Planetarion Forums

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 14:43

So says the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Default BBC link can be found here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iranian Nutter

They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets

Although reading the article it points out that his main view is that us Europeans should shoulder some responsibility. I think his point is that we as Europeans are to blame for the Holocaust so it is who should house them not the palestinians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iranian Nutter

f you Europeans committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?

This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the US, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country,

He makes a fair point, but lets face it the middle east was and is in some parts an uninhabited shit hole. Plus it is in Europe if you go by the Eurovision song contest. Maybe the iranian should check out his geography ;o

:EDIT: HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH BOY WAS I WRONG!

This doesnt mean im not sympathetic to the palestinian cause, I just think its played out too much a bit like Israel play the whole "Im jewish" thing.

roadrunner_0 · 14 Dec 2005, 14:52

if Iran isn't careful it will be Israel inviding them not USA :/

the mans a nutter with what appears to be no grasp of international politics

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

He makes a fair point, but lets face it the middle east was and is in some parts an uninhabited shit hole.

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

roadrunner_0 · 14 Dec 2005, 14:56

wiht the middle east the way it is there wouldn't be a better time for the israeli army to kick hell out of tehran and then pull back inside its own borders and ignore international pressure tbh, who would stop them? as the iranians certainly couldnt

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

But a quick question, correct me if im wrong but I always hear people banging on about the jews and palestine, but I read somewhere that Israeal bought the land it is today from the palestinians. They sold the land. Is that correct? Although Israel may of taken a bit too much land, the fact still remains that palestine were greedy bastards and took the money without thinking.

I am venting my spleen at the computer screen in the hope it will find it's way through the internet and suffocate you.

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 14:57

so what the hell happened

someone tell me

please!!!!!

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 14:59

Oh lol, I just read wikipedia, it appears I just made a comic mistake.

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

wiht the middle east the way it is there wouldn't be a better time for the israeli army to kick hell out of tehran and then pull back inside its own borders and ignore international pressure tbh, who would stop them? as the iranians certainly couldnt

Politics for the clinically insane aside precisely which Middle Eastern countries would they be marching across to get to Iran?

roadrunner_0 · 14 Dec 2005, 15:00

i will be impressed if you can find a good potted history of the birth of israel online, however, a good place to start would be google, and can i suggest the search terms
'birth of isreal' or 'formation of israel' although i cannot remember the dates off the top of my head

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

Oh lol, I just read wikipedia, it appears I just made a comic mistake.

God I shudder to think what wikipedia has on this subject.

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

God I shudder to think what wikipedia has on this subject.

Well im not sure I believe wikipedia, we all know most of it is lies.

to get there they would have to go through, Jordan and Iraq or Syria and Iraq or they could go my personal route to Iran through Lebanon then syria then Iraq, and then the money shot of Iran.

In all honesty I doubt Jordan would do anything about them walking over there land, and the americans would just turn a blind eye in Iraq. Although the thought of a nuclear war in that region isnt appealing but it does solve a few problems.

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 15:11

The reasons why Israel won't invade Iran. Fighting a war with supply lines extended across a thousand miles of desert populated by hostile inhabitants is not a good idea. Iran also has a rather large conventional army. Whatever divisions exist in the Islamic world would be quickly put on the backburner if the sole Jewish state in existence decided to attack one of the largest Islamic nations in the world. The pressure that could be put on Israel's western allies through the cessation of oil supplies would be immense. The costs of fighting a war in Iran for Israel would be insane both financially and in terms of human resources. Think about how much it costs for the US army per day to remain in iraq. Now magnify that by a factor of twenty. It's not even vaguely within the realms of possibility.

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 15:16

It wouldnt happen, at least without US et al backing.

Dead_Meat · 14 Dec 2005, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

though reading the article it points out that his main view is that us Europeans should shoulder some responsibility. I think his point is that we as Europeans are to blame for the Holocaust so it is who should house them not the palestinians.

If the whole 'murdering, gassing and burning several million Jews' is a myth anyway, why is anyone responsible?

I'm not going to take responsibility for something that never happened (apparently)

HELL NO!

Tactitus · 14 Dec 2005, 15:37

There's no way a country of 5 million jews is going to invade a country of 65 million muslims, even if they had a shared border. A surgical strike or two, maybe, but Israel is not a threat to invade Iran.

