[quote]Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind? [/quote]
We shouldn’t. What a waste of time and resources to meet with such a tool. It is much better to communicate with them on other levels as we are currently doing.
[quote]Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind? [/quote]
Now, answer my question.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind?
Now, answer my question.[/quote]
You didn’t answer mine but oh well I will answer yours.
1013 Amercians? Yeah that number really tells the story doesn’t it? Did the question also say WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS? I see they conveniently left that out. This poll is vague and showed that clearly. I’m sure if the poll posed the question “Would most Amercians meet with Hitler as the tanks were rolling into Poland” I’m sure the numbers would be different.
HISTORY has shown that diplomacy especially in the Middle East has not worked with terrorists. Not all 1013 Americans want to acknowldege that unfortunately. Maybe the other millions would.
[quote]Footsolider88 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind?
Now, answer my question.
You didn’t answer mine but oh well I will answer yours.
1013 Amercians? Yeah that number really tells the story doesn’t it? Did the question also say WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS? I see they conveniently left that out. This poll is vague and showed that clearly. I’m sure if the poll posed the question “Would most Amercians meet with Hitler as the tanks were rolling into Poland” I’m sure the numbers would be different.
HISTORY has shown that diplomacy especially in the Middle East has not worked with terrorists. Not all 1013 Americans want to acknowldege that unfortunately. Maybe the other millions would. [/quote]
I’m not going to explain to you how sampling and polling works because you will obviously hold on to your position no matter what.
You asked why “we” should meet with Ahmadinejad, and I pointed out that the evidence points out (to a reasonable degree) that it’s the will of the majority. That, to me, is the ultimate argument and I can’t think of anything that could top it.
But hey, you’re probably one of those who claim to know better than the people and want to protect them against themselves. So anyway, if you do not approve of diplomacy, what exactly do you suggest? Be descriptive.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind?
Now, answer my question.
You didn’t answer mine but oh well I will answer yours.
1013 Amercians? Yeah that number really tells the story doesn’t it? Did the question also say WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS? I see they conveniently left that out. This poll is vague and showed that clearly. I’m sure if the poll posed the question “Would most Amercians meet with Hitler as the tanks were rolling into Poland” I’m sure the numbers would be different.
HISTORY has shown that diplomacy especially in the Middle East has not worked with terrorists. Not all 1013 Americans want to acknowldege that unfortunately. Maybe the other millions would.
I’m not going to explain to you how sampling and polling works because you will obviously hold on to your position no matter what.
You asked why “we” should meet with Ahmadinejad, and I pointed out that the evidence points out (to a reasonable degree) that it’s the will of the majority. That, to me, is the ultimate argument and I can’t think of anything that could top it.
But hey, you’re probably one of those who claim to know better than the people and want to protect them against themselves. So anyway, if you do not approve of diplomacy, what exactly do you suggest? Be descriptive.[/quote]
We are a republic, not a direct democracy. If someone puts it on a ballot and we all vote then perhaps we should do it. Otherwise we should elect leaders and let them do their job.
We are trying to elect a new leader and one of the candidates cannot seem to make up his mind on the issue. When talking to some he says he will meet with scum without preconditions. When pressed further his advisers give a different answer.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind?
Now, answer my question.
You didn’t answer mine but oh well I will answer yours.
1013 Amercians? Yeah that number really tells the story doesn’t it? Did the question also say WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS? I see they conveniently left that out. This poll is vague and showed that clearly. I’m sure if the poll posed the question “Would most Amercians meet with Hitler as the tanks were rolling into Poland” I’m sure the numbers would be different.
HISTORY has shown that diplomacy especially in the Middle East has not worked with terrorists. Not all 1013 Americans want to acknowldege that unfortunately. Maybe the other millions would.
I’m not going to explain to you how sampling and polling works because you will obviously hold on to your position no matter what.
You asked why “we” should meet with Ahmadinejad, and I pointed out that the evidence points out (to a reasonable degree) that it’s the will of the majority. That, to me, is the ultimate argument and I can’t think of anything that could top it.
But hey, you’re probably one of those who claim to know better than the people and want to protect them against themselves. So anyway, if you do not approve of diplomacy, what exactly do you suggest? Be descriptive.[/quote]
I gave you my answer and obviously you don’t like it. Next time, don’t ask.
