instead, they present him with an opportunity to lie and backpedal, which he promptly does.

Which might be forgiven if he didn't make that same lie over and over again. There are videos of at least 3 different occasions on which Galloway repeatedly insists that he has condemned Saddam since the 80's, that he was ahead of everyone else. He insists that he has always been of that opinion, ignoring that this video provides direct evidence that is a lie. But some people might say, however implausible, that a story can be concocted that would explain this video. We are then faced with Galloway's repeated defense of Ahmadinejad anytime anyone on air with him dares suggest that Ahmadinejad has publicly expressed a desire to remove Israel from the map. Galloway becomes indignant and raves about how no reputable scholar in the world backs such an outrageous notion. And yet, if you take five minutes with google video, you can find several public speeches presented by Ahmadinejad rallying crowds to cheers of "Death to Israel". Galloway can not be ignorant of this, he is a willful liar, apologist and propagandist, and his record is unmistakable.

However, Iran having nuclear weapons does not equal them actually using them.


So your content then to count on their leadership's sense of self preservation to prevent them from using them. Forgive my if I still have my doubts what might be done by a leader who denies the holocaust, publicly calls for 'Death to Israel', and provides funds, training and weapons to Hezbollah.


Condemning Israel in my book is a good thing, their behavior towards Palestinians is horrible


Indeed it is, but I beg you to remember the context. Israel's invasions into Palestinian territory are continually in self defense against rocket attacks from groups supported by Syria and Iran. Most Palestinian deaths are from lack of aid, but Egypt has an even more complete blockade in place than Israel. The question that must eventually come up is why does all the blame get lain on Israel alone? Looking at the spokesmen here is revealing.

Galloway is adamant that Ahmadinejad should not be accused of calling for Israel to be wiped from the map, and yet there are multiple videos of Ahmadinejad calling for 'Death to Israel'. Galloway also claims he has condemned Saddam Hussein since the 80's, and yet there is a video from '94 were he commends Saddam in person for his courage. Be very careful listening to the words of someone like George Galloway who is a proven liar and supporter of truly horrific dictators. It would be extremely ill advised to take any information about the middle east from Galloway as anything but propaganda and outright bold faced lies.

I am very uncomfortable with Obama's attitude toward Iran. However, I have to say that I think he's more likely to avoid war with Iran than McCain is. Mccain, if elected would try to open any talks with Ahmadinejad (or whoever the Iranian president at the time might be.).

This is not going to be an effective way to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons research. Ahmadinejad is NOT in charge of the nuclear program. That is under the direct oversight of one of Ahmadinejad's political opponents, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The President of Iran has no jurisdiction over that area.

It has been proposed that one of the reasons the Clinton administration had so little luck in preventing Iranian nuclear research was that they approached the President rather than the Supreme Leader. As Vladimir Putin's talks with the Ayatollah show, the only way to get anything done with regard to Iranian nuclear research is to deal with Khamenei directly.

While Obama has never directly stated that he would talk with Khamenei instead of Ahmadinejad, it can be implied from his public statements on the matter. Obama has explicitly avoided saying that his talks would be with Ahmadinejad, and has reminded the press that "President Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran." The only reasonable interpretation of Obama's words is that he wants to talk with the Leader of Iran.

In contrast, McCain's response sent the impression that he's completely unaware of the Supreme Leader and the broad constitutional powers granted to the holder of that office. If McCain is elected, any talks with Iran would follow policies that have been proven ineffective.

Giggles for Galloway calling someone else a liar. Go look at actual video of Ahmadinejad talking about Israel. Maybe he hasn't verbatim called for Israel to be wiped from the map, but he has verbatim rallied crowds in chanting "Death to Israel". Galloway is a sickening apologist for the worst regimes in the world. Am I being too harsh on him? Watch this and tell me what you think?

