Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be wiped off the map

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:14 PM
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


english.aljazeera.net...

He meant what he said and if he gets his hands on a nuke the world will see what he means by "wiped off the map"




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Sri Oracle,

Are you proposing that Moses and the tribes of Israel that came into the "promised land" are Zionists?


No. A Zionist is after a physical plane, survey it and put up check points and stakes; nation. A follower of Moses is after a network of friends/family that as a whole recognize that we are one people, dwelling within one garden; a nation.

Both traditions trace their roots to Abraham, correct? Moses, correct? I believe Noah Bible edition is Noah Koran edition. No?



To state that Jewish people do not have a historical record of being in the land that is currently the State of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state that stretches back at least 2,000+ years boggles me.


They were there... Jews,
Some (Jews) came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah
Some (Jews) came to believe Mohammad was the Prophet


Some jews, some christian, others muslim.

Abraham, Abraham, Abraham.

One family lived in the region. Zionist opportunistically turned one side against the other and ousted the muslims from, stakes and borders, Israel. And filled the area with brainwashed homeless post WWII/Concentration camp Jews.


On the flip side, one could contend using your logic that since the Palestinians of the region have never had an actual country to call their own, they also do not have a claim to the land. I mean there is no historical record of a Palestinian Arab run Country in the region of Israel/Gaza/West Bank.


Right... "Some of them Judaic, some Christian, others Muslim, all Abraham".



Palestine is just a "spritual nation" not an actual physical one. Palestine as a State is just as much of an "ILLUSION" as you claim Israel to be using your logic.


Correct.


WIKIPEDIA (Ariel Sharon)
On his settlement policy, Sharon said while addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party: "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."


40 years later he is Prime Minister of a nation that did not exist.

It is the Zionist that created the boundary between Muslim and Jew.

Us vs. Them.

Either you're with us or against us.

Prior to 1948 they lived amongst one another... Big Brother comes in and pulls a Plessy v. Ferguson, ousts the Muslims from stake-and-boundary-Israel and militaristically defends the seperatism.

I sense bad mojo from that.

I don't care what happened to "The Jews" during the Holocaust, militarily ousting people that get down and pray 3 times a day so Jews can have a new home is not the answer. Now if Germany had stood up and said... yeah the Holocaust was pretty harsh... we're going to ceceed 40,ooo acres to create a reservation for the Jews... and the German people were all for it... That would have been a Grace. The Jews would get their Israel. God wouldn't send children with bombs strapped to their chest. But no... the UN forced out another holy people out to encamp Jewish refugees with the intention to set up a shadow governement to promote NWO/Globalism in the Middle East. Mission accomplished.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
On the fact that your hatred of Bush has so consumed you that you can not discuss an unrelated topic without converting it to a Bush bashing thread? I'll bow out as I'm not a Republican anyway. Just tired of seeing this turn every thread on ATS into an argument about Bush.


I never really meant to bring Bush into this. My comment about who I'd prefer for President is really moot as I do not even take the concept of a Republic too seriously. There is no voting in my Heaven; we all serve one. I just seem to like the man more than Bush; I feel as if I could converse with him without biting my tongue so often.



Supporting people who blow up their own children and innocent civilians in the name of Allah is pure evil.


Perspective.
Life may leave you in a position where survival depends upon cutting off your own hand.

Apparent Evil sometimes does the most Good.

Attack
Bullets are flying
People are dying
with madness surrounding all hell's breaking loose
Soldiers are hounding
Bodies are mounting
cannons are shouting to take their abuse
With war machines going
Blood starts to flowing
No mercy given to anyone here
The furious fighting
Swords are like lighting
It all becomes frightening to you
Know death is near
No remorse

(Metallica)

So that is your homeland... a scary place where bullets fly and people die.

You sacrifice one of your children to save the rest.

Jihad.

In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful, I make this sacrifice.

Your child dies... a chunk is taken out of the occupying force. Your other children live.

Perspective.

What is it like on the other side of the oppression?

