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

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by infinite
What about Jewish terrorism? St.David Hotel bombing against the British in Palestine and the numerous Christian bombings across America aswell...

Isn't abit racist to single out Muslim when the rest have blood on their hands too?

Not when one considers that out of approximately 120 global religious terrorists groups, almost ALL OF THEM are Islamic in origin.

And how many of these appeard after we invaded Iraq?

Odium;

All those articles you pasted here are responses Israel must take for threat/attacks made on them. To be fair, both sides have been guilty of one attack on another over the paste several years--since the 1948 UNPROVOKED attack made against israel. A war the Israel ultimately won and therefore, as a result, ultimately owns the rights to the Gaza strip.

Yet, despite this, Israel, as a gesture of goodwill towards the "peace process", returned Gaza to the Palestinians. What is the Palestinians gesture of good will? Their proclamation that Israel left Gaza because of years of attacks and that the attacks will continue until Israel is elliminated!!

This, to me, is proof positive that the continued fighting IS NOT about real estate; but rather, it is about their religious differences. Most notably, Islam's directive, in the Qur'an, to NOT take the jews as friends as they are friends to one another. Muslims consider jews as filthy pigs and they are unable to share the globe, much less a small peice of land in the middle east, with them.

Not only is Islam incapatible with Judaism, it is incapatible with ANY OTHER belief system/religion that is not Islam. This is why Iran's president proclaimed "Islam will conquer the world". This is why the US's CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) proclaimed that "Islam is not in America to be equal, but to be dominant".

Anybody who deosn't see this is blind!!

How was it [and I quote] "UNPROVOKED"?

I do believe Israel broke the U.N. resolution first and didn't disarm in Jerusalum and hand it over to international troops, which was agreed.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Not when one considers that out of approximately 120 global religious terrorists groups, almost ALL OF THEM are Islamic in origin.

Any terrorist expert will tell you most of them are not true terrorist groups, Al Qaeda, in theory, is not a terrorist organization anymore. Most of these terrorist are just radical using a name. No structure to them or nothing.

And as Odium said, how many started up after the Iraq war?

[edit on 27-10-2005 by infinite]

double post

delete

[edit on 27-10-2005 by infinite]

anyone got a transcript of the entire speech? right now we only have about 4 quotes from it. If all the people in the middle east heard only what Bush said about his 'crusade' before the Iraq war, then they would be a lot more pissed off at the US, which is saying something.

Okay, Iran is crazy. But they also called for the end of the United States and the Zionist. I think he made a mistake mentioning the US. I will not be surprised if we all wake up in the morning someday and read the headline news. "Israel destroys Iran's capital with fierce airraids." Just like in 1979 when they bombed Iraq because of a similair threat. Only time will tell.

Originally posted by subz
Why would they say that? They made out like bandits when they got a country given to them by the UN on a silver platter.

That statement only shows your disdain and bias towards Israel subz. There have been Israelis living in that area for as long, or even longer than Palestinians ever lived there.

Originally posted by subz
What would they gain by spouting rancor? There really is no difference. Iran is a theocratic state who's ruling mullahs would not allow any expensive nuclear weapons to be used to destroy Israel.

Last I heard Islamic priest/s had given Osama the green light to use nukes against the US. Why would they do that if they know it is highly possible that the US will respond using nukes also if this happens?...

The Mullahs in Iran are Islamic extremists, and so is the president of Iran. It isn't too far fetched to think that they would use nuclear weapons against Israel if they had the chance to use them.

Originally posted by subz
They wouldn't allow it because all the extremely Holy Muslim sites in Jerusalem such as the Temple Mount would also be obliterated. Then would come the nuclear retribution from Israel and the United States which would turn Iran's mullahs and their Iranian holy sites into glass. Such a great manouver for megalomaniacal mullahs to even consider, right?

We have seen in the war in Iraq that when it comes to war Islamic extremists would even use their own holy sites, such as mosques, as military command centers, storage for weapons, bunkers for ambushes against coalition forces etc.

Islamic extremists would rather destroy their own holy sites than allow non-muslim people in those sites.

Originally posted by Odium
Yep, I do know of their actions in India and other regions - World over, but the problem is that so many Nation's have done the same thing. Look at the European Empires. Look at the thousands of cultures they destroyed to make the World a better place. People keep on making out like this is only Islam and it is their problem, when in fact it is a problem all humans seem to have.

First of all, I don't that the European empires made the world a better place by destroying "thousands of cultures".

