Iran's President in "wipe Israel off map" comments

[E. Coli]

madness. I just hope tony keeps us out of it .

Fat Chance.

 

[TAE]

The other question of course is this:

Was that just rhetoric (have other Iranian leaders said the same again and again) or is he actually planning to attack/invade Israel.

 

[Barking_Mad]

There was a guy on the news from Edinburgh University who was an 'expert in Iranian Affairs' and he suggested that this guy was essentially playing to his domestic audience but in terms of world politics he was obviously being very naive in saying what he said. If he wanted his reactors bombing then he's certainly gone about it the right way. Its got to go to the UN Security Council, so I suspect we will have another vote. Russia and China will vote against and the rest might be a fait du complit.

 

[E. Coli]

There was a guy on the news from Edinburgh University who was an 'expert in Iranian Affairs' and he suggested that this guy was essentially playing to his domestic audience but in terms of world politics he was obviously being very naive in saying what he said. If he wanted his reactors bombing then he's certainly gone about it the right way. Its got to go to the UN Security Council, so I suspect we will have another vote. Russia and China will vote against and the rest might be a fait du complit.

Are you saying that they're voting to kick Iran out of the UN or to bomb them?

 

[lostexpectation]

is a coup cheaper

does Israel do coups?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Are you saying that they're voting to kick Iran out of the UN or to bomb them?

I dunno, but this guys comments mush have given Bush and Blair a hard on when they heard it. They didnt even have to make shit up, instead he's just given them the perfect reason. What a numpty.

 

[Andy the Don]

Yes I think that Ahmadinejad was speaking for local & regional Arab consumption, but when I hear people talking about "wiping Israel off the map.." I tend to think of this..

If I was Israeli I would be very concerned at this level of bellicosity from a "hostile" nation.

 

[Kaka Tim]

What a fucking arsehole.

Deeply worrying on a number of levels -

firstly anyone calling for the oblitaration of another country/people is a genocidal cunt of the first order - even if it was 'merely' to give elements of the domestic population a hard on.

it gives Bush and the gang a perfect opportunity to turn up the heat on iran - the likelyhood of military strikes has surely now increased.

It fuels Israeli fears - thereby giving Sharon an even freeer hand to step up the repression in occupied palastinie.

It demonstrates a level of self deluding arrogance and diplomatic incompetance on the part of the Iranian regieme that rivals that of the goons in the whitehouse.

This degree of aggresive incompetance on the part of the two most important players in the reigion does not bode well for the people of the middle east.

 

[E. Coli]

I dunno, but this guys comments mush have given Bush and Blair a hard on when they heard it. They didnt even have to make shit up, instead he's just given them the perfect reason. What a numpty.

yeah he's a fool for saying it out loud. Looks like he won't be getting any help with his nuclear power now.

 

[diego]

Go Iran Go Iran.

 

[TAE]

I have to agree with what Kaka Tim said a few posts up.

 

[Major Tom]

When he said he wanted Israel "wiped off the map" did he necessarily mean military conflict, or just that he would like to see a time when the State of Israel no longer exists (like the USSR no longer exists) ?

The glee with which the west is jumping on this suggests that they may once again have left out some all important caveats.

Several things here - this was presumably translated - I know that in the past we in the west tend to translate things so they can be interprented in the worst possible light.

Secondly - taken out of context - do we know the context?

Thirdly - I agree with you TAE - asking for a country to be wiped off the map is a far cry from threatening to destroy it.

This is clearly a stitch up with Blair linking it to the alledged nuclear weapons programme.

standby for another illegal invasion

 

[untethered]

The chap's just a media tart and our beloved leaders fell for it with their feigned astonishment. Don't feed the trolls.

What's his U75 username?

 

[where to]

telling you, i think as every month goes by the world is falling in on itself, sliding closer and closer into something we're not going to get out of.

at least its only tony reacting just now- bush is silenced by his domestic problems for the time being, that will keep this relatively cool. hate to say it but i really think we're getting to the stage where an enormous war against the muslim world is almost pre-destined. such a set of idiotic cunts in charge here and over there.

fucking binladen, iranian cunt, bush, madmen blair, suicide bombers, sharon, fucking al-zarkawi.

WE NEED SOME SANITY!!!

 

[where to]

standby for another illegal invasion

no way, they have like twenty million young men of fighting age. won't happen. they'll get bombed though, that nuclear place. and will retaliate with terrorism and that...

