NEWS: Iran's President Calls For Israel's Destruction

Originally posted by Odium
Why did the talks with Iran fail?

We told them to stop, we made threats against referring them to the security council without evidence and we told them they couldn't do what they were doing. They have a right to the power under the NPT, telling them to stop enrichment was not legal and we do not have the right to do it. We could have worked along side them, we could have helped them build the power plants and better monitored it but instead we tried telling them what to do and they didn't like it. The IAEI ruined our chance to watch over Iran and by us keep telling them what to do we will only force them further away and into the more radical fringe of their Goverment...

Again, Odium, who is "we"?
Again, my understanding was that the talks failed because an agreement could not be reached. Also, it is my understanding that the EU offered extensive economic concessions/packages, said they could have a nuclear program only if it was strictly monitored, as per the NPT. All of which, Iran rejected.

Now why is that. If one has nothing to hide, then there should be no problems in having those current nuclear facility sites, both on the surface and underground, checked and verified, also per the NPT. Hmm.




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
I Beg To Differ for $2000, Alex

Intrepid, Israel stating thus is a self-defense measure

.

And this makes it different from Iran? How? How many Nukes does Israel have? How many nukes does Iran have? What type of delivery system does Israel have? What type of delivery system does Iran have?

Again, as I asserted previously, which you entirely did not heed, was that with the continued Iranian rhetoric, imply over the years, not once, but a host of times, as compared to Israel asserting what it has [that you linked to] how many times?

Hmm, rhetoric, one word, many meanings, Freudian slip :

rhet·o·ric


noun
Definitions:

1. persuasive speech or writing: speech or writing that communicates its point persuasively

2. pretentious words: complex or elaborate language that only succeeds in sounding pretentious

3. empty talk: fine-sounding but insincere or empty language

4. skill with language: the ability to use language effectively, especially to persuade or influence people

5. study of writing or speaking effectively: the study of methods employed to write or speak effectively and persuasively

As was pointed out previously in this thread, this Head of State doesn't have the control of oh, let's say, a Bush.

In your own words:

You might want to check this out:

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies: Iran Calls for the Destruction of Israel, “ISRAEL MUST BE ERADICATED FROM THE ANNALS OF HISTORY”

I did, old news. This has been going on for thousands of years.

Maybe a position like this one is why Iran feels the need for Nukes.

I doubt it, Intrepid, being that Iran has been advocating and voicing the destruction of Israel long before this current nuclear situation evolved in Iran.




seekerof

So we ignore Israels threats against another independent country? See previous link.

On to Final Jeopardy.

I assumed you were thinking along those lines, I shouldn't have done and I apologise. After my reply I noted that I didn't actually answer your question so here goes, No, I absolutely do not support any such intent or action, but I do feel that we have been unduly inclined to back Israel all the way down the line and we would do well to remember this when throwing accusations about. My view of the situation is this;

There is a definite feeling that Israel can do no wrong in (in particular) America's eyes. We should not now be shocked, as many seem to be, that we now face a terrible tide of resentment that is more likely than not going to lead to a major conflict of our own making.


I was struck by a comment earlier in the thread about, if it is a war on terror then what about the KKK and other terror organistaions, it seems that the US media are, with the blessing of the US administration and the compliance of that of my own country, trying to pass off what is in reality, on our part, a reactionary fightback against the resentment now rife and unstoppable in large sections of the Muslim world as some sort of heroic crusade against terrorism, which is laughable.

Now, I feel we are going to find ourselves in a major fight, much worse than we have seen so far, and it could be that the very survival of our way of life is at stake. In fact I am sure of it, and we must prevail. Make no mistake about which side I am on.

Given the graveness of the situation I am sickened by all the one sided lying that goes on in the name of 'Patriotism'.

When this blows up, as it is only beginning to do now, we can't blame the Nazi's or the Commies for starting it. Or the Muslims. This will be one fight we have brought on ourselves and we started sowing the seeds in the 1940's.

