News When Iran will produce enough U235 to make a nuclear bomb?

[Gokul43201]

Mmwahahaha !

vanesch, you may not have noticed that vociferous said "sovereign Iraqi Democracy". The relevance of the "democracy" part can be debated, but Iraq certainly wasn't much of a democracy before the war. So, given that, there is no irony in the statement, as written.

 

[vanesch]

vanesch, you may not have noticed that vociferous said "sovereign Iraqi Democracy". The relevance of the "democracy" part can be debated, but Iraq certainly wasn't much of a democracy before the war. So, given that, there is no irony in the statement, as written.

so the only kind of sovereignty that must be respected is that where there's a kind of approved "democracy" ?? If it isn't a democracy according to certain criteria (defined by democracies), the sovereignty doesn't count, and one does have a reason to send in arms and agents ? And what if others apply a similar criterion, only, this time, it is not "democracy" but "Islamic republic" ?

 

[mheslep]

so the only kind of sovereignty that must be respected is that where there's a kind of approved "democracy" ?? If it isn't a democracy according to certain criteria (defined by democracies), the sovereignty doesn't count, and one does have a reason to send in arms and agents ? And what if others apply a similar criterion, only, this time, it is not "democracy" but "Islamic republic" ?

Chiming in: I'd like to see more international diplomatic organizations that favoured only democratic states - something like a UN for democracies only, in addition too, not in place of, the current one. Of/By/For the people, not the Mugabes. Borders still respected with respect to force, but not for agents or NGOs reaching out to folks therein.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll go for that - the current UN is basically a democracy of dictatorships.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I'll go for that - the current UN is basically a democracy of dictatorships.

It's not a democracy at all. It's a few arbitrarily selected "elite" nations which were granted authority and control over all the other nations.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I really hope that the majority of Iranians want democracy, want religious freedom, want equal rights for women, want to get rid of laws that makes homosexuality punishable by death, and want to be seen as a legitimate part of the international community rather than a rogue state which pursues nuclear weapons and which wants to "wipe Israel off the map."

1) Still there is ZERO proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons yet the claim that they are is constantly repeated.

2) Iran NEVER claimed that they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" and is yet another anti-Iranian lie which is constantly claimed.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Not forever, no, but many, many decades. And that's supposing that they don't find any more deposits. There is certainly no urgency whatsoever for Iran to reduce dependence on oil. Indeed, the money spent on uranium enrichment would be better spent on oil infrastructure, which has been decaying badly, as this is the backbone of Iran's economy.

The reason is because Iran needs their oil to SELL.. As you said it's the backbone of their economy. Naturally they would want another form of self produced fuel to power their own people, so that they have their oil to sell, especially more important with the high oil prices. If they have to use their oil for their own power then they won't have as much to sell and that would negatively impact their profits/economy.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not a democracy at all. It's a few arbitrarily selected "elite" nations which were granted authority and control over all the other nations.

That's not right at all. Those 3rd world dictatorships get resolutions passed blasting their richer rivals all the time.

 

[russ_watters]

1) Still there is ZERO proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons yet the claim that they are is constantly repeated.

You misread. That claim was not made in the quote you responded to.

Regardless, there is circumstantial evidence that they are. You have been provided with the IAEA reports on the subject.

2) Iran NEVER claimed that they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" and is yet another anti-Iranian lie which is constantly claimed.

You really need to stop saying such nonsense. I don't believe that you even believe what you are saying. Iran's president says it on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

 

[seycyrus]

1) Still there is ZERO proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons yet the claim that they are is constantly repeated.

There is plenty of proof however that they are not in compliance with their obligations.

Among other things, they won't let reps of the IAEA investigate and verify certain things.

2) Iran NEVER claimed that they wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" and is yet another anti-Iranian lie which is constantly claimed.

Uhm, yeah... we're going to have to run the gambit on the semantics game on this one again? Define "Zionist regime" and show how it can be separated from the state of Israel.

Iran's continual support of Hizbollah and other organizations which directly have the destruction of Israel in their charter certainly is enough of an indication of their thoughts on the matter.

 

[mjolnir80]

Iran's continual support of Hizbollah and other organizations which directly have the destruction of Israel in their charter certainly is enough of an indication of their thoughts on the matter.

hey if america can support israel why can't iran support hezbollah?
they are both the same thing
israeli troops have killed plenty of civilians and no one calls them terrorists

 

[Gokul43201]

Iran's president says it [that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map"] on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

Waiting for references.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you serious, Gokul? After the laundry list of unreferenced crap you spewed about McCain in a recent thread, you're going to ask me for a reference to a common knowledge fact? Wow, that's ballsy. (edit: yes, I see you've started referencing them. Still...)

