It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
*Sighs*

Can we get back on topic now, i would like to know of member's ideas on dealing with Iran and relations in the middle east


Well infinite; since the crux of Iran's grievances surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian issues, maybe discussing this issue is on topic.

I would like to make a couple notable points now:

Most western free nations allow immigration of people from all walks of life and from many different cultures. This is because free societies believe that individual rights and freedoms extend to EVERYONE; including people in repressive countries. This is why the Statue of Liberty (a gift to us from France) states: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the nameless, tempest-lost, to me I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is why when Cubans are able to escape the communist island they are given refuge here in the States. And I know that the UK has similar, if not easier, immigration policies.

So my question is this: Eons ago, when Jews were being persecuted and routed out from this land or that country and finally setting up camp where they are now; Why wouldn't the Palestininas welcome them and provide safe harbor? What is it about the Palestinians that, despite Israel returning Gaza to them as a goodwill gesture, compells them to continue attacking Jews? (don't give me this business that they can't control their terrorist factions)

Is it really about real-estate? I don't believe it is. I believe it is in their nature to hate Jews as their Ideology dictates. There will NEVER be reconciliation as the Palestinians don't want it. The Palestinians will NEVER be satisfied until every Jew is off "their" land because there is no way for Palestinians and Jews to live side-by-side. Islam does not allow it EXCEPT in the state of dhimitude whereby Jews would be forced to pay a jizya ("charity") and to live with less rights than their Muslim neighbors. Since the Palestininas don't have a state of their own, there's no way to force Jews to pay jizya and make it an Islamic arrangement. The only solution from the Palestinian persepective is for every Jew to leave. Of course, this will never happen and so this battle will continue--forever--until one or the other is completely irradicated.

The whole real estate argument is nothing more than subterfuge to an underlying, more insidious and nefarious, reason for their hatred.




posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   


Most western free nations allow immigration of people from all walks of life and from many different cultures. This is because free societies believe that individual rights and freedoms extend to EVERYONE; including people in repressive countries. This is why the Statue of Liberty (a gift to us from France) states: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the nameless, tempest-lost, to me I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is why when Cubans are able to escape the communist island they are given refuge here in the States. And I know that the UK has similar, if not easier, immigration policies.


Exactly what constitutes a free nation as this lexicon is constantly ovebred throughout western rethoric? Many of these free socities are also responsible for abetting opressed societies dictators in thier continual depletion of humanism within thier countries, and they have also advantageously used such socities to make thier own ends meet; France and Germany were quite successfull in taking advantage of the oil for food program; the United States of America has supplied a great deal many contras in South America for thier own geo-political purposes; the UK and many other European countries neglected Africans the right to equality in Arpethiad for decades untill finaly international scrutiny and other variables changed thier opinion very fast.




I believe it is in their nature to hate Jews as their Ideology dictates.


Amazing; you are suggesting that this nature of Palestinans is pre-dispositioned within thier pyschology, and it is inherently inevitable that they will react violently and by virtue of religious ideology against all Jewry. Do tell me, under what substantiated analysis do you subscribe to such science? Not only do you disregard posit historicity, you utterly subordinate yourself to scrutiny of poor praxeological, sociological, and pyschological discourse, it's almost unerving to see you spout your tautologous opinions which are usual laced in subjectivity and poor research based upon isolated incidents and spurious accords.

The ideology of Palestinians is not fixated and codifed in Islamic virtues and ethos, but through socio-political and more importantly, the subsequental economic hardships procurred throughout the decades in ghettos and under constant myopic eyes of the west. The entire rift between both sides did in actuality occure through real estate disagreements which seem indifferent to common sense which dictated that Palestinians were being supplanted by the millions to accomodate a minute population of Jews. This is more than enough reason to foster anger towards the international community and Jewish persons themselves.



The Palestinians will NEVER be satisfied until every Jew is off "their" land because there is no way for Palestinians and Jews to live side-by-side.


