»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
"The Evil Has Landed"
| The Alley |
|
"The Evil Has Landed" |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7010962.stm "Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question," the moderator said. "The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no." "You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information," Ahmadinejad retorted” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297823,00.html That translates to me as “yes”. When the full transcript of the Columbia Event becomes available will someone post it here. I think that will be the best, though not clearest, insight into the kind of mindset the West, ( of which to my mind Israel is merely the frontline), will and is having to deal with. And I would frankly like to hear opinions. Oh and by the way, there are no homosexuals in Iran . . . . [Edit - changed smart quotes to ASCII quotes in the Title - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (09-24-2007 07:26 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2007 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: That translates, to me, as perhaps wanting a dialog rather than an inquisition. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
He has had several opportunities for dialogue and has evaded them all. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
That may well be true, Mike. Past actions certainly are valid indicators of attitude and intent. If that is the basis for translation, however, it doesn't really matter -- at all -- what was actually said. In that case, it's not a translation, it's a prejudgment. Valid or invalid, just or unjust, it's still a prejudgment. Any time someone asks a question and then tells me the way they want it answered, my immediate response is to tell them to go to hell. That's just me, I guess.  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If the answer were 'no', what would be your reaction? Would you believe him? If the answer were 'yes', what would be your reaction? Would you believe him? Would it bother you, perhaps, if he said that he thinks the world would be a better place without Israel, but that that is not a realistic possibility? Do you believe the world would be a better place without the government of Iran in place? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. AHMADINEJAD: Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness. http://www.islamicweb.com/history/mahdi.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Another false dichotomy, it amazes me that people always seem overly impressed with them, especially presidents, I remember another recent example “you’re either with us or against us”. A supposedly polarising statement that only acted to marginalize those people, like me, who were neither with nor against anyone in particular. Sometimes an answer deserves, if not demands, more than a simple yes or no, if you don’t believe me try answering this with a yes or no: Do you believe that it’s ok to lie? If you answered yes you’ve just condoned every lie ever told, if you answered no you run the risk of being proved painfully wrong the next time a female asks “does my bum look big in this” or a child asks “Does Father Christmas really exists”. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s eventual answer by the way was as follows: “We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution and our solution is a free referendum, let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are.” |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I will agree that some questions cannot be answered yes or no, like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" but others can be and it's sad that, instead of being held to answer in a definite way, they can simply dance around it, answer with a question,or evade it completely. When someone speaks of destroying Israel in inner-country speeches and then is asked to verify that in another surrounding, I see no problem with the question. Ron, I don't really see you dodging a direct question or telling someone to kiss it for asking a for a difinitive answer.  |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I'm usually slow to comment politically, but I have to agree with Mike here. It was a valid question, even if emotionally charged. Plans to destroy a government, and the desire to see a government change are two different things. He expressed a similar view and conditional friendship toward our country (which may very well be patronising, at best). But the fact that he couldn't even say such a modified thing about Israel, speaks of a more inveterate kind of enmity. The conflict is ancient and religiously-rooted. And I'm quite certain that men like this will never tolerate (if the power is obtainable) Israel having a square foot for a nation. He's fine with Israelis as long as they become "Palestinians" Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I think that's exactly right. I also believe that it doesn't matter how he answered the question -- it wouldn't have changed anybody's mind. I think John sees it the same way. So why post it? Gee, that's not a hard question at all. When do you want to start bombing, John? Or do you see other possibilites on the horizon? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: That suggests a kind of futility for peace negotiations don't you think? I'm aware of the dangers of fatalism, but I think that those who are working for peace need to understand this mindset is all about eradication, not compromise. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, I post just to show how in the face the man is; that he is not joking. He opened his last visit with the Mahdi reference. And I agree that the talk about a referendum of “Palestinians” is talk about the elimination of Israel. And Brad, I don’t really care; I’ll be dead or something like it soon enough so it won’t matter. What interests me is the denial, ( I’ve already heard of a debate in the EU as to whether the man actually means what he is saying). And I guess one plan is to wait and see. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Michael, quote: Fine then you shouldn’t have a problem with this one either: So President Bush are you going to invade Iran, yes or no? How surprised would you be if your President answered this with a categorical but simple yes or no? Wouldn't you expect and demand further explanation beyond that simple yes or no? How full of surprise, indignation and outrage would you be if he simply danced around it, answered it with a question,or evaded it completely? The simple answer doesn’t increase our understanding of the other persons views it just reinforces prejudgement and prejudice allowing no room for dialogue, discussion or debate, which is probably why the original question was posed that way. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The answer would be no. Israel would give the same answer. The better question would be: “Would you resort to military force to deny Iran the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons?” Israel apparently just answered the question in Syria. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Not similar questions at all, Grinch. Had the man not repeatedly stated that "Israel does not have the right to exist" then you would have a point. Since he has then a quite pointed question is perfectly in order. A yes or no response should be demanded. If he wants to elaborate, that should also be acceptable, but only after the question has been answered. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Apparently so has the US Government. “An unidentified senior American source quoted by the paper said that the US government had sought proof of nuclear-related activities before allowing the air strike by F-15 warplanes to go ahead.” http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070924/twl-mideast-conflict-israel-syria-3cd7efd.html All we need do now is sit back and await the reply; my guess is it won’t come in the form of dialogue, discussion or debate and is unlikely to be particularly short or sweet. The unanswered question of course is will it be in the Golan Heights or downtown America? Not A Poet quote: Which has been my point all along. No but.. Or Yes but.. Is fine but demanding a simple yes or no answer without allowing further elucidation almost guarantees misrepresentation or misunderstanding. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So President Bush are you going to invade Iran, yes or no? Not a Poet answered you for me, grinch. The two questions are not similar at all. The Iran president has stated definitely that the destruction of Israel is necessary. He was simply asked to repeat it outside of the familiar element of his own country with his own countrymen there cheering to back him up. Any invasion of Iran would be conditional, based on conditions that do not yet exist. To ask as yes or no question of invasion before certain conditions are present makes it an invalid question. Even if Iran were to shoot off nuclear weapons and Bush would be asked the same question, his answer would be, I feel confident, that first America would call on the other countries to join in condemning the action and setting up boycotts or non-military pressures. Only if that failed would the question be reasonable. Iran did not make those, or any, conditions. The comment was that Israel needed to cease to exist, to be wiped off the map...period. The statement given was unconditional. That makes it appropriate for a yes or no response. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And my point continues to be that it doesn't matter. The answer is irrelevant to policy. Do you think that we should bomb Iran, now? Or do you think other options are on the table? -------------- There is an argument to be made that he doesn't really want Israel to be destroyed. Not because he is a kind and gentle man, but because the question of Israel is a unifying force in Iran (In the same way, hatred of America is a unifying force in N. Korea.). What happens when you lose that unifying force? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Grinch, Did you really expect Israel to sit on it's hands? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
So you support Israel's military actions in Syria? Why not military actions in Iran? Somehow, 'what did you expect' is precisely the answer I expected. For the second question as much as the first. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Advice for Iran: quote: --Gary Hart I realize that this quote may very well change this thread into an attack on Hart, but it looks like its already veering in a different direction anyway (From Iran to Syria). If that happens, my apologies, John. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sorry again, John: quote: --Jon Friedman This is what I should have been saying all along. Ooops! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I probably should have put these first: Sam Sedai: quote: And we all know this. But the more important reason for quoting Sedai is this: quote: When did we all become such suckers? At any rate, these are the questions that should have been asked: Sedai again: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: And now, I promise, no more quotes. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"Iran has been issuing such empty rhetoric since the Islamic revolution in 1979." The problem now is that with their nuclear program the words take on a different weight. PS Brad, I hope it's still safe for you to walk the streets after your apostasy. (-; |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Maybe, instead, the lesson was how to sucker the U.S. media. The man played us for suckers -- just like any PR-hungry celebrity who spins reporters and editors. The bottom line was that he knew more about how the American media works than they knew about him. No kidding, Brad. Anyone can play the U.S. media for suckers because they are idiots. He not only suckered them, he stole their material. Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, the surveillance program - all of the things the Democrats and press have been hammering away at for years for the sake of headline-grabbing - he used as avenues of attack. At times it was hard to distinguish who was speaking - him or a democratic senator or the editor of the New York Times.