 

[TAE]

The thing is that if it can be shown that the president was talking about wanting an actual military all out assult on Israel with the intention of wiping out the Israeli population, and if it can be shown that the Iranian forces are in fact actively preparing for such an event (fuling up planes, deploying troops, etc), I'm not at all sure that a last minute attack by Israel against Iran would in fact be illegal.

I'm just hoping that the Iranian president is not quite that mad.

---

Yes, a few targetted air strikes against Iran would be more likely - and I doubt that Israel will wait for clear evidence or indeed until the last minute.

And if Israel attack without a clear present danger, then that would be an illegal pre-emptive strike.

What a mess.

WE NEED SOME SANITY!!!

I think what we need is less "them vs us" and more "let's work for the mutual good" on all sides.

 

[Major Tom]

no way, they have like twenty million young men of fighting age. won't happen. they'll get bombed though, that nuclear place. and will retaliate with terrorism and that...

I expect operation similar to the 1990/91 Iraq invasion - a quick in and out - cause maximum damage - achieve specific aims - help set the country into a terminal decline that will enable a full-on invasion in 10 to 15 years.

 

[Andy the Don]

The thing is that if it can be shown that the president was talking about wanting an actual military all out assult on Israel with the intention of wiping out the Israeli population, and if it can be shown that the Iranian forces are in fact actively preparing for such an event (fuling up planes, deploying troops, etc), I'm not at all sure that a last minute attack by Israel against Iran would in fact be illegal.

Bit hard for Iran to invade Israel as they would have to go through Iraq, & then Jordan &/or Syria just to get to Israel, Iran being to the east of Iraq.

 

[TAE]

I agree, but then I didn't say "invade", I said "assult".

 

[HarrisonSlade]

His speech has been condemned by Blair, Bush, the UN and the unelected heirarchy in Iran. The Iranian President, however, was elected fair and square, and is only saying what many people in the Arab world believes. Would Blair and Bush prefer Iran to lose it's elected leader in favour of a tyrant?

 

[sihhi]

yeah he's a fool for saying it out loud.

I disagree I think it plays usefully for controlling the home population-- that's the most important threat he and the Iranian state system faces.

Provoke western and American counter-over-reaction and shut down dissent as in league with westen and American oppressors etc etc.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There was a guy on the news from Edinburgh University who was an 'expert in Iranian Affairs' and he suggested that this guy was essentially playing to his domestic audience

That's comforting: when they think no one's looking, they draw gross caricatures of jews, and talk about completing the Holocaust.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What a fucking arsehole.

Deeply worrying on a number of levels -

firstly anyone calling for the oblitaration of another country/people is a genocidal cunt of the first order - even if it was 'merely' to give elements of the domestic population a hard on.

it gives Bush and the gang a perfect opportunity to turn up the heat on iran - the likelyhood of military strikes has surely now increased.

It fuels Israeli fears - thereby giving Sharon an even freeer hand to step up the repression in occupied palastinie.

Opportunity?

If this guy means it, and this is the feeling in Iran, then it stops being an 'opportunity', and starts to look like an 'obligation'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Several things here - this was presumably translated - I know that in the past we in the west tend to translate things so they can be interprented in the worst possible light.

Secondly - taken out of context - do we know the context?

Read my post #26. The context was an Anti Zionism Conference.

 

[TAE]

Well, apparently he was not necessarily talking about a military blitz:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.reaction/index.html

"It's absolutely clear that, in his remarks, Mr. Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories," Reuters quoted the embassy statement as saying.

Lots of noise but no intentions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I expect operation similar to the 1990/91 Iraq invasion - a quick in and out - cause maximum damage - achieve specific aims - help set the country into a terminal decline that will enable a full-on invasion in 10 to 15 years.

Only difference being there's no way China will be even partially on-side for an assault on Iran. Too many trading links and WAY too much ongoing investment in oil infrastructure.
Given that China and Japan provide the major prop to the US economy (they purchase something like 40% of all govt bonds IIRC) the merkins aren't going to want to piss off the Chinese to any great degree, and especially not by spudding several billion dollars worth of China-owned oil pipelines and terminals.

 

[Riklet]

Come on...the conference was called "The World Without Zionism" and the Arabs/Iranians have been holding conferences like this/saying similar things for the past 50 years! I can't see why Tony's got so worked up, none of the Arabs/Iranians actually give a shit about the Palestinians, but inspiring hate is an effective way of keeping the masses diverted from their miserable lives...

Who gives a shit if Ayatolah-whatever wants to wipe out israel? So does half the world, and whilst the ordinary Israeli is a normal enough person, the Israeli government cirtainly doesn't do itself any favors with its targeted assasinations/nuclear weapons...