This does not mean I choose to overlook the many atrocities carried out by the Palestinians and other Arab nations agains the Jewish people, both sides are as bad as each other in this respect and saying 'but what about when.....' is nonsense.

When you cut all the crap and take it back to its Roots WE disenfranchised the Palestinians at gunpoint and worse, WE artificially created a new nation state and WE put the Jews right there where, religiously speaking, they were in a minority of one and were not wanted.

Ooh, quelle surprise! It didn't work and created a seething cauldron of hatred. Now, who'd have thought that would happen?



[edit on 28-10-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by intrepid
And this makes it different from Iran? How? How many Nukes does Israel have? How many nukes does Iran have? What type of delivery system does Israel have? What type of delivery system does Iran have?

How many nukes Israel may or may not have is immaterial in this discussion pertaining to Iran continually threatening Israel with utter destruction.

Are you saying or suggesting that because Israel may have nukes that anyone and everyone else should be allowed to have them too?
Fair is fair, right?
Thats childhood-like thinking and argument in which a child cries and 'huffs and puffs' [Iran] because some other child [Israel] has something that the other child [Iran] wants.

I did, old news. This has been going on for thousands of years.

Iran has been stating, asserting, and threatening the destruction of Israel for thousands of years?!
Erm, no.
We are talking Iran and Israel here, intrepid, not Israel and the surrounding Muslim/Arabic population, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Eygpt, etc. Furthermore, I do not hear or read about the above mentioned countries continually making assertions, claims, and threatening Israel with utter destruction, other than those terrorist militant factions in Palestine, which are undoubtedly supported by Syria and Iran.

So we ignore Israels threats against another independent country? See previous link.

Israel's threats are ignored about as much as you, with others, continue to blow off, dismiss, and/or ignore those continued Iranian threats that have been ongoing for those thousands of years, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by intrepid
And this makes it different from Iran? How? How many Nukes does Israel have? How many nukes does Iran have? What type of delivery system does Israel have? What type of delivery system does Iran have?

How many nukes Israel may or may not have is immaterial in this discussion pertaining to Iran continually threatening Israel with utter destruction.

Why? Seems pertainant to me. If an enemy for thousands of years not only has the means to destroy me and has the ability to deliver such weapons over miles(not in a trunk bomb), doesn't that make it important?

Yet ANOTHER question, why doesn't MAD apply to Iran? MAD worked in the past, why not here? Sorry, 2 questions.

Are you saying or suggesting that because Israel may have nukes that anyone and everyone else should be allowed to have them too?
Fair is fair, right?
Thats childhood-like thinking and argument in which a child cries and 'huffs and puffs' [Iran] because some other child [Israel] has something that the other child [Iran] wants.

At least it's thinking, not programming.

We are talking Iran and Israel here, intrepid, not Israel and the surrounding Muslim/Arabic population, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Eygpt, etc. Furthermore, I do not hear or read about the above mentioned countries continually making assertions, claims, and threatening Israel with utter destruction, other than those terrorist militant factions in Palestine, which are undoubtedly supported by Syria and Iran.

You're hung up on this "utter" word. This isn't a situation of absolutes. How many of those countries(or inhabitants of those countries) have gone to war with Israel in the last 60 years?

BTW, in what year do you think that Iran could effect utter destruction on Israel? I've seen you in the weaponry threads, you should be able to answer this one.


Seems like David and Goliath all over again but this time David isn't from the line of Abraham.

Originally posted by intrepid
Why? Seems pertainant to me. If an enemy for thousands of years not only has the means to destroy me and has the ability to deliver such weapons over miles(not in a trunk bomb), doesn't that make it important?

I can respect this mention by you, intrepid.

Yet ANOTHER question, why doesn't MAD apply to Iran? MAD worked in the past, why not here? Sorry, 2 questions.

No need to apologize.
As for the mention of MAD, what you imply may well hold true or be a possibility. That would remian to be seen. The point here is that if Iran is acquiring nuclear capabilities based on the principles of MAD, then why the blatant continuous threats of utter destruction upon Israel?

