Iranian President Spouts Off

[jeo4]

Annan: 'Dismay' over Iranian comments on Israel

Thursday, October 27, 2005; Posted: 2:33 p.m. EDT (18:33 GMT)

(CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed "dismay" over the Iranian president's comments urging the destruction of Israel.

Annan, in a statement issued Thursday, reminded "all member states that Israel is a long-standing member of the United Nations with the same rights and obligations as every other member."

It added that "under the United Nations Charter, all members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday lambasted Israel and Zionism and quoted the late Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Israel to be "wiped out from the map."

In response, Israel's prime minister has suggested that Tehran should be expelled from the United Nations.

Ariel Sharon, in remarks issued Thursday by the Israeli government press office, said he believes any country that calls for the destruction of another cannot be a member of the United Nations.

The U.N. statement didn't address that contention.

But it said Annan "had already decided to visit Iran during the next few weeks, to discuss other issues.

"He now intends to place the Middle East peace process, and the right of all states in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, at the top of his agenda for that visit."

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday called comments by Iran's president "completely and totally unacceptable."

"I felt a real sense of revulsion at those remarks," said Blair, who spoke at a press briefing after a European Union summit near London.

"There has been a long time in which I've been answering questions on Iran with everyone saying to me 'tell us you're not going to do anything about Iran,'" he said.

"If they carry on like this, the question people are going to be asking us is, 'When are you going to do something about this,' because you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon."

Ahmadinejad comments were made during a meeting with protesting students at Iran's Interior Ministry.

He quoted a remark from Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency.

The remarks by Ahmadinejad coincided with a month-long protest against Israel called "World Without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Ahmadinejad's views "underscores our concern and the international community's concerns about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."

Ottawa also issued a strong rebuke, with Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew saying: "We cannot tolerate comments of such hatred, such anti-Semitism, such intolerance. These comments are all the more troubling given that we know of Iran's nuclear ambitions."

'Completely unacceptable'
Across Europe, the reaction was equally strong.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Thursday he condemned the Iranian statement "absolutely."

"It is a completely unacceptable statement, of course. We should respect borders and respect the integrity of Israel, and we want Israel to live in peace with its neighbors," he told BBC radio.

Asked whether he believed that Iran should be expelled from the U.N., Barroso said: "I condemn absolutely that statement, but I will not make any concrete proposal now."

In Paris, Ahmadinejad's comments prompted the French foreign minister to summon the Iranian ambassador for an explanation. France, along with Germany and Britain, has been involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he learned about Ahmadinejad's comments from news reports.

"If these comments are correct, they are unacceptable. I greatly condemn them and have asked for the Iranian ambassador in Paris to be summoned to the Foreign Ministry to demand explanations," Douste-Blazy said.

"For France, the right for Israel to exist should not be contested. This state was created by a decision of the U.N. General Assembly. International law applies to all. The question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be used as a pretext to put into question the fundamental right for Israel to exist."

Foreign ministries in Berlin, Madrid and Rome also made their opposition to Ahmadinejad's remarks known to Iran's representatives in their countries, AP reported.

Spain summoned the Iranian ambassador in Madrid to protest the comments, while the German Foreign Ministry summoned a representative of the Iranian Embassy to underline Berlin's opposition to the remarks.

Italy said the remarks confirmed concerns over Tehran's nuclear program, and that the Foreign Ministry had expressed "discomfort and concern to the Iranian ambassador in Rome."

"The contents and tone of such unacceptable statements confirm worries over the political positions pursued by the new Iranian leadership, especially concerning the nuclear dossier," a statement from Rome said.

Journalist Shirzad Bozorghmehr contributed to this report

Source: CNN.com

[MacReady]

Wow, what an idiot.

Nevermind the statement themselves (which are immensely stupid and vile on their own), he's just pissed any chance that Iran might be able to succesfully get nukes.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
Wow, what an idiot.

Nevermind the statement themselves (which are immensely stupid and vile on their own), he's just pissed any chance that Iran might be able to succesfully get nukes.

Surprise, surprise. Iran is full of whakos.

Right to nuclear power my ass.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
Surprise, surprise. Iran is full of whakos.

Right to nuclear power my ass.

Yeah, it's full of whackos, so I would imagine it being extremely difficult if anybody ever tried to invade.

I really think they should recall this guy now.

