Hello Evan,

I think you missed my point completely, not that I was clear <g>. Let's read the main title of CNN (or the Argentinean newspaper for that matter, for in escence it was the same:

Title, big letters: Iranian president: Destroy Israel

Followed by (in Bold in the original): Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

Now, lets read the supposedly actual words, in the SAME article, just below:

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said

Wait a minute, "Elimination of the Zionist regime" is not at all the Destruction of Israel!! Or.. did you read: "Destruction of Iraq" when US said "Elimination of Saddam's brutal regime" (Ironically a likely civil war might end up with the destruction of Iraq to create two or more states), or did you read "Destruction of Afghanistan" when it was said "Elimination of the Taliban regime" (of course the wordings might have been different, like overthrowing or "regime change", with some "embellishment" too, like "Freedom" or "Democracy" thrown around, but the escence was the same, elimination)

So, the point I was trying to make is that I find hard to know what they really said, maybe they actually said it or/and think like that (Destruction of Israel), or may be it is just another mis-interpretation, intentional or not (Remember the subtle change of the word Technology with Weapons, thus changing "Nuclear Technology" into "Nuclear Weapons" not long ago?)

I do not know you, but I found quite often, not only in this case, sometimes even local news, newspapers put a title that is later contradictory or completely different of what the actual news say, it happens very often and I think is quite effective, people keep that title in their mind when reading the rest of the article (if they ever do it) and they mis-understand it, and of course, they understand what the writers wanted to, and they can not be accused of lying for they will claim some "mistake"

>>Evan,
>>
>>>Because they call for the destruction of the state of Israel
>>
>>After reading this article http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/03/iran.israel.ap/index.html (and one almost exactly worded in an Argentinean newspaper, but in Spanish) I have so many doubts about that
>
>Hi Hugo, that article doesn't say anything about Hezbollah's views on Israel. Here is support for the idea that they call for the destruction of the state of Israel
>
>At http://www.unb.ca/web/bruns/9900/issue14/intnews/israel.html
>Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah says "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel..."