. . . at lying to myself. I'm too quick to admit stuff.
Presumably, the absence of conventional defense mechanisms is in itself a defense mechanism of a more twisted variety.
1
Maybe you can read this letter and respond. I think this was too long for Bush.
Full Text: Letter of Islamic Republic Of Iran's President to American President
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/view.php?hidDate=2006-05-13&hidType=HIG&hidRecord=0000000000000000106204
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at May 12, 2006 08:05 PM (GtDum)
Posted by: k at May 12, 2006 08:51 PM (Ffvoi)
3
Jeff G's already covered that
here.
Posted by: Desert Cat at May 12, 2006 09:00 PM (xdX36)
4
Dear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
How kind of you to write!
By the way, we consider that attack on the American embassy an act of war. Futhermore, there are no statutes of limitation on such an act. I thought you might want to keep that in mind...
My best to the wife and kids. You might want to send them to Euro-Disney for the Summer. I hear there are no lines there now. Or ever.
Warm Regards,
George
Posted by: Darrell at May 12, 2006 09:39 PM (5r+gQ)
5
I had expected an educated and enlightened response from your readers maybe that is still possible, Attila.
Here is what your buddy Reagan did Darrell:
U.S. Policy Toward Iran," The White House, Draft National Security Decision Directive (NSDD), secret, June 17, 1985
Despite a strict official policy of refusing to cut deals with terrorists, President Ronald Reagan in August 1985 authorized the first of a series of covert arms deals with Iran in order to gain the release of several Americans being held hostage by Islamic militants in Lebanon. This draft directive, prepared by National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, was one of the first documents to propose sending weapons to Iran, although its rationale was firmly rooted in Cold War imperatives: "[O]ur primary short-term challenge must be to block MoscowÂ’s efforts to increase Soviet influence" in Iran. The idea of arming Iran met with derision from Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who called it "almost too absurd to comment on." Yet, within weeks, the president had given his approval for McFarlane to explore contacts with Tehran.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/
Depends who the president is I guess,and Bush has his Dads wimp factor to counter. But its the same people on his team.
Posted by: azmat Hussain at May 13, 2006 07:37 PM (GtDum)
6
Nice try, but no cigar. The US was contacted by elements inside of Iran that were looking for help to overthrow the government of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran was at war with Iraq during this time, and since the Iranian Airforce was totally built around US hardware, they needed spare parts to keep the planes flying. The ban on exports was via Executive Order of the President and could be rescinded at will. Furthermore, Israel supplied the parts and Israel is not subject to the executive orders of the president of the US, or vice versa--no matter what the Islamofascist moonbats or the Left say.The elements that contacted us let us know that they were Iranians first and foremost, and they would do whatever was necessary to make sure Iran survives(many had trained in the US and had stayed on after the Shah was deposed for love of country. We made arrangements for Israel to supply spare parts for the planes(like the F104 Starfighter that the Israelis loved), only after the conspirators showed they had the ability to get the hostages released. They had managed to secure control of the hostages when the plot was exposed in the Press. Many of the conspirators were executed by the Ayatollah.
At the end of WWII, the Allies were contacted by elements inside of the Third Reich with a plan to kill Hitler, and overthrow his regime and secure surrender. They told us that they were loyal Germans and would do everything necessary to make sure that the peace was honorable, German civilians would not be killed or prosecuted indiscriminantly, and Germany would survive as a country. Although many military people were against it because the outcome of the war was fairly certain, Roosevelt and Churchill decided to move ahead cautiously, provided that the conspirators proved they were serious and they had influential and powerful Germans behind the plan. The conspirators secured the support of Gen. Rommel and the Allies were satisfied. Their plot to assassinate Hilter at Wolf's Lair failed when the massive table in the conference room shielded Hiltler from the blast. Many of the conspirators were executed by Hitler following that failure.
Did elements inside of the CIA aligned with the Left give the press the heads up? Was Dem/Left hatred for Ronald Reagan sufficient cause to put American lives at risk and waste the lives of friendly Iranians? What would have happened during WWII to people giving Hitler a "shout out'? I know the answer to one of those questions.
Posted by: Darrell at May 14, 2006 06:19 AM (1LVky)
7
So you agree with me that Reagan gave the approval,to supply arms to Iran. Good stuff Darrel!
Next thing you will tell me is that there is a good reason why Bush should give Nuclear technology to Iran, because as you say "elements inside of Iran that were looking for help " And then Israel will give the help and Iran will have its peacefull nuclear energy after all.
I will note that there will always be hostages taken any where in the world.
Cheers
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at May 14, 2006 05:59 PM (GtDum)
8
Is this random-path logic in action? I prefer a linear approach myself. The only nuclear technology the US will deliver to Iran under George W is the type at the end of a delivery system. You are thinking about John Kerry who said in the debates that he would give Iran a nuclear power plant, trying to duplicate the amazing success of Clinton's delivery of a nuclear power plant to North Korea, I guess.
