I'm not the only one asking for debates and being rebuffed these days. August 1939 Alert from the Hizballah News Agency, aka Reuters, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced defiance on Tuesday as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the West fears is a step toward building nuclear bombs, and challenged President Bush to televised debate.In a news conference, Ahmadinejad condemned the U.S. and British role in the world since World War Two but made no direct mention of the international nuclear confrontation.
"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," he said.
A dummy debating Dubya, that would be interesting.
A debate? Beasty Boy thinks because he was elected prez, that intellectual genius comes with the job.
Beasty Boy is a full time terrorist. He has been a terrorist all along. He has never had one original thought in his life. He is nothing more than a puppet/mouthpiece for the Mullahs in charge. When has he ever had a legitimate job? When has he done an honest days work in his entire life? He thinks he is Mahdi, he has a messiah complex...and he wants to debate??? Long term patients in mental hospitals could debate better than Mahdiboy. He does have a sense of humor though, he knew we would get a big laugh out of it...LOL
Why would anyone want to debate a sub-human?
I am sure GWB has better things to do!!
As much as I hate Dinnerjacket, I must say even a child could out debate Bush when talking on your feet. (No script) Why not grow some balls and challenge Mr. Spencer or Mr. Pipes. I would pay a fortune to see that.
I'm sure if there was something the short prez didn't like that Bush might say, he's start screaming , "DEATH TO ISRAEL, DEATH TO AMERICA".
This Iamadinnerjacket is a poisonous mix of both hitler and goebbels.
We are allowing him to speak too much.
Bush is no master-debator. But it's a bad idea to debate Ahmedinejad because it legitimizes his regime and the regime of the mullahs. Also the leader of Iran is not Dinnerjacket it's Khomeini. It's also difficult to debate someone who sees the entire world through his islam glasses. I can think that the only good to come out of this debate would be Bush exposing this loser as absolutely crazy. But PC Bush would probably try to be polite as possible playing up the ROP kind of rhetoric. This is a recipe for disaster.
The news that Iranian prez Mahmoud is suggesting a debate with the man, the office recognized world-wide as the most powerful, appears to me to be an attempt to elevate himself somewhere closer that (step-up) level.
His first attempt, i.e. the letter he sent to President Bush asking to open a dialogue, was summarily dismissed without comment, appropriately. A recent letter to the Chancellor of Germany has gottem more laughs than serious consideration, because of its pretentious content referring to the 'malicious', and 'incorrect' interpretation of the genocide of the Jews in the 1930s and 40s, meaning the Zionist version of history.
What B.S.
What a poorly veiled attempt to open a slanted dialogue with Bush, AND TO ATTEMPT TO BRING HIMSELF INTO A HIGHER REALM OF INFLUENCE. The Bush letter didn't do it. The 60Minutes puff piece with the verenable journalist, Mike Appeasist Wallace didn't do it. The letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel didn't do it, in fact, Imadingyjob's letter was mostly met with laughter and derision for its moronic, immature nature.
After his first three attempts at widespread recognition of legitimacy, all glaring failures indeed, I see this as a more futile attempt to garner headlines, only.
Sorry Mr Churchill but sometimes war war is the lesser of the two evils.
An afterthought-- a far more Interesting debate Imadingyjob should partake in, would be with himself; an insane debate between his own agressive threats of Iranian Domination and Israel removal/annilation, and those statements of his, couched in comfort and concilation and peace.
World wide stupidity, gullibility, combined with his awareness of same, and an Islamist/Iranian version of statesmanship.
AhmadNaziJad just wants to wear bigger pants.
How about our Robert and Hugh vs. the Iranian Aayath-Allahs?
But as we know Muslims are scared of debating with Robert.
Yesterday I fell asleep reading his long drawn out yibber yabber to Germany. I bet I would sleep even better watching that debate.
In my opinion, the world has heard emough from Pres. Ahmadinejad to know what he stands for. We've heard too much from him by now. The time for listening should be over on 31 August.
