Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says

Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says

There are 38083 comments on the Worcester Telegram & Gazette story from Jun 4, 2007, titled Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says. In it, Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports that:

TEHRAN, Iran- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday said the world would witness the destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

w wman uk

Exeter, UK

#40176 Nov 17, 2013
MUQ wrote:
-
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...
Pit Of Hopelessness: Guantanamo Grows Tense, Inmates Suicidal
By RT
April 22, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"RT" - At least two Guantanamo Bay detainees have attempted suicide since the confrontation between guards and prisoners in February that brought about the ongoing hunger strike, AP reports.
A team of journalists, including from AP, have been allowed into the facilities. They testify the atmosphere has grown tense and heavy in the prison where 166 men are indefinitely held with little to no hope of release. Still they were not allowed to gather more information on the two suicide attempts.
At least seven people have managed to kill themselves since Guantanamo was first set up in 2002.
The fact that Gitmo has turned into a pit of hopelessness is confirmed both by the detainee's lawyers and some US officials. While the number of officially-acknowledged hunger strikers is growing, most prisoners are isolated from each other and the world.
"How can the military, even the military, hope to maintain discipline over a prison camp where there is absolutely no hope for those men confined here?" Lieutenant Commander Kevin Bogucki, a US Navy Military Lawyer who was visiting his clients at the base this week, told AP.
"Until such time as our government starts to do the right thing in connection with Guantanamo Bay, the frustration is only going to continue to build and I can't imagine that the outcome will be good," he added.
Out of 86 Guantanamo prisoners cleared for the release, the overwhelming majority - 56 of them - are Yemeni nationals, RT's Gayane Chichakyan points out. However, three years ago the US suspended all transfers of detainees to Yemen. It may well mean dying in Guantanamo, Omar Farah, petitioner for the Center of Constitutional Rights, believes.
"Our clients are coming to grips with the cold fact: they may well die in Guantanamo not because the state is unable to transfer them, but because it's unwilling to do so. The transfer restrictions are difficult, for example, they would require the secretary of defense to personally certify that a receiving state are taking steps to ensure that a prisoner can never threaten the United States in the future, whatever threat it might mean in that context. Obviously no state can guarantee that a future event will or will not occur, but that was the point - to discourage transfers from Guantanamo," Farah said.
US officials say there is no reason to lose hope, as they are working to make transfers happen. However, this pledge lacks action.
"The indefinite detention that they're asking for or are justifying is under the laws of war," Kristina Kuskey, petitioner for Physicians for Human Rights said. "In US minds that war ends at the end of hostilities. Against who? Al-Qaeda and associative forces. What does that mean? That's indefinite! That is the epitome of indefinite."
US military has acknowledged 84 prisoners have currently joined the hunger strike, 16 of them are being force-fed, while five have been hospitalized. The strike started early in February over guards' alleged interference with the inmates' private belongings, raising anger over 'mishandling' of Korans. No efforts on the part of the US military authorities to stop the strike have so far been successful.
Multiple human rights and medical associations have condemned force-feeding, the UN Human Rights commission even labeling the practice of force feeding a form of torture.
See also
Over Half the Prisoners at Guantanamo Are Now on a Hunger Strike: The latest report from United States officials puts the number of inmates on hunger strike at 84 — there are 166 total inmates at Guantanamo — with at least 17 of them being force fed.
Only 7 dead they ought to get the murhmna running the place they would have all been beheaded by now and their thieving lawyers as well.
w wman uk

Exeter, UK

#40177 Nov 17, 2013
rtloder wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps nothing , just ask and its yours..
So glad we are talking again , that cave dweller was giving me the shits.
Now what's this you say, concocted, poison the simple, you stupid bitch the log you been licking is full of fungus and most of it is hallucinogenic your tripping off your face.
What would I be today with no fall back position provided by the Holy Koran.
I'd be fu ckern Lionel, that bastard has never got one thing right in his whole miserable criminal life.
Bitch is not a bad name , your a dumb arse, for thinking that , amongst a lot of other things.
You would still be the damaged women hater repressed homo that you are now.
w wman uk

Exeter, UK

#40178 Nov 17, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What Al Qaeda had to with Cold War Mr. Sherlock Holmes?
You are hallucinating, not seeing the "root cause" of problem. If Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1920, it was to check the "World Zionist congress" created in 1899.
The Root cause of all problems in ME is Jews and Zionists, what we are seeing are the evil fruits of that evil tree.
Its elementery my dear mug elementery,
Then why did they take so long to come out?
MUQ

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

#40179 Nov 17, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said that you are making things up.
The PLO was created by the Arab league and the Soviets to discredit Israel. Looks like it worked.
And WHO made plans to create Isreal in the first place? Don't you think that is worked also?

