The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
Unlike any other country then? :suspect:
Also a country that has agreater freedom of information than most...including the UK
As for all the "they let it happen" stuff...again...this would require the complicity of probably hundreds of people. Including those stock traders too apparently?
That's exactly the point which I made earlier: the Oklahoma bombing appears to have been a case of 'permitting' an atrocity, even of 'quasi-encitement', and 9/11 may have had elements of the same.
There are so many anomalous reports and considerations in every aspect of 9/11, that it seems to me to be impossible to take the official narrative at face value. It just doesn't add up. What the true story was, I doubt we shall ever know
BTW Gareth:
I've never given a moment's credence to any of the 'Diana' conspiracy theories
She was killed by a driver, probably speeding, because he was 1] a bit drunk, 2] being chased, and 3] blinded - even if only in his mirrors - by the headlights of pursuing paparazzi. There may or may not have been a photographer in a white fiat who clipped the car, but even if there was, it doesn't change the accidental nature of the accident - End of!
And again....how could this be achieved without the complicity of a large number of people? And you would want to trust that every single one is not going to whistleblow??
Impossible
I have no doubt that some "conspiracy theories" have credence but i would also suggest that too often they are promoted by those who have first and foremost decided where they wish to see the blame attributed
The far left has decided it was Bush
The muslims have decided it was the Jews
The far right (nick Griffin is a soulmate of yours here Warbler
) decided it was the Bush and the jewsTo be honest Clive, the snippet you've posted there, only underlines the point I was making. You wouldn't need to involve thousands of people. A relatively small number of people could propogate the outcome, by ensuring that the command and control structure didn't function to optimum level on the day concerned. All that cutting does is highlight precisely this.
I must admit to being unaware that only 14 jets were on stand by to defend the United States
That's truly staggering. It basically means an aircraft carrier which can launch every 45 seconds and are on constant stand by, (had one been close to Norfolk), would have carried a greater defence capacity than the entire USAF. I know the 'peace dividend' was starting to bite at the time, and the military and arms industry were deeply worried by it, but considering these are some of the most sensitive skies in the world, that is truly amazing. My God, it's a worse state of readiness than us, or even Norway. All it does is confirm to me that a general 'stand down', or reduced state of readiness order was given (probably weeks earlier so as to avoid the obvious 2+2=4). Why?
You might want to investigate who has the authority to give such an order :suspect: My understanding is that its less than half a dozen people holding specified offices. The President certainly can, (I'm not sure if he doesn't ultimately have to sanction someone elses decision anyway?). Now I'm not suggesting for one second that Bush was necessarily behind this (as I said earlier, I wouldn't trust him to put his own socks and shoes on, yet alone hatch and excute a plan of this complexity) but those who were (and still) 'run him' would know how he'd likely react to situations if they were able to orchestrate them.
Clearly the FAA (I think I called them CAA earlier :shy: ) and NORAD link went badly wrong along the line somewhere, and this has been one of the fuzziest things to unpick. Both sides seem to have made different claims and counter claims at various times, and it will probably be one of those we'll never know. Again though, such confusion allied with a conducive environment (stand down) does nothing to discredit the theory that someone/ bodies/ things, were prepared to permit the action to occur by ensuring that command and control didn't function properly.
The ATC stuff I tend to question, for such time as I'm corrected otherwise. My understanding is that a transponder emits a signal that identifies the plane by flight number on screen. The planes radar signature however, still remains visible, and any half decent operator should still be able to track it. Planes move through sector controls, so they'd have had more than just a strong idea where to search given the amount of time the plane had spent in the air, its maximum speed, it's altitude, and the point it was at when the transponder was turned off. This wouldn't involve 4,500 identical radar contacts in the Boston area. This must be red herring. I've witnessed myself (standing on top of the WTC ironically) that there are no more than 20 planes in the sky max, at anyone time over New York City, and that involves servicing 3 major airports. I'm prepared to accept that there might very well be 4,500 planes in the sky over America at anyone time, but not within this very narrow corridor, so I see no reason why they'd be looking outside of a 100 mile radius. Think about it logically. If they were 4,500 radar contacts in the area concerned, they wouldn't be able to land them. If half of them were incoming say, (2,250) spread across three cities, or 7 airports.
