No. of Recommendations: 0
(What a treat to have you posting here.)

Did Ahmadinejad use the word "map?"

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

http://digg.com/world_news/Ahmadinejad_Israel_Will_Be_Destroyed

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Did Ahmadinejad use the word "map?"

----------

not technically. it's an interpretation, not a literal translation. islamic asians tend to use phrases that would be meaningless to westerners. so the interpreters must try to use a phrase that conveys similar intent, but is not an exact translation. what he means is that the nation of israel will no longer exist. take it however you want. by the way, he was quoting khomenei.

derek
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Derek what he means is that the nation of israel will no longer exist.

How about:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Is that a fair translation?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
by the way, he was quoting khomenei.

derek


I know. Wikipedia told me so.

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

So basically they are calling for "regime change" in Israel.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How about:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Is that a fair translation?

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

i think regime is the wrong word. he's saying palestine will be ruled by muslims again. it's not a friendlier israeli government he's calling for but an islamic state.

derek
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
i think regime is the wrong word. he's saying palestine will be ruled by muslims again. it's not a friendlier israeli government he's calling for but an islamic state.

derek


Oh, I believe that. Ah'jad wants an Islamic regime not a Jewish regime.

The original point is, I believe, that he is not calling for Israel and its inhabitants to be obliterated (say by a nuclear explosion).

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, I believe that. Ah'jad wants an Islamic regime not a Jewish regime.

The original point is, I believe, that he is not calling for Israel and its inhabitants to be obliterated (say by a nuclear explosion).

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

not in that statement.

derek
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I know. Wikipedia told me so.

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

So basically they are calling for "regime change" in Israel.


Why trust Wikipedia when it's pretty much open to whomever wants to put the info/change it.

From The Iranian government itself

http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247

Tehran, Oct 26 - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the President told a conference in Tehran 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 the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.

Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.

"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said.


They even put his words in quotes. If there was any question to interpretation, this would be usually the contentious piece. They simply leave nothing to the interpretation. It is his own words, translated by his own government. Surely, you can accept that.


Honestly, What kind of "Regime change" is he talking about?

Peter, I am amazed you refuse to concede here.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mark Surely, you can accept that.

I accept what Derek said. He speaks Farsi.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I accept what Derek said. He speaks Farsi.

Peter


So does Cole, as he claims, yet he apologizes for him. Are you saying the Iranian government doesn't quote the president correctly?
Did they screw up on the interpretation?

Derek did say the saying is to be interpreted as "wiping Israel of the map" and is not a literal translation as the saying is somewhat different in Farsi.
Do you know another language other than English? I know 2 others and a little of a 3rd. Let me tell you, idioms and sayings literally translated will leave you scratching your head as to the meaning.

Heck, I wouldn't discount "wipe the crumbs of the table" as a literal translation of a "wipe of the map" saying in some other language or another.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Peter, one last comment:
If Ahmadenijad's translation "wiped off the map" is good enough for Iran's government-owned news agency, Why would people in the West become apologists and try to cover up for him?

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mark, I really don't get what you are thinking.

"Wiped off the map"
"vanish from the page of time"
"eliminated from the pages of history"
"the nation of israel will no longer exist." (Derek)

etc.

Are you thinking this maans nuclear explosion or mass deaths?

Derek says it does not mean this in this speech.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Are you thinking this maans nuclear explosion or mass deaths?

Derek says it does not mean this in this speech.


you're right, he didn't specify nuclear explosion. Would you like some quotes from him and other Iranian leaders where the ambiguity is less obvious? ( you can use the TMF search engine on this very forum)

How do you imagine Iran will bring about a regime change? Voluntarily?

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"...How do you imagine Iran will bring about a regime change? Voluntarily?" Mark
................



What the Illbrainian leaders have said has no limitation to just the Iraeli leadership or a regime.

They speak succinctly of Israel going away.

Matter can be changed but not destroyed.

From their perspective, they want 'It'... Israel, unrecognisable or incapable of existing ever again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"How do you imagine Iran will bring about a regime change? Voluntarily?"

Attrition.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How do you imagine Iran will bring about a regime change? Voluntarily?

Mark


I think they realize they cannot beat Israel with conventinal weapons. You think they will use nukes. I don't.

They imagine other means such as demographics and democracy.

What they don't plan on is that Israeli Arabs don't want to live under an Islamist government.

Isn't the entire point here whether or not Iran will attack Israel?

You seem to think they will. I don't.

When do you think that would happen?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I think they realize they cannot beat Israel with conventinal weapons. You think they will use nukes. I don't.

They will, via a proxy like Hizbullah.


What they don't plan on is that Israeli Arabs don't want to live under an Islamist government.

Isn't the entire point here whether or not Iran will attack Israel?


They'll find an excuse. They might even use the incident in Syria to retaliate with a strike of their own.


They imagine other means such as demographics and democracy.

not a chance. they're not known for their patience. With 20% of the population being Arab Muslim, it would take a very long time for demographics to play out.


When do you think that would happen?


When they manufacture enough bombs to wipe out the state. they don't give a flying youknowwhat about the Palestinians. They'll make they can finish the job before attempting to usher in the 12th Imam.
Once enough nukes are manufactured/bought, they'll start manufacturing missiles, and lots of them. Their best best is to overwhelm the defensive systems Israel has instead of trying to outsmart them.

They will most likely threat their use on a continuous basis, hoping to grind Israel to a halt by scaring the public into submission. In the process, I can see them using some skirmish in Lebanon/Syria as a pretext to retaliate or I can even imagine them building up the tension and climaxing it with a detonation on their own soil, blaming Israel for it.

