NationStates Jolt Archive


Ahmadinejad wants Israel ‘wiped off the map’

Aryavartha
26-10-2005, 19:28
This is not an obscure mullah. This is not an ex official.

This is the president himself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9823624/
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s hard-line president called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

“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, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world,” Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August.

Ahmadinejad referred to Israel’s recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a “trick,” saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel.

Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.

Now let's come back to one of the scenario's that I talked about in another thread on Iranian nuke options.

Let's say Iran explodes a bomb. And in a few weeks later Hizbollah announces that its glorious scientists have made a nuke and it is now in major Israeli cities and it would be detonated if Israel does not give in to so and so demands.

This is not an improbable scenario. Nuclear blackmail by state sponsors of terrorism is a reality. My own country is enduring one such blackmail from another islamic republic. It is the ultimate blackmail since it paralyses your society and decision making polity and you will simply have to gnash your teeth and endure the terrorism.

I do not want to see another pakistan emerging. I fully support US/Israeli response that pre-empts this scenario.
Fass
26-10-2005, 19:30
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451106

Is it really that hard to check if someone else has posted the story? This was even on the front page of the forums. *sigh*
Sierra BTHP
26-10-2005, 19:36
This is not an obscure mullah. This is not an ex official.

This is the president himself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9823624/


But OceanDrive assures us that Iran would never want to nuke Israel first, or wipe it off the map :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Novoga
27-10-2005, 04:40
Now, if this was Bush saying Iran should be wiped off the map this thread would be the most popular one....
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 04:43
Thanks Iran for proving you don't want Israel around. Guess what? Its not gonna happen.
Potaria
27-10-2005, 04:44
Thanks Iran for proving you don't want Israel around. Guess what? Its not gonna happen.

Dude, did you really have to copy/paste this from the other thread! Be a bit more original!
Chellis
27-10-2005, 04:47
So we are getting the same old rhetoric, blah blah blah.

Iran wouldn't nuke Israel, that would be shooting itself in the foot. As for giving them to terrorists, I think they would be too worried about those nukes falling in other people's hands, and being used on them... I just don't see rational humans starting nuclear wars, unless extremely provoked by other events.
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 04:52
So we are getting the same old rhetoric, blah blah blah.

Iran wouldn't nuke Israel, that would be shooting itself in the foot. As for giving them to terrorists, I think they would be too worried about those nukes falling in other people's hands, and being used on them... I just don't see rational humans starting nuclear wars, unless extremely provoked by other events.

Kennedy and Khruschev nearly came to a nuclear blow and they were rational people.
Kreitzmoorland
27-10-2005, 04:52
The fact that Iran wants Israel pushed into the sea is very, very, old news. If this surprises you, well, good morning to you.

I think I'm well-founded in assuming that Israeli inteligence knows more than just about anyone about Iran's nuclear position. And I am comfident that the western world, Israel included, will take steps necessary to prevent nuclear blackmail.
Though Iran's leaders may indulge in cataclysimic threats to Israel, I have no doubt that they are, in fact, much more calculating and cautious that that.
Potaria
27-10-2005, 04:52
Kennedy and Khruschev nearly came to a nuclear blow and they were rational people.

Yeck, I wouldn't wanna clean the mess on that floor.

*runs*
Mt-Tau
27-10-2005, 04:58
So we are getting the same old rhetoric, blah blah blah.

Iran wouldn't nuke Israel, that would be shooting itself in the foot. As for giving them to terrorists, I think they would be too worried about those nukes falling in other people's hands, and being used on them... I just don't see rational humans starting nuclear wars, unless extremely provoked by other events.

One problem is that you are assuming we are dealing with a rational leader.
Chellis
27-10-2005, 04:59
Kennedy and Khruschev nearly came to a nuclear blow and they were rational people.

And they were provoked by strategic placement of nukes(Cuba, Turkey), as I was saying. They didn't open the silo's, or come so close, because they hated each other, their ideologies, etc.
Chellis
27-10-2005, 05:01
One problem is that you are assuming we are dealing with a rational leader.

And if you can give me some type of real proof that he isn't rational, then I will concede your point. I don't believe someone who gets voted into office, legitimatly(even if there are some additional blockades, the elections were not seemingly rigged), is likely to be irrational. Fanatical is a different thing, but I don't believe he is too fanatical, more like towing the rhetoric that many in
Iran want to hear.
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 05:04
And if you can give me some type of real proof that he isn't rational, then I will concede your point. I don't believe someone who gets voted into office, legitimatly(even if there are some additional blockades, the elections were not seemingly rigged), is likely to be irrational. Fanatical is a different thing, but I don't believe he is too fanatical, more like towing the rhetoric that many in
Iran want to hear.

Can you give us proof that he is rational?
Kreitzmoorland
27-10-2005, 05:07
One problem is that you are assuming we are dealing with a rational leader.
Eveyone is rational when it come to the best methods of promoting their wellbeing. Just because they are fanatical and ruthless, doesn't mean they have a fundamentally different thought process than we do. There is serious danger in thinking of enemies, (and I've noticed this with people's attitudes toward arabs and Mislims in particular) as some sort of mythical "other" and not "fellow inteligent tactician".
Chellis
27-10-2005, 05:23
Can you give us proof that he is rational?

Can you prove you arent a giant dragon?

Rationality should be the assumed side. I dont think tens of millions of people would vote for an irrational person(if only for the fact that an irrational person probably couldn't get enough people to support him politically).
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 05:25
Can you prove you arent a giant dragon?

