Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth

Remember the quote [SIZE=-1]"Israel must be wiped off the map", attributed to Ahmadindjad? How about [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world."?

Turns out that Ahmadinejad never said either one, but statements he did make were purposely edited to what you see above. What did he actually say?

1) In the case of [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Israel must be wiped off the map", the actual quote was "[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]this regime that is occupying Palestinian land must vanish from the page of time." What does this mean? According to all experts in Farsi, including the right-wing service MEMRI, Ahmadinejad is not referring to wiping Israel off the map at all, but Israel's occupation of Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself is contested by both Israel and the Arab world, and this is what he was referring to. In his speech, Ahmadinejad told how the Shah, the Soviet Union, and Saddam had all passed in time. He then says that Israeli control of the West Bank and the eastern half of Jerusalem will also pass.

2) In the case of [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world", the acutal quote was [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." The words "new movement" were replaced by "assaults", and "stain of disgrace" were replaced by "stigma", and then the claim was made that the inserted word "stigma" meant Israel.

Of course, in both cases, Ahmadinejad's words were edited to something else by those who have a vested interest in going to war against Iran.

This goes back to the concept of "Noble Lies" espoused by Machiavelli, Karl Marx, and also Irving Kristol, the father of Neoconservatism, in which the people must be lied to in order for good things to be done.

Here is my question. If what we are about to do is so good, then why do our leaders need to lie to us at all?

Note: I ran this by the president of our company, who IS Iranian, and who strongly believes that Israel can coexist in the Arab world. He went to a site which contained Ahmadinejad's speeches (in Farsi), and confirmed to me that the words were indeed edited from their original content. He has no axe to grind either. He is Baha'i, and was persecuted by the Islamists in Iran, before escaping and coming here in the early 1980's. He would like nothing more than to see the downfall of the Islamists in Iran, but questions the necessity for lies to accomplish those ends. As he told me, "We cannot be them, otherwise we are no better than they are."

Article is here.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]

danarhea said:

Remember the quote [SIZE=-1]"Israel must be wiped off the map", attributed to Ahmadindjad? How about [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world."?

Turns out that Ahmadinejad never said either one, but statements he did make were purposely edited to what you see above. What did he actually say?

1) In the case of [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"Israel must be wiped off the map", the actual quote was "[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]this regime that is occupying Palestinian land must vanish from the page of time." What does this mean? According to all experts in Farsi, including the right-wing service MEMRI, Ahmadinejad is not referring to wiping Israel off the map at all, but Israel's occupation of Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself is contested by both Israel and the Arab world, and this is what he was referring to. In his speech, Ahmadinejad told how the Shah, the Soviet Union, and Saddam had all passed in time. He then says that Israeli control of the West Bank and the eastern half of Jerusalem will also pass.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

Click to expand...

\
Bullshit here's what Ahmadinejad said:

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

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

Click to expand...

So did Al-Jazeera edit his word too??? lmfao

Now I suppose one could argue that the Iman rather than Ahmadinejad said it and he was only quoting him but why would he quote the Iman if he didn't believe it himself?

"this regime that is occupying Palestinian land must vanish from the page of time."

close enough

danarhea said:

1) In the case of "Israel must be wiped off the map", the actual quote was "this regime that is occupying Palestinian land must vanish from the page of time." What does this mean? According to all experts in Farsi, including the right-wing service MEMRI, Ahmadinejad is not referring to wiping Israel off the map at all, but Israel's occupation of Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself is contested by both Israel and the Arab world, and this is what he was referring to.

Click to expand...

I have a hard time with this.
When did Palestine become synonomous with Jerusalem, and Jerusalem exclusively?

"Plaestine", in the muslim world, and most importantly in the vernacular of Shia extremists (like Hezbollah, Iran's terrorist operative) refers to --all-- of what was once called Palestine, including where Israel now sits.

Of course, in both cases, Ahmadinejad's words were edited to something else by those who have a vested interest in going to war against Iran.

Click to expand...

I dont see anyone in the Iranian government trying to counter these supposedly incorrect interpretations.

Not even close to "Breaking News". This has been around the block several times. See, for example, Juan Cole's comments at Informed Comment. (Cole is a somewhat self-ordained ME expert and critic of all those who know more about the ME than he thinks he does, and is an "expert" whose academic credentials are just strong enough to often put him in the position of epitomizing the old saying, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I know thats sounds like an ad hominem, but given the specialized nature of this kerfuffle -- language and interpretation -- it seems appropriate to question the credibility and motivation of the source.)

BTW, speaking of sources, danarhea characterized MEMRI as "right-wing". Seems to me that MEMRI is way more credible with respect to their accuracy than many, many other web sources. Some, yes, but not nearly as much editorializing and propogandizing as al Jazeera et al, for example.

oldreliable67 said:

Not even close to "Breaking News". This has been around the block several times. See, for example, Juan Cole's comments at Informed Comment. (Cole is a somewhat self-ordained ME expert and critic of all those who know more about the ME than he thinks he does, and is an "expert" whose academic credentials are just strong enough to often put him in the position of epitomizing the old saying, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I know thats sounds like an ad hominem, but given the specialized nature of this kerfuffle -- language and interpretation -- it seems appropriate to question the credibility and motivation of the source.)

BTW, speaking of sources, danarhea characterized MEMRI as "right-wing". Seems to me that MEMRI is way more credible with respect to their accuracy than many, many other web sources. Some, yes, but not nearly as much editorializing and propogandizing as al Jazeera et al, for example.

Click to expand...

Thank you, because MEMRI asserts exactly the same that Juan Cole does, that Ahmadinejad's words were edited.