The Iranian president is a raving loon, however. Clearly this man needs nuclear weapons.

Blastoderm · 14 Dec 2005, 15:54

Quote:

They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets

Believe it or not, the muslims who despise the Jews so much wholeheartedly agree with him.

Blastoderm · 14 Dec 2005, 15:56

I think he finds, what was it, 6 - 12 million Jews killed an exaggerated story..... well that's my understanding.

JammyJim · 14 Dec 2005, 16:13

Iran has been harping on about Israel for years and years. Recently the rhetoric has increased and the Iranian moves towards forming their own nuclear arsenal are whats creating a bit of a stirr on the international front.

Egypt and allies tried to 'drive the israeli scum' into the sea once before and failed miserably leading to Israeli (illegal) occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (it should have technically been given back years and years and years ago). With American technology and money they are a formidable army. Especially considering they do have an absolute last resort with Nuclear weapons. Plus they enjoy complete and total air superiority. I know whos planes id prefer to be flying....American built F16 or Russian built (mostly ex soviet) Su27's...(hmm tough one)

Israel cannot simply be 'wiped' off the map as the Iranian gent suggests and tbh it all seems like 'lots of talk and no real action' designed to rally support around himself. A 'real' settlement can only take place if both sides concede on certain issues. He is however aggrevating the tenous efforts by both Palestine and Israel to try and come to some kind of comprimise over the issue of land and settlements. That is the real and present danger in his remarks. If he stirrs up enough hatred then the more radical splinter groups in both Israel and Palestine will use it as an opportunity.

The whole Israel - Palestinian debate has become somewhat absurd. It is at a position where decades of fighting and incursions by both sides. Human rights violations on both sides. Random and senseless killings on both sides, have created a historical enmity between the nations that are living a couple of inches apart from one another.

It would be like firebombing your neighbours house. Him killing your kids in retaliation and then being forced to kiss and make up.

Its not going to happen but maybe just maybe they can live next to eachother without having to resort to bulldozing homes, building walls, using Apache helicopter gunships to attack refuge camps or suicide bombing buses, firing mortar rounds into villages and all generally kicking the shit out of eachother in retaliation for some strike (be it palestinian provoked or israeli) previously.

Oh and the reason Israel is where it is is because the British controlled that entire territory at one time. It all went tits up when the empire crumbled and we pulled out leaving it upto the Americans to fill our place.

JammyJim · 14 Dec 2005, 16:17

Quote:

but lets face it the middle east was and is in some parts an uninhabited shit hole

this is so wrong i wont even begin to rebuff

Nodrog · 14 Dec 2005, 16:20

It's impossible to decide whether he was denying the Holocaust based on that above article

The word 'myth' is ambiguous, since calling something a myth doesnt necessarily imply that it is false. A myth can be based on actual facts, yet be 'hyped' and instutionalised to the point where it becomes ingrained into a culture and takes on a life of its own (so to speak). And in this sense, its probably correct to say that the Holocaust is a mythological event.

Now, bear in mind that youre reading a translation of the Iranian's speech. What was the Arabic word he used that the BBC translated into 'myth'? I assume that this word wont be exactly identical in meaning to our 'myth' because of general problems with translaion, so does the Arabic word imply that the event is necessarily false? Or does it just mean something that has been instutionalised? Unless you have a fairly deep understanding of the language, you arent really in a position to comment.

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Oh and the reason Israel is where it is is because the British controlled that entire territory at one time. It all went tits up when the empire crumbled and we pulled out leaving it upto the Americans to fill our place.

That's a rather simplistic viewpoint.

Ste · 14 Dec 2005, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

There's no way a country of 5 million jews is going to invade a country of 65 million muslims, even if they had a shared border. A surgical strike or two, maybe, but Israel is not a threat to invade Iran.

Israel have some quite nasty weaponry that could be used for surgical strikes...

Banned · 14 Dec 2005, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nantoz

Someone seems to have vandalized the wikiarticle on Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

What has happened to my beloved encyclopedia these last weeks?

EDIT: it's gone now, but 2 minutes ago the entire page was filled with "YOU STINK" repeated over and over again....

Like this?

Blastoderm · 14 Dec 2005, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Now, bear in mind that youre reading a translation of the Iranian's speech. What was the Arabic word he used that the BBC translated into 'myth'? I assume that this word wont be exactly identical in meaning to our 'myth' because of general problems with translaion, so does the Arabic word imply that the event is necessarily false? Or does it just mean something that has been instutionalised? Unless you have a fairly deep understanding of the language, you arent really in a position to comment.

