Amadeus Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 In the news: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued his anti-Israel rhetoric Thursday afternoon, denying the Holocaust and calling on Germany and Austria to create a Jewish State within their borders, Israel Radio reported. "We do not believe that Hitler killed six million Jews, but even if this is true by some chance, then why should the Palestinians pay the price for it," he asked, and suggested that the governments in Vienna and Berlin concede two or three provinces to the Zionists and settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. "If Germany and Austria feel responsible that the Jewish people suffered at their hands during the Second World War, then all they should do is create a Zionist State in their territory," he said in a television interview inTeheran. (Source) Err...Is this man insane, or what? I slowly start to understand why the US and others are getting very concerned about Iran's nuclear program... Needless to say that his remarks were condemned around the world: A US State Department spokesman responded to Ahmadinejad, saying that his comments only proved why the Iranian government should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "The comments attributed to President Ahmadinejad are wholly unacceptable, and I condemn them unreservedly. They have no place in civilised political debate." It also went down a real storm with our new Chancellor Angela Merkel back home, and she called them "totally unacceptable", adding: "With our historical responsibility in mind, I can only say that we reject them (Ahmadinejad's comments) in the harshest possible terms. (Reuters) What kind of lunatic is this guy? Can somebody please explain? Help! He's scary.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 In the news: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued his anti-Israel rhetoric Thursday afternoon, denying the Holocaust and calling on Germany and Austria to create a Jewish State within their borders, Israel Radio reported. "We do not believe that Hitler killed six million Jews, but even if this is true by some chance, then why should the Palestinians pay the price for it," he asked, and suggested that the governments in Vienna and Berlin concede two or three provinces to the Zionists and settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. "If Germany and Austria feel responsible that the Jewish people suffered at their hands during the Second World War, then all they should do is create a Zionist State in their territory," he said in a television interview inTeheran. (Source) Err...Is this man insane, or what? I slowly start to understand why the US and others are getting very concerned about Iran's nuclear program... Needless to say that his remarks were condemned around the world: A US State Department spokesman responded to Ahmadinejad, saying that his comments only proved why the Iranian government should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "The comments attributed to President Ahmadinejad are wholly unacceptable, and I condemn them unreservedly. They have no place in civilised political debate." It also went down a real storm with our new Chancellor Angela Merkel back home, and she called them "totally unacceptable", adding: "With our historical responsibility in mind, I can only say that we reject them (Ahmadinejad's comments) in the harshest possible terms. (Reuters) What kind of lunatic is this guy? Can somebody please explain? Help! He's scary.... Oh he’s not lost it in the least. He’s a very clever man and that remark was intended for consumption in the Middle East and Africa. Read this and weep. http://www.eyeontheun.org/ He is running an agenda to be the new Mahdi. http://i-cias.com/e.o/mahdi.htm The man is without doubt the most dangerous man on earth at present. The West should strike now before it’s too late and I suspect that if the West doesn’t then Israel will. I know that I’ve earned the reputation of being an unreasoning islamophobe but all I would ask is that those who see me in such a light pause to consider that my feelings about this foul ideology come about from extensive knowledge of the realities of the subject and loads of experience working with and living alongside of ‘followers of the prophet’. With Saddam out of the picture as the potential ‘new Saladin’ it was inevitable that another prospect would emerge. He has. This one is far more dangerous as unlike Saddam this one has massive kudos as a religious leader in his own right. There is a problem, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 In the news: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued his anti-Israel rhetoric Thursday afternoon, denying the Holocaust and calling on Germany and Austria to create a Jewish State within their borders, Israel Radio reported. "We do not believe that Hitler killed six million Jews, but even if this is true by some chance, then why should the Palestinians pay the price for it," he asked, and suggested that the governments in Vienna and Berlin concede two or three provinces to the Zionists and settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. "If Germany and Austria feel responsible that the Jewish people suffered at their hands during the Second World War, then all they should do is create a Zionist State in their territory," he said in a television interview inTeheran. (Source) Can someone tell me why the Jewish state wasn't built on German or Austrian land? Why were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians moved to make way for the state? Before its creation there were only a small number (compared to the Palestinians) of Jewish people in the Holy Land yet many more had been living in Central Europe. Don't take the question to be anti-zionist (I'm only anti-Sharon) or anything - it's always been something that made me think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Can someone tell me why the Jewish state wasn't built on German or Austrian land? Why were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians moved to make way for the state? Before its creation there were only a small number (compared to the Palestinians) of Jewish people in the Holy Land yet many more had been living in Central Europe. Don't take the question to be anti-zionist (I'm only anti-Sharon) or anything - it's always been something that made me think. For one thing there were NOT hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living on any land who were moved. By the early 19th century and years before the birth of the European Zionist movement already more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades as they saw Jewish people coming in and realised that there was something to be had where they saw progress and prosperity taking place. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or “Palestinian” state ever existed in Palestine. But why was a jewsih state not built somewhere else than where it was? Because where it now is is a remnant of the land that had been the land that was the homeland of the people of the tribes of Israel. It was only the influx of European Jews into the land at the turn of the 20th. Century and who changed an empty land from being mosquito infested swamp or desert into prosperous places and the few and mostly deserted villages into viable and even thriving towns. Yet more arabs from neighboring regions came to in order to gain from the prosperity that was being created there. Far from any attempt to rid the area of arabs they were encouraged to come and by their presence and cooperation the whole region was on the up and up. And this is not bullshit or Yiddish propaganda. It is historical record. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called ‘the holy land’ (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).” Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.” Then there is the name –that you use ‘The Holy Land’ – doesn’t that give you a clue? Why do you think it was given that name in the first place? Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other nations of the world. If anyone ever plans to remove the people of Israel from our homeland thay better have plans for what they will do with the 20,330 SQ KM of mostly fused silica that they will get as well as what they will do with the mass of fused silica that had been the land upon which their nation was founded. “Masada shall not fall again” is not just a motto. We mean it. BTW – what have you got against Arial Sharon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blixo Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 In the news: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued his anti-Israel rhetoric Thursday afternoon, denying the Holocaust and calling on Germany and Austria to create a Jewish State within their borders, Israel Radio reported. "We do not believe that Hitler killed six million Jews, but even if this is true by some chance, then why should the Palestinians pay the price for it," he asked, and suggested that the governments in Vienna and Berlin concede two or three provinces to the Zionists and settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once and for all. "If Germany and Austria feel responsible that the Jewish people suffered at their hands during the Second World War, then all they should do is create a Zionist State in their territory," he said in a television interview inTeheran. (Source) Can someone tell me why the Jewish state wasn't built on German or Austrian land? Why were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians moved to make way for the state? Before its creation there were only a small number (compared to the Palestinians) of Jewish people in the Holy Land yet many more had been living in Central Europe. Don't take the question to be anti-zionist (I'm only anti-Sharon) or anything - it's always been something that made me think. 3 rather good books on the subject & Kibbutizm helped me make my mind up Myths of Zionism http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...1773277-0285254 History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...1773277-0285254 The Jewish State http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...1773277-0285254 Emotive, but very interesting subect as you can probably tell from ROG's passionate reply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 The man is without doubt the most dangerous man on earth at present. The West should strike now before it’s too late and I suspect that if the West doesn’t then Israel will. World 'losing patience with Iran' (BBC) - cue George W ? With Saddam out of the picture as the potential ‘new Saladin’ it was inevitable that another prospect would emerge. He has. This one is far more dangerous as unlike Saddam this one has massive kudos as a religious leader in his own right. There is a problem, I was thinking something like that in the past - removing Saddam might not have been the best of ideas. Better have a dictator you know about and can control, then having a loose gun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 