[EVILxxx]

And this man is about to get a hold of nuclear weapons. . . ?
Bye bye world.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
Yeah, it's full of whackos, so I would imagine it being extremely difficult if anybody ever tried to invade.

I really think they should recall this guy now.


Oh how ironic it is that the most effective way to dispose of a nuclear weapon hungry leader is to drop nukes on him.


:confused:

[someguy]

I like how Kofi Annan just makes a statement. Reminds me of Team Aerica

"And we will wite you a very angry letter"

[Scorpio24]

For a leader of a nation to come out and say he wants to wipe another nation off the map is very scary to say the least. When it's Iran's leader who says it, it's terrifying.

If Iran were to get the bomb then to quote evilxxx bye bye world. I think it's a given now that the States and Uk are going to attack Iran. There is no way that they can leave this man get his hands on these nukes.

Here is Tony Blair's response yesterday.

The PM was visibly angry as he warned the ayatollahs not to assume the world is too tied up in Iraq to deal with Iran.

“This is a disgrace,” he said after a one-day EU summit in London’s Hampton Court Palace.

“I am aware that I have not said what we are going to do. This is a discussion we will be having with our allies over the next few days.”

But the PM warned the issue now facing the West is no longer IF but WHEN to strike.

Blair’s attack followed condemnation from other leaders. Iranian envoys were carpeted in a show of international outrage.

But the PM still warned the rest of the world not to sit on the sidelines as Tehran threatens to annihilate Israel.

He added: “Can you imagine a state like that with attitudes like that with nuclear weapons?

“There are people in Iran’s leadership who believe the world is sufficiently distracted that we can’t really afford to focus on this issue — they will be making a very big mistake.

“I have never come across a situation when the president of a country says they want to wipe out another country.

“If they continue, people are going to believe they are a real threat to world security.”

Source: The Sun/BBC

[The Postmaster General]

Dang, they used to be such good friends. This is 50 Cent and Maze all over again.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Dang, they used to be such good friends. This is 50 Cent and Maze all over again.

:p


Exactly!

Iran wanting to exterminate Israel. Wow! How is this news?

Just cause they said it on the floor of the UN?

Bush and Cheney can start the invasion preparations now. I'm sure that along with the WMDs there's some kind of Al Qaeda link that they can find or if all else fails create.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Scorpio24

If Iran were to get the bomb then to quote evilxxx bye bye world. I think it's a given now that the States and Uk are going to attack Iran. There is no way that they can leave this man get his hands on these nukes.



The only problem is that the world has no heart to get into a war with these guys. and once they have their nukes attacking them will mean certain death and destrution so it will become a waiting game.

The UN has become a joke- to expell Iran will not disappoint them- they will wear it as a badge of honor.But they should be expelled anyway and anyone else who speaks like this. The countries represented in the UN should stick together against countries like this But the Un is just a club at this point with a lot of unethical people in its ranks.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The only problem is that the world has no heart to get into a war with these guys. and once they have their nukes attacking them will mean certain death and destrution so it will become a waiting game.


There's a BIG difference between HEART and BRAINS dear.

We had the heart and the brains to attack Afghanistan. Easy to deduce they were up to no good having Osama bin Laden as a guest of their country.

We had the HEART to attack Iraq, just not necessarily the BRAINS to see nothing that we accused them of was TRUE.

And now that we've used up our HEART on Iraq, our BRAINS have noticed that there was someone else out there that is a more imminent threat than Iraq was.

So much for HEART.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
:p


Exactly!

Iran wanting to exterminate Israel. Wow! How is this news?

Just cause they said it on the floor of the UN?

Bush and Cheney can start the invasion preparations now. I'm sure that along with the WMDs there's some kind of Al Qaeda link that they can find or if all else fails create.

Typically this is not a topic given by the head of state. Shit, all Iran has to do is create their nukes(which they are on the verge of doing), "misplace them" to terrorists, and then, when Isreal is a crater, deny responsibility.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
:p


Exactly!

Iran wanting to exterminate Israel. Wow! How is this news?

Just cause they said it on the floor of the UN?

Bush and Cheney can start the invasion preparations now. I'm sure that along with the WMDs there's some kind of Al Qaeda link that they can find or if all else fails create.


Ummm, the 9/11 report stated that Iran has housed and trained terrorist members over the last 10 years.

Once again making them the more imminent threat than Iraq was stated to be.

[outsyder]

If anyone's a real threat, it's Iran. Always has been.

