|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 06:14:28 [Permalink]
|
Let's examine the claim that this is a threat against the people of Israel:
quote:
We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.'
The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw.
The second two paragraphs state that the fight is not between religions or even countries, and certainly not the people of Israel. The fight is with the world oppressor, the United States, who established the "occupying regime." Now, I don't know that the U.S. established the "occupying regime" but this sets the stage. The problem is the Zionist regime and the United States, not Jews, or even Israelis.
Again, more talk about how regimes fall, not how whole peoples are wiped off the map:
quote:
Let's take a step back. We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed. When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependant on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world must should end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this.
Who could believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we have seen its fall during our lives and it collapsed in such a way that we have to refer to libraries
Again, even this mistranslation talks about the regime, not the people of Israel. And no one is really arguing that it is a mistranslation. There is no idiom in Farsi for "wipe off the map." It is an attempt to find a similar idiom in English to express what is being said in a hurry.
quote:
Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2007 : 06:50:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Let's examine the claim that this is a threat against the people of Israel:
quote:
We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.'
The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw.
The second two paragraphs state that the fight is not between religions or even countries, and certainly not the people of Israel. The fight is with the world oppressor, the United States, who established the "occupying regime." Now, I don't know that the U.S. established the "occupying regime" but this sets the stage. The problem is the Zionist regime and the United States, not Jews, or even Israelis.
Again, more talk about how regimes fall, not how whole peoples are wiped off the map:
quote:
Let's take a step back. We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed. When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependant on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world must should end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this.
Who could believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we have seen its fall during our lives and it collapsed in such a way that we have to refer to libraries
Again, even this mistranslation talks about the regime, not the people of Israel. And no one is really arguing that it is a mistranslation. There is no idiom in Farsi for "wipe off the map." It is an attempt to find a similar idiom in English to express what is being said in a hurry.
quote:
Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.
How can you seriously say that the problem is not with the Israelis, when he basically states that where Israel now is there should be a "Palestinian nation", that "We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine." and "The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian gover |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 07:04:25 [Permalink]
|
You both are reading a lot that just isn't there, and just seem to be making things up now, so I have no response. Are you saying that the speech also says that he's glad that Dean Martin (American entertainer if you don't know) is dead as well?
Fact is, yes, if a vote is taken amongst Palestinian and Israeli diaspora, the Jews would probably lose. Whether or not you agree with that, that is hardly saying that Iran is going to attack anyone. Again, add up the number of countries that Israel, Iran and the U.S. have illegally attacked and seriously threatened, you'll see that Iran's contribution is pretty close to zero, and the contribution of the other two is much much larger.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 03/29/2007 07:07:59 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 07:22:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
You both are reading a lot that just isn't there,
I quoted it for you. Pretending it isn't there doesn't make it go away.
quote:
and just seem to be making things up now, so I have no response.
What specifically have I made up?
quote:
Are you saying that the speech also says that he's glad that Dean Martin (American entertainer if you don't know) is dead as well?
Nope, because that's not in there. The other things were either implied in it strongly or said outright.
quote:
Fact is, yes, if a vote is taken amongst Palestinian and Israeli diaspora, the Jews would probably lose.
Jews at present make up around 70 to 80% of the Israeli population. Israel currently has around 7.1 million people (per december 2006). The number of people in refugee camps lies around 4 million. If there would all move into Israel, they would probably make up slightly less then half of the majority. With high voter turnout, which would be expected, the jews would probably win, even if the margin would be small. Far to small to make a "Palestinian state" or an "Israeli State". I would advocate working toward a Palestraeli State, where all nationalities have equal rights, duties and obligations. Had Ahmedinejad made statements in that direction, I would have no beef with him. Point is, he doesn't.
quote:
Whether or not you agree with that, that is hardly saying that Iran is going to attack anyone.
Did I ever say that? Nope, I didn't. I said the statements were threatening. I did not say Iran would act on the thread. In fact I stated quite clearly that I found the claim that Iran would highly dubious.
[quote[Again, add up the number of countries that Israel, Iran and the U.S. have illegally attacked and seriously threatened, you'll see that Iran's contribution is pretty close to zero, and the contribution of the other two is much much larger.
[/quote]
Which is completely irrelevant to whether the statements made are inflammatory. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 03/29/2007 07:28:29 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 07:47:39 [Permalink]
|
A wish for democracy in Israel is "inflammatory" now and worthy of another "Shock and Awe" display?
