Iran: Destroy Israel and other Middle East news

[Noobtastic]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian President Bashar Assad that Israel "must be resisted" and finished off "once and for all" if it launches a military operation in the Middle East, Reuters cited an Iranian report as saying on Thursday.

"We have reliable information ... that the Zionist regime is after finding a way to compensate for its ridiculous defeats by the people of Gaza and Lebanon's Hizbullah," Ahmadinejad told his Syrian counterpart in a phone conversation on Wednesday evening, according to IRIB, Iran's state broadcaster.

"If the Zionist regime repeats its mistakes and initiate a military operation, then it must be resisted with full force to put an end to it once and for all," Ahmadinejad reportedly asserted.

The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" multiple times and has voiced harsh criticism against Israeli policies.

At the UN General Assembly in New York in September, Ahmadinejad gave a fiery speech that targeted Israel as a "Zionist regime" guilty of "inhumane policies in Palestine."

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?ID=168411

I know many apologists here and elsewhere have argued Iran has never called for the destruction of Israel, but merely the "dismantling" of its regime - and the extermination of its people. I've always condemned such arguments as pure semantics, but I think now the evidence is irrefutable.

In other news, apartheid terrorist Mossad and Shin Bet foiled attempts by peace-loving Hamas from borrowing Israeli soldiers and smuggling explosives into the state.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=168441

Mainstream media is nowhere to be seen.

A European Union-trained Palestinian police officer stabs and murders an off-duty Druze Israeli soldier in the heart as he is napping in his vehicle:

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?ID=168508

BBC plays down the violence and almost victimizes the terrorist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8510257.stm

EU representatives in Gaza claim the killer was not trained by the EUPOL, but rather a Jericho Police academy. However, the Jericho Police academy was built and funded by the European Union and acts as an advisory body in all active-training fronts.


On Thursday Gaza terrorist attempt 3 attacks targeting aid crossings and Israeli soldiers on the border. A terrorist cell from Gaza trying to carry out a rocket attack is also killed by an IAF precision guided missile.

UN, EU, and USA have yet to condemn the attacks, or even mention them.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=168425

And lastly, the primary military expert for the Goldstone Report - Desmond Travers - claims Hamas only fired 2 rockets a month prior to the conflict.

“It should be borne in mind that the number of rockets that had been fired into Israel in the month preceding their operations was something like two. The Hamas rockets had ceased being fired into Israel, and not only that, but Hamas sought a continuation of the cease-fire.”

According to the Israeli military and independent reporters, Hamas had fired over 32 rockets in 3 day period in December alone.

Travers also claimed Hamas did not store weapons in mosques.

No self-respecting insurgent with abundant hideaways in the labyrinthine alleyways of Gaza would dare store anything in an open building like a mosque. ...Of the several photographs that were on an Israeli Web site that I examined showing weapons and munitions ‘found in mosques,’ I found all of these photographs to be spurious

So empirical data proving Hamas hide weapons in mosques, as well as schools hospitals, and aid stations - is soundly ignored, and the evidence is condemned as "spurious."

Interviews of specific Hamas members such as Subhi Majid Atar andRami Musbah Abd Rabbo claiming they received training and weapons in mosques is also ignored.

Travers has been accused of antisemitism following an interview with a leading Middle Eastern newspaper:

"Britain’s foreign policy interests in the Middle East seem to be influenced strongly by Jewish lobbyists.”

Homicidal Muslims attack Italian embassy in Iran:

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=168230

The European Union - Iran's top import/export partner - "expresses concern" of the daily attacks on opposition leaders in Iran.

http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2010/02/11/eu-irans-choices-are-the-wrong-ones/

that is all.

 

[brownzilla786]

Even if Iran wanted to attack Israel they would be smoked. This just sounds like hes trying to pump him and his country up but in reality it amounts to little. Are you really taking this seriously?

 

[Brainonska511]

Seems like you missed the conditional in the dude's statement:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian President Bashar Assad that Israel "must be resisted" and finished off "once and for all" if it launches a military operation in the Middle East

Regardless, the Iranian President is a politician with lots of smoke to blow out his ass. He holds little real power over Iran and is more or less a figure head. He talks tough because he can't do anything else for his country.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Seems like you missed the conditional in the dude's statement:


Regardless, the Iranian President is a politician with lots of smoke to blow out his ass. He holds little real power over Iran and is more or less a figure head. He talks tough because he can't do anything else for his country.

Do you have actual proof that he does NOT have the power to initiate what he would term "a retaliatory strike?" or are you just blowing smoke??

I seriously doubt that anybody has any proof that he holds no power whatsoever as a "figurehead"...

 

[Brainonska511]

Do you have actual proof that he does NOT have thye power to initiate what he would term "a retaliatory strke?" or are you just blowing smoke??

