Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

Just to be clear here:

"Iran has stated their intentions to make Tel Aviv glow in the dark"

came from

"wipe off the map"

came from

"“This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”



Words appear to mean nothing these days. Not that they ever did I guess....

That weasel explanation (bad translation) for that one speech comment was in the link I posted so no need to explain to me the link that I in fact  posted.

I am speaking from following Iranian policy, and other arab nations that surround and hate Israel (not just Iran) literally for decades. 

As usual I decline to argue with you about me, or accept homework/research assignments.

JR

 

[DaveP]

Whose banner is it, and whose opinion do the originators correctly say it describes?

For what it's worth, I have always picked up from Iranian speeches that their intention was to wipe Israel from the map.

I don't really see why you have to be their apologist, they have  a diplomatic service that is capable of correcting any mis-translations.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Whose banner is it, and whose opinion do the originators correctly say it describes?

It was from a link within the send link I posted...

I will not do legwork for you, read the links I posted.

JR

PS: Happy new year, looks like nothing has changed (yet...).

 

[mattiasNYC]

That weasel explanation (bad translation) for that one speech comment was in the link I posted so no need to explain to me the link that I in fact  posted.

What on earth are you talking about? "Glow in the dark", what is that supposed to mean other than nuclear attack? Where in the quote you provided was that stated? It wasn't. Not only not in Farsi, but not even in the English translation.

Words don't matter to people like you. What matters is the story you want to believe in. Your conservative media tells you Iran is the enemy and that it wants to attack Israel and physically destroy it using nukes, so you believe that story, because that's "your guys" telling you the story. That the words people supposedly used were never used - like literally not used - doesn't matter to you.

Story matters. Truth? Not so much.

As usual I decline to argue with you about me, or accept homework/research assignments.

Self-imposed ignorance. Yeah, why would you want to learn anything if what you learn goes against the story you've told yourself is true? Bliss certainly is preferable.

 

[mattiasNYC]

For what it's worth, I have always picked up from Iranian speeches that their intention was to wipe Israel from the map.

I don't really see why you have to be their apologist, they have  a diplomatic service that is capable of correcting any mis-translations.

DaveP

You realize there's a difference between attacking a bad argument against something and on the other hand being in favor of that something, right?

You again, like conservatives are told to do, use the phrase "wipe off the map" yet the words don't exist in the actual quote. I'm telling you, just go find the actual Farsi speech and then find the words that translate that way into English. You won't find them.

Since you talk about "Iranian speeches" here's what has been said:

s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize this regime legally."

Entirely consistent with:

”Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."

So, again: Find "Israel" "wipe off the map" if you can. You can use Google translation service if you want. Good luck.


The general "logic" here seems to be:

- Iran is bad....
- Because of what we say the leader said....
- Even if he didn't say what we say he said....

 

[JohnRoberts]

What on earth are you talking about? "Glow in the dark", what is that supposed to mean other than nuclear attack? Where in the quote you provided was that stated? It wasn't. Not only not in Farsi, but not even in the English translation.

Words don't matter to people like you. What matters is the story you want to believe in. Your conservative media tells you Iran is the enemy and that it wants to attack Israel and physically destroy it using nukes, so you believe that story, because that's "your guys" telling you the story. That the words people supposedly used were never used - like literally not used - doesn't matter to you.

Story matters. Truth? Not so much.

Self-imposed ignorance. Yeah, why would you want to learn anything if what you learn goes against the story you've told yourself is true? Bliss certainly is preferable.

I am surely too ignorant to inform you....

I will not waste this year wrestling with you...

I would repeat the joke about wrestling with pigs in the mud, but that might be even more insulting than you calling me ignorant, and I do not mean to escalate the ad hominem between us. 

You are a master debater.... debate with somebody else, I'm tapping out.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Sorry you feel bad about me shining a light on what you admit yourself. Perhaps you shouldn't do that in the future then. I'd say "lesson learned", but that sounds like homework is required.... 

 

[tands]

You're calling John a liar for saying he heard it on the program years ago, because he can't find a link to the exact phrase now. You then mock Dave about it and claim you are teaching somebody something.

That really isn't much to be proud of, mattiasNYC. Many people want Israel gone, are you saying that's not the case?

 

[DaveP]

You again, like conservatives are told to do, use the phrase "wipe off the map" yet the words don't exist in the actual quote. I'm telling you, just go find the actual Farsi speech and then find the words that translate that way into English. You won't find them.

I choose my words carefully remember, I said speeches, that means all of them from the BBC news and others over the years.  I don't know anything about the reference you have been debating.  actually debating is a euphemism when you so quickly move into insults.

If you can't handle other peoples opinions, then you need the grace to bow out.

You seem to get frustrated when other people don't see things the way you do and you can't change their minds with endless arguments.  I have often asked how old you are because you post like a very intelligent kid, all the brains are there, but not the maturity to complement them.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

You're calling John a liar for saying he heard it on the program years ago,

No, I most certainly didn't say that at all.

