Posted on 12/17/2001 8:13:53 AM PST by Lietmotiv
Iran's Rafsanjani suggests nuclear attack on Israel SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Monday, December 17, 2001 One of Iran’s most influential ruling clerics called on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only". The speech by former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani failed to catch the attention of the western press but made waves in the Middle East. "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. In Washington Sunday, administration officials said the United States does not plan to target Iran in the war against terrorism. "Iran is a situation where there are clearly some pressures from young people, there are pressures from women in that country," U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "Iran had a different history than Iraq. I don't know, if nothing else happened and one looked at those two countries, I would say the likelihood of Iraq reforming itself is zero. The possibility, the remote possibility of Iran reforming itself is considerably above zero." Dr. Assad Homayou, president of the Azadegan Foundation in Washington, D.C. agreed. "To me the issue is not nuclear weapons but the responsibility of the regime," he said. "This regime is not responsible and that is why I have always emphasized that the removal of this regime is imperative. As the U.S. secretary of defense said the situation with Iran is different from that of Iraq. People only need the moral support of the United States." Analysts told the Iranian Press Service that Rafsanjani's speech marks the first time a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic had openly suggested the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State. Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous". "We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning that a war "of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of World War III." Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He was speaking on "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" which is celebrated in Iran only. The Pentagon, which has pressed for a second stage in the U.S. war against terrorism, does not support any military campaign against Iran. Instead, officials have urged that Washington target the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. On Monday, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami said the stifling of dissent in the country could spark a new wave of student protests, Middle East Newsline reported. Over the last 20 months, officials said, 56 publications have been closed. This includes 24 daily newspapers. U.S. officials acknowledge that Iran is more advanced than Iraq in both missile development and weapons of mass destruction. They said that Iran, with Russian help, has succeeded in advancing its nuclear project and they could arrive at weapons capability as early as 2005. But the officials said the administration has been impressed with Iran's help in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. The help has included military coordination, security along the Afghan border and intelligence exchange. Some officials expect Iran to also quietly support any U.S. military campaign against Iraq. Iraq is Teheran's rival and neighbor and Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during their 1980-88 war. One scenario being envisioned by Pentagon sources is increased Iranian help to Shi'ite opposition forces in southern Iraq. The Iranian help could also include coordination for any U.S. ground attack in the oil fields around the southern port of Basra. "I would characterize Iraq as a dictator in a repressive system that is unlikely to be altered from within absent an assassination or something like that," Rumsfeld said.
Colonialism? And who is the state of all colonialism? The US, and hence Iran is doing this appeal against the US too. That the cult of the marxico-muslim poor is colonising everyone democraticaly does not budge any, all people care about is that no one will ever get rich by settling a piece of land.
Really? How about WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War, the Mexican War of 1848, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, the French-American War, the Russo-Japanese War, Napeoleon's Campaigns, the Prusso-French War...your statement might have been relevant 300 years ago, but that is no longer the case...
Their goal is to destroy the nation of Israel before the Messiah can come to set up his kingdom. They may not realize it, but their employer is well aware of it.
Think about it... "I thank God every day"
Atheists assert that there IS NO god.
Rafsanjani followed up the comments about a nuclear conflict with:
But "we do not want the world to fall victim to insecurity, and we do not want the confrontation ... to turn into World War Three. That is the worst that could happen."
Gives the story an entirely different feel doesn't it?
I hate to burst your buble, but the muslim religion is not a religion. It's not because they mention God and have superstitions of all kinds they are a religion. Muslims are a secular ideology that resorts to armed force and Jihad to spread itself.
Christians on the other hand rely on free choice, so do Jews and so do Hindus. At the bottom those do not use material means but intellectual inquiry and emancipated spirit to make their choices - a choice made without the natural levers like hunger or thirst or anger. Proof is that Christians repent about the crusades, Jews repent and make concessions to the Palestinians, Hindus repent and preach peace at every corner even if it destroys them as they condemn the past acts of their zealots.
Nazies never repented. Communists still promote the cult of the poor and turning the world into a sewage for sake of authority of the poor. Muslims do the same and never have repented in their texts about their evil.
Compare that to the Nazies: white skin
Compare that to the communists: cult of the poor and the revolution of the proletaria
Compare that to muslims: violent Jihad.
Get a grip.
Ya, that's a good way to start WWIII, we really don't know who has nuclear capability in that region or who is on their side with it, I for one never want to see that happen.
A Nuclear submarine force would squash all of this gibberish.
btw: Arent Iranians Persian and not Arab? Is this "Nuclear attack" story true?
NBC/ABC Warfare Survival Skills Links
Tiny Nukes-- the backpack threat
The Poor-Boy Nuke-- Bioterrorism***
The Samson Option-- what is known about Israel's Nuclear Weapons?
-Index of Chemical Warfare/weapons articles--
-Index of Bioterrorism articles--
That's got to be one of the most hilarious oxymorons I've ever seen! It's also a terribly sad statement. For your own personal good, you need to closely re-evaluate one of your core life-premises.
No. The guy calls on Muslim states to obliterate Israel with nuclear weapons, then says he doesn't want the world to fall into insecurity.
The entire quote was:
"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning that a war "of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of World War III."
The guy is a dangerous wacko, and his statement could be a signal of some sort. I guess this is his way of reassuring the world that the rest of the world will be safe from his insanity; it's just Israel that he wants wiped off the face of the planet.
It's not irresponsible, massive immigration has been known to be a muslim mean. When they get in greater numbers, they invariably turn the place into hell. Look at Lebannon, look at the texts and mein kampf they read.
If the end is evil, any mean is evil. Democracy can be used for and against a nation, turning it into a stellar achievement or into a vast sewage. What did you think Lenin did? How do you think Hitler came to power? How do you think Mao came to power? And clearly their end was spelled into their texts along the lines of destroying the non-believer
Wake up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.