Ahmadinejad is Visiting Satan

[Independent_CA]

Well at least that's what he's doing if anyone in Iran really believes what their leaders say about the US. Given the situation between the West and Iran, I don't understand why he's being allowed to travel anywhere other than the UN.

Hopefully his plane suffers a "bird strike" somewhere over the mid-Atlantic.



TEHRAN, Iran - A day before flying to New York to speak directly to the American people, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck a confrontational tone Saturday with a parade of fighter jets and missiles and tough warnings for the United States to stay out of the Mideast.
ADVERTISEMENT

Three new domestically manufactured warplanes streaked over the capital during the parade marking the 27th anniversary of the Iraqi invasion of Iran, which sparked a 1980-88 war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The parade also featured the Ghadr missile, which has a range of 1,120 miles, capable of reaching Israel.

Some of the missile trucks were painted with the slogans "Down with the U.S." and "Down with Israel." The parade also featured unmanned aerial surveillance drones, torpedoes, and tanks.

Tensions are high between Washington and Tehran over U.S. accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and helping Shiite militias in Iraq that target U.S. troops. Iran denies the claims.

Washington has said it is addressing the Iran situation diplomatically, rather than militarily, but U.S. officials also say that all options are open.

"Those (countries) who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran's fast drive toward progress are mistaken," Ahmadinejad.

Iran launched an arms development program during its war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own jets, torpedoes, radar-avoiding missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers.

"Those who prevented Iran, at the height of the war from getting even barbed wire must see now that all the equipment on display today has been built by the mighty hands and brains of experts at Iran's armed forces," Ahmadinejad said.

He is expected to address the American people directly in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" airing Sunday, and through appearances at the U.N., Columbia University and several other events.

His request to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site was denied and condemned by Sept. 11 family members and politicians. Protests against his Columbia appearance are planned at the university and the United Nations by demonstrators angry at his questioning of the Holocaust and declarations that Israel will cease to exist.

Iran and the U.S. have not had diplomatic ties since militants took over the U.S. Embassy following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Since then, the cleric-led regime has vilified the United States as the "Great Satan."

Despite Ahmadinejad's frequent anti-U.S. rhetoric, he has tried to appeal to the American people before. Recently, he told a live satellite television show that his country wanted peace and friendship with the U.S. Since coming to power in 2005, Ahmadinejad has also sent letters to the American people in which he criticized Bush's Mideast policy.

He is scheduled to address the General Assembly on Tuesday — his third time attending the New York meeting in three years. Last year, Ahmadinejad was harshly critical of U.S. policies in Iraq and Lebanon and insisted that his nation's nuclear activities were "transparent."

At the parade, Ahmadinejad repeated his demand for foreign forces to leave the region and urged the United States to acknowledge it has failed in Iraq. Outside the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, there are 40,000 troops on U.S. bases in Persian Gulf countries and another 20,000 in Mideast waters.

"Nations throughout the region do not need the presence of the foreigners to manage their own needs. Foreign presence is the root cause of all instability, differences and threats," he said.

On the sidelines of the parade, the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said the event highlighted the "might of Iran's armed forces to its enemies," adding that Iran is ready to retaliate if attacked.

"Iran has drawn up plans to confront enemies in the face of any possible attack," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jafari as saying.

The Bush administration is expected to soon blacklist a unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial penalties. The step would be in response to Iran's involvement in Iraq and elsewhere.

The U.S. is also leading a push in the U.N. Security Council for a third round of economic sanctions against Iran over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity. The Security Council is not expected to take up the issue before October.

"Learn lessons from your past mistakes. Don't repeat your mistakes," he said in a warning to the United States over its push to impose more sanctions.

[SugarCoatedSour]

AMERICA!!!!!! \m/ That bastard's trying to trespass on my freedom. My freedom to be an unappolagetic asshat.

[Der Übermensch]

He wanted to visit WTC site, but they won't let him... Thats just hilarious :-p

[south_of_heaven 11]

He's a nutjob. Glad he can't go to Ground Zero.

[Der Übermensch]

They aren't letting other people either. Clinton wanted to do a photo-op there, got shot down :)

[dei]

He's a nutjob. Glad he can't go to Ground Zero.

What?

[MattyBlade]

George bush - not liked in iran

mahmoud ahmadinejad - not liked in america

it's like they're complete opposites..or something go figure!

[cbmartinez]

Ahmadinejad is a genius in my opinion. Evil perhaps, but still a genius. He's got the whole country of Iran behind him and everyone is saying, "yeah, someone should really do something about their uranium situation" but no one is doing anything. I'd love to hear him speak at Columbia, he's probably a very powerful speaker.

[Mr. Ron]

I love how Americans idolize ground zero as some sort of religious site for pilgrimage.

[Independent_CA]

Ahmadinejad is a genius in my opinion. Evil perhaps, but still a genius. He's got the whole country of Iran behind him and everyone is saying, "yeah, someone should really do something about their uranium situation" but no one is doing anything. I'd love to hear him speak at Columbia, he's probably a very powerful speaker.
Yeah, if you're an ultra conservative Muslim or an Iranian nationalist...or both. He's the leader of a harsh theocracy and I have no interest in anything he has to say. I doubt the vast majority of people at Columbia University or the surrounding area care for his opinions either.


I love how Americans idolize ground zero as some sort of religious site for pilgrimage.
I think it's more that he just wants to use it as a photo op to say "look see, I'm against terrorism too!" when everybody knows he's really not.

[totah]

Ahmadinejad is a genius in my opinion. Evil perhaps, but still a genius. He's got the whole country of Iran behind him and everyone is saying, "yeah, someone should really do something about their uranium situation" but no one is doing anything. I'd love to hear him speak at Columbia, he's probably a very powerful speaker.

According to my Iranian friend (circumstancial evidence alert!) most people don't actually like the guy and wouldn't vote for him again, but he's got so much power and money behind him it's not really their choice anymore...

