"Israel must be wiped off the map"-was Ahmadinejad misquoted

[L4P]

Crazy people should not have nuclear weapons.

It's my rule and I'm sticking to it.

And that's why I don't believe the US should have nukes.

[Rue]

I enclose a paper with a detailed response that argues the words of Admadinejad are consistent in their call to violence against Israel and its destruction to serve as a counter response from the other side of the debate to the original poster's thread which I appreciate he picked up on from the Wikepedia article; http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf.

I think it is fair to state that Farsi is not a language that can be exactly translated so its translatations are in fact interpretations-so distortions do happen.

When looking at the speeches from Iran I would argue one can not just look at one speech but should pay attention to the many speeches that eminate from its President or its Ministry of Information and to look for patterns or re-emerging themes that continually get repeated.

I think what people also need to keep in mind is that in the Middle East there is a long tradition of Middle East politicians saying one thing to the West and another to their own Eastern and domestic audiences and how the two are often completely opposite.

A classic example of that was Arafat who would say he wants peace with Israel in English and seconds later say the exact opposite in Arabic to his Eastern audiences at the same press conference.

To understand Middle East politics one must look at all the speeches on the same subject to BOTH the East and West audiences.

That is part of what makes Middle East political statements so baffling and tricky to analyze. They don't directly translate from Arabic or Farsi to start with as I said. Then the politicians say different things to different audiences. Then there is the phenomena I like to call Israel bashing where the politicians puff themselves up making incredibky violent threats and anti-semitic comments to whip up their audiences to dettract from their own internal political woes.

The problem is this technique of Israel bashing and anti-semitic references is so systemic that it has become deeply entrenched in the media whether that be radio, t.v. or in the printed press and as long as this scapegoating exercise continues a long term peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine becomes problematic as it fuels hatred and distrust on both sides.

So with due respect I would contend trying to spin Ahmadinejad into a misunderstood peaceful man is absurd. I woudl argue he reflects an extreme fundamentalist perspective that has the support of the majority of the religious clerics on the ruling council.

He has been able with the clerical council's full condonation been able to commit numerous human rights violations including torturing and killing political opponents or perceived foes whether they be students, gay or feminist activists, trade unionists, democratic reformists, communists, socialists, Bahaiis or Jews let alone Muslims of minority sects.

He is now involved in shutting down the press as an opponent tries to run against him. This is a man who fully condones and has assisted in the financing and training of terrorists across the world including Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza through his Reolutionary Guard.

This is a man whose government has direct ties to organzied crime syndicates in the cocaine and heroin cartels where drug money is laundered to fuel terror cell activities.

So I think to try spin this man as a harmless gum flapper would be as naive as doing the same for Hugo Chavez for example.

That said how wide spread his support is within Iran no one realy knows because the state is ruled with fear and brutality. How the average person on the street really feels is not known until after they leave the country and have no relatives left behind who can be killed if they say anything.

What has emerged from ex Iranian nationals is that this is a brutal regime and one can not openly be defiant of it and when students or interest groups are brave enough to stand up they risk their very lives and being tortured.

I think the real shame in this is-what if the average Iranian is a captive of their government? I can not imagine wanting to lump them in the same category as the brutal despots who control them if they are being brutalized and victimized.

So while I am not a secular socialist like Peter F but more of a centralist typical Canadian Gwynne Dyer kind of extreme middle of the road guy, I don't want to get into the kind of rhetoric that slurs all Iranians because of the policies of their government the same way I hate it when people do that to Israelis or Jews or Muslims or Arabs or anyone else.

So while I respectfully disagree on many of Peter F's perspectives on certain foreign policies I defer to his consistency and logic shown in many of his threads where he speaks of not mixing up our sentiments as to governments with the people themselves.