Hell, I'm willing to bet Osama is IN Iran.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by outsyder
If anyone's a real threat, it's Iran. Always has been.

Hell, I'm willing to bet Osama is IN Iran.

The wild goose chase continues.....

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
The wild goose chase continues.....


What makes you say that?

There are a lot of legitimate reasons why Iran would be protecting him. I've been saying from the start that I thought he was in Iran.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The only problem is that the world has no heart to get into a war with these guys. and once they have their nukes attacking them will mean certain death and destrution so it will become a waiting game.

The UN has become a joke- to expell Iran will not disappoint them- they will wear it as a badge of honor.But they should be expelled anyway and anyone else who speaks like this. The countries represented in the UN should stick together against countries like this But the Un is just a club at this point with a lot of unethical people in its ranks.


I disagree.

I think they will defintiley attack them. They have been playing the waiting game up until now and I think the penny has dropped that it is to dangerous to wait any longer.

Just a hunch but I think they are going to make a move within the next 6-12 months.


Leader of one of the most dangerous regieme's in the world threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Someone asks how is this news?:confused: :confused:

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Leader of one of the most dangerous regieme's in the world threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Someone asks how is this news?:confused: :confused:


All I meant was that this kind of rhetoric has been coming out of Iran since the Islamic revolution in '79. Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Iran. Why do we have to rush in and get involved in every conflict in the Middle East anymore? Our relationship with Israel is very one-sided.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
There's a BIG difference between HEART and BRAINS dear.



So condescending, lol!

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Someone asks how is this news?:confused: :confused:


I think he was using "news" as a metaphore for "acting suprised"

It's more comical than anything - the idea of Annan slapping his head going, "Oh my God! I can't beleve Iran said that!? <gasp>"

The idea of Iran saying they want to nuke someone isn't comical at all. However, it's a bit goofy to act like no one expected it, and that it's shocking.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The idea of Iran saying they want to nuke someone isn't comical at all. However, it's a bit goofy to act like no one expected it, and that it's shocking.

To add to your comment it should be said that the theocratic country who said it might have nukes that could literally wipe Israel off the face of the earth within minutes.

Oh, and I agree with Lynn's ideas (U.N. is corrupt, Iran shouldn't have nukes) but not for the reasons she thinks so.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by MacReady
To add to your comment it should be said that the theocratic country who said it might have nukes that could literally wipe Israel off the face of the earth within minutes.

That adds nothing to my comments, because it isn't exactly like Annan and Blair made a big deal about the possibility of them having nukes. Pretty much everything they expressed disapproval over was in them stating something we all knew about Iran.

The mutherfucking United Nations said they were going to travel to Iran to try and figure out why Iran would say that Isreal should be nuked off a map, and you are telling me that BubbaStrangelove is the one who should add to his comments that Iran is a nuclear threat.

Again - something else I think is funny.

[Tuukka]

Just a question: Do muslims have any other holy places in Israel besides Jerusalem? Because I don't think their religion allows them to nuke down holy places. I don't think their belief allows them to nuke palestians either, and there are quite a few of those in Israel.

Nukes also have a nasty side-effect of radiation clouds. When you consider how heavily inhabitated by muslims the area surrounding Israel is, you are taking out a quite a big part of your fellow muslims and holy areas if you nuke Israel. I would imagine that quite a few muslim countries would get VERY angry if Iran would actually throw nukes at Israel.

It should be remembered that the great majority of world's muslims are moderates. If the fundamentalists would actually use nukes, then the moderates would turn their back on the fundamentalists and embrace the west instead. If they were forced to choose, that would be the choice they would make.

Just a thought.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
That adds nothing to my comments, because it isn't exactly like Annan and Blair made a big deal about the possibility of them having nukes. Pretty much everything they expressed disapproval over was in them stating something we all knew about Iran.

The mutherfucking United Nations said they were going to travel to Iran to try and figure out why Iran would say that Isreal should be nuked off a map, and you are telling me that BubbaStrangelove is the one who should add to his comments that Iran is a nuclear threat.

Again - something else I think is funny.

Shesssh, I was just trying to add my own answer on Scorpio24 after your reply. Apparently I should of used "my own view" instead of saying I was adding to yours.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Just a question: Do muslims have any other holy places in Israel besides Jerusalem? Because I don't think their religion allows them to nuke down holy places. I don't think their belief allows them to nuke palestians either, and there are quite a few of those in Israel

3 Holiest Muslim Cities of religious significance:

1. Mecca
2. Medina
3. Jerusalem

I wonder what the hard Muslim clerics line on nuking any of these sites.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by MacReady
Shesssh, I was just trying to add my own answer on Scorpio24 after your reply. Apparently I should of used "my own view" instead of saying I was adding to yours.