Kinda like Dubya! Drawing parallels is fun. Everybody go to my "This Should Be Good..." thread!

[totah]

I think it's more that he just wants to use it as a photo op to say "look see, I'm against terrorism too!" when everybody knows he's really not.

How do you know he isn't? Al Qaeda were supposedly fighting imperialism, and Iran's as imperialist as the next local superpower, so I'm sure he doesn't like Bin Laden.

That's not to say he doesn't support one terrorist group or another, every nation does. Basically the word "terrorist" is a blow-softener because what governments really mean when they say "terrorist" is "proxy army". Israel is a "terrorist state" for many Arabs, while for Western populations it's a "freedom-loving democracy" (and for Western governments it's a proxy army in the Middle-East). In the same way, the Hizballah are "freedom fighters of fine Islamic moral standing" to many Muslims while to the West it's an "anti-Semitic fundamentalist terrorist group" (and to the Syrian and Iranian governments it's a proxy army). Whether someone's a terrorist or not depends on which side you're on, it's got nothing to do with their tactics because every war is based on tactics of fear and maximised murder.

[Smokey D]

Are you, the guy who goes on about free love and pacificism, defending the actions of groups like al-Qaeda and Hizballah?

[Independent_CA]

How do you know he isn't? Al Qaeda were supposedly fighting imperialism, and Iran's as imperialist as the next local superpower, so I'm sure he doesn't like Bin Laden.

That's not to say he doesn't support one terrorist group or another, every nation does. Basically the word "terrorist" is a blow-softener because what governments really mean when they say "terrorist" is "proxy army". Israel is a "terrorist state" for many Arabs, while for Western populations it's a "freedom-loving democracy" (and for Western governments it's a proxy army in the Middle-East). In the same way, the Hizballah are "freedom fighters of fine Islamic moral standing" to many Muslims while to the West it's an "anti-Semitic fundamentalist terrorist group" (and to the Syrian and Iranian governments it's a proxy army). Whether someone's a terrorist or not depends on which side you're on, it's got nothing to do with their tactics because every war is based on tactics of fear and maximised murder.
No, he's supporting the same goals as Al-Queda and the Taliban, which is getting the US out of the middle east, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. There's decent evidence that they are supporting insurgents in Afghanistan, and it's no secret that they provide arms to shia militias in Iraq.

[dei]

What's wrong with Hezbollah?

[totah]

What? No! I was just pointing out that simply being designated a "terrorist" (incidental to my point, now a "terrorist group" is one that is so-defined by a state, not a group that fits a particular set of prerequisites) doesn't make one more or less evil than someone who isn't called so but practises the same tactics, and that every large violent group essentially uses the same tactics of fear, from state militaries to petty loan sharks. After all, a loan shark can't kill all the customers who can't pay on time, he simply has to kill one and scare the rest into submission. "Terrorise" them, if you will. My parents are terrified of not being able to pay the mortgage on time.


Perhaps he has the same aims, Warf, but for vastly different reasons. Plus as an anarchist, I'd support any disenfranchised group who are trying to empower themselves in their own region and community. Unfortunately I don't have the money to buy guns.

[Smokey D]

What's wrong with Hezbollah?

They target civilians.

What? No! I was just pointing out that simply being designated a "terrorist" (incidental to my point, now a "terrorist group" is one that is so-defined by a state, not a group that fits a particular set of prerequisites) doesn't make one more or less evil than someone who isn't called so but practises the same tactics, and that every large violent group essentially uses the same tactics of fear, from state militaries to petty loan sharks. After all, a loan shark can't kill all the customers who can't pay on time, he simply has to kill one and scare the rest into submission. "Terrorise" them, if you will. My parents are terrified of not being able to pay the mortgage on time.

Conflating the range of human activity which might cause fear into terrorism is retarded.

Even conflating actions in war as terrorism is wrong; despite the fact war might be terrifying, terrorism has a limited definition that cannot acurately be applied to all military action.

And thinking of civilians and soldiers/combatants as the same is not helpful either.

[dei]

They target civilians.

And Israel don't?

[Smokey D]

Not relevant.

In the slightest.

[dei]

Fuhgeddaboudit.

[totah]

They target civilians.

Every army targets civilians. Except now we're civilised enough, we've made enough "progress", to have the humane courtesy to call it "collateral damage".

Conflating the range of human activity which might cause fear into terrorism is retarded.

The difference between fear and terror being...?

Because I lived in Israel and I grew up with yearly "terrorist" bombings. I'm not scared. I'll go out on the bus any day of the year, any colour of the colour-coded threat level system. Since me and a couple other millions aren't terrorised by so-called "terrorism", is it still terrorism?

Even conflating actions in war as terrorism is wrong; despite the fact war might be terrifying, terrorism has a limited definition that cannot acurately be applied to all military action.

Define it please.

And thinking of civilians and soldiers/combatants as the same is not helpful either.

But they are the same. Soldiers are civilians who've, usually, volunteered and are getting paid to kill people. "Terrorists" are civilians who kill people. I don't know any "terrorists" so I don't know if they're doing it purely out of their moral integrity, but knowing human nature I'm fairly positive that they get something materially beneficial out of it as well. Again, the difference here between soldiers and civilian "terrorists" is merely whose side you happen to be on.

[Smokey D]

Every army targets civilians. Except now we're civilised enough, we've made enough "progress", to have the humane courtesy to call it "collateral damage".

Not every army targets civilians in every operation. So you're wrong.

And when civilians do really die as part of collateral damage, it's tragic and every effort should be made to minimise it. When they die as part of a targetted striked, it's a crime and the people responsible should be prosecuted.

The difference between fear and terror being...?

For one, terror's a stronger emotion, but that's not what I was getting at.


Because I lived in Israel and I grew up with yearly "terrorist" bombings. I'm not scared. I'll go out on the bus any day of the year, any colour of the colour-coded threat level system. Since me and a couple other millions aren't terrorised by so-called "terrorism", is it still terrorism?