Why blame the second party and not the first party?

It proves that Isreal was the "Root cause" of the problem does it not? Not the Cold war!! QED!!
CALYPSO17

Hempstead, NY

#40180 Nov 18, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And WHO made plans to create Isreal in the first place? Don't you think that is worked also?
Why blame the second party and not the first party?
It proves that Isreal was the "Root cause" of the problem does it not? Not the Cold war!! QED!!
Who made the plans to create Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq? The root cause of the problem is radial Islam and its fascist ideals. Zones for the Kurds and Christians must be mapped out soon to prevent Islam from committing genocide.
grave digger

Kirbyville, MO

#40181 Nov 18, 2013
muslim woman are the real ones in charge in all muslim countries,,,muhamads wife wrote the koran,,,the boston bomber brothers mommy run their life,,,and if you do the research on every muslim man,,,there is a muslim woman right behind them pulling the strings,,,so its a no wonder they hate their women,,,cuz they are the real boss,,,and its only in public you see a muslim man hit his women,,,but truth be known,,,at home behind closed doors,,,she beats the holy crap out of him,,,bad,,,thats why they ware head wraps,,,to hide the bumbs she put up side his head,,,and long wrobes to hide the bruises,,,and the real reason they grow long beards,,,so the wife can lead the man around when they screw something up,,,them muslims aint fooling anybody,,,

rtloder

Since: Nov 12

Villawood, Australia

#40182 Nov 18, 2013
w wman uk wrote:
<quoted text> You would still be the damaged women hater repressed homo that you are now.

No , I'm not any of those things , women are cool, in their right place , your place is
!! Dar , Dar .!! In my heart.
Got you on that one so be careful what you say, there is no way out.
I don't say all Poofters have to be killed only the ones in the Chosen Communities ,
we don't really care what other people choose to do with their existence, forced conversions are a part of the past.
You imagine me telling you to convert to Islam , too silly for words.
Now if I could twist your arm , not that I would enjoy that ,( ho hummus), as soon as I stopped and went for a nice cup of tea you would just say , you didn't really mean it.
There is no permanency to forced conversions unless you can keep on twisting , and that gets boring .
I know because you jews been twisting my arm all this time , and now the world is bored with it .
So I'm going to get even by getting one of their bitches to convert with my bullshit , how about it, when was the last time you had the "hard" word put on you.
Idiot.
nutjobs here

Israel

#40183 Nov 18, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
And WHO made plans to create Isreal in the first place? Don't you think that is worked also?
Why blame the second party and not the first party?
It proves that Isreal was the "Root cause" of the problem does it not? Not the Cold war!! QED!!
Faisel an Arab leader sat down with Weitzman in 1919 Paris Peace Conference and created the Paris peace agreement which would have created a Jewish state on all of Palestine. This included Jordan, S.Syria, Golan, Israel, WB, Gaza, and S.Lebanon. On condition that the British followed through on Arab autonomy. Disputes between the Europeans and Arabs led this agreement never being fulfilled.

Israel existing has nothing to do with the other dozen countries of the region continuously going to war with each other.

What about the country where you live which was taken over by Wahabists in the 1920's?

What right do Muslims have to Mecca? Before Islam there were many groups there. After Islam they mostly disappeared leading up to todays racist policies by Saudi Arabia.

Are you able to have a normal conversation in English?? Can you not read properly. This is the third time in the past day where you make false claims about what I wrote.

I never said the Cold War was the root cause of the problem. i believe it is Political Islam and the expulsion of the Ottomans from the area. As soon as Muslims in the region had the freedom to push their extremism they did. Once the Allies left they reverted to barbaric acts.

