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.
Well, you must be considering you keep insisting that your friend here meant something other than what he said.
like what?
He was calling for Israel's destruction in his misinterpreted speech.you quote his misinterpreted speech, I don't really see your point
You still don't get it. It's obvious.When Reagan said he wanted the communist regime to disappear, it wasn't against the Russians, it was against the communists leaders of the USSR. And today, Russia still exists even if the communists have gone.
It's like in Iraq: this country still exists after the regime change.
Why couldn't it be the same in Israel? Do you understand the difference between a country and its political regime?
I think it's beyond pure innocence now.It has already been explained to you, Bub.
He was calling for Israel's destruction in his misinterpreted speech.
However, my point is that there are countless (COUNTLESS) of other occasions when the dictator has called for Israel's destruction.
For example:
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis
It has already been explained to you, Bub.
Well that's just over the top.It's a reference to the same speech which has been misinterpreted
I think it's beyond pure innocence now.
It was explained in the clearest way possible.
I think he seriously believes that Zionist is some form of a political ideology equal to communism, liberalism, etc.
You still don't get it. It's obvious.
"Communist" doesn't mean "Pro-Russia's existence".
"Zionist" means pro-Israel's existence.
There's absolutely zero doubt about Ahmad's true intentions, and he makes them clearer than the sun.
One needs to be blind to ignore the sun's rays.
You're trying to misinterpret Ahmadinejad's point of view.You were talking about me and what my opinions are, according to you. That's surprising because I did not give my opinion, I try to explain Ahmadinejad's point of view.
And you continue with this insane counter-productivity of dodging and straw man arguments.You take a single misinterpreted quote which has been twisted by journalists and you think that his intentions are clear?
You were talking about me and what my opinions are, according to you. That's surprising because I did not give my opinion, I try to explain Ahmadinejad's point of view.
And you continue with this insane counter-productivity of dodging and straw man arguments.
I've just proven you that it's not the same line that you believe has been twisted by journalists("Wipe off the map"), nor was it made during the same speech("World without Zionism" 2005), so why do you continue with this fake story?
read what you post. In the article you posted, the only sentence that would show his intention to destroy Israel is
"Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime.""
It has been shown in the article I posted in the first page of this thread that this quote is misinterpreted
Yeah, they're referring to his old statements and then notifying us with a new statement.read what you post. In the article you posted, the only sentence that would show his intention to destroy Israel is
"Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime.""
It has been shown in the article I posted in the first page of this thread that this quote is misinterpreted
Since you've chosen to repeat on the ridiculous argument that has been easily dismissed and debunked in the previous page, I take it that this unnecessary argument over an obvious Iranian position is over.Well I see what you mean, in 2006 he said "would be better off without the zionist regime"
Like in the 2005 speech, he says he is against the "zionist regime", not the Israeli or the country of Israel. Just like Reagan attacked the communist regime, not the russians or the country itself.
Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to “wipe it off the map.”
Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of ‘no first strike’ to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
Belief: But didn’t President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to ‘wipe Israel off the map?’
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that “this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time” (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
Iran's Talk of Destroying Israel Must Not Get Lost in Translation [incl. Juan Cole] - Campus WatchOver the past several years, Iranian leaders - most prominently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - have made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Some of these statements have been interpreted by certain journalists and experts on Iran to be simple expressions of dissatisfaction with the Israeli presence in the West Bank or eastern Jerusalem, or with the current Israeli government and its policies.
Juan Cole of the University of Michigan argues that Ahmadinejad was not calling for the destruction of Israel, saying, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian." The British Guardian's Jonathan Steele argued that Ahmadinejad was simply remarking that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Steele continues: "He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The 'page of time' phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon."
Scholars continue to soft-pedal the Iranian President's words. Professor Stephen Walt, who previously served as academic dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and co-authored The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy along with Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, told a Jerusalem audience during a joint appearance in early June 2008, "I don't think he is inciting to genocide," when asked about Ahmadinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map.
In reality, the intent behind Ahmadinejad's language is clear. Those who seek to excuse Iranian leaders should not remain unchallenged when they use the tools of scholarship as a smokescreen to obfuscate these extreme and deliberate calls for the destruction of Israel. Language entails meaning. These statements have been interpreted by leading Iranian blogs and news outlets - some official - to mean the destruction of Israel.
