Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
^Hold on a minute an amerikan concerned about human rights 
yeah have you heard of guntanmo bay, abu gharib, CIA torture cells across europe before you lecture rest of the world on human rights start at home ok
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said...
Would you rather be in Guantanamo, or an Iranian prison?
End of discussion.
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
Exactly! Come of you white immigrants to America go back to Europe, and give the country back to it’s rightful native inhabitants.
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
Attempted ‘whacking’ of Ahmadinejad
well looks like he finally succeeded in pi$$ing someone off enough :hehe:
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
^ your link is not working.
Iran wins hands down.
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
what a fool lecturing on human rights and does’nt even think his own terrorist nation is brutalising people all over the world!
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
Ahmadinejad’s idea on Israel correct in principal
By Henryk M. Broder
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s suggestion to move Israel to Germany is not as absurd as it sounds. If you consider the idea impartially, you can see a historic land reform concept which can be advantageous to all parties.
Everyone is attacking the Iranian president again because he suggested moving Israel from the Middle East to Germany, or Austria. Even those who were not outraged about Ahmadinejad’s demand “to wipe Israel off the map” are agitated, because now they see the problem as becoming theirs. As much as a “world without Zionism” is imaginable, a Europe with a Jewish State in its midst is a vision of horror that no one wants to follow to its logical conclusion.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Ahmadinejad’s suggestions “totally unacceptable”. Her hasty reaction did not take into account that the Iranian president had, after all, moved away from his original demand to destroy Israel and now wants a “relocation” of the “Zionist entity”. From a humanitarian point of view, this is progress: The Israelis should no longer disappear into the ocean, but be sent on an overseas journey instead. One could also say that Europe should take back the problem that it created and exported. But the recipient is refusing delivery of the parcel even before it has been sent.
Sure enough: When Ahmadinejad is right, he’s right. It doesn’t help to call him “inexperienced in foreign affairs”, as the director of the Orient Institute, Udo Steinbach, recently did.
The Middle East conflict is not only collateral damage of the Holocaust, it’s a product of European anti-Semitism. Without the pogroms in Poland and Russia, without the Dreyfuss Affair in France (which made Herzl into a Zionist), without the German attempt at the “final solution” to the Jewish problem, the Jews would still be dreaming of their own state instead of having to protect it.
*Ahmadinejad’s idea may be vague, but in principal it is correct. The Palestinians are paying for the sins of the Europeans. And if there were such a thing as historical justice in this world, the Jewish state would have been founded in Schleswig-Holstein or in Bavaria, and not in Palestine. *
I have written this sentence several times in the past – the last time right here – and am both delighted and surprised that Ahmadinejad has seized upon my suggestion, even if didn’t give me the credit.
Historically, this idea is not so absurd as it is now being portrayed. The Zionist movement was unsure for a long time where the “Jewish State” should be situated. Herzl spoke from a “piece of the earth’s surface” that Jews would be able to administer. There were considerations to establish a “colony” in Uganda or Argentina. That Palestine was finally chosen had both historical and emotional, as well as practical reasons. William II, who considered himself to be the patron of the holy sites in Jerusalem, wanted a “German protectorate” in Palestine, and was therefore receptive to Herzel’s ideas. If it had not been for the First World War, something could have come of the project.
As it was, Israel was only established after the Second World War under very different, extremely dramatic circumstances. It was not only about giving the Jews a “home”, but also to get a half a million “displaced persons”, survivors of the Holocaust, out of Europe. And so, the old Jewish prayer “next year in Jerusalem” became reality.
But as often happens with wishes and dreams that come true, hardly had the Europeans solved the problem, but a new one was created. It is indeed difficult to explain to the Palestinians why they should share their country with the Jews who were treated badly in Europe. *The Palestinians are not responsible for either the pogroms from Kishinev to Kielce, nor for the concentration camp politics of the Nazis. *
Return to the principle that the Party Responsible is Liable for the Damages. What Ahmadinejad is now demanding is the return to the principle that the party responsible pay for the damages.
