tands said:
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.
tands said:
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.
tands said:
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?
tands said:
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.