But seriously folks, this clown is dangerous

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST





Good news! On Thursday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who recently called for Israel to be wiped off the map, moderated his position. In a spirit of statesmanlike compromise, he now wants Israel wiped off the map of the Middle East and wiped on to the map of Europe.



"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces," Ahmadinejad told Iranian TV viewers. "Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true," he added sportingly, "if European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II, why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe? Germany and Austria can provide the regime with two or three provinces for this regime to establish itself, and the issue will be resolved. You offer part of Europe, and we will support it."

Big of you. It's the perfect solution to the "Middle East peace process": out of sight, out of mind. And given that Ahmadinejad's out of his mind, we're already halfway there.

So let's see: We have a Holocaust denier who wants to relocate an entire nation to another continent, and he happens to be head of the world's newest nuclear state. (They're not 100 percent fully-fledged operational, but happily for them they can drag out the pseudo-negotiations with the European Union until they are. And Washington certainly won't do anything, because after all if we're not 100 percent certain they've got WMD -- which we won't be until there's a big smoking crater live on CNN one afternoon -- it would be just another Bushitlerburton lie to get us into another war for oil, right?)

So how does the United States react? Well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the comments of Ahmadinejad "further underscore our concerns about the regime."

snip

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn11.html

I'd like to move Washington DC to Loiusiana right where New Orleans used to be. Think anyone would come up with a way to get the city back together?

I don't think the folks in Washington will like this suggestion.

If, however, you mean the current administration should be placed in NOLA, then I'm all for it.

Really, it's just best to nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. (Apologies to Ripley and crew in Aliens.)

The criminals in the Whitehouse and congress etc. Let us not hurt anymore people.

in a theocracy.

as is bush a figurehead in an oligarchy.

to distract iranians from the mullahs.

bush is used by the oligarchy to say things that help them distract americans from the oligarchy.

the mullahs will not back him up to the point of launching a war against israel. they will support his hostile, ignorant rhetoric, & continue to support low-intensity conflict (hamas, al queda) against the israelis & the west just as the american oligarchy supports low-intensity conflict against everyone seen as hostile to the power of the american oligarchy.

well, until bush stuck our hand in the hornet's nest grasping after oil. the oligarchy must be very nervous if he was allowed to do that.

don't worry about iran. worry about america.

think people broadcasting Holocaust denial, threatening to wipe out Israel and the US and arming Hizbollah, et.al., is something to laugh off.

If nothing else people in Israel are really frightened. And personally, so am I.

http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/tashbih.htm

In fact, he says people who say they are fraidy cats ain't nuthin' but anti-Semites!

While I don't think it's something to laugh at, I'm not quite understanding why the totally predictable rantings of a religious nutter is making you really frightened. Have I missed something since the Iranian Revolution and extremism is something totally new and shocking? And did Iran get itself a shit-hot military that can actually pose a threat to anyone? Last time I checked, their military was in a state of disrepair and neglect...

This whacko reminds me of a little kid looking for attention who discovers that farting loudly in class gets a really negative reaction from everyone, so he starts doing it on a regular basis looking for more of the attention he craves....

Violet...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/international/middleeast/15iran.html?th&emc=th

What is frightening is the probability that it is already too late to stop the next Hitler from rising to power.

The unbelievable comments by some posters on this very thread indicate that there is zero lack of perspective on the seriousness of these claims, and on their potential for inciting violence on a huge scale.

I find some of these comments extremely odd and also extremely childish. Iran does in fact have some weapons quite capable of inflicting grave harm and they're buying more from Russia, and their nuclear program is well underway, thank you. Also they have armed Hizbollah in Lebanon. Their missile armament alone is sufficient to do some serious damage and they are looking right down on Israeli farms, towns and factories. Also the incitement in the Islamic world can't help but result in more disinformation, blood libel and ultimately, violence.

