|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
="Big_Bird"]
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As one translator has pointed out |
Sorry, but that looks like back-pedalling to me. And I'm not even anti-Iran.
I'm curious. Would you use the Fox News/IGTG (morally bankrupt) disclaimer of 'We report, you decide' defense of the Holocaust seminar they had there? |
Are you suggesting I'm a holocaust denier Ya-ta boy? If that is the case, I find you absolutely disgusting. |
You seem to be a poster denier. |
OK, now I'm at another computer and your strange cryptic message makes more sense. You're talking about this then:
| Joo wrote: |
POSTER IN IRAN
 |
I
| Quote: |
think I assumed Joo was talking about a poster in Iran as in a person posting on the net. What that had to do with Juan Cole I couldn't fathom.
Anyway, what is the significance of the poster? If it is commissioned or properly sanctioned by the president it means something. If it is commissioned by the supreme leader, or at least has his blessing, it really means something. Until I'm shown irrefutable evidence of such a connection, it means sweet FA. First, is it real? Second, if it is, who made the poster. Some insignificant branch of some political organisation trying to score brownie points with their community leaders, perhaps? Religious students titilated by a translation that 'shook the world?'
I remember how some of my Korean uni students would get visibly aroused by fighting talk against Japan or the US. The posters put up around the campus were not sanctioned or commisioned by the government, however.
It doesn't mean anything, cbc, until you can show me that these posters have been distributed by the highest political echelons. |
[/quote]
It does mean something
It is how the words are being translated in Iran, by Iranians. So now you are saying that Iranians are intentionally mistranslating what was said. When you have zero evidence for it.
It was also how the NY TIMES own translator translated the words.
Juan Cole 's Persian isn't better than the translator for the NY Times. In fact Cole putting aside his politics ( which might disquailfy him right there ) Cole isn't even a native speaker of the language.
The poster is real , it was not photo shopped.
Iranians in Iran are translating what was said that way , and you are saying oh no that is not what Amadinajad meant. How do you know?
Sorry I will go with what is being stated in Iran.
There isn't any question about what was meant anymore. None whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sloppy quote work that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ...what road is 'this road?' |
Stop playing dumb. You know exactly what I am talking about, Ms. "Iran has not acted against Israel." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big Bird replied:
| Quote: |
| On the one hand, US leaders have expressed their disdain and hostility for the Castro regime. However, we haven't all got our knickers in a knot expecting the US to blast Cuba off the face of the earth. This is an example of how expressing a dislike or hostility to a regime does not necessarily correspond with an intent to make war on it. |
Nice try but not quite, sister. When Russia tried to place ICBMs in Cuba in 1962 we almost had ourselves another war. And that was with a Democrat in office. Castro is castrated, in the nuclear sense. Iran might not be for long. Moreover, Iran's military reach in the region far outweighs Cuba's. Again, you're showing a lack of appreciation for proportionality.
I'll get around to your other utterly ludicrous statements later tonight... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ...what road is 'this road?' |
Stop playing dumb. You know exactly what I am talking about, Ms. "Iran has not acted against Israel." |
They've not acted directly against them, and certainly not in any way that's feasibly going to cause a second holocaust 'Hitler style' (as some of the more hysterical press warned of not so long ago). They have their little proxy games, as do most major players (including Israel), and as a US citizen, you're in no position to moralise about that.
Question: do you seriously think that Israel is in serious danger from Iran, and do you see a justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| [I'll get around to your other utterly ludicrous statements later tonight... |
I'm sorry Steve, but I'm really picky these days about who or what I bother to engage with - time poor and all that. And lately, I find you are too focussed on 'the left' and whatever it is that 'the left' apparantly do or say, and see me as some kind of spokesman for your 'the left' and whatever it is that you've decided that 'the left' is. It makes me feel that you're not really having a discussion with me, you're just scoring points against 'the left' and whatever that means to you, and it seems you've assigned me a whole set of beliefs and properties that you believe 'the left' possess, irrespective of whether they really correlate with my beliefs and views or not. And I find that rather tiresome. One reason I don't bother engaging with Mosley - another here who is obsessed with 'the left.' Though not with respect to 'the bloody left' again, I feel Ya-ta boy does something similar, though more subtlely. Sorry, but I'm not interested in being a spokesperson or warrior for some kind of movement that another has decided to make me a representative of.
Secondly, I find your constant resorting to accusations of 'apologia' (not only on this topipc) completely unimaginative, intellectually lazy and, frankly, quite lame.
Thirdly, I find you are too focussed on making a discussion 'about Big_Bird' instead of discussing the points I make or the perspective I'm offering.
It's probably the last point I'm finding the most tiresome. I enjoy engaging with people who disagree with me, and find that challenging, useful and fun, but when it frequently seems to be more about me and not the issues, I don't feel there's any point to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ...and as a US citizen, you're in no position to moralise about that. |
Who is moralizing? Not me.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Question: do you seriously think that Israel is in serious danger from Iran, and do you see a justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iran? |
I pointed out long ago on this thread that people have conflated issues that do not belong together.
Iran is hostile to Israel; Iran has moved and is moving against Isreal on multiple levels. We are discussing these issues on this thread.
