TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map?
This for all those people who keep trying to justify nuking Iran because he threatened to "Wipe Israel off the map".
| quote: |
| Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map? To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world. But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30: "They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." (source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below) It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. |
Would said they want to nuke Iran? 
I suspected as much. Now it's confirmed.
@ trancaholic: Still think we (in the West) have a 'free' press?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z @ trancaholic: Still think we (in the West) have a 'free' press? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r I don't think there's any doubt about the Western MSM's agenda; they're a bunch of idiots. |
Who ever said Iran should be nuked? I thought the argument was that Iran should not be allowed to develop nukes.
^^^ This administration, at the very least, considered it.
I've just posted this on the other thread and I suppose it really belongs here...(re: What Iran's goal really is imo)
Imo, Iran wants what Saddam wanted. A sphere of influence in the Middle East. Power and influence. With dominance of the Middle East would come enourmous influence in the world stage. However, any country in the world that operates under a different ideology/political system to Liberal Democracy is under threat from America (PNAC's own words). Iraq, Syria and Iran were/are all under threat from neoconservative "democratisation" (ie regime change). Iraq had been the neocon target for well over a decade and as soon as they got their chance, they took Saddam out (under the guise of the war on terror). Iran knows it is next (find me someone who disagrees!). However, Iran finds itself in a good position. With American forces stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran knows it is safe for the time being. As soon as Iraq becomes stable enough for American military personel to be completely pulled out they will go straight into Iran (hence, imo, Iran's meddling in Iraq). The only way for Iran to prevent this is with a nuclear deterrent (see North Korea). Bare in mind what I think Iran's aim is (Middle Eastern dominance, which = power and influence on the global stage). And then consider what the result of a nuclear strike on Israel would be. Israel (and quite possibly America) would launch a second strike, completely annhilating Iran, and therefore ending any Iranian desires to dominate the Middle East (or convert the world to Islam if you believe that crap). A nuclear Iran would be quite capable of dominating the Middle East without battering an eyelid at Israel's existance. For the purpose of controlling the Middle East (oil supplies), Israel is insignificant.
Iran's leader is certainly a cocky little shit, but he is anything but "crazy" and he knows that making anti-Israel rhetoric is a great way to curry favour with the rest of the Middle Eastern populance (which in turn would make his ambitions to be the Middle Eastern 'superpower' that much more easier)
That's my opinion anyway: Iran wants nuclear weapons to ward of the inevitable US invasion and to gain control over the Middle East
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Who ever said Iran should be nuked? I thought the argument was that Iran should not be allowed to develop nukes. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Would said they want to nuke Iran? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley However, Iran finds itself in a good position. With American forces stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran knows it is safe for the time being. As soon as Iraq becomes stable enough for American military personel to be completely pulled out they will go straight into Iran (hence, imo, Iran's meddling in Iraq). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Which is why I'm of the opinon that Israel's recent war with Lebanon may serve as a means to pull Iran and Syria into the conflict; a proxy war for the PNAC team. What do you think? |
No no, you misunderstood what I said. America doesn't have the man power but their second military (figuratively speaking), Israel's military, is the alternative tool for warfare.
And I'll address Hezbollah's supposed ingtigation that started this war later. I'm gonna have to dig up the facts about assasinations and shit in Lebanon, if I can find them in some mainstream source. Go to democracynow.org and check out the segement with Chomsky. They still have the interview with him in streaming or mp3 format there.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by habsfan Wtvr, I am starting to realize just how powerful the media is in shaping people's views. It seemed as though the majority of people on this board believed the president of Iran wanted to completely destroy Israel. Why? Because he was "quoted" saying so. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z No no, you misunderstood what I said. America doesn't have the man power but their second military (figuratively speaking), Israel's military, is the alternative tool for warfare. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z ^^^ This administration, at the very least, considered it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Conjecture. Show me where this administration SPECIFICALLY said they were considering nukes for anything, let alone attacking Iran with them. Much as I try to respect your different opinion than mine, comments like those above strike me as reckless and irresponsible. As far as I know, NOBODY with an ounce of credibility has ever made the suggestion (whether it was direct or veiled) that a nuclear weapon should be used. |
What do yea know?
A whole Wiki article just for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Israel#_note-52
I dont understand why dont people get it; even if he said it; he said it in 'Political Rally'. Its more of a stunt from his part to win hearts of local people, please other neighbouring Muslim nations and at the heat of the moment when everyone was calling his country 'Evil'.
It dosent mean he is secretly mobilising his country people to attack Israel; building a secret army and directing all his country's resources to build a nuclear bomb so that he could destroy Israel and finish his country's future too whatsoever in the process.
