Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:11 AM
Mon Nov 30
13 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
It would be much more PC if they did it instead of the US.
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.
A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry told the newspaper that the "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practicing Jews.
"The name Saborjhian derives from thread painter -- sabor in Farsi -- a once common and humble occupation in the carpet industry in Semnan Province, where Aradan is situated. Ahmad, by contrast, is a name also used for the Prophet Muhammad and means virtuous; nejad means race in Farsi, so Ahmadinejad can mean Muhammad's race or virtuous race."
Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.
10/03/09
Could the real root of this mid-east arms race simply come from the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons despite never formally admitting as much? As much as I support Israel, I cannot explain, excuse or justify why Israel would have such weapons.
I think a world where Israel didn’t choose to go down this path (beginning in 1961) the mid-east would be far more peaceful, and in my mind we wouldn’t be entangled in half of this mess to begin with.
Also, who cares what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Sabourjian?) says or thinks. You folks know that he’s not in control of squat in the Iran with out his Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s approval, right?
10/03/09
Also, how is a zealot like Ahmadinejad, being kept on a leash by another zealot like Khamenei, supposed to be reassuring?
10/03/09
It's a disturbingly well known secret.
10/03/09
So they built nuclear weapons as a deterrent to keep these nations in check... and it's worked.
And the BIG difference here is that while Israel maintains its weapons as a (very successful) deterrent, few people have any doubt that the Iranians would try to use their nuclear weapon the very same day it was constructed.
SO as a 'direct child of the holocaust' and 'supporter of Israel' (I don't quite believe you are either of those... and if you are then you beat Ahmadinejad in the self-hatred department), you should perhaps learn a bit more about the ACTUAL political dynamics and balance of power of the region. Israel only exists because of its nuclear deterrent.
10/04/09
My mom was on a train headed to the concentration camps when she was 13. Twisted her leg during the jump which gave her a limp that stayed with her for years. Survived on her own and with the help of a few family members who survived for 5 years while the war was still raging. When she was 18 she met up with my father who was 23 and was in the Polish Army. Had two children in post-War Poland/Germany. Moved to Israel in the late 1950s. Then in 1963 the moved to the U.S. In 1968 I was born.
Now, as far as your "self-hating" nonsense goes, please take this personally: Go eff yourself, on behalf of my mom, my dad and my family and anyone who has experienced the pain of true anti-Semitism and who has a brain that can think and decide that you know what, Israel has made mistakes. And nukes are one of them.
Supporting Israel is one thing. Declaring anyone who dares criticize Israel’s tactics and decisions as "self-hating" is another. Not only is it tired and cliched, it actually proves the point that there is no hope for peace in the mid-east until Israel truly questions itself and the impact of it's decisions.
And you dear sir fall into the fun-guy, happy club of a-holes who have lost their mind and perspective. Because you know what? Even in Israel these issues are discussed without the hate/bile you spit out.
Oh and deterrent, as far as what I am seeing now, Iran creating it's own secret nuclear program proves how effective that asinine "deterrent" is.
PS: Seriously, go eff yourself Thomas Paladino.
10/04/09
10/04/09
You see, that’s the problem right there. Transparency. Technically speaking is Israel really above reproach? If the world is subjected to a nuclear winter caused by an Israeli strike with nukes is that somehow better than an Iranian strike?
Lord let me hope I get radiation poisoning from a Kosher nuke! Lord knows it's much worse if the nuke is Treif!
The thing that’s really fascinating about the logic behind the justifications is it’s the same nonsense we all heard during the Cold War.
But at least in that case, there was no doubt who had what and where.
10/04/09
A couple of things here. One book that talks about the development of the Israeli Nuclear Program is called the Sampson Option. I haven't read it so I can't say if it is good or not.
Addressing SpyMagician's questions about Israel being more transparent to the world in regards to having a nuclear bomb, the simplest answer is that Israel would probably argue that they are always subject to more criticism than other countries in the world. One can consider "the Zionism is racism" resolution in the UN as one example of this, in view of the nonsense that goes on in Somalia, Sudan, and the abuse of people in Iran.
Regardless, Israel probably does not see any advantage to discussing whether or not they have a nuclear bomb because they will be asked to relinquish their nukes without any benefit.
This then would should say, well if Israel has a nuclear weapon, why can't Iran?
One reason why there is not equivalence, is that Iran's motives for obtaining a nuclear bomb has nothing really to do with defending themselves against an attack from Israel. It really comes down to Iran's attempt to become a mini-superpower in the Middle East, namely against their Arab Rivals (Saudi Arabia, etc.). There has been a long time hatred in the Middle East between Persians (Iran) and the Arabs. In addition, there has been a huge shift in the balance of power with the fall of Iraq because of the US involvement, where Iran typically had a neighbor that would keep it in check (after 1980).
There is a power vacuum in the Middle East today, and one of the easiest ways to be taken seriously in the region and throughout the world is to work on arming yourself with a nuclear bomb. This was something that Saddam Hussien considered before the Israelis blew up a site in Iraq. The same thing probably (we don't really know for sure) in Syria as well. Hence, at a high level, a nuke would help Iran gain respect on the world stage and help Abby with his people back at home.
A nuclear arms race in the Middle East will probably be spurned on not because of Israel's possession of a nuclear bomb, but because of the inherent power threat that Iran is to the other countries in the Middle East (think India versus Pakistan). Israel, although disliked, is not looked upon as being as a aggressor nation (although actions in Lebanon may cause this statement to be in dispute). Iran however is not looked upon as so favorably.
