Ahmadinejad:'Hated Israel will be annihalated'

[Mr.Canada]

The Palestinians and the nations of the Middle East will be rid of a “bad omen” once Israel is annihilated, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday, in a speech communicated by Press TV.

“They think in their underdeveloped minds that if they launch another war against Lebanon or Syria it might help them survive a little longer. I am telling them that you are in a situation now that more aggressions or wars will not save you,” Press TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Source

Has he firmly lost his mind? This is the type of anti Semitic language that may become common place here in North America if the left keeps pushing their anti Israel views.

The Iranian President said these things yesterday to a live crowd. People here still claim that Israel has no right to defend itself. Israel is threatened everyday and has no friends amongst its neighbors, it's really sad that after all this time after WWII and the Nazi's that the Jewish people must still suffer for their heritage.

I wonder if Iran is getting close to having a nuke or if he already has one now and is planning to use it. Maybe that is what is putting wind in his sails.

I fear for Israel. So many enemies and so few friends. Even within the natrions that are supossed to f riendly for Jews they still find contempt, anger, hatred and racism. I hope the good in people will overcome their hatred.

[Guest American Woman]

For clarification purposes, while he did refer to Israel as "the most hated nation in the world," Ahmadinejad was actually talking about the "Israeli regime," not Israel, when talking about annihilation and a bad omen, which are two different things. This is the translated quote, which is different from how it's being presented:

".....with God’s grace, this regime will be annihilated and Palestinians as well as other regional states will get rid of this bad omen." link

And again he refers to the Israeli regime:

"If the Zionist regime want to repeat the same mistakes they previously made, they must be gotten rid of once and for all, so that the region will be saved from their nuisance for ever." link

I find it odd that I can't find any news coverage of this in any mainstream media outlets.

Having said that, Israel definitely has to remain on guard; given the history/mindset of the region, it's in a precarious position. I don't see how people can argue otherwise. Canada and the U.S. are so fortunate to have each other as neighbors, and it's situations like this that really bring it to light. I can't imagine being in the position geographically that Israel is in.

[Mr.Canada]

I don't think their's much of a difference there. If he intends to push Israel into the sea I doubt anyone especially Israel will be worrying about the symantics of what he said.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think their's much of a difference there. If he intends to push Israel into the sea I doubt anyone especially Israel will be worrying about the symantics of what he said.

There is a difference. Hating the government and wanting to see the government annihalated is different from hating Israel and wanting the country annihalated. The former is not anti Semitic, as you suggest, since it's not anti-Jewish, but anti Israeli government. Wanting to see Israel wiped off the map, however, is anti Semitic. They are two different things.

But as I pointed out, Israel must remain on guard and is in a precarious position because of it's location and the history/mindset of the region (or more accurately, some in the region). I'm not denying that; never have, never will. But Ahmadinejad did not say Israel should be annihalated, and saying that he did is not a matter of "symantics," it's incorrect.

[Mr.Canada]

There is a difference. Hating the government and wanting to see the government annihalated is different from hating Israel and wanting the country annihalated. The former is not anti Semitic, as you suggest, since it's not anti-Jewish, but anti Israeli government. Wanting to see Israel wiped off the map, however, is anti Semitic. They are two different things.

But as I pointed out, Israel must remain on guard and is in a precarious position because of it's location and the history/mindset of the region (or more accurately, some in the region). I'm not denying that; never have, never will. But Ahmadinejad did not say Israel should be annihalated, and saying that he did is not a matter of "symantics," it's incorrect.

You are or rather he is playing with words. If he wipes out the government do you think that Israel will remain a state that protects the Jewish people? See what I'm saying it's one and the same. Come one AW you're smarter then this.

[kimmy]

Whether they're talking about destroying the nation as a whole or just the governing regime is pretty moot, as neither would be accomplished without a huge cost of lives.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Whether they're talking about destroying the nation as a whole or just the governing regime is pretty moot, as neither would be accomplished without a huge cost of lives.

It's not moot at all. There's a huge difference between wanting to annihilate a government and wanting to annihilate the country. Case in point; we wanted to annihilate Saddam's regime, and made that quite clear, but we have no desire to annihilate Iraq.

Fact is, Ahmadinejad didn't say what it's being claimed he said.