Yeah, I was having trouble figuring out where you were standing from your wording, so I decided to just expand on what we were finding absurd about the situation.

Usually I stand up for the UN, but the represented reaction to the Iranian statements makes even me say they are acting naive and possibly foolish. To me, it is a perfect example of "dragging your feet" -- It really bothers me the way Annan went so far to say he'd wait until next week to get to the bottom of it. It seems like this should become priority number one.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Tuukka
Just a question: Do muslims have any other holy places in Israel besides Jerusalem? Because I don't think their religion allows them to nuke down holy places. I don't think their belief allows them to nuke palestians either, and there are quite a few of those in Israel.



You raise an interesting point. After giving it a little thought I am thinking that the people who are threatening this are really not religious any more than the Christian zealots who bomb abortion clinics- they use religion for their own agenda. These muslim leaders don't really care what muslims get killed or what holy places are decimated through their schemes, IMO.

[Lynn7]

Not only Jews but Christians and then the rest of the "infidels"

Christian girls beheaded in grisly Indonesian attack
October 29, 2005 - 7:01PM

Three teenage Christian girls were beheaded and a fourth was seriously wounded in a savage attack on Saturday by unidentified assailants in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi.

The girls were among a group of students from a private Christian high school who were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation in Poso Kota subdistrict on their way to class, police Major Riky Naldo said.

The area is close to the provincial capital of Poso, about 1000 kilometres northeast of Jakarta.

Naldo said the heads of the three dead victims were found several kilometres from their bodies.

In Jakarta, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ordered the police to begin a hunt for the killers.

"In the holy month of Ramadan, we are again shocked by a sadistic crime in Poso that claimed the lives of three school students," he told reporters at the airport as he prepared to fly to Sumatra island.

"I condemn this barbarous killing, whoever the perpetrators are and whatever their motives."

He ordered the security forces to find the killers and maintain order in the region.

Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation, but Central Sulawesi has a roughly equal number of Muslims and Christians. The province was the scene of a bloody religious war in 2001-2002 that killed around 1000 people from both communities.

At the time, beheadings, burnings and other atrocities were common.

A government-mediated truce succeeded in ending the conflict in early 2002, but there have since been a series of bomb attacks and assassinations of Christians.

These included a blast at a market in Poso, a predominantly Christian town, that killed 22 people in May.

Christian leaders have repeatedly accused the authorities in Jakarta of not doing enough to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

The Christian-Muslim conflict in Sulawesi was an extension of a wider sectarian war in the nearby Maluku archipelago in which up to 9000 perished between 1999 and 2002.

The Maluku conflict intensified soon after it began with the arrival of volunteers belonging to Laskar Jihad, a newly created militia from Indonesia's main island of Java that was supported by hardline elements of the security forces.

Analysts and diplomats accused senior army commanders of funding and training the militia, which was hurriedly disbanded following the terrorist attacks on the tourist island of Bali in 2002 which claimed 202 lives, including 88 Australians.

AP

[someguy]

Islam never really did go against violence. Their prophet Muhammed was known for waging a bunch of holy wars in the name of Allah, the most famous being Mecca. So if they were nuking a place up in the name of their one almighty God, it would be alright.

By the way, Muhammed did teach that Christians and Jews should be tolerated and not treated badly because they shared similar beliefs with the religion of Islam. The Muslims consider people like Moses, Abraham, Adam and Jesus to be prophets who would spread the word of Allah. Muhammed is considered as the last prophet and they see him as the most important. The big divide comes in the fact that they do not believe that Jesus was God's son. He was simply another prophet like Muhammed.

I just read a bit of info about Islam recently and it's interesting how they intertwine with the Bible at points. They are like the Jews in thinking that Abraham created them (before God's covenant with creating the Israelites, he had a kid named Ishmael with their servant and then Ishmael went on to create the Arabs).

Roundabout way of me saying this overall, but I'm sure that Muslims would not bomb a holy place of their own. They do not go against violent though. And the whole "Christian infidels" comment isn't true in the religion, those are radicals who think that anyone outside of their religion is an infidel.

