Armageddon? Great, bring it on

By OF ALL the threats that our messy world faces, nuclear weaponry ranks right up there. Put the Bomb together with anti-Semitism and you’ve got a combination that should make any reasonable person recoil.

No wonder the otherwise soft-spoken human rights activist Elie Wiesel recently described President Ahmadinejad of Iran as “pathologically sick”. I wish it were that simple. The problem is, the ballistic Ahmadinejad is entirely rational from the perspective of a religious fanatic.

As a zealous Shia Muslim, he is eagerly awaiting the return of the “hidden imam”....

Maybe Ahmadinejad is reactivating his country’s nuclear enrichment program precisely to incite resistance, and thereby hasten the kingdom of the messiah. “We must prepare ourselves to rule the world,” he mused recently, “and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return.” Allah’s final ambassador can’t be too far away now. Scary? Yes. Pathologically sick? Depends. To that fringe of true believers, doomsday politics makes complete sense.

The weapons of mass destruction have been found. They’re people with unshakeable faith in the coming showdown between good and evil. Left in their hands, the world is heading for a clash of Armageddons.

Read the rest. Go on, you know you want to.



48 Responses to “Armageddon? Great, bring it on”

  1. # Anonymous alison

    I really enjoyed the article. All so true. Specially liked the WMD reference.  

  2. # Anonymous j0nz

    Yes, Irshad Manji rules. If only more were as brave and outspoken as this woman. Apart from you Alison I think you are just as brave what with your Toonophobia sign ;)  

  3. # Anonymous Barry Bananas

    Hello bigots.

    I wonder if any of you have thought to have a look at the original transcripts of any of Ahmadinejad's controversial speeches? There's this thing called "propaganda" that's historically been very common when governments are trying to butter the populace up for a war, and it's usually worth checking to see whether you are being hoodwinked or not before you go off and run your mouth like an establishment mouthpiece. An unpaid one, at that. A "useful idiot", if you will.

    Anyway, why not have a look for the speeches and see whether you can find the bit where the Raving Islamist Lunatic says the stuff about "annihilating" or "exterminating" Israel, or "wiping Israel off the map", or any of that stuff.

    I'll give you a clue to save you some time, if you like: you won't find it. You're being played like chumps, fellas, congratulations.  

  4. # Anonymous j0nz

    Barry, you are joking, right? You think this is conspiracy by the government? You thick fuck. I don't speak Persian but there are thousands of journalists that do, and that's what they reported.  

  5. # Anonymous Barry Bananas

    You don't speak Persian? Good news! The full translated transcripts are online. Find them, and look for where Ahmadinejad says that "Israel must be wiped off the map". Find where he says that Israel must be "eliminated" or "annihilated".

    Then come back and call me a thick fuck. Go on, I dare you. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake here; you might want to start thinking.  

  6. # Anonymous j0nz

    I don't normally link to Al-Jazeera but here goes.

    Quote:

    "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

    His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
    rallies.


    You thick fuck.  

  7. # Anonymous tim baste

    No, Jonz, you thick fuck.

    Is that a transcript you linked to right there? I don't think so. Try again.  

  8. # Anonymous j0nz

    Oh dear... Tin Foil hats anyone?  

  9. # Anonymous Barry Baste

    Fuck me. That all you got? Seriously, try and find an actual fucking transcript. It's really not hard.

    I'll make it easy - how about we just stick to the most recent one, about Israel "heading towards annihilation"? That was in mid-April, the 16th I think, so it shouldn't be too hard to turn up. First page of a Google search, I would imagine.  

  10. # Anonymous j0nz

    You are right I couldn't find a transcript. You do realise that the media in Iran is state controlled, and you can be beaten or tortured on made up charges?

    Entry to Iran to Iran by foreign journalists is tightly controlled. Bloggers risk their lives dissenting.

    This proves what? If if did find a full blown transcript, how would you be sure it isn't a fake? Are you seriously insuating that this is a conspiracy?

    You are a thick cunt! You are either:

    1. Don't believe that Iranian president would say such things, and only says nice fluffy things about Israel and the West. It's all a Zionist conspiracy anyway.
    2. Completely insane.
    3. A troll
    4. All of the above

    You will be telling Iranian bloggers next they don't know what they are talking about (even they they live there/have lived there). Try telling Azarmehr that, you dumb fucking fucker!  

  11. # Anonymous tim bananas

    You couldn't find a transcript? Honestly? That's not what I meant at all. Need to brush up on them Google skills, guy.

    Here's one at GlobalSecurity.org, for example. They are all the same. It's from the 14th, actually, but that shouldn't have caused too much trouble.

    There were complaints during the day, from the likes of Michelle Malkin that the story changed on the likes of Reuters and CNN to remove the "annihilated" line. Because he didn't say it. The initial reports were written before the transcripts became available.

    (Also, it would be a pretty poxy state-controlled media that didn't accurately reporting what the fucking President of the country said, and instead replaced his words with other ones likely to get his ass blown up by the US.)

    Interesting analysis of the earlier "map" speech here.

