+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/22/2018 03:38 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.631 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
06/03/2008 04:52 PM ID: 71171 Permalink   

Israel Will Soon Disappear Off the Map and the "Satanic Power" of the United States Faces Destruction


Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has again made some controversial statements, speaking at a gathering of foreign guests marking this week's 19th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Iran's revolutionary leader.

Going on the record he stated: "You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene"

He also goes after the US by saying, "The bell on the countdown of the destruction of the empire of power and wealth has begun to ring."

    WebReporter: cray0la Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
but we shouldnt be worrying about him and we are the problem right??
  by: cray0la     06/03/2008 10:32 AM     
  Would this be what you call....  
A credible threat.
  by: boaznjachin     06/03/2008 10:37 AM     
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no power in Iranian foreign policy .That falls to his boss the Ayatollah who luckily never makes such outrageous statements.In fact you rarely see his views published cause they're relatively sensible and diplomatic eg support the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalization of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement etc ...

so don¡'t get swept away by the rhetoric by those who have no power to put it into policy.
  by: Hugo Chavez     06/03/2008 11:15 AM     
Time to invade Iraq.
I mean Syria.
I mean Iran.
Sorry. Butter fingers.
  by: silentrage   06/03/2008 11:19 AM     
we to be affraid of that country in the future?
  by: vizhatlan     06/03/2008 11:37 AM     
  by: Hugo Chavez     06/03/2008 11:56 AM     
Another nutjob in Iran spouting off. He might not have any official political power, but he can sway alot of the psychos. I figure Iran and Syria are both on the drawing boards. Ok, off the boards and right in the plan book by now. Iran cause of all the kooks, and Syria because of its support of terrorists. Can you say gasoline in the USA to cost around 20 dollars a gallon by Jan 09 ?
  by: wvcoalminer   06/03/2008 12:33 PM     
  I sure hope  
noone listens to this say, Russia.
  by: crosimoto     06/03/2008 12:58 PM     
That'll happen with Iran and Syria's "help".
  by: silentrage   06/03/2008 02:00 PM     
We should clearly be nuking Israel..

Oops now im a credible threat, we better invade the USA before I do something crazy. :) /sarcasm

If Ahmadinejad's danger lies in the fact that he can stir up 'psychos' wouldn't INVADING the country stir them up more than he ever could? How exactly is it going to make us 'safer' to attack Iran?
  by: Kavok   06/03/2008 02:17 PM     
him crossing the line is your opinion and should not be in the summary
  by: syoware   06/03/2008 02:27 PM     
There he goes again telling the truth.
  by: isuzu     06/03/2008 02:44 PM     
  Credible threat? No, just rhetoric  
He doesn't really have much power and there is no nuclear weapons program.

This could be another memri translation, those who claimed that Jews in Iran would have to wear some some sort of identification so that they can be recognized.
  by: Kaleid   06/03/2008 02:51 PM     
  Oh my  
That guy is a real nut-job. However, I live in the real world so I'm gonna go on the following:

Countries invaded in the last decade; Iran 0, America 2.

Atomic bombs actually dropped; Iran 0, America 2 (not counting testing).

Atomic bombs ready to drop; Iran 0 (that we know about), America - well I wouldn't like to imagine.

So threat wise, I still feel that America leads 3-0 even if there is a nut-case making a lot of noise in Iran.
  by: Maxx20     06/03/2008 02:53 PM     
  Who cares what this nutball says?  
I actually agree with Hugo on this one in regards to the rhetoric of talking heads with absolutely no executive power.

