...ginning up false evidence regarding Iran's nuclear intentions.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19740
Printable View
...ginning up false evidence regarding Iran's nuclear intentions.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19740
So what's new? They 'ginned' up plenty of 'evidence' with regards to Iraq's nuclear weapons program, so they've had plenty of practise. :)
Well one stark difference is Saddam saying he doesn't have them versus Ahmadinedjad (whateverthefuck) saying they are getting nuclear 'capability' and adding that they'll wipe Azrael off the map.
I guess if Saddam had just said that he was using ricin to make milk shakes he'd have been left alone.
A big difference here : Iran claims to have fired its first rocket into space.
"The rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence," the head of Iran's aerospace research center, Mohsen Bahrami, told Iranian TV.
http://www.playfuls.com/news_004983_...nto_Space.html
Two mistakes there busybody; first, Iran claims their nuclear ambitions are peaceful, including uranium enrichment, they have never claimed to be acquiring nuclear weapons; and second, they have never 'threatened' to wipe Israel off the map.
Apart from that ... :lol:
Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.
Today it’s the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the “wipe Israel off he map” fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Dav’s, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.
Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to “wipe Israel off the map” or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?
The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word “map,” instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.
To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.
The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word “map” used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, “The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,” or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word “map” used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.
The acceptance of the word “map” seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.
“The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of “the regime occupying Jerusalem” - with the fall of the Shah’s regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 80’s he surely did not favor Iran’s removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out,” writes Steele.
“It’s important to note that the “quote” in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, “they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.”
Source
Is that David Duke, the white supremacist, didn't he used to be high up in the KKK. Wasn't he also a holocaust sceptic.
Or is it a different David Duke.
the US should go round the world building people nuclear power plants if they don't trust people to make their own :dabs:
Is this the guy, he seems charming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke
Well, then.
You've just forfeit any credibility you ever had, as well as any you might accrue, for the rest of your life.
I can't believe you just did that.
Oh, almost forgot-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: -a pause for much needed breath-:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
BTW-
The-
He just burned the rest of your credibility as well.
I can't stop-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's all I'm allowed in any one post.
Can you prove him wrong j2?
Or are you just clutching at straws to hide your glacier humiliation? :)
Oh, please stop...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Billy, Billy, Billy now I know you have form for this. However quoting a former prominent member of the KKK, published anti-semite, convicted tax fraudster, holocaust denier, whose former wife runs an internet sight dedicated to white supremacism, which he posts on, is pushing it a bit, even for you.
He's hardly a reliable source one would have thought.
Or like I said, is it a different one.
Being a member of the KKK does not make him wrong, he quoted sources.
I have no need to prove him wrong.
The boat is full, huh?
The NYT, David Duke, and YOU!
Oh, Lord, here we go again-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Gee whiz, The, what do you say?
Wanna jump into the swamp and save your boy?
Have you finished laughing yet j2?
When you do, go and check who wrote that piece. :)
Waiting .... :)
It could be argued that Prison Planet is a fairly interesting source in its own right. My own experience is that is was popular with individuals on another board who were very much into conspiracy theories. They held some truly remarkable views, not least that the Royal Family are aliens - but that is perhaps another thread :)
However, my understanding is that Ahmadinejad does not always please the senior Mullahs regarding all his views and statements and that his recent seminar on the Holocaust was not all that warmly received by a number of Iranian conservatives.
There is bluster and sabre rattling on both sides of the fence. My own view is that it would be folly to attempt anything military at this point. That doesn't mean that Bush may not be tempted to folly but the mood of the Pentagon appears to be against him on this one.
:lol: I have a great problem with it, absolute disgrace. Fortunately it was centuries ago so I don't really feel responsible.
Now can you answer, or are you doing the deflection thing again.
Wait I remember, on the other forum. Where you said the holcaust had been a good thing. Imagine how many Jews would be about just now if it hadn't happened. You don't really need to answer do you, you already have.
please to be telling me how i burned my credibility. kthx
i don't really feel like putting effort into this. i might say some mental things sometimes, but unlike some people, i don't go taking what partisan hack bloggers say as gospel. especially without even doing so much as a google search to research what i'm quoting.
Check again Busybody, the piece was written by Paul Joseph Watson, it has nothing to do with Duke.
But then again, facts never were your strong point.
Just keep on misquoting JP, it seems to be a hobby of yours.