[EVILxxx]

I don't think a Muslim government would nuke Isreal, but a terrorist group would probably see it as the ends justifying the means. I mean the terrorists in Iraq are killing Muslims left and right. It makes no differance to them.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
All I meant was that this kind of rhetoric has been coming out of Iran since the Islamic revolution in '79. Israel is more than capable of defending itself against Iran. Why do we have to rush in and get involved in every conflict in the Middle East anymore? Our relationship with Israel is very one-sided.

Fair point. However there is a big difference between rhetoric and a the Leader of a nation coming out and saying that he wants to blow another country off the face of the map. Also the US an UK although more the US I feel, has been involved in politics and issues in the far east for decades. You are involved full stop. You can't chose what issues to ignore and which ones to get involved in.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think he was using "news" as a metaphore for "acting suprised"

It's more comical than anything - the idea of Annan slapping his head going, "Oh my God! I can't beleve Iran said that!? <gasp>"

The idea of Iran saying they want to nuke someone isn't comical at all. However, it's a bit goofy to act like no one expected it, and that it's shocking.


But it is a big deal. Why is not shocking? Yes we know Iran and most other nations in that area feel hostility to Israel but to my knowledge this is the first time a Leader has come out and said he wants to wipe another nation off the map. Prehaps it's just me but that is shocking to me.

Also I don't care about the UN or Annan. Their veiws are corrupt and have no weight anyway. None of my points hav anything to do with them. Where Tukka brings up excellent points about Iran bombing Israel. That isnt what I'm concerned about. It's the fact Iran would have no problem selling a Nuke to the highest bidder. The Ayatollah is hardly known for his common sense or love of the West. Recently he commented that one glorious day God would provide a world without Israel and US.

It worries me when a nation on the brink of stocking nukes comes out and says that they want to wipe Israel off the map exspecialy when they are happy to sell to groups who can do their dirty work for them. If thats not shocking.....well fuck me I don't know what is.

[The Postmaster General]

Ah gee - Yous mean dat dey'z talking bout dem big bombs like we use on Japan in da Vietnam war, or somethings. Gee, yeah - I guess dat wuld be a bad thing. Thanks for xplaining it to me.

:rolleyes:

Scorpio - If you don't care about Annan and the UN so much, then why are you defending them from us pointing out what goof-balls they are for making a bigger deal about Iran saying they wanted to nuke Isreal than THEM HAVING NUKES?

Did I ever once say "Haha! Scorpio thinks it's a big deal that Iran is willing to use them!"?

No... It should be pretty f-in' clear that my comments are directed solely at Annan pussy-footing around and acting like it's new information that Iran wants to wipe Isreal off a map.

Say what you want -- The comments very much sound like it's totally okay to have nukes -- Just don't say you're going to use them. For anyone to make a bigger deal about Iran threatening Isreal than Iran having nukes is a perfect subject for mocking. I mean -- everyone has been pretty concerned about Iran's nuclear capacity long before Bush's "axis of evil" speech, and the UN seems to just now becoming worried about it - why? Because they just now mentioned they think Isreal should be nuked...

Okay, this is new information - how?

And in response, the UN does nothing past the extent of saying "Well we can't have that level of impoliteness going on in the UN!"

Again....

Ariel Sharon, in remarks issued Thursday by the Israeli government press office, said he believes any country that calls for the destruction of another cannot be a member of the United Nations.

The U.N. statement didn't address that contention.

But it said Annan "had already decided to visit Iran during the next few weeks, to discuss other issues.

"He now intends to place the Middle East peace process, and the right of all states in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force, at the top of his agenda for that visit."



But you know what - It was a flip comment that was made, and it's sort of lost it's comic timing, so I really don't care to explain to you where I'm finding the value in it. It's getting to the point where I'm just feeling as patronizing as you are being in trying to explain to me the concept of why Iran having nukes is a bad thing. The only difference being that I never said I didn't get your point of view.

And I in no way feel in the wrong for not realizing that the way guys named Mr-Blonde and BubbaStrangelove reacted to Annan's reaction about Iran would be a bigger issue than the way Annan, a world leader, reacted to Iran. So, I hope feeling that what BubbaStrangelove finds amusing is a bigger issue than what the leader of the UN takes issue with really gets you somewhere, but I'm not seeing it happening. So good luck with that.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by outsyder
What makes you say that?

There are a lot of legitimate reasons why Iran would be protecting him. I've been saying from the start that I thought he was in Iran.