This has been stated continualy of conflicting sides for centuries, history a priori tells us differently; from the constant flux of catholics and protestants, and other such Christ based faiths in perpetual war fare who eventualy set aside such difference and have lived side by side; or, the many sects of Islam who do disagree on ascendancy of prophethood; or after 1947 in India which saw millions murdered in massive riots across the land, we see millions even more living side by side, even if resentment exists in older generations.

I remember a certain time in Canadian - American history which saw the White house being burned down, and now I see a certain time where we are considered Americans greatest ally in a number of aspect.

You truely cater towards a quasi-defeatist attitude which beclouds any diplomatic appendages in your rationalizing of these situations and making certain that positive and productive results can occur.




Islam does not allow it EXCEPT in the state of dhimitude whereby Jews would be forced to pay a jizya ("charity") and to live with less rights than their Muslim neighbors. Since the Palestininas don't have a state of their own, there's no way to force Jews to pay jizya and make it an Islamic


Your current adminstration finds nothing wrong with a monarchy have total control over it's peoples destination economical, politicaly, and socialy, and it furthermore disregards the massive human rights accumulated therein over the decades. Certainly, that does make them no different than these deomizing Muslims, does it not?

You're wrong on a number of aspects, i'll continue further from a personal example which is found in my father and grandfathers residence in Pakistan, and shall I mention that he resided in majority Muslims area and studied there without conflict or jizya for years? Most Muslims do not follow Islam verbatim and it's dictated by thier very expression of thier faith itself each and everyday; we see polarized fluctuations of Islamic ethos constantly, as we do in most faiths the world over.




The whole real estate argument is nothing more than subterfuge to an underlying, more insidious and nefarious, reason for their hatred.


No, these are the reasons of your argument laced soley on subjective influence, nothing more. You've never substantiated any of your claims bar spurious imans and whatnot.

You're the one with the hatred, not them.

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
You have yet to NAME a right-winged Christian terrorist organization in the US.

How does "the Bush administration" catch you?



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I just posted this on the other thread dealing with this same subject. I would also like to post it here.

Currently the Iranian President does not officially speak for Iran. He effectively has almost no power to do anything but talk. The ruling Mullas actually run the country and almost all official actions must be cleared through Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani the loser in the last presidential election. However, Rafsanjani, while more polished than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is still a hardliner. The link below gives his viewpoint about nuclear weapons and Israel and they are at least as bad as Ahmadinejad's.

www.iran-press-service.com...

In the article linked to above, Rafsanjani openly says Iran should nuke Israel.

I hope you'll pardon me when I say I don't trust the Iranian authorities any further than I can throw them and I do believe they are moving just as fast as they can to acquire nuclear weapons. In my personal opinion they are a much greater threat than Iraq ever was.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   


You have yet to NAME a right-winged Christian terrorist organization in the US.


what the HELL is the Klu Klux Klan then?

there is "The Order" and "Christian Identity" aswell,


plus the US Republican Party



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
LOL the iranian obviously was readig the same books on international diplomacy as the the Americans do.

Especially the bit on "how to remain subtle whilst dissing a foreign country"



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   
If you "wipe" something "off the map" you remove it from existence, right? President Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped off the map". Hawks and Zionists alike would have us believe that this remark indicates the Iranians want to nuke Israel. What basis do you have for this? If one were to be literal you could be forgiven for thinking that the Iranian President wants to see the state of Israel gone...from the map - nothing wrong with that. There was no mention at all of killing anybody. It is absolutely no different to those who wanted to see the state of Israel created 60 years ago.

As has been shown, Iran has 20,000 Jews within its borders. Hardly paints a picture of a raving anti-Semitic, blood thirsty genocidal regime does it? Jews are even involved in Iran's government you claim to be anti-Semitic! How do the hawks and Zionists reconcile this with the image of Iran they are trying to get the World to buy into? You better provide some more evidence than passive aggressive rhetoric, I don't believe it


[edit on 31/10/05 by subz]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
If you "wipe" something "off the map" you remove it from existence, right? President Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped off the map".


