Ahmadinejad says Israel will be wiped out

[Skye]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed a conference in Tehran called aptly "A World without Zionism" where he said that a Palestinian uprising would wipe Israel off the map.

 

Should be interesting to see where this leads to.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1845402,00.html

[Tiger's Eye]

Yeah, it really would be interesting to see where all this leads to. I wouldn't say that he's bluffing or anything, but i mean, this idea of 'eradicating Israel' ( ) is completely impractical. Gee, how many people will lose their lives and identity? One thing's for sure: wiping out a country will only cause problems that really aren't necessary. I'm actually somewhat surprised that Ahmadinejad would actually say this to the public, on media and stuff. "A World without Zionism" is pretty harsh language in itself.

 

Our world is already plagued with a lot of problems and i think this does nothing but add on. I think that the real issue, though, is that Ahmadinejad calls for the wiping out of not only an entire place, but of a people. Should an entire people be wiped out or punished because its country was declared an enemy? Most of those people probably have nothing to do with clashes between Israel and Iran. In short, the large majority of people that suffer/will suffer are simply bystanders.

 

And, honestly speaking, why is wiping Israel off the map a plus for Islam? I see this as a manipulation of the religion. I'm not sure that all Muslims feel the same way that Ahmadinejad does about this issue. I just hope that this whole thing doesn't spiral out of control for the sake of the Iranian people, the Israelis, the Muslims, and anyone else who really has nothing to do with the issue, but yet may still be affected by it, if anything really does happen. Seriously.

 

Tiger

[bascule]

While I think it was a mistake to try to resurrect the state of Israel in the first place (which was pretty much the founding task of the UN) this is thoroughly despicable.

[ecoli]

While I think it was a mistake to try to resurrect the state of Israel in the first place (which was pretty much the founding task of the UN) this is thoroughly despicable.

 

while I disagree, I think the state Israel was a good idea... just the timing was pretty bad, and after the UN created Israel, it left it pretty much to its own defenses. But then again, if the UN had created Israel and had agreed to back it against the attacks from Arabic countries, then maybe the motion wouldn't have passed.

 

However, I think that Israel is here to stay... despite the UN's backing or not. I think if it comes down to it, Israel will choose to protect it's people, by any means necessary, then get wiped out by the Arabs... which is apparently what both the UN and the arabic countries want.

[Bettina]

This is what scares me. A country run by religious fanatics that publicly states that Israel and anything else that doesn't embrace islam should be destroyed....and.....that same country seeking to build nuclear weapons. (Don't tell me there not going to)

 

It seems to me that Iran would use that weapon on Israel, in the name of allah, with the sheer hope that other muslim nations will join in. I believe they are all willing to become martyrs for this cause.

 

I hate war, and mostly myself, for thinking this but an uncivilized country like Iran must be stopped from going nuclear no matter what the cost or method. No matter what.

 

Bettina

[LazerFazer]

'eradicating Israel'

That sounds familiar!!!

 

Personally, I disagree with the entire idea of eradicating any nation. It doesn't solve any problems, only creates more. And anyway, that would have to go through the Security Council, and the US will 100% veto any motion or resolution to eradicate Israel.

 

@bettina

 

There's no evidence that Iran is using their enrichment facilities for weapons grade material. As I'm assuming you know, even nuclear fuel for power stations requires enrichment, but not to the level that weapons-grade enrichment reaches. Do you really think that we should destroy Iran 'No matter what'? Even at the cost of millions of lives? Would that be worth it? Don't you think that diplomacy is a much better avenue than any military action, especially since the probability of mass loss of life is extremely low? I live in the Middle East, and I can tell you right now that the sentiment amongst the local population towards the US, UN, and UK (all have U's... wonder if thats significant??) isn't too friendly. I wonder why??? The three have repeatedly let the Arabs down since the end of WWII. And with no good reason. How can Arabs trust the US when they are not trusted themselves? If you really want Iran to cooperate and trust the UN, then they need to be shown some trust first. It's strange that way, but somebody needs to make the first move. And even when Iran was being frank and open with UN weapons inspectors, they still weren't trusted. Then they see what happened in Iraq, and guess what's going through their minds? "Gee.... I wonder if we'll be next??" Oh, and dont go calling a country uncivilised. It doesnt foster any productive debate, and only engages negative feelings. And as Tiger's Eye said:

