Israel calls Iran it's "greatest threat"

**Phreak101** · 09-20-2006, 09:29 PM

UNITED NATIONS - The Israeli foreign minister on Wednesday warned that Iranian leaders pose the biggest threat to the world's values because they "speak proudly" of their wish to destroy Israel and pursue weapons to achieve that objective.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/...i_ea/un_israel

What if George Bush had said he wanted to "wipe China off the map". Would the world still sympathize with the U.S.? My guess is no, so why are corners of the world sympathizing with Iran?

**Teabagger** · 09-20-2006, 10:50 PM

Shut your mouth!! Israel is LYING!! The jews own the media, and they make up that stuff to make peace loving Iran look bad!! SHUT YOUR MOUTH!! Iran only wants to live in peace and harmony with all its neigbors, sunni, shia, jew, christian, hindu, whatever...we love everyone...SHUT YOUR MOUTH you lying american. You are lucky we are not a violent culture like Israel or someone would say you needed your head cut off and put a bounty on your life so..............SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!!

**humungus88** · 09-20-2006, 11:03 PM

Madam President,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Distinguished Heads of Delegation,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.

I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.

Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed. And longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

Madame President,
Excellencies,

What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.

A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren’t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.
People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?

B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?

Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a Diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.

Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?

At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally a**ucted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:

For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?

C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community

Excellencies,

I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.

Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?

Excellencies,

A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.

- Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;

- Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;

- For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.

- Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.

- Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?

- The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies,

The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?

Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies,

How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies.

The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?

Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President,

Excellencies,

It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the “international community”.

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.

Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.

It is for this reason that we state:

Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.

We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world.

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.

Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
________________

**tiger909** · 09-20-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

Shut your mouth!! Israel is LYING!! The jews own the media, and they make up that stuff to make peace loving Iran look bad!! SHUT YOUR MOUTH!! Iran only wants to live in peace and harmony with all its neigbors, sunni, shia, jew, christian, hindu, whatever...we love everyone...SHUT YOUR MOUTH you lying american. You are lucky we are not a violent culture like Israel or someone would say you needed your head cut off and put a bounty on your life so..............SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!!

is that you tbagger?

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-21-2006, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by humungus88

Madam President,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Distinguished Heads of Delegation,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.

I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.

Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed. And longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

Madame President,
Excellencies,

What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.

A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren’t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.
People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?

B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?

Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a Diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.

Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?

At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally a**ucted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:

For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?

C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community

Excellencies,

I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.

Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?

Excellencies,

A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.

- Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;

- Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;

- For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.

- Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.

- Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?

- The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies,

The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?

Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies,

How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies.

The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?

Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President,

Excellencies,

It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the “international community”.

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.

Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.

It is for this reason that we state:

Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.

We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world.

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.

Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
________________

He sure has a better speachwriter than president bush

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-21-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

UNITED NATIONS - The Israeli foreign minister on Wednesday warned that Iranian leaders pose the biggest threat to the world's values because they "speak proudly" of their wish to destroy Israel and pursue weapons to achieve that objective.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/...i_ea/un_israel

What if George Bush had said he wanted to "wipe China off the map". Would the world still sympathize with the U.S.? My guess is no, so why are corners of the world sympathizing with Iran?

I am not personaly sympathizing with Iran. But I dont think its been proven that they want nuclear weapons and thats why I dont support any military action against them.

If we dont even put a sentance on a criminal before he has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Why should we violate other sovereign countries for less?

**zOaib** · 09-21-2006, 07:00 AM

a well spoken speech , and he is definately smarter than Bush !

**Kale** · 09-21-2006, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by zOaib

a well spoken speech , and he is definately smarter than Bush !

My 14 year old son is smarter than Bush !!!

