Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Did we really expect to have lasted this long?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Pure_Cork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Pure_Cork


    Kirby wrote: »
    Oh I read it. But I recognise spin when I see it.
    So the New York Times, one of the biggest newspapers in the United States, is publishing pro-Iranian spin when they publish a translation (done by one of their employees) of Ahmadinejad's original speech?


  • #33
    Border-Rat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭Border-Rat


    Pure_Cork wrote: »
    So the New York Times, one of the biggest newspapers in the United States, is publishing pro-Iranian spin when they publish a translation (done by one of their employees) of Ahmadinehad's original speech?

    This is how it works. You make up a lie, even with no basis in fact, and the important thing is that as long as its the first thing thats said it'll stick with the lowest common denominator. It doesn't matter if its later proven to be lies, the damage is already done. This is effective propaganda - muck sticking. Another example is the Israelis lying about Iran killing Israeli tourists - sheer bald faced lies. But it was the first thing mentioned and, as such, it stuck with the lowest common denominator.

    Its incredible how liable people are to propaganda. You know its working well if they keep peddling the lies after its been exposed as lies. You know, a high percentage of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that Iraq had WMD. These are the people who should not be allowed within 100 feet of a voting boothe.


  • #34
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Pure_Cork wrote: »
    So the New York Times, one of the biggest newspapers in the United States, is publishing pro-Iranian spin when they publish a translation (done by one of their employees) of Ahmadinejad's original speech?

    They also published the "orginal translation". So tell me, which one is correct? They one you would like to be?

    You can believe what you like. Thats your right. But if your try and twist facts to try and convince people of your point of view, don't be surprised when you meet resistance. :)


  • #35
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Nuclear weapons are overrated i think. People act as if setting off one would be the end of the world. That wouldn't happen. It would be the end of a city or 2, unfortunate for that country but not end of the world stuff.

    As for Iran having a NW i think they would be no more dangerous than Israel. I think they would just use it to ensure they weren't bullied by USA and their angry aggressive little friend.


  • #36
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    Dancing With Tears In My Eyes by Ultravox is my fave nuclear strike imminent song/vid.
    KenSwee wrote: »
    True about the superpowers but what about the smaller nations who have or will posses this technology? I could be wrong but I think a world wide nuclear war is unlikely but I don't feel the same about a regional nuclear attack or mis-management of the technology.
    Yup. The latter being Chernobyl. And of course a superpower (US) bombed another power (Japan) but the worldwide thing just seems implausible - literally the stuff of films.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Pure_Cork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Pure_Cork


    Kirby wrote: »
    They also published the "orginal translation". So tell me, which one is correct? They one you would like to be?

    You can believe what you like. Thats your right. But if your try and twist facts to try and convince people of your point of view, don't be surprised when you meet resistance. :)

    Right, I've posted NYT's translation of his original speech which shows exactly what the man said. They published that 3 days after the original article, by the same author.

    I'm not trying to twist facts, I posted exactly what the man said, a direct translation made by American media.

    Here is an article from the NY Times blog explaning the mistranslation, and they even write about an Israeli government minister who stated “now that’s a common trope that is put about by a lot of people in Israel, a lot of people in the United States, but as we know Ahmadinejad didn’t say that he plans to exterminate Israel, nor did he say that Iran’s policy is to exterminate Israel.”
    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/israeli-minister-agrees-ahmadinejad-never-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/

    You have mainstream American media stating exactly what Ahmadinejad said in his speech, and an Israeli government minister stating that Ahmadinejad did not say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.


  • #38
    enfant terrible
    Registered Users Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    Border-Rat wrote: »
    Its a fact that Ahmedinejad threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Where is your proof?

    I think we can all agree Ahmedinejad probably does want to wipe Israel off the map whether he said it or not.


  • #39
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Pure_Cork wrote: »
    Right, I've posted NYT's translation of his original speech which shows exactly what the man said. They published that 3 days after the original article, by the same author.

    I'm not trying to twist facts, I posted exactly what the man said, a direct translation made by American media.

    Which sadly is why people can choose to believe what suits their belief best.