If everyone were treated the same in this manner, SN wouldn't be nearly so robust. <shifts eyes>
  by: jimmyp   06/03/2008 03:09 PM     
  What is wrong with these chest thumping males  
I saw a picture of Ahmadinejad penis the other day, it was labeled "nanotube".
  by: valkyrie123     06/03/2008 04:38 PM     
  Spelling: Isreal?  
in caption
  by: MmmMan     06/03/2008 07:53 PM     
  I betting..  
What is going on is a lot like the movie "Braveheart". Where the Father gains support by saying his country goes along with what the English want, and the Prince goes along with what the people of Scotland want...
I.E.: The Ayatollah agreeing with the Arab League and the United Nations, while his "second in command" says "Kill the Infidels." to appease and gain support of all those who feel terrorism is the way to go...
  by: Allanthar     06/03/2008 08:17 PM     
"we are the problem right??"

Not us. All of our intelligence communities concluded that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, so I'm not worried. If it turns out that Iran does have a program, I sure as hell hope Cheney's held partly accountable, since he sold Iran components for nuclear weapons when he was CEO of Haliburton.
  by: l´anglais     06/03/2008 08:50 PM     
  isreal in caps was fixed  
this was my first news post here, I'll get better at it,
my question is why doesnt the first in command shut
this nut up, if he just keeps spewing off at the
mouth while the number 1 guy says the complete
opposite doesnt this ruin what the #1 is trying to
say? It doesnt make sense to
me and I agree his words shouldnt make it ok to
  by: cray0la     06/03/2008 09:49 PM     
Typo Fixed
  by: StarShadow     06/03/2008 10:31 PM     
yes but im surprised that such rhetoric is spoken. i mean they have chaos in two countries next to them. do they really want to be another link in that chain?

even if the #1 says no lets stay clam and negotiate while your #2 is asking like an A-hole he looks like liability. he is damaging foreign policy and getting the country hurt with sanctions. so if he is allowed to make comments like that, um how about other members of our gov can say stuff like *eh the iranian's lets just turn that place into glass* or something that makes your eyes roll.
  by: DRK   06/03/2008 10:38 PM     
Right ON, BUT?!

If you'd look at History, it will tell you step by step the stem of all problems on this earth, most of them, the core resides in Western World.

From slavery, to dividing nations. America unfortunately is the fore runner of all these problems, but then; they are like this big bully, who wants to cover his tracks all the time, by being the first one to run to the teacher to report.

America has the best propaganda machine and the tools are quite efficient, funny thing is that, what you have mentioned above is known to all of us including Americans, but as cowards as they are, would they agree!!? God forbid.
  by: isuzu     06/03/2008 11:45 PM     
"If you'd look at History, it will tell you step by step the stem of all problems on this earth, most of them, the core resides in Western World."

I look at history and I see humans, a species which began in the East. The first mighty kingdoms began there, kingdoms ruled by powerful and oppressive men. Many of the major religions, too, began there, whose followers have been killing in the name of their gods since. In fact, I can't think of any evil perpetrated by Western empires that didn't crawl from the cradle of life. No, history does not bear out your claim.
  by: MomentOfClarity     06/04/2008 01:21 AM     
  I was going to rate this poorly for the headline  
but the fault is with the source, not the summary.

if you actually look at the full quote, ahmadinejad never says that israel itself will disappear, be wiped off the map, be obliterated, or anything of that nature. he said the "zionist regime" which controls israel will come to an end. there's a big difference.

if i say the neocon regime will soon come to an end, it hardly means i want to destroy america. more sensationalism from the western media rooted in political agendas and prejudices rather than fact.
  by: ManilaRyce     06/04/2008 02:06 AM     
So based on your logic am I too assume that they are not people in Iran who genuinely want to bring about Israel's destruction?

@MOC excellent post by the way.
  by: keanu1982     06/04/2008 02:30 AM     
  Shock and Awe  
A news post about iran making threats/aggressive rhetoric against the west and israel gets filled to the brim with comments about how this is all Americas fault/American is evil/iran is actually moderate/its a conspiracy and the west fabricated it/iran would never commit a international crime, only the west does that.
Honestly i would be shocked, but this is Shortnews.
its so funny to watch the anti-west news stories get comments on the basis that the story is 100% true and then anything putting a middle east country in a bad light is completly made up

I feel i need to start adding this to a footnote of my comments as i continually get labeled a american neo con out for blood and oil.

