The Illegal war in Iran

[Celerity]

I want you all to know that today Iran declared, as Saddam did in 2002, that they will destroy the Zionist empires of Israel and the US.

'Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged
Iranian Students News Agency (Iran) ^ | Oct 26, 2005 | Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


Posted on 12/22/2005 7:39:17 AM PST by robowombat


Special Dispatch Series - No. 1013 October 28, 2005 No.1013

Iranian President at Tehran Conference: 'Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World – and This is Attainable'

In advance of Iran's Jerusalem Day, which was established by Ayatollah Khomeini and is marked annually on the fourth Friday of the month of Ramadan, the "World without Zionism" conference was held in Tehran.

At the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, members of the Society for the Defense of the Palestinian Nation, and members of the Islamic Students Union, and an audience of hundreds of students.

In his speech, he described his vision of an age-old confrontation between the world of Islam and the "World of Arrogance," i.e. the West; he portrayed Israel and Zionism as the spearhead of the West against the Islamic nation; and he emphasized the need to eliminate Israel – which, he claimed, was a goal that was attainable.

Speeches were also delivered by representatives of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al.

The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), published the full text of Ahmadinejad's speech. The following is a translation of excerpts from ISNA's report and from the speech. [1]

"Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.

"The president warned the leaders of the Islamic world that they should be wary of Fitna [civil strife]: 'If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and misunderstands something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]…'

"Ahmadinejad articulated the real meaning of Zionism: '...We must see what the real story of Palestine is... The establishment of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem was a very grave move by the hegemonic and arrogant system [i.e. the West] against the Islamic world. We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.

"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.

"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-à-vis the World of Arrogance… During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...

"'This occupying country [i.e. Israel] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion [Israel] from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world... This means that the current war in Palestine is the front line of the Islamic world against the World of Arrogance, and will determine the fate of Palestine for centuries to come.

"'Today the Palestinian nation stands against the hegemonic system as the representative of the Islamic Ummah [nation]. Thanks to God, since the Palestinian people adopted the Islamic war and the Islamic goals, and since their struggle has become Islamic in its attitude and orientation, we have been witnessing the progress and success of the Palestinian people.'

"Ahmadinejad said: 'The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels, and in their hearts they want to empty the Islamic world.

"'... They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…

"'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah’s regime can be toppled]?'

"'That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime… and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.

"'Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it.

"'Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country...

"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

"'Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world.

"'In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight.

"'I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.

"'But we must be wary of Fitna. For more than 50 years, the World of Arrogance has tried to give recognition to the existence of this falsified regime [Israel]. With its first steps, and then with further steps, it has tried hard in this direction to stabilize it.

"'Regrettably, 27 or 28 years ago... one of the countries of the first line [i.e. Egypt] made this failure [of recognizing Israel] – and we still hope that they will correct it.

"'Lately we have new Fitna underway… With the forced evacuation [of Gaza] that was imposed by the Palestinian people, they [the Israelis] evacuated only a corner. [Israel] declared this as the final victory and, on the pretext of evacuating Gaza and establishing a Palestinian government, tried to put an end to the hopes of the Palestinians.

"'Today, [Israel] seeks, satanically and deceitfully, to gain control of the front of war. It is trying to influence the Palestinian groups in Palestine so as to preoccupy them with political issues and jobs – so that they relinquish the Palestinian cause that determines their destiny, and come into conflict with each other.

"'On the pretext of goodwill, they [Israel] intended, by evacuating the Gaza strip, to gain recognition of its corrupt regime by some Islamic states. I very much hope, and ask God, that the Palestinian people and the dear Palestinian groups will be wary of this Fitna.

"'The issue of Palestine is by no means over, and will end only when all of Palestine will have a government belonging to the Palestinian people. The refugees must return to their homes, and there must be a government that has come to power by the will of the [Palestinian] people. And, of course those [i.e. the Jews] who came to this country from far away to plunder it have no right to decide anything for the [Palestinian] people.

"'I hope that the Palestinians will maintain their wariness and intelligence, much as they have pursued their battles in the past 10 years. This will be a short period, and if we pass through it successfully, the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple.

"'I warn all the leaders of the Islamic world to be wary of Fitna: If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]…

"'The people who sit in closed rooms cannot decide on this matter. The Islamic people cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.

"'Oh dear people, look at this global arena. By whom are we confronted? We have to understand the depth of the disgrace of the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.'"

The original article, in Iranian: http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-603386
You'll have to plug that into a translator.

I grabbed this from FreeRepublic, the very website that broke the lid off Ted Koppel's faked anti-bush reports, ABC Journalists being banned from Russia, Valerie Plames false timeline, and the Kennedy wiretaps on MLK. Free republic is a vast website of people pasting articles off the mainstream onto one website to be disected and picked apart - and it is primarily Conservative in nature.