Here's 3.5 million references: http://www.google.com/search?source...lz=1T4GGLR_enUS213US213&q=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad

From the first one:

He has called for the dissolution of the state of Israel and its government, which he does not regard as legitimate or representative of the population...

he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map,"

The second link is his personal blog (he has a blog!). Here's one from the third:

His comments that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust was a "myth" drew widespread condemnation from the West.

If you're just trying to quibble about the "every other week thing", you can have it - it's an exaggeration. But it doesn't change the issue at all.

 

[russ_watters]

hey if america can support israel why can't iran support hezbollah?
they are both the same thing
israeli troops have killed plenty of civilians and no one calls them terrorists

It is important to use an objective definition of the word "terrorism" and not just apply it however you feel like it (otherwise, what you say really has no meaning at all). By the established/accepted international definition, what you say is wrong.

"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1373

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you serious, Gokul?

Are you, russ?

After the laundry list of unreferenced crap you spewed about McCain in a recent thread, you're going to ask me for a reference to a common knowledge fact? Wow, that's ballsy.

Take the bs somewhere else, russ.

I specifically said I'd provide references if asked. When you asked for references I asked you which specific ones you wanted references for, since some of them were common knowledge. AND, despite your not answering, I've been adding references to that list, including 3 more that I put in earlier today. And unlike you, I don't just point to a Google page and say "here's 3 million references". So don't give me this crap about not referencing!

Here's 3.5 million references: http://www.google.com/search?source...lz=1T4GGLR_enUS213US213&q=Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad

More bs.

From the first one: The second link is his personal blog (he has a blog!). Here's one from the third:

They're all about the same translation of the same quote. Nothing in any of them supports your assertion.

If you're just trying to quibble about the "every other week thing", you can have it - it's an exaggeration.

So, it was you, all along, that wasn't serious. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[mheslep]

More bs.

They're all about the same translation of the same quote. Nothing in any of them supports your assertion.

There is a reference to that 2005 'wipe' away/out statement, or however it translates, in there. Other Iranian spokesmen may have attempted to nuance or spin these after the fact, but there is no question Ahmadinejad has indeed made many similar threating statements in the past about Israel and continues to do so more recently. These take little effort to find.

AFP May 2008

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Reuters June 2008

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Monday Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the "satanic power" of the United States faced destruction, in his latest verbal attack on the Islamic Republic's arch-foes...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080602/world/international_iran_israel_usa_dc_1

 

[WarPhalange]

Holy crap that guy's a nutbasket.

 

[Art]

Are you serious, Gokul? After the laundry list of unreferenced crap you spewed about McCain in a recent thread, you're going to ask me for a reference to a common knowledge fact? Wow, that's ballsy. (edit: yes, I see you've started referencing them. Still...).

In a thread recently you made the exact same assertion and I asked you then for a reference to support your statement which you ignored. To continually cite this as a fact whilst refusing to provide a valid source is surely in breach of forum guidelines and no, bluster is not a substitute for verifiable facts.

Iran has said the current Israeli regime should be wiped from the pages of history - much the same as the US said about Saddam and his regime. This does not equate to wiping Israel off the map anymore than the US statements meant they intended to wipe Iraq off the map

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a reference to that 2005 'wipe' away/out statement, or however it translates, in there. Other Iranian spokesmen may have attempted to nuance or spin these after the fact, but there is no question Ahmadinejad has indeed made many similar threating statements in the past about Israel and continues to do so more recently. These take little effort to find.

AFP May 2008
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Reuters June 2008
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/080602/world/international_iran_israel_usa_dc_1

Both those statements clearly involve Israel/the "Zionist regime" causing its own destruction, and do not say anything about Iran's desire to wipe Israel off the map.

And even if it did, you'll have to come up with another 20-odd more repetitions of this, all in the last one year, in order to substantiate russ' (now retracted) claim.

 

[OmCheeto]

I find it interesting that everyone references what Ahmadjeblahblah has to say, when Khamenei is the actual leader of the country.

Khamenei seems to find the "State" of Israel, and the "immigrants" to be the primary problem.

Like the great Iranian nation, other Muslim nations also consider Israel as an imposed and fake regime. ...