You then mock Dave about it and call him ignorant

No, I didn't "call him ignorant".

I fully realize at this point that we've completely switched to a mode where what is said is said isn't necessarily what's said, but that doesn't matter any more. So if you say I literally called him ignorant, and I didn't, I still did.

Why would I talk to you about it? Perhaps you're just venting, which is fine.

Many people want Israel gone, are you saying that's not the case?

No I don't.

I understand why you'd ask that though. Everything is either black of white, for us or against us, conservative or liberal. So, if I don't agree with a fact that supposedly implicates Iran in something bad, I must also disagree with everything else in whatever "conservative" narrative you subscribe to. Well, the newsflash is that it's entirely possible for me to dislike Iran's theocracy both in principle and practice, dislike terrorism carried out by Palestinians, dislike Israel's colonialism, dislike anti-semitism, acknowledge people want Israel gone, acknowledge the US dropped nukes on civilian populations, acknowledge Saddam gassed his own population, dislike the coalition invasion of Iraq.....

etc.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I choose my words carefully remember, I said speeches, that means all of them from the BBC news and others over the years.  I don't know anything about the reference you have been debating.

I've never ever heard the words you carefully chose coming from other speeches. What speeches are you referring to, specifically?

actually debating is a euphemism when you so quickly move into insults.

If you can't handle other peoples opinions, then you need the grace to bow out.

You seem to get frustrated when other people don't see things the way you do

Dude, we're talking about facts here. Do you not see that? Either a leader said something or he did not. It's not up for debate.

See, the difference here is that when someone perpetuates things that are false and it leads people to have the wrong understanding of the world, and then in turn they go vote for US leaders that very well may increase the threat level on the US - that threat isn't really aimed at some random town in the mid west in the US, or even New Jersey necessarily. It's most likely targeting NY and other places. Where I live.

So from my perspective I absolutely don't have to sit down and be quiet when people perpetuate incorrect assertions. This normalization you're advocating is again somewhat reminiscent of the "political correctness" we've discussed before.

and you can't change their minds with endless arguments.  I have often asked how old you are because you post like a very intelligent kid, all the brains are there, but not the maturity to complement them.

DaveP

So you complain that I'm not really debating despite providing direct quotes and arguments, simply because I in your opinion apparently insult people - yet you end your post - which is devoid of any actual debate or discussion of what I addressed that was on topic - by insulting me by calling me immature...

Did I get that right?

How fantastically hypocritical.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Perhaps what we should all do is treat threads like blog-entries instead.

So rather than discuss things and try to learn from new information, we just proclaim things to be true, and ignore any evidence or argument to the contrary. I mean, it sounds like an echo-chamber, but that's the new normal anyway.

 

[tands]

Yes, my mistake, you didn't call Dave ignorant, you called John ignorant. I edited it out.

"I understand why you'd ask that though. Everything is either black of white, for us or against us, conservative or liberal. So, if I don't agree with a fact that supposedly implicates Iran in something bad, I must also disagree with everything else in whatever "conservative" narrative you subscribe to. Well, the newsflash is that it's entirely possible for me to dislike Iran's theocracy both in principle and practice, dislike terrorism carried out by Palestinians, dislike Israel's colonialism, dislike anti-semitism, acknowledge people want Israel gone, acknowledge the US dropped nukes on civilian populations, acknowledge Saddam gassed his own population, dislike the coalition invasion of Iraq....."

Well, whatever you want to do, but you and your likes and dislikes are not of much interest. I'm just irritated you run this sh*tty little argument on nitpicks and insults. You agree that many people want Israel gone.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'm just irritated you run this sh*tty little argument on nitpicks and insults. You agree that many people want Israel gone.

You think it's inconsequential and insignificant if Iran's leader states he wants to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv? Discussing that is "nitpicking" to you?

Then why so irritated if it's so insignificant?

 

[tands]

You nitpicked over the exact phrase, when it's agreed that many people, (Ahmadinnerjacket included) would prefer Israel gone.

You inflated this into some great victory for yourself, even though whether he said it publically or specifically is really just a blind alley leading away from the fact many people want Israel gone and a sheet of glass instead sounds just fine.

It's a nitpick. Then you insulted everyone, and got up to dance on the table about your likes and dislikes.

 

[mattiasNYC]

You nitpicked over the exact phrase, when it's agreed that many people, (Ahmadinnerjacket included) would prefer Israel gone.

Since you apparently wasn't following the conversation I'll just inform you that the question wasn't about the opinion of "many people", it was specifically about what Iran's leaders supposedly had said.

So, now we appear to have moved from attributing a statement to a politician, to attributing a sentiment to the same politician when it turns out the statement wasn't what people said it was, to finally assuming the sentiment is what we say it is because "many people" have that opinion.

Like I said: Opinions are as valuable as facts apparently, and the gold standard is to ignore the latter and maintain the official story.