I am Australian
I am not aligned to the right, if anything i am left and i vote left
I am not involved in any conspiracy to brainwash shortnews
I have no motives for anything except unbiased truth.
  by: pexa02   06/04/2008 02:41 AM     
  I encourage all countries to invade the USA  
We've got to take care of that Fred Phelps psycho. He influences thousands. We've got to strike before he gains political powers!
  by: tantryl   06/04/2008 02:44 AM     
"So based on your logic am I too assume that they are not people in Iran who genuinely want to bring about Israel's destruction?"

There are people in the US who want the destruction of Israel. Your point? Unless one of those people is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (you know, the person actually quoted in this article), your question is irrelevant.
  by: ManilaRyce     06/04/2008 03:34 AM     
  u know...  
I think he means with our economy... He knows open warfare might be ludacris cuz of our nuclear options (which Im sure well use if cornered).

I think honestly that Opec and all the nations in it are hurting us the only way they can effectively and diplomatically destroy us and that is with this nations life blood...

Just my .02 cents... I can say one thing, being the power that we are if anyone can adapt is us... I hope the next person to take helm knows to bring our boys home and start working on solutions to all of OUR domestic problems... Isolation would soooo help us out right now. With moderation of course, I just mean stop getting involved militarily around the world...

PPL know youre the biggest and nastiest on the block, now cut your losses and bring them boys home, we might need em to defend home sometime. /rant

  by: swordfizh   06/04/2008 05:23 AM     
  @Hugo Chavez  
Foreign Affairs Mullah:

You forget to add this to the sensible Mullah's list of foreign aspirations:

Invade Iraq, Dhimmify Syria, Finish off Lebanon.
  by: kmazzawi     06/04/2008 05:29 AM     
I agree to a certain extent that ShortNews has a bit of a bias, however, this is not without logical argument.

Take a look at my earlier post, America has slaughtered far more of the human population that Iran ever has. It also obsesses about maintaining a military arsenal capable of making humanity itself extinct. Now compare that to some mad bloke in Iran spouting off *again*. It's not that the madman is nice, or good or anything, but really, the US is the greater threat to humanity out of the two.
  by: Maxx20     06/04/2008 09:30 AM     
  Lol @silentrage  
We would not know where to go to attack there are that many countries.

The scary thing for me is the man is right, even if his words do not count he was right about the injustice, if nothing else.
  by: captainJane     06/04/2008 12:22 PM     
Well, I actually meant to say that gas prices will skyrocket WITHOUT those guys' help. ;)

And on the topic at hand, he might be right but I don't think it's wise to make that kind of a statement in the world of politics, regardless of whether you'll put it into action. Or you risk looking like the Bush admin.
  by: silentrage   06/04/2008 12:48 PM     
  @ Silentage  
"And on the topic at hand, he might be right but I don't think it's wise to make that kind of a statement in the world of politics, regardless of whether you'll put it into action. Or you risk looking like the Bush admin."

I would not argue with that the man is a nut, it was the words "regime plundering, aggression and crimes" is what I was referring too, just to clear up any miss-understanding I my have caused.

He was accurate there and being a total fanatic him self, well it takes one to know one I suppose.
  by: captainJane     06/04/2008 04:21 PM     
  is this even news lol?  
i mean everyday someone from the middle east is on record saying this!
  by: voxerly   06/05/2008 03:17 AM     
thats a fair comment. You wont find me arguing that the U.S is innocent and has a model foreign policy.

its just so tiring to hear the same stuff come out of every article, even when it has nothing to do with the U.S it somehow turns into the fault of the bush administration be it civil unrest in georgia or a kitten stuck in a tree.