Actually yes I can. Its called a picture :D

Rationality should be the assumed side. I dont think tens of millions of people would vote for an irrational person(if only for the fact that an irrational person probably couldn't get enough people to support him politically).

To borrow that, Hitler was an irrational person who was elected to office. He's just one of a few irrational leaders I can think of who were elected.
Kreitzmoorland
27-10-2005, 05:29
To borrow that, Hitler was an irrational person who was elected to office. He's just one of a few irrational leaders I can think of who were elected.Trying to define a person's rationality is a pointless exercise. If you define that anyone who would choose to use nuclear weapons as irrational you have accomplished excatly nothing. As long as you KNOW what the person is capable of doing, through more sophisticated means that asking yourself "what would I do in his position"?, then you're okay.
As far as this conversation goes, it seems that rational just means stuff I agree with.
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 05:31
Trying to define a person's rationality is a pointless exercise. If you define that anyone who would choose to use nuclear weapons as irrational you have accomplished excatly nothing. As long as you KNOW what the person is capable of doing, through more sophisticated means that asking yourself "what would I do in his position"?, then you're okay.
As far as this conversation goes, it seems that rational just means stuff I agree with.

Nope. Not really. However, if someone wants a nation gone and is trying to develope nuclear technology that they won't allow anyone to see..... that worries me.
Chellis
27-10-2005, 05:42
Actually yes I can. Its called a picture :D



To borrow that, Hitler was an irrational person who was elected to office. He's just one of a few irrational leaders I can think of who were elected.

You can BS pictures. Its called the internet, and photoshop.

I don't believe hitler was irrational, not at least in the early thirties. He was fanatical, and in the early stages of his insanity, but at the time, I believe he was for the most part rational(certainly enough to achieve his rise to power).
Neu Leonstein
27-10-2005, 05:54
Well that's not very nice at all.

That being said, he is who the Iranians voted for (although not for that reason), and if George can go about calling other countries "Axis of Evil" and threaten them with "grave consequences" and the like, then Ahmadinejad can go around and calling Israel "Zionist Pigdogs".
The important thing is that neither acts on it.
Kreitzmoorland
27-10-2005, 05:56
Well that's not very nice at all.

That being said, he is who the Iranians voted for (although not for that reason), and if George can go about calling other countries "Axis of Evil" and threaten them with "grave consequences" and the like, then Ahmadinejad can go around and calling Israel "Zionist Pigdogs".
The important thing is that neither acts on it.I don't understand the parallel you're making.
Keruvalia
27-10-2005, 05:58
Any way you slice it, that's gonna take a pretty big wipe.
Chellis
27-10-2005, 05:58
I don't understand the parallel you're making.

Leaders give strong rhetoric with little to no plan to act upon what they say.
The Holy Womble
27-10-2005, 07:00
Iran wouldn't nuke Israel, that would be shooting itself in the foot.
They already have a fairly long effort of shooting themselves in any number of body parts. One more, one less...

In the meanwhile, Israel strikes back:

Israel: Remove Iran from U.N. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3159945,00.html)

Danny Gillerman, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N., demanded that the U.N. remove Iran from the organization, following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration Wednesday that Israel should be 'wiped off the map."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon instructed the Foreign Ministry to activate Gillerman.

The PM has been urged to respond by Vice Premier Shimon Peres, who wrote in a letter to Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom that "It is unacceptable that the leader of a state member of the U.N. advocates genocide." .

"This call goes against the U.N.'s treaty and constitutes a crime against humanity," Peres wrote.

"The words of the Iranian president are especially severe in light of Iran's attempts to develop nuclear arms and obtain long-range missiles. Israel must unequivocally demand of the U.N. and the security Council that Iran be removed from the organization," he wrote.
Neu Leonstein
27-10-2005, 07:06
"The words of the Iranian president are especially severe in light of Iran's attempts to develop nuclear arms and obtain long-range missiles. Israel must unequivocally demand of the U.N. and the security Council that Iran be removed from the organization," he wrote.
Is that even possible?
The Holy Womble
27-10-2005, 07:11
Is that even possible?
Revoking a country's UN membership? Hasn't happened before, but it would make perfect sense, since calls to destroy a UN member state violates the UN treaty. Besides, even if not, it still makes for a nice rebuttal to Iran
Lacadaemon
27-10-2005, 07:14
Is that even possible?

No.
Olantia
27-10-2005, 07:44
Is that even possible?
It is possible. The UN Charter, Article 6.

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Chellis
27-10-2005, 07:47
When israel apologizes for bombing iraq in 82(I believe that was the year), then they can call for others to be brought out of the UN.
Amestria
27-10-2005, 09:04
News Flash: Irans government refuses to recognize Israels right to exist. The Presidents statement was simply the continuation of that war-like policy.
Delator
27-10-2005, 10:51
It is possible. The UN Charter, Article 6.

"Possible" yes, but I very much doubt that nobody on the SC would veto it.

Russia and China probably would, even France and Britain might (although it's difficult to say)
Laerod
27-10-2005, 10:59
News Flash: Irans government refuses to recognize Israels right to exist. The Presidents statement was simply the continuation of that war-like policy.Dripping with Sarcasm: Damn. Now I understand why that Iranian refused to fight that Israeli in the Judo event in the Olympics... It's all so clear now...
Free Western Nations
27-10-2005, 12:05
Is that even possible?