Yea its possible, but if we learned anything from Iraq, its that you cant assume anything. Hard evidence is needed....lots of it.

Anyway, when you talked about Iran it reminded me of people making the case for Iraq, and more recently Syria. Im just wondering when this will all end...(the solution to all our problems being invading a country)

[Scorpio24]

I don't know why the fuck i'm bothering replying to a guy thats never ever fucking wrong. But what the hell. Lets have a go.

First of all. Not fucking once have I defended Annan's or the UN. Who's pots are you reading GOD cause it ain't mine.

Second of all. The only thing I've tried explaining over and over is that I find it shocking that the Iranian president has come out and said he wants to blow them off the map. Do you get it?? Just that. I find that shocking. It also worries me that they are close to nukes and that they would love to sell.

I wasn't trying to explain shit to you. Who could right? I was just trying to make the above points over and over.

You were trying not be patronising? Good one.

[The Postmaster General]

Well that didn't go as smooth as I thought it would...


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scorpio24
I don't know why the fuck i'm bothering replying to a guy thats never ever fucking wrong. But what the hell. Lets have a go.


I'm wrong lots of times, but not this time.

Get ready though, because I'm about to blow your mind.

Wait for it...

You're not wrong either.

I can't be wrong for thinking something is funny, but yet your entire basis for arguing with me is in trying to show me I'm wrong for thinking that it's funny for Annan to act surprised that Iran doesn't like Isreal.

I've said that half a dozen times - no explaination needed.

And no, this isn't "having a go" -- I'm not here to slap my balls on people's heads to try to knock them down. My only goal is in trying to show Scorpio how it is possible for both of us to be right.


First of all. Not fucking once have I defended Annan's or the UN. Who's pots are you reading GOD cause it ain't mine.


Well, you missed the point of that comment.

We both think Annan is a goof-ball, but for some reason, you don't agree with MY REASONS for thinking he is a goof ball, and you are argueing with them.

Thereby, all you are accomplishing with your arguements, is in showing that Annan is only half the goof-ball I think he is, which I'm pretty sure is not your goal.



Second of all. The only thing I've tried explaining over and over is that I find it shocking that the Iranian president has come out and said he wants to blow them off the map. Do you get it?? Just that. I find that shocking. It also worries me that they are close to nukes and that they would love to sell.


Yes, but when have I ever said that I didn't agree with you? All I've said is pretty much - "Annan is a goof-ball for acting surprised that Iran hates Isreal."

That's it - that's all. Yet, for some reason you have this problem with that. And instead of making some sort of attempt to see where I'm coming from - You say I'm wrong then give me all of these reasons that are totally unrelated to my point. And let's be fair - It wasn't even my initial point, it was Mr.-Blondes. I've somehow turned into the comic ambassador here.

And it's really not fair, because I've said several times that I GET YOUR POINT - Yes, it is scary for Iran to have nukes because the statements show they are willing to use it. Then you explained it again in your last post. Again.

The only f-in problem I'm finding is that you have yet to go - I GET YOUR POINT - Yes, it is kind of dumb for Annan and the UN to act shocked that Iran hates Isreal. They should be focusing less attention on what was said, and more attention on what they are going to do about it. They are sort of treading over familiar waters.



I wasn't trying to explain shit to you. Who could right? I was just trying to make the above points over and over.

Really?

So when you say, "The only thing I've tried explaining over and over is that I find it shocking that the Iranian president has come out and said he wants to blow them off the map." --- You expect me to think you AREN'T trying to explain things to me?

Ugh.

So, you mean you were making the above points over and over because you DIDN'T think I needed it explained to me?

That makes no sense, and sort of goes along with my beef that you aren't making any effort what-so-ever to see my point.

It is me, Scorpio - Me, who has been told that their reasons needed expanding. I've never once asked, "What do you mean Scorpio?" or like you are doing it, "No, you are wrong because of <list reasons not related to Scorpio's point>" ---- I'm the only one who's been put into a position where they should feel they need to expand on their points. That's why it's so frustrating that your responses aren't actually responses, but more like reactions, where you react - then give me a list of reasons why you were right.

But the problem is you aren't argueing about whether you are right for saying I shouldn't think it's comical --- You are argueing something all together different -- You are argueing the point you made that I've never disagreed with: Iran = a concern.

I'm trying to argue this = Scorpio24 and BubbaStrangelove are making seperate, unrelated observations about Iran and the UN. Both are right.

