Ahmadinejad never said wipe Isreal off the map

[joe_shmoe]

I'm so sick of hearing this taken as the gospel truth in every talking point.

If you disagree start by intelligently debunking these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/11/news/iran.php

http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/fr/rss /

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

[Terran1212]

1. Good resource: thanks!

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Bullshit!

Ahmadinejad: Supporters of Israel will face wrath of Islamic ummah

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned countries or leaders who have taken measures to acknowledge the Zionist regime under pressure or due to lack of sound understanding that they will be confronted with the wrath of the Islamic ummah and will forever be disgraced. Speaking at a conference dubbed "World without Zionism" here Wednesday which was attended by thousands of students, he said any country which acknowledges the Zionist regime will actually be acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world. He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. Ahmadinejad referred to the Zionist regime's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of Palestinian territory and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel. Pointing to the evil attempts of the US and Israel to saw discord among warring forces in Palestine and other parts of the Islamic world, the president said such attempts were aimed at forcing some Islamic countries to acknowledge the existence of Israel. .

source

And from one of your OWN sources:

Sohrab Mahdavi, one of the most prominent Iranian translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

The second translation issue concerns the word "map." Khomeini's words were abstract: "Sahneh roozgar." Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as "map," and for years, no one objected.

In October, when Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not "sahneh roozgar," but "safheh roozgar," meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word "map" again.

source

Now, perhaps you can explain why so many people are rushing to his "aid?"

[iconoclastNYC]

3. Amazing

How that bolded text does not say: "IRAN should be wiped off the map"

[Behind the Aegis]

4. What?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

23. What in God's name are you trying to say?

[The Magistrate]

6. This Is Really A Rather Pointless Quibble, Sir

The statement in question is simply a restatement of Khomeni's old policy, that quite clearly called for the destruction of Israel as a goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Islamic world in general. It is very clear indication of genuine hostility.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. Do we also take seriously calls from people with very real political power

and military might for the total expulsion of the Palestinians from "Judea and Samaria" and for the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. These calls are coming from people who have long held this as a goal and already have the means to carry it out.

The vast majority of Muslims and Arabs in general have long accepted that Israel is around to stay. This can be demonstrated by numerous calls at the United Nations going back to 1976 calling for the full recognition of Israel in exchange for a total withdrawal from occupied territories.

[The Magistrate]

9. Just As A Matter Of Form, Sir

Turning the debate towards the internal politics of Israel and its relations with the Arab Palestinian people will require this thread be moved down to the Israel v. Palestine forum. Better to stick to the question of Iranian and Israeli relations.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. granted but my point is that the hostility is mutual.. with one side

having considerably more ability to act on their admittedly mutual hostility than the other.

[The Magistrate]

11. Israel Is Certainly Hostile To The Islamic Republic Of Iran, Sir

No question of that. Their relations are those of hostile cinflict, and doubtless each would prefer to be the last one standing.

But a good deal of this discussion over one translated line has an other-worldly quality, because it is the fact of the great hostility between the country's that is important, not a particular phrase. Perhaps a propagandist here and there has over-reached a bit, but it is not of any great moment.

[The Magistrate]

12. To Address Your Further Point, Sir

That is not to my view a major element of the situation. Israel has a greater military power, but has not used it directly against Iran, or achieved any material result indirectly against it. Iran, via proxy elements, managed to cause Israel signifigant difficulty in Lebanon.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. Indeed they did. And many people believe that it is legal

and legitimate to aid to a local armed resistance movement in driving out a foreign occupying army.

If the interest, geography were different and the names were changed-I suspect most Americans would agree with the idea in principle.

[The Magistrate]

15. That Formulation Causes Me No Difficulty, Sir

But it can be taken as an indication the one is neither powerless nor quiesenct in the face of the other. A common line in this class of discussion maintains that the hostility of Iran is of no signifigance, because it is really incapable of, or disinclined towards, actually acting on it.

[cliss]

16. Well then that makes Iran rather

un-unique in the Arab world. I don't believe any of the other countries (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the rest of them) recognize Israel.

So what makes Iran special?

Answer = the US is holding their head under the water because they are the only country which stands up to them. All the rest are US surrogates.

Now of course, they haven't made inflammatory statements like Ahmadinejad. But I've seen the propaganda coming from Washington, and I'm.....skeptical.

