• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Infamous Ahmadinejad "Wiped Off the Map" speech

Status
Not open for further replies.

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think we need a specific reference string for this piece of argumentation that finds it's way into other's strings near daily.
What did he say.
What did he mean?

The Strawman used by Iran supporters (and West/Israel haters) is that Because that translation wasn't correct, it wasn't what he meant.

So First.. where DID that translation come from? Neocons? Zionists? seeking an excuse to invade?

Link above also useful for other a'jad statements.
 
Last edited:
Second.
What Did he actually say and what did he mean?

MEMRI - Middle East Media Research Institute

What does he mean that Islam/Iran Cannot accept Israel or compromise with it, and that:
"Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."

What would make it "Attainable to get rid of this Stain of Disgrace" "Very Soon"?

Surely "Very soon" the Arabs/Iranians aren't going to get a Conventional advantage over Israel.
Surely Israel isn't going to vote itself out of existence either.

So what could he Possibly mean by "attainable" "Very Soon"?

Coupled with his oft stated claim of not giving up enrichment and in fact, accelerating it, newly discovered sites - it doesn't take alot of deduction to get his drift even if one wants to strawman the Exact translation as "he didn't say that".

And along with his Holocaust denial and other Anti-Israel statememts, there is certainly context and a Reasonable Basis for Israel feeeling threatened by and perhaps trying to stop Mahdi-Boy and his Mullah handlers from not getting the Bomb.
Perhaps a topic for later in this string, or another, Ahmadinejad's religous delusions which are surprising and troubling for a person who may have his finger on the button.
-
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
And along with his Holocaust denial and other Anti-Israel statememts, there is certainly context and a Reasonable Basis for Israel feeeling threatened by and perhaps trying to stop Mahdi-Boy and his Mullah handlers from not getting the Bomb.
Click to expand...

I think Israel Has a legitimate concern over Iran. But, there is possibly mitigating reasons why portions of Iran feel the need to up the inflammatory rhetoric [if thats indeed what it is]. After a flawed election, and pockets of public unrest, he needs to project himself as a 'strong' leader. And, throughout history leaders East/West have used this tactic to instill fear of a perceived enemy-to control a population.
Global proliferation is most definitely a 'global' problem' and the more successful the international community is at tackling the problem, the better.

Interesting how tyrants attract each other

Iran's Ahmadinejad in Zimbabwe to meet with Mugabe - Yahoo! News

Paul
 
Apocalypse said:
Just out of curiosity, can you please link to a popular western-state newspaper source with the same subject?
Click to expand...

find it yourself if you don't believe my source. My information is reliable.
 
Apocalypse said:
Just out of curiosity, can you please link to a popular western-state newspaper source with the same subject?
Click to expand...

certainly


Lost in translation | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 
Another article you may want to read

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda]Black propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
bub said:
find it yourself if you don't believe my source. My information is reliable.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't I believe your words when I myself have stated that it was a mistranslation, and that the actual statement is "The Zionist regime in Jerusalem must be removed from the pages of time"?

Was simply curious as to how international sources (except the guardian which I'd never put my trust in) are referring to this translation.

Anyway, I myself see no dramatic difference between the statement and its mistranslation.
In the end of the day the Iranian tyranny calls, and keeps calling, for Israel's destruction - and that is unacceptable and would be dealt with.
 
bub said:

Ahmadinejad never said that, you are wrong

"WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century by Arash Norouzi
Click to expand...
NO ONE matches you for 'posts'.. er... NO ONE.
You don't read links within, or even the text within.. just see a headline and post!

The OP says it is a MIStranslation and explains where it came from.
It does NOT say that's what he said.
The Second post gives the accurate translation.

UN............believable.
NUMMMMMBBBBBBINNNNGGGGGG.
Stupendous.
Yet there it is.

And no one ELSE points this out to bub Either.
DUHbatePolitics.com
-
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
And no one ELSE points this out to bub Either.
DUHbatePolitics.com
-
Click to expand...

Why would you see the need, for anyone else to point out what Apoc has already highlighted?

Paul
 
Apocalypse said:
Was simply curious as to how international sources (except the guardian which I'd never put my trust in) are referring to this translation.
Click to expand...

Trying to understand your logic here. The Guardian appears to be the first paper to give a correct translation and by this you believe it is untrustworthy?
 

It makes a big difference: if you look at the context, he was clearly not calling for the destruction of Israel. He calls for a regime change, just like Reagan wanted a regime change in USSR.