I seriously doubt that anybody has any proof that he holds no power whatsoever as a "figurehead"...

Okay, so he does have some power:

The President of Iran is the highest popularly elected official in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but was subordinate to the Supreme Leader. According to the constitution of the Islamic Republic of a Iran the president is responsible for the "functions of the executive", such as signing treaties, agreements etc. with other countries and international organizations; the national planning and budget and state employment affairs; appointing ministers, governors, and ambassadors subject to the approval of the parliament.[1]

Unlike some other countries, for example the United States, in Iran the office of presidency does not bestow full control over foreign policy, the armed forces, or the nuclear policy of the Iranian state, which are ultimately under the control of the Supreme Leader. [2]

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

He may or may not have retaliatory powers, but who knows? Would I blame Iran if it struck back at a country that attacked Iran first? Not really. Would I expect them to strike back with nukes? Probably not, unless we backed them into a corner in such a way that they felt there was no other way.

 

[ranmaniac]

Do you have actual proof that he does NOT have thye power to initiate what he would term "a retaliatory strke?" or are you just blowing smoke??

I seriously doubt that anybody has any proof that he holds no power whatsoever as a "figurehead"...

It's a generalization to suggest that the President has "no" power, however, he is not considered the most powerful person in Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm

"The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. The constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.

In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues."

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's a generalization to suggest that the President has "no" power, however, he is not considered the most powerful person in Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/president.stm

"The president is elected for four years and can serve no more than two consecutive terms. The constitution describes him as the second-highest ranking official in the country. He is head of the executive branch of power and is responsible for ensuring the constitution is implemented.

In practice, however, presidential powers are circumscribed by the clerics and conservatives in Iran's power structure, and by the authority of the Supreme Leader. It is the Supreme Leader, not the president, who controls the armed forces and makes decisions on security, defence and major foreign policy issues."

Yes we know they have a sock puppet president who says what the clerics are thinking or talking about behind close doors and which has already been approved by said religious leaders. What nice little government they have in Iran.

 

[Noobtastic]

Yes we know they have a sock puppet president who says what the clerics are thinking or talking about behind close doors and which has already been approved by said religious leaders. What nice little government they have in Iran.

a-jad wouldn't be saying the things he's been saying without the tacit approval of the ruling mullahs.

yes, it is true - the president is mostly a figure-head though he does wield considerble influence over domestic concerns.

but for the most part, everything is run by the oligarchy. hezbollah and hamas report straight to the iranian leadership, not a-jad.

according to the latest estimates countries who believe iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons has nearly "approached zero."

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?ID=168526

 

[JEDIYoda]

a-jad wouldn't be saying the things he's been saying without the tacit approval of the ruling mullahs.

yes, it is true - the president is mostly a figure-head though he does wield considerble influence over domestic concerns.

but for the most part, everything is run by the oligarchy. hezbollah and hamas report straight to the iranian leadership, not a-jad.

according to the latest estimates countries who believe iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons has nearly "approached zero."

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?ID=168526

we all knopw and suspect thats true....but show a link...or is it just considered common knowledge? I am playing devils advocate here...

 

[Noobtastic]

we all knopw and suspect thats true....but show a link...or is it just considered common knowledge? I am playing devils advocate here...

it's in the link.

GDP, mossad, MI6, CIA unanimously agree iran's nuclear program is for purposes other than peaceful.

there is no logic to it otherwise. if the program were peaceful iran would follow its NPT obligations which make the process cheaper and efficient.

every country which pursues nuclear energy does so with the ruling authorities. iran refuses to cooperate because that would expose its program for what it truly is.

but it can depend on the arab super majority to hijack the UN, and the EU to underplay the reality of iran's program since they r a major economic supporter of the state.

over 28 billion euros in trade in 2009 alone.

 

[Nemesis 1]

we all knopw and suspect thats true....but show a link...or is it just considered common knowledge? I am playing devils advocate here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8W4DEMUSeM

 

[StageLeft]

Ajad can be a figurehead all you like but as stated above he clearly represents the will of the true rulers or else they would have muzzled him, so don't for a moment think that he is some maverick who does not represent the position of the true rulers.

 

[ElFenix]

Okay, so he does have some power:

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

He may or may not have retaliatory powers, but who knows? Would I blame Iran if it struck back at a country that attacked Iran first? Not really. Would I expect them to strike back with nukes? Probably not, unless we backed them into a corner in such a way that they felt there was no other way.

officially the president of iran doesn't have much, but i think that personally immadinnerjacket has a lot of pull through his connections in the pasdaran (which controls much of the security forces, including the basiij, and a large part of the economy). that pull may be why khamenei was very quick to certify the election last june. khamenei's lot has been cast with immadinnerjacket.