Yes.

Don't see the fuss about consulting the Useless Nitwits anyway..no one gives a flying rats ass what they say.

Lemme see here...the UN can....

Pass meaningless resolutions.

Send "notes of protest"

Call "emergency summits"

Call "special meetings of the Security Council"

Meanwhile, in the background is a large mushroom cloud over any city you can care to imagine.

However, I am fairly sure that the "president" of Iran (the same one involved in the hostage taking at the embassy, by the way, yes that WAS him) is well aware of just what will happen if he even thinks about it.

One Ohio class submarine.

Half a dozen SLAMS.

Bye bye Iran.
Neu Leonstein
27-10-2005, 12:14
Bye bye Iran.
That just disgusts me.
Not only would you not have destroyed Iran, or the Iranian Regime, which will continue in the heads of the survivors.
But you also killed tens of millions of people. People who had nothing at all to do with this.

You complain when terrorists blow up Americans or whoever up to make a political statement, yet when the US did it, it's something to make fun of? Or agree with?
Righteous Munchee-Love
27-10-2005, 12:17
Yes.

Don't see the fuss about consulting the Useless Nitwits anyway..no one gives a flying rats ass what they say.

Lemme see here...the UN can....

Pass meaningless resolutions.

Send "notes of protest"

Call "emergency summits"

Call "special meetings of the Security Council"

Meanwhile, in the background is a large mushroom cloud over any city you can care to imagine.

However, I am fairly sure that the "president" of Iran (the same one involved in the hostage taking at the embassy, by the way, yes that WAS him) is well aware of just what will happen if he even thinks about it.

One Ohio class submarine.

Half a dozen SLAMS.

Bye bye Iran.


Ever considered other political methods than brute force and coercion?
(Hint: It´s called diplomacy, you do it by talking to each other. To do so on a large scale, an assembling place might come in handy.)
Humanistic Principles
27-10-2005, 12:26
Listen, Ahmadinejad is a crazy religious nutcase. We can't trust religious nutcases, period. Look at Bin Laden for example. Or even the crazy televangelists in America. It's very likely that Ahmadinejad is going to instigate some kind of conflict, whether military or diplomatic, against Israel. This should serve as a warning for Israel to get prepared for something bad.
New Watenho
27-10-2005, 12:26
One Ohio class submarine.

Half a dozen SLAMS.

Bye bye Iran.

Fighting fire with fire is such a lovely phrase; it sounds so very meaningful and appropriate. Fighting terrorism with terrorism is a lot less palatable. The unprecedented scale of the nuclear holocaust you propose would, I don't think anyone need point out, isolate America utterly in the international community. No world leader could stand with anyone who would do such a thing. Not to mention the reaction of the American people themselves.

As for Ahmadinejad, he can call for the annihilation of Israel all he wants; he's a new leader trying to ingratiate himself with the locals, who loathe it too. His words are futile.
Neu Leonstein
27-10-2005, 12:36
Listen, Ahmadinejad is a crazy religious nutcase. We can't trust religious nutcases, period...
Unlikely. He's conservative, but not a religious nutcase.
He's more of a nationalist than anything else in a situation like this.
NERVUN
27-10-2005, 13:06
However, I am fairly sure that the "president" of Iran (the same one involved in the hostage taking at the embassy, by the way, yes that WAS him) is well aware of just what will happen if he even thinks about it.

One Ohio class submarine.

Half a dozen SLAMS.

Bye bye Iran.
Unless Iran actually uses nukes first if the US launches it's bye bye world. Think about THAT.
Free Western Nations
27-10-2005, 13:06
Hint: It´s called diplomacy, you do it by talking to each other. To do so on a large scale, an assembling place might come in handy.)

As soon as Iran shows conclusively that their intentions are to maintain said diplomacy, sure.

I don't think anyone can, by any stretch of the imagination, parse said President's comments as "diplomatic"

The description "threat" is more appropriate. Even if he is "sabre rattling"...it's a bloody stupid thing to do.And coming as it is with the wish to have an "Islamic bomb" by said nation...I'd say that his comments can rightly be considered a threat.

That just disgusts me.

Sorry to hear that. What disgusts me is the notion that Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Fact.

They can't.

Not only would you not have destroyed Iran, or the Iranian Regime, which will continue in the heads of the survivors.

Use of nuclear weapons against anyone by Iran can have one, and only one, response.

What would you suggest....a diplomatic note?

But you also killed tens of millions of people. People who had nothing at all to do with this.

As opposed to the mllions who will die if an Iranian weapon is used on a populated city.? And need I remind you that the thousands who died in the Twin Towers also had nothing to do with Middle East policy or the Crusades or a dozen other "reasons" for terrorism.

Your point is?

You complain when terrorists blow up Americans or whoever up to make a political statement, yet when the US did it, it's something to make fun of? Or agree with?

We are discussing the very real danger of Iran being in posession of nuclear weapons, and , it appears, the possible danger of said weapons being used on another country, Israel for example.

An Iranian nuclear weapon is used on Tel Aviv. What do you suggest they do then?

Call a special meeting of the UN?
Neu Leonstein
27-10-2005, 13:09
An Iranian nuclear weapon is used on Tel Aviv. What do you suggest they do then?
I'm not even going to get into this.
I suggest you do a good read-up on Iranian foreign and domestic policy. It's all talk, no more, no less.
Free Western Nations
27-10-2005, 13:12
I suggest you do a good read-up on Iranian foreign and domestic policy. It's all talk, no more, no less.