I suppose the fact that the Christian population in the region going from 20% 2-5% in a century is the Jews fault also and not the Mulims persecution?
rio

Bromley, UK

#40184 Nov 18, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
Faisel an Arab leader sat down with Weitzman in 1919 Paris Peace Conference and created the Paris peace agreement which would have created a Jewish state on all of Palestine. This included Jordan, S.Syria, Golan, Israel, WB, Gaza, and S.Lebanon. On condition that the British followed through on Arab autonomy. Disputes between the Europeans and Arabs led this agreement never being fulfilled.
Wrong!
The Middle East future had already been decided between France and Britain by the Sikes-Picot Agreement that drew arbitrary borders and created artificial states to satisfy the 2 colonialist countries.
Faycal had never a say in it, and was kept in ignorance.
The Paris Peace Conference was merely to rubber stamp that decision.
I believe that the US president had great reservation about the project, seeing it as a tinderbox.
Faycal was bribed into accepting the deal: two of his sons becoming kings of new countries Jordan and Iraq - and himself proclaimed king of Arabia (he was previously Emir of Hejaz).

France had Syria and Lebanon; Britain had Iraq and Cisjordan and influence over Arabia. Palestine was supposed to be administered by the newly-formed League of Nations.

The idea of a Jewish state was not mooted at the Paris Conference; Britain started having second thought about it, in spite of the Zionist lobby in Britain and Europe. Britain accepted the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine for 20 years.
rio

Bromley, UK

#40185 Nov 18, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
What right do Muslims have to Mecca? Before Islam there were many groups there.
What right do Jews have to Jerusalem or Palestine?

Before Judaism there were many groups there.
rio

Bromley, UK

#40186 Nov 18, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the country where you live which was taken over by Wahabists in the 1920's?
That was a regime change within the same nation, and nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing exacted by the Zionists on the Arabs.

Emir Faycal of the Hejaz was made King of Arabia after WWI and was supported by the British Foreign Office.
Ibn Saud was a wahanite prince from Bahrain who gathered support from the British Indian Office to challenge this.

In fact, the fraternal war was a conflict conducted by proxy by civil servants in two rival British government departments.

King Faycal had served the British and was now expendable. But the Brits were punished for their betrayal; once in power, Ibn Saud expelled all the British advisers from his country and invited the Americans! ARAMCO came next ...
nutjobs here

Israel

#40187 Nov 18, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong!
The Middle East future had already been decided between France and Britain by the Sikes-Picot Agreement that drew arbitrary borders and created artificial states to satisfy the 2 colonialist countries.
Faycal had never a say in it, and was kept in ignorance.
The Paris Peace Conference was merely to rubber stamp that decision.
I believe that the US president had great reservation about the project, seeing it as a tinderbox.
Faycal was bribed into accepting the deal: two of his sons becoming kings of new countries Jordan and Iraq - and himself proclaimed king of Arabia (he was previously Emir of Hejaz).
France had Syria and Lebanon; Britain had Iraq and Cisjordan and influence over Arabia. Palestine was supposed to be administered by the newly-formed League of Nations.
The idea of a Jewish state was not mooted at the Paris Conference; Britain started having second thought about it, in spite of the Zionist lobby in Britain and Europe. Britain accepted the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine for 20 years.
Sickes-Picot agreement only spoke of part of the region which didn't include Palestine; this is clear from the correspondence. The league of nations had the last word on the borders.
Saudi Arabia being taken by the Wahabis changed things also.

The US president, Congress and Senate of the time signed off on the Mandate for Palestine.

The Paris peace deal wasn't kept anyways as nearly 90% of the land was taken from the Palestinian Mandate.

Your claim of bribery makes no sense as Faisels son was given the majority of the land his father agreed was for the Jews. According to your logic Faisel accepted an agreement to get the British to give his son most of the land which was for the Jews according to the agreement?

Britain didn't accept the Mandate and did everything to stop it. The first white paper restricting Jewish immigration, which was against the terms of the mandate, was in 1921.
nutjobs here

Israel

#40188 Nov 18, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
What right do Jews have to Jerusalem or Palestine?
Before Judaism there were many groups there.
Firstly the Mandate for Palestine.
Secondly the historic connection.
Thirdly the fact that Jews have been a majority in the city for 150 years and before this the Old City was Jerusalem. Over the past 150 years the area has been built up to todays Jerusalem but back than it was a tiny ancient city mostly resided in by Jews.
Lastly it is the center of Judaism and is throughout Jewish prayers, songs and history.