 

[marketquotes]

So Ahmadinejad basically said if Iran is attacked by Israel they (Iran) won't sit back without reaction and but will in fact strike Israel back with the goal of fundamentally changing the power structure within the region. While I find Ahmadinejad and those in power in Iran reprehensible, these comments represent nothing noteworthy or surprising.

Instead of building up settlements Israel should be uprooting these fundamentalists within their country and preparing to hand over the land so a Palestinian state my be created in return for peace and recognition by the Palestinians and the greater Muslim world. At that time 3rd parties can step in to create and execute a Marshall plan for the Palestinian State in quick fashion. Iran (along with al-Qaeda) will have lost it's trump card against Israel, they will be exposed as using the Palestinians as pawns for their own agenda, and will be further isolated. I suspect in short time the Iranian government would be over thrown by the street as conditions deteriorate from the isolation and the nuclear program scrapped as part of rejoining the 'community of nations'.

Those who want Israel destroyed, groups who use the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a terror recruitment tool, fundamentalists who believe in the creation of greater Israel (typically Jewish settlers and hard core Evangelical Christians believing the Mideast turmoil is a sign that end of times is coming), and a collection of military contractors and organizations who profit from unrest in the Middle East, have it in their best interest to keep peace from occurring and will do whatever it takes to make sure it does not. While many of these groups fight against one another, they all want to sow mistrust, chaos, and destruction.

 

[JS80]

So Ahmadinejad basically said if Iran is attacked by Israel they (Iran) won't sit back without reaction and but will in fact strike Israel back with the goal of fundamentally changing the power structure within the region. While I find Ahmadinejad and those in power in Iran reprehensible, these comments represent nothing noteworthy or surprising.

Instead of building up settlements Israel should be uprooting these fundamentalists within their country and preparing to hand over the land so a Palestinian state my be created in return for peace and recognition by the Palestinians and the greater Muslim world. At that time 3rd parties can step in to create and execute a Marshall plan for the Palestinian State in quick fashion. Iran (along with al-Qaeda) will have lost it's trump card against Israel, they will be exposed as using the Palestinians as pawns for their own agenda, and will be further isolated. I suspect in short time the Iranian government would be over thrown by the street as conditions deteriorate from the isolation and the nuclear program scrapped as part of rejoining the 'community of nations'.

Those who want Israel destroyed, groups who use the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a terror recruitment tool, fundamentalists who believe in the creation of greater Israel (typically Jewish settlers and hard core Evangelical Christians believing the Mideast turmoil is a sign that end of times is coming), and a collection of military contractors and organizations who profit from unrest in the Middle East, have it in their best interest to keep peace from occurring and will do whatever it takes to make sure it does not. While many of these groups fight against one another, they all want to sow mistrust, chaos, and destruction.

So many words to say something as simple as "I hate Jews." Or maybe you're trying to mask it.

 

[woolfe9999]

So should Israel go ahead and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? Or maybe a better question is, WILL they do so in the near future?

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

- wolf

 

[Noobtastic]

So should Israel go ahead and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities? Or maybe a better question is, WILL they do so in the near future?

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

- wolf

Problem. Lieberman does not support an attack on Iran, but Netanyahu and the IAF clearly haven't put it on the table. I think Israel will wait and see if the international community can actual deliver sanctions on Iran, if only to temporarily halt Iran's nuclear program.

Israel has conducted massive training exercises of Turkey and the Mediterranean sea. Clearly they are planning for the worst.

 

[werepossum]

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that you staunchly defend Israel from the lunatic fringe yet believe everything the same lunatic fringe writes about America? The same people writing about Israel's supposed atrocities are also writing about the USA causing five million children to be orphaned in Iraq yet you swallow those claims completely. The dichotomy is curious to say the least.

 

[Noobtastic]

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that you staunchly defend Israel from the lunatic fringe yet believe everything the same lunatic fringe writes about America? The same people writing about Israel's supposed atrocities are also writing about the USA causing five million children to be orphaned in Iraq yet you swallow those claims completely. The dichotomy is curious to say the least.

i dont borrow from the lunatic fringe. more often than not the left's obsession with america tends to border insanity, and most of the imperialists narratives i do not subscribe to.

however, it is only fair to compare america's military history to israel's. i do this quite frequently when debating americans, seeing as how many of them are unaware of just how hypocritical they are when they condemn IDF for the most irrelevant things, while their military rages on in two countries.

as i am talking to you right now the british and americans are mounting an assault on the taliban in afghanistan. the conditions are nearly identical to the gaza war.

however, the media will not cover this operation as they covered gaza. i just read BBC's latest update and its very uneventful. no buzzwords, relying on military testimony unchallenged, etc.

when comparing that update to the first lead BBC had on OCL...well, you can probably imagine the difference in language.

this is not so unique to americans, but it bothers me the most since they of all people should not be ignorant of israel's predicament, nor their own foreign policy.

and im sorry to tell you, but america's military history - even the most liberal interpretation - makes the IDF look like green peace.