I know he sounded a little righteous in his point, but I do not think that was the intent and I and many others have said the same thing many times. It does come across preachy but I think it is not meant to be. We all should ask-how far do we want to go with any political conflict - it is easy to get into chauvenistic name calling with such leaders. Their very language baits and annoys to try get that kind of response. Yes it could be dangerous to appease genuine lunatics, but surely in other instances such as the way the U.S. has ignored the Korean regime, it can also help to defuse potential conflict.

I guess the age old question is when does one stay calm and ignore and when should they strike back? If there was an easy answer to that there would never be any wars.

so that said I think this is a topic where I can respectfully disagree with those who would downplay Ahmadinejad but certainly agree typecasting all Iranians or taking this politicians words verbatum can be problematic when pursuing a foreign policy response.

I personally think the new U.S. regime has demonstrated it is going to take a more measured response. That may not be such a bad thing.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Rue

[JerrySeinfeld]

Why are western liberals so quick to assume that everyone is like them? ie. a pantywaiste self-loathing apologizer who won't fight for a damn thing?

Iran has always talked the talk AND walked the walk.

I take them at their word. Why wouldn't we?

[tango]

Why are western liberals so quick to assume that everyone is like them? ie. a pantywaiste self-loathing apologizer who won't fight for a damn thing?

Iran has always talked the talk AND walked the walk.

I take them at their word. Why wouldn't we?

Why are western conservatives so knee-jerk impulsive they would cut off their nose to spite their face?

So paranoid that everyone is 'out to get them', incapable of complex thought, they see no solutions but immediate violence against someone ... ANYONE ... doesn't matter who or why, as long as we DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!!!!

So attention-deficit hyperactive and impulse-driven are the right wing that their brains are only used to keep their heads from collapsing! Their thinking never evolved past two-year-old temper tantrums!

What assholes ... oops! I mean conservatives ... call "self-loathing apologist" is actually the process of using one's brain to think, to consider all sides of an issue, all possible actions, and taking the action that is possible to bring about improvement, instead of disaster.

I know the process of using one's brain for thinking is foreign to the right wing, who prefer to bash their brains against brick walls instead.

So ... leave the thinking to us and we'll call you when we need someone to bash their own brains out. k?

Edited February 24, 2009 by tango

[KeyStone]

I enclose a paper with a detailed response that argues the words of Admadinejad are consistent in their call to violence against Israel and its destruction to serve as a counter response from the other side of the debate to the original poster's thread which I appreciate he picked up on from the Wikepedia article; http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf.

I think it is fair to state that Farsi is not a language that can be exactly translated so its translatations are in fact interpretations-so distortions do happen.

When looking at the speeches from Iran I would argue one can not just look at one speech but should pay attention to the many speeches that eminate from its President or its Ministry of Information and to look for patterns or re-emerging themes that continually get repeated.

I think what people also need to keep in mind is that in the Middle East there is a long tradition of Middle East politicians saying one thing to the West and another to their own Eastern and domestic audiences and how the two are often completely opposite.

A classic example of that was Arafat who would say he wants peace with Israel in English and seconds later say the exact opposite in Arabic to his Eastern audiences at the same press conference.

To understand Middle East politics one must look at all the speeches on the same subject to BOTH the East and West audiences.

That is part of what makes Middle East political statements so baffling and tricky to analyze. They don't directly translate from Arabic or Farsi to start with as I said. Then the politicians say different things to different audiences. Then there is the phenomena I like to call Israel bashing where the politicians puff themselves up making incredibky violent threats and anti-semitic comments to whip up their audiences to dettract from their own internal political woes.

The problem is this technique of Israel bashing and anti-semitic references is so systemic that it has become deeply entrenched in the media whether that be radio, t.v. or in the printed press and as long as this scapegoating exercise continues a long term peaceful solution between Israel and Palestine becomes problematic as it fuels hatred and distrust on both sides.

So with due respect I would contend trying to spin Ahmadinejad into a misunderstood peaceful man is absurd. I woudl argue he reflects an extreme fundamentalist perspective that has the support of the majority of the religious clerics on the ruling council.

He has been able with the clerical council's full condonation been able to commit numerous human rights violations including torturing and killing political opponents or perceived foes whether they be students, gay or feminist activists, trade unionists, democratic reformists, communists, socialists, Bahaiis or Jews let alone Muslims of minority sects.

He is now involved in shutting down the press as an opponent tries to run against him. This is a man who fully condones and has assisted in the financing and training of terrorists across the world including Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza through his Reolutionary Guard.

This is a man whose government has direct ties to organzied crime syndicates in the cocaine and heroin cartels where drug money is laundered to fuel terror cell activities.

So I think to try spin this man as a harmless gum flapper would be as naive as doing the same for Hugo Chavez for example.

That said how wide spread his support is within Iran no one realy knows because the state is ruled with fear and brutality. How the average person on the street really feels is not known until after they leave the country and have no relatives left behind who can be killed if they say anything.

What has emerged from ex Iranian nationals is that this is a brutal regime and one can not openly be defiant of it and when students or interest groups are brave enough to stand up they risk their very lives and being tortured.

I think the real shame in this is-what if the average Iranian is a captive of their government? I can not imagine wanting to lump them in the same category as the brutal despots who control them if they are being brutalized and victimized.

So while I am not a secular socialist like Peter F but more of a centralist typical Canadian Gwynne Dyer kind of extreme middle of the road guy, I don't want to get into the kind of rhetoric that slurs all Iranians because of the policies of their government the same way I hate it when people do that to Israelis or Jews or Muslims or Arabs or anyone else.

So while I respectfully disagree on many of Peter F's perspectives on certain foreign policies I defer to his consistency and logic shown in many of his threads where he speaks of not mixing up our sentiments as to governments with the people themselves.

I know he sounded a little righteous in his point, but I do not think that was the intent and I and many others have said the same thing many times. It does come across preachy but I think it is not meant to be. We all should ask-how far do we want to go with any political conflict - it is easy to get into chauvenistic name calling with such leaders. Their very language baits and annoys to try get that kind of response. Yes it could be dangerous to appease genuine lunatics, but surely in other instances such as the way the U.S. has ignored the Korean regime, it can also help to defuse potential conflict.

I guess the age old question is when does one stay calm and ignore and when should they strike back? If there was an easy answer to that there would never be any wars.

so that said I think this is a topic where I can respectfully disagree with those who would downplay Ahmadinejad but certainly agree typecasting all Iranians or taking this politicians words verbatum can be problematic when pursuing a foreign policy response.

I personally think the new U.S. regime has demonstrated it is going to take a more measured response. That may not be such a bad thing.

I was actually reading with interest until you brought in the Hugo Chavez example. Absurd.

[M.Dancer]

I was actually reading with interest until you brought in the Hugo Chavez example. Absurd.

Apt except Chavez is a dangerous buffoon while Amadabadingdong is just dangerous

[GostHacked]

Kimmy

I think what people also need to keep in mind is that in the Middle East there is a long tradition of Middle East politicians saying one thing to the West and another to their own Eastern and domestic audiences and how the two are often completely opposite.

That tradition is not exclusive to the Middle East. Our Western main stream media plays the same role. And when our western politicians go over there, they do the same. You talk about anti-Israel and how it is instantly qualified and quantified as anti-semite. Those idiots need to recognize the difference between hating a people and hating a country's governments actions. Untill the two are separated, I think this is at a standstill.

I think the real shame in this is-what if the average Iranian is a captive of their government? I can not imagine wanting to lump them in the same category as the brutal despots who control them if they are being brutalized and victimized.

I like jews, I just don't like Israel. And I like Americans, I just don't like the government. And trust me, I am no big fan of Canada's government either. To tell you the truth, I just know less about Canada's government. Yes, I am pretty ignorant on many things.

JerrySinefeld

I take them at their word. Why wouldn't we?

Because you never took their word before.