The only thing that tops it is HISTORY and good JUDGMENT. Obviously meeting with Iran WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS is a bad idea. History has shown in the Middle East that diplomacy HAS NOT WORKED WITH TERRORISTS. That poll also didn’t include the words WITHOUT PRECONDITION and you failed to address that point. If the question said WITHOUT PRECONDITION I’m sure the answer would be different. And 1013 people is by no means America.
But hey, you claim to argue that anti-zionism is not anti semitism so you must know better.
I already said my idea, there MUST be CONDITIONS set up before hand. If “Imindamoodforjihad” can prove he is worthy of discussion i.e. stop funding HIzbollah and Hamas, stop his threats, then we will consider meeting. But I doubt he will follow through, he is a terrorist with ideologies that are not prone to compromise as opposed to Israel and the US.
Again would it be a “good idea” to meet with Hitler when the tanks were rolling into Poland?
[quote]Footsolider88 wrote:
I gave you my answer and obviously you don’t like it. Next time, don’t ask. [/quote]
Are you willingly trying to riling me up?
Here, I’ll ask in simpler words since you kids seem to have a short attention span: If you oppose talking to Ahmadinejad, what alternative do you propose?
Answer that, then we can see about tanks rolling in Poland.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Chushin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
About one-quarter of young American Muslims believe to some extent that suicide bombings can be justified to defend Islam, while nearly 80 percent of all U.S. Muslims reject such attacks, a survey showed on Tuesday.
What, no response to this?
No response is possible, since no comparison is made to non-muslims. The methodology of the survey does not allow for the inference I suspect you are trying to make.
Good point. Non-Muslim American youth might be just as supportive of suicide bombings for some reason, eh?
Yeah, right.[/quote]
Did you see Iowahawk’s take on this poll? It was freaking hilarious:
Midwest Lutherans Largely Reject Violence
Chicago - By an almost two-to-one margin, Midwest Lutherans voiced solid opposition to decapitation, suicide bombing, and chemical warfare in a new comprehensive survey of their social attitudes.
The Pew Research survey, conducted May 13-19, queried nearly 2,500 randomly selected Lutherans at flea markets and convenience stores across the Midwest. Interviews were conducted in High Plains Twang, Great Lakes Nasal and Flat Ohio Valley Bland.
“If there is one headline here, it’s how remarkably moderate the Lutheran community is,” said Pew director Andrew Kohut of the survey, which was co-sponsored by the Council on American-Yooper Relations. “It really paints a picture of a dynamic culture in or somewhere near the American mainstream.”
Kohut pointed to one of the study’s key findings that only 29% of all respondents agreed that “bloody, random violence against infidels” was “always” or “frequently” justified, versus 56% who said such violence was “seldom” or “never” justified. The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians, but still fell well short of a majority.
“The only demographic cohort we saw where murderous random violence had a majority support was among 18-35 year old male followers of the Wisconsin Synod,” said Kohut. “And that was barely above the margin of error. Even then, fewer than half (41% to 46%) said they would personally volunteer to carry out the violence themselves.”
Further bolstering the findings, Kohut noted that fewer than 6% of respondents physically attacked field interviewers during the survey.
Although a majority 87% of respondents agreed that “The world should be brought to submission under global Lutheran conquest and eternal perfect rule,” there was a great deal of disagreement on the means to accomplish it. More than 95% supported “pancake breakfasts” and “popcorn fundraisers,” but support dropped to less than 80% for “cow tipping” and “T-P’ing infidel houses.” Support dropped even more dramatically for more violent means of conquest, such as “suicide bombing” (28%), “decapitation” (24%), and “running over Presbyterians with my Ski-Doo” (23%).
“Taken as a whole, the results show that Midwest Lutherans emphatically support a moderate, mainstream path to world domination,” said Kohut. “These folks are well-assimilated into the broad fabric of American society, and unless you are Presbyterian, there is probably very little here to cause concern.”
Kohut said that optimism about the results should be tempered by the grim economic realities faced by many in the Lutheran community. Nearly 65% of female survey respondents said they lived more than 30 minutes from the nearest outlet mall, while a strong majority of males said they were “often” or “sometimes” worried about having enough money for green fees and Leinenkugel.