It absolutely blows me away that you guys can laugh this off. People laughed it off in the 1930's also. They said the Jews were just being hysterical again and slammed the door.

Thanks. I'm very grateful for your concern.

Where I think there is a total lack of perspective is for anyone to claim this is similar to Nazi Germany in the 1930's. I'm hoping that I won't have to spell out the very obvious differences...

Could you please point to which posts specifically have comments that are unbelievable and extremely childish?

And as I've said before that I'm not laughing this off, why are you saying I am?

Uh, I didn't express any concern for you personally, CB, nor do I feel the need to, so I'm not sure what that last line is about...

Violet...


Violet...

I could remember that in one of my posts last night, I said this wasn't a laughing matter, so I went back and checked. Lo and behold, it's actually right there in the post you replied to:

Me in post #11: 'While I don't think it's something to laugh at..'

You in reply: 'It absolutely blows me away that you guys can laugh this off.'

Oh-kay :shrug:

Violet....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Russia and Iran have cultivated a busy trade relationship, which recently drew concern from Washington -- Moscow agreed last month to a $1 billion arms sale to the Islamic Republic. Russia will deliver an air defense missile system between 2006 and 2008 and upgrade Iranian fighter jets."

From the link posted by Barb, below.

I don't think, incidentally, that the author of "A Muslim in Israel" was speaking about THIS scenario. This would concern anybody and I find it interesting that there is so little empathy for the people of Israel expressed in these comments - especially by a person who claims to be a "supporter of Israel". It's apparently more fun to mock them. Has it occured to any of you guys that ISRAEL is PEOPLE??????? Israel is not a THING. There are more than 6 million human beings, plus of course the Palestinians, hello!?, who would ALSO be devastated by such an attack, who deserve SOME empathy and some respect and SOME little, tiny bit of concern.

Indeed, it's amusing in a horrible sort of way. Do I detect "liberals" with zero empathy for their fellow human beings, who take no joy in their accomplishments, feel no sorrow at the possibility of their demise? Do I hear "progressives" who think holocaust revision is exciting? Who think it's cool that Israelis might be uncomfortable about the possibility of perishing in a nuclear holocaust?

Maybe it's just my imagination.

And maybe it's my imagination that there's precious little outrage being expressed about this mad, extremist ranting from the head of a wealthy, powerful state - which in the 1980's was involved in a neighborhood war that killed a million people.

Maybe you guys ought to take this ranting, and this regime, SERIOUSLY.

His earlier comments were responded to with the declaration that it was anti-Islamic to "drive the Jews to the sea."

the President.

OF COURSE it isn't Islamic to "drive the Jews into the sea." That doesn't seem to be impressing the extremists, who want to "wipe Israel off the map" and/or expel her, maybe to Europe, which is where the Holocaust occured in the first place, not that, according to Iran, it DID occur; and where I'm SURE Israel would be safe and where, of course, her Middle Eastern population would feel right at home and where, of course, everybody could once again begin the endless longing for Jerusalem.

Also, since the mullahs DO have the power, over the army, over the government and presumably over this guy - IF THEY DISAGEE WITH HIM THEY CAN FIRE HIM.

They haven't.

n/t

.

With respect, you don't think this is serious? These speeches are incredibly upsetting.

which in effect is trashing the nutcase president of Iran and also trashing the limp diplomatic response to his crazy rantings.

n/t

read THAT article? It is also posted in this forum.

You're, appartently, misrepresenting his views. He called for a condemnation
of the Iranian leader.

Don't avoid the issue, which is the *fact* that Steyn is a repugnant rw nutter.
As such, why would anyone support his viewpoint, on a left-leaning forum?

There's diplomatic and other means....



http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L15534894.htm

Germany mulls travel limits for Iran's president
15 Dec 2005 12:20:16 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Louis Charbonneau

BERLIN, Dec 15 (Reuters)
snip
Speaking in a parliamentary debate, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks and said: "The government in Tehran must understand that the patience of the international community is not endless."

Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to seek support from other EU leaders at a summit in Brussels to take the issue to the United Nations. Erler described the hardline president's remarks as "a deliberate provocation aimed not only at the Arab world but also internally in order to gain legitimacy."

EU leaders may issue a joint condemnation in Brussels, followed by a formal protest delivered by the ambassadors of Germany, France and Britain -- the 'EU3' -- in Tehran.

"A third possibility would be the temporary recall of European ambassadors from Iran. That would be a dramatic step and would signal the threat that a complete severing of diplomatic ties is a possibility," Erler said.
snip

attack on Iran. It does call for somebody to take the situation seriously and exposes the limits of diplospeak when confronted by outright evil. It surely does bring to mind the 1930's, but this time we KNOW what happened and there is no excuse not to take Hitlerian ranting seriously.

I can't believe this wriggling. I don't care if the author of this piece is Pope Alexander Borgia - the facts are the facts.

And, The Sun-Times is a liberal newspaper, from a very liberal city. The viewpoint in this article is NOT radical in the least but in fact it is rational.

I find the absense of outrage at the Holocaust denial and the comments about Israel, outrageous. I find the mockery in this thread, outrageous.

And I find that mockery and that absense of outrage in complete contradiction to democratic, liberal values let alone historical perspective. So I don't want to hear wriggling and worming about the author when he is backed up by the facts.

This speaks to me quite loudly. I get it, thanks. I will remember this next time somebody makes a big fuss about "bias" and "dislike".

I really don't care what a person's prior political persuasion is. What I do care about is what the person is writing NOW in THIS article. Does it make sense? Is it lucid? Are the facts straight? Does it seem reasonable? If so, I will pay attention.

The multiple hate-rants have now had an effect. Now some may try to trash them as neocons, but certain leaders of some very important countries are taking serious notice of Iran and are obviously looking into various actions to take in regard to Iran. That dumbass better learn how to keep his stupid, ignorant, Israel-bashing mouth shut.

n/t

Of course he was calling for an attack on Iran. How else do you interpret this?

""Diplomatic" language is one of the last holdovers of the pre-democratic age. It belongs to a time when international relations were conducted exclusively between a handful of eminent representatives of European dynasties. Today it's all out in the open -- President Ahmaddasanatta proposed his not-quite-final solution for Israel on TV. McLellan and Ereli likewise gave their response on TV. So the language of international relations is no longer merely the private code of diplomats but part of the public discourse -- and, if the government of the United States learns anything from the last four years, it surely ought to be that there's a price to be paid for not waging the war as effectively in the psychological arenas as in the military one."

"We assume, as Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and other civilized men did 70 years ago, that these chaps may be a little excitable, but come on, old boy, they can't possibly mean it, can they? Wrong. They mean it but they can't quite do it yet. Like Hitler, when they can do it, they will -- or at the very least the weedy diplo-speak tells them they can force the world into big concessions on the fear that they can."

When diplomacy is exhausted, or not pursued, the next step is military conflict. This isn't opinion - this is hard, cold fact. This man supports military attacks on Iran. There is no way this article can be misread so that it says anything else. And anyone who doesn't respect the role of diplomacy and recognises that sometimes it does fail, and who thinks diplomacy is the arena of appeasement, should seriously have a think that this is the language of the right-wing....

This stuff about 'absense of outrage' and 'mockery', CB. Where is it in this thread? I'm not seeing it...

Violet...

is the province of the right wing?

--I don't see ANYTHING in this article which calls for an attack on Iran.--

Follow the logic that Steyn argues. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is portrayed as a quote,
wannabe "genocidal realist", Steyn makes a case for casus belli, it's patently obvious
that he's advocating an attack on Iran. The whole article calls for an attack on
Iran.


--I don't care if the author of this piece is Pope Alexander Borgia - the facts are the facts.--

The *facts* are Steyn is a rw nutter. The *facts* are that this article is an opinion
piece, short on *facts*.