Yes, because terrorism doesn't need to cause terror.

Define it please.

Covert military action usually directed against civilians to change their mood about a certain policy or otherwise persuade a government to abandon or alter a policy.


But they are the same. Soldiers are civilians who've, usually, volunteered and are getting paid to kill people. "Terrorists" are civilians who kill people. I don't know any "terrorists" so I don't know if they're doing it purely out of their moral integrity, but knowing human nature I'm fairly positive that they get something materially beneficial out of it as well. Again, the difference here between soldiers and civilian "terrorists" is merely whose side you happen to be on.

If you've agreed to kill, you've agreed to become a legitimate target.

[totah]

Not every army targets civilians in every operation. So you're wrong.

I don't know about the orders of every army in the world, but I know that in every military operation I hear about bar one or two civilians are murdered. Also, I know for a fact that when it comes to Palestinian protests, the IDF soldiers' orders automatically change if there's even one Israeli in the protest. So they differentiate between races, not between combatants.

And when civilians do really die as part of collateral damage, it's tragic and every effort should be made to minimise it. When they die as part of a targetted striked, it's a crime and the people responsible should be prosecuted.

If you've agreed to kill, you've agreed to become a legitimate target.

It's a shame that your morality isn't upheld by world militaries.

Yes, because terrorism doesn't need to cause terror.

Covert military action usually directed against civilians to change their mood about a certain policy or otherwise persuade a government to abandon or alter a policy.

But fear is the most easily-manipulated emotion, so "terrorists" obviously opt for that. Hence the signifier. So you've just contradicted yourself a little bit there. FINALLY. And it only took two years of argumentating to see it. :p

I know I'm not the first person to say it, but according to that definition, going to war against a country because it's got a nuclear policy, or because it's "undemocratic", is terrorism as soon as one civilian is hurt.

[Independent_CA]

Every army targets civilians. Except now we're civilised enough, we've made enough "progress", to have the humane courtesy to call it "collateral damage".

As f-ed up as this might sound, most modern military forces go to great lengths to develop new tactics and weapons to minimize civilian deaths. This is why things like guided missiles and bombs exist. They aren't 100% clean but they are a better option than carpet bombing and leveling entire cities as it was done in the past.

[Smokey D]

I don't know about the orders of every army in the world, but I know that in every military operation I hear about bar one or two civilians are murdered. Also, I know for a fact that when it comes to Palestinian protests, the IDF soldiers' orders automatically change if there's even one Israeli in the protest. So they differentiate between races, not between combatants.


Yeah, but I don't care what Israel actually does. I'm disputing your point about it being intrinsic to all militaries.

It's a shame that your morality isn't upheld by world militaries.


Damn straight.


But fear is the most easily-manipulated emotion, so "terrorists" obviously opt for that. Hence the signifier. So you've just contradicted yourself a little bit there. FINALLY. And it only took two years of argumentating to see it.


No I didn't. I said it was an attempt to cause fear or manipulate the population. It does't always succeed.


I know I'm not the first person to say it, but according to that definition, going to war against a country because it's got a nuclear policy, or because it's "undemocratic", is terrorism as soon as one civilian is hurt.

Nah. The Blitz was terrofying but it wasn't terrorism.

[totah]

Yeah, but I don't care what Israel actually does. I'm disputing your point about it being intrinsic to all militaries.

Well, the only source I have to back up my argument against yours is my experience with the IDF. I don't know how often armies target or don't target civilians, but I know that more civilians die than actual "combatants" in every recent war I can think of. I don't think you know the orders of armies any better than me, so really all you have backing your point is your belief that they don't target civilians. But it's not a logical leap to suppose that since more civilians die than soldiers in wars, the soldiers themselves target civilians more often than not (unless all the soldiers have terrible eye sight).

No I didn't. I said it was an attempt to cause fear or manipulate the population. It does't always succeed.

Damn you and your non-committal syntax!

Nah. The Blitz was terrifying but it wasn't terrorism.

Wasn't the blitz a covert (it was held at night time) military action against civilian targets with the aim of changing the British government's policy of war?

[Smokey D]

Well, the only source I have to back up my argument against yours is my experience with the IDF. I don't know how often armies target or don't target civilians, but I know that more civilians die than actual "combatants" in every recent war I can think of. I don't think you know the orders of armies any better than me, so really all you have backing your point is your belief that they don't target civilians. But it's not a logical leap to suppose that since more civilians die than soldiers in wars, the soldiers themselves target civilians more often than not (unless all the soldiers have terrible eye sight).

This is where you've made the mistake.

High explosive weaponry is what causes civilian casualties, not necessarily deliberate targetting.

And also, one side might target civilians more than the other (for example, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq has come from terrorist attacks against civilian targets as opposed to US bombs).

But even if it is true that all militaries have historically targetted civilians, it doesn't mean they have to. There's nothing to say they can't fulfil their purpose without that.

Damn you and your non-committal syntax!

The wonders of an education in the liberal arts.


Wasn't the blitz a covert (it was held at night time) military action against civilian targets with the aim of changing the British government's policy of war?

That's a pretty silly application of covert.

[pedro durruti]

Covert military action usually directed against civilians to change their mood about a certain policy or otherwise persuade a government to abandon or alter a policy.
Terrorism isn't necessarily covert or engaged in military action, unless you consider everything that is done in the name of warfare military action. It also isn't always politically oriented, but you could say terrorists are interested in exerting some sort of power influence.

[Smokey D]

Terrorism isn't necessarily covert or engaged in military action, unless you consider everything that is done in the name of warfare military action. It also isn't always politically oriented, but you could say terrorists are interested in exerting some sort of power influence.

Terrorism is political or ideological violence directed towards a civilian population that lies outside the normal definition of war. I don't think terrorism is 'military' in the sense we would normally associate with it at all.

