View Full Version : Iran: Israel should be wiped off map
Gawain of Orkeny
10-27-2005, 02:11
Iran: Israel should be wiped off map
President Ahmadinejad: Establishment of Israel offensive move; Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst
Ynet and agencies
The State of Israel should be wiped off the map, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, underscoring Teheran’s extreme attitude towards the Jewish State.
The Iranian leader's remarks were made during a convention entitled "A World Without Zionists."
“The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move. The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst,” he said.
Lets hope they get nukes as soon as possible.
LINK (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3159691,00.html)
solypsist
10-27-2005, 02:50
seeing as how Israel has nukes*, and will use them as their version of the Final Solution against all Arab countries should Israel be in risk of losing a war of existence, let's hope it's just political rhetoric and nothing more from Iran.
*they acquired nukes via spies in the US - so much for our "allies".
I wonder how an American poll would have turned out about nuking Canada.
If Israel was losing a war and was on the threat of being destroyed, I honestly do think that the United States would intervene and prevent it from happening.
I especially liked this comment from the Iran President
“The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move. The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst,” he said.
Now that seems to be about one of the most idiotic comments I have heard from a national leader.'
Israel as a nation last existed when Islam was not even a religion, or at least that is the history I have read - being that Islam was founded sometime after the foundation of the Christian Religion and Israel was not a nation during that time period. . ~:eek:
I especially liked this comment from the Iran President
Now that seems to be about one of the most idiotic comments I have heard from a national leader.'
Israel as a nation last existed when Islam was not even a religion, or at least that is the history I have read - being that Islam was founded sometime after the foundation of the Christian Religion and Israel was not a nation during that time period. . ~:eek:
I think he means its offical establishment as a country in the late 1940's, which still is incorrect, though. It was an offensive move... the UN pretty much cut the country in half. The arabs followed up by an invasion. If anything, it was defensive.
LeftEyeNine
10-27-2005, 04:01
If Israel was losing a war and was on the threat of being destroyed, I honestly do think that the United States would intervene and prevent it from happening.
That reminds me of general conspiracy theories around..
Whatever the reason would be, you're right with it..
Middle East - where the human life started and where it will end, one friend had said..
Byzantine Prince
10-27-2005, 04:01
Defensive expansionism? ~:confused:
“The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move.", he said.
Now that seems to be about one of the most idiotic comments
Israel as a nation last existed when Islam was not even a religion
How ironic. ~;p
Tribesman
10-27-2005, 12:24
Now that seems to be about one of the most idiotic comments I have heard from a national leader.'
“The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move.
Isn't that exactly the same comment that was made by just about all of the leaders in the region at the time ?
What is idiotic is that he is still saying it nearly 60 years later .
The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst,”
Though of course that part is clearly rubbish and has no relation to facts .
Kaiser of Arabia
10-27-2005, 18:46
Iran wants Israel, they'll need to go through Iraq first. We *already* have men on both sides of their nation, we'd have to mobilize a few hundred thousand more, but they want Israel, Iran will have to be a glowing green radioactive rock before Israel dissappears, I think. Not that I want it to be, I kinda like Iran, it's big, but Israel does have enough nukes to wipe the middle east off of the face of the earth, and if Iran starts somthing, well, I feel bad for dirush (SP).
Tribesman
10-27-2005, 20:00
Iran wants Israel, they'll need to go through Iraq first. We *already* have men on both sides of their nation
Ah .....I see the cunning plan now , by getting America to install an Iranian dominated government in Iraq they are using it as a stepping stone to get closer to Israel while tying down their major opponent in an unending and seemingly unwinnable conflict , at the same time they have secured their rear by removing the threat of the Taliban .
Meanwhile their proxy forces are securing territory both north and south of Israel with "help" from the rest of the world .
Clever buggers them evil mullahs arn't they .