American foreign relations and preemptive strikes, justified or not, are separate issues. We can hardly talk about this, however, because you think that anything I say about Iran and its policies is somehow maneuvering to justify an American attack. Further, it is frustrating that you identify me with "the hysterical press," as if I am unable to think for myself and have been duped by "them." Unfortunate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Comment on the last two pages or so: once again I agree with Big Bird on some details, but not on the conclusion. We're still not sure whether this was made by a small group or by the government itself, and there's a big difference there. But it definitely means something even if it's made by students on their own, because there has to at least be the tacit approval of the government for them to be able to do it. Kind of like the anti-Japanese protests in China two or so years ago that the government decided to let slide for quite a while, because it fit in nicely with their agenda. Or to put it another way, if the Iranian students decided that they would make a poster about how great Zionism is and why Israeli settlers were awesome and brave...well, they would never let that happen to put it simply.
It's still important to know how it was made though. When a government does something it's usually related to a plan of theirs, but when regular people just happen to do something that the government approves of, it's more a simple reflection of the way they've been 'educated' than anything the government is planning to do.
Korea had the same thing with those anti-Japanese 'scream for Dokdo' pictures at the junior high school in 2005 or so. Planned by teachers, done by students, the government just let it slide until it became a big deal. Since nobody seems to know any more that would be my guess (big guess, nothing more) as to how this poster got made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| I find Hitchens generally unreliable. I asked Joo whether he had more information on the poster and the photograph's specific origins. Why should we take anything Hitchens, or any other journalist, for that matter, publishes at face-value? |
Well, I have to agree with you about Hitchens. I saw Joo's post had a Hitchen's article, and I scrolled down pronto... |
Hitchens is much more reliable than Juan Cole. |
Juan Cole and Hitchens deserve the same plane in Pundit Hell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ...what road is 'this road?' |
Stop playing dumb. You know exactly what I am talking about, Ms. "Iran has not acted against Israel." |
They've not acted directly against them, and certainly not in any way that's feasibly going to cause a second holocaust 'Hitler style' (as some of the more hysterical press warned of not so long ago). They have their little proxy games, as do most major players (including Israel), and as a US citizen, you're in no position to moralise about that.
Question: do you seriously think that Israel is in serious danger from Iran, and do you see a justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iran? |
They have used Hizzbollah and not only in the mideast.
Besides Iran has hit Israel as much as they can. Israel isn't out to destroy Iran as a nation while the same can not be said about Iran.
I think there is a certain level of danger but it has to be weighed against the potential downside of pre-emptive strike.
I think the down side risk is higher , but that does not mean the US has to accept Iran's actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But you make excuses for yours, while I heartily condemn mine.
|
Ummm...it isn't all that hard to criticize the British government--everyone does it; what I can't remember is BB criticizing any Moslem government in any substantive way.
On a happier note, there's a cute clip of an Iranian rapper (yes, I know--rap, ugh!) somewhere on the internet tonight. I'm just waiting for the moment some mullah declares war and the fighting age people in Iran respond, "Say WHAT?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big Bird replied:
| Quote: |
Thirdly, I find you are too focussed on making a discussion 'about Big_Bird' instead of discussing the points I make or the perspective I'm offering.
It's probably the last point I'm finding the most tiresome. I enjoy engaging with people who disagree with me, and find that challenging, useful and fun, but when it frequently seems to be more about me and not the issues, I don't feel there's any point to it. |
Translation using the Orwellian Doublespeak Babble-onFish:
"I really have no rebuttal to make to your observation about the Cuban Missile Crisis."
Well, at least you didn't use your screaming kids as an excuse this time.
Let's make a deal: you stop referring to all of us who despise Mahmoud as lame and deceitful and I'll give you credit for being the most articulate Leftist on this board--and one of the precious few with a sense of humor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some folks are overly harsh towards Hitchens - whom I confess to plagiarizing and being a hero of mine. If you haven't heard Hitchens' perspective, you haven't a clue.
To answer Big Bird's assertion
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately, it seems the most effective way for these things to be resolved is by leaving it to the people affected. We only have to look at Iraq to see what can happen when you try to bring about a 'regime change' externally. |
The Iraq example is a poor one, since demonstrably the Iraq war was far more than about regime change. It was not about peace and democracy; it was and is about division and internal war.
I think that an extermination of Iranian theocrats would be a genuine attempt at regime change and largely successful, but it cannot be done via air rades nor an invasion because of the tragic loss of innocents inevitable - which would create a resistance. It must be done via assassination.
The whole situation is ridiculous and circular. The Iranians want the bomb as insurance against invasion. So long as they view the US as hostile to them, they'll want the bomb. However, the US is hostile to them for perfectly good reason, since (a) they make proclamations about being a martyr nation and (b) they explicitly endorse violence against Israel as their priority and not, as would be defensible, justice for the Palestinians. If these people could get it through their heads that endorsement for the two-state solution is a-okay (but aggression towards Israel is not kosher) there wouldn't be a problem and the US need not be hostile to them and, as such, they need not need nuclear weapons. In these circumstances, we cannot tolerate any Iranian nuclear energy ambitions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