Are you just a liar or are you really that stupid? Your pal, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said many times now that he is going to build a nuclear weapon--in fact he said they had once. Are we supposed to ignore his words? Is this supposed to be some sort of clever circuitous logic in your circle of friends? We will take him at his word. He says they want the bomb and they are going to destroy Israel. We say that won't happen. We bet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's life on it. Who's knows? If the Iranian friendlies had succeeded in deposing the Ayatollah, Ahmadinejad might be in a different place now, one considerably warmer. He was involved in taking the hostages after all.
Let's go back to that letter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent to President Bush. You presented it to us as some sort of reasonable communication--as if it were some sort of olive branch. Of course you knew that was a lie and were hoping that we wouldn't bother to read it in its entirety. The NY Sun offers this interpretation-"President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."
It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels." http://www.nysun.com/article/32594
Posted by: Darrell at May 14, 2006 07:26 PM (JbRMZ)
9
Darrel: You don't know persian (farsi) nor do you know arabic. Nor do you know beans about Islamic history. Language is interpretative and I can translate that as follows, peace will come to those that follow the true path.
Now we can go back to the letter: He is saying that Iran has a right to have peaceful nuclear energy. Other than the silly key last line if you have any other links please inform me. Cause so far you are only displaying your ignorance of languages. Perhaps you can show that you are not ignorant by showing some news links that make your case. (And try to get some objective sources) Don't quote Al Jazera)
Cheers
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at May 15, 2006 09:06 AM (GtDum)
10
Darrell:
If you are so convinced that mohammed used those precise words in a document in 620 A.D
Please show me any such existing document. Or reference to this particular phrase. You were not there in 620 A.D nor was I, so let us both check the history books. I have been unable to find that very phrase in the letters of mohammed, if you find it let me know.
I love it when people translate peace as war, reminds me of 1984.
Cheers,
Posted by: azmat Hussain at May 15, 2006 04:50 PM (GtDum)
11
Do you mean پارسی transliteration:pārsi ?
I never cared for languages, myself, where even native speakers could not be certain what they were saying---exactly. صلح وصفا، سلامتى، اشتى، صلح، ارامش As a Pakistani, devoid of any 'p's' in your language, you must be quite the expert when it comes to the Persian language and customs. Maybe you can settle something for me? I heard that in some dialects, the "72 virgin" thing is actually trasnslated as "72 raisins." In fact some claim that this is what is really promised to martyrs. How can I argue against languages where the intent of the speaker is SO clear. Raisins and virgins are almost synonyms in English, afterall.
What you mean is that you use words as tools to accomplish the task at hand. You will tell me the gold piece you are trying to sell me is 22k fine gold, made by the best artisans, and I will tell you its 12k gold that looks as if it were made by a blind man that took up his craft late in life. That doesn't cut it in the West. We call that lying. Yes, "Baghdad Bob" was lying--not establishing a position of honor from which he could withdraw. You are lying when you say that this is about Iran's right to acquire peaceful nuclear weapons. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that they are working on building a nuclear weapon. Since 'nuclear weapons' and 'peaceful' are mutually exclusive terms, especially combined with open threats to destroy Israel, in the West, and you know it, you are what's known as a liar in the West. So tell us that you are going to feast on our roasted intestines and claim it is an expression of affection. We believe every word you say. Or don't say. If I were you, I would stop worrying about Bush thinking "What would Jesus do?" and start worrying about Bush ever thinking "What would MUHAMMAD do?" You know what that would be.
Posted by: Darrell at May 15, 2006 09:09 PM (LLzAb)
12
Darrell: You have a twisted world view. No I don't mean parsi, I mean farsi. Just go to yahoo and do search on Farsi and Parsi, and I think It will become quite clear to you.
Either Mr. Ahmadinejad wants nuclear energy for peaceful purpose or not, only the future can decide that. These are contingent statements. Now you can give examples of what he has said. And there is one thing to say something, and another to actually do it.
By the way there is no truth to the rumor of seventy two virgins for the martyrs. Personally, I don't believe in heaven or hell, these are metaphors, and someone who lives in ignorance is living in Hell. Now you can step into heaven by acknowledging that you have been deceived. And now you see the light!
Yahoo search engine will save you!
Posted by: Azmat Hussain at May 15, 2006 11:08 PM (GtDum)
13
Here is a site where you can get some translation done:
http://www.farsidic.com/
Note that the first word Sulah has many different meanings. It may come as a shock to you that one word has so many meanings: But this is true in English as well, "RUN" for example, So "Sulah" can mean "advisable" to peace or compromise. It depends on the context. Your first two words mean quiet peacful life. Next word means health, security, safety, I couldn't make out the next word, but it looks like
"Ashqi" which means intense love, Then we have "sulah" again and the Aramish?? which the only meaning I can thinkof is rest.
So there it is: Now can you please explain to me why Mohammed was speaking in Persian in 620 A.D???
