It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ahmadinejad and Pierce Morgan on CNN, I agree 90% with Ahmadinejad
page: 7share:
Ahmadinejad is a bad man. You know what else he is? A BIRDIE!
So watch the Birdie while your money is stolen by bankers.
Watch the Birdie while the constitution is being trampled.
Watch the Birdie so you wont see that who ever you vote for you get the same Government.
Watch the Birdie while you are being detained indefinitely.
Watch the Birdie while you are being poisoned by your Government.
Watch the Birdie while you are being poisoned by Corperations.
Watch the Birdie while you are being groped for your "security"
Ahmadinejad is the bad guy flavor of the day.
Lucky there is an endless supply of bad people they can use to parade in front of us to get us arguing and distract us from the important issues.
So watch the Birdie while your money is stolen by bankers.
Watch the Birdie while the constitution is being trampled.
Watch the Birdie so you wont see that who ever you vote for you get the same Government.
Watch the Birdie while you are being detained indefinitely.
Watch the Birdie while you are being poisoned by your Government.
Watch the Birdie while you are being poisoned by Corperations.
Watch the Birdie while you are being groped for your "security"
Ahmadinejad is the bad guy flavor of the day.
Lucky there is an endless supply of bad people they can use to parade in front of us to get us arguing and distract us from the important issues.
Wait, wait, wait. Didn't anybody find it even a tad suspicious that Ahmadinejad is even on CNN? Yeah, he's Islamic, but he's not an idiot.
Seriously, this has to be a bloody ploy. It just seems like a piece intended to provoke the masses. The whole tit-for-tat thing between Israel and
Iran seems all too obvious.. I could be wrong, but with everything this world is capable of, why would this be any more surprising?
Originally posted by ClicheCalvicade
reply to post by McGinty
Note: You infer this image is inaccurate, so please provide your own proof via link (with context!), or you are guilty of preciesly that which you accuse LostPassword of.
I infer no such thing, that is your interpretation.
What my point was: If a dictator comes out and says the sky is blue, do you all kiss his ass because the sky is blue? No? Then why would you kiss his ass when he says something as self evident as: "The Palestinians deserve an own nation."
That's why it is important to note what he is NOT saying rather than what he is saying, as is the case with all liars and cheats - read between the lines.
Asleep much?
Ok, so that was in fact your point..hmmm, ok!
Here's your statement in question:
Bleeding heart hypocrite argument. A link without context, just a picture. Nothing more needs to be said.
Could you please tell us all exactly which part of that statement makes the point you've just articulated above?
Originally posted by Augustine62
Support of "Palestine" is impossible without supporting the entirety of the islamic milieu, all of the Arab countries included, as well as Persian (not Arab, though still islamic) Iran. Why? Palestine simply doesn't exist in actuality and its proposal as such is ENTIRELY islamic/pan-Arab. There was never a legitimate Palestinian people. It was a British Protectorate most recently and now is just... made up. This also plays into the coming war with Iran that Israel faces, and in all likelihood, we will see take place in various degrees on formerly U.S. soil (you do realize the Republic is deader than dead, right?).
1) There is no Palestine and any equivocations to that end are entirely friendly to pan-Arab and islamic goals in nature.
2) Continuing the lie of Palestine facilitates war against Israel by Iran, and by default, the former USA.
To Inferring that "Palestine doesn't exist in actuality", is not only wrong, misleading and incorrect, it displays oneself celebrating ignorance in its highest form. I don't know how old you are or how much history you've managed to catch up on (it doesn't sound like much IMO), but here's a few words for you:
Canaan
Palestine
Philistines
The Bible & Palestine
The Amarna Letters with regards to the ancient land of Canaan
Oh and by the way, what the heck do you mean by "The former USA"? I had no idea the USA (if you mean United States of America) was being used in the past tense
I could list hundreds of references and maps both antique and modern, it does not and never will change the fact that Palestine does exist and has always existed regardless of its current title or map lines.
I'd say you have a ton of homework/research to do before you go offering information that's not a century old
Palestine
Depiction of Biblical Palestine in c.1020 BCE according to George Adam Smith's 1915 Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land. Smith's book was used as a reference by Lloyd George during the negotiations for the British Mandate for Palestine.
Columbia University Libraries
edit on 9/26/12 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: Spelling
Originally posted by TTAA2012
Originally posted by LostPassword
Originally posted by Augustine62
...and this isn't even scratching the surface really!
you know what Augustine62
I defeat all your posts with a single picture
try not to soil yourself
Trump this:
That's what I thought. You fail.
