Ahmadinejad: 'Zionist regime' is an insult to humanity

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday said that the existence of "the Zionist regime" is an insult to humanity, according to Iranian news agency IRNA.

Ahmadinejad made his remarks at a conference called "National and Islamic Solidarity for the Future of Palestine" where he declared Israel the reason for instability in the Middle East.

The Iranian leader said Israel's presence on even one inch of the region's soil was a cause for crisis and war, adding that the only way to confront Israel is through the resistance of Palestinian youth and other nations in the region.

Ahmadinejad also told the conference that the "Zionist regime" is the origin of all the wars, genocide, terrors and crimes against humanity and that it is a racist group that does not respect human principles.

more...

:sarcasm:

1) Iran isn't seeking a nuclear weapon. The main claims to the contrary come from, of all places, Israel. Imagine that. Israel claiming pretext for war that defies reality.

2) if Iran were seeking the bomb, Ahmedinejad would have nothing to do with it. Unlike the United States, the president of Iran has zero military authority.

Can't blame the dude for his rhetoric. if I had two nations famous for indiscriminate murder of Muslims on general principle, talking about how much they want to bomb the shit out of my country, I think I might have some unpolitic words to say, too.

:boring:

Thanx for helping me nod off.

1. Iran may be seeking a nuclear weapon. The claims come from the UN.

Iran May Be Seeking Nuclear Warhead, UN Watchdog Says

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog said Thursday that there are signs Iran is trying to develop a nuclear warhead that would fit atop a missile, its bluntest assertion to date questioning Tehran's claims to have an exclusively peaceful nuclear program.

In a report on Iran's nuclear activities, the International Atomic Energy Agency said it has collected "broadly consistent and credible information" about Iran's suspected military nuclear research. "Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile," it said.

http://www.truthout.org/iran-may-be-seeking-nuclear-warhead-un-watchdog-says57004

2. The President of Iran presides over the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. This group formulates the country's nuclear policy (which would then have to be confirmed by the Supreme Leader).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_National_Security_of_Iran

The UN report is based heavily on Israeli and US intelligence. If there's one thing that even you guys should know by now it's that neither of these countries can be considered a reliable source of intelligence in this arena. Both the US and Israel have faked intelligence as a pretext for war in the past, and both nations have a clear agenda and desire to initiate war on Iran. The US to settle the grudge started by ousting our puppet in 1979, Israel to eliminate a regional political and economic rival. if you want to accept this information as 100% reliable, well, good for you Oberliner, but I would hope you're sharp enough to see that this shit is exactly what we were hearing during hte leadup to Iraq; want to explain to me how Iraq really was a heavily armed immediate threat? No? Good.

Second, the Supreme National Council of Iran is not the same as the military. It's a managerial council. As you yourself point out, each decision it makes has to be approved by the Supreme Leader, which makes it advisory but not executive.

Now you have changed that to suggest that he would have an "advisory" role with respect to nuclear weapons.

There is no denying that your statment that Ahmedinejad has "nothing to do" with Iranian's pursuit of nuclear weapons is demonstrably false. He obviously does not have the final say since he isn't the unelected all-powerful Supreme Leader, however, that is a far cry from having "nothing to do with it" as you falsely claimed.

The IAEA report is based primarily on US and European intelligence. Obviously since Iran does not allow inspectors and has been found to have previously unknown secret nuclear sites, it would be difficult to get information without such intelligence.

The IAEA is currently headed by Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano and the agency has explicitly suggested that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, citing its failure to clear up questions about a set of documents purportedly showing that Tehran was conducting experiments consistent with a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

So I guess that all of the discussion we've been hearing about Iran having plans for nuclear weapons in established journals like the NYTimes and The Economist, as well as the UN's own investigations is basically just a smokescreen engineered by the Zionists in order to try and destroy Iran. Because we all know how much the UN loves and trusts Israel, right?

:sarcasm:

You are basically abandoning common sense in order to buy into the claptrap currently being lauded by one of the world's least credible authoritarian theocratic regimes. The lengths some people will go to in order to blaspheme Israel!

I'm sure you disagree. By all means show us some evidence of your theory. I'm sure that there's some respected political pundit out there who believes what you're saying. Thomas Friedman perhaps? Probably not. Maybe Noam Chomsky? Ooohh... try Carter. He's been pretty irrational nowadays.