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

It (Israel) is the reward that Jews get for Holy Work... However Israel is not a place, but a mindset. And it was not taken from them, but rather the mindset was lost by them because the Lord has punished them for their transgressions; failure to serve as demanded by the Lord.



Originally posted by snoopy
Are you just in denial? How can you even make such a claim??? Hell, it's written about as early as 1200 BC by the Egyptians. Earlier if one were to use the Bible.

Please save the rhetoric for some other discussion. ...Thanks for the rhetoric BS....I am sure it impresses the chicks, but it doesn't make any point.


Actually, my chick got upset with me for spending so much time on the internet; sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.

Ok... so The Bible is ok to quote from if we're after a date in time... but If we seek to help others see that Israel is obtained through Divine Service... then that's rhetorical BS.

I think you need to step out of Exodus for a moment and check out Proverbs. After reading through, go plant a seed, nurture it, water it and compost it... pull the weeds from around it.

When the fruit ripens bite into Israel,

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
They were there... Jews,
Some (Jews) came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah
Some (Jews) came to believe Mohammad was the Prophet



so let's see, jews were there. then, some became muslims and some became christians. so they're all jews with different types of faith. like baptist or episcopalian.

so why can't they all agree that jews were there from the get go, and why can't they all stop enforcing their beliefs that theirs is the religion of choice and all others are wrong (when I say all I mean everyone. all people)?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlteredStates


Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad


How is it possible he said just that... He wasn't speaking english.




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




He meant what he said and if he gets his hands on a nuke the world will see what he means by "wiped off the map"


Why would you nuke a place that you want to return to?

Consider a Native American saying that the United States of America should be "wiped off the map".

I would think he means something other than laying nuclear waste to the area in question.

I would think that he means the regime controlling the area (zionist/NWO) and the label placed upon it (Israel) should no longer be considered a truism by the global community.

I tend to agree.

As far as Hezbollah and bombing with babies, etc... That is no more a part of the conversation than Bush Bashing.

The MEDIA (NWO) has portrayed it that Ahadminejad wants to nuke Israel; You buy it... hook line and sinker.

The GOVERNMENT (NWO) wants you to believe they should have the power to control Iran.

Problem - Reaction - Solution

1938 The MEDIA (NWO) protrayed that Jews are the cause of all of Germany's problems; You buy it... hook line and sinker.

The GOVERNMENT (NWO) wants you to believe they should have the power to erradicate the Jews.

Problem - Reaction - Solution

Sri Oracle



[edit on 18-9-2006 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
And what's wrong with Bush administration bashing? They are scum. Look at their crimes, at their plans... you can't support them! Or you're in the 10% who still believe this crap administration, that don't know the history of the US in the Middle-East, in South America and Africa, their despise for the poors, ect... If you're a human with at least little compassion for others humans, you can't support those traitors.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
Do you think were getting a little off topic here.


Thats what happens anytime someone comments on the racist genocidal statements of Arab Muslims, They or thier "useful fools" turn it into a discussion about Isreal.

Can't talk about the fact that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, all have genocide as a plank in thier foreign affairs platform.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Thats what happens anytime someone comments on the racist genocidal statements of Arab Muslims, They or thier "useful fools" turn it into a discussion about Isreal.

Can't talk about the fact that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, all have genocide as a plank in thier foreign affairs platform.


Just a FYI. Most Iranians while Muslim, are not Arab. They are Persian. Same as telling someone from Canada they are American or vice versa. May not make a difference to you, but it does to them.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I don't care what the literal translations is - wiped off the map, erased from history, cleansed from the mIddle East - who cares? I think what the statement MEANT is pretty clear here. So semantics aside, his statement was intended to imply the he doesn't want Israel to exist. He could've used any combination of fancy words to convey that feeling and it stands. Thsi man is a danger not only to the Middle East, but the entire world!



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
So semantics aside, his statement was intended to imply the he doesn't want Israel to exist. .... This man is a danger not only to the Middle East, but the entire world!


Had you ever considered the possiblity that

the (borders and stakes, parliment and military) Nation of Israel

is something that SHOULD NOT exist;

ESPECIALLY if obtained in a non-peaceful manner?

If that is TRUE.