It means something like an 8 second seperation. Unless I'm badly misreading something in that section, it just strikes as a barely defendable explanation that just doesn't stand up.
Light aircraft could of course add to the confusion, but they're easily distinguished on speed, and altitude alone. In any event, two cabin crew on AA11 were in continuous contact with the ground for 25 minutes right up to the moment of impact and relayed the change of course and direction of travel etc.
I do however, accept the limitations of the NORAD radar and believe this has been widely documented and acknowledged as an Achilles heel. Clearly something went badly wrong on the day between ATC, FAA, NORAD and even American Airlines. If I get time later, I'll try and dig something out about the FAA side and the notification to the Bush entourage, as there's conflicting accounts (not surprisingly) again. I seem to recall, it points to Condoleeza Rice being the first major 'administration figure' being alerted to the hijacking as Director of National Security. It points to the Bush security detail being aware of it when he arrived at the school. The best evidence seems to come from the travelling press corps who were aware of course (they'd been alerted within a minute by their own news organisations). Many of whom claim to have over heard discussions between the President and various elements of his staff. The head teacher is supposed to have said something to him on greeting him (about 8.55) but this of course will have related to the first crash, as even I'm not suggesting that the local school were in on the plot and knew that there was another plane hijacked
The timings of when the planes were hijacked isn't really disputed, as the radar contacts automatically generate a record in accordance with transponders being turned off. What isn't clear is how the information flowed after that
I must admit to being unaware that only 14 jets were on stand by to defend the United States
That's truly staggering. It basically means an aircraft carrier which can launch every 45 seconds and are on constant stand by, (had one been close to Norfolk), would have carried a greater defence capacity than the entire USAF. I know the 'peace dividend' was starting to bite at the time, and the military and arms industry were deeply worried by it, but considering these are some of the most sensitive skies in the world, that is truly amazing. My God, it's a worse state of readiness than us, or even Norway. All it does is confirm to me that a general 'stand down', or reduced state of readiness order was given (probably weeks earlier so as to avoid the obvious 2+2=4). Why? You might want to investigate who has the authority to give such an order :suspect: My understanding is that its less than half a dozen people holding specified offices. The President certainly can, (I'm not sure if he doesn't ultimately have to sanction someone elses decision anyway?). Now I'm not suggesting for one second that Bush was necessarily behind this (as I said earlier, I wouldn't trust him to put his own socks and shoes on, yet alone hatch and excute a plan of this complexity) but those who were (and still) 'run him' would know how he'd likely react to situations if they were able to orchestrate them.
Clearly the FAA (I think I called them CAA earlier :shy: ) and NORAD link went badly wrong along the line somewhere, and this has been one of the fuzziest things to unpick. Both sides seem to have made different claims and counter claims at various times, and it will probably be one of those we'll never know. Again though, such confusion allied with a conducive environment (stand down) does nothing to discredit the theory that someone/ bodies/ things, were prepared to permit the action to occur by ensuring that command and control didn't function properly.
The ATC stuff I tend to question, for such time as I'm corrected otherwise. My understanding is that a transponder emits a signal that identifies the plane by flight number on screen. The planes radar signature however, still remains visible, and any half decent operator should still be able to track it. Planes move through sector controls, so they'd have had more than just a strong idea where to search given the amount of time the plane had spent in the air, its maximum speed, it's altitude, and the point it was at when the transponder was turned off. This wouldn't involve 4,500 identical radar contacts in the Boston area. This must be red herring. I've witnessed myself (standing on top of the WTC ironically) that there are no more than 20 planes in the sky max, at anyone time over New York City, and that involves servicing 3 major airports. I'm prepared to accept that there might very well be 4,500 planes in the sky over America at anyone time, but not within this very narrow corridor, so I see no reason why they'd be looking outside of a 100 mile radius. Think about it logically. If they were 4,500 radar contacts in the area concerned, they wouldn't be able to land them. If half of them were incoming say, (2,250) spread across three cities, or 7 airports.
