If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   President Mahmoud Ahmacrazyguy of Iran writes letter to Bush. "Do you like me? Check yes or no"   (bloomberg.com) divider line 426
    More: News  
•       •       •

17736 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2006 at 9:18 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



426 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-05-08 09:43:29 AM  
His return address:

His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Ahmadinejad, , DDO, DDS, ESQ, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the Last Slice of Bacon at Breakfast at Iran's IHOP in Particular/care of Osama Bin Laden
Lower Level 45, Cave 494943 just kidding, or am I - A
Pakistan
 
2006-05-08 09:43:44 AM  
Persepolis

Aww, come on. He was just misunderstood. Can a guy who likes cheetos really be evil? Ok, he did some bad things, but as a leader you sometimes have to make tough decisions.

Besides, with you being Iranian, you a have bit of the conflict of interest thing going on there.
 
2006-05-08 09:43:46 AM  
albo
a country that wants israel wiped off the map

A lot of countries say they want Israel wiped off the map right now, because Israel is presently engaged in quite a bit of jackassery towards Palestinians. This should be neither terribly surprising nor terribly worrisome -- the likelyhood of Iran attacking Israel, particularly with nukes, is about zero.

and considers us its enemy wants nukes and you say, "so what?"


i repeat, they are our enemy.


This means...what, again, in a practical sense? They aren't going to send us Christmas cards?

Iran has had WMDs, in the form of chemical and biological weaponry, for decades. They haven't used them, not against Israel, not against the US, not against anyone.

and they want nukes. doesn't this bother you?

The existence of nukes bothers me, yes. I would prefer, frankly, for no one to have them. But that's fantasy-land, and trying to bring it to reality in such a biased way is likely to do nothing but make the situation worse back here in reality.

Specifically, what consequences do you fear from a nuclear Iran? I'm curious.
 
2006-05-08 09:44:25 AM  
a country that wants israel wiped off the map

So what? Lot's of crazy guys in the MidEast say that.
 
2006-05-08 09:44:47 AM  
germaniac: And then there's North Korea...
 
2006-05-08 09:45:21 AM  
I_C_Weener: I think the letter is going to read like his speeches.

If it reads like that I'm sure we will all read it word for word in the press, however if they are genuinely trying to defuse the situation I doubt we will hear anything, that doesn't really help the image have bought into.
 
2006-05-08 09:45:34 AM  
albo

You know what happens to people with your pathology? When you don't have an enemy, you seek an enemy. You have a need.

Oddly, this show analysed middle eastern terrorist cells. They would fight each other, killing each other because of religious disagreements, basically who was on the true path. When they ran out of enemies, they would create enemies inside their own groups and kill each other.

They need an enemy to exist. So they find 'enemies' everywhere. How does that make you feel, being akin to them in that way?
 
2006-05-08 09:45:34 AM  
How many Farkers want to wipe Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Canada off of the map?
 
2006-05-08 09:45:59 AM  
Defiance_

Bush can read?

/Flamewars wake me up faster than coffee in the morning



Amen, and God-bless Amerika.
 
2006-05-08 09:46:10 AM  
mindbuzz: Holy shiat, you went from troll to awesome in record speed.
 
2006-05-08 09:46:12 AM  
germaniac

Did anyone ever stop to think if Saddam was actually the good guy?

Did anyone ever stop to think if there were no policians/world leaders at all that were actually the good guy?
 
2006-05-08 09:46:14 AM  
germaniac: Besides, with you being Iranian, you a have bit of the conflict of interest thing going on there.

Yeah, the whole "making me look like an ass abroad" in conjuntion with "putting my family in the line of fire" has left me with a grudge against Ahmadenejad.

I need to count to 10 before I post in these threads.
 
2006-05-08 09:47:24 AM  
Pakistan sponsors some of the bloodiest terrorism in the world against India. Having nukes allows Pakistan to feel secure knowing India won't be able to retaliate against that state sponsored terrorism.

Iran wants to join that get-out-of-terrorism-free club. The Iranian leaders understand that once it gets nukes it will be able to up the current level of terrorist activity it sponors all while remaining untouchable.
 
2006-05-08 09:47:33 AM  
Oh wait.. it occured to me you might have been talking about saddam. Which is a complete conflict of interest.

Still, I think he's an asshat of the first order, and if you do any reading, I'm sure you'd come to that conclusion as well.
 
2006-05-08 09:48:05 AM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: So what? Lot's of crazy guys in the MidEast say that.

Are those crazy guys heads of soon-to-be nuclear powers who actively support terrorism in Israel ?
 
2006-05-08 09:48:43 AM  
img305.imageshack.us
 
2006-05-08 09:49:43 AM  
beoswulf: You think things would be more peaceful if only India had the bomb?
 