This was the first time that an Iranian head of state was openly calling for the destruction of Israel.

As one of "the Israeli Zionists" I am interested in your thoughts what Ahmadienejad could have meant by calling for Israel's annihilation

Tell me - what do you think?

  • Does he friendly ask us to go into the sea?

  • Does he friendly ask the United Nations to remove UN Res 181?

  • Does he intend to change Irans behavior in terms of support for terrorism?

  • Are the people of Iran now motivated in peaceful thinkings?




    Extremists, however, were motivated by Ahmadinejad's remarks. About 300 men and women turned up Sunday at the offices of the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement to volunteer for suicide bomb attacks against Israel.

    A spokesman for the group said it had signed up more than 45,000 volunteers to undergo training for suicide attacks since it began recruiting in June 2004.

    "More than 1000 of them have already been trained
    . Many of them don't need training since they are already members of the elite Revolutionary Guards and paramilitary Basij forces," Mohammad Ali Samadi said.


    Several senior officials, including presidential adviser Mojtaba Rahmandoust and Parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, were at the gathering.

    "The Iranian nation wants this regime removed from the world map," Rahmandoust told the gathering held at a building owned by the semiofficial Martyr Foundation.

    Associated Press - Oct 31, 2005


  • Are calls for the destruction of any state consistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community?




    [edit on 31-10-2005 by Riwka]



  • posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:58 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka
    This was the first time that an Iranian head of state was openly calling for the destruction of Israel.

    I know that, you know that, but the hawks baying for Iranian blood seem to think its a regular occurance. However, I interpret "destruction" of Israel as a dismantling of the state, not of the slaughter of Israelis.


    Originally posted by Riwka
    As one of "the Israeli Zionists" I am interested in your thoughts what Ahmadienejad could have meant by calling for Israel's annihilation

    Tell me - what do you think?

    If a country can be created from scratch by the UN, it can also be dissolved/wiped from the map by the UN. The creation of Israel didn't bring forth the birth of millions of Jews, hence the dissolution of Israel does not equate to the death of millions of Jews.

    I am on record here on ATS as recognizing Israel as a sovereign nation with an unalienable right to existence. But you cannot escape the manner in which Israel was created. It was created via a vote and a swipe of a pen. There was no conquering or war that created the original boundary of Israel so the reversal of that process does not necessarily mean annihilation of the Jewish people in Israel. That is my point.

    Iran and the Middle East never recognized Israel. So as far as they are concerned Israel is not a nation but a land of squatters on Palestinian land. Who are we to disabuse them of that belief? After all, I would feel the very same way if there was not second and third generation Israelis born on that land today. I am not a racist and would feel equal sympathy for any Israeli families that would need to be uprooted if Iran got their way and Israel was no longer a nation. I see no difference in the suffering Israelis would have to go through if the creation of Israel was reversed and the land was given back to Palestine. To me, Israeli suffering would be indentical to that of Palestinians some 50 odd years ago.

    Which leaves us with a 'two wrongs don't make a right' situation. The suffering and the injustice the Palestinians went through when Israel was created would not be undone with Israel being wiped off the map. The only emotion placated by making innocent Israelis suffer for the sins of their fathers would be Palestinian revenge. I don't support revenge. Period.

    That's not to say that Israel should have carte blanche to continue meddling in Palestinian affairs. Even if terrorists are attacking Israel, Israel has no right in attacking Palestine. Abu Mazen has had explicit support from the Israeli government - the Gaza withdrawal is a testament to this! So why does Israel continue to punish Palestinians as a whole for the actions of terrorists that hide among them? That is not right, that is continuing the cycle of violence.

    I believe this cycle of violence is of utmost importance to the Israeli government. Without it they would soon lose what ever international sympathy they have. The Palestinians would be seen as the oppressed and wronged people that they really are, instead of being cast in a terrorist light.