Edited March 13, 2010 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Whether they're talking about destroying the nation as a whole or just the governing regime is pretty moot, as neither would be accomplished without a huge cost of lives.

-k

American Woman has defended her point very well. I"ll just add this:

From a practical point of view, there's little doubt that Israel needs to be cautious and on guard.

But the facts do matter, and they're not semantics, much less moot. Talking about sticky and potentially dangerous international situations, precise facts matter, and they matter a lot.

AW certianly isn't defending Ahmadinejad. Not even a little. If I had to guess, I would contend that AW doesn't like him nor trust him. (A rational stance.)

But the truth matters, and it matters tremendously.

[Shady]

It's not moot at all. There's a huge difference between wanting to annihilate a government and wanting to annihilate the country. Case in point; we wanted to annihilate Saddam's regime, and made that quite clear, but we have no desire to annihilate Iraq.

Yes, and look at what actions had to be taken in order to accomplish the annihilation of Saddam's regime. Are you condoning the use of similar actions by Ahmadinejad? And in relation to countries with representative governments, the government is in large part a reflection of the people. So in an indirect way, he is talking about the country.

Come'on people, this is a guy who believes that the holocaust is a hoax! Stop making excuses for him.

[BubberMiley]

Yes, and look at what actions had to be taken in order to accomplish the annihilation of Saddam's regime. Are you condoning the use of similar actions by Ahmadinejad?

Are you saying Bush and Cheney are as crazy as (or even crazier than) Ahmadinejad?

[kimmy]

I think he's saying that if the bombs and bullets start flying, the difference between "annihilating the regime" and "annihilating the country" was of little comfort to the Iraqis.

And, given that Israeli government is an elected one, changing their regime through use of force is a rather unsettling proposition.

And, given the widespread view in the Arab world that Israel was stolen from the Palestinians, I doubt his audience has the same impression of what Makmood is talking about, anyway.

-k

[eyeball]

I think he's saying that if the bombs and bullets start flying, the difference between "annihilating the regime" and "annihilating the country" was of little comfort to the Iraqis.

And, given that Israeli government is an elected one, changing their regime through use of force is a rather unsettling proposition.

And, given the widespread view in the Arab world that Israel was stolen from the Palestinians, I doubt his audience has the same impression of what Makmood is talking about, anyway.

-k

I imagine the difference between stealing a country and annihilating one is moot to whoever it happens to.

[Bonam]

The distinction people are trying to make in this thread is false, and is only an attempt to save face for Ahmadinejad.

The Israeli "regime" is zionist by definition. The very nature and purpose of Israel is to exist as a Jewish state. The desire for creation and continued existence of a Jewish homeland is the definition of zionism. Destroying this "regime" is absolutely no different than destroying Israel itself. You can be sure that he doesn't mean getting rid of Netanyahu and setting up Livni as PM, he means establishing a Palestinian state in place of a Jewish state, where, inevitably, Jews would be, at best, second class citizens.

[Born Free]

The distinction people are trying to make in this thread is false, and is only an attempt to save face for Ahmadinejad.

The Israeli "regime" is zionist by definition. The very nature and purpose of Israel is to exist as a Jewish state. The desire for creation and continued existence of a Jewish homeland is the definition of zionism. Destroying this "regime" is absolutely no different than destroying Israel itself. You can be sure that he doesn't mean getting rid of Netanyahu and setting up Livni as PM,....

Precicely!!

[Guest American Woman]

The distinction people are trying to make in this thread is false, and is only an attempt to save face for Ahmadinejad.

Give me a break. No one in this thread is trying to "save face" for Ahmadinejad, and if you think they are, you are an idiot severely reading comprehension impaired.

The Israeli "regime" is zionist by definition. The very nature and purpose of Israel is to exist as a Jewish state. The desire for creation and continued existence of a Jewish homeland is the definition of zionism. Destroying this "regime" is absolutely no different than destroying Israel itself. You can be sure that he doesn't mean getting rid of Netanyahu and setting up Livni as PM, he means establishing a Palestinian state in place of a Jewish state, where, inevitably, Jews would be, at best, second class citizens.