Jews and Christians and other Palestinians lived very well in Palestine. I see nothing wrong in wishing for a democratic Palestine. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Some will want to right the wrongs of the past by driving Jews out of their favored status and driving them out of the country as they did the Arabs. I don't agree with that, and I of course, do not support the mullahs of Iran, but none of this means it's a good idea to let King George continue to threaten and bully his way around the world.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 03/29/2007 07:50:14 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 07:55:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
A wish for democracy in Israel is "inflammatory" now and worthy of another "Shock and Awe" display?
Ahmedinejad is saying a lot more then just "A wish for democracy in Israel". He is specifically stating that Israel should become a Palestian Nation and that those who have immigrated to Israel should be removed from it.
I have never said that his statements would be "worthy of another "Shock and Awe" display". I have specifically stated, and apparantly I have to state it here for the third time, that I see no reason to think that Iran would attack Israel (in line with earlier statements I made that I also do not think Iran would ever use nukes, if it even produces them in the first place, which is also I claim of which I have on this thread I find it implausible). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 08:10:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.
The "Palestinians" he speaks of seems to be those that live in Palestine, which were Jews, Christians, Arabs, and others.
You may be right about "those who came to plunder" being Jews who came from abroad, but while I don't agree with this line of thought, if that is the line of thought, which I doubt, that is understandable for someone to think that those who drove people out should themselves be driven out. Why wouldn't someone think that? Is that inflammatory? Okay. Does he have any inclination or power to violently carry that out? Did he say that he'd do it by gaining nuclear power? He was expressing a wish. You and I may disagree with that wish, but this thread is about an Iranian threat. You may not be saying that Iran is a threat, but forgive me for assuming that as this is what this thread is about. My mistake. I see it as a wish for a regime to end, not to have the people of Israel slaughtered. There is a difference, and that's where the "wiped off the map" problem begins. That's what that means to a lot of people. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 08:58:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.
The "Palestinians" he speaks of seems to be those that live in Palestine, which were Jews, Christians, Arabs, and others.
Which still leaves out all those who have immigrated to Israel. It also ignores his references of those Palestinians as Islamic. His ending statement is very specific in that regard ("Those who are sitting in closed rooms cannot decide for the Islamic nation and cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world."), but he makes similar statements in that veign throughout the entire speech.
quote:
You may be right about "those who came to plunder" being Jews who came from abroad, but while I don't agree with this line of thought, if that is the line of thought, which I doubt, that is understandable for someone to think that those who drove people out should themselves be driven out. Why wouldn't someone think that? Is that inflammatory? Okay. Does he have any inclination or power to violently carry that out? Did he say that he'd do it by gaining nuclear power? He was expressing a wish. You and I may disagree with that wish, but this thread is about an Iranian threat. You may not be saying that Iran is a threat, but forgive me for assuming that as this is what this thread is about. My mistake. I see it as a wish for a regime to end, not to have the people of Israel slaughtered. There is a difference, and that's where the "wiped off the map" problem begins. That's what that means to a lot of people.
And his speech indicates that he thinks that those people should at least be driven out. How you would think that this driving out would work without slaughter is beyond me. Especially since he seems to be applauding recent (violent) actions of Palestinians (the "new wave that has started in Palestine" and "we cannot compromise on the issue of Palestine"). I could certainly understand that someone like Ahmedinejad would have the mindset that the new immigrants should be driven out because he sees them as the reason Palestians have been driven out. But as an Iranian president, his statements carry a bit more weight then the street applepie-vendor. The only way peace will be achieved is either through compromise, or through the irradication of one of the two people in that nation. Applauding further strife and referring to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as "tricks" that should not be believed is pretty inflammatory.
Take this together with Irans refusal to properly inform the EAIA of their nuclear program, especially regarding black-market purchases of centrifuges and military links to the claimed civilian nuclear program. In my opinion, it is highly spurious to absolve Iran from blame of its own statements under the guise that it is understandable Ahmedinejad makes these statements, but then pretend that a reaction of feeling threatened and further suspicion is completely ungrounded for countries that already have suspicions about Iran in light of the events in the past years.