    And no, I don't think the Iranian president would have much nice shit to say about Israel at all. I think there's a big difference between criticising an occupying regime and advocating that it be wiped off the face of the planet, however - but then I'm not a fucking bigoted asshole.  

  12. # Anonymous A

    Great link Jonz. There are some out of Iran also worth checking out. will post the links later, theyre clearly all thick cunts also.

    oh and 4.  

  13. # Anonymous j0nz

    Cheers A.. Still go those links?!  

  14. # Anonymous Banana Man

    Sorry fellas, been away for a while.

    So, did any of you shitheels manage to find the words "annihilation" or "elimination" anywhere in the transcript, or are you just going to continue to take the dread MSM's word for it and write barely literate, non-sensical bullshit like this, like the good little propaganda mouthpieces that you are?

    For a bunch of cunts who hate the biased mainstream media, you're all awful quick to believe what they tell you.  

  15. # Anonymous j0nz

    Banana Brain

    Where are your sources? How do you "know" that he didn't say these things? I find it hard to believe that THOUSANDS of news sources have incorrectly reported the words of the Iranian president, and yet NONE of these international new sources have published any sort of correction.

    And if these translations were so far from the truth, where's the rage? Where's the statements from the Iranian regime denouncing these incorrect translations?

    Well, actually, I think I do know your sources. You read left wing conspiracy sites such as Information Clearing House, I think the article you are reading from verbatim is this one.

    Talk about a flimsy argument...

    Quoting from your totally unbiased consipracy site:

    The Iranian president say "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth."

    Which is like SOO different from saying the holocaust is myth.

    "Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

    See? He has trouble talking about something that he doesn't believe actually happened...  

  16. # Anonymous Banana Brain

    "How do you "know" that he didn't say these things?"

    Well, every transcript I have seen indicates that he did not, for a start. He doesn't say these things in the transcript that I have kindly researched for your google-impaired arse. How do you "know" that he did say these things? You have reported as much on your little hate-blog here - what are your sources?

    "I find it hard to believe that THOUSANDS of news sources have incorrectly reported the words of the Iranian president"

    Why? The MSM is awful biased, as you keep telling us, and blatantly can't be trusted. Is the fact that many of the big news sources changed their stories later in the day to remove the reference to the word "annihilated" of absolutely no consequence to you? Does that not suggest to you that a mistake was made?

    "And if these translations were so far from the truth, where's the rage?"

    Well it ain't at this house of blind faith, that's for sure. I've just pointed you at a transcript of the man's speech which indicates that he did not say the things he has been reported to have said - and you don't give a fuck. Why is that? Why aren't you fucking angry, motherfucker? My guess is that what Ahmadinejad says makes no difference to you, because you have already swallowed the propaganda line that he is a crazed maniac with his finger on the red button and his crosshairs trained on Israel. Never mind the fact that he'd be wiping out millions of Arabs and non-Jewish people. Never mind that he believes in the right of return of the Palestinians and is therefore highly unlikely to seriously want to lay nuclear waste to their country. Never mind that his criticisms are restricted to the current Israeli regime. Never mind that what he actually proposed, by way of a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, was a representative democracy for the Jewish, Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. Never mind all that stuff that you would know if you took the time to look for some information outside of what the MSM serves up for you.

    You ought to be fucking angry. Instead you are passively regurgitating establishment myths.

    By the way, the ICH article which you so cleverly linked to in your last comment was already linked by me several posts up, so don't think you got the drop on me there, hosebag. Also, it refers to his earler speech, and was written before Ahmadinejad made the "annihilated/eliminated" speech that I am concerned with, so not only am I not quoting it "verbatim", I am not even quoting it at all. What I am saying to you has nothing to do with "left-wing conspiracy sites" (nice smear you got there): I've given you the transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech - why don't you address that instead of all these diversions?

    Which brings me back to my original question: have you found the part in his speech where he says that Israel should be annihilated yet?  

  17. # Anonymous j0nz

    Banana Head,

    Did you actually read the Times article by Irshad Manji? Thing is, sadly, it appears you have made no effort to understand 9/11, Islam or funadamentalism. Which is a crying shame. Since without this insight, your thoughts are frankly pie in the sky.

    "passively regurgitating establishment myths." Like I say - your niavety knows no bounds! I couldnt give a fuck what the media says. I don't need to speak Arabic or Perisan, of fucking Fariah or whatever to see hateful frenzied fundamentalism.

    Never mind that what he actually proposed, by way of a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, was a representative democracy for the Jewish, Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine.

    Are you trying to be thick or does it come naturally? Of COURSE he wants a nation, which is *NOT* a secular democracy. Your niavety knows no bounds! You seem to have zilch understanding of Sharia law, the Shia faith, and basics of Islam.

    You do realised that under an Islamic rule, inequality is legally enshrined? You want Israel to be obliterated too. You know how many Jews there are in Afghanistan? 1, last time I check. How many Jews in Iran do you think? Fuck all you silly little gobshite. Jews are persecuted throughou the Middle East, they are thought of as "apes and monkeys". (It's in the Quran, dickwad!)

    Your proposal of a one state solution is ignorant at best, and genocidal and worst. The word "useful idiot" springs to mind!

    Keep it up, you'll make the perfect Dhimmi! Just don't forget that Jizah ;)  

  18. # Anonymous j0nz

    Bananas Man,

    Regarding the letter to Bush from Ahmadinejad


    The president also questioned the creation of Israel, asking "how can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?", Reuters reported.


    I guess this was another translation error.  

  19. # Anonymous Banana Head

    "I guess this was another translation error."

    Well I doubt it, since the letter was written in fucking English, shitlips. But your quote is irrelevant anyway, unless you can show how it is equivalent to saying that Israel will be "annihilated" or "wiped off the map" and the like. Many people across the world have genuine concerns about how Israel was created, and not all of them are frenzied fundamentalists, not by a long shot (I hesitate to ask you what you think went on in Palestine when Israel was being created). Try again, idiot.

    "...your niavety knows no bounds! I couldnt give a fuck what the media says. I don't need to speak Arabic or Perisan, of fucking Fariah or whatever to see hateful frenzied fundamentalism."

    Like I thought - you've internalised the establishment narrative to the extent that you no longer even need to see evidence, you no longer need to be presented with facts. You simply know it is the case. And my naivety knows no bounds? Incredible. Rational people, when told that Ahmadinejad wants to nuke Israel, would examine this claim. It's a fucking serious claim - one which we are most likely about to go to war again over - so it's worth investigating. Rational people might ask: did he really say that? Is he really the foaming maniac we've been told he is? Would he really destroy the country he considers to be the rightful home of the Palestinians, while inviting nuclear megadeath on his own state by way of retaliation?

    Well, I don't know - I doubt it, and what I've turned up so far (and which you still refuse to discuss) has strengthened those doubts. I might be wrong, but at least I'm asking questions. At least I am not simply opening my craw and letting the media force feed me bullshit. But not you: you just know it. Whatever anybody says, whatever evidence turns up to the contrary. Just ask Jonz, he knows. You fucking sleepwalking, despicable cunt. Enjoy your fucking armageddon, then.

    "Your proposal of a one state solution..."

    Look, I know you hate reading and everything, but please try to pay attention. That's not my proposal at all. At least now you are talking about was Ahmadinejad actually said, but I note that you now decline to take him at face value, whereas the veracity his alleged statements about Israel is apparently unimpeachable.

    The rest of your comment is entirely irrelevant - I already know that you hate Muslims. That's got nothing to do with anything.

    The question you keep avoiding is this: can you find where Ahmadinejad says that Israel must be annihilated? Or eliminated? Or anything? Well?  

  20. # Anonymous j0nz

    Barry is Bannans,

    Q: How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?

    A: At least ten, as they will need to have a discussion about whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.

    ...

    I don't speak Persian, and nor do you. I'm just going with what ALL the news agencies happen to agree on. Sorry if that's not enough.

    it's worth investigating. Rational people might ask: did he really say that? Is he really the foaming maniac we've been told he is?

    Fatal flaw in your flabby logic old boy. You are trying to understand something than cannot be understood through the lens of rationality. Could you please rationally explain why thousands of Iranians regularly chant "Death to America, Death to Israel" and burn said flags like peacefully deranged maniacs?

    Thats the problem with the liberal left. They cannot make that leap of thinking required to understand irrationality, to understand the nature of hatred, and take action against it. Look at lefty Neville Chamberlain in 1938. What a twat. He comes back to Britain saying "Peace in Our time!, I have here a signed document by Adolf Hitler!". What a man of vision, of insight!  

  21. # Anonymous Barry is Bannans

    What in the fuck are you talking about, you fucking idiot?

    Seriously, what is this shit? Are you accidentally replying to a comment left on another thread or something? Calling me the "liberal left" isn't a substantive response, pisscunt.

    I'll say it one more time: "can you find where Ahmadinejad says that Israel must be annihilated? Or eliminated? Or anything? Well?"

    Fucking answer the question.  

  22. # Anonymous j0nz

    Change the record. Perhaps you could add in "illegal war", "abu grahib", "guantanmo", "neo-con", "zionism"?

    Do you have anything interesting to say at all? I do enjoy our little tete a tetes. I'm thinking of a post that will rile you, then I will post it...  

  23. # Anonymous Banana Fritter

    "Change the record", huh? Well, if you just had the balls to answer the question the first time I asked then I wouldn't have to keep fucking repeating myself.

    As for something interesting - I think that the very strong possibility that Ahmadinejad did not in fact say the crazy shit about annihilating Israel, like we've been told, is pretty goddamn interesting. That the stories we've been fed, over which we may find ourselves in yet another, potentially nuclear, war, are very possibly fabrications - well, I would've thought that was pretty fucking interesting too. But it appears I mistook you for an open-minded person with an inquisitive mind.

    What would interest you? Let's assume for a second that the stories are bullshit. Just for a second, let's imagine that Ahmadinejad didn't in fact say what we've been told he did. Let's imagine this is just more made-up bullshit to sell us on another war. Would you be interested in something like that?