Oh, and the clips from Galloway in this video are edited in from his radio program while responding to callers. It does not appear that he was ever actually referencing anything Obama has said. In fact I'm quite certain that the Galloway clips edited into this one all pre-date Obama's speech.

Still, I'm up voting as I really think Galloway and his supporters need to be dragged out into the light of day for who they really are.

>> ^moonsammy:
Oh my god... she really did say nucular. NO MORE OF THAT. It isn't a hard word. I can understand mispronouncing February (seriously, who enunciates that first r?) but nuclear is an easy word.

McCain's assistants probably focused on her pronunciation of "Ahmadinejad" and it never occured to them that she might pull a Homer Simpson on Gibson. By the way, didn't McCain's puppet-masters finally acknowledge in May of this year that Khamenei and his groupies were in charge in Iran and not Ahmadinejad? Maybe her instructor didn't get the memo.

And i enunciate the first "r" in February. I think it's quite common if English is your second or third language.

Well, you do have a tiara. ELITIST! I'll bet your middle name is Ahmadinejad.

>> ^Issykitty:
So blankfist, you think I'M a terrorist???

You don't see what Israel's constant calling for the USA to attack Iran has to do with anti-Israeli sentiment in Iran?


So you are saying that Ahmadinejad's calls for "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" are, at least somewhat, justified. At least we know were you stand then.


Israel attacked all of Lebanon and committed war crimes.

They decimated Jenin, too, and murdered hundreds.


Most people accusing Israel of war crimes in Lebanon and Palestine cite sources like Amnesty International. I even agree with that. My issue though is that you would choose to paint such an unbalanced picture. Amnesty International also condemns Hezbollah and Hamas on far more counts of war crimes.

If you really care to pay any attention to history you'll notice that Israel's aggressive foreign policy didn't appear out of a vacuum of non-aggression. Has Israel ever, in it's entire existence, had peace treaties with all of it's neighbors?

I'm all for condemning Israel when it over reacts to rockets hitting their cities. I'm just not keen to ignore the fact that rockets are landing in their cities. Neither will I accept the notion that EITHER such acts are justifiable. But go ahead and ignore all that and one up it even by justifying speeches rallying crowds to chant "Death to Israel". Just don't pretend to be doing it in the name of peace.

[EDIT:grammar]

^bcglorf:
>>Are you in some sick, twisted manner justifying such talk?


You don't see what Israel's constant calling for the USA to attack Iran has to do with anti-Israeli sentiment in Iran?

What a surprise.

Israel attacked all of Lebanon and committed war crimes.

They decimated Jenin, too, and murdered hundreds.

Israel has been much more aggressive than Iran has been, and the threat that Iran poses to either Israel or the USA is totally blown out of proportion precisely because Israel and the USA want war - they want to paint Iran as the bad guy, even though Israel and the USA are, in fact, the aggressors.

Some of the things that Ahmadinejad has said have been taken out of context.
Perhaps we should first and foremost actually get the whole context of the speech? Sounds good, eh? Also translations can very slightly creating many different meanings if only reading the end product. Maybe we should investigate that also?

Anyway, here is an article for your browsing:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm


BTW, I agree that Iran might actually be dangerous, but I would like to not see people played for dupes again.

>> ^rougy:
Yeah - it has nothing to do with Israel and America threatening to bomb the shit out of Tehran for the past twenty years.
I don't recall Iran attacking any of its neighbors in recent memory, but I do recall Israel bombing the shit out of Lebanon, not to mention how it invades the airspace of its neighbors constantly to provoke a reaction.


Yes, let's bring up Israel going into Lebanon to chase out the Hezbollah fighters that Iran and Syria provided arms, funds and recruits to. Sorry, but Hezbollah is a direct example of Ahmadinejad making good on his calls for the destruction of Israel.

As for your other complaints about Israel, I won't even bother dignifying your points by refuting them. I'd instead ask what on earth that has to do with Ahmadinejad's statements from the clip rallying his people with cries for 'Death to Israel'? Are you in some sick, twisted manner justifying such talk?