For example, Iran uses terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas as proxy groups to cause problems for other countries in the Middle East. The fear about Iran getting a nuke is that that although they will not use it directly, Iran could funnel nuclear fissile material to a terrorist group for a dirty nuclear bomb which could be put in a suitcase and deployed by someone in the terrorist groups that they support. This is the real fear in the Middle East, not a direct nuclear war between Iran and Israel with a first strike/counterstrike conflict which would be catastrophic.
10/04/09
One side has nukes for defense. One has nukes for offense. Both have reasons to be secret about this... Etc, etc, etc...
Look, this is an arms race: Plain and simple. And I honestly believe that Iran would not be pursuing nukes if Israel did not have them themselves.
And if you disagree with me, just reread the books on the Cold War build-up.
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
10/03/09
More to the point, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would quite simply lead to the out-and-out destruction of the current regime, and much of the country, which is why the people actually in charge (the corrupt, theocratic clerical leadership) would never let that little dick, little dick-ed Ahmadinejad do such a thing.
10/03/09
10/04/09
10/04/09
Unbelievable.
10/04/09
I don't understand what the "hurt somebody's feelings" thing is all about. Any Iranian attack on Israel, let alone a nuclear one, would result in complete and utter destruction for the Iranian regime. And if there's one thing the corrupt, despicable oligarchs in the Iranian regime have demonstrated, it's a survivor's mentality.
10/04/09
"Any Iranian attack on Israel, let alone a nuclear one, would result in complete and utter destruction for the Iranian regime."
I absolutely love whenever I hear this nonsense. Okay, we get it. Israel can fight back. You know how many IDF guys I've met who always want to point that out? How many issues do IDF soldiers have with daddy and proving themselves? TONS! But guess what? Israel can lose as well in conventional battle. Lebanon for example.
And guess what? If Israel engaged in a conventional war on Iran, 100% of nobody would sit back idly. Not the U.S., not the Russian Federation, non Turkey, not Jordan, not Syria, not nobody...
So would you be proud then if Israel nuked Iran and then—as a result—helped destroy the world? And nobody would stand around in smoldering rubble smiling over this death and destruction... Unless of course you are one of these death cult loons who actually WANTS a conflict since "the Bible says" that a great war in the mid-east is a precursor to "the Rapture"?
10/04/09
10/04/09
A second, equally important statement of fact is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not in charge in Iran. He's merely a figurehead-- a vile, anti-Semitic tool for a really ugly, repressive regime. As I said before, the mullahs have demonstrated that they are committed to the continuation of their own power more than anything else, which is exactly why they won't nuke Israel or anywhere else. They are well aware that such a thing would mean the end of their regime.
I point this out, besides my desire to correct the ignorance in this thread, because it's important for us all to stop pretending that Iran is going to be nuking Israel anytime soon. Despite what people above say, the lack of any operational ability to deliver a nuclear payload in Israel is, in fact, a pretty big part of the answer to the question of whether Iran is going to nuke Israel. I don't know, call me crazy, I just think actually being able to physically carry out such an attack is pretty important for debating whether such an attack would happen.
I am deeply opposed to military action against Iran, and deeply committed to the safety and security of Israel. Luckily enough, both positions are consonant with each other, but only so long as people who are vastly exaggerating both Iran's capability and likelihood of committing a nuclear attack are corrected. So I'm correcting.
10/04/09
"Despite what people above say, the lack of any operational ability to deliver a nuclear payload in Israel is, in fact, a pretty big part of the answer to the question of whether Iran is going to nuke Israel."
So you are telling me that a truck running a checkpoint and exploding has never happened in Israel?
You're clearly a Troll.
10/04/09
10/04/09
Also, your knowledge of the geopolitics of Iran fails to acknowledge the importance Temple Mount to Judaism AND Islam.
You think any Muslim state would want to be known as the one who destroyed that place?
Please let us know when the next issue of your highly informative newsletter hits the stands.
10/05/09
I mean who gives a fuck that your Mom was a holocaust survivor? Does that give you a greater insight into the truth? Speaking of which, your Mom had you when she was 44 in 1968? She's amazingly fertile. Wow.
10/09/09
And you know why you should care? My mom was indeed "fertile" and it does give me different perspectives on modern discussion of what is happening in the mideast, because I am quite possibly the only 41 year old second generation child of Holocaust survivors you will ever meet. If you want to have some "birther" level debate on this, I have more documentation to prove you are an a-hole—and I am who I am—than you can imagine.
It definitely affects my worldview because my parents were both strong Zionists who were proud (they both passed away i 1993) of their heritage, but they were not delusional.
Israel having nukes is crazy, it’s part of the problem and perhaps you need to realize that saying Israel should be transparent and perhaps disarm is not a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of sanity.
09/15/09
09/15/09
(1) It isn't just "advocates of Israel" who are concerned about Garlasco's peculiar "hobby." Critics of Israel, including Helena Cobban, M.J. Rosenberg and Daniel Levy were moved to protest. (Hey, John Cook, it's called "Google")
(2) Garlasco was caught lying, and lying is bad, m'kay? He declared: "Precisely because it's so obvious that the Nazis were evil, I never realized that other people,
including friends and colleagues, might wonder why I care about these things." However, under his online pseudonym, Flak88, he wrote: "So I am trying to figure out what to do. My book is close to done, but I am not sure if I should put my name on it. If folks at work found out I might very well lose my job."
09/15/09
09/15/09
That being said, I completely disagree with the premise that collecting Nazi junk is inherently disturbed. I don't know anything about this guy, but I certainly hope the reports that there are worse sides than this to him are accurate, because I don't think it alone forms sufficient ethical grounds for canning someone.
09/15/09
09/16/09
09/15/09
People are curious about this stuff, but the fact that you can't see/observe it adds to the mystique in a bad way. I think it'd benefit us all to expose some of these artifacts openly--and demistify them.
09/15/09