Nuclear Iran with the current leadership spells doom for us all.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When they manufacture enough bombs to wipe out the state. they don't give a flying youknowwhat about the Palestinians. They'll make they can finish the job before attempting to usher in the 12th Imam.
Once enough nukes are manufactured/bought, they'll start manufacturing missiles, and lots of them. Their best best is to overwhelm the defensive systems Israel has instead of trying to outsmart them.


I don't think Israel would let this happen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nuclear Iran with the current leadership spells doom for us all.

Mark


So when do we (or Israel) attack Iran?

We called it MAD when we were willing to wait for an attack.

What if we hadn't waited and just attacked the Soviet Union because of what they might do?

Did you favor that?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Isn't the entire point here whether or not Iran will attack Israel?

You seem to think they will. I don't.


I don't know whether they will or not. I'm more interested in the way you're willing to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to impute good motives to Ama-whatzit-bab when you're not willing to give your own president one one-millionth of the benefit of the doubt. This guy has been standing before the world community spouting all sorts of inflammatory, irrational, and irresponsible rhetoric about the destruction of neighboring countries for months and months while he pursues nuclear technology and you just seem to think he's a nice guy at heart.

It's bizarre.

(And before you go off with, "Bush has violated our trust bla bla bla," let me remind you that none of you has been able to come up with a single genuine instance of Bush having violated our trust or having lied to the American people. It's something you people say all the time that has no basis in fact.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
MC you just seem to think he's a nice guy at heart.

LMAO!

How many times do I need to say, "The Iranian leaders are bad guys."

I just don't think they are ready to die.

Mark and Derek think they are.

That is the debate.

How about you?

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mark and Derek think they are.

That is the debate.

How about you?


I don't know, but that puts us where we were before the invasion of Iraq.

Do we wait until we are really sure that Iran intends to attack if the proof of that might manifest itself in the form of a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv? Or on the US?

I'm sure that if such an attack happens that many people, including many on the left, will be hopping mad that people in Washington didn't "connect the dots" and do something about it before hand.

We are at the stage right now where we have lots of dots, and in connecting them a picture emerges, but some people won't be convinced no matter how many dots we have.

And mutual assured destruction may not be effective against suicide bombers. Ama-dina-whatzit-bab has been holding forth with millinarian rhetoric that implies he might be in that category. Other Iranian leaders have said quite openly that the loss of a hundred million or so Muslims would be worth it if they took Israel with them.

It's clear that Iran thinks it can get away with things because the US is tied up in Iraq. It's important for Iran to realize that this just makes the US all that much more dangerous, because we have the means of dealing with Iran in an effective manner, but it won't be the nice-nice nation building sort of effort we put forth in Iraq.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's clear that Iran thinks it can get away with things because the US is tied up in Iraq. It's important for Iran to realize that this just makes the US all that much more dangerous, because we have the means of dealing with Iran in an effective manner, but it won't be the nice-nice nation building sort of effort we put forth in Iraq.

So, do you favor some kind of attack on Iran?

(Their nuclear Djinn is not going back in the bottle no matter how much we rant and rave.)

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
(Their nuclear Djinn is not going back in the bottle no matter how much we rant and rave.)

Actually, a select strike on the really expensive sites could set them back quite a ways. Not that I'm advocating it...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I don't think Israel would let this happen.


What happens if it cannot pull rabbits out of its hat any longer?

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

So when do we (or Israel) attack Iran?


Sigh... I've told you already. Go re-read the old threads.



What if we hadn't waited and just attacked the Soviet Union because of what they might do?

Did you favor that?


peter, again you fail to grasp the main principle of MAD. Both sides wanted to survive. Not so much with Iran in this case. The threat of annihilation was a deterrent in respect to the cold war. Here- one side welcomes it as it is the signal of the coming of their Messiah ( as they interpret it).

their supreme leader stated he's willing to accept a significant hit to the Muslim world if it means the destruction of Israel is guaranteed.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Actually, a select strike on the really expensive sites could set them back quite a ways. Not that I'm advocating it...


Didn't they smarten up after the Iraqi nuke strike?
I would think it would be quite foolish of them to not have spread the wealth around.

But, a hit on their main nuke facilities would indeed set them back. How far back, I have no clue.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sigh... I've told you already. Go re-read the old threads.

As I recall, you favor sanctions but not an attack. Sanctions are not going to stop Iran from refining U235, you know.

You make these apocalyptic arguments (return of the Mahdi, etc.) and then shy away from the obvious conclusions.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

You make these apocalyptic arguments (return of the Mahdi, etc.) and then shy away from the obvious conclusions.


Read Bernard Lewis, again. a Regime change from within is most favorable and best possible outcome.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Read Bernard Lewis, again. a Regime change from within is most favorable and best possible outcome.

Mark


Then we should cease all threats against Iran, since the quickest and best way to shore up a regime is external threats.

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Then we should cease all threats against Iran, since the quickest and best way to shore up a regime is external threats.

Peter


Many have said we already have done that with Iran to date. Many have said we did that with Germany in WWII and look where that got everyone.

How come that doesn't work with Bush?

Ya just can't win.

Ned
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
PR <I<Then we should cease all threats against Iran, since the quickest and best way to shore up a regime is external threats.

Ned How come that doesn't work with Bush?

Why do you think Bush's approval rating jumped from 54% to 89% in ten days?

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then we should cease all threats against Iran, since the quickest and best way to shore up a regime is external threats.

Look what 9/11 did for Bush.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Woops. That'll larn me to read the whole thread.
Print the post Back To Top