I had studied Iranian history for about a year before Ahmadjewhatever made his visit to Columbia University, of which I watched for about 15 minutes. Although many of his comments seemed outrageously funny to us, his subordination to Khamenei made his entire show quite unremarkable in my mind. Everything he said, in my opinion, was based on what he thought Khamenei would have wanted him to say.

I haven't seen much history stated in this argument either. Iran has been dealt a lot of crap in the last 100 years, mostly at the hands of Britain and the US. If they strike anyone as paranoid, it is for good reason. We deposed their elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953, and imposed the Shah of Iran onto them. And who supported Saddam during the 10 year war between Iraq and Iran? From what I've read, Iraq gassed the Iranians just like they did their Kurdish citizens. I've also read that Iran did not respond in kind. They've been accused of never using weapons of mass destruction. Not only that, they haven't invaded anyone in the last 100 years. How many countries in that region can claim the same thing?

As far as I can tell, Britain is still pissed about Iran nationalizing the oil fields, and we haven't forgiven them for the hostage incident.

I'd say it's about time we get over it, learn some Farsi, and go visit.

 

[mheslep]

Both those statements clearly involve Israel/the "Zionist regime" causing its own destruction, ...

AFP

...has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese...

i.e., Iranian backed Hezbollah.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't want to get drawn into this back and forth. I have no intention of defending Ahmadinejad - I think he's a scoundrel and I'm partly mad at Bush that Ahmadinejad was elected in '04. All I was doing was calling russ on his "exaggeration".

 

[mjolnir80]

It is important to use an objective definition of the word "terrorism" and not just apply it however you feel like it (otherwise, what you say really has no meaning at all). By the established/accepted international definition, what you say is wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1373

i never called them terrorsits but I am saying what theyre doing is basically the same thing
and that definition is the "UN's security councils" definition. if international means "anyone friendly to america" then I am sorry i ever spoke up

 

[Mental Gridlock]

You misread. That claim was not made in the quote you responded to.

Not a misread at all. Both the claim that they pursue nuclear weapons, and want to destroy Israel are both being made:

"...a rogue state which pursues nuclear weapons and which wants to "wipe Israel off the map."

Regardless, there is circumstantial evidence that they are. You have been provided with the IAEA reports on the subject. You really need to stop saying such nonsense. I don't believe that you even believe what you are saying. Iran's president says it on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

Circumstantial evidence? Who cares. There is no concrete PROOF that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. Making that assumption based on the circumstances does not equal evidence.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

You really need to stop saying such nonsense. I don't believe that you even believe what you are saying. Iran's president says it on a regular basis. Once every few weeks.

It's not nonsense. The nonsense being claimed is that Iran wants to destroy Israel and Mahmoud or any other Iranian official has ever said such a thing.

What they said was that they wanted Israel gone. Or that it would be annihilated. Not that THEY wanted to do it.

It's disengenious people taking a Mahmoud quote about his disapproval for Israel and desired removal of it, and then lying and claiming he said that he actually wants Iran to destroy Israel. He never said it. Ever.

I might say that, "Bush is a disgraceful president who should be removed from office", but I would be mad about being misquoted if someone claimed I therefore said that I wanted to assasinate Bush.

Even if I wanted Bush to die, it doesn't mean that I want to assassinate him.

 

[OmCheeto]

Even if I wanted Bush to die, it doesn't mean that I want to assassinate him.

Exactly! Just like when Ron Reagan outlawed the USSR and claimed the bombing would start in 5 minutes. Just because these guys say stupid things, doesn't make it either the truth or national policy. People love to get behind leaders who wag their tongues, and point their fingers at others as the source of their problems. It's been common throughout history.

Hitler: If we'd just kill all these jews, our problems will be over.
West: If we'd just stamp out communism, our problems would be over.
Middle East: If we'd just annihilate the state of Israel,...
Bush: If we capture bin Laden, ...
Bush: If we get rid of Saddam, ...
Bush: If we just level a small portion of Iran...

And has anyone mentioned the Iranian law forbidding the building and use of nuclear weapons? Or should we just assume that they are a bunch of sneaky liars.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

That's not right at all. Those 3rd world dictatorships get resolutions passed blasting their richer rivals all the time.

They have only had their resolutions passed which have been approved by the elite security council.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Exactly! Just like when Ron Reagan outlawed the USSR and claimed the bombing would start in 5 minutes. Just because these guys say stupid things, doesn't make it either the truth or national policy. People love to get behind leaders who wag their tongues, and point their fingers at others as the source of their problems. It's been common throughout history.