Then this man is a liberator not only to the Middle East, but the entire world!

Follow the white rabbit,

Sri Oracle



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinksYouAreAnIdiot
Can't talk about the fact that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, all have genocide as a plank in thier foreign affairs platform.


Do you think they came to this platform at random?

Perhaps Arab Muslims have been facing an ongoing
GENOCIDE themselves.

In their foreign affairs platform they consider how to deal with that.

Islam says eye for an eye.

reflections in the pond,

sri oracle



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
hey snoopy... how did palestine belong to the jews b4 it belonged to the palestinians?? wouldnt they have just called it israel to start with then? the jews took palestine from the arabs, and the arabs fight back for there land, and all of a sudden they are somehow the terrorists... i dont understand how things are so obvious and ppl still dont beleive them



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   


hey snoopy... how did palestine belong to the jews b4 it belonged to the palestinians?? wouldnt they have just called it israel to start with then? the jews took palestine from the arabs, and the arabs fight back for there land, and all of a sudden they are somehow the terrorists... i dont understand how things are so obvious and ppl still dont beleive them


It was originally named to reflect the Jewish population. The name "Palestine" was installed by Roman occupiers who wished to expel or kill the Jewish population and erase the historical record of Jewish predominace as a punishment. Palestine was chosen as the name as a reference to the Philistines, an enemy of the Jews at the time, as an insult.

If you need a more concrete example of Jewish prominence in the region, look at the ruined temple wall or any of the other archeological remnants of the civilization that existed there.

Every person I have ever met who sees the Israel/Palestine conflict as a cut-and-dry case where blame can be placed on a single entity has always ended up demonstarting that they know very little about the historical facts. It is far from an "obvious" case of colonialism or oppression, despite what some people insist. It is difficult to make the case that the current situation is solely the fault of Zionists without abandoning objectivity and employing a serious double standard while reviewing the history.

Jewish immigrants fled genocide in Europe to Palestine and settled land that was BOUGHT, not stolen. Fearing a cultural sea change, the Arabs responded by revolting. This is important. The first instances of widespread violence were instigated by Palestinians and (initially) resulted in the massacres of Jewish civilians across the country.

Additionally, WWII created millions of refugees across the globe and at its close the western power elite partitioned, unified and sometimes even absorbed nations everywhere. To focus on one example, remove it from its historical context and then judge it with a 21st century, liberal ideology is dishonest. The partition of countries like India always resulted in population exchanges. In Israel's case, we only hear about Palestinian refugees from Israel. However there were just as many Jewish refugees expelled from the surrounding Arab states as vice-versa. Why is it that we only hear criticism of Israel for this? When was the last time you heard a call for restitution for Jews who lost everything after being forced out of their homes and stripped of their citizenship?

If you wish to be honest you should spend more time reading up on this and less repeating partisan propaganda.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

ESPECIALLY if obtained in a non-peaceful manner?



What country has had it's borders / existence created in a peaceful manner? All countries are equal in the matter of using non-peaceful to come into being. I think you would be hard pressed to find one country that owes it's creation solely to peaceful means. Ultimately it comes down to some conflict.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
I think you would be hard pressed to find one country that owes it's creation solely to peaceful means.



Hrmmm...

Perhaps because when man divides EARTH he seperates himself from HEAVEN

One,

Sri Oracle



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Every person I have ever met who sees the Israel/Palestine conflict as a cut-and-dry case where blame can be placed on a single entity has always ended up demonstarting that they know very little about the historical facts. It is far from an "obvious" case of colonialism or oppression, despite what some people insist.


I agree whole heartedly. This is why I cannot support US-Israel military presence.



It is difficult to make the case that the current situation is solely the fault of Zionists without abandoning objectivity and employing a serious double standard while reviewing the history.


I would agree again. UN support of Zionist Jews in the conflict is indeed a double standard; objectivity abandoned.



Jewish immigrants fled genocide in Europe to Palestine and settled land that was BOUGHT, not stolen.


I do not argue here... but could you provide a link that substantiates this?