It means something like an 8 second seperation. Unless I'm badly misreading something in that section, it just strikes as a barely defendable explanation that just doesn't stand up.Light aircraft could of course add to the confusion, but they're easily distinguished on speed, and altitude alone. In any event, two cabin crew on AA11 were in continuous contact with the ground for 25 minutes right up to the moment of impact and relayed the change of course and direction of travel etc.
I do however, accept the limitations of the NORAD radar and believe this has been widely documented and acknowledged as an Achilles heel. Clearly something went badly wrong on the day between ATC, FAA, NORAD and even American Airlines. If I get time later, I'll try and dig something out about the FAA side and the notification to the Bush entourage, as there's conflicting accounts (not surprisingly) again. I seem to recall, it points to Condoleeza Rice being the first major 'administration figure' being alerted to the hijacking as Director of National Security. It points to the Bush security detail being aware of it when he arrived at the school. The best evidence seems to come from the travelling press corps who were aware of course (they'd been alerted within a minute by their own news organisations). Many of whom claim to have over heard discussions between the President and various elements of his staff. The head teacher is supposed to have said something to him on greeting him (about 8.55) but this of course will have related to the first crash, as even I'm not suggesting that the local school were in on the plot and knew that there was another plane hijacked
The timings of when the planes were hijacked isn't really disputed, as the radar contacts automatically generate a record in accordance with transponders being turned off. What isn't clear is how the information flowed after that
I have no idea whether "they" "allowed" it to happen. It could be another Pearl Harbour...but i doubt it
But despite all the above (which is really just emphasising the confusion) I still cannot weigh up the motivations to the risks.
Whatever you believe about the power of business (or specifically the construction industry) in the US, their share price is not something any vaguely rational being is going to risk his life for
But despite all the above (which is really just emphasising the confusion) I still cannot weigh up the motivations to the risks.
Whatever you believe about the power of business (or specifically the construction industry) in the US, their share price is not something any vaguely rational being is going to risk his life for
I'm going to put together a list of links which people can look at to decide whether the version we have been given is quite as irrefutable as some would like to think.
I'll do my best to avoid sites which start with an 'a priori' political position then try to prove it, and do my best to stick to matters of fact.
This may take me a day or two since it's been a while since I went into all this stuff; and I can see already with even a brief look on the web that research has continued apace in the meantime :suspect:
The USAF was stood down that morning btw, more of which later...
We did have a thread on this some time ago, maybe we should resurrect it rather than highjacking the Presidential Election thread, excuse the pun!
I'll do my best to avoid sites which start with an 'a priori' political position then try to prove it, and do my best to stick to matters of fact.
This may take me a day or two since it's been a while since I went into all this stuff; and I can see already with even a brief look on the web that research has continued apace in the meantime :suspect:
The USAF was stood down that morning btw, more of which later...
We did have a thread on this some time ago, maybe we should resurrect it rather than highjacking the Presidential Election thread, excuse the pun!
Superb win...
Did windbag get it in the neck for his racial slur on white small town america (the equivalent of Lazy/bitter and resort to welfare crime and drugs...)? Will be interesting to see if this resonates in the remaining states
Im liking her more and more....
Did windbag get it in the neck for his racial slur on white small town america (the equivalent of Lazy/bitter and resort to welfare crime and drugs...)? Will be interesting to see if this resonates in the remaining states
Im liking her more and more....
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
So when Mrs Clinton uses words like "obliterate" it's ok - indeed, welcome?
But when Ahmedinejad uses terms like "wipe off the map" (essentially the same thing) he's a dangerous lunatic?
Make yer fecking mind up, clivex.
But when Ahmedinejad uses terms like "wipe off the map" (essentially the same thing) he's a dangerous lunatic?
