Iran's President calls for Erradication of Israel

[rmnunez]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/...ea/iran_israel

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Wednesday said Israel should be “erased from the map” according to the oficial Iranian news agency. Support for the Palestinian cause is a pillar of Iranian policy which rejects any recognition of Israel’s right to existence. "Israel must be erased from the map," Ahmadinejad told the gathered assembly of 3 thousand students at the “World without Zionism” conference as they chanted “death to Israel and the US”. Under the rule of reformist Mohammad Khatami, whose 8 years in power ended at the beginning of this year, Iran showed signs of reducing its hostility towards Israel. Some Iranian authorities had expressed acceptance of any resolution to the conflict if this was what the Palestinians wanted. However, Ahmadinejad, a hard-line religious conservative former Revolutionary Guardian, maintained there was no let up in Iran’s hostility towards Israel. “The Muslim world will not allow its historical enemy to exist in its land. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, said Washington was concerned over these statements. “This underlines our worries over Iran’s nuclear intentions” he told news reporters. The US accuses Iran of nuclear weapons pursuit, while Iran maintains it needs nuclear materials for purely peaceful applications in power generation. Iran has developed ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel. French Foreign Minister, Douste-Blazy, acknowledged awareness of the reported Iranian statements and indicated he had summoned the Iranian ambassador for an explanation. “If these reported comments are factual,they are unacceptable and I firmly condemn them” he said.

[Scribbler1]

Shouldn't you be commenting on what you posted?

In any case, this is just the same stuff the Arabs have beenn saying for over 50 years. I have a sneaking suspicion the administration is even commenting on it is to see if they can use it as an excuse to invade Iran next.

[Please]

In a gathering of three thousand young people debating a "world without Zionism" Iran's president must have had little choice but to say what he said. It is much more surprising to note that the USA is acting as if this statement were revealing something new in the Middle East. At this point I agree with Scribbler1.
May I also introduce another view on this hatred of Israel that the president of Iran has so bluntly put forward : Israel was supposed to be a bridge between Christianity and Islam, between western business interests and the Middle Eastern riches and oil. Israel was supposed to establish good relations in the area so that the West could enjoy exploiting the locals for many happy years to come. What a bad plan it proved to be. What a failure Israel is. And we are all paying the price of this arrogance.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Please May I also introduce another view on this hatred of Israel that the president of Iran has so bluntly put forward : Israel was supposed to be a bridge between Christianity and Islam, between western business interests and the Middle Eastern riches and oil. Israel was supposed to establish good relations in the area so that the West could enjoy exploiting the locals for many happy years to come. What a bad plan it proved to be. What a failure Israel is. And we are all paying the price of this arrogance.

Exactly correct in my opinion. Isreal is the "installed democracy" that was supposed to do the same thing in the 50's that the NeoCons are saying that Iraq will do for the new century.


More than likely, Iraq will be another total failure, and another festering wound on international relations.

[IndieC]

Tell me... Do people actually look into history for their opinions to form, or do they simply believe the propaganda that is so clearly wrong?

Israel was not set up as a bridge between Christianity and Islam. You missed out the vital point. Jews. The only reason Israel was created was because we didn't know what to do with the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were there, and we couldn't not take care of them because of the holocaust. Plus, they were asking for a Jewish nation, so we gave one to them.

Get your facts right before posting things like that!! More importantly, read books and learn the truth about the issue.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: IndieC Tell me... Do people actually look into history for their opinions to form, or do they simply believe the propaganda that is so clearly wrong? Israel was not set up as a bridge between Christianity and Islam. You missed out the vital point. Jews. The only reason Israel was created was because we didn't know what to do with the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were there, and we couldn't not take care of them because of the holocaust. Plus, they were asking for a Jewish nation, so we gave one to them. Get your facts right before posting things like that!! More importantly, read books and learn the truth about the issue.

Actually, you are correct. I misread the "bridge to Islam" part of that post.


However, they do make a significant point about the concept of installing a government to rule over others with your particular national interests in mind.


Why did the US, British, French, and the UN all decide that the Jews had to be installed in the particular geographic location?


We made room for the Mormons, and the Indians to have self rule within our borders, why not make room for the Jews as well?


We could have put them out in Utah next to the Mormons.

[rmnunez]

I felt no comment was necessary, the thing speaks for itself. Around the world there was strong reaction. The French and German foreign ministers demanded clarifications. The item posted notes how there had been a perception of improvement in Iran's stance regarding the Israelis, but that the new president there dashed those hopes with these words. Is it argued "traditional" Muslim hatred for jews is some cultural trait which needs to be accomodated? The immediate US reaction associated official expressed hatred for Israel by Iran's president with concerns over the country's alleged nuclear pursuits and this doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

I think there was a post-war plan to settle European jews in Madagascar, they prefered Palestine (for historical reasons).

