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: 15
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

How many UN Resolutions has Israel ignored?



NONE. They are all NON-BINDING.



Originally posted by stumason

What about the Geneva conventions which are conveniently ignored on a regular basis?



The convention defines itself strictly in its second clause: "The present convention shall apply to cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party."

The Westbank (and the Gazastrip) which Israel captured in 1967, were not territories of a High Contracting Party.

Judea and Samaria did not belong to Trans-Jordan nor did Gaza belong to Egypt. In the war of Pan-Arab aggression in 1948, Trans-Jordan had invaded Judea and Samaria, occupied them and, in blatant illegality, annexed them. It then celebrated the annexation by changing its name to Jordan. Egypt had similarly annexed the Gaza district.

The annexations of course gave Trans-Jordan and Egypt no rights of sovereignty. Israel's presence in the West Bank (and Gaza) after the Six-Day-War is perfectly legal, especially because of the The Khartoum Resolutions September 1, 1967 - "The three NOs"

  • 1. No peace with Israel
  • 2. No recognition of Israel
  • 3. No negotiations with Israel



    Could we go back to the topic now, please?




  • posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:19 PM
    link   
    Iran had fired its ambassadors to Berlin, London, and Paris, Fars news agency confirmed, quoting “an informed source” in the Iranian government, on Saturday. It said Mohammad-Reza Alborzi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations’ European Headquarters in Geneva, was also leaving his post.




    “Ahmadinejad has been angered by what he sees as the envoys’ meek reaction to the global condemnation of his Wednesday speech against Israel and the West”, a government official in Tehran, who requested anonymity, told Iran Focus. “He made the speech with the full blessing of the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] and has his green light to stifle any dissenting voice within the government”.

    The official said that while there was broad consensus within the clergy-dominated regime on the hard-line President’s vow to “wipe Israel off the map”, some Iranian diplomats voiced concern that the international backlash could be too costly for the Islamic Republic.

    The ambassadors who are being fired were appointed during the administration of ex-President Mohammad Khatami.

    Official confirms major purge of Iran’s top diplomats



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:11 PM
    link   
    I kind of wonder just how much longer the Iranian people are going to put up with the Mullas repressive programs. I have been to Iran and have met a lot of Iranian people there, most of whom actually seemed to like the U.S. I don't really think that body of underlying opinion has been wiped out by the strict, western condeming authorities. At some point the Iranian people are going to get tired of everything going on inside Iran and start to fight back. Meanwhile, something needs to be done about the Iranian sponsorship of terrorism and their continual attempts to destroy Israel. I think the time is fast approaching when even the Russians and Chinese will support sanctions against Iran and Syria.

    [edit on 31-10-2005 by Astronomer68]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:13 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Astronomer68
    ......................... I think the time is fast approaching when even the Russians and Chinese will support sanctions against Iran and Syria.


    I don't think that would ever happen Astronomer. Both the Russian and Chinese governments seem to want to continue to fund those countries that oppose the US. Maybe it is just economics, some people say the Russians and Chinese governments only want to make money, but imo is more than that. Anyways, that is not part of this topic. I don't think sanctions will work, the Mullahs and the Iranian president will find another way to get their hands on nuclear weapons or any other armament they can use to destroy Israel.


    Iran President-Elect: We Will Pursue Nukes

    TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's ultraconservative president-elect, at once defiant and at ease, vowed Sunday to restart the nation's controversial nuclear program and warned European negotiators that building trust required a mutual effort.


    Excepted from.
    www.foxnews.com...

    Sanctions will not stop them from that goal.

    [edit on 31-10-2005 by Muaddib]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:33 PM
    link   
    You are probably right Muaddib, but if Israel finally gets recognized by the Arab states in the region ( which I think may be about to happen) then the entire dynamic of the area is changed. Once the countries of the Mid-East realize just how much Israel can help them transition into prosperous societies I believe they will embrace her. Israel could do much to help themselves in that regard by not seeming to so greedily expand their settlements.