Also as far as the largest store of weapons currently, well that was just a result from the cold war. Had russia won then they would have all that millitary might.
Say what you want about the U.S. but i would def rather all that power be in the hands of the U.S then the russians (who wanted nothing less then world domination)
also what would iran be like if they had the military power of the U.S. i doubt it would be all smiles and flowers or that we would have the freedoms we do now.
being the top of the world is a very hard job.
Thats not a excuse, just a fact.
  by: pexa02   06/05/2008 03:59 AM     
  I agree  
shortnews is very bias in every article about the US and many that aren't even about the US. America is the most powerful country in the world and when they slip up and make mistakes everyone complains.
If Iran invaded America and killed woman and Children for no reason except for terror it would still be Americans fault in the minds of most of shortnews' anti American bloggers.
America is deff. not without its faults we of course have our problems but why are they amplified times 10 by the rest of the world.
  by: U.S Army 1991   06/05/2008 05:32 AM     
  @U.S. Army 1991  
I think the reason American mistakes are amplified so much is because as the biggest military, the world economic superpower and arguably the most influential country in the world, when America makes a mistake, it is by nature a big mistake. Our foreign policy is never going to be comparable to the foreign policy of, say, Poland, because our foreign policy affects millions of people. When we get it wrong, we have millions of people complaining about it.

I think it boils down to the Spiderman motto -- "with great power comes great responsibility." America has great power, and when it's used irresponsibly, people are going to speak up.

For example, one widely known and criticized aspect of the Iraq war was the failure to plan adequately for a post-Saddam Iraqi government. As Colin Powell told President Bush, in the case of the war, the Pottery Barn principle applies -- "you break it, you buy it."

The architects of the war, Paul Wolfowitz in particular, simply did not imagine an unstable Iraq after Saddam was out of power. He said that "we would be greeted as liberators," but he didn't have a contingency plan for what to do if we weren't greeted as liberators. That is simply a failure to use your power responsibly.
  by: l´anglais     06/05/2008 06:01 AM     
As with the above, I agree, America is big enough to influence the world with its decisions, good or bad. I also agree that if Iran were of the same level of power, the world would be a pretty nasty place.

I think the closest the world has ever come to being ruled by one nation has to be the British empire, although the Romans did a pretty good job too. The British empire collapsed because people naturally want freedom and the right of self-determination.

As for America's impact on the world, and being 'at the top', well I'm afraid I don't agree. No-one needs to be 'at the top'. Killing people constantly is not a result of being the worlds biggest super-power, it's a result of evil people. The world does not make America's problems worse, that's a typical US view point, the world (for the most part) couldn't give a damn. What Americans still fail to understand is that the majority of world nations just want to be left alone. Like the playground bully, the US goes and pushes countries around simply because it can, these countries are not the least bit interested in communicating with the US in some cases.

The people of Iraq never asked to be saved.

The people of Iraq hurled stones at their 'liberators' the moment they marched in.

The people of Iraq still hate their liberators and appear to be refusing to be bullied into accepting them.

That pretty much sums up US foreign policy, 'helping' someone become what they do not wish to become when they have not asked to be 'helped'. The situation in Iraq just highlights how difficult it is, even if you are the biggest and most powerful country on earth, to force a nation of human beings to think and act the way you want them to.

It's (partly) why the British Empire failed and it's why the US will never bring peace to Iraq, however long they're there.
  by: Maxx20     06/05/2008 02:24 PM     
I don't really give a stuff and I don't suppose many other people do either.
It's one thing to shout the odds and another to have the means to do anything about it!

anyone wanna join me.
  by: galleyslave#41   06/05/2008 04:23 PM     
  I don't see it.  
Israel will take out Iran's nuke production before they get a working bomb. Or Israel will just nuke Iran first. Israel not only has first strike advantage they have enough bombs to make Iran glow for a long, long time.
  by: sublimesj   06/05/2008 06:45 PM     
Ummmm ....

I guess this means he has one? In some ways that's not surprising, in others it is surprising.
  by: LeePIII   06/05/2008 09:59 PM     
  Straying off topic  
Hmmm… Maxx20, I was agreeing with you, l’anglais and pexa02 right up to the point where you said America should not be helping other countries in your last post. To inject some refreshment into the thread, I’ll commandeer this conversation to present a postulate for your consideration. I’d hope to say something different, but this has probably been brought up before in one of the countless/endless discussions on America and the middle east.