[M.Dancer]

. Those idiots need to recognize the difference between hating a people and hating a country's governments actions. Untill the two are separated, I think this is at a standstill.

Explain then why Jews are the target of terrorist attacks outside of Israel.

[bush_cheney2004]

I like jews, I just don't like Israel. And I like Americans, I just don't like the government. And trust me, I am no big fan of Canada's government either. To tell you the truth, I just know less about Canada's government. Yes, I am pretty ignorant on many things.

Not really informative, since we have no idea how much you know about any of these. But we do have one reference datum....you are convinced that nobody wants to harm Canada. Calibrate accordingly.....

[Oleg Bach]

Not really informative, since we have no idea how much you know about any of these. But we do have one reference datum....you are convinced that nobody wants to harm Canada. Calibrate accordingly.....

The harmers never knew we existed untill YOU - enticed us into Afghanistan...now everyone thinks we are your buddy and NOW they have invented a new term - Ugly Canadian --- thanks a lot. Why don't you just drop a thousand maps of Canada and let the Taliban know were we are on a map...and while you are at it - The map that Mr. Cheney borrowed after the invasion of Iraq - (to find out where it actually is) - we want it back.

[bush_cheney2004]

The harmers never knew we existed untill YOU - enticed us into Afghanistan...now everyone thinks we are your buddy and NOW they have invented a new term - Ugly Canadian --- thanks a lot.

I'm pretty sure the "harmers" know Canadian infidels wherever they go, be it Iraq in 1991, or today at Kirkuk's oil fields, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of strip mines in Asia.

Hell, Canadians aren't even safe in Mexico!

[Oleg Bach]

I'm pretty sure the "harmers" know Canadian infidels wherever they go, be it Iraq in 1991, or today at Kirkuk's oil fields, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of strip mines in Asia.

Hell, Canadians aren't even safe in Mexico!

Sorry to keep you waiting - don't expect a stream of consciousness from me today - I was told to turn off the tap....so I am on drip mode today. Are you saying that we have investments in mining that totally destroys an area so OUR banks can be the most stable in the world ---- what's wrong with that? YOU taught us that --- or was it the British...I forget. And - I am not an infidel...I am as high fidelity as your old record collection - and don't tell me you don't still have a turn table in the house...Mr. fashionably retro.

[GostHacked]

Explain then why Jews are the target of terrorist attacks outside of Israel.

Explain why a lot of people are targets of terrorist attacks worldwide. The jew is no longer the sole prosecuted I guess.

[Oleg Bach]

Explain why a lot of people are targets of terrorist attacks worldwide. The jew is no longer the sole prosecuted I guess.

Terrorists are not that interested in particular punishment of particular groups..they are not hate crimes - It is not even a punitive attack against the west in general....The purpose is to intimidate - to make what is percieved as agressive and exploitive timid..to remove confidence --- to force us to take need resources to continue with the good growth of western society and use if for defense (which has turned to a very expensive projection of power through pre-emptive war...In other words they want to bleed us dry - and jews maybe a target but so are all people who they precieve as global parasites --- which is just about everbody on this side of the fence.

[M.Dancer]

Explain why a lot of people are targets of terrorist attacks worldwide. The jew is no longer the sole prosecuted I guess.

No not the sole, just predominate target by the Arab terrorists.

[Oleg Bach]

No not the sole, just predominate target by the Arab terrorists.

The west must just love holding out Israel the "predominate target" - on a long stick like a piece of meat for the wolves to attack....hope they don't eat the meat and work their way up the stick to the hand.

[DogOnPorch]

The west must just love holding out Israel the "predominate target" - on a long stick like a piece of meat for the wolves to attack....hope they don't eat the meat and work their way up the stick to the hand.

Arabs are such sh!tty soldiers/pilots that this would be highly unlikely. My favorite is still 1982 where the IAF shot down 90 or so of Syria's brand new MiGs with no losses of their own.

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

It's a Daisy.

