Iranian president: 'Rotten' Israel will be annihilated by 'one storm'

[ECH1969]

Days after announcing that Iran had successfully enriched uranium, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday called Israel a "rotten, tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm."

The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said. "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihiliation," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad fired a series of verbal shots at Israel, saying it was a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated, and again questioning the validity of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews in World War II.

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=705948&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

[onehandle]

1. Doubtful. If Israel feels threatened, they'll use their nukes first. nt

[Az_lefty]

4. They certainly will...

it looks like the president if Iran is doing his level best to set himself up for an attack.

[ladjf]

26. You are right. But, why? Is he bug nuts or on some kind of "take"?

[K-W]

29. He isnt setting himself up,

his words have nothing to do with US policy decisions and he knows it. The US will attack Iran for purposes of geoplotical strategy, and in the meantime he is talking tough like any conservative politician would.

[sutz12]

78. Is that a Freudian slip, or what?

geo_plot_ical :rofl:

[uncle ray]

161. the thing is

his words may mean nothing to our government as far as attacking Iran goes, but they mean a hell of a lot to the ignorant american people who will see them as little more than justification for us to attack.

[okieinpain]

194. and don't forget the ones in his country that will strap on the bombs

that will greet our soldiers as hero's.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

31. How about the fact that he has an alliance with Russia, China, and...

...India? Could he be the bait in a global plan to begin dealing with the NeoCon Junta?

If memory serves me correct, wasn't the Nazi invasion of Poland the trigger for the Allied entry into WWII?

[K-W]

37. When did this alliance happen exactly?

Last time I checked the cold war was over and India was a US ally.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. India is non aligned and fiercly maintains that status.

On the other hand there is no such alliance as the OP posits with Russia, China and Iran either.

He may be referring to BRIC - the loose coalition of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which as far as I know is more of a concept than an 'alliance' and it certainly is not a military pact that would be conniving to lure the US into their clever Iranian trap. I could be wrong of course, it could be a REALLY CLEVER TRAP, but I doubt it.

Which leaves the original question unanswered - exactly what game is Iran playing?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

74. If you think I'm wrong, do a few Google searches and prove it.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. It seems that you are correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. Thank you...didn't mean to seem ugly about it. Apologies to you.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. If I learn something it is a good day. nt.

[ButterflyBlood]

163. That's not exactly an alliance

Note that Pakistan, hardly an Indian ally, is also in it.

[K-W]

87. Google doesnt seem to agree with you

When i google 'Iran India Alliance" I get analyses about why India voted against Iran in the IAEA.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2907 <- First link from google.

[K-W]

80. That was once true, it isnt true anymore

What better source than Bush himself.

After the attacks of September the 11th, the Indian Navy provided vital support to Operation Enduring Freedom by relieving American ships securing the Strait of Malacca, and we thank the Indian Navy. Today, our nations are cooperating closely on critical areas like bioterrorism and airport security and cyber security. Our military cooperation is stronger than ever before. America and India are in this war together, and we will win this war together. (Applause.)

In the long run, the United States and India understand that winning the war on terror requires changing the conditions that give rise to terror. History shows us the way. From the East to West, we've seen that only one force is powerful enough to replace hatred with hope, and that is the force of human freedom. Free societies do not harbor terrorists or breed resentment. Free societies respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors. Free societies are peaceful societies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060303-5.html

[fujiyama]

105. I wouldn't quite call it an "alliance" per se

Each of the nations you listed have seeked closer relations with Iran due to energy concerns (well moreso for China and India anyways).

All three also did vote to refer Iran to the SC.

China does sell them military hardware as well, but if the US were to attack Iran (a very foolish prospect), China or Russia would likely not get involved directly. They may supply Iran with ammo or intelligence, but that's as far as I'd see their involvement.

India meanwhile, was currying favor with them earlier and obviously still would like to maintain close relations, but I have not seen them selling any military hardware. They were planning on running some joint military exercises and they wanted that pipeline which the US fiercely opposes, but they may ditch those plans if they get the nuclear agreement to go through.

[Pavulon]

110. If Iran launches a first strike

all alliances are off. China is not going to engage in a nuclear war with us over an Iranian first strike.

[K-W]

116. There are no alliances.

Nobody is going to stand in the way of the US to protect the Iranian regime certainly nobody in the nuclear club.

The cold war is over and there is no indication whatsoever that Russia and China are interested in trying thier luck as rogue states again.

[converted_democrat]

128. I don't think you're right about that..

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran
By Jephraim P Gundzik

"The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia."

snip-
"In the past several years a number of Chinese and Russian companies have faced US sanctions for selling missiles and missile technology to Iran. Rather than slowing or stopping such sales, the pace of missile acquisition and development in Iran has accelerated. Like relations between China and Russia and China and Iran, Russia's relations with Iran have also advanced considerably in the past 18 months. In addition to increased investment in Iran by Russia and burgeoning arms trade between the two countries, Russia has been heavily involved in Iran's nascent nuclear energy industry."

snip-
"To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons."

[K-W]

131. So Russia and China would completely reverse all of thier policies

and declare a war on the US that they could never hope to win and that would be likely to destroy both nations.

Huh?

China is experiencing historic development right now in partnership with US capital and they are going to give this up in favor of war with the US over Iran?

Russia, who even at the hight of the cold war wanted to avoid nuclear conflict would enter a military conflict with the US?

Yes, Russia and China are happy to sell Iran weapons, why wouldnt they? It means more money for them. But this does not prove an alliance. Making a buck off war is just the capitalist way.

[Pavulon]

133. I repeat

that means shit in the event if an Iranian first strike. I am sure the us would be happy to split the place up after they figured out how to clean up after a nuclear war.


Buying weapons from russia is as exclusive as getting a hooker in vegas.

[sabbat hunter]

5. israel

has a stated policy, that even likudnik bibi ascribed to. in which israel will never be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region if war breaks out.

[onehandle]

14. Really? Admirable. I guess it's our job to start things.

I'm not sure Bush would really do it, but I know McCain would.

Fear McCain.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Right. Totally believable.

[jayfish]

34. Are You Sure?

I mean, what's the point of having them then? Where's the regional nuclear threat that they are meant to respond to?

Jay

[manic expression]

206. Words are cheap

and so is this awesome bridge that I own.

[EVDebs]

15. Maybe not even nukes. To really farkel up Iran, all anyone has to do

is block the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic. Does Israel have subs ? For sure, the rest of the world would have an oil shortage, but do you think Israel would care at that point ? Mutual assured destruction means use nukes first and it will be your last time.

Mullahs, and the Mossad, need to get together on this line of thinking.

[K-W]

16. Israel certainly doesnt feel threatned. Iran is pinned.

Not only is Israel much more powerful than Iran, at the moment there are US forces on two of Iran's borders.

Iran is the one that, rightly so, feels threatned, which should be taken into account when reading this.

And, by the way, Iran doesnt have nukes and wont have them for any immediately upcoming war.

[manic expression]

213. It doesn't matter one bit

Israel has a long and storied history of seeing threats for no reason and using it for empty and backwards justification for atrocity and wrongdoing.

Sabra and Shatila were decimated because of this (the illusion of threat that Israel projects).

[WhiteTara]

2. here's another story on the same subjec

http://www.localnewsleader.com/kindred/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=176003
TEHRAN, Iran - The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank , "will be freed soon."

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Note that he does not deny the hollocaust happened.

And I'm sure that the rhetorical distinction will be lost on many, but he is saying that if true, why should middle eastern muslims pay for the misdeeds of europeans? It is a fair question, and it has no good answer.

[WhiteTara]

158. I noted that also. I think that is why

I posted that article, because it is a different slant that one presented by the msm.

[enigma000]

3. He's just pandering to his base, pay no attention

So, what's on TV tonight?

[stevekatz]

64. Pandering to his base...

Yeah.. Yeah..........

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Like manna from heaven for BushCo

This guy really wants to get nuked obviously. It is hard to tell who is the craziest shit house rat between Smirky, Snarlin' Dick Cheney and this Iranian guy. Armageddon stew anyone?

[demosincebirth]

8. I'd like to put them all in a locked room for 2 days and see what happens

[Wise Doubter]

73. Cage Match ! Cage Match! Cage Match !

:popcorn:

[arewenotdemo]

79. My money would be on Ahmadinejad

Bush would try to cheerlead Cheney from the sidelines (bring it on), but Cheney would have other priorities.

[EVDebs]

18. Ahmadinejhad appears to be a CIA plant. No one in their right mind

would be saying this kind of stuff and expect olive branches from Israel. Looks like if Iran attacks first, Israel will take out every other Islamic capital in the region along with Gaza and the West Bank to boot. After that, the whole region becomes unlivable (radioactively). Which is funny since the region is already unliveable ideologically. Remember, they all think they're doing God's work on earth and are justified.

Yeah, right.

[The Magistrate]

39. Is It Your Serious Belief, Sir

That the C.I.A. controls the political processes of Iran?

[EVDebs]

167. Is it your serious belief that the CIA DOESN'T control the political

processes of Iran ? They certainly spend far too much time worrying about the Great Satan.

[Marie26]

203. How would they be able to do that?

Not saying you're wrong, but I'm just wondering how the CIA would manage to rig an election in Iran, a country in which we have no embassy, diplomats, or foreign relations. The CIA is notoriously bad on "human intelligence," which led to the failures in Afganistan & Iraq. The CIA was pretty clueless about Iraq's WMD's & political situation. From all reports, the CIA simply doesn't have enough peole who speak Arabic or are able to infiltrate these groups. How is the CIA going to manage to infiltrate Iran? And not only infiltrate Iran, but also manage to find a politician to be the CIA mole and have the knowledge & power to sway an election. It seems very unlikely.

[The Magistrate]

215. It Would Be Pleasant, Mr. Debs

If you could suggest some mechanism by which they do so. It would require infiltration to the point of predominance of the Guardian Council, composed of clerics trained in the most fundamentalist of Shia schools, and that would be no mean feat. If our nation's intelligence agencies displayed such competence as that, it would be some small comfort to a cold-blooded fellow like myself.

Unpleasant as the thought may be, Sir, there are any number of indpendent actors in this world, with their own agendas and directing their own activities. The world is not directed from a single location or by a single agency.

"The world is fundamentally ungovernable."

[EVDebs]

219. "Their Will Be Done"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1983/07/willbedone.html

From 'Wild Bill' Donovan on down, the Knights of Malta (formerly the Knights Hospitaller of Crusades fame and arch enemy of the Knights Templar, who eventually became the Freemasons) have been in control of the highest eschelons of the CIA's pecking order. They even have permanent observer status at the UN , despite not being a 'country'. How odd.

