the Shah”

You reply with “the US wasn't responsible for the rise of the Shah”

Seeing that you were somewhat lost I tried to put you on the right course with “I think you will find that most historians admit to the US involvement in the overthrow of the elected government lead by Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and the establishment of the Shah”

And you then admit “I'm not denying the CIA's involvment in the overthrow of Iran's PM, I was simply saying the Shah was already present in Iran prior to his consolidation of power by overthrowing the PM.”

Well I think it was obvious that I was talking about the last Shah having mentioned the plot, so why did you go off on a tangent only then to claim that you knew what I was talking about all along? What was the point? It seems to me like been uselessly pedantic for no reason.

**

“I was simply saying the Shah was already present in Iran prior to his consolidation of power by overthrowing the PM”

Well if we were to be as pedantic as you seem to wish, I’d have to point out that the Shah wasn't 'present in iran' he had actually fled to Italy at the time of Mossadegh’s fall.

**

And you make it seem like Iran's populist government was somehow superior to the Shah. It wasn't, it was ruled by the priesthood.

Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh was something of a socialist and a secularist. He had the support of some religious groups just as he had support from communist groups.

It is obvious that you should probably do a bit more research you could try a general history of Iran to start off with.

**

“And you make it seem like Iran's populist government was somehow superior to the Shah. It wasn't..”

Now to more serious concerns you seem to be implying here that the a brutal and un-elected regime like the Shah’s was as good as and possible even better than the popular democratically elected government which the US helped overthrow?

You claim that “Human rights should be at the forefront of our foreign policy. Democracy is the only thing that will free the Middle East and end Islamic jihadism”

But are you saying that the democratically elected government has to be one you like otherwise it should be removed and replaced with a brutal dictatorship? That human rights take’s a back seat to if the elected government turns out to be socialist?

You say that “My position is that Iran deserves democracy” but then qualify it by saying they only deserve “Real democracy” which you then explain as a democratic outcome that you want and from you previous statement above you seem to make it clear that if the outcome is one you don’t like then you are happy for it to be overthrown and a brutal dictatorship (the US can work with) should be put in power instead?

You go on to reinfoorce this viewpoint by saying “Well in hindsight the support of the Shah didn't pan out, but at the time it seemed like the best policy initiative to the US and the British”

(“didn't pan out”?? One of the most brutal regimes in history you shrug off as not panning out)

Since the Iranian people had elected a government with socialist ideas it had to be replaced with a brutal tyrant because that was in the best interests of the US and the British. Is that’s what you are saying?

You go on to explain that the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh was to nationalise (I think that is what you mean when you say centralized?) the oil in Iran. An Iranian resource for which the Iranian people wanted more of a fair share. But to you the wishes of the Iraina people were not important because in your opinion that oil was “promised to NATO countries”.

So if somewhere had oil democracy isn’t important if the west wants cheap oil? Or rather the only democratic outcome that the west will allow is the one that gives them cheap oil, otherwise they prefer tyrants even if they have despicable human rights records.

**

Lodui if you have actually through about you are saying you must be some type of imperialist jerk, if you haven’t you really need to do a bit more research and soul-searching before people start thinking you are some type of idiot.

**

 

I of course don't know what every Iranian thinks but the ones I do know and talk to don't at all agree with the vews of their government...then again they don't vote and as I said to them.... WTF!!!!!!

 

and our governments are selected by the business elite...so? And to be honest I don't know how the candidates come to be selected but you have made me want to find out! Democracy has so many shades and tends to warp itself to suit the purposes of those who seek power that I sorta think it is a matter of choosing the least bad out of a bunch when being offered candidates...The former slightly liberal guy was undermined by the rantings at Iran of being part of the Evil Empire and therefore the hardliners won out...

"It's not like there haven't been many horribly oprresive governments proped up without US intervention (Iran) or success stories of US intervention in the Middle East. (Lebanon)"

get a history book please...preferably one that isn't a state sanctioned one!!! that comment just makes not a lot of sense...the politics of this area of the world have been so interfered with by our governments that it is impossible to say what has worked and what hasn't....

It is a seriously slly thing to say to move Isreal but it is also seriously silly all the rhetoric that has been expounded towards Iran and other countries in this region in the last few years...talk about a bunch of monkeys beating their chests at each other...

 

Well this is getting petty.

Balbus, you've taken me out of context, put words in my mouth and insulted me. I'm not getting into that with a mod. Hope you enjoy political discussions without dissent.