Who knows what really happened back in the days the Jews may have been converts of those who lived there before.

Interesting how again you don't answer by ask questions instead.

So why do Muslims have a right to Mecca but Jews don't to Jerusalem?
nutjobs here

Israel

#40189 Nov 18, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a regime change within the same nation, and nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing exacted by the Zionists on the Arabs.
Emir Faycal of the Hejaz was made King of Arabia after WWI and was supported by the British Foreign Office.
Ibn Saud was a wahanite prince from Bahrain who gathered support from the British Indian Office to challenge this.
In fact, the fraternal war was a conflict conducted by proxy by civil servants in two rival British government departments.
King Faycal had served the British and was now expendable. But the Brits were punished for their betrayal; once in power, Ibn Saud expelled all the British advisers from his country and invited the Americans! ARAMCO came next ...
Never claimed otherwise and the Arab nations carried out a real ethnic cleansing of the Jews where 1,000,00 Jews from throughout the region where ethnically cleansed including Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza.

How was it internal if Ibd Saud came from Bahrain or do you mean he came from the area which is todays Bahrain?
rio

Bromley, UK

#40190 Nov 18, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
How was it internal if Ibd Saud came from Bahrain or do you mean he came from the area which is todays Bahrain?
Ibn Saud's father had been chased from Arabia and took refuse in Bahrain. Ibn Saud returned, reasserted his right in his tribe and took to conquer the rest of Arabia.
rio

Bromley, UK

#40191 Nov 18, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly the Mandate for Palestine.
Secondly the historic connection.
Thirdly the fact that Jews have been a majority in the city for 150 years and before this the Old City was Jerusalem. Over the past 150 years the area has been built up to todays Jerusalem but back than it was a tiny ancient city mostly resided in by Jews.
Lastly it is the center of Judaism and is throughout Jewish prayers, songs and history.
Who knows what really happened back in the days the Jews may have been converts of those who lived there before.
Interesting how again you don't answer by ask questions instead.
So why do Muslims have a right to Mecca but Jews don't to Jerusalem?
Before Judaism started, there were other tribes in the region.
So how come the Jews claim to have the right to Jerusalem.

You dismissed the claim that Mecca belongs to the Muslims, so I do the same for Jerusalem.

You will also probably refute that Judaism was created to mimic Zoroastrianism, and that the Jews took example from the Persians in adopting a monotheist religion.
rio

Bromley, UK

#40192 Nov 18, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim of bribery makes no sense as Faisels son was given the majority of the land his father agreed was for the Jews. According to your logic Faisel accepted an agreement to get the British to give his son most of the land which was for the Jews according to the agreement?
.
Until the end of the war, Faycal was under the impression that his kingdom would include ALL the Arab land liberated from the Ottoman Empire, and never told that it would be carved in several different countries.
It was, after all, an Arab army under his banner that took Damascus after having routed the Turks all along from Aqhaba.

Emir Faycal was put in front of the "fait accompli" after the war when the British were briefing him for his appearance at the Paris Peace Conference. Faycal became aware of the split of Arab land and the proposal to place his sons as kings of Cisjordan and Iraq, to take Syria, Lebanon and Palestine out of his control.
It was a "take it or leave it" proposition and he had no choice, but to accept.
Faycal would certainly never have allowed part of Arab land to become a Jewish state, that I am sure of!!!
You should read T.E. Lawrence's book about that period. Allenby wrote a book about it as well.

All you are interested is in justifying the existence of Israel, not to respect the historical facts.

As for the British, they always considered that Palestine was a land where Jews and Arabs should COHABIT, and never a country to be dominated by Zionists.