And before I begin let me tell you that personally, I think Israel shouldn't exist. I think after WWII it shouldn't have been created. But it's there today, and getting rid of it isn't going to solve the problem. I think that Jerusalem should become a UN controlled, neutral territory. I think that the Palestinians should be given back at least some of their land that was taken away. I think that half of the money that the US gives to Israel should be given to Palestine to build their economy.

...but the problem is that so many Nation's have done the same thing...

"But they did it too" is a weak argument. Plenty of nations have carried out genocide, does that make it right (or at least acceptable)? Plenty of nations have raped and tortured their prisoners of war, does that mean it's ok for the US to do so?

Jew.

I'll give you that.

Christian.

I'll give you that one too.

Muslim.

Can't disagree with you there.

Atheist.

Now that just doesn't make any sense. Atheists can't be lumped together as one group (though neither can Jews, Christians or Muslims). What you're trying to say is that Atheists have also killed in the name of their religion. I'll agree with you that Atheists are probably no less prone to murder than people who believe in God, but Atheists have never killed non-Atheists in the name of their religion (and no, communism =/= atheism; it's a completely separate entity). Atheists don't carry out religiously motivated violence, because they're not religious!

Or any Religion in the World.

What about Buddhism?

Or sany Culture in the World.

What about Tibetan Buddhists?

It is about time people stop going terrorist and blaming it on their religion and look at the route of the problem, which is not Islam. How can it be Islam's fault if they do not live by the codes it sets down?

Islam is not the root of the problem, the root of the problem is the medieval mind set of Muslims. Let me bring up an example of just what I'm talking about: the Ram mundir at Ayodhya. When the Muslims invaded India they destroyed the mundir that was built at the birthplace of Ram and in it's place built the Babri mosque. This mosque was destroyed in 1992 by Hindu nationalists and efforts began to rebuild the Ram mundir that originally stood there. Since 1992 this site has been attacked by Muslim extremists who are angry that the mosque was torn down.

Let's just put things into perspective.

Ram and Krishna are the highest Gods in the Hindu pantheon. They are believed to be incarnations of Vishnu, sent to India to right the wrongs of their time and lead people back to the truths presented in the Gita. Ram and Krishna are to Hinduism what Mohamed is to Islam, and Jesus is to Christianity. The Ram mundir therefore is one of the most important religious sites for Hinduism. You should try and look at the issue of the Ayodhya dispute through a Hindu perspective. What if Al Aqsa was torn down by Israel and a synagogue named after Ariel Sharon was built in it's place? How would Palestinians and Muslims around the world react?

I would hope that the only thing they would do is tear down the synagogue and rebuild their mosque.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by ShakyaHeir]

Freedom_for_sum,

Your cocoon must not have air conditioning. Far too many times have I seen you tuatologously insinuate that Islamic members of this global society are vehemently adamant to take control of the world, and each time coupled with isolated instances of local Imans declaring concerts of war, or statistical numbers of Islamic members in western societies which seems to be appreciating as the days go, tatamount to the number of Hindu's and Christians.

I've learned not to take your remarks seriously, and I would suggest other members follow suit.

Last I heard Islamic priest/s had given Osama the green light to use nukes against the US. Why would they do that if they know it is highly possible that the US will respond using nukes also if this happens?...

And exactly what are you stating here? Last I heard, countless Islamic priests had denounced Osama Bin Ladens use of violence as diplomatic means to make ends with the U.S. The last I heard, Pat Robbertson issued a Christian 'fatwa' against Chaves, should we invade America becuase of this?

The Mullahs in Iran are Islamic extremists, and so is the president of Iran. It isn't too far fetched to think that they would use nuclear weapons against Israel if they had the chance to use them.

Your obvious reactionary mentatlity negates you from realizing that a nuclear strike against Isreal would call in a Nuclear arsenal from the U.S which would be very very detrimental for Iran. Tactictly, the only reason to hold Nuclear Weapons is for defence, not offence. Nuclear weapons in Iran allow them to be safe from any potential dangers.

Not when one considers that out of approximately 120 global religious terrorists groups, almost ALL OF THEM are Islamic in origin.

Interesting, since most of them seem to be a group of fellows who carried out a few hostage takings, and what not, and are not considered 'global' terrorist groups.

Luxifero

Everybody please take a deep breath and release. Lets try to keep this interesting debate on track without personalizing it in anyway.

