Iran president: Israel flies Satan's flag

Iran president: Israel flies Satan's flag

www.usatoday.com

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday that Israel was the standard bearer of Satan and the Jewish state would soon fall apart, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The agency quoted Ahmadinejad as he spoke at a religious conference and did not elaborate on what he meant by Satan. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, however, Iran has regularly referred to the United States as "the Great Satan."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is the Iranian leader begging for conflict and war?

Just when you think you've heard it all from Ahmadinejad, a new line from him seems to confirm his desire to martyr himself and perhaps the nation of Iran in his twisted vision of 'God's plan".

As the escalation of words between Iran, Israel and most importantly the USA continues, diplomatic efforts over Iran's nuclear facilities could falter. Does Ahmadinejad want war?



www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by UM_GazzJust when you think you've heard it all from Ahmadinejad, a new line from him seems to confirm his desire to martyr himself and perhaps the nation of Iran in his twisted vision of 'God's plan".

How do you know what gods plan is. Just because we live in the west we think we are right, how do we know.

Though i know where your coming from.

More importantly - does israel want to be glassed.

I really and honestly think that Iran has at least 2 or 3 nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them - and if israel strike first they can retaliate in kind.

then it all goes to hell in a hand basket.

seeing as Iran always call the US and Israel spawns of saten
and the US and Israel call Iran the axis of Evil

may i ask so what?

More breaking news from Iran:


news.yahoo.com

TEHRAN (Reuters) - The commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted on Saturday as threatening to deal heavier blows in future against the United States after Washington said it may label the force a terrorist group.

The Iranian daily Kayhan said commander-in-chief Yahya Rahim Safavi made clear the Guards would not bow to U.S. pressure and would use all their leverage against the Americans.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Thread:
Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

Being named "terrorists" seems to insult and inflame them. There seems to be an escalation of provocation between Iran and the USA, no surprise there, as it seems now that diplomacy is failing over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Can the USA, better yet the world afford another war in the Middle East?

Is war with Iran now simply a question of not if, but when?

Who will strike first?

Israel? Iran? USA?

what has iran got that the US want?

lol, and they say religion is about peace.

Has anyone in the US and Israel ever considered that Iraq, Iran, and the area around it is the original "holy land"?

Come on, you're religious, Doesn't attacking the homeland of your religion have some form of consequence?

Leave the Middle East alone. The only reason they're fighting now is because the US went in there with guns blazing. What option do they have?

Originally posted by talon
what has iran got that the US want?

A large portion of the world's oil reserves, a huge strategic advantage for the USA, possible elimination of a radical Islamic regime with nuclear weapons potential, a new front and land to propagate western doctrine and democracy, a next step in conquering the world?

If the USA ultimately gains a strong hold on both Iraq and Iran in the future, from a purely business perspective... Imagine the possibilities!

Originally posted by johnsky

Leave the Middle East alone. The only reason they're fighting now is because the US went in there with guns blazing. What option do they have?

So very true. If say, Iran invaded Mexico to try to force them to become Muslim, wouldn't we be jumping up and down and rattling our sabers at them? Not that I think our government would give two shakes about Mexico being invaded for Mexico's sake, but because it would be so close to our own border.

Set fire to an anthill and watch the one next door start boiling up with really angry ants ...

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

Originally posted by talon
what has iran got that the US want?

A large portion of the world's oil reserves, a huge strategic advantage for the USA, possible elimination of a radical Islamic regime with nuclear weapons potential, a new front and land to propagate western doctrine and democracy, a next step in conquering the world?

If the USA ultimately gains a strong hold on both Iraq and Iran in the future, from a purely business perspective... Imagine the possibilities!

Ya we want their oil, and so does everyone else. The uneducated think that this also includes wanting their land etc too. There is no one in America that wants any physical part of that dust bowl, but we do want what is best for us and that is a stabilized region over there, but that is the last thing a few of those countries want.

If we could had stabilized Iraq two years ago we would be out already, but since the Iraqis and more importantly other nations around Iraq do not want us to do it we are still there.

Let us just be able to buy their oil, and allow those nations to prosper without human rights etc. issues and we all can be happy, but it is not that easy. Since the vast majority of that region is very uneducated or very doctrine driven in their education the power of control is to have someone to hate so the vast majority of the population will unite under those powers. We see this in Iran where they create their own problems just to blame them on the US and Israel. The funny part for Iraq is their biggest threat is not the US or Israel, but their young educated population who want more out of life.

As a pure business perspective there is not much there but oil, so I’m not sure what strong hold you are talking about. If we were going to go anywhere in some capitalistic warfare it would be Chin/India with the billions of untapped customers that are ready to move into a more capitalistic world.

If the USA ultimately gains a strong hold on both Iraq and Iran in the future, from a purely business perspective... Imagine the possibilities!

Well, sales of body armor and armored vehicles would certainly go up.
Trauma & burn wards would certainly be doing a banner business, as well as arms dealers... Iodine pills and bomb shelters would also probably be sound investments.