 

[reckedracing]

i hope they nuke each other into oblivion...

 

[Celerity]

We're included in that.

You see, this isn't the first time this has happened. Ayatollah Khomeini declared this same thing in the late 80s.

 

[hosmer]

For some reason I don't see Iran as the country that will destroy the US





China maybe....if they felt like it

 

[reckedracing]

We're included in that.

so why not cut all ties with isreal and let them fend for themselves?
and while we're at it we can stop giving them foreign aide, and stop setting up countries in other peoples historic territory...

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]

We're included in that.

so why not cut all ties with isreal and let them fend for themselves?
and while we're at it we can stop giving them foreign aide, and stop setting up countries in other peoples historic territory...

Because the neocons see Israel as a keystone to military superiority in that region of the world.

Neoconservatives are as crazy as the Iranians/Iraqis/insert country here, but only a hair smarter.

 

[Celerity]

Quoted post[/post]]

We're included in that.

so why not cut all ties with isreal and let them fend for themselves?
and while we're at it we can stop giving them foreign aide, and stop setting up countries in other peoples historic territory...

I would suggest reading alittle history on the region before making such a statement. Because it's simply not true. Islam stole that land from the Zions hundreds of years ago, and Israel came to take it back en-masse after WWII displacement. We also do not provide aid to that region. Israel is fine on it's own economically. They are the dominant face of the Middle East.

Quoted post[/post]]

Because the neocons see Israel as a keystone to military superiority in that region of the world.

Neoconservatives are as crazy as the Iranians/Iraqis/insert country here, but only a hair smarter.

Defend this argument.

 

[Battle Pope]

Quoted post[/post]]

We're included in that.

so why not cut all ties with isreal and let them fend for themselves?
and while we're at it we can stop giving them foreign aide, and stop setting up countries in other peoples historic territory...

Same principle as why we're still in Iraq. We essentially created Israel, so we can't really "cut them off".

 

[cheese9988]

Just when you thought we just might, get out of the war......

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]

Defend this argument.

Which part, the one about Israel or the one about Cons being crazy? Well, the second is blindingly obvious. The first is... well... blindingly obvious.

I'll make this easy.

From Wikipedia:

"Some opponents of neoconservatives have sought to emphasize their interest in Israel and the relatively large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives, and have raised the question of "dual loyalty". A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled as anti-Semites by many neoconservatives (which in turn has led to accusations of professional smearing, and then paranoia, and so on).

Many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, among them Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot. Furthermore, neoconservatives in the 1960s were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became preoccupied by Israel's security interests. They promote the view that Israel is the US's strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region, aside from Turkey (George W. Bush has also supported Turkey in its efforts to join the European Union)."

The Cons have almost *ALWAYS* had an interest in Israel.

 

[Celerity]

We can cut them off, happens all the time. We created Japan and "cut them off" and they thrived just fine. The idea, in fact, is to let these people gain independence and become Friends of the US, and not Subjects of the US. (The opposite, "Imperialism" is what everyone says we do. we do not. We have not ever done this.)

What we have here is the reason that we went to war with Iraq. Iraq made this same statement, and we asked the international community for permission to put a heavy hand on the Iraq regime to prevent their possible attack - we were turned down (As we are in this case in Iran). We (Bush and friends) made the call that we had to take matters in our hands to protect ourselves.

So the question is this: Do we preemptively take them on? Do we prepare for war? Or do we dismiss them and wait for the international community to recognise a threat ? If we do that, are we willing to risk an attack on US soil? No? Then it appears we will do the SAME EXACT thing that got everyone so pissed off in the first place.

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]
Just when you thought we just might, get out of the war......

I'll snip from the CSM this time...

"Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary. "

With neocons in power, expect this "war" to last a very long time.

East Asia... Eurasia... Iraq... Iran... what's the difference?

 

[Battle Pope]

I think that's part of the reason that we "took" Iraq - in addition to Israel it would prove to be a viable base of operations (if suicide bombers weren't bringing the country down around them).

 

[Celerity]

both of these statements, from Pat Buchanan (Who is pretty strange and fli-floppy in his political stances anyway) and that CSM article are very opinion-based.

That said I know people's opinions. 80% now (Encroaching) share this same opinion. I contend that this opinion is wrong. If you can (Which I'm not sure you can) defend your arguments with facts and fact-based rhetoric before picking from the endless internet-based supply of opinion and heresay.

Try again, I am interested. If you can change my mind, I won't spend so many nights angrily typing out 100 wpm to block the ignorance that gets sent my way ad nauseum.

In addition: The second writing is correct in it's basis, but then loses sight in it's perspective.