    Maybe you wouldn't, I don't know. Maybe you're that far gone. But something tells me that even you wouldn't like to be played for a sucker, to be treated like a chump. And when the stakes are this high - world war high, potentially - the need for vigilance is even stronger. That's why, if I were you, I'd be very interested. In particular, I'd be very interested in finding the part of Ahmadinejad's goddamn speech where he says what we've been told he did. Because if he didn't, then there's a very good chance that all the above is true.

    Over to you, dude.  

  24. # Anonymous ...

    Its still over to YOU.

    "can you find where Ahmadinejad says that Israel must be annihilated? Or eliminated? Or anything? Well?"

    "But not you: you just KNOW it"

    Apparently so do you. Can YOU actually read Persian o/w your remarks are COUNTERCLAIMS based on NOTHING.

    "Would he really destroy the country he considers to be the rightful home of the Palestinians, while inviting nuclear megadeath on his own state by way of retaliation?"

    Given the widely published remarks in the western media and world condemnation of them, given the oh so slightly weighty issue of a nuclear threat thats deemed THE issue, can I ask you why your poster boy Ahmadinejad hasnt refuted ANY of the wrongly interpreted remarks either openly or in his letter? The consumate player of the media that he clearly is. It didnt cross his mind 'ooh i might just set them straight on that point, theyve got it ALL a bit wrong', its all just meaningless empty rhetoric about Israel? Would it interest you to understand why he hasnt batted that away?

    Ahmadinejad has done NOTHING to refute the claims from far and wide that he drop his rhetoric.

    Youre tying yourself up in the twisted logic of your own 'argument'.  

  25. # Anonymous Banana Milkshake

    Nah, fuck you dude, if you want to claim that somebody said something, it's up to you to establish it.

    Careful with the twisty logic talk there, tough guy. If I can't raise the possibility that he didn't say this shit because I don't speak Persian, then neither can you claim that he did say it. Happy now, cumsock?

    Alls I'm saying is that the words "annihilated" and "eliminated" are nowhere to be found in any of the transcripts I've managed to find - and I've fucking looked for them, believe me. If you go back to the original news reports that used those words, you will often find that they do not use quote marks around the controversial words themselves, indicating that they are paraphrasing the prez - and on the strength of the transcripts they are very misleading paraphrases indeed. Added to that the fact that many of the main news sources changed their stories during the day to remove those words.

    And what have you got? You've got those same early news reports, many of which were later edited to be brought more in line with the text of the transcripts that I've found.

    You've also apparently got absolutely no interest whatsoever in finding out what Ahmadinejad actually said. Why not? You are all quite happy to make a big fuss out when it is reported that the prez said X, but when it turns out he might have said Y it is apparently no longer of any consequence what he said. Cuz, you know, I'm sure he was thinking it anyway, the crazy Islamofascist.

    Oh, and consumate reader of the media that you are, I'm sure you've seen this?

    Mr. Ahmadinejad also addressed his recent comments about Israel on Saturday. Last month, he described Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be destroyed. He said his earlier comment had been misquoted. "There is no new policy," he said. "They created a lot of hue and cry over that." He added, "It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."

    Now, where were we? Oh yeah - can you find those words in the transcripts or not, cocksuckers?  

  26. # Anonymous j0nz

    Some points if I may My Milkshake is better than yours

    1. Of course he didn't say "annhilated" it was in Persian.

    2. It's a translation which means it gives the MEANING of the words in English.

    3. Let's say for arguments sake he didn't say "annhilated" or anything like that. He only said "legitimate" things like questioning Israels right to exist, or saying it should be moved to Europe, which is "nice".

    However the guy is quite clearly nuts.

    The President's divine mission


    President of Iran: Hallucinations of a psychopath


    Iran president paves the way for arabs' imam return

    And you want this guy to have nukes? THAT is the point. Not a vigorous debate on semantics or structured meanings in a post-modern world. We are talking about a religious nut jub acquiring nukes. Even Saudia Arabia is worried

    Yet Banana Brain knows best!! "Come on give the guy the benefit of the doubt!"
    You might be right, that he wouldn't just attack Israel. Once they have nukes, there's no going back.

    he problem is do we want Iran, which is an Islamic fundamentalist country with deep "conservative" elements having it's tentacles everywhere, in charge of Nuclear technology, when the regime currently allows ex with 9 year old girls legally, where gays are executed, where non-muslims are persecuted and woman are stoned to death???

    This is country that launched a death declaration on Salmon Rushdie, a country that has serious human rights abuses and inequality enshrined in the law. A country some of whose inhabitants regularly scream Death to the West.

    Well if you think thats all fine then you have a lot more faith than me.  

  27. # Anonymous j0nz

    More mistranslations, no doubt..

    Israel 'one day will vanish', Iranian president says

    What he meant to say was one day Israel will really flourish, I'm sure.

    Thanks to A we have some more links for you to mull over and completely refute as lies, lies and damn lies:

    President Khatami's Chief of Staff Criticizes Ahmadinejad for his Comments

    Wiping Israel of the map - by an Iranian [what does he know?!]  

  28. # Anonymous Barry! BANANAS!

    "Of course he didn't say "annhilated" it was in Persian."

    Oh my word. Are you kidding me? The transcript was in English. CAN YOU FIND THE WORDS ANNIHILATED/ELIMINATED ANYWHERE IN IT? Actually fuck it, I’m taking your refusal to answer this as an admission that you can’t.