But why was a jewsih state not built somewhere else than where it was? Because where it now is is a remnant of the land that had been the land that was the homeland of the people of the tribes of Israel. Then there is the name –that you use ‘The Holy Land’ – doesn’t that give you a clue? Why do you think it was given that name in the first place? BTW – what have you got against Arial Sharon? As well as being the Jewish Holy Land it is also the holy land or focal point for other religions. Arial Sharon is a state terrorist IMO. His use of force against the families of suicide bombers while popular at home has had the opposite effects. The wall he has built to 'protect' Israel is a terrible idea and was only done to lay the border despite most nations not recognising the post-1967 borders. The occupation of the Golan Heights is also illegal and creates a bad impression of Israel (and for many people therefore Jewish people [not me]) even if it is done for defensive purposes. I believe he has given back the Gaza area to cover up his attempt to deny the Palestinians any chance of having Esast Jerusulam. People said that with Yasser Arafat there couldn't be peace but there is also little possibility with Sharon still in place. Equally the Palestinians need to use Gaza to show the world that they can govern themselves and prevent bombings in Israel - so far they've done OK but there are still problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 As well as being the Jewish Holy Land it is also the holy land or focal point for other religions. It’s the Holy Land as it’s the land in which a Jewish woman gave birth to a Jewish child, Jesus, who went on to challenge the Pharisees corruption of Judaism and founded a movement that was later to become the religion of Christianity. As islam didn’t even exist before the 7th. Century and was invented by a terrorist in another land islam the only claim that islam has on the land of Israel is the claim of a conqueror. Arial Sharon is a state terrorist IMO. His use of force against the families of suicide bombers while popular at home has had the opposite effects. The force used against the families of HOMICIDE bombers (it’s not suicide if you fully expect to walk straight into Paradise as these scum do) is as a punishment for those who knew what their kids were up to – and they mostly do – and as an incentive to others not to do the same. The wall he has built to 'protect' Israel is a terrible idea and was only done to lay the border despite most nations not recognising the post-1967 borders. The security fence was built for and has done a good job in cutting down the number of homicide bombers. As regards the borders, Israeli courts have ordered the path to be moved from place to place where palestinans would be adversely affected – and for the most part this has been done. Will it form the eventual new borders of Israel? Possibly. So what. The occupation of the Golan Heights is also illegal and creates a bad impression of Israel (and for many people therefore Jewish people [not me]) even if it is done for defensive purposes. Firing rockets into Israel is also pretty damn illegal as well. You ever BEEN to The Golan? I have on several occasions and to return this land at this time – and it is a question of ‘at this time’ - would see Katyusha rockets, and probably worse, descending on Israeli towns and villages and farms within a matter of hours. It would be like shooting fish in a a barrel. I believe he has given back the Gaza area to cover up his attempt to deny the Palestinians any chance of having Esast Jerusulam. People said that with Yasser Arafat there couldn't be peace but there is also little possibility with Sharon still in place. Jerusalem was, is now, and ever will be the Jewish capital city. There is a thriving arab quarter where many palestinian people live in peace – or as much peace as their terrorist cousins let them have. As for Arial Sharon – look at what he doing right now in order to neutralize the ‘hawks’ in Likud. He’s set up a party that leaves them behind in order to continue with a peace process. Equally the Palestinians need to use Gaza to show the world that they can govern themselves and prevent bombings in Israel - so far they've done OK but there are still problems Done OK? Are you serious? There have been numerous attacks from the Gaza strip since handover! Govern themselves? That implies fiscal survival. The amount of infrastructure that was handed over to them intact and that they have since systematically looted for themselves as individuals rather than keep as community property is staggering. Take the infamous greenhouses. A massive agricultural complex that was handed to the PA as a gift. It was capable of producing food for both home consumption and more impotently also for export, as it had been doing for years under Israeli ownership. Within hours utterly destroyed. So far Mahmoud Abbas seems to be trying to do a good job but the influence of hammas is far greater than his. And remember, the stated aim of hammas is the utter destruction of Israel. It was, it is, and it will remain so. There can be no negotiated settlement with hammas that would leave Israel in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 Arial Sharon is a state terrorist IMO. His use of force against the families of suicide bombers while popular at home has had the opposite effects. The force used against the families of HOMICIDE bombers (it’s not suicide if you fully expect to walk straight into Paradise as these scum do) is