Gotta look on the bright side I guess

[edit on 8/18/07 by xmotex]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If we could had stabilized Iraq two years ago we would be out already, but since the Iraqis and more importantly other nations around Iraq do not want us to do it we are still there.

Do you actually believe that?

From a strategic point of view alone, even with a stabilized Iraq, the advantages of having a strong military presence, bases, and a large embassy in the region makes perfect sense. The USA needs Iraq, leaving may sound like a great option, but as long as the threat of terrorism, and especially "terror supporting regimes" exist in the middle east the USA will remain there.

Do you believe that either the USA or Israel are going to sit and wait for Iran to amass a nuclear weapons arsenal?

As for the business perspective, there have been companies/contractors who have profited greatly in Iraq, the same could be possible in the aftermath of war with Iran, perhaps far greater economic potential than anything seen in Iraq.

Iran is hardly a worthless "dust bowl"

Though it may be after the war!

Originally posted by talon
what has iran got that the US want?

Israel.....it always has been and always will be, IMO, be about the Zionist state. The US will do anything (including kill it's own) to protect this Nation.

Considering the majority of the population in the West in general, and now even in the United States, is solidly against the current war in Iraq, what makes you think there will be any more enthusiasm for a war in Iran?

Personally I think if this administration initiates another conflict in the Gulf, it's time to move from the "electing opposition representatives" stage and onto the "hanging Mussolini in the town square from a meathook" stage...

Hmm I don't know. Don't you think that if the administration wants to go to war then they just will. The US and UK governments seem to ignore protests to wars in the middle-east, if they are set on starting another one i'm not sure there's much we can/will do about it.

Of course the excuse for the war will be "to keep you safe" so no one will want to protest it anyway.

And isn't it convenient how Ahmadinejad keeps just asking for war...

Good Lord,the stage is set.All the players seem to want this war-the leaders that is,not the people obviously.

Amadinajad must have something up his sleeve to be this confrontational at this time.He ain`t completely stupid,he must know that the US have basically got Iran surrounded with massive ordnance,bases,manpower.

What surprise does he have in store? A nuke or 3 won`t win him any war,he knows that.Sure,3 nukes at a strategic moment into the straits of hormuz will do one hell of alot of damage,but he knows thats not enough to win anything..

That leads me to at least ponder the possibility that he has either China or Russia secretly on side,maybe egging him on,encouraging him to start the unthinkable.That might give him the confidence he needs to behave like he is.
Some please tell me i`m way off the mark or I probably won`t sleep much tonight.

Dancing around the inevitable?

Regardless of yours or my opinions, the very real possibility of nuclear weapons being held by Iran and used in threats aimed at both Israel and the USA are not going to live long without some sort of action to prevent an attack.

Iran has shown strong resolve on this issue, will not relent and continues to escalate the war of words.

There is more cause and reason for the massive US military presence in the Middle East than just Iraq and Afghanistan.

Think of the larger aspects here, a nuclear armed Iran will not stand. Likely this has been in planning stages since, and possibly even before the Iraq invasion and current occupation.

To think that nothing will be done to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons arsenal could be a convenient way of dancing around the inevitable.

We can either take action to remove the threat now, wait for the Israelis to do so, wait for Iran to supply nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations and retaliate in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack that would make 9/11 look like child's play, or simply do nothing and hope for the best.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Regardless of yours or my opinions, the very real possibility of nuclear weapons being held by Iran and used in threats aimed at both Israel and the USA are not going to live long without some sort of action to prevent an attack.

Let's see how we can turn that around:

'Regardless of yours or my opinions, the very real possibility of nuclear weapons being held by the Soviet Union and used in threats aimed at both Europe and the USA are not going to live long without some sort of action to prevent an attack.'

'Regardless of yours or my opinions, the very real possibility of nuclear weapons being held by North Korea and used in threats aimed at South Korea, Japan, and the USA are not going to live long without some sort of action to prevent an attack.'

'Regardless of yours or my opinions, the very real possibility of nuclear weapons being held by an unstable Pakistan and used in threats aimed at the West are not going to live long without some sort of action to prevent an attack.'

And yes, no matter what you may think, there is still some vestige of popular control held over the US Government, and if they face strong enough political opposition to an attack on Iran, there will be no attack.


[edit on 8/18/07 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
And yes, no matter what you may think, there is still some vestige of popular control held over the US Government, and if they face strong enough political opposition to an attack on Iran, there will be no attack.

Have you consulted with the Israelis on this as well?

The threat of a nuclear armed Iran is a bit more immediate than that of Russia, Pakistan and North Korea. However point taken.

You are possibly correct, there may be no attack on Iran, I don't see how preemptive strikes alone would be effective, an all out war would be a more likely scenario. However waiting for the Iranians to make the first move could be the way it comes about. I suppose a wait and see attitude will prevail, the implications of doing that could be worse than taking action to eliminate the threat now.

Ultimately, only time will tell.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by UM_Gazz]