Equally disturbing, many respondents reported experiencing discrimination at the hands of non-Lutherans. Frequently cited examples of non-Lutheran bigotry included “Got all nose-in-the-air like” (48%), “Made personal remarks about my hot dish” (37%), “Wouldn’t let me borrow their combine head” (36%), and “Wouldn’t stand still so I could kill them” (22%).
“I think it’s important for all of us to remain vigilant against this kind of virulent anti-Lutheran backlash, and make sure they feel a welcome part of our society,” said Kohut.
Ted Jarvenpaa, spokesman for CAYR, agreed.
“Ya, we’re done doin’ dat assimilatin’ eh?” said Jarvenpaa. “Now it’s your turn.”
[quote]lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
I gave you my answer and obviously you don’t like it. Next time, don’t ask.
Are you willingly trying to riling me up?
Here, I’ll ask in simpler words since you kids seem to have a short attention span: If you oppose talking to Ahmadinejad, what alternative do you propose?
Answer that, then we can see about tanks rolling in Poland.[/quote]
I gave you the answer above for a possible meeting. CONDITIONS. You seem to be missing that. I don’t know why there is a need to give legitimacy to a man who denies the Holocaust, funds Hamas and Hizbollah. I don’t get it. Why should the US jump when this AHmadinejad says jump. It is ridiculous. His ideologies do not allow for compromise so it’s unlikely he will stop.
Neville Chamberlain thought if he could just speak to Hitler it would solve all the problems. Please.
“If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.'” Adolf Hitler, speaking of Neville Chamberlain, after the Munich Agreement.
[quote]Footsolider88 wrote:
I gave you the answer above for a possible meeting. CONDITIONS. You seem to be missing that. [/quote]
I didn’t miss it. It’s just that asking Iran to stop enriching uranium before you can consider meeting up to discuss the fact that you want them to stop enriching uranium does not compute in my head.
But let’s not get stuck on details. Obviously, Iran is not willing to concede anything prior to a meeting, and there is nothing you can about that. So, for the last friggin’ time, what do you suggest?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
I gave you the answer above for a possible meeting. CONDITIONS. You seem to be missing that.
I didn’t miss it. It’s just that asking Iran to stop enriching uranium before you can consider meeting up to discuss the fact that you want them to stop enriching uranium does not compute in my head.
But let’s not get stuck on details. Obviously, Iran is not willing to concede anything prior to a meeting, and there is nothing you can about that. So, for the last friggin’ time, what do you suggest?[/quote]
And this has been done in the past and you refuse to acknowledge that. I did not use alternatives, I said CONDITIONS to meet but I doubt that will work. And since China, the UN, the EU, Russia has continually asked Iran to stop, what makes you think that diplomacy will make them? If Iran does not stop, what do you think the options are? Let’s use threats of war and HISTORY again as an example; China finally agreed to meet with Nixon because China feared war which the American public disuputed but it was fact. Plus the Soviet interests in both parties.
Diplomacy will not work with terrorists. Terrorists only know war.
[quote]Footsolider88 wrote:
Terrorists only know war. [/quote]
Finally, we’re getting somewhere. So, you advocate declaring war on the Republic of Iran, right?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Good point. Non-Muslim American youth might be just as supportive of suicide bombings for some reason, eh?
Yeah, right.[/quote]
You’re right, assuming is way easier than actually trying to find out. I hear it’s how the best research is done.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Good point. Non-Muslim American youth might be just as supportive of suicide bombings for some reason, eh?
Yeah, right.
You’re right, assuming is way easier than actually trying to find out. I hear it’s how the best research is done.[/quote]
Chushin distinguishes between suicide bombings and bombings as if they were fundamentally different, when in fact they aren’t. It’s that widely repeated line of Saddam gassing his own people, as if it was somehow supposed to be worse than gassing others.
Otherwise, I seriously doubt Muslim Americans are any more violent than non-Muslim Americans. To suggest that it might be the case is ignorant and bigoted.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Good point. Non-Muslim American youth might be just as supportive of suicide bombings for some reason, eh?
Yeah, right.
You’re right, assuming is way easier than actually trying to find out. I hear it’s how the best research is done.
Chushin distinguishes between suicide bombings and bombings as if they were fundamentally different, when in fact they aren’t. It’s that widely repeated line of Saddam gassing his own people, as if it was somehow supposed to be worse than gassing others.