Dear Magistrate, the mechanism you seek lies in its being hidden and not observed. Think along the lines of cause and effect. Go by what they do, not so much by what people say.

Some even think OBL is a CIA tool. Once the Cold War ended the US military industrial congressional complex needed a new replacement for the 'red scare'. Fanatical Islam provides the perfect foil. It keeps the status quo going merrily along. Arms sales, DoD super budgets, hidden 'black budgets', the Afgan opium/heroin trade... Mechanisms would be more appropo.

BTW, only a fool would seek to provide the exact non-nuclear event that would sink his own country's economy, but Ahmadinejhad has done so...

http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=443851

Q.E.D. Either he's acting FOR the CIA or Iran needs to rethink who they've voted for.

[AngryAmish]

235. Is there any proof that Ahmadinejhad is not a robot?

It does not seem that he is acting like a human.

[ECH1969]

238. hmmmmm

[Marie26]

41. Or else he's bat-shit crazy. nt

[K-W]

43. No one in thier right mind would expect olive branches from Israel.

Nothing this man says is going to effect the strategic decision to strike Iran. He talks tough for the same reason conservative politicians everywhere talk tough.

Iran will most certainly not be attacking Israel first.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. no one in their right mind ...

"would be saying this kind of stuff and expect olive branches".

No sane leader would threaten another nation and expect peace in return. I give you George Bush.

[EVDebs]

168. Althought we don't hold pep rallies with "Death to Iran" chants

We save that for our high school football friday nights !

[humbled_opinion]

7. Antagonizing

What does he get out of antagonizing a warmonger like Bush?? I sense some type of set up going on here...

[The Magistrate]

9. If You Might Clarify Your Statement, Sir

Are you suggesting the President of Iran is co-operating with the current regime in the United States?

[Sterling]

45. WHo cares? Plant or not.

Iran is going to get the shit bombed out of them and I am totally fine with that at this point. It will be the only thing Bush does right his whole term. I just wish they had not murderded 3000 Americans for the pretext.

[The Magistrate]

47. Always Interesting To Have Your Views, Mr. Sterling

So you may be viewed as supporting a U.S. bombing campaign against Iran sometime this fall?

[Sterling]

50. Yes, actually I would like it to start about 30 years ago.

Better late than never. I don't want to live under the thumb of any kind of fundie. Fundies with Nukes, forget about it. It's bad enough we have our fundies running the show here, their fundies scare me even more.

Iraq? That made little sense to me, Iran makes all the sense in the world.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. So it is ok with you that thousands,

perhaps millions if we take the nuclear option, die because you don't like the Iranian regime?

"I don't want to live under the thumb of any kind of fundie. Fundies with Nukes, forget about it." - that is our government sir. By your logic the world is within its rights to annihilate us.

[MUAD_DIB]

83. Presently, what has the Bush regime done besides

saber rattling and implied threats against Iran?

I don't want to see a newcular Iran with their present political/theocracy, but I have not see any overt diplomacy from our side.


Calling their country part of the Evil Axis didn't really help?

Did it?


Regardless of my county's political makeup I would be doing exactly what the Iranians are doing right now if the USA were threatening my sovereignty.


There's no easy way out of this mess.

[DemExpat]

102. Fundies are fundies....IMO, so you advocate bombing

some over there along with untold innocents, while giving your own more familiar, more local fundies a pass because "their fundies scare me even more"?????

What kind of argument is that for violence? Sounds like same old same old ones to me.

:shrug:

DemEx

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

140. Your confidence on the defensive capability of the US

does not reflect reality, to say the list.

How, pray tell, would Iran be able to make America live "under their thumb?"

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

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

[The Straight Story]

172. What do you support in this?

If Iran is talking crap, which they seem to be doing, should we just let them do as they please and then pick up the pieces later??

People like to compare bush to hitler, but I see more of a comparison with Iran to hitler and germany than I do the US.

With all the land owned and controlled by muslims in the ME, why are they not simply offering the palestinians space there, and why are they so scared about a tiny strip of land? Iran has more space than Israel, what makes them so upset??

[oblivious]

98. So now Iran was responsible for 911.

Would it be unreasonable for me to ask for proof of your claim?

[Warren Stupidity]

101. Yeah but don't hold your breath.

I am astounded by the those here who are falling FOR THE SAME BULLSHIT ALL OVER AGAIN. And as usual, the hate speak come seeping out, and it is ok to kill 'them' for lots of reasons, and 'they are different' and all the rationals for why unprovoked slaughter is acceptible. Many of us have learned nothing at all.

[ronnie624]

181. As long as U.S. Americans are so profoundly ignorant

and the mighty propaganda machine is so powerful, no more than the work of a moment will be required to convince them to support more slaughter.

Very depressing.

[Marie26]

205. It's not so easy this time

Over 90% of Americans think Bush lied to get us into war with Iraq. If he tries to sell a new line about Iran, Americans will be much more suspicious. The trust is just gone.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[cliss]

10. Hi, Humbled.

Welcome to the DU:smoke:

That was exactly my thought. How do we know Ahmadinejad actually said this? Several people here at the DU have experessed doubt about his quotes. They say they're not sure about our own media reporting. They feel that he could have said something much milder, or completely different. FOX media (and other media) will twist it into something else.

~~Just call me skeptical.~~

[951-Riverside]

13. If he didnt say these things I'm sure they would try their best to deny it

...as of yet they havent denied ANYTHING this mini hitler/bush said

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. Uh...just where would those denials appear? Do you actually....

...believe they would be reported by the MSM?

[The Magistrate]

42. Journals Like The Guardian, Sir

Would probably pick them up. Certainly al Jazeera would. If they existed, they would be available, and doubtless would be posted here in this forum by someone.

Uncomforatble as the fact may be to accept, there are quite a lot of foolish and evil people scattered over the globe, and their foolishness and evil exists at a wide variety of points on the various political and religious and economic spectra.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

94. IMHO, most of the "foolish and evil people" are concentrated....

...in the NeoCon Junta. IMHO, they are currently responsible for far more deaths and maiming than any other sovereign nation or terrorist organization. IMHO, that also makes the NeoCon Junta the greatest threat to world peace since Adolf Hitler. It is more than just coincidental that the members of the NeoCon Junta have so many close ties to the

As to what the Iranian leader said or did not say, may I invite you to do a Google search to determine exactly what he did say in regards to the Holocaust? It has come out in print, and it has been posted to the DU boards more than a couple of times...and has been routinely shouted down just as often.

[The Magistrate]

216. You Would Seem, Sir

To have a much more elevated view of humankind than my experience of us clever monkeys allows me to maintain. There are not nearly enough persons in the tiny group you mention to constitute even a reliable statistical sampling, let alone a majority, of the evil fools upon this poor globe....

"It is not just the fault of the axe, but the tree as well."

[file83]

164. Al Jazeera reported on this story....

From Al Jazeera:

In his speech on Friday, Ayatollah Khamenei accused the United States of conspiring to place the entire Middle East under Israeli control.

"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," he said.

You won't find that last quote in the OP article. If that statement were true concerning the "plot" of the American Government and Israel, could you blame Iran for being pissed off and trying to get nukes for their country?

Iran is worried (for good reason, two countries on either side bordering their nation are occupied by the USA) that Israel/America are plotting to invade/occupy Iran and wants to be able to protect their country.

I'm not in defense of the president's crazy rhetoric and hyperbole, he's an arrogant and offensive man, but I'm just saying, try to look at Iran's situation through their eyes in terms of National Sovereignty.

If Russia had Mexico and Canada occupied and WE didn't have nukes, we might get into a mad rush to develope them, wouldn't we?

[ButterflyBlood]

197. OK, let me get this straight:

You honestly believe that:

1-There is a plan by the US to place the entire Middle East under the rule of Israel
2-This is true because the Iranian Supreme Leader said so, and he is a valid and trustworthy source.

:wtf:

[HuffleClaw]

36. everything he says is EVIL

or so they'd have us believe. i think what is happening is some 'creative translation'.

[Marie26]

40. That's a stretch.

He also created a "Holocaust cartoon contest" to protest the Muhammad cartoons. The connection between Jews and the Danish Muhammad cartoons is a bit sketchy, but that didn't seem to matter to him. The man is a true anti-Semite and takes every opportunity he can to demonize or rant about Jewish people. This is just one of a long series of anti-Semitic remarks he has made.

[K-W]

20. He knows that the decision to invade has nothing to do with his words.

Iran is under imminent threat of attack, his bluster is intended for an Iranian audience that wants to hear tough talk in ths time of immense fear.

[Sterling]

46. immense fear

God I hope so. They need to be really fucking scared. Their asshole leader is going to get them all killed. Kinda like ours except we can actually put Iran on the ash heep of history. I really am tired of being pushed around by Islamic Fundies.

[Catrina]

142. We were told we'd put Iraq on the thrash heap of history also.

If the neocons had a dream of who might be running Iran at this point, he would be it. And he would not be there had it not been for the neocons who have done more to endanger Americans than any Islamic fundie could dream of.

The Pentagon Spy case has revealed quite a bit about these neocons and their longtime dreams of 'turning the whole Middle East into a cauldren of fire'. You know, 'kill all those ragheads'.

The Shadow Gov. created by Cheney and his band of warmongers, especially the likes of Ledeen are filled with hatred for all Arabs. This country should never, ever allow hate and prejudice to control its foreign policy.

I sincerely hope they are all removed from office as quickly as possible and prosecuted for the crimes they committed against this country and others before it's too late, and I have no doubt that such an action would go a long way to restoring some confidence in this country.

This is the country, under this regime, that has invaded two countries and is planning on invading at least three more. It is this country that is threatening the use of nuclear power. This is the threat to world peace under this regime. Iran was no threat to this country until these madmen provoked it because they want war.

I hope someone with sense takes over the reigns of this government before it's too late.

[K-W]

147. You arent being pushed around.

The US is the big kid on the playground here in the real world.

[adriennui]

96. iranians are smarter than to believe their insane leader

i wouldn't be surprised to see a major takeover by iranians in the near future. a point is reached when the people will take just so much. the fact that the gov't hasn't done anything to protect earthquake ravaged areas is an example

and BTW, israel has had nuclear capabilities for decades. have they used them? israel has them for leverage and defense in a dangerously hostile neighborhood.