Not only that, but as I already explained, my boss at work says the same thing, and he absolutely hates the Islamists who rule Iran, so if he had a political axe to grind, he would be saying the opposite. He read the original words in Farsi, and came to the same conclusion.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:

\
Bullshit here's what Ahmadinejad said:



So did Al-Jazeera edit his word too??? lmfao

Now I suppose one could argue that the Iman rather than Ahmadinejad said it and he was only quoting him but why would he quote the Iman if he didn't believe it himself?

Click to expand...

I'll call your 'bullshit' and raise you a million camel chips, that you are correct. I'll even throw in some sheep droppings. Of course, it's up to you to pick out the..........well, you know. Sometimes they just don't want to let those sheep go.

danarhea said:

Thank you, because MEMRI asserts exactly the same that Juan Cole does, that Ahmadinejad's words were edited.

Not only that, but as I already explained, my boss at work says the same thing, and he absolutely hates the Islamists who rule Iran, so if he had a political axe to grind, he would be saying the opposite. He read the original words in Farsi, and came to the same conclusion.

Click to expand...

You are welcome. Cole is always interesting, though sometimes for the wrong reasons - you may recall that he was turned down for a big teaching job at Yale because of some of the things that he said - for which he got amusingly petulant. Though almost always critical of the US in general and Bush in particular, Cole acquired a bit of fame or noteriety (depending on one's viewpoint) when he actually agreed -- at first -- with the Bush admin that to leave Iraq prematurely would be poor policy. He later changed his mind and posted a long, circuitous piece about why he did so. He is nothing if not flexible.

One of the good things that MEMRI does, is to often put up the originals of speeches or articles in the original language. Then, anyone that wishes to differ with the translation can easily do so.

But again, this is old stuff. Not "Breaking News" at all.

oldreliable67 said:

You are welcome. Cole is always interesting, though sometimes for the wrong reasons - you may recall that he was turned down for a big teaching job at Yale because of some of the things that he said - for which he got amusingly petulant. Though almost always critical of the US in general and Bush in particular, Cole acquired a bit of fame or noteriety (depending on one's viewpoint) when he actually agreed -- at first -- with the Bush admin that to leave Iraq prematurely would be poor policy. He later changed his mind and posted a long, circuitous piece about why he did so. He is nothing if not flexible.

One of the good things that MEMRI does, is to often put up the originals of speeches or articles in the original language. Then, anyone that wishes to differ with the translation can easily do so.

But again, this is old stuff. Not "Breaking News" at all.

Click to expand...

I would put it in the category of breaking news for 2 reasons. A journalist other than Juan Cole wrote it, and the article just came out.

However, this is a slight disagreement. You and I have had a lot of heavy discussions before, but you always argue intelligently, which is refreshing.

1) Do you believe that Iran's enrichment program is for civilian or military purposes?

2) If you believe that it is for military purposes, then do you believe that "noble lies" are necessary to socialize the masses to go to war with Iran? This is the stickler for me, because the Machiavellian idea of "noble lies" is what the Communists relied heavily upon in their attempt to dominate the world, and in the past, not lying to the people is one of many facets that I believe made us better than the old Soviet Union. Do we want our government to lie to us, and if we do, then will we ever really be willing to truly believe anything our leaders tell us? Finally, if we are willing to have our leaders lie to us, then dont We the People become servants of government instead of its masters, as our forefathers intended?

Details Schmetails

Iran hates us. Saddam Hates us. Al-Qaeda Hates us. They must be related and we must erase them off the face of the earth.

Who cares is Ahmadinejad never said the above. He questions our authority and must be nuked for that stupid beard he has.

Oh, and to seriously answer your questions (I know I'm not who you were aiming for):

1. I believe Iran wished they had nukes. I think it would be better, though, if they were able to enrich it under extreme supervision.
This call to war bullshit is just that. Look and see were your tennies were made to find out why.

2. Come on. Get with the program. al-Qaeda and these Islamists hate us for our freedoms...to safeguard you...we must take away those freedoms they hate. --Karl Rove (or very close to)

Joby said:

Details Schmetails

Iran hates us. Saddam Hates us. Al-Qaeda Hates us. They must be related and we must erase them off the face of the earth.

Who cares is Ahmadinejad never said the above. He questions our authority and must be nuked for that stupid beard he has.

Oh, and to seriously answer your questions (I know I'm not who you were aiming for):

1. I believe Iran wished they had nukes. I think it would be better, though, if they were able to enrich it under extreme supervision.
This call to war bullshit is just that. Look and see were your tennies were made to find out why.

2. Come on. Get with the program. al-Qaeda and these Islamists hate us for our freedoms...to safeguard you...we must take away those freedoms they hate. --Karl Rove (or very close to)

Click to expand...

My teenies weren't made in Iran thats for damm sure

Calm2Chaos said:

My teenies weren't made in Iran thats for damm sure

Click to expand...

Nope. They were probably made in a slave sweat shop in Asia. More than likely in China, which is misusing the concept of Capitalism in order to wage an economic war against us.

danarhea said:

Nope. They were probably made in a slave sweat shop in Asia. More than likely in China, which is misusing the concept of Capitalism in order to wage an economic war against us.

Click to expand...

Umm what won the cold war and collapsed the Soviet Union without a shot being fired?

Oh ya Capitalism through free trade and open markets, that's what.

Are you a protectionist?

I'll have you know that a job at an American company that is outsourced overseas is in high demand, just talk to an Indian. In India engineers would rather work at an American company as a telemarketer, because they get payed about three times the amount as they would as an engineer.

Is there some sort of job shortage in the United States that I'm unaware of?

Are we running out of those in demand telemarketing and nike assembly careers????