Ahmadinejad: Iran does not intend to wipe out Israel

[-=P=-]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Israel is disintegrating on its own and Iran will not take any act of aggression against it.

"Israel is an illegal regime," said President Ahmadinejad in a Tuesday press conference after a D8 summit in Kuala Lumpur.

"The regime will disintegrate on its own. Since Zionists can no longer sustain themselves, they have been forced to draw attention away from their present situation by blaming Iran," he added.

President Ahmadinejad said that the Islamic Republic has never waged war against any nation and does not intend to do so, adding that Israel is not an exception to this policy.

"Iran has no plans to attack Israel," he said in response to a question about whether the Islamic Republic intended to destroy Israel and to wipe out the Jewish people.

The Iranian president expounded that Jewish people amicably live in the Islamic Republic, are free to practice their religion, and despite being a small minority have a representative in the Iranian Parliament.

President Ahmadinejad asserted that the Israeli regime thrives on 'invading and threatening' regional countries. He reaffirmed that Iranians are fully prepared to defend their territorial integrity and will deliver a crushing response to invaders.

Israel accuses Iran of developing a military nuclear program and has threatened Tehran with the use of force should the Islamic Republic continue uranium enrichment.

According to a New York Times report, Israel staged a military maneuver in early June to prepare for a unilateral air strike on Iranian nuclear sites.

Tehran insists its nuclear program is directed at generating electricity and is in line with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The most recent UN nuclear watchdog report concluded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization in Iran's nuclear facilities.

MD/DT/HGH

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=62989&sectionid=351020101

I just thought this is needed for the forum. Maybe now my Israeli friends here will stop claiming Iran wants to nuke Israel/start a new holocaust. No lost in translation anymore just simply the official line of Iran, nothing more, nothing less.

[wildcat]

Just the games they play. I image weeks from now he will say something else, guess he must be feeling the heat, feeling that people don't trust him, and now he is a little worried.

[Kaapeli]

Why wont he just shut up already.
The rest of the world stays on it's toes as long as Iranian leaders keep making these veiled threats.

[Sanat-e-naft]

Iran never had any intention of attacking Israel. Ahmaghi-nejad simply says most things for internal or ME consumption, and they eat it up. However, the real Iranian regieme (Khomenei, Rafsanjani, etc) have no intention of going the way of the dodo (or Saddam), and therefore would NEVER attack Israel first. They arent crazy, they are greedy. The reason most people outside Iran think they are crazy is because they dont know how the Mullah's are. They are greedy as hell, that drives them more than anything, not religious fervor. They use Islam as a crutch, and a way to justify their arguments and oppressive ways. But, most of the big dogs are pragmatic and politically savy.

[Laworkerbee]

"Iran has no plans to attack Israel"

Because it doesn't have the capability of doing so, what a newsflash!

[Kaapeli]

Iran never had any intention of attacking Israel. Ahmaghi-nejad simply says most things for internal or ME consumption, and they eat it up. However, the real Iranian regieme (Khomenei, Rafsanjani, etc) have no intention of going the way of the dodo (or Saddam), and therefore would NEVER attack Israel first. They arent crazy, they are greedy. The reason most people outside Iran think they are crazy is because they dont know how the Mullah's are. They are greedy as hell, that drives them more than anything, not religious fervor. They use Islam as a crutch, and a way to justify their arguments and oppressive ways. But, most of the big dogs are pragmatic and politically savy.

They aren't going to attack Israel directly. That would be almost suicidical because Israel is militarily more capable even by itself and there's always the risk of US involvement.
But making constant threats, playing with nukes and supporting terrorists forces Israel, it's allies and the UN on the defensive even if a direct attack would be extremely unlikely.
It's like pointing a gun at someone. Even if you aren't going to use it the person in the wrong end has to take the threat seriously.

[WarDancer]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=62989&sectionid=351020101

I just thought this is needed for the forum. Maybe now my Israeli friends here will stop claiming Iran wants to nuke Israel/start a new holocaust. No lost in translation anymore just simply the official line of Iran, nothing more, nothing less.

So, is he lying now or was he lying then when he in fact threatened to "erase the zionist regime from the face of the earth"?

[-=P=-]

@WarDancer

Whatever he said, this is his line provided to you by his own media, what do you want more?

[Mr.Flint]

That speech was quite obviously made, to rectify the political blunder of his previous speeches, and is for the consumption for clueless people like -=P=-.
Iran made itself an enemy of Israel, Iran attacked Israel (pardon me for not subscribing to the silly view, that Hezzies are not Iran) not vice versa.

[Laworkerbee]

Iran made itself an enemy of Israel, Iran attacked Israel (pardon me for not subscribing to the silly view, that Hezzies are not Iran) not vice versa.

Exactly, your countries have been in a state of war for quite some time now.

[TheArmenian]

So, is he lying now or was he lying then when he in fact threatened to "erase the zionist regime from the face of the earth"?

Since the "Islamic Revolution" every Iranian leader has been chanting death to America, death to Israel, death to the big satan... They have been doing that for 30 years and they will keep doing it for a loooong period of time. It is just words. It has the same meaning as "we condemn US or Israeli policy over this and that..."

Words are just words. Everybody has a different way of saying it.

It is not WHAT YOU SAY that matters,
It is WHAT YOU MEAN that does matter.

[Sanat-e-naft]

If Hezbollah is the same as Iran, then following the same "logic"; were the Muj the same as the US?

[Hollis]

I think it may be prudent and see what is said next. Maybe this is a change in policy/direction. I would like to take it as a plus, but Ahmadinejab's past comments seems contradict this one. Iran, maybe is beginning to understand it has more options then they have been currently employing. If that is the case, then this could be a plus, in that it can reduce tensions leading to a more peaceful solution than what many people are speculating what will happen.

[Laworkerbee]

Since the "Islamic Revolution" every Iranian leader has been chanting death to America, death to Israel, death to the big satan... They have been doing that for 30 years and they will keep doing it for a loooong period of time. It is just words. It has the same meaning as "we condemn US or Israeli policy over this and that..."

Words are just words. Everybody has a different way of saying it.

It is not WHAT YOU SAY that matters,
It is WHAT YOU MEAN that does matter.

Death to America: U.S. Embassy in Tehran is over run and employees are humiliated for 444 days; Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut; Bombing of USMC and French barracks in Beirut; Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait; The kidnapping and murder of CIA Station Chief William Buckley; Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut; Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221; Hijacking of TWA Flight 847.