Time to start speaking in cipher and time to jam him and al-Jazeera. Discourse will not work.
That's the last thing we need: an international forum for A Maddened Jihad to spew his Islamic PR, while simultaneously portraying him as a peer of "the most powerful man in the world."
It's a lose-lose, regardless of who would "win" a debate like this.
Tomilio and others are quite right. This man should absolutely not be given the legitimacy of a debate. There are some things you simply cannot debate with, and one of them is pure evil. If good agrees to debate with evil, evil is the only one of the two that gains anything - for if good makes a concession, evil wins and is stronger, but if evil makes a concession, it loses nothing and remains evil.
What would be the object of such a debate? To convert Im-a-nutjob? It's not happening. You could just as well convert Satan himself.
Which reminds me of a very pertinent peice of scripture, where Satan attempts to draw the angel Michael into an argument. Michael did not take the bait and answered Satan with the only response that Satan deserves: The LORD rebukes thee!
"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."
This is the only course of action that can be taken towards Ahmanutjob. There is no debate to be had.
Don't wrestle with a pig. The pig enjoys it and you get dirty.
More of the same. The monkey is playing to the arab world. Too bad they're too stupid to recognise that they are being manipulated by an idiot.
If Bush is smart, he'll ignore him. Just like you ignore a 3 year old throwing a tantrum.
Now is the time to prepare for war. Fit the laser defense systems to the US and Israeli fighter jets and get ready to take out the nuclear sites and any missiles the jerk decides to launch.
I heard yesterday that if he sent a nuclear tipped missile it might pass over Damascus...depending on its target.
If such a missile was to be 'disabled' over Damascus...well, Damascus might be the victim of an Iranian missile. Wouldn't that be interesing?
We'll see.
The muslims keep forgetting an important aspect to US military policy: at a time and place of our choosing.
Remember that my muslim friends. A time and place of our choosing.
Dinnerjacket is rushing things.
"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," he said.
Easy, just drop dead, problem solved.
This challenge should be ignored. One, because of the comments and behavior of the wackjob in Iran, and two I really don't think I could stand listening to Bush repeat the talking points that are incessantly spoon fed to him ad nauseum.
Yeah, amana39, I agree.
The monkey in Iran is boldly boasting for arab consumption - this is what would happen during any debate. The President is tippy-toeing around saying that Islam is an evil religion....I'm sad to say...he would probably spend all his time praising islam as a 'peaceful religion' and sucking up to his oil sheik friends in Saudi.
While Bush is afraid to come out and say that Islam is evil.....
I don't see ANY potential presidential candidates rising out of the muck of politics that have the courage to stand up with the same defiance as 'the monkey' and say what needs to be said to the Arab world.
I'm becoming disillusioned with both parties.
The trouble with Washington is that it is full of politicians who only love power, when it needs to be full of Americans who love this COUNTRY.
I think Bush should offer to debate him at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Then when 'President' Ahmadi Najis arrives, arrest him and incarcerate him for his role in the terrorist kidnappings at the American embassy.
its common among muslims to do a lot of such chest thumping. the pakis do it too(with guys having fancy names like tiger of peshawar, lion of lahore etc). if bush actually agrees, iamdinnerjacket will suddenly come up with a verse in the koran that expressely forbids all discussion with "infidels". how convenient. and of course GWB wouldnt risk it either.
Debate? Ha Ha Ha!
Bad idea -- but it would make for a good laugh. Between Ahmad's temper-tantrums and Bush getting tongue-tied (sorry George) they may decide to air this debate on Saturday Night Live.
Just imagine this.
'Mr. Prez, reading from notes made by Mr. Spencer
"Is it not true that mohammad carried out 78 military campaigns, 77 of them offensive ? Is is not true that he personally tortured and beheaded thousands of people ? Is is not true that he took a 6 year old girl as a wife ? Is it not all written in the koran and the hadith ?
maddinnerjacket, spluttering
"This is all about the phony holocaust, and the Western policies since then, and not about what the prophet (pbuh) did on the defensive. It is all about evil Zionism, and evil Western policies, and evil idolators."