Hitler: If we'd just kill all these jews, our problems will be over.
West: If we'd just stamp out communism, our problems would be over.
Middle East: If we'd just annihilate the state of Israel,...
Bush: If we capture bin Laden, ...
Bush: If we get rid of Saddam, ...
Bush: If we just level a small portion of Iran...

And has anyone mentioned the Iranian law forbidding the building and use of nuclear weapons? Or should we just assume that they are a bunch of sneaky liars.

I thnk that comes in automatically...

 

[Evo]

The exact quote

For a start, let us look at the now-famous speech that Ahmadinejad actually gave at the Interior Ministry on Oct. 26, 2005. (I am using the translation made by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, whose Persian is probably the equal of Professor Cole's.) The relevant portions read:

Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. … Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. … For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.

from this article.

In some ways, the continuing row over his call for the complete destruction of Israel must baffle Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All he did, after all, was to turn up at a routine anti-Zionist event and repeat the standard line—laid down by the Ayatollah Khomeini and thus considered by some to be beyond repeal—that the state of Israel is illegitimate and must be obliterated. There's nothing new in that. In the early '90s, I can remember seeing, in the areas around Baalbek in Lebanon that were dominated by Hezbollah and Amal, large posters of the by-then-late Khomeini embellished (in English) with the slogan, "Israel Must Be Completely Destroyed!" And I have twice been to Friday prayers in Tehran itself, addressed by leading mullahs and by former President Rafsanjani, where the more terse version (Marg bar Esrail—"Death to Israel") is chanted as a matter of routine; sometimes as an applause line to an especially deft clerical thrust.

Ahmadinejad then denounced the recent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over Gaza as a sellout and added, "If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill."

Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:

"Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast."

My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:

"Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam."

continued...

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

 

[Gokul43201]

To complete the story behind that sorry hit-job "article" by Hitchens...

I belong to a private email discussion group called Gulf2000. It has academics, journalists and policy makers on it. It has a strict rule that messages appearing there will not be forwarded off the list. It is run, edited and moderated by former National Security Council staffer for Carter and Reagan, Gary Sick, now a political scientist at Columbia University. The "no-forwarding" rule is his, and is intended to allow the participants to converse about controversial matters without worrying about being in trouble. Also, in an informal email discussion, ideas evolve, you make mistakes and they get corrected, etc. It is a rough, rough draft.

Hitchens somehow hacked into the site, or joined and lurked, or had a crony pass him things. And he has now made my private email messages the subject of an attack on me in Slate. (I am not linking to the article because it is highly unethical and Slate does not deserve any direct traffic from my site for it.) Moreover, he did not even have the decency to quote the final outcome of the discussions.
...
Mr. Hitchens never contacted me about this piece. He never sought clarification of anything. He never asked permission to quote my private mail.
...
I'm glad to share the message that encapsulates the results of our deliberations at Gulf2000.

[original email follows]
...
Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.

I should again underline that I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies.
...

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

 

[Evo]

To complete the story behind that sorry hit-job "article" by Hitchens...

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

The article by Hitchens in the Slate still stands without the quote from cole, I didn't post the quote either. Are you saying that the translations I posted are incorrect?

Are you saying the article below is false?

Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech

Published: October 30, 2005

This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.

The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com[/URL]). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.[/quote]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html[/url]

 

[rootX]

In his English blog, I did not find anything like wiping off Israel.

here:
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

 

[Gokul43201]

The article by Hitchens in the Slate still stands without the quote from cole, I didn't post the quote either. Are you saying that the translations I posted are incorrect?

I'm not - but Cole is. Apparently there is no idiom in Persian for "wiping off the map". Moreover, the part you quoted relies crucially on Hitchens interpretation of what even Cole would admit. From the second quote in your post:

Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States.

Well, Cole does dispute that awfully simplistic interpretation.

Nevertheless, all I was doing was pointing out the slimy origin of the Hitchens article. It's just a terrible article, and it would be better if we could just stick to the translation an avoid Hitchens' own rambling.

Maybe the Times article or the ISNA article would have been better.

 

[Evo]

Hitchens gave a couple of interpretations to be fair.

Maybe the Times article or the ISNA article would have been better.

I provided the link for those. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

Remember that Cole is extremely biased against Israel, so I would take anything he says with a great deal of skepticism.