Perhaps if you would have only said this in your post, without the moroic judgements of people who were pointing out that Ahmadinejad didn't say what he is being quoted as saying, you would have come across as someone desiring intelligent debate. As it is, you come across as someone who has to insult anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way you do, even if you have to make something up to insult them.

As for Shady, he's a hypocrite, because it's fine when the U.S. says it wants to remove a regime, and I'm sure he's capable of realizing it doesn't mean 'wipe Iraq off the map.'

I still say there's a distinction to be made between wanting to change a country's government and wanting to wipe the country off the map, which would imply killing off of its citizens. How else would one annihilate the country? As for whether or not there's a difference to the country's citizens, I don't think any of the Iraqis would be meeting American soldiers with cheers if there were no distinction and we were set to wipe Iraq off the map. I do think citizens recognize the difference between the desire to remove their government and the desire to wipe their country off the map. The first implies direct action towards the government, while the second implies direct action towards citizens as well. I'm not saying the second makes them happy, so I hope no moron no one accuses me of that, only that they recognize the distinction, and are probably somewhat mollified by the fact that they personally will not be targets.

Edited March 14, 2010 by American Woman

[Bonam]

I still say there's a distinction to be made between wanting to change a country's government and wanting to wipe the country off the map, which would imply killing off of its citizens. How else would one annihilate the country? As for whether or not there's a difference to the country's citizens, I don't think any of the Iraqis would be meeting American soldiers with cheers if there were no distinction and we were set to wipe Iraq off the map. I do think citizens recognize the difference between the desire to remove their government and the desire to wipe their country off the map. The first implies direct action towards the government, while the second implies direct action towards citizens as well. I'm not saying the second makes them happy, so I hope no moron no one accuses me of that, only that they recognize the distinction, and are probably somewhat mollified by the fact that they personally will not be targets.

What do you think would happen to the Jewish citizens of an Israel who's government was replaced by a puppet of Iran? By a regime Ahmadinejad approves of? Seriously, think more than one step ahead. Citizens wouldn't be targeted? Who do you think you're kidding? If the Israeli regime was toppled and replaced by bloodthirsty Palestinians and their Iranian masters, all Jews would be targeted in a second Holocaust. That is why there is no meaningful distinction between destroying Israel and toppling its government to replace it with one acceptable to its mortal enemies. Do you honestly equate the kind of operation America ran in Iraq with what Iran would do if it had the chance to invade and reshape Israel? Seriously?

Oh and spare me your indignation at my statements when your own posts are clearly disingenuous. Unless you are really that naive.

[Guest American Woman]

What do you think would happen to the Jewish citizens of an Israel who's government was replaced by a puppet of Iran? By a regime Ahmadinejad approves of? Seriously, think more than one step ahead. Citizens wouldn't be targeted? Who do you think you're kidding? If the Israeli regime was toppled and replaced by bloodthirsty Palestinians and their Iranian masters, all Jews would be targeted in a second Holocaust.

Spare me your off topic rant. I said there's a difference between going after a country's government and wanting the country annihilated. THAT's the issue here; that's what I've been posting about. If you want to discuss Ahmadinejad's desires regarding what kind of government he wants, that's a completely different topic, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a difference between the desire to change a country's government and wanting to annihilate the country. When you are capable of discussing THAT, since that is the only issue my comments have been in regards to, I'll be interested in what you have to say.

That is why there is no meaningful distinction between destroying Israel and toppling its government to replace it with one acceptable to its mortal enemies. Do you honestly equate the kind of operation America ran in Iraq with what Iran would do if it had the chance to invade and reshape Israel? Seriously?

Again, all I'm saying is that there's a difference between wanting to annihilate a country's government and annihilate the country. Evidently, from your comments here, you're able to make the distinction regarding Iraq.

Oh and spare me your indignation at my statements when your own posts are clearly disingenuous. Unless you are really that naive.

No, and no. I'm just not as ignorant as you appear to be, because I'm able to have a discussion without making off the wall moronic 'judgements.' I can only hope you're not as stupid as your comment was.

Edited March 14, 2010 by American Woman

[Mr.Canada]

I see what you're saying A.W. I don't know if they would still call it Israel though if they got thier way, probably not. It would probably be named Palestine again. It wouldn't be recognized by many countries I'm sure but still.