At least it's thinking, not programming.

No one, including myself, has ever asserted that you do not think.
I certainly hope you were not implying that I was under any type programming. We may have our differences on issues, but you should know otherwise in reference to me.

You're hung up on this "utter" word. This isn't a situation of absolutes. How many of those countries(or inhabitants of those countries) have gone to war with Israel in the last 60 years?

The point being that perhaps this is why Israel supposedly was allowed those nukes they supposedly have. To prevent 'utter' destruction by those who were seeking it and may still?

BTW, in what year do you think that Iran could effect utter destruction on Israel?

Hypothetically and being a smartarse, probably the day that Iran acquires that alleged nuclear capability.

Seems like David and Goliath all over again but this time David isn't from the line of Abraham.

If David is in reference to Israel, it would seem self-evident that Goliath wants no parts of David, especially after those wars that have occurred in the past 60 years, huh?
As such, Iran [Goliath] wants no parts of Israel [David]; they had better think twice.






seekerof

Sorry Seekerof, I think you should reread my post. You're not even close.

Erm, no, I will not repost.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Erm, no, I will not repost.

Originally posted by waynos

When you cut all the crap and take it back to its Roots WE disenfranchised the Palestinians at gunpoint and worse, WE artificially created a new nation state and WE put the Jews right there where, religiously speaking, they were in a minority of one and were not wanted.

Ooh, quelle surprise! It didn't work and created a seething cauldron of hatred. Now, who'd have thought that would happen?

i agree with most of what you are saying waynos, but "we" didnt disenfranchise anybody. the palestinians were offered their own state alongside israel in 1947, but turned down the offer because they refused to recognize israel, which was part of the agreement. all they had to do was agree to recognizing them. they didnt have to be friends or trade, just say "yes, we recognize them as a country." how stupid can you be?

Originally posted by stumason
What is the difference in Zionists saying God gave them that land and Muslims saying God wants them out? nothing.

That, my friend, is the best single explaination of the Israeli/Palestine problem I have ever had the fortune to read. Brilliant!

snafu, yes, what you are saying is true but imagine it this way, I don't know if you are British or not but imagine if, for the sake of argument, the USA turned around to the UK and said 'we are going to partition England and you can have half and call it England and the other half will be given over to a new nation state for the Romany Gypsies, all you haver to do is recognise their sovereignty as a nation, do you?'

I think the answer would be not just 'no' but more like 'just try it mate'!

Yes, this is a poor comparison but one which serves its purpose for it was their land, what we were offering them was half an independant country, why shouldn't they want all of it?.

Anyway, understanding why we are where we are is one thing, the situation is upon us now and we can't turn back the clock, we are going to have to get out of thius fix the best way we can. I just fear that the 'best way' is going to be another major war, leading to more resentment, and then another one ad nauseum.

posted by Freedom_for_sum
Again; your'e only reading what you want to and not what is actually said. I NEVER said Muslims are "the only ones doing religious terrorism". They are the overwhelming vast majority commiting these acts.

Semantics. Either way, it is incorrect.

That "table" you linked too is crap. It states the IRA as:

Irish Republican Army (IRA) Incidents 84 Injuries139 Fatalities 29

Only 29 dead? I don't think so. Thats is the death toll from one attack, in Omagh, which was actually a splinter group (the Real IRA).

A simple search would yield true figures.

According to the Independent Research group, the IRA are responsible for 1,757 killings, broken down into several categories: Crown Forces, Loyalist Military and Political Activists, Civilian Accidents, Operations in Britain, Sectarian, and other.

Crown Forces: The vast majority, 1,008, fall into the first grouping--British military forces. Of this category the vast majority are full-time or part-time members of the British army--698. The IRA have killed 287 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [RUC] and 23 Prison warders. Another 100 deaths were civilians working for British forces, either informErs -- 59, magistrates -- 8, contractors or civilians directly employed by the British army/RUC -- 33.

Loyalist activists: The IRA have killed 24 Loyalist military personnel and 9 political leaders for a total of 33 from this group.