One thing's for sure: wiping out a country will only cause problems that really aren't necessary

 

cheers,

LazerFazer

[bascule]

It seems to me that Iran would use that weapon on Israel, in the name of allah, with the sheer hope that other muslim nations will join in. I believe they are all willing to become martyrs for this cause.

 

One would hope that if nothing else, the proximity to large numbers of Palestinaians would make an effective deterrent. That as well as Islamic landmarks like the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem.

[john5746]

One would hope that if nothing else, the proximity to large numbers of Palestinaians would make an effective deterrent. That as well as Islamic landmarks like the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem.

 

Not sure about that, the best deterrent is mutual destruction. You shoot one at us and you WILL be wiped off the face of the earth. Much like the Soviets and US. The Arabs haven't been the best friends to the palestinians either.

 

Bettina, cooler minds prevail. Please remember, we have had Presidents that have called countries "evil". I am sure they didn't appreciate that very much.

 

Israel does have a difficult plight. I wish we could donate some land in the US for a "New Israel", but I know they wouldn't take it, even if the US would do it.

[Tiger's Eye]

It seems to me that Iran would use that weapon on Israel' date=' in the name of allah, with the sheer hope that other muslim nations will join in. I believe they are all willing to become martyrs for this cause.

 

I hate war, and mostly myself, for thinking this but an uncivilized country like Iran must be stopped from going nuclear no matter what the cost or method. No matter what.

[/quote']

 

Again, it's really not a matter to take lightly at all, however, i'm not so sure that Iran would go ahead and do something so rash and, well, dumb like go ahead and nuke Israel. I highly doubt that Iran can be classified as 'uncivilized'; that's a very degrading word and so un-PC.

 

And I also agree with what LazerFazer said:

 

Do you really think that we should destroy Iran 'No matter what'? Even at the cost of millions of lives? Would that be worth it? Don't you think that diplomacy is a much better avenue than any military action' date=' especially since the probability of mass loss of life is extremely low?

[/quote']

 

I don't think that we're really in the position to go ahead and say that the US gov't or whoever else should try to stop Iran at all costs, no matter what. Again, i don't think that Iran is just gonna go ahead and nuke Israel. I mean, they have political leaders, too. We should at least give them some trust in that they will first take steps through diplomatic means. It's the least that the US, UN, and UK (all U's YA) can do out of respect for the country as a whole. After all, i doubt that all the people in Iran want to do away with Israel, so one must try to avoid violent conflict at all cost, since violence can harm the innocent. It's THAT of which we must be trying to do: maintain the peace, especially for those who truly desire it and deserve it.

 

Dialogue and Diplomacy!

 

L8er,

 

Tiger

[ecoli]

I hope Iran wouldn't do it... but you know as well as I that religion has presuaded many men to do crazy and stupid things. I'd rather not take the risk.

 

Of course we should not wipe out Iran... there are millions of innocents there, who would be hurt by war. But we should definately keep their weapons counted.

[Tiger's Eye]

I hope Iran wouldn't do it... but you know as well as I that religion has presuaded many men to do crazy and stupid things. I'd rather not take the risk.

