News Iran calls for Israel's destruction

[Anttech]

They reveal their ideology, their demands and the fact they WILL attack but not the location.

Yeh after the fact, not before...

 

[Curious6]

I hope these comments just intensify the possibility of a US-led invasion of Iran. They deserve it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yeh after the fact, not before...

Well, that becomes immediately apparent when the ambulance turns up.

Terror is the anxiety felt before the attack, hence the definition.

 

[Skyhunter]

I hope these comments just intensify the possibility of a US-led invasion of Iran. They deserve it.

Who are they?

 

[Curious6]

The Iranian theocracy.

 

[Anttech]

I hope these comments just intensify the possibility of a US-led invasion of Iran. They deserve it.

If you invade Iran, you will start ww3 and won't win! period... Nobody will win... I am curious why you think they deserve it? because of there ideological difference?

 

[Curious6]

It's not just an ideological difference. It's naive to think so. Their views on the world is inherently incompatible with Western ideals of democracy and freedom. They are a corrupt nation, potentially very dangerous, and should be dealt with. They are the regressive, stagnant element of a region which seems to be slowly, yet surely progressing.

 

[Anttech]

It's not just an ideological difference. It's naive to think so. Their views on the world is inherently incompatible with Western ideals of democracy and freedom. They are a corrupt nation, potentially very dangerous, and should be dealt with. They are the regressive, stagnant element of a region which seems to be slowly, yet surely progressing.

Sorry but since when were you judge and jurry?

Their views on the world is inherently incompatible with Western ideals of democracy and freedom

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

Iran elects on national level a head of government (the president), a legislature (the Majlis), and an "Assembly of Experts" (which elects the head of state, the Supreme Leader). The president is elected for a four year term by the people. The Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis-e Shura-ye Eslami) has 290 members, elected for a four year term in multi- and single-seat constituencies. All candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council.

I thought Iran was a Democracy? Maybe I am wrong but when the people deside on there government they want via voting it is deemed a democracy? Or is it only a Democracy when they vote in a "Pro-Western" style goverment!

They are a corrupt nation, potentially very dangerous, and should be dealt with

Some people say that about many western goverment, especially the US Goverment right now

Iraq is ALSO turning into a Theocracy... An American Backed Theocracy.

The US failed in Iraq I would bet against them failing in Iran...

Can I ask you what you believe spilling more Blood in Iran will acheive?

[edit] I'll admit they anything but a perfect democracy, but spilling blood won't help [/edit]

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I thought Iran was a Democracy? Maybe I am wrong but when the people deside on there government they want via voting it is deemed a democracy? Or is it only a Democracy when they vote in a "Pro-Western" style goverment!

Correct. It's only a democracy if the election is rigged.

 

[Skyhunter]

The Iranian theocracy.

Invading Iran will just make it worse. The Iranian people don't want a theocracy. Let them sort it out for themselves.

You should read the history of Persia, especially from WWII on. Iran had a Democratically elected government and the CIA overthrew it and installed the Shah. When the people overthrew the Shah they did not want a Theocracy, but that is what they got. I know Persians who were students and took part in the revolution against the Shah of Iran. They were horrified, when the Ayatollah took control.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It's not just an ideological difference. It's naive to think so. Their views on the world is inherently incompatible with Western ideals of democracy and freedom. They are a corrupt nation, potentially very dangerous, and should be dealt with. They are the regressive, stagnant element of a region which seems to be slowly, yet surely progressing.

I guess America and the UK should have left the democratically elected president in charge of Iran in the 50's then.

Or were you aware they overthrew him and restored a dictator to the throne?

Look up Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh when you have a chance and question why now it is important to put democracy in place in the ME when ther already was one but it was deemed 'inconvenient' in the past and eventually formented the revolution you're dealing with now.

 

[Curious6]

Yes, I knew about the US-backed Shah, how the Islamic Revolution overthrew him in 1979 and established the theocratic state of Iran, etc...Now, the history of Iran is doubtlessly interesting and intriguing yet the issue we should consider here is the state it is in now. Iran hardly qualifies as a democracy; ayatollah Khomeini expressly stated the purpose of the revolution was not to establish democracy. Moreover, even though the President of Iran is elected by universal suffrage (the veracity of the results obtained via these elections should be scrutinised; see the post earlier this thread by another user detailing Iran's rigged electoral process), he is in no sense the political and religious leader of the country. The person wielding true executive power is Iran's Supreme Leader. He is chosen from a set of clerical officials. From there the apt label 'theocracy', and the equally suitable name 'Islamic Republic of Iran'.

 

[Anttech]

Is this your reason to invade? Or perhaps you feel they threaten you personally sitting (if you are american) thousands of Miles away on a different Continent?

Are you happy with the outcome of the Iraq war? So much so you want another "result" in Iran?

