Ahmadinejad: Israel’s destruction near

[ECH1969]

According to the Iranian media Monday, Iranian President Mahoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel was destined to ‘disappearance and destruction’ at a council meeting with Iranian ministers.

“The western powers created the Zionist regime in order to expand their control of the area.

This regime massacres Palestinians everyday, but since this regime is against nature, we will soon witness its disappearance and destruction,” Ahmadinejad said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-%20%203327439,00.html

[acmavm]

1. That guy is bat shit crazy. He's giving the clowns in Washington

and Tel Aviv the excuse they need to let loose the armada we've got floating around in the gulf area. I think that's what he wants. I surely wish that the saner faction of the Iranian government would muzzle this guy. Because I sincerely doubt that the majority of the Iranian people are really hankering for a war.

[bemildred]

4. I think he does it on purpose to jerk certain party's chain.

To demonstrate their impotence and his strength, his ability to say what he likes and get away with it. And it plays well at home. Iran's influence is rising, thanks the the Bushites, and he is trying to play a "leadership" role. He is not afraid of a US/Israeli attack. He might even welcome it, as you say, and in any case the heightened tensions serve his ambitions. In the meantime, he returns the threats made against him in kind. I really don't know what else people expect him to do.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. But he's so photogenic:

[michael_1166]

60. Can't help but

Ahmadinejad always looks to me like a shop assistant in a Doener Kebab fast food restaurant...

[barb162]

77. he's as photogenic as my garbage can

[leesa]

3. Well, he may be speaking in a more broad sense. Israel has fewer

allies with each passing day because of the government's actions. The US, meanwhile, is rapidly losing world status and money and that's where Israel's lifeline comes from. I don't think this guy is either crazy or stupid. It's sort of like China siting back and waiting for the axe to fall on the US.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

15. bingo

[RethugAssKicker]

5. He's speaking metaphorically

Basically he is saying people who live by the sword, will die by the sword.

I.E. you can not continue to reap destruction without causing your own!

[BushOut06]

6. Once again, you can count on Western media to distort his statements

He doesn't make the power to make these kinds of decisions on his own. Once again, he makes an allegorical statement, and the Western media takes it out of context.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurking Dem]

8. I thought Agence France-Presse

was well respected here.

[BushOut06]

9. I thought the link in the OP was to an Israeli news source

I haven't seen anything where he's calling for the literal destruction of Israel, nor has he threatened military action against Israel.

[Lurking Dem]

10. The link is from ynet

the story at the site is from AFP.

[Igel]

16. So Iran didn't form a defense pact with Syria.

It isn't transshipping munitions to Hezbollah contra a UN resolution (itself possibly a sufficient casus belli ... but then Iran would be at war, "innocently", with the Zionist entity that has been dubbed the source of all corruption or war "from the beginning").

It's not helping Mesh'al and Hamas.

Perhaps naming a missile the Khaybar is also just a metaphor. But it's rather like Germany naming a missile "Oswiecim".

Ahmedinejad putatively doesn't have the authority to make these statements on his own. But I don't think anybody is saying that he's making them on his own. If he's spouting off in defiance of his leash-holders, don't you think they'd tug the leash and bring him to heel? So the likely inference is either that he's not making the statements on his own or that his leash-holders are impotent and he *does* have the power to spout hate--and presumably do much more--on his own. The former seems much more likely, IMHO. But the point is moot, from this far away.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BushOut06]

When has he *ever* threatened to attack Israel?

I'm not defending Iran, nor am I attacking Israel. Hell, I've defended Israel many times when it comes to their dealings with Hezbollah. But at the same time, Israel is one who is threatening to attack Iran, not the other way around.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. I don't see *anything* in India3's post advocating war.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. indeed.

Honesty seems to have been replaced with propaganda.

[oblivious]

31. Post 19: "they are AMERICA's enemies now too"

[Behind the Aegis]

32. that is not a call to war.