**Oki-Des** · 09-21-2006, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

Shut your mouth!! Israel is LYING!! The jews own the media, and they make up that stuff to make peace loving Iran look bad!! SHUT YOUR MOUTH!! Iran only wants to live in peace and harmony with all its neigbors, sunni, shia, jew, christian, hindu, whatever...we love everyone...SHUT YOUR MOUTH you lying american. You are lucky we are not a violent culture like Israel or someone would say you needed your head cut off and put a bounty on your life so..............SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!!

Listen, you are telling someone to shut their mouth, when all they did was repeat something they heard. You made your point with stating that the jews are lying and that they own the media. Beyond that, why dont you take an approach that would make people listen to your point of view more. I used to live in Japan and had many Iranian friends. They taught me many things about Iran that I never would have learned while living in the US. But, they were inteligent enough to speak to me in a way that did not make me hate them. Even when it was something that would normally hurt my feelings. Your approach makes people want to take an opposing side because they dont like you, not your views as much as how you present them. I dont know why I wasted any time on this thread. But, I hope you never wonder why you get the responses you do from people. All of us are good at different things. I beleive you know a lot about the world. But you dont seem to know anything about PR. Good luck to you.

**Teabagger** · 09-21-2006, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by tiger909

is that you tbagger?

Yea its me.

Just my small play on sarcasam. As far as Abawhobugwho being smarter than Bush...well it appears he is...as well as smarter than all the other leaders of the world. He has managed to address the UN and convince the world body Iran has no offensive plans against any country there. Iran only supports "just" causes and Israel is the only barrier to a peaceful Mideast.

I'm to the point of not caring much anymore. From my view Iran will continue to support groups whose aim is the destruction of Israel and the terrorization of the US and other Western countries. They will continue to build up conventional arms, and develop or aquire nuke weapons. Then they will become blatantly overtly aggressive and hostile. At that point you all will be saying, "fvck, how did it get this far?" "Where was the UN, the US, etc...while this was going on in plain view for any idiot to see and understand?" But ya know what...at that time the only recourse will be military action, forced on the West by Irans quest for complete domination of the Mideast and leader of the global jihad. Mark my words, at that time the conflict will go nuclear...it will be regional, but it will devastate and shock the world because they never get it till its too late. I find it sad...I really do. The so-called leaders are gutless, selfcentered, egocentric fools, or outright criminals, take your pick, the end result is the same.

**singern** · 09-21-2006, 08:32 AM

The pure hypocrisy, and Irony of this speech was mind numbing.

When the Iranian (Persian) people have freedom, when they have a say in there government and politics, when they can walk the street without fear of being beaten by "morality police". When woman can drive, vote, speak without being punished. When there leaders stop supporting and financing international terror........

Then perhaps the Iranian jackass can complain about lack of justice, dignity, freedom from oppression, and dictator sanctioned tyranny.
In the meantime he is just another brain dead meat puppet, who desperately needs an acid enema

**J.S.N.** · 09-21-2006, 09:18 AM

sense when does the world sympathize with the US?

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by J.S.N.

sense when does the world sympathize with the US?

Reread what I wrote...

**zodiac666** · 09-21-2006, 09:23 AM

if i lived in israel i would do my best to ensure that iran doesnt get nukes by any means necessary. i firmly believe that if iran gets nukes, they will give them to hezbollah or some other terrorist group that wont hesitate to use them on israel.

i think israel will use nuclear power to make sure iran doesnt become a nuclear power.

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by johan

I am not personaly sympathizing with Iran. But I dont think its been proven that they want nuclear weapons and thats why I dont support any military action against them.

If we dont even put a sentance on a criminal before he has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Why should we violate other sovereign countries for less?

Isolationism with lots of weaponry, that's all I want. I'll let you be, but don't f*ck with me or you'll be sorry. "I speak softly, but I carry a big stick"

I agree Johan, let them be, just stay the f away from me.

**humungus88** · 09-21-2006, 09:39 AM

All I can say is that if we invade Iran as Israel has planned for us (just like Iraq) be prepared to start riding a bicycle everywhere, or be prepared for WWIII.