    So what's the correct thing to do? It doesn't matter what I think as we all know Palestinians and Israelis are in an eternal death struggle now. But for what its worth:

    -Israel should cease punishing Palestinians as a whole for what terrorists do.
    -The Palestinian Authority should cooperate with Israeli police and ask for help hunting terrorist cells down.
    -Israel should give back the West Bank
    -Israel should hand over Jerusalem to the UN as originally mandated.
    -The Palestinian Authority should renounce violence in the strongest of terms.
    -The Palestinian Authority should actively push the rest of the Middle East to recognize Israel as a nation and that it has a right to exist.
    -The Palestinian Authority should denounce Iran for calling for Israel dissolution due to its counter productive ramifications.
    -Israel should give the PA control over ports in their territory as well as equal control over borders.
    -Israel should then contribute to the rebuilding of infrastructure in a new Palestinian state
    -Israel should recognize the new Palestinian state as being sovereign
    -Israel should not interfere or attack the new Palestine.

    That's my road map any way



    Originally posted by Riwka
  • Does he friendly ask us to go into the sea?

  • We're not talking about the means but rather the concept. In actuality there is no difference between the Zionist standpoint and its Iranian antithesis. Either they are both valid viewpoints or they are both invalid.


    Originally posted by Riwka
  • Does he friendly ask the United Nations to remove UN Res 181?

  • Why not? Did the Zionists friendly ask the United Nations to create Israel via UN resolution 181? Or did they friendly bomb Britain out of their Palestinian mandate?


    Originally posted by Riwka
  • Does he intend to change Irans behaviour in terms of support for terrorism?

  • Why would he? It worked for the Jews in creating Israel. It only stands to reason that it could get Israel removed too.


    Originally posted by Riwka
  • Are the people of Iran now motivated in peaceful thinkings?

  • Are the Israelis? Generalizations as a pretext to military intervention is what we have here. Do you believe Iran should be attacked by Israel or her allies?


    Originally posted by Riwka
  • Are calls for the destruction of any state consistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community?

  • That depends if you think it contravenes the UN's authority. After all, the UN's authority is contravened on a daily basis every day that Jerusalem is under Israeli control. Does this also show Israel to be an immature and irresponsible member of the international community? If it weren't for the United States' UNSC veto Israel would be vastly different to what it is today. Does Israel's insolence in not ahereing to previous UN resolutions not put it in the same basket as Iran today?

    Israel and Iran - both pariahs of an argument that has no right side to be on. An argument that should never of been considered by the UN because there cannot ever be a correct solution.

    [edit on 31/10/05 by subz]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:35 AM
    link   
    What Ahmadinejad said expressed a fanatical mentality, the outlook of a political leader who served as a security boss in Iran's notorious Evin prison after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power and is said by former inmates to have personally finished off executed political prisoners with a bullet to the head.


    Originally posted by subz

    I know that, you know that, but the hawks baying for Iranian blood seem to think its a regular occurance. However, I interpret "destruction" of Israel as a dismantling of the state, not of the slaughter of Israelis.


    But I think Iran interprets this a bit different




    TIMES: Tehran ‘bounty’ for attack on Israel

    IRAN has promised a reward of $10,000 (£5,600) to Islamic Jihad if the militant group launches rockets from the West Bank towards Tel Aviv, a senior Palestinian intelligence official said last week.

    Speaking in his Ramallah office, the official produced a fat wad of $100 notes which he said had been confiscated from a pro-Iranian Islamic Jihad activist.

    The money was said to have gone from Iran to Damascus, the Syrian capital, from where Ibrahim Shehadeh, Islamic Jihad’s head of overseas operations, transferred it to the West Bank.

    According to the intelligence official, the Palestinian Authority has located workshops where “Al-Quds” (Jerusalem) rockets are being made and has given their co-ordinates to the Israelis. “We understand they destroyed some of them,” he said.


    Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




    [edit on 31-10-2005 by Riwka]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:40 AM
    link   
    yeah, i remember hearing about that Riwka, didn't Saddam give money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? i remember someone posting that on ATS about it.