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I'm buying much of what you say Brad, except this: quote: Don't you think the military prowess of Israel (and those who support them) are keeping Iran (among other nations) from attacking? It's certainly not the benefits of having a common enemy that's keeping them at bay. But as to the other things you are saying ... Are you suggesting that we ask alternate questions, not because they are any more important than the ones about Israel and the U.S., but to set him at odds with his own people ... using the media for our advantage? Stephen |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Look, I think a vast majority of Americsns are going to reasonably come to the conclusion that both Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei have a very abysmal and unacceptable record when it comes to practicing what they preach on human rights, women's rights in particular. It's been well-documented that the latter, especially, has jailed and punished journalists and writers who have openly criticized him, including Mojtaba Saminejad, who in November 2004 was arrested after accusing Khamenei of harming Iran's national security and insulting the prophets, and was subject to beatings and torture for 86 days. Ahmadinejad is very unpopular in his own country as it is, both for fusing most of his energy toward verbally challenging the United States rather than focus on the domestic priorities of Iranian citizens (vegetable prices tripled there within just a few months for one example) as well as his fork-edged rhetoric such as saying "In the world, there are deviations from the right path: Christianity and Judaism. Dollars have been devoted to the propagation of these deviations. There are also false claims that these religions will save mankind. But Islam is the only religion that save mankind." back in June of this year. I believe even most Iranians are uncomfortable with Ahmadinejad, and it reflects in the national polls there. Last December, we saw many moderate conservatives (statistics show 40% of Iranians regularly vote for moderate candidates) head to the polls and win national elections for local councils, rejecting the hard-line antagonistic policies Ahmadinejad represents. One of those moderate conservatives, Mayor Mohammed Bagher Qalibaf, won seven of fifteen council seats in Tehran alone. So Ahmadinejad may still have great power and influence, but he is by no means popular either at home or on the world stage. * CBS News: September 20th, 2007 Having said that, while I believe Ahmadinejad is crazy and Columbia University should never have invited him to their campus, I also believe it is very dangerous for the media to run on hypothetical situations, and I believe Scott Pelley in that "60 Minutes" interview was irresponsible himself in asking questions based on hard-line hypotheticals. It was more a cross-examination than anything, and regardless of how unlikeable or even crazy the individual is, I found the journalistic quality appalling that evening and, by the end, I swore I felt the "interview" was more about Pelley trying to make a point and say: "See, I can try and be an aggressive journalist!" rather than trying and find out what Ahmadinejad had to say, and that's just another of a series of discouraging signs of the state of journalism today. * In saying this, I am by no means defending Ahmadinejad's spewing of propaganda on the program and elsewhere, nor him personally for any matter. What I'm criticizing is how Pelley was clearly not interested in asking the tough questions while maintaining a polite tone and dialogue, and rather was intending to coercively interrogate him from the beginning and making dangerous hypothetical assumptions that our two nations are potentially going to go to war with each other and such. I'd take this a step further and insist there is a blatant double-standard here as well, where journalism is about seeking the truth and being willing to ask the tough questions, which also means not being afraid to ask our own government and its representatives the tough questions. And recently, time and time again, from the months leading up to the war in Iraq, to every six months when the president moves the goalpost on Iraq while continuing a "stay the course" policy in Iraq and then begs us to wait another six months under the same strategy without a plan for victory, to warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, etc........virtually everyone in the media continues to roll over and suck up to the soundbytes, such as phrasing a drawdown of troops to a pre-surge level as a "troop withdrawal" that was required to happen anyway because we can't sustain a force of 160,000 for too long, or saying that the surge is what has made the al-Anbar Province much more quiet again, despite the fact the Sunni tribal leader revolt pre-dated the surge by three months because many Sunni tribes rejected the violent authoritarian tactics of al-Qaeda operatives there, or saying that there has been a 75% reduction in violence in Iraq since the surge began despite re-defining the definition of "sectarian violence" down to the difference of being shot in the front of the head or the back of the head. So, I say this not to mean to digress from the real topic here, but I do believe there is a double standard in our media where it is willing to get all bombastic in interviews against foreign leaders, but when it comes to our own leaders, the media doesn't have the guts to ask our President and Vice President serious, unscripted questions, and I believe that's also very troubling, as journalism should be about seeking the truth regardless of who the person being asked is, in a civil manner. * Public Agenda: Spring 2007 Foreign Policy Poll What I saw in that "60 Minutes" interview was that familiar saber-rattling ritual, just like in the lead-up to the war with Iraq, and that is what scares me especially here. As it is, a vast majority of Americans, who themselves have reasonably said in many other polls that they do believe Iran is a threat of some sort, nonetheless also believe that we must exercise all diplomatic options we have rather than resorting to pre-emptive military strikes and such, including holding direct talks with Iran and Syria, which we simply haven't even done yet. Just this spring, nearly half of Americans polled believe we must use diplomacy first and foremost, while a mere 8% believe we take military action at this point. And yet, it really feels to me at least that the media is behaving as though talks never solve anything, and wants to rush to that last resort before even trying any other option out; despite the fact most Iranians are reasonable, tolerant individuals who regular prefer moderate candidates as they demonstrated last December, despite the fact that our military is already stretched way thin as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. I certainly am not suggesting we sit back and behave as though nothing is going to happen in the next fifteen years, but constant saber-rattling I believe is just as dangerous as inactivity, and while I'm sure we can all agree Ahmadinejad is one not to be taken seriously here who is absent of credibility, I also believe it was irresponsible how Pelley handled that interview, and running on hell-bent hypotheticals will only make us appear more intolerant throughout much of the world. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Sure, but the benefits of a common enemy shouldn't be underestimated. Remember the laments in the 90's about the fall of the Soviet Union? But, yes, it shouldn't be overestimated either. I do think it's a factor though. quote: I'm suggesting that the media shouldn't woose(?) out. That it's their job to ask tough questions whether to our government or to another's. If that is seen as an attack on another culture's values, so be it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, old friend, I thank you for such a well-thought out response and agree with 90% of it....but it still amazes me that you consider the media giving free passes to the Bush Administration when it is so obvious how left their goals and practices are. They have never cut the administration any slack and every comment against them by anyone in a position of power get trumpeted loud and clear. Whoever said "Don't kill the messenger" should be around today.. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, That's WUSS ... extracted from the word Wussy. We use it here in the deep south, oftner than most. I was tempted to tell you that those who can't spell it, usually are it ... but I refrained to retain good relations. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wuss Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And I didn't think it would be in the dictionary. Shame on me. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter now what Ahmadinejad says, as long as he represents a country that sells oil for Euros and Yen, he will be demonized no matter if he converted to Christianity and changed his name to Peter Paul: which would mean his absolute and immediate death, and possibly that of his entire family, so I don’t think he’ll be doing that any time soon. The average person doesn’t need a stitch of media info to develop a fear of the dark side of Islamic stricture, or the dark side of anything proclaimed “THE light.” Eradication is a familiar term along the pathways of most any religion. While I’ll agree that much of the seeds are ancient and wholly disturbing in rep of holiness, I feel there is a hybrid plant of info in the fields, and its evil roots are nearly as old. Money, honey. and sometimes it might smell like Uranium. Sanctions are necessary, but they never buy sanctity, so why expect our press to show us anything other than a less than holy subject? It might decay our forthright affection for foreign wealth and power? Perhaps there’s more than what meets the all-seeing eye, on both sides, deserving of a proper light or, in the least, more analysis. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Or they simply want to kill us because our mere existence is an affront to a concept of God. . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Who are they? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Brad, Answer that for yourself or do you think I’ve suddenly become a racial bigot? . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Not at all. But, let's face it, others are. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257230393&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And again you miss the point. We know this already. What do you want to do about it? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Israel could not exist without US; that critical support is common knowledge. Israel has already demonstrated both in Iraq and apparently Syria the willingness to strike and destroy any prospect of a nuclear threat to its existence. It’s my understanding that to attempt the same as anything other than a suicide mission for the pilots involved on an Iranian target would require at least American logistical assistance in the form of air tankers. My question to you would be do we provide that assistance? Any such attempt even in the absence of a request for assistance, (they could always try and fish their pilots out of the water after), would probably involve the United States being informed beforehand. My question is what should we do with such a forewarning, ( and it should go without saying that such a forewarning would be assumed by the world)? . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: If that's what we want, of course. If that's not something we want, of course not. Our foreign policy should not be determined by Israel. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The question then is what is Israel to the West? . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The question is what is in the national interest of the United States. I have heard plenty of Israelis argue that they could survive without our backing. I don't know. I also don't know why you continue to portray Israel as an innocent victim here when the stance you seem to be advocating is an independent foreign policy for that nation (a policy that apparently means an attack on another nation) AND our complete support regardless of our security concerns. Israel should follow its own national interest, we should follow ours. If they intersect, we work together. If they don't, we won't. Do you think they intersect? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Israel could not exist without a sense of Western guilt. To which I would respond that's not the burden of our or any after generation. < |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
If Israel is in God's hand, then we shall leave it to God to handle...everything is in the Bible. If it is a common contry like Iruq, why not take the greatest advantage of it? (either for oil or for vote) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc0NjIzYTY3ZGM5MjFhY2M1ODIxMTcxYWU2Y2ViMWU= . "If people had known how close we came to World War III that day there would have been mass panic. That is how a very senior British ministerial source recently characterized Israel’s September raid on what was apparently a Syrian nuclear installation." |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
so Huan, there is a list of evil-anamy countries in US Government. Shall all the heads be topped over to avoid all the possible wars? IS this feasible? or do you worry about the lives of all soldiers involved in those actions? We might need try Kissinger again.. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
