Ahmadinejad tells West: Accept Israel imminent collapse

JSR, His words interpreted correctly or not mean that he knows there is a difference between Israelis and Zionists and that because its a corrupt regime it will fall. I'm certain that if you took the hawks out of the situation peace would ensue very quickly.

But the IP is no fool he knows that he is dealing not just with Israel but its backer America so he is drumming up support to put the pressure on, he knows that those who run Israel have their days numbered.

Originally posted by IvanZana
The question the Iranian president asks and gets no answer to is, Why did the Palestinians have to be displaced because of what Germany and it's allies did to the jewish peoples when the Palestinians had nothing to do with World War 2?

Well first you need to ask England and France who made Syria and then combined three distinct areas into Iraq, and further split other lands to support both the Jews and Palestinians into what is today Jordan and Israel. You can also ask Egypt why they would not recognized the Palestinians and give them any rights while the Gaza strip was under their control.

But then Iran's president already knows that...

reply to post by ergoli


I think the difference here is, Israel was created as a state by the UN. many countries recognize them, and participate in agreements and trade.

I do not believe the state of Israel is in question with the rest of the world. only its boarders.

my point was, if you begin negotiations with the acknowledgement that you exist, you would be leaps ahead of any stalemate in coming to solutions.

it seems now, the only offer being made is Israelis disappearance from the ME. that is never going to be accepted by Israel. and any further discussion is a mute point. discussions and solutions must take place without the first demand being that you don't exist.

im not taking sides here. I only want an actual process to take place. not these political end-of-your-term-go-at-it dog and pony shows. no one can make these two side talk. but, talking by these two sides needs to take place.

I see Ahmadinejad's comments pointing more towards a realization by the world that Israel's creation was unjust and that their current military oppression of the Palestinians should not be supported.

I don't see Iran attacking Israel, What's more likely is Israel will attack Iran. I hate that these fools decide preemptive attacks are ok. I'd rather wait until Iran actually does attack us or Israel then to let our fears control our actions. Innocent humans will die on both sides regardless of who starts the conflict, and since I view Israeli, American, and Iranian people as being equal I'd prefer this war not be started by the US/Israel based on irrational and biased fear. If Iran attacks, then maybe we respond, but that should be the only time we're looking at taking military action against Iran.

President "I'mADinnerJacket" is one scary guy. Let's say for argument's sake Christianity and Islam both have it wrong and our prophecies are bunk. It doesn't matter because this guy is ready to plunge the entire world into WW III in order to bring on his Islamic Messiah based on his prophecies. Not only that, he believes Israel must be destroyed and handed back over to Arab domination. He is most certainly an extremist and a very dangerous one at that. Although I do not believe he will be successful, he is at least going to try.

Israel will be triumphant, though. Just watch.

Here is the Ahmedinejad speech at the University.

Pay no attention to the ignorant man at the beginning.


If bush spoke like this you would trumpet him as a prophet.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by IvanZana
The question the Iranian president asks and gets no answer to is, Why did the Palestinians have to be displaced because of what Germany and it's Allies did to the Jewish peoples when the Palestinians had nothing to do with World War 2?

Actually....the root of the problem in Palestine WAS the Allies; not the Axis but the Allies, specifically the conflicting treaties the U.K. made with BOTH the (people who were then occupying Palestine) AND the Zionists - following WWI.

Promises were made to Arabs, in exchange for their siding with British forces against the Ottoman Empire, regarding a national Arab homeland in the area. Then the same promises were made to the Zionists; although not in return or exchange for anything specific, as had been the case with the Arabs.

Sykes-Picot:

After the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, the British had made two promises regarding the territory in the Middle East it was expecting to acquire. Britain had promised the local Arabs, through Lawrence, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their support of the British; and in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Balfour:

The letter stated the position, agreed to at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a National home for the Jewish people within Palestine‎ with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there.

The statement was issued through the efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, the principal Zionist leaders based in London but, as they had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as “the” Jewish national home, the Declaration fell short of Zionist expectations.

The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine. The declaration was made in a letter from Arthur James Balfour (Foreign Secretary) to Lord Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation, a private Zionist organization. The document is kept at the British Library.

Balfour Declaration
British Mandate
Sykes-Picot

Following WWII, it was 'resolved' by the UN-Mandate - which basically honored the second agreement, favoring the Zionists.

And the rest of the story we see everyday on the news...
:shk:

Originally posted by JSR
reply to post by ergoli

 

I think the difference here is, Israel was created as a state by the UN. many countries recognize them, and participate in agreements and trade.