I think that you're the one who needs to study. Iran has been sponsoring, funding, aiding and abetting terrorism and murder on a grand scale over the last thirty years.

"All talk"?

What do you think the Iran-Iraq war was..a tea party?

Oh and Iranian domestic policy? Sure..lemme see here...

PARIS, 16 Oct. (IPS) Almost two months after having hanged a 16 year old girl, the ruling Iranian ayatollahs are to commit another human crime by condemning another young girl to stoning.

According to Iranian and foreign press, Zhila Izadi, a 13 year old girl from the north-western city of Marivan had been condemned to death by stoning after being found that she had been pregnant from her 15 years-old brother.

http://www.geocities.com/richard.clark32@btinternet.com/iranfem.html

Fatima Abrani
Age 18
Crime:Refusal to wear veil
Date of execution 05/11/1980

Or this

Two unidentified gay teenagers were publicly executed in Iran this week for the crime of homosexuality. According to the London Times, the youths were executed in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad, in north-east Iran.

Iran enforces Islamic Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex.

I think I understand Iranian domestic policy quite well, actually.
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 13:20
Ever considered other political methods than brute force and coercion?
(Hint: It´s called diplomacy, you do it by talking to each other. To do so on a large scale, an assembling place might come in handy.)

And sometimes, using force is necessary. Especially if you get a leader that doesn't want to negotiate, like oh I don't know, Saddam Hussein.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 13:29
dp
Neu Leonstein
27-10-2005, 13:29
I think that you're the one who needs to study. Iran has been sponsoring, funding, aiding and abetting terrorism and murder on a grand scale over the last thirty years.
:D
Everyone has...whether you recognise it or not depends on which side you're on.

What do you think the Iran-Iraq war was..a tea party?
No, that was the US being pissed off at losing the Shah.

Oh and Iranian domestic policy? Sure..lemme see here...
I think I understand Iranian domestic policy quite well, actually.
Is that all you think of when you hear "Iran"?
Do you really think they elected this man because of religion?
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 13:31
Can you give us proof that he is rational?rigth after you prove that Bush and Sharon are rational...

Good luck :D :D
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 13:34
rigth after you prove that Bush and Sharon are rational...

Good luck :D :D

Has Bush threatened to use nukes?
Beer and Guns
27-10-2005, 13:36
So we are getting the same old rhetoric, blah blah blah.

Iran wouldn't nuke Israel, that would be shooting itself in the foot. As for giving them to terrorists, I think they would be too worried about those nukes falling in other people's hands, and being used on them... I just don't see rational humans starting nuclear wars, unless extremely provoked by other events.

How is a president who wants to wipe another nation off the face of the earth and says so publicly , in any way rational ? Especially when you consider the position his country is in reguarding nukes and its relationship with the US , a country that just happens to have an army right next door that may not be too busy to come by for a visit .:rolleyes:
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 13:37
Listen, Ahmadinejad is a crazy religious nutcase. We can't trust religious nutcases....Bush is a nutcase too...God talks to him...But

I dont care (I dont give a fuck) if you trust them or not...

They are presidents...elected by a clear majority of their people...

(ok..well..at least the Iranian fellow was)
Neu Leonstein
27-10-2005, 13:37
Has Bush threatened to use nukes?
Well,
a) is that a prove of irrationality?
b) the US does have a pre-emptive nuclear strike policy, including on countries like China. That's kind of like threatening with nukes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

Here's the whole thing
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf
NERVUN
27-10-2005, 13:38
Has Bush threatened to use nukes?
Yes.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 13:39
Has Bush threatened to use nukes?bunker busters are nukes...are they not?
Non Aligned States
27-10-2005, 13:40
Listen, Ahmadinejad is a crazy religious nutcase. We can't trust religious nutcases, period.

Why haven't you put Pat Robertson in jail yet? He does after all, fall into the category of religious nutcase.
NERVUN
27-10-2005, 13:42
How is a president who wants to wipe another nation off the face of the earth and says so publicly , in any way rational ? Especially when you consider the position his country is in reguarding nukes and its relationship with the US , a country that just happens to have an army right next door that may not be too busy to come by for a visit .:rolleyes:
*sighs* And Iran has been saying the exact same thing since the damn revolution. The last Iranian president was the only break in a fine, outsanding, tradition of calling for the death of (insert target here). That's why I hope you'll forgive me if I don't seem to see anything upsetting as Israel is still there.
Non Aligned States
27-10-2005, 13:42
Has Bush threatened to use nukes?

If he signs that proposal by the Pentagon (I think it was them), to make nukes as first strike weapons, he might as well have.
Beer and Guns
27-10-2005, 13:44
I'm not even going to get into this.
I suggest you do a good read-up on Iranian foreign and domestic policy. It's all talk, no more, no less.

They said Hitler was all talk nothing less ...then he took over Austria..they still said its all talk he's done now...then he took over the Chzechs ...they said he's all talk but just in case ...and he invaded Poland and started WW2 .
They said Saddam was all talk when he blustered about Kuwait ...then Saddam invaded . They said the Ayatolla was all talk when he condemned America...he took hostages and almost started a war with the US . They said the Arabs were all talk and wouldnt invade Israel...well we know how that turned out .
Do you constantly walk around sticking your head in the sand ?
Righteous Munchee-Love
27-10-2005, 13:46
And sometimes, using force is necessary. Especially if you get a leader that doesn't want to negotiate, like oh I don't know, Saddam Hussein.