Ahmadinejad certainly doesn't deserve the nobel peace prize, but he never said he wanted to bomb Israel.
 
alexa said:
Trying to understand your logic here. The Guardian appears to be the first paper to give a correct translation and by this you believe it is untrustworthy?
Click to expand...
That's a funny way to misinterpret my words.
I've insisted that I simply wish to see how international media sources deal with the mistranslation, except the guardian which I do not care about and do not trust in.
 
bub said:
It makes a big difference: if you look at the context, he was clearly not calling for the destruction of Israel. He calls for a regime change, just like Reagan wanted a regime change in USSR.
Click to expand...
That's a mistranslation, just like the initial mistranslation.

In recent speeches Iranian figures including Ahmedinejad have continued their calls for the destruction of the 'Zionist Entity' (The way they refer to Israel).

Such speeches, as this speech was, are intended to show the Iranian willingness to see Israel destroyed.

Such speeches, as this speech was, are unacceptable.
 
 
Apocalypse said:
That's a funny way to misinterpret my words.
I've insisted that I simply wish to see how international media sources deal with the mistranslation, except the guardian which I do not care about and do not trust in.
Click to expand...

You never said you wanted to see international media sources except the Guardian. You asked for one Western Source. Then when it turns out the Guardian is probably the first to have had a correct translation you declare you believe it is untrustworthy. I find your logic strange.

Is there any reason why you yourself could not have gone off on this search of comparing how International News sources dealt with the translation if that was indeed what you wanted rather than simply asking for one Western source, which is what you did?
 
First of all, please point out to where is it stated that the Guardian was the first to come up with the translation.

Secondly, I am not interested in the Guardian's reference because 1) I have already read it and 2) I do not place my interest in sources that I find highly biased and do not trust in, hence I do not care for the Guardian's analysis and hence I do not ask for it.

And finally, I have asked for the sources because I couldn't find them.
Not BBC, not CNN, etc.
 

It appears that the basic internal logic of this sentence escapes you , because by very definition ANY regime of Israel's would be Zionist. To remove the ZIONIST regime would necessarily destroy Israel because there is no Israel without Zionism.

I realize that Europeans have been brainwashed by their media into believing the word "zionism" is a dirty word, and that you are similarly blinded by your prejudices to the point you support anything that hates Israel, but at least you could all attempt to interpret words with a little intelligence and logic.
 
Gardener said:
It appears that the basic internal logic of this sentence escapes you , because by very definition ANY regime of Israel's would be Zionist. To remove the ZIONIST regime would necessarily destroy Israel because there is no Israel without Zionism.
Click to expand...
I didn't get that part as well.

Removing the Zionist(pro-Israel's existence) regime in Israel without removing the Israeli state is apparently a superhero trick limited to the European continent alone.
 
Apocalypse said:
I didn't get that part as well.

Removing the Zionist(pro-Israel's existence) regime in Israel without removing the Israeli state is apparently a superhero trick limited to the European continent alone.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Why am I reminded of the classic scene from 1984 where the inquisitor tells Winston Smith that he will some day believe that thee fingers are really two?

In this case, though, nobody was actually tortured in order to elicit the proper response. It's amazing how easily the true believer can ignore what is actually in front of his or her face, and just go with the program, instead. ..........And people think the right wing religious fundies can be impervious to reason!
 

Then you should have been quite clear what you were wanting. Any Western source but the Guardian.

I said probably the first western source with the correct translation because in the article itself it says that this resulted in others having to try to quickly say why they said the wrong translation.


You also did not say not BBC not CNN. Do you think we are mind readers? What exactly were you hoping for Apocalypse? Perhaps if you cannot find it, what you are looking for is not there.
 
alexa said:
Do you think we are mind readers? .
Click to expand...

Well, you must be considering you keep insisting that your friend here meant something other than what he said.
 
Last edited:
alexa said:
You also did not say not BBC not CNN. Do you think we are mind readers? What exactly were you hoping for Apocalypse? Perhaps if you cannot find it, what you are looking for is not there.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for a Western source that is not the Guardian and that is making the same or some similar statements about the Iranian wipe off the map line.

I have given the BBC and CNN as examples for such sources, as I have implied so clearly when I've used the "etc".
You really don't need to be a mind reader to know that, not even a mind-reader's apprentice.
 
Last edited:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…