[K-W]

100. He's a racist conservative

There are lots of them in this world, and they win elections far too often. As far as the people of Iran, there is a strong movement for reform in Iran, but it is a delicate situation especially with the constant threat of US aggression. Thier current president is a reactionary conservative elected mainly because the reform government before him didnt fufill thier promises of reform. If we let Iran on its own, there will be more reforms and change will come eventually at the demand of its people, hopefully without violence. Unfortunately it doesnt look like we have any intention of leaving them alone. As long as there is the constant threat of US aggression, Iranians will rally behind tough talking conservative politicians to enough of an extent that it seriously inhibits domestic progress.

[0007]

11. I'm not sure that Israel has any confidence in junior anymore.

[951-Riverside]

12. Wow he's one angry little Hitler

Its like he's BEGGING for us to invade his country while he escapes.

[leftchick]

22. no angrier than our little hitler

the are both of the same type. Religious fanatics who want armageddon. The difference is Iran's fanatic has no where near the power that the chimp has. Iran has controls over their president, we have none.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. No, sorry...the U. S. already has the next Hitler. Who has Iran...

...illegally bombed, invaded, and occupied during the last 20+ years? Where are the Iranian "detention" and torture centers?

[Sterling]

48. Iran sucks.

I don't see any reason defending Iran at this point. But go ahead anyway. They treat their people like shit, elect some Holocaust denying anti semite who wants nukes. Better to end Iran now than be under the thumb of some assholes who want to kill people over a cartoon.

[magellan]

76. Yeah.

Better to live in the US under the thumb of some assholes who DO kill people over oil.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. Excuse me, but which country has illegally invaded and occupied...

...two sovereign Middle Eastern countries while killing at least 40,000 Afghans and more than 100,000 Iraqis?

Where exactly did you read that the Iranian leader denied that the Holocaust took place? Was it in the captive NeoCon MSM? Are you sure that's a literal translation of what the man said?

Do you not recognize the same propaganda gameplan the NeoCons used to whip up support for the military actions taken against Afghanistan and Iraq?

Are you that eager to see the NeoCons illegally and immorally attack yet another sovereign Midle Eastern country? Are you prepared for the use of nukes against Iran, and the resultant backlash?

[K-W]

84. You think Iran is a threat to you?

American paranoia is amazing.

[Pavulon]

112. Killed the Shit

out of our marines in Beirut. The french bombed their Revolutionary guard in response. If the USSR was not a player then they would have ben up shit creek them.

They are a violent, anti american nation. That is no reason to attack them.

But if someone says they are going to kill you it is wise to believe them.

If they fuck up and bomb israel using conventional or nuclear weapons they will be truly fucked. The level of their stupidity will determine if they are smashed like iraq in 90's or suffer 60% total casualty in a 1000 megaton response on cities and military targets.

[CityDem]

132. Better watch out

Israel has proven over time that they take these kind of threats very seriously. Israel is the one country in this world who would use nukes and ignore the condemnation of much of the world. Jews experienced the Holocaust and are not about to let some crazed Iranian mullahs annihilate their home. The people of Iran better find a way to tone down the rhetoric coming from Tehran – otherwise the whole country will be glowing from Israeli nukes.

[manic expression]

207. self delete n/t

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

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

[EVDebs]

169. I prefer simply blocking the Strait of Hormuz on their behalf

The occassionally threaten to do it themselves, but I'd allow for it just to destroy their economy and to get the world off it's oil "jones". This would have the added benefit of taking out the Saudi's economy to boot.

[rustydad]

107. Might you explaign?

How in the world the USA could find itself under the thumb of Iran? Bob

[951-Riverside]

115. Its not the Iranians its their leader(s)

The ruling religious leaders could tell this mini Bush/Hilter to tone down the rhetoric or just keep his mouth shut just like the republican leaders can tell our own mentally challenged leader to leave office.

[ronnie624]

183. Such hysterical nonsense.

You would be much better off if you spent more time reading and learning about the world in which you live and less time watching football.

[ECH1969]

69. Israel probably is going to take action and it will be very ugly

If the Jewish cartoon writers are any indication.

[LoneDriver]

234. My Persian-Armenian friends think he's CIA

No joke.

[bluestateguy]

17. Dick

I feel as if we can oppose a war with Iran and still call this guy what he is: a racist, sexist, anti-Semetic, anti-gay Muslim fundamentalist wacko.

One reason, among others, to oppose a war with Iran is that it would only strengthen Nazis like Ahmadinejad in Iran. The people will rally around him if the US attacks.

[bunkerbuster1]

52. Pretty much my take.

It's a shame, because there are millions of Iranians who really have no quarrel with us, who don't want to be ruled with an iron fist by fundie dickwads, but have to put up and shut up for now.

[Gman]

21. This guy's rantings remind me more and more of Idi Amin

This guy is a nut that likes to blow a lot of steam but has little if any ways to do what he says. This idiots biggest problem, as well as the rest of the world's, is everything he says is being taken and proclaimed as credible by the neocons.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

28. He's a nut?? That's what you're supposed to believe, isn't it?....

...Have you ever noticed the pattern our Fearless NeoCon Leaders are following? Demonize the leaders of other countries before we illegally bomb, invade, and occupy them?

Newsflash! Our Fearless Leaders are far more nuts and dangerous than the Iranian leader could ever hope to be.

[maddezmom]

82. my personal opinion is they are both nuts

and equally so. They both play to their fundamental base.

[951-Riverside]

118. Any leader who wants to wipe out an entire race/nation... just because

Is not one you want to side with.

[fujiyama]

176. Bush really doesn't need to

demonize Ahmedinajad much. He's doing a pretty fine job of making himself look like an ass hole.

Does this mean we have to bomb him? Not necessarily, but that doesn't excuse his maniacal rantings.

BTW, why do you state Bush is worse every single time? It goes without saying that Bush is a maniacal messiahnic freak. Most of us here agree on that point. We also realize that he's far more powerful and dangerous on a larger level.

But why the virulent defense of another madman? Ahmedinajad isn't just some "poor victim" of the neocons. He's a raving, antisemitic lunatic and it doesn't make one a neocon to realize that.

[AngryAmish]

237. Amin was a monster

[Ezlivin]

23. Anybody here speak Persian?

That's the only way we'll really know what he's saying.

I'm pretty cynical when it comes to translations supplied by our government. We know how "on top" of languages they are (re: Sibel Edmonds).

[CJCRANE]

32. No, but his comments were about the "regime".

It's a comment about regime change rather than nuclear annihalation.

It's aggressive posturing but no different from *'s threats to other countries.

Having said that, this guy (just like *) seems to be a real loose cannon in the way mouths off all the time.

[Poll_Blind]

126. See post #111 for Iranian News Agency release- the official English....

...release.

PB

[Boojatta]

27. At the end of the Second World War, how many refugees did Iran accept?

Where did the people in Israel come from? Where should they go?

[Warren Stupidity]

72. I believe his point is that why should the people of the ME

have to pay for the crimes of the europeans against the Jews? It is a fair question. It was not the arabs who put 6,000,000 to death.

[Pavulon]

113. Arabs

aligned with the reich and payed the price. Israel was jewish before mohammed ever existed.

[Warren Stupidity]

190. That is an argument that is so massively dishonest

that I am astounded. It is on par with the idiocy of the Iranian president and is a stellar example of why the regions is doomed to consume itself, including your beloved Israel, in a maelstorm of death and destruction, perhaps taking the rest of our planetary civilization with it.

The guilt of the holocaust is entirely on those who committed the crimes, not on some colonial resistence politician who made a bad choice while trying to free his people from their foreign oppressors.

"Israel was jewish before mohammed ever existed."

Oh fine, so you want to go back to the disapora. Well then you would of course like to acknowledge that it was the ROMANS who committed that crime, and that the Jewish state was but an ancient memory when Islam became the dominant religion of the people of the region. Perhaps Israel ought to move its people to Tuscany. Tell me though, do you think that we ought to get out of the Americas? That was a mere 500 years ago, and for some of the western tribes, less than 150 years.

Shame on you, but thanks for illustrating just how fair a question was asked, and how dishonest the response is.

[Pavulon]

201. All Nations

are built on the backs of other cultures. The fall of the ottoman empire and the fall of the third reich played major roles in mideast politics.

The UN created israel. If Iran chooses not to acknowledge them or destroy them that is their burden. Their price to pay.

However Israel like every nation presently on the map has a history. That history is no different than germany's or norway's

[The Straight Story]

220. Iran has a lot of land, why not give it to palestinians?

Give them their own state there.

Israel is a tiny slice of land in the whole scheme of things - who is really being pigheaded here?

Does israel have oil, gold, etc?

[adarling]

30. well he is poetic but utterly insane

feel horrible for those people, they are in the same situation we are in, a radical gov't in charge and they probably didn't even vote for the guy.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

35. He's a lot less insane...and dangerous...than Herr Busch.

[Rex]

33. Wow, another insane man with nuclear power.

How many can the world stand before we all get annihilated?

[K-W]

38. He doesnt have nuclear weapons

nor would he even control them if Iran had them.

There are much more dangerous racists in the world.l

[Bush_MUST_Go]

53. Iran is simply taking up where Saddam left off.....

Daring the stupid Americans to knock the battery off its shoulder.

It's a win-win for Iran.

If America takes them up on their challenge, they go ahead and call themselves martyrs & easily find plenty of insurgents willing to defend against the invasion by infidels.

If America does not take them up on the challenge, America looks weak & that also helps them recruit willing insurgents to further embarrass the scared Americans in countries all over the region.


Americans lost the 'war on terror' when we were coerced into invading Iraq and forced to pretend our 'allies' Saudi Arabia & Pakistan weren't really the biggest threats in the region.

Hopefully, once, bush & the rest of his corrupt business partners are out of power, America will be able to recover from the devastating personal business deals they have made at our expense. They're destroying our country worse than any outside enemy ever could.

[Sterling]

54. Lets keep it that way.

No better time than when he does not have the nukes to stop him. It's a little late when he does don't you think?

[K-W]

90. So we should bomb everyone in the world without nukes

just in case they get them some day.

Are you by any chance part of the Bush foriegn policy team?

And I dont know why you are talking about him getting nukes. He is not the dictator of the nation of Iran, you seem to be confusing the issue.

[manic expression]

209. Yeah! And Poland is a threat to the fatherland!

:sarcasm:

Look, there is no justification for attacking a country just because another country feels like it. Who are we to pick and choose who gets to have nukes and who does not? Who are we to attack a nation when there will be no nukes for at least many, many years? When you start striking militarily because of pure arrogance and a lack of perspective and justification...oh yeah, we already started.