Please tell me we have at least learned something from the Iraq war.

 

[Polly]

The nice thing about terrorists is you can always trust them to come right out and say what they want. Since they have no sense of morality, they don't attempt to hide their true intentions. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-iran-israel_x.htm

My apologies if this point has already been mentioned *trying to get exposure here *

Why is Iran labelled a terrioist country out right? Is not asymmetric military powress between the two warring parties an implicit condition for the term? Anyway Iran's threat must not be looked at in isolation. In the context of repeated US threat of sanction and likely collaboration with Israel in its strike, the threat is more like a clever act of counter-intimidation.

Done. One more post .

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Yes, I knew about the US-backed Shah, how the Islamic Revolution overthrew him in 1979 and established the theocratic state of Iran, etc...Now, the history of Iran is doubtlessly interesting and intriguing yet the issue we should consider here is the state it is in now.

Yes, the history of Iran IS doubtlessly interesting and intriguing when pondering the question of whether or not western interference is a proven method of improving a country, nay the world.

Moreover, even though the President of Iran is elected by universal suffrage (the veracity of the results obtained via these elections should be scrutinised; see the post earlier this thread by another user detailing Iran's rigged electoral process)

Oh, so it IS a democracy then, in the American sense of the word..!

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

My apologies if this point has already been mentioned *trying to get exposure here *
Why is Iran labelled a terrioist country out right? Is not asymmetric military powress between the two warring parties an implicit condition for the term? Anyway Iran's threat must not be looked at in isolation. In the context of repeated US threat of sanction and likely collaboration with Israel in its strike, the threat is more like a clever act of counter-intimidation.
Done. One more post .

When a country's leader vocally supports terrorist activities in a country they admit to wanting to overthrow, while this may not fit the term 'terrorist' strictly speaking, it's hardly an unfair label.

Hell, under Patriot Acts I & II, you are considered a terrorist for far more tenuous reasons.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, I knew about the US-backed Shah, how the Islamic Revolution overthrew him in 1979 and established the theocratic state of Iran, etc...Now, the history of Iran is doubtlessly interesting and intriguing yet the issue we should consider here is the state it is in now. Iran hardly qualifies as a democracy; ayatollah Khomeini expressly stated the purpose of the revolution was not to establish democracy. Moreover, even though the President of Iran is elected by universal suffrage (the veracity of the results obtained via these elections should be scrutinised; see the post earlier this thread by another user detailing Iran's rigged electoral process), he is in no sense the political and religious leader of the country. The person wielding true executive power is Iran's Supreme Leader. He is chosen from a set of clerical officials. From there the apt label 'theocracy', and the equally suitable name 'Islamic Republic of Iran'.

So are you signed up to go and fight?

 

[Curious6]

I am not American and am busy studying for a bachelor's degree in economics.

 

[Skyhunter]

I am not American and am busy studying for a bachelor's degree in economics.

Oh, my bad.

You just want to reap the economic benefits of an American invasion of Iran.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Now now. Let's keep it nice. Well, nice-ish.

 

[SOS2008]

When a country's leader vocally supports terrorist activities in a country they admit to wanting to overthrow, while this may not fit the term 'terrorist' strictly speaking, it's hardly an unfair label.
Hell, under Patriot Acts I & II, you are considered a terrorist for far more tenuous reasons.

What do Americans say about the ME--to nuke it, to wipe it off the face of the Earth? Or at least a crusade (who said that?).

 

[Art]

It seems to me that Iran is very nervous at this time and like many others expects Bush to launch an invasion before the end of his term in office. Like Sadam before him the Iranian president is trying to create an Arab coalition to resist any US attack and also like Sadam he believes calling for the destruction of Israel will cause other Arab nations to rally to him as it seems to be one of the few things most Arabs agree on.
There is also no doubt an intention to lift the spirits of the Iranian people by this public act of defiance in reaction to the very thinly veiled threats of military force emanating from Washington on an almost weekly basis.

 

[Anttech]

It seems to me that Iran is very nervous at this time and like many others expects Bush to launch an invasion before the end of his term in office. Like Sadam before him the Iranian president is trying to create an Arab coalition to resist any US attack and also like Sadam he believes calling for the destruction of Israel will cause other Arab nations to rally to him as it seems to be one of the few things most Arabs agree on.
There is also no doubt an intention to lift the spirits of the Iranian people by this public act of defiance in reaction to the very thinly veiled threats of military force emanating from Washington on an almost weekly basis.

good insight!