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by humungus88

All I can say is that if we invade Iran as Israel has planned for us (just like Iraq) be prepared to start riding a bicycle everywhere, or be prepared for WWIII.

Why would Israel have us invade Iraq? Iraq was Sunni dominated, while Iran is Shi'ite dominated. Why disrupt two powers keeping themselves in check?

**humungus88** · 09-21-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

Why would Israel have us invade Iraq? Iraq was Sunni dominated, while Iran is Shi'ite dominated. Why disrupt two powers keeping themselves in check?

Iraq was considered a threat to Israel controlling the middle east.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

**humungus88** · 09-21-2006, 10:16 AM

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has launched a robust defence of Iran's nuclear programme.
During a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Chavez warned the world of dire consequences if his ally was attacked by the US.

Mr Chavez has threatened to cut off oil supplies to the US if provoked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5358486.stm

**tiger909** · 09-21-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by zodiac666

if i lived in israel i would do my best to ensure that iran doesnt get nukes by any means necessary. i firmly believe that if iran gets nukes, they will give them to hezbollah or some other terrorist group that wont hesitate to use them on israel.

i think israel will use nuclear power to make sure iran doesnt become a nuclear power.

pakistan is much more unstable than iran, and they have done no such thing.... countries dont want nukes for weapons purposes, theyre too powerful to be any good in war...they want them for respect and bargaining tools....look what they did for pakistan, usa loves them all of a sudden

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-21-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

Then they will become blatantly overtly aggressive and hostile. At that point you all will be saying, "fvck, how did it get this far?" "Where was the UN, the US, etc...while this was going on in plain view for any idiot to see and understand?" But ya know what...at that time the only recourse will be military action, forced on the West by Irans quest for complete domination of the Mideast and leader of the global jihad. Mark my words, at that time the conflict will go nuclear...it will be regional, but it will devastate and shock the world because they never get it till its too late. I find it sad...I really do. The so-called leaders are gutless, selfcentered, egocentric fools, or outright criminals, take your pick, the end result is the same.

Well if it was in plain view for all to se it would be like you say. But if not even the weapons inspectors can find one single evidence of a weapons program it makes it hard to justify anything.

But Id much rather se the west forced into a confrontation by a hostile Iran than the west chrushing a sovereing country on a hunch without proof.
Iran is ****ed up, the leaders is ****ed up, they talk more shit than 15 drunk hillbillies put togheter. But that is not reason enough to waste thousands after thousands of lifes on both sides.

Look at the alternatives here. Bush and his cronies are presenting this as a:

Either we go to war now or there will 100% surely be a nuclear exchange in the future-kind of situation

But in reality it is a:

In the future Iran just might get nuclear weapons but we cant find one single shred of evidence that they are trying to build weapons. We still want to go in and bomb them because they are uggly and muslim-kind of situation

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by johan

Look at the alternatives here. Bush and his cronies are presenting this as a:

Either we go to war now or there will 100% surely be a nuclear exchange in the future-kind of situation

But in reality it is a:

In the future Iran just might get nuclear weapons but we cant find one single shred of evidence that they are trying to build weapons. We still want to go in and bomb them because they are uggly and muslim-kind of situation

This attitude is necessary to protect U.S. Citizens. Osama bin Laden has already promised that nuclear attacks WILL happen in the United States by materials smuggled in through Mexico. We now have Iran potentially building nuclear weapons, OR possibly supplying terrorists with the materials needed to build nuclear weapons while maintaining a shroud of "nuclear power". The U.S. is an open target, Al Qaida and the like are not..the only way to threaten the core of these cells is to threaten the countries that will potentially supply them with what they need to accomplish their threats.

If I had a choice between 100,000 American lives and 10,000 Iranian lives, the choice is clear. With all the intel and threats being put towards my country, you're damn right we're gonna swing our weight around to insure that very few of them actually come to light. If this requires a stiff upper lip on terms set forth by the U.S., so be it.

