|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
RedIllustrationFace:
Thats about the same thing though as stating that catholiscism believes Jesus is the son of god, and there are alot of followers in the faith... so are they right? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
Last edited by avanent; Sep 1, 2006 at 08:55 PM.
|
I take it that you don't know much about how the Mormons started. If you prefer, Scientology, same question. Or, the Jews running everything. The holocaust didn't happen. Women ain't shit but hos and tricks. Etcetera.
the crux of my argument is that it is possible to have an opinion that is wrong. I was speaking idiomatically.
Last edited by Sarag; Sep 2, 2006 at 02:26 AM.
|
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
Last edited by avanent; Sep 2, 2006 at 03:17 AM.
|
FELIPE NO |
When did Ahmadinejad (I nominate 'Dinnie' for short) deny the Holocaust occurred?
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
|
He believes it to be a myth to embarass germany. Story was covered in many newspapers during December of 2005.
'Dinnie' works for me. Jam it back in, in the dark.
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
|
Yeah that is a pretty good name for him cal. Watch out for devo and lurker tho. They get angry about the small things. They might get angry if you don't put the jad in there.
There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by Aramaethe; Sep 2, 2006 at 01:12 PM.
|
I can certainly understand if translations of his thoughts on the Holocaust get artistic, though. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
Last edited by Cal; Sep 2, 2006 at 07:57 PM.
|
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
|
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Cal, I think the Holocaust can be used for political ends simply because of the magnitude and horror of it. Would you rather it be written off? I think we all have interpretations of what he meant. The point is, he should have known what the ramifications for saying something like that would be.
Most amazing jew boots
Last edited by Aramaethe; Sep 3, 2006 at 03:21 AM.
|
Saying something like what, for fuck's sake?
Iranian President: Yeah I think Europe sexed the JewPogrom up and some of them now use it to shithang our 'hood for Israel's sake US Media: 'DINNIE: 'CAUST AIN'T NO THING LIKE A CHICKEN WING' Consumers with low-quality information: 'Cal, I think the Holocaust can be used for political ends simply because of the magnitude and horror of it. Would you rather it be written off? I think we all have interpretations of what he meant. The point is, he should have known what the ramifications for saying something like that would be.' FELIPE NO
LlooooydGEEEOOORGE
|
Well, to be fair, there was one instance where he insinuated that it might not've happened. He was using it to make a case for why Israel should exist somewhere in Europe and not in the Middle East.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Last edited by Final Fantasy Phoneteen; Sep 3, 2006 at 10:48 AM.
|
Only in the context that Europeans should pay the consequences for their mistakes, and not the Middle Eastern nations which had no involvement in the war.
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Aramaethe, it's not just using 'ur' that is problematic. Often your grammar is not conducive to making a structured argument--not that mine is either. I am aware that a webforum is not the most important place to make clear points but it is a useful skill. I think you should keep that in mind whether or not you want to act on it.
I also have a problem with throwing words like 'fanatic' around. It connotes that he is uncritical in his beliefs and is nothing more than a meaningless slur unless accompanied by an explanation. You also said we are fighting terrorism. As has been said by many recently, terrorism is a methodoogy and not an ideology. I can understand that states want to eliminated what they deem terrorist actions, however you can't fight the methodology--you must fight what leads to that methodology. That happens to be a complex array of ideologies and circumstances which have manifested themselves in many ways all around the world. Obviously the American government is interested fighting threats to America and they don't care too much about FARC or the LTTE. Reductionism is necessary for theory but we can't reduce arguments so far that they become irrelevant. I am probably, in general, liberal (at least on foreign affairs). Being conservative or liberal dictates certain moral and methodological choices. It should not be a complete disconnect of realities. I was most struck by watching a conference by an academic conservative group on C-SPAN. They were incredibly intelligent and while I did have problems with some of their goals I could respect their opinions and come to an understanding of what our differences actually were. Typical mass media debates are a Republican and Democrat both trying to help the American people but fighting tooth and nail over something stupid. You need to define 'what you want' in arguments and base certain realities around that. Also 'read smart stuff'. I realize it's a tad subjective but, attempting that is a start. And for the record I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is a Persian name. Many Persians use Arabic names or slight deviations from them. I would be curious to know its etymology but I can't assume it's Persian just because he is. Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust are probably complex. I doubt that he conceives of it in the same way that most Westerners do. The way I understand it he doesn't directly address the issue (as seen by his 60 Minutes interview). He always starts out by forming an argument: "If Jews were slaughtered in Europe and that helped to lead to the creation of a Jewish homeland then why is that homeland in Palestine and hurting Arabs when the Europeans caused the Holocaust". I think this and "wipe them off the map" has to be seen in the context of the question of whether the creation of Israel in the colonial context was legitimate and "right of return" for Palestinians. I think the media has been evoking the imagery of genocide which should not be a foregone conclusion. He could very well have a much different view of the Holocaust if not full denial. But it's clear he is using it to make a political point about Europe's culpability and the condition of the Palestinians. I think the Der Spiegel interview does a good job of showing his ambivalence about discussing the issue. However, I think the fact that he is still talking about proving the Holocaust does show that his views are incredibly different than Western view for the last many decades. There's nowhere I can't reach.