--And, The Sun-Times is a liberal newspaper, from a very liberal city.--

That's nice. Steyn's still a conservative.

I didn't, so I've got no idea why yr asking. The article I was referring to was the one that started this thread. Is there something I'm missing here??

Violet...

There's other solutions

One that I'm hopeful for, but not too sure how much chance it has of happening, is that the Iranian President will get the sack and slither back under whatever rock he crawled out from. From what I've been reading away from the white-noise that this forum has recently become, is that many moderates in Iran are horrified by the extreme statements being made by their President and are worried about the damage being done to the countries reputation. Of course moderates in the past have opposed the rulers with little to no effect, but this time it seems to have galvanised even some of the more hardline folk who see the danger in what's happening...

Violet...

Where did you find this article, CB? I'd like to know the source, please.

Why is such an out-&-out Conservative writer as Steyn being used to start
a thread? By doing so, without the poster stating that the writer is v. rw,
the possibility arises that any readers will assume that the poster agrees
with the views of the writer. I do not believe that, that you agree with
Steyn's views, CB, but personally, I'd want to make it very clear that Steyn's
views are repugnant.

If you did, then you answered your own question.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...I thought this was "public forum." I thought anyone could respond.

Post #10;

--Where did you find this article, CB?--

:rofl:

You still need CB to tell you where she found this article? LMFAO!

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

I think I saw it on Daily Kos.

I might give that name to the folk at work who seem to spend all day every day in the work discussion forum for our next agency agreement. If you think the keyboard commandos on the internet take no prisoners, the guys at work take it to a whole new level of blood-spilling...

Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The urls are different. The www is similar, but not *exactly* the same.

Both sites link to the same article!

Open two windows.

In window 1 -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074_1,00.html

In window 2-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

Flip between the two, whilst looking at the address bar.

Repeat, until unnecessary.

:)

...they say the same damn thing!

As usual, no point was made.

the article and what it has to say, by a bunch of childish non sequiters and wing flapping due to the author and his supposed political orientation.

Here's the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/international/middleeast/15iran.html?th&emc=th

and here's an article from the Guardian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5598727

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

But by the middle of the article with the attitude of diplomacy = shit, bombing the fuck out of them = freedom and democracy in the Middle East, I gave up...

Violet...

so I know his work from there. He's a male version of Ann Coulter, if that
isn't too much of an oxymoron. He uses the same mo, tries to be as offensive,
& outrageous as possible.

..the fat, blubbering pile of hate who writes for our Daily Telegraph...

Violet...

but does any of that show up in this particular piece? What the heck are we supposed to do about Iran?

an extremely serious situation.

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051215-111225-2795r

German experts worried by Iran's nukes
By STEFAN NICOLA
UPI Germany Correspondent

snip
Haeckel said the EU-3 should try to bring Russia and China on board.

Russia and Iran have cultivated a busy trade relationship, which recently drew concern from Washington -- Moscow agreed last month to a $1 billion arms sale to the Islamic Republic. Russia will deliver an air defense missile system between 2006 and 2008 and upgrade Iranian fighter jets.

Iranian-Chinese trade volume will likely have reached the $10 billion mark at the end of this year, according to Chinese officials.

Both countries have veto power in the United Nations Security Council, which they are likely to use if the United States and the EU call for U.N.-mandated sanctions.
snip

Iran.

I am praying there are moderates in the Middle East who will speak for sanity and for life. I am hoping that diplomatic measures will prevail and that the Iranian people will impeach this idiot. There are well-educated people there. Surely, they can't seriously believe this stuff?

Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

n/t

This is the San Francisco Chronicle

- San Francisco is just five stops on the Richmond-Daly City BART from the University of California at Berkeley
- San Francisco is where International ANSWER organizes the Peace marches
- San Francisco is where the police chief is a female with a Master of Social Work degree.

Hardly RW.