Mr. Prez, reading from more notes made by Mr. Spencer.
"All civilizations of the world know the Holocaust happened. And we, the Americans, do not gain either directly or indirectly from making it all up. And as for the policies since the WW II, I understand that millions of Armenians were murdered in what is now called as Turkey between 1915-23, in the name of jihad and the prophet. Way before the WW II. And immediately after that (the War), in the month of August, 1947, one million Hindus were murdered in what is now called as pakistan. Very little is known about the massacre of Hindus in what is now called as bangladesh, and was then named East pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus were butchered there in the name of islam, jihad, and the prophet. And I need not tell you about the genocides that are going on in Africa right now in the name of islam that most of our MSM is not covering, though I intend to see that they do, soon as I get off this debate."
maddinnerjacket, frothing at the mouth,
"You kaafirs are going to die. All of you filthy descendants of apes and pigs, and all of idolators. We have the bomb, and the mahdi is coming, and the sunnis have the bomb as well, and .......
Transmission Interrupted.'
Just imagine.
Is Ah'mad' running for president of the WORLD or something? Once again he's using the wrong choice of a word (debate) because there's nothing to debate here. Your ideas are INSANE -- so please do us all a favor and retreat back to planet Allieoop.
"Maddinnerjacket"
Hilarious!!!
Here's an easy way to get I'madingbat to withdraw his demands for a debate: 1) Insist that he wear a tie. 2) Insist that he shave. 3) Don't let him stand on a box behind the podium so he looks taller.
Of course he'll denounce all that as a Zionist plot.
What -- you don't like the unkempt look?
So we agree to a debate. Then we arrest all the Iranians that show up. How hard is that?
I say on with the debate! :)
But PC Bush would probably try to be polite as possible playing up the ROP kind of rhetoric.
Posted by: Tomilio at August 29, 2006 10:44 AM
Ofcourse Dubya would not debate anyone unless he got the transcript reviwed and approved by Saudi "cabinet" in Riyadh. Will fake a day or two for wahabi clearence & approval so, hold on...
That's more like it.
The two have much in common.
Both are mildly retarded.
Both are self righteous religious fundamentalist fanatics.
Both believe in the end times, and that it can be brought on by the actions of men.
Both believe that their god speaks to or through them.
The way to describe the debate would be headlines "Dumb and Dumber"..with dumber being Dubya.
I think Ahmedigenocide knows this will never happen, even though he may be fully prepared for it to happen.
This is a stalling tactic just as anything else; it is also a PR grab. By even throwing this idea out there, he gains PR and time. If Bush were stupid enough to accept, it'd be even more PR and time gained even before it actually happened.
You can predict these stalling measures like clockwork. We've seen it all before with Saddam.
This challenge should be ignored. One, because of the comments and behavior of the wackjob in Iran, and two I really don't think I could stand listening to Bush repeat the talking points that are incessantly spoon fed to him ad nauseum.
Posted by: amana39 at August 29, 2006 12:23 PM
The sad reality is that the leader of the "free-world" is a puppet of wahabi wealth who has opened borders to invaders while fighting fake-wars, claiming to be a "war-president". So,
- Firstly, a debate would probably be an even contest between a "bully-bear" amd a "puppet-monkey".
- Secondly, those who know muslims well, know what to expect while "Al-taquiyya Al-debate" is on.. enriching uranium and developing nuclear war-heads.
Bush or Olmert; someone better act soon before it's too late and this monster is producing nuclear war heads. I cannot believe I am watching this craven inaction on the part of both these men. The consequences of inaction will be catastrophic!
Apologize for being off topic a bit, but Walid Phares has interesting questions concerning the forced conversion of the Fox News journalists over at the Counterterroism Blog:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/08/fox_news_team_release_what_is.php#007022
Who really ordered the kidnapping and are they now open to execution according to the Jihadist perspective?
Correction Nariz!
You stated, "Both believe in end times, and that it can be brought on by the actions of men."
