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.

 

The mini giant awakens: 'Iran can also be wiped off the map' - Israel

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I'm not generally a huge fan of the Israeli government, but I can't really object to what Peres said. It's a simple statement of fact - Israel is almost certainly capable of reducing large chunks of Iran's landscape to irradiated rubble, and at a time when Iran's president is talking about "wiping Israel off the map" it's simple good sense to point that out.


Iran did not threaten to wipe Israel off the map.

It was mistranslated by the New York Times.



Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map?


An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time. The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...


They called for Regime Change.

Israel did the same thing many times in the past several years.



Israeli Ambassador to US Calls for 'Regime Change' in Iran, Syria

The Israeli ambassador in Washington called for "regime change" in Iran and Syria on Monday through diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions and what he called "psychological pressure."

Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said the U.S. invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein helped create great opportunities for Israel but it was "not enough."

"It has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran," he told a conference of the pro-Israeli Anti-Defamation League.

www.commondreams.org...


[edit on 8-5-2006 by Malichai]

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Iran did not threaten to wipe Israel off the map.

It was mistranslated by the New York Times.

The Iran President DID INDEED say such.
Do you think every news source in the world got the "wipe Israel from the face of the map" from the New York Times?!

Spare us your excuse making for the Iranian president and just hit your favorite search engine and read how many different world source quote such a mention made by the Iranian president and how many world leaders CONDEMNED him for saying such. Use any number of word variables you want, your excuse and denial will simply be that: an excuse and denial for the Iranian president.






seekerof



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

The Iran President DID INDEED say such


I must assume you did not even look at the link I provided.

Where they all got there translations in not important, but the fact that they all quoted mistranslations is. Have a look at what MEMRI translated it as.


"'Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it.

"'Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country...

"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

MEMRI


Irans Prez called for Regime Change just like the Israeles have been doing to them for years. You have been victimized by the hit-n-run media.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Yeah, I read your link and it is one of its kind to be had or found attempting to EXCUSE the Iranian president in what he said.

I will stick with the majority of the world in interpreting the literal-ness of what the Iranian president certainly said and meant.


Btw, did you happen to email that excusing article to all the world leaders that took what the Iranian president said at face value and condemned it, so that they can send their apologies in misinterpreting what he literally said?






seekerof



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Nobody sees the conspiracy here? I know I've described this before.

Look, Israel got nukes in the sixties, did not sign the NPT and hid their nukes for decades. THEY brought mukes to the mideast so they are complete fools to think that history will not remember this.

Does anyone in the world (who isn't a Zionist or rapturist) think this state of Israel will survive when it is they who brought nuclear weapons to their neighborhood? Seems to me that if my neighbor parked an Abrams tank in his driveway and then began building a wall across my driveway, me and him would come to blows eventually. Would anyone on the street blame me?

Thats pretty silly. Why is israel to blame when its their neighbhors that have started multiple wars against them??? If it makes sense for the iranians to get nukes because the yehudis have them, then why shoudnt the yehudis get nukes because of the constant threat of annihilation from their neighbhors?

Also, the yehudis getting nukes probably had more than just a little bit to do with the cold war also. Nukes were already 'in the area', at least within striking distance.



If they do not make peace with their neighbors, I suspect the world will hold them accountable for any nuke that goes off in the mid east.

And what, pray tell, is the almight world going to do about it?


Also will the US be held accountable, unfortunately.

Again, what the heck is the world going to do about it? THe world was opposed to the Iraq War. All that meant was that the world didn't help. So what? How much of a difference would french troops or nigerian brigades have made???



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Thats pretty silly. Why is israel to blame when its their neighbhors that have started multiple wars against them??? If it makes sense for the iranians to get nukes because the yehudis have them, then why shoudnt the yehudis get nukes because of the constant threat of annihilation from their neighbhors?

Also, the yehudis getting nukes probably had more than just a little bit to do with the cold war also. Nukes were already 'in the area', at least within striking distance.

You say my words are "silly" yet you do not address the analogy I made.

Israel's neighbors have started wars against them? When did that happen? I think the "start" of the mideast problem was when the Balfour declaration gave the mid east to Hertzl and the Zionists.



...Do you want to talk about this, Nygdan? I am happy to do so. Let's also talk about Eichmann's comments regarding the Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis to keep the death camps orderly. and to save their chosen friends Also, weren't Zionists the only group allowed to co-exist with the National Socialists during the war? I believe they were. Why's that?

Israel seems to always approach the matter of their state a priori, as if it's always been there. But no, it has not. And if that state is foisted upon the world and intitates a nuclear exchange in the mid east, Israel will not be seen as the victim in all eyes of the world.




If they do not make peace with their neighbors, I suspect the world will hold them accountable for any nuke that goes off in the mid east.

