Iranian Leader: Israel Will Be Destroyed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel

What a bunch of frickn' morans. If they try to destroy Israel, they will destroy themselves 10 fold

Here.

I was wondering if all posts on the subject we're ironic. No offense I'm still green around the gills on the subject and I thought I was being "cool", obviously not huh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=31755&mesg_id=31769

First, thank you for the opportunity to say that... "Hello Dirtbag." I bite my tongue from saying it most of the day to my colleagues and students.

Now, let's discuss this spaghetti monster. What are those two round things? Meatballs? Testicles?

When he actually touched Adam and gave him life, did he also impart a deep-seated need for pasta?

You can get yourself some enemies that way.

Incidently, they didn't just say attack they said wipe it off the face of the earth!!! Big difference

Try to imagine what the US would do if some country one tenth its size threatened to destroy important elements of our infrastructure such as military bases. We wouldn't be happy. Probably Iran isn't either. What if the little country's friend (which had invaded our country's neighbor) was known to have supplied the little country with the bombs needed to carry out their threat ?

Still don't get it ? You may be suffering from Euro-centrism, an inability to see things from the dark man's point of view.

Iran was attacked by Iraq at the behest of the US (and I'm guessing Israel). Their elected leader was overthrown and replaced by a US stooge. Now the US (and Israel) are "keeping the military option on the table". Threats of violence can result in - yes, threats of violence and calls for the destruction of the enemy. It's not surprising.

you must be Euro-centric? :shrug: This hate has gone on for quite a while and has very deep roots. A lot of them are religious.

My point was not to criticize the poster, but to describe what I believe is a wide-spread syndrome, i.e. the tendency to ignore the reality of others' perceptions. I see it over and over and over. The idea that we could waltz into someone else's country and be welcomed as liberators (having spent the last 12 years bombing and starving the inhabitants). The idea that the Middle East should be some type of canvas for utopian dreams such as democracy. The unwillingness to believe that people of other countries would be willing to fight and die for their independence from the US/Israeli borg.

Are you saying that they hate Israel for its religion (and not its policies or effect on the world) ? What is your evidence for that belief ?

middle east have caused turmoil for ages. This hate is much more deeply rooted than just hate for their policies. It is a combo of a lot of things.

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

People are so STUPID and it sounds like *bush with an accent and a different country to destroy.

in this country who want to see armagadon

Low level thinking will always give us the extremists. The power hungry, b.s. thinking a**hats. :eyes:

Then I saw it's the fucking PRESIDENT. The one that was elected a few months ago.

Nuts! Although if he's going for the "most batshit crazy head of state" spot, he's no chance agains Turkmenistan's.

He's a little disturbed, that Turkmen fellow.

fsc

Sounds like propaganda to me. Timing is curious as well.

It adds nothing to the peace process, or having the Plaestinains have a state

Fundamentalist assholes

They're Persians (or Iranians, whichever you prefer). Fundamentalist insanity, yes, but it's nothing to do with "typical Arab" anything.

... to the US. Israel is used to this sort of rhetoric, especially from post-Shah Iran, but the Bushies will eventually use it as a justification for further action. It's more provocative than recent comments from Iran, but, unfortunately, it will simply mean more problems for Palestinians, in both the Gaza and the West Bank, and give the Bushies yet another excuse to go a-bombing. *sigh*

Iran won't be winning any international points with this one.

Israel can defend itself quite well

In fact the U.S. better physically stay out of it. I guess it could be brought up to the U.N., but I don't think it would do any good

Incidently, this is the group that will eventually control Iraq

Good job bushy boy

... need to do anything. What will it actually do? Promote this as a clear threat against an ally, and then build support for attacking Iran on that basis (or worse, simply start the bombing by saying intelligence showed evidence of Iran acting as an imminent threat to "peace in the region"--a rather nebulous, but effective, phrase).

The current president of Iran has consolidated his power base internally by harkening back to the days of Khomeini and promising to crack down on religious liberalism in the country. This kind of rhetoric is all of a piece with that internal program, but I doubt that Ahmadinejad has considered that it will be used against Iran when the US decides to act. Khomeini did the same thing in the early years of his control of Iran as a means of building nationalism and support for an Islamist revolution inside Iran.

What Ahmadinejad does not realize, I think, is that he's not dealing with the Carter administration, or the Reagan administration giving help to Iraq on the sly during the Iran-Iraq war all the while supplying Iran with weapons, so the two countries could beat themselves into the ground. It's a different time and a different bunch in the White House--a bunch that are still champing at the bit for yet another war--along with a president who would be enthusiastic for such if he thought there was something in it politically for himself or his party. What the Iranian president may think is precisely the ticket domestically may bring yet another catastrophe to the region--this time to Iran.

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

what we did in Iraq was NOT "false premises", it was a LIE

It destablized the whole middle east, and frankly the Shiite who probably will eventually control Iraq will align themselves with Iran, thanks to PNAC, and the wonderful assholes in the whitehouse

When we should have been going after the terrorists, instead we invaded another country which had nothing to do with 9/11

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

where bin laden was being harbored instead of screwing up at tora bora.

It was the worst mistake in U.S. history

We should have been working with governments throughout the world, not invading countrys whose governments were NOT involved in 9/11.

The taleban were protecting al queada, saudi arabia is NOT

we should NOT invade countries, but work with them. If we tried to invade every country we felt inclined to do we wouldn't last very long

We should have used intelligence to get the terroists, instead of wasting time on a stupid war which has helped increase the enlistment of the terrorists

...as long as people also admit Pat Robertson is an example of the Christian mindset around the world.

Of course, they would be wiped from the earth if they tried. Typical Iranian bluster.

since bush and company have now muddled the whole war against terrorism by invading Iraq, it is going to take quite a few years to undo the damage they caused

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

Which country has them?

If they had them they would have used them already

In addition, if we had been improving our security at home and abroad, and working with other countries, it would have been under control

This is the typical fear that is used to justify the patriot act and any preemtive action we desire

A better solution is protecting your borders, and improving your intelligence. If we were working with other countries instead of as an antagonist this would be far less of a problem.

In fact, if we were working toward energy independence we could tell the whole middle east to go to hell

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

You know, more stringent rules for fuel efficiency, more public transportation, more research into organic (i.e. growable) fuels and solar...

You know, liberal solutions.

including nuclear. Incidently, there are more possibilities than what you just named. We should be leaders in the hybrid and fuel cell market. I know most of my associates would not be keen on nuclear energy, but it is a clean viable source. There are issues, but those are definitely workable.

Of course there is solar, wind, and many more. Nothing just be unexplored. That is long term

Most important, people here should learn to conserve, and not waste. Everywhere else in the world they have been doing it.

Acutally we probably agree on more things than we disagree on, including Israel

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

The intelligence on Iraq was falsified intentially. That is an unforgivable sin. Going to war based on a lie.

Congress gave up their authority to declare war, but giving it to the executive branch, that was also unforgivable, yet alone unconstitutional.

But to your specific question about if Iran builds suitcase bombs? That is what we have intelligence for, and you don't have to declare a war to have your operatives do what needs to be done.

Wars are costly, inefficient, and most importantly immoral

What gives us the right to say who can or cannot have nuclear weapons when we have them?

- Hmmm, polls lowering. Perhaps I should raise the minimum wage?
- Are you out of your mind? Do you want me to be able to afford only 57 palaces? Use jingoism, like the Christian dyslexic one does!
- (slaps forehead) D'oh! Of course!

is a CIA OPERATIVE!!! :tinfoilhat: