Ahmadinejad: World forces must strive to annihilate Israel

[Fozzledick]

In a speech published on his website Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the ultimate goal of world forces must be the annihilation of Israel.

Speaking to ambassadors from Islamic countries ahead of 'Qods Day' ('Jerusalem Day'), an annual Iranian anti-Zionist event established in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini and which falls this year on August 17, Ahmadinejad said that a "horrible Zionist current" had been managing world affairs for "about 400 years."
...
Ahmadinejad added that "liberating Palestine" would solve all the world's problems, although he did not elaborate on exactly how that might work.
...
He added: "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom.”

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=279864

Another "mistranslation"? Here's the official Iranian government site:

Ahmadinejad: Qods Day to liberate Palestine, solve entire world problems

Ahmadinejad added, “It has now been some 400 years that a horrendous Zionist clan has been ruling the major world affairs, and behind the scenes of the major power circles, in political, media, monetary, and banking organizations in the world, they have been the decision makers, to an extent that a big power with a huge economy and over 300 million population, the presidential election hopefuls must go kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their victory in the elections.”
...
The president pointed out that in order to evolutionize the status of the world decision making is needed, the forces must get united, and their ultimate objective must be the annihilation of the Zionist regime, emphasizing, “The Zionist regime is both the symbol of the hegemony of the Zionism over the world and the means in the hand of the oppressor powers for expansion of their hegemony in the region and in the world.”
...
He referred to the late Imam Khomeini’s initiative of naming the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as the International Qods Day, arguing, “The Qods Day is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems; any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world.”

http://www.irna.ir/News/Politic/Ahmadinejad,-Qods-Day-to-liberate-Palestine,-solve-entire-world-problems/80257558

[Astrad]

1. It seems the debate

about his intentions centre around what he means by the "zionist regime" and whether that is distinct from the country of Israel. If it is, then his rhetoric may be no more or less offensive than say, the US position on regime change in Iran. But if it's not, than it's something far more menacing. The use of the word 'annihilation', if that translates correctly, is very troubling.

[Fozzledick]

2. "Zionist regime" is his euphemism for the state of Israel to avoid speaking it's name.

And the word "annihilation" is used repeatedly in the English translation on his own official website, cited above.

[King_David]

24. Your kidding? right? nt

[Astrad]

28. Sorry, is there some position I need to be in lockstep with? n/t

[oberliner]

30. He only ever calls Israel the "Zionist Regime" or some such euphemism

He never actually says the name Israel. The Iranian press often put the word Israel in brackets after such euphemisms to indicate that they refer to Israel.

Here's an example:

“Today, the time has come for the disappearance of the West and the Zionist regime (Israel) - which are two dark spots in the present era - from the face of the universe,” said Larijani in a Thursday conference in Tehran commemorating the birth anniversary of Shia Islam’s 12th Imam Mahdi (PBUH).

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/05/249461/west-israel-sources-of-oppression/

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Wow. That's terrific--- Hysterical!

Oh, wait, you're serious.

[LeftishBrit]

32. No, he definitely means Israel

He always calls it the 'Zionist regime' or 'Zionist entity'.

[Bradlad]

3. His attempt to leave a small ambiguity . .

Aside from avoiding saying "Israel" his attempt to leave a small ambiguity in his words is because he knows that it is human nature not to face an unpleasant reality until you are absolutely forced to. The worse the reality to be faced the more people will go to any lengths to deny it to themselves, given any shred of possibility. And then it may be too late, which is what he is expecting.

Just as the Jews, even on the cattle cars, wanted so much to believe that a work camp waited for them at the end of the line. Just as the rest of the world in those days didn't want to think about it too much.

[Swede]

4. I'm sure he was mistranslated.

Again.

[bemildred]

5. He sounds even more fatuous than Clinton.

"World forces".