[The Magistrate]

17. Iranians Are Persians, Sir

Calling one an Arab can be as uncomfortable as calling a Welshman English....

[Zynx]

29. Calling an Iranian an Arab might get you killed.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. .

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.

Aljazeera

If you disagree start by intelligently debunking the above!

[Techno Dog]

19. Do you think

the return to more loaded rhetoric indicates any greater a threat to Israel's security than before its use? And is there a correlation between any domestic or international events that has lead to the new posture?

[Andromeda]

18. It seem your source, Chris Hitchens...

doesn't think too much of Juan Cole.

...I was not surprised to see professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan denying that Ahmadinejad, or indeed Khomeini, had ever made this call for the removal of Israel from the map. Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community....

http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/fr/rss /

There seem to be a bit of a war between Hitchens and Cole as per the rebuttal in your www.juancole.com link.

This is from another of your sources:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/11/news/iran.php

"...When combined with the longstanding Iranian support for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Ahmadinejad's refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from the Israeli point of view, Ahmadinejad poses no threat.

Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel.

So did he call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

You can interpret this any way you want but the open hostility between Iran and Israel is a reality. Playing little word games doesn't change the fact that if Ahmadinejad had an opportunity to, he would most certainly destroy Israel through war or some other means.

[anewdeal]

20. a few quotes from the man himself

all taken off Wikiquote.

"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."

" The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm."

" There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons last August.

Supreme Iranian leader – Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the Chief of State and He ALONE has the final say in matters of the Iranian state and the final religious authority over the vast overwhelming majority of Iranian Shiites.

Here is an official website that explains the Iranian government:

link: http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html


Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons last August.

In the Iranian system the elected parliament and president have limited powers. By far the single most powerful person is Chief of State Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He has the final say. No other mullah, ayatollah or marja’a can override Ayatollah Khamanei’s fatwa. It is irrevocable. In addition to his political position--within the Shiite version of Islam he is what is known as a marja'a. Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is also a a marja'a. A fatwa is a final religious decision absolutely binding on all Shiites within that marja'a's domain. All fatwas issued by a maja'a are written down and publicly announced. This carries almost as much weight as sacred scripture; almost as if it was in the Koran.

This is the statement regarding Ayatollah Khamanei's fatwa which comes from the website of the Islamic Republic of Iran - link:

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm

Iran, holder of peaceful nuclear fuel cycle technology
Vienna, Aug 10, 2005
Iran-Nuclear-Statement
Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a statement issued by the Islamic republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) read here Tuesday evening.
The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons, it added.
The full text of the statement is as follows:
"Madam chair, colleagues,
"We meet when the world is remembering the atomic bombings of the civilians in Hiroshima (Aug 6) and Nagasaki (Aug 9) sixty years ago.
The savagery of the attack, the human suffering it caused, the scale of the civilian loss of life turning individuals, old and young, into ashes in a split second, and maiming indefinitely those who survived should never be removed from our memory. It is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.
"We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations.
"Indeed, it is not only Iran but also many members of NAM that are denied the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by some of the NPT nuclear-weapon states and their allies through the mechanisms of export controls and other denial arrangements. In 1995, they adopted the so-called "Iran clause" under which they agreed to deny nuclear technology to Iran in any circumstances.
"You can then understand, why Iran after being denied nuclear technology in violation of the NPT, had no other option but to rely on indigenous efforts with precaution on full transparency and we succeeded in developing our nuclear technology. Iran is a nuclear fuel cycle technology holder, a capability which is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office just recently, in his inaugural address reiterated that his government is against weapons of mass destruction and will only pursue nuclear activities in the peaceful domain. The leadership of Iran has pledged at the highest level that Iran will remain a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT and has placed the entire scope of its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards and additional protocol, in addition to undertaking voluntary transparency measures with the agency that have even gone beyond the requirements of the agency's safeguard system.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm

[beachmom]

22. What a joke this thread is. Yeah, defending Ahmadinejad

How disgusting. Have you not bothered to learn what Iran is about? A theocracy that shows no respect whatsoever for what we hold dear run by Pat Robertson like figures on steroids, and you're quibbling over translations and phrases? Threads like this make me want to turn in my membership here. Whose side are you on anyway? Had John Kerry been president he would right now have to be grappling with this mad figure who wants to get the Bomb -- religious fanatics with a Bomb, isn't that sweet? Would you still be defending him then if a Democrat were in office?