So just what are you getting at then? Shall I cover Death To Israel in my next post

[wildcat]

Iran can keep playing this flip flop games, But it does not change the fact, they cannot be trusted with Nukes period. Does not matter what he say, did he also say he will turn the gulf to fire if attack in the last couple of days, this guy needs to sit back, relax and take some serious Prozac.

[TheArmenian]

Death to America: U.S. Embassy in Tehran is over run and employees are humiliated for 444 days; Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut; Bombing of USMC and French barracks in Beirut; Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait; The kidnapping and murder of CIA Station Chief William Buckley; Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut; Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221; Hijacking of TWA Flight 847.

So just what are you getting at then? Shall I cover Death To Israel in my next post

"Lets nuke them"
"Lets turn their ****hole country to radiactive waste"
"Lets bomb them to the stone age"

In what way are the above slogans diferent from the chantings of the Ayatollahs?

Do you get it now?????

[Laworkerbee]

"Lets nuke them"
"Lets turn their ****hole country to radiactive waste"
"Lets bomb them to the stone age"

In what way are the above slogans diferent from the chantings of the Ayatollahs?

Do you get it now?????

It is not the same God damned thing, the United States nor any other Western government doesn't hold official hate rallies, nor will you find any of those quotes being attributed to any Western leader.

Your reaching, badly.

Love how you disregard the Iranian actions I posted above.

[Sanat-e-naft]

There is no need to dwell on what happened in the 80's. This is a different world, and if we arent careful it will become a whole lot more dangerous. If we deal with what at times are tenuous connections between one government and non-state actors then it is a slippery slope with no real result in the end.

It is my personal belief that Iran is simply buying time to finish it's work. However, IMO Iran is unlikely to test or even acknowledge that it has the weapons or weapon. Iran being a threat to Israel in nuclear terms is laughable. Nobody is going to use nukes... it is too much of a risk, not to mention Iran can keep chalking up wins by having Hezbolah shell Israel for a few weeks, and not cost Iran a thing, and making Israel look like a paper tiger since it cannot substantively respond. Sure, clusterbombs and airstrikes might make the IDF feel good, but the results are what matter. Already Hezbollah has newer rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv, and claims to have tens of thousands of new missiles. Iran doesnt need to go to war with Israel to keep winning PR victories in the ME.

Also, I was reading in this book by Kennith Pollack (whom I am not sure about yet) about how at the time of the revolution Iran had a functional test reactor in Tehran with enough Uranium to make 5 bombs.... which disappeared during the bombing of Tehran, never to be heard of again. Anyone know anything about that?

[Laworkerbee]

There is no need to dwell on what happened in the 80's

I disagree obviously, the men who ordered those atrocities are still running the show, how can you ignore their past and turn a blind eye to it all?

[Arvin]

There is no need to dwell on what happened in the 80's. This is a different world, and if we arent careful it will become a whole lot more dangerous. If we deal with what at times are tenuous connections between one government and non-state actors then it is a slippery slope with no real result in the end.

It is my personal belief that Iran is simply buying time to finish it's work. However, IMO Iran is unlikely to test or even acknowledge that it has the weapons or weapon. Iran being a threat to Israel in nuclear terms is laughable. Nobody is going to use nukes... it is too much of a risk, not to mention Iran can keep chalking up wins by having Hezbolah shell Israel for a few weeks, and not cost Iran a thing, and making Israel look like a paper tiger since it cannot substantively respond. Sure, clusterbombs and airstrikes might make the IDF feel good, but the results are what matter. Already Hezbollah has newer rockets capable of hitting Tel Aviv, and claims to have tens of thousands of new missiles. Iran doesnt need to go to war with Israel to keep winning PR victories in the ME.

Also, I was reading in this book by Kennith Pollack (whom I am not sure about yet) about how at the time of the revolution Iran had a functional test reactor in Tehran with enough Uranium to make 5 bombs.... which disappeared during the bombing of Tehran, never to be heard of again. Anyone know anything about that?


The Shah's secret nuclear program was dismantled by the Islamic Government.

Later in the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam started using WMD against Iranian troops and civilian populations.Wish we would of had nuclear weapons and saved alot of lives and trauma.

But Iran never responded in kind to Iraqi chemical attacks.

[-=P=-]

I think it may be prudent and see what is said next. Maybe this is a change in policy/direction.



I doubt that HOLLiS, this is the official line of Ahmadinejad since he became president.

[Laworkerbee]

I'll never understand why Iran did not respond in kind to Iraq's chemical weapons attacks.

[TheArmenian]

It is not the same God damned thing, the United States nor any other Western government doesn't hold official hate rallies, nor will you find any of those quotes being attributed to any Western leader.

Your reaching, badly.

Love how you disregard the Iranian actions I posted above.


You are missing my point. Nevermind.

As for your Iranian actions...The Embassy hostages taken during the heated revolution (and aftermath) were eventualy released. As for the perpetrators of the other actions, none of them were Iranian citizens. You may argue that they were funded /helped/supported by Iran...Indirectly or proxy (sort of)...

But, on the other hand, the USA directly attacked Iran, sank Iranian navy vessels and killed Iranian citizens...even shot down a civilian Iran air Airbus (try to convince the families of the killed that it was an identification error).

Also, guess whose airforce is making plans to bomb which country's installations nowadays?

In my language we have a saying: "Do not be afraid of the barking dog"

Slogans and speaches are commonplace. Sometimes they are only for internal consumption.

What Ahmadinjad, Bush, Olmert or the teenager on mp.net said is not important. What they mean and intend to do is.

[Snoshi]

Lol P.. So wait.. He made a speech calling for Israel's destruction when even hes own media reported it as one.. And then when he was condemned by all the world countries he just claimed that he was misunderstood and never meant to say it..

[Sanat-e-naft]

I disagree obviously, the men who ordered those atrocities are still running the show, how can you ignore their past and turn a blind eye to it all?


What is the other option? Keep pointing the finger and never move forward? I feel as though that would only lead to a more dangerous world. And one in which no progess is made. At a certain point, as hard as it is, bygones must be bygones, and a better wold must be built for later generations, even if we dont like the idea that the people who funded the operations are still free. Coincidentally, Imad Mugnyeh (sp.) was "Iran's guy" in Lebanon and was one of the closest links to many of the enumerated offenses which were listed. He was killed just this past year. That may be as much justice as we get, but it could be enough to move on a try something different.

The inability to move on is why the ME is so f*cked up in the first place. Israel exists, get over it, move on. And the same could be said for many things such as an inablity to treat Hamas as a political party, or Hezbollah etc.

[Sanat-e-naft]

I'll never understand why Iran did not respond in kind to Iraq's chemical weapons attacks.


Believe it or not it was for Religous reasons. Khomeini said that weapons of mass distruction were "haram" and against the teachings of Islam since they kill indescriminately and en masse. Interesting huh?

[Laworkerbee]

Believe it or not it was for Religous reasons. Khomeini said that weapons of mass distruction were "haram" and against the teachings of Islam since they kill indescriminately and en masse. Interesting huh?

It shows inflexibility, which is pretty much true of all religious types.


What is the other option? Keep pointing the finger and never move forward?

I see your point and know it is the correct path ideally, I just can't fathom being in bed or friends with these types ever. Of Iran's population %70 is under 30 years of age, the revolution and the Iraq war are going to fade in memory, I say we work on them, turning them against the Mullahs, that is my one true hope for Iran. Revolution.

[wildcat]

I'll never understand why Iran did not respond in kind to Iraq's chemical weapons attacks.
Did they even have the means to respond, did they have stock piles of Chemical weapons, this might be the reason, any how I found this nice info

Iran did use limited mustard gas against Iraqi troops

http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-chemicalessay.htm


In September 1980, Iraqi troops invaded Iran, triggering a war that would last until August 1988. During the early years of the conflict, Iran refrained from using chemical weapons against Iraq, reportedly because spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini objected to their use. However, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Iran initiated a chemical weapon development program in 1983 “in response to Iraqi use of riot control and toxic chemical agents” during the war. By 1998, the Iranian government had publicly acknowledged that it began a chemical weapon program during the war. According to the DIA, the program began under the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), with the role of the Ministry of Defense increasing over time. The IRGC, or Pasdaran, is separate from Iran’s regular army. It was established by the revolutionary government to handle internal security functions. U.S. officials credit Iran’s Defense Industries Organization, a part of the Ministry of Defense, with assembling the various elements of Iran’s chemical arms effort.

In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons … [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”

As Iran’s chemical warfare capabilities grew, it became more difficult to determine which side was responsible for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, sandwiched between Iranian and Iraqi forces, was caught in chemical weapon crossfire that left thousands of civilians dead. A 1990 U.S. Department of Defense reconstruction of the Halabja incident reportedly concluded that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in Halabja. Iran allegedly attacked the town with cyanide gas bombs and artillery, and Iraqi forces allegedly used a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents. In total, the Defense Department study estimated that Iranian forces used more than 50 chemical bombs and artillery shells during the offensive. The Pentagon analysis of the Halabja incident is corroborated by a 1990 report co-written by Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In his report, Pelletiere stated that there was “no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.” Because “blood agents were allegedly responsible for…the killing of Kurds at Halabjah,” Pelletiere concluded that “the Iranians perpetrated this attack.”

According to some reports, Iran may have used still other chemical agents during the Iran-Iraq war. In April 1988, a U.N. medical specialist examined several dozen Iraqi soldiers and concluded that they could all have been exposed to mustard gas. In addition, the specialist observed symptoms in a number of patients that indicated possible exposure to “an acetylcholine esterase-inhibiting chemical in small concentrations,” which could suggest the use of a nerve agent. A 1990 DIA study also reported the allegation that Iran used sulfur mustard in some attacks, and concluded that Iran had either purchased the sulfur mustard or produced it on its own. The DIA report added that a “U.N. team that examined Iraqi casualties from Iranian chemical attacks found that some of them displayed the effects of exposure to a choking agent…believed to have been phosgene.” Despite these findings, Iran has yet to acknowledge that it used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

[Laworkerbee]

Armenian

We are not going to see eye to eye, you can't equate the government of Iran with the West as moral equals.

The day we start having public hate rallies, stone women, and hang gays in public squares then you can but not until then.

wildcat12

I don't trust Iranwatch.org's story

Chemical crossfire in Halabjah? I don't think so and those Iraqi troops who were exposed were very small in number and could have very well (and most likely) effected by a wind that changed direction. Iranwatch is reaching.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o265/WDW_Megaraptor/naivete.jpg

[Sanat-e-naft]

Revolution is possible, but very unlikely. The Mullahs will kill every civilian in Iran before giving up power. Our best bet is for change from within the government, think China. I agree, working with the likes of Khamenei leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but it is better than a full on war that could easily know no bounds. And I think most will agree on that.

[SBL]

Believe it or not it was for Religous reasons. Khomeini said that weapons of mass distruction were "haram" and against the teachings of Islam since they kill indescriminately and en masse. Interesting huh?
Ha! That is interesting.

[Laworkerbee]

Revolution is possible, but very unlikely. The Mullahs will kill every civilian in Iran before giving up power. Our best bet is for change from within the government, think China. I agree, working with the likes of Khamenei leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but it is better than a full on war that could easily know no bounds. And I think most will agree on that.

Wallah! I don't see China changing any time soon from the hyper capitalist police state that it is, if anything it is truly creating a new path in an Asian way.

[Sanat-e-naft]

Armenian

We are not going to see eye to eye, you can't equate the government of Iran with the West as moral equals.

The day we start having public hate rallies, stone women, and hang gays in public squares then you can but not until then.


Iranian laws concerning gays and adultery are based on their laws and social norms. While we in the west may not agree with them or find them "inhumane" there are many countries that see the US executing people very inhumane as well. All a matter of perspective. However, I thank god everyday i live in the US and have the freedoms i have come to love. Trying to understand a system co completely foreign to most westerners is like often doomed to failure and misunderstanding.

[Hollis]

I doubt that HOLLiS, this is the official line of Ahmadinejad since he became president.


Maybe it is the wording, but google "Ahmadinejad tirades against Israel" an you find a lot of his statements about the demise of Israel.

Or as you are pointing out, it can be read to be the same as past statements. The Key statement is that Iran is not going to wipe our Israel.

[Laworkerbee]

Iranian laws concerning gays and adultery are based on their laws and social norms. While we in the west may not agree with them or find them "inhumane" there are many countries that see the US executing people very inhumane as well. All a matter of perspective. However, I thank god everyday i live in the US and have the freedoms i have come to love. Trying to understand a system co completely foreign to most westerners is like often doomed to failure and misunderstanding.

I know moral equation between cultures is pointless and actually arrogant, I'm guilty as charged today :|

I just need a cigarette and I'll be back on track, I promise.

[-=P=-]

@Snoshi

I had many discussions with Israelis here when he first said those things, therefore just read the article; everything is clearly said there by himself, direct Iranian-media translation.

