I frankly donâ€™t give a shit what you think of my arguments. Talk about standing, you have absolutely none here.
Well, that's very nice of you, although kind of unexpected given that you praised "excellent analysis" of the comment that essentially agreed with my point about "Iranian nuclear holocaust" question.
Coulter does not represent conservatives period.
No, she doesn't. I didn't say she does. She merely represents Freerepublic wing of conservatives, at least significant part of it. You can just read their threads on this incident.
The boycott idea is good in theory, but given Ann's nature she will probably will only get more publicity from this.
try to attatch her to Romney (who had no idea what she was going to say)
You mean he didn't expect her to say something vile and stupid? I called him cynical (a widely-accepted fact about Romney), you call him stupid (which is actually worse in a presidential candidate).Comment Posted By Nikolay On 3.03.2007 @ 11:06
I urge everyone â€“ right and left â€“ to take the following actions:
Unfortunately, this is as likely to work as the "forget Herostratus" plan.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 3.03.2007 @ 09:53
And your argument about conservative bloggers condemning her doesn't stand. The problem is not whether conservative bloggers agree with what she says. She probably doesn't believe what she says herself. The problem is in cynicism -- both her own and of calculating politicians like Romney who are eager to use her influence with types of conservatives that _do_ exist.
Other, more erudite scholars, have so thoroughly debunked Dr. Coleâ€™s â€œtranslationâ€ that for you to keep harping on it only shows a towering ignorance of the facts.
This is not about Dr. Cole's translation, although it's probably accurate (and, BTW, identical to MEMRI's own translation) -- and it really makes no real difference, wiping the the country off the map or "off the pages of history", it's still wiped out, i.e. doesn't exist anymore.
You in this post talk about 'his word that _he will_ â€œwipe Israel off the map.â€' What he said was "[as Khomeini said], Israel should be wiped off the map". This is a significant difference, because the only way the _he_ could do this is by nuking, meanwhile for Palestinians fully implementing the "right of return" would likely be enough. You know, kind of a little Mark Steynian "death of Europe".
You can read the whole text -- it's all about his support for "Palestinian struggle".
Saying "_I_ want to to wipe Israel off the map" effectively means "I want to kill millions of Palestinians and destroy their homeland". Is it really not obvious that Ahmadinejad would not say in the speech in support of the "Palestinian struggle" that he wants to kill millions of Palestinians and to destroy their homeland??? Some people argue that he _wants_ to nuke Israel because he _hates_ Arabs and Palestinians:
It is doubtful whether such a mass killing of fellow Muslims will trouble Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. The Iranians don't especially like Arabs, especially Sunni Arabs, with whom they have intermittently warred for centuries. And they have a special contempt for the (Sunni) Palestinians who, after all, though initially outnumbering the Jews by more than 10 to 1, failed during the long conflict to prevent them from establishing their state or taking over all of Palestine.
This is a consistent position, although it's kind of tricky to understand how would someone want to show "special contempt for Palestinians" in the speech praising "Palestinian struggle", but at least it's consistent.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 26.02.2007 @ 03:41
I'm sorry if I offended you, and it's obviously not a lie as long as _you_ yourself believe in it, but you're seriously misguided on this. I certainly agree with you that Ahmadinejad is genuinely scary, regardless of his stated positions. And Israel's wish to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities is pretty understandable, better safe than sorry. But, speaking about diplomatic repercussions for Israel were it to take such actions that are the subject of this post, using the misconstrued quote certainly wouldn't help their argument.
There are those who do not take the Iranian President at his word that he will â€œwipe Israel off the map.â€
With all due respect, the way people continue to use this dishonest argument is just puzzling. Anyone who knows anything about the problem knows that Ahmadinejad never said this. Anyone who understands anything about the problem knows that Ahmadinejad could never say this. Yet people continue to bring up this false quote.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 25.02.2007 @ 18:20
Ahmadinejad said that he thinks that history will destroy the state of Israel. I.e., his position is identical to that of Hamas that refuses to recognize the state of Israel and insists on the "one state solution" -- the "Great Palestine". This is a vile and extremist position, but it has nothing to do with nuclear holocaust.
Nuking Israel would mean: 1) killing millions of Arabs, 2) destroying some of the holiest Muslim sites, 3) burying the Arabic "Palestinian project" forever. He could as well say that he wants to nuke Mecca.
Now, some would argue that he doesn't give a damn about Arabs and Islam, that he's really crazy and he wants to nuke Israel anyway.
That _could_ be true, but he _never_ said anything to this effect. What he _did_ say is a pretty consistent pro-Hamas position.
To claim that Ahmdanijad publicly pledged to wipe Israel off the map is to lie, and this is not a good thing when discussing such serious matters.
So what's the deal? Dems claimed that the faulty design caused the undervote. This turns out to be true. Nobody claimed that it was intentional, only that it caused the wrong candidate to win. This is also true. Why the talk about "tin-foils"?Comment Posted By Nikolay On 24.02.2007 @ 18:05
That's really an effective talking point, "slow bleed", indeed it is, almost as cool as "cut and run".Comment Posted By Nikolay On 22.02.2007 @ 21:24
I just wonder, did any conservative blogger actually address the substance of what Murtha is proposing?
Maybe I just missed the picture of Murtha saying "I want to undermine the war effort", but isn't this "slow bleed" meme just an effective spin?
What he's saying is: don't overstretch the troops, set limits on tours, set more requirements for training etc., etc.