Thanks

I found this very interesting:

Despite the silence, analysts in the region said Tehran's Arab rivals may quietly be pleased to see the radical regime further isolated by its extremism.

However, some Palestinians — who would have the task of destroying Israel according to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — rejected the remarks.

"We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said. "This is unacceptable."
Ira n made the call but who will listen?

Do remember that this guy is the chosen president of the rulling Revolutionary Council of Mullahs. He is thier mouthpeace. THis could be for domestic consumption, it could also be a really bad way to test the waters.

Either way, No one has stepped up to voice thier support for his statements and it has made the case for isolation even that much more stronger.

Odium - you should look into India's history, particularly the period when the Muslim Shahs invaded and took power for several centuries. Plenty of children (and people in general) were killed (in very painful and gruesome ways) because they refused to convert to Islam. The unlawful and utterly inhumane occupationg of India by the Muslim invaders is the reason the Sikh religion even exists.

You obviously have little or no bearing on Sikh history or the reason it was begotten. Muslims fought along side Guru Gobind Singh Ji hundrededs of years ago, not too mention writing countless edics in the Guru Granth Sahib; if you don't believe me, read it, and read some history on the religion and it's sociology.

Luxifero

Originally posted by Luxifero
You obviously have little or no bearing on Sikh history or the reason it was begotten. Muslims fought along side Guru Gobind Singh Ji hundrededs of years ago, not too mention writing countless edics in the Guru Granth Sahib; if you don't believe me, read it, and read some history on the religion and it's sociology.

Yes, obviously I have no bearing on Sikh history, or on the Guru Granth Sahib even though there's a room dedicated to it in my house. I obviously don't know the history of Sikhism even though I visit the Darbar Sahib in Punjab every year.

Listen, I didn't look up "Sikhism" on wikipedia to make a point. I've been taught Sikh history by Sikh parents. Even though I try not to identify myself with any religion and I mainly practice Buddhism and Hinduism, I think I'm a little bit more of an authority on Sikhism than you. Yes, Guru Nanak didn't have Islam in mind when he first became a spiritual leader; but Sikhism became, and still is today, a symbol of India's defiance of Muslim rule.

You know what I think is ironic? A Muslim (I'm assuming you are one), someone who has probably never set foot inside a gurdwara, trying to tell a born (in Amritsar) Sikh that he doesn't know the real reason Sikhism was founded.

That's like a Jew trying to tell you that you don't know the real reason why Muslims are suicide bombing in Israel.

There's already been a warning in this thread about not turning this debate into a personal argument, so I'll try and not repeat another post like this; but don't try and revise history just because it doesn't reflect well on your people.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Subs,

You are kidding me right?
You cannot see the difference between bombing nuclear bomb making plants and a full on invasion of Iran.
Ok, since you cannot see the differences, I will spell it out for you.
One involves using bombs and or missles to distroy Irans ability to make nuclear weapons.
The other involves a landing of men and invading Iran.

There, I hope that cleared it up for u.

Why thanks for that, thats cleared that up! Too bad I never said anything about "invasions".

mrmonsoon, excuse me for asking, but are you aware of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal? Yeah, I know...those religious zealots cant be trusted with nukes...they are a Jewish state afterall...Israel wanting to BOMB (not invade, thanks for the definitions) Iran for having a SUSPECTED nuclear weapons programme is WRONG and hypocritical. Israel has no right to even think about denying Iran nuclear weapons when they have them themselves.

Originally posted by subz
Israel has no right to even think about denying Iran nuclear weapons when they have them themselves.

Got to take issue with that comment Subz. Israel may have no moral right to do so, but they have the right of self interest. That doesn't mean they have the right to commit aggression against Iran. Everything sort of depends upon just how seriously Israel feels their existence may be threatened by a nuclear armed Iran.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

Oye, gal sunja, I'm a Punjabi Sikh too. Jatt, if you want to stray into praticularities. I've set foot inside dozens of Gurdwaras, here in Canada, and in India aswell. Visiting a Gurdwara in a ritualistic fashion does not make you the sole authority of the faith, nor does it allow you to facilitate it's history. It's sad that very little sociological work has come into the mainstream of theology in regards to Sikhism, and that which does, seem to be beclouded in a heavy inneundo that twists historicity and forces perpectors to believe Islam was Shatan himself. A true Sikh would realize that you cannot adhere what Muslims did hundreds of years ago embowered in an obviously frantic mercantile society to the actions of Muslims today; this is a very poor praxeological discourse you're taking here.