So what about the Catholic Church's complicity in the holocaust, the Vatican 'pipeline' helping war criminals to escape to Latin America, that wasn't centuries ago, or the denial of condoms to tens of thousands dying of AIDS, the refusal to allow women in danger of their lives to get an abortion, the backing of right wing dictatorships in Latin America, the moving of paedophile priests from one place to another?
You call yourself a catholic, therefore you must agree with their policies. You can't have it both ways, if quoting a third party article on a site you don't agree with is complicit, so are you.
Ok it's on his website (to which I'm sure you get regular updates).
Now you can fuck around with your interpretation and say "wipe Israel off the map" isn't in it but you are shit on context.
However, there are interpetations that have map in it. I love to hear folks with this, "Nooo we are talking about the government not the people" shit.
"When they say, 'Death to America' ' Death to Israel' they mean the government and not the people."
Well many muslims seem to have missed that little tidbit.:dry:
They stress having a world without America or Zionism.
"the Occupier regime of al-Qods must be wiped off the map”
"erased from the page of time"
Big fucking deal when consider the context.
Do you get David Duke RSS feeds too, Billy?
Also how the fuck is it that if you're Catholic that you agree with all their policies?
You are an idiot.
I'm an American and don't agree with all of America's policies. If the leaders of a group make some bad decisions then you should drop out of the basic belief system?
Shut the fuck up, you trolling mashed up turd.
I'm not misquoting. You said that the holocaust was a good thing and that the Nazi's had done the World a favour. You pondered what mess the middle east would be in if there were millions more Jews. It's not a mis-quote, it was in my sig for long enough and the reason that sam4 created the smillie with your face and the archetypal "Jewish hat". Lie to these chaps if you feel you must but everyone who was a member there knows it's true, that includes you and lieing about it makes you all the more pathetic. You don't even have the courage to admit having said it.
How am I complicit in acts which happened before I was born, that's just nonsense and an attempt to deflect from yourself. I'm not complicit in the fire-bombings of Dresden either, or the atomic bombs dropped in Japan. Those things are much more recent than the inquisition and I don't feel even remotely to blame for them.
With regard to the condom thing, the catholic Church is wrong and it's policy is wrong. Condoms should be allowed to anyone who choses to use them.
With regard to denying abortions to women whose lives are at risk, I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Thro' personal experience I know that isn't true, however you may have something specific you are talking about.
With regard to protecting paedophiles. That is wrong, whatever the organisation or group which does it. I am personally ashamed when the Church does it, I think it is a disgraceful and appaling way to behave.
None of that changes anything about you tho'. Nor does it change what you have posted. Nor does it change what you use as sources of information. Nor does it change your bigotry. Or your personal attacks on anyone who takes an opposing view. Like I always say, the posts are there for people to read and make up their own minds.
As I said, this is a mischievous misquote, something you do often, if I said that, post it. Put up or shut up.
That's right, which is far different from your first misquote.
So where is it? You seem to think because you claim to be religious everyone will believe your every word, well you're a liar, nothing unusual there, your religion allows you to lie.
You claim to be Catholic, that's what the Catholic church is all about, so that makes you as guilty as the church, you said so yourself ... you can't have it both ways.
Have you made your views known to your church? Or did you not bother because you know they don't give a fuck what you think?
The official Vatican edict is that no-one gets an abortion .. full stop. If a woman dies it childbirth it's the will of god.
But you still support them don't you? Monetarily as well as spiritually, that makes you as guilty as they are.
No wonder you lot aren't allowed to be the monarch. can you imagine having a head of state who is complicit in church sponsored paedophilia?
There is no need for me to comment on any of that. Anyone who reads it can make their own judgement on who the liar is. Indeed the other people who read your filth already know what you said and that the Nazi's had done a good thing. If memory serves you likened Israel to a modern Sodom.
Still haven't answered about whether you have a problem with tax fraud and anti-semitism. Not really surprising, as that is normally the reason you start these attacks on other people's beliefs. That way you deflect from the point or question.