You are right, sometimes force is necessary. But I get this funny notions, that most violence could be avoided by discussing matters.
And it is definitively easier to have a standing body of diplomats gathered together, then having to call one after another. Especially in times when time´s running out.
This is what the UN is mainly for.

I don't think anyone can, by any stretch of the imagination, parse said President's comments as "diplomatic"


I don´t think so, either, but it´s of importance when what gets said in front of which audience. And as far as I understood it, he didn´t say it in the UN or on an international meeting, but in his country, speaking to a crowd.
I wonder what things get said in front of other presidential crowds.
Beer and Guns
27-10-2005, 13:46
bunker busters are nukes...are they not?


They are not nukes .:rolleyes:
Beer and Guns
27-10-2005, 13:47
You are right, sometimes force is necessary. But I get this funny notions, that most violence could be avoided by discussing matters.
And it is definitively easier to have a standing body of diplomats gathered together, then having to call one after another. Especially in times when time´s running out.
This is what the UN is mainly for.



I don´t think so, either, but it´s of importance when what gets said in front of which audience. And as far as I understood it, he didn´t say it in the UN or on an international meeting, but in his country, speaking to a crowd.
I wonder what things get said in front of other presidential crowds.

And the UN has been so successfull in Iraq and Somalia and Sudan and in Serbia / Kosovo ....the UN is a joke .
Non Aligned States
27-10-2005, 13:48
They are not nukes .:rolleyes:

The new ones will be. Or have they cancelled development of the nuclear bunker busters?
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 13:48
They said Hitler was all talk nothing less ...then he took over Austria....Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah , Blah Blah Blah Blah.
Blah Blah Blah Blah ?Hitler was from Austria.
NERVUN
27-10-2005, 13:49
They are not nukes .:rolleyes:
Now they're not, as the administration finally dropped them in the face of continuous critisim.
Jeruselem
27-10-2005, 13:52
Don't you love the Persians, I mean Iranians.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 13:53
Now they're not, as the administration finally dropped them in the face of continuous critisim.I bet Pentagon new nukes research is bussiness as usual...they want to be able to take out the deep bunkers...no matter how many "collateral" civileans they kill.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 13:55
Don't you love the Persians, I mean Iranians.why should I?

Why should I love them...or hate them?
Corneliu
27-10-2005, 13:55
Well,
a) is that a prove of irrationality?
b) the US does have a pre-emptive nuclear strike policy, including on countries like China. That's kind of like threatening with nukes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

Here's the whole thing
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf

And Russia probably has a plan like that along with China. I"m sure most nations that have nukes have that.
Righteous Munchee-Love
27-10-2005, 13:55
And the UN has been so successfull in Iraq and Somalia and Sudan and in Serbia / Kosovo ....the UN is a joke .

If I trip your legs, so you won´t win the race, you´re a truly lame, no-good runner? Right.
Righteous Munchee-Love
27-10-2005, 13:58
Hitler was from Austria.

Nonetheless, he took it over when he was German leader, against faint Austrian resistance. But I guess, after being yelled at by Hitler for more than 3 hours, most people would give in to whatever he wants.
Sierra BTHP
27-10-2005, 14:50
bunker busters are nukes...are they not?

Nope. There are no nuclear bunker busters deployed, and the one they were designing has been abandoned as a project.
Drunk commies deleted
27-10-2005, 15:41
Funny how so many people have no problem with nuclear proliferation as long as it's not the US getting more nukes. At least we don't promise to wipe other nations off the map. Even our crazy president hasn't made that threat.
Ravenshrike
27-10-2005, 15:50
I think that you're the one who needs to study. Iran has been sponsoring, funding, aiding and abetting terrorism and murder on a grand scale over the last thirty years.

"All talk"?

What do you think the Iran-Iraq war was..a tea party?

Oh and Iranian domestic policy? Sure..lemme see here...

PARIS, 16 Oct. (IPS) Almost two months after having hanged a 16 year old girl, the ruling Iranian ayatollahs are to commit another human crime by condemning another young girl to stoning.

According to Iranian and foreign press, Zhila Izadi, a 13 year old girl from the north-western city of Marivan had been condemned to death by stoning after being found that she had been pregnant from her 15 years-old brother.

Just to clear things up, she ended up getting "only" 150 lashes instead of being executed. Of course, had enough foreigners not protested her execution they wouldn't have changed the punishment.
Sierra BTHP
27-10-2005, 15:52
Just to clear things up, she ended up getting "only" 150 lashes instead of being executed. Of course, had enough foreigners not protested her execution they wouldn't have changed the punishment.

Not sure what kind of lash they user in Iran, but in the days when Western nations used the lash, 50 was considered a probable death sentence for an able-bodied man.

No need in being completely sadistic if you're going to execute someone.
Ravenshrike
27-10-2005, 15:55
The new ones will be. Or have they cancelled development of the nuclear bunker busters?
They said they did, but since they're designing a conventional bunker buster to do the same thing as the nuclear one, I have to wonder if they just changed the name of the plans and will just toss a nuclear warhead into the final build. Oh, and OD, new nukes, especially deep penetration nukes like the bunker buster is designed for, have very little harmful radiation activity, apart from the gamma in the initial blast. Since it's designed to detonate underground the gamma will be for the most part negated.
Aryavartha
27-10-2005, 17:14
Rationality is a subjective term. Morality too.