Fearing a cultural sea change, the Arabs responded by revolting. This is important. The first instances of widespread violence were instigated by Palestinians and (initially) resulted in the massacres of Jewish civilians across the country.


When the locals were originally forced from their land to allow for Jewish resettlement... was that not violent?



If you wish to be honest you should spend more time reading up on this and less repeating partisan propaganda.


I tend to report on the opposite of the mass media, not because it is right or wrong... but because it is largely unreported. Trust... I do spend many hours reading.

In my heart of Hearts the world SHOULD NOT have political/religious boundaries or national militaries... from that vantage point it is difficult to understand the logic of the UN creating a state (1947) where only Jews are citizens.

...alas I haven't any more time today for this though... more trees to plant, karma to burn off by the purple flame...

Sri Oracle



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Ive seen one on one interviews with ahmajadine, where the interviewer asked him to elaborate on his threats that israel should be wiped of the map.

In no way did he deny saying that, did he correct the interviewer, or even suggest that his comments were taken out of context.

He simply said, what was said was said. and people can draw there own conclusions.

I know the link between the arab language and english isnt black and white..

but you can clearly see by his actions, from his other speaches and also in his eyes.. that he truley does believe Israel should be removed.

And for the most part, I beleive he has a point..

Israel deserves a state of there own... but not at the expense of Palestinian citizens.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Here is a recent interview with Ahmadinejad in a big german newspaper Der Spiegel.
He put's his views in there very clearly.

www.spiegel.de...



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   


I would agree again. UN support of Zionist Jews in the conflict is indeed a double standard; objectivity abandoned.


I assume you mean UN support in 1948. I think that if the UN is biased in any way now regarding this conflict it would be against Israel. But UN recommondations have very little impact on this conflict at this stage.



I do not argue here... but could you provide a link that substantiates this?


Sure. While there is a lot of debate about what should be done about the Israel/Palestine issue there is at least a consensus among historians as to what actually happened. I have no interest in skewing the reality of past events or injustices. If we are going to have any kind of meaningful dialogue it is important to try and be as objective as possible regarding hard facts.

The original Zionists bought the land they settled in Palestine from either the government or private landowners. You can just look up any information on the Jewish National Fund, which was the organization responsible for raising and allocating funds for this purpose. Here's the wikipedia link, but none of this stuff is disputed history. You can look it up wherever.

en.wikipedia.org...



When the locals were originally forced from their land to allow for Jewish resettlement... was that not violent?


Sure. It happened during a civil war. Are you criticizing the Israelis for violence that they perpetrated during a civil war that they did not start? I think your expectations are a little high. A more legitimate criticism would be that they did not allow the Arabs BACK when the war was over. But then, an equal number of Jewish refugees had been expelled from the surrounding Arab lands at that time. While the Jews were welcomed into Israel, their Palestinian counterparts were segregated and oppressed in their adoptive countries. As they still are today.

My point here is that there were atrocities committed on both sides followed by a population exchange. While Israel did offer to repatriate some of the displaced Arabs in return for peace, they were rebuffed. So why is it that the focus is always on Israel? We hear very little about what responsibilities the Arab nations should have toward the Palestinians. Why is that? Why is Israel expected to be responsible for the refugees on every side of this conflict while no one seems to have any expectations of the Arab states? It WAS the Arab states who started the war of 48. Why do they bear no responsibility for their own people?



from that vantage point it is difficult to understand the logic of the UN creating a state (1947) where only Jews are citizens.


I agree. But that never happened. Israel is only 75-80% Jewish. Arabs can vote and have representation in government. They also have control over Arab holy sites such as the temple mount despite its dual role as Judaism's holiest site. Contrast this to how Palestinians are treated in Lebanon. They cannot own land, nor work in most careers, nor get access to education, or even access to the national healthcare system. They are expressly forbidden from becoming citizens in all Arab states except Jordan. But then, all the Palestinians in the West Bank were stripped of their Jordanian citizenship after '67. So Jordan aint so great either.

So, not only is Israel not an exclusively Jewish state, but Arabs with Israeli citizenship enjoy more rights than their Palestinian counterparts in any Arab state.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join