6 million Jews surrounded by 1.2 Billion hostile Muslims... Who's in danger again?
Oh my...
The term "dangerously stupid" comes to mind when I contemplate the mindset of the above poster. It's very sad that people can be so prejudiced, primitive, and sacrifice all higher mental faculties just to indulge in mindless hate.
edit on 26-9-2012 by Son of Will because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by EvanB
Don't confuse respect of sovereignty with agreeing with despotism. One does not justify the infringement of the other. Good, bad or indifferent, it's their sand pile, not ours. We are the ones violating international law, not Iran. Who cares what the figurehead / mouthpiece of any nation thinks or says?
Accusing a leader of evil doing or "thinking of evil doing" is just an incitement of national sentiment in order to justify whats euphemistically called "Regime Change" or "Intervention". We ( the US) want to overthrow the target nations government and replace it with our own. So we do as we have been with Saddam, Qadaffi, Assad, etc. We label them despots and dictators who are "killing their people" so as to justify the end result of invasion and subjugation of an entire nation.
If you say you no longer care what happens to the American people because they don't do anything about that, I understand. But if you are calling for the same thing (regime change) as the Powers that be, then shame on you too.
Don't confuse respect of sovereignty with agreeing with despotism. One does not justify the infringement of the other. Good, bad or indifferent, it's their sand pile, not ours. We are the ones violating international law, not Iran. Who cares what the figurehead / mouthpiece of any nation thinks or says?
Accusing a leader of evil doing or "thinking of evil doing" is just an incitement of national sentiment in order to justify whats euphemistically called "Regime Change" or "Intervention". We ( the US) want to overthrow the target nations government and replace it with our own. So we do as we have been with Saddam, Qadaffi, Assad, etc. We label them despots and dictators who are "killing their people" so as to justify the end result of invasion and subjugation of an entire nation.
If you say you no longer care what happens to the American people because they don't do anything about that, I understand. But if you are calling for the same thing (regime change) as the Powers that be, then shame on you too.
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
I think you misunderstood what was trying to be conveyed by the poster.
Maybe this interpretation will help you.
www.religionstudy.com...
I think you misunderstood what was trying to be conveyed by the poster.
Maybe this interpretation will help you.
There was no "Arab Palestinian" history before the Arabs manufactured one shortly after 1948, and then especially after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War. In an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trau" (March 31, 1977), PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said, "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.
www.religionstudy.com...
reply to post by ClicheCalvicade
There you go again. Nobody is waging war on Israel. But you insist that could happen? What about the real war in the Middle East right now at the behest of Israel? The real bombs dropping, the real people dying?
Poor little Israel, somebody might hurt them. Pffft.
Where is your heart liberally bleeding?
How much more US blood and treasure you want spilled at the altar of Israel?
Is the whole world going to be enough?
Or just another million... for now?
What else needs to be said? How about a multiple-front war waged on Israel by several nations with the intent to wipe Israel from existence? No? How about you bleeding hearts use relativism and proper time periods to put your sources and the information you're looking at into perspective?
There you go again. Nobody is waging war on Israel. But you insist that could happen? What about the real war in the Middle East right now at the behest of Israel? The real bombs dropping, the real people dying?
Poor little Israel, somebody might hurt them. Pffft.
Where is your heart liberally bleeding?
How much more US blood and treasure you want spilled at the altar of Israel?
Is the whole world going to be enough?
Or just another million... for now?
Those of you posting maps showing "Palistine" Need to understand something there. Firstly that those depictions are to demonstrate to contemporary
readers the location of biblical areas. Secondly there has never been a "Nation" as we would think of it of Palistine. Is it a location? Yes but the
same geographical area has gone by a number of names. There never was a "King of Palistine" or a distinct racial or tribal people who are
Palistinian. In other words the only place "Palistine" ever actually did exist is on a map.
For most of its history the area has functioned as part of a greater empire. From the Romans to the Ottoman Turks to the British it was always a sub-state of a greater power. This is very important because that fact sets aside all claims that any ancient "people" might have to the area. After WW2 the British broke up the protectoriet and redrew the lines for the entire middle east. They decided who owned what and who didnt. Numerous wars have been fought since then and the might of Israel has decided who owned what. Until the Arabs can physically destroy the Israelis they will not be able to claim "ownership" of that area.