[Mountainman]

44. Are those words worth a new war? Iran cannot hurt Israel at this time.

Israel is much stronger than Iran. Sounds like a lot of name calling but I don't think we need to unleash a nuclear war because of words.

[soleft]

49. Could he behave any more like a CIA plant?

[ronnykmarshall]

51. Wag the cock!

He and Bush are in a dick wagging contest.

[maddezmom]

89. agree

both are trying to rally the fundies and both are nuts.

[951-Riverside]

121. Well said n/t

[av8tor05]

55. The man is as insane as Hitler was.

Some people are just plain nuts, no other way to describe them. Remember that we are dealing with a people who believe in jihad and 72 virgins waiting on the other side.

[Clarkie1]

63. Comparisons to Hitler are not helpful.

Hitler was evil, but he was not dumb. If Hitler was the president of Iran, he would never attack Israel, because he would know it would bring his certain destruction.

We should not allow ourselves to be emotionally swayed by radical rhetoric. We need to remain rational.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Nor was Hitler 'insane' until way late in the process.

Hitler was a vile genius. By 43-44 he was most likely also completely insane.

[brentspeak]

71. Hitler was pretty dumb to invade the Soviet Union

and to declare war on the U.S.

(Though, a good argument could be made that Hitler's main goal for starting the European-theater WWII in the first place was to invade and destroy the Soviet Union.)

[Warren Stupidity]

75. Not dumb - just arrogant.

Plus the initial campaign got delayed by the Italian mess in the balkans and that delay may very well have been the difference.

I believe that they thought that they could go forward with the invasion and with the UK on its knees, offer up a destroyed USSR as the sweetener to a settlement between Germany and England. It came within a few weeks of working before winter ended the offensive and doomed the German army.

[manic expression]

210. Pre-emptive strikes are like that

DID YOU HEAR THAT AMERICA?

[Warren Stupidity]

65. And we are a people

who believe that God told us to invade Iraq, that we are fighting a holy war against the forces of evil, and that after we die we go to some blissful place where all is perfect. What exactly is the difference between us and them, other than just that - they are the 'other'.

[K-W]

91. So all racists are the same as hitler now?

Someone has zero historical perspective.

72 virgins? huh? What are you talking about, the president of Iran isnt a sucide bomber.

Oh I get it, all Islamic people are the same and evil.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

97. So, what are we dealing with when Herr Busch is mentioned?

[Clarkie1]

56. We should not allow ourselves to be emotionally swayed by this rhetoric.

He is playing to a domestic audience.

Iran poses no threat at this time to Israel. Iran is not going to attempt to "annihilate" Israel. The leaders of Iran are not madmen.

We should not use this a pretext to raise our own level of rhetoric against Iran. We should calmly, quietly, pursue direct talks with Iranian leaders to diffuse the crises. Iran is being pushed into a corner by the administration, and that is why they are using this rhetoric.

[twaddler01]

57. This would definately support a case for war with Iran

What he is saying will indeed benefit the * administration in the long run...I fear for the future of America :scared:

[Clarkie1]

58. Under what circumstances?

Iran poses no imminent threat to us. An attack at this time could strenghten anti-American sentiment in the region.

I am really hoping we will respond rationally to this issue, and not emotionally.

[twaddler01]

61. I guess I mean in a case for war

I don't really believe that it will happen (I HOPE it won't), but we never really know what the *ies plan on doing...

[Clarkie1]

66. Sorry, was reading fast and I misunderstood your post.

I agree it strengthens the neo-cons case for war.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. No it doesn't. nt.

[K-W]

92. On what planet?

You do realize that Israel and the US are currently threatning to bomb Iran, its hardly aggressive for Iran to make vague half-threats in response.

[twaddler01]

139. Not everyone believes that

I just think it looks better and better for * in the long run. This is what they want...if you didn't see any threats from the US and Israel, this looks bad for Iran.

[K-W]

149. Well one can choose to ignore reality I suppose.

Whether one believes it or not the US and Israel are threatning Iran.

But yes, if one ignores that, or is ignorant of that fact, as many Americans do and are, this does look bad (also, its mistranslated and really not a threat at all)

The more accurate example would be the statement, I saw it on GD, by an Iranian military commander that Iran would attack US positions in Iraq and repel the invasion. This, like statements by Hugo Chavez about organizing a potential insurgency, when read by Americans ignorant of thier own foriegn policy make these people seem like paranoid, dangerous, madmen.

[4freethinking]

85. This is nuts...but there maybe hidden motives

Has anyone thought there might be other hidden motives, like making oil prices rise deliberately by continuing tensions with statements like this? Higher oil prices benefits Iran and hurts us. The markets do respond to this stuff.

[K-W]

93. I think his motive is being 'tough' on foriegn policy.

Like so many other world leaders.

Iran is being threatned, the people of Iran are scared and angry, Iranian conservatives talk tough. Its not terribly different than what happens here except that the threats against Iran are real.

[4freethinking]

104. I can't

see why it can't be both. Iran's tuff talk and our tuff talk are driving up the price of oil. The tensions are always sited as a reason for higher oil prices. Iran talks tuff we respond prices go higher. They are using their oil card. I think it's deliberate.

[Xithras]

95. This is the real tragedy of Iraq.

Hussein may have been nuts, but he was contained and wasn't a threat to anybody. Ahmadinejad is not only nuts, he's driven by the fires of religious zealotry and been rattling his sword for some time now.

If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq and turned the entire planet against the U.S., it might have actually been possible to do something about Iran. As it stands today, so many people have such a poor opinion of both Bush and the U.S. that nobody would dare propose a coalition with us at this point. Even foreign leaders who AGREE that Ahmadinejad is a madman will keep silent simply to avoid any appearance of an "alliance" with Bushitler.

Bush has so badly crippled our reputation and peacemaking abilities that Ahmadinejad will keep beating his war drum, and in another year or two he will be not just a maddman, but a nuclear armed maddman driven by visions of jihad and his awaiting heavenly virgins.

Of course, the argument could also be made that Ahmadinejad would never have been elected if not for Bush. Iran was actually moderating, and the mullahs were losing power, until we began our wars in the region, firing up the fanatics and scaring many Iranian moderates into silence. Ahmadinejad was only elected because the fundamentalist base was ALREADY whipped into a frenzy, and they wanted a fundamentalist anti-US leader to represent them.

[K-W]

103. Iran is not a threat and neither is thier president.

He isnt any crazier than any other conservative racist in the world either.

Ahmadinejad is not only not a madman, he doesnt control Iran. He doesnt threaten anyone at all. And no, he probablty wont have nuclear weapons in a few years(even if he did it wouldnt be a threat) and no he doesnt dream of jihad and heavenly virgins, hes a conservative politician not a suicide bomber.

Your last paragraph is a good point. Our threats against Iran only strengthen conservative hard-liners and hurt Irans democratic progress.

[Xithras]

108. Ignoring his reality doesn't help anyone.

And no, I don't take my opinion of him from the US media. The nice thing about working with a bunch of Arabs and Assyrians is that I get to hear what THEIR media is saying.

Roll Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson into one, stick them in the White House, and you'll have the rough equivalent of the situation that Iran is in today. Ahmadinejad may not actually be a madman, but he is a fundamentalist orthodox Muslim who believes strongly in the Muslim concept of jihad. His control over Iran may not be absolute, but the OTHER half of the Iranian power structure, the Supreme Ayatollah, happens to agree with him. So does the Revolutionary Council, the Guardian Council, and the Parliament (which saw most of its liberal and moderate members thrown out two years ago). If Ahmadinejad really wants war, he will have few problems convincing his people do go along.

He has the enriched uranium. Now that the process is worked out, it's only a matter of time until he gets the bomb. Believe it or not, it's EASY to build an atomic weapon...you really can get the plans on the Internet (it's not an urban legend). Atom bombs are 1930's technology, and are easily created using modern fabrication equipment. I could probably build one in my garage if I had the materials. So why don't more nations have them? Because refining the uranium is HARD, and requires a lot of equipment, energy, and know-how. That hump alone is enough to stop nearly all of the worlds nations, and all of the worlds individual nutcases, from building their own personal nukes. If Iran really has overcome that obstacle, the rest is easy. They're not going to be building any multi megaton hydrogen bombs anytime soon, but a relatively low yield nuke in the low kilotons is fairly straightforward to build...and a glance at the old Hiroshima pictures shows what kind of damage a bomb that size can accomplish.

And Iran has multiple delivery systems capable of carrying such a payload. They have missile designs, purchased from North Korea, that can carry a warheads all the way to Europe, and one of the designs has already been produced and test fired (Shahab 3). Iran claims that the second, larger design is only for boosting satellites into orbit, but anything capable of orbital insertion is also capable of being used as an ICBM. By Iran's own estimates, it will be launch ready in a year or two.

Of course, there's also the old fashioned way...they could just strap a nuke to the bottom of a plane and have it dropped wherever they want it. It's the way we did it in Japan, it's Israels primary delivery system, and it costs practically nothing to implement.

So you see, I have to disagree that Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to anybody. He has made it clear in the past that he is an orthodox fundamentalist, has expressed support of terrorist groups, and has personally vowed to oversee the end of Israel.

[K-W]

114. All I am ignoring is your fear mongering.

Roll Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson into one, stick them in the White House, and you'll have the rough equivalent of the situation that Iran is in today. Ahmadinejad may not actually be a madman, but he is a fundamentalist orthodox Muslim who believes strongly in the Muslim concept of jihad.

Indeed. So what? He's a religious fundementalist hard-line conservative. I wouldnt vote for him, but im not going to flip out or demonize him.

His control over Iran may not be absolute, but the OTHER half of the Iranian power structure, the Supreme Ayatollah, happens to agree with him. So does the Revolutionary Council, the Guardian Council, and the Parliament (which saw most of its liberal and moderate members thrown out two years ago).

That really isnt true. Im not sure what you mean by agreeing with him, but they do not all march in lockstep with the president and he is not equally powerful with the clerics, the Ayatollah is still the supreme power technically... although of course, it is the military that holds the real power. Regardless the president is just one piece of a large government that would not simply obey him if he went against thier interests.

If Ahmadinejad really wants war, he will have few problems convincing his people do go along.

First of all, who said he wants war? It is the US and Israel who want war, not anyone in Iran. Iran does not pose any threat to anyone and has made it very clear that they have no intention of launching a war. They make great diplomatic hay about the fact that they have a long history of non-agression.

These comments have to be seen in light of the US/Israeli drive to attack Iran.