I'm sure you won't come back with much. You see, as opposed to the Iraqi war which had a LOT of people arguing against the presented evidence, in this case pretty much EVERYONE agrees that Iran is planning on building a nuclear weapon. And you know why? Because nothing else makes any sense!

The NYTimes and the Economist? Really now? Both of these establishments also pimped the WMD story. "Established" doesn't always translate into "credible" or "Factual" Shaktimaan.

Engineered by the Zionists? Well, there are two parties crossing their fingers and wishing for war with Iran - Israel and the United States. As I pointed out, Israel has definite interests, political and economic, in seeing the other major regional power suddenly beset by war. Whether this is due to Zionism, or simply politicians being cut-throat inhuman bastards like they are in MOST nations (I hear Luxembourg is kind of laid-back) I can't say. However Israel doesn't seem to want to commit the men and arms itself. Can't say I blame them too much, Iran in 2010 isn't Syria in 1948 - Israel would get its shit fucked up in that fight. Instead it seems to be trying to goad the US into throwing the punches.

Of course it's not like the US doesn't WANT to clubber Iran anyway. After all, those guys not only overthrew our pet despot in 1979, but they also captured, exposed, and expulsed a CIA spy and instigation ring with close ties to SAVAK. Do you know about Savak, Shaktimaan? Thankfully I imagine you're too young for any of your tax dollars to have gone into their pockets. Not only that, but Iran also had the temerity to NOT crumble under the onslaught of our new pet dictator in Iraq. Do you know how much money our military poured into Iraq in the 80's in an effort to destroy Iran? Quote a lot, and none of it achieved the result. So with the US Military's perverse little revenge culture, it's not like Israel's trying to get us to do anything we weren't hoping to do anyway.

I'm sorry, I've just delivered some thought that involves more than a few pseudofactual racist soundbytes. I'll give you a few moments to overcome the confusion.

...

Better? Now then, does the UN love and trust Israel? No, but that doesn't matter, because anything the US opposes in the UN stops dead in its tracks. you know that. The UN is basically a facade, where American interests hold sway and all those countries full of brown people are allowed to complain and feel like they're getting somewhere. Kind of like how voting works in the US, come to think about it. There are lots of UN resolutions against Israel, aren't there? How many of them have been enforced? Right. So close your squawk-hole on that subject.

You accuse me of abandoning common sense, because I'm not taking two warmongering news rags, and two warmongering nations with clear vested interests, at face value. That's simply laughable, since my refusal to accept these sources is based on a very common sense principle. Two, in fact. The first is that a person with a vested interest is not going to provide unbiased information. Second, there's the principle of "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me."

By the way, do you know what "lauded" means? You shouldn't use words that you don't know the meaning of, it makes your sentences look silly. "Blaspheme" is also an interesting choice. Was that intentional or is it just another case of not knowing what a word means? Moving on.

Carter is irrational? Noam Chomsky? Thomas Friedman? What i'm gathering from you is that disagreeing with Israeli policy on any point - even if said point would result in the annihilation of millions of people over a premise that is very probably false - is "irrational"? My friend, I would argue on the basis of such a stance that you are the one behaving irrationally and without common sense.

As for evidence.. .the lack of evidence supporting the claims of Iran seeking nukes is why I hold my current position. Did you ever study logic? The burden of proof lays with the claimant. That is, YOU need to give ME evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons. Not supposition or fondest wishes. So far all you guys have is "Iran is enriching uranium." Unfortunately for this argument, Iran is completely within its rights as a member of the NPT to do just that. Pretty much every other argument hinges around the fact that Iranians are Muslim, which of course, is also not much of an argument.

"Everyone agrees"? Hate to tell you, this is not a qualifying argument. Look up the term "weasel words." Those that agree are the Israeli and US governments and militaries - who as noted, have a clear vested interest in portraying Iran in this way - and the US media which is famous for never missing a chance to cry for war (the Israeli media seems more critical, though not necessarily opposed; Still, more than can be said for its US counterpart). By saying "everyone agrees" what you are actually saying is "I think" and since you have already portrayed anyone who doesn't think the same as you as being "irrational"...