Accidental deaths: A total of 142 civilians were killed by mistake during attacks on British military forces -- 90 in bombings of commercial property [included are 10 outside N. Ireland and 6 killed trying to stop a bomb attack to their property.] Another 130 people died in premature IRA bomb explosions. The vast majority in this category, 102, were IRA members; 28 were civilians.

Britain: 14 British politicians were killed by the IRA and 34 civilians died in IRA attacks, 32 of which took place between July 1974 and March 1976.

Sectarian: According to the Independent Research Group, 133 Protestant civilians were deliberately killed by the IRA: "In response to the killing of Catholics by Loyalists, the IRA has launched indiscriminate attacks against the Protestant civilian community in an attempt to get the Loyalists to stop their attacks on the Catholic community. 85 of these killings occurred during the two years 1975 and 1976."

Source

So having completely discredited your source, I am not inclined to believe your analysis of the global terrorist situation. An analysis of false statistics can only be a load of rubbish.

Originally posted by stumason
Christian Fundies...your seriously telling me you dont know what I am talking about? OK city mate......

A sure sign of ignorance! Avoiding the answer by criticising the questioner! NAMES PLEASE!

Oh for crying out loud...are you expieriencing some sort of mental block? Timothy Mcvey, OK city bombing, 200 odd killed? Remember? He was some sort of right-wing christian nutjob....

posted by snafu7700
i agree with most of what you are saying waynos, but "we" didnt disenfranchise anybody. the palestinians were offered their own state alongside israel in 1947, but turned down the offer because they refused to recognize israel, which was part of the agreement. all they had to do was agree to recognizing them. they didnt have to be friends or trade, just say "yes, we recognize them as a country." how stupid can you be?

Ok...Put it this way...

Some quasi-religious racial grouping decides it's "divinely" granted homeland is the entire of the continetal US, apart from New York and Washington. It then suceeds in convincing the international community that it should be allowed to settle there and through some action or another, gets the land through an international treaty.

All US citizens are then required to evacuate their homes, land and livelihoods (where they have lived for generations) to make room for the self-proclaimed "Gods" chosen people.

Obvious friction starts and the former landowners uprise.

The new nation-state, backed by a motley collection of international bankers and a superpower, with the latest military hardware and unlimited funds, then bombs the crap out of your remaining towns and cities in disproportionate retalitory strikes, averaging 10 of your civilians killed for every one of theirs.

Along with this, they strangle your economy with blockades and restrictions, furthering the misery and driving your citenzenry to more desperate, if reprehensable, actions to fight back.

If this scenario happened, would the US populace be "stupid" to reject the agreement, which you were not consulted on and not compensated for, to give away your land to a religious group who have no claim (going back to the lack of any credible evidence of claim due to length of time, religious texts and the fact that 75% of Jews are not Hebrews).

I think not. I think you would be in every right to fight for your homes and your land. Whilst the measures taken to fight back may be immoral and cowardly in the eyes of the outside observer (and to many extents to anyone at all), to the slighted and aggrieved facing a seemingly invincible military force, it would be the only way to strike back.

That, my friend, is the best single explaination of the Israeli/Palestine problem I have ever had the fortune to read. Brilliant!

Thanks ...I think my scenario above is better though

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by stumason
What is the difference in Zionists saying God gave them that land and Muslims saying God wants them out? nothing.

That, my friend, is the best single explaination of the Israeli/Palestine problem I have ever had the fortune to read. Brilliant!

Put it simply:

The difference between those both groups is that
- no matter what religious groups may claim or not -

The democratic Jewish State of Israel has been established on May 14, 1948 following United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947
and Israel joined the UN as its 59th member on 11 May 1949.



[edit on 29-10-2005 by Riwka]

reply deleted, statement of the bleeding obvious accepted.

Just trying to figure out the relevance in regard to what has been posted before.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by stumason

All US citizens are then required to evacuate their homes, land and livelihoods (where they have lived for generations) to make room for the self-proclaimed "Gods" chosen people.