[Oleg Bach]

Arabs are such sh!tty soldiers/pilots that this would be highly unlikely. My favorite is still 1982 where the IAF shot down 90 or so of Syria's brand new MiGs with no losses of their own.

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

It's a Daisy.

The Iranian pilots got pretty good at shooting down Russian made migs...you missed my point - as the Jews were used as a diversion after the economic collapse in the late 20s - by the Germans - It seems not much has changed - they are still being used as a diversion and scape goat - but of couse you pay them to take the fall and the heat. That's what I am begining to see --- Its like some ancient agreement....The gentiles reap the profits though plunder - and the jews agree to take the blame..with compensation of course - dreadful arrangement.

[DogOnPorch]

The Iranian pilots got pretty good at shooting down Russian made migs...you missed my point - as the Jews were used as a diversion after the economic collapse in the late 20s - by the Germans - It seems not much has changed - they are still being used as a diversion and scape goat - but of couse you pay them to take the fall and the heat. That's what I am begining to see --- Its like some ancient agreement....The gentiles reap the profits though plunder - and the jews agree to take the blame..with compensation of course - dreadful arrangement.

After Arabs comes Iranians for the bottom of the barrel of military ability. Maybe they've learned something since the Iran-Iraq War...but I doubt it.

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

It's a Daisy.

Edited February 25, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[dub]

Arabs are such sh!tty soldiers/pilots that this would be highly unlikely. My favorite is still 1982 where the IAF shot down 90 or so of Syria's brand new MiGs with no losses of their own.

looks like dogonporch's racist views are showing its ugly head.

could this imbalance in military power have anything to do with the $3 billion that US taxpayers pay every year to israel to create a more dominant military?

i hope you didn't forget to high five dancing man and bushcheney after israel's military dominance over the gazans.

[DogOnPorch]

looks like dogonporch's racist views are showing its ugly head.

could this imbalance in military power have anything to do with the $3 billion that US taxpayers pay every year to israel to create a more dominant military?

i hope you didn't forget to high five dancing man and bushcheney after israel's military dominance over the gazans.

It's just a fact. Arab command control sucks the big kahoona. Iranians...same deal. The average Arab soldier on the ground is powerless to affect his situation. An Israeli NCO (him or her) could call down the entire IAF if needed.

The Yom Kippur War is still the classic example. Modern Soviet tanks (given free to the Arabs) turned to wrecks in their thousands by elite Israeli armored units using WW2 era M-50 Super Shermans (which they bought surplus) plus a smattering of more modern armor (British for the most part).

...and the Arabs called it a victory.

The 'Muslim World' has had to get used to buying their weapons from their various sources rather than have them given to them as in the past. As for the US support of Israel, it is quite a mutual relationship, where both parties profit, I can assure you. Not to mention we do, as well. Things like cancer research, computer advances and what not are invaluable. Israel often leads the way in many fields of science. Your circut board was probably designed in Tel Aviv and built in China.

As for your personal attacks, I wish you'd stop.

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

It's a Daisy.

[kactus]

Above post is a typical example of hot airs with just lots of pride for their country. Quite frankly have seen it so many times and it's quite typical of the usuall suspects! I'm so glad that non of you are sitting on the hot button in making decisions for foreign policies! Can't imagine the catastrophes! Better stick to the argument that .... my garden is bigger than yours la bla bla ... to massage your ego than talking about iranian military strenghth. Tell yourself this what if Iran is such a weak country militarily then why so much talk about her and banging on about how powerful and mighty USrael airforce is to deal with it. If USsrael airforce is powerful enough to deal with the so called threat then there's no reason to brag on and on and on about it or maybe it's the typical "da joooooooos paranoia".

Anyway, coming back to the topic at hand. President Ahmadinejad has not threatend to "wipe Israel off the map" contrary to the popular belief amongst those wishing to believe. As I have stated before US has threatened the communist USSR in the past. Wishing the demise of the policies of USSR did not tantamount to the existence of ordinary russians. Anyone can see that!