In fact, under the mandate, the Brits tried to limit Jewish immigration, so that both sides stay equals. Of course, the Zionists used violent methods to oppose that arrangement and started the ethnic cleansing of Arabs, killing some Brits in the process.
nutjobs here

Israel

#40193 Nov 18, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Before Judaism started, there were other tribes in the region.
So how come the Jews claim to have the right to Jerusalem.
You dismissed the claim that Mecca belongs to the Muslims, so I do the same for Jerusalem.
You will also probably refute that Judaism was created to mimic Zoroastrianism, and that the Jews took example from the Persians in adopting a monotheist religion.
I don't dismiss the claim Muslims have a right to Mecca but Jews have a right to Jerusalem.

Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem for 150 years. Jerusalem of today outside the old city has ALL been built in the past 150 years and Jews have almost continuously been the majority since then.

I don't claim to know what happened that far back in history. I have my opinions. Interesting though I have never heard that before. I only refute what I know to be lie or distortion. This I have no idea so can't really comment.
rio

Bromley, UK

#40194 Nov 18, 2013
nutjobs here wrote:
<quoted text>
Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem for 150 years. Jerusalem of today outside the old city has ALL been built in the past 150 years and Jews have almost continuously been the majority since then.
.
Before, Jerusalem was a Muslim town, and before that a Christian town after the Jews deserted it.
nutjobs here

Israel

#40195 Nov 18, 2013
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Until the end of the war, Faycal was under the impression that his kingdom would include ALL the Arab land liberated from the Ottoman Empire, and never told that it would be carved in several different countries.
It was, after all, an Arab army under his banner that took Damascus after having routed the Turks all along from Aqhaba.
Emir Faycal was put in front of the "fait accompli" after the war when the British were briefing him for his appearance at the Paris Peace Conference. Faycal became aware of the split of Arab land and the proposal to place his sons as kings of Cisjordan and Iraq, to take Syria, Lebanon and Palestine out of his control.
It was a "take it or leave it" proposition and he had no choice, but to accept.
Faycal would certainly never have allowed part of Arab land to become a Jewish state, that I am sure of!!!
You should read T.E. Lawrence's book about that period. Allenby wrote a book about it as well.
All you are interested is in justifying the existence of Israel, not to respect the historical facts.
As for the British, they always considered that Palestine was a land where Jews and Arabs should COHABIT, and never a country to be dominated by Zionists.
In fact, under the mandate, the Brits tried to limit Jewish immigration, so that both sides stay equals. Of course, the Zionists used violent methods to oppose that arrangement and started the ethnic cleansing of Arabs, killing some Brits in the process.
How could they have decided already when Saudi Arabia was only united in the early 1930's? Didn't the Sikes-Pikot Correspondence make it clear the terms and borders?

Didn't the Arab revolt of 1916-18 fail? What about all the jews who fought on the side of the allies in Palestine?

Why are you so sure Faisel was forced to sign? If so why was he allowed to leave a note at the end clearly stating that if the British and French didn't follow through with their promises than the document was null and void?

I have no problem respecting historical facts or admitting that I am wrong but I need to have a real response from the other side. It is nice to see that you can discuss a bit and seem to know more than I thought you did about the regional history.

I think I have already justified the existence of Israel at least from certain perspectives. I actually started on this forum to dispute the lies posted by Israel haters.

I never claimed that Israel is innocent but why can't Israel haters attack Israel for things it actually does instead of making things up or distorting the situation to push their agenda.

The British tried to keep the Arab majority not keep things equal. They also went against the dictates of the Mandate which called to encourage Jewish immigration to Public land.

MORE LIES FROM YOU.
The indigenous Arabs started the violence and carried out dozens of massacres on Jews before the Jewish militias were created. This is actually why they were created in the first place. The British refused to defend the Jews often aiding the Arabs in their massacres or at the least stopping the Jews from defending themselves.This is how Jews were ethnically cleansed from Old Jerusalem during the War of Independence.

I suppose massacres in Tzfat, Jerusalem, and Hebron in the 1920's were Jews fault?

Why did the British encourage Arab immigration? Why are Palestinians in denial that many came from the surrounding lands?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Just Think 685,857
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 8 min arrr 26,948
Most likely scenario in Mayweather - McGregor f... 9 min Doctor REALITY 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 16 min arrr 985,731
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 43 min Siva 8,524
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Here For Now 619,751
Anyone know nicole horne that works at family d... 5 hr Downlowinfo42069 4
More from around the web