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:43 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium
    So wait...

    Israel says that they [U.S/E.U] stop Iran or they will. [Nuclear Power/Weapons.]
    Iran says they want to remove Israel off of the face of the Earth.

    Two plus two is four,
    two plus two is four.


    Odium, you don't seem to realize that Israel is asking the US, the E.U, or the UN to stop Iran because of the threat they have made. The statements by the Iranian president give more credence to the Israeli case.

    Your statement should read "Israel is asking other nations to stop Iran or they will because Iran is threatening with the annihilation of Israel."

    Wouldn't you do the same thing if another country was trying to annihilate the country you are living in?...



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:45 PM
    link   
    Astronomer, could you tell me why is it that you think that Arab states in the area will finally accept Israel? What makes you so certain of this?



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Muaddib
    Astronomer, could you tell me why is it that you think that Arab states in the area will finally accept Israel? What makes you so certain of this?

    Pakistan has made moves to recognize Israel. After the recent earthquakes in Pakistan the Pakistani government accepted aid from Israel. Shipments of aid baring the star of David landed in Pakistan for the very first time last month. Even after the earthquake in Bam, Iran accepted aid from the United States but not from Israel.



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:15 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by subz
    Pakistan has made moves to recognize Israel. After the recent earthquakes in Pakistan the Pakistani government accepted aid from Israel. Shipments of aid baring the star of David landed in Pakistan for the very first time last month. Even after the earthquake in Bam, Iran accepted aid from the United States but not from Israel.


    castro also accepted, for the first time, aid from the US after hurricane Wilma, but that doesn't mean that castro is going to change his tactics or rethoric against the US.

    BTW, I am not trying to change the topic, I am giving an example that just because some countries accept aid, doens't mean they will change their views or rethoric about those countries that helps them.

    [edit on 31-10-2005 by Muaddib]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:28 PM
    link   
    Pakistan is not Cuba either Muaddib.

    There are other signs of the thaw, im not an idiot Muaddib.


    Israeli Military Radio claimed that a delegation from Pakistan will visit Israel next month for the first time. It is reported that retired Generals, ecclesiastics, politicians and businessmen will be in the 200 member Pakistani delegation.

    The radio noted that the Pakistani delegation will be welcomed by Israeli Prime minister Ariel Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shanlom. The news was not confirmed by official sources. The two countries, which have been enemies for the past 57 years, came together in Istanbul in the beginning of September with Turkey’s mediation and decided to develop their relations.

    Big Visit From Pakistan To Israel


    Prior to the earthquake, in a highly publicized sign of cordiality, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Sharon shook hands on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York in mid-September.

    Two weeks earlier, the two countries' foreign ministers met in Istanbul in the first-ever high level encounter which aimed to help normalize bilateral relations.

    Pakistan had "decided to engage with Israel," its foreign minister said then, because Israel's pullout of settlers and troops from the
    Gaza Strip constituted a turning point for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    Israel currently has full diplomatic relations with only three Arab states -- Mauritania, Egypt and Jordan -- and a handful of Muslim majority states including Turkey.

    Pakistani delegation to visit Israel

    [edit on 31/10/05 by subz]



    posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:56 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by subz
    Pakistan is not Cuba either Muaddib.


    Iran is not Pakistan either subz, even if the relations from Pakistan and Israel improve, and Pakistan accepts Israel, that doesn't mean Iran will accept Israel. I could be wrong, but only time will tell.



    Originally posted by subz
    There are other signs of the thaw, im not an idiot Muaddib.


    Where did I say or implied that?....

    [edit on 31-10-2005 by Muaddib]



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:04 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Muaddib
    Iran is not Pakistan either subz, even if the relations from Pakistan and Israel improve, and Pakistan accepts Israel, that doesn't mean Iran will accept Israel. I could be wrong, but only time will tell.