Make yer fecking mind up, clivex.
Of course it is. although clintons first line should be seen in context of the second
It is in response to the threat that Iran has made. Is that so difficult to understand?
Shall i explain this slowly?
If Iran doesnt attack Isreal then it wont get attacked itself...
If it does (without provocation), then Iran will become a car park
It is in response to the threat that Iran has made. Is that so difficult to understand?
Shall i explain this slowly?
If Iran doesnt attack Isreal then it wont get attacked itself...
If it does (without provocation), then Iran will become a car park
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Let me explain this e.v.e.n......m.....o..r.......e.......s..lo..w...l..y
Iran has never threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Indeed, I don't believe it has ever threatened a military attack of any description.
The threat made to "wipe it off the map" was in the context that the country is a falsehood, created in the post WW2 carve-up of Palestine. Not that I agree with the Iranian perspective as regards Israel, but that is/was the context in which the 'wipe off the map' statement was made.
Clinton's sabre-rattling was a desperate vote-grab, and nothing more - and it was a skoosh to make, because if Iran ever did attack Israel with nukes, Israel would respond with a massive retaliatory strike all by themselves - the US wouldn't need to get involved.
Iran has never threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Indeed, I don't believe it has ever threatened a military attack of any description.
The threat made to "wipe it off the map" was in the context that the country is a falsehood, created in the post WW2 carve-up of Palestine. Not that I agree with the Iranian perspective as regards Israel, but that is/was the context in which the 'wipe off the map' statement was made.
Clinton's sabre-rattling was a desperate vote-grab, and nothing more - and it was a skoosh to make, because if Iran ever did attack Israel with nukes, Israel would respond with a massive retaliatory strike all by themselves - the US wouldn't need to get involved.
So how do they intend to "wipe it off the map " then?
Do me a favour
I would always accept that translations and syntax can confuse statements but he hasnt come close to retracting or even clarifying that statement
All this "he didnt really mean it!" stuff from the left is laughable. What could be clearer?
Aside from that, they arm militias that attack Israel virtually every day
I dont think they will attack directly and are years from holding the weapons to carry out the genocidal aims of certain Iranians, but no harm in making clear exactly their position if they do so
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Here you go - from Wikipedia i.e. pi*ss-easy to find................
"Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map", an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop to exist", or to "obliterate totally", or "destroy completely".
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.
The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Mr. Arash Norouzi, who proposes that the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the myth:
One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy. - (my emphasis)
According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).
Norouzi's translation is identical. According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."
Seems, contrary to your assertion, that he has no intention of "wiping Israel from the map" after all.
And it seems that several have contested the translation, but nobody in the West bothered their arses to pick it up - probably because it didn't make good copy.
What could be clearer??
"Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map", an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop to exist", or to "obliterate totally", or "destroy completely".
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.
The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Mr. Arash Norouzi, who proposes that the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the myth:
One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy. - (my emphasis)
According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).
Norouzi's translation is identical. According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."
Seems, contrary to your assertion, that he has no intention of "wiping Israel from the map" after all.
And it seems that several have contested the translation, but nobody in the West bothered their arses to pick it up - probably because it didn't make good copy.
What could be clearer??
Its total rubbish of course
Usual hand wringing lefties who cannot accept that some amongst their sainted third world muslims brothers would come out with statements that would suprise Hitler
1. So why did Al Jazeera of all agencies, report the statement as it is widely understood?
2. Again, why didnt he retract or clarify given that this was supposedly mis-understood ?
Now lets imagine that Sharon stated that he wanted to "wipe Iran off the map" in Hebrew say?
I expect the same bunch of apologists would be claiming that it was "misunderstood".
would they ****
Usual hand wringing lefties who cannot accept that some amongst their sainted third world muslims brothers would come out with statements that would suprise Hitler
1. So why did Al Jazeera of all agencies, report the statement as it is widely understood?
2. Again, why didnt he retract or clarify given that this was supposedly mis-understood ?
Now lets imagine that Sharon stated that he wanted to "wipe Iran off the map" in Hebrew say?
