Well it is no secret that his comment about eliminating the Zionist government was spun in to removing Israel from the map of the earth.

All one has to do is say what they think what Ahmedinejad said and run with it, and it spreads like wildfire. By the time intelligent people start commenting about it and discovering what he actually said, it doesn't matter as it is too late by then and hundreds of millions already think he said something terrible which he didn't.

7/6/2010 7:03:43 PM

It's also no secret that the source of that "poor translation" was Iran's state propaganda source, the Islamic Republic News Agency. Maybe you should rail against them instead of the Western media spinning his words.

7/6/2010 8:12:56 PM

^^ well then consider that fair play for all the times that Palestinian leaders have said something mild mannered in english and then exploded with vitriol and hatred in their native tongue.

7/6/2010 9:10:47 PM

Iran bans the mullet
Islamic republic aims to free itself of 'decadent' western hairstyles
July 6, 2010

Quote :

"Imagine a country where a man with a ponytail could have it cut off by the cops, as could one with a mullet, or one whose hair was slathered in gel, fancifully spiked, or simply too long. Repeat offenders would face stiff fines, while their barber-accomplices would have their shops closed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/06/iran-bans-the-mullet

Now they've gone and done it!

7/7/2010 2:47:46 AM

so now there is hair police? nice.

7/7/2010 8:02:55 AM

Don't make fun of their customs, you cultural imperialist. Policing people's haircuts is part of their culture and should be respected as such.

7/7/2010 9:02:55 AM

as is stoning women to death who marry anyone deemed 'unfavorable' by her immediate community.

it should be "respected."

7/7/2010 11:44:25 AM

Quote :

"8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

7/7/2010 12:32:42 PM

Apparently, the mullets are an important international sociopolitical constituency.

MULLAHS FOR MULLETS!

7/7/2010 12:32:43 PM

^^

What's your point?





[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2010 12:47:48 PM

The point is that before DaBird casts the stone, he should look into the moral repugnance that is his religion, assuming he's a practicing Christian.

But that's a little unfair, since this is a thread about Iran, so it's probably the right place to make fun of Muslims.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2010 1:16:43 PM

Uhhh...

How does that quote imply that his religion is morally repugnant?

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2010 3:42:49 PM

It doesn't. I'm stating that his religion is morally repugnant. A Christian that is quick to point out Islam's failures they should look more closely at their own religion. It obviously was an obscure quote, perhaps I should have used a more relevant source.

But like I recanted, this is a fine place to dump on Islam, so dump away!

7/7/2010 4:37:45 PM

i'm pretty sure just about everyone is familiar with the quote.

i thought you were taking it GROSSLY out of context and misunderstanding it.

7/7/2010 5:35:27 PM

Quote :

"The point is that before DaBird casts the stone, he should look into the moral repugnance that is his religion, assuming he's a practicing Christian."

you assume a lot.

the point of my post was to make fun of the fact that the poster insinuates we have "respect" all things of all religions, even when these things are reprehensible. fuck that. that would include crazy christian "moral repugnance."

i hate all religious zealots, no matter their skin color. i do admit i hate muslim religious zealots more than others because they would happily murder me and my family in our sleep. fuck them.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2010 5:46:11 PM

To stop the derailment, I'm responding to theduke in pm. Also, word, DaBird. Fuck crazy muslims and christians alike.

Especially women stoning Muslims in this case.

7/7/2010 8:30:48 PM

Was it not obvious that I was being facetious?

7/8/2010 9:34:53 AM

It certainly was to me.

7/8/2010 9:38:28 AM

UAE ambassador: Better to bomb Iran
July 7, 2010

Quote :

"Yousef Al-Otaiba, the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates to the United States, on July 6 endorsed US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado, Al-Otaiba said: 'It's a cost-benefit analysis. There will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.' But 'we can't live with a nuclear Iran.' He directly challenged the notion, gaining ground in US policy circles in the wake of US fecklessness, that a nuclear mullocracy could be contained: 'Countries in the region view the Iran threat very differently, I can only speak for the U.A.E., but talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous. Why should I be led to believe that deterrence or containment will work? Iran doesn't have a nuclear power now, but we're unable to contain them and their behavior in the region. What makes me think that once they have a nuclear program, we're going to be able to be more successful in containing them?' Al-Otaiba reiterated the age-old truth--small countries, in the absence of dependable allies, of necessity hedge their bets: 'There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran. Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully's eye, if nobody's going to come to their support.'"

http://tinyurl.com/375t7fw

7/11/2010 5:05:29 AM

"Politics makes strange bedfellows" is something that I don't think that a lot of Americans appreciate, especially when it comes to foreign policy. While it isn't unprecedented for us to forge alliances of convenience with parties that we don't otherwise really care much for, we ultimately don't have to worry so much about making sure to align ourselves with a dominant power. We ARE the dominant power.