 

Of course we should not wipe out Iran... there are millions of innocents there' date=' who would be hurt by war. But we should definately keep their weapons counted.[/quote']

 

I agree that religion has led pple to do wild things, however by "not taking the risk" of "keeping their weapons counted", how is this supposed to make Iran feel more inclined cooperate with other countries? Should we use force? I hope not. If we can't offer them even trust, then I'm afraid that force may be the only option, but indeed, one must first go about these ways through diplomatic means first, and trust that the other side will not do anything rash. In truth, trust is a real biggie on the platter. For example, the US may not trust Iran in not doing anything stupid with weapons they may have, but equally so, Iran may not trust the US for fear that the invasion of Iraq might repeat itself (after the request submitted by the US to invade Iraq was denied by the Security Council). Should we really trust anyone? Well, i guess that's up to the individual being asked. However, if the US can be trusted not to invade another country, then why can't Iran be trusted that it won't nuke Israel before going through diplomatic means?

 

I know this whole thing sounds a little sketchy both ways, but really...if no one can make the first move to trust the other side, then we, the 'civilized' population, have totally thrust any hope of future peace and development down the drain. Maybe i'm exaggerating too much, but it's still something to think about.

 

Tiger

[ecoli]

it's certainly a delicate situation. But how can you trust a country that just threatened to wipe out an ally?

 

I think you give Iran an inch, then they'll take a yard. Meaning, if you give them room to breathe, then they'll stab us in the back. I don't think that they gov't. of Iran will trust us westerners. They have stated time and again that they cannot tolerate democracy. Through their actions they have performed many acts of terrorism, or at least condoned terrorism. Have you ever heard of an Arabic country condem the acts of terrorism in Israel (there was another big one, the other day, btw. )

[Tiger's Eye]

it's certainly a delicate situation. But how can you trust a country that just threatened to wipe out an ally?

 

I think you give Iran an inch' date=' then they'll take a yard. Meaning, if you give them room to breathe, then they'll stab us in the back. I don't think that they gov't. of Iran will trust us westerners. They have stated time and again that they cannot tolerate democracy. Through their actions they have performed many acts of terrorism, or at least condoned terrorism. Have you ever heard of an Arabic country condem the acts of terrorism in Israel (there was another big one, the other day, btw. )[/quote']

 

I see your point, but in the same respect, how can one trust a country that invaded another country after the request to do so was denied by the UN? I understand the skepticism in trusting Iran for fear that it may do something really stupid, but we're still on the stage of assuming things. Yes, it is a very delicate situation and really difficult to deal with at that. I just hope that, really, Iran WON'T go and attack Israel, and will give diplomacy a shot. But in return, they would need to fair chance to do so.

 

Btw, I don't really understand what you meant in your closing statement:

 

Have you ever heard of an Arabic country condem the acts of terrorism in Israel (there was another big one' date=' the other day, btw. )[/quote']

 

Could you rephrase/clarify it, plz?

 

L8er,

 

Tiger (wow, we've responded to each other right away. How kewl is that? )

[ecoli]

I see your point, but in the same respect, how can one trust a country that invaded another country after the request to do so was denied by the UN? I understand the skepticism in trusting Iran for fear that it may do something really stupid, but we're still on the stage of assuming things. Yes, it is a very delicate situation and really difficult to deal with at that. I just hope that, really, Iran WON'T go and attack Israel, and will give diplomacy a shot. But in return, they would need to fair chance to do so.

 

ok, fair point. I would say to give them trust... but try to make they don't betray that trust. Allow them just enough room to try diplomacy, but stay close enough that they'll see a need to.

 

Could you rephrase/clarify it, plz?

 

sure can. I mean that the Arab countries in the middle east do not comdem the acts of terrorism in Israel and abroad. Whether or not they are actively engaging/supplying arms or money to terrorism, they are not speaking out against it. That in itself should speak volumes.

 

Then, in the parenthesis, I mentioned that there was another terrorist attack in Israel the other day, where dozens were injured. Of course, that promted ISrael to launch a bombing campaign against he palenstinians... the violence is cyclical.

 

While I'm all for Israel, I don't think that's the right move. They should be trying to take out the terrorists. They should be doing this by re-educating the region, and taking out terrorists with sharpshooters... but who listens to me... I'm sure I'm not seeing the whole situation.