And what, pray tell, is the almight world going to do about it?

The world will not need to "do" anything about it. If a nuke goes off in the mid east, the results will speak for themselves. I am saying that world sympathy will not be entirely with Israel.




Also will the US be held accountable, unfortunately.

Again, what the heck is the world going to do about it? THe world was opposed to the Iraq War. All that meant was that the world didn't help. So what? How much of a difference would french troops or nigerian brigades have made???

What happens after nuke war, cannot be known to us yet. However, what can be known is who intitiated the conflict. The UK used the Palestine natives in WW1 then settled Jews there with powerful entrenchment. Those Jews treated the natives like lesser beings, as their law allows them to do. They wouldn't trade with them, wouldn't allow the natives to work, etc. All of this is known to you Nygdan, I am certain.

I am saying that these things are also known to "the world", and when history is written, and the powder keg of the mid east goes off, it will be Israel who is seen as having tried to take advantage of collaboration with the victors (and losers) of both world wars.


[edit on 8-5-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Israel's neighbors have started wars against them?

Yes.


Israel seems to always approach the matter of their state a priori, as if it's always been there. But no, it has not.

This is entirely irrelevant as to the matter of Israel being justified in having nukes. They have been attacked in the past, they are in hostile territory (regardless of how justified that hostility is), and therefore they are going to get nukes to use to attack their enemies. If anyone doesn't want to get hit with their nukes, they can easily do so by, er, NOT calling for their destruction, not funding terrorists/troops agianst them, and not declaring war on them.


I am saying that world sympathy will not be entirely with Israel.

And we're all supposed to care about that because.......?


However, what can be known is who intitiated the conflict.

So basically, you are saying that, no matter what, Israel is responsible for any wars in the region.
So why wouldn't they get nukes, and use them at liberty, whenever they feel threatened? Whats the reward for not using them?


and when history is written, and the powder keg of the mid east goes off, it will be Israel who is seen as having tried to take advantage of collaboration with the victors (and losers) of both world wars.

If there's a nuke war in the mid east between the US and Israel on one side and places like Iran and syria and arabia on the other, then the history books about ti are going ot be written by yehudis and jingoists, and certainly won't put the blame on themselves.


They wouldn't trade with them, wouldn't allow the natives to work,

The yehudi economy is based on palestinian labour, so what are you talking about?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The brits have openly said they will not participate in this war.....


Not so. Jack Straw, the ex-foriegn secretary said that. He also pleaded with Blair in private not to invade Iraq. He was recently fired.

Madeline Albright was on John Stewart and described a meeting she had with Bush. She said she thought they were going to try it again.

I don't believe Bush et al would atempt a land invasion, but a precision strike against nuclear/military sites would be in character with US policy. But this would inflame the shiates in a southern Iraq which is becoming less stable. Basra is worsening.

Bush is over a barrel of his own making. He can't attack a 'real' threat in Iran for fear of worsening a 'threat' he has created in Iraq.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
The US isn't going to hit the nuke facilities. You don't call a nation one of the three most evil nations in existence, and then when it starts a nuke programme, you just take a swipe at that programme and thats it.

The US is going to re-order that entire section of the world. Its not going to accomplish that by hitting nuke plants. If there is enough of a danger to justify hitting the plants, then its enough of a danger to justify going to war.


Sep

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
Iran did not threaten to wipe Israel off the map.

It was mistranslated by the New York Times.
They called for Regime Change.


Hey, do you have a video of the president speaking in the original Persian? I've never actually seen it, but if you can provide it that would be nice, and I'll tell you exactly what he said.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, I read your link and it is one of its kind to be had or found attempting to EXCUSE the Iranian president in what he said.


www.juancole.com...

Someone else saying same thing here. Apparently Chris Hitchens stole this guys email over it. lol.

'The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. '



It includes a link to the speech in Persian.

www.president.ir...


[edit on 9-5-2006 by rizla]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Nobody sees the conspiracy here? I know I've described this before.

Look, Israel got nukes in the sixties, did not sign the NPT and hid their nukes for decades. THEY brought mukes to the mideast so they are complete fools to think that history will not remember this.

Does anyone in the world (who isn't a Zionist or rapturist) think this state of Israel will survive when it is they who brought nuclear weapons to their neighborhood? Seems to me that if my neighbor parked an Abrams tank in his driveway and then began building a wall across my driveway, me and him would come to blows eventually. Would anyone on the street blame me?

Anyway, IMO WW3 is planned to be between Jew and Muslim so that the Abrahamists can have the globe. Simple really. In the end, it doesn't matter if Israel or Iran is nuked because afterward (if there is an afterward), the Hebrew/Islamist god, who is the same god (YHWH is Allah), will have control of the globe. This god will be in control via Sharia law or via Noahide law. They both suck for anyone who desires liberty.