For some reason you seem to think we have ideas that can't co-exist, but they do, and actually enhance the others point, but I might be reaching to far by starting to get into all of that.


You were trying not be patronising? Good one.


Yeah. Imagine if I would have said something like - "Do you get it?" after you telling me you got it twice already.

Stuff like that is a text-book example of a patronizing comment, and you wouldn't have liked it had I replied in that manner.

I was very careful in making sure my post didn't sound like you were incapable of understanding my points, despite you not once giving me any reason to think you did --- That's how I was not being patronizing.

Whatever you get from my posts beyond that has nothing to do with me, so stop making me into some guy who is setting out to make you look foolish. I'm not the one who's going on, and on, trying to prove that you were wrong for finding something comical, then going on and on -- How did you describe it? "explaining over and over is that I find it shocking that the Iranian president has come out and said he wants to blow them off the map".

You have me all wrong, Scorpio, and I'm running out of good humor about this. Either make some attempt to show me you understand where I'm coming from, or... Well, obviously you have the 'or' down to a tee.

So, just to end it well - let me make sure I've had this straight for the past few days.

Uh-hm...

Scorpio24 finds it shocking that Iran has stated they want to wipe Isreal off of a map, because they could have nukes.

BubbaStrangelove finds it comical for a world leader to act shocked when Iran says they want to wipe Isreal off of a map, because he thinks a world leader shouldn't act like that is new information, and should be building upon this information instead of retreading it. It's the only time Bubba has ever seen what people mean when the say the UN "pussy-foots".



Jesus Christ that was long. I really wish I could have just made a joke saying "This is news?" and everyone would see what I was implying and we could move on. I really wish someone had just done --- Oh wait. Nevermind. That didn't work either.

[Mr-Blonde]

Poor Bubba-- getting his head bitten off for merely offering his perspective on my comments which by the way was an accurate take on what I meant to say.

I'll admit sometimes I'm not the best communicator on these boards. Thankfully there's guys like Bubba to translate my ramblings for me.

Scorpio-- have a Coke and a smile.

Bubba-- have yourself a good stiff drink, if we were at a bar I'd be buying.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Well that didn't go as smooth as I thought it would...





I'm wrong lots of times, but not this time.

Get ready though, because I'm about to blow your mind.

Wait for it...

You're not wrong either.

I can't be wrong for thinking something is funny, but yet your entire basis for arguing with me is in trying to show me I'm wrong for thinking that it's funny for Annan to act surprised that Iran doesn't like Isreal.


I'm really scratching my head here. :confused:

My entire basis for argument has been nothing of the sort. I've not once mentioned Annan in a term that accuses you of being wrong. If what you want from me is that you are right in being able to find that funny. Then you're right. Bet you're smiling now right? ;) Is it alright for you to find it funny? fuck yea. Do I? Well more pathetic than funny. But i've never argued that you wern't right over this. I'm not sure where you are getting that from?




Well, you missed the point of that comment.

We both think Annan is a goof-ball, but for some reason, you don't agree with MY REASONS for thinking he is a goof ball, and you are argueing with them.

Again no I'm not.





And let's be fair - It wasn't even my initial point, it was Mr.-Blondes. I've somehow turned into the comic ambassador here.


Exactly. It was Mr Blonde I was responding to. You jumed in and have obviosly interpretated my post in the wrong way.

When Mr Blonde said 'how is that news?' I answered with your favourite of my lines. It's a world leader......Blah blah. And I meant the Iranian leader not Annan just incase thats leading to confusement. Mr Blonde then retorted with:

orignaly posted by MrBlondeAll I meant was that this kind of rhetoric has been coming out of Iran since the Islamic revolution in '79.

I then answered with there's a big difference between rhetoric and the world leader line again. Now I gotta ask where was my attack on you for saying you are not right about Annan. I never mentioned him. I was in fact talking about the Iranian leader spewing out this stuff and I was trying to put my point over to Mr Blonde.




The only f-in problem I'm finding is that you have yet to go - I GET YOUR POINT - Yes, it is kind of dumb for Annan and the UN to act shocked that Iran hates Isreal. They should be focusing less attention on what was said, and more attention on what they are going to do about it. They are sort of treading over familiar waters.

Again I couldn't say YOU ARE RIGHT because I didn't know why the hell I was being accused of defending Annan. I never mentioned him and I wasn't including his name or anything to do with him in my posts.