The only really questionable thing about this forum is why you (really only you, in my experience) are allowed to post things like;
"No wonder you lot aren't allowed to be the monarch. can you imagine having a head of state who is complicit in church sponsored paedophilia?"
quite astonishing.
i feel like putting effort in today, but i know j2 won't play :(
it's not about saving people or anything like that. you see, in the restoftheworldland people have their opinions rather than strict bipartisan alignments.
i can agree with different people on different things. for example with billy, i believe everything about the holocaust that's taught in school is true. i am unsure about what destroying zionism is meant by ahmedidithingy, tbh i think he is too.
i agree with billy on the global warming thing. i also see that without obfuscation or spin, his comments were clearly in alignment with what the scientists say. yours were clearly contradictory. it's fair for me to point this out rly
Sorry if anyone thinks I was misquoting Billy, I was doing it from memory so I may have got it wrong, not the sentiment tho'.
Anyway, as luck would have it here's the whole thing
You decide what it means. I'll be concentrating on Billy posting "Catholics are all cunts".Quote:
I'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East.
Rafi, hope that explains why he treats you the way he does.
Hey, J2 (or someone else), is that site a Fox-type of thing, or do they seem to be unaffiliated with any political entities otherwise?
Never read anything off there before, I assume you reckon it's not entirely on the level, but have they been known to take liberties with the truth or something, before?
To be honest, after Iraq, I'm feeling rather sceptical when the US starts talking about weapons in the Middle East.
And on another note: Some days it seems very odd that the US has issues with someone else's weapons program, to me, given their own arsenal. Almost seems like hypocrisy :idunno:
"We already have nukes, so we can have them if we want. You don't have them/you're not us, so you're not allowed."
:blink:
I don't know whether it has an affiliation or not, frankly.
I felt I had to post it, because there are those here who would swear up-and-down Fox News would never tell a story like that, but my conscience dictates I reveal I saw it on Fox News first...figured if it showed up elsewhere (and it did; lots of places) I'd post it - you can call it bona fide if you like, and I imagine you would, given your general view of the U.S.
The U.S. has the attitude it does precisely because it is the only country which has used nukes in war, and I think you have to admit that gives us a perspective others do not have; after all, what would propagating our point-of-view entail?
You see my point.
In any case, you are correct that the situation fits no definition of "fair" that I am aware of, but I will claim a logicality that springs from my previous point.
Guilty knowledge, so to speak.
Do you think Iran should North Korea should have nukes?
I await his denial/justification/deflection/qualification/accusation of contextual malfeasance without 'bated breath.
if i was playing pass the parcel with nukes i'd rather it was america or some western european country that the music stops on, if you know what i'm saying :dabs:
I don't think anyone should have them, that's what I think.
As far as the rest goes, I'd not call something bona fide just 'cos it happened to be in line with what I thought.
I was mostly wondering about this bit, btw:
Did Fox and others have all that? :unsure:Quote:
Most US intelligence on Iran inaccurate: report
Most US intelligence on Iran shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency has proved to be inaccurate and failed to lead to discoveries of a smoking gun inside the Islamic Republic, The Los Angeles Times reported on its website Saturday.
Citing unnamed diplomats working in Vienna, the newspaper said the US Central Intelligence Agency and other Western intelligence services have been providing sensitive information to the IAEA since 2002.
But none of the tips about Iran's suspected secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic is developing a nuclear arms arsenal, the report said.
"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," the paper quotes a senior IAEA diplomat as saying.
Another official described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out," The Times reported.
US officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove, the report said.
The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran.
In November 2005, UN inspectors discovered a 15-page document in Tehran that showed how to form highly enriched uranium into the configuration needed for the core of a nuclear bomb, The Times said.
Iran said the paper came from Pakistan, but has rebuffed IAEA requests to let inspectors take or copy it for further analysis.
However, diplomats working for the IAEA were less convinced in 2005 by documents recovered by US intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran, the paper said.
The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research into uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during uranium enrichment.
The Times said IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Farsi.
It's the bit that really caught my eye.
And also, for the record:
I don't have a problem with the US as a whole, it's only most of the people in charge, and some attitudes, that bother me :P
I sort of see your point there, I guess.
But then again...they are intended to be a deterrent for people trying to use them against you (and by you, I mean anyone who has them), at least that's my take on the situation.
But then (yet) again, any one who sees you as their enemy, is going to want them as a deterrent to you using the stuff against them, so in having them, you make others want them and...it's a right mess.
The soviets made you boost your arsenal sure enough, btw, I'm well aware of that :dabs: (And they were really stupid about it too, at that, the muppets.)
I'm impressed, maybe they aren't always as bad as they seem :01:Quote:
Yes, Fox News had it all, as did the others I saw.