Nothing else makes sense? Sure. And to a four year old, only the existence of Santa Claus explains how those presents got under the Christmas tree. If you are a simpleton, or a child, or just neurotically wishful for bunch of dead Iranians, I'm sure nothing else makes any sense. Or how 'bout this?

Iran could be telling the truth.

But we all know how those big-nosed desert thieves are all liars and tricksters, right?

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful and (mostly) respectful response. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to constantly be obnoxious. And you're right... I used the word lauded incorrectly. (I changed it at the last minute from "spewed" and didn't think too carefully about it.) But I did use the word blaspheme correctly. I'm not sure what you think it means, but here it meant "to slander."

Now, I take issue with your first assessment, which is that the US and Israel will somehow benefit from a war against Iran. If the US is waging this war then they certainly don't stand to benefit at all. And I don't see why the US would want to clobber Iran, now that the cold war is over. I don't think that it was ever our intention to "destroy" Iran, even during the 80's. Rather, we were interested in weakening both states involved without allowing either to win or crumble. For decades the US's policy in the Mid-East was one of maintaining balance. We didn't give Israel any weapons until the USSR gave them to Egypt, for example. We refused on the grounds that it would shift the balance of power too severely. So I disagree with the idea that the US is dying to get some payback against Iran for 1979. Nor do I think that anyone is trying to start a war with them. I do think that the US and Israel are very afraid of Iran developing nukes and are pushing for sanctions against them to prevent that from happening. Sanctions and war are very very different though. So far no one has made any serious threats of war against Iran, (aside from basic saber-rattling.)

Now, on to why I think Iran is pursuing nukes. The argument is actually deeper than just "they are muslim and they are enriching uranium." In fact, it has nothing to do with their being muslim, I'm not sure where you are getting that from. The basic problem with Iran's explanation thus far is that it isn't rational. To develop nuclear power Iran would have to spend a great deal more energy (money) than if they pursued other options. Iran has tons of oil and natural gas. They are one nation that wouldn't benefit from nuclear power plants. For them nuclear power is more expensive than the alternatives.

Not to mention the fact that they have been less than honest thus far with inspectors. We have found other sites where they're enriching uranium aside from what they disclosed originally. Which is very suspicious behavior, as is going through the trouble of burying, hiding and spreading out the facilities all over the countryside.

So what other reasons could they have for doing all this if not to make a weapon? National pride might be one. Which would explain why they aren't interested in allowing someone else to enrich the uranium. Doing it themselves might just be a source of pride. Other than that I can't think of any reason that they'd want to go through the process or even have nuclear power to begin with. It just doesn't make economic (or political) sense.

What i'm gathering from you is that disagreeing with Israeli policy on any point - even if said point would result in the annihilation of millions of people over a premise that is very probably false - is "irrational"?

But we all know how those big-nosed desert thieves are all liars and tricksters, right?

Okay. As far as the first comment goes, you are incorrect. My opinion has nothing to do with whether or not someone disagrees with Israeli policy, either a little or a lot. I disagree with plenty of Israel's policies myself. And I disagree with your premise that its current policy is to try and goad the US into declaring war on Iran anyway.

As far as the second comment goes, it doesn't help your argument at all to try and insinuate that my opinions are rooted in racism. If you honestly believe that everyone who suspects Iran of developing nuclear weapons only thinks so because they are bigoted then you haven't been following the subject very closely. It would be nice if we could discuss this without accusing one another of being racist, wouldn't it? Especially since I didn't mention anything that might imply such a thing.

Unless your premise is that anyone who disagrees with you on any point must be racist. (even if a majority of people disagree with said point.)

Incidentally, the run-up to the Iraq war was discussed very differently. There was a lot of dissent and questioning of the official story, even in conservative magazines like the economist. And while we had no other option but to trust the US when told that Saddam was making WMDs, that isn't the case here. There's no secret information that we're being asked to assume is accurate. The basic facts of the matter all point towards Iran building nukes. Which is why there is so little dissent this time. Comparatively few people are questioning the assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

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

You know, it never ceases to amaze me when people assume they know something about me based on the things I post in a fucking internet forum. Especially when those assumptions are wildly extrapolated instead of being rooted in things that I actually wrote. Be that as it may, I'm still going to respond to you, (for all the good it will do.)