as a punishment for those who knew what their kids were up to – and they mostly do – and as an incentive to others not to do the same. These actions are illegal under international law. Maybe they will discourage further suicide bombers but it'll also alienate more ordinary Palestinians and other countries. If Israel is willing to break international law then other countries may use the same reasoning to do so themselves. I believe he has given back the Gaza area to cover up his attempt to deny the Palestinians any chance of having Esast Jerusulam. People said that with Yasser Arafat there couldn't be peace but there is also little possibility with Sharon still in place. Jerusalem was, is now, and ever will be the Jewish capital city. There is a thriving arab quarter where many palestinian people live in peace – or as much peace as their terrorist cousins let them have. As for Arial Sharon – look at what he doing right now in order to neutralize the ‘hawks’ in Likud. He’s set up a party that leaves them behind in order to continue with a peace process. Very few countries recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital city and most countries choose to maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv (including, I believe, the UK). Maybe if Israel is willing to relinquish part of the city then the Palestinians will be happy - this has also been requested by the United Nations and many other countries on several occassions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted December 15, 2005 Author Share Posted December 15, 2005 and he's at it again: Iranian president says Holocaust was 'fabricated' TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the murder of 6 million Jews by Nazi Germany during World War II was a myth, another in a series of comments that have drawn international condemnation. "They have fabricated a legend under the name 'massacre of the Jews,' and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan. USA Today How can the president of any country, no matter which one, possibly unleash such verbal diarrhea onto the international community? That's just utter madness... For saying something like that alone, you would immediately be arrested back home, and face a possible jail term as well... It took Germany years and years and years to process and cope with what happened back then, and we're still apologizing now.. Although I think it's time we stop saying "sorry" - at least my generation. There is no doubt about the terrible things that happened back then. We - the younger Germans of the second generation after the war - have been well educated about it, and do fully understand what went on. Yet saying "I'm proud to be German", in the same way as you would say "I'm proud to be Manx" (or English, British, etc..), still provokes funny looks in certain parts of the world. The events of the past will always stick to the name "Germany", but it's a different place now, run by a different generation... Anyroads, back to the lunatic: The West should strike now before it’s too late and I suspect that if the West doesn’t then Israel will. From what's been printed in the press, I gather that there is a chance of the Iranian people sorting him out themselves - or at least I hope so. From above article: Ahmadinejad's outbursts may also be hastening the day when religious leaders who hold most of the power in Iran move to trim his authority, says Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Under Iran's constitution, the president can be overruled by a supreme religious leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei makes decisions in consultation with two dozen other figures, mostly clerics. One of them, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, whom Ahmadinejad defeated for the presidency, has openly criticized the new president and been given new powers by Khamenei to supervise the president. Ahmadinejad has also had trouble with parliament, despite its domination by like-minded religious conservatives. It rejected as unqualified his first three choices for oil minister, the most important appointment in a nation dependent on oil exports, before finally accepting a compromise choice who had been the deputy minister. Surely, any kind of third-party military involvement or strike can not be desirable for anyone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 15, 2005 Share Posted December 15, 2005 To paraphrase a communist leader - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad carries the seeds of his own destruction. He was a surprise victor of the presidential election and he has done nothing to show that he is capable of doing the job. At the moment he is attempting to make 'populist' statements to shore up his crumbling support - but his idea of what is 'populist' seems to have the same the background as what, in western terms, would be "the regulars in the local say that..." or "the guys in the clubhouse told me that...." Although he appears to have created a knife-edge situation for his country - and for the west - it would be far better if he was allowed to continue making these kind of wild statements, rather like an Iranian version of Alf Garnett. Before long, his position will become untenably isolated, his extremely shaky government will fall, and his replacement will have to take a more moderate line in order to gain support. Rather than rushing to invade, or to overthrow his rule, it would be preferable to let his own people reject him and his policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.