    Iran is not an Arab state either, which was your initial question. What makes you think Iran will follow suit with the other Arab nations either? Pakistan is one of the most populous and militarily powerful (nukes) muslim country. If they normalize relations with Israel, which seems highly likely, it makes it easier for other muslim countries to follow suit.

    Indonesia is also following Pakistan's lead. Indonesia is the worlds most populous muslim nation so theres another sign that the tide is turning away from Iran and to Israel's favour. I dont see this as a bad thing either, it also makes it easier for Israel to progress and to drop its dubious practices.


    Originally posted by Muaddib
    Where did I say or implied that?....

    I take it you refered to Castro as a way of dismissing the significance of what I was talking about. You made it abundantly clear that you thought I was getting carried away with the relevance of Pakistan's visit to Israel. I wanted to show how it really is a sea change and a major victory for Israel. But hey, if you werent implying the above then I accept that as well



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:38 AM
    link   
    Muaddib, calling for Iran to be bombed will only make the situation worse and this is something you need to understand.

    Israel started out as a "terror state", it was founded by terrorists. However we [Western Nation's] seem to have no problem with this. If it is a Muslim organisation though we do.

    It is about time our Governments cut the crap before it is too late.

    The Israeli Government is no better than any terrorist organisation and while we act like they are better than that, we will only end up causing more terrorism.

    Riwka, if the U.N. Resolution's are not binding than surely the British/French can go back into the Middle East and take the land back we gave them? Since they have no legal right to it?



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:50 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Muaddib
    Astronomer, could you tell me why is it that you think that Arab states in the area will finally accept Israel? What makes you so certain of this?


    I am not at all certain Muaddib; however, the turn over of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians was seen as a watershed event by many of the countries of the Mid-East. The elected authorities of the Palestinians are the friendliest Israel has ever had to deal with. If Israel can assist those authorities in gaining real control they should certainly do so. Hamas is stronger that the elected government militarily and the elected government cannot therefore disarm them or otherwise render them impotent without outside help. Israel seems keen to criticize the government for not controlling Hamas and other terrorist goups, but what the government needs is help, not criticizm. Now is the time for Israel to reach out to them as the other countries of the Mid-East are watching keenly for real signs of Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian state.

    The elected government of the Palestinians has gone on record opposing the recent statements coming out of Iran. This is a first, to my knowledge, and something that should not be shrugged off by the Israeli's or the U.S. Israel's recent comments that the Palestinian government is not a suitable partner for peace is exactly the wrong way to go. They seem to want the Palestinian authorities to commit suicide by trying to disarm Hamas and the other terrorist groups operating inside that area. Make them stronger and something can be done. If they are allowed to fail, another chance may not come for a generation or more. If they actively try to help them succeed though recognition will not be long in coming.



    [edit on 1-11-2005 by Astronomer68]



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:41 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium

    Originally posted by zappafan1
    Christian versus Muslim; One God tells it's people to love one another and to help those in need. and one God (?) who says it is right to kill in the name of its religion. It boggles the mind to think how peace between these two mindsets can ever be achieved.


    Where?

    If you bother to learn Arabic you would know the Qu'Ran says not to harm any child of the book/people of the book, unless they have wronged you first.

    So please, do show me where he says it is O.K. to kill and play my game like the last bunch of people have done. :-)

    I look forward to it.


    I'm speaking of RADICAL Muslims; but, even so, Muslims who have left that belief are and have been targets of "The religion of Peace".
    Muhammad did not teach "peace and tolerance"—he led armies and ordered the assassination of his enemies

    The Qur'an commands Muslims to make war on Jews and Christians

    What is known today as the "Islamic world" was created by a series of brutal conquests of non-Muslim lands

    The Crusades were not acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but were a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression.

    Ex-Muslims must live in fear; even in the United States

    Well... why would anyone but an interpreter WANT to learn Arabic? Seriously, if you are open minded, and want info from an historic viewpoint, read the book by Robert Spencer, called " The politically incorrect guide to Islam (and The Crusades).



