Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction - "wiped off the map" was the actual phrase…

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by uknumpty
This is all hot air, a bit like when the Scots send the Tartan Army down to Wembley

Or when england fans go to belfast

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

OW

hitting below the belt there wasp......

still, we'll see you guys at Germany 06.... oh wait.... no we wont!

this is already been done, six pages worth here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but since the mods are letting this one ride....

i've been doing alot of thinking about this supposed iranian nuclear program, and i'm beginning to think they dont intend to use nukes on israel. i think (and this is only MHO) they intend to even the odds so that a conventional attack is more feasible. you see, israel has made it very clear that if they are attacked en-masse, and it looks as though they will lose, they will use the nuclear option. this is probably the only thing that has kept the relative peace. but if iran has nukes, the israeli nuclear option is no longer feasible, as its whole point is to stop an attack in its tracks, and allow israel to survive. if the playing field is level, israel no longer has the option of using nukes, as they will be used in return. this makes it a completely conventional war....a war that israel could possibly lose.

the only caveat to this theory is whether or not israel, in the face of defeat would have the "we're dead anyway, lets take em with us" attitude. but theyve managed to survive as a people for thousands of years in other lands, they might have the attitude of "abandon ship and try again another time."

you guys think i'm totally nuts or what?

Again.

Some very disturbing words coming from a politician that rouses the interest of people who just don't seem to get the idea. You, skippytjc, included.

Words as far as I know are words. They don't really go into action like many would like to think. I remember during the thread about the U.S and some nations blocking the U.N from having some talks about a certain suffering nation, you said it always all talk no action. Same goes here. Furthermore, that is typical talk of an Islamic Revolution dudes. It has been going on for years and years but Ariel Sharon is still in Israel mending his white hair. If you go to any other hardcore Islamic Republic such as Syria, they too hate Israel's guts to the core. Maybe more nations too think the same since there is only two nations in the Middle East that recognized Israel as a nation.

These are just words. No matter how controversial it could be, usually it means nothing more than just that. Mind you that other politician too have said controversial stuff that amounts to nothing. Bushie said "bring it on" to the insurgents in Iraq but later apologize for the wrong interpretation of his words. President Musharraf said get raped and win a trip overseas but later apologize and rephrase it.

All the talking are nothing more that just opinions. Personally, I don't think Iran would plan to attack Israel. Not alone and not without backing of the Arab world. If Israel is going to be attacked any time in the future, I think it would be by a coalition of Arab countries.

I find it unreal how people are shrugging this off.

PEOPLE, THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN IS CALLING FOR THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY IN PUBLIC!!!!

How you all can dismiss this is beyond me. Frankly, what if the US were to say "we should wipe Iran off the face of the planet"?

Would that be OK?

But we're talking about Iran, a country whose leading export is goofy rhetoric, and has been for 25 years. And in 25 years, they haven't done much besides mouth off. The Mullahs' day in front of the firing squads will come and it will be Iranians pulling the triggers.

Until then, we will survive the verbal bombardment.

North Korea is much the same, except worse.
They've had nukes for a while now, and despite the endless stream of threats and posturing, haven't done diddly squat.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I find it unreal how people are shrugging this off.

PEOPLE, THE PRESIDENT OF IRAN IS CALLING FOR THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY IN PUBLIC!!!!

How you all can dismiss this is beyond me. Frankly, what if the US were to say "we should wipe Iran off the face of the planet"?

Would that be OK?

And which is more likely to happen?

Originally posted by xmotex
North Korea is much the same, except worse.
They've had nukes for a while now, and despite the endless stream of threats and posturing, haven't done diddly squat.

Quite right. Crazy Kim spouts off all the time and the world shrugs it off. This guy is just a mouthpiece that was put in place by the ruling Revolutionary Council. THey booted off anybody who was suspected as being a reformer and had thier kangaroo election.

THis was for domestic consumption nothing more IMHO

Originally posted by Daystar
OW

hitting below the belt there wasp......

I didnt start it mate..

still, we'll see you guys at Germany 06.... oh wait.... no we wont!

Mate, did I ever say scotland was good at football?
We're there for 3 reasons; The have a laugh, to get rat arsed and to go on the pull lassies with da kilts.
Ps, we may wear skirts, but atleast we dont moris dance..

Originally posted by devilwasp
Ps, we may wear skirts, but atleast we dont moris dance..

Touche!

Originally posted by FredT
THis was for domestic consumption nothing more IMHO

I wouldn't be too sure about that.
This story broke in IRNA. The Iranian state controlled newspaper. It's run by the guys above the president's head. If they only wanted this on the domestic scene, they may not have floated it in their main media.

Originally posted by snafu7700
but since the mods are letting this one ride....

We allways let subjects have their own thread in ATS and ATSNN.

Whatever.

I still say Iran should go for the jugular. Besides, if it wasn't for us, Israel wouldn't be squat. Imagine if we never woulda gave them billions of dollars in aid, the Muslim countries would have destroyed that place long ago.

So, I say Iran should turn Israel into glass. And, so what if I say that? People love it when you say turn Iraq to glass, so what's the difference?

Originally posted by cargo

And which is more likely to happen?

You can bet the ranch that Iran would be more likely to nuke Isreal and/or the US.

It's really not even close.

Just spotted an irregularity in the media's reporting of this situation.

How is it that the BBC runs an article asserting that Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and yet, CNN runs an article asserting Iran moves to ease reaction to anti-Israel remarks?!

Apparently CNN caught wind of their error and has now corrected it with a more appropriate titled article, but thanks to Google, one can see that such a article existed 14 hours ago. Look see:
Google reference to existing CNN article


Oppss....:shk:
Which is it CNN?





seekerof

Originally posted by truthseeka
Whatever.

I still say Iran should go for the jugular. Besides, if it wasn't for us, Israel wouldn't be squat. Imagine if we never woulda gave them billions of dollars in aid, the Muslim countries would have destroyed that place long ago.

So, I say Iran should turn Israel into glass. And, so what if I say that? People love it when you say turn Iraq to glass, so what's the difference?

Ah truthseeka what are you talking about? The US had practically no relationship with Israel before the 1967 war. The US certainly did not give Israel much support under Truman, Marshall hated the idea of Israels existance. Eisenhower did not support Israel in any way and was very critical in 1956 during the Sinia War. It was really Johnson and Nixon that started the major military aid to Israel, that after the victory in 1967.

France was Israels big friend in the 50's and 60's before De Gual regained power. The Israeli strike in 1967 was carried out with French mirages. The French helped Israel with the nuclear program not the US.

How would Israel have been destroyed without US support? They won 1948, 1956, and 1967 without US aid, by 1973 they had nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, recently the US has been costing Israel more money then they give them. Firstly America does not give Israel money directly, they give them grants which allow Israel to buy US weapons, so the money goes back into the US economy.

In return the US is allowed to veto any tech sale Israel makes from its own defense industry. The US defence industry basically gets first dibbs on any contracts, thats the deal. The US also gets to deny Israel the right to sell to various countries, most recently the US denied Israel a 100 million dollar contract to upgrade the eloctronics of Venezuelas airforce.

Another thing is, Israels economy is doing very well, they have the highest GDP growth rate currently of any industrialized western nation, this despite US vetos costing them billions of dollars, they are still curently the number 3 seller of defense tech in the world. Unlike Russia they specialize in high tech electronics and defense systems. Israel exorts 1/3rd more then Lebenon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt put together and this is without any natural resource exports.

Thus your statement regarding Israels destruction without the US is rather idiotic and unsubstanciated. Israel had nuc weapons well before its friendship with the states began and thus could have repelled any Arab attacks. The IDF has proven itself time and again to be superior to Arab armies in every single way. Easily able to fight against overwhelming odds and win.

Well, I wouldn't say America never played a significant role in Israel's defense...I can remember sitting on a transport aircraft at McCord AFB, along with our section's 155 towed howitzer, a 5-ton prime mover and a bunch of ammo, while Nixon convinced the Russians not to intervene in, and the Israeli's not to carry out, the destruction of a couple of Egyptian armies in the (Bitter Lakes region? not sure...).

And while it has been seen that Israel can take care of itself, I sure wouldn't say that its always been easy

Ballsy folks, I'll admit, willing to shoot up the Liberty...

Originally posted by apocalypticon
Well, I wouldn't say America never played a significant role in Israel's defense...I can remember sitting on a transport aircraft at McCord AFB, along with our section's 155 towed howitzer, a 5-ton prime mover and a bunch of ammo, while Nixon convinced the Russians not to intervene in, and the Israeli's not to carry out, the destruction of a couple of Egyptian armies in the (Bitter Lakes region? not sure...).

And while it has been seen that Israel can take care of itself, I sure wouldn't say that its always been easy

Ballsy folks, I'll admit, willing to shoot up the Liberty...

Im not saying we have never helped Israel. Certainly in 1973 we aided Israel in waging a conventional war against Egypt/Syria. After 1967 Israel was overconfident and had ammo/fuel stockpiles for only 1 month of severe conflict. A mistake that has since been rectified. I was simply responding to the post that said, without US aid Israel would have been destroyed.

Shrugging threats or catastrophies off is not a wise idea when it comes to the lives of thousands or millions of people. Those in the US learned this lesson from 911, and most recently in our un preparedness thru Hurricane Katrina. I wouldn't say the recent comments made by the Iranian President would necessarily call for major military action, However it can't simply be ignored as rhetoric.

Its not so much the comments themselves that fuel the tension, but its building up of many events for quite some time that begins concerning other nations. For instance.....Supporting terrorist regimes, not cooperating with international Nuclear agencies, and now calling for the distruction of a nation. NO NO....this is not just something that the Iranian President is blowing out is rear end. This is leading somewhere, and if we just turn our backs we may find ourselves in a predicament with our pants down. If someone calls in a bomb threat to a school, you don't just shrug it off. Im sure everyone here remembers their school years and having the entire school evacuated and then precautions taken. Well, this isn't much different in my opinion.

Carburetor

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Mr Carburetor]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Just spotted an irregularity in the media's reporting of this situation.

How is it that the BBC runs an article asserting that Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and yet, CNN runs an article asserting Iran moves to ease reaction to anti-Israel remarks?!

Apparently CNN caught wind of their error

It's not an error, dude.
The official Iranian line is different from the presidential line.

I seem to remember similar “rhetoric” back in 96, by someone insignificant called Osama Bin Laden. But of course, it was just “rhetoric” and no one bothered to care