I do not believe the state of Israel is in question with the rest of the world. only its boarders.

Israel was created by the british, not the UN. It was created by the british at the time of british support for Adolf Hitler, Eugenics and colonialist western superiority thinking. The jewish settlers behaved in line with these types of morals and still do so as of today. Sincerely, you would think twice before negociating with such a brutal regime. Israelhas been given maximum borders by the UN in 1967, but chose not to respect these and deport millions of palestinians in order to settle their settlers on that stolen ground. Israel simply cannot be recognized in it's current factual borders by any even-handed or UN-inspired approach.

my point was, if you begin negotiations with the acknowledgement that you exist, you would be leaps ahead of any stalemate in coming to solutions.

it seems now, the only offer being made is Israelis disappearance from the ME. that is never going to be accepted by Israel. and any further discussion is a mute point. discussions and solutions must take place without the first demand being that you don't exist.

im not taking sides here. I only want an actual process to take place. not these political end-of-your-term-go-at-it dog and pony shows. no one can make these two side talk. but, talking by these two sides needs to take place.

Iran's aim in the ME conflict is not to destroy israel, that has been often misquoted. It is the official goal of the Iranian leadership to have the deported palestinians have their right to return to their homesteads that have been stolen or destroyed by jewish settlers, and this is perfectly in line with the UN solution. Nothing more, nothing less. Israelis argue that this right of return would amount to an arab majority inside Israeli borders (wherever these may be) and would therefore compromise the reelection of a right-wing zionist leadership, an eventuality which they term 'destruction of israel'. If you take some time to think about it, you will see for yourself that this 'one-state' solution is optimal. Israel wouldnt need all their weapons (including the nuclear) anymore since they will be at peace with their neighbours. Also, the source of anti-israel-us terrorism would likely be defused.

I don't understand why it matters anymore how Israel became Israel. All countries were formed from conquest and bloodshed. In the building of every nation on earth there was some group of people getting the raw end of the deal. The world is a rough place. All the Arab land in the middle east and yet all the Arabs want to fight over that tiny little piece of land called Israel. middleeastfacts.com...

Originally posted by AshleyD
He is most certainly an extremist and a very dangerous one at that. Although I do not believe he will be successful, he is at least going to try.

And where, exactly, do you get your information that causes you to be convinced of this?

Israel will be triumphant, though. Just watch.

It's been 60 years...I think the world is tired of watching so many die needlessly waiting for Israel to 'triumph.' IF they were TRULY installed in that place by GOD's will...then surely it would not have been so messy nor so drawn-out.

And as far as SCARY nuke-happy countries/governments...Israel is far higher on the list than Iran and maybe even higher than the US!

Federation of American Scientists

Israel isn't even a party to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), whereas both Iran and the U.S. are.

LOOSE CANNON, basically.

Honestly, it's more feelgood propaganda directed at his political base.

Saying "Israel will fall apart like the Soviet Union" hardly constitutes a threat.

On the other hand, the Israelis have not been shy about threatening to "preemptively" bomb Iran - though I wonder if they're actually stupid enough to do it...

Originally posted by queenannie38
And where, exactly, do you get your information that causes you to be convinced of this?

His very own speeches. He claims to be in direct communication with Allah, to be "paving the way for the Mahdi" (whose appearance requires world wide chaos and war), claims to have been surrounded in the light of Allah for almost thirty minutes while giving one of his speeches (and many witnessed this event), desires to "wipe Israel off the map" although his supporters now claim this to be a mistranslation, and many other disturbing claims. Do some research of his speeches and claims.

It's been 60 years...I think the world is tired of watching so many die needlessly waiting for Israel to 'triumph.' IF they were TRULY installed in that place by GOD's will...then surely it would not have been so messy nor so drawn-out.

How many times have they been involved in severely outnumbered wars in their 60 year existence? At least four times. They have been successful every single time. Another "big one" is coming. I bet my bottom dollar they will triumph in this one as well. Just watch. Their main problem is that they think "land for peace" will work and are under the leadership of a weak leader. It's all coming to head.

[edit on 1/30/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
President "I'mADinnerJacket" is one scary guy. Let's say for argument's sake Christianity and Islam both have it wrong and our prophecies are bunk. It doesn't matter because this guy is ready to plunge the entire world into WW III in order to bring on his Islamic Messiah based on his prophecies. Not only that, he believes Israel must be destroyed and handed back over to Arab domination. He is most certainly an extremist and a very dangerous one at that. Although I do not believe he will be successful, he is at least going to try.

Israel will be triumphant, though. Just watch.