Media and US govt is over-exagerating everything and excalating this issue for no reason at all.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r What do yea know? A whole Wiki article just for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Israel#_note-52 |
Did Hitler really want to conquer Europe and exterminate the jewish race?
Ask Chamberlain.
The guardian picked this up too:
| quote: |
If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally It is absurd to demand that Tehran should have made concessions before sitting down with the Americans Jonathan Steele Friday June 2, 2006 The Guardian It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war. At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you." Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent. Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out. Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism. He was not talking about war. Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map". Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about. But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler. Misquoting Ahmadinejad is worse than taking Khrushchev out of context for a second reason. Although the Soviet Union had a collective leadership, the pudgy Russian was the undoubted No 1 figure, particularly on foreign policy. The Iranian president is not. His predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was seen in the west as a moderate reformer, and during his eight years in office western politicians regularly lamented the fact that he was not Iran's top decision-maker. Ultimate power lay with the conservative unelected supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Yet now that Ahmadinejad is president, western hawks behave as though he is in charge, when in fact nothing has changed. Ahmadinejad is not the only important voice in Tehran. Indeed Khamenei was quick to try to adjust the misperceptions of Ahmadinejad's comments. A few days after the president made them, Khamenei said Iran "will not commit aggression against any nation". The evidence suggests that a debate is going on in Tehran over policy towards the west which is no less fierce than the one in Washington. Since 2003 the Iranians have made several overtures to the Bush administration, some more explicit than others. Ahmadinejad's recent letter to Bush was a veiled invitation to dialogue. Iranians are also arguing over policy towards Israel. Trita Parsi, an analyst at Johns Hopkins University, says influential rivals to Ahmadinejad support a "Malaysian" model whereby Iran, like Islamic Malaysia, would not recognise Israel but would not support Palestinian groups such as Hamas, if relations with the US were better. The obvious way to develop the debate is for the two states to start talking to each other. Last winter the Americans said they were willing, provided talks were limited to Iraq. Then the hawks around Bush vetoed even that narrow agenda. Their victory made nonsense of the pressure the US is putting on other UN security council members for tough action against Iran. Talk of sanctions is clearly premature until Washington and Tehran make an effort to negotiate. This week, in advance of Condoleezza Rice's meeting in Vienna yesterday with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, the factions in Washington hammered out a compromise. The US is ready to talk to Tehran alongside the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany), but only after Tehran has abandoned its uranium-enrichment programme. To say the EU3's dialogue with Tehran was sufficient, as Washington did until this week, was the most astonishing example of multilateralism in the Bush presidency. A government that makes a practice of ignoring allies and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of bodies such as the International Criminal Court was leaving all the talking to others on one of the hottest issues of the day. Unless Bush is set on war, this refusal to open a dialogue could not be taken seriously. The EU3's offer of carrots for Tehran was also meaningless without a US role. Europe cannot give Iran security guarantees. Tehran does not want non-aggression pacts with Europe. It wants them with the only state that is threatening it both with military attack and foreign-funded programmes for regime change. The US compromise on talks with Iran is a step in the right direction, though Rice's hasty statement was poorly drafted, repeatedly calling Iran both a "government" and a "regime". But it is absurd to expect Iran to make concessions before sitting down with the Americans. Dialogue is in the interests of all parties. Europe's leaders, as well as Russia and China, should come out clearly and tell the Americans so. Whatever Iran's nuclear ambitions, even US hawks admit it will be years before it could acquire a bomb, let alone the means to deliver it. This offers ample time for negotiations and a "grand bargain" between Iran and the US over Middle Eastern security. Flanked by countries with US bases, Iran has legitimate concerns about Washington's intentions. Even without the US factor, instability in the Gulf worries all Iranians, whether or not they like being ruled by clerics. All-out civil war in Iraq, which could lead to intervention by Turkey and Iraq's Arab neighbours, would be a disaster for Iran. If the US wants to withdraw from Iraq in any kind of order, this too will require dialogue with Iran. If this is what Blair told Bush last week, he did well. But he should go all the way, and urge the Americans to talk without conditions. |
Iran wrote a letter to US president... why did US never responded to it? I am not asking for positive response..just some response.. instead Bush just chose to ignore it like a rag dog..
US just dont wanna solve this thing issue peacfully at all, they want a war; they just want to invade Iran..and they will go to any lows..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Purple Iran wrote a letter to US president... why did US never responded to it? I am not asking for positive response..just some response.. instead Bush just chose to ignore it like a rag dog.. US just dont wanna solve this thing issue peacfully at all, they want a war; they just want to invade Iran..and they will go to any lows.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Flotser Did Hitler really want to conquer Europe and exterminate the jewish race? Ask Chamberlain. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.