Perhaps like you pexa02, I find the taring of all western countries(or America) is a pointless exercise because it is not addressing the problem and really is just a false gesture. The problem is not with the countries individually, but something common to the operation within the countries that is giving rise to these disastrous results for what could have been good intentions. Remember we did invade this region as an alliance, under the guise of offering help.

Maxx20, I think your objection is aimed at the wrong target here, “America” is not to blame and neither is any other single country in the west.

As a global superpower I think that America should be investing in other countries, and for that matter so should the remaining top countries. Since the end of WWII with the collapse of Europe, America with the dominant economy stepped in with military security, opening of trade and guiding of other countries governance in the European region. That worked out well for the most part, even though it could be argued that it was prompted by a threat from Russia and led to the Cold War. The French probably don’t appreciate it, but that countries now a nice place to visit largely because of the foreign policy of the US 50 years ago.

I think where the wheels came off was when this rather helpful global policy was hijacked by capitalist interests. So America now only goes where the money is or where they will get a return on their investment, case in point being the middle east. You could also ask, “where is the multi billion dollar investment for African countries?”. Why do they only receive aid as a miniscule fraction of their foregoing trade, I think it has to do with the compliance and complicity of their leaders. The we have two regions on the planet being exploited by the west, one pays its dues the other get smart and tries to start some business with china. What we are seeing is a lesson in mafia business tactics 101.
So we enter the middle east, with the overall guise of returning security, invigorating the middle eastern economy with new trade so these countries can get of their knees for them selves, and supporting the regions governance (not just within a country, but between counties so starting something like the EU in the middle east). Just like last time, right?
Nope, instead we jumped and tried to crush the region with their security forces. Installed trade contracts that veto local benefits and negate any benefits to the population of the US or Australia. (What would have happened if the there was a market little competition for oil from china, the cynic in me says “probably higher oil prices”.) Anyway, my example is, companies take the oil from the middle east with the minimum of taxes there then sell it and extort profit from the Americans (and Australia), not really benefiting them either. And finally attaching a token governance that hasn’t been thought through and is completely impotent.

I think the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq could have been successful. I also think that it will never be successful, while the money needed to support the country from within either leaves the country to go to a company or remains in the pocket of the leaders of that country.

So here’s my point, there is something odd about describing the actions of a company(ies) as being responsible for the harm of populations of people. We as a race, created the company structure and now it seems we have lost control of them, they are organisms feeding parasitically off the human race. It shouldn’t be surprising if you treat these companies as living organisms, and apply the lens of evolution. The evolutionary pressures they experience is to survive and to turn a profit for share holders. When all the easy gains are made, then comes the bite. This is when companies must seek profit in areas that disadvantage some part of the population to keep up their growth and survive. It’s not hard to extrapolate this method of operation to the point where, companies are under enough pressure to survive and make profit that collectively they could lead to war and exploitation of countries for profit.

What do you think of my thesis?
  by: felixilef   06/06/2008 03:55 AM     
I tend to look at the humanities rather than business and economics so I hadn't considered the role of global business in the blood-bath. I do think you'll find that Africa is indeed exploited by companies, the sweatshop labour that provides our cheap clothing is one of the more high-profile examples. Although there are others (arms industry).

I think the reason for going into Iraq and Afghan was equally motivated by political (US world domination), religious (Bush's chats with God), and commercial (oil) reasons. All having their fair share of influence. To narrow it down to solely a commercial interest would be naive in my opinion.

I agree with your analysis of the commercial costs, benefits and impacts, but what about the humanitarian ones? As I said, that's my area of 'concern'.