He has the enriched uranium. Now that the process is worked out, it's only a matter of time until he gets the bomb.

THEY (why do you say he, he isnt a dictator) have some uranium not nearly enriched enough for weaponization. It is only a matter of time before any nation gets the bomb. There are nations all over the world who are only a matter of time away from getting the bomb, so what? that doesnt mean they will neccessarily develop the bomb.

Thats the whole point of the Non-Proliferation treaty (which Iran complies with and the US does not) and the diplomatic process around disarmement. Giving nations incentives for not developing the weapons.

Believe it or not, it's EASY to build an atomic weapon...you really can get the plans on the Internet (it's not an urban legend). Atom bombs are 1930's technology, and are easily created using modern fabrication equipment. I could probably build one in my garage if I had the materials. So why don't more nations have them? Because refining the uranium is HARD, and requires a lot of equipment, energy, and know-how. That hump alone is enough to stop nearly all of the worlds nations, and all of the worlds individual nutcases, from building their own personal nukes.

If Iran can do it, there are lots of nations that can do it. But this is simply a tangent. Nuclear weapons can be developed. The issue is whether Iran develops them or not. You seem to be arguing that they will develop them no matter what, which is highly unlikely.

But I would certainly be more comfortable if they did not have tens of thousands of centerfuges. But the way to achieve this result is to do what the US refuses to do and make a serious deal with Iran.

If Iran really has overcome that obstacle, the rest is easy. They're not going to be building any multi megaton hydrogen bombs anytime soon, but a relatively low yield nuke in the low kilotons is fairly straightforward to build...and a glance at the old Hiroshima pictures shows what kind of damage a bomb that size can accomplish.

And Iran has multiple delivery systems capable of carrying such a payload. They have missile designs, purchased from North Korea, that can carry a warheads all the way to Europe, and one of the designs has already been produced and test fired (Shahab 3). Iran claims that the second, larger design is only for boosting satellites into orbit, but anything capable of orbital insertion is also capable of being used as an ICBM. By Iran's own estimates, it will be launch ready in a year or two.

Of course, there's also the old fashioned way...they could just strap a nuke to the bottom of a plane and have it dropped wherever they want it. It's the way we did it in Japan, it's Israels primary delivery system, and it costs practically nothing to implement.

Except of course that they wouldnt nuke Europe, or Israel or anyone else because they would then be wiped off the map by the counterattack. Even with the bomb Iran is not a threat to anyone. Regardless, they dont have the bomb, they dont have the facilities yet they dont have anything, lets deal with what actually happening rather than pretending the worst case scenario is inevitable.

So you see, I have to disagree that Ahmadinejad isn't a threat to anybody. He has made it clear in the past that he is an orthodox fundamentalist, has expressed support of terrorist groups, and has personally vowed to oversee the end of Israel.

Except of course that he doesnt control Iran, which itself does not have the capability to threaten anyone.

Guess who else supports terrorist groups, the US (which unlike Iran committs state terrorism and state aggression on a regular basis).

As far as his empty threats against Israel, one must remember that Israel is hostile to Iran as well and Iran would lose a war with Israel so badly it would be silly.

[lovuian]

99. This is why Gas is going up cause this guy is on a devastating

course...

I have NO doubt he is going to be attacked!!!

[Tempest]

106. Did he really say this, or is the translation wrong?

The translation on his past comments about Israel were wrong, no doubt this is suspect as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. Here's the Iranian News Agency translation

which looks roughly like the Haaretz one.

"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering.

"The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm. Today even the inhabitants of the occupied Palestine, especially the African and Asian settlers are living in ain, poverty and discontent.

"I tell the governments supporting the Zionist regime to open the doors to the prisons in the occupied Palestine and allow the refugees and displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland and summon the usurpers of the Palestinian lands.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0604141214202410.htm

[oblivious]

119. It is decaying from within and will fall as a dead tree does in a storm.

A far cry from the vast AP propaganda network that turns this into this:

Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Iran+Leader%3A+Israel+Will+Be+Annihilated&btnG=Search+News

Propaganda is so easy in the West. AP alone can do it all.

[K-W]

120. Wow, the AP spins like nothing. EOM

[Poll_Blind]

122. This threat is bullshit just like the alleged Chavez anti-semitic remarks.

So much spin...to make it look like Israel is persecuted or in danger. Always from countries that the Israeli military could eat for breakfast.

Curioser and curioser.

PB

[fujiyama]

174. ummmm...no

Ahmedinejad IS an antisemetic, holocaust denying ass hole. The Chaves thing was a misinterpretation over liberation theology.

Why is it so difficult for so many to deny antisemitism when it's so blatant? This doesn't mean we ought to invade him or bomb him.

But we can't deny reality.

Though if they were to attack Israel in any way, there would be all hell to pay, so unless he's very stupid, I don't see him attacking Israel anytime soon.

It's clear he is making these constant provacative comments to get a rise out of people. It sort of seems like he wishes to be seen as a great nationalistic leader in the Muslim world, perhaps in a role similar to Nasser, though of course Iran isn't Arab and I don't believe Nasser was necessarily a religious fanatic. Then again, this could just be playing to a domestic audience. He knows where he derives his support - the clerics, the fundamentalists, the repressive orthodox bastards that rule his nation.

The way this administration has handled Iran is amazingly idiotic. There was a lot of potential to develop better relations with them, especially after 9/11. After all, they didn't like the Taliban very much either. I even recall candle light vigils in Tehran after 9/11. The students were becoming somwhat bolder. They had a somewhat moderate "reformist" in Khatami (albeit somewhat weak and ineffectual). Instead the US constantly accused them of harboring Al Qaeda with no real evidence, meanwhile ignoring the nation to the eastern border of Afghanistan. They accused them of being part of the "axis of evil", a nonsensical statement that bore no accuracy historically. The constant demonization undoubtably helped Ahmedinajad's rise to power.

[still_one]

189. I couldnt agree with you more

especially how the aragonce of our administration helped Iran's presdident rise to power

[Poll_Blind]

214. I didn't disagree with what you said- just said the translation was...

...wildly inaccurate.

PB

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

141. so even most open minded liberals buy the RW propanganda translation?

We are in a hell of a lot of trouble.

Lemme get this straight--
the president of Iran_{the really bad man that he is:sarcasm:} says
the Palestinians need to be free---
and "us libruls" actually believe the RW Admin's translation
which implies he's truly threatening Israel's existence and may attack them any day?

So we are all now unified against this "Hitler" as many posters on this thread like to refer to him?

Where did I hear that before?...oh yeah..I remember***Saddam WhoseSane*** was like a "Hitler"

SOMEBODY help me out here!

Will people just believe ANYTHING?

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. I'm not quite sure what you're saying

His speech says the existence of the "Zionist regime" is an "unrestrained threat", and he says "how long can this be tolerated?" He talks about "the dire consequences of the continued existence of this fictitious regime". He does want Israel to cease to exist - but he's not saying he may attack them any day (which would give an excuse for attacking Iran) - and where are people on this thread saying he might attack Israel any day? I can't see how you justify your implication.

[daleo]

165. It sounds like the kind of thing Reagan said about USSR

Decaying from within, etc. Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is just wishful thinking. All kinds of political leaders say this sort of thing about their opponents and enemies.

[Pavulon]

109. Just so he knows

If he fires nukes into Israel they will retaliate, as will the US. They are playing a zero sum game. There will be no one to witness the imam come out of his hold because they will all be dead or dying of radiation poisoning. There is no player in the area who will back them and suffer a thermonuclear attack.

We will respond by firing SLBMs that are sitting within range of Iran. ICBMs will be fired. Thousands of megatons will land in Iran within 30 minutes of the heat plumes from their missiles. We will kill every thing that lives there. If we have prior warning (fueling weapons detected) we will launch a first strike or Israel would.

Any uprising in Iraq would be dealt with in ww2 methods. Fall back and bomb or shell until everyone dies or stops fighting.

The death of millions will cause collapse and the world will split the country like berlin.

Iran has stated its clear intention of wiping out israel. They have stated that their would still be a caliphate if they did. I believe they are underestimating the worlds response.

Thats my take. I think he is full of shit. Someone in his own country or working for ours should shut him up before he kills millions.

[martymar64]

117. If anything, he's setting a trap for the US

1. His rhetoric will piss Bush off enough to try an attack.
2. A few Exocets from hideouts in the Zagros Mtns. will take out a couple of tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, trapping the US carrier group in the Persian gulf.
3. Here come the Sunburn ASMs, along with even more Exocets, again from the Zagros Mtns raining down on the Carrier group. US dead will number in the thousands, and the ships will be sunk.
4. Surface to Surface missles will come across the Gulf, raining down on refineries in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE, crippling oil production indefinitely.
5. Iraqi Shiite forces will begin coordinated hits on US forces, who due to the hits on the naval forces, will be cut from their supply line.
6. The Iranian Army, mobilized and numbering upwards to 15 million men (CIA World Factbook) pours across the border with Iraq, vastly outnumbering US 130K troops.

On the economic front, once the Straits of Hormuz are closed, expect gasoline prices in the US to soar to $10 - 15 / gal overnight.
The shortage of gas will force rationing for only essential services like food deliveries, causing economic chaos and possibly collapse of the US economy.

That is an extremely possible scenario without even including Israel, our China getting pissed at the US attacking their supplier and invading Taiwan in retaliation and possibly calling in their debt that the US owes to them.

Not a pretty picture. In fact, it could prove to be our Waterloo, Dien Bien Phu and Stalingrad all rolled into one.

[K-W]

123. His rhetoric has nothing to do with US planning.

It makes good propaganda, especially when creatively translated. But Bush isnt really a cowboy flying by the seat of his pants and the technocrats who plan the wars could care less about the president of Iran. They are after the entire government, as US planners have been since the revolution. They want compliant regimes controlling natural resources.

[Pavulon]

125. And when iran gets done with that thought

they better put up the kleenex and lotion.

The sunburn missile was a joint project between russia and the US. We used it as a DRONE. That means we probably have its telemetry system and certainly tested our weapons system.

We will not attack Iran.

If Iran attacks they will be fucked in more ways than a Vagas hooker.

There is ONE defining fact. Iran can not control its airspace. A Ship never has to be in range of any exocet to be part of a continued bombing attack.

Any uprising would be dealt with in ww2 fashion. Fall back and use shelling and air power to kill en mass. We killed 10 - 20 thousand retreating Iraqis in the first gw on one road.

The biggest mistake would be an attack on the US, which would have NATO support.