    "It's a translation which means it gives the MEANING of the words in English."

    Jesus CHRIST. I know what a translation is, j0nz. How is this an argument? I’ve linked to a transcript that is indeed a translation – there is no "annihilated" in it, anywhere. Even if this is a palsied attempt to argue that the use of the word "annihilated" by western news is not a literal translation but an attempt to convey the spirit of his remarks, then a cursory glance at the transcript provided should demonstrate to even the most blinkered of ideologues that it does anything but. Ahmadinejad suggests that Israel is struggling in an economic and social sense, and that these factors - not nuclear attack, which he never mentions - will one day lead to its demise (similar in effect to your "one day Israel will vanish" link). This is a far cry from threatening "annihilation". The use of such words is misleading and dishonest.

    "He only said "legitimate" things like questioning Israels right to exist, or saying it should be moved to Europe, which is "nice"."

    And? You might not think it "nice", j0nz, but it is legitimate. Plenty of renowned and respected western political thinkers would share the same concerns. So what? He can question what he likes, it still doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if you are trying to argue that such questioning is tantamount to a threat of nuclear genocide. I’m arguing that claims of his ambitions to nuclear aggression directed at Israel/Palestine are dubious at best. I certainly am not arguing that Ahmadinejad does not have a problem with the Israeli regime.

    Then you link a lot of goal-post shifting stuff about Ahmadinejad’s religious beliefs, which is neither here nor there in the context of this argument. Many similar articles have been written about Bush’s extreme religious views, and I’m not interested in playing a game of "who’s the biggest religious nutjob" with you. I am abundantly aware of your prejudice towards the Muslim religion, so I know where that one will go anyway. My point still stands regardless.

    "And you want this guy to have nukes?"

    Now now, play fair. Where did I say anything like that? There’s a big difference between pointing out misleading media reports and supporting a country’s right to have nuclear weapons, I should think. As a matter of fact, I don’t think any country should have nuclear weapons, and I don’t think I’m being entirely irrational when I am concerned about the simply massive amount of nuclear weaponry currently possessed by both the US (which is in breach of the NPT) and Israel (which refuses to sign up to it), neither of which countries are any slouches when it comes to starting wars and invading other nations. That said, a country is entirely within their international rights to pursue a nuclear energy programme, especially in this age of increasing energy concerns, and there is no evidence that Iran (which is in compliance with the NPT, let's remember) is doing anything but that. This simple fact is worth repeating as the war drums get louder: Iran has no nuclear weapons. Yes, it is a legitimate concern if they are seeking to develop them, but there is absolutely no rational basis for the amount of hysteria we are seeing over this issue – unless, of course, somebody wants to go to war. In that case it all makes sense.

    Iran is riddled with oppressive social issues – nobody is arguing about that - but there is a growing grass-roots movement in that country, one which we should support and encourage at any opportunity. Attacking the country or imposing sanctions will only serve to break the back of that vital movement. Throughout history, successful regime change has been internal. In Iran, the seeds of that change are in place.

    And you? What do you propose Our Fearless Leaders do about Iran, anyway? What, apart from all this blogging bluster, is your big solution?  

  29. # Anonymous j0nz

    Well I propose Israel takes out Irans nuclear facilities. They are making nuclear weapons. And funnel money and effort into democratic & progressive movements into Iran.

    I don't think regime change by the US is on the cards, and I believe few people would view this as a viable option.  

  30. # Anonymous Barry O'Bananas

    "Well I propose Israel takes out Irans nuclear facilities."

    How?

    "They are making nuclear weapons."

    There is no evidence for this.

    "And funnel money and effort into democratic & progressive movements into Iran."

    Okay. How noble. And would this be before or after starting the war? Because you realise that would be the result of an attack by Israel, right? It's very hard to build a progressive democratic movement when you have to worry about not getting blown up all the time. On the other hand, it's substantially easier to build and recruit for a violent, extremist movement in such circumstances.  

  31. # Anonymous j0nz

    Well we all have to start wars sometimes! If it wasn't for war we would all be speaking German and there would be no jews, gays or blacks left. Maybe you would prefer that (sorry couldn't resist!). And slavery in America wouldn't have been abolished when it did.

    I don't think the free world can just be sitting idly by whilst an Islamic fundamentalist regime that regularly regurgitates Nazi propanda acquires a nuclear arsenal.

    I still think the twin forces of strengthening democratic & progressive movements and military force against nuclear non-compliance. They won't be being scared of "being bombed all the time", it would be like the attack on Saddams (French built!) nuclear reactor.

    It's scary when barbarian mediaeval forces combine with modern technology. Like terrorists and head hackers with the latest computer technology.  

  32. # Anonymous B. Bananananananas

    Okay, it's about time you backed up some of these statements. As far as I can tell there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is developing, or has developed, nuclear weapons. It would be a good idea to ascertain whether this is true or not before starting a war with the "barbarians". Your first paragraph seems to be implying that Ahmadinejad is as great a threat to the world as Hitler. I'll eat my own cock if you can back up that assertion.