Iranians speak Persian dude.

It's doesn't sound arabic (even though it look it a wee bit).

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Now, bear in mind that youre reading a translation of the Iranian's speech. What was the Arabic word he used that the BBC translated into 'myth'? I assume that this word wont be exactly identical in meaning to our 'myth' because of general problems with translaion, so does the Arabic word imply that the event is necessarily false? Or does it just mean something that has been instutionalised? Unless you have a fairly deep understanding of the language, you arent really in a position to comment.

as already stated it is persian, but its the BBC they have some of the best linguists in the business im sure the translation was close enough to what he meant.

Dante Hicks · 14 Dec 2005, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

but its the BBC they have some of the best linguists in the business im sure the translation was close enough to what he meant.

Perhaps that's where they spend all their money as a lot of their articles are obviously written by utter spastics.

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by JammyJim

this is so wrong i wont even begin to rebuff

Thats true though to a certain extent, its like parts of Russia and China there is so much of nothing in the middle east its a joke. Argubably you can say that about some parts of Europe but country to country it pans out a bit more.

The bits of the middle east that is valuabe tend to be of historical importance and or oil. The only thing left in what was a great country of Iraq is the oil, the history there is and was amazing, but most of that has been destroyed and wasnt preserved to the extent it should have been by saddam and his crew. Nor was it taken into consideration when being bombed.

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Perhaps that's where they spend all their money as a lot of their articles are obviously written by utter spastics.

perhaps, but I would rather read an article translated by the BBC as oppose to say CNN. The wealth of people who speak arabic, mandarin, punjabi, hindi, urdu and persian is unbelievable in this country, im sure they recruit a decent amount of linguists along with the government.

Blastoderm · 14 Dec 2005, 17:40

The UAE (also known as Dubai by idiots) is in the Middle East piglet....

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

The UAE (also known as Dubai by idiots) is in the Middle East piglet....

must of missed that when I went there.

Blastoderm · 14 Dec 2005, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

must of missed that when I went there.

Where did you go in the Middle East precisely?

EDIT: you're doing the whole "must of" instead of "must have", lol.

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

Where did you go in the Middle East precisely?

Tal Aviv, Jeruselum, Amman, Jeddah, Riyadh, Suez, Cairo and Sharm el Shekh in the space of about two years over the summer while my father was living in Jeddah.

:edit: shit im such a retard today ;/ my posts reflect that too, my gf left today ;/

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

must of missed that when I went there.

YOU MISSED THAT YOU WERE ON A GIANT ****ING LANDMASS NEXT TO SAUDI ARABIA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

The bits of the middle east that is valuabe tend to be of historical importance and or oil. The only thing left in what was a great country of Iraq is the oil, the history there is and was amazing, but most of that has been destroyed and wasnt preserved to the extent it should have been by saddam and his crew. Nor was it taken into consideration when being bombed.

What do you mean by valuable? Valuable to whom? Do you really think the rest of the world would miss london's financial sector?

Nodrog · 14 Dec 2005, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Do you really think the rest of the world would miss london's financial sector?

Er... obviously. The average person might not know enough about economics and finance to understand the significance or care if it disappeared, but the detrimental effects it would have on the world economy would probably have a significant effect on him somewhere down the line (compare this to: "do you really think the rest of the world would care if no further research was done in physics and biology?").

Blastoderm · 14 Dec 2005, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by pig

Tal Aviv, Jeruselum, Amman, Jeddah, Riyadh, Suez, Cairo and Sharm el Shekh in the space of about two years over the summer while my father was living in Jeddah.

:edit: shit im such a retard today ;/ my posts reflect that too, my gf left today ;/

To be honest Jeddah is ace (I lived there for 10 years of my life although there isn't anything spectacular) and you really need to see UAE before you jump to conclusions that the Middle East is a shithole.

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Er... obviously. The average person might not know enough about economics and finance to understand the significance or care if it disappeared, but the detrimental effects it would have on the economy would probably have a significant effect on him somewhere down the line (compare this to: "do you really think the rest of the world would care if no further research was done in physics and biology?").