The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons.

Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

The first thing the documents show is that Arab flight from Haifa began well before the outbreak of hostilities, and even before the UN’s November 29, 1947 partition resolution. On October 23, over a month earlier, a British intelligence brief was already noting that:

... leading Arab personalities are acting on the assumption that disturbances are near at hand, and have already evacuated their families to neighboring Arab countries.

The role of Arab leaders in urging the Arab population to leave is similarly well-documented

• Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared:
  
  We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.
  
  
• The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs:
  
  This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeatedated [...]
  
  
• In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948­49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
  
  But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them [the refugees] to leave.
  
  
• Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al­Janub (August 16, 1948):
  
  The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.
  
  
• One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said:
  
  The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.
  
  
• Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951):
  
  The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade [...]
  
  
• And Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:
  
  The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue
  

palestinefacts.org

Do you want to become this topic another "why-and-how-has-Israel-been-established" or

Can we go back to the topic, please?

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Riwka]

Do you want to become this topic another "why-and-how-has-Isael-been-established" or

Can we go back to the topic, please?

Not at all, I was responding to the usual rhetoric of "Israel is defending itself and is entirely innocent".

If you want the thread to go back to topic, by all means do it, but this is related to the topic anyhow. You cannot lambast one nation for wanting rid of another without having an appreciation of the situation at large.

Stating that the wealthy arabs all moved out before the forming of Israel is completely pointless. Millions remained behind and had their property seized by Jewish settlers without compensation. Israel has also ignored many UN resolutions and is disobeying international law with the continued occupation of what remains of palestine

As I previously stated earlier, Iran isn't calling for the massacre of Jews, just the dissolution of the Israeli state. As I also said earlier, Iran has, apart from the US, the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, so they are in no means calling for the eradication of those people.

Originally posted by stumason

As I also said earlier, Iran has, apart from the US, the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, so they are in no means calling for the eradication of those people.

PARDON?

There are ~ 20,405 Jews living in Iran in 2005

TOP 10 Countries by Jewish Population are:

• United States: 5,914,682 Jews
  
  
• (Israel: 5,021,506 Jews)
  
  
• Russia: 717,101 Jews
  
  
• France: 606,561 Jews
  
  
• Argentina: 395,379 Jews
  
  
• Canada: 393,660 Jews
  
  
• United Kingdom: 302,207 Jews
  
  
• Ukraine: 142,276 Jews
  
  
• Germany: 107,160 Jews
  
  
• Brazil: 95,125 Jews
  
  
• Australia: 90,406 Jews
  
  (more)
  

And here you can read Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speach to the representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, members of the Society for the Defense of the Palestinian Nation, and members of the Islamic Students Union, and an audience of hundreds of students at the "World without Zionism" conference held in Tehran.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Riwka]

And here you can read Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads speach to the representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, members of the Society for the Defense of the Palestinian Nation, and members of the Islamic Students Union, and an audience of hundreds of students at the "World without Zionism" conference held in Tehran.

Being against Zionism is completely different to being anti-semitic. They like to lump the two together so people get labelled anti-semitic when they question Israel.

Apologies about the Iranian Jew numbers, I must have misquoted from somewhere. let me double check my facts.. ...But, they do have a sizeable Jewish population.....

Originally posted by stumason

Apologies about the Iranian Jew numbers, I must have misquoted from somewhere. let me double check my facts..

...But, they do have a sizeable Jewish population.....

No problem. It is the lagest Jewish population outside of Israel in the Middle East - Maybe you meant that.

U.N. Security Council members on Friday condemned Iran over remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” They approved a draft resolution warning Iran that such offensive language is intolerable and this draft was distributed to all member-states of the world body.

I am very happy about this. The U.N. is changing its image and is firming standing together against forces threatening Israel's fate. We are not alone any more

And Iran's Foreign Ministry issued a statement Saturday morning saying it would stand by its U.N. commitments not to use violence against another country.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Riwka]