    "...acquires a nuclear arsenal."

    Evidence please?

    "...nuclear non-compliance"

    And for this, too. Also, you need to be very careful here, because if you argue for military action in cases of nuclear non-compliance, pretty soon you will face some tough questions about the US and Israel, both countries are very much not in compliance, and on a vast scale. Israel won't even say how many nukes they have, although it is estimated that they have at least 200, and counting.

    Iran and Iraq are manifestly different countries. An attack on Iran's (US backed!) nuclear reactors would not receive the same reaction as that earlier attack on Saddam's crumbling regime. It would be as clear a declaration of war as you can ask for, a war that would likely involve Russia and China, too. Good luck building your democratic movement in those circumstances.  

  33. # Anonymous j0nz

    Bannananaas

    US support for Iranian technology was for when the Shah were in power, this is all pre-Islamic revolution. The Shah had laws like it's illegal to have sex with anyone under 18. Under the mullarocracy, it's legal to marry and have sex with a 9 year old. How many 9 year olds have you met that are in puberty?

    Anyho I digress. I do not believe "Ahmadinejad is as great a threat to the world as Hitler". There are certainly common elements in the anti-semitic rheotoric, though.

    So you think it's wrong to intervene in Iran's nuclear ambitions unless it can be proved incontrovertibly that they are trying to make nuclear weapons?

    The problem is, bananas, that incontrovertible evidence is a luxury. It's all about probablities, the likelihood is that Iran would love to have nuclear weapons and are trying to build them. Actions speak louder than words, Ahmadinejad has already refused numerous attempts by Russia and the West to enrich the uranium so as to avoid conflict. They do not want to avoid conflict.

    Some good reading here on Iran & the Bomb: Vision and Lies

    Iran is surrounded by a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Iraq.

    Only a nuclear-equipped Iran will secure the Mullah's regime, and they know it.

    If the world through the UN believes the painfully transparent lies of this posturing boob, and allows him to see his dream through to fruition, then we deserve a nuclear Iran, and all of the misery that will most certainly accompany it.
     

  34. # Anonymous B B Gun

    "Anyho I digress"

    What's new?

    "The problem is, bananas, that incontrovertible evidence is a luxury"

    Sure. But how about, instead of incontrovertible evidence, we settle for any fucking evidence whatsoever? So far, there really isn't anything at all to justify all this talk of the Iran "crisis". There's no evidence - none at all - to justify an attack. That's why it's important to point out that Ahmadinejad's words are being misrepresented: we are being sold on the idea of war simply on the basis of his supposed genocidal ambitions towards Israel, and nothing else.

    An attack on Iran could very probably result in another world war, and so far the evidence that has been presented in its favour is naught more than a lot of trumped up smoke and mirrors bullshit. If you've got something better up your sleeve, by all means let's see it.  

  35. # Anonymous j0nz

    An attack on Iran could very probably result in another world war

    You are having a laugh?! Even the neighbouring Muslim states do not want the Mullahrocracy to acquire nuclear weapons. And who can blame them?

    any fucking evidence whatsoever?


    Well we both know that whatver evidence I give you, it will be dismissed as bullshit. Try putting Iran + nuclear + weapons into Google news. How many hits do you get?

    No evidence at all!

    Let's make a leap of thinking and say Iran doesn't actually want to wipe Israel off the map. Let's say they don't want nuclear weapons and are not trying to make nuclear weapons (I'll eat my cock). Well why is it banana gun, that almost the entire world believes that to be the case? Why is it that? I mean Iran has gone out of its way to make itself friendly to the rest of the world, hasn't it?  

  36. # Anonymous Barbara Nanas

    "You are having a laugh?!"

    'Fraid not. Keep an eye on Russia and China.

    "Well we both know that whatver evidence I give you, it will be dismissed as bullshit."

    Try me. Seriously. If you have some evidence, let's have it. If you are advocating military attacks - potentially nuclear strikes, ironically - against a country for attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to assume that you have at least some evidentiary basis for doing so. I tried your Google News search, and turned up nothing. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction with something a little more specific, please.

    "No evidence at all!"

    Exactly.  

  37. # Anonymous Barbara "As far as I can tell"

    barbara hasnt proved FUCK. But shes great at deflecting with unsubstantiated bullcrap. Stand as an MP Babs!  

  38. # Anonymous Babs B.A. Nanas

    You can't prove a negative, you fucking knob. It's impossible.

    Nor do I have to prove anything. If you make a positive assertion (i.e. that Iran has, or is developing, nuclear weapons) then the onus is on you to back that up, and I don't have to do jack shit. So before you bust my balls about what I have or haven't proved, think about how little you have contributed, ya cunt. What I'm asking for here some proof of the positive accusation that has been made. It's not unreasonable of me to do so - in fact, it's the duty of those who make such a claim to provide it. I'm asking if anybody here have any evidence, and - your drooling, halfwitted contribution excepted - getting an eerie silence in response.

    So? What about you? What have you got?  

  39. # Anonymous Barbara "As far as I can tell"

    Say, Babs.