But I don't see how you can be a terrorist if you're not politically orientated.

[totah]

This is where you've made the mistake.

High explosive weaponry is what causes civilian casualties, not necessarily deliberate targetting.

It's still soldiers who fire the bombs, and they know where they're shooting at. If they think they have even a small chance of hitting civilians, and they still press the red button, then they have targeted civilians.

Also, you don't know that it's all from explosive fire. I know for a fact that in Palestine children and adults, all civilians, get killed by sniper fire. And I know that, as a colonial army, the IDF holds the same practices as other Western armies.

And also, one side might target civilians more than the other (for example, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq has come from terrorist attacks against civilian targets as opposed to US bombs).

Are you saying that more Iraqi civilians have died from terrorist attacks than from US carpet bombing?

But even if it is true that all militaries have historically targetted civilians, it doesn't mean they have to. There's nothing to say they can't fulfil their purpose without that.

It doesn't have to but that's what it means and that's what I'm arguing against. And militaries act like that for a reason. I've never been in a war but I've heard and read enough personal accounts (as I'm sure you have too) of war to know that it's not pretty for the soldiers either, that they're scared as hell too. And in a situation like that, it feels like kill or be killed, so they shoot anything that moves. This is what war is, it's what armies are, that's reality.

That's a pretty silly application of covert.

No it's not. Just because the Brits knew it was happening doesn't mean the intention wasn't to keep the planes covert. Otehrwise they would have done it in the daytime. The point was that it's harder to spot the bombers. That seems pretty covert to me.

[Smokey D]

It's still soldiers who fire the bombs, and they know where they're shooting at. If they think they have even a small chance of hitting civilians, and they still press the red button, then they have targeted civilians.

If you wanna change what 'target' means, maybe.


Also, you don't know that it's all from explosive fire. I know for a fact that in Palestine children and adults, all civilians, get killed by sniper fire. And I know that, as a colonial army, the IDF holds the same practices as other Western armies.

Whatever. The point was that in Iraq the casualties have been from suicide bombing, not American weapons.

Are you saying that more Iraqi civilians have died from terrorist attacks than from US carpet bombing?

I'm 100% certain. The US hasn't bombed anything in years, let alone civilians.


It doesn't have to but that's what it means and that's what I'm arguing against. And militaries act like that for a reason. I've never been in a war but I've heard and read enough personal accounts (as I'm sure you have too) of war to know that it's not pretty for the soldiers either, that they're scared as hell too. And in a situation like that, it feels like kill or be killed, so they shoot anything that moves. This is what war is, it's what armies are, that's reality.


We're arguing different things then.


No it's not. Just because the Brits knew it was happening doesn't mean the intention wasn't to keep the planes covert. Otehrwise they would have done it in the daytime. The point was that it's harder to spot the bombers. That seems pretty covert to me.

No, that's ridiculous.

You're saying the Blitz is like 7/7 or 9/11, which is retarded.

[Akira]

I feel like the bombing of Iraq was done without enough care to avoid civilians, and I still can comfortably say that terrorists have killed the vast majority of civilians.

[TheDarkHorse]

George bush - not liked in iran

mahmoud ahmadinejad - not liked in america

it's like they're complete opposites..or something go figure!

bush isnt liked in the u.s
What's wrong with Hezbollah?

they don't know how to fight

[Krabsworth]

oh hezbollah are the ones who don't know how? they inflicted some damage upon the IDF with 40 year old missiles and rifles

[Independent_CA]

Well, the only source I have to back up my argument against yours is my experience with the IDF. I don't know how often armies target or don't target civilians, but I know that more civilians die than actual "combatants" in every recent war I can think of. I don't think you know the orders of armies any better than me, so really all you have backing your point is your belief that they don't target civilians. But it's not a logical leap to suppose that since more civilians die than soldiers in wars, the soldiers themselves target civilians more often than not (unless all the soldiers have terrible eye sight).

I'm a Marine Corps reservist. We don't target civilians and we go through training scenarios to get practice determining civilians from combatants in combat situations. That being said, they are just scenarios and not the real thing. Combat is a high-stress, fast-paced activity in which someone can easily get confused and disoriented and make mistakes.


Are you saying that more Iraqi civilians have died from terrorist attacks than from US carpet bombing?
Let me clear something up. The US hasn't "carpet bombed" much of anything in a very long time. Carpet bombing requires formations of strategic bombers (B-52s, B-2s, B-1s) loaded up with unguided HE bombs. They fly over an area in mass formation and drop all of their bombs over the target area indiscriminately. This is what caused such massive destruction in WW2 because this is how every country carried out strategic air raids. Today the US carries out air strikes primarily with guided weapons and only a few aircraft. This increases accuracy and damage done to the target and minimizes collateral damage as much as possible. If carpet bombing was being done, there wouldn't be much left standing in Iraq today.

As to the point about more Iraqis being killed by insurgents, that's also true. Just think about it, every time I go to Yahoo I see another headline about a car bomb in some market killing 80-100 people.

Anyways, back on the thread topic...I read today that Ahmadinejad thinks the American people want to hear "new opinions". This man truly is a fool if he thinks anyone here is going to really listen to him. I wonder how many protesters are going to have to be "escorted" out of his speech at Columbia.

[Light Fantastic]

As to the point about more Iraqis being killed by insurgents, that's also true. Just think about it, every time I go to Yahoo I see another headline about a car bomb in some market killing 80-100 people.
ummm

US-led forces were sole killers of 37% of civilian victims.
Anti-occupation forces were sole killers of 9% of civilian victims.

http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

Page 10.

Anyways, back on the thread topic...I read today that Ahmadinejad thinks the American people want to hear "new opinions". This man truly is a fool if he thinks anyone here is going to really listen to him. I wonder how many protesters are going to have to be "escorted" out of his speech at Columbia.
I'd go to see him speak if he came here. Don't be ignorant, the circumstances of his position don't invalidate any points made.

