NEWS: Iran's President Calls For Israel's Destruction

Subz I've just been invited out to eat dinner by my daughter. I'll respond to you, but it might take a couple of hours or so. My first gut reaction though is: What a hell of a risk to take and what if you're wrong.

it sounds like an attack is already underway.....

Can you post a link of the attack underway?

Please?

Peace!

[edit on 27-10-2005 by Vitchilo]

.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by ShakyaHeir]

Originally posted by KLSyesca
it sounds like an attack is already underway.....

are you being sarcastic about the attacks people on this thread are making on one another, or are you indicating an actual attack is underway? i ask because if youre talking about an actual attack, it is not being covered in the US.

oh, nevermind...i just saw the cnn report about a missile attack on a palestinian leader.

for future reference, you shouldnt post partial stories like that. give us a little more info next time, please.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by snafu7700]

correct me if i am wrong, but doesnt the destruction of israel mark a part of the bibles prophecy on revelations? isnt that when # will really start to hit the fan, if it ever were to be destroyed?

Originally posted by deafence#
correct me if i am wrong, but doesnt the destruction of israel mark a part of the bibles prophecy on revelations? isnt that when # will really start to hit the fan, if it ever were to be destroyed?

actually, no. israel is supposedly involved, but not destroyed.

according to the most accepted interpretation (at the moment, thanks to the 'left behind' series), its starts with an attempt to destroy israel, that is miraculously foiled by the hand of god. the great tribulation begins with the antichrist entering into a covenent with israel to provide protection and safety for them, which he eventually breaks. thats the short version anyway.

Anti-christ protecting Israel? Yeah I'd buy into that if I were religious

Originally posted by Odium

Where?

If you bother to learn Arabic you would know the Qu'Ran says not to harm any child of the book/people of the book, unless they have wronged you first.

First off, what does Arabic have to do with anything ? The Qu'ran is printed in English, you ingnoramous; and don't pretend you know arabic either LOL.
So basically if you aren't a person of the ridiculous 'book' ( about half the worlds population ), you can harm them for no reason whatsoever./ That's what you just said

So please, do show me where he says it is O.K. to kill and play my game like the last bunch of people have done. :-)

As Above



[edit on 28-10-2005 by rogue1]

DOUBLE POST


[edit on 28-10-2005 by rogue1]

Originally posted by infinite
I think the trigger happy Americans on this board need to understand that invading Iran would spark a major war, probably a world war. If you attack Iran, Syria will attack Israel (Iran and Syria have a blood pact) and an attack on either nation will probably lead to a global war aswell...So does America want to go down in history as invading Iran and starting a World War?

How exactly would a world war break out, from a war in the Middle East. I still haven't worked it out. Care to enlighten me ?

Do you think the Asians would give 2 s.hits or the South Americans or Africans ?

First of all rogue1, watch your language.

Secondly, yes it could spark a World War. Yes, the Asians would care if the United States made another move to consolidate its influence over the remaining portions of the Middle East's oil reserves. Every nation needs oil and the United States is being very aggressive in securing its access to the dwindling supply.

[edit on 28/10/05 by subz]

You have yet to show me.
I have been learning Arabic for three years now, I know enough to do well in an average conversation and to read parts of the Qu'Ran.

And actually no, since you have not been able to show a quote where it says it is O.K. to harm another than I am still right.

Where does it say you can kill someone/attack a Nation, unless it is hostile towards you or it is an act of self defence?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Really?
Oh, so your starting this ATSNN thread concerning Iran continuing to threaten Israel with total destruction, which ultimately would be an act of genocide since Iran is refering to Zionist--implying the Jews, was so that you could make the ludicrous point that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would "reduce" violence, etc?

How does it have anything to do with Jewish people?
Zionism is a political ideology and their are many Jews and Non-Jews, who agree with it as there are many Jews and Non-Jews who do not agree with it.

And they can't use Nuclear Weapon's on Israel...

Anyone see Tony Blair on the news last night? His speech was very ominous sounding. He called Iran 'a disgrace' straight out, he said he can 'hardly believe the leader of a nation advocating the wiping of another nation off the map' and he also said 'this sort of behavious cannot and will not be tolerated'. He then went on to state that a nation with the outlook of Iran coming to posses nuclear weapons is something we musty not allow to happen.

He also marked a shift in emphasis by saying 'people always normally ask me the question "you aren't going to do anything about Iran are you?" but now we are getting to the point where that question will be "WHEN are you going to do something about Iran?"

It is all looking very ominous, and with so many forces already gathered in Iraq, we could be about to bite off more than we can chew.

Blair cannot afford another war and i believe the States can't either. If this goes to war, it will be UN lead multinational force against Iran. But some think it will just be a war between Iran and Israel (but i can't really see that to behonest)

Well, whoever decides to start on Iran, Blair has made it pretty clear that Britain is 'in'. The wonder is that Blair seems to be the first world leader to say anything at all along these lines.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Well, whoever decides to start on Iran, Blair has made it pretty clear that Britain is 'in'. The wonder is that Blair seems to be the first world leader to say anything at all along these lines.

Has he? Blair is using the diplomacy line with the EU. He has no intention of using military action because the British economy cannot afford it. He has not stated anything, only Iran is a threat to the West. There are numerous ways to stop a nation without bombing it into the ground.

Well, the comments I posted first off are pretty explicit in that Iran needs to be stopped and he's getting us ready for Britain to be involved in stopping them. A UK invasion of Iran is clearly nonsense but, as with Iraq, Blair seems to be trying to take the lead here.

Whilst diplomacy obviously comes first there appears to be a clear shift of emphasis which I noted above.

[edit on 28-10-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
Well, the comments I posted first off are pretty explicit in that Iran needs to be stopped and he's getting us ready for Britain to be involved in stopping them. A UK invasion of Iran is clearly nonsense but, as with Iraq, Blair seems to be trying to take the lead here.

Whilst diplomacy obviously comes first there appears to be a clear shift of emphasis which I noted above.

Blair also said North Korea needs to be stopped, is he getting ready to be involved in that too? Your looking for things that are not there. Blair is not trying to lead this to war, because the British is Clear It cannot afford a war with Iran due to our Economy UK will not break itself for Iran. As i said, dont look for things that are not there.