Feel good now in your town if you want, or do whatever you want, just confront me never again with statements like "but Ahmadi said he want to kill all Jews", because here he said what he really wants.

[wildcat]

Armenian

We are not going to see eye to eye, you can't equate the government of Iran with the West as moral equals.

The day we start having public hate rallies, stone women, and hang gays in public squares then you can but not until then.

wildcat12

I don't trust Iranwatch.org's story

Chemical crossfire in Halabjah? I don't think so and those Iraqi troops who were exposed were very small in number and could have very well (and most likely) effected by a wind that changed direction. Iranwatch is reaching.

I always find the worst info on the net, I guess that's why they put it there to try to make me a hater, That goodness for MP.net, love this place.

[Snoshi]

@Snoshi

I had many discussions with Israelis here when he first said those things, therefore just read the article; everything is clearly said there by himself, direct Iranian-media translation.

Feel good now in your town if you want or do whatever you want, just confront me never again with statements like "but Ahmadi said he want to kill all Jews", because here he said what he really wants.

Again... You are trying to simplify political speeches.. Ahmadinjead told that he wants to wipe Israel out of the map(same as many Iranian politicians), but when the world opinion hit him he started to try to find the way out and now he makes this speech..

Damn how would you feel if Bush suddenly makes a speech where he says that "Iran needs to be nuked and turned into a desert", but after few days he says that he was misunderstood and makes the new speech where he says that Iran will fall by itself.

[Sanat-e-naft]

I know moral equation between cultures is pointless and actually arrogant, I'm guilty as charged today :|

I just need a cigarette and I'll be back on track, I promise.


Ha, love it bro. Dont worry, just burned-one myself and I am feeling a lot better about the world already. :)

[Laworkerbee]

I always find the worst info on the net, I guess that's why they put it there to try to make me a hater, That goodness for MP.net, love this place.

I know that article because I referenced that site before searching the web for any evidence of Iranian CBW attacks, I will never trust another thing from that "Curveball" website again.

[Erik Sleivöks]

The problem is rather that the regime very much needs enemies (who else would there be to blame for all the mess in Iran), and Israel, the US, and anybody else who dares to say the truth is obviously the perfect enemy.

In reality Iran have no whatsoever intentions of attacking anybody, but the “slogans” have been used for 30 years and are not so easy to get rid of.
It is actually unthinkable that an Iranian authority makes a speech or statement to the Iranians (in whatever circumstances) without claiming death to the “Zionist regime”.
It is pure BS and everybody knows is, but that is how things are.

It is all about maintaining the current regime in place, and the whole thing is more an internal, domestic political affair rather than an international issue.

[-=P=-]

@Snoshi

If Bush would say that he was misunderstood and clears his point it would be poor to use that statement against him like pulling the trigger.

Olmert was also misunderstood when he said Israel is a nuclear power and because he corrected that statement it would make no sense in a serious discussion to use that as argument.

[Arvin]

Did they even have the means to respond, did they have stock piles of Chemical weapons, this might be the reason, any how I found this nice info

Iran did use limited mustard gas against Iraqi troops

http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wmd-chemicalessay.htm


Yes we did have the means.Nice link from Iranwatch.Ahh that made my day.

[Tareece]

Since the "Islamic Revolution" every Iranian leader has been chanting death to America, death to Israel, death to the big satan... They have been doing that for 30 years and they will keep doing it for a loooong period of time. It is just words. It has the same meaning as "we condemn US or Israeli policy over this and that..."

Words are just words. Everybody has a different way of saying it.

It is not WHAT YOU SAY that matters,
It is WHAT YOU MEAN that does matter.


Nah, actualy its what u DO.....And the regime in Iran has done much to deserve its reputation....

[IDF_TANKER]

I don't follow - so when da Jad says one day he is going to wipe us, and the other day he says he is not, I'm supposed to believe to which one? The one I like most? Sorry, but after Iranian rockets made their way in Israeli sky I tend to incline to the first version.

[markjh]

Here is a list of death to Israel speeches by Achmedjihad: http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf

ORIGINAL
هموثرج زين هنايمرواخ هقطنم رد
يمژر مان هب يفيثك و هايس
ات دنا هدرك تسرد يتسينويهص
هب و دنزادنيب هقطنم مدرم ناج هب
رد ار دوخ ياه تسايس نآ هناهب
.دنربب شيپ هنايمرواخ

TRANSLITERATION
Dar mantaqe-ye Khavar-e
Miyane niz jarsum-e siyah
va kasifi be-nam-e rezhim-e
sahyonisti dorost karde-
and ta be-jan-e mardom-e
mantaqe biandazand va
be-behane-ye an siyasatha-
ye khod-ra dar Khavar-e
Miyane pish bebarand.

TRANSLATION
In the Middle East, they [the
global powers] have created
a black and filthy microbe
called the Zionist regime, so
they could use it to attack
the peoples of the region,
and by using this excuse,
they want to advance their
schemes for the Middle East.

Sounds like he really wants peace with Israel :cantbeli:

[Tareece]

There is no need to dwell on what happened in the 80's. This is a different world, and if we arent careful it will become a whole lot more dangerous.


Afraid we have to "dwell" on that...it teaches us what happened under what circumstances and the reactions to the response.

We struck at "chemicalplants" (milk factories) with tomahawks..and didn't stop 9-11...Now we are involved in a multi-theater Land War and there hasn't been a huge terrorist action in the free world since the subway bombings 3 yrs ago...many have been thwarted and foiled...
The combination of vigilance and taking the war to the enemy is the winning combination.
I am sure we'll be hit at another time. Ofcourse I've been dreading every holiday, big sporting event or huge national treasure monument or symbol ever since 9-11....
You have to remember the past in order to learn from it.

[Kaplanr]

@Snoshi

I had many discussions with Israelis here when he first said those things, therefore just read the article; everything is clearly said there by himself, direct Iranian-media translation.

Feel good now in your town if you want, or do whatever you want, just confront me never again with statements like "but Ahmadi said he want to kill all Jews", because here he said what he really wants.

. . . today, or as of whenver he made the speech, and for whichever audience he was addressing. I'm not convinced he's a candidate for merit badges and feel-good bear hugs. I also don't want to see a pre-emptive attack on Iran, I don't think it would succeed vis-a-vis the expected risks.

I honesttly believe he's a latter-day Nasser circa 1966-1967, shooting off his mouth for the benefit of the "street" and to distract people from his own failings as President. Nasser learned the hard way that Israel's government doesn't have a lot of capacity for bluffs and legitimate causus belli (closing the Straits of Tiran.) Personally i don't think either the US or israel will strike Iran, it's all so-much sabre-rattling, too much of it from dolts like Foud Ben-Elieazar, Shaul Mofaz and US neocons. I wouldn't be surprised though if Achminajihad's plane fell from the sky or his limo's brakes failed at high speed.

It's a real shame for Iran that its President spends so much time worrying about goings-on so peripheral to Iran and its citizens.

[sinophile]

What he says is almost totally irrelevant.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1944/who-rules-iran

from armscontrolwonk.com

Who Rules Iran? (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1944/who-rules-iran)

posted Tuesday July 8, 2008 under iran (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/category/iran/) by andy_grotto (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/author/andy_grotto/)
A few weeks ago I attended a day-long pow-wow here in DC on U.S. policy towards Iran. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, (http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/mborouje/) an associate professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University and director of its Middle Eastern Studies Program, gave an incisive, thought-provoking presentation on the structure and varied preferences of the Iranian government and its constituent actors. He has graciously agreed to share his PowerPoint slides (http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/files/BoroujerdiTheViewFromTehran.ppt) (edited a wee bit for public release) with Wonk readers. Definitely worth a look.

[LEB101]

iran and all its leaders and mullahs are a joke they are like a circus

[bugkill]

Guys, please open your eyes. It would be suicide for Iran to attack Israel, we know it and they know it. There is nothing to gain for Iran to attack Israel, and the perfect example of what would happen to them if they did, is when Iraq invaded Kuwait. All this stuff is about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, not to attack Israel with it, but it would strengthen their stance in the region, which is something we do not want them to have.

The crap that Saddam pulled against Kuwait has been used as a propaganda tool against Iran. To make it seem that they are fanatical enough or is looking to create a new persian empire, when we all know that it is virtually impossible for that to happen. There would not be any BS nation building or precision airstrikes like we did in Iraq, Iran would be simply destroyed and then conquered. Iran knows this and they are not stupid. They are not some radical terrorist group looking for a quick way to allah, but they are nation that is trying their best to be more powerful in the world, and does that remind you of a certain country that has benefited from doing such things in the past?

[IDF_TANKER]

Guys, please open your eyes. It would be suicide for Iran to attack Israel, we know it and they know it. There is nothing to gain for Iran to attack Israel, and the perfect example of what would happen to them if they did, is when Iraq invaded Kuwait. All this stuff is about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, not to attack Israel with it, but it would strengthen their stance in the region, which is something we do not want them to have.

The crap that Saddam pulled against Kuwait has been used as a propaganda tool against Iran. To make it seem that they are fanatical enough or is looking to create a new persian empire, when we all know that it is virtually impossible for that to happen. There would not be any BS nation building or precision airstrikes like we did in Iraq, Iran would be simply destroyed and then conquered. Iran knows this and they are not stupid. They are not some radical terrorist group looking for a quick way to allah, but they are nation that is trying their best to be more powerful in the world, and does that remind you of a certain country that has benefited from doing such things in the past?

Makes sense, for most part. However, I'm not sure how Hezbollah fits into your picture.

[Rictor]

I don't follow - so when da Jad says one day he is going to wipe us, and the other day he says he is not, I'm supposed to believe to which one? The one I like most? Sorry, but after Iranian rockets made their way in Israeli sky I tend to incline to the first version.

When Kruschev said that he would bury the West, did anyone suspect he would pre-emptively launch a nuclear attack on the US or Europe?

Hell no. So if the USSR, having military and nuclear parity with NATO, considered it a suicidal move, why wouldn't Iran, which is is far weaker? Why do you believe that an entire nation would invite destruction just to achieve a goal that barely anyone believes in?

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

When Kruschev said that he would bury the West, did anyone suspect he would pre-emptively launch a nuclear attack on the US or Europe?

Hell no. So if the USSR, having military and nuclear parity with NATO, considered it a suicidal move, why wouldn't Iran, which is is far weaker? Why do you believe that an entire nation would invite destruction just to achieve a goal that barely anyone believes in?

What you are saying makes sense, but it assumes that people a) always act rationally and b) are not morons. Neither of these assumptions is always true.

[IDF_TANKER]

When Kruschev said that he would bury the West, did anyone suspect he would pre-emptively launch a nuclear attack on the US or Europe?

Hell no. So if the USSR, having military and nuclear parity with NATO, considered it a suicidal move, why wouldn't Iran, which is is far weaker? Why do you believe that an entire nation would invite destruction just to achieve a goal that barely anyone believes in?

This is exactly the problem - an "entire nation" has no say in a dictatorship. As long as it depends on the fanatic mullahs and the nut case president of theirs (which(the mullahs, the regime) since the Iranian revolution conduct constant terror campaign against us), I'm not going to dismiss these threats as "just talking".

BTW, I'm not so sure that people in the West were so sure there would be no such an attack. Just like Russians.

[khukuri]

http://www.weddix.de/weddix-cms-media/w302_0/weddix-cms-media/catalog/1184802/FlipFlop_gold_500.jpg

[12oclock]

As long as there's a U.S. and U.K. there's an Israel......

[Walker-69]

Ever heard the term plausible deniability? Well maybe that could give some insight into Iranian policies.

There is a power in Iran that wants the destruction of Israel. That means that there will be war no matter what. War sooner, or war later. Just expect war. OK so if the peacelovers in USA decide to pull out all troops, what happens? Iraq will turn into a black hole of ultraviolence and an abattoir. All neighbouring states will be pulled in, more or less. Then the war will have begun.

The war with Iran has already started. Waky-waky! The British Lynx helicopter that was downed in Basra last year, it was shot down by a Strela missile that came from Iran. "They" have pretty much beaten the British in Basra already.

[Laworkerbee]

As long as there's a U.S. and U.K. there's an Israel......

Israel isn't going anywhere regardless of our respective nations foreign policies.

[bugkill]

Makes sense, for most part. However, I'm not sure how Hezbollah fits into your picture.

Yeah, I was mostly discussing Iran, but as far as Hezbollah is concerned, I'm not really sold on them. Hezbollah is a clear threat for Israel, but let's be real about a couple things. Hezbollah has no chance of truly affecting Israel, except in the political arena. You need more than terrorist attacks or limited combat engagements in order to back up your stance of wanting Israel destroyed, and it is my judgement that they do not really mean it.

Hezbollah has power because Israel exists and without Israel, what are they? Power makes the leaders of these type groups drunk. They take the image of Israel and their attacks on the country to get people to support their organization, same thing with Iran. Israel is a easy target because of the past history, but I just laugh whenever I hear some group or a leader of a ME nation talking about getting rid of Israel.

To destroy Israel would mean their destruction, and they all know it, but it is all part of the ME politics. There are some that want to stoke the flames of hatred of Israel in the region, for their own gain. It is not possible for them to attack Israel and still be standing, that is why you see them (the leaders) using pawns to blow themselves up or having Hezbollah get into limited engagements.

[LEB101]

Yeah, I was mostly discussing Iran, but as far as Hezbollah is concerned, I'm not really sold on them. Hezbollah is a clear threat for Israel, but let's be real about a couple things. Hezbollah has no chance of truly affecting Israel, except in the political arena. You need more than terrorist attacks or limited combat engagements in order to back up your stance of wanting Israel destroyed, and it is my judgement that they do not really mean it.

Hezbollah has power because Israel exists and without Israel, what are they? Power makes the leaders of these type groups drunk. They take the image of Israel and their attacks on the country to get people to support their organization, same thing with Iran. Israel is a easy target because of the past history, but I just laugh whenever I hear some group or a leader of a ME nation talking about getting rid of Israel.

To destroy Israel would mean their destruction, and they all know it, but it is all part of the ME politics. There are some that want to stoke the flames of hatred of Israel in the region, for their own gain. It is not possible for them to attack Israel and still be standing, that is why you see them (the leaders) using pawns to blow themselves up or having Hezbollah get into limited engagements.
inshallah soon hezbollah will be delt with not by america or anyone but from the real lebanese we will take the jnoub back and iradicate this terror phenom called hezbollah

[Rictor]

There is a power in Iran that wants the destruction of Israel. That means that there will be war no matter what. War sooner, or war later. Just expect war. OK so if the peacelovers in USA decide to pull out all troops, what happens? Iraq will turn into a black hole of ultraviolence and an abattoir. All neighbouring states will be pulled in, more or less. Then the war will have begun.


Yeah, OK. Sure thing.

If Iran wanted war so badly, they've had 29 years to start it. Why haven't they? Let's say they were busy with Iraq for 8 of those years. That still leaves 1988-2008, a period of 20 years, in which to initiate a war. Why they would choose to do so now, with the US on a hair's trigger, is beyond me.

[IDF_TANKER]

Yeah, I was mostly discussing Iran, but as far as Hezbollah is concerned, I'm not really sold on them. Hezbollah is a clear threat for Israel, but let's be real about a couple things. Hezbollah has no chance of truly affecting Israel, except in the political arena. You need more than terrorist attacks or limited combat engagements in order to back up your stance of wanting Israel destroyed, and it is my judgement that they do not really mean it.

Hezbollah has power because Israel exists and without Israel, what are they? Power makes the leaders of these type groups drunk. They take the image of Israel and their attacks on the country to get people to support their organization, same thing with Iran. Israel is a easy target because of the past history, but I just laugh whenever I hear some group or a leader of a ME nation talking about getting rid of Israel.

To destroy Israel would mean their destruction, and they all know it, but it is all part of the ME politics. There are some that want to stoke the flames of hatred of Israel in the region, for their own gain. It is not possible for them to attack Israel and still be standing, that is why you see them (the leaders) using pawns to blow themselves up or having Hezbollah get into limited engagements.

OK, but I was more referring to Hezbollah in the Iranian context.


To make it seem that they are fanatical enough or is looking to create a new persian empire, when we all know that it is virtually impossible for that to happen.

What would be the Hezbollah purpose other than to "create a new Persian empire"? So yeas, I don't think that creation of Persian empire per-se (as one huge state stretching from Iran to Lebanon) is possible, but clearly their support for Hezbollah is part of their attempt to establish the broader Iranian influence in ME using their natural allies Shias(/Alawits) as their local proxies (and only G*d knows what nuttish mullahs envision in their wet dreams). There are analysts who identify an Iranian "empirialistic" geopolitical formation called the Shia Crescent, that is Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. In this context Israel is nothing but pawn used for strenthening the Shia(Iranian) grip of Lebanon, and the war in Iraq is the golden opportunity for mullahs to get a better grip of this part of the Crescent.

[Rictor]

A new Persian Empire? I can hardly think of anything for ridiculous. How can intelligent and informed people bring themselves to believe such outlandish fantasies.

1. Persians constitute about 50% of the Iranian population. So 35 million people. In any sort of expanded "empire", with even more non-Persians thrown into the mix, they would be the minority.

2. The Islamic Republic actively discourages Persian identity because it is an competitor to Iran's Islamic identity.

3. The Shia in Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria are all Arabs, not Persians.

4. The Gulf states hate and fear the Persians. They (Gulf Arabs) wield enormous power, and the last thing they want is an Iranian empire.

5. A Shia empire would potentially include Azerbaijan, which Russia would never allow.

[Walker-69]

Yeah, OK. Sure thing.

If Iran wanted war so badly, they've had 29 years to start it. Why haven't they? Let's say they were busy with Iraq for 8 of those years. That still leaves 1988-2008, a period of 20 years, in which to initiate a war. Why they would choose to do so now, with the US on a hair's trigger, is beyond me.

That is actually a very interesting question. Why now? Let's think about it. Did the fall of Saddam have something to do with this?

[Walker-69]

A new Persian Empire? I can hardly think of anything for ridiculous. How can intelligent and informed people bring themselves to believe such outlandish fantasies.


Let's forget about "Persian" then. Let us stick with the idea of the "Shia crescent". I myself call it the Shia Arc, as some other writers do.

OK, I'll toss in one idea that came to mind. Why do the Shias want war now? Maybe because of competition? Al Qaeda view the Shias as heretics. Al Qaeda wants to re-establish the caliphate in Arabia. Maybe the Shia establishment wants to compete with the Salafist Jihad?

Now, for purposes of clarity, let's in one broad simplification compare the two movements to movements within Christianity, I hope that this will not offend any one:

-The Shias are in some ways similar to Catholic Christians.
-The Salafists, or the Wahhabi muslims, are in some ways similar to Protestant Fundamentalist Christians.

This is a very very generalized comparition, and I really hope that I will not offend anyone by comparing Moslem and Christian beliefs.

[IDF_TANKER]

A new Persian Empire? I can hardly think of anything for ridiculous. How can intelligent and informed people bring themselves to believe such outlandish fantasies.

As I said:

So yeas, I don't think that creation of Persian empire per-se (as one huge state stretching from Iran to Lebanon) is possible



1. Persians constitute about 50% of the Iranian population. So 35 million people. In any sort of expanded "empire", with even more non-Persians thrown into the mix, they would be the minority.

British also were minority in their empire, what is your point?


2. The Islamic Republic actively discourages Persian identity because it is an competitor to Iran's Islamic identity.
I'm not sure this argument works in your favor. By emphasizing the Shia Muslim identity they strengthen the common denominator with other Shia.


3. The Shia in Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Syria are all Arabs, not Persians.

True. And somehow it doesn't affect (negatively) their very friendly and tight cooperation with Iran. Apparently Shia common denominator is much stronger than the Arabic one (see Lebanon civil war).


4. The Gulf states hate and fear the Persians. They (Gulf Arabs) wield enormous power, and the last thing they want is an Iranian empire.

That's correct, so?


5. A Shia empire would potentially include Azerbaijan, which Russia would never allow.
OK, so Azerbaijan is not part of Iranian sphere of influence, so?

Again, I'm not saying that Iranians are building or going to build a new Persian Empire. But they definitely do everything to enlarge and to strengthen their sphere of influence in ME using their natural allies - Shia. Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia are the best example.

[Walker-69]

Again, I'm not saying that Iranians are building or going to build a new Persian Empire. But they definitely do everything to enlarge and to strengthen their sphere of influence in ME using their natural allies - Shia. Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia are the best example.

Dear IDF Tanker, I am not sure whether I disagree with you or not. I think we should focus on the Shia aspect and not on Iran as a country and not on the Persians. This IS a religious war (feel free to disagree, I just want to emphasize my point). It has been said that "Hezbollah are the special forces of the Iranian army", but I think that misses the point. The religious leadership of Hezbollah are in Iran. Also, Muqtada Al-Sadr is in the same boat with Hezbollah: his religious leadership is in Iran.

I have sometimes thought, now if you connect Iran with southern Iraq and then thru Syria and again with Lebanon... you have a land bridge all the way to Israel. I am not sure whether this is the right analysis, though, since I am not a geographist and I don't know all the intricate details of how the Shia are dispersed in Iraq.

Syria is a Sunni nation, but Assad is an Alawite. That is how he connects with the Shia Arc.

It's just a game of connect-the-dots, and we all connect the dots in a different way. Of course we all can not be right.

[IDF_TANKER]

Dear IDF Tanker, I am not sure whether I disagree with you or not. I think we should focus on the Shia aspect and not on Iran as a country and not on the Persians. This IS a religious war (feel free to disagree, I just want to emphasize my point). It has been said that "Hezbollah are the special forces of the Iranian army", but I think that misses the point. The religious leadership of Hezbollah are in Iran. Also, Muqtada Al-Sadr is in the same boat with Hezbollah: his religious leadership is in Iran.

I have sometimes thought, now if you connect Iran with southern Iraq and then thru Syria and again with Lebanon... you have a land bridge all the way to Israel. I am not sure whether this is the right analysis, though, since I am not a geographist and I don't know all the intricate details of how the Shia are dispersed in Iraq.

Syria is a Sunni nation, but Assad is an Alawite. That is how he connects with the Shia Arc.

It's just a game of connect-the-dots, and we all connect the dots in a different way. Of course we all can not be right.

Well, as amateur "analyst" as I am (:)), I don't think that connected dots lead to Israel. I honestly reckon, that Israel is nothing but a scarecrow used by Hezzies/Iranians for pursuing their agenda. We simply do not pose any threat to Iranians, neither we have any disputes (territorial or other).

[Rictor]

But saying that Iran is trying to expand its political, economic and religious influence is like saying that the sun rises in the East. Every nation is trying to do the same.

What I'm claiming is that any sort of Iranian hegemony is absolutely impossible. I don't doubt their intentions, merely their ability to realize those intentions. For every $1 that Iran gives to Hezbollah, the United States gives $10 to Saudi Arabia and $20 to Israel. The "Shia Crescent" is a laughable fantasy. First of all, not all Shia are a single, monolithic block (see Maliki for example). Secondly, the Shia are outnumbered 10/1 by Sunnis, who, even at their mildest, look down on their co-religionists. Saying that Shia can dominate the Middle East is as outrageous as saying that Turkish Kurds can dominate Turkish politics...they're simply too few, too isolated, too poor and too distrusted by the majority. The Middle East is rife with players who are as powerful, if not more so, than Iran.

[Laworkerbee]

Yeah, OK. Sure thing.

If Iran wanted war so badly, they've had 29 years to start it. Why haven't they? Let's say they were busy with Iraq for 8 of those years. That still leaves 1988-2008, a period of 20 years, in which to initiate a war. Why they would choose to do so now, with the US on a hair's trigger, is beyond me.

War doesn't always mean tanks and infantry crossing over a border en mass. Iran has been in a state of war with Israel for years now, it is simply a war by proxy since they currently lack the capability to directly attack Israel. This is a war Iran has chosen to initiate long ago and is government policy.

[Walker-69]

First of all, not all Shia are a single, monolithic block (see Maliki for example). ...The Middle East is rife with players who are as powerful, if not more so, than Iran.

We disagree, but I don't have any problem with that. Maliki seems to me like a "secular" Shia - just as in Saudi Arabia they have the Royals who are of the same faith as Al Qaeda, but still opposed by Al Qaeda.

Now I cannot remember my source, but it was said that the Arabs don't really have power in the Middle East any more. The three centers of power are Israel, Turkey (not Arabs) and Iran. Populationwise, Iran shall in due time go past Russia - it's population is growing fast.

But as time passes, we shall learn more.

Edit: the reference to Arabs not having power, it should have been written that there is not a single Arab entity that would be a very powerful player. Iraq under Saddam was quite powerful. Obviously, there are numerous Arab people spread over many countries, but there isn't a single country that would be powerful over others. We can debate this too and find out facts.

[kamaz]

inshallah soon hezbollah will be delt with not by america or anyone but from the real lebanese we will take the jnoub back and iradicate this terror phenom called hezbollah

are you Sunni?

[IDF_TANKER]

But saying that Iran is trying to expand its political, economic and religious influence is like saying that the sun rises in the East. Every nation is trying to do the same.

What I'm claiming is that any sort of Iranian hegemony is absolutely impossible. I don't doubt their intentions, merely their ability to realize those intentions. For every $1 that Iran gives to Hezbollah, the United States gives $10 to Saudi Arabia and $20 to Israel. The "Shia Crescent" is a laughable fantasy. First of all, not all Shia are a single, monolithic block (see Maliki for example). Secondly, the Shia are outnumbered 10/1 by Sunnis, who, even at their mildest, look down on their co-religionists. Saying that Shia can dominate the Middle East is as outrageous as saying that Turkish Kurds can dominate Turkish politics...they're simply too few, too isolated, too poor and too distrusted by the majority. The Middle East is rife with players who are as powerful, if not more so, than Iran.