Last edited by gren; Sep 3, 2006 at 01:32 PM.
|
I agree with you Gren, that we must fight what leads to that methodology, but at the same time if we don't fight the methodology and just attack the source, then you've got a lot of crazy people running around thinking nothing is going to happen to them if they blow shit up. Wow that was a run-on. Not going to fix it though.
I, unlike you, am a staunch conservative, my values are obviously at least slightly different from everyone in this thread. I suppose that makes me a target? Well, I for one am glad your attack was not a direct one. I know what fanatic means. I characterize the president of Iran as a fanatic. He has said he wants the Jews to leave or die has he not? Well, the Jews sure haven't done anything to Iran recently. In reality, they never do anything to anyone, they just fight back when they are attacked. They just happen to be very, very good at it. Personally I hope Israel crushes Hezbollah and then goes after Syria. Oh yeah, much of Hezbollah is funded and armed by Iran, I just don't see how you people can't see that this guy is a nut. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
My point was that calling someone a fanatic without explanation is not helpful. I am a Taco Bell fanatic. I am uncritical of their glorious food. However, you would not know I was a fanatic
He has not said he wants the Jews to leave or die. He likely supports the Palestinian right to return to their pre-1947 homes which could imply some Israelis moving but it is not clear. He has called for the destruction of what he sees as an illegitimate political entity. I don't believe he has expressly talked about the populace. He expressly uses the term Zionism--not Jew--because his point is that the creation of a Jewish political entity on the land called Palestine was not legitimate and has caused harm to the Palestinians (although Palestinian identity was not fully formed in 1948). Has Israel done anything to Iran? Well, not much directly. They have fought a war in the realm of public diplomacy. Israel also has nuclear weapons which scares Iran because some of the Israeli hardline have mentioned that fact in relations to Iran's nuclear ambitions. So--realist or not--you must see a certain balance of power act going on in the region. Hizbullah is a manifestation of that. Shibley Telhami's idea of "prism of pain" is that many Muslims react stongly to the Palestinian issue. Therefore the governments of the Middle East have often reacted in favor of the Palestinians because it can take their populace's attention off of domestic issues (although there is likely a degree of genuine caring in some cases). If Iran is going to be seen as the major Muslim power then they must assert their influence in major Muslim issues. That leads them into confrontation with Israel. Does Israel only attack when attacked upon? No. The Suez Crisis of 1956 is one obvious example. But, there was much domestic contention about Israel's stay in Lebanon in the 1980s. Israel kills more civilians than their enemies have killed Israelis. You may think this is legitiamte--that is your choice--however, you need to understand that killing Arabs does tend to piss off Arabs. You also need to understand that there is a causal relation between Israeli's treatment of Arabs and the creation of terrorist organizations. If you believe that Israel's actions have no impact on how Arabs treat or attack Israel then you are just wrong. Actions cause reactions and this does not legitimize either actions or reactions but you must realize and deal with these causal relations. Israel cannot crush Hizbullah. The group thrives on the marginalization of Shia in Lebanese society because they can help the poor (with Iranian money). You cannot see this as a battle between good and evil. Hizbullah does help the Shia and in return they have an allegiance to Hizbullah. The group was foudned during the Lebanese Civil War when the south was under Israeli occupation. At first the Shia were happy that the IDF was going to kick out the PLO but they overstayed their welcome and when they started making life worse for the Shia groups like Amal and Hizbullah were formed with varying degrees of foreign support at the beginning. I don't even think you understand why Iran has concerns about Israel. You may still think Israel is in the moral right or that Israel has a right to use force and kill civilians to protect itself--I may disagree but