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:54 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium
    Muaddib, calling for Iran to be bombed will only make the situation worse and this is something you need to understand.

    Israel started out as a "terror state", it was founded by terrorists. However we [Western Nation's] seem to have no problem with this. If it is a Muslim organisation though we do.

    It is about time our Governments cut the crap before it is too late.

    The Israeli Government is no better than any terrorist organisation and while we act like they are better than that, we will only end up causing more terrorism.

    No... Isreal most certainly did not start out as a terrorist state.. I'm going back to Yeshuas' time. The Jews are not/have never been terrorists.

    As The UN is the most corrupt organization the world has ever seen..One only has to check out the "Oil For Fraud" program. Fortunately, America is not bound by anything the UN has to say, or by any treaties we have with them. Our Constitution allows us to make treaties with COUNTRIES, not organizations. That would be like signing a "treaty" with the Elks Club.

    Riwka, if the U.N. Resolution's are not binding than surely the British/French can go back into the Middle East and take the land back we gave them? Since they have no legal right to it?



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:35 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by stumason

    Originally posted by infinite
    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



    Well, I did advise him of those groups when he asked and he promptly went a bit quiet about the issue.


    Your qustion got lost in the forest of posts.

    The KKK is NOT a christian organization. Nor are white supremists or WAR. They are SEPARATISTS!! Please show where in Christianity it advocates the lynching of people because they are black?? Or Jews?? ETC??? They don't spout their rhetoric in the name of God or Christianity. They spout their rhetoric because they are bigoted ignoramouses!!! This is the same as the Timoth McVeigh issue; who murdered not because of his religion, but because he hated the government.



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:53 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium
    Source
    The Afghan challenge is tougher by some measures than the Colombian one. In the Colombian case, drug revenue amounts to about 3.5 percent of legal economic output; in Afghanistan the share is more than 50 percent. The opium trade has boomed since the fall of the Taliban regime three years ago, generating payments to farmers of $2.2 billion in 2002-03, 15 times more than in the two years leading up to the Taliban's departure. A determined counternarcotics offensive, particularly one that focuses on crop eradication, risks generating a backlash against the fragile democratic government.



    Source
    The Alliance, which has won American support in its battle against the
    Taliban, produced 150 metric tonnes of opium this year, according to Mohammad Amirkhizi, senior policy adviser at the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention.



    Source
    A survey by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has found that Afghanistan has supplanted Burma as the world's largest source of illegal heroin. There are now 741 square kilometres of land being used to cultivate opium poppies in Afghanistan, compared to just 78km2 prior to the US invasion in late 2001.


    Again odium;

    You seem to be looking for the quick fix. There are going to be problems as time goes on and sometimes those problem can be ugly. The alternative, Odium, was to do nothing. Is this what you stand behind? Doing nothing? You haven't addressed my previous questions about what you would do if you were a leader of a nation attacked by a flag-less enemy? You still haven't responded what you would do to a country harboring the mass murderers who killed thousands in the country you lead.

    While the Israel/Palestinian thing has been going on for thousands of years, the constant back and forth of "they did this" and "they did that" NEVER results in a solution. (If you have kids you know this). What IS important is that Israel offered a concession (Gaza Strip); and regardless how little of a concession YOU percieve or the Plaestinians perceive it was, none the less, it was a concession. It was a starting point. To not recognize it as such; and to continue to live in the past, rather than trying to forge a new future, will only result in the continued attacks and hatred.

    You seem to be the typical left-wing liberal who always complains about things that are wrong but never offers up ideas on how to make them better. You're complaints about the drug trade, civil factionary battles, tribal murders, etc, doesn't eclipse the fact that FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY will prevail, whether you like it or not!! The reason is because as the world gets smaller, clashes of cultures will be on the rise. Those cultures that foster individual free-will, freedom of speach, self determination, among other things will ALWAYS win out over oppressive regimes.