2006-05-08 09:49:45 AM  
albo [TotalFark]
a country that wants israel wiped off the map

You are aware that this isn't what the dude actually said, right? It's a (deliberately?) misleading mistranslation.

From juancole.com:
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html


Wednesday, May 03, 2006

[...] I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.

But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. In fact, the phrase is metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian
poem. It is not about tanks.

[...]

He made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.

I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies. Nor do I agree that the Israelis have no legitimate claim on any part of Jerusalem. And, I am not exactly a pacifist but have a strong preference for peaceful social activism
over violence, so needless to say I condemn the sort of terror attacks against innocent civilians (including Arab Israelis) that we saw last week. I have not seen any credible evidence, however, that such attacks are the doing of Ahmadinejad, and in my view they are mainly the result of the expropriation and displacement of the long-suffering Palestinian people.

It is not realistic for Americans to call for Iran to talk directly to the Israeli government (though in the 1980s the Khomeinists did a lot of business with Israel) when the US government won't talk directly to the Iranians about most bilateral issues. In fact, an American willingness to engage in direct talks might well pave the way to an eventual settlement of these outstanding issues.

[...]

But, by the way, Khomeini sold oil to Israel, and Israel sold him weapons and spare parts, and put the Reagan administration up to doing the same thing. You will note that when Khomeini originally made the statement about the occupation regime over Jerusalem vanishing from the page of time, that was not front page news. In fact, secret Israeli arms shipments were arriving in Tehran as Khomeini was speaking. So whatever is going on now is not about the
rhetoric, is it?

Here is what the National Security Archive says about Khomeini and Israel:

' Even during the hostage crisis in Tehran, Israel-later the United States' partner through much of the Iran initiative-began to strike weapons deals of its own with Iran. Tel Aviv, like Washington, had a long history of selling arms to the Shah, which Tehran's revolutionary government was willing to exploit secretly, despite
its public animosity toward the state of Israel. Reportedly, the United States knew about Israeli transactions during the early 1980s but turned a blind eye. News accounts alleged later that President Reagan's first secretary of state, Alexander Haig, gave Tel Aviv an "amber light," acquiescing in the weapons transfers without officially approving them. One report stated that Haig gave permission to Israel to sell U.S.-made military spare parts for fighter planes to Iran in early 1981 after discussions between his
counselor at the State Department, Robert McFarlane, and Israeli Foreign Ministry official David Kimche. An Israeli account of the U.S.-backed weapons sales of 1985-1986 reports that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon proposed as early as 1982 that Washington consider an opening to factions in Iran using limited military sales as a vehicle. The White House apparently declined the suggestion but four years later would be more receptive to a similar proposal brought to McFarlane, then national security advisor, by his long-time counterpart, Kimche. '

Note that not only were the Israelis dealing with Khomeini, they are alleged to have been doing so while he was holding American hostages.

[...]

As for the matter at issue, Ahmadinejad is a non-entity. The
Iranian "president" is mostly powerless. The commander of the armed forces is the Supreme Jurisprudent, Ali Khamenei. Worrying about Ahmadinejad's antics is like worrying that the US military will act on the orders of the secretary of the interior. Ahmadinejad cannot declare war on anyone, or mobilize a military. So it doesn't matter
what speeches he gives.
 
2006-05-08 09:50:25 AM  
TappingTheVein
Are those crazy guys heads of soon-to-be nuclear powers who actively support terrorism in Israel ?

Quite a few of them are, yes.
 
2006-05-08 09:50:28 AM  
A lot of countries say they want Israel wiped off the map right now, because Israel is presently engaged in quite a bit of jackassery towards Palestinians.

yeah, they're suicide bombing those palestinians weddings and pizza parlors. they suck

This should be neither terribly surprising nor terribly worrisome

you don't think an all-out war between israel and either iran or the arabs would be, um, let's see, a bad thing?

-- the likelyhood of Iran attacking Israel, particularly with nukes, is about zero.

and you know this from....personal knowledge? your crystal ball? the totally sane pronouncements of their president?

You know what happens to people with your pathology? When you don't have an enemy, you seek an enemy. You have a need.

nonsense. iran took over our embassey. they support terrorists. they talk beligerently toward the US and the west. they seek nukes to be a regional power in an area the US and the west have vital interests. they, themselves, chose to be our enemy
 
2006-05-08 09:50:45 AM  
mrexcess:

And then there's North Korea...

Yeah, but they really only want to mind their own business. As long as Kim can get the latest Hollywood movies, he's cool. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is more of the type of guy that flips out and kills people for no reason.
 
2006-05-08 09:51:33 AM  
Maybe he just wanted to know if we had any more weapons for sale.
 