Those responsible for solving a problem are those who created it.
And those are the Europeans. At most one could hold against him that his knowledge of history isn’t very good because he reduces the contribution to the Germans, instead of taking the Russians, the Poles and the French to task as well.
But this deficiency doesn’t change the fact that Ahmadinejad is essentially right. And instead of being outraged about his suggestion, it would be better to recognize the advantages that they offer all parties concerned. The Israelis would finally get rid of their biggest problem: security. The Germans would now be in charge of that. And in view of the traditionally good Arab German relations, no Arab country would dare to attack Germany.
The second large advantage would be: Instead of having to spend a lot of money on trips to Europe, the Israelis would already be there, where they feel comfortable, where you can do great shopping, and where you can ride a bus or a train even on Saturdays. The return for the Germans would be even bigger. They would finally have the “Jewish contribution to German culture” back that they have so painfully missed since 1939. No more yearning for fresh bagels, Klezmer music, kosher finger food, Jewish inventors, or Nobel Prize winners. They would all be included in the German statistics.
There are places in the Allgaeu that have similarities with the landscape in Samaria.
The question remains, where would one establish the Jewish state on German soil. Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are sparsely populated, there are millions of empty apartments in the former East Germany. But one can’t assume that the Jews would want to settle close to the water again. It is also beautiful in the mountains, and there are areas in the Allgau that have similarities with the landscape in Samaria.
If one contemplates the Iranian president’s suggestions without preconceived opinion and considers all the advantages and disadvantages without anger, one has to admit that the idea is more than just funky. It is enticing. Until now, “The history of the German territory reaches Palestine” was the sentence which was the basis of the German Near East policy. Now the opportunity would present itself to carry out an historic land reform, to clean up in one’s own house.
But it won’t come to that. Like all new ideas, this one too will be kicked around and rejected at the end. And who knows, perhaps in Aachen someone is already thinking about awarding the next medal to the Iranian president, in spite of his terrible earnestness. (Source: Der Spiegel)
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/14/2005&Cat=2&Num=3
An interesting perspective. One thats not typically on the defensive. Long but def. worth it.:k:
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said...
The US Constitution laid out a blueprint for the interpretation and realization of civil and political rights and freedoms that serve as the basis for much of today's international human rights laws. Ironically, we have set the standard by which the US (and everyone else) is judged by others, including lunatics who favor oppressive theocratic states and bozos like Ahmadinejad who outlaw music and rule with an iron fist.
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said...
Tell the genius from tehran times that it's actually supposed to be "principle" and not "principal".
Also, ms mod, your supposed to provide some kind of comment (not that I would want to read it).
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
If you’d read my post, you’d notice my comments are there, smart-arse.. perhaps you should focus more on reading, as opposed to the spellings cuz multi-tasking is not really your thing is it.
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
If we were to judge US by the standards she set, then right now she would come out looking very sheepish, for lowering and disregarding the very standards they’ve tried to uphold for centuries. not only that, but trying to justfy the pathetic laws at the same time. What do they say, pride always comes before fall eh.
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said...
This Ahamdinejab is fool saying about Israil and holocost etc. but Amerca in old days (old = before Iraq) may be tell Israil to send F16 and put bomb. but now bush is scared by own people (because Amerca poll show bush not good) ...so what America do? I tell you now...only taking gessing but may be one asasination of that felow in Iran? then problem solved
Re: What President Ahmadinejad really said…
Ma, no lectures on pride please. This board is chock full of smug proponents of one belief or another whose system is the A #1 directive from God. Pride is in no short supply. Looks like the US won’t be the only one to fall eh.
I agree that the current administration has taken human rights a few steps back and it sickens me. But that does not negate the 95% still being done right, nor the history of setting the standard. It is just a little more than silly to see those who are advocating the khilafah or defending the oppressive Iranian regime lecturing US on its lack of human rights.