Do you consider it a proper way of "supporting the troops" to say "nay, there's no problem here at all, let them stay there as much as needed to have the job done, screw their personal life, screw their jobs, they are fighters not pussies, damn this Jack Murtha"?
This logic kinda reminds me of a freeper thread on the Washington Post article about Walter Reed, with every comment saying how Dana Priest deserves to be hanged, how she's an enemy of freedom with her slanderous allegations etc., and not a single one saying that there indeed, could be some problems in Walter Reed.
Yes, lets hold hands and sing kumbayah, the Iranian regime doesnâ€™t mean any of the things it says. They really love us and want to emulate us.
1) I didn't say anything about "kumbaya". I said that Iran is nothing compared to Soviet regime. For example: a) in Soviet Russia there was _NEVER_, not a _single_ open election that could in fact influence country's policy, in most cases there wasn't even a choice between candidates; in Iran, while elections are not _free_, they can influence country's future, and this happened numerous times, b) in Soviet Russia there was no private business at all (with the exception of a short pre-Stalin period), c) in Soviet Russia there could not be any crackdown on free press, because there was no free press in the first place; there never was any political discussion in the public discourse at all.
2) What do you mean by the "Iranian regime"? Official newspapers that openly mock Ahmadinejad? Or the nut himself, who promised to be moderate in the international politics and to fix economy when he ran for office, and who's now less popular in his country than Bush in US?
3) I genuinely believe that in the long run Iran has better potential for turning into a civilized and advanced democratic country than almost any other country in the region. This is what many specialists think. This (an un-PC thought) probably has something to do with them no being Arabs.
Right now â€“ open your eyes Nikolay.
Of course, they pursue, like any other country, their geopolitical interests. They would be foolish not to do so, especially with US being eager to do their dirty work for them and with Bush inviting "his Eminence" the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution to the White House. (Somehow Harry Potter was OK shaking the hand of _that_ incarnation of Revolutionary Voldermort). This has nothing to do with the world domination and "destroying America".
They can absorb a lot of economic harm without having to change their behavior â€“ all totalitarian regimes can.
Iran is not a totalitarian regime, and its citizens are really not happy (and make no secret of it) with the economic harm they suffer.
The Iranian regime (and all Islamists) take a very looooong view. They donâ€™t expect to achieve their goals in 5 or 10 tears, they are willing to work at it over hundreds.
A project for the world transformation pursued by the patient individuals that are ready to wait for hundred years for their plans to be implemented? And you think that calling this "paranoid delusions" is insulting? Are "all Islamists" reptile-headed, I wonder. What you say is pure David Icke/"Protocols of the Elder Zion" stuff.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 24.02.2007 @ 19:23
The "Islamic revolution" has the same dynamic as "Communistic revolution": the "rebel" movement either transforms itself into a power-hungry reactionary elite or, failing that, engages in endless destructive behavior which makes everybody hate them, a-la Al-Qaeda. Ahmadinejad is just a recurrence of the revolutionary mentality, whose victory in the elections was largely due to Iranian's disappointment with the Reformist movement (caused, among other things, by their failure to get any meaningful results from their US-friendly policies). To think that this disconnected man is a meaningful part of some hundred-years conspiracy is truly delusional.
While we and the Soviets were polar opposites on representative government and property rights, as least both the Soviets and the United States believed that the church and the state should not be one and the same.
Actually, Soviets believed that the church should be demolished or, at best, barely tolerated. While the communism itself had a lot of religious features. I believe that's quite a lot of difference.
Soviet-like positions on representative government, property ownership, press freedom and individual liberty.
You simply have no idea what are talking about. There's nothing comparable to Soviet regime, even in its most benign, in Iran now. It is much more westernized than Soviet Union (pre-Gorbachev) ever was.
Now, they must destroy us to succeed in their vision of spreading theocratic Islam to the world.
Destroy to succeed in their vision of spreading theocratic Islam??? This is pure paranoid delusion. What vision? When in 28 years Iran did anything to implement this "vision"? Do you honestly believe that fighting against American interests in, say, Lebanon had something to do with this "vision"???Comment Posted By Nikolay On 23.02.2007 @ 07:07
Theocracy in Iran is just a power elite that doesn't want to lose its privileges, much like communists in China. Sure, they have a radical wing, but they can't even sustain economy, much less spread any "vision" across the world.
But, we are natural enemies. Iran has been at war with us since the revolution began and will only cease to be at war with us when the revolution is undone. Do not ever expect them to truly or willingly bargain their revolution.
That's quite a crazy logic.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 22.02.2007 @ 20:42
What business does US have with Iran's inner political structure? I understand such requests as an official apology (and compensation?) for the hostage-taking, playing by the rules on the nuclear issue, no support for terrorism in whatever form, the acceptance of the two-state solution, human rights etc., but why do they have to undo their revolution?
Quite a strange idea coming from an American citizen. Do they have to return to "legitimate" monarchy in your opinion, or what? How about U.S. undoing their own revolution?
FYI, Iran certainly has more democracy now than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and probably Russia.
Now if I were to posit a logical fallacy, I could say that since 49% of Democrats want the military to fail
The poll doesn't say such thing. It says that 34, not 49, of Democrats don't want the Bush plan to succeed. And, BTW, this is the case of a poll not to be taken very seriously, with all the dozens of questions. And what does it mean, "success"? A Shia theocracy, "80 percent solution", Sunni genocide and a big "Mission Accomplishment" banner? Or a war with Iran? Given Bush's record this is kind of success that is not unreasonable to expect -- and a kind of success not to feel happy about.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 20.01.2007 @ 10:20