First off, blaspheme can just mean slander. It doesn't need to refer to anything religious, although that's the most common meaning. Really. Look it up. I did.

And while we're on the topic of accuracy in definitions, you accused me of participating in a "blood libel" against Iran. Blood libel means that I'm accusing them of killing and eating people. It isn't just a fancy word for bigotry. Now, it makes sense when people extend the word slightly to include instances of anti-semites making accusations like, "Israel is stealing Palestinian organs" because it is not only SO similar to a traditional blood libel but because the Jews are a group that have historically had blood libels cast against them. So it makes sense to view it as a form of modernized blood libel. Persians however, are not a group who have generally had to deal with blood libels. And accusing them of lying about their reasons for wanting to enrich uranium wouldn't really qualify anyway.

More interesting than your misunderstanding of the term though, would be to explore your reasons for using it. Why go out of your way to use a term that's traditionally so closely related to anti-semitism? I understand that you're trying to draw a parallel between anti-semitism and criticism of Iran, but...


Ugh, I just realized that this post was going to someone who has been banned. I'm still going to post it though because I already put a few minutes into typing it. Also the correct definition of "blood libel" might come in handy someday.

Anyway, sorry about this.

What is that general principle? Sometimes hatred is honestly earned, isn't it? In India, they chose peace as the path to freedom. In the Middle East, they chose murder. How's that working?

And the irony deepens.

THEN WHY DO THEY KEEP KILLING THEM?

So are you arguing that the Palestinian hatred to Israel (not Jews - stop being an antisemitic fuckhole and learn the difference already) is "honestly earned"?

As for killing Israelis... the Palestinians are pretty damn bad at it. Israelis are much, much better at killing Palestinians. But I guess that's the difference between using big fireworks, and using guided missiles systems bought, paid for, and handed to you by a superpower.

Get with the program.

And while I'm sure there are Palestinians who hate Jews - just as I'm sure there are Israelis who hate Arabs - I would not say "Palestinians hate Jews" or even "Israelis hate Arabs". Such blanket accusations are a form of bigotry.

However I would be comfortable saying "Palestinians hate the Israeli government / military / colonists" or "Israelis hate Hamas / Fatah / Islamic Jihad" because such statements are much less blanket and completely viable in practice.

Get with the program.

:eyes:

:shrug:

But most of the time Ahjimdinnerjacket goes up to a podium and says "Israel should be destroyed" there are always dumbasses claiming that's not what he actually said.

No further comment this time.

He is desperately dependent on America threatening Iran, and preferably taking military action so that he can say "I told you so" to the millions of Iranians who wants him ousted.

If he is unable to paint a picture of imminent threat to his country he'll be out the door. Just like Bush in 2004.

Just a thought.

If I didn't loathe him so much, I'd kiss him. The Greens are circulating pictures of identified Arab members of Hezbullah working with the Basij. They hate their guts. I've always believed that the rumors of Hezbullah involvement were urban legend. Now I'm not so sure. Not that it actually matters. That the rumors are believed is sufficient.

The man they hate rails at Israel while Israel's avowed enemies beat and torture young Iranians?

No need for Israel to attack Iran. By the time the Green Revolution is accomplished, they'll be partying together.

It helps to remember: PERSIANS AIN'T ARABS.

Well no kidding, but what exactly is the point of this statement, Aquart? in all caps, no less.

A classic way of trying to get the people to rally round the leader: "We've got an Enemy! You must be patriotic and rally round! The Zionists are coming! Eek!'

I hope and suspect that his sabre-rattling and wolf-crying won't work forever.

I am more concerned about the real power, and the real threat, in Iran: supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

It is Khamenei, and not Ahmadinejad, who controls Iran's nuclear program. It is Khamenei who can make the decision to produce nuclear weapons, if he hasn't done so already. He is the one we must watch, not the rantings of the former mayor of Tehran.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, speaking on the merry anniversary of the birth of Islam's Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), underscored the importance of the Palestinian issue for the Muslim world and called on Muslims to unite around the teachings of the holy Prophet.

Ayatollah Khamenei described the "forged, Zionist regime of Israel" as a "dangerous cancer tumor" and insisted that "the only way (for Muslims) to defend against this severe cancer and its supporters is to return to Islam" and unite around the teachings of the glorious Prophet of Islam.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=120039