I expect the same bunch of apologists would be claiming that it was "misunderstood".
would they ****
simmo
Senior Jockey
So you're telling us that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" is better than "wiping Israel from the map" then? Or indeed that the USA would "obliterate" Iran?
Given the physical impossibility of making Israel itself disappear from the map, one must conclude that the original translation refers instead to the occupants of that country or to the name of that country. Given that the Jewish inhabitants of Israel are unlikely to wish their "regime" or the name of their country to be removed from the "page of time" without they themselves being removed, or wiped off the map, I am therefore unable to quite distinguish any huge variation in end meaning between the two statements.
Both call for the removal of Jewish inhabitants from the particular section of the Near East which they currently occupy and are, therefore, as hateful as cries of "obliterating" Iran.
Given the physical impossibility of making Israel itself disappear from the map, one must conclude that the original translation refers instead to the occupants of that country or to the name of that country. Given that the Jewish inhabitants of Israel are unlikely to wish their "regime" or the name of their country to be removed from the "page of time" without they themselves being removed, or wiped off the map, I am therefore unable to quite distinguish any huge variation in end meaning between the two statements.
Both call for the removal of Jewish inhabitants from the particular section of the Near East which they currently occupy and are, therefore, as hateful as cries of "obliterating" Iran.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Utter cobblers - there is a world of a difference.
Further into the Wikipedia article, it makes reference to the "Zionist State" ceasing to exist, and makes a parallel with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Feel free to ignore the references provided if you want.
clivex, you will need to ask Al Jazeera why they chose an incorrect translation, but from the evidence provided in the Wikipedia article, that's exactly what it looks like. The correct translation is a world away from that which you would like to put forward.
And just because some of us seek to better understand the realities of what happened, doesn't mean we are in cahoots with our "Muslim brethern" as you put it.
It's a search for the facts I'm engaged in - I'm not on anyone's side. I thought it was abundantly clear that I despise all members of your human race anyway.
simmo, if you can find any reference - anywhere - showing me that Ahmedinejad calls for the "removal of Jewish inhabitants from that particular section of the Near East" I will be happy to review my position.
I'll concede that my research is not completely exhaustive, and I'm always happy to be educated by someone better informed, rather than obliquely sticking to my point of view, regardless of what the facts actually are.
Further into the Wikipedia article, it makes reference to the "Zionist State" ceasing to exist, and makes a parallel with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Feel free to ignore the references provided if you want.
clivex, you will need to ask Al Jazeera why they chose an incorrect translation, but from the evidence provided in the Wikipedia article, that's exactly what it looks like. The correct translation is a world away from that which you would like to put forward.
And just because some of us seek to better understand the realities of what happened, doesn't mean we are in cahoots with our "Muslim brethern" as you put it.
It's a search for the facts I'm engaged in - I'm not on anyone's side. I thought it was abundantly clear that I despise all members of your human race anyway.
simmo, if you can find any reference - anywhere - showing me that Ahmedinejad calls for the "removal of Jewish inhabitants from that particular section of the Near East" I will be happy to review my position.
I'll concede that my research is not completely exhaustive, and I'm always happy to be educated by someone better informed, rather than obliquely sticking to my point of view, regardless of what the facts actually are.
he wont remove them
he will "wipe them out" on the spot
You havent answered Simmos point. Which is always conveniently ignored when this comes up.
How is he going to achieve one aim without the other? collpase of the zionist state whilst the jewish population remains in place? Yeah right...
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Very good clivex - glib response as usual.
He, along with Khameini, advocates a return/resettlement of the displaced Palestinian population, and a referendum. A single-state solution, with a democratically elected parliament that governs everyone.
Will it ever happen? I doubt it, because to allow the refugees to return and give them votes, would see the current Israeli government out on it's arse, and - quite possibly, I'll concede - the election of a radical Islamic government (dunno, I haven't really looked in to the numbers).