Cole is a strong critic of Israel's foreign and military policy and its treatment of Palestinians. He criticizes the nature of America's support for Israel and the activities of the "Israel Lobby",[58] and claims that some senior US officials such as Doug Feith have dual loyalties to America and the Israeli Likud Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole#Ahmadinejad.27s_remarks_on_Israel

You can visit his blog if you don't want to believe the above.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe the above, and don't see how it shows extreme bias. But by the same measure, Hitchens is extremely biased against Iran (which is the important thing here, since we are talking about Iran).

I wouldn't quote an argument from Cole's blog to support a point in a thread Israel. I only pointed to it now because of the manner in which Hitchens uses his name and words without permission in the slate article.

 

[Evo]

I believe the above, and don't see how it shows extreme bias. But by the same measure, Hitchens is extremely biased against Iran (which is the important thing here, since we are talking about Iran).

I wouldn't quote an argument from Cole's blog to support a point in a thread Israel. I only pointed to it now because of the manner in which Hitchens uses his name and words without permission in the slate article.

The Hitchens - Cole hatred of each other is well known. You can't take either of them on their word, IMO, they are both too biased.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

 

[OmCheeto]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

Well, I didn't read every word. It's interesting how one statement can generate so much debate. One entry stuck me as a bit ironic, but nevertheless true, and somewhat sums up my opinion of Ahmadinejad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...madinejad_by_Canadian_Professor_Shiraz_Dossa"
... His rhetoric has been excessive and provocative. ...

But I have the same opinion of some other world leaders as well.

 

[OmCheeto]

And has anyone mentioned the Iranian law forbidding the building and use of nuclear weapons? Or should we just assume that they are a bunch of sneaky liars.

I thnk that comes in automatically...

Ahmed, I've heard that a later fatwa was issued by someone in Iran, Mohsen Gharavian, that allowed the production and use of nuclear weapons. Does the level of the fatwa giver determine which one is overruling? I've heard that even taxi drivers can issue them.

And I must also point out that my use of the word "law" was apparently incorrect. Fatwa's are opinions. Which may or may not be considered law. I think.

 

[vociferous]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

No, he did not. I do not think anyone is disputing that, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that George W. Bush included this in one of his speeches: "Iran will be wiped off the map." What do you think the implications would be?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

No, he did not. I do not think anyone is disputing that, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that George W. Bush included this in one of his speeches: "Iran will be wiped off the map." What do you think the implications would be?

Mahmoud said the occupying regime, not Israel itself. Just as Bush threatened to have the Iraqi regime vanquished.

Nevertheless the quote is useless without the context.

 

[Evo]

Lets get real here...Nejad did not say that 'We/He/Iran/Islamic Republic will wipe Israel off the map'...FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmou...Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

I hope one reads this before pressing the 'reply' button and starts flaming.

Ahmed, the quotes that are translated by Cole cannot be trusted as he is against Israel and pro-palestinian. I already addressed this earlier.

Anyway, here is what Obama's stance on Iran is. It seems the translation he has chosen is "threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map."

Obama: World must not let Iran corner Israel

DAVENPORT, Iowa (AFP) - White House hopeful Barack Obama said Monday sanctions and diplomacy must be made to bite against Iran so that Israel does not feel its "back is against the wall" and stages an attack.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a "game-changer for the region," allowing the Islamic republic to meddle through extremist proxies, intervene in Iraq and threaten oil supplies, the Democrat told about 250 voters at a meeting here.

Obama underlined that Israel, "one of our strongest allies in the world," would feel hugely threatened given threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map.

"My job as president is to make sure we are tightening the screws on Iran diplomatically... to get sanctions in place so that Iran starts making a different calculation," the Illinois senator said.

Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_alt_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusvote_080825200912;_ylt=AlBZUqDHEqTtYnun.UKZ7CXCw5R4

 

[quadraphonics]

Mahmoud said the occupying regime, not Israel itself.

Terms like "occupying regime," "Zionist entity" and so on are simply codewords that many of the Arab states and Iran use to refer to Israel, whose existence as a state they do not recognize in the first place. The region they are "occupying" is understood to include all of historical Palestine (except maybe modern-day Jordan), and not solely the "occupied territories," as they are sometimes referred to in the West (i.e., West Bank + Gaza Strip). I would be surprised if you could find *any* reference to "Israel" in the official statements of Iranian government officials.

And, in any case, the elimination of the Israeli government is tantamount to the removal of Israel itself, conditions being what they are. The only real ambiguity in the "wiped off the map" comment is as to whether he was suggesting that Iran itself should pursue it as a policy outcome, or if he's simply expressing faith that geopolitical forces will eventually result in such an outcome. Regardless, it seems clear that he was expressing a desire to see Israel disappear, which cannot be reasonably construed as an innocuous sentiment.