Wars will fought and won, and the winner will do what they will. I state that the US does the most honorable and ultimately, best result with each of it's own wars fought. All you need to do is look at Japan, Germany and Italy.

I will in the meantime consider the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, The Falken Islands and the Panama Canal - All wars fought on liberal ideals and leadership.

Vietnam as well, although not a great victory, still a war that we fought because of French failures in the area. We were called upon to fight alongside allies, and we caught the whole brunt of it. We stood by during the Falken Islands and were criticised for it, we stepped forward during the Kuwait occupation and got criticised for it.

Pat Buchanan says stuff that I agree with, and other things that I think are complete horsehit. That's because he flip flops between my ideals and then the ideals of others. If you would like to see a break in that pattern, observe Joe Leiberman. Democrat, pro-israeli Jew.

-> Steve

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]
both of these statements, from Pat Buchanan (Who is pretty strange and fli-floppy in his political stances anyway) and that CSM article are very opinion-based.

And your sources aren't???

God I love conservative thinking, gives me a good laugh every time.

 

[totalburnout]

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]
both of these statements, from Pat Buchanan (Who is pretty strange and fli-floppy in his political stances anyway) and that CSM article are very opinion-based.

And your sources aren't???

God I love conservative thinking, gives me a good laugh every time.

Look on the flipside. You're doing the same thing and being a cocky, ignorant, ass about it.

There's always two sides to every story.

 

[Celerity]

What source? The Iranian paper written in Arabic ?

Or the fact that it was pointed out on Free Republic ?

-> Steve

 

[reckedracing]

I would suggest reading alittle history on the region before making such a statement. Because it's simply not true. Islam stole that land from the Zions hundreds of years ago, and Israel came to take it back en-masse after WWII displacement. We also do not provide aid to that region. Israel is fine on it's own economically. They are the dominant face of the Middle East.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????!?!?!
it seems that anything that comes out of your mouth is totally false and untruthful...
do you work in the bush administration now?????


from the jewishvirtuallibrary.org

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...to_Israel1.html

U.S. Assistance to Israel
(FY1949 - FY2005)
(millions of dollars)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Export- Import Jewish Refugee Housing American Schools & Cooperative
Military Economic Food for Peace Bank Resettlement Loan Hospitals Other Development Other
Year Total Loan Grant Loan Grant Loan Grant Loan Grant Guarantee Grant Loan Grant Grant
1949 100.0 100.0
1950
1951 35.1 0.1 35.0
1952 86.4 63.7 22.7
1953 73.6 73.6 *
1954 74.7 54.0 20.7
1955 52.7 20.0 21.5 10.8 0.4
1956 50.8 10.0 14.0 25.2 1.6
1957 40.9 10.0 16.8 11.8 2.3
1958 85.4 15.0 9.0 34.9 2.3 24.2
1959 53.3 0.4 10.0 9.2 29.0 1.7 3.0
1960 56.2 0.5 15.0 8.9 26.8 4.5 0.5
1961 77.9 * 16.0 8.5 13.8 9.8 29.8
1962 93.4 13.2 45.0 0.4 18.5 6.8 9.5
1963 87.9 13.3 45.0 12.4 6.0 11.2
1964 37.0 20.0 12.2 4.8
1965 65.1 12.9 20.0 23.9 4.9 3.4
1966 126.8 90.0 10.0 25.9 0.9
1967 23.7 7.0 5.5 0.6 9.6 1.0
1968 106.5 25.0 51.3 0.5 23.7 6.0
1969 160.3 85.0 36.1 0.6 38.6
1970 93.6 30.0 40.7 0.4 10.0 12.5
1971 634.3 545.0 55.5 0.3 31.0 2.5
1972 480.9 300.0 50.0 53.8 0.4 21.1 50.0 5.6
1973 492.8 307.5 50.0 59.4 0.4 21.1 50.0 4.4
1974 2,646.3 982.7 1,500.0 50.0 1.5 47.3 36.5 25.0 3.3
1975 823.0 200.0 100.0 344.5 8.6 62.4 40.0 25.0 2.5 20.0***
1976 2,362.7 750.0 750.0 225.0 475.0 14.4 * 104.7 15.0 25.0 3.6
TQ 292.5 100.0 100.0 25.0 50.0 3.6 12.6 1.3
1977 1,787.5 500.0 500.0 245.0 490.0 7.0 0.9 15.0 25.0 4.6
1978 1,822.6 500.0 500.0 260.0 525.0 6.8 5.4 20.0 5.4
1979 4,913.0 2,700.0 1,300.0 260.0 525.0 5.1 68.7 25.0 25.0 4.2
1980 2,146.0 500.0 500.0 260.0 525.0 1.0 305.9 25.0 25.0 4.1
1981 2,413.4 900.0 500.0 764.0 217.4 25.0 2.0 5.0
1982 2,268.0 850.0 550.0 806.0 6.5 12.5 3.0 17.5** 5.0
1983 2,505.6 950.0 750.0 785.0 12.5 3.1 5.0
1984 2,631.6 850.0 850.0 910.0 12.5 4.1 5.0
1985 3,376.7 1,400.0 1,950.0 15.0 4.7 7.0
1986 3,663.5 1,722.6 1,898.4 15.0 12.0 5.5 10.0
1987 3,040.2 1,800.0 1,200.0 25.0 5.2 10.0
1988 3,043.4 1,800.0 1,200.0 25.0 4.9 13.5
1989 3,045.6 1,800.0 1,200.0 28.0 6.9 10.7
1990 3,434.9 1,792.3 1,194.8 29.9 400.0 3.5 14.4
1991 3,712.3 1,800.0 1,850.0 45.0 2.6 14.7
1992 3,100.0 1,800.0 1,200.0 80.0 3.5 16.5
1993 3,103.4 1,800.0 1,200.0 80.0 2.5 20.9
1994 3,097.2 1,800.0 1,200.0 80.0 2.7 14.5
1995 3,102.4 1,800.0 1,200.0 80.0 2.9 19.5
1996 3,147.3 1,800.0 1,200.0 80.0 3.3 14.0 50.0
1997 3,132.1 1,800.0 1,200.0 80.0 2.1 50.0
1998 3,080.0 1,800.0 1,200.0 80.0
1999 3,010.0 1,860.0 1,080.0 70.0
2000 4,129.1 3,120.0# 949.1@ 60.0
2001 2,876.1 1,975.6 838.2 60.0 2.3
2002 2,848.0 2,040.0 720.0 60.0 28.0+
2003 Est 3,742.1 3,086.4 596.1 59.6
2004 Est 2687.3 2147.3 477.20 49.7 3.2 9.9
2005 proposed 2,630.0 2,220.0 360.0 50.0
TOTAL 96,765.60 11,212.5 49,064.20 1,516.5 30,543.00 588.5 94.1 1,218.5 1,438.20 600.0 129 17.5 185.7 157.9