Israel should apologize for bringing nukes to the mideast and cooperate with Iran so as to make peace. If they do not make peace with their neighbors, I suspect the world will hold them accountable for any nuke that goes off in the mid east. Also will the US be held accountable, unfortunately.



VERY nice post.


Too bad no one wants to talk about the real concerning Israel. The Israel lovers run the mouths constantly about the holocaust this and holocaust that. But, they WILL NOT talk about the Zionists who ALLOWED the Nazis to kill Jews! They will NOT talk about the Zionists who didn't want to bring Jews from Germany unless it was "cost effective."


No. All they want to do is run their mouths about how "every one hates the joooos. Those poor joooos. The dirty A-rabs want to kill all the joooos." Pretending like the Zionists represent all Jews and like all Jews support Israel. EVERY ONE OF YOU who do this is FULL OF CRAP! Yeah, I said it.

And I find it funny that Iran was so evil for saying this, but Israel is "getting tough." Hell, I remember the Israel lovers foaming at the mouth when the Iran prez comments first came out. "Kill em, this means war, glass parking lot, derr."


Even by their own "holy" book, the Israelites weren't native to Palestine. Bible god told them he would give this to them when they left Egypt. That is, when he wasn't killing them.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Israel's neighbors have started wars against them?

Yes.

Uh, occupying forces are illegal according to the Geneva convention, and any native has the right to rise up against them. Please tell me you are not referring to actions against Israel after 1918 and the beginning of the Zionist influx. Those do not qualify as "starting" a war. Besides, Israel had nukes PRIOR to the six day war. Read on adventurer...




Israel seems to always approach the matter of their state a priori, as if it's always been there. But no, it has not.

This is entirely irrelevant as to the matter of Israel being justified in having nukes. They have been attacked in the past, they are in hostile territory (regardless of how justified that hostility is), and therefore they are going to get nukes to use to attack their enemies.

Wow, I am shocked that you can honestly post that.

In fact, the chairman of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), Ernst David Bergmann, pushed the Israeli bomb agenda so as to ensure "that we shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter." ...This according to FASA. So again, Zionists use the holocaust for their political/religious goals. I don't deny the holocaust, but I find the use of it to justify a nuke-armed state to be reprehensible. Don't you? Frankly, the idea that H-bombs can prevent a repeat of the holocaust is ludicrous.

Also, under Wikipedia's section "Dimona" we find this:



Dimona Nuclear Reactor

[...] Its construction commenced in 1958, with French assistance. The official reason given by the Israeli and French governments was to build a nuclear reactor to power a "desalination plant", in order to "green the Negev". The purpose of Dimona is widely assumed to be the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and the majority of defense experts have concluded that it does in fact do that. However, the Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny this publicly, as part of a policy of deliberate ambiguity.

The Dimona reactor went on-line some time between 1962 and 1964, and with the plutonium produced there, perhaps together with some enriched uranium acquired through mysterious means (see Plumbat Operation), the Israel Defence Forces most probably had their first nuclear weapons ready before the Six-Day War.

Some claim that because Israel knew the schedule of the inspectors' visits, it was able to hide the alleged purpose of the site (manufacturing of nuclear weapons) from the inspectors, by installing temporary false walls and other devices before each inspection. The inspectors eventually informed the U.S. government that their inspections were useless, due to Israeli restrictions on what areas of the facility they could inspect. In 1969, the United States terminated the inspections.

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program. Israeli agents kidnapped him from Italy, drugged him and transported him to Israel. An Israeli court then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen years imprisonment. At the time of Vanunu's arrest, The Times reported that Israel had material for approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs. In 2000 Israel put into service 3 advanced Dolphin class submarines built in Germany, capable of launching nuclear-armed cruise missiles [1].

So this is the global sort of behavior that you support, Nygdan? Please enlighten me as to how this advances the idea of world peace.




I am saying that world sympathy will not be entirely with Israel.

And we're all supposed to care about that because.......?

Who's "we" and why would I want you all to care? I have no idea what you are after. To state it plainly, It is normal for a person to want to care how their nation is percieved in the eyes of the world. It is the Zionist who doesn't understand that statement. Does that come as new information to you?

World opinion does matter because more often than not, humans want peace and not war. History will always look at warmongers as evil, even if it takes a hundred years for that warmongering to be revealed. Some nations are better at being sneaky than others, but the less sneaky nations, who are up front and peace loving, are generally respected MORE than the sneaky nations.




However, what can be known is who intitiated the conflict.

So basically, you are saying that, no matter what, Israel is responsible for any wars in the region.
So why wouldn't they get nukes, and use them at liberty, whenever they feel threatened? Whats the reward for not using them?