[jose]

Read the speech hear if you like it sounds a bit different to the AP story
snip. Addressing the conference, he warned countries or leaders who have taken measures to acknowledge the Zionist regime under pressure or due to lack of sound understanding that they will be confronted with the wrath of the Islamic Ummah and will forever be disgraced. http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line...1313185049.htm
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu...5904171054.htm

[Ghumanto]

Quote by: IndieC Tell me... Do people actually look into history for their opinions to form, or do they simply believe the propaganda that is so clearly wrong? Israel was not set up as a bridge between Christianity and Islam. You missed out the vital point. Jews. The only reason Israel was created was because we didn't know what to do with the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were there, and we couldn't not take care of them because of the holocaust. Plus, they were asking for a Jewish nation, so we gave one to them. Get your facts right before posting things like that!! More importantly, read books and learn the truth about the issue.

The basic problem between Jews and Muslims are " the totally different economic system ". While Jews have the current interest based system - Muslims hate Interest and preaches an interest free system. The holy book of Islam simply mentions Christians as " misguided " but Jews as the force to be careful of . If there is a super state ( as all the great leaders of Muslims countries dream ) - then the world could see that there are other ways of economic system also. This could destroy the monopoly of Jews on the world wealth and so they are vehemently opposed to it. Israel was created to serve this cause . If there was no such economic reasons - Israel could have been created in Africa ( to suck the treasure in the mines ) or in Brazil ...........anywhere except where it is now .

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez I think there was a post-war plan to settle European jews in Madagascar, they prefered Palestine (for historical reasons).

So they decided on a new country right smack in the middle of a region where everyone hates their guts. I suppose they believed the rest of the world would see to it that they were protected from the Arabs.

Somehow, Madagascar ain't lookin' too bad these days, eh?

[rmnunez]

countries or leaders who have taken measures to acknowledge the Zionist regime under pressure or due to lack of sound understanding that they will be confronted with the wrath of the Islamic Ummah and will forever be disgraced.

Those could be threatening words, to the people from countries whose governments recognized Israel voluntarily or with the conviction Israelis have a simple right to exist. How threatening just depends on what the "wrath of the Islamic Ummah" is. If such wrath involves nuclear weapons those threatened would include others near the ones recognizing Israel with neither pressure nor ignorance.

[jose]

it sounds like laying siege in modern warfare

[rmnunez]

That's just because until now we haven't had to deal with the possibility Iranians could do much about how they felt, with nukes its another matter altogether.

[jose]

If something motivated Iran into a war footing they could close on Basra cutting off the Americans from the sea and potentionally getting 130,000 american hostages

[rmnunez]

Sure, but they have the missiles with the range and technology to deliver a nuclear payload on Jerusalem too, and are on the record (by their president no less) expressing an intent to do so. Couple that with the apparent capability to produce a nuclear weapon and I can appreciate Bush's concern.

[Zealot]

Quote by: jose it sounds like laying siege in modern warfare

Get ready folks, WW3 is close at hand....Get your hearts and minds right and ready to meet your God and creator!

Zealot

[jose]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...?itemNo=263941
in 2003
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq.

no world outrage about that then

[shrike]

no world outrage about that then

about what?Dont you think that totalitarian fascist regimes shouldnt be striped from WMD?
anyway

Ahmadinejad stands by remarks Iranian president stands by call to ‘wipe Israel off map,’ says statement was ‘right and just.’; meanwhile, tens of thousands of Iranians hold anti-Israel protests, call for Israel’s destruction AFP and AP Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday confirmed he is standing by earlier remarks that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” adding that his controversial remark was "right and just". “It is natural that if a word is right and just it will provoke a reaction," he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA. "My words are the exact words of the Iranian people."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...160691,00.html

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: jose http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...?itemNo=263941 in 2003 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen. Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance." In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq. no world outrage about that then

Considering how many people think our Middle East policy is directed by Israel anyway, maybe Sharon should keep his mouth shut and worry about his own country a little more.

What his motivations truly are I can't say, but it sure sounds like he is goading the U.S.
into taking care of all of Israel's problems with its neighbors once and for all.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: shrike about what?Dont you think that totalitarian fascist regimes shouldnt be striped from WMD? anyway http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...160691,00.html

I'm not too worried, despite George Bush's best efforts.

First, this guy in Iran sounds a lot like our own president when he demonizes an enemy of THEIR country. Inciting hatred of another country or leader = political popularity. I don't see that big a difference between him and any other leader. I think he's playing to his own people and not us, but thanks to world wide media we get to fret about it, which brings me to point #2.

If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, what are they going to DO with it? It's pretty much a given that we were spared WW3 because of the certainty of mutually assured destruction if we or the Soviets launched a nuclear strike.
If the lead dog in Iran didn't figure it out himself, I'm sure SOMEONE from the west has told him, "look pal, we in the west have THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons and you might have , what, ONE? You DO know, I hope, that if you use your one and only nuke the rest of us will turn your country into a sheet of glass, and YOU with it, comprende?"