[Independent_CA]

ummm

http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

Page 10.

Same page.


Criminals killed 36% of all civilians.
This information is also from 2003-2005. The sectarian violence and the activities of Al-Queda in Iraq have increased markedly since then.

The report also states that US-led involvement in these deaths peaked in 2004 and that anti-occupation, criminal, and other forces involvement has steadily increased since then.

I'd go to see him speak if he came here. Don't be ignorant, the circumstances of his position don't invalidate any points made.
As I said earlier, he is the leader of a hardline theocracy, anything he has to say doesn't interest me.

[Light Fantastic]

Same page.
Do you know what the word criminals means, because that isn't anything to do with insurgency, or Al-Queda either, paricularly.

This information is also from 2003-2005. The sectarian violence and the activities of Al-Queda in Iraq have increased markedly since then.
As have the deaths caused by occupational forces.. violence has increased, but remained in roughly the same ratio.

Unless you are suggesting a 28% swing somehow, undocumented by any report.

As I said earlier, he is the leader of a hardline theocracy, anything he has to say doesn't interest me.As I said, that is being wholly ignorant. Something can be worth hearing regardless of who says it. There are plenty of less high-profile people making the same points.

[Independent_CA]

Do you know what the word criminals means, because that isn't anything to do with insurgency, or Al-Queda either, paricularly.
Yes. The report defines it as looting and other activities that weren't combat related. My point was that criminals killed almost as many people in Iraq as US forces did in the invasion stage and early stages of the occupation.

As have the deaths caused by occupational forces.. violence has increased, but remained in roughly the same ratio.
That's not what the report says.


As I said, that is being wholly ignorant. Something can be worth hearing regardless of who says it. There are plenty of less high-profile people making the same points.
Those less high-profile people haven't been going around denying the holocaust, or calling for the destruction of the US and Israel among other things. It's not being ignorant, it's simply making a choice. I wouldn't go see him speak for the same reasons I wouldn't go see Hitler (if he was still alive) or a KKK leader, or any number of people whom I disagree with.

[Light Fantastic]

Yes. The report defines it as looting and other activities that weren't combat related. My point was that criminals killed almost as many people in Iraq as US forces did in the invasion stage and early stages of the occupation.Who cares? We aren't talking about that, you said 'insurgents kill more Iraqi civilians than US forces do', and no they don't.. quite what criminal activity in the country has anything at all to do with that I'm not sure.


That's not what the report says.
Trends continue unless you can prove otherwise. We don't just assume dramatic change in a year, that's stupid. Same trend is supported by other studies (Lancet).

Those less high-profile people haven't been going around denying the holocaustNeither has Ahmadinejad?

or calling for the destruction of the US Neither has Ahmadinejad?

, or calling for the destruction of IsraelLet's just ignore that you actively and publicly supported the destruction of Iran by Iraq. Or that sanctions imposed with your support are leading to the suffering of Iranian civilians on a daily basis.

Iran doesn't even have a history of attacking other countries without provocation, but hey he said some mean things he must be crazy don't let him have plutonium. We, the only country ever to have used a nuclear device, have decided.

In case you didn't know, the translation of 'wipe Israel of the map' is highly contested anyway.
It's not being ignorant, it's simply making a choice.Ignorance through choice, the best kind.

I wouldn't go see him speak for the same reasons I wouldn't go see Hitler (if he was still alive) or a KKK leader, or any number of people whom I disagree with.
Because Ahmadinejad and Hitler are really comparable at all.

But I think this was the most ignorant/amusing statement of all, if you wanted to know:

I wouldn't go see people whom I disagree with [speak].

It's called debate? Contrary opinion? Something even Ahmadinejad as a president does. He does uncensored interviews with non-Iranian media regularly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912050/

[Reaganista]

Hopefully his plane suffers a "bird strike" somewhere over the mid-Atlantic.
why

[Independent_CA]

Who cares? We aren't talking about that, you said 'insurgents kill more Iraqi civilians than US forces do', and no they don't.. quite what criminal activity in the country has anything at all to do with that I'm not sure.
The fact that criminal activity was responsible for nearly as many deaths as an active military invasion says one of two things: Either criminals in Iraq kill a lot of people or that the technology and tactics of US and allied forces used in the invasion managed to avoid killing an even larger amount of civilians. If we'd been "carpet bombing" like you said, the US should have been responsible for virtually all of those civilian casualties and there would likely be quite a bit more of them.

Again, I'm not trying to say that killing civilians is ok, but it could be quite a bit worse.


Trends continue unless you can prove otherwise. We don't just assume dramatic change in a year, that's stupid. Same trend is supported by other studies (Lancet).
Right, like the trend in that report that says the share being killed by insurgents is increasing while US and allied caused deaths peaked in early 2004.

There is no up to date study to report on the casualty figures as they stand now, at least not that I've heard of.

The Lancet Study breaks down casualties up till Oct 2006 like this:
31% - Coalition
24% - Others
46% - Unknown

The causes of these break down like this:
56% - Gunshot (Could be either side)
13% - Car bomb (A main insurgent weapon)
14% - Explosion/Other ordnance (Could be either side)
13% - Airstrike (Main Coalition tactic)
2% - Accident
2% - Unknown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

If you look at the second set, you can see that the main insurgent tactic (car bombs) kills just as many as a primary Coalition tactic (airstrikes). The statistics from this cover the entire war and I'd be willing to be that in the last year or so that insurgents and sectarian violence have claimed far more Iraqi lives than they did in the initial invasion and occupation. If I had an up to date study on this, I'd post it.


Neither has Ahmadinejad?
Apparently you missed the Holocaust deniers convention that was held in Iran several months back?


Neither has Ahmadinejad?
Right because writing "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" on buildings and military vehicles and having your supporters chant it at rallies doesn't count.


Let's just ignore that you actively and publicly supported the destruction of Iran by Iraq.
Why ignore it? It was a situation of supporting the lesser of two evils. Its been done thousands of times in history.