So Israel cannot allow it - the return of the refugees and a subsequent election - to happen.
You aske how is he going to achieve one aim, without the other.
Well, how did the collapse of the Soviet Union happen? It took a man brave enough to make a sea-change in policy and attitude, and to put all the old hostilities and prejudices to one side - despite the fact that he was a product of the machine itself.
There is a perfect example of a political system being torn assunder without the need for violence and confrontation (ignoring the short-lived attempted coups by the old-guard in reaction to the perestroika and glasnost policies).
FWIW, I reckon Israel needs someone with the vision and balls of a Gorbachev, before there can be any real progress on any of the myriad issues facing that part of the world.
The problem is, on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, they are too busy sitting in their trenches lobbing grenades at each other.
But the answer to the question is that it is possible - it just needs someone with the will.
He, along with Khameini, advocates a return/resettlement of the displaced Palestinian population, and a referendum. A single-state solution, with a democratically elected parliament that governs everyone.
Will it ever happen? I doubt it, because to allow the refugees to return and give them votes, would see the current Israeli government out on it's arse, and - quite possibly, I'll concede - the election of a radical Islamic government (dunno, I haven't really looked in to the numbers).
So Israel cannot allow it - the return of the refugees and a subsequent election - to happen.
You aske how is he going to achieve one aim, without the other.
Well, how did the collapse of the Soviet Union happen? It took a man brave enough to make a sea-change in policy and attitude, and to put all the old hostilities and prejudices to one side - despite the fact that he was a product of the machine itself.
There is a perfect example of a political system being torn assunder without the need for violence and confrontation (ignoring the short-lived attempted coups by the old-guard in reaction to the perestroika and glasnost policies).
FWIW, I reckon Israel needs someone with the vision and balls of a Gorbachev, before there can be any real progress on any of the myriad issues facing that part of the world.
The problem is, on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, they are too busy sitting in their trenches lobbing grenades at each other.
But the answer to the question is that it is possible - it just needs someone with the will.
I wouldnt disagree with a lot of that but frankly that is still an extremely generous interpretation of his comments
I personally doubt that the Palestinians would embrace Islamism. Despite the (i suspect regretted) election of Hamas (which was a reaction to the awful previous regime as much as anything else) they are not, in the main, traditionally subscribers to the nutter tendency within islam
my view is that both sides have frequently been ill served by their leaders but probably even more so by the actions and rhetoric of surrounding states and leaders who have all too frequently echoed the language of the agrressors or even the nazis and thus created an understandable siege mentality amongst the Jewish state (also not helped by some rather arabist/ant semitic leanings amongst eurpoean states)
The way forward will require imagination, but i have a feeling that we could see a sudden positive sea change soon. Sometimes populations (ireland) simply tire of battle
I await your glib response :suspect:
I personally doubt that the Palestinians would embrace Islamism. Despite the (i suspect regretted) election of Hamas (which was a reaction to the awful previous regime as much as anything else) they are not, in the main, traditionally subscribers to the nutter tendency within islam
my view is that both sides have frequently been ill served by their leaders but probably even more so by the actions and rhetoric of surrounding states and leaders who have all too frequently echoed the language of the agrressors or even the nazis and thus created an understandable siege mentality amongst the Jewish state (also not helped by some rather arabist/ant semitic leanings amongst eurpoean states)
The way forward will require imagination, but i have a feeling that we could see a sudden positive sea change soon. Sometimes populations (ireland) simply tire of battle
I await your glib response :suspect:
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
All it is, is a literal interpretation of his comments, clivex.
I think the rhetoric used by the surrounding nations is pretty consistent with what they see as oppression of their "Muslim brethern" - rightly or wrongly.
This rhetoric isn't restricted to pariah states like Iran either - you get the same kind of response out countries traditionally seen as Western allies e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan whenever Israel/Palestine is discussed.