[Bradlad]

6. In my humble opinion . .

any world leader of any nation who says (or does) anything that could be remotely interpreted as any kind of a violent threat against other nations and peoples - should be first given a chance to clarify and apologize for his words and his intentions - which damn well better turn out to be peaceful.

Failing that he should be met immediately with blockade and severe economic sanctions increasing in severity in a short period of time until he retracts and apologizes to his target and the world community and signs written pledges with criminal penalties to not repeat the error and to allow onsite inspection of his military until the possibility of attack is remote - which may take years in some cases.

His failure to comply after that should be met with credible mobilization of coordinated military retaliation from the world community.

And finally, the world community should place sufficient firepower next to his border to guarantee that any actual military (or terrorist) aggression on his part will be immediately met with sufficient military force with an aim to first, end the threat from his military and lastly, capture him and impose an automatic life sentence in prison - or his death whichever comes first.

That's what will create a more peaceful world. Negotiating and pleading and appeasing and apologizing for and "understanding" why such a**holes might be motivated to threaten other peaceful peoples and nations is the very last thing that should be done. But then I am a person who is greatly angered by the unnecessary death and suffering of innocents in war and would like to make it much less common that it is.

I fear that the way the world has dealt with Iran so far has created the high likelihood of large civilian casualties in the not too distant future. I really hope I'm wrong.

[azurnoir]

9. Interesting

you are clearly advocating for of course unnamed countries to commit an act of war against another of course unnamed country for what one of its leaders said? no not what was done but rather what was said ?

interesting

[Bradlad]

10. Yes

Yes. After giving him the chance to retract his threats and apologize. If he will not do that then I believe that should be considered an act of war that justifies further actions against him.

In effect, I'm advocating that the definition of an "act of war" should include un-retracted threats of aggression made by world leaders with the resources to carry them out.

I believe that will result in fewer wars and fewer innocent civilians killed in them. Do you disagree?

[azurnoir]

11. "Yes. After giving him the chance to retract his threats and apologize."

him who?

The comment is either sexist or weaseling IMO

but thanks for admitting your advocating for war

[Bradlad]

12. Don't raise other issues.

You didn't answer my simple question.

[azurnoir]

13. oh dear

well in my first reply to you I was about to say that I was quite glad you were not in charge during the cold war because IMO it is likely we would not be having this discussion because we would not be at all

one must take into account that if 'the leader' has been saying this for years (about 7 now I think) and the country he is talking about has previously shown aggressive tendencies and has superior armaments like nuclear weapons then perhaps that leader is merely saber rattling or being fatuous

[Bradlad]

16. I guess that's an answer.

and the country he is talking about has previously shown aggressive tendencies

The country he is talking about has never threatened to attack another nation and has never done so except in self defense. The country he is talking about wants peace and has constantly shown that in its deeds and statements. I realize there has been a tremendous and long-lasting effort by the left in the West to invert this clear record and cast some question on this but no-one interested in serious discussion of the matter doubts it. (If they have give me a link since I missed it. And please something serious.)

You'd think if what you say were true, after 64 years of being accused of "aggression" or "having aggressive tendencies" there'd be at least one clear case of it where there was no doubt at all that Israel decided to attack some country that was not actively threatening or preparing to attack it. Instead we have various over-reaching and illogical "interpretations" of past events by people and organizations who hate the idea that Israel even exists.

I don't say this simply as a way to argue with you. Doesn't it seem at all strange to you that a state that "has aggressive tendencies" in your words always delays and puts off retaliation in the face of obvious "and admitted" aggression until it can't wait any longer and then always stops well short of destroying its enemy when it could?

It seems strange to me that people who say they value peace and the lives of innocents who suffer in war would constantly take the side of those who start the wars that cause their suffering. And that they'd make excuses for them - such as suggesting that people who send their own children into mine fields to clear them and then threaten to annihilate other enemies are just saber rattling or being fatuous. But it's a strange world.

[azurnoir]

17. did Israel (now that we've dropped the fake neutrality)

sneak attack Egypt or not in 1967? no I'm asking whether or not it was legal or Israel was 'entitled' but did they?