US Congress Debate on Translating Ahmadinejad
Translating Ahmadinejad's statements is not purely an academic matter. When in 2007 the US House of Representatives debated a resolution calling on the UN Security Council to charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his repeated calls for the destruction of Israel (H. Con. Res. 21), the issue of the accuracy of the translation of his remarks came up in the House debate.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) requested that alternative translations of Ahmadinejad's language - like that of South African political scientist Virginia Tilley - be introduced into the Congressional Record. These versions assert the Iranian president was only seeking a change of regime in Israel and not the physical elimination of the country. H. Con. Res. 21 was adopted by a majority of 411 to 2, with Rep. Kucinich and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) voting against.
Examining Ahmadinejad's Language
What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually said - and how it has been interpreted in Iran - is that the Iranian president was not just calling for "regime change" in Jerusalem, but rather the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel. After all, it is hard to wipe a country off the map without destroying its population as well.
The Iranian government itself reinforced this understanding with its own rendition of his slogans on posters and billboards during official parades. Those who try to make Ahmadinejad's statements excusable by narrowing their meaning to a change of Israel's ruling coalition are misleading their readers. The plain meaning of what Ahmadinejad has declared constitutes a call for genocide - the destruction of the Jewish state and its residents.
A contextual examination of these statements demonstrates beyond a doubt that when Iranian leaders use the euphemism "Zionist regime" or "the Jerusalem-occupying regime," they are most definitely referring to the State of Israel and not to the present regime. Iranian leaders are simply following the time-worn practice in the Arab world of referring to the "Zionist regime" in an attempt to avoid dignifying Israel by recognizing its name.
Iranian leaders are also not talking about a non-directed, natural historical process that will end with Israel's demise. Rather, they are actively advocating Israel's destruction and have made it clear that they have the will and the means to effect it.
Ahmadinejad's "Wipe Israel Off the Map" Speech
In an address to the "World without Zionism" Conference held in Teheran on October 26, 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that this Jerusalem-occupying regime [Israel] must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement."
The New York Times translated the statement as Israel "must be wiped off the map," a non-literal translation which nevertheless conveyed the meaning of the original - the destruction of Israel. Despite the international controversy that Ahmadinejad's language generated, a report on his October 2005 speech was still available on his presidential website as of May 2008.
Yeah, they're referring to his old statements and then notifying us with a new statement.
That's why it's a news article, they wouldn't report on something that happened a year before it.
That was only one statement of countless of others.
Iranian president in 2005: "Zionist regime(=Israel) occupying Jerusalem must be removed from the pages of time."
Iranian president in 2006: "The ME would be better off with the existence of the Zionist regime(=Israel)"
Well if some people want to know the real intentions of Ahmadinejad, I advise them to read this article. It sums up everything on this topic.
Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True | Informed Comment
Sometimes amazing how quick they give up on reasonableness and logic when it comes to promoting the image of those who wish to see the Israeli state destroyed.or...."Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement. "
I'm amazed that anybody would actually have to explain this statement to the faithful. The "occupying regime" obviously refers to any presense in the middle east that isn't controlled by Muslims.
He continues "We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. "
The "new front" is Israel, quite obviously, as what else would he be talking about other than Israel in this "world without Zionism" conference.
To make sure he drives home the point, he states "Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world"
You know -- there is ignorance, and there is willful ignorance. I realize there has been a concerted effort by the European media to turn public opinion in a direction favorable towards those from whom Europe gets ther oil, but this so defies all reason as to be the stuff of cult like behavior. People are believing what they have been conditioned to believe, and might as well BE an Islamist, so causually do they champion the Islamists agenda.
Would they have the same reacion if Bush had said God told him to destroy the European Union in a "world without Europe" conference?
sheesh!:doh
US Congress Debate on Translating Ahmadinejad
Translating Ahmadinejad's statements is not purely an academic matter. When in 2007 the US House of Representatives debated a resolution calling on the UN Security Council to charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his repeated calls for the destruction of Israel (H. Con. Res. 21), the issue of the accuracy of the translation of his remarks came up in the House debate.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) requested that alternative translations of Ahmadinejad's language - like that of South African political scientist Virginia Tilley - be introduced into the Congressional Record. These versions assert the Iranian president was only seeking a change of regime in Israel and not the physical elimination of the country. H. Con. Res. 21 was adopted by a majority of 411 to 2, with Rep. Kucinich and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) voting against.
Sometimes amazing how quick they give up on reasonableness and logic when it comes to promoting the image of those who wish to see the Israeli state destroyed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?