If a seige mentality exists amongst Israeli's, one could argue that it is of their own making, as they are still (as far as international bodies like the UN are concerned) an occupying force in many parts of Israel/Palestine. It's a truism that Israel stand in violation of several UN resolutions.
The way forward will require imagination - no doubt - but it will also require someone who can reach-out to the other side, through sheer force of personality. Given that they essentially hold the key, it's my suspicion that such a move will need to be made on the Israeli side.
The problem is that they don't have anyone with that force of personality other than Benjamin Netanyahu - and he is the last man on the planet that seems likely to offer an olive branch, let alone use his undoubted intellect to move the peace proces forward.
PS. Apologies for this meandering miles off topic.
I think the rhetoric used by the surrounding nations is pretty consistent with what they see as oppression of their "Muslim brethern" - rightly or wrongly.
This rhetoric isn't restricted to pariah states like Iran either - you get the same kind of response out countries traditionally seen as Western allies e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan whenever Israel/Palestine is discussed.
If a seige mentality exists amongst Israeli's, one could argue that it is of their own making, as they are still (as far as international bodies like the UN are concerned) an occupying force in many parts of Israel/Palestine. It's a truism that Israel stand in violation of several UN resolutions.
The way forward will require imagination - no doubt - but it will also require someone who can reach-out to the other side, through sheer force of personality. Given that they essentially hold the key, it's my suspicion that such a move will need to be made on the Israeli side.
The problem is that they don't have anyone with that force of personality other than Benjamin Netanyahu - and he is the last man on the planet that seems likely to offer an olive branch, let alone use his undoubted intellect to move the peace proces forward.
PS. Apologies for this meandering miles off topic.
simmo
Senior Jockey
How about this quote taken from the his own website?
"He repeated an earlier suggestion to Europe on settlement of the Zionists in Europe or big lands such as Canada and Alaska so they would be able to own their own land."
or the following from a New York Times article (not the most objective I know, but no worse than Wiki)
"But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive."
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
So there is debate amongst the scholars about the exact literal translation - that's all this proves.
It's hardly the point anyway - it is about the context in which that statement was made. I've already described the parallel - which is the collapse of the Soviet Union, and how that was "wiped away" (if I choose to go with your translators, rather than mine ).
As for your first quote, this is clearly a reference to the occupied territories which Israel has retained since the 1967 war - something which the UN still considers to be illegal.
Ahmedinejad's suggestion (my interpretation at least) is in response to the return of occupied territory to Palestine, and the question of what to do with the internal Jewish dispora. I also suspect it was an entirely mischevious - rather than an entirely malicious - statement. Equally, it wouldn't be the first time that somewhere other than the current State of Israel was proposed for a Jewish homeland.
To roll all of this back: Why would Ahmedinejad suggest other countries accept immigration of a Jewish dispora, if all he wanted was to do was 'obliterate' them or 'wipe them off the map': political system, religion, population and all? If he has hopes to nuke them, he can achieve all of his (alleged) ambitions in one go - and it render his own suggestion irrelevant, would it not?
It's hardly the point anyway - it is about the context in which that statement was made. I've already described the parallel - which is the collapse of the Soviet Union, and how that was "wiped away" (if I choose to go with your translators, rather than mine
).As for your first quote, this is clearly a reference to the occupied territories which Israel has retained since the 1967 war - something which the UN still considers to be illegal.
Ahmedinejad's suggestion (my interpretation at least) is in response to the return of occupied territory to Palestine, and the question of what to do with the internal Jewish dispora. I also suspect it was an entirely mischevious - rather than an entirely malicious - statement. Equally, it wouldn't be the first time that somewhere other than the current State of Israel was proposed for a Jewish homeland.
To roll all of this back: Why would Ahmedinejad suggest other countries accept immigration of a Jewish dispora, if all he wanted was to do was 'obliterate' them or 'wipe them off the map': political system, religion, population and all? If he has hopes to nuke them, he can achieve all of his (alleged) ambitions in one go - and it render his own suggestion irrelevant, would it not?