[oblivious]

35. Well Iran is a potential friend and ally of the US, not an enemy. Look at today's news:

Google Iran Syria today:
http://news.google.com.hk/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=iran%20syria

Blair: Iran, Syria needed for Iraq solution
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/13/uk.blair.speech.reut/

Iraq allies urge Bush to turn to Iran, Syria
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IBO346173.htm

Iran, Syria to help on Iraq

US considers Iran, Syria contacts for Iraq
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1787122.htm

Use Iran and Syria for peace - PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6142252.stm

White House Open To Working With Iran, Syria On Iraq Fix
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=4755119

[Behind the Aegis]

37. That's a stretch to imply they could be our ally and friend.

Would they act in a way that would satisfy them? Yes. Much the same way we do. So, ally/friend....no...political "acquaintance," that I could see. However, to say they are currently an enemy is more accurate and does not equate a "call to war."

[The Stranger]

53. The Neocons want to invade Iran. To do so requires demonizing Iran and its leaders.

Thus, to join in that demonizing furthers the Neocons' goal of invading Iran, which would involve war.

And all of this seems so very -- familiar? Like it has happened before.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SOS]

62. Western media...

Today's NYT has an interesting front page article. Much of the hysterical Ahmadinejad "coverage" is driven by the far right:

"Now, in tandem with the Israeli government, many evangelical Christians have focused on a new villain, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Some evangelical leaders say they are wary of reports that a panel including former Secretary of State James A. Baker III might recommend negotiating with Iran about the future of Iraq.

At rallies this fall for Christian conservative voters, Dr. Dobson sometimes singled out Mr. Ahmadinejad as a reason to go to the polls, arguing that Democrats could not be trusted to face down such dangers. “Hitler told everybody what he was going to do, and Ahmadinejad is saying exactly what he is going to do,” Dr. Dobson explained. “He is talking genocide.”
The same name, with many pronunciations, comes up repeatedly on Christian talk radio shows, said Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political organizer. “I am not sure there is a foreign leader who has made a bigger splash in American culture since Khrushchev, certainly among committed Christians,” he said.
Mr. Hagee, for his part, said Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel and the Holocaust were part of what motivated him to found Christians United For Israel late last year. Since the fight with Hezbollah, Mr. Hagee said, he is doing all he can to keep the pressure on United States officials to take a hard line with Iran.
When 5,000 evangelicals gathered last month for a “Night to Honor Israel” at his San Antonio megachurch, for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad was much discussed.
Mr. Hagee compared the Iranian leader with the biblical pharaoh of Egypt."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?hp&ex=1163566800&en=fba77299178204a6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[barb162]

79. Why does Al Jazeera and the rest of the" Arab" press report

his words as direct prose but you say they are allegorical. The Western media does not take his words out of context at all from the majors I read.

from Al Jazeera:

"Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

Wednesday 26 October 2005, 19:03 Makka Time, 16:03 GMT

Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
snip

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

Allegorical? My rear.

[barb162]

78. he's speaking literally

and there is no evidence anywhere that he is speaking metaphorically. Who the hell is he... the Persian Robert Frost or Alexander Pope

[lovuian]

11. Theres a showdown developing in the Persian Gulf

the Boxer Group naval fleet is there just sitting there

We still have Republicans in office till January 7

[Behind the Aegis]

12. What a clown.

I am sure he was just misunderstood. :eyes:

[hogwyld]

20. Of course our media

would never sensationalize or misinterpret a foreign leader would they?? I doubt that was his intended message, more likely, the media are looking for a "new" war to report on 24/7.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Of course,

he would never say such things. He really is just a poor, misunderstood soul who only wishes Israel the best. :eyes:

[phrenzy]

13. I'm Always Suspicious Of This...

Not that the guy isn't anti-Israel, clearly he is.. But, in light of our medias insatiable need for 'sensation' and drama, who the hell knows how they decided to translate this.. Most non-western foreign languages are so different in the way they express ideas that it is pointless to simply translate something as "Israel will cease to exist and be destroyed" when it could have just as easily been "Israel cannot exist as it currently is and it's strategy will have to change" or whatever.

[oblivious]

14. The headline is intentionally inflammatory, as usual.

1. They say this was at a council meeting with Iranian ministers, but on Sunday and Monday he has been giving speeches and conducting meetings at the Asian Parliaments Association for Peace conference.

2. The AFP article says "since this regime is against nature, we will soon witness its disappearance and destruction"

It says nothing about causing its destruction. This is consistent with his other predictions about Israel causing its own destruction by rotting from within.

3. In his meeting Monday with Head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) Political Department and Secretary of Fatah Central Committee Farouk Kaddoumi, he said something similar:

Referring to successive defeats of Zionists and their supporters, he said the Zionist are on their decline and try to exert political, psychological and military pressure on Palestinian along with other Muslims and freedom seekers to urge them give up their morales.