Iraq:

There are no official figures available, mainly due to the highly politically charged nature of the subject. Two estimates of the Muslim proportions of the population are:


Shi'a as much as 60%, Sunni about 40% (source: Britannica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannica), Religion section of Iraq article).

Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37% (source: CIA World Fact Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_World_Fact_Book)).

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

Lebanon:

Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a) Muslims are 35%[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon#cite_note-6) of the total population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon

In Syria Alawits are minority but they are the ruling minority.

I'm not seeing the Shia Crescent as a given fact, but I wouldn't dismiss it too fast either.

[IDF_TANKER]

We disagree, but I don't have any problem with that. Maliki seems to me like a "secular" Shia - just as in Saudi Arabia they have the Royals who are of the same faith as Al Qaeda, but still opposed by Al Qaeda.

Now I cannot remember my source, but it was said that the Arabs don't really have power in the Middle East any more. The three centers of power are Israel, Turkey (not Arabs) and Iran. Populationwise, Iran shall in due time go past Russia - it's population is growing fast.

But as time passes, we shall learn more.

Turkey and Israel are both passive powers. We both have our local problems (Palestinians and Kurds respectively), but we do not have such a far going influence(nor ambitions) as Iran.

[Walker-69]

Turkey and Israel are both passive powers. We both have our local problems (Palestinians and Kurds respectively), but we do not have such a far going influence(nor ambitions) as Iran.

Your input is valued and interesting. But you may not realize that the religious institutions in the surrounding countries do not always think so. To many in the Middle East, Israel is the "spearhead of the crusades".

You see, I am an outsider, and from what I have heard, Israel is not perceived as a passive power at all by others in the Middle East. That is curious. To "them", you are an attacker, an invader, an aggressive power. And you are part of the West, you and the Pope and the Danes and USA. You are the bleeding wound in the middle of the Middle East, the beach-head of the greater invasion. Now I may be exaggarating, to an extent... were you exaggarating? (no offense intended)

[Kaplanr]

It's all perception. To go by the accusations of the Arab "street" (and the Iranian President,) you'd think that greedy, imperial, land-grabbing Israel should be the size of Texas or Alaska (or western Europe.) The reality is different - Sinai was surrendered, Gaza evacuated, and we left Southern Lebanon in 2000. Whether Israel should have been there at all, or for 10, 12 or 18 years is another discussion; but it never had the "settlement" component that existed in Gaza or still exists in the WB. '

Whomever said it earlier here had it correct; Israel is the strawman for the Arabs. We're a convenient focal point for a population that is reluctant (or downright resistant) to facing its own problems and shortcomings. IDF Tanker is absolutely correct about Israel, prbably about Turkey too; neither country can project its national intentions much beyond its borders, except in specific, targeted (pun intended) instances. Israel may be able to launch a pinpoint operation in a place 1500km from home, but that isn't the same as the US or even the Germans being able to show the flag for a prolonged period of time.

[Walker-69]

IDF Tanker is absolutely correct about Israel, prbably about Turkey too; neither country can project its national intentions much beyond its borders, except in specific, targeted (pun intended) instances.

Oh, and my intention is not to argue with IDF tanker. It is just that the image of Israel in the eyes of the Arabs is so different. One of their most treasured concepts is the 'Nabka', or 'catastrophy', when they lost their lands to the Jews. I am not here to argue about this issue, I am just saying that the differences in opinion and perception between the two sides are bewildering. You talk about how you gave back the Sinai, how you gave up Gaza, they talk about the 'Nabka' when they lost their lands.

[IDF_TANKER]

Oh, and my intention is not to argue with IDF tanker. It is just that the image of Israel in the eyes of the Arabs is so different. One of their most treasured concepts is the 'Nabka', or 'catastrophy', when they lost their lands to the Jews. I am not here to argue about this issue, I am just saying that the differences in opinion and perception between the two sides are bewildering. You talk about how you gave back the Sinai, how you gave up Gaza, they talk about the 'Nabka' when they lost their lands.

The image of Israel is invariant to whatever we do, as long as this country exists. The very existence of this country as Jewish, western and democratic, is a direct offense to our neighbors. But again, returning to the latest topic of our discussion, objectively, as a democratic country, we simply cannot to afford to ourselves the kind of offensive actions which do not bear the seal of public democratic approval, as actions which are direct response to an immediate and present danger. Sponsoring some militant group, which hassles another country for purely ideological reasons and for establishing influence in some distant region which has very little to do with my clear and vital immediate interests, that's something that a democratic country inherently incapable of doing (superpowers, even democratic ones, would be a bit different matter).

[bugkill]

Oh, and my intention is not to argue with IDF tanker. It is just that the image of Israel in the eyes of the Arabs is so different. One of their most treasured concepts is the 'Nabka', or 'catastrophy', when they lost their lands to the Jews. I am not here to argue about this issue, I am just saying that the differences in opinion and perception between the two sides are bewildering. You talk about how you gave back the Sinai, how you gave up Gaza, they talk about the 'Nabka' when they lost their lands.

I'm not Jewish or a Palestinian, so I will not take sides in this beef between the two. All I know is that my government has a strong relationship with Israel and that they are our allies. The problem with the Palestinians is that they use terrorist actions to make their point, which makes them a enemy in my eyes. If they feel that they have a right to certain lands or that they do not like the Israeli Army in the Occupied Terrortories, there are two ways to make your voice heard.

1. Throw the political arena.
2. Take up arms against the Israeli government forces.

But the #1 rule that you do not break is the targeting and killing of civilians. I do not give a damn about their cause because that is exactly what they do. They need to end their terrorist actions if they want people to feel their pain.

[Walker-69]

I am actually a friend of Israel, unlike many other Finns. I am pro-Israel myself but I am trying to use language that is "politically correct", because this issue overheats very easily and people get angry at each other. Make no mistake, I am a friend of Eretz Israel. I would like to be a friend of anyone on the "other side" also, Arabs, Persians, whatever, but sometimes the ideological differences are overwhelming.

It is true that there are many people in Finland who are anti-Israel, but I am not one of them and I hope that my Jewish friends here on this forum understand this. Also, as a friend of Israel, I perceive a danger to Israel; and of course I am not a prophet, but... well, I think I am right anyways. So that's why I write on this topic. Yes I think there will be more war.