**Kärnfysikern** · 09-21-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

This attitude is necessary to protect U.S. Citizens. Osama bin Laden has already promised that nuclear attacks WILL happen in the United States by materials smuggled in through Mexico. We now have Iran potentially building nuclear weapons, OR possibly supplying terrorists with the materials needed to build nuclear weapons while maintaining a shroud of "nuclear power". The U.S. is an open target, Al Qaida and the like are not..the only way to threaten the core of these cells is to threaten the countries that will potentially supply them with what they need to accomplish their threats.

If I had a choice between 100,000 American lives and 10,000 Iranian lives, the choice is clear. With all the intel and threats being put towards my country, you're damn right we're gonna swing our weight around to insure that very few of them actually come to light. If this requires a stiff upper lip on terms set forth by the U.S., so be it.

It still doesnt justify invasion just because of a hunch. I mean the same was probably said about pakistan before they went nuclear and they havent yet sold any weapons to any shady organisation.

I dont se any reason to belive Iran would supply any terrorist organisation with nuclear weapons. They know it would be suicide. If Iran gets nuclear weapons and suddenly a terrorist organisation blows up new york they are dead.

I think its more imporant to get india, pakistan and israel to sign the NPT to ensure the future safety of the world.

Looking back now, was it worth it to invade iraq based on a WMD hunch? Will it be worth going into a 10 times worse war over a hunch that is even weaker?

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 12:39 PM

Not INVASION, that I don't agree with. But strong sactions, as well as a guilty until proven innocent attitude is what's necessary. They are f*cking with the big boy in the class and expecting immunity from the rest of the world. The United States, albeit unjustified in many of our foreign actions, is still a MAJOR powerhouse both economically and militarily in the world, and we will not sit idly by and let our country be attacked and not lash out at those that are assisting in terrorism.

**humungus88** · 09-21-2006, 12:47 PM

MAJOR powerhouse both economically

Not anymore, just ask the House of Rothschild. China could wipe out our economy tomorrow if it deemed fit.

and militarily in the world

Not against guerilla warfare, sorry to say (as the death toll in Iraq rises)

**zodiac666** · 09-21-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by tiger909

pakistan is much more unstable than iran, and they have done no such thing.... countries dont want nukes for weapons purposes, theyre too powerful to be any good in war...they want them for respect and bargaining tools....look what they did for pakistan, usa loves them all of a sudden

USA and pakistan are false allies, pakistan could choose to help us alot with afghanistan just by not letting the terrorists use their country as a safehaven. the USA and pakistan hate eachother, we just pretend to be friends for some reason.

iran has already given hezbollah some fairly advanced weapons which they used on israel. if you see how much most of the muslims in that area hate israel, i dont think they would hesitate to nuke them.

are you saying you dont think that alot of these muslim extremests would not use a nuke on israel even if they had access to one?

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by humungus88

Not anymore, just ask the House of Rothschild. China could wipe out our economy tomorrow if it deemed fit.

Where are you getting this info from? The ministry of finance?

The dollar is still the currency to beat, bar none. Our GDP is still one of the highest in the world, not to mention on a per citizen basis we still out match them, and they have over 1 billion people!

Originally Posted by humungus88

Not against guerilla warfare, sorry to say (as the death toll in Iraq rises)

All the guerilla warfare in the world won't protect anyone from Shock and Awe...bring it. Besides, Iraq is not a war, it is an operation. We cannot fire unless fired upon. If this was war, there would be nothing left of Iraq.

**humungus88** · 09-21-2006, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

Where are you getting this info from? The ministry of finance?

The dollar is still the currency to beat, bar none. Our GDP is still one of the highest in the world, not to mention on a per citizen basis we still out match them, and they have over 1 billion people!

All the guerilla warfare in the world won't protect anyone from Shock and Awe...bring it. Besides, Iraq is not a war, it is an operation. We cannot fire unless fired upon. If this was war, there would be nothing left of Iraq.