Liberation of the holy Qods would be only be materialized through resistance, cooperation, and unity of all Muslims, he said.

The philosophy of existence of Zionists has gone under question and this idea has cast doubt even among the supporters of the fabricated regime, he said.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0611130121193141.htm

But note the headlines. The article comes from AFP, but each paper can write their own headline:

YNET: Ahmadinejad: Israel’s destruction near
...since this regime is against nature, we will soon witness its disappearance and destruction,” Ahmadinejad said

Jerusalem Post (not AFP): Ahmadinejad: 'Israel is destined for destruction'
The Iranian president added that since Israel was "a contradiction to nature, we foresee its rapid disappearance and destruction."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378386523&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jnewswire.com/article/1366

4. Iran's foreign minister has said something similar predicting, not causing Israel's self-destruction:
TEHRAN, Oct. 20 (IRNA) Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, Bells are now ringing, marking the downfall of the Zionist regime, since a regime devoid of a strong legal basis is naturally shaky.

http://www.kayhanintl.com/oct21/domestic.htm

Conclusion: This is not a threat, but a prediction. The warmongers are trying to turn it into a threat to further their vile aims of mass murder and destruction.

[INDIA]

19. Yeah...

and I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that he keeps saying this while pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Dems own congress. It's time to stop apologizing for Bush's enemies, they are AMERICA's enemies now too.

[oblivious]

24. There is no proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. None.

So what if he keeps saying that Israel will rot from within. That is no threat. Just a prediction.

There is no reason for Iran and the US to be enemies. This is the choice of the US and the war propagandists.

[INDIA]

40. "There is no reason for Iran and the US to be enemies."

That post just blew my mind. I don't even know what to say right now. I'm speechless.

[tabasco]

61. If you mean by speechless that you failed to counter the point,

then you are correct.

Please inform us why we should be enemies with Iran? There is a large pro-western population in Iran, at least there was until Junior's idiotic foreign policy and the Axis of Evil came along. Just what are the main bones of contention between Iran and the US?

- For every bad thing they've done to us (hostages), we've done worse to them (install fascist dictator).

I was in the US infantry until this year and if this country goes to war, I want to know the reasons. So please, tell this old soldier why Iran is our enemy.

Israel? Then why isn't Saudi Arabia our enemy? They do more against Israel than anybody ($$$$$$$$$$$$).
Nukes? Hell, the US foreign policy encourages countries to get nukes. But is every country with nukes our enemy? India? Pakistan? Britain?

If Iran is our enemy then just about every country in the world is our enemy.

THAT is BUSH-THINK, my friend !

[INDIA]

67. So you were in the infantry huh?

How about Iranian financial support for Shiite militias killing innocent Sunnis and US troops in Iraq? Is that good enough reason? Many US soldiers and Marines have been victims of bullets and bombs that were probably purchased and shipped by the Iranian government.

I'm not advocating war with Iran, but the poster saying "there is no reason" for us to have an adversarial relationship with Iran is simplistic and wrong. Not to mention they are basically thumbing their noses at the UN while advocating the destruction of a close ally in the region.

Ever see pictures of the Friday afternoon "Death to America" rallies held weekly in Tehran and sponsored by the government? That might be another reason to have an little beef between us. I don't recall any weekly "Death to Iran" marches in the US lately.

And I completely agree with you on the Saudi Arabia point. Unfortunately, if we want gas to stay under $10 a gallon, we sometimes have to turn the other cheek. It's hypocritical and morally wrong to ignore Saudi Arabia's human rights and terrorist funding record, but it's the reality of the situation.

Personally, I'd like to find an alternative fuel source and completely cut all economic and political ties with the Middle East. It's a backward part of the world that would be better left without outside meddling. In order to modernize, maybe the ME needs a couple dozen years without Western Influence. But that's a fantasy world that will never happen, at least not in the next 50 years or so.

[tabasco]

70. Yes, I was in the infantry.

Two combat tours in ten years in the infantry, in fact. Got any more questions about my service?