[martymar64]

127. Citation for the Sunburn being a joint Russian -US project?

Janes would be preferred.

Without possession of nuclear weapons, what would Iran fire as a first strike?

Iran won't fire first. They would lose any support from their trading partners, Russia and China.
Bush, however, with his messianic complex, is insane enough to strike first.

[Pavulon]

129. Link

to janes but that is where I read it. Kh-31 is sunburn platform. Old technology.

Here you go:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.html

I wonder if we have telemetry access? Rense loves this thing, idiots think the navy has no plan, for a drone system we own...I wonder.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_991217n.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. There's quite a bit of difference

The MA-31 you link to is 15 feet long, weighs 1500 lbs, and has a range of 50km. The Sunburn is over 30 feet long, weighs 10,000 lbs and has a range of 250km.

[Pavulon]

137. Same company

developed both using the same propulsion. According to Jane's and the document you linked.

[muriel_volestrangler]

144. Raduga designed the Sunburn; Zvezda the KH-31

according to this. The links say they has the same propulsion principle.

[Pavulon]

145. Janes Differs by saying the

propulsion is shared. I would post link but they are quite shitty about it.

My point is that this is a weapon system we have planned for and anticipate in planning. Not a wonderweapon.

[martymar64]

136. Checked both of your citations

Unfortunately, neither one cited tests that successfully would counter the SS-N-22. According to FAS Military Analysis Network

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

The propulsion system operates on the same principle as the KH 31, but they do not appear to be one and the same, and one could be sure that the system has been improved since 1999, when the articles you cited were written.
Also on the scene would be the SS-N-26 Yakhont which has a 120 km low trajectory range and a speed of Mach 2.5 with the capability of violent end maneuvers. It it's final phase, it has a flight altitude of 5-15 meters above deck.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm

Not trying to get into a pissing match. No matter what goes down if shooting breaks out, it's gonna get ugly.

[Pavulon]

138. Uses Ka-31

propulsion and telemetry. We used the thing as a DRONE.

Why would we put ships in range?

[Pavulon]

130. That is

an assumption on both points. They are both idiots. One waiting for an imam to pop out of his hole..

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

143. That's why, instead of attacking, he's talking tough.

He hopes the US or Israel will shoot first (preferably with nukes) only on his blather. That way, the US will sink to a level of international isolation that will make the current situation look like the Clinton administration.

In a way, he's trying to "martyr" his entire country for the "cause." At least, that's the way I see it. Feel free to comment.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

150. i think he's probably nuts.

Like our guy, ya know.

That, and he understands very well how to keep his people distracted by a hobgoblin. Like our guy, ya know:)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

152. You'll have to agree that doesn't contradict my theory. -nt

[SlavesandBulldozers]

153. i agree. :) n/t

[K-W]

155. These are politicians, not suicide bombers.

Iran is talking tough for the same reason Iraq talked tough, for the same reason Venezuala talks tough. Because they know that the US doesnt care how they talk.

The decision to attack Iran will have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that came out of the President's mouth. The US has wanted regime change in Iran since the revolution. The talk is just used in propaganda.

I would also note that according to the Iranian translation he isnt really talking tough, although certainly tough talk has been coming out of Iran.

they talk tough to try and put the fear of insurgency and unforseen consequences in the minds of American planners and to attract support from scared populations. These people are politicians and powerful religious leaders, not suicide bombers. There is a big difference.

[Poll_Blind]

124. PLEASE SEE POST #111 for Iranian News Agency Translation!!!

Right Here.

This is the state news agency- the official English release. I'm not saying Ahmadinejad is not being antagonistic, but the translation in the original post is wildly subjective.

PB

[ShortnFiery]

135. This guy is just a "figure head" like we know Cheney's really our

Acting President. It's a smokescreen. This leader of Iran and Bush could be the same entity - they feed off of each other. :puke:

[sweetheart]

148. I come as time the destroyer waiting for the hour that ripens their ruin

Time is the "one storm" that will annihilate us all.

[Chulanowa]

151. The URL says this is DU, but it looks like Freeper central!

Iran does not have nukes. They will not have nukes for several years, if they're even persuing them.
They are not going to attack Israel. Iran wants to lead the middle east. You cannot lead if you're extinct, and that is exactly where attacking Israel will get you.
Ahmedinejad has NO military power. Period. An Iranian president is not an American president - He can't so much as ask a soldier to stand at attention, much less try to declare a war. He amounts to a talking head.
There is a difference between Israel and "zionist regime". It's a damn shame that so many Americans have been spoonfed by the likudists to the point where "zionism" is a good thing AND synonymous with Israel.

Do you think that ANY middle eastern country would nuke Israel? If you do, I hate to inform you, but you are stupid. They're not after Israel's ass "because Muslims hate Jews" - roll that phrase around in your mind a bit. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? This is not, and never has been an ideological conflict. War never is. War is always economic in nature. Nuking Israel, or even conducting a prolonged conventiuonal war against Israel, is counter-productive. Destroying the countryside and infrastructure would nullify the whole cause of the conflict - that the Palestinians and their allies want the land Israel is sitting on.

Nuking Israel, therefore, would go directly against Ahmedinejad's declaration that "Palestine will be freed soon".

As others have said, he is simply playing to his base and talkign tough - It's all he can do. If he took a softer stance, the US and Israel would pounce and start making more and more demands against Iranian soveriegnity. Either way, Iran is going to get attacked. It's better for Iran's position for such attacks to come without the weakening of the nation that a softer stance would take in face of US-Israeli pressure.

[oblivious]

156. Good post.

[smitty]

159. On the other hand maybe Ahmedinejad is as wacky as Bush.

Irrationality is not an American monopoly and Ahmedinejad is a religious loony just like Bush. It's one thing to play to your base, it's another thing to play to it by threatening the annihilation of another country---that other country might get disturbed.

[Warren Stupidity]

192. Iran is not occupying any countries other than Iran.

Nor does it have military bases spread across the planet exerting control over a vast array of vassal states, nor does it have its troops 'inserted' into our homeland identifying targets for the upcoming bombardment. I have no clue about the 'wackyness' of either idiot, but I have a pretty clear picture about who the aggressor is here.

[Psephos]

160. I remember when progressives thought nuclear arms were a bad thing

Now we have an escape clause that says *unless they are being acquired by someone who hates Bush or Israel.

I liked the old principle - without escape clauses - much better.

Your reasoning is sound, but unfortunately, Ahmadinejad is not driven by reason. He thinks he's been annointed by God to usher in the End of Days.

Peace.

[Codeine]

166. Well said!

:applause: :applause:

Most of the core beliefs of the progressive movement seem to get overlooked as long as we're praising an anti-Bush leader. Behavior that we would never tolerate in our own leaders is overlooked, or even outright lauded, when exhibited by people who make the right noises about Israel or the Bush administration.

Absurd, and frightening.

[Chulanowa]

177. Except for one thing

Ahmadinejad has no power. Can he do some damage? Sure. But not on a grand scale, even within his own nation. Certainly not to anyone else's. Your average US lobbyist has far more political sway than an Iranian president. His entire purpose is so the ruling Clerics can point to him and say "See? We have elections, too!"

I'm not for Iran getting nukes, not in the least. However I don't believe that such is their pursuit. I believe them when they say "we're after nuclear energy". All the cards are right there. You have the clerics issuing fatwas against nuclear weapons, you have the speeches by Mr. Puppet-Head that never get printed in Western media denouncing the idea that Iran is seeking nukes, you have the IAEA saying "they're not after nukes", you even have their participation in the Nonproliferation treaty. Finally you have the oil they are sitting on. it really does them no good to burn it for themselves, especially with what a hot commodity it is these days. It's better for Iran, economically, to build nuclear power plants for themselves, and then sell their oil to us at a hefty profit. If they're not using it, that leaves more to sell.

If, however, Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, then it's pretty clear why - Our leaders here in America are threatening to nuke Iran over the fact our leaders suspect Iran of thinking about maybe pursuing a nuclear weapon. If some nutball monkey in a suit from Massetexas was threatening to nuke you, wouldn't you want a nuke safely under your own ass as deterrent? Because that's what a nuclear weapon is. It is not a weapon of aggression, it is a purely defensive weapon. If Iran pops up with a nuke it is not because they want to blow up Israel, or the US, no matter how much AIPAC wants you to think so, it's to keep the US, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea from nuking them. Considering the ass-polishing our "tough" president gives to Kim Jong Il, it's apparently a strategery that works.

If "the west" keeps on the current track, however, of threatening Iran for suspicion of thought, then it's going to be self-fulfilling. if the US and the UN keeps rattling sabers at Iran, declaring the inalienable right they have under the NPT to nuclear energy a "loophole", then Iran is going to withdraw from the treaty, and without a doubt, begin pursuing a weapon. Their other option is pretty much an irradiated Tehran, in that scenario. You want Iran to remain bomb-free? Get your damned politicians to stop trying to push Iran into building a bomb.

[oblivious]

182. But Iraq is not acquiring nuclear arms. That's pure propaganda.

[Warren Stupidity]

199. Yes well about that.

As far as I am concerned the NPT died the day we invaded Iraq, and in retrospect the day we invaded Afghanistan, and perhaps the day that the tall buildings came tumbling down and the world went a bit crazy.

Israel is the number 5 or 3 nuclear power on the planet, depending on which source you use. There is blatant hypocrisy in our demands here on Iran while Israel is allowed and encouraged to ignore the NPT.

We recently offered to directly violate the NPT through our offer to provide technology and material supplies to India that would enable India to build its own nuclear force at a more rapid pace.

We have restarted our own weapons development programs. This is another direct violation of the NPT, which requires the nuclear powers to work towards disarmament OF THEIR OWN FORCES. Needless to say we are doing just the opposite.

We have threatend Iran with a first use nuclear strike. That effectvely terminates the NPT all on its own, however it is within the context of our broader PNAC inspired doctrine of American Hegemony, and it is that broader context that has changed my opinion about nuclear weapons.

One of the assumptions underlying the NPT is that the nuclear powers will not user their conventional or nuclear military advantages to coerce the smaller non nuclear nations. This assumption was abolished by the 'Bush Doctrine'.

All nations have the right, as do all individuals, to self defense. Even nations you do not like, even nations ruled by theocratic asshats like Mr. Bush.

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

170. people(RW and LW) have accepted all propaganda directed against IRAN

I'm agreeing with you and throwing this up in general for whoever happens to stumble by-

I see that the translation is questioned and an alternate translation is posted.