Iran doesn't even have a history of attacking other countries without provocation, but hey he said some mean things he must be crazy don't let him have plutonium. We, the only country ever to have used a nuclear device, have decided.
Lets just ignore the fact that their country is run by a fanatical theocracy that supports international terrorist groups like Hezbollha. The UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia have also decided that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear device, not just the US.

In case you didn't know, the translation of 'wipe Israel of the map' is highly contested anyway.
Maybe, maybe not. His "Death to Israel" slogans and support of Hezbollah make that a moot point.


Ignorance through choice, the best kind.
Choosing not to support or engage in something that you don't support or believe in is not ignorance. I wouldn't go to a lot of politician's rallies.

Because Ahmadinejad and Hitler are really comparable at all.
I wasn't comparing them, just giving an example of someone else who I wouldn't go see speak.



But I think this was the most ignorant/amusing statement of all, if you wanted to know:

It's called debate? Contrary opinion? Something even Ahmadinejad as a president does. He does uncensored interviews with non-Iranian media regularly.
But he doesn't do it in his own country. Debates and all of that are nice but they do not change the fact that Iran is run by theocrats who rule through totalitarian policies. His trip to America is just for show, nothing more.

There's a chance that he could prove all of his doubters wrong and actually reach out for peace, but his track record doesn't really support that it's going to happen.

[Independent_CA]

why

Good point, he'd just be replaced by another hardliner.

[lfantwister]

The fact that criminal activity was responsible for nearly as many deaths as an active military invasion says one of two things: Either criminals in Iraq kill a lot of people or that the technology and tactics of US and allied forces used in the invasion managed to avoid killing an even larger amount of civilians. If we'd been "carpet bombing" like you said, the US should have been responsible for virtually all of those civilian casualties and there would likely be quite a bit more of them.

Again, I'm not trying to say that killing civilians is ok, but it could be quite a bit worse. but you forget about the fact that criminal behavior is essentially american responsibility; our lack of efective police force is allowing criminals to commit all these crimes.



Why ignore it? It was a situation of supporting the lesser of two evils. Its been done thousands of times in history.
and it's always been so successful!!


But he doesn't do it in his own country. Debates and all of that are nice but they do not change the fact that Iran is run by theocrats who rule through totalitarian policies. His trip to America is just for show, nothing more. or maybe he's pulling a peter the great and visiting the west so that he can understand and emulate it. or learn more about it so he can have better-informed cries than "death to america"

[Reaganista]

Good point, he'd just be replaced by another hardliner.
well yeah there's that too
but i meant what has he done to warrant that

[Independent_CA]

but you forget about the fact that criminal behavior is essentially american responsibility; our lack of efective police force is allowing criminals to commit all these crimes.
Right, but it still wasn't the US pulling the trigger in those cases. It was Iraqis killing Iraqis and the fact that they very nearly tied the Coalition that was invading their country is quite remarkable, at least to me.


and it's always been so successful!!
I wasn't calling it successful, just pointing out that there's no need to deny it. It was a decision made almost 30 years ago because it seemed like the best course of action.

or maybe he's pulling a peter the great and visiting the west so that he can understand and emulate it. or learn more about it so he can have better-informed cries than "death to america"
Maybe, but I highly doubt it. Maybe he'll go to a Pennywise show and shout "**** Authority!!!" from now on. Or maybe someone at Columbia will take him to frat party or smoke him out or something. It'd be nice but I doubt it.


well yeah there's that too
but i meant what has he done to warrant that
Ok I was joking, but seriously it would be nice to get a break someone who denies the Holocaust for example, and is as much of annoyance as he is.

[GorgeousGabe]

Same page.


This information is also from 2003-2005. The sectarian violence and the activities of Al-Queda in Iraq have increased markedly since then.

The report also states that US-led involvement in these deaths peaked in 2004 and that anti-occupation, criminal, and other forces involvement has steadily increased since then.


As I said earlier, he is the leader of a hardline theocracy, anything he has to say doesn't interest me.

HOLD ON!

So what you're saying is basically,

"Oh, yeah, we were killing more people BEFORE there was a practical civil war... but now, they are, and it has nothing to do with us!"

The argument you're making isn't that American soldiers DON'T kill lots of civilians... your argument is simply that, since sectarian violence kills such vast amounts of people so very quickly in Iraq, that it's just not as much BY COMPARISON.

Out of so many dozens of thousands...
It would be difficult to construct an argument saying that there haven't been a huge amount of civilian casualties as a direct cause of American fire

[Independent_CA]

HOLD ON!

So what you're saying is basically,

"Oh, yeah, we were killing more people BEFORE there was a practical civil war... but now, they are, and it has nothing to do with us!"

The argument you're making isn't that American soldiers DON'T kill lots of civilians... your argument is simply that, since sectarian violence kills such vast amounts of people so very quickly in Iraq, that it's just not as much BY COMPARISON.

Out of so many dozens of thousands...
It would be difficult to construct an argument saying that there haven't been a huge amount of civilian casualties as a direct cause of American fire
Kind of. I was never denying that the US killed a large amount of civilians. What I am arguing is that the US and allies could have killed quite a bit more and that the insurgency, etc is catching up to those figures and is probably responsible for more civilian deaths recently (in the last year or so) than the Coalition. I've heard and seen that idea thrown around in news stories, but I don't think there's been actual studies released yet on that topic.

[Danish]

The United States set the stage for what's happening now. They are totally responsible (well, along with their junior partners) for the horror and the hopelessness.

The war in Afghanistan is outrageous too. I'm so angry that Canada is participating.

[Smokey D]

The war in Afghanistan is no where near like what Iraq is.

But give credit where credit is due. The US set the stage for Iraq, but it is local terrorist (or whatever euphemism you want to use) who are actually doing the killing. The US may have caused the current situation, but they aren't responsible for the continued violence.

