"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation"

[jpg75]

More tolerance of others being displayed by the Islamic Rep. of Iran

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145012468035&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Israel to be 'annihilated': Iran
Apr. 14, 2006. 12:21 PM


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm."

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

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

The president provoked a world outcry last October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?."

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

He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

The president spoke days after two Israeli generals spoke of the military potential of Iran's nuclear program.

The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade."

The day before Ahmadinejad had announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fuelling nuclear reactors or making nuclear bombs.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build an atomic bomb. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

The UN Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.

[spejic]

There has to be some reason why he is being so confrontational on so many fronts. But I can't figure out what he can gain by this game. There is no move he can make where Iran isn't the worst loser among a field of losers.

[jpg75]

There has to be some reason why he is being so confrontational on so many fronts. But I can't figure out what he can gain by this game. There is no move he can make where Iran isn't the worst loser among a field of losers.

It's like he's just asking to get their nuclear facilities attacked so all the Arab states can attack Israel again...and we all know how that'll play out :rolleyes:

[sebakoole]

Iran invented moonbats.

[Iranian Monitor]

There has to be some reason why he is being so confrontational on so many fronts. But I can't figure out what he can gain by this game. There is no move he can make where Iran isn't the worst loser among a field of losers.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18819508-5001028,00.html

Iran dares US to attack

IRAN has said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.

"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.
...
"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.

"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."
...
At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.

And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance".

"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.

"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.

[Matt in the Hat]

There has to be some reason why he is being so confrontational on so many fronts. But I can't figure out what he can gain by this game. There is no move he can make where Iran isn't the worst loser among a field of losers.
It plays well at home. When you president has a pair, he never has to be right because he is strong.

[jpg75]

I don't think you'll see US troops in Iran. Any attack would be an aerial assault and if they wanted to make sure it worked they would need to use tactical nuclear warheads to break the bunkers protecting Irans facilities...

[sahbekham_pactwinner]

It's like he's just asking to get their nuclear facilities attacked so all the Arab states can attack Israel again...and we all know how that'll play out :rolleyes:

Which arab states would attack israel? no arab state will. most of the arab states are friendly with usa. And why wouldnt iran flex its muscle right now since usa is at war in afghanistan and iraq and iran knows that usa has no capability of attacking iran right now.

[jpg75]

Which arab states would attack israel? no arab state will. most of the arab states are friendly with usa. And why wouldnt iran flex its muscle right now since usa is at war in afghanistan and iraq and iran knows that usa has no capability of attacking iran right now.

Syria and Iran. Egypt, KSA, Jordan etc. might be friends with the States, but their relationship with Israel is tenuous.

[Rostam]

There has to be some reason why he is being so confrontational on so many fronts. But I can't figure out what he can gain by this game. There is no move he can make where Iran isn't the worst loser among a field of losers.

The answer lies in the history of the region. In fact, you can find similar leaders in Western history. It's more a political maneuver than a military posturing, although one has to be ready to back his words which he feels he can. But this is his way of gaining "political capital" in Iran, ME, and across the world amongst [at least some of] those who disagree with US's plan to dominate the world, and unconditional support for Israel, regardless of her policies. His political posturing is to bring back some of the "control" of the region, and its resources, back to its rightful people, instead of foreign entities. The more the "West" confronts him, the more credible his words and cause becometo the ordinary people -- to them it proves the point about foreign interest in "resources", stopping their natural right to progress, and not "spreading democracy". he could use many examples, from current and past, to prove his point if challenged.

The way I see it, he is riding on a white horse.

[Rostam]

Which arab states would attack israel? no arab state will. most of the arab states are friendly with usa. And why wouldnt iran flex its muscle right now since usa is at war in afghanistan and iraq and iran knows that usa has no capability of attacking iran right now.

Although no Arab "state" would attack Israel, one has to take into consideration how fragile and unpopular some of these Arab "states" are amongst their own people and therefore, these "states" are ALWAYS vulnerable to sudden storm in social change, and further the ripple effect in neighboring countries. The situation could easily get out of control cuz many of the "states" have very repressive behaviour at home, and are mostly dictatorial an despotic. The ripple effect would not end with just "revolutions". You have to also consider the unpopularity of American policies in many non-ME countries, and their fragile state of being -- such as some in S. America, parts of Africa (N. Africa as most concern), and crisis in SE Asia along with its moslem populace, plus add to that the uneasiness inside America in itself. There are a lot of ordinary people that are against Bush's foreign policies. Add to all this the economic side effects. Hope it helped seeing the bigger picture.

[Scarecrow]

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,18819508-5001028,00.html

Seems like others have made similar statements, Hitler, Tojo, Saddam, the list goes on. Just a bunch of words from someone who has no hope of actually backing them up.

But if they are so sure of themselves, let them make the first strike. They sure do talk tough for a nation whose military couldn't win an 8 year war with a weak country like Iraq.

[sahbekham_pactwinner]

Although no Arab "state" would attack Israel, one has to take into consideration how fragile and unpopular some of these Arab "states" are amongst their own people and therefore, these "states" are ALWAYS vulnerable to sudden storm in social change, and further the ripple effect in neighboring countries. The situation could easily get out of control cuz many of the "states" have very repressive behaviour at home, and are mostly dictatorial an despotic. The ripple effect would not end with just "revolutions". You have to also consider the unpopularity of American policies in many non-ME countries, and their fragile state of being -- such as some in S. America, parts of Africa (N. Africa as most concern), and crisis in SE Asia along with its moslem populace, plus add to that the uneasiness inside America in itself. There are a lot of ordinary people that are against Bush's foreign policies. Add to all this the economic side effects. Hope it helped seeing the bigger picture.