No one cares?
...Any clues as to why people seem to "want" to believe there's a "bad guy" we need to rally against?
...is it just a short memory span?
...didn't a similar disinformation campaign happen leading up to our invading Iraq?

It appears that most RWers DO fully support invasion of IRAN.
But I think we're in trouble here because I see all these posts on DU that makes me believe the "progressives" don't really seem to challenge the idea that the leader of Iran is insane and may even support the idea of invasion because the leader is "dangerous"!
I see all these references to him being "crazy" and there's tons of "hitler" references posted above-

here's the translation part 1:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0604142697204736.htm
on the right you can click on part 3, part 3, and part 4 as well

After reading this guy doesn't seem crazy to me-
The Palestinian issue is the main problem- and it's been left in the dust by the Bush regime.

Who's for diplomatic and peaceful solutions any more?

anyone at DU?

seriously.---I think religious biases are screwing up everyone's judgment- anyone else agree?

[oblivious]

186. He isn't crazy and his rhetoric is anti-zionist, not anti-semitic.

His rhetoric is no different from what the Iranian leaders have been spouting since 1979. And just as the Ayatolla in 1979 condemmed nuclear weapons as immoral, the current Iranian leadership continues to condemn them. What's crazy about that?

But now that it's time to complete the next stage of PNAC, and the neocon propaganda is in full swing, large numbers of posters here are translating the old anti-zionist rhetoric into something ominous. Wiping the name Israel off the map and replacing it with Palestine becomes "We are going to destroy you" because that's how the propagandists translate it in their headlines.

The American propaganda system works every bit as well as those in totalitarian countries.

[Marie26]

218. What is the difference? nt

[fujiyama]

178. So people here are freepers

for condemning his anti semitic bullshit? I see maybe one poster here advocating an invasion or bombing of Iran. Most of us don't support an attack but we understand lunacy when we see it.

Fuck Ahmedinejad and his rantings. And I'm lost when you say that Israel doesn't equate Zionism...One of the goals of the movement of Zionism was in founding the Jewish state! Whether this was a "good thing" is something I have no interest in arguing over, but it's pretty clear when he attacks the "Zionist" regime, he is attacking the Jewish state itself.

But I agree with most of what else you have to say. Ahmedinejad won't attack Israel unless he is suicidal. No nation in the middle east can take them on. So far his rantings seem more for domestic consumption in his nation. Fodder for the fundies.

[Chulanowa]

180. No, for going frothing batguano nuts

Antisemitic? Yeah, I imagine he is. But comparing him to Hitler? That's a brainless comparison. As far as dictators go, Ahmadinejad gets his butt whupped by the Prince of Monaco.

I say it looks like FreeRepublic on this thread mainly because of all the knee-jerking "OMG a muslim talked about Israel in a mean way, he's just like Hitler!" bullcrap, along with the handfull of posters who believe killing millions f Iranians over one Iranian being antisemitic is a GOOD THING.. It's nuts, I tell ya, N V T S nuts!

[Toucano]

185. Iran has a substantial military.

Far greater than Iraq's was.

That's the only thing I would really disagree with you about.

[Warren Stupidity]

191. Best post here by far. nt.

[stepnw1f]

154. blah, blah, blah, blah

blah, blah, blah, blah....

[mvd]

157. Sounds to me like Bush is egging him on

Bush doesn't use quite that rhetoric, but I'd say the chances of him striking first are a lot higher. Yes, the Iranian leader is extreme, but the really stupid invasion of Iraq made us less prepared if he does turn out to be a threat.

[ButterflyBlood]

162. I'm beginning to wonder if this guy WANTS his country to be invaded.

The Iranians would do the whole world and especially themselves a favor by taking this nutjob out.

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

175. do you think "WE" should "TAKE this nutjob OUT?"

-
I'm just wondering if I'm hearing this right-

You said the Iranians would do us all a favor(the whole world-not including him) if they'd take this nutjob out-
You mean kill him?

Do you think "WE" should take him out if they don't do it?


Would that be ok with you?
killing someone?
I mean if you think the world would be a nicer of a place,
you'd recommend killing someone?



Maybe we should take him out



to dinner instead?

that's what I think about taking someone out

[ButterflyBlood]

195. I meant remove him from office in whatever way

Which would make the Iranians a lot better off. They'd look much better on the world scale without this guy spewing his crap. If that does involve killing him, I honestly wouldn't care. I wouldn't care if someone killed Hitler in 1933 either.

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

221. do you really believe the Hitler spin from the corporate media?

I don't believe one thing that spews forth from that polluted source;
not after the lies upon lies I've heard in the last few years,
each of which is eventually exposed-
check this out-->
The most recent one was on Bernie Ward on KGO last night-
The "AL Queda" mis-association game is now exposed-
Did you know that the British Police announced that the
Subway Bombings had NO connection to Al Quaeda?
And that the bombing in Spain was confirmed also "NO connection"
to Al Queada either?
(on and on- I could go on but you get the point)

So do we REALLY know that the leader of Iran is out to hurt anyone?
I mean his speech was just mis-translated with a spin-
I posted the link to the actual translation above in another post-

And I don't know that killing any "leader" is a good idea-
Because what goes around comes around-
if it's ok for us to kill leaders and we set the assassination example,
then sooner or later everybody starts killing leaders-

Did you know if you shuffle some of the
letters around in the word "killing" you get
the word "liking"--as in to "like" someone-
!!!-I just dyslexiad that word three times trying to
type "killing"--

I still say we take him out to dinner--what's your favorite restaurant?
He might not be such a bad guy after all!


seeya-

[ronnie624]

222. Your posts are nuggets of logic and reason

in a sea of nonsense and blather (with other notable exceptions).

I almost did not return to this thread because of my frustration at the deliberate spreading of misinformation as well as the mis-characterization of the progressive case against the hatred of Iran by some posters. I am glad now that I did return.

Thank you for the link in your post above and your cogency in stating the progressive position.

[ButterflyBlood]

223. I have no clue why you're babbling about al-Qaeda

Since I didn't even mention al-Qaeda. But you're correct, the London and Spanish bombings were not likely connected to al-Qaeda and were rather a seperate group of Islamic extremists. So what? Does that mean al-Qaeda is perfectly fine and doesn't want to hurt anyone? Or are you one of those extreme tinfoilers who honestly believes the bombing in Spain and London were CIA black ops, in which case there's no point in even debating with you.

As for how we know the President of Iran is a "bad guy", this certainly isn't the first crap he's spewed. He previously called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", has frequently denied the Holocaust and called for a convention on whether to examine if it happened, and called for Holocaust cartoons to counter the Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper. The fact that he's blaming the Jews for those cartoons alone tells you something. Not to mention it was known before the election that he was the hardline candidate of the theocratic clerical regime. And you won't find a single news source that denies this, it's not just the corporate western media making such claims. So unless you think Iran's ultra-fundie theocratic government is somehow a good thing, I think things are pretty clear here.

BTW if you bothered to read either post I said that the Iranians are the ones that should take him out. I certainly don't have a problem with people deposing their own crappy leaders. I hope you aren't too upset about the fact that the Romanians ousted and killed Ceausescu.

[ronnie624]

228. Now, now...

lets not be dishonest.

"BTW if you bothered to read either post I said that the Iranians are the ones that should take him out."

From your post above to which Fun Doom Mentalist was responing: "I meant remove him from office in whatever way."

[ButterflyBlood]

And if you look in the first post you'll see I said the Iranians should

I don't understand why so many here have a problem with people overthrowing their own crappy leaders. I certainly would consider it good things when the Romanians took out Ceausescu and the Filipinos took out Marcos.

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

231. Aren't you bablling? on and on and on about what?

listen to Bernie ward-
You'd probably call this show "Bablling" too

[Harper_is_Bush]

171. Help me understand this: Zionist regime = Israel? Yes/No?

If the guy said "Zionist regine", then can we translate that to mean all of Israel?

[Chulanowa]

179. Not really, no

The current leadership, perhaps, but not the whole body. It's kind of like calling America "a Neo-conservative regime". Certainly our nations "leaders" fit the bill, but the country as a whole? Nah.

What he's doing is attacking the ideology of the leaders of the Israeli right, those hardliners who are zionist, and who want to expand Israel to the "biblical boundaries" of the Nile river and the Euphrates. And they need to be attacked, because they, and our politicians who support them, are some real nutjobs, at least on par with Ahmadneenerboo or whatever - They just happen to actually have nukes, not just the possibility of maybe thinking about them.

Naturally a lot of work has gone in by the Right and their pet media to equate Zionism with Judaism, so that a critic of Zionism is easily called an "antisemite" or the like. It makes a nice shield for the policy of aggressive imperialism in the mideast. You can see it right here in the thread we're speaking on - "If you don't want to take out Iran, you must hate Jews because they'll nuke Israel!" - where the hell is the critical thinking there?

[Fun Doom Mentalist]

187. GREAT POST--very good explanation - people should understand those points

love that point -
"You can see it right here in the thread we're speaking on - "If you don't want to take out Iran, you must hate Jews because they'll nuke Israel!" - where the hell is the critical thinking there?

I'm seeing very much conformity to the RW propaganda machine-
and not much "critical thinking"

I am really wondering why.

Is it because we all know someone who's Jewish- so we have to pick a side and that's Israel because Israel is the Jewish holy land --
Many more of us probably know Jewish people than know Iranian people.

But can't people see beyond this team mentality and realize they're being played?

We have no business "taking out" countries!!!
Innocent people get killed by the thousands by invasions--and this is not good.

[ButterflyBlood]

196. That doesn't even sum up Israel's leaders though

Maybe 2 years ago, but not anymore. Sharon seemed to actually be turning over a new leaf to a much better side when that stroke him, and new elections were just held, the Likud, the folks you mentioned got smashed. The centrist Kadima and left-leaning Labour are going to lead the new government.

The new Israeli government is working out a pullout from the West Bank. However this won't please Hamas, which calls for the destruction of Israel. And I doubt this nutjob is any different. He previously called for Isreal to be "wiped off the map". That's a bit stronger statement than saying that he disagrees with the Israeli leadership.

[Chulanowa]

200. Maybe I'm jaded by American politics

but I can't think that the "moderates" of Israel are any less beholden to their extreme right counterparts than ours are. I hope i'm wrong, naturally. I'm not gonna go into Israel / Palestine any more than I have. I could honestly go for days...

He's also called for Europe to take all their Jews back, instread of exiling them to the Middle East. He has said a LOT about lots of things, and three different sources will give you five different translations, depending on what slant the article is looking for. Take the starting post: " 'Rotten' Israel will be annihilated by 'one storm' ", it claims. Well, the problem is, that's not what he said. He said Israel was decaying from within like a dead tree that crumbles in a storm. Nothing about nnnihilation anywhere in there, and the "one storm" was not the implied threat the title thread makes it, but just a chunk of metaphor. Remember, this dude likes poetry. dditionally, he has never once denied the holocaust happened - He questions the number of six million jewish dead. It is a difference.

And if he's an antisemite (which I do believe he is), he's a very collared one. Iran has a fairly sizable Jewish population, even a member (or two, I forget) of the parlaiment is Jewish. They're not persecuted - They're just another flavor of Iranian, for the most part.

[Spinoza]

202. Totally wrong.

"And if he's an antisemite (which I do believe he is), he's a very collared one. Iran has a fairly sizable Jewish population, even a member (or two, I forget) of the parlaiment is Jewish. They're not persecuted - They're just another flavor of Iranian, for the most part."

In fact, the opposite is true. The current Jewish population in Iran is 20,405 (Iran's population is 68 million) which is down some 75% from 1979. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html

>snip
"Despite the official distinction between "Jews," "Zionists," and "Israel," the most common accusation the Jews encounter is that of maintaining contacts with Zionists. The Jewish community does enjoy a measure of religious free dom but is faced with constant suspicion of cooperating with the Zionist state and with "imperialistic America" — both such activities are punishable by death. Jews who apply for a passport to travel abroad must do so in a special bureau and are immediately put under surveillance. The government does not generally allow all members of a family to travel abroad at the same time to prevent Jewish emigration. Again, the Jews live under the status of dhimmi, with the restrictions im posed on religious minorities. Jewish leaders fear government reprisals if they draw attention to official mistreatment of their community.

Iran's official government-controlled media often issues anti-Semitic propaganda. A prime example is the government's publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious Czarist forgery, in 1994 and 1999.2 Jews also suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and public accommodations.3

The Islamization of the country has brought about strict control over Jewish educational institutions. Before the revolution, there were some 20 Jewish schools functioning throughout the country. In recent years, most of these have been closed down. In the remaining schools, Jewish principals have been replaced by Muslims. In Teheran there are still three schools in which Jewish pupils constitute a majority. The curriculum is Islamic, and Persian is forbidden as the language of instruction for Jewish studies. Special Hebrew lessons are conducted on Fridays by the Orthodox Otzar ha-Torah organization, which is responsible for Jewish religious education. Saturday is no longer officially recognized as the Jewish sabbath, and Jewish pupils are compelled to attend school on that day. There are three synagogues in Teheran, but since 1994, there has been no rabbi in Iran, and the bet din does not function."<

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html

[Marie26]

204. I don't think he's making a distinction.

For Ahmadinejad, "Zionist" is his derogatory way of talking about Israel. I kind of doubt he's making distinctions between different parties, or political figures. If it's Israeli, he doesn't like it. In this speech, he's talking about annihilating all of "rotten Israel"; he's not making fine points about stopping a certain political ideology. Earlier, he gave a speech called "A World Without Zionism", and talked about wiping Israel off the map. He IS an anti-Semite. That's pretty clear from almost every speech & action he's taken. Why do we have to defend an anti-Semite? Why can't we just say that both Bush & Ahmadinejad are bad?

Also, doesn't "Zionism" refer to the movement to create a Jewish homeland? The dictionary defines Zionism as "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel." So, Zionism now just means support for Israel. Nowhere does it say that Zionism refers to the "hard right" or "conservative" wing of Israeli politics. Usually, people will simply say "Likud" or "hawks" to refer to that "neoconservative" wing. I think you're giving a narrow meaning to "Zionist" that doesn't exist, & wasn't what Ahmadinejad meant when he said it.

[oblivious]

184. Yes, that's what they call Israel.

They believe the Israeli goverment is an occupying regime in Palestine, and that the name Israel does not belong on maps and should be wiped off and replaced with Palestine, with democratic elections including all Muslims, Jews and Christians deciding who the government should be.

So they call Israel the zionist regime - i.e. illegal occupiers of Palestine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

188. That's right - and he's calling for the return of refugees to the area

(eg those now in Jordan) - which would mean Muslim Arabs would be the majority in this unitary state. He also calls for Europe to take back Jews who went to Israel after the second world war - and I think he's calling for that to be forced repatriation, though I'm not sure. As well as uprooting people's lives, it would also be a nightmare to organise (what happens with Jewish families some of whose ancestors were in Europe, and some elsewhere? What about Arab families who married Jordanians?), and mass movements of population also tend to end in bloodshed - eg the partition of India. So really it's his way of saying "I want to see the state of Israel gone", which is good for his support both in Iran and the wider Muslim world, without being directly aggressive against Israel, which would give the USA excuses for an attack.

But it is clear from the speech that "the Zionist regime" means the state of Israel. He argues about what's happened in the past 60 years.

[ButterflyBlood]

198. Now this part made me laugh

with democratic elections including all Muslims, Jews and Christians deciding who the government should be.

Gee, maybe you think they could allow free and democratic elections in their own countries if that's really what they wanted?

Also note that if you were to integrate the Gaza Strip and West Bank into Israel, the Jews would still be a majority. You think that would make these folks happy?

At the current rate, there will be a Palestine not too far away. Israel is already in no way occupying Gaza, and are planning on pulling out from the West Bank. And while the people in those areas don't really have a country yet, they do have a government, and they have democratic elections, in which they elected the murderous terrorists who blow up buses of school kids in power. Meanwhile in the following Israeli elections, the Likudniks got devestated.

Israel may have been the main trouble causer up until a few years ago, but at this point, it's pretty clear who's court the ball is in to acheive peace now.

[manic expression]

211. And

Israel wrongly occupying Palestine. There can be no doubt that Israel has been involved in theft and murder since before its inception. If you want an example of a state that has unjustly stolen land while cleansing its inhabitants, Israel certainly fits the bill, and then some.

[TexasLawyer]

173. You don't nuke a country because their president

is a dumbo with a big mouth.

The US state dept. is making this speech out to be a very big deal.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-04-14-voa50.cfm

US: Iranian Rhetoric on Israel Adds to Nuclear Concerns
By David Gollust
State Department
14 April 2006

The United States says the latest comments on Israel by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are reprehensible and only add to international concerns about Iran's nuclear intentions. The Iranian leader Friday said Israel is heading toward annihilation, while also again questioning whether the World War II Nazi extermination campaign against Jews actually occurred.

The State Department says the Iranian president's repeated statements about the desirability of Israel's destruction have to be seen as reflecting Iran's actual intentions, and thus they only add to international fears and concern about what U.S. officials say is Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The comments here follow a speech by President Ahmadinejad Friday in which he depicted Israel as a permanent threat to the Middle East that will soon be eliminated, while also again calling into question the truth of the Nazi Holocaust.

[PaDem]

193. This is music to the Neocons ears (eom)

*

[allisonthegreat]

217. amen..and it's one two three what are we fighting for..eom

[Phoonzang]

212. You just know that in private....

...after a long day of crazy ranting, Karl Rove pulls of the Ahmadinejad mask and has a nice laugh. I mean really, has anyone seen Rove recently? Prove that I'm wrong.. :evilgrin:

[savemefromdumbya]

224. He's a loony

or how much are they paying him to say that?

[Post]

225. The Mullahs Run Iran

This is getting scary. And the NeoConArtists in America aren't helping any. TOny Blair says NO. What a mess! Check it out: http://postanapology.blogspot.com/2006/04/tony-blair-says-no-to-us-on-iran.html#links

[haab]

226. Listen to what Ahmednajid really said.....

The full text of his comments.....

I think with Mullahs in Iran and Fundies in the White House, we have a serious problem... I can't stand the damn rhetoric either!!


Full text of President's address

Tehran, April 14, IRNA

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0604142251205451.htm">www.irna.ir Islamic Republic News Agency


By its unending killings, destruction of homes and farms, encroaching upon sacred places, mosques and churches, unrelenting assaults on residential and non-residential places and targeted assassinations, this regime not only humiliates and disgraces Palestinian people, but also tramples upon the pride and dignity of all Muslims and freedom-loving people of the world.

How long can this situation last and be tolerated?

<<SNIP>>


EXCELLENCIES, DISTINGUISHED PARLIAMENTARIANS AND DEAR SISTERS AND BROTHERS
What I just briefly referred to are some of the dire consequences of the continued existence of this fictitious regime.

The question is: What is the philosophy and reasoning behind establishment and imposition of such a regime by certain Western powers?
Some Western powers admit that they have killed a large part of Jewish population in Europe and founded the occupied regime in order to put right the wrong they had committed.

With deference to all nations and followers of divine religions, we are asking if this atrocity is true, then why the people of the region should pay for it by occupation of Palestinian lands and unending suppression of Palestinian people, by homelessness of millions of Palestinians, by destruction of their cities and rural areas and agricultural lands.

Why should they pay by fire, bullets and imposition of forces? And why should they pay by tolerating occupation of Islamic lands? Are the consequences of the establishment of this regime less than the Holocaust you are claiming?
If there are doubts regarding the Holocaust, there is really no doubt regarding Palestinian disaster and Holocaust. The Holocaust in Palestine has persisted for more than sixty years.


<<SNIP>>


"Peace and harmonious relations can only be based on towhid, human dignity and justice. Oppressions and aggressions are not compatible with human dignity and justice. The Zionist regime is a clear example of oppression and its fundamental nature represents actual and permanent threat. The very purpose behind the establishment of this regime was to put in place a permanent threat in the region. Therefore, the continued existence of this regime is premised on the persistence of this threat. It will have no existence without threat and aggression and it is not inherently capable to survive in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. Even if it manages to remain in one square meter of the Palestinian land, it will continue to be a threat to the region.

"Take a good look at the bullying powers of the world. When it comes to supporting the Zionist regime, they recognize no red line and boundaries for justice, human rights and human dignity. The usurper Zionist regime is the meeting point of the injustices and brutalities of the corrupt bullying powers.

[ckramer]

227. I wouldn't be surprised if Ahmadinejad is a CIA double agent

It's hard for FOX News to report on Iran affair without someone over there stiring things up.

Don't fall for it.

[Strathos]

232. I think it's all talk

to get the U.S. to do something stupid, like Shrub wants to, and then it will be OUR fault for starting World War III.

[happydreams]

233. If true then

Iranians meteorologists rank ours. :bounce:

[Name removed]

236. Deleted message

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

[Moderator]

239. Lock

No longer breaking news, too many flames and personal attacks.