The reality is that, America isn't actually helping, it's exterminating people. I would go so far as to say they're being exterminated on the basis of race and religion at times and certain parts of the US admin and population are no better than the Nazis. What in reality we're seeing in the ME is a race of people with a firm religious belief that clashes with Western freedoms. Now whether we agree with this or not, removing their government and taking over their countries is not the answer. In fact, it makes things worse because when the religious government is taken away you are left with an entire population with the same beliefs. While these people don't want to be oppressed, they also don't want to be stripped of their religious freedom and made to be 'free' in the sense that the West understands freedom. All America has achieved is to offend the whole population of these countries by trying to enforce values which contravene their religious beliefs. In so doing, America has breached the human rights of these people by attempting to remove their right of religious expression.
  by: Maxx20     06/06/2008 09:38 AM     
I agree with your assessment of the personal motivations of Bush. The man is undoubtedly a religious bigot, yet the same could be said for all political leaders of that country to some extent. I’ve head that it is impossible to get elected with out spouting “one country under god” lines. I also believe that is the premise of religions to supplant competing faiths. Tolerance between faiths is just a perversion of political correctness; the diehards of either faith on the fringes will always think the other side is stupid, ignorant or just plain wrong.
But Bush wasn’t alone in making the decision to invade, nor was he the sole focus of commercial pressure. He was the man front and centre, but it was the guy behind the curtain who’s pulling the strings. He is simply one of hundreds that are pressured by commercial interests. Yes, bush in particular for his ties to texis tea, but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Companies are easily capable of using what ever means is at their disposal to survive and grow. Bribing politicians to open up new markets, yea sure, that’s just the cost of doing business. My point of brining up Africa as a comparison was, the ministers who negotiate with companies that create deals that exploit the citizens of the country, they don’t resist, and they take the bribe, and screw the country. Iraq, on the other hand was entertaining contracts from the Chinese, within six months, Bam! In go the troops. A dictators been there for 20 years, suddenly his numbers up (Mugabys still in power after 28 years, arguably just as evil).
So there is your cause and effect. They can have religious hatred up to the eyeballs, its not going to give America enough public opinion (not yet anyway) to invade a country. I’m saying that that was just a bonus, for the religiously inspired.
Political, ummmm… I’m not so sure about. I think it’s more about the money, it was a massive investment to invade these countries. There wouldn’t be much of an immediate or long term political dividend. Aside from the obvious “you can attack/disobey/insult/etc me, I’ll KILL you!!” reaction, it doesn’t serve to have countries thumb their noses at what is supposed to be a juggernaught of military power.
And yes, you are right, they aren’t helping. They could have done a lot of good given the money they’ve spent. They could have dug up the entire country and moved it to the Atlantic with no neighbours, or maybe at least reached the far more modest goal of fresh water and power.
I’m not even going to go near the thought of having a religious government. It’s bad enough when they have personal beliefs with out it being written into law. By “right of religious expression” do you mean the right to live under a church state with laws derived from religious texts, or just the right to be happy and left alone to believe what ever they want on the other side of the planet?

  by: felixilef   06/06/2008 01:08 PM     
  I am  
So sick of the USA bashing. Gets old.

Last post.

  by: Reamensa   06/07/2008 12:07 AM     
One thing I'd like to point out is that America is not homogeneous in our views.

I didn't vote for Bush in either election and there is indications that both elections were rigged.

Bush, being an oilman, has obvious interests in the price of oil going up.

Before the invasion in Iraq, Iraq was producing around 2.5 million barrels per day, now about 1 million.

Would oil be at $139/barrel today if that 1.5 million barrels were still on the world market? I think not.

The threats made against Iran make oil consumers nervous, they buy more oil, drives prices up.

I hope we're nearing the end of oil barons controlling the USA but the people of the USA are just as screwed by all this stupidity as the rest of the world and many of us do not support this (or many other) wars we've been forced to be involved in.
  by: Nanook   06/08/2008 05:40 AM     
all this time and still the same old bashing of the United States of America. Same old people I see.
  by: U.S Army 1991   06/09/2008 04:05 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: