world

Israel mulls military option for Iran nukes

124 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

124 Comments
Login to comment

Yeah, Isreal be stupid. Attack Iran with george bush's, McCain's and Obama's blessing that it will protect Isreal from Iran. But if Isreal attacks Iran, I hope to see Iran squash the hell out of Isreal. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A preemptive Israeli attack on Iran would certainly give Iran just cause to "wipe Israel off the map" or, less belligerently, would likely hasten Israel's "vanishing from the pages of time". It's understandable that the Israeli military would like to do something noteworthy after its Lebanon debacle, but if the calculation of noteworthiness involves only how many years it could set back an alleged nuclear weapons program, Israel will not recognize any security gains from attacking Iran. Neither will the US.

In the short term, Israel can attack only with US military materiel. And if it should meet with the kind of surprise and resistance that it met with in Lebanaon, in any protracted conflict Israel can survive only with the military assistance of the US. A military solution produces no winners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And if it should meet with the kind of surprise and resistance that it met with in Lebanaon, in any protracted conflict Israel can survive only with the military assistance of the US.

If you say so. Funny how you choose to once again overlook the astounding Israeli strike on Syria last year. They neutralized the air defense system Russia sold the Syrians (Iran bought the same) and by all accounts took out a nuke plant that like the ones in Iran was manufacturing weapons grade material.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380603438&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel mulls military option for Iran nukes

Israel once again forced to do the world's dirty work.

I hope to see Iran squash the hell out of Isreal.

You can sense the desperation by the socialists that an enemy of America will be denied nuclear weapons. And adaydream, at a minimum, if you're going to debate about a country, at least learn to spell the name of the country correctly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran is just waiting for Isreal to attack. Then Iran has the excuse it needs to retaliate against.

Desperation? I doubt it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why doesn't anyone who is a so called "left/socialist" try their best to provide Israel with some type of assurance that they are safe from Iran with Nuke capabilities? You people go on and on how they shouldn't attack, that Iran should be able to have nukes, blah blah..

If it were me against you and I knew you had a bigger gun, I'd come after you too if you were my devout enemy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel once again forced to do the world's dirty work.

No, Israel IS the world's dirty work.

The entire world should be more concerned with Israel's current nuclear bombs than Iran's ALLEGED (no proof) ambitions for aiming to get a few in a decade or so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

undecidedbout08,

Who's ignoring Israel's attack on Syria? As far as I can see, no one is ignoring that. Some people may be mischaracterizing it, but I don't know anyone who is ignoring it.

I know, however, that the same person who seems to be unable to understand the word "if", says that Israel took out what was an above-ground nuclear facility by all accounts. This is not so. By American and Israeli accounts it is so, but not by Syrian accounts. (Right, well, yes, they would lie about that, wouldn't they? Unlike us.)

Let's continue. Who says that Syria was manufacturing weapons grade material? Not the Jerusalem Post article that was offered for evidence. I think it is a fact that no informed source has said that the Syrian site was manuafacturing such material. In fact most, if not all, say that it was not manufacturing any materal--only that it was consistent with the configuration of a site that might. For that matter, who says that Iran's plants are manufacturing weapons grade material? No credible source.

My contention is simple. If Israel gets caught in a self-initiated and protracted bombing war with Iran, the only way that it can sustain that war is with US military assistance. By most accounts Israel enjoys military superiority, but if it finds itself suffering a fraction of the damage that it would inflict upon Iran it will be in big trouble. And this is to say nothing of its friendlessness within the region.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran has nukes?

I'll challenge anyone who believes it to prove it and no, I don't support Iran but I don't support an Israeli attack either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One more - if you believe Iran has nukes - which is the crux of this issue - please show proof, not hypothesis or theory.

And if you can't, then consider which is the greater threat?

an Iran that "might" have a nuke (but do they have a delivery platform??), or

an Israel that believes but cannot prove Iran has nuke capability and attacks anyway, threatening an escalation of war in the ME and skyrocketing oil prices?

Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PS: All hypothesis that "Iran has a nuke program" will be laughed at unless the poster concerned can provide evidence to back up their claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, let's keep this real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

I don't think you need to interject the term "left/socialist" into this. Your question works just as well if you ask, "Why doesn't anyone try their best to provide Israel with some type of assurance that they are safe from Iran with Nuke capabilities?"

I think that's a rather complicated problem. First we would have to ask ourselves whether Israel would be content with only "some type of assurance" (kind of like "a degree of durability" in Iraq). What type of assurance would it require? Would it require the complete emasculation of Iran? Would it require transforming Iran into an exemplary democracy as in Iraq? Would it require that Iran be not permitted to play with nuclear energy except under the supervision of an adult? Would it require only that Iran would not be allowed to develop weapons grade material? In other words, the extent of assurances that Israel needs is commensurate with the extent of fear that it has. And so we need to determine to what degree that fear is justified.

Compounding the question is the confusion over what it means to have "Nuke capabilities". Iran has "Nuke capabilities" right now in the sense that it has scientists who understand the process of making a bomb and technicians who have the skill to assemble one. Given the freedom to require the necessary materials, it has the capability to build a bomb. So do many other countries.

So, what sets Iran apart? It has limited but functional fuel processing capability now and it has owned up to having intentions to develop a bomb in the past. If we look at "nuclear capabilities" as opposed to "Nuke capabilities" we get a different take on the problem. Should Israel be as worried about Iranian "nuclear capabilities" as it is about its "Nuke capabilities"?

I think the solution is Reagan's old one: trust but verify. Why do you suppose that we really cannot implement that solution?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Am I surprised that Israel wants to attack Iran? No, not in the least. Israel is the most violent, deceitful, destructive and murderous nation on our planet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jack Bernstein: The entire world should be more concerned with Israel's current nuclear bombs than Iran's ALLEGED (no proof) ambitions for aiming to get a few in a decade or so.

But the entire world ISN'T concerned with Israel's nukes and the entire world IS concerned with Iran's work with nukes. That should tell you something about what the world's opinion is of each government.

People try to turn this into the US/Israel vs. Iran because it makes it easier to defend Iran with simple catchphrases but in reality just about every government on earth is against what Iran is doing now. I guess Mexico is "against" Iran? So is Germany? And Denmark? All of these countries simply have it out for Iran, eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iran is in a crappy situation. They have Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other and water access.

If Israel wants to take out these nuclear sites they will. The conflicts against Israel will happen as they currently do. They may even attack Syria (again) just for the fun of it.

And I want the U.S. Forces to leave Japan -how foolish of me, we could have another Israel on our hands if that happens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All hypothesis that "Iran has a nuke program" will be laughed at unless the poster concerned can provide evidence to back up their claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, let's keep this real.

I'm guessing whatever country you are from also believes Iran is actively pursuing nukes and has a stealth program dedicated to that end.

So your challenge is seen through, and 'laughed at'...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

The entire world is not concerned with Iran's work with [nuclear technology]. Over 100 of the 120 or so non-aligned nations recently affirmed Iran's right to develop and implement the full nuclear cycle.

Also, when you use the term "nukes" instead of nuclear technology you are engaging in a sleight of hand. You could be concerned with reports that I have "laid hands on my wife". But your concern would be unfounded if no one had ever seen or hear any report other than that I was giving her back rubs.

"Nukes" are bombs. Nuclear technology is not. Not unless you believe that John McCain wants to put 45 nukes all across the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cooler heads should prevail in this case folks: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=94802 Take some good advice! D O N 'T!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3,

Be of good cheer. Some folks have this problem with "evidence". It's only natural that they confuse their feelings and guesses with it.

It doesn't really matter whether your country--whatever it is--has a secret nuclear program. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't. What matters here is that no one has any evidence that Iran does.

Plenty of ill will, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "and the entire world IS concerned with Iran's work with nukes."

I'd be carefully of using gross generalizations if I were you ...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

undecidedabout08 - so I take it you have no evidence at all to back a claim that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

Or are you convinced they do because you heard the good people on Fox News say so? :-)

Sez - "What matters here is that no one has any evidence that Iran does."

Preceisely my belief.

There's a little too much gasping, red-faced bellicose for my liking.

Hey, those WMD, that many of the same posters who think Iran has a nuke weapons programs, believed Saddam had, just didn't show up, so I think claims being made by the same people really need to be taken as uninformed fantasies UNLESS, of course, they have some kind of proof, which even the US government can't provide.

But some posters seem to think they know more than the US govt does in terms of ME intelligence....

Keep pounding those keyboards! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Dolphin submarines"

Good name for a submarine.

Sushi, granted, there's no solid evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. But do you really believe that Iran does in fact not seek nuclear weapons and in fact has no nuclear weapons program?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

We may believe all manner of things. I think the point is whether we will use our belief that a thing is so to justify action without evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi, Perhaps there is no evidence. The evidence may be available once something happens.. If Iran would recognize the state of Israel and not support the factions it has to wage a bloody battle over a tiny piece of land in comparison. If Iran's president wouldn't make it such a point to hold a world holocaust denial event. if, no matter which way it gets translated, Iran's president would stop with calls for a war against the the state of Israel as well as un-declare the declaration of war Iran set against the US in 88', if Iran governmental leaders stopped with this Fatwa stuff on little skinny writers, and if Iran and the entire Muslim world take a few steps back, which is against Israel, diplomate some sort of conference on "how they can live with Israel" and what Israel should do to meet half way - perhaps Israel would feel assured and not attack Iran.