Thats not going to happen because Israel will nuke them rather than be driven into the sea. The arabs just need to get over it and stop the terrorist attacks. If the terrorists stop their attacks and renounce the violence then Israel will have no justification for any violent actions towards the arabs. Someone has to stop first and it has to be the arabs because there are more than them than the Israelis.
For most of its history the area has functioned as part of a greater empire. From the Romans to the Ottoman Turks to the British it was always a sub-state of a greater power. This is very important because that fact sets aside all claims that any ancient "people" might have to the area. After WW2 the British broke up the protectoriet and redrew the lines for the entire middle east. They decided who owned what and who didnt. Numerous wars have been fought since then and the might of Israel has decided who owned what. Until the Arabs can physically destroy the Israelis they will not be able to claim "ownership" of that area.
Thats not going to happen because Israel will nuke them rather than be driven into the sea. The arabs just need to get over it and stop the terrorist attacks. If the terrorists stop their attacks and renounce the violence then Israel will have no justification for any violent actions towards the arabs. Someone has to stop first and it has to be the arabs because there are more than them than the Israelis.
It was never going to be a decent interview really.
Piers Morgan is quite obnoxious. Did he actually allow Ahmadinejad to complete a single answer to a question?
The supposed law about single women not allowed to go skiing made me laugh. Oh the horror and tyranny! Single women not allowed to go skiing! How shallow and dull their lives must be! In the end it seems such a law was nonsense.
Ahmadinejad seems to ask why the Palestinians have been made to suffer for a crime that was committed against Jews 70 years ago. But what really annoys me is how the Holocaust is always equated to Jews and the other victims who lost their lives for example the gypsies, disabled people and homosexuals are always brushed aside. It's quite shameful actually.
I found the homosexuality questioning hypocritical as there are many many people in the United States who are strongly against homosexuality and there is no consensus on same sex marriage.
On 9/11 he certainly has a point. Nothing has really been achieved in the past ten years since America's attack on Afghanistan and Iraq and many thousands of American military personnel and innocent Afghans, Iraqis and Pakistanis have lost their lives for nothing.
Piers Morgan is quite obnoxious. Did he actually allow Ahmadinejad to complete a single answer to a question?
The supposed law about single women not allowed to go skiing made me laugh. Oh the horror and tyranny! Single women not allowed to go skiing! How shallow and dull their lives must be! In the end it seems such a law was nonsense.
Ahmadinejad seems to ask why the Palestinians have been made to suffer for a crime that was committed against Jews 70 years ago. But what really annoys me is how the Holocaust is always equated to Jews and the other victims who lost their lives for example the gypsies, disabled people and homosexuals are always brushed aside. It's quite shameful actually.
I found the homosexuality questioning hypocritical as there are many many people in the United States who are strongly against homosexuality and there is no consensus on same sex marriage.
On 9/11 he certainly has a point. Nothing has really been achieved in the past ten years since America's attack on Afghanistan and Iraq and many thousands of American military personnel and innocent Afghans, Iraqis and Pakistanis have lost their lives for nothing.
reply to post by intrptr
I would propose that the majority of the things going on in the middle east is done at the behest of corperations rather then "Israel"
I would propose that the majority of the things going on in the middle east is done at the behest of corperations rather then "Israel"
reply to post by Hawking
ive been thinking that for 5 years now... Now things seem to be escalating...
God i hate our planet.
ive been thinking that for 5 years now... Now things seem to be escalating...
God i hate our planet.
reply to post by intrptr
Shame on me??? What for?? For wanting those that dwell in the land of the free to wake up, stop drinking the kool aid and carryout their responsibilities that was laid out in the very foundation of the country in the constitution????
Interesting....
Shame on me??? What for?? For wanting those that dwell in the land of the free to wake up, stop drinking the kool aid and carryout their responsibilities that was laid out in the very foundation of the country in the constitution????