2006-05-08 09:52:11 AM  
germaniac
Yeah, but they really only want to mind their own business. As long as Kim can get the latest Hollywood movies, he's cool. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is more of the type of guy that flips out and kills people for no reason.

Nahhh, I don't think either one is crazy. One is a persian brinksman, the other is a puppet that has China's hand firmly up its bad-cop ass.
 
2006-05-08 09:52:21 AM  
Where's his MySpace page?
 
2006-05-08 09:52:35 AM  
mrexcess: because Israel is presently engaged in quite a bit of jackassery towards Palestinians

Those countries don't give a flying fark about their pawns, i mean palestinians. Do you know how they treat them in their own countries ?

the likelyhood of Iran attacking Israel, particularly with nukes, is about zero

I agree. Too bad that Iran is also quite good at terrorism by proxy. Who knows, a bomb can accidentally find it's way to the hands of Islamic Jihad members, who are not known by their rationality.

Maybe to you it's a risk worth taking, Not to Israel.
 
2006-05-08 09:53:22 AM  
Bush will do with his letter what Truman did with Ho Chi Minh's letters. Pass them on to Detective Trashcan.
 
2006-05-08 09:53:53 AM  
...according to the state-run Fars News agency

It's not news, it's Fars.ir.
 
2006-05-08 09:53:54 AM  
albo
they are our enemy. and they want nukes. doesn't this bother you?

Not unduly. All countries who have nuclear weapons are treated with a modicum of respect by the U.S. (even Iran's fellow member of the Axis o' Evilness, N. Korea). Iran sees this situation, and that's probably motive enough for them to continue to pursue a nuke (assuming they are doing that, and I would be surprised if they weren't).



Not to mention, Iran's Prez standing up to Dubya plays just as well in Tehran as the reverse does in Dallas. It's a great political wedge issue for a group (prez and mullahs) who need all the help they can get to hold on to power in an increasingly youthful, relatively liberal and western leaning society.



Bush is playing right into their hands.
 
2006-05-08 09:54:03 AM  
albo: they seek nukes to be a regional power in an area the US and the west have vital interests.

No, they are maniacs they seek nukes to immediately fire at Israel and ship them in containers to the US, you aren't going to drum up support for another ill fated foray into the middle east with that kind of benign talking point.
 
2006-05-08 09:54:10 AM  
"Specifically, what consequences do you fear from a nuclear Iran? I'm curious."



Are you farkin serious?!?!?!
 
2006-05-08 09:54:12 AM  
Headso

If it reads like that I'm sure we will all read it word for word in the press, however if they are genuinely trying to defuse the situation I doubt we will hear anything, that doesn't really help the image have bought into.

Personally, I can't trust anyone who uses snail mail. So, I think Iran's fate is sealed. If they were really smart, it would be an open letter sent via email to all websites of importance, and txt messaged to each teenagers phone. And maybe put up on the Times Square newscrawler.
 
2006-05-08 09:54:15 AM  
Robobagpip


get out more
 
2006-05-08 09:54:52 AM  
mrexcess: Quite a few of them are, yes.

Name them. And not some muslim Imams because they are dime a dozen. I'm talking about country leaders.
 
2006-05-08 09:55:25 AM  
Vin Diesel, that is the saddest and most disgusting thing i have ever read. what we humans can do to others, it's depressing
 
2006-05-08 09:55:56 AM  
Vin Diesel

mrexcess: Fark's not feeling very diplomatic today.

I wonder why


The answer is obviously to invade another country. That way something like this will NEVER happen again.
 
2006-05-08 09:56:21 AM  
albo
yeah, they're suicide bombing those palestinians weddings and pizza parlors. they suck

They don't need suicide bombs, they have F16s and tanks...but the practical effect is the same -- the civilian population is made to suffer and die. Did you know more Palestinian civilians have been killed in this intifada than Israelis? Know anything about the tank massacre (30+ dead, 70+ wounded) at a peaceful palestinian protest, which the IDF claimed wasn't peaceful until international journalists came out as having been there and witnessed what went on? Been keeping up on the latest collective punishments of Palestinian civilians, like Israel's running sonic booms at treetop level 24/7?

They do suck.

you don't think an all-out war between israel and either iran or the arabs would be, um, let's see, a bad thing?

I do, and I think that Iranian nuclear weapons would decrease the likelyhood of such a war, through well-established MAD principles.

and you know this from....personal knowledge? your crystal ball? the totally sane pronouncements of their president?

The fact that such an attack would have the result of entirely destroying Iran.
 
2006-05-08 09:56:43 AM  
...hrmm. The thread concerns the Middle East.

