When Did Iran Say It Wanted To Kill All Jews?

reply to post by fakedirt


Disregarding your countless personal slurs, may I ask what is so morbid about having "destructive urges", as you define it? The following allegoric riddles (Game Theory, actually) may shock you due to their inexorable honesty, but let me iterate them to you for the sake of education:

A) Imagine you have two strings. One string is shorter than the other. You want to turn the shorter string into longer than the other, but you're not allowed to change the short string. What do you do? Obviously, shorten the longer string. The lesson is: the destruction of others is the elevation of yourself.

B) You have two trains, one has 5 wagons, the other has only 4. Your goal is to make the smaller train longer than the large one. You may do whatever changes you want (omit, add, replace), but it is more expedient to make as less changes as possible. One option would be to add 1 wagon to the shorter train, and then add another one, arriving at 6 wagons in contrast to 5. (You may as well do the opposite, and omit 2 wagons from the longer train) However, the most simple solution, which requires only a single step, is to remove a single wagon from the longer train, and add the same one to the shorter train. The lesson is: seizing what belongs to other to yourself, is the most expedient solution.

I understand how hard it is for someone who is (probably. I don't personally know you, and I confess that I may be wrong) unacquainted with applying pure, game-theory logic, to solve issues, more so political issues. Nevertheless, leaving emotions aside, you would realize that the fulfillment of aggressive urges is not necessarily a negative consequence; on the contrary, indeed, it is a positive one. Of course, being an individualist, I care for my personal interests rather than those of the state in which I currently reside. However, in theory, the interests of the state coincide many times with those of its ruling clique. Therefore, as a prime minister, one has to address the issue of the state of affairs of his state, several times a day, as he himself is directly involved in these affairs. A successful leader has the people's support, in the vast majority of times. And the people's support is, when discussing democracies, a condition of stepping into the booths of the leader.

Therefore, if I were in charge of the state, I would be interested, for as long as I hold power, to ameliorate the condition of the state, thereby increasing the people's support of myself, and also encouraging, invigorating other states to conduct business with mine, as these states would find that expedient. Applying the lessons I had depicted above, I conclude that, being capable of bringing mass destruction upon other states, and here I had referred to a specific state -- Iran -- the best course of action the leader ought to take is aggressively attacking opponent countries with as much measures as possible, with the aim of increasing fatalities and overall damage to the highest possible amount. This translates to Benjamin Netanyahu raining a few nukes on Tehran. Call it whatever you want: cruel, inhuman, blood-thirst, etc, but the undeniable fact still remains: that relentlessness is profitable.

Of course, this is all somewhat off-topic, but eventually combines into a sound explanation of just how to prolong the endurance of the state's existence, which explains what Israel ought to do. It must not go unnoticed that Iran apprehends all of this, and likewise has determined to annihilate Israel. Now one question remains: will Israel be intelligent enough to preemptively strike Iran, avenging the death of Israeli citizens caused by Iran-supported Arab terrorists, and endeavoring to inflict as much perdition possible on the enemy, or not. Lamentably, albeit I do expect an Israeli strike on Iran, it seems no Israeli leader will have enough courage and prowess to engage in nuclear warfare with Iran, as the situation demands and as normal, shrewd, sane personnel-in-charge-of-states would demand.

www.meforum.org...

There you go. The iranian president saying he wants Israel wiped from the map. Now what was that about him never saying that? Its a shame to have people supporting the iranian regime when they are so two faced.

Originally posted by yuppa
www.meforum.org...

There you go. The iranian president saying he wants Israel wiped from the map. Now what was that about him never saying that? Its a shame to have people supporting the iranian regime when they are so two faced.

seriously? ME again? Do we really need to go through another enlightenment concerning the agendas of the site and its owner?

You people keep regurgitating this same nonsense that has been replied to before.

If you cannot pick an unbiased or neutral site to support your views then perhaps you should rethink what your views are, I have posted a youtube video (from American source) detailing what was said in full, which also links you to the full speech in case you want additional confirmation.

Why not seek truth and not lies? The truth is there for everyone to see.