US has laid waste to iraq and continues to support arab regimes unconditionally. but a state department official goes to israel and orders the IDF to reduce the check points, after 2 people were murdered as a result of reducing said check points.

just today the shin bet foiled have a dozen bomb plots and plans to kidnap soldiers.

the arrogance is insulting. imagine if an israeli were to dictate american military anywhere, the outrage that would ensue in this country...

 

[tommo123]

isn't the Israel army so well equipped *only* due to support from the US? in that case, doesn't it give them the right to certain stipulations?

 

[Noobtastic]

isn't the Israel army so well equipped *only* due to support from the US? in that case, doesn't it give them the right to certain stipulations?

there is no political mandate that somehow entitles the US to dictate military policy, any less than the US has a right to dictate egypt's military policy.

look at iraq. over 38 billion in annual aid, i have yet to see a general tell iraq to reduce check points so iraqis can get to work faster.

pakistan is expected to receive more aid than israel over than next 5 years, and not once has the US told pakistan what to do.

in fact, it's the other way around. pakistan has been bossing around the US this past month and whining about drones.

the aid is in the form of loan-based packages, 80% of which must be spent in the US. this is in the form of planes and sometimes small arms.

israeli officials have been slowly reducing the aid because they think the US has too much influence over their state. economic aid was cut 5 years ago.

 

[werepossum]

i dont borrow from the lunatic fringe. more often than not the left's obsession with america tends to border insanity, and most of the imperialists narratives i do not subscribe to.

however, it is only fair to compare america's military history to israel's. i do this quite frequently when debating americans, seeing as how many of them are unaware of just how hypocritical they are when they condemn IDF for the most irrelevant things, while their military rages on in two countries.

as i am talking to you right now the british and americans are mounting an assault on the taliban in afghanistan. the conditions are nearly identical to the gaza war.

however, the media will not cover this operation as they covered gaza. i just read BBC's latest update and its very uneventful. no buzzwords, relying on military testimony unchallenged, etc.

when comparing that update to the first lead BBC had on OCL...well, you can probably imagine the difference in language.

this is not so unique to americans, but it bothers me the most since they of all people should not be ignorant of israel's predicament, nor their own foreign policy.

and im sorry to tell you, but america's military history - even the most liberal interpretation - makes the IDF look like green peace.

US has laid waste to iraq and continues to support arab regimes unconditionally. but a state department official goes to israel and orders the IDF to reduce the check points, after 2 people were murdered as a result of reducing said check points.

just today the shin bet foiled have a dozen bomb plots and plans to kidnap soldiers.

the arrogance is insulting. imagine if an israeli were to dictate american military anywhere, the outrage that would ensue in this country...

You could have just said "no". I guess every nut has his sacred cow.

 

[brandonb]

It says nothing about declaring war. He just says that Israel "must be resisted" and "finished off once and for all" if it attacks middle eastern countries.

Sounds like this is the first step in order to build an alliance against the Isreali threat.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tell you what, I hate viruses- the US will quit telling the Israelis what to do when we quit telling the ROTW how to deal with Israel, when we quit protecting them with our veto power in the UN. How's that sound?

The sad truth is that we often support Israel in ways contrary to our own interests. The US would do well telling them what to do a lot more often than we have, and a lot more often than is likely to happen anytime RSN.

Not that the truth matters to raving wannabee Israeli propagandists...

 

[SamurAchzar]

It says nothing about declaring war. He just says that Israel "must be resisted" and "finished off once and for all" if it attacks middle eastern countries.

Sounds like this is the first step in order to build an alliance against the Isreali threat.

Well good luck with that, at the moment, other than Lebanon and Syria which are sponsored by Iran, every single country in the ME strongly opposes a nuclear Iran - and I wouldn't be surprised if they actively cooperated with Israel in an attempt to prevent that.

The sad truth is that we often support Israel in ways contrary to our own interests

I'm sure resisting the Nazis was against the US self interests, too, given all the lives, money and equipment it took. It would have been much easier to cut a deal with Hitler and keep on doing what you do, a thing which I have not the slightest of doubts you'd have strongly supported.

Likewise I suggest handing Taiwan over to the Chinese.

Overlooking the inherent lack of capability to distinguish "good" from "bad" you've so obviously demonstrated, consider the fact that without US backing, Israel would have long ago attacked Iran to stop this nuclear program. Diplomacy really takes a back seat when an assembly of extreme Muslims posses WMDs. Now, would THAT serve US interests?