[Bradlad]

19. I am not trying to insult you but please . . .

Try to write complete coherent sentences with punctuation. It is difficult to understand most of what you write. I can usually make a guess but in this case it is not clear at all.

[azurnoir]

20. I asked if Israel sneak or more politely surprise attacked Egypt in 1967

note this question does allude to whether or not it was 'legal' or Israel was justified in that attack

I hope that clarifies for you

[Bradlad]

21. I think I get the gist.

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Once a war has started every attack on the enemy is a "sneak" attack as far as possible. Certainly you understand that. And that a"sneak" attack is not considered illegal under the laws of war.

The important question is whether a war had already started when Israel launched its "sneak" attack.

Added: It's important because launching any attack (sneak attack or not) on a state that you are not at war with is illegal and considered the most serious class of war crime - "a crime against humanity". OTOH launching an attack on another army or state during a war is not considered any crime at all. (Although war crimes may be committed if you target their civilians for example.)

According to the laws of war amassing troops and offensive weapons on another country's border is an act of war.

According to the laws of war blockading another country's seaport is an act of war.

Therefore, those two acts by Egypt created an active state of war between Egypt and Israel even though Israel had yet to respond to those acts militarily. Israel was hoping that pressure on Egypt from the US and other world powers would cause Egypt to pull back its forces and take down its blockade of the Straits of Tiran. (A real aggressor huh?)

Also, see my comment here: " Dulles pledged that the U.S. would regard any Egyptian attempt to revive the Tiran blockade as an act of war to which Israel could respond in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In such an event, Meir would undertake to inform the United States of Israel’s intentions. Britain and France also acceded to this agreement, as did Canada and several other Western countries—Sweden, Belgium, Italy, and New Zealand. "

The IDF attack on Egypt was legal and Israel was "entitled". It was not an act of aggression. It was an act of self defense by every possible criterion, moral and legal.

Added: I asked if you could name one clear-cut indisputable example of Israeli aggression. Such as one where all or even most Western governments agree that Israel acted as the aggressor in a conflict. The Six Day War is not even remotely close to that. It is a clear-cut example, but in the opposite direction from your premise.

[azurnoir]

22. well that is a 'nice' way of parsing an answer but who shot at who first Egypt or Israel in 1967

of course we all know it was Israel however the point is that what you are advocating here is that unnamed nations commit an act of war, one that would entitle a response unless of course a double standard is being applied because as it stands all that has happened is talk, and has Iran directly said that it would attack and destroy Israel?

[Bradlad]

23. Thanks.

I think we've both made our points. Let's agree to disagree.

[azurnoir]

39. oh please so you add all that long after my reply

and remember I said it was not about legality or 'entitledness' it was simply who fired the first shot Egypt or Israel

[Bradlad]

43. I always review my comments

I always try to review my comments after a while to see with clear eyes if I stated it well enough or if I missed answering any of your points. I do that as a courtesy to you, not to sneak in anything. I clearly identify any additions with a bold marker. Sorry if that bothers you. I figure if I take the effort to post a comment it's my responsibility to be sure people can understand what I'm saying. Maybe I take it all too seriously but that's me.

[azurnoir]

44. No it hardly bothers me in fact I find it rather humorous n/t

[LeftishBrit]

33. That would be an awful lot of leaders. Many have made threats of violence against other countries

The thing about Ahmanutjob, is that he tends to suggest that other people, in this case 'world forces', should do the wiping off the map for him. This suggests to me that he realizes that he can't do it himself. He'd like to if he could, but he knows that he'd be 'wiped off the map' himself pretty quickly if he did.


Ahmadinejad is a tyrant and an incredibly nasty man. But starting another war to get rid of him is liable to end up with an even worse situation; cf Saddam and Iraq.

'credible mobilization of coordinated military retaliation from the world community.'