The question was phrased to show the ridiculousness of the question of whether or not anyone would miss a geographic area. The number of scientists and other cool people coming from the middle east is immense and wiping them all out might not be a sensible approach to things.

pig · 14 Dec 2005, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

To be honest Jeddah is ace (I lived there for 10 years of my life although there isn't anything spectacular) and you really need to see UAE before you jump to conclusions that the Middle East is a shithole.

it is, the only part of saudi that is relaxed, less stuck up than Riyadh. I didnt mean the middle east is a shithole as a whole, but there is a lot of crap out there. Ive seen a lot of shit. Cairo was and still remains a shit hole. There are lots of crap in saudi. Jordan there is a big divide between the rich and poor, only the rich can really enjoy it. Dubai was beautiful but there is also great poverty. Maybe I just saw the poor parts as well as the rich. But there is a lot of ugliness around. Whats so great about one large desert and some mountains? A great example is Saudi. Its ashame that place has so much potential but theres big walls around everyones houses etc. I dont know I would rather fight a war over Europe than the Middle East.

Nodrog · 14 Dec 2005, 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The number of scientists and other cool people coming from the middle east is immense

Is it? I'd imagine most middle-east countries except Israel have a smaller number of respected scientists/whatever per head of population than the superior Western nations, but I dont have any figures to back this up.

JammyJim · 14 Dec 2005, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That's a rather simplistic viewpoint.

obviously but i had to go out so just tagged it on the end
must try harder

Quote:

You seem to be drawing parity between both sides in terms of responsibility. Israel is the only country in a position to force an end hostilities, but it is not interested in that. Despite the withdrawal from Gaza for instance there has in fact been an increase of Isareli settlers in Palestinian territory over the last few months.

Israel is the only country in a position to force an end to hostilities? It has little control over extremist groups in palestine hellbent on seeking revenge or just 'in it for the doe yo'

Maybe i have mis interpreted what youve said but a settlement can only be reached by both parties. Neither is in a position to force an end to anything at all?

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Is it? I'd imagine most middle-east countries except Israel have a smaller number of respected scientists/whatever per head of population than the superior Western nations, but I dont have any figures to back this up.

It's not a question of relativity though. Pig was talking in absolute terms.

dda · 14 Dec 2005, 20:38

It is not surprising that the Iranian President expressed skepticisim at the 6-12 million Jewish deaths during WWII. Remember, the man on the street thinks that 9-11, 7-7 etc. are all dirty Israeli and CIA tricks and that Muslims were not involved.

JonnyBGood · 14 Dec 2005, 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by dda

It is not surprising that the Iranian President expressed skepticisim at the 6-12 million Jewish deaths during WWII. Remember, the man on the street thinks that 9-11, 7-7 etc. are all dirty Israeli and CIA tricks and that Muslims were not involved.

No they don't, they were celebrating that they happened

PS Most estimates of the number of jews killed as part of the holocaust (this means that jewish americans who died fighting aren't included and such) is from about 5.5-6.5 million people. I don't think there are many historians who give the number as 12 million.

roadrunner_0 · 15 Dec 2005, 01:06

sorry, i should have been more clear with the invasion thing, ofc a land invasion would fail, i can see them having plans in place for a surgical strike into tehran with special forces though for a worst case scenario

Dante Hicks · 15 Dec 2005, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Now, bear in mind that youre reading a translation of the Iranian's speech. What was the Arabic word he used that the BBC translated into 'myth'?

On another mailing list I'm on someone translated from the original Farsi (?) and said the main debate centres on what he means by 'claim'. The text from the official news agency is something like :

Quote:

"In regard to Zionist claim based on murder and burning of 6 million Jews during the World War II, he (Ahamdinejad) explained: in Western countries if someone oppose this claim, they will be punished and imprisoned. So, it is clear that they are very serious in their claim. The question is if you killed these people, why do the Palestinians have to pay for it?"

Now the context here implies that 'claim' means 'belief that the holocaust happened at all' (thus the reference to holocaust denial laws). At a stretch you could say that by claim he means 'the claim Jews have over Palestine', but that's a big dodgy.

Blastoderm · 15 Dec 2005, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So perhaps in the Middle East if people say that in Germany there were lots of Jews and they were all exterminated, presumably *some* people might say: "well that's terrible, but it doesn't suprise me those Jews are always starting trouble."

I can tell you that this is what most Arabs (generally in the Middle East) would say.