 

L8er,

 

Tiger (wow, we've responded to each other right away. How kewl is that? )

[Douglas]

There's no evidence that Iran is using their enrichment facilities for weapons grade material. As I'm assuming you know' date=' even nuclear fuel for power stations requires enrichment, but not to the level that weapons-grade enrichment reaches. Do you really think that we should destroy Iran 'No matter what'? LazerFazer[/quote']Yeah' yer probably right, not much evidence, but if you can find evidence in words ("wiped off the map'') , I'd be mighty suspicious ......................

``There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world,'' Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called ``The World without Zionism.''

 

``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world,'' Ahmadinejad said.

 

Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map''

[bascule]

There's no evidence that Iran is using their enrichment facilities for weapons grade material.

 

The ultracentrifuge designs they purchased from A.Q. Khan were designed for the express purpose of refining uranium to weapons grade.

 

Furthermore, A.Q. Khan is known to have sold the design for an implosion lens (i.e. a nuclear bomb core) to at least Libya (who gave up on their nuclear ambitions) and most likely North Korea as well.

 

Considering A.Q. Khan was a one stop shop for getting everything you need to make nuclear weapons, I sincerely doubt Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful.

[eruheru]

a lot of this uncertainty comes from lack of info. a lot western media is biast against israel. honestreporting.com is good for weeding out the bias in media.

[Bettina]

Again' date=' it's really not a matter to take lightly at all, however, i'm not so sure that Iran would go ahead and do something so rash and, well, dumb like go ahead and nuke Israel. I highly doubt that Iran can be classified as 'uncivilized'; that's a very degrading word and so un-PC.

 

And I also agree with what LazerFazer said:

 

 

 

I don't think that we're really in the position to go ahead and say that the US gov't or whoever else should try to stop Iran at all costs, no matter what. Again, i don't think that Iran is just gonna go ahead and nuke Israel. I mean, they have political leaders, too. We should at least give them some trust in that they will first take steps through diplomatic means. It's the least that the US, UN, and UK (all U's YA) can do out of respect for the country as a whole. After all, i doubt that all the people in Iran want to do away with Israel, so one must try to avoid violent conflict at all cost, since violence can harm the innocent. It's THAT of which we must be trying to do: maintain the peace, especially for those who truly desire it and deserve it.

 

Dialogue and Diplomacy!

 

L8er,

 

Tiger [/quote']

 

First, "Dialogue and Diplomacy", with a religiously fanatical country will be fruitless. They are misguided by there invisible allah to follow a preset path thru history. To convert the world to Islam at any cost.

 

Second, their political leader is not a leader at all. He is merely a puppet controlled by the religious mullahs and wierdo clerics.

 

Thirdly, the Islamic religion is full of murder, lies, and betrayals. There is no doubt in any intellegent mind that Iran is on a path to build a bomb and once they have it, they won't hesitate to use it in the name of allah if need be.

 

What frightens me most...and I am... is that I don't see the future very bright.

 

Bettina

[Douglas]

. a lot western media is biast against israel. .

which ones ?? Out of curiosity. I've heard the BBC is anti Israeli as well as anti American.

[Douglas]

Yeah Bettina, given that some of the radical Islamists want to rid the world of all infidels, there's cause to be concerned.

[ecoli]

which ones ?? Out of curiosity. I've heard the BBC is anti Israeli as well as anti American.

 

NY times is often biased, thats a major one.

[Tiger's Eye]

First' date=' "Dialogue and Diplomacy", with a religiously fanatical country will be fruitless. They are misguided by there invisible allah to follow a preset path thru history. To convert the world to Islam at any cost.

 

Second, their political leader is not a leader at all. He is merely a puppet controlled by the religious mullahs and wierdo clerics.

 

Thirdly, the Islamic religion is full of murder, lies, and betrayals. There is no doubt in any intellegent mind that Iran is on a path to build a bomb and once they have it, they won't hesitate to use it in the name of allah if need be.