 

[Yonoz]

It seems to me that Iran is very nervous at this time and like many others expects Bush to launch an invasion before the end of his term in office. Like Sadam before him the Iranian president is trying to create an Arab coalition to resist any US attack and also like Sadam he believes calling for the destruction of Israel will cause other Arab nations to rally to him as it seems to be one of the few things most Arabs agree on.
There is also no doubt an intention to lift the spirits of the Iranian people by this public act of defiance in reaction to the very thinly veiled threats of military force emanating from Washington on an almost weekly basis.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

 

[Art]

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

 

[Yonoz]

I find it very hard to believe that you actually agree with what you wrote.
Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy, with a vast history of support of terrorism (even in its most liberal interpretations), nearing the "point of no return" in acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Its current puppet leader, whose victory was assured by Khamenei's and The Guardian Council's vetos in the last election, is calling out for the wiping out of another country. This is the last country on Earth you would want having a nuclear arsenal, and yet it has managed to advance in an astonishing pace, evading all types of international action in a well thought series of lies and manipulations, and now makes an unprecedented threat against another country that your wishful-thinking rationalizes to the point of legitimacy.
I'm sorry I won't be available much for discussion, I have several pressing matters in my personal life. Hopefully there's someone else here who shares my view.

 

[Lisa!]

It's not just an ideological difference. It's naive to think so. Their views on the world is inherently incompatible with Western ideals of democracy and freedom. They are a corrupt nation, potentially very dangerous, and should be dealt with. They are the regressive, stagnant element of a region which seems to be slowly, yet surely progressing.

That's funny. It's like I say youdeserve to die because you're not the way I like. US politician and people who support their policies have a lot in common with Iranian politicians. But hey perhaps they're even better because they don't have the power to do what they want.(who knows perhapps they wouldn't talk in this way if they were powerful enough to reach their goals) You think Iran deserve to be invaded, because it's an evil nation. They think the same of Israel because they think Israel is an evil country. You people drive me crazy. You still want to solve the problem with war and violence. That's the way animals solve their problems, but we're humans after all. Oh yeah, if you notice, most of time people who oppose each other, usually think the same way.

 

[Art]

I find it very hard to believe that you actually agree with what you wrote.
Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy, with a vast history of support of terrorism (even in its most liberal interpretations), nearing the "point of no return" in acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Its current puppet leader, whose victory was assured by Khamenei's and The Guardian Council's vetos in the last election, is calling out for the wiping out of another country. This is the last country on Earth you would want having a nuclear arsenal, and yet it has managed to advance in an astonishing pace, evading all types of international action in a well thought series of lies and manipulations, and now makes an unprecedented threat against another country that your wishful-thinking rationalizes to the point of legitimacy.
I'm sorry I won't be available much for discussion, I have several pressing matters in my personal life. Hopefully there's someone else here who shares my view.

Perhaps somebody else here does but the Jerusalem Post doesn't.

Venomous rhetoric against Israel is not new to Teheran.

The question is: Was this the rhetoric of a political novice or words from a man of action?

The answer is both, but experts say that the Supreme Leader Ali Khameini is not likely to allow the words to translate into missiles on Israel. .....

It was common since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, but not considered problematic by Israel during the 1980s. At that time, Jerusalem saw Teheran as its strategic ally against Baghdad. Israeli decision makers made a clear distinction between rhetoric and action.

In the '90s, Shimon Peres began depicting Iran as a major threat to Israel and Iran ratcheted up the rhetoric.

But when Muhammad Khatami became president in 1997, he put a lid on anti-Israel rhetoric by top officials so that it would not escalate to confrontation.

He was succeeded this summer by Ahmedinejad.

According to an Iranian-American expert on Iranian-Israeli relations, the problem is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a political novice with a streak of ultra-nationalist tendencies.

"I think [Ahmadinejad's statement] certainly is a diplomatic blunder," said Trita Parsi, a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University.

"This is an inexperienced politician who has yet to understand the consequence of his statements,"said Parsi. "That's clear from his statements at the UN, which caused Iran great damage."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1129540612710&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Also correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons which they obtained through a secret weapons program in violation of the UN's nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Israel refused to sign up to?

Whilst on the subject of WMD isn't it also strongly suspected that Israel also has both chemical and biological weapons, produced at the Israel Institute for Biological Research in Nes Ziona?

One of the sources of this information is the 1993 U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment report which recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities. Another is the 190 litres of dimethyl methylphosphonate, a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of Sarin nerve gas discovered in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en-route to Tel Aviv. Don't other ME countries get bombed for that?

Isn't it surprising there is not a call for UN sanctions or military action against Israel given these facts? Can you say double standards?

 

[Anttech]

Perhaps somebody else here does but the Jerusalem Post doesn't.

heh

I'm sorry I won't be available much for discussion, I have several pressing matters in my personal life.

g-luck

 

[Skyhunter]

Now now. Let's keep it nice. Well, nice-ish.

I thought I was being nice-ish.

I didn't say what I really think of people who advocate for war, when they are not planning to fight it themselves.