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. it's not a matter of defending Ahmadinejad it's a matter of trying to stop

a dangerous war with catastrophic consequences:

_________________________________________-

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

Iranian showdown – great resource page:

http://reseaudesign.com/research/iran/iran_summery.html
__________________

Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski who was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news

[The Magistrate]

25. That Would Be Better Achieved, Sir

By arguing along the lines Mr. Brzezinski has laid out, which are quite sound, rather than engaging in a quibble over translation that resolutely ignores underlying realities, or pretending there is any more reason to take as serious and truthful the statements of a ruling cleric in Iran than there is to do so when the U.S. government speaks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. I see your point on that...I suppose there is a difference "academic"

type discussion and popular discussion. Just as during the cold-war many who argued against such a confrontational approach to "communism" were frequently mistaken for being sympathetic or at least apologist for that system when that was very rarely (with some exceptions) where they were coming from.

[The Magistrate]

27. Indeed, Sir, That Is The Problem

In any form of conflict, one must take care one's own actions leave the opponent no promising route for counter-attack. Many on the left seem to neglect this principle, and to do so is fatal. Once a thing is said or printed, it is out there, and beyond the control of the person who uttered it: it will become nothing more or less than what others make of it. An opponent's interpertation and exploitation of it will not be an exercise in fair-mindedness, but an attempt to wring the most possible advantage out of it. At a time when the population perceives itself to be under some threat, whether rightly or wrongly, no charge is more devastating than that a person is making excuses for the enemey. Critics of any war, or any aggressive action against something the people perceive as hostile to them, routinely fall into this trap with their utterances. Whatever one's actual views may be, when opposing such things, a person must find some way to root the opposition exclusively on appeal to the best interests of the people and the country.

[beachmom]

28. I oppose a war with Iran, because it is wrought with so many dangers

to our country and to our soldiers in Iraq. However, I have no interest in downplaying the fanaticism of Ahmadinejad, which cannot be denied. I think Magistrate has eloquently stated why the subject of this thread is harmful to those of us who would rather avoid a violent confrontation with Iran, and how it can be used from the Right to discredit ALL of our arguments.

[joe_shmoe]

30. Here's my point

I do not a damn supporter of Ahmadinejad at all.

I am trying to point out how the media does not do a thorough job in it's investigation behind situations like this. For example, when the news that Ahmadinejad said "Isreal should be wiped off the map", it was taken as gospel truth and every subsequent article about this statement is built apon this gospel truth. Now we have many people who speak Farsi coming out and saying that it wasn't a literal translation. Just because Behind the Aegis posts an article from Al Jazeera backing up Ahmadinejad saying he wanted to wipe Israel off the map doesn't prove anything. All it says to me is the author based this statement on the first reports of the content of Ahmadinejad's statemenet as gospel truth. I highly doubt the author actually knew Farsi, went into the actual text of Ahmadinejad's statement before he wrote the article. Would you disagree.

I'm trying to point out that when the drums of war begin pounding, our media can be completely irresponsible in it's reporting. For fuck sake - haven't we just seen one of the best examples of this in the last 3 years!!!????

I am also going to say, in terms of geopolitics, there is no country that threatens world peace more than our current USA. Is this even debatable?

Also, a war w/ Iran would lead to an instant collapse of the US. The foundation of our economy is already teetering on disaster and we're relying on the rest of the world to continue buying our debt and our worthless dollar while we continue to wage war all over the world. Do you actually think we would be able to avoid an economic collapse that would make the Great Depression look like a birthday party if we attack Iran.

Ahmadinejad knows this and he knows that the more shit he talks the more closer he will get the US public to support military action against Iran which would lead to the instant destruction of the US. Why are you people buying into his bullshit so easily.

And if you are really gung ho for a war w/ Iran, I suggest you run to your nearest recruiter today and show your true support.

Iran has never invaded any country for the last 2 centuries, the US has invaded at least 14 and posseses the greatest Nuclear arsenal on the planet and is the only country that has actually used them.

You tell me whose a greater threat.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.