Let's be objective here. If and when Iran gets the bomb, what is the guarentee that it will not become another Pakistan - a nuclear armed state that used (and is still using) terrorism as a state policy and enjoying the deterrance that the nukes give against response by the victim?

Can any "Iran has right to bomb as every other country / Bush is an irrational clown, so Ahmadinejad can be one too" people answer that question, please?

Another point to note is that the speech that Ahmedinehad refers to Khomeini was made 26 years ago. What is the need to refer to that at this juncture? Is he drawing legitimacy from Khomeini and trying to rally people around him? For what?

Real power lies in Qom, not Teheran. But the fact that Qom allows this is itself disturbing for me.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 17:25
...Of course, had enough foreigners not protested her execution they wouldn't have changed the punishment.The Iranians are ChickenShiite compared to the (will-not-change-our-Laws-for-you) Singapore People.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 17:29
Oh, and OD, new nukes, especially deep penetration nukes like the bunker buster is designed for, have very little harmful radiation activity, apart from the gamma in the initial blast. Since it's designed to detonate underground the gamma will be for the most part negated.Interesting...

Lets nuke the shiite out of them...what are we waiting for?
:D :D :p :D
Sierra BTHP
27-10-2005, 17:30
Interesting...

Lets nuke the shiite out of them...what are we waiting for?
:D :D :p :D

They never went past the drawing board on modifying the B-61 warhead for this type of work.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2005, 17:36
Rationality is a subjective term. Morality too.

Let's be objective here. If and when Iran gets the bomb, what is the guarentee that it will not become another Pakistan -... Ok Lets be objective...here is my objective answer...There is no "guarentees" in life.... other than death.

India has never given me a "guarentee"...and today there is still no "guarentee" that India will never use nukes...

But do not expect me to lose any sleep over it...
Beer and Guns
28-10-2005, 13:22
The leaders of other nations are getting in line to condemn this goofball ...looks like there's hop-e after all .:D
OceanDrive2
28-10-2005, 13:43
The leaders of other nations are getting in line to condemn this goofball ...looks like there's hop-e after all .:DNothing can happen untill Russia AND China lift their veto...

and frankly I do not see China doing it.
Corneliu
28-10-2005, 14:00
Nothing can happen untill Russia AND China lift their veto...

and frankly I do not see China doing it.

I think China might. Iran has to follow the IAEA procedures and they haven't done so. There is no verification by this body that they are using it only for nuclear power. That is a Treaty Violation.
OceanDrive2
28-10-2005, 14:20
I think China might. Iran has to follow the IAEA procedures....IAEA procedure is to submit the case to the security council...

Thats why I am talking about Russia and China.


The road to North Korea goes trough Beijing...
The road to Teheran goes trough Beijing...

China must be loving its new World influence.
Sierra BTHP
28-10-2005, 15:45
Given the stupid statement out of the Iranian President, I don't think the Russians would veto anything. They might abstain, but I don't think that Iran can count on the Russians to whitewash things for them anymore. Especially since the large demonstrations in the Iranian street, supporting the idea of wiping Israel off the map.

While the Russians could realistically support a country that toes the line on wanting "peaceful" nuclear power, it's rather difficult to support one that talks about "wiping" someone off the face of the earth.

I see the general outrage from most nations. I'm wondering where the outrage on this forum is.

Whenever I talk about nuking a country off the face of the earth, there are the usual suspects who get their panties in a bind and say, "OMFG! You are sooo evil and psychotic!"

Well? I don't even have a nuclear weapons program, or millions of adherents marching in the streets chanting my ideas. The Iranian President does.

So, I fully expect all of you who think that my genocidal ideas are crazy to jump up and down in the following posts, saying the world is in extreme danger because someone who thinks like Sierra is the President of Iran.
Aryavartha
28-10-2005, 18:06
Ok Lets be objective...here is my objective answer...There is no "guarentees" in life.... other than death.

India has never given me a "guarentee"...and today there is still no "guarentee" that India will never use nukes...

But do not expect me to lose any sleep over it...

It is really getting tiresome with you.;)

Yes, India has indeed given you a guarentee.

We are not pursuing an ICBM which can target US, even though it is within our reach if we actively pursue it.

We also have a declared "No first use" nuke doctrine to boot.

Nobody has lost any sleep over India's nukes, except the Pakis and the Chinese.

Get real.
Sierra BTHP
28-10-2005, 18:07
It is really getting tiresome with you.;)

Yes, India has indeed given you a guarentee.

We are not pursuing an ICBM which can target US, even though it is within our reach if we actively pursue it.

We also have a declared "No first use" nuke doctrine to boot.

Nobody has lost any sleep over India's nukes, except the Pakis and the Chinese.

Get real.

I think Ocean needs to take a trip to Kashmir, and get kidnapped by Islamic militants.

I'm sure he'll finally believe they're not the nice people he thinks they are, right before they cut his head off.
Neu Leonstein
29-10-2005, 00:27
I see the general outrage from most nations. I'm wondering where the outrage on this forum is.
Because none of us has to be particularly politically correct about this, we can say what our leaders can't:
He said this to a bunch of students! It's only and exclusively a domestic policy measure - he just tries to talk up the common enemy in order to turn Iran more militaristic (which was his plan all along).