What????!!!! Where do you come up with this stuff?
Ahmad has stated that it's his obligation to usher in the Mahdi, but Bush has never said that he plays a part in the return of Christ. And every Christian knows that God alone will send Christ at the appointed "time", and that it will not happen by mans efforts. Get your facts straight.
Champ!
Don't confuse nariz with the Truth.
And thanks for responding to him, as your post suddenly caused something else he said to make sense, ie, someone else claimed nariz said there are '3 billion muslims.'
nariz is not a muslim troll. Just a troll who hates Christianity so much that he just added in Christians to the muslim total. He sees no difference.
One war at a time, nariz. Hope you can wait a few more decades.
President Bush is not dumb, nor is he a fundamentalist, nor is he a fanatic. To compare him to the Iranian President in this way is morally repugnant. There is no moral equivalence here. I am stunned at the hyperbolic vitriol being vented in this thread.
Dear Mr. Ahmadinijad,
I accept your challenge. Nothing like a good ol' bar fight, I say. I have also decided to launch the first volley, which I'm certain will be amply covered on TV, as you suggest. In this debate I will NOT be handicapped by my inept language skills. You should have no difficulty interpreting my meaning. Here comes.
I eagerly await your response, but I am even more eager to launch yet another volley, so don't dally.
Time's up. Here comes.
Last one standing wins.
Regards,
W.
One of these mornings W is going to wake up, scratch the sleep out of his eyes, put on his gear and hit the elliptical. While watching the morning news and sweating away he's going to see Ahmadinewallace ranting and raving about this or that. It's always the same 3 or 4 lines with this guy. The red light bulb is going to FINALLY go off in W's head. At that point he will end his workout and summon the Joint Chiefs. Fifteen minutes later this portion of the Islamic nightmare will be over.
Memo to Muslims and their leftist allies: it does not take a genius to settle on a course to conclusion, especially for a man whose political career ends in about two years. Do not think W has lost his will over Iraq, the media or otherwise. He has nothing to lose at this point and may choose to end this more violently than anyone could have foreseen. Even Buraq cannot outrun a B-1.
.........FIX THE PROBLEM?
We cannot fight an idea. We cannot debate or change their religious ideas either, so
Here's how we fix the problem.
The Western nations must get out of the middle eastern countries, leave them to it! and
Close our borders.
We mind our business, perhaps they will mind theirs.
We must have nothing more to do with them unless they produce a nuke.
Sounder
Sounder - I disagree. Ideas can be discredited and delegitimized.
You can fight ideas.
We have to change their religious ideas because they are the foundation of all the jihad around the world. This is THE most important battlefield.
Separating ourselves from them and isolating ourselves will not protect us. It will cause weaker nations to loose out to the jihad ( like Sudan and France ) and will give countries like Iran all the time they need to make deals with North Korea and Russia to buy the things they need. They will build nuclear weapons whether we're engaged or not. Then they will set them off on us.
The solution is the utter defeat of nations like Iran and the decimation of Hamas and Hizbullah on one hand. The repudiation of Islam on the other. To practice Islam must AT LEAST been seen to be marginally worse than being a smoker. I'm kidding, but the way to solve the problem is in forcing the Believers to reconsider. They must be shocked out of their routines as well. They assumptions they have about Supreme Macho Allah must be shaken to the ground. They must be defeated at every turn and emotionally scarred by the implications... allah is dead, mohammed lied... until we knock them out of their mental shackles and force them to look around at the world we're going to have nothing but jihad, jihad, jihad. We need to shove them into reality because they won't see the light in large enough numbers on their own.
They must be forced to reconsider and not just by military strikes.
But to do this the free world will have to be able to name the enemy, name the basis of its belief and admit the nature of this war.
Isn't war just a more sincere form of debate?
Seriously, though, there's not much point to a debate:
* Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, an easily verifiable fact.
* Ahmadinejad is more like a vice president. The supreme ruler of Iran is the Ayatollah.