They are Israel and US who are actually taking us to WW III if any.

reply to post by Geemor


Personally, I think everyone will be the cause. U.S., Israel, Europe, the Far East, Russia, and the Middle East. Everyone is going to have a hand in it, IMO.

Originally posted by ergoli
Israel was created by the british, not the UN.

my fault. I only ment that the UN has recognized them.

the issue of Palestinian right of return is the big issue that is stalling the process. its a hard one for me get my head around. I can see both sides.

----------------------------

my question has been answered by a good many members. thank you for the civil discussions. unfortunately this thread is descending into the bickering and back and forth I like to stay out of.

time for me to exit.

reply to post by zerotime



Israel did not need to be built. It was completely unnecessary for Jews to have their own state. You're talking about arabs obsessing over that land but it's also the Jews who are obsessing over it. Why did the nation need to be built on that small bit of land? If you accept jewish reasons to build there as valid then I don't see how you can dismiss any muslims desire to defend and to keep that same "holy land".

The awful truth of it is that anti-semitic politicians in the West supported the creation of Israel, not out of love for the Jews, but because they saw a way to rid themselves of an unpopular religious minority, by shipping them off to a faraway desert.

If you really think the US and UK .gov's had such great love for the Jews, take a look at how they sent shiploads of helpless Jewish refugees from Nazism back to Europe for the slaughter.

I honestly wonder if they had the idea that once the Jews were all in one place, surrounded by hostile populations, it'd be easier to kill them off

[edit on 1/30/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by AshleyD
His very own speeches. He claims to be in direct communication with Allah, to be "paving the way for the Mahdi" (whose appearance requires world wide chaos and war), claims to have been surrounded in the light of Allah for almost thirty minutes while giving one of his speeches (and many witnessed this event), desires to "wipe Israel off the map" although his supporters now claim this to be a mistranslation, and many other disturbing claims. Do some research of his speeches and claims.

I assure you, I HAVE.
A LOT.

George Bush says the same thing about Jesus/God! What's the diff?

Other than it coming down to seeing who WALKS and who TALKS, that is.

As far as the Mahdi's appearance requiring world-wide chaos and war...I've NEVER heard that! At least not from Iran's Prez, or the few Muslims that I have known.

I HAVE heard, however, the need for Jesus to come back or the Anti-Christ or WHOMEVER so we can all get down to some serious killing called Armageddon. Of course that's not according to Islam but rather good old American Fundamentalist Theology.

What the IP says about 'Messiah' is this:

We believe that the beloved Jesus Christ – the Messiah (peace be upon Him and His Mother) would also reappear for the fulfillment of the promises of all the Divine prophets. And together – accompanying the invited of the nations – would bring all the beauties and goodness for humanity of the world. And we are getting close to that date.

Straight from the Horse's Mouth

Isn't this just the president of Iran - flexing his muscles on the local stage. It is a very common political trick - talk to your own country about how important and big you are - throw in a common enemy -so that your people think you are great and forget abiut the local prblems that you have caused.

This is not just the president of Iran that does this - most presidents / prime ministers rely on a common enemy to take the sting out of their poor domestic record.

If he does believe in the 2nd coming (or whatever the Moslems call it) -then we are in a very scary place.

Originally posted by queenannie38
George Bush says the same thing about Jesus/God! What's the diff?

Bush seems to be going against what Biblical prophecy calls for and also seems to be drifting towards the ecumenical movement. I think he is also driven more by power for the U.S. and personal recognition than he is for God. He doesn't seem to be a "fundamentalist" anymore like he once appeared. He is also proposing a peace plan that calls for the division of Israel (a big no-no for Christians).

As far as the Mahdi's appearance requiring world-wide chaos and war...I've NEVER heard that! At least not from Iran's Prez, or the few Muslims that I have known.

I HAVE heard, however, the need for Jesus to come back or the Anti-Christ or WHOMEVER so we can all get down to some serious killing called Armageddon. Of course that's not according to Islam but rather good old American Fundamentalist Theology.

You might want to check out this thread: Click Here. If you do not have the interest in reading the whole thing (we got a little off topic at times, then here are some comments from both Christians and Muslims concerning the Mahdi: HERE, HERE, HERE (Muslim), HERE (My reply), HERE (Muslim), HERE (My reply), and many more.

Believers in the Mahdi confirmed what he is believed to do (appear after world wide chaos), Muslims also believe in Armageddon and do not believe the Mahdi can rise until a war causes "blood to run like a river." Straight from the horses mouth on the thread. Look up some searches concerning Mahdi prophecies to see what is believed concerning him.