OK next time I will say missile launchers if it makes u better. So it was again mistranslation?
Firstly, it wasn't a launcher. It was a transporter alone. Secondly, yes it is. I'm not denying that I have witnessed this on numerous occasions but the fact of the matter is, there is no quotation as such by Ruhollah Khomeini.
He says "death to Israel", not any policies. South Africa was not democracy, Israel is democracy, all citizens of Israel including Arabs can vote and governments change here regulary.
How is Israel a democracy as compared to apartheid South Africa. Israel has shunned a great segment of Palestinians from their own land and has accorded Israeli 'citizenship' to those of it's own choosing. South Africa previously created internal partitions in a similar fashion. Israel isn't as much about democracy as it is about preferential rights.
If you put poster targeting Khamanai, that will be last thing u put. Anyway, your president says "death to Israel", puts on missile launchers "Israel should be wiped of the map", supports terrorists that murder all Israelis without discrimination. And after all this u whine that one Israeli parliament member which, does not even hold any power, called to target your him?
You stated Iran's leadership as targeting Israeli leaders in a similar fashion and you have yet to provide a statement to prove it. In it's stead, you are diversifying the discussion by including other issues. Ahmadinejad says down with Israel. Also, he did not put the tags on the transporters. Also, what is a terrorist to you may not be the same for others. For instance, ask the shelled Lebanese villagers of the 80s, the IDF were the terrorists. Also, where has he shown support for the murder of Israeli civilians. Can you verify this claim?
Oh, 2000 TOW anti tank missiles, dozens Hawk air defence missiles and spare parts to them, spare parts for tanks, Phantom aircrafts - all that did not save even tens Iranians in war where hundreds of thousands died? Bad to be so ungrateful.
Israel gave Iran F4 Phantoms? The United States utilized Israel for provision of some parts and equipment to selected individuals and the entire impetus behind the affair was accorded by these individuals in the hope to obtain gains from Hezbollah, another Israeli-necessitated creation, for the release of hostages, held again in reaction to Israeli endeavors. Israel was reimbursed entirely (with financial benefits) for it's provisions. So what has Israel accorded on it's own for Iran? These group of individuals moreover were opposed to the revolutionary government.
I am saying that Iran is openly supporting those who delibetely target civilians.
Iran does not support the murder of Israeli citizens.
"Blatant agression" is result of repeated attacks by PLO from Lebanon. By the way PLO was hated by most Lebanese and Shiite villagers even greeted Israeli troops that kicked them out. Until Israeli pullout many Shiites served in Israeli allied army.
The long term occupation and administration is definitive of blatant aggression against a sovereign state. Apart from this, Israel managed to manufacture religious strive and division by the creation, organization and financing of militias. Most notably, Israel toyed with Christian militias in Southern Lebanon. After the forced Israeli withdrawal, these former front-line Israeli-backed paramilitaries became redundant. Many of them, residing in Israel now, are all too critical of that period and often feel being abandoned by the state which armed them. Also, as to your last sentence, it was precisely the lack of cooperation and negation of Israeli occupation by the dominant Shi'a community in Southern Lebanon that proved to be the biggest nuisance for the IDF and one of the primary reasons for the successful raids by Hezbollah.
Sheeba farms are not Lebanese according to UN, Golan is not Lebanese business either.
What conclusion does the UN have on the Palestinian territories? Also, what is the extend of Israeli present and historical cooperation with the UN and on the implementation of UN resolutions?
May be you are slow understanding. Let me explain again:
* Iran says that it cant have relatonships with Israel, because it occupies Palestinian lands (these lands never were Palestinian but nevermind).
In other words, you purport that these lands were always Israeli, even with a historical imperative?
* But in same time Iran has excellent relationships with Armenia, that not only occupies Azerbaijan's lands, but also ehnically cleansed all Muslims from there and turned mosques into cattle farms.
Firstly, by what characteristics do you ascribe relations to be 'excellent.' Secondly, your basis for reasoning fails in that Israeli actions too have been ethnically and even religiously dismissive of of an entire population. Thirdly, are you then trying to argue that Israel and Armenia equate to each other in that they are ethnically and religiously prejudiced, are militaristic, expansive and that as equals by this logic they should be accorded the same treatment? If such is to be accepted as the case by yourself, it should reason more Armenian-Israeli relations. With this evidently not being the case, your point only serves as a further example to point out to the double-standards in prevalent Israeli policies.
Conclusion: Iran does not give a damn about occupation of Muslim lands. It attacks Israel simply to lick up to Arabs.
I don't see how you could arrive at such a conclusion especially since the logic dictated by yourself is contradictory on several levels. If Iran, as you put it, was so keen to impress an entire ethnic (Arabs), relations with Arab-populated countries would have on the whole been very different. Moreover, I would suggest you see Iran outside the prism of ethnicities so as to obtain a better understanding because in terms of foreign policy, ethnic-derived matters are are rather irrelevant for Iran. In historical terms, for instance, under the Shah, it indeed could be debated for I see him as a racial chauvinist.
