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

Originally posted by Odium
What about the actions of Israel?

Everytime they fire a missile into Palestine, that is a terrorist attack. Isn't it now 12,000 people since 1998?

Iraelis and the Palestinians have been attacking/reacting over the past several years. No one's actions have been above reproach--that is; until now. Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip and returned the land. Despite this, the Palestinians continue to attack. They've made their point clear. Irradicate the Jews!! Now, I believe Isarael has the moral high ground to launched continued attacks on the Palestinians and take back THEIR land they won in battle.

Freedom_for_sum, they have never declared war against Jewish people - they seem to have a problem with land being taken from them.

Think of it like this, those people did not get involved in any war against Israel but other Nation's went through their land when they had no choice but to allow it - in fact they could not have stopped them if they wanted. They then took control of this land and claimed it as land won through battle. Battle against an enemy which had no claim to that land.

Israel, as I pointed out, was the first Nation to break the United Nation's resolution and its actions are that of a terrorist. They do not target members of the military/their enemy, but rather bomb innocent people. Think of it from their view for a moment, think if that was your mother killed by a bomb, yet she had done nothing wrong.

Would you not be angy?
Would you not wish to fight back?

A piece of land means nothing when your mother, father, brother, sister, uncle, et al, has died. It means nothing and in 7years they have killed 12,000 people. Not even 10% of those were "terrorists". Yet, with each person they kill they run the risk of even more people fighting back and against them. A re-invasion, will only help stur up more people against them and will do them no good. How can you not see this?

Israel needs to step forward, acknowledge their actions and then maybe, just maybe you might see a peace process.

Originally posted by sal88
anyone got a transcript of the entire speech? right now we only have about 4 quotes from it.

I haven't been able to find a full transcript, but did find a few more quotes from his fatwa, err I mean speech:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"The world arrogant powers founded the Zionist regime at the heart of the Muslim world as a base for their own expansionist intentions."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"Ever since the Palestinian nation focused attention on promotion of an Islamic atmosphere and attitude, day-to-day success and progress have been witnessed among Palestinians"

From IRNA article:

He added that a world without the US and Israel would be possible.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"Today, supporting the Palestinian nation and objective is a definite and indispensable principle for continued campaign to achieve victory.

"The palestinian issue has not ended. It would end when a government belonging to the Palestinian people takes over, the homeless return home and a free election is held to form a government representing all people"

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"Given that the issue of Palestine is a key matter facing the world of Islam, a certain group cannot declare their views to the effect behind closed doors"

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"The Zionist regime claims to advocate the human rights, while it has stockpiled a great amount of nuclear weapons."

He pointed to his recent meeting with the ambassador of one of the countries which held talks with Iran about the country's nuclear issue and said
(Mahmoud Ahmadinejad):"During the meeting I told the foreign diplomat that they support the Zionist regime, but when it comes to Iran they preach the human rights."

www.irna.ir...

and

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- marching with the protesters -- signaled he stood by his remarks, even as Iranian officials tried to defuse the issue.

"My word is the same as that of (the) Iranian nation," he told the official IRNA news agency.

"They are free to say but their words lack any credit," he said, when asked about global reaction to his comments.

www.cnn.com...

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Vajrayana]

People really need to stop looking at "terrorists" as being based on their faith and being told by some high power what to do. You need to step back and look at the actions of each group, why they are killing these people, how they are getting more members to sign up and what they want.

You need to work out why their ideology exists and target that because no amount of bullets will ever destroy someone's point of view. We should have learned that by now.

The only real way you will stop terrorists and terrorism is to take the route and work something else that is good for all sides. In the case of the Middle East, the shared control of Jerusalum is that. Why is it so hard for Israel to accept that? In fact, many religious sites should be controlled by the United Nation's, if they have importance to more than one group of people.

Originally posted by Odium
Israel needs to step forward, acknowledge their actions and then maybe, just maybe you might see a peace process.

It's kinda hard not to have civillian collateral damage when the cowards who call themselves Hamas attack, then hide among civillians. The difference is that Hamas targets civillians. Of course, since Israel requires all its citizens to serve time in the military, no one is concidered "innocent"; at least in the eyes of hamas.

So what exactly should israel "acknowledge"? Do you honestly believe Palestinians to be the "innocent victim" in the twoparty fight? What do you think the Palestinians should acknowledge as a fair quid pro quo?

Odium-they don't want peace and I can prove it.

Israel made a gesture of giving land to them.
Did they say thank you-no.
What they did was try to celebrate it as a military victory and even said they will now never stop until the get all the land that was never theres to start.
Did they want to make peace-some I admit, but not all or most.
What has the official Palestinian government done to stop the terrorists-not much to nothing at all.
They say they want peace, but are doing nothing to achieve it-meaning stopping the terrorists.

So many people fail to remember or even know that the land that is now Israel was owned/controlled by england/UK.
It was not Palestinian-it was ENGLISH.
If they want the land given to the previous owner-it should go back to ENGLAND.
However, if you want to make a historical issue of it, it was Israel-LONG, LONG, before the Palestinians ever wandered there-as they were nomads.
Further more the Gaza strip was owned/controlled by Jordan before they (Jordan) declared war on Israel and lost.
So if they want that land to go back to the original owner-pre war-it should be part of Jordan, but these facts are lost on so many.

Israel has used things like ambulances to transport troops, then after they get attacked they claim they were attacking an ambulance.

They do not let the Palestinian Police force do their job, instead they fire off missiles, killing more innocent people than they do terrorists.

They need to admit they broke the U.N. Resolution.
They need to allow Jerusalum to be taken under U.N. control.

Then they stand a much better chance of sorting it out. Once they step forward and say they were wrong for all the things they have done [invading villages and killing innocent people] then you will slowly see these terrorist organisations have no more purpose and in time you will see the Palestinian Goverment say sorry for the terrorist attacks, however the Goverment do not control these groups. Yes they are involved in the Political process, but they do not make all of it up. They hold no majority in Goverment.

It is the same with Ireland. Members of the Irish Government were involved with terrorist organisation, but we knew that our "Shoot to kill" policy, only made things worse. Each time they are forced out, forced to hide and attacked they gain more members. They live off of Israel bombing and killing innocent women and children.

The land was only English, as you put it, because we took control of it for the British Empire, it was always the Palestinian homeland and even as part of the British Empire was inhabited by Palestinians, not Brits.

If you go back to the fundamental question, what right did the British Empire, or the Jewish people have for taking any land of anyone and creating an artificial country? Such a move was immoral and borne out of the guilt we collectively felt for the suffering of the Jews in WW2.

Is there any wonder we have reaped the whirlwind of hatred from these people ever since?

Imagine if we forced white Americans out of their homes at gunpoint to give the Native Americans their land back in a sudden attack of guilt, it amounts to the same thing.

So many people fail to remember or even know that the land that is now Israel was owned/controlled by england/UK.
It was not Palestinian-it was ENGLISH.
If they want the land given to the previous owner-it should go back to ENGLAND.

It was controlled by the British Empire actually, remember England is about of the United Kingdom which is made up of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. I wish people, especially remember, that our Government is of the United Kingdom not England *sighs*

Originally posted by waynos
If you go back to the fundamental question, what right did the British Empire, or the Jewish people have for taking any land of anyone and creating an artificial country? Such a move was immoral and borne out of the guilt we collectively felt for the suffering of the Jews in WW2.

As such, is Iran's continued declarations of Israel's total destruction not immoral?

Is there any wonder we have reaped the whirlwind of hatred from these people ever since?

Imagine if we forced white Americans out of their homes at gunpoint to give the Native Americans their land back in a sudden attack of guilt, it amounts to the same thing.

Are you justifying Iran's continued declarations of Israel's total destruction?
Are you supporting such continued calls and proclamations for the destruction of Israel?



seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Thank you seeker for bringing the original topic back to the for-front. The middle east (Israeli/Palestinian) isn't going to be solved here.

But, Seekerof, are the actiosn of Israel also not immoral?

Why should Israel get to say if Iran should be allowed Nuclear Power or not? Do they control the World? Should any Nation have more so over another Nation?

We had a chance with Iran to guide them in the right direction and coming out and saying "You deal with them or we do" has blown it till they gain a new leader. Hopefully, the Supreme Islamic Ruler can bring him under-control as can the old President - who seems to be in charge of their Nuclear option.

Originally posted by Odium
But, Seekerof, are the actiosn of Israel also not immoral?

Specify what actions please.

Why should Israel get to say if Iran should be allowed Nuclear Power or not? Do they control the World? Should any Nation have more so over another Nation?

Israel has about as much to say on this as any other nation concerned about Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities, Odium. I mean geez, its not like Israel is openly and continually citing that it wishes to utterly destroy Iran, whereas, Iran is. Hence, with such continued rhetoric, is it not justified that Israel would openly dispute Iran over the acquiring of nuclear weapons?

We had a chance with Iran to guide them in the right direction and coming out and saying "You deal with them or we do" has blown it till they gain a new leader. Hopefully, the Supreme Islamic Ruler can bring him under-control as can the old President - who seems to be in charge of their Nuclear option.

Who is "we"?
The EU or the US, because my understanding is that the US took a back seat to the EU on this matter concerning Iran's nuclear programs. The US only reasserted itself concerning Iran when it appeared that the EU-Iran talks ultimately failed. It would also seem apparent to me that Iran was not willing to be guided in the right direction, period, no matter EU or the US mounting displeasures and open condemnations of Iran seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons program(s). Furthermore, why should the Supreme Islamic Ruler control this new Iranian President? The new president is only openly vocalizing the sentiments, position, and policies of the Supreme Islamic Ruler's mullah government of Iran.






seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Israel has about as much to say on this as any other nation concerned about Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities, Odium. I mean geez, its not like Israel is openly and continually citing that it wishes to utterly destroy Iran, whereas, Iran is. Hence, with such continued rhetoric, is it not justified that Israel would openly dispute Iran over the acquiring of nuclear weapons?

You might want to check this out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it's not total devistation, maybe it is, who knows? What level of offensive action is acceptable or unacceptable?

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

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by waynos
If you go back to the fundamental question, what right did the British Empire, or the Jewish people have for taking any land of anyone and creating an artificial country? Such a move was immoral and borne out of the guilt we collectively felt for the suffering of the Jews in WW2.

As such, is Iran's continued declarations of Israel's total destruction not immoral?

Is there any wonder we have reaped the whirlwind of hatred from these people ever since?

Imagine if we forced white Americans out of their homes at gunpoint to give the Native Americans their land back in a sudden attack of guilt, it amounts to the same thing.

Are you justifying Iran's continued declarations of Israel's total destruction?
Are you supporting such continued calls and proclamations for the destruction of Israel?



seekerof

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]

You are putting words in my mouth with that assumption. Is it so difficult to recognize the difference between identifying the root cause of Palestinian (and general Arab) discontent and of being supportive of the consequences decades down the line?

I just felt it was appropriate to state the obvious, as it were, in the light of all these posts that simply dismiss Arab intentions as evil despotism with no regard for the fact that we stirred this up ourselves.

Source
JERUSALEM — Israel will consider "all options" to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said in an interview published Wednesday, marking the latest in a series of Israeli threats against Iran's nuclear program.

There were others in 2004 from Israel as well.

How much damage would bombing a power plant be? Because we all know that is all they can attack...unless they wish to attempt to hit something under-ground, which it is likely they will build under civilian areas.

So, in reality saying they will bomb such places would cause massive amounts of damage to Iran. Chernobyl?

This is also the same Israel [as I linked earlier] that has made threats to bomb Mecca if a "group" attacked them and caused enough damage. That to many Muslim's is worse than saying you wish to destroy Iran - a hell of a lot worse.

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...

Seeker,

Sorry for the terminology mistake-no offense was intended-honestly.

Odium,
Israel did make a gesture and gave land to them, you can what came of it-nothing.
They choose to pretend they won a military victory-what a joke.
If Israel wanted to they could have stayed there and there is nothing they could have done.
As far as how they act-let us look at that.
When Israel took over the land the won in a war, which they did not technically start.
They made the first move, but what would any country do when invasion forces were being massed on their border to attack.
They made a point of not damaging, much less tearing down mosques.
What was the first thing the Palestinians did, when the got control of the land-burn and tear down all synagogue's-guess that shows the difference between the two parties involved here, doesn't it.

The UN has spoken...



news.bbc.co.uk...

I Beg To Differ for $2000, Alex

Intrepid, Israel stating thus is a self-defense measure.
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?

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”

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

[edit on 28-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by waynos
As such, is Iran's continued declarations of Israel's total destruction not immoral?
Are you justifying Iran's continued declarations of Israel's total destruction?
Are you supporting such continued calls and proclamations for the destruction of Israel?

Sorry if you feel that way, waynos, but I certainly find it hard to comprehend that I am putting words in your mouth when I simply asked three direct questions. The questions are not assumptions, for if they were, I would have phrased them as statements rather then questions.



seekerof