Otherwise, I seriously doubt Muslim Americans are any more violent than non-Muslim Americans. To suggest that it might be the case is ignorant and bigoted. [/quote]
Or it agrees with what we see with our own eyes.
You’re going to have a hard time convincing us infidels to reject the correspondence theory of truth.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind?
We shouldn’t. What a waste of time and resources to meet with such a tool. It is much better to communicate with them on other levels as we are currently doing.[/quote]
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Footsolider88 wrote:
Again, no one answered the question, why should we meet with a man who denies the Holocaust exists, threatens Israel, continues to support and fund Hamas and Hizbollah who kill American troops and Israelis? Is this a man who sounds like he listens to reason and will change his mind?
We shouldn’t. What a waste of time and resources to meet with such a tool. It is much better to communicate with them on other levels as we are currently doing.
[/quote]
That photo perfectly illustrates why it would be a waste to meet with that scumbag. He plays nice with a few Jews while building nukes, missiles and threatening to make Israel disappear.
Why give him the propaganda tools?
Note: not “AMERICAN Institute For National Security Affairs”
Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs - Sept 13, 2001
[i]This Goes Beyond Bin Laden [Only two days after 9/11?]
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 13, 2001 - In the face of horrendous acts of terrorism against the United States, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) calls on the American government and on all world leaders to be decisive in their actions to confront the terrorists and their supporters, who rely on our taking half measures in response.
We must begin by condemning them and their organizations by name; we know who they are. Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad are only the most prominent. The countries harboring and training them include not just Afghanistan - an easy target for blame - but Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria and even our presumed friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
We must make them believe there is not one inch of soil on the planet that is a haven or training ground for them.
The United States can have no political relationship with any country or group whose citizens celebrate the death of innocent Americans. There is nothing to justify dancing in the streets and rejoicing over an American tragedy. This behavior tells us who our friends are, and who wishes our mortal enemies well…[/i]
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/print.html/documentid/1262
Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel
The Times
November 5, 2002
ISRAEL’S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.
Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria
Haaretz
18/02/2003
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941
Well before Ahmadinejad made his now famous statement (that he never really said anyway)…
‘Wiped off the Map’ - The Rumor of the Century
According to legend, Iran’s president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
…
Well before Ahmadinejad made his now famous statement (that he never really said anyway)…
‘Wiped off the Map’ - The Rumor of the Century
According to legend, Iran’s president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.
[/quote]
Yes, we know he said “erased from the pages of history” as well as the other lovely stuff that is at the start of this thread. We don’t want to misquote him on his method of eliminating Israel.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Yes, we know he said “erased from the pages of history” as well as the other lovely stuff that is at the start of this thread. We don’t want to misquote him on his method of eliminating Israel.[/quote]
The point is he never said he wanted to physically eliminate Israel – the Jewish media said, that’s what Ahmadinejad said. All that crap comes from the same sources, over and over again. They’re lies intended to enrage people to support a never ending war on terror.
Selective Memri
Brian Whitaker investigates whether the ‘independent’ media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems
MEMRI is “propaganda machine,” expert says
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) provides daily English translations of film and print media stories originating in Arabic, Iranian and Turkish media.
It also furnishes original analysis of cultural, political and religious trends in the Middle East.
[b]It sends its daily postings to every news outlet in the United States and Europe, in addition to politicians and cultural leaders.
And it’s free, which makes it a Godsend for journalists, editors and policy analysts.[/b]
But according to its critics, it is also a dangerous, highly sophisticated propaganda operation, disseminating hate and disinformation on an unprecedented worldwide basis…
MEMRI’s obsessive interest in protecting Israel derives from the people and interests that founded, fund and manage the institute’s international operations.
It was founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (Intelligence Branch) from 1968 until 1988, acting head of civil administration in the West Bank from 1977 to 1982; and Israeli-born Meyrav Wurmser, an extreme rightwing neoconservative now affiliated with the Hudson Institute.
Meyrav is married to David Wurmser, at one time an American Enterprise Institute “scholar” and then a State Department apparatchik under John Bolton.
Both participated in the collective writing of “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a seminal 1996 neocon document that advocated an end to negotiations with the Palestinians and permanent war against the Arab world.
They also worked with Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle and other rightwing ideologues who promoted and embellished the fiction that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11…