Originally posted by Alexei
Last I remember the Iranian government referred to the Zionist regime aka Israel NOT to Jews some would argue that Israel and Jews are indestinguishable, i would say otherwise. Iran has the secon largest population of jews in the middle east outside of Israel/Palastine. I would say that it that Irans statements are somewhat justified in looking at it from their perspective as Israel has attempted in its military campaigns to expand to its historic biblical borders by continued occupation of the west bank and east jerusalem, once occupied sinai, and golgan hieghts, the latter two being returned to syria and egypt


link calling for removal of zionists regime

elderofziyon.blogspot.com...

what im getting at is though is its not the jews that Iran has such a problem with its the government and their expansionalists policies I personally believe if the Palastinians and Israelis take their religious beliefs and past greivences out of the equation they could come together and create a unified republic of Palastine and Israel or Israel and Palastine to let the Israelis feel better about the name. thats just wishful thinking as Israel believes that southern Syria, Sinai Egypt, the West Bank, all of Jordan and NW Saudi Arabia belong to them anyway by divine right and all that good stuff not bashing them though but they should just stop being so aggressive. Israel has a right to its existance just as all the other countries in the region. The best way to cool down all tension in the middle east is for Israel to recognize an Independent Palastine and withdraw all settlements in the west bank, in exchange for open borders to religious sites. To solve the Jerusalem problem they should make the city itself independent like Vatican City but thats how i would fix the problem.

OH NOW THAT YOU EXPLAIN IT! We should allow Iran to nuke Israel. MAKES SENSE NOW!

What the heck is wrong with you people. Insane sociopaths are everywhere.

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by yuppa
www.meforum.org...

There you go. The iranian president saying he wants Israel wiped from the map. Now what was that about him never saying that? Its a shame to have people supporting the iranian regime when they are so two faced.

seriously? ME again? Do we really need to go through another enlightenment concerning the agendas of the site and its owner?

You people keep regurgitating this same nonsense that has been replied to before.

If you cannot pick an unbiased or neutral site to support your views then perhaps you should rethink what your views are, I have posted a youtube video (from American source) detailing what was said in full, which also links you to the full speech in case you want additional confirmation.

Why not seek truth and not lies? The truth is there for everyone to see.

So unless its from Al jazeera its biased correct? Anyway here is a new link that i tink you might agree with,but its from the NY times. I dont want to be biased! I would think that if its from a person of middle eastern decent it would have been ok. Still You could consider what he said a threat,but the NY times writes it more fair.
www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by yuppa

Originally posted by Jameela

Originally posted by yuppa
www.meforum.org...

There you go. The iranian president saying he wants Israel wiped from the map. Now what was that about him never saying that? Its a shame to have people supporting the iranian regime when they are so two faced.

seriously? ME again? Do we really need to go through another enlightenment concerning the agendas of the site and its owner?

You people keep regurgitating this same nonsense that has been replied to before.

If you cannot pick an unbiased or neutral site to support your views then perhaps you should rethink what your views are, I have posted a youtube video (from American source) detailing what was said in full, which also links you to the full speech in case you want additional confirmation.

Why not seek truth and not lies? The truth is there for everyone to see.

So unless its from Al jazeera its biased correct? Anyway here is a new link that i tink you might agree with,but its from the NY times. I dont want to be biased! I would think that if its from a person of middle eastern decent it would have been ok. Still You could consider what he said a threat,but the NY times writes it more fair.
www.nytimes.com...

Do not worry, since al-Jazeera was caught murdering people after forcing them to admit to lies on camera I do not trust them either...

try UNBIASED

I have already linked to that speech and he never once said that in the speech! www.youtube.com...

reply to post by RATSOYFY37



hello alex
no countless personal slurs here, just suspicion if you re-read i am sure you will
get the jist. besides attacking other posters personally is against t and c's

for a moment lets go with your position on the matter.
one side nukes the other and brings it to it's knees. then what?

this will position everyone else with wmd's
to warm up the consoles and seal the hatches. what does logic dictate now?

the use of nukes or any other medium where masses of civilians are slaughtered
for the increased tenureship of another nation? acceptable?