Cheers
Posted by: azmat hussain at May 15, 2006 11:40 PM (GtDum)
14
In case anyone thinks I'm being harsh towards Azmat, it is because he is a Leftist(I've had experience dealing with him before). Since I've always known Leftists to take that "religion is the opiate of the masses" thing seriously, I see them as Judas goats looking to lead unsuspecting religious people to their demise. Our 'friends' at the Sorbonne created special little programs for Socialists in the Muslim world, programs designed to use the peoples' religious fervor for Socialism's purposes. A lot of key figures since WWII had been through those programs. That's set the stage for our current problems. Remember when we first met Azmat. It was in a posting concerning the cartoon wars. He attempted to justify and encourage the violence. If he doesn't believe, why? There must have been another motive involved, and I was sorry to see him communicating with a Muslim believer without warning him that he didn't share his Faith. I should have given that person a 'heads up." And warned him about "evil spirits travelling throughout the world seeking destruction of souls" or Leftists in general.
Now, back to the discussion at hand. Farsi is the term of the conqueror; Parsi is the Persian term. Got it? The Arabs that defeated the Persians and imposed their tongue lacked a "p" in their alphabet. The Iranian-Americans I have known would never permit anyone to make that mistake. They prefer "Persian language" when referring to their tongue. I thought Leftists were more sensitive about these things? Secondly, The Sun's article states "The letters included the same phrase"--it does not state which language was used. One can suppose that Muhammad wrote each letter in the appropriate language--e.g., when he wrote the Persians prior to attacking them, he used Parsi. I assume you are familiar with Sahih Muslim, Book 19?
"Book 019, Number 4382:
It has been narrated on the authority of Anas that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him) wrote to Chosroes (King of Persia), Caesar (Emperor of Rome), Negus (King of Abyssinia) and every (other) despot inviting them to Allah, the Exalted. And this Negus was not the one for whom the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said the funeral prayers." Etc., etc. So you found no substatiation for such letters, huh? Hmmm! Curious. You can do you own reading of the relevant 10,000 words. A liitle searching around on the Web revealed that "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda" was a favorite catch phrase of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He used it in the context of the NY Sun's interpretation. You can ask him where he got it. And about the translation? You know full well if you ask several people to translate it into English you'll get several slightly different answers. Is this really a mystery to you? I think not. If you try several different translator websites you get similar results.
Posted by: Darrell at May 16, 2006 09:18 PM (x+Kg1)
15
Hey Darrell:
You and all the others who are concentrating on the one line they do not understand, how about responding to the english portion of the letter. Am I to assume that your lack of response indicates that you agree with him on all the rest of the letter except the last line?
And I take no offense from you;
you just display your own lack of understanding and your ill manners are just a lackof good upbringing; really not your fault.
Cheers
Posted by: azmat hussain at May 17, 2006 05:07 PM (GtDum)
16
I took your advice Darrell and found out the source and here is the link and the translation:
"Peace be upon him who follows the Right Path."
The whole blogasphere is intentionally mistranslating a phrase.
By the way this is hear say because it is narrated by some one claiming what he heard:
http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-lesson-vasalam-ala-man-atabaal.html
see volume 6 book 70
For that reason I do not place much faith in the exactness of this phrase.
Now if you can find this phrase or story in Quran: Yes that would be a different matter.
But so far what you have is much fuss over nothing.
No historical significance, but it shows that all over the blogs the same incorrect version is printed as fact. Amazing!
Only Attila can claim that someone on her blog has been able to set the record straight
Cheers
Posted by: azmat Hussain at May 17, 2006 07:53 PM (GtDum)
17
Is your lack of truthfulness an artifact of your upbring? Or is it part of that Leftist training? I had the phrase translated by REAL Iranians, and all said it could be translated as the NY Sun stated--"Peace only unto those who follow the true path." Are you really trying to tell me that this is unique. You can find arguments about the translation of even shorter Arabic phrases that go on for hundreds of pages--and hundreds of years. Get off it now. You know it's not in the Quran. The educated readers of this site know that all those stories about Muhammad's exploits are from a much later date--hundreds of years after his death. Kind of you to point that out! Perhaps you can be the first to present anything even remotely contemporaneous with his life--while eyewitnesses may have been alive.
Now for the English portion of the letter. As a Christian, I find it offensive. By stating the Muslim take on Christianity, you blaspheme the Christian teachings. You see, in Christianity, Jesus Christ IS God. As is the Holy Spirit. The best thing anyone can do is stay away from talking about anyone's religion to them, unless you yourself are a member and have been trained in their teachings. Do you want George Bush explaining the Quran to Ahmadinejad? Or putting it in Christian terms? What would have happened in the Arab world if he had? It may seem like a clever ploy to you, but so must the arguments in your letters. They are not. Plus, there is a whole historical context to this type of argument which can't be ignored. It has been the basis for the executions of thousands of Christians in Muslim countries. Am I supposed to forget that? How can you ignore the other words that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken in public, presented in writing? He says they are developing nuclear weapons. He say they intend to destroy Israel. The UN claims that Iran is in possession of "better-than-weapons grade uranium." People that ignore those facts and go back to the original lies of years ago that Iran is only interested in "peaceful" nuclear power generation(in a country that still flares massive amounts of natural gas), are demonstrating pretty clearly that they are not to be taken seriously themselves. Save the lies for people that will believe them--the Left, Islamofascists, and other liars with an agenda.
I think we have come to the end of the road here. There is no evidence that anyone else is reading this, so this is pointless.
Posted by: Darrell at May 17, 2006 09:34 PM (KFGic)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