And where is one going to get that? The words 'coordinated', 'military' and 'world community' don't really go together! I fear this would end up in more US/possibly UK unilateralism.

What I hope is that he is deposed by his own people - there have already been attempts - and that they get someone better, not 'meet the new boss same as the old boss'.

[Bradlad]

35. Good points.

Last edited Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

I think my proposal is more a futile call for some new way to deal with these things that does not always end up with a lot of innocent people being maimed and killed and the ones who are not maimed and killed having to live the rest of their lives with the deep emptiness of lost loved ones who were their own reason for living.

It probably is a futile hope on my part that it would change anything for the better. Even hoping that he is deposed by his own people is really just a hope that some other people's loved ones will die in large numbers rather than our own. It's very depressing. I think I try to escape by applying logic. My brain thinks it's a puzzle that can be solved. My brain is stupid.

[stockholmer]

7. the JP article once again drudges up the tired, old lie of what Ahmadinejad actually said in 2005

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/israeli-minister-agrees-ahmadinejad-never-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/

Now They Tell Us: Iran Didn't Actually Threaten to Wipe Israel Off the Map

http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/04/19/now-they-tell-us-iran-didnt-actually-threaten-to-wipe-israel-off-the-map/

[Fozzledick]

8. Actually, they quote him as saying literally "wiped off the page of time."

Is that accurate enough for you?

In any case, I think "annihilation of the Zionist regime" makes his meaning clear enough.

BTW, here's the Iranian interpretation from the article you cited:



Yeah, I guess "wiped out of the face of the world" means something completely different than "wiped off the map".

[stockholmer]

14. nice try, but no cigar, simply parsing over exact words, whilst leaving them in the wrong context is

still disinfo. AND you still got the translation of the exact words wrong as well. Neither 'wiped off the map' nor 'wiped off the face of the earth' was spoken. This was a western invention, and is obviously the source of that sign in the picture.

Ahmadinejad actually was using a quote from of Ayatollah Khomeini that ‘the occupation regime over Jerusalem” would “vanish from the page of time’, much like the regimes of the Shah, Hitler or Stalin.

Regime change (ironically also a central meme of the empiric US/UK/NATO war machine), not annihilation of an entire state and people. Big difference.

There are 25,000 plus jews in Iran (by far the largest population the Middle East, outside of Israel itself), active synagogues, and also a Jewish member of the Iranian parliament.

-----------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23cohen.html

In Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Iraq — countries where more than 485,000 Jews lived before 1948 — fewer than 2,000 remain. The Arab Jew has perished. The Persian Jew has fared better.

Of course, Israel’s unfinished cycle of wars has been with Arabs, not Persians, a fact that explains some of the discrepancy.

Still a mystery hovers over Iran’s Jews. It’s important to decide what’s more significant: the annihilationist anti-Israel ranting, the Holocaust denial and other Iranian provocations — or the fact of a Jewish community living, working and worshiping in relative tranquility.

Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Just say NO to

[sabbat hunter]

15. so when the Iranian news agency quotes him as

saying "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom.”
and "It has now been some 400 years that a horrendous Zionist clan has been ruling the major world affairs, and behind the scenes of the major power circles, in political, media, monetary, and banking organizations in the world, they have been the decision makers, to an extent that a big power with a huge economy and over 300 million population, the presidential election hopefuls must go kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their victory in the elections.”

He is being mistranslated again right? Even though it is his own government run agency that is making the translation?

[pelsar]

18. you must be the only one left....

after years of variations on the theme of wiping out israel, and zillions of excuses for the statements by the iranian govt, its pretty clear that there is no mistranslation nor nuancing of words....

but believers are believers and nothing shall change the mind of the religious....

[Igel]

25. They're tolerated.

As long as they don't get uppity, they're okay. They're treated as a religious minority, with official government-to=cleric ties. They have their official albeit marginalized representation in the shura and are forbidden from running for any of the Muslim seats or hold the Muslim jobs.