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:56 AM
    link   
    You mean


    Copy of a $15,000 check given to the family of the Zion Square suicide terrorist by Saddam Hussein's representatives in the PA territories

    or


    Copy of a $15,000 receipt voucher for "President Saddam Hussein Grant", signed by the mother of the Zion Square suicide terrorist.


    ? Yes.
    See more here: : Iraqi Support of Palestinian Terrorism

    (the copys are taken from Part 2)



    [edit on 31-10-2005 by Riwka]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:58 AM
    link   
    ah! thats its


    You officialy rock Riwka



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:02 AM
    link   
    How many Israeli Prime Ministers were actually terrorists, let alone terrorist sympathizers?



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:08 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by subz
    How many Israeli Prime Ministers were actually terrorists, let alone terrorist sympathizers?


    a very good point, i dont know to behonest. there is probably something about it on wiki or the net. Didn't one justify the bombing of the St.David hotel against the British? dont quote me on that, cause i don't even know myself, just something i heard.



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:37 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by infinite
    a very good point, i dont know to behonest. there is probably something about it on wiki or the net. Didn't one justify the bombing of the St.David hotel against the British? dont quote me on that, cause i don't even know myself, just something i heard.

    You mean the King David Hotel bombing?


    The King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bombing attack against the British government of Palestine by members of Irgun —a militant Zionist group. The Irgun exploded a bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). 91 people were killed, most of them civilians: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured.

    The attack was initially ordered by David Ben Gurion, who was in the United States, but he later changed his mind and ordered the bombing to be cancelled. But Menachem Begin, the head of Irgun, went ahead anyway. Both Ben Gurion and Begin would later become Israeli Prime Ministers. The attack was commanded by Yosef Avni and Yisrael Levi.

    King David Hotel Bombing

    So what are you trying to tell us Riwka? When Palestinians blow up innocent people they are terrorists, but when Israel's founding fathers do it its ok and they get airports named after them?

    Do you condemn Ben Gurion and Begin for their terrorist actions?

    [edit on 31/10/05 by subz]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:39 AM
    link   
    Yeah, thats the one. I got mixed up..thanx for correcting me subz. I think Israel did apologize for it in the end though.

    [edit on 31-10-2005 by infinite]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:42 AM
    link   
    No problem Infinite

    Yeah words are cheap and you can be as magnanimous as you like when you have what you want. Its the calling it quits when you're up that is what I don't like.

    Israel was founded on Jewish terrorism but when they got their state they suddenly apologize for blowing up innocent people and condemn Palestinians for doing the same thing. How convenient.

    [edit on 31/10/05 by subz]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 11:56 AM
    link   

    Source
    As the Taliban teetered on the brink of losing their last bastion, the U.S. focus increased on the Tora Bora cave complex. Local tribal militias, numbering over 2,000 strong and paid and organized by Special Forces and CIA paramilitaries, continued to mass for an attack as heavy bombing continued of suspected al-Qaeda positions. 100-200 civilians were reported killed when 25 bombs struck a village at the foot of the Tora Bora and White Mountains region.


    So...it is wrong when Saddam pays people which kill innocent people but fine when the United States do it? Or is it just the same?

    Oh wait...Saddam paid terrorists, United States paid drug lords. Drug Lords which have resulted in [probably] a lot more deaths of innocent people. I see the difference.



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:42 PM
    link   
    So odium;

    I want to try to understand your position a little better: Do you support the Taliban? Do you believe it was a mistake to take them out of power?

    If you answer "Yes", then there is no way we'll ever come close to reaching an accord (Much like Palestine and Israel)


    If you answer "No", then I ask: what's wrong with enlisting the help of locals, who by-and-large also hate the Taliban, to assist in our efforts to hunt them down and remove them as a threat? BTW; this has been going on for years and in virtually ALL wars. The difference now is that there is greater free-flow of information (media, internet, etc) where stuff like this gets more attention.




    top topics



     
    7
    << 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

    log in

    join