I think the Iraq invasion was unjustified and illegal. I also think it allowed our REAL enemies to escape, you know, the people who MASTERMINED 9-11. I think every asset of this Nation should be focused on apprehending that asshole. Bush's quagmire has allowed our REAL ENEMIES to avoid capture. The abortion of an operation at Tora Bora was a JOKE. Having the Pakistanis "guard the border" for us is somerthing EVERY AMERICAN should be outraged about. The Iraq war is a war for corporate profits and the Iran hype is more corporate cheerleading for war. We don't have enough soldiers to attack every fucking country we might have a beef with. Diplomacy is much more effective. If you believe the swill they peddle on CNN and the rest, you should be the first one to join up !

[INDIA]

72. Never questioned your service..

you misread my post. I thought the fact that some of your fellow soldiers are being injured and killed by Iranian financed arms would be enough for you to see Iran as an adversarial country, but then you went on to ignore the rest of my post.

The original point was whether there is good reason for us to regard Iran as an adversary. My answer, yes. They have in the past, and are currently behaving in a very anti-american way, to the point of financing the killing of our servicemen.

I tried to join up. Finished 12 weeks of Marine Corps OCS, injured my foot while I was there, doctor operated on my foot, sawed it apart in three places, put it back together with 7 pieces of metal. No commission for me. So don't assume I didn't try to serve. I went to the most challenging "boot camp" the military offers, and graduated on two bad feet.

And from all the Iraq vets I've spoken too, you're the first who doesn't think we should consider Iran an "enemy>"

[The Stranger]

63. Let it sink in. Then get back to us.

[stepnw1f]

30. "pursuing nuclear weapons".... You Have Proof?

You just keep spreading that propaganda... with no facts.

[INDIA]

34. You really don't beleive that they want nukes?

Really? REALLY? You think they only want electricity? The most enery rich nation need additional nuclear power? REALLY? That's a tough argument to make. You seem to be in the minority on this one.

And BTW, when Iran is putting a lot of time and effort into hiding their program and thwarting U.N. Inspectors, yes, rock solid smoking gun proof will be tough to find.

Come on man, this is common knowledge by this point. All of Europe knows it, We know it, China and Russia know it (although they don't want to impose sanctions). They are building a nuclear program. DUH.

Iran is denying they want nukes. Their President, along with most of their government also deny the Holocaust. Do you beleive them on that one too? Or do you only cherry pick what you do and don't want to believe from a country with a, uh, "questionable" track record?

[oblivious]

36. if they were don't you think the IAEA would have found some indication?

They found nothing, even after intrusive inspections. Nothing.

[Lurking Dem]

49. Hard to confirm

where there's no cooperation.


Director General Mohamed ElBaradei's statement:

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been on the agenda of the IAEA Board of Governors for more than three years, and lately also on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council. On 31 July 2006, the Security Council adopted resolution 1696, in which it called upon Iran to take the steps required by the Board in its resolution of 4 February 2006. These steps included the necessity of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, and the re-establishment by Iran of full and sustained suspension of all its enrichment related and reprocessing activities. In my report of 31 August to the Board and to the Security Council, regarding Iran´s fulfillment of the requirements of that resolution, I stated that Iran had not suspended its enrichment related activities, nor was the IAEA able to make progress on resolving the outstanding issues, issues that require certain transparency measures on the part of Iran. The IAEA continues therefore to be unable to confirm the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, which is a matter of serious concern.

In this context, I still hope that, ultimately, through dialogue between Iran and its European and other partners, conditions will be created to engage in a long overdue negotiation to achieve a comprehensive settlement that would, on the one hand, supplement IAEA verification efforts in addressing international concerns about the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, while on the other hand addressing Iran´s security and other concerns.

[INDIA]

68. I guess you missed the news today...

IAEA just found unexplainable nuclear waste in an Iranian waste disposal facility. Just saw it on MSNBC.

There's not "smoking gun" proof as of yet, but at some point you have to connect the dots.

[oblivious]

71. Yes, the enriched uranium and plutonium are byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities. Your point?

IAEA finds traces of plutonium in Iran

...A senior U.N. official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the findings of traces of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly, said that while the uranium traces were enriched to a higher level than needed to generate power, they were below weapons-grade.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

[INDIA]

73. Guess it depends on the article you read...

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-14T205552Z_01_L14452410_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-IAEA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

I especially like the part about "hamstringing" the UN's investigators by refusing to allow direct examination of materials and interviews of scientists.

NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT???:think:

[oblivious]

74. That was payback for he UN's abuse of the NPT. Who can blame them?

Since 2003 Iran had been allowing full supervision of its nuclear program, including intrusive inspections, and and to make up for past covert work, went beyond the requirements of the NPT and voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment activities.

What did it get in return for opening up and adhering completely to the NPT?

Only threats - of sanctions and bombs. Even a referral to the SC despite following the NPT.

So now there is less cooperation because Iran sees the NPT as a one way street, to be abused by the West as it sees fit.

Iran was adhering to the NPT. Uranium enrichment is its right under the NPT. The NPT was working.

The West blew it.

[INDIA]

75. I can blame them.

The UN wants to inspect their nuke sites. They have NOTHING to lose from that if they are truly using the technology for peaceful purposes. It's the UN for gods sake, the closest thing we have to an international force for good.

If Saddam had wised up and allowed total access to weapons inspectors, he would still be in power. But he insisted on being cryptic with his programs and now he will hang. Doesn't Iran see that? They are right next door to a shining example of what could happen if you don't play by the UN's rules, you give a crazy man an excuse to invade you!

"What did it get in return for opening up and adhering completely to the NPT?

Only threats - of sanctions and bombs."

And what is refusing access getting them? MUCH MUCH MUCH WORSE threats of sanctions and bombs.

[Odin2005]

38. Iran want's nukes because they are scared of BushCo.

It's because of *'s sabre-rattleing that Iranians kicked out the reformers and replaced them with a bat-shit chrazy, anti-semetic demogogue.

[INDIA]

39. But...But...

The poster above you says they DON'T want nukes and there is no proof. WHICH IS IT??? I can't argue against two completely conflicting arguments at once.

(BTW: I agree more with you. They want them. Duh. For many reasons, but they want nukes.)

[Odin2005]

45. That poster must of wrongly assumed you were accepting *'s propaganda.

It's annoying when people assume when the the NeoCons spew propaganda the exact opposite must automatically be correct. Iran isn't the source of all evil, but it's not squeaky clean, either, they are a soveriegn state persuing thier own intrests.

[INDIA]

47. It's not just *s propaganda.

All of the SC of the UN knows that Iran wants nukes, some just choose to ignore the problem while the Europeans, the US and Israel, among others, take on the matter.

BTW: Can you find me ONE member of the Senate or Congress (Dem or Repuke) who has openly stated that Iran only wants to pursue nuclear tech for non-weapons purposes? Didn't think so. Does that mean that *'s propaganda is the same as the newly elected Dem controlled congress' propaganda?

Jeez, I thought after we won congress there would be some more rational thought on DU concerning foreign policy, I guess I was wrong.

oh and by the way....ATTENTION: YOU CAN BE AGAINST MILITARY CONFLICT WITH IRAN AND STILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The two categories aren't mutually exclusive. The posters above implying that aren't thinking straight. But I guess I'm just a war-mongering hawk. :eyes:

[hogwyld]

57. Our foreign policy should be one of isolation

I'm sick and tired of being the world's policeman. What gives us the right to dictate what countries can and cannot do? We sure as hell didn't raise the boogeyman flag when Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons, so why this fearmongering when Iran wants only nuclear power? Besides, think of the cut in greenhouse gases when they start shutting down their oil fired power stations.

[springhill]

64. Wanting them and having them..............

are two different things. What is so hard to understand about that?

[springhill]

59. Every damn country wants nukes...........

so that the United States and other nuclear powered countries (Israel anyone?) won't attack them. Unblievable? We going around invading and threatening to invade and we expect these countries to just lie down and take it? I don't think so, and I don't blame them one bit.

[RethugAssKicker]

22. The State Media here knows exactly what they are doing !

THey know how he meant it... They however, will turn it around to suit their purposes.

But come to think of it. Why the hell shouldn't he feel that way about Israel anyway?
Israel is the occupier and the aggressor in that region... Why is it that the opressed is considered the terrorist?

[everythingsxen]

48. Yeah, I have no idea why...

Something about the stupid Western media's anti-Suicide Bomber bias. :eyes:

I'm sure Ahmadinejad is a great guy: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Iran+%2BHolocaust

He does so much for international arts and relations.. :puke:

[ronnie624]

54. I have read quite a few of Ahmadinejad's speeches,

but I have yet to read one in which he says that the Jewish people or Israel need to be destroyed, as is claimed repeatedly by headlines throughout Western media. He always refers to the Zionist regime and the oppressive policies of the Israeli state, as they apply to the Palestinians.