I think it would lead to an even bigger mess then they have now as the arab countries surrounding Israe lwould probably end up fighting for pieces of it. Trying to annex it into thier own countries. Like Jordan and Syria or Leb. for example. I'm sure Egypt would be in there too.

[DogOnPorch]

So, in other words, when the Iranian government rapes and murders journalists, it's not because they hate the 6 o'clock news...

[Shady]

As for Shady, he's a hypocrite, because it's fine when the U.S. says it wants to remove a regime, and I'm sure he's capable of realizing it doesn't mean 'wipe Iraq off the map.'

Complete nonsesne. If you can't distinguish between the differences of American government versus the Iranian dictatorship, or the Iraqi dictatorship, then you don't deserve to live in America. All governments and all regimes aren't equal. And it's sad that you seem to make that comparison. Shame on you.

But you're right in one aspect. I'm definitely ok with the wanting of removing of murderous dictators. Guilty as charged.

I still say there's a distinction to be made between wanting to change a country's government and wanting to wipe the country off the map, which would imply killing off of its citizens.

And how does Ahmadinejad wish to destroy Israel's government without killing off its people? Again, what you fail to realize is that a democratic country's government is representative of the people. We're not talking about a dictatorship.

[DogOnPorch]

I like how when Iran has mass gatherings where 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' are bellowed-out by the crowd, we're supposed to interpret the quacking noise as something other than a duck.

Really...they're just saying they're a tad upset at Conan losing his time slot.

[kimmy]

I still say there's a distinction to be made between wanting to change a country's government and wanting to wipe the country off the map, which would imply killing off of its citizens.

If we're being sticklers for semantics, then no, the killing of the citizens is not implied.

How else would one annihilate the country?

Perhaps by seizing its territory, removing its government, and making it either a territory of an existing state, or by creating a new and different state in its place ("The Islamic Republic of Palestine," hypothetically.)

A country is a pretty philosophical concept, and short of physically disintegrating its land mass, there's no sense in which the word "annihilation" would have a literal meaning.

I would say that if China takes the land mass of Tibet, imposes its own law and declares the area to be just an extension of the neighboring province, settles enough Chinese citizens into the region that Tibetans become a tiny minority, and expunges Tibetan culture, then I think it would be entirely fair to say that Tibet has been annihilated, even if its citizens were not slain in the process.

As for whether or not there's a difference to the country's citizens, I don't think any of the Iraqis would be meeting American soldiers with cheers if there were no distinction and we were set to wipe Iraq off the map. I do think citizens recognize the difference between the desire to remove their government and the desire to wipe their country off the map. The first implies direct action towards the government, while the second implies direct action towards citizens as well. I'm not saying the second makes them happy, so I hope no moron no one accuses me of that, only that they recognize the distinction, and are probably somewhat mollified by the fact that they personally will not be targets.

I think many Iraqis were relieved to be free of Saddam, and I think many Iraqis understood that the US ultimately intended to leave the country in their hands. We all understand that when Makmood talks about annihilating Israel (whether the regime or the country) he's talking about the end of the Jewish state, which should make Israelis extremely nervous whether or not Makmood is advocating they be killed in the process or not.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

If we're being sticklers for semantics, then no, the killing of the citizens is not implied.

I see. So you're only a "stickler" for what's really being said when it's someone you support. Otherwise, what's really being said be damned. Got'cha.

[Guest American Woman]

I like how when Iran has mass gatherings where 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' are bellowed-out by the crowd, we're supposed to interpret the quacking noise as something other than a duck.

If that's what they're actually saying, then so be it. It is exactly what it is. If it's not what they're actually saying ...... why the need to quote them as such?

I'm more than willing to discuss Ahmadinejad and Israel and Iran's mass gatherings. But I'm not willing to atribute an inaccurate statement to someone as a "quote," and I've made corrections in this regard involving Bush, who I do not support either, as well as others.

I don't think it's ok to misquote someone just because I don't support them while going after others for misquoting someone I do support.

If you see that as "supporting" Ahmadinejad in any way, then I misjudged you.

Edited March 14, 2010 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

If that's what they're actually saying, then so be it. It is exactly what it is. If it's not what they're actually saying ...... why the need to quote them as such?

You are aware of 'Death to America Day' in Iran...no? AKA 'Student Day' as they get the kids involved in the festivities.