    Now back to the topic at hand that Iran wants to elliminate Jews!


    [edit on 1-11-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



    posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:16 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium

    Riwka, if the U.N. Resolution's are not binding than surely the British/French can go back into the Middle East and take the land back we gave them? Since they have no legal right to it?


    Odium,


    The most important distinction is between United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.

  • UNGA resolutions are political statements and not legally binding.

  • UNSC resolutions create legal obligations, which vary depending upon the chapter of the United Nations Charter under which they are passed and the text of the resolution.

    The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution:


    • Resolutions adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter are Non-binding recomendations

      They call upon disputing parties to settle their disputes by peaceful means such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement"
      (Article 33.1, Chapter VI, Charter of the United Nations)

    All UNSC resolutions related to ISRAELwere promulgated under Chapter VI.
    Neither sanctions nor force are authorized to enforce Chapter VI resolutions.


    • The most severe resolutions of the UN Security Council are those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter - they are legally binding on all UN members.

      Chapter VII of the UN Charter refers to cases of aggression or threats to international security, and is entitled "Action With Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression."

      In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security".
      (Article 51, Chapter VII, Charter of the United Nations))


    United Nations Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII, binding on all UN members, for example were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait.

    And on Monday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution against Syria - binding under under Chapter VII, demanding Syria cooperate with a U.N. probe into the death of former Lebanese PM Hariri or face "possible future actions".



    [edit on 1-11-2005 by Riwka]



  • posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:40 AM
    link   
    zappafan1, where does it say that?

    Quote me a passage in the Qu'Ran.

    Freedom_for_sum, if I was a leader of a Nation I do not see it being attacked in such a way. Primarily because I would not have such a policy as to turn millions of people World over against me through hypocritical policy.

    Also, Freedom_for_Sum, I'm classed as a conservative through my belief, I am just an economic liberal and social conservative. But of the old fashion - not like the Neo-Conservatives. So why throw such insults about? Especailly when you have very little knowledge of my political view points or standings on thousands of issues.

    Freedom_For_Sum, how do you think democracy will prevail in a Nation where the Elite will own the land no matter who is in Government? The drug lords are Afganistan's big business now and will not fall quickly or quietly, resulting in thousands more deaths.

    Riwka this shows another unfair treatment of Israel compaired to these Nation's,. with the United State's vetoing 37 of the 100 resolutions against Israel between 1973 and 2003. Each of these that were vetoed were the ones that called for punishment against Israel. They play a policy of never vetoing unless it will cause Israel halm but do not with other Nation's.

    Let alone with the statement made in the Washington Post, July 26, 2002:


    shifted its policy and announced that it would veto any Security Council resolution on the Middle East that did not condemn Palestinian terror and name, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade as the groups responsible for the attacks.


    That clearly displays a bias view against the Palestinian people. If another Nation, which has nothing to do with those three groups criticise Israel for its actions they also have to state those groups 'started' it. What if they did not?

    U.N. Resolution List: 1995 -1992
    United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq Yet Iraq is the one invaded. [Read; Muslim Nation.]
    Use of the Veto on United Nations Resolutions by the USA

    I suggest you take a look at those links, look at when the U.S.A. has used the veto to protect Israel even though the majority of the World disagrees with them. They wish to display democracy in Iraq, they need to allow democracy to happen in the U.N. first.

    Iran has been, just like a majority of Muslims and Arabs, unfairly compaired to Israel. They do the same actions yet go un-punished. The veto is why none of the resolutions forcing Israel to do something has ever happened. They are protected.

    Also, for those who are interested look at UN General Assembly Resolution 181, read the full text of it. If this is not binding than the State of Israel doesn't legally exist and still belongs to the British and the French. If it is legal than Israel is in breech of a UN Resolution.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    7
    << 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

    log in

    join