The worst possible move that we can take (as the west) is to listen to this Iranian bullshit, best thing to do is to tell them to stfu and ignore it, instead of trying to threaten a nation which we could never invade as its Geographys just insane and it makes Iraq look like a playground. There are msot likely bits of Iran that the Iranians don't even know exist, so i have no idea how gung ho tony and george are planning on attacking!

Who gives a shit what the arabs rant about, none of them are going to attack Israel or even pretend to...they're not in any hurry to be totally destroyed by Israel's vastly superior (american) armed forces...

I personally don't like Israeli foreign/internal policy anymore than i like Al-quaidas, and I don't like the way we blindly support Israel in its actions, but some things you just can't change, and mad ranting muslims, gung-ho politicians and mad/overtly aggressive Israeli foreign policy are some of them...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, apparently he was not necessarily talking about a military blitz:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.reaction/index.html

"It's absolutely clear that, in his remarks, Mr. Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories," Reuters quoted the embassy statement as saying.

Lots of noise but no intentions.

Bullshit.

Read his comments in post 26. It has nothing to do with 'holding free elections in the occupied territories.'

 

[TeeJay]

...The Iranian President, however, was elected fair and square...

You are, as per usual, talking utter crap.

The most astonishing aspect of Friday's presidential vote in Iran is not that the elections will go into a second round but that Tehran managed to convince so many in the West that this is a real demonstration of democracy.

All power is held by Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, his Council of Guardians and the small clique of military officers and businessmen around him. The Council disqualified more than 1,000 candidates before the election, vetting only contestants who support the regime's ideological lines. The example of outgoing "reformist" President Mohammad Khatami, who presided over eight years of economic decline and worsening repression, has proven that the President cannot change anything against the Council's will.

The one number worth parsing in Friday's election is that of voter participation. Many Iranians had called for a boycott as the only way of showing resistance. Knowing this, the mullahs seem to have taken their usual election manipulations to another level. Intimidation by the Revolutionary Guards and the fact that proof of voting is needed for certain jobs and welfare payments have always pushed up turnout. Still, voter participation has steadily declined in the past few years to barely 50%.

But this time turnout was 62.7%, exactly the level Supreme Leader Khameni had predicted. "Something is fishy here," Patrick Clawson, who follows Iran for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told us. Contradicting all reports about the mood in the country ahead of the vote, hard-line candidates received unprecedented support, while the main reformist candidate, Mustafa Moin, came in fifth. Mr. Moin also suggested the elections were rigged, but since the regime allows no neutral observers the real extent of fraud or Iranian discontent can't be known.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006845

At the end of the first round, one of the defeated reformists, Mehdi Karrubi, complained that the vote had been fixed. There were indeed some suspicious circumstances: for example, in South Khorasan province, home to many disgruntled Sunni Muslims, the official turnout was an improbable 95%; yet Mr Ahmadinejad, the candidate most associated with the assertive Shia Islamism of Iran’s clerical regime, won more than a third of the votes there. And while Friday’s second-round vote was still going on, Mr Rafsanjani’s aides were complaining of “massive irregularities”, accusing the Basij religious militia—in which Mr Ahmadinejad used to be an instructor—of intimidating voters to support their man.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4123204

WHOEVER turns out to have won a two-man run-off on June 24th, Iranians will remember this month's presidential election as much for alleged irregularities in the first round of voting as they will for the eventual result...

...Mr Karrubi cried foul, drawing attention to Mr Ahmadinejad's success in provinces where the Tehran mayor is little known; in Isfahan, for example, he alleges that ballot boxes were stuffed. Mr Karrubi also accused a national militia, answerable to the supposedly apolitical supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of illegally campaigning for “one of the candidates”. Most damaging of all, Mr Karrubi alleged that Mr Khamenei's son interfered in the election—again, it is thought, in Mr Ahmadinejad's favour...

...Mr Karrubi has not been alone in voicing suspicions. Mr Rafsanjani, a former president who presents himself as a moderniser, has referred to “organised interference”. Mostafa Moin, a reformist who performed worse than expected, sounded a “warning bell for our fledgling democracy”. Some far-flung provinces did turn in some decidedly fishy results. In South Khorasan, home to many disgruntled Sunnis, the official turnout was an improbable 95%; yet Mr Ahmadinejad, the candidate most associated with intrusive Shia Islamism, won more than a third of the votes.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4113508

 

[RhymnRzn]

I heard Saeb Erekat talkin some sense on BBC: in fact that dude always has something worthy to be said.