Everything that u have stated is a possibility............ but a very slim possibility. In my view saudi arabia is very stable. They have a very efficient security which was shown by their capture of almost all the persons they had listed as terrorists. And in toppling governments such as saudi arabia has a very very low chance of that happening.

So if iran does gets attacked ( which i think wont be happening), it has to deal by itself. And about syria, i dont think they have good military and sophisticated weapons. Unless china and russia does something about it, iran has to face the war alone.

[Rostam]

Everything that u have stated is a possibility............ but a very slim possibility. In my view saudi arabia is very stable. They have a very efficient security which was shown by their capture of almost all the persons they had listed as terrorists. And in toppling governments such as saudi arabia has a very very low chance of that happening.

One could argue over the "probability" of such events, but from my readings, it doesn't seem like House of Saud is very liked or democratic. Again, social dynamics can change and spin out of control quite rapily inany of those countries. Most US planners know and consider that.



So if iran does gets attacked ( which i think wont be happening), it has to deal by itself. And about syria, i dont think they have good military and sophisticated weapons. Unless china and russia does something about it, iran has to face the war alone.

I am sorry if my message came across the wrong way. I have no proof to lay on the table, but I don't think any Iranian would be banking on any of those as part of the plan-- specially a country like Saudis that financed the last war against Iran. My comment was about the possibility of booty changing hands. :D

[spejic]

But this is his way of gaining "political capital" in Iran, ME, and across the world amongst [at least some of] those who disagree with US's plan to dominate the world, and unconditional support for Israel, regardless of her policies.But this doesn't make sense. He doesn't need political capital because he was just elected and he is pretty popular. And he isn't about to do anything that requires a special amount of support above and beyond what he has.

Because any such action would be stupid.

[Iranian Monitor]

While Ahmadinejad's rhetoric feeds well into the anti-Iran propaganda in the West, it helps Iran with anti-Western forces in the region.

Since Iran has decided that it cannot and will not appease the West and a collision (economic or possibly military) is likely regardless as long as Iran sticks to its nuclear plans, it has been trying to strengthen its hand elsewhere. That elsewhere has been in part in the "Arab street" as well as with anti-Israeli Arab groups supported by Iran.

Any military operation against Iran is made infinitely more complicated if the US is denied platforms within the region. Arab countries in the region are far less likely to support US plans against Iran if their own constituencies are rallied to Iran's cause.

If there is war, moreover, it will be war that will involve many theaters: Iraq (Iraqi shias: SCIRI-Badr Brigade as well as the Mahdi Army, along with some pro-Iranian Iraqi Kurdish groups), Afghanistan (shia Hazzars, Persian speaking Tajiks etc), Syria (Alawite Asad regime)-Lebanon (Hezbollah)-Palestine (Hamas), Persian Gulf and the Arab sheikdoms there (shias in Bahrain and Eastern Saudi Arabia as well as facilities within Iran's range), the Caucasus (especially Azerbaijan, with Iran having levers through the shia Azeris as well as the Persian speaking Talesh groups), Central Asia (Persian speaking Tajiks in Tajikistan especially) as well as ripples being felt from south Asia to the Balkans. With some of these groups, Iran relies on old Iranian nationalist sentiments and shared cultural roots, with others Iran relies on shared shia faith, and yet within the larger mosaic of politics in the region, Iran uses the anti-Israeli card.

That is the kind of war Iran is preparing for and this kind of war requires that Iran use the cards that Western antagonists find most appealing. In many of these areas, there is no card as appealing as the anti-Israeli one.

[Rostam]

And he isn't about to do anything that requires a special amount of support above and beyond what he has.



By his solemn duty, he is entrusted to defend his country against any threat. The biggest superpower in the history of the world is making statements of nuclear threat. I would say that's pretty big.

[Scarecrow]

By his solemn duty, he is entrusted to defend his country against any threat. The biggest superpower in the history of the world is making statements of nuclear threat. I would say that's pretty big.


I would like to see a direct quote where Nuclear Weapons are going to be used against Iran.

Iran has not made any statements about using nukes either, however they have made some not so very subtle or veiled threats towards Israel in regards to wiping them off the map and them facing annihilation.

[RichardL]

While Ahmadinejad's rhetoric feeds well into the anti-Iran propaganda in the West, it helps Iran with anti-Western forces in the region.

Since Iran has decided that it cannot and will not appease the West and a collision (economic or possibly military) is likely regardless as long as Iran sticks to its nuclear plans, it has been trying to strengthen its hand elsewhere. That elsewhere has been in part in the "Arab street" as well as with anti-Israeli Arab groups supported by Iran..

So what should Iran do to prevent war?


How is quoting someone propaganda? Are you saying he's been misquoted? And if so, what is he really saying?

[Rostam]

I would like to see a direct quote where Nuclear Weapons are going to be used against Iran.

Iran has not made any statements about using nukes either, however they have made some not so very subtle or veiled threats towards Israel in regards to wiping them off the map and them facing annihilation.


Well, it started off with calling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil", and then shortly after asserting "Evil will be eradicated". Later on, more statements such as "All options remain on the table" coming from different people, including Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Another comment about using the so called "tactical" nuke. Imagine, God forbid, if there is a war, and starts off with "tactical nuke", and how is it supposed to end???? That's WWIV to me. I think all the non-sense threatening talks should end from both sides.