In a lot of other cases, countries/factions/influential individuals/etc choose which side to be on based heavily on who they think has the upper hand.

7/11/2010 8:30:56 AM

Iran's a big bully now great. How many countries have they attacked again? You'd have to go back to ancient persia.

7/11/2010 1:32:37 PM

^ And this would be your reasoning for allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons? How many attacks has Iran assisted with or supported in some way? Some of you are always howling about the need for consensus and multilateral action--well, what about Iran's violation of current UN resolutions?

And if Iran gets a nuke, they won't need to attack (except for possibly Israel). Their neighbors will cower in fear at just the threat of a nuclear attack, whether this threat is implied or direct. Some will even race to build their own nuclear weapons to balance the power--sounds like the countdown to Armageddon to me.

In any event, I realize that some of you think all countries are equal. This is where we differ in opinion and never the twain shall meet.

7/11/2010 5:29:26 PM

but somehow the us, israel, india, pakistan among others having nuclear weapons doesn't cause any of those problems.

and of course the us doesn't assist in attacks on other nations and would never dare threaten to invade another sovereign nation or god forbid, actually USE the nukes...

7/12/2010 1:54:15 AM

Quote :

"In any event, I realize that some of you think all countries are equal. This is where we differ in opinion and never the twain shall meet."

^ And, clearly, you don't fully grasp the concept of nuclear non-proliferation.

7/12/2010 2:00:24 AM

It doesn't matter. Israel, Pakistan and India have no intentions of signing non proliferation so why should Iran be bounded by it?

The US completely loopholes around the disarmament clause and is any nation really following it by dismantling their nuclear arsenals? What a complete joke.

7/12/2010 2:16:23 AM

Quote :

"^ And, clearly, you don't fully grasp the concept of nuclear non-proliferation."

Quote :

"In any event, I realize that some of you think all countries are equal. This is where we differ in opinion and never the twain shall meet."

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 2:32 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2010 2:28:00 AM

You realize in real life repeating yourself verbatim as much as you do would get you punched in the face.

That's what people want to do to you when you do it here.

7/12/2010 2:56:24 AM

^ Is that a threat?

7/12/2010 3:08:55 AM

Quote :

"How many countries have they attacked again? You'd have to go back to ancient persia."

I guess you could argue this if youre speaking strictly in terms of conventional warfare and completely discounting the activities of the Pasdaran

7/12/2010 8:37:32 AM

I guess since Hezbollah and Hamas are extensions of the Revolutionary Guard, you could say they've attacked several countries and one country in particular repeatedly. Should they gain the ability to produce nukes, it wouldn't be too much to assume one of them could easily make it's way into their hands.

Oh and don't feed the trolls.

[Edited on July 12, 2010 at 10:10 AM. Reason : *]

7/12/2010 10:09:34 AM

Oh please. Hezbollah and Hamas aren't extensions of Iran. Has Iran supported them? yes. but that doesn't mean they are them. We are not the taliban and wouldn't give Osama a nuke, would we?

I understand non proliferation and I also understand something you don't. Its useless if it doesn't apply to everyone. If the nations with nukes don't disarm and the nations that are aloud to produce nukes are pick and choose, its completely uselss. Everyone has to be on board.

Its ridiculous to demand Iran folllow something that three of their neighbors haven't signed and that two nations who swear to attack them aren't held under.

7/12/2010 8:59:51 PM

Has anyone been stoned to death today in Iran? Just checking.

7/13/2010 4:40:34 PM

That's just their culture, don't make fun of it. Anyway it's not half as bad as MTV.

7/14/2010 9:55:50 AM

yea, don't make fun of or even question a culture's barbaric "right" to stone a woman.. how dare a civilized people do that!?

7/14/2010 11:07:07 AM

Quote :

"Its ridiculous to demand Iran folllow something that three of their neighbors haven't signed and that two nations who swear to attack them aren't held under."

Pakistan and India are about as likely to attack Iran as I am of invading Mooninite territory. Furthermore, Iran signed the treaty. They didn't have to, but they did. Now they must abide by it.

Oh shit I'm feeding the troll...

7/14/2010 12:16:47 PM

Iran claims to have S-300 surface-to-air missiles
(AP) – 1 day ago

Quote :

"TEHRAN, Iran — A semiofficial Iranian news agency says Iran has obtained four S-300 surface-to-air missiles despite Russia's refusal to deliver them. The Fars news agency said Wednesday that Iran has obtained two missiles from Belarus and two others from another unspecified source. Russia signed a contract in 2007 to sell the missiles to Iran but said in June that new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran prevent delivery. The sale would have substantially boosted the country's defense capacities, raising Israeli fears it would tip the military balance in the Middle East."

http://tinyurl.com/22sbjhr

I realize that some of you don't get the seriousness of this (if the story's accurate). Some others will edify us with the standard "IRAN'S A COUNTRY, TOO!!!1"

But this situation is very serious:

Mullen says US has Iran strike plan, just in case
(AP) – 4 days ago

Quote :

"'I think the military options have been on the table and remain on the table,' Mullen said on 'Meet the Press' on NBC. 'It's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that, but it's an important option and it's one that's well understood.'"

http://tinyurl.com/2a95vc5

And, yes, officials often make this sort of comment. It just seems that things are coming to a head in Iran--I hope it's through relatively peaceful regime change by the people of Iran. But we'll see.

8/6/2010 3:32:36 AM

Newt might get his wish after all. . .

8/6/2010 4:34:14 AM

Ah, I see the Newt obsession coming back for some as he raises his profile in the election run-up. Be that as it may, FTR, I hope Newt doesn't run--but the Republicans just don't have anybody right now.

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 4:41 AM. Reason : ^ And if "it" happened, wouldn't it be Obama's wish, too?]

8/6/2010 4:41:03 AM

I don't believe our president "wishes" for war. Newt, however, desires military conflict with both Iran and North Korea all while we're trying to extricate ourselves from Afghanistan and the blunder of Iraq.

8/6/2010 5:05:32 AM

From some of the things I have been reading and heard, I would not be surprised to see Israel take action on Iran within the next 6-8 months.

8/6/2010 8:29:19 AM

^^ I don't really care for Newt all that much (but I would hold my nose and vote for him over Obama) and I don't know all of his positions, but I don't think he "wishes" for war, either. I think Newt and some other like-minded folks are willing to do more than Obama and Company to prevent a nuclear Iran (if it's not too late already--and I'm not sure how far he'd go concerning North Korea).

^ If it's going to happen, it'll probably be sooner than that. There's this to consider in the mix, too:

U.S. nears key step in European defense shield against Iranian missiles
August 1, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/31/AR2010073103048.html

[Edited on August 6, 2010 at 8:38 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2010 8:32:03 AM

I mean how could you not support a guy who writes a book called
To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine?

Quote :

"but I don't think he "wishes" for war, either."

O Rly?

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php/2010/07/30/gingrich-calls-on-u-s-to-attack-iran-and-north-korea-video/

8/6/2010 10:07:31 AM

Quote :

"Mullen says US has Iran strike plan, just in case (AP) – 4 days ago"

that isn't really news at all. we have plans for pretty much any conceivable hot-button scenario.

8/6/2010 10:49:31 AM

We have plans for every scenario. We have plans for invading Canada.

8/6/2010 12:20:14 PM

We have plans for crushing a widespread domestic rebellion and secession.

Might need those plans soon.

8/6/2010 1:40:04 PM

I think we can learn a thing or two from Iran on how to treat illegal beaners in our country

8/6/2010 10:38:59 PM

^^^^ and ^^^ Yes, it is news--context is everything. When considered in the context of Iran's growing nuclear threat and the new missiles they have supposedly obtained, the story of a "strike plan" takes on new relevance.

And do you think you're giving me new information when you "inform" me that we have contingency plans for a variety of scenarios? Really?

8/8/2010 6:22:07 PM

Ex-CIA chief says clash with Iran more likely
July 26, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Former CIA director Michael Hayden says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the United States does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program."

Quote :

"'We engage. They continue to move forward,' Hayden said. 'We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward.'"

http://tinyurl.com/2cxxe3r

8/9/2010 6:43:47 PM

Quote :

"Iran bans the mullet"

I think we can all agree that this is the proper role of government.

8/9/2010 7:36:33 PM

I can't believe you fucks want to start ANOTHER unprovoked war against a much more peaceful, powerful country. Fool me three times? how stupid can you be?

Quote :

"The sale would have substantially boosted the country's defense capacities, raising Israeli fears it would tip the military balance in the Middle East.""

How dare them build defense in a world where the most powerful nation randomly invades other nations without reason and then runs them into the ground for decades to come?

The more serious part is if they become capable of defending themselves then other countries in the region may follow and we could end up in a world where defense is so high that war mongering nations think twice before invading. SCARY.

8/10/2010 9:27:22 AM