[Rue]

I was actually reading with interest until you brought in the Hugo Chavez example. Absurd.

Lol. There goes my rating.

I will save my opinions on Hugo for a different thread. I personally think he is a lunatic and dangerous and responsible for assisting organized crime and terror operations. For that matter I think Ahmadinejad is also a dangerous lunatic. However I do not think the fact that either is in my personal opinion a lunatic germaine to the points I was making and that is that I believeforeign policy should be based on carefully thought out responses and plans and not chauvenistic emotional reactions.

I would argue it is precisely because the Bush foreign policy was based on knee jerk chauvenistic reactions with no carefully thought out plans the U.S. repeatedly became entrenched in one disasterous public relations catastrophe after another and the debacle in Iran and probably Afghanistan.

All one has to do to see the shortcomings of knee jerk chauvenistic response foreign policy from the Bush years to see what it was unable to achieve in his 8 years in the White House.

For an example of well thought out and carefully planned foreign policy initiatives may I suggest someone look at the United States Army's initiative in Djibouti which has proven a resounding success and is the exact opposite of what Bush wanted in Iraq and what the US Armed Forces first suggested should have been their role model in Iraq and Afghanistanand and is a model the Canadian Armed Forces has had mixed success with in the past.

Lol-anyone think Hugo is harmless? Please go have lunch with him. He might find you tasty.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Rue

[Rue]

I'm pretty sure the "harmers" know Canadian infidels wherever they go, be it Iraq in 1991, or today at Kirkuk's oil fields, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of strip mines in Asia.

Hell, Canadians aren't even safe in Mexico!

Lol I am going there in a month. I will take that in mind. As an aside I was in Mexico on the day of the 9-11 attack. The Mexicans had no problem charging stranded Americans higher rates in hotels after that at least where I was.

If there is one thing I learned and that is if I am on vacation and I see a Bubba, I buy him a few beers. You never know when a Canadian such as myself will need a bodyguard.

I just wish you guys however would stop looking for Taco Bells in Mexico.

[DogOnPorch]

Above post is a typical example of hot airs with just lots of pride for their country. Quite frankly have seen it so many times and it's quite typical of the usuall suspects! I'm so glad that non of you are sitting on the hot button in making decisions for foreign policies! Can't imagine the catastrophes! Better stick to the argument that .... my garden is bigger than yours la bla bla ... to massage your ego than talking about iranian military strenghth. Tell yourself this what if Iran is such a weak country militarily then why so much talk about her and banging on about how powerful and mighty USrael airforce is to deal with it. If USsrael airforce is powerful enough to deal with the so called threat then there's no reason to brag on and on and on about it or maybe it's the typical "da joooooooos paranoia".

Anyway, coming back to the topic at hand. President Ahmadinejad has not threatend to "wipe Israel off the map" contrary to the popular belief amongst those wishing to believe. As I have stated before US has threatened the communist USSR in the past. Wishing the demise of the policies of USSR did not tantamount to the existence of ordinary russians. Anyone can see that!

While it's clear you think I'm wrong, you failed to point out which of my statements was incorrect. To me this says you just don't like what you've read rather than having any real grasp of what I posted.

Israel has a dynamic army with advanced command/control, an elite officer corp and excellent weapons (see: The Merkava).

The Arabs have a system they picked up from the Soviets during the 70s and 80s where orders go up and down the entire chain of command before being carried out...if they get that far. Things like airstrikes and artillery might need to be planned for hours if not days in advance. Their weapons are comparable to the Israelis for the most part.

The Iranian military has zero sense if the Iran-Iraq War is any guide. Charging machineguns is never a good idea no matter if one thinks Allah is on his side or not. However, desperate attempts to fix this over the last few decades might have bore some fruit. Maybe...

Iran also suffers from a continuity problem with their military as there is quite the mix of exotic weapons from all over the world including the USA. Spare parts for their Western weapons are rather rare as you might imagine.

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

It's a Daisy.