    Now I've actually read what you've said, you've made jOnz half-witted retorts and character assassination look like a clowns hat. You really are very effective at deflecting his unsubstantiated bullcrap.

    It has all becomes suddenly clear that the information you've provided to try and demonstrate what Ahmadinejad did or didn't say is alot more palatable than jOnz's propaganda swallowing "We're all gonna fucking die and it's them ragheads fault." paranoia. I've tried and failed to find a literal translation of the transcript where the dude says annihilation craziness. So in the interest of fairness, until somebody does find said mad rantings, I shall side with the logic of the "dumb fucking fucker!"

    jOnz, you've really disappointed me with this one.
    At every juncture, you've received the well stuctured arguments offered like a drunken adolescent.

    It's all very well calling someone a cunt, but it doesn't make them wrong.

    Except in your case.

    jOnz, you are a cunt.  

  40. # Anonymous j0nz

    Barbara "As far as I can tell"

    I have already said I could not find a transcript. Yes I have relied on what the MSM have told me. Fuck the fucking transcript. Fuck what they said in the MSM. Let's for arguments sake agree that he never actually said those words.

    Do you think it's wrong to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons unless there is absolute evidence for it???

    What do you think about the Iranian president holding conferences called "The World without Zionism"? What does this mean?

    What do you think of thousands fanatics in Iran screaming death to america/britain/israel/the West???

    What do you know of the Iranian Presidents mental state? Did you not hear of his hallucinations at the United Nations conference?  

  41. # Anonymous B. Bananazz

    [FYI: Barbara “As far as I can tell” is not me.]

    Jonz, man, why are you hellbent on ensuring that this discussion does not progress? I’ve already dealt with pretty much everything you’ve just sputtered out, above.

    1. The Transcript. I know you couldn’t find one, although I can’t work out why not. I have therefore kindly supplied one for you to peruse, although I suspect you have not bothered. Let’s not dismiss the issue of what Ahmadinejad actually said or what he didn’t just yet. Hang on to that thought for a second.

    2. Preventing Iran’s nukes. You’ve already asked me this – you’ve merely replaced your earlier word (“incontrovertible”) with “absolute”. The answer is, and was, no (although we would certainly disagree on the method of prevention). What I do ask for, and I think I am justified here, is that there is at least some evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. Hell, I’ll settle for any evidence – I think that’s the least you can do when in the process of advocating military strikes which, at best, will kill thousands of innocent human beings and, at worst, could spark wider global conflict. So far, even with this miniscule standard of evidence, you have completely failed – refused, even - to adduce any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions. None. This brings us back to point 1, because in the absence of any evidence of a nuclear weapons programme, the war is being sold to us on the basis of Ahmadinejad’s supposed ambitions to annihilate Israel. That is why it is vitally important to raise legitimate doubts about whether or not he did. You may not think it important, but it is the entire basis for the war propaganda initiative.

    3. “The World without Zionism”. There is no space here for me to provide you with a potted history of Zionism, so you’ll have to do your own reading on this one, sorry. What should be pointed out, however, is what this statement doesn’t mean, because I think you are fraudulently attempting to imply that it does: it absolutely does not mean “The World without Jews”.

    4. “Screaming fanatics”. Well, personally, I am opposed to fundamentalism of any sort. I think it’s pretty dumb. But I also know that the greatest gift that the western governments could give these guys is increased military aggression against Muslim states. That’s a fucking recruiting drive bonanza right there.

    5. “Ahmadinejad’s Hallucinations”. Look, I’ve already told you that I’m not going to play this game with you. I am equally disturbed when I read quotes like this: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq " And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it'. But so what? What does any of this establish besides our own religious prejudices? Well, I’ll tell you what it doesn’t establish: it does not establish that Iran is an imminent nuclear threat to Israel or anywhere else, nor does it establish that Iran is building nukes on the sly.

    That’s all I’m asking from you, Jonz. You are advocating some really, really heavy shit right here, and I am only assuming, on good faith and for a limited time only, that you have a valid evidentiary basis for doing so. I don’t want to hear any more shit about how you think all Muslims are crazy maniacs, or that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite. I am well aware of your reactionary opinions on these matters, but they are absolutely and positively not a basis for waging war against another state. Neither is anything else that you have raised so far.

    So: show me the evidence, Jonz. Either you’ve got it or you don’t.  

  42. # Anonymous j0nz

    OK I give in! I don't have any evidence whatsoever! I just want to see the back of the current Islamic regime!

    Give me a fucking F-15 I'll do it myself. I'll take France with me!

    Thanks for answering point by point though.

    it absolutely does not mean “The World without Jews”.

    Why are you the Iranian president now? How do you know?

    It's widely accepted around the world that anti-semites use anti-Zionism as a proxy for racism against Jews. Check out numerous examples here

    YOU may quite clearly mean Zionist ideolody, but one has to take a close look at anyone who bangs on about Zionism

    You will say "Look, the hypocrisy! You always go on about Islam!". Well let's look at the facts

    1. Zionism is concerned with an area the world the size of Wales.
    2. Political Islam is about dominating the entire world.  

  43. # Anonymous Barry Bananas

    Holy shit. Holy motherfucking shit, Jonz.