Last time I checked it was called TWAT: The War Against Terror

**mcpeepants** · 09-21-2006, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

Not INVASION, that I don't agree with. But strong sactions, as well as a guilty until proven innocent attitude is what's necessary. They are f*cking with the big boy in the class and expecting immunity from the rest of the world. The United States, albeit unjustified in many of our foreign actions, is still a MAJOR powerhouse both economically and militarily in the world, and we will not sit idly by and let our country be attacked and not lash out at those that are assisting in terrorism.

Guilty until proven innocent is the type of thinking that got us into Iraq. Strong sanctions would only hurt the people of Iran just like it did to the people of Iraq. The only thing those sanctions were good at was causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children.

**Prada** · 09-21-2006, 08:46 PM

Why would Israel have us invade Iraq? Iraq was Sunni dominated, while Iran is Shi'ite dominated. Why disrupt two powers keeping themselves in check?

YEs Iraq is Shiite dominated somewhere around 60%. They just were not in power due to Saddam. If you could just imagine the power vacuum that was created in Iraq and especially Afghanistan. Iran pre-911 had no allies on it's western border with Saddam and the sunnies nor the eastern border with the Taliban which were Pakistan backed. Now with Saddam and Taliban somewhat gone it left a void for Iran to fill. Iran could not be happier, the dirty work was all done by the US for them. Throw India into the equation, they are interested in having a weaker but not totally destabalized Pakistan. Weaker by Pakistan having diminished influence in Afghanistan and regional influence but not destabilized that the mullahs come in power. Russia has it's interest, Tajikistan, Turkemenistan, Kazachistan on top of the powerhouses, Iran and Pakistan. So everyone has a stake in this

Originally Posted by zodiac666

USA and pakistan are false allies, pakistan could choose to help us alot with afghanistan just by not letting the terrorists use their country as a safehaven. the USA and pakistan hate eachother, we just pretend to be friends for some reason.

iran has already given hezbollah some fairly advanced weapons which they used on israel. if you see how much most of the muslims in that area hate israel, i dont think they would hesitate to nuke them.

are you saying you dont think that alot of these muslim extremests would not use a nuke on israel even if they had access to one?

US and Pakistan do not hate each other. The citizens do, just like almost all of the rest of the world. Musharraf is in a precarious situation. So see that, Musharraf had 3 attempts to his life for his "pro" US stance. If Musharraf is to friendly with the US he will end up getting killed, literally or politically. If Musharraf is killed a Mullah will attain power and Pakistan will go from quasi-friendly state to hostile nation. Hence it's a delicate situation. There is also more collaboration then meets the eye. Pakistan govt on the facade has an anti US stance to appease it's domestic audience but reality is there is much collaboration(Im almost certain) up to a certain limit, using covert and stealth operations.

**zodiac666** · 09-21-2006, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Prada

There is also more collaboration then meets the eye. Pakistan govt on the facade has an anti US stance to appease it's domestic audience but reality is there is much collaboration(Im almost certain) up to a certain limit, using covert and stealth operations.

im sure there is some collaboration, but there needs to be a lot more. the biggest problem in afthanistan is still the fact that the terrorists can hide in pakistan without worry, come over and set up some ied's and go right back to pakistan.

you are right though, it is a very tough situation because if the leader of pakistan shows too much support for us he will probably be killed.

when i was startioned near the afghani/paki border we fired quite a few heavy artillary rounds into pakistan. our radar can pinpoint the POO (Point of Orgin) of emeny rockets very accurately and of course we fire back no matter what. it doesnt matter if the rockets are fired from another country or in a village we will launch 10x the firepower right back at them. this may not seem right to some but if a village is letting the terrorists shoot rockets at our base and try to kill us, they are also somewhat guilty. also mabye it will help cut down people supporting the terrorists.