I'm the one who's mislead?

Holocaust denial, 2005 "In a 14 December speech in the city of Zahedan in southeastern Sistan va Baluchistan Province, Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust took place in Europe and Europeans feel so guilty about it, then that is where Israel should be located, state television reported. "They have created a myth today and they call it the massacre of the Jews [the Holocaust],"
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to is Isreal, 2005 "This week, Hamas head Khalid Mish'al visited Tehran. Designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, Hamas advocates the destruction of Israel. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," ... Mish'al told Ahmadinejad on 12 December that Hamas appreciates Iran's stance against Israel generally and the president's "insistence on the illegitimate nature of Israel,""
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to Isreal, 2005 and 2001 "Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world. He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel. ... Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

Threat to Isreal, June 2nd 2008, Ahmadinejad "The Zionist regime has lost its raison d'être. Today, the Palestinians identify with your name [Khomeini], your memory, and in your path. They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."

"Death to America" is still a very popular chant. Here it is at a recent rally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk

Here's an article talking about its use in parliament recently
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=41572

Here's an article mentioning Ahmadinejad's use of the phrase recently
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html

I'm not condoning what the US and CIA did in Iran. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm saying that Iran might actually be dangerous.

>> ^Pprt:
Perhaps you haven't been attentive when watching interviews where the subject is asked to defend something typical of Islam or a common Muslim viewpoint.
Here's a brief exchange I heard a few months ago on a talk show:
Western interviewer: You are a well respected Imam that has chosen to immigrate to a Western nation. One concern that many people have is the treatement of women in Muslim countries. For instance, violence towards women seems to be a particular aspect that worries many people.
Muslim: That is a very interesting question, and the Koran is very clear on the matter. I read in the paper today that (insert western-sounding name here) was convicted for raping a woman. Do you know that there are hundreds of shelters for abused women in THIS country? Your government spent X many million dollars last year to fight against spousal abuse. It is very ignorant to think that the maltreatement of women is typical of a Muslim men. Islam is a religion of peace, we do not encourage violence of any kind.
That's the basics of it: divert, guilt, evade. Many Islamic schools in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia provide entire courses on how to handle critical (and sympathetic) interviewers. They have it down to a science.


All I'm saying is that is a particular brand of Islam. Just like John Haggee offers a particular form of christianity, which is equally vile. Watch some documentaries by moderate muslims like this one to see that many are working against the fundamentalists. Whether the extremists try to act like moderates in public or not is not what I take issue with, as they do. The problem I have is to say there are no moderates.

If you fail to recognize the moderates then you turn a war within Islam against the extremists into war with all Muslims, moderate and extremist alike.

>> ^Pprt:
Typical Muslim debate tactics: divert the question, guilt the interrogator, rinse, repeat.


His tactics aren't 'Muslim' they are propagandist who coincidentally calls himself Muslim. There are an equal(or better) number of Muslims fighting against this kind of insanity.

Oh no, shame on 60 minutes for characterizing him as calling for Israel to be removed. Does anyone in here honestly believe he is not calling for the end of the Israeli state? Go watch this and tell me what you think. It's about a 9 minute speech he gives explaining why Israel's declaration of independence was a false regime, and best of all it comes complete with several pauses as he waits for chanting of death to Israel to die down.

Better yet, go use google for 5 minutes to find some of his other speechs he gives. You'll notice that calls for "DEATH TO ISRAEL!" is the common theme. Whether you like it or not, this video is the propaganda, not 60 minutes.

It is no illusion and no surprise to say that Ahmadinejad hates jews. If you honestly think he loves jews and hates the Israeli government, take your blinders off. His 12th-Imam religious views are loud enough that anyone without earplugs in should hear them. The man is an absolute apocalyptic maniac. He is as close to Nazi as you can get in this decade without openly saying "death to jews and homos".