* Most importantly, there is little chance of pursuading anyone's opinion.
What Ahmadinejad would like to say in such a debate but can't seem to phrase it properly is that land was taken from arab peoples after WWII and made into the Jewish state as a punishment for the crimes perpetrated by the Nazi regime.
He'd insist that Israel should have been located in some part of Germany and not in Arab or Muslim-held lands.
After WWII the western powers set up a permanent home for the Jewish people by taking land from Axis-aligned countries. The location of Israel was determined by representatives of the victorious Allied countries. This permanent penalty can only be maintained by force -- the punished frequently feel that the punishment is unfair and will seek to have it modified.
Thus, the Iranian demands that the world re-examine the "Palestinian question" is a kind of legal appeal. Ahmadinejad is essentially saying "we've done our time, the war is long over, now let us (or at least the Muslim people) have the land back."
The permanent loss of territory as penalty to the losing faction of a war is common throughout history. In recent memory, however, Britain has returned Hong Kong to China and Israel has relinquished land captured during its wars. Nevertheless, the idea of sacrificing land is this: "Don't invade other countries or you'll lose your own land when you are defeated." Giving land the land back after one or two generations eliminates the deterrent.
The simple truth is that wars are the way that borders are redrawn. Israel was established as the result of WWII and will remain until another war changes that. What's true for Israel's borders is true for the borders of all countries: they exist only as long as they can be held by force.
There really is no point in verbal debate with Iran over Palestine, Israel, Kashmir, Andalusia or any other disputed lands. If Iran is capable of destroying Israel, and willing to do so, it really doesn't matter whether doing so can be proven to be wrong in a fair debate.
Ahmadinutjob Challenges President Bush to a Debate - Video
Free Patriotic Corner Banners
If Islam is the complete way of life and caanot be questioned, then what is the point of a debate? Another ridiculous sales pitch from the bearded Himmler.
If Islam is the complete way of life and cannot be questioned, then what is the point of a debate? Another ridiculous sales pitch from the bearded Himmler.
This idiot shows his fear by the desperation he displays. i.e. the letter to Merkel, and now this. Quite hilarious.
What a waste of time. We know what this Cro-magnon Iranian idiot (Ahmadinejad) is going to say before he says it. I say: Just blow him up.
Why would anyone want to debate a sub-human?
I am sure GWB has better things to do!!
Chyeah. Like reading "The Three Little Pigs", "The Purple Turtle", and "Doug & Mary Go To The Zoo".
... the free world will have to be able to name the enemy, name the basis of its belief and admit the nature of this war....
1) Name The Enemy: Religion
2) Name The Basis of Its Belief: That to be spiritual, one must subscribe to a Religion
3) Admit The Nature of This War: Human spirit vs cultist dogma in all forms
If Religion Wins, We All Lose.
A_Plague_on_Both_Houses – You think their ideas can be changed? Can it be done within two years? Iran will have the bomb by then. We have been dealing with their ideas for over 50 years without success. As a matter of fact, it’s now much worse.
We do not have another 50 years to work on it, or even 2 years, despite our best intentions.
If they build a nuke, we will have to engage them. The choice will be theirs.
Sounder
Sounder - I'm not talking about an ecumenical outreach to try and 'convince' them to see the error of their ways.
I'm talking about proving that allah is nothing more than the alter-ego of the world's most successful sociopath, Mohammed.
I'm talking about destroying the faith, not trying to moderate it. This should be done using every tool at our disposal, military, emotional, communicative, scholarly, financial and so on.
It needs to begin now and needs to end when people are ashamed to be known as muslim and have lost any desire to practice the rituals. I'm talking about an assault on everything a True Believer holds dear using every weapon we have.
Destroy Islam. We have never really faced the thing head on.
project Samson - the blind, stong free world needs to pull the pillars of Islam down to the ground. We need to dismantle the belief system as well as defeat the jihadis. We need to destroy the reasons they fight, the justifications they use to fight and their ability to fight effectively.
Who would clean-up the monkey and elephant poop?