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

Guilty until proven innocent is the type of thinking that got us into Iraq. Strong sanctions would only hurt the people of Iran just like it did to the people of Iraq. The only thing those sanctions were good at was causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children.

What's your vote then?

**Phreak101** · 09-21-2006, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by humungus88

Last time I checked it was called TWAT: The War Against Terror

C'mon read between the lines of that catchy rheotrical play on words...the "War on Terror" is a way for the Bush administration to administer military authority with out actually "declaring" a war. It keeps people's minds off the fact that we have soldiers deployed everywhere in the middle east accomplishing squat.

We are still a powerhouse

**mcpeepants** · 09-21-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

What's your vote then?

Without propaganda and overhyping we would have a Iranian nuclear "crisis." My solution, the US and Iranian need to sitdown and have unconditional talks to set aside their grievances and eventually bring back diplomatic relations.

**IronFreakX** · 09-22-2006, 02:08 AM

Iran supports/funds hamas, a terrorist group, but I guess thats fine

**Teabagger** · 09-22-2006, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by IronFreakX

Iran supports/funds hamas, a terrorist group, but I guess thats fine

They are freedom fighters...fighting to free their people from the 21st century and return them to the good ole days of 900 A.D. where a man was a true woman beating man. When a man ruled his castle, or tent, in the instance, with and iron fist...and sword. Where you could hack someone to death for the slightest perceived slight. Where horses were more valuable than your women. Where if you were running a little tight on your budget you could sell off a daughter or two to make a few $$.

These groups only want to return their people to the days of enlightenment and out of the darkness and dispair of the 21st centruy.

**tiger909** · 09-22-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

They are freedom fighters...fighting to free their people from the 21st century and return them to the good ole days of 900 A.D. where a man was a true woman beating man. When a man ruled his castle, or tent, in the instance, with and iron fist...and sword. Where you could hack someone to death for the slightest perceived slight. Where horses were more valuable than your women. Where if you were running a little tight on your budget you could sell off a daughter or two to make a few $$.

These groups only want to return their people to the days of enlightenment and out of the darkness and dispair of the 21st centruy.

i have to disagree w/ u there on that one...lebanese women are treated very well by men in lebanon

**zOaib** · 09-22-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

They are freedom fighters...fighting to free their people from the 21st century and return them to the good ole days of 900 A.D. where a man was a true woman beating man. When a man ruled his castle, or tent, in the instance, with and iron fist...and sword. Where you could hack someone to death for the slightest perceived slight. Where horses were more valuable than your women. Where if you were running a little tight on your budget you could sell off a daughter or two to make a few $$.

These groups only want to return their people to the days of enlightenment and out of the darkness and dispair of the 21st centruy.

or probably to the era where muslim rule flourished with education and technology without capitalism and usuary as business incentives , and giving power to the people and not the governments, i think your history book is missing a few pages here n there .

u go back to the tent era , Where actually they were lifted out off .

**Phreak101** · 09-22-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by zOaib

or probably to the era where muslim rule flourished with education and technology without capitalism and usuary as business incentives , and giving power to the people and not the governments, i think your history book is missing a few pages here n there .

u go back to the tent era , Where actually they were lifted out off .

They were lifted out of it by the Greeks, who were a capitalistic republic/monarchy (depending on the time period). Specifically the Macedonians if I'm not mistaken.

**Logan13** · 09-22-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by mcpeepants

Without propaganda and overhyping we would have a Iranian nuclear "crisis." My solution, the US and Iranian need to sitdown and have unconditional talks to set aside their grievances and eventually bring back diplomatic relations.

the Iranian leadership believes that all non-muslims should be wiped off of the Earth. Starting with the Israelis' and on to the US. Why in bloody hell would you want to sit down with anyone that has said such things, especially publicly? That's makes no sense. You are probably for sitting down and talking to and only giving "therapy" to child rapists' instead of prison time as well aren't you?!