Interesting....
edit on 26-9-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)
reply to post by LostPassword
Yes, basically everything Ahmadinejad said in response to Piers was valid. The world is at a point now where the Capitalist Elite of America/ the Zionist Jews are looking for excuses to enter into war with Iran so they can continue their plan of dominating resources/gaining power through the military industrial complex. I found Ahmadinejad's responses not hostile or even negative, if anything they were very positive responses. I found it intrusive how Piers asked the man about Homosexual rights in Iran, and found Ahmadinejad's response to that question quite valid, that the rights of homosexuals are only concerning issues in excessive capitalist nations, and that really, the capitalist nations are facing a huge morality crisis on all levels. I'm not saying I'm homophobic, I love people who love other people, that is not an issue. What I'm saying is that the truth is that the problem with the world isn't whether or not gays can marry, or if a woman can go skiing alone. The problem is that there is the extreme propaganda being circulated in the capitalist nations condemning the Middle East, purely in the name of the pursuit of control and greed, and that demonizing Iran is ridiculous, as long as this Capitalist Monster exists. We have to remember that what we know about the Middle East is through the media and the media is trying to paint a picture to manipulate minds. The world needs to realize the basic human rights of individuals everywhere, without prejudice.
Yes, basically everything Ahmadinejad said in response to Piers was valid. The world is at a point now where the Capitalist Elite of America/ the Zionist Jews are looking for excuses to enter into war with Iran so they can continue their plan of dominating resources/gaining power through the military industrial complex. I found Ahmadinejad's responses not hostile or even negative, if anything they were very positive responses. I found it intrusive how Piers asked the man about Homosexual rights in Iran, and found Ahmadinejad's response to that question quite valid, that the rights of homosexuals are only concerning issues in excessive capitalist nations, and that really, the capitalist nations are facing a huge morality crisis on all levels. I'm not saying I'm homophobic, I love people who love other people, that is not an issue. What I'm saying is that the truth is that the problem with the world isn't whether or not gays can marry, or if a woman can go skiing alone. The problem is that there is the extreme propaganda being circulated in the capitalist nations condemning the Middle East, purely in the name of the pursuit of control and greed, and that demonizing Iran is ridiculous, as long as this Capitalist Monster exists. We have to remember that what we know about the Middle East is through the media and the media is trying to paint a picture to manipulate minds. The world needs to realize the basic human rights of individuals everywhere, without prejudice.
Originally posted by RedShiftDrift
reply to post by intrptr
I would propose that the majority of the things going on in the middle east is done at the behest of corperations rather then "Israel"
I think its more complex than that.
Israel doesn't openly declare its enemies do they? Instead they accuse the nations around them of being "hostile towards Israel". The last time these openly hostile nations ganged up and attacked Israel was decades ago. The reason they haven't tried since is because of the wests support. Israel has the regions trump card in their nuclear arms (which we provided) and the rest of the Islamic nations around there full well know this. It would be suicide on the part of any nation to attack Israel. Rather than allow themselves to be pushed into the sea Israel would use their nuclear arsenal.
Now its evident why they are so concerned that Iran "might get nukes" and what they want us to do about it for them. I am sure they don't mind, especially if they don't have to do any of the fighting. In fact they can't initiate or join in, it might upset the delicate balance the west has with certain Arab "allies" like Saudi Arabia.
Imagine the IDF fighting in concert with arab countries against Syria or Iran?
Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by intrptr
Shame on me??? What for?? For wanting those that dwell in the land of the free to wake up, stop drinking the kool aid and carryout their responsibilities that was laid out in the very foundation of the country in the constitution????
Interesting....
Just for this part...
\nor take any notice of what comes out of the mouth of "Dr" Ahmadinejad.... Because some of you bought that crap...
God help us all
What did you mean by that?
reply to post by Kram09
Skiing is reserved for the rich in Iran.
The rich in Iran have rich friends outside of Iran. That's how you get ridiculous questions like this aired on TV stations owned by rich people.
Why didn't mr. "journalist" Morgan, ask about the million + drug addicts that roam the streets of Tehran - alone? Why didn't he ask about the food prices soaring and people going hungry?
Because those issues concern the poor and the very poor mainly. Translated: It concerns the "average" person - you and me, if you would.
The supposed law about single women not allowed to go skiing made me laugh. Oh the horror and tyranny! Single women not allowed to go skiing! How shallow and dull their lives must be! In the end it seems such a law was nonsense.
Skiing is reserved for the rich in Iran.
The rich in Iran have rich friends outside of Iran. That's how you get ridiculous questions like this aired on TV stations owned by rich people.
Why didn't mr. "journalist" Morgan, ask about the million + drug addicts that roam the streets of Tehran - alone? Why didn't he ask about the food prices soaring and people going hungry?
Because those issues concern the poor and the very poor mainly. Translated: It concerns the "average" person - you and me, if you would.