I hereby summon, in the name of flamewars, Tatsuma!
 
2006-05-08 09:56:50 AM  
img291.imageshack.us
We are in the midst of WWIII and we are only at "Yellow?"
 
2006-05-08 09:57:32 AM  
mrexcess

"You think things would be more peaceful if only India had the bomb?"

India only had the bomb for years. What's your point?

Pakistan's terrorism by proxy against India increased since Pakistan went nuclear.
 
2006-05-08 09:57:46 AM  
"Maybe to you it's a risk worth taking, Not to Israel."

Which is probably why a lot of Americans don't give one ounce of fark.
 
2006-05-08 09:57:53 AM  
Vin Diesel
I wonder why

Do me a favor, go dig up some footage of Chinese executions. They already have the bomb.
 
2006-05-08 09:58:15 AM  
albo: and you know this from....personal knowledge? your crystal ball? the totally sane pronouncements of their president?

Look, if Iran really didn't give a shiat, and just wanted to get Israel, they could do a pretty darn good airstrike already...

A nuke wouldn't really change the fact that they'd get wiped off the map in retaliation...

Notice it's never the top guys who do the suicide bombing? However crazy the president may be, the mullah's don't want to lose power, and we're constantly reminded that they're ultimately in charge, right?
 
2006-05-08 09:58:56 AM  
beoswulf
Pakistan's terrorism by proxy against India increased since Pakistan went nuclear.

Right, you'll see the fighting become a lot more covert once nukes enter the arena. It's to be expected, but it isn't a sign that nukes decrease the peace, overall.
 
2006-05-08 09:59:08 AM  
but the practical effect is the same -- the civilian population is made to suffer and die.

and the palestinians have the power to prevent any more civilians from dying by stopping the intifada and stopping the suicide bombings and seeking peace.

but they don't. so don't blame the israelis for defending themselves from murdering scum who made the choice to seek out this war
 
2006-05-08 10:00:03 AM  
mrexcess: Do me a favor, go dig up some footage of Chinese executions. They already have the bomb.

Ah, but there's a difference there. The Chinese are our 'friends' and they're a 'civilized' nation--not like those heathen moslem bastards!

/Yeah. The world's done-gone mad.
 
2006-05-08 10:00:54 AM  
HotWingConspiracy: Which is probably why a lot of Americans don't give one ounce of fark.

Um, Good for them.
 
2006-05-08 10:02:16 AM  
TappingTheVein
Those countries don't give a flying fark about their pawns, i mean palestinians. Do you know how they treat them in their own countries?

That's not an argument, that's "two wrongs make a right".

I agree. Too bad that Iran is also quite good at terrorism by proxy. Who knows, a bomb can accidentally find it's way to the hands of Islamic Jihad members, who are not known by their rationality.

I doubt very much that Iran would risk putting nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists...surely they're as aware as anyone that the sword cuts both ways.

Maybe to you it's a risk worth taking, Not to Israel.

I'm not debating Israeli foreign policy, I'm debating US foreign policy. If Israel wants to continue her overtly aggressive streak, I will not be surprised, but neither do I want a piece of the consequences she will be due.
 
2006-05-08 10:02:25 AM  
albo

Theres two sides to every war. The agressor and the innocents. (in my mind)

Both the Israelis and the Palistinians have these people on their team. Not every Palistinian is responsible for a suicide boming, harming Israeli innocents, and not every Israeli is responsible for the retaliations, harming Palistinian innocents.

The sad thing is, its the innocents being killed that keeps this war going. I don't beleive any side is soley responsible for the continuation of war. But in order to end it, they both need to be responsible.

I don't know if that made any sence, I didn't sleep last night.
 
2006-05-08 10:02:37 AM  
mrexcess: go dig up some footage of Chinese executions.

How much worse can the Chinese do than this?

He proceeds to cut her throat from the middle, slicing from side to side.

Her cries - "Ah, ah, ah" - can be heard above the "Allahu akbar" (God is greatest) intoned by the holder of the mobile phone.

Even then, there is no quick release for Bahjat. Her executioner suddenly stands up, his job only half done. A second man in a dark T-shirt and camouflage trousers places his right khaki boot on her abdomen and pushes down hard eight times, forcing a rush of blood from her wounds as she moves her head from right to left.
 
2006-05-08 10:03:02 AM  
TappingTheVein: I agree. Too bad that Iran is also quite good at terrorism by proxy. Who knows, a bomb can accidentally find it's way to the hands of Islamic Jihad members, who are not known by their rationality.

You do know that the country where Osama bin Laden is most likely hiding, which can't control a good portion of its own territory, and is full of islamic militants already has the bomb, right? And they're a US ally?
 
Displayed 50 of 426 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report