It makes for a great degree of self censorship, knowing that your collective security is because you've agreed to be subservient in exchange for being protected. It's strong encouragement to know your place.

Similarly, Neturei Karta, an othodox Jewish organization, is occasionally invited to send reps to Iran. They're a sect who believes that God has set the Jews below others, stripped of the right to their own country or to rule themselves, to punish them. In exchange for that, they will live at peace in the world. They oppose Israel and Zionist because it violates that agreement. Their role in Palestine is to be second class in a Muslim society.

What's not for Neejad to like? Jews, in Israel, who know their place. Worth their weight in gold for world publicity.

[LeftishBrit]

34. It wasn't just that one quote

He is ALWAYS saying that he wants 'the Zionist entity' to disappear.

[leveymg]

26. Anyone know how to say "Oye vey" in Farsi?

"My pain" (Yiddish) - אױ װײ

[azurnoir]

27. 95 days

It won’t work without the Americans

The US has the means to launch an efficient military strike. They have intelligence, stealth bombers that cannot be detected by radars, ballistic and cruise missiles, bunker buster bombs, as well as electronic warfare and aerial refueling capabilities. The Americans can surround Iran with army forces, they have airfields and aircraft carriers from which reinforcements can be scrambled at a moment's notice, and, in general, their level of preparedness is very high.

In the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, it was determined in advance that the destruction will be achieved with a short, pinpoint surprise attack. The expectation was that the strike would set the Iraqi nuclear program several years back – or even stop it entirely. In Iran's case, there are no plans for a surprise, pinpoint attack, but for an ongoing type of operation in which the damage will be inflicted gradually. The US possesses the necessary military staying power to carry out such an operation over the course of several days, and even weeks, assuming the political echelon would support it.

Ground forces will not be required. The mission is simple: Mounting destruction and attrition until the nuclear program is halted. The US has the diplomatic standing and the means to accompany such an operation with direct or indirect negotiations. This was Kennedy's modus operandi during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which began on October 15, 1962 and ended just 13 days later. The overt preparations for a military operation and the deployment of forces, which accompanied the naval blockade of Cuba, deterred the Soviets and drew the attention of the entire world, which feared the worst.

Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel. Curbing this threat requires a combination of harsh sanctions, an ongoing military campaign and diplomacy. Iran's response will surely include Israel, meaning that the Jewish state will be a part of this campaign in any case. Therefore, the solution calls for cooperation between Israel and the US. Otherwise, we will be forced to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4263870,00.html

what is not mentioned in the case of Cuban Missile Crisis the then Soviet Union had actually moved nuclear missiles within strike range of the US .

[leveymg]

29. nyet news.com

Strategy, nyet. But, who cares? Tell the yahoos what they want to hear and you'll keep your job.

[Mosby]

36. Anyone notice this?

“It has now been some 400 years that a horrendous Zionist clan...."

He's not talking about Israelis and/or Zionists he's talking about Jews.

He let the mask fall off.

[Fozzledick]

37. I noticed that but didn't think it stood out from all the anti-Semitic stereotyping.

Controlling everything behind the scenes through banking and media, etc.

Then again, I always thought his true meaning was obvious enough.

[Bradlad]

38. Few would take notice . .

It's been a common point of view for centuries. Just lately it's become fashionable again to say it publicly.

[azurnoir]

40. ah so it's not just about Israel it's about every Jew on Earth?

I see so what about 400 years marks that or proves it in your mind? wouldn't 4000 have made more sense if that was the case?

I took it as more senseless ramblings of a sick mind

[Mosby]

41. I don't know why he chose 400 years

Obviously he can't pick a time before Islam existed, that would be very upsetting for some people to hear that Judaism predates Islam by thousands of years.

The point is though that Israel and modern Zionism did not exist 400 years ago so what could the anti-semitic idiot be referring to if not Jews?

[azurnoir]

42. IMO it was like everything that comes out of his mouth

a nonsensical exaggeration