 

[wildman]

I asked an Arab friend about Israel. He said that it was very helpful to the Arab states. To quote: "If Israel didn't exist, the Arab (and Iranian) governments would have to invent something like it."

The last thing that these governments want to do is destroy Israel. Who would they blame for all their problems then?

 

[kyleb]

Ahmed, the quotes that are translated by Cole cannot be trusted as he is against Israel and pro-palestinian. I already addressed this earlier.

Anyway, here is what Obama's stance on Iran is. It seems the translation he has chosen is "threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map."



Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_alt_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusvote_080825200912;_ylt=AlBZUqDHEqTtYnun.UKZ7CXCw5R4

What you quoted there is some AFP journalist's words, not Obama.

Terms like "occupying regime," "Zionist entity" and so on are simply codewords that many of the Arab states and Iran use to refer to Israel, whose existence as a state they do not recognize in the first place. The region they are "occupying" is understood to include all of historical Palestine (except maybe modern-day Jordan), and not solely the "occupied territories," as they are sometimes referred to in the West (i.e., West Bank + Gaza Strip). I would be surprised if you could find *any* reference to "Israel" in the official statements of Iranian government officials.

And, in any case, the elimination of the Israeli government is tantamount to the removal of Israel itself, conditions being what they are. The only real ambiguity in the "wiped off the map" comment is as to whether he was suggesting that Iran itself should pursue it as a policy outcome, or if he's simply expressing faith that geopolitical forces will eventually result in such an outcome. Regardless, it seems clear that he was expressing a desire to see Israel disappear, which cannot be reasonably construed as an innocuous sentiment.

Zionist regime means what it means and nothing more, just like Reagan referring to the Soviet regime wasn't code for kill all the Russians. Iranian officials have said that if Israelis and Palestinians can reach a peaceful resolution, they will support it. However, as long as Israel insists on expanding their colonization of the West Bank, Iran is obviously favors and end to the government behind that land grab.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ahmed, the quotes that are translated by Cole cannot be trusted as he is against Israel and pro-palestinian. I already addressed this earlier.

Also, he is extremely against Ahmedinejad. And he is a Professor at a University, and is not likely to stake his reputation on a bad translation. But in any case, several other sources (listed in the wiki article) have provided a similar translation.

But really, I think this whole business with the exact words is silly. You really don't need to apply extreme interpretations of words to show that Ahmadinejad holds ridiculously extreme views.

Anyway, here is what Obama's stance on Iran is. It seems the translation he has chosen is "threats by Iran's hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe the Jewish state off the world map."

Do you have a link to the actual transcript? The part in bold is not in quotes. Not that Obama's opinion should count as informative of Ahmadinejad's intentions, but perhaps it would be interesting to see the language that Obama used.

 

[seycyrus]

...
Zionist regime means what it means and nothing more,...

The history and existence of modern day Israel is irrevocably linked to the zionist regime.

To remove the zionist regime would be to remove Israel.

 

[Evo]

What you quoted there is some AFP journalist's words, not Obama.

You're right, I didn't notice the quotation marks weren't there.

Do you have a link to the actual transcript?

Since it was only a reply to a question asked in a group of 250 voters I think that most of it is in the articles.

Here are the Reuters and AP versions.

http://www.gulfinthemedia.com/index.php?m=reuters&id=922972&lang=en&

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/765474.html

 

[kyleb]

The history and existence of modern day Israel is irrevocably linked to the zionist regime.

To remove the zionist regime would be to remove Israel.

Not at all. The only thing here irrevocably linked to the Zionist regime is the ongoing removal of Palestine, while the post-Zionist movement within Israel demonstrates a possibility for Israel to eventually coexist with Palestine in peace.

 

[quadraphonics]

Zionist regime means what it means and nothing more,

And it means "Israel."

just like Reagan referring to the Soviet regime wasn't code for kill all the Russians.

Okay. Expressing the desire that Israel disappear does mean exactly that he wishes Israel would disappear.

Iranian officials have said that if Israelis and Palestinians can reach a peaceful resolution, they will support it.

A facile position considering that Iran is actively working to prevent any peaceful solution.

However, as long as Israel insists on expanding their colonization of the West Bank, Iran is obviously favors and end to the government behind that land grab.

Why is that obvious? What does Iran care about the Palestinians?