* = Less than $100,000

** = CCC Loan

*** = Desalt Plant

+Israel received an additional $28 million in counter terror funds in 2002.

# = Includes $1.92 billion in regular military assistance and $1.2 billion for implementation of the Wye Agreement.

@ = ESF was earmarked for $960 millon for FY2000 but was reduced to meet the 0.38% recision.

## = Money for counterterrorism that must be spent in U.S.

^ = Congress voted to cut foreign aid across the board by 0.65%.

TQ = Transition Quarter, when U.S. fiscal year changed from June to September.

Loan guarantees are not considered foreign aid so the $7.9 billion in guarantees have been excluded from this table (see Loan Guarantees for Israel

). This table also excludes funding for certain other projects the CRS does not consider foreign aid, such as the $180 million for the research and development of the Arrow missile.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Clyde R. Mark, "Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance," Congressional Research Service, (July 12, 2004); U.S. State Department; USAID

 

[Sabz5150]

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]

Quoted post[/post]]
both of these statements, from Pat Buchanan (Who is pretty strange and fli-floppy in his political stances anyway) and that CSM article are very opinion-based.

And your sources aren't???

God I love conservative thinking, gives me a good laugh every time.

Look on the flipside. You're doing the same thing and being a cocky, ignorant, ass about it.

There's always two sides to every story.

Did I say my sources were neutral? Don't think I ever did.

However Celerity pointed out that his sources had a right wing slant to it. Sorry dude, but Wikipedia is written by people like you and me and can be edited by people like you and me so the chances for bias are quite slim.

You right wingers like to take everything a right wing source (FOX, Free Republic) as solid fact reguardless of bias.

I recognize the bias in all sources, liberal included. Do you see the bias in yours?

 

[Celerity]

You wanna talk about sources? Huh ? I'll give you your goddam sources, and I'll even play into your little trap:

I'll give you the MUSLIM ones (And a Wikipedia article, since that's been established as fair and balanced)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E...3CE0E9957EA.htm
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0510265904171054.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinezhad


Choke on it. The dude wants to declare war upon us, and he's getting his country ready for it.

In 3 years you'll all be sitting here "Man, those neocons are just out for power" and "We shouldn't be in Iran" Well fuck you, in advance. This is happening NOW, and I'm pointing it out AS I PROMISED... When it's happening.

Iraq did this same thing, I pointed out the real news sources (Al-Jazeera, CNN, D-Welle, BBC articles in a previous post) and went ignored or further ridiculed.

God I love the Liberal thinking, it makes me laugh everytime.