tophat Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Potential Threats To Israel: Iran by Mitchell Bard If someone needs some time to think here is a good source to bookmark https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...srael/Iran.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hassi Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) Bard is hardly an objective source. Here's a better source of info on Iran's nuclear issues from the November 2005 issue of Le Monde Diplomatique (Google cache version requires no subscription): Iran needs nuclear energynot weapons http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Wv7d_....com/2005/11/02 Potential Threats To Israel: Iran by Mitchell Bard If someone needs some time to think here is a good source to bookmark https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...srael/Iran.html Edited December 8, 2005 by hassi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 (edited) Hassi, Bard listed many sources, including Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and a host of other publications. Some of these same publications were used as sources in the article you linked to. You claimed that Bard was not an objective source, could you elaborate on this? I assume your problem is with the writer and not his sources. A person can both take the side of an issue and be objective. I think what you meant to say was that Bard is biased. Am I correct? Do you think Bard's conclusions are a result of dishonesty? If you think Bard is being dishonest, please present some supporting evidence. Personally, the conclusions I draw from the facts lead me to support a line of thought closer to Bard's and further away from Le Monde Diplomatique's Safdari. The conclusion Safdari draws is that the US is harming its own interests by obstructing Iran's peaceful nuclear program. He claims that Ahmadinejad is not a "hard liner." I disagree on both points. Ahmadinejad is as belligerent as Kim Jong Il, and it is in America's interest that Iran remain incapable of producing nuclear weapons. If that means they can't have nuclear power, fine by me. Iran needs to recognize individual rights and Israel's legitimacy. Edited December 8, 2005 by FeatherFall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hassi Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 Mitchell Bard admits to being a pro-Israeli propagandist, and you're quite free to look up and read his other books which more than thoroughly display his bias. I don't think merely citing AP, NYT or such source is itself an indication of accuracy: just read what the same sources had to say about "WMDs in Iraq". In any case, Safdari cites nuclear industry trade journals, which are certainly no less objective. Safdari did not say that Iranian president Ahmadinejad is "not a hardliner" -- Safdari said that despite being a hardliner, Ahmadinejad made a perfectly reasonable offer of compromise on the nuclear issue which matched what an IAEA committee had suggested too, but the offer was dismissed off-hand by the US/EU, and this suggests that the EU/US are not interested in resolving the nuclear standoff as much as they are interested in depriving Iran of its rights. Safdari also said that the US will ultimately harm its own interests in Iran by insisting on this route, because the US will alienate the people of Iran -- who support their country's right regardless of what they may think of their government. I don't know why Iran *has* to recognize Israel if that amounts to recognizing the "right" of Zionists to kill Palestinians and drive them from their lands, which according to even Israeli historians such as Benny Morris, is exactly what happened (and is now happening). Iran didn't recognize Apartheid-era South Africa either. As for "individual rights" -- funny, the US wasn't so concerned about that when the Shah was in power . . . Hassi, Bard listed many sources, including Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and a host of other publications. Some of these same publications were used as sources in the article you linked to. You claimed that Bard was not an objective source, could you elaborate on this? I assume your problem is with the writer and not his sources. A person can both take the side of an issue and be objective. I think what you meant to say was that Bard is biased. Am I correct? Do you think Bard's conclusions are a result of dishonesty? If you think Bard is being dishonest, please present some supporting evidence. Personally, the conclusions I draw from the facts lead me to support a line of thought closer to Bard's and further away from Le Monde Diplomatique's Safdari. The conclusion Safdari draws is that the US is harming its own interests by obstructing Iran's peaceful nuclear program. He claims that Ahmadinejad is not a "hard liner." I disagree on both points. Ahmadinejad is as belligerent as Kim Jong Il, and it is in America's interest that Iran remain incapable of producing nuclear weapons. If that means they can't have nuclear power, fine by me. Iran needs to recognize individual rights and Israel's legitimacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 [...] they are interested in depriving Iran of its rights. Why do you think an Islamo-fascist state has rights? Perhaps if you defined "rights," your position would be clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 In the 4th paragraph under The real Bush target, Safdari indicated that the media denounced Ahmadinejad as a hardliner. By the tone of his article and the use of the qualifier "but," Safdari paints Ahmadinejad as a moderate. While he may sincerely believe that Ahmadinejad is a moderate and that Iran's intentions are peaceful, I disagree. I don't care if Bard is a propagandist. People are free to ignore his judgments and make their own based on the facts he presented as well as their own knowledge of the history of the region. Did he lie or misrepresent the truth? If you think he quoted a source that was inaccurate, please present evidence. Also, please offer your definition of "Zionism." I sense that you were using the term to denote some clandestine Jewish conspiracy. Though truthfully, Zionism was a movement to establish a sovereign Jewish state. It succeeded in its goal decades ago, and thus the term is obsolete. It is now the responsibility of the Israeli government to protect its citizens. That means, among other things, killing Palestinian terrorists. Please, place the blame for Palestinian civilian casualties where it belongs; at the feet of Israel's aggressors. Iran can claim no sovereignty. Sovereignty can only be claimed by states that protect the individual rights of their citizens -- states like the US and Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volpex Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Iran can claim no sovereignty. Sovereignty can only be claimed by states that protect the individual rights of their citizens -- states like the US and Israel. Now that's what I like to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.