As I said before, I do not think Iran is a direct threat. I think its current actions are a way to try and gain leverage in the Middle East and especially with Shiite groups in the different Middle Eastern countries in particular and the world in general. The statements in Ahmedinejads statements fit in this pattern. They were inflammatory, and I see no reason to think that this is unintended. Call me cynical, but I give Ahmedinejad a bit more credit then that. I do not think he is naive. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 03/29/2007 09:00:41 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 11:36:38 [Permalink]
|
CNN interview with Ambassador Solanieh:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/02/le.01.html
quote:
BLITZER: Does your support for the removal of Zionism mean you want to see Israel destroyed?
SOLTANIEH: I have already explained to you and reflected to you the policy echoed by our supreme leader.
It means that if in that region, the divine religion followers of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, that all three are very respectful -- and we have Jews in Iran, which are peacefully living and they are represented in our parliament, they are fully respected -- if they come with the Palestinians, homeless Palestinians, to come and through following the democratic process will decide on a government and live in peace as they were living a thousand years of coexistence of these divine religions, Iran will support because we are looking for and we support peaceful settlement of the whole issue and peaceful coexistence of these divine religions in the Middle East. Let's hope for the peace.
BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or we they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.
BLITZER: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for spending some time with us, giving Iran's position to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Thanks very much for joining us on "Late Edition."
SOLTANIEH: I wish you all the best, and hope for the peace in the region, strategic region, of the Middle East, and in the whole world. Thank you very much.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 13:24:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
CNN interview with Ambassador Solanieh:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/02/le.01.html
quote:
BLITZER: Does your support for the removal of Zionism mean you want to see Israel destroyed?
SOLTANIEH: I have already explained to you and reflected to you the policy echoed by our supreme leader.
It means that if in that region, the divine religion followers of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, that all three are very respectful -- and we have Jews in Iran, which are peacefully living and they are represented in our parliament, they are fully respected -- if they come with the Palestinians, homeless Palestinians, to come and through following the democratic process will decide on a government and live in peace as they were living a thousand years of coexistence of these divine religions, Iran will support because we are looking for and we support peaceful settlement of the whole issue and peaceful coexistence of these divine religions in the Middle East. Let's hope for the peace.
BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or we they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.
BLITZER: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for spending some time with us, giving Iran's position to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Thanks very much for joining us on "Late Edition."
SOLTANIEH: I wish you all the best, and hope for the peace in the region, strategic region, of the Middle East, and in the whole world. Thank you very much.
(bolding mine)
Jews in Iran:
quote:
Again, the Jews live under the status of dhimmi, with the restrictions im posed on religious minorities. Jewish leaders fear government reprisals if they draw attention to official mistreatment of their community.
And:
quote:
Iran's official government-controlled media often issues anti-Semitic propaganda. A prime example is the government's publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious Czarist forgery, in 1994 and 1999.2 Jews also suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations.3
And:
quote:
The Islamization of the country has brought about strict control over Jewish educational institutions. Before the revolution, there were some 20 Jewish schools functioning throughout the country. In recent years, most of these have been closed down. In the remaining schools, Jewish principals have been replaced by Muslims. In Teheran there are still three schools in which Jewish pupils constitute a majority. The curriculum is Islamic, and Persian is forbidden as the language of instruction for Jewish studies. Special Hebrew lessons are conducted on Fridays by the Orthodox Otzar ha-Torah organization, which is responsible for Jewish religious education. Saturday is no longer officially recognized as the Jewish sabbath, and Jewish pupils are compelled to attend school on that day. There are three synagogues in Teheran, but since 1994, there has been no rabbi in Iran, and the bet din does not function. 4
For a country with such policies, you'll have to excuse me if I take the statements of its ambassador regarding this issue with a grain of salt, especially if that embassador claims to be against discrimination. I will believe the ambassadors statements regarding Irans support for full democracy as soon as Iran actually grants it to its own minorities. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 03/29/2007 13:26:59 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 14:39:41 [Permalink]
|
That's fine. But what we're talking about is the contention that the government of Iran is threatening anyone, or is a threat to anyone, not that it's a great place for all to live, or that its Ayatollahs and Presidents are geniuses.
There is no indication of that at all. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 20:26:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Of course they're biased. Everyone is biased. The New York Times is a capitalist venture, so it is biased. They just don't tell you that they are. Fair does. Biased does not equal wrong. They are very reliable.
But they are more than just biased. Biased is when you present both sides, but favor one side over the other. FAIR is an advocacy group. Not only do they not present the other side, they pretend there is no other side. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 21:47:26 [Permalink]
|
Hey, it's late and it's been a long week so I appologize in advance if this seems more rambling and less organized than it should be.