Why do you constantly rephrase people's words in the wrong way, Nygdan? I have seen you do this before, and it amazes me. ...No, I am not saying that Israel is responsible for "any wars in the region"... Only those wars which are propogated by their occupation. Occupation of a territory is not legal, in spite of how powerful your allies are, or how non-powerful the natives are. It was wrong for Americans to dehumanize and kill natives in their occupied territory also. Can Americans leave? No, but they can placate the natives. Can Israel move? Not really, but they can placate the natives.




and when history is written, and the powder keg of the mid east goes off, it will be Israel who is seen as having tried to take advantage of collaboration with the victors (and losers) of both world wars.

If there's a nuke war in the mid east between the US and Israel on one side and places like Iran and syria and arabia on the other, then the history books about ti are going ot be written by yehudis and jingoists, and certainly won't put the blame on themselves.

Is that the sort of history book you read? Why not find accurate material? Will ATS disappear after such a war? I think a lot of this database might survive. I tend to think the history of nuke war is being recorded RIGHT NOW, and I think it will be an accurate picture which survives such a war. Would you like to discuss this point or quickly move on to the next one?




They wouldn't trade with them, wouldn't allow the natives to work,

The yehudi economy is based on palestinian labour, so what are you talking about?

I am talking about the Israeli immigrants refusing to transact with natives. I could find you a link but I think it's you who needs to make YOUR point, which you have utterly failed to do.


[edit on 9-5-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Nobody sees the conspiracy here? I know I've described this before.

Anyway, IMO WW3 is planned to be between Jew and Muslim so that the Abrahamists can have the globe. Simple really. In the end, it doesn't matter if Israel or Iran is nuked because afterward (if there is an afterward), the Hebrew/Islamist god, who is the same god (YHWH is Allah), will have control of the globe. This god will be in control via Sharia law or via Noahide law. They both suck for anyone who desires liberty.

Israel should apologize for bringing nukes to the mideast and cooperate with Iran so as to make peace. If they do not make peace with their neighbors, I suspect the world will hold them accountable for any nuke that goes off in the mid east. Also will the US be held accountable, unfortunately.



Uh you mean the anti-christ is coming to power right? If so then I agree with everything you have written here. Now where did I put those nukkies anyways??


Sep

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
It includes a link to the speech in Persian.

www.president.ir...


Thanks. After the "famous phrase", he says, "We should be aware of those who wish to initiate conflicts. For more than 50 years, the heads of the powerful governments, who force their will on others [this part is only one word, like trouble seekers, but refers to people who have the power as well as the will to start a conflict] and who wish to initiate conflicts, have done everything in their power to legitimise and confirm to power this false and illegitimate regime [uses the exact word regime, which is the same in Persian]". I think this makes it clear that he is referring to the government of Israel and not the entire nation.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I very much doubt that the yehudis have the ability ot 'wipe iran off the map', sure they have nukes and can use those, but outside of that, they dont' have the ability.


Well that is exactly what the statement was implying the use of Israeli nuclear weapons if the Iranians did something stupid. Israel has enough weapons to destry every Iranian population center with more than 50 000 people.
Not only dfoes Israel hvae the basic fission weapons the Iranians are trying to produce, they also have the far more complex and powerful thermonuclear weapons. They also have the delivery sytems to hit any part of Iran from Israel.



Also, the yehudis can't even control the palestinians, how could the occupy iran???


Erm, they never said they wanted to occupy Iran, they said " wipe off the map " - why do so many people confuse this



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.

english.aljazeera.net...


Iran's intentions toward Israel are well known, this speach is just one of many over the years.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Israel is starting to speak up, and frankly I like it.

'Iran can also be wiped off the map'



Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.

According to Peres, "Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program."

"Iran presents a danger to the entire world, not just to us," Peres added.

Peres' vehement expressions came the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly wrote to US President George W. Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.



The world needs to take its head out of the sand, the last time a world leader used the same rhetoric that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been using was in 1938 by a man called "Hitler", and we all know where that led. And remember: Hitler didnt have nuclear power or the oil reserves Iran has.



What exactly do you think makes some people hate Jews? Why, specifically, Jews? I mean, they've even got their own special brand of racism - anti-semitism. What's up with that?

I mean, they've been persecuted since before the Bible. Sure, they killed Jesus. But it's not as if they eat babies.

What is it with the Jews? Anyone?

-S



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
'The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. '


Yeah, the "Imam" said.

If he was so misunderstood, why hasn't he come back on line and clarified?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
You're the man smallpeeps!!


I read the story about the ghost bombers on their independence day of 1949...sign up.

Methinks the collective is projecting nukes. A thought is as bad as the deed. So sad to fail the test, I thought we were strong enough to enter that holy place...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join