But I suppose you can always rely on your allies in the region , there is that nice dictator to the East , but unfortunately he is having a little problem himself in Baluchistan , not really the best place to mass for an offensive is it , being on the verge of civil war already . The Saudis , yeah they are sure to rush to your aid . Egypt , how much are you paying them not to fight already . Turkey , not bloody likely .
Unfortunately the lunatics are well and truly in charge of the asylum , the asylum is expanding , and the doctors who could be keeping the lunatics in order are now stuck in a straight-jacket that the lunatics made for them .
Divinus Arma
10-27-2005, 20:18
Iran wants Israel, they'll need to go through Iraq first. We *already* have men on both sides of their nation
Ah .....I see the cunning plan now , by getting America to install an Iranian dominated government in Iraq they are using it as a stepping stone to get closer to Israel while tying down their major opponent in an unending and seemingly unwinnable conflict , at the same time they have secured their rear by removing the threat of the Taliban .
Meanwhile their proxy forces are securing territory both north and south of Israel with "help" from the rest of the world .
Clever buggers them evil mullahs arn't they .
But I suppose you can always rely on your allies in the region , there is that nice dictator to the East , but unfortunately he is having a little problem himself in Baluchistan , not really the best place to mass for an offensive is it , being on the verge of civil war already . The Saudis , yeah they are sure to rush to your aid . Egypt , how much are you paying them not to fight already . Turkey , not bloody likely .
Unfortunately the lunatics are well and truly in charge of the asylum , the asylum is expanding , and the doctors who could be keeping the lunatics in order are now stuck in a straight-jacket that the lunatics made for them .
Didn't you ever see the Bush strategy?
TIC TAC TOE!
https://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5929/strategy5ft.png (https://imageshack.us)
Red Harvest
10-27-2005, 20:20
Israel has to consider a first strike on Iran's nuclear program. It worked in Iraq. This time they might have to use "heavier" stuff to pull it off.
A.Saturnus
10-27-2005, 20:39
Could be he´s playing the "I´m a looney"-game. Only, he´s starting early.
Ser Clegane
10-27-2005, 20:52
Could be he´s playing the "I´m a looney"-game.
http://ttkd.homepage.t-online.de/gumb8.jpg
It is just the same old rhetoric. ~:rolleyes:
Ayatollah Khamenei inherited the same stance from the late Ayatollah Khomeini (May God forgive his many sins). When President Ahmadinejad is saying such things, it is certainly with the blessing of Khamenei. Either that or he has gone crazy.
It is unusual for a high-ranking official to say such things publicly, so he is either A) Being defiant in the face of the world, B) pandering to his followers, or C) both.
PanzerJaeger
10-27-2005, 21:34
The United States will not let Israel be destroyed. Of course it will never come down to that as the "President" of Iran is just playing to the comman arab hatred of Jews that resonates in many parts of his country.
If you’re looking for Arabs in Iran, I’ll advice you to look in Khuzestan.
PanzerJaeger
10-27-2005, 22:04
I meant arab in the political sense, ie the Pan-Arab movement.
To be more specific, the President of Iran was playing on the anti-semetic hate that is common among muslims in the Middle East.
AntiochusIII
10-27-2005, 22:37
Israel has to consider a first strike on Iran's nuclear program. It worked in Iraq. This time they might have to use "heavier" stuff to pull it off.Let's hope so. That's probably the best course of action left to contain Iran's expanding influence in the region, thanks to...
But it's going to be very hard, and will cause human right groups a bit of anger with the death of the scientists necessary for the bombing to actually have a long-term effect (the facilities alone could be rebuilt). Let's hope it's not going to end like Carter's. Besides, Israel rarely hesitates historically when its safety is threatened to take a bold action, unlike the Police of the World.
The president is a lunatic, chosen among more than a thousand candidates of lunatics, moderates, and reformers. Great choice from the Supreme Leader there.
Alexanderofmacedon
10-27-2005, 23:03
If Israel was losing a war and was on the threat of being destroyed, I honestly do think that the United States would intervene and prevent it from happening.