But, if you don't think Iran wants some sort of a Jihad against the state of Israel, you are mistaking. This is kind of like some guy down the street who is mentally unstable, but goes and gets a gun. Do you say don't worry, he hasn't hurt anyone before or do you call the police and ask for his weapon to be removed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is also worth pointing out that the last US President that mentioned and criticized Israel's nuclear program was JFK. He has threatened to cut off the flow of US cash to Israel if they didn't stop their nuclear weapons program, but then died shortly afterwards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez - "I think the point is whether we will use our belief that a thing is so to justify action without evidence."

Like the invasion of Iraq, which Sarge and many others on this board believed was justified due to the much-hyped claims Saddam had WMD??

Sarge - "granted, there's no solid evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. <-- There's one for the record books :-)

Sarge - "But do you really believe that Iran does in fact not seek nuclear weapons and in fact has no nuclear weapons program?"

I'll make my decision when I see evidence I can believe in. Until then, something I will NOT do is believe claims generated by governments that clearly have it out for Iran.

Sorry to have to say it, but that is precisely what you did pre-Iraq invasion, and now hundreds of thousands, if not over a million Iraqis have lost their lives.

Bottom line - if you or anyone is going to make a charge as serious as the ones being made against Iran, YOU HAD BETTER MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ACCURATE AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

I cannot emphasize that point enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sez, I used the term left/socialist because from what I read, I still get socialist newspapers sent to me because of my dad's involvement back in the day, I see these organizations doing their best to counter anything that pops up. "Let's Iran have the bomb, the US has had it and used it" goes one title. "Give the Muslims some understanding and stop putting out your christmas lights - it offensive" while at the same time attacking Christian lead organizations. I see left leaning socialist not having a problem with right winging countries such as Iran having nuke capabilities but will go all haywire of a western country having any. It just seems to me of late that anything counter west, christian, American, or Jew is ok by them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi: much-hyped claims Saddam had WMD??" Let's not forget, it was Saddam who was yelling he had them! Did he lie?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

The fact remains that no one is giving Israel the type of assurances you called for and it is not even clear whether Israel is amenable to being assured.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

Let's remember when it was that Saddam might have said he had such weapons? As of 2002 he was saying that he did not. The invasion was in ...?

Inspections have later verified the truth of his statement and even prior to the invasion, inspectors could not find any WMDs that had not been previously accounted for. Furthermore, Saddam had agreed to unconditionally accept UN inspectors.

Diplomacy was actually working. That was the problem. It wasn't supposed to work. We were supposed to have a war.

I don't really want to do this dance with Iran, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sez, I know about 2002 and this topic will only take us back and forth going now where.

I don't want to the same dance with Iran either, however, you can not deny that Iran is also instigating at the highest level on how they feel about Israel. What we do know is: Iran is a country run by the rightest of all right wingers. We know Iran has supported organizations that are determined to annialate the state of Israel, we also know Iran is no weakling. If this were a 100 years ago, I would say we could just sit back and see how things be played out. Its not 100 years ago and we are left with what is one to do question. While you may disagree, I, and a several of my Iranian co-workers, Iran is pushing for a war with Israel. They do not want peace with Israel, not in the slightest as long as the current government remains in power.

So, basically everyone is left in a catch 22 and I believe Iran wants to antagonize Israel to the point where they no longer accept the catch 22 and decide to stop something before it happens.

But, painting a peaceful Iran picture as so many here are trying to do is equally dangerous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Iran´s nuclear program was peaceful, it could have that legally and the topic of sanctions wouldn´t even be there. There would be no need for secrect enrichment facilities. Anybody who believes that Iran´s 6000 centrifuges are for radiological research would also by a bridge in Brookly.

Of course Ahmedinejad wants Allah`s bomb, and in combination with his frequent predictions of how the "dirty bacteria" Israel will soon be eliminated, that is a dire prospect.

That said, Israel this time can not do anything about it. This not like bombing Saddams Osirak reactor. Either the US does it, or Israel will have to live within reach of Iran`s nuclear bomb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here are some of the dumb arguements I see.. To defend Iran is just dumb... They have vowed to wipe a race/nationality of the map.. Thats wrong by any political belief. To Say its an Israel/US thing about the Nuclear uses in Iran that would be very wrong as it is spearheaded by EU not the US. Israel attacking Iran... this is wrong also as this is a horrid way to start ww3. The US attacked Iraq because Sadaam was yelling he had WMD then said he didnt... I think giving the history of Iraq and Sadaam I wouldnt give him the chance to prove it either way.. After crying wolf for years no one belived him when the wolf showed up..

And the last thing I just find funny as hell is all the Non Americans who feel that they should decide who is the president, and how America should run... If you want to decide who runs America then go get on a plane and get a green card and vote... Nothing worse then a back seat driver...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

I think I can deny that Iran is instigating at the highest level. Who is instigating is a matter of perspective, not one of fact. I don't know of anyone who is trying to paint a peaceful picture of Iran. Who did you have in mind?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

I don't think that Iran claims that its centrifuges will be for radiological research. I think it claims that it will be for nuclear reactor fuel. How many centrifuges will be required for that?

I don't think Ahmadinejad conceives of Iran's as yet non-existent nuclear weapons as being Allah's bomb any more than Bush conceive of America's arsenal as God's bombs. What gives you that idea? Ahmadinejad may want one, but there's no "of course" to it. And if Ahmadinejad had one, he could not use it unless Israel employed first use.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At this point I think we can safely say that Sushi believes Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons and has no program for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5

Is that what Iran said, that it will wipe a race or a nationality off the map. Or did it say that Israel will vanish from the pages of history? It makes a difference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JackBerstein:

The entire world should be more concerned with Israel's current nuclear bombs

Israel has had nuclear bombs for nearly half a century now and has never used them, despite major defensive wars and multiple intifadas. They've proved to be a responsible world citizen regarding nukes. The world should be far more concerned about an untested fundamentalist Islamic nation obtaining nukes. Islamic fundamentalist Jihadists have become the new world plague and you certainly don't want them getting nukes.

skipthesong:

I used the term left/socialist because from what I read

"Left/socialists" is a perfectly good term. They hate the US and will always support its enemies. It's no more complicated than this and it never fails. I mean, they're passionately defending Iran. Hehe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Israel has had nuclear bombs for nearly half a century"

I guess there's about as much proof of that as there is of Iran's nuclear weapons program.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is that what Iran said, that it will wipe a race or a nationality off the map. Or did it say that Israel will vanish from the pages of history? It makes a difference.

When they paint "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" on the missiles they parade through Teheran, and when their leaders publicly and quite casually refer to Israel as a 'stinking corpse' I think most adults can figure that one out.No need for parsing, rearranging and playing word games.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Skelter, Israel's wars were not defensive. They have often attacked their enemies and their allies. The attack on the USS Liberty is just one example. Iran has not initiated wars with other countries for a very long time (centuries?). Iran has long proven itself to be responsible and peaceful. Israel has, from its creation until today, continually proven itself to be racist and evil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho:

" I don't think that Iran claims that its centrifuges will be for radiological research. I think it claims that it will be for nuclear reactor fuel. How many centrifuges will be required for that? "

Basically, none. With the framework of the NPT, Iran could build reactors but not enrich. If the want to enrich, it should be monitored to make sure they don´t enricht to weapons grade. Iran has violated the NPT by enriching secretly and shutting IAE inspectors out. If you have nothing to hide, you do not do that. You really should read up on the topic before opining.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

undecidedbout08,

I think that the most that can be said about the bravado on missiles and the references to putrefaction is that many adults think they have that all figured out. Translations are always important.

When Kruschev said that the Soviet Union would bury us, did he say that the it would destroy us or that it would dance on our grave? There's a difference. We preferred the more shocking translation even though that wasn't what he meant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho 2

Is that what Iran said, that it will wipe a race or a nationality off the map. Or did it say that Israel will vanish from the pages of history? It makes a difference.

Here you go

Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."

Ohh here is the link to the actual story so you cant say prove it prove it like a child..

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

Its no different then me saying I will kill you or tear your limbs from your body.... Doesnt make much diffenerce does it...either way its a hostile position no different then the Nazi stance... and even Germany denounced Iran for its belief on Israel....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "At this point I think we can safely say that Sushi believes Iran is not trying to acquire nuclear weapons and has no program for it."

Sarge, you would be remotely credible if your point was remotely close to reality.

Correct me if I am wrong here:

You think Iran's nuclear weapons program in which you yourself have clearly said "there's no solid evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program" needs to be taken out.

Is that what you are saying?

And for the other posters who are pandering to Israel - that country apparently has far more devastating arms than Iran has, along with delivery systems supplied by the US, and proven ambitions to use them.

Which is more dangerous - Iran, a country that 'might' have an 'capabilities' to create nuclear weapons, or Israel, which has far more deadly weapons that the US military has receipts for because the latter country sold said arms to Israel?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB,

The IAEA, which is supposed to inspect for the NNPT, has no problem with Iranian enrichment per se. It's current problem concerns the fact that it cannot prove or disprove the negative which it is now charged with proving, namely that Iran has no nuclear weapons intentions. I think that the IAEA has been frustrated both by its mission and by Iran's lack of complete cooperation and I think that is the most that can be said.

For its part, Iran does have a problem being completely forthcoming. The very clear fact, more clear than ever after the dismissal of Iraq's no-WMD claim, is that it cannot completely trust the US. From Iran's point of view I think I can see how it might be foolish to give the US the blueprints to all its facilities.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provides for no sanctions for former secret activity. Likewise there is nothing which indicates that technologically able nations cannot develop the complete fuel cycle. Over 100 nations agree that Iran has that right.

Your answer as to how many centrifuges are required is correct but disingenuous. It is correct to say that Iran would not need any centrifuges--if it wanted to go on the dole for nuclear fuel or pay for fuel which it was capable of developing itself. So the question still stands as to how many centrifuges it needs for the purpose of developing fuel for peaceful reactor use.

I love to educate myself. More than that, I love to be taught by folks who observe basic courtesies. Perhaps you could read up on that before further commenting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which is more dangerous - Iran, a country that 'might' have an 'capabilities' to create nuclear weapons, or Israel, which has far more deadly weapons

Iran

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

The problem with the CNN article quotation is that if I "proved" your point with it, I would be proving it like a child. I presume that when Ahmadinejad was speaking, he was not speaking in English. Was he? If not, what did he mean?

Yes, I'm aware that many people say that Ahmadinejad said that he, Ahmadinejad, will wipe Israel from the map. Please tell me that you know that he was referring to Khomeini's comment which many people say was that Israel should vanish from the pages of history. These things are different.

Nazi's have nothing to do with this and Germany today is not run by Nazi's. I agree that the Iranian position is hostile. So what? As a case in point, it seems to me that your position is a little hostile toward me. I hope that doesn't mean that you are actually going to tear my limbs from my body as in your example.

I'm a bit hostile to what I perceive to be a dogmatic insistence about Iran's intentions and a what I perceive to be a complete unwillingness to respectfully consider alternatives. It doesn't mean I'm ready to implement my final solution. Should it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By most accounts Israel enjoys military superiority" Well, let's look at that point from a different perspective. It wasn't until 67', where the Arab armies had the upper hand, but somehow, Israel was able to push them back, which to this day leaves all with a raised eyebrow. I would really consider Israel have such a military superiority unless you only want to bring in weapons. Let's not forget that from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific ocean, they have enemies that would prefer for them to be wiped off the map. Syria and Iran both have much larger and much better equipped militaries than Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter - do you have any proof Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

Or are you just following the apparent masses and forming an opinion without backing it up with actual facts?

I'm just asking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

unwillingness to respectfully consider alternatives." What would be the best ones?

It doesn't mean I'm ready to implement my final solution. Should it?" Of course it doesn't, but you can't convince me that the leaders of Iran aren't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is not known if Israel has nukes or not. However we know from intelligence that Iran is well on the way to amking them. Dick Morris recently said that if it looks like Barack Hussein Obama is going to win the election, Israel will definitly bomb Irans nuclear power plants. If we don`t want ar in the middle east we hace to vote for McCain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2 Since we know you didnt read the article like I posted I will wait for you to show me where it says "Israel should vanish from the pages of history" in reference to his speach I referenced. Anyone can type words on a forum, please as SuchiSake3 says all the time show me some proof of what your saying... Ive read his statement and listened to it both in Arabic, Enlgish, and Japanese translations. In all them I still come to the conclusion he says he is going to get rid of Israel...

As far as hostile to you Im not, never get hostile or mad, Im just trying to put the conversation in a way you can understand.. To make a threat to remove someone from history is no different then saying to wipe them off the map. You take into account Israel isnt going anywhere and the only way they could be not remembered historically or to be removed form the map is to wipe them out as a race.. You cant change the meaning there is no difference no matter how you spin it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel are our allies in the war against terror. They are one of the good guys, are they not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter - do you have any proof Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

Iran has all the tools necessary to make nuclear weapons. That's all the proof I need. No fundamentalist Islamic nation should ever be allowed the potential to build nuclear weapons. Iran's nuclear facilities need to be destroyed. I know this isn't what you want to hear since denying an enemy of the US nukes must be difficult for you.

Israel has...continually proven itself to be racist

The president of Iran Ahmadinejad invited white supremacist and former Grand Dragon David Duke to be a keynote speaker at their holocaust-denial meeting. Surely you know must know about the Islam-NeoNazi connection by now. So don't bother me about Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ChimpsAhead Israel are our allies in the war against terror? You are almost correct: "Israel are our allies in the war of state sponsored terror." And Iran can only produce 3% purity Uranium, nowhere near the 90% plus they need for a weapon, no matter if they have a million centrifuges. And besides, given its history of belligerancy, who is a greater danger in the region, Iran or Israel? Israel, of course! Unlike Israel, Iran hasn't initiated a war of aggression in recent history. Israel....count how many of its neighbors it has attacked in the recent years. And waged war against civilians with cluster munitions? And now is planning a strike with nuclear weapons? Israel: A Crime Against Humanity, A Rogue State and A State Sponsor of Terrorism!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LIBERTAS

Do you have any evidence to support your claims about 3% purity Uranium.

Have you been reading conspiracy theory websites? Israel is a country of peace, wher all religions live in peace side by side. Israel has defended itself with honor, after countless attacks by terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like the invasion of Iraq, which Sarge and many others on this board believed was justified due to the much-hyped claims Saddam had WMD??

Europe (and just about every other nation on earth) in on board with sanctions and verification demands from Iran, even tho aligning themselves with the US on any issue might cost them political capital at home with their rabid anti-US population. That should tell you how strongly they feel about the evidence they've seen.

This is what the America-obsessed do not want to discuss. They want to present the issue entirely through the United States which allows them to narrow the discussion down to Iraq. The differences are many, so if you're talking to someone who wants you to believe they are the same you should be able to recognize that they aren't being honest. At that point we should be asking what their motivation is for purposefully misrepresenting the situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually the onus on those claiming to know of a weapons program in Iran lies with those who accuse. The EXPERTS at the IAEA are qualified enough for me.Same goes for making glowing statements, which are so over general as to be laughable. Israel, a tolerant country? Where all religions live in peace? Your ignorance is only surpassed by your ignorance! Explain the IDF shooting kids en route to school just for target practice. Explain why Israel is the subject of almost 70 UNSC resolutions against it for inhumanity. Check out why the conspiracy theory people are NOT crazy! http://americanjourney.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-conspiracy-theorists-are-not-crazy.html Israel, and the USA will rue the day they ever attack Iran. It won't be like Saddam's rag-tag response. Cooler heads should definitely prevail here. And the evil doers you so fondly nominate, well look no further than the your partners in the war of terror; Israel & the US of A.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yep Iran as a nation hasnt attacked any other nation in a long time because they inventer terroism and use that as a means to attack and fund others to attack.... Dont paint Iran as the virgin mary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter - "Iran has all the tools necessary to make nuclear weapons. That's all the proof I need."

That's completely ridiculous and you know it.

Face it - you have no idea whatsoever whether or not Iran has all the tools necessary to make nuclear weapons.

"The president of Iran Ahmadinejad invited white supremacist and former Grand Dragon David Duke to be a keynote speaker at their holocaust-denial meeting."

OK, so Ahmadinejad may (or may not) hae denied the Holocaust.

Now, tell me, what does that haev to do with anything related to this issue of whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

LIBERTAS - good post. Nice to see some clear thinking rather than the usual ignorance-fuelled ranting we have come to expect from the Neocons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3

Strange how you liberals support Iran our sworn enemy and hate our ally Israel.

Iran wants to destroy Israel. It is their stated ambition to wipe Israel of the map, fact!

Iran is busily making the bomb now, andhas nearly completed the first, heck, i saw Dick Morris talk about it recently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Explain why Israel is the subject of almost 70 UNSC resolutions against it for inhumanity." Simply. After Israel started to gain an upper hand against its Arab neighbors, the Jew hating world decided that they shouldn't have that much power. After they basically brought a desert to life, which basically had nothing before, again the Jew hating world said, no, the Jews shouldn't have that. And waged war against civilians with cluster munitions?" There are two sides to that story. It wasn't long ago that the entire Muslim world was prepared to erase Israel.

There are resolutions against a lot of countries and I am sure you would find yourself disagreeing with many of them. Your point is moot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LIBERTAS - "Actually the onus on those claiming to know of a weapons program in Iran lies with those who accuse."

Precisely. Precisely. Precisely.

However, we have to put up with head-bangingly logic-free comments like this - "Iran has all the tools necessary to make nuclear weapons. That's all the proof I need," which honestly make me want to cry.

We have already have a number of well-known anti-Iran posters on this board say explicitly they have **no proof whatsoever **that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

And yet they still choose to hammer Iran, in the face of reality-based comments like this one from LIBERTAS - "Unlike Israel, Iran hasn't initiated a war of aggression in recent history. Israel....count how many of its neighbors it has attacked in the recent years. And waged war against civilians with cluster munitions? And now is planning a strike with nuclear weapons?"

This issue really needs cools heads, not baseless, fact-free propaganda that the Republicans, Neocons + others seem so intent on pursuing.

And let's not forget how Bush and co. went from saying last year that they were concerned about Iran's "nuclear weapons program," then when the Bush Administration was slapped around the head by the National Intelligence Review compiled by 15-odd US intelligence agencies saying Iran's nuclear program stopped in 2003, Bush and co. downgraded their rhetoric to saying they were concerned about Iran's "potential" to build nuclear weapons.

Pathetic.

It's probably best ot finish up saying - "Remember [the intelligence failure of] Iraq!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And yet they still choose to hammer Iran" WE are hammering Iran because many of you are hammering Israel and a few of you are going off about some Jewish Conspiracy.

It's probably best ot finish up saying - "Remember [the intelligence failure of] Iraq!" Look, we can wait until something happens, but when it does, you are still going to come back and say some far fetch Jewish Conspiracy was behind it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NoSpinZone - "Strange how you liberals support Iran our sworn enemy and hate our ally Israel."

Nice try, but if you actually read this thread, you would see I explicitly said I do not support Iran.

"Iran is busily making the bomb now, andhas nearly completed the first, heck, i saw Dick Morris talk about it recently."

On Fox News? :-)

I challenge you to put up proof to back your claim that Iran is "making a bomb."

Not heresay, proof.

Waiting.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3

Dick Cheney has also said that Iran is in the process of making a bomb.

Rush Limberg has also seen secret documents showing Iran is well on the way to building its first nuke, scary huh?

Iran is a rogue state that needs to be stopped before it eliminates the state of Israel and starts WWIII.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3,

LIBERTAS - good post. Nice to see some clear thinking rather than the usual ignorance-fuelled ranting we have come to expect from the Neocons. Sheesh, talk about humiliating yourself in public....

What a rather disappointing comment from a poster I usually find interesting even if I disagree with you. Did you actually read LIBERTAS' post? Did you have a look at the linked conspiracy page? Just because it seems as though someone can help your case, doesn't mean you should hop into bed with any old conspiracy theorist.

IDF shooting kids for target practice? Sorry, I get a little tired of hyperbole and such. One can write anything thing they'd like on a BBS, however the fact is that Iran needs to cool down the rhetoric and Israel needs to chill out.

Some here like Jack and LIBERTAS and one or two others have decided that Israel is the problem. However, I question this because Israel has been the target of aggression since the time it was granted statehood. Is Israel always right? No. However, maybe it is time for people all over the world to say that they have had enough with the fighting over Israel and to push for negotiations and talks to finally mend the rift between Israel and other middle eastern countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nospinzone has bit of a point there Sushi. Why is there any, even in the slightest, from someone who called himself left supporting a right wing government run on religion? I can see you not liking Israel but I can not see how Iran gets any of your concern. My gun hasn't killed anyone yet, but you want to take out of my hands just in case don't you???? You do make a stand against that don't you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anytime you show a reference with blog or forum or opinion in it it isnt valid as an argument.. I can find a million web sites that say both sides. What does the UN say about the situation in Iran... They are the worlds police are they not?

As far as one political belief or another how is it you say everyone other then your opinion you make statements like...

This issue really needs cools heads, not baseless, fact-free propaganda that the Republicans, Neocons + others seem so intent on pursuing.

Im not eother a dem or a republican and havent voted for Bush ever, so why is it as a true independent I belive Iran would if they think they can get away with it attack Israel, and have stated they will destroy a race... They also have declared war on the Us like 20 years ago..

here is the link to the IAEA special reports on Iran.. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

Enjoy the read everyone...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All this talk of war between Iran and Israel.. What is it about Israel that Iran feels they need to wipe it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

Thank you for the pablum. You seem to be assuming that I did not read the article that you posted because I still do not agree with you. Bad assumption.

I say it still makes a difference whether the correct translation is that "the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" or "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I admire your ability to understand Farsi, Arabic, Japanese and English, if indeed you can instead of just typing that you can on a message board as you said anyone can do. However, no matter what ultimate conclusion you have come to, there is still a difference in the two expressions.

There are plenty of place that you can read about this, but you might start here:

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

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I say it still makes a difference whether the correct translation is that "the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" or "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

The difference between using a gun to kill you or using a knife to kill you, still the same your dead in the end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How come it's all right for Israel to have nukes in contravention of the NPT, but not OK for Iran to pursue nuclear energy in compliance with the NPT?

And please don't anyone repeat the deliberately mistranslated canard about "wipe Israel off the map". Nothing of the kind was said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sezwho wrote:

When Kruschev said that the Soviet Union would bury us, did he say that the it would destroy us or that it would dance on our grave? There's a difference. We preferred the more shocking translation even though that wasn't what he meant.

A first time visitor to this thread might think you are equating Iran with imperialist, Soviet Russia.

A little less of the Fox News hyperbole there, alright bro.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How come it's all right for Israel to have nukes in contravention of the NPT, but not OK for Iran to pursue nuclear energy in compliance with the NPT?

How come it's OK for Iran to openly fund terrorist groups that kill innocent civilians, yet no one seems to do anything about that? Both sides get treated differently so let's not pretend Israel has a monopoly on that one.

Besides, once a country goes nuclear they never go back. Iran doesn't have them yet. They are the ones who can still be stopped.

Oh, and, uh, they're Iran, in case you forgot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi

you have no idea whatsoever whether or not Iran has all the tools necessary to make nuclear weapons.

Iran is testing an improved third generation of indigenously co-developed enrichment centrifuges, the IR-3 series, demonstrating its technical mastery of the technology. It has 320 tons of uranium hexafluoride gas to feed its centrifuges, enough for almost 100 bombs....the advanced centrifuges will enable the Iranians to build about twice as many nuclear weapons a year with the current infrastructure than they otherwise could have done.

The article goes on to say the IAEA is questioning why Iran is using high explosives to implode a hemispherical shell of heavy metal, developing the kinds of detonators needed in an atomic weapon, and designing a ballistic missile warhead so that it can contain a nuclear weapon.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/07/opinion/edzimmer.php

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The real reason folks need to chill on Iran is because the media's Chosen One has already descanted on the issue;it is therefore solved, and the Little People need not worry:

"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. "

Barack Obama

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

No, that is not the difference. The difference is between dying from a gunshot because someone was out to get you and dying from AIDS because of past indiscretions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

undecidedbout08,

A first time visitor to this thread might think any manner of things.

An intelligent first time visitor who had bothered to read would know that I am comparing misunderstanding of Ahmadinejad to misunderstanding of Kruschev.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

Your answer to the question as to why it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons outside the treaty but not OK for Iran to have nuclear technology under it leaves a question answered with a question.

If you are saying that the answer is because Iran openly funds terrorist groups, that would at least be an answer--even if not entirely correct. Iran openly funds groups that many people call terrorist groups. But, for example, Hezbollah is not so much a terrorist group as it is a group which does things which make life perilous for Israelis and which has made it onto the US terrorist group list. Al Qaida in Iraq would be much more like a true terrorist group.

Furthermore, it is not true that no one is doing anything about that. Many western nations are sanctioning Iran and they are doing so because they, like you, have wedded the issue of nuclear technology to the issue of political acceptability. Apart from that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but other sanctions were in place simply on account, as you say, of Iran being Iran. This still begs the question, however, as to why it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not for Iran to have nuclear technology.

It's true that once a country has nuclear technology there is no going back. But that conceals that once humanity has nuclear technology there is no going back. In attempting to deny nuclear technology to Iran we are standing in the middle of a Pamplona street and raising a warning hand against the charging bulls. I think it would be far better to get out of the street and make sure the bulls have a safe place to which to run--and that wouldn't be the bull ring.

Nuclear technology may never become an absolutely safe technology for human beings. However, it will always remain politically dangerous as long as there are nuclear haves and nuclear have-nots. That might even make it more dangerous. We need a truly international protocol for nuclear power, a protocol that does not depend on an OK from the self-inflated great powers. As for Iran developing the full cycle of nuclear technology, more nations agree that it has this right than not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2

more nations agree that it has this right than not.

It's not the number of nations that matters, it's which nations. Let's not forget the left's beloved EU is against Iran's uranium enrichment capability. Even still, few nations are going to morn the destruction of Iran's nuclear program. In fact, many nations will be downright relieved. But you can be certain the Muslim-Socialist-NeoNazi alliance is going to grieve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

Thank you for the page which tells us that IRNA also took the president's statement to mean 'wipe off the face of the earth'. If the official Iranian news agency thought that is what the president meant, there is a fairly good chance that is what most Iranians thought he meant, as well. It is their language after all.

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

Now, in the above quote, it claims that the other news agencies did not check the source. Rather strange claim considering the source was a part of the Iranian government. The Iranian government's propaganda wing thought that is what the president said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looking at this thread, I feel the people for Iran having nukes, not for energy, in the sense of weapons outweighs us who would prefer Iran not to have a nuke. Yes, most of the post went into about Iran having nuke weapons and most of the conversations lean to them having it for combat use.

The posters who are so quick to call the US, and GWB included, a nation of right wingers seem to be the ones who feel it is only fair for Iran to have them because the US and Israel have them..

I never really thought I would see anyone on the left advocating nuke weapons much for the benefit of one of the most right wing nations in the world today.. So, eventually, they are going to get what they want, and realistically, who the hell is the UN to tell a country they can't? I just really hope once they do have them, you can sleep at night knowing an ultra right wing nation has nuke weapons and much of the reason was your support for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US having nuclear weapons is not a good reason for Iran to seek them. No country should have nukes. Two wrongs don't make a right. However, I can see why Iran wants them i just think it would be better for everyone if Iran didn't. Surely the Iranians know that even if they develop nukes, the US will still have many times the firepower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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

As I have said before blogs forums and wikipedia (which is a blog) are not useful information to prove a point.. I gave you the link to the Uns atomic and nuclear power web site and to CNN report that was originaly from the Iran goverments news agency. What else can soemone give you?? want me to drag the original speaker to you so you can hear it form him??

No, that is not the difference. The difference is between dying from a gunshot because someone was out to get you and dying from AIDS because of past indiscretions.

Wow you go very far to get that translation..

If you are saying that the answer is because Iran openly funds terrorist groups, that would at least be an answer--even if not entirely correct. Iran openly funds groups that many people call terrorist groups. But, for example, Hezbollah is not so much a terrorist group as it is a group which does things which make life perilous for Israelis and which has made it onto the US terrorist group list. Al Qaida in Iraq would be much more like a true terrorist group.

any group who uses human bombs to kill innocents is a terroist, they are not targeting any military they are after innocents, we are not talking a bomb that missed or a shell that overflew, we are talking about going into a shopping center and blowing up a bomb. what do they call that in your world__?

This still begs the question, however, as to why it's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not for Iran to have nuclear technology.

No one is taking away the ability for Iran to have nuclear power thats just an out right lie. All the countries of the world including Russia have signed an agreement twice now to help build and to supply the material for nuclear power in Iran.

Wow is all I can say seems if your a Republican or a Democrate you cant base anything on fact it has to be a party line... Glad Im neither!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong

I never really thought I would see anyone on the left advocating nuke weapons much for the benefit of one of the most right wing nations in the world today..

So naive. The left will support any enemy of the US. The politics of the regime are irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Skelter,

Who says it's not the number of nations, it's which nations? I think that would be "which nations" speaking. I get it that you think we are superior. I don't think you get it that we will not always be so and that what we do now matters as to what kind of world we live in when we are not. Military solutions and stridency just produce more of the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

You're welcome for the page reference. You are assuming that official translation agencies translate correctly. You are also assuming that the official translation agency understood the same thing by "wiped off the map" as you understand by "wiped off the map". The average Iranians will be listening to this in Farsi, so they probably will not care what the translation agency did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong,

Who do you think is advocating nuclear weapons for Iran?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

Yes, why don't you drag the original speaker here, if you don't mind. That would greatly help to clear things up.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using blogs, forums and wikipedia to prove a point. Just as there is nothing wrong with using magazine articles to prove a point. The key is whether or not the sources point to original sources and were well documented. My source was documented rather better than the CNN article you gave me.

As for giving me the IAEA source, you did not. That was something you gave to everyone and I did not find it until just now. I looked at it and it was a page of links, which is rather like trying to prove a point by referring someone to the Congressional Record without citing volume and page. However, I have no doubt that the IAEA has been critical of Iran. I have even said so. If you have a further point to make about that, please try to be specific.

I personally think we could stay more focused if you don't try to drag other conversations into this, but it was sailwind who said that the difference between "wiped off the map" and "vanish from the pages of time" was tantamount to the difference between being killed by a gun or a knife. I said that was not so and I gave an example of a death by someone else's hand and a death as a consequence of one's own actions. I think this is the difference between the two expressions. You say, "Wow!"

In your next point, you take up the cause of yet another poster instead of addressing the points you and I had been discussing. You say that any group that uses human bombs is a terrorist group. I say that any group that does that is a group that employs terrorist tactics. As many people in Lebanon will tell you, Hezbollah is much more than a terrorist group. Meanwhile you exculpate collateral damage. That's convenient.

We have been talking on this thread of whether Iran has the right to the full cycle of nuclear technology. That is what I have been talking about when I mention that over 100 nations have agreed that Iran has the right to develop this. It is well-known that Russia, for example, has offered to provide Iran fuel for reactors. So when some fairly knowledgeable person asks why it would not be OK for Iran to have nuclear technology it must mean something other than nuclear reactors. (You see how people can have problems with translations!) The fact is that "nuclear technology" is just a lot easier to type than "the right to develop the full cycle of nuclear technology".

I don't care if you are a Republican, Democrat or whatever. I would simply prefer that you be civil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

You're welcome for the page reference. You are assuming that official translation agencies translate correctly.

Yes, generally they do actually. I read IRNA quite often and their translations are quite accurate and quite detailed. In addition, could you point me in the direction of a statement by the president (himself, not others) in which he clarifies what he meant and suggests that the IRNA's translation is not what he meant?

You are also assuming that the official translation agency understood the same thing by "wiped off the map" as you understand by "wiped off the map".

Yes, because the translators would be fluent in English. As I wrote above, the agency's translations are completely natural. Have a read sometime.

The average Iranians will be listening to this in Farsi, so they probably will not care what the translation agency did.

However, they will be listening to the same Farsi that the official translators who are fluent in Farsi and English would have listened to. I have done quite a bit of reading on this and the general concensus amongst Farsi speakers is that the meaning is in line with "wipe off the map". Of course, I have not spoken to every Farsi speaker in the world. However, when the majority seem to think it means "wipe off the map" in English, I would tend to think that is the intended meaning. In addition President Ahmadinejad has not made any attempt to assure people of what he meant. This is already quite some time ago. One would think if he thought he was misunderstood he himself would seek to correct the misunderstanding. Failing that, one is only left with the conclusion that he is satisfied with the translation as it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's let Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dig his own hole, shall we? Here we can see him babble on instead of giving a direct answer when interviewed about the statementin Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview in September 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201306.html

"Q: Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

"A: We need to look at the scene in the Middle East – 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza – what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.

"Q: Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?

"A: Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.

"Q: You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?

"A: What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago...

"Q: So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?

"A: Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people."

So, the man himself does not deny the statement clearly then or now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho

I get it that you think we are superior.

France, China, Russia, US, and Britain are all permanent members of the UN security council and have put through resolutions demanding Iran suspend its enriching uranium. That must seem so unfair to you that these countries are considered superior, especially by your beloved UN. But don't fret. Burkino Faso is currently an elected member of the security council so that should make you feel better. :-D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

Taking last things first, you seem to mock Ahmadinejad for not giving a direct yes/no answer to a somewhat hostile questioner who misquotes the disputed comment and asks the question, "Do you believe Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?" Setting aside the fact that not even American politicians are in the habit of delivering up direct answers on demand, Ahmadinejad's failure to satisfy you with a yes/no answer is not evidence that his answer is secretly "yes".

I can't point you, at present, to any denials by Ahmadinejad that he didn't mean he intended to destroy Israel by overt action. However, I'm sure you are aware that Khamenei has said, on Iran's behalf and for clarity about Ahmadinejad's remarks, that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country." Or if you would like another analysis of what Ahmadinejad said, taken against a somewhat wider context of his speech, you can look here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

or here:

http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

As far as your contentions about translators and translations are concerned, I think they are as frightening as they are wrong. To say that something has been translated correctly because the translators are fluent English speakers is, if you will pardon me, nonsense. Fluent English speakers often do not understand what other fluent English speakers are saying. And to say that Iranians listening in Farsi will understand the same thing as the supposedly infallible translators understood is also, again excuse me, nonsense. People can listen to either of our presidential candidates and understand very different things.

Pick up two independent translations of The Iliad, or The Brother's Karamazov or even The Bible. Are the words the same? Meaning shapes words and words shape meaning. Furthermore, some people have a will to understand and some people actually have a will to misunderstand. I think the prominent figure of The New Testament mentioned something like that when he was asked why he spoke in parables.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Skelter,

Yes, the countries you have named are all members of the Security Council and have put forward sanctions. Obviously, these nations matter. However, to say that these are the only nations that matter would be untrue. And it would also be untrue to say that these nations are in accord about Iran.

What is this "your beloved UN" stuff? Are you so bereft of argument that you must resort to falsifying the person you are talking to? The UN has severe problems and the Security Council veto is one, as is the relative powerlessness of the General Assembly. Why would that institution be my beloved. Rather more it would be yours, since you are touting its authority.

I am talking about the official position of over 100 members of the non-aligned nations. Should we nominate you to make the circuit and explain to them that their opinions do not matter? They matter. They just do not hold sway.

And as for those who do hold sway, it is one thing to call for sanctions. It is another thing to continue to call for sanctions. Will China and Russia authorize military action? Will France? The great powers have voted for sanctions but they are not in accord.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

kinniku,

Taking last things first, you seem to mock Ahmadinejad for not giving a direct yes/no answer to a somewhat hostile questioner who misquotes the disputed comment and asks the question, "Do you believe Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?" Setting aside the fact that not even American politicians are in the habit of delivering up direct answers on demand, Ahmadinejad's failure to satisfy you with a yes/no answer is not evidence that his answer is secretly "yes".

Are you joking? Ahmadinejad is asked if clearly if he is really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth? When the interviewer doesn't get a clear response, Ahmadinejad is asked if it is his suggestion to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? When the interviewer does not get a clear response, Ahmadinejad is told that he has been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. He is then asked if it is his belief? When the interviewer again does not get a clear response, Ahmadinejad is clearly whether his answer is yes, whether he does believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth? To which Ahmadinejad purposely leaves the question unanswered. Why? It is more profitable for him to not answer the question clearly. That way others (like you) can claim that he is misunderstood, and yet his followers can take the meaning he truely intended, which is the one IRNA took.

I can't point you, at present, to any denials by Ahmadinejad that he didn't mean he intended to destroy Israel by overt action.

Close to three years after the fact, that says it all. Ahmadinejad has had many opportunities to clear the air if he so desired. One can only come to the reasonable conclusion that he has nothing to clarify and that he stands by the original IRNA translation.

As for your response to my comments on translations. It seems you don't actually read IRNA, so you comments don't really count for much. As I wrote, IRNA's translations are very well done and detailed. We are not talking about a low budget Japanese magazine. In addition, could you point me in the direction of the original quote by IRNA of Ayatollah Khomenei saying something different than wipe off the map? They are his words originally.

Ahmadinejad wants people to think he wants the state of Israel to disappear, when asked otherwise, he does not respond. That is a much clearer answer than your long post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

I have read Arash Norouzi. If you would notice, he is less than conclusive about what Ahmadinejad really meant to say and uses the interview I posted to point that out.

, some people have a will to understand and some people actually have a will to misunderstand.

Yes, and some like Ahmadinejad have a will to be "misunderstood" and to do anything they can to keep it that way. As I wrote, you cannot provide anything that shows Ahmadinejad and only him clarifying his statement. Thank you for playing though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, I guess the Iranians writing these banners didn't understand Farsi correctly either, huh?

Virulent anti-Israel sentiment remains strong in the hard-line circles from which Ahmadinejad emerged to win the presidential election in June. "Israel Should Be Wiped Off the Map" was the slogan draped on a Shahab-3 ballistic missile during a military parade in Tehran a month ago. Six of the missiles, which, with a 1,250 mile range, could reach Israel, were the high point of the parade. "We Will Trample America Under Our Feet," read another banner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku's link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201306_2.html

In the original speech, no mention of "map" was ever made (thus the other translation using "history" instead). So when the bloke accuses Ahmadinejad of saying it, I dont think he knows what he is talking about. He never said "map". Further, it was not Ahmadinjad's quote, was it? It was Khomeni's. So it is further confused by the bloke saying Ahmadinejad is quoted. Further, it is an English idiom. The connotations are lost on most people of the world. They only see its literal meaning "country erased from paper map" and no assumptions of violence or threats can be seen by any but a native English speaker or someone very knowledgeable about English.

In short, they are talking past eachother (Consider Ahmadinejad asking if its a test!). Ahmadinejad does not deny wanting Israel gone, the literal meaning of wipe off the map. We can all agree that Ahmadinejad would love that outcome (enemies do that). But, kinniku, you said that Ahmadinejad did not clarify the statement. Its more like he does not know what the heck the big deal is, and does not confront the issue as you and the reporter want. He does clarify actually, in the sense of the literal meaning of "wipe off the map". He wants Palestine to be recognized. That means all or part of Israel must be erased from the map and replaced by Palestine. Between you me, I think he prefer it be all. So what?

At the very least, I think we can agree to disagree gents. This tiny point is a mess of uncertainty. And one uncertain threat is not enough for red alert. Find more, or drop it. The ME is a hotbed of hostility and aggresive statements. If you cant find more clear ones, then the unclear ones are not worth all this discussion.

What we can agree on is that Ahmadinejad has no love for Israel. Yes?

Now, lets get real. Let us suppose that Iran makes a bomb. They will have to test it. Can they do that in secret? No they cant. If they do a successful test, how many bombs can they make just after, or have in possession that seem viable given the test? Not many. How to deploy those bombs (nukes are heavy)? They are not going to Israel except by airplane, and they will be intercepted. Anyway, after the test, Iran is going to have some huge problems. They will either cave in to demands like North Korea did, or they will get "wiped from the map" in its English meaning. Convential war with Iran is an option even if it was not in North Korea's case. And a couple nukes in Iran's possession is not going to stop that. Those nukes will be located and destroyed before they get used.

And what good is it to nuke Israel anyway? The Palestinians that Iran supports will not be happy about that.

If Iran wants nukes its for the same reason everybody else does: leverage and security. And having the U.S. military running around right next door, we cant blame them for wanting leverage and security. I think we agree that the Iranian government is radical, however, and having them armed with nukes would be risky. But enough is being done without an Israeli first strike. The Iranians are watched closely enough and cant deliver anyway. An Israeli first strike would be clear over-reaction and could trigger war.

But I also mistrust the Israeli side. They are paranoid and dangerous. And also clever. With the U.S. military sitting pretty between Israel and Iran, now might seem like a pristine opportunity for them. And while Iran may have a spotty record, it is still not comparable to Israeli's history of military action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho:

to say that these are the only nations that matter would be untrue.

Who said that? But I'm glad you recognize that certain nations matter more than others. That's very difficult for many on the left to do. I'm also glad to hear about your dissatisfaction with the UN. I believe it to be a useless institution and should be replaced with a different paradigm.

But regarding Iran, does the fact that Ahmadinejad personally invited neo-Nazi David Duke to be a keynote speaker at a holocaust-denial conference concern you, even slightly? When you're defending Iran and Ahmadinejad and their nuclear program, is that an issue for you or do you simply consider it irrelevant? If Bush were to do the same, would you be equally indifferent as you appear to be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seansezso,

So when the bloke accuses Ahmadinejad of saying it, I dont think he knows what he is talking about.

He made the speech in October of 2005. You mean to tell me you think he still doesn't know what everyone is talking about, including those in his own country? I may disagree with Ahmadinejad, but I do not think he is unintelligent or uninformed to the extent you seem to think.

and no assumptions of violence or threats can be seen by any but a native English speaker or someone very knowledgeable about English.

The fact that similar slogans were put on banners decorating missiles shortly after Ahmadinejad's speech, as shown in my link above dated October 2005, tells me that they certainly can be seen as violent threats.

Ahmadinejad does not deny wanting Israel gone, the literal meaning of wipe off the map.

Thank you. This is my point.

Now as to the rest of your post. There is quite a bit I agree with. However, when you have the president of Iran still sowing the seeds of hate, it makes any dreams of peace between Israel and Palestine all the more difficult. I for one don't think Iran will attack Israel. However, I would not be willing to bet they would not sell technology to others such as Hezbollah to do the dirty work for them. War by proxy is certainl nothing new in the middle east as I am sure you would agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Bush were to do the same, would you be equally indifferent as you appear to be?

What happened to?:

But I'm glad you recognize that certain nations matter more than others.

Not many here would consider either leader to be their first choice, but certainly they are more concerned about Mr. Bush. Naturally even. For Ahmadinejad to court an anti-semitic is par for his course. He does not like Jews. As far as that being proof that he will rain nukes on Israel give the first opportunity, its a drop in the bucket, maybe two.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel must be able to look after its security, in the way it thinks best.

Iran is a rogue state, and may have to be attcked if it is a threat to democracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

No, I'm not joking. It doesn't matter how many times Ahmadinejad is asked if he means something he did not say. If you will read his answers to the interviewers questions, he is actually quite clear in his response. He says nothing about attacking Israel but he does say the "root problem" must be addressed.

Despite the many opportunities you credit him with to clear the air, there is no reason why he should. The head of state is really Khamenei and Khamanei has made it quite clear that Iran has not and will not threaten any nation. Ahmadinejad's comments must be understood in Khamanei's context. And Ahmadinejad's silence implies nothing. My "long post", which was half as short as your 3 in response was certainly clear enough to get your blood up.

I do so love it when someone says "you don't do X so what you say doesn't matter". No matter how professionally done IRNA may be, your attestation of its accuracy says nothing about the accuracy of this translation. You have not answered any of my points about the fallibility of translation but merely assert the infallibility IRNA. My "long post", which was half as short as your 3 in response was certainly clear enough to get your blood up.

It means nothing that Norouzi does not express a conclusive opinion. There is no shortage of people who are willing to express a conclusive opinion. There is, however, a shortage of people who are willing to live with ambiguity. I can accept that you are one. Certainly, your opinion that Ahmadinejad's comment can mean nothing other than what you say it means, indicates your unwillingness to even entertain other possibilities here.

As for the recent slogan's on missiles, were they in English? If they were in Farsi, did it really say that Israel should be wiped off the map? I have been led to understand that Ahmadinejad's quote did not mention the word "map". Furthermore, were these slogans of intent to attack? of general hostility? or warning? Kind of like "Death to America--if it keeps interfering with us."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Skelter,

To the best of my knowldege, no one said exactly that. And to the best of my knowledge, no one said that anyone said exactly that. Such is the function of the word "would".

However, I believe that you are on record as expressing the sentiment that the number of nations which believe that Iran does and should have the right to develop the full nuclear cycle does not matter. What matters, you suggest, is which nations do not believe Iran does or should have this right. I think that raises the question as to whether the large number of nations which accept Iran's right actually do matter, jointly and severally.

No doubt about it. Some animals are more equal than others.

As for David Duke, you have asked this before and I have answered it. So, the short answer is, "No, it doesn't concern me." I would be more disturbed to learn that David Duke has not been invited to speak in Israel, if that is the case. Next question, please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I'm not joking. It doesn't matter how many times Ahmadinejad is asked if he means something he did not say. If you will read his answers to the interviewers questions, he is actually quite clear in his response. He says nothing about attacking Israel but he does say the "root problem" must be addressed.

You must be joking if you think that not answering the interviewers question makes him clear in his response. All he had to say was, "No, I did not mean that." He did not say that.

Despite the many opportunities you credit him with to clear the air, there is no reason why he should.

Yes, there is if there are still people like me who think he said it. That is unless he doesn't want to clear the air. That certainly is the only impression he leaves after almost three years of letting things stay as they are.

Ahmadinejad's comments must be understood in Khamanei's context.

No, since he was quoting Ayatollah Khomenei, Ahmadinejad's comments must be understood in that context.

My "long post", which was half as short as your 3 in response was certainly clear enough to get your blood up.

Relax. My blood is just where it should be ;-) This is just a discussion on the internet after all.

You have not answered any of my points about the fallibility of translation but merely assert the infallibility IRNA.

With good reason. We are not talking about translation in general. We are talking about IRNA. I noticed you still haven't given any reason why IRNA's translations should be considered faulty. Again, have you ever even read IRNA?

It means nothing that Norouzi does not express a conclusive opinion.

Erm...you brought him up not me. I merely showed you why bringing him up favors my argument. Thanks for that, by the way!

As for the recent slogan's on missiles, were they in English? If they were in Farsi, did it really say that Israel should be wiped off the map?

You really should read what you are commenting on before you post. Where did I write that this is recent? It happened in October 2005. Yes, I am sure the Iranian military was writing "We love you Zionists!" "Big kisses to you!" on the missiles. They were just friendly greetings, right?

Ahmadinejad wants to leave the impression he is leaving and you seem to approve of leaving it as is. I think it is counterproductive to achieving peace in the middle east.

Kind of like "Death to America--if it keeps interfering with us."

Kindly show me one banner with this exact message on it. Thanks!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Israel must be uprooted and erased from history" - inscribed on a Shahab 3 ballistic missile September 2003

Hey, maybe you are right. That sure does sound like a friendly message!

http://static.flickr.com/6/75326669_4b5a107e76.jpg

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Israel can "mull" all it wants; it simply does not have the capability to take out the Iranian nuke installations. The US would have, but the Bush government is a lame duck, and Obama (aka Jimmy Carter II) is too ignorant to even see the implications of a nuclear armed mullah regime in Teheran. So, this is beginning of the end for Israel, the "filthy bacteria, which will be wiped out" as Ahmedinejad so lovingly called the Jewish state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

Ahmadinejad's response did not answer the interviewer's question. That is the most that can be truthfully said. However, a clear response does not demand an answer to the question--as every American politician knows.

I think you've got it right when you suggest that Ahmadinejad doesn't really care what you think about his statement. He's content to let you be overexcited about his words. Again, he doesn't need to clear the air. Khamenei has done that for him.

Yes, we are talking about IRNA and I'm not a reader of it. So what? If I were a reader, not being fluent in Farsi, I would not be able to judge the accuracy of its translations. I have offered you (1) arguments as to why all translations should be called into question and (2) the opinion of one Farsi speaker who does call the translation into question. Your only offer has been your opinion that IRNA renders accurate translations.

Norouzi's comments hardly favor your argument, by the way. Your argument is that Ahmadinejad's meaning is clear and that if he meant something different he has not disabused people who misunderstood him. Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to attempt to wipe Israel from the map.

Your argument about the word "recent" is a bit picky. Furthermore, it's a bit diversionary. I grant that if I had read your source more carefully the first time, I would have chosen a different word. However, I would not have chosen a different counterargument and that counterargument remains unrefuted. Hostile signs on missiles in parades do not signal intent to unleash those missiles in attack--and that is if our understanding of the sentiment behind the signs is correct.

I can't show you any banners that say "Death to America--if it keeps interfering with us". What I can show you is almost 3 years of time when none of those missiles have come down on either Israel or the US. I can also show you a country--Iran--which is not going to start a war with either the Israel or the US.

Regarding your second post, of course the banners are not friendly. Why should they be? Not only does every predominantly Islamic country in the Middle East have cause to be resentful of--if not openly hostile to--Israel, but the decades long demonization of Iran has not been helpful. There have been many things that are not conducive to peace in the Middle East and that is certainly one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

Ahmadinejad's response did not answer the interviewer's question. That is the most that can be truthfully said.

Yes, this is my point.

However, a clear response does not demand an answer to the question--as every American politician knows.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean here. "A clear response does not demand an answer to the question"? What does this even mean? Lastly, what do US politicians have to do with this? Ahmadinejad is Iranian.

I think you've got it right when you suggest that Ahmadinejad doesn't really care what you think about his statement. He's content to let you be overexcited about his words.

Yes, that is the problem. Ahmadinejad is not looking for peaceful solutions and his responses reflect that.

Again, he doesn't need to clear the air.

Yes, he does because after close to three years we are still having this conversation in the world and even more so they are having this conversation on the streets of the Middle East. If he were sincere in wanting the air to be cleaned, he would have cleaned it. He isn't and he hasn't.

Khamenei has done that for him.

No, he hasn't if the conversation is still taking place. Khamenei is aware of the friction caused by Ahmadinejad's words and he could easily have Ahmadinejad clear the air. He hasn't does this. It is Ahmadinejad's words that linger in the streets of the Middle East not Khamenei's.

Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to attempt to wipe Israel from the map.

No, in the end, Norouzi comes to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive. No one has specifically been able to say what Ahmadinejad meant to say. Remember, this is not like we are guessing what Moses, Mohamed, Jesus or Buddha meant to say. We are talking about a living human being who could at any time clarify his statements.

Hostile signs on missiles in parades do not signal intent to unleash those missiles in attack--and that is if our understanding of the sentiment behind the signs is correct.

My point is that the same words that Ahmadinejad spoke were written on missiles. You have not proved that the words on those missiles are not hostile. By the way, most people look at hostile words to mean that there is the potential for hostility. I see you take the meaning to be something else.

Your argument about the word "recent" is a bit picky.

Not really. You admitted you really did not look at the article. So it seems I was correct in saying so. It is probably better to read more carefully before commenting.

I can't show you any banners that say "Death to America--if it keeps interfering with us".

Then you probably should not suggest that it is possible that the banners would have said such a thing. Making up banner slogans does not help your argument.

Regarding your second post, of course the banners are not friendly. Why should they be?

The banners reflected the words in Ahmadinejad's speech and those of Khomenei before him. They are words of hate and words of hostility. To then say, "Hey, he just means he wishes Israel would peacefully disappear someday" is to misrepresent the atmosphere in Iran.

Yes, we are talking about IRNA and I'm not a reader of it. So what?

You and one Farsi speaker are claiming IRNA's translations are faulty. As I asked you, please show me the original translation of the original quote by Khomenei. Also, show me some sort of history of bad translation on the part of IRNA.

While we are on the subject, why is it that Aljazeera also had a reporter at Ahmadinejad's speech and also took the same meaning from the speech as IRNA did? Why did other Middle East news agencies also take that same meaning? Could it be that it is because that is the meaning that can be taken from Ahmadinejad said. Certainly Ahmadinejad himself has given us no reason to think otherwise.

but the decades long demonization of Iran has not been helpful.

Yes, well, they probably should not have taken over the US Embassy for over 400 days. That will get you demonized right quick. Ahmadinejad should probably not speak so much either.

Let me end by saying, Ahmadinejad could shut up me and people with opinions like mine by just saying that he didn't mean to say what people have quoted him as saying. However, as you have correctly admitted, he doesn't want to do that and it seems you don't want him to either. So the demonization will probably continue for quite some time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's enjoy some more healthy, wholesome thoughts from Ahmadinejad, shall we?

Gee, I wonder if there will now be claims that the Iranian Mehr News Agency doesn't understand Farsi, too.

Anyway, on with the fun: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkqvlPndHPxXMqNzQLCQAPNyxbdQ

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said.

"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

"I

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

Mate, they have been spouting tripe like that for decades! Its all bluster!

Please remember Saddam and his empty bluster. He talked talked talked, but he wasnt holding any cards, remember? The Iranians also do not have the cards to do what Ahmadinejad is blabbling about. Its just a circus for the people of Iran, who I suspect are barely listening anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

That was your point? That Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question? I don't think so. I think your point was that he didn't answer the question so he is threatening Israel. If that was not, then we are left with him simply not answering the question, about which nothing more can be said.

A clear response can be given without satisfying the interviewer's question. If you ask me if I have stopped beating my wife yet and I respond that I like strawberries better than tomatoes, my response is clear. It just doesn't dignify your question. I know Ahmadinejad is an Iranian, but if you haven't listened to American politicians and seen how deftly they dodge questions, you've missed a lot of the fun. So American politicians would be an example.

I think if anyone is definitely not looking for peaceful solutions here, it is you. You seem to be rather exercised by what you imagine Ahmadinejad to have meant. When you speak I hear, "Take it back or else."

In your opinion Ahmadinejad needs to clear the air. In my opinion he does not. Khamenei really did clarify Iran's intent. He didn't need to take Ahmadinejad to the woodshed and make him do anything. Ahmadinejad's comments linger more in your mind than in the streets of the Middle East.

I say that Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map. You say, no, that Norouzi comes to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive. I think you are engaging in double speak there. If Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive they do not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map.

Of course I have not proven that the words on the missiles were not hostile. I even said they were hostile. It is inexact to say that hostile words indicate a potential for hostility. Hostile words indicate the presence of hostility. It's just that the presence of hostility does not indicate that military action is forthcoming--as for example the long hostility between the Soviets and the US.

You entirely miss the point about the banner slogans. I'm not making them up. I'm supplying a context that is different than the context which you want to insist is present. Your context is "Death to America--and we're coming for you." That is the context you are making up.

I'm sure that Iran wishes Israel would disappear now. I'm sure a lot of people wish that, in the Middle East, in the West, in Asia, everywhere. A good number of Iranians are hostile but that does not mean they will attack without a reason. Israel attacking Iran would be a reason.

I have claimed that all translations have inherent faults and I have set forth arguments to that effect. I have also produced one Farsi speaker who indicated the translation was faulty. You have not refuted either of these points but now you want me to fetch you an accurate translation of Khomenei's original remark. Again you miss the point. You have claimed that IRNA translates with accuracy. That is your burden of proof.