at least understand why Iran is pissed off. Your view is entirely uncritical. You don't see that there is any culpability on Israel's side. I don't want you to like Iran and Hizbullah. I don't like them. But you need to see why Hizbullah exists and will always exist as long as certain social circumstances persist. It may not only exist under the name of Hizbullah. But some violent group will exist among the Shia if they are marginalized in Lebanese society and Israelis take their men as prisoners. The PLO went to peace talks which failed and Hamas filled the void. If somehow Hizbullah stops its fight whether because it's destroyed or because it joins a political process that isn't working some ideology will satisfy the people. That is how things go. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Frankly, I don't think Ahmadinejad is a nut. Whether or not you agree with him, hes extremely smart and knows what hes doing. He seems crazy to the outside world, but in the Arab streets, among Sunni's and Shia who usually never get along, he is applauded for helping to face down Israel, the regional terrorists by the standards of the Middle East. If anything, Iran has a right to pursue a nuclear weapon simply to counter Israel's deterrent. Israel has its own nuclear weapons, has delivery means better than anyone else, and has always been willing to attack its neighbors. No, Israel is a far greater threat to peace than Iran, and to call for Iranian disarmament without Israeli is competely hypocritical. It's also the reason Iran won't give up its enrichment program. I'm personally no fan of Iran at all, having both Iran and Israel concede would be the best option. I was speaking idiomatically. |
I'm sorry, but the above post is the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard. Israel is only aggressive in responding to attacks against it, nothing more, nothing less. When you're surrounded by people who want to kill each and every last one of you, if you want to survive, you have no other option.
And while calling for Iranian disarmament is completely hypocritical, it is the only logical position. Israel doesn't want to destroy these other countries - it merely wants to exist. It maintains its nuclear arsenal as a last-ditch defense; the Iranians and other nations want nuclear weapons for the express reason to destroy Israel because a very small amount of weapons will essentially make that country uninhabitable. If you can't see the difference between Israel and Iran in that respect, then you're simply being delusional. Most amazing jew boots |
You act as if it was Israel's intention to kill civillians - it wasn't. They used the cluster bombs because they thought they were the best option available to destroy the target. As in all wars, there will always be unintended casualties.
FELIPE NO |
Secondly, theres a difference between an actual war and a false pretense for a war. Hezbollah's actions can't be justified as an act of war since they are not a state, and Israel thus has no right to destroy a country. Also, even if for a minute we assume that the attack was in some perverse way justified, hardly any Hezbollah fighters were killed, and a thousand innocents were murdered. Unintended casualties are a given, but it is not a justifiable excuse when so many civilians were killed with very few Hezbollah fighters killed. How ya doing, buddy? |
How can you say that Israel's nuclear arsenal wouldn't help in its defense? Israel hasn't faced a serious threat from regular Arab forces since 1973 precisely because of those nuclear weapons. Whether they should have a nuclear arsenal as large as they do is another question entirely. How ya doing, buddy? |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Night Phoenix and Styphon make great points. I couldn't tell you when was the last time Israel attacked a country without getting attacked first. It sure hasn't been recently. But look at what is happening. Saying that ahmedinejad does not have an intent to destroy Israel would be crazy, whether that's right or wrong. If you try to think the way he does it doesn't work because he IS a crazy bastard, I don't care how smart he is or how much he loves his people. He's not a threat to Iran he's a threat to everyone else. Ahmedinejad or the president of Korea would be the first to discharge nukes if they had them so we can't let them have them.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
FFXI - Asura - Brd :3
|