I'm quite literally nodding off as I'm putting this together, so keep that in mind. :)
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Let's examine the claim that this is a threat against the people of Israel:
Sure. Just like the United States went to war with the government of Iraq, not the people of Iraq.
Of course that distinction doesn't stop anyone who is against the Iraq war from portraying it as a war of aggression against Iraqi people.
With Iraq the distinction between the people and the government is at least justifiable. Saddam was a dictator who ruled without the consent of his people, and put down dissent violently.
Israel, on the other hand, is a democracy. It does rule with the consent of its people, so creating a distinction between the people and its government is nonsensical.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
The second two paragraphs state that the fight is not between religions or even countries, and certainly not the people of Israel…
Except if you look again you see he identifies one side as “Muslim.” Not a more accurate “Palestinian” or even “Arab”, but “Muslim” despite all those Palestinian Christians in the territories. Ahmadinejad himself is framing it as a religious conflict despite his seeming not to do so in the first paragraph. He claims the “world oppressor” moved against the “Islamic world”.
Then he says;
” Unfortunately, the Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years. I do not want to examine the reasons for this, but only to review the history. The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime. Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.
Clearly he's talking about a much greater struggle with Islam as a whole. The Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years? Well, that predates Zionism and the United States, so what is this greater struggle against?
Let's examine that first paragraph again:
Is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Check. It's Muslims against Jews, so the answer is “no”.
Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Check. It's certainly not Judaism against Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism, or many other religions.
Is it the fight of one country with another country? Check. “Palestinian” is not a country yet, and typically when Israel has gone to war it's been against groups of Arab countries, so it's not a fight of one country against another.
Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Apparently not as Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan, and Iran is not Arab.
Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? Well, yes, actually it is, but since Ahmadinejad counts this as a “no” we need to search a bit for his meaning. How can it not be (according to Ahmadinejad) a struggle for the land when he describes the enemy as “the occupying regime of Qods”? Well because the issue isn't Palestinian control over the land, but Islamic control. Interpreting it that way makes sense of his ramblings about the Muslim world “withdrawing” for the past 300 years.
quote: |
| Edited by - Mycroft on 03/29/2007 21:48:22 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2007 : 21:56:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
A wish for democracy in Israel is "inflammatory" now and worthy of another "Shock and Awe" display?
For all its faults, Israel is already a democracy.
quote:
Originally posted by GorgoJews and Christians and other Palestinians lived very well in Palestine.
When was that, exactly?
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Gorgo
I see nothing wrong in wishing for a democratic Palestine. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Some will want to right the wrongs of the past by driving Jews out of their favored status and driving them out of the country as they did the Arabs.
The real issue is if these people can resolve their differences so that they both get what they need. Right now, and for more than a decade, the model most favored by these peoples is a two state solution with independence for both peoples.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by GorgoI don't agree with that, and I of course, do not support the mullahs of Iran, but none of this means it's a good idea to let King George continue to threaten and bully his way around the world.
What you don't seem to get is that approval or disapproval of Bush is [i]a completely separate issue from the intentions of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs of Iran. Just because Bush is an idiot doesn't mean that Ahmadinejad doesn't really intend harm for Israel. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2007 : 03:02:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
That's fine. But what we're talking about is the contention that the government of Iran is threatening anyone, or is a threat to anyone, not that it's a great place for all to live, or that its Ayatollahs and Presidents are geniuses.
There is no indication of that at all.
I agree partially. I agree that there is at present no reason to think that Iran is a threat. I even think that saying that Iran is intentionally threatening anyone is overstated.
On the other hand, I do think that Ahmedinejad's speech was inflammatory. I think it is clear that when Iran is talking about a democracy in Israel, it is not talking about a representative democracy where all of the inhabitants have equal rights. I think that Iran's less then open communication about its nuclear gives reason for suspicion and that, combined with its inflammatory speech, it gives reason for a country like Israel to feel threatened. If not by what Iran might do directly, then by at the least having great concerns about what it is doing indirectly.
Furthermore, given the current political situation in the Middle East, it is not wholly unthinkable that Iran does perceive this as an uprising against the rest of the world. It is very reasonable to think that Iran wants to position itself in the vanguard of this uprising. Its current actions point strongly in that direction. Such a thing is likely to have a destabilizing effect on the region, in that Iran will support not a democratic government, but an islamist one (and a shiite one at that). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 03/30/2007 03:13:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Iranian Manhattan Project speeds along