You know what I think is ironic? A Muslim (I'm assuming you are one), someone who has probably never set foot inside a gurdwara, trying to tell a born (in Amritsar) Sikh that he doesn't know the real reason Sikhism was founded.

That's not ironic. It's a haste judgement on your part, and a very poorly defined one. As i've aformentioned, I'm no Muslim. I was born into a Punjabi family, and raised under Sikhism, but it had very little influence in our lives. Your failed presumption that Sikhs understand the true fundamentals of thier faith is widely critized as we see in practice throughout the Punjab, and inside of Gurdwarars; from the pictures of Guru Nanak, to those of Guru Gobind Singh; and even the horrific pictures children have to observe eating thier saag and roti in the Lagar hall of Muslims demonizing Sikhs. You get the picture, our entire culture has been washed with resentment towards a people and it has beclouded our judgement to realize that these very people risked thier lives to help defend our rights.

Sikhism was not founded on Islamic agression, it was founded strictly on the basis of Humanism. Sikhism was institutionalized under Guru Gobind Singh, and they he would ignorantly leave a 'book' to be the immortal Guru of an entire peoples; but that's another thread altogether.

Regardless, you still did not respond to the fact that Muslims fought along side our peoples, aswell as thier writings in the Guru Granth Sahib.

Sikhism is about tolerance of all faiths, not ignorance towards them.

That's like a Jew trying to tell you that you don't know the real reason why Muslims are suicide bombing in Israel.

That's makes very little sense. The Jewish peoples in Isreal are indoctrinated on many aspects, cultural, political, and theological, to believe that Palestine is not merited for the land they now occupy.

Luxifero --Deep Singh.





[edit on 27-10-2005 by Luxifero]

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Luxifero]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Got to take issue with that comment Subz. Israel may have no moral right to do so, but they have the right of self interest. That doesn't mean they have the right to commit aggression against Iran. Everything sort of depends upon just how seriously Israel feels their existance may be threatened by a nuclear armed Iran.

Ahh finally some rationality, thanks Astronomer

There are so many arguments in this thread and probably too many agendas to count. But the big ones surround Iran and a suspected, and I cant stress that word enough, nuclear weapons programme. As well as Israel's right to self defence.

Israel objects to Iran becoming a nuclear power because currently Israel holds all the cards in the Middle East. Israel is the dominant military power in the region and uses this dominance to carry out repeated attrocities against the Palestinians. I dont care if terrorists are attacking Israel, that does not authourize Israel, as a nation, to become terrorists themselves and fire rockets into crowded refugee camps.

In the Gaza refugee camp of Jebaliya, Israeli aircraft fired two missiles at a car carrying Islamic Jihad militants. Hospital officials said at least seven people were killed and 15 wounded, four of them critically. Among those killed were four Islamic Jihad members, including Shadi Mohanna, the group's field commander for northern Gaza.

The missiles struck the white car as it drove through the camp, which was crowded with people walking in the streets after evening prayers at a mosque. Two charred bodies were pulled from the wrecked vehicle, and shrapnel and blood was scattered over a wide area.

Israeli Missile Kills Seven Palestinians

What would the World's response of been if Britain fired rockets from a helicopter gunship into an Irish hospital that was treating an IRA member? Would we say, "well the Irish shouldnt of bombed London". No. There would of been outrage because Britain cannot lower itself to the level of terrorists.

Israel, as a nation, has to break the cycle of violence it is in with the Palestinian terrorists. Abu Mazen is obviously incapable of reigning in the militants, it probably has something to do with the Palestinian civilians getting lumped in with Israeli reprisals. So, whats the solution to this problem? Israel should act responsibly and cease their complicity in the cycle of violence and stop responding to Palestinian terrorists with violence. Then, and only then, can Abu Mazen have a chance of reigning in the militants. But Israel will not do this, if Palestinian terrorists stop bombing Israel the tables will turn and Israel will become the focus of international scrutiny once more.

The same applies to Israel's rhetoric towards Iran. The Israelis, for all intents and purposes, gave the United States an ultimatum. "Bomb Iran or we will bomb them for you". Why? Because Israel does not want nuclear equilbrium in the Middle East. If nuclear equilibrium was achieved the Israelis would no longer be able to strong arm any one. They would be forced to comply with Bush's road map and give the Palestinians a viable state. They would also have to comply with the original UN agreement and turn over Jerusalem to the UN.