    This is your whole rationale? This is it? So let me get this straight: Ahmadinejad may or may not be using the word "Zionism" as a code word for a wider anti-Semitism - therefore let’s bomb his country, kill thousands of people and inflame global tensions? Jesus, this is fucking appalling. I honestly expected that you would at least try and give me something – maybe even the discredited claims over the traces of highly-enriched uranium in equipment supplied by Pakistan – something, anything. But to admit, right here, that your entire basis for wanting to START A FUCKING WAR is your general skepticism regarding Ahmadinejad and your personal distaste for the Muslim faith? Well, that’s pretty low, Jonz.

    If you admit that there is no evidence to support claims that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapon programme, then you have been lying through your teeth the whole way down this thread. How many times did you try to impress upon me the urgency of an attack by raising the spectre of Iran’s nukes - all while knowing full well that there is absolutely no evidentiary basis for such a claim? You are a fucking liar. Everything you have said about Iran’s nukes has been complete bullshit from the start, and yet you have the fucking gall to compare an aggressive first-strike on Iran with the Second World War. Are you even listening to yourself? The Second World War, Jonz! You cheapen the memory of everyone who fought in that conflict when you use it to justify the violent enactment of your own personal vendetta. You cheapen the memory of the victims of that war as you holler for yet more innocent people to be killed.

    Fuck you. Fuck you twice. If you are going to continue to whore out your little hate blog for the war party in the White House, at least have the fucking decency to tell us the real reason why you are doing so, you grotesque little propaganda-spouting piece of shit. The real reason is this: you are a fucking despicable bigot.

    Here is Iranian Nobel laureate and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, one of the many millions of potential victims of your fucking hate war, being interviewed about the democratic movement in Iran that you claim to support.

    In January, you co-wrote an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times saying that America was undermining Iran's "fledgling democratic movement" by demonizing the country. As the conflict between our governments heats up, what effect has it had on your country's reformists?

    It's very well known that any time a country is under threat from outside, the government uses it as an excuse and starts talking about the necessity of preserving national security, and therefore individual liberties suffer.

    A recent article in Time magazine suggested that the administration might ratchet up the conflict in order to get Americans to rally around the president again. How worried are Iranians about the possibility of an American attack?

    Some people are worried. People are very critical toward the government, but I think that if there is an attack against Iran, people will forget about their criticism, and they will rally with the government. Any attack on Iran will be good for the government and will actually damage the democratic movement in Iran.

    Even after Iraq, there are still some Americans who insist that many Iranians want our country to liberate them, and that they'll support us if we try to institute regime change. What would you say to them?

    Again, the people of Iran are very critical of their government, but they will not allow a single American soldier to step foot in Iran. The problems between Iran and America have only one solution -- direct negotiations between the two countries.


    Some fucking support, Jonz. You lying, hateful sack of shit.  

  44. # Anonymous j0nz

    Haha! Let's invade Iran! Let's start a nuclear war! At the gay bar, gay bar, gay bar!

    Blimey no wonder people like you turn into suicide bombers... Maybe you should blow your self up as an extreme demonstration against my "hateful" words!

    You remind me of Michael Moore in Team America!! Keep it up ;)

    Well i don't know if military action in Iran is a good idea or not, but it ain't half fun winding you up!

    Now any chance of actually commenting on the actual post, the words of Irshad Manji?  

  45. # Anonymous Bana Nana S

    "Well i don't know if military action in Iran is a good idea or not"

    You don't know anything, you fucking pinhead.

    The article? Well, the first sentence is pretty sharp: "Of all the threats that our messy world faces, nuclear weaponry ranks right up there".

    But then it ain't Iran that has all the fucking nukes.  

  46. # Anonymous j0nz

    But then it ain't Iran that has all the fucking nukes.

    That because the rest of the world has gone out if it's way to try and prevent them from getting nukes, lol.

    5 wrongs don't make a right... Yes I know Israel, Russia, US etc have lots of nukes.. But they're not likely to use them against any country. Of course the US is giving it large, they're trying to scare the Iranians into compliance... They aint gonna use nukes, no way. Wouldnt it be a nice world without any nuclear weapons :)

    But best thing we can do at the moment is try to discourage their proliferation, especially with nations hostile to the West. Don't stress yourself with the war on iran situation. It's all about perception :)  

  47. # Anonymous B'rry B'n'n's

    Any potential use by Iran of any potential nuclear weapon it might potentially acquire is adequately deterred by Israel's massive undeclared nuclear stockpiles - not to mention the two US aircraft carriers that are already en route to the region as we speak. If Iran actually tried to "wipe Israel off the map" the net result would be that Iran itself would get wiped. Nukes are a red herring. This is not about the nukes. Iran does not even have nukes, nor is it anywhere near having them - please try and remember that.

    "Don't stress yourself"

    What planet are you living on? I think you might be in for several varieties of shock, fella. Keep 'em peeled, alright?

    Best of luck, shithead.

    Yours,

    Barry B.  

  48. # Anonymous j0nz

    Thanks BB!

    j0nz ;)  

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


Looks odd? Use Firefox!

Email drunkenblogging AT gmail.com

XML

Search