You inflated this into some great victory for yourself, even though whether he said it publically or specifically is really just a blind alley

- If he said it it would be proof
- If he didn't say it it's irrelevant

Got it.

leading away from the fact many people want Israel gone and a sheet of glass instead sounds just fine.

That was never in question.  Many people want Israel gone. Many people want Iran gone. Many people want Israel's people to stay where they are but the regime to go. Many people want Iranians to stay but Iran's regime to go.

So what?

got up to dance on the table about your likes and dislikes.

Sorry dude, but you asked a ridiculous question. I merely pointed out that the question was ridiculous because of its implied basis, and I gave those "likes and dislikes" to illustrate why the question was ridiculous.

Now, if you couldn't care less about my opinions then you have a strange way of showing that.



PS: I'm happy the diversion has worked so well, moving from whether or not the peace process was actually harmed by the critique of Israel's illegal colonialism to talking about Iran. Pretty classic, and like an idiot I fell for it. Well done.

 

[tands]

Since you apparently wasn't following the conversation I'll just inform you that the question wasn't about the opinion of "many people", it was specifically about what Iran's leaders supposedly had said.

You limited 'the question' to that, so that you could nitpick over it, and ignore the larger issue. You aren't interested in that, really, you just found something to screech at John about.

So, now we appear to have moved from attributing a statement to a politician, to attributing a sentiment to the same politician when it turns out the statement wasn't what people said it was, to finally assuming the sentiment is what we say it is because "many people" have that opinion.

Yes. The real issue, not the nitpick.

Like I said: Opinions are as valuable as facts apparently, and the gold standard is to ignore the latter and maintain the official story.

- If he said it it would be proof
- If he didn't say it it's irrelevant

Got it.

It's irrelevant.

That was never in question.  Many people want Israel gone. Many people want Iran gone. Many people want Israel's people to stay where they are but the regime to go. Many people want Iranians to stay but Iran's regime to go.

So what?

Hmm, what all those people want doesn't matter? Irrelevant?

Sorry dude, but you asked a ridiculous question. I merely pointed out that the question was ridiculous because of its implied basis, and I gave those "likes and dislikes" to illustrate why the question was ridiculous.

Now, if you couldn't care less about my opinions then you have a strange way of showing that.

You made this about you, dude. You run a sh*tty argument, and you should know it.

PS: I'm happy the diversion has worked so well, moving from whether or not the peace process was actually harmed by the critique of Israel's illegal colonialism to talking about Iran. Pretty classic, and like an idiot I fell for it. Well done.

This was a distraction you started, over a comment John made about whatever Obama did at the UN regarding Israel. Who cares what the lameass duck does?

Not me!

 

[mattiasNYC]

You limited 'the question' to that, so that you could nitpick over it, and ignore the larger issue.

Dude, if you're going to interject then at least get your facts straight.

John wrote that "Obama is on a roll, he also pissed off Israel and threw a monkey wrench into the peace process there by declining to veto the latest security council scold over settlements. ", after which I asked him if he truly believed that, to which he responded that really "The elephant in the room regarding Israel is the Iran nuclear deal (another can of worms), that Iran has already violated the terms of (heavy water), but is only a temporary postponement (10-15 years) not a complete abandonment of their nuclear ambitions. The players in the middle east are playing a long game and willing to take advantage of western politicians with short term agendas. Iran has stated their intentions to make Tel Aviv glow in the dark ".

That's how we got there.  Not "many people think". You chose to interject into that.

You aren't interested in that, really, you just found something to screech at John about.

I'm interested in what I commented on, because I find it to be untrue, and because Americans by and large have a partially bizarre view on the conflict and the region in general, to a large degree due to not having read up on it. I don't care if it's John saying it, you saying it, Dave saying it, or Mickey Mouse saying it. I comment if I think it's inaccurate and is detrimental to society. And it is.

Yes. The real issue, not the nitpick.

It's irrelevant.


Hmm, what all those people want doesn't matter? Irrelevant?

No, it's not irrelevant what people want. I never stated it was. The discussion between me and Dave and John was never about what a bunch of random people think about whatever, it was specifically about the peace process, the UN vote and then because it was brought up what specific individuals supposedly had stated. That's what it was about.

If you don't want to talk about it then sit down and be quiet, to paraphrase Dave's solution to disagreements.

 

[mattiasNYC]

This was a distraction you started, over a comment John made about whatever Obama did at the UN regarding Israel. Who cares what the lameass duck does?

Not me!

Great question. John asserted that it hurt the peace process and it's been proposed to interfere with Trump's upcoming presidency.

There's your answer. People making such assertions apparently care, and to them Obama isn't a "lameass duck", because if he was then the assertions wouldn't be true.

Or, in other words, take it up with them, not me.

 

[tands]

Great! I'm glad that's settled then. Your last 9(?) posts have been about whether dinnerjacket actually said 15 years ago in Farsi that he wants to nuke Israel, and also about how some people are ignorant and apparently have something to learn from you.

Maybe tighten it up.