As liberal as I am, I have to agree.
bmolsson
10-28-2005, 02:44
The Iranian president surely knows how to make friends... :huh:
Spetulhu
10-28-2005, 04:56
The Iranian president surely knows how to make friends... :huh:
Hey, what's a man supposed to do? He's surrounded by heavily armed Americans and suspected of trying to build nuclear weapons. It's time for some posturing in order to bolster confidence at home. Anti-Israel posturing also buys support from people outside Iran. ~:rolleyes:
It's all about the nuclear stuff methinks. Generally when people talk big, they are going to act small, and visa versa. In this case it is very big talk.
I also wonder if this has a lot to do with Hizbollah in Lebanon and it's political marginalisation after the withdrawl of Syria.
There are lots of ins and out here - and I wonder if the comment, strangely enough, has pretty much nothing to do with Israel.
Tribesman
10-28-2005, 12:24
I also wonder if this has a lot to do with Hizbollah in Lebanon and it's political marginalisation after the withdrawl of Syria.
Its group got 54 of the 128 seats , hardly marginalised is it . Though of course the constitution means that it would never get to have the Presidency even if it won all 128 seats .
But then again everything is linked in the mid-east .
Just A Girl
10-28-2005, 15:01
Its all LLoyed georges fault,
WW1 and all that.
Failure to redistribute the land and what have you.
So seeing as it was a welsh guy who started this mess.
I think i should have a say.
And i say :)
leave them alone let them do what they want on there island.
Here in the uk We had YEARS of this stuff,
Many battles and wars, (could be a good TW game)
America Had a few little battles. "i think thats why the keep startiong wars" (making up lost ground)
And these Almost 3rd world countrys, Really should be allowed to have there little war And decide Who owns what in the good old fashioned way,
By that i mean,
Legions of foot soldiers and cavalry. And a smattering of archers and a few charriots for good mesure, I guess if you have them you could use tigers and eliphants if you wanted.
With the country's Prime minister/President Leading the charge.
Obviously Its not going to happen like that,
And some idiots In germany decided to build a nucular bomb.
which americans then Decided to do as well. (and finished 1st)
Followed by russia.
Then a whole HOST of other countrys.
And now theres this big old mess.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-28-2005, 15:04
seeing as how Israel has nukes*, and will use them as their version of the Final Solution against all Arab countries should Israel be in risk of losing a war of existence, let's hope it's just political rhetoric and nothing more from Iran.
*they acquired nukes via spies in the US - so much for our "allies".
So did the Russians, again, while they were our allies.
I really can't think of an alliance -- aside from Britain/UK -- that has not had more "convenience" than "connection" to it.
Aside from the vagaries of political alliance, was your phrasing purposefully designed to offend any Israeli reading it or a mis-guided attempt at humor? The phrase "their version of the Final Solution" is more than a little rude.
Spetulhu
10-28-2005, 16:17
Aside from the vagaries of political alliance, was your phrasing purposefully designed to offend any Israeli reading it or a mis-guided attempt at humor? The phrase "their version of the Final Solution" is more than a little rude.
It is rude but quite true. Having nuclear weapons ready to wipe out all the large cities of hostile nations in the event of Israel's total defeat is most certainly a kind of "Final Solution".
Iran requires subtle diplomacy, not this administrations strong suit.
Nuclear weapons represent more that their awesome destructive power. They are a symbol of international strength and status. Many people in Iran who are anti-clerical might still support this issue out of national pride, (I'm guessing here), but i'm pretty sure any military operation against their facilities would unify the entire nation behind the Mullahs and their hard line policies.
What to do? Israel, Pakistan, and India all have the bomb. Do you really think the Iranian clerics would launch an aggressive war with nuclear weapons against Israel? I don't. I think the MAD doctrine would give them pause. The real threat is from terrorists and the access they might have to Nucs.
But which would be a greater terrorist threat, a cleric led Iran with responsibility for it's own nuclear weapons and a substantial portion of it's population pushing for reform or a totally enraged Iran with a smoking nuclear complex and unified populace?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-28-2005, 16:58
It is rude but quite true. Having nuclear weapons ready to wipe out all the large cities of hostile nations in the event of Israel's total defeat is most certainly a kind of "Final Solution".
Utter piffle. The phrase "Final Solution" was a direct reference to the genocidal efforts of the Nazis against the Jews during the '39-45 war. Solypsist was well aware of the tone of his reference and his comment was too snide (IMO). His phrasing was designed to connote a parallel between the Jewish state and that of Nazi Germany. I presume that it was a missed attempt at humor, but queried him since I do not know his mind nor what prompted him to use such a turn of phrase.
Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal does constitute a potential threat against neighboring states. That they would use such weapons in the event Israel were being demolished is a distinct possibility, and such an attack would cause catastrohic casualties, but it does not represent a near-genocidal threat against the various Arab (and non-arab) Middle Eastern States.
solypsist
10-28-2005, 17:18
nuking the middle east (and themselves in the process) would indeed be a genocidal move, for both people and culture. so my reference was not an insult but a precise wording used to point out a hypocritical policy by Israel.
on a different tangent:
the USA has done a whole lot of bad things in Iran in pretty recent history so you can't really blame them for hating the US. The fact that Israel is largely protected by the US (money and materiel) I think makes Israel further a target by association.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-28-2005, 17:51
Who is the them in
you can't really blame them for hating the US.
Are you talking your average Iranian? Are you sure thats how they really feel?
solypsist
10-28-2005, 17:54
yes, the "them" refers to Iranians (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iran).
Who is the them in
Are you talking your average Iranian? Are you sure thats how they really feel?
Goofball
10-28-2005, 18:06
nuking the middle east (and themselves in the process) would indeed be a genocidal move, for both people and culture. so my reference was not an insult but a precise wording used to point out a hypocritical policy by Israel.
Sorry, what is the hypocritical policy you're talking about?
If I was an Israeli citizen who was sitting in my home watching thousands of screaming Arab soldiers pouring into my country bent on killing me and my family, I would at least want the small last comforting thought of knowing that a volley of nukes was already en route to turn my murderers' homelands into giant, glowing parking lots.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-28-2005, 18:10
Oh thats right I forgot what a free and open society they have over there. Im sure the demonstration was totally spontaneous. Also it calls for the destruction of Israel not the US. I suppose you also think this jerk was fairly elected.
solypsist
10-28-2005, 18:13
which is my point: a people who were victims of a process of genocide are now openly advocating the same thing against their regional neighbors, if a certain amount of land should happen to fall to Arab possession.
Sorry, what is the hypocritical policy you're talking about?
If I was an Israeli citizen who was sitting in my home watching thousands of screaming Arab soldiers pouring into my country bent on killing me and my family, I would at least want the small last comforting thought of knowing that a volley of nukes was already en route to turn my murderers' homelands into giant, glowing parking lots.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-28-2005, 18:17
which is my point: a people who were victims of a process of genocide are now openly advocating the same thing against their regional neighbors, if a certain amount of land should happen to fall to Arab possession.
Thats total BS and you know it. Talk about spin.
solypsist
10-28-2005, 19:29
please keep in mind that people (even moderators) are entitled to our opinion.
is it BS? it migtt be, you have every right to disagree.everyone appreciates your provacative nature, but a better dialogue-creating move than just calling it spin might be to demonstrate how my opinion is flawed, with facts, links, and ideas to the contrary. just calling it BS doesn't really leave me anywhere to go in continuing this topic with you.
Thats total BS and you know it. Talk about spin.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-28-2005, 22:34
Yiour saying that if a country declares it will defend itself if attacked is the same as threatening its neighbors. Theres no way around it. Its BS.
Yiour saying that if a country declares it will defend itself if attacked is the same as threatening its neighbors. Theres no way around it. Its BS.
Well it is when your neighbours seem to think it's their land.
It's all posturing anyway. There are 100,000 American soldiers between Israel and Iran. No one's invading anyone.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-28-2005, 22:44
Well it is when your neighbours seem to think it's their land.
So who then is threatining who? I suggest many of you have your priorities confused. I suppose now Poland was threating Germany in 1930s.
Tribesman
10-29-2005, 00:30
Im sure the demonstration was totally spontaneous.
Actually Gawain the demonstration is an annual event .
I suppose now Poland was threating Germany in 1930s.
Interesting , a debatable point , yes they were , but thay were not threatening to wipe Germany from the map . Germany on the other hand did have the intention of wiping Poland from the map .
There are 100,000 American soldiers between Israel and Iran.
But Iran has a lot of Proxy "soldiers" alongside those American soldiers , and also lots of proxy "soldiers" between thsose American soldiers and Israel and to the North of Israel .
It's all posturing anyway.
No one's invading anyone.
Yep , stupid sabre rattling from all sides .
PanzerJaeger
10-29-2005, 01:52
To compare the active genocide of a certain ethnic group within a nation and occupied territories with no provocation to the defensive nuclear posture that is common among most nations with nuclear weapons that would only take effect if said nation was attacked is BS.
The only way such a comparison could even come close to being correct is if the Jewish peoples in Europe had constituted both a state and that that state attacked Germany and they defended themselves.
Of course some liberals always try and draw comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, most just as skewed as Solypsis's, because it is the ultimate insult to Jewish people. :no:
It is unusual for a high-ranking official to say such things publicly, so he is either A) Being defiant in the face of the world, B) pandering to his followers, or C) both. Given the timing, I think I can conclude that it was both. But it was most likely also in defiance of the current clergy. The same was said by Ayatollah Khomeini during the revolution.
Tribesman
10-29-2005, 02:37
Given the timing Dariush he just wanted a headline grabber for Al-Quds day .
Its guaranteed to get plenty of media coverage for the demonstrations .
He just wants to show that he is the baddest mother in the whole world ...... "Forget Osama , look at me everybody I don't give a damn , I am still a crazy but dedicated extremist revolutionary"
bmolsson
10-29-2005, 04:59
Hey, what's a man supposed to do? He's surrounded by heavily armed Americans and suspected of trying to build nuclear weapons. It's time for some posturing in order to bolster confidence at home. Anti-Israel posturing also buys support from people outside Iran. ~:rolleyes:
The anti Israel sentiment all around the world has decreased due to the terrorism. So conflicts within Islam are growing larger for every terrorist act. There are nothing positive in promoting violence as a muslim nation today, not even against Israel. These views are outdated......
Tachikaze
10-29-2005, 07:35
I meant arab in the political sense, ie the Pan-Arab movement.
To be more specific, the President of Iran was playing on the anti-semetic hate that is common among muslims in the Middle East.
Most of the Muslims in the Middle East are Semitic.
I don't think the hatred against Israel should be confused with hatred against Jews. If Japan had set up a colonial state in the middle of Palestine in the 1940s, I'm sure there would be the same kinds of hatred and antagonism against them.
I wonder how many of you have really tried to see this issue from the Arab perspective.
Of course I condemn any words of hatred, war, and destruction by political leaders, but I can understand why the Arabs feel that the creation of Israel was an act of Western imperialism.
Meneldil
10-29-2005, 08:11
which is my point: a people who were victims of a process of genocide are now openly advocating the same thing against their regional neighbors, if a certain amount of land should happen to fall to Arab possession.
Huh, that's pointless, every nation is entitled to protect itself against foreign invaders, wether they're Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, or whatever else.
Now imagine the soviets had nukes during WWII. Knowing they would have been wiped from the face of earth by the Nazis, they would have been perfectly entitled to nuke Germany to hell. The same could be said about Isreal. I don't like Isreal policy, but right now, if they lose a war against, let's say, Iran, that will likely mean that all Jews will either have to flee to Europe/US or to get killed.
And I dunno where you got the ideas that Israelis were advocating the genocide of their Arab neighbours (apart from a few far right wing loonies). On the other hand, many muslims (Palestinians, Iranians) are advocating for the simple and plain extermination of all Isrealis, and *that is* genocide.
I don't think the hatred against Israel should be confused with hatred against Jews. Yeah, it shouldn't be. But it is. For pan-muslim fundamentalists, jews = israel = christians = the US = the Western World = Evil
Given the timing Dariush he just wanted a headline grabber for Al-Quds day .
Its guaranteed to get plenty of media coverage for the demonstrations . Exactly. For those who don’t know, Al-Quds is Arabic for Jerusalem. Ayatollah Khomeini made the last Friday in the Ramadan ”Jerusalem Day”.
solypsist
10-29-2005, 16:04
It goes beyiond just defense: The Israelis have made it known that they are willing to nuke the entire Middle Eastern region and every Arab country in the event Israel is in danger of being defeated. It means that if, for example, Iran invades and appears to be victorious, then all Arab countries, even those not involved, will get nuked, too.
Don't take offense with me, take offense at this policy.
Huh, that's pointless, every nation is entitled to protect itself against foreign invaders, wether they're Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, or whatever else.
And I dunno where you got the ideas that Israelis were advocating the genocide of their Arab neighbours (apart from a few far right wing loonies).
discovery1
10-29-2005, 16:29
the backdown (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4387852.stm)
Soly, as Dâriûsh pointed out above, Iran is generally not Arab. And that's a bad example you gave. Iran would need the cooperation of Israils neighbors to launch an invasion. And I do think if that were the case, Israil would have every justification in nuking them.
Also may I suggest that this policy is actually a good idea. If it hits the an, then most nations likely hostile to israel are likely to not attack for fear of being too sucessful. and if the ne dumb enough to attack is succeeding, then the other Arab states will likely apply pressure to pull back. A way to make your enemies your allies, a butish way but a way. Sure economic ties would be better.
How old is this policy?
Tachikaze
10-29-2005, 17:07
1) Iran is nowhere near Israel. No matter what route you take, the Iranian army would have to traverse two countries to get there. Long supply lines.
2) The US has stronger relations with Israel than Kuwait, and a much stronger presence there. The reaction to some hypotheitcal invasion of Israel would be immeditate and thorough.
3) No Muslim nation wants to nuke Israel, even if they could. They don't want to destroy the Holy Land. They want control of Jerusalem, but they want it intact, not a smoking, radioactive hole.
solypsist
10-29-2005, 17:09
my mistake. i put the word Arab in when I meant Muslim. this has been their unoffical policy since they acquired nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
as far as it being a good idea, that's debatabe - if a Muslim country were to say this, what do you think would happen within the global community? No one would want to associate with them. But since it's Israel, it's okay.
the backdown (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4387852.stm)
Soly, as Dâriûsh pointed out above, Iran is generally not Arab. And that's a bad example you gave. Iran would need the cooperation of Israils neighbors to launch an invasion. And I do think if that were the case, Israil would have every justification in nuking them.
Also may I suggest that this policy is actually a good idea. If it hits the an, then most nations likely hostile to israel are likely to not attack for fear of being too sucessful. and if the ne dumb enough to attack is succeeding, then the other Arab states will likely apply pressure to pull back. A way to make your enemies your allies, a butish way but a way. Sure economic ties would be better.
How old is this policy?
Gawain of Orkeny
10-29-2005, 18:12
It goes beyiond just defense: The Israelis have made it known that they are willing to nuke the entire Middle Eastern region and every Arab country in the event Israel is in danger of being defeated.
How does this differ from the positions of the US and Russia or China? Do you think the Russia wouldnt resort to nukes if they were in danger of being defeated or the US for that matter? In fact havent we threatened to do just that if nukes were ever launched against us?
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-29-2005, 18:20
3) No Muslim nation wants to nuke Israel, even if they could. They don't want to destroy the Holy Land. They want control of Jerusalem, but they want it intact, not a smoking, radioactive hole.
Though they* probably wouldn't mind using a weapon that eliminated all Jewish Israelis while leaving everything else intact.
*Whoever "they" is.
Though they* probably wouldn't mind using a weapon that eliminated all Jewish Israelis while leaving everything else intact. A holy weapon that could distinguish between Muslims, Jews, and the rest? Personally, I think killing all the Muslims in the ‘occupied territory’ would render decades worth of good rhetoric somewhat futile.
Wait...
~:idea:
Martyrs!
The_Doctor
10-29-2005, 18:39
So, he does not want Israel on the map.
So, all we do is give him an old map of the Persian Empire, though he might get worried about those Greeks. Problem solved.
I am comic relief incarnate.
So, he does not want Israel on the map.
So, all we do is give him an old map of the Persian Empire, though he might get worried about those Greeks. Problem solved.
I am comic relief incarnate. The clergy hates the old Persians. There has even been talk of flooding Persepolis.
The_Doctor
10-29-2005, 19:12
The clergy hates the old Persians. There has even been talk of flooding Persepolis.
Let me guess, is it because they where not muslims?
Let me guess, is it because they where not muslims?
Right.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-29-2005, 20:17
Dâriûsh its been stated here that most Iranians hate the US. Id like your opinion on this matter.
Dâriûsh its been stated here that most Iranians hate the US. Id like your opinion on this matter. No doubt many people in Iran hate the United States. But these are, for the most part, the same people who run the country.
Interestingly, three years ago, IRNA, the official news agency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, made a poll to survey the attitude of common Iranians towards the United States. The poll included more than one thousand persons, of which roughly 75% favoured opening talks with America, and 46% were in favour of the tough American stance towards the rulers. Understandably, that did not please the mullahs. The polling institute was subsequently closed.
My opinion, well, it seems that some people, even those who hate the mullahs, are resentful towards the United States and Britain because of the Shah. People who feel that western intervention brought the Ayatollah to power in the first place. But I think a lot of people wouldn’t mind a regime change, but don’t get me wrong, I think most would like to see it handled domestically, non-violently. We’re a patriotic bunch, and even I wouldn’t like foreign soldiers killing Iranians, not even the mullahs.
It is also my impression that people in the rural areas, and the urban poor, don’t seem to care at all, as long as they can keep food on the table they’ll settle for anything. Which is also among the reasons that Ahmadinejad was elected president.
Then again, there are also people who are content with the rulers and “while they disagree with some actions of the authorities” they accept them. They regard the protestors and demonstrators a bunch of hoodlums, vandals, and bandits, as reported by the state-run media.
I’m not an expert, so I can only relay what I have seen, heard, and read.
solypsist
10-29-2005, 23:19
yes you are. and we all need it in this place as much as possiblr :bow:
I am comic relief incarnate.
LeftEyeNine
10-30-2005, 00:05
Alexander Pretty Good,
Such a move would involve more than expected. And these dogmatic minds are even wise enough not to attract any other attentions..They'd be seriously responded..
I am not fond of *mysterious* Israelis - nothing more than a dislike though. However, a president should be more careful about his words in such a publicised position. It's not a "hack'n-slash-it's-over" world as it was in the medieval times.
People should, especially those single-angle ones, learn that they have to do social improvements in order to get public acceptance. Driving the people's fanatic feelings forward to catalyse your power always ended up as a disaster throughout the history.
Geoffrey S
10-30-2005, 12:00
It seems to me that these comments by Ahmadinejad were made at a carefully chosen time, at a time when George Bush is at his weakest; he makes inflammatory comments, various western nations and the UN condemn the statement, Ahmadinejad portrays Iran as the victim in his nation and the surrounding region. It allows Ahmadinejad to get the most out of such a statement for a minimum of repurcusions.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.