 

What frightens me most...and I am... is that I don't see the future very bright.

 

[/quote']

 

Bettina, in all sincerity, I really do understand your concern: no, the future probably doesn't look very bright from where I'm sitting, either. And I think that any logical person would be frightened, as well. But if people cannot try to talk to each other first, then what are you proposing? Force? I seriously doubt that the Security Council and the UN would sit very well on that idea. But if that were to be a last resort, so be it. However, it should remain to be a LAST resort. "Dialogue and Diplomacy", however fruitless it may seem to be, should still be tried in order to try and protect not only ourselves, but those innocent people in Iran and Israel, too. True, it might be just a fool's hope, but I see no other somewhat reasonable way around it.

 

Another thing, i don't think that it's really fair to criticize Islam for being "full of murder, lies, and betrayals". That's not true. Don't criticize a religion for faults that are created by the individuals that interpret it in their own weird ways. I live in a Muslim country and I don't see the Muslims as violent or anything. Almost every religion has its ups and its downs. I mean, the Christians had the Crusades in addition to other things (I'm Roman Catholic, in case you were wondering...). But again, it's not the religion's, fault; it's the fault of the people that interpreted it (like the pope, priests, etc.). I'm not sure that God (or Allah. I believe both to be the same God ) tells His followers to go ahead and kill people like that. So please, don't criticize Islam, since not all Muslims think that way and, in truth, it's not an 'evil' religion at all.

 

@ eruheru:

 

a lot western media is biast against israel

 

Oh. I thought that western media was more biast against the palestinians? I mean, the US is an ally of Israel, so I would have thought that it would have its media be in support of Israel. In my opnion, I always saw it like that (CNN, FOX News, etc.) I think that BBC is not as biased, tho of course it has it's biases. Just a thought.

 

L8er,

 

Tiger

[LazerFazer]

Thirdly, the Islamic religion is full of murder, lies, and betrayals.

 

Please, don't talk about things you have no clue about. Have you ever read the Quraan? Have you ever listened to what the 'weirdo clerics' say in the mosques? Have you ever even taken any PROPER courses in the nature of Islam or the ideals within Islam? Well then, I would say you are most definately not qualified to make any value judgements against Islam. Just take a look at the root of the word "ISLAM" (if you don't speak Arabic, then thats gonna be a bit of a problem). It comes from the word Salaam which means peace in Arabic. So, even the Name preaches peace. And the traditional Muslim greeting translates to "Peace be upon you". You want more evidence that Islam is a peace-loving religion? Of the many Muslim conquests in the past, one stands out the most mainly because both Muslims and Christians conquered this place. I'm talking of course about Jerusalem. When the Crusaders conqured it, what did they do? Slaughtered every single occupant of the city. Men, Women, Children. They 'cleansed' it completely. When the Muslims conquered, what did they do? They let people do what they wanted. Those who wanted to leave left, and those who wanted to stay stayed. Again, I tell you, Islam is NOT a religion of killing, war, lies or betrayal.

 

Although I do agree that the future seems very bleak at the moment.

 

LazerFazer

[Skye]

I don't see much value in trust in this situation. The stakes are too high to rely on goodwill. Clearly Iran would be well served by obtaining nuclear weapons, and clearly the US and Israel would be well served in preventing Iran from being able to. Ideally for Iran then, there will be no war, and conversely ideally for the US and Israel there will be a fairly short war. So I would say to Iran to keep quiet but proceed rapidly, to the US to strike swiftly but judiciously.

[Dave]

I think it would be wise for Iran to step away from this situation and apologise as much as possible in a very short amount of time. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this is actually going to happen; their leader seems far too arrogant, and will probably not back down easily.

 

The thing that concerns me most at the moment is that Israel isn't going to take these comments lightly. I'm just wondering whether this single comment is going to snowball out of control, and whether we're going to have a very serious issue on our hands.

 

Edit: there's some comments from the Israeli press at BBC News if anyone's interested in reading them.