Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/31/10 11:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekin review/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&
en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssn yt&emc=rss

Undoubtedly, the first time you've read the column. As if it wasn't, you wouldn't have butchered his words in the first place.

Incidentally, it was Iran's own official press that translated it, not the Western media.

Incidentally, I never claimed otherwise. I said that it's been perpetuated mostly by western media, which is the truth. Yes, it was the Iranian press agency that mistranslated it. It was a rough translation, and they likely didn't recognize that the phrase "wiped off the map" had an alternative (non-literal) meaning in English. Ahmadinejad himself, doesn't seem to care about how he's portrayed in the US media, and doesn't make any attempt to retract the translation, though other Iranian sources have.

Regardless, it's an apparent mistranslation, and restating it to a western audience, especially without clarifying the euphemism, is nothing short of propaganda.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

I was referring to the statement I had just quoted, as you are perfectly aware. Not that I would expect an ethical response from you.

I never said anything about military force, I said he is hostile to Israel and wants it (it being its government and a nation, if not it's population, to be destroyed.

Fine. So he wants a bi-national state. So what? That's not a bad thing. It's not a bad thing for human rights to be respected. It's not a bad thing for an egregious crime to be undone. It's not a bad thing for the Arab citizens of Israel to finally have the same rights as Jewish citizens. How is calling for an end to a racist Zionist movement the same as calling for the collapse of the government of Israel? How is it the same as calling for the extermination (destruction?) of Israel's citizens?

Frankly, he's on the right side of this issue. And you're on the wrong side. Sorry.

At 10/31/10 01:14 PM, Imperator wrote:

The Supreme Leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei.

Thank you. I'm glad at least 1 person knew this.

Ahmadinajad may be crazy, but he's not in charge over there. Iran is a religiously controlled government. There's a head politician who answers to the head religious figure. Ahmadinajad is the politician. This whole argument is one of the dumbest I've ever heard. There's literally no supporting evidence that Iran is a threat.

The idea that Iran is seeking nukes is hysterical to me. Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the CIA imposed government of Iran in 1979. What do you think the first thing he did was? Destroy all the nukes the U.S. had stockpiled in Iran as a launching point to Russia should the need come. Khameini was a huge supporter of Khomeini (as is the vast majority of the Iranian public still to this day) and eventually was chosen as his successor for the position of SUPREME LEADER. Iran is strongly against nuclear weaponry and is a far more responsible example of how nuclear weapons should be treated than the United States government.

You realize that Hiroshima was deliberately skipped as a fire-bombing target during the close of WWII because the government wanted to be able to calculate the exact force of the atomic bomb? It was an experiment. The effect of the radioactive fallout from the bomb was known to be horrific in incalculable ways, but it was still dropped and the devastation from it STILL has an effect in Japan, and not even 20 years after we devastated the Japanese people to the point where they now denounce war in its entirety, we had our fingers on the button just waiting for the USSR to breathe the wrong way so we could nuke the shit out of them. So who the fuck are we to judge who should or should not be able to possess nuclear energy when we use it like it's a fucking toy?

Even more damning is the fact that Iran was willing to allow UN inspectors into their own country to inspect their facilities.... Except that at the time, the UN and EU said that Iran wasn't even allowed to have nuclear energy. They were told to stop all operations or face severe sanctions. Iran isn't a part of either organization. It was just offering to allow inspectors in as a show of faith. Instead, they were basically told no, you're a 3rd world country and you're going to stay that way. So Iran said alright, fuck you, and continued on with their program. A few years later, when the facilities started becoming operational, the UN demanded that they be allowed to inspect these facilities. OBVIOUSLY, Iran responded by saying suck my dick, as anyone with the least bit of pride would do. This is where you hear all of the "Iran won't comply with our demands" horseshit. It's taken out of context and accepted as facts by the majority of the people in the United States.

The bottom line is Iran is the most advanced culture in the middle east that hasn't bent over so the U.S. could have their way with them. (I'm looking at you, Pakistan.) Their standard of living is the envy of every other Arabic nation, save the UAE. Regardless of how you feel about their policies, they deserve respect for the great things they've accomplished considering where they were when the CIA overthrew their government for the lulz not so long ago. During 1984-2004, access to electricity by the poorest quintile (bottom 25%) in rural areas increased from 37% to 94% and piped water from 31% to 79%. As a result of the extension of these services, by 2004, 80% of these households owned a refrigerator, 77% a television, and 76% a gas stove. Just because a country gives the United States (and it's fuck buddy, the UK) the finger doesn't mean that it doesn't have the best interest of humanity at heart. In fact, it probably means the opposite. This is a big reason I can't wait to get the fuck out of the hypocritical, piece of shit clusterfuck that is the United States.

TL;DR, stfu noobs.

Apparently, Ahmadinejad isn't the new Hitler, he's the new Maradona! An indoor football Maradona, but still.

It's a new world now, Ahmadinejad is powerless against the rest of the world. The technology we have today is far more sophisticated than tedious threats and messages of hate. I doubt we're going to nuclear war. If you understand the first thing about nuclear warfare and the process it takes to make these bombs, It's almost absolutely impossible to hide it. Screw Ahmadinejad. I'm no Hitler fan but there's no way he could possibly be anything close to Hitler. He's no more of a threat to us than a deep south Aryan low-life thug waving a gun around while pouting about how he thinks the world should be.