And again, near no one in Iran voted for him because of religion or foreign policy - he vowed to end inflation and the spread of drugs, he fought corruption while mayor of Tehran and gained economic credentials there.
You seem to think Iran is somehow a backward country - it's not, it's a modern society with all the problems modern societies have, plus the problem of religion occasionally interfering too much. But so far, people don't seem like they want to overthrow their system just yet.
ARF-COM and IBTL
29-10-2005, 00:39
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451106

Is it really that hard to check if someone else has posted the story? This was even on the front page of the forums. *sigh*

Israel has it's own Nukes. By the time you hear Allahu Ackbar the entire middle east would be a flaming radioactive wasteland.

Israel's nukes are the best out there second to current generation US nukes. The Israelis got the best from us :D
Neu Leonstein
29-10-2005, 00:42
Israel has it's own Nukes.
Which is of course against the very same laws that the US is running amok about now with Iran, or Israel did back in 82 when they bombed Iraq.
Free Western Nations
29-10-2005, 01:07
You seem to think Iran is somehow a backward country

I'd think that's actually a pretty accurate definition, actually...I'd say fourth (no....I'd say second....) century mentality, a vicious, homicidal, brutal and repressive theocracy by specific description.

it's not, it's a modern society with all the problems modern societies have

Garbage.

Iran? Modern? By whose definition?

Iran was modern until the mullahs and that maniac Khomeini took over, now it's a throwback with absolutely no hope and no expectation of ever joining the civilised nations of the world.

Iran is a pariah, a contry almost no one wants anything to do with. Its "human rights" record is a sick joke soaked in the blood of its own citizens.

Legalised wife bashing and murder for "immorality" (the husband walks away to the applause of his fellows), genital mutilation, "honour killings", stonings, trials for "witchcraft", executions for not wearing a veil, public lynchings for "immodesty", active persecution of other faiths and beliefs up to and including state sponsored murder, slavery (children are bought and sold openly)

Fact: Iran executes lesbians and gays. The Iranian government has executed 4,000 homosexuals since 1979, according to estimates in the mid-1990s by the exiled Iranian gay rights group, Homan. Fact: The Iranian government often pins false charges on the victims of its murderous policies in order to discredit them and discourage public protests."

In iran, you can be hauled up for trial, tried and convicted of witchcraft or sorcery, buried up to your waist and then slowly and painfully stoned to death.

I guess your idea of modern and mine are a tad different..Australia is a modern nation and I will live and die a free man here.

I have the freedom to live as I please, believe or not as I please, come and go as I please, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, unlimited abnd unrestricted access to books and knowldge of all sorts, and the freedom to criticise those who govern without the fear of mortal peril.

None of that exists in "modern" Iran..and as I'd say we will actually never know, my guess is that the number of "disappeared ones", those taken in the night or in secret by the religious zealots who "govern" for "crimes against Islam and the state" would number in the hundreds of thousands...if not millions.

I would not use the word modern to describe Iran..I'd use the words primitive, barbaric, brutal, repressive, superstitious and religiously homicidal.

Prove me wrong.
Neu Leonstein
29-10-2005, 01:38
Iran? Modern? By whose definition?
The vast majority of people in that country live completely normal lives. Women should wear the hejab, but not the full one like in Afghanistan or even in Saudi Arabia.
Admittedly Homosexuality is looked down upon (and punished in ridiculous ways), but I've got a distinct feeling that there are a good many elements in the US who wouldn't mind cracking down on that either.
Do they ever show anything on TV where you live about Iran that doesn't focus on the religious part? If they do, I suggest you watch it. You seem to have a completely wrong idea about the place.
I've met three Iranians in my time here, and while two agree that the Ayatollahs were a bad idea, none of them was in any way backward or overly religious. I had the good fortune to get a message from one of them recently, and he explained to me why people at home voted for Ahmadinejad - it's purely on the economy and that kind of thing. Completely normal reasons.

So let's look at how people live in Iran:
http://www.iranian.com/letters.html
This site is apparently maintained and run by Iranian ex-pats, and they talk abotu all kinds of stuff, so maybe that helps in showing you what Iranians think about stuff

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/SHIA/MODERN.HTM
This is a little text about how the revolution came about and what it means - just in response to your idea that the Shah somehow was a better leader than Khomayni.

http://www.iranheritage.org/farneardistance/default.htm
This is a site about art and culture in Iran - I would especially recommend Iranian cinema to you by the way. There have been a lot of quality films out of there recently.

Face it - the people in Iran are just like us. The same stars shine on their sky, they drive Mercedes just like we do, they work and try and get rich just like we do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4091508.stm
And here's why the voted for their new President, clearly written down for everyone to see:
I'm sick and tired of people speaking on behalf of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has just spoken. Political and social freedom, in view of the election results, are not high on the Iranian people's list of priorities. Battling rampant poverty, corruption and a high unemployment rate clearly is. We experienced eight years of a "reformist" premiership and, frankly, nothing improved on the economic front for the majority of Iranians. If anything, most of us got relatively poorer while a select few lined their pockets. While I do not agree with his policies in general, I'm still eager to see what changes Mr Ahmadinejad rings as his election campaign was mostly built on an anti-corruption drive.
Soheil, Tehran, Iran
OceanDrive2
29-10-2005, 02:01
I think Ocean needs to take a trip to Kashmir, and get kidnapped by Islamic militants.First you graciously offer me "Dead and Abused Corpses"...and now you wanna pay me a plane ticked to Pakistan?