Really?

So when you say, "The only thing I've tried explaining over and over is that I find it shocking that the Iranian president has come out and said he wants to blow them off the map." --- You expect me to think you AREN'T trying to explain things to me?

Yea that was poorely worded. I was just trying to repeat that this is the only point I've made. Not Annan. Not saying you are wrong.



But the problem is you aren't argueing about whether you are right for saying I shouldn't think it's comical --- You are argueing something all together different -- You are argueing the point you made that I've never disagreed with: Iran = a concern.

I'm trying to argue this = Scorpio24 and BubbaStrangelove are making seperate, unrelated observations about Iran and the UN. Both are right.

For some reason you seem to think we have ideas that can't co-exist, but they do, and actually enhance the others point, but I might be reaching to far by starting to get into all of that.

Exactly. I was argueing something different. But instead of as you say agreeing with me you were accusing me of defending Annan when I was talking to Mr Blonde about something different. How was I supposed to agree with you when you ws talking about a conversation I didn't even realise I apparently started.





Yeah. Imagine if I would have said something like - "Do you get it?" after you telling me you got it twice already.

Stuff like that is a text-book example of a patronizing comment, and you wouldn't have liked it had I replied in that manner.


Fair point. I put that bit in just to antagonise due to my mood at the time. Apologies.


You have me all wrong, Scorpio, and I'm running out of good humor about this. Either make some attempt to show me you understand where I'm coming from, or... Well, obviously you have the 'or' down to a tee.

Have I appeased you now oh great one. ;)



[QUOTE][B]Scorpio24 finds it shocking that Iran has stated they want to wipe Isreal off of a map, because they could have nukes.

Nope.

Scorpio finds it shocking that a leader would come out and say that full stop. Nothing to do with the nukes. The nukes worry me beacuse they will sell them on to people who won't think twice about using on Israel you and us. But that wasn't my original argument with Mr Blonde.



Clearly we have our wires crossed somewhere here. Like I said if what you want from me is that you are right in thinking it's funny. Then you have my backing. I was never arguing otherwise. I was 'reacting' like you put it because I would read your posts accussing me of defending Annan and I'd be like WTF???? When did I say that.

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde


Scorpio-- have a Coke and a smile.





What the hell are you talking about? I'm always smiling.

I'm just a happy kind of guy.:D

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Scorpio24
Clearly we have our wires crossed somewhere here. Like I said if what you want from me is that you are right in thinking it's funny. Then you have my backing. I was never arguing otherwise. I was 'reacting' like you put it because I would read your posts accussing me of defending Annan and I'd be like WTF???? When did I say that.


Well - no, you weren't directly defending Annan, but you were devalidating the reasons we were making fun of him. Which, ultimately provides defense for him. I didn't think you were meaning to defend him, but that ultimately that was what it seemed like you were doing. Why else would you be argueing about the reasons I'm making fun of him?

It's all a perspective -- from yours I was sort of defending the idea that Iran having nukes is no big deal, or not news worthy - by making a joke out of it. From mine, you were sort of defending the idea that Annan isn't mock-worthy. While neither of us were exactly doing that, we were both making comments that appeared to contradict the other's POV.

Imagine if there was this movie that everyone was going nuts about, and Ebert said it had the best twist ending of all time. Then you see the movie, and say it was good, but that the twist ending was sort of obvious, you think it's funny that people made such a big deal about it, and you then make a post to point out what a dumbass you think Ebert is, and why.

Then I respond that it was a great movie, and point out that I can't figure out why you don't see what the big deal was.

Wouldn't you take that like I was defending Ebert, since he was the main topic of your post?

Either way - I'm glad we could talk this all out and I see you know where I'm coming from more now. Hopefully you see why I've made the "defending Annan" comments. Thanks for taking the time to settle it with me and not just writing me off as being an asshole -- well, you can do that too, but I'm mostly just glad that this all seems be getting somewhere instead of turning into a Dr. Suess story where one of us is refusing to not walk South, and the other refusing to not walk North.

Hell, I know I wasn't offered - but I'm going to get a coke now.

Okay, who am I kidding? It's Sam's Choice Cola, actually.

[Scorpio24]

No prob.

I'm glad it's settled. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have included you're Annan comments when I responded to you. I was thinking you were making the joke up over the comments of the Iranian leader and not Annan and I think you were thinking I was havinga pop back over Annan.

Either way. It's all good.