At 11/1/10 04:59 AM, michelinman wrote: Ahmadinajad may be crazy, but he's not in charge over there. Iran is a religiously controlled government. There's a head politician who answers to the head religious figure. Ahmadinajad is the politician.

And what, Ahmedinijhad just goes around saying whatever the hell he wants with no input from Khameni? As if Khameni doesn't tell him what he should do?

Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the CIA imposed government of Iran in 1979. What do you think the first thing he did was? Destroy all the nukes the U.S. had stockpiled in Iran as a launching point to Russia should the need come.

What the hell are you talking about? The U.S. gave nuclear weapons to Iran at any time, ever.

You realize that Hiroshima was deliberately skipped as a fire-bombing target during the close of WWII because the government wanted to be able to calculate the exact force of the atomic bomb? It was an experiment. The effect of the radioactive fallout from the bomb was known to be horrific in incalculable ways.

That's not true. In weapons tests, scientists dramatically underestimated radioactive fallout because they only measured at the detonation site and not in surrounding areas where wind blew radioactive particles.

we had our fingers on the button just waiting for the USSR to breathe the wrong way so we could nuke the shit out of them. So who the fuck are we to judge who should or should not be able to possess nuclear energy when we use it like it's a fucking toy?

The US only deployed nuclear weapons twice, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's not as fun a toy as you might think.
As far as energy is concerned, there have hardly been any new nuclear power plants constructed in the last few decades. If anything, you should be chiding Russia for Chernobyll, which was far more devastating than anything that happened at TMI.

Even more damning is the fact that Iran was willing to allow UN inspectors into their own country to inspect their facilities...It was just offering to allow inspectors in as a show of faith.

Iran-International Atomic Energy Agency agreement regarding safeguards pursuant to NPT.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documen ts/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf
pg.3
Article 9
(a) (i) The Agency shall secure the consent of the Government of Iran to the designation
of Agency inspectors to Iran.
pg. 17
Article 70
General provisions
The Agency shall have the right to make inspections as provided for in Articles 71-82.
Purposes of inspections
Article 71
The Agency may make ad hoc inspections in order to:
(a) Verify the information contained in the initial report on the nuclear material subject to
safeguards under this Agreement

Regardless of how you feel about their policies, they deserve respect for the great things they've accomplished considering where they were when the CIA overthrew their government for the lulz not so long ago.

The CIA sent a dozen people to bribe newspaper editors and spread propaganda. They made contacts with some disgruntled Iranian military officials. It was Iranians, not Americans, who overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh and his government.
It was not simply for "fun," either. US intelligence suspected the country might soon fall victim to a Communist takeover, a suspicion that was encouraged by the nationalization (theft) of a British oil company operation there in 1951.

This is a big reason I can't wait to get the fuck out of the hypocritical, piece of shit clusterfuck that is the United States.

I hear there's lot's of room for closet Arabs in the UK.

At 10/31/10 11:54 PM, Musician wrote: Undoubtedly, the first time you've read the column. As if it wasn't, you wouldn't have butchered his words in the first place.

I'll never tell.

Yes, it was the Iranian press agency that mistranslated it. It was a rough translation, and they likely didn't recognize that the phrase "wiped off the map" had an alternative (non-literal) meaning in English.

He put it on his own website as the transcript of remarks he made years later! It seems pretty clear that this translation is what he means now, and probably meant in the first case.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

I was referring to the statement I had just quoted, as you are perfectly aware. Not that I would expect an ethical response from you.

I wasn't refering to that statement. I was referring to your claims that Ahmedinijhad has never "affirmed his hostility towards Israel."

I never said anything about military force, I said he is hostile to Israel and wants it (it being its government and a nation, if not it's population, to be destroyed.

Fine. So he wants a bi-national state. So what? That's not a bad thing. It's not a bad thing for human rights to be respected.

Tell that to the Iranian homosexuals.

How is calling for an end to a racist Zionist movement the same as calling for the collapse of the government of Israel? How is it the same as calling for the extermination (destruction?) of Israel's citizens?

He's not calling for a movement to end, he's specifically identifying a government that, by its very existence, is a "cancerous tumor." In order to get a bi-national state, you would have to nullfity Jewish land claims that have been treated as valid for decades. The Israelis on that land don't think of it as "Palestinian territory" any more than I would consider my house to lie on Chocktaw hunting grounds.

At 10/30/10 08:16 PM, Ranger2 wrote: If Ahmadinejad was assassinated, I would not be sad.

I'd like to second this most completely.

Sure, i'd be sad because I don't want anyone to die, but he's lowest on my list of people I want to live long and happy lives.

At 11/6/10 05:29 AM, Senmetsu wrote:

At 10/30/10 08:16 PM, Ranger2 wrote: If Ahmadinejad was assassinated, I would not be sad.

I'd like to second this most completely.

What world leaders death would make you ACTUALLY sad?

I love this man , he 's so funnt X-D