Has your friendliness no limits? :D :D

send me the Ticket...I shall sell it on e-bay...and send the money to Pakistan...they need it there. :p
OceanDrive2
29-10-2005, 02:03
The leaders of other nations are getting in line to condemn this goofball ...looks like there's hop-e after all .:DYeah...Presidents and PMs (Heads-of-state) are really getting in line to condemn Iran...

Here is the proof:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451471
Free Western Nations
29-10-2005, 02:22
The vast majority of people in that country live completely normal lives. Women should wear the hejab, but not the full one like in Afghanistan or even in Saudi Arabia.

The Ministry of Education specifies the color and the style of the suited clothing for the girl students (black, straight and covered from head to toe for children as young as 6 years of age). And the Ministry of Guidance sets the rules of clothing for older women (only black, brown and dark blue -Islamic colors- are allowed. Bright colors, especially red are prohibited).

It has been reported that on August 15, 1991, the Prosecutor-General, Abolfazl Musavi-Tabrizi, said that "anyone who rejects the principle of hijab in Iran is an apostate and the punishment for an apostate under Islamic-law is death."

Brutal.Barbaric.Backward. Primitive.

Admittedly Homosexuality is looked down upon (and punished in ridiculous ways),

Is that what you call stoning, hanging, burned alive for the crime of being gay? And yeah, the US wouldn't mind if Iran started respecting the human rights of others...then again, so would the rest of the civilised world.

I've met three Iranians in my time here, and while two agree that the Ayatollahs were a bad idea, none of them was in any way backward or overly religious.

i've met several dozen who were ecstatically glad to have escaped, giddy with the freedoms they now enjoy and who vow they will never go back. A few of them fled for their lives.

Funny that.

I had the good fortune to get a message from one of them recently, and he explained to me why people at home voted for Ahmadinejad - it's purely on the economy and that kind of thing. Completely normal reasons.

And how does calling for the destruction of Israel have any bearing on the economy? Please enlighten me.

Re the revolution: Nice site...now try Googling Iran, atrocity, murder, genital mutilation, flogging,stoning, hanging, honour killings, Bah'ai, homosexuals, terrorism, bombings.

Here's one.

This week, two Iranian teenagers were hanged in a public square after being tortured for 14 months, simply for being caught having consensual sex. Pictures of their execution have been published in various newspapers around the world and can be found at the following Internet link:

Re the cinema: In free nations, films can be made that criticise governments and policy, and at worst what they might get is a bulletin from the local newspaper.

In Iran you get a bullet.

I am really appalled at the way things have turned out for most Iranians. Their choice was either conservative or ultra-conservative. Clearly the latter has won. A bad day for democracy in Iran.
Nima Razavi, Durham, UK

Face it - the people in Iran are just like us. The same stars shine on their sky, they drive Mercedes just like we do, they work and try and get rich just like we do.

Provided you live long enough to able to enjoy it.

As for the rest..suit yourself. You're ignoring the facts in favour of being an Iranian apologist.

i'll simply finish with the note that the actions of the Iranian President speak for themselves. I hope that this is just sabre rattling and nothing more.

I will be more than happy to see this resolved in a diplomatic level.

But I would also hazard a guess that in coming months we will see an increased number of terrorist bombings and other murders.

And no two guesses where the funds and support will be coming from.
Neu Leonstein
29-10-2005, 02:27
And no two guesses where the funds and support will be coming from.
Suit yourself. :rolleyes:
Non Aligned States
29-10-2005, 03:41
They said they did, but since they're designing a conventional bunker buster to do the same thing as the nuclear one, I have to wonder if they just changed the name of the plans and will just toss a nuclear warhead into the final build. Oh, and OD, new nukes, especially deep penetration nukes like the bunker buster is designed for, have very little harmful radiation activity, apart from the gamma in the initial blast. Since it's designed to detonate underground the gamma will be for the most part negated.

Won't it still end up tossing large chunks of radioactive dust as well as have a good chance of poisoning the local water table if present?

And unless the US has pulled out of the no-nuclear weapons testing treaty when I wasn't looking, they don't really have an effective way of telling if it will work as advertised until they drop it on someone. What are they going to do if it does poison future generations? Say "oops. I did it again"?
Neu Leonstein
30-10-2005, 08:17
Iran has now lodged an official response. I found this quote particularly interesting:
...The statement further said that the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the situation in the Occupied Territories has been clearly stated before the 60th session of the UN General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to wit: `In Palestine, a durable peace will be possible through justice, an end to discrimination and occupation of Palestinian lands, the return of all Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state with Al-Qods al-Sharif as its capital.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to its obligations under the United Nations Charter and has never used or threatened to use force against any other state....
Iranian Foreign Ministry (http://www.mfa.gov.ir/output/INDEX.HTM)
Corneliu
30-10-2005, 13:30
Iran has now lodged an official response. I found this quote particularly interesting:

Iranian Foreign Ministry (http://www.mfa.gov.ir/output/INDEX.HTM)

OMG!

If they expect us to believe that then they are sadly delusional.
Psychotic Mongooses
30-10-2005, 13:37
OMG!

If they expect us to believe that then they are sadly delusional.

Well.. its kinda true. They called for it to be wiped from the map... they didn't say THEY'D wipe them from the map. So technically... Iran didn't really threathen Israel itself... technically.

Byt, i don't agree with them at ALL.