game theory, yes i understand the concept and it works well for x-boxes, ps3's etc.
you shoot an opponent in a game and walk away. you shoot more and you get shot. turn off
the gaming station and it's back to the real world for you with all it's complications.
i suspect if anyone ran with pure logic on planet dirt, they would come to pains
somewhere along the timeline. considerations go beyond ones own logic when interaction
with others is unaviodable

tell me, would you endorse game theory logic to socio-economic considerations?

one example being, we have a group of vunerable,sickly and infirm people who are
depending on the state for an acceptable quality of care and longevity.

would you be in agreement for game theory to dictate the fate of individuals in this group
and for it to decide if they are a burden
on the rest of society and therefore surplus to requirements? methinks a slippery slope
ahead if it's implemented real-world wide.


to apply it to the real world, ridding all diplomatic efforts on either side to find
a middleground, not too sure about that.
humanity is more complicated than game theory imo. it is not absolutes we are dealing with here,
on the contrary, there is more grey area than black and white on many issues regarding israel,
iran and the rest of the geo-political setup in the region. military industrialists will
continue to profit as much as ardent politicians will both during and post tenureship but
will the use of nukes escalate to an extent that their bottom line will eventually diminish to zero?

my suspicion here is if nukes are used on iran or israel, it will forever change the planet
into a burdensome existence with effects not limited to just the borders of conflict. again
an unacceptable outcome from and unacceptable intention.

do you have an explanation as to why the iaea are so afraid of forcing an audit on israels
alleged stockpile of nuclear weapons or does that conflict with game theory logic to address
the issue?

i appreciate your reply and assure you no personal attack with malice was intended.


regards fakedirt.

not all jews, just wipe israel off the map

details, details

reply to post by Jameela


You are a hateful person.

Observe what the regime is doing to these kids:


And I know it must be hard to be an apologist for Iranian Muslims as an Arab, you should hear Iranian Muslims talking behind your backs ;-)

But please do explain to me, where he says anything else than "Death to Israel" in the following clip(at 1 minute 6 seconds into the clip).



He cleary says: "Marg bar Israil" which directly translates to "Death to Israel"...as can be read in the subtitles but you never know how certain people might want to INTERPRET the translation.

So really, don't make a fool out of yourself, like all those who pander to the Islamic regime do.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Jameela

 

You are a hateful person.

He cleary says: "Marg bar Israil" which directly translates to "Death to Israel"...as can be read in the subtitles but you never know how certain people might want to INTERPRET the translation.

So really, don't make a fool out of yourself

Seeing as how you attacked me personally, which is against T&C on this site, I would like to state for the record I take offense to that, this is not indicative of attempting to discuss a topic, but rather attack the person in effort to distract from topic.

Marg Bar Israel;

Death definition;

: the passing or destruction of something inanimate

Is the Israeli state not a state?

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a sovereign political power

which by definition is;

Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in the state to whom there is politically no superior.



The Chant means, Israel's system of governance will (or must) pass

Again, this has nothing to do with killing Jews or the Jewish people.

This has to do with being against the existence of a governing power that has committed hundreds of war crimes, (over 400 according to the UN) is oppressive Palestinians who live outside the sphere of Israeli influence and outside the Israeli state, Israel has an extreme expansionist policy in regards to lands of other sovereign nations outside the state the Israel. (I could say more but I believe everyone understands all this, as we have been witness to it all)

reply to post by Jameela


Yes, and since when do Arabs explain Farsi to Iranians? Fact is, you don't know the culture or the ignorance it breeds. So please, stay on your side of the fence.

The Chant means, Israel's system of governance will (or must) pass

Again, this has nothing to do with killing Jews or the Jewish people.

That is your interpretation. How many of the ignorant and kept-in-the-dark supporters of the Islamic regime know it's about Israel and not Jewish people? Ow wait, you didn't think about that, you only thought about your own personal interpretation. Which is fine, just don't project it on ALL those people that you do not know.

reply to post by Jameela


Did you read the NY times article? That one sort of agreed with you a bit. Still we are people who take your word literally because we have learned to do that after so many times we did not and someone died. If he would go on worldwide tv and break it down into his actual meaning it would be different. He needs to do that if he is not actually meaning to destroy Israel,and the jews. Personally anyone who says a nations people should be drove into the sea is not a good guy in my opinion.