[lfantwister]

The US may have caused the current situation, but they aren't responsible for the continued violence.
But theyre responsible for maintaining order. They need to take responsibility, even if indirectly

[Reaganista]

Ok I was joking, but seriously it would be nice to get a break someone who denies the Holocaust for example, and is as much of annoyance as he is.
well yeah denying the holocaust kinda sucks but it's not that big of a deal in the long run
for the record i think iran having nukes is a good thing internationally

[Independent_CA]

The United States set the stage for what's happening now. They are totally responsible (well, along with their junior partners) for the horror and the hopelessness.
Maybe they could have chosen not to go around killing each other over religious and ethnic differences once the central government was removed? The US might have set the stage, but the sectarian violence or civil war is an Iraqi show.

The war in Afghanistan is outrageous too. I'm so angry that Canada is participating.
How so if you don't mind my asking?

well yeah denying the holocaust kinda sucks but it's not that big of a deal in the long run
for the record i think iran having nukes is a good thing internationally
A good thing how?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I suppose it might put a check on Israel, also might make the seppos think twice before invading/medling with another Middle Eastern country.

[ashman]

Right because writing "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" on buildings and military vehicles and having your supporters chant it at rallies doesn't count.

So much for freedom of speech and opinion :naughty:

Also, holocaust deniers, as much as I and most of the people disagree with it, it's their opinion and they have a right to it. Everything can and should be questioned without repercussions or we're not the freedom loving westerners that we'd like to believe we are.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Man I love the stupidity of holocaust denial, at least when it comes from proper anti-semites. Basically it boils down to "Kill the Jews! But the Nazis didn't actually kill the jews, that's a jew lie. Well maybe they did, but it wasn't six million! But it totally should have been!"

Retards.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

The president of the university has overstepped his role as a hosting faculty and introducting presence to be a major bitchface. It was horribly insulting. Regardless without getting into whether or not he's insane which he doesnt seem so but may seem to be (or may seem not to be) this was definetly an egotistical pussy slap by a supposed respectful academic on the top tier of american education. I think we have to be more respectful of other cultures.

[SugarCoatedSour]

Maybe they could have chosen not to go around killing each other over religious and ethnic differences once the central government was removed? The US might have set the stage, but the sectarian violence or civil war is an Iraqi show.

How so if you don't mind my asking?

A good thing how?

Durrp. They are a nation which is controlled by religion. Believe it or not religion is what binds these people and for the most part is what keeps them from complete disestablishment. Going in and taking out the cornerstone is not a peaceful or even democratic decision. So I could easily point the finger of blame on the States. Besides what concrete evidence was there that Iraq happened to be involved with Bin Laden in the first place. Duhh...wheres Bin Laden now? are the Americans still spelunking every ****ing hole in the desert looking for him? I say no which means that Iraq wasn't even a hapless bystander/aggressor as much as the intended target all along.

[Light Fantastic]

The fact that criminal activity was responsible for nearly as many deaths as an active military invasion says one of two things: Either criminals in Iraq kill a lot of people or that the technology and tactics of US and allied forces used in the invasion managed to avoid killing an even larger amount of civilians.um

As to the point about more Iraqis being killed by insurgents, that's also true. Just think about it, every time I go to Yahoo I see another headline about a car bomb in some market killing 80-100 people.that was what you said though? why are you talking to me about criminals now? concede it if you are going to concede it because this is really irrelevant

"Criminals kill a lot of people in Iraq, this is bad. We are slightly less bad because we kill slightly less people."

so.. ?

If we'd been "carpet bombing" like you said, the US should have been responsible for virtually all of those civilian casualties and there would likely be quite a bit more of them.dont think i ever said anything about carpet bombing

Again, I'm not trying to say that killing civilians is ok, but it could be quite a bit worse.oh ok, only six million jews were killed, it could have been twelve, so who cares then its not so bad

what

Right, like the trend in that report that says the share being killed by insurgents is increasing while US and allied caused deaths peaked in early 2004.

There is no up to date study to report on the casualty figures as they stand now, at least not that I've heard of.

If you look at the second set, you can see that the main insurgent tactic (car bombs) kills just as many as a primary Coalition tactic (airstrikes). The statistics from this cover the entire war and I'd be willing to be that in the last year or so that insurgents and sectarian violence have claimed far more Iraqi lives than they did in the initial invasion and occupation. If I had an up to date study on this, I'd post it.
um ibc is still going.. i only used that one report because it gave coalition killings vs insurgent ones

Coalition forces, principally US as well as some UK, were identified to have killed at least 536 Iraqi civilians in year four (excluding a major incident in Najaf in January which is still under investigation by IBC). This compares with 370 in year three.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/year-four/

so i dont know how you can say coalition violence against civilians is declining or has somehow peaked

by the way, helpful hint: the insurgents arent the ones bombing marketplaces

Apparently you missed the Holocaust deniers convention that was held in Iran several months back?there wasnt though

sure there was a conference, and both sides were represented at it, so i dont particularly care

not that i would particularly care if he was an out and out holocaust denier either, but if you want to cry anti-semite at least do it right

i think his main point is why the palestinian people have to suffer for it though, which is valid.. and not made any less valid whether he hates jews or not


Right because writing "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" on buildings and military vehicles and having your supporters chant it at rallies doesn't count.
i think his supporters can chant whatever they want? as he can say or hold the opinion of whatever he wants and it'll still be just as irrelevant to whether he should have nukes/get invaded any time soon

idk i think they kind of have good reasons for not liking either of those two governments though

Why ignore it? It was a situation of supporting the lesser of two evils. Its been done thousands of times in history.
oh ok i figure the lesser evil is the guy who doesnt attack first or use chemical weapons indiscriminately

Lets just ignore the fact that their country is run by a fanatical theocracy that supports international terrorist groups like Hezbollha. The UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia have also decided that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear device, not just the US.and the us is run by a not so bright guy who supports ethnic cleansing organisations like israel? but you have nukes

and i know those countries dont like it, i dont think they have the right to decide either, i just find it amusing for the usa to think they have much ground to stand on when it comes to nuclear issues.. based on their usage and current stockpile


Maybe, maybe not. His "Death to Israel" slogans and support of Hezbollah make that a moot point.
just wondering if you can point palestine out on a map to me

Choosing not to support or engage in something that you don't support or believe in is not ignorance. I wouldn't go to a lot of politician's rallies.not listening to opposing views simply because they are opposing views is ignorant..