However, Israels current objective is to ruffle the feathers of the Iranian mullahs. Lets be honest, that isnt' a hard task. So they public threaten to bomb Iran over their suspected nuclear weapons programme. When Iran resorts to their old vitriole of "Death to Israel" the Israelis use that response as a justification for more pressure on Iran. Hence deflecting attention from the Israeli state and allowing them to continue to not comply with the road map or the original UN agreement.

In the mind of the Israeli leaders, the threat to Israel's existance has to be maintained. Without it they cannot bargain for anything or ellicit sympathy. You might think that letting the Iranians have nuclear weapons would be the ultimate threat to Israel, hence why are they objecting to Iranian nuclear weapons? The truth is that if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons the threat of violence is reduced. Iran wouldnt use nuclear weapons offensively and the Israelis know it. It would negate Israels arsenal as they would be unable to use nuclear weapons on any Middle Eastern country because Iran would retalitate.

Iran would never negotiate with Israel but the rest of the Middle East would, free from the threat of Israeli agression.

Forgive the following crude analogy:

Theres a little scrawny kid who wants to use the swing. The swing is being used by a bigger kid. The scrawny kid knows this other kid has a short temper. So the scrawny kid taunts and prods the other kid until he snaps and lashes out. The bruised scrawny kid, looking all hurt, pathetic and scared, complains to the teacher who witnessed the whole incident. "That boy punched me *sob*". The teacher then comes down on the other kid like a tonne of bricks and gives the swing to the scrawny kid.

So long as the scrawny kid continues to prod and poke the other kid into lashing out the teacher will always sympathize with the scrawny kid. Allowing the scrawny kid to get what ever they wish.

[edit on 27/10/05 by subz]

as posted by subz
The truth is that if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons the threat of violence is reduced.

Really?
Oh, so your starting this ATSNN thread concerning Iran continuing to threaten Israel with total destruction, which ultimately would be an act of genocide since Iran is refering to Zionist--implying the Jews, was so that you could make the ludicrous point that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would "reduce" violence, etc?

Must be that continued Iranian parlor trick or reverse psychology of playing on words by asserting total destruction of a recognized nation, but really implying the opposite, huh?

Gotcha'.





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Really?
Oh, so your starting this ATSNN thread concerning Iran continuing to threaten Israel with total destruction, which ultimately would be an act of genocide since Iran is refering to Zionist--implying the Jews, was so that you could make the ludicrous point that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would "reduce" violence, etc?

Must be that continued Iranian parlor trick or reverse psychology of playing on words by asserting total destruction of a recognized nation, but really implying the opposite, huh?

Gotcha'.

Seeker, Seeker, Seeker, are you feigning naivety?

Who beats their chest and acts the toughest? The Kung Fu master who knows he could kick any one in the rooms ass, or the 90lbs guy who is being threatened by 3 jocks?

Iran is facing economic and military retribution from the United States, Europe and Israel. Would a country bluff and bluster if they were intent on wiping out Israel any way? What does Iran gain by issuing their threats?

Does a boxer usually tell their opponent "im going to punch you in the stomach with my right"? No, they do it without telegraphing their intentions. It increases their chance of being sucessful.

If Iran really wanted to destroy Israel they would of kept their heads down until they acquired nuclear weapons. They would then of launched those nuclear weapons without warning and sat back and watched the fireworks. Of course they'd be vapourized within 20 minutes along with Islam's Holiest sites. But hey, they got their wish and they're in paradise with all those virgins...

Why do I think Ahmadinejad is saying this stuff? The Iranians are in a weak position. They've tried being magnanimous by negotiating with the EU over their nuclear energy programme which is completely allowed by the NPT. They catch on that the EU will accept nothing less than complete Iranian subjugation of their energy plans to the United States. Iran doesnt accept this and is slated for retaliation by the United States, EU and Israel.

Iran then tries to rally the Middle East into supporting them by reviving the old chestnut "Death to Israel"! Problem is the Middle East is tired of the bloodshed and doesnt rally to Iran's war cry.

It smacks of Iranian desperation and weakness. They know they are going to get an ass-whooping and unless they get nuclear weapons they will get whooped.

This by no means proves, what you are saying, in that Iran is actually wanting to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. Its bluff and bluster and it was for muslim consumption to come to Iran's aid.

Also im not about to explain, once more, how nuclear equilibrium reduces the likelyhood of agression. Read this and educate yourself:

NEWS: Sec. State Rice Fails To Get Russian Support On Iran Nuke Issue

[edit on 27/10/05 by subz]