This little snippet of propaganda is obviously meant to perpetuate fear and loathing of Iran. Judging by many responses to this thread, the campaign is working beautifully.

Too bad so many cannot be motivated to research beyond the headlines.

[Lurking Dem]

55. "Zionist Regime" = Israel

He won't say "Israel" because he won't recognize it as a state.

[ronnie624]

65. That is your interpretation.

I reject it.

Also, I can't help but notice, you have provided no substantiation for your claim that Ahmadinejad does not recognize Israel as a state. On the contrary, his use of the term "regime" seems to indicate the opposite, as the word is in fact, another name for "government" or "state".

[Lurking Dem]

69. Okay

How about Iran's Foreign Minister explaining Ahmadinejad's previous statements against Israel?


"We don't recognize the Zionist regime and don't consider it legitimate."

[barb162]

76. Then try Al Jazeera ; he wants ISRAEL wiped off the map

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

Wednesday 26 October 2005, 19:03 Makka Time, 16:03 GMT


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
snip
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

I think Al Jazeera qualifies as non-Western press, doesn't it.
(Reference your comment is "He always refers to the Zionist regime"
and "Too bad so many cannot be motivated to research beyond the headlines.")

Too bad you can't be motivated to read further that the Mideast press was reporting this the same way as the Western press and using the word "Israel."

[0rganism]

17. shades of "We will bury you"? Not gonna happen

I think, eventually, we'll witness something very different: the Palestineans and the Israelis are going to find a way to live together without mass-murdering each other. They will join the nations together, they will prosper, and they will stand as an example to the world of how disparate cultures can reconcile their differences to become more than they ever were in isolation.

[Beacho]

23. Sounds more like someone playing to their 'base'

The guy is just a sock puppet of the corrupt feudal lords known as the Imams.

A chattering monkey doing the organ grinder's bidding, on cue

[daleo]

27. The U.S. has squandered much of its military power in Iraq

Israel showed it couldn't beat Hezzbollah in Lebanon. It seems to me that Iran must be feeling pretty secure (for the moment anyway), given those two facts. So the loose talk isn't surprising.

[IndianaGreen]

41. What's the difference between Iran's delusional President and ours?

None that I can tell.

[Lurking Dem]

42. Iran's has defenders here.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Ahmadinejad is not a model of freedom and democracy, quite the contrary

His anti-Israel rants are the Iranian version of Bush appealing to his base with anti-LGBT and anti-abortion speeches.

Neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad should be allowed near the nuclear button.

[Lurking Dem]

44. I think we should lock them in a room together

and let them have wild and crazy dictator sex.

But that's just me.

[Odin2005]

46. I say we give them daggers and let them have at each other.

2 fewer nutters in the world...

[noonwitch]

50. I get the feeling Israel is about to deal with Iran on their own

The way they bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80s. If they know where Iran is building their nukes, I say let them go for it. Maybe it will lead to some instability on the current regime's part and make way for a more moderate Iranian government.

[INDIA]

52. They have the balls to do it.

I have no doubt of that.

[Nihil]

58. Sadly, they're probably stupid enough too.

Although I doubt many of the "common people" in Israel would be
in favour of such an action as it will be the ordinary citizen
who catches the response, not the shitheads in their government
bunkers ...

[hogwyld]

56. Israel will not be able to attack this one

For one thing, Iran is a LOT further away in terms of distance than Iraq was. And Iran has efffectively hidden, or buried their most important sites unlike the Osirak pland sitting above ground. Hizbollah showed the complete futility of Israel's military, and Iran, I'm sure was paying attention. At this point, the world will just have to accept a nuclear Iran, much like we accepted a nuclear Pakistan, India, and ultimately, NK.

[INDIA]

66. I don't think distance would matter.

They basically have the entire journey in friendly airspace (Iraq). I do agree that a military strike wouldn't be as effective as the one in Iraq 25 years ago, and also would start all hell breaking loose in the middle east.

But that's exactly what Iran wants.

[savemefromdumbya]

51. No doubt Cheney is paying to say that