But he doesn't do it in his own country.he does, actually

Debates and all of that are nice but they do not change the fact that Iran is run by theocrats who rule through totalitarian policies. His trip to America is just for show, nothing more. for showing what? he has little to gain otherwise, its not like the american public are going to support another war.. less so when you are the only country that in all probability will enter into this one

[Reaganista]

A good thing how?
because then we cant invade them

[ringworm]

i think we should allow him to visit, speak, meet with our Pres tbo

to deny him privileges will only help the same people we are fighting against

to deny him privileges will only make his speaches back home about the evil US more poignant

not that i like him one bit, but a little diplomacy cant hurt a bit

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

or showing what? he has little to gain otherwise, its not like the american public are going to support another war.. less so when you are the only country that in all probability will enter into this one From what I've heard from the anchors on CNN I wouldn't put it past them. They're gonna be baited with the idea that he wants nuclear weapons when he's perfectly legally trying to get nuclear power.

[Independent_CA]

um

that was what you said though? why are you talking to me about criminals now? concede it if you are going to concede it because this is really irrelevant

"Criminals kill a lot of people in Iraq, this is bad. We are slightly less bad because we kill slightly less people."

so.. ?
No. Maybe this will make it clear. I think that the US being a high-tech, high-powered force, has done a decent job of attempting to avoid civilian casualties. I say this because their casualty figure was almost the same as a collection of nowhere near as high-tech, powerful, or well organized criminals. If the Coalition was indiscriminately firing at everything and everyone in Iraq, that wouldn't be the case.

I'm NOT denying civilian deaths or that they are a bad thing.




dont think i ever said anything about carpet bombing
You're right, that was totah, my bad.

oh ok, only six million jews were killed, it could have been twelve, so who cares then its not so bad.

what
Right 6 million isn't as bad as 12 million dying, but that doesn't mean the 6 million wasn't bad.


um ibc is still going.. i only used that one report because it gave coalition killings vs insurgent ones

Coalition forces, principally US as well as some UK, were identified to have killed at least 536 Iraqi civilians in year four (excluding a major incident in Najaf in January which is still under investigation by IBC). This compares with 370 in year three.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/year-four/

so i dont know how you can say coalition violence against civilians is declining or has somehow peaked
That same report you posted a few posts ago said that it had peaked in 2004.

by the way, helpful hint: the insurgents arent the ones bombing marketplaces
When a car bomb goes off in a market place...I'm pretty sure that would be some type of insurgent or militia group responsible.

there wasnt though

sure there was a conference, and both sides were represented at it, so i dont particularly care

not that i would particularly care if he was an out and out holocaust denier either, but if you want to cry anti-semite at least do it right

i think his main point is why the palestinian people have to suffer for it though, which is valid.. and not made any less valid whether he hates jews or not
Do it right?? Ok he's an anti-semite.


i think his supporters can chant whatever they want? as he can say or hold the opinion of whatever he wants and it'll still be just as irrelevant to whether he should have nukes/get invaded any time soon

idk i think they kind of have good reasons for not liking either of those two governments though
Right but by encouraging them to say those things, he is offering his support to them.


oh ok i figure the lesser evil is the guy who doesnt attack first or use chemical weapons indiscriminately
Cool. I figure the side that is more likely to allow people to live in a fairly free and open society as the lesser evil. Theocracy has been tried and failed in the past. The fact that it still exists is appalling.

and the us is run by a not so bright guy who supports ethnic cleansing organisations like israel? but you have nukes
I don't like Bush but he didn't create nukes.

and i know those countries dont like it, i dont think they have the right to decide either, i just find it amusing for the usa to think they have much ground to stand on when it comes to nuclear issues.. based on their usage and current stockpile
Usage of a brand new weapon in the midst of several years of total war which occurred over 60 years ago. The current stockpile is less than it was during the Cold War and many delivery systems have been disabled.



just wondering if you can point palestine out on a map to me
No because it doesn't exist. I can however point out the West Bank and Gaza. Can you?

not listening to opposing views simply because they are opposing views is ignorant..
How about not listening to opposing views because you've heard them before and don't agree with them? What's that?

he does, actually
Which is why his speech at Columbia today wasn't broadcast in Farsi, Iran's native language right?

for showing what? he has little to gain otherwise, its not like the american public are going to support another war.. less so when you are the only country that in all probability will enter into this one
If Iran did anything aggressive or was proved to be developing nukes, the US would not be the only one willing to enter a war over it.


because then we cant invade them
Yeah, because its a way better idea to start lobbing nuclear weapons around the middle east if anything does end up happening. Talk about collateral damage.

[Reaganista]

Yeah, because its a way better idea to start lobbing nuclear weapons around the middle east if anything does end up happening. Talk about collateral damage.
um wat
nobody uses nukes dont be stupid

[Independent_CA]

um wat
nobody uses nukes dont be stupid

Stupid and extreme people would use nukes the first opportunity they got.

[ringworm]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3591410916525953765&q=interview+with+Ahmadinejad&total=133&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3591410916525953765&q=interview+with+Ahmadinejad&total=133&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

[Reaganista]

Stupid and extreme people would use nukes the first opportunity they got.
no they wouldnt tons of stupid, extreme and extremely stupid people have had nukes and none of them used em

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Plus it means that Iran "negates" Israel, like India and Pakistan's nukes cancel each other out.

[Reaganista]

that's what nukes are for