    Me? I'll go with the original translation, and not the more docile politcally correct alteration that came a few days later. You cannot claim the NYT "correction" as proof of what he said while discounting their original article. Can't have it both ways. It's either "fact because NYT said it!" or it isnt. Thats just being obtuse for the sake of it.

    The orignial can be seen here.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/international/middleeast/27iran.html


  • #40
    KenSwee
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭KenSwee


    woodoo wrote: »
    Nuclear weapons are overrated i think. People act as if setting off one would be the end of the world. That wouldn't happen. It would be the end of a city or 2, unfortunate for that country but not end of the world stuff.

    As for Iran having a NW i think they would be no more dangerous than Israel. I think they would just use it to ensure they weren't bullied by USA and their angry aggressive little friend.
    Onixx wrote: »
    Yup. The latter being Chernobyl. And of course a superpower (US) bombed another power (Japan) but the worldwide thing just seems implausible - literally the stuff of films.
    enfant terrible wrote: »
    I think we can all agree Ahmedinejad probably does want to wipe Israel off the map whether he said it or not.

    I think that it's safe to say that the Iranian government has a particular dislike for Israel but nobody here can determine for sure, if they would like to wipe it off the face of the earth.

    Rather then getting bogged down in 3 pages of Israel against Iran, I would like to know if countries like Iran should be allowed to have the technology; both for military and peaceful/energy purposes?

    That in my opinion is the bigger question.


  • #41
    adomino
    Registered Users Posts: 110 ✭✭adomino


    The Repto Sapiens are running out of human meat, they need to be fed too so another war is due.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Pure_Cork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Pure_Cork


    Kirby wrote: »
    Which sadly is why people can choose to believe what suits their belief best.

    Me? I'll go with the original translation, and not the more docile politcally correct alteration that came a few days later. You cannot claim the NYT "correction" as proof of what he said while discounting their original article. Can't have it both ways. It's either "fact because NYT said it!" or it isnt. Thats just being obtuse for the sake of it.

    The orignial can be seen here.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/international/middleeast/27iran.html

    Apologies for thinking that a full transcript of the speech would help in understanding what was said and in what context, and for thinking that it being published by the same author a few days after the original article with the showstopping attention-grabbing headline (the type that shifts more newspapers than "Iran call for regime change in Israel") would be more accurate and correct.

    Apparently the Farsi version of the words spoken by Ahmadinejad doesn't contain Israel, but does contain regime.

    The Israeli government minister was just being polite I suppose?


  • #43
    latenia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭latenia


    Kirby wrote: »
    Which sadly is why people can choose to believe what suits their belief best.

    Me? I'll go with the original translation, and not the more docile politcally correct alteration that came a few days later.

    Forget about what one person may or may not have said in one particular speech and think about it logically for just one minute. Why would any country fire a nuke at another nuclear-armed country? It's just never going to happen and the only reason people (members of the public) think it might is because it's just a big military and political game, being played out to keep humans at each others' throats. In this instance it's the "crazy brown frothing-at-the-mouth mullah with his finger on the button" bullsh1t being utilised.


  • #44
    InReality
    Registered Users Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭InReality


    Iran are never going to nuke israel , they will say israel shouldn't exist etc , but will never do use a nuke.

    Israeli leaders are either 1) too stupid or too paranoid and so believe it will , or 2) like to pretend that it will for their own reasons.

    I'm about 70% sure its 2.


  • #45
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    ♫

    And Iran
    Iran so far away
    I just ran
    Iran all night and day
    I couldn't get away

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sID9D0QNVHw



    Vice city ftw.


  • #46
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    I am optimistic nobody will deploy these weapons. No=one has since WW2 to spite the option being there many times.


  • #47
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov stopped a potential nuclear war back in 83.
    And worse, ended up getting officially repremanded for it, because he basically said fu to central command.


  • #48
    LC2010HIS
    Registered Users Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭LC2010HIS


    Moving to Mars!:rolleyes:


  • #49
    marshbaboon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭marshbaboon


    Nuclear Armageddon can't come soon enough.

    Too many people on this god damn planet. We're well overdue a cull.


  • #50
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    smcgiff wrote: »
    North korea have the bomb despite the west's wishes. The difference with iran is that they have publically stated they want israel wiped from the face of the planet. That's not western propoganda, just fact.

    *sigh*

    No. No it isn't.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/iranian-fm-denies-wanting-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map-1.180643

    I find it absolutely astounding that a mistranslation has become so firmly ingrained in the pro-Israel lobby's mind. He never said the country should be wiped off the map, he said the regime, AKA government, AKA administration should be. And given how utterly barbaric that regime's behavior is, I'd imagine he's not alone.
    Hell, Israeli people themselves are starting to get fed up with the current political authority in Israel. It did not escape the Occupy movement, for example. There's quite a bit of anti-regime sentiment within Israel as well as outside it.
    But if you prefer to believe Iran is a genocidal backwater then fair enough...


  • #51
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    The worry is always there that it will happen again. The people you mention tend to play the victim card and exaggerate threats to their security. With the Americans backing them, the threat of nuclear war becomes very real.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    dermiek
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭dermiek


    If I ever get my hands on a few nuclear warheads, i'll fire them off in all directions.


  • #53
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,165 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    I'd be more worried about North Korea. The likes of Iran and Russia are sh!t stirrers. They have been sabre rattling for decades.

    North Korea is a complete rogue state with nothing to lose.

    Who'd have thought the US allowing Jews to immigrate to avoid persecution in parts of Eastern Europe, Germany and Russia would lead to the cluster f**k we have today.


  • #54
    kevin65
    Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭kevin65


    Pottler wrote: »
    Is it just me, or is Israel a bit like the skanger family who have a few bob that live down the street -there's always one- always involved in some feckin drama or row, always throwing rubbish over peoples fences and their kids causing aggro on a daily basis. Like a feckin boil on your arse, always annoying and always threatening to erupt. Personally, they bore me and I wish they'd move, or get a disease, or a burning desire to move to Leitrim, or somthing. Can we not pursuade Israel to move to Leitrim? For the sake of world peace like? Would it fit there? Could we squeeze them in if we used a big squeezy thing?

    As a Leitrim person, I object to this suggestion.:mad:


  • #55
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Wompa1 wrote: »
    North Korea is a complete rogue state with nothing to lose.
    Especially if the regime starts to unravel as regimes will and I suspect this one is overdue. The current heir to the nuttiness looks like the weakest yet IMH.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #56
    3ndahalfof6
    Registered Users Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    when it happens, remember to, catch it, kill it, bin it.


  • #57
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    smcgiff wrote: »
    And, dont rely on the mutual destruction safeguard - it only takes a lunatic/functioning psychotic to be in charge of the red button again see Iran.

    Theoretically, yes. In the past, however, the only time a nuclear weapon was used in wartime was when one country had it and none of the others did. Look at Pakistan and India: always at war until the two of them developed nuclear weapons.


  • #58
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Especially if the regime starts to unravel as regimes will and I suspect this one is overdue. The current heir to the nuttiness looks like the weakest yet IMH.

    I always got the impression that it was China keeping that regime propped up (not explicitly so, but through keeping up relations with them). Not sure if that's the case, but if it is, and China continues to grow (at least relatively compared to everyone else) there's every chance that the regime will continue.

    But, yeah, the guy does look like he has no clue what he's doing.


  • #59
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,111 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    See, if a republican said that Northern Ireland should be wiped off a map, we'd know he was talking about the political entity, not the actual 6 counties or the populace. In the original translation he never even mentioned Israel, just the regime.

    In this case it's obvious are biased against him and Iran. It's been shown in studies that when people are shown evidence that counters a believe they hold, it actually reinforces and strengthens that belief. So after being shown a translation people say it's wrong, or even if it's correct, he must still mean it, he just never actually said it.

    This is funny though
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Shah-nukeIran.jpg


  • #60
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,111 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Actually, I believe the US is still the one most likely to use a nuke. They've developed all kinds of low yield weapons and they are more likely to use a bunker buster nuke.

    But I think the thread is aimed at the use of nuclear weapons in a more conventional sense. Like dropping a bomb on a civilian target. I don't believe the US would do that.

    The problem is that if a nuke is used at all, it kinda opens up a big can of worms. At the moment it doesn't matter how small it is, it's considered bad form to use it. If that changes we're all screwed.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    If anyone is gonna use a nuke i can see it being Israel.


Advertisement