Why did al-Jazeera and other Middle Eastern news agencies have the same take? I don't know, do you? Could it be that they were using the same source that you were?

Ah! There we go. The US Embassy. That's the sticking point isn't it. We just can't get past that, can we. It's time for America and Americans to grow up.

I don't care if Ahmadinejad satisfies you or not. Personally, I doubt that there is anything he could do that would satisfy you, whether he says he's very sorry to have caused so much trouble, he really didn't mean to frighten anyone and of course Iran has no plans to attack--or not. In my opinion, people who are overly excited about this have the responsibility to calm down.

Thank you for the new link. I may or may not chase it down and look at it. However, the quotation that you excerpt from it indicates nothing except a belief that Israel will be destroyed. And that is very likely to be the case--for Israel as we now know it--unless it gets a 2-state solution pretty soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

That was your point? That Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question?

Yes. That is one of my points. One to which you agreed.

I think your point was that he didn't answer the question so he is threatening Israel.

Yes, that is my point. I also think he wants others to think he is threatening Israel.

If that was not, then we are left with him simply not answering the question, about which nothing more can be said.

Actually, we can add that he likes people thinking about his statements the way they do. That says a lot about the man.

A clear response can be given without satisfying the interviewer's question. If you ask me if I have stopped beating my wife yet and I respond that I like strawberries better than tomatoes, my response is clear.

Sorry. Your response is not clear at all, except for the fact that we know you like strawberries better than tomatoes. Other than that we know nothing about whether you have stopped beating your wife yet. Just like we have no idea what Ahmadinejad meant in 2005 or in June 2008 when he made the statements in my post above.

It just doesn't dignify your question.

If others in his country, including Khamenei can manage to 'dignify' the question, I find it strange that only the very man who made the statements in question can manage to dignify the question and then goes on to make strangely similar statements this past June.

I know Ahmadinejad is an Iranian, but if you haven't listened to American politicians and seen how deftly they dodge questions, you've missed a lot of the fun. So American politicians would be an example.

What exactly would be the purpose of 'dodging' the question? To get more people to distrust Iran. If that is Ahmadinejad's purpose, he certainly is succeeding admirably. In addition, I disagree with your comment about US politicians. I believe it was McCain that made that idiotic song about Iran. When questioned about it, he said he was a joke. In cases such as this, I know of very few politicians in Japan or most countries that would let things go on this long without clarifying themselves.

I think if anyone is definitely not looking for peaceful solutions here, it is you. You seem to be rather exercised by what you imagine Ahmadinejad to have meant.

Again, this has nothing to do with me. There are many people around the world, including his supporters, who would like to hear him explain exactly what he meant to say and what he meant this past June. That does not seem that unreasonable, especially considering that people like you claim he must be misunderstood. If you will check, I also defend Iran on occasion as well. So, if you are thinking I have some sort of dislike for the country, you could not be further from the truth. I do not like Ahmadinejad and what he seems to stand for. I do not think he is good for Iran or its people.

When you speak I hear, "Take it back or else."

Well, you are hearing wrong. For me personally, there is no 'else'. I personally could not care less. However, what you should be hearing me say is, "Explain yourself or expect to continue to be 'misunderstood'.

In your opinion Ahmadinejad needs to clear the air. In my opinion he does not.

Well, we disagree. Your way keeps the world talking about Ahmadinejad though. Maybe that's the way he likes it too. After all, what kind of 'hero' to the cause of 'Islam' would he be if he explained himself rationally, right? Personally, I think he'd be a better 'hero'. Maybe that's just me.

Khamenei really did clarify Iran's intent.

Yes, he did. However he did not clarify Ahmadinejad's intent. Only the man himself can do that and he hasn't.

He didn't need to take Ahmadinejad to the woodshed and make him do anything.

He has taken Ahmadinejad to the woodshed over other things and has made him do other things. Why should this be different?

Ahmadinejad's comments linger more in your mind than in the streets of the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's remarks echo throughout the Middle East. They seem to have made him a bit of a hero to some in the Middle East. Do a bit of reading about the influence of his words before you pass judgement on my opinion. They certainly do linger there more than in my mind as the only time I think about it is when we are discussing it.

I say that Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map. You say, no, that Norouzi comes to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive. I think you are engaging in double speak there. If Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive they do not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map.

I did not say I know what Ahmadinejad meant to say. I have no idea. As I have been trying to explain, I would like him to tell me what he meant specifically and clearly. Again, this is not unreasonable. Norouzi specifically states that Ahmadinejad confuses the issue with the way that he responds to interviewers such as the Washington Post journalist's questions. Norouzi thinks that Ahmadinejad's comments do not indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map. However, clearly he is not sure. No one except Ahmadinejad is sure what he meant. However, the fact that he continues to repeat the comments even this year and that fact that these comments were used on banners on missiles shortly after he spoke them indicate a potential that they are meant to be violent words. All he need do is assure the word that they aren't. Again, it is only reasonable if that is his intent.

Of course I have not proven that the words on the missiles were not hostile. I even said they were hostile. It is inexact to say that hostile words indicate a potential for hostility. Hostile words indicate the presence of hostility.

Speaking of 'doublespeak'.

It's just that the presence of hostility does not indicate that military action is forthcoming--as for example the long hostility between the Soviets and the US.

I remember reading about a near-miss (why don't people say 'near-hit?) called the Cuban Missile Crisis. So there is always the possibility of military action. To poke away at an enemy makes that more of a possibility. To cheer that on tells me somewhat where you stand on peace yourself. In addition, the influence of this hostility on groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are potent as well. Maybe if they were being cheered on so much, Lebanon and Gaza would be in better shapes than they are. Then again, maybe not. However, if things continue the way they are we will never know.

You entirely miss the point about the banner slogans. I'm not making them up. I'm supplying a context that is different than the context which you want to insist is present. Your context is "Death to America--and we're coming for you." That is the context you are making up.

They have come for the US, both in the US and in places like Lebanon. People with such banners have exploded bombs in European airports. That is the context that I am referring to. I am not making anything up. When people respond to Ahmadinejad when he speaks, they are echoing hatred. I think we need less 'war words'. You think things are okay the way they are. We disagree.

I'm sure that Iran wishes Israel would disappear now. I'm sure a lot of people wish that, in the Middle East, in the West, in Asia, everywhere. A good number of Iranians are hostile but that does not mean they will attack without a reason.

I have not suggested Iran is going to attack anyone. If you will look above, you will see I have said the opposite. I am concerned about the influence Ahmadinejad's words will have both in Iran and outside of the country. Terror and war will not be decreased by his words and it is very possible they will end up causing more.

I have claimed that all translations have inherent faults and I have set forth arguments to that effect. I have also produced one Farsi speaker who indicated the translation was faulty. You have not refuted either of these points but now you want me to fetch you an accurate translation of Khomenei's original remark. Again you miss the point. You have claimed that IRNA translates with accuracy. That is your burden of proof.

That one Farsi speaker is the only proof anyone seems to bring up. Do a search of the internet. Everyone just copies his opinion. Sorry, I think there is a reason why Iranian News Agencies printed what they did. They think that is what they heard. Hey, I just provided you with a June 2008 speech reported by another Iranian News Agency in which Ahmadinejad says pretty much the same thing again. So, you have not shown me inconclusively what Ahmadinejad meant to say. All the talk about translations does not change this.

Why did al-Jazeera and other Middle Eastern news agencies have the same take?

I don't know, do you? Could it be that they were using the same source that you were?

There was more than one reporter at the speech. Are you suggesting only one reporter provided the source for the translation. If so, the burden of proof is all yours. For that would be a first in a political speech. Aljazeera had their own reporter at the 2005 speech, as did other Middle Eastern agencies.

Ah! There we go. The US Embassy. That's the sticking point isn't it. We just can't get past that, can we. It's time for America and Americans to grow up.

Meh, I don't know what Americans should or should not do. However, it is time for everyone to grow up. The complaints you made about "Muslim nations" in the sweeping way you did calls for the response to 'grow up' as well. If Iran wants to make nice with the world, they should stick to making nice.

I don't care if Ahmadinejad satisfies you or not. Personally, I doubt that there is anything he could do that would satisfy you, whether he says he's very sorry to have caused so much trouble, he really didn't mean to frighten anyone and of course Iran has no plans to attack--or not.

Since I said it would satisfy me, you are wrong. You do not know me. What I wrote earlier stands. If he were to assure the world that he meant no harm with his statment, I would believe it. I would have no choice for he would be telling us what he meant. Who am I to say otherwise? However, he refuses to do this.

In my opinion, people who are overly excited about this have the responsibility to calm down.

That is not the way it works in the world and you know it. Unfortunately so does Ahmadinejad. That is what is so sad.

Thank you for the new link. I may or may not chase it down and look at it. However, the quotation that you excerpt from it indicates nothing except a belief that Israel will be destroyed.

Take a look. He goes on to suggest that all Muslims should get together to make it happen. Nice guy.

And that is very likely to be the case--for Israel as we now know it--unless it gets a 2-state solution pretty soon.

On this we agree. The two state solution is the only solution. Hopefully it will come before the Middle East is a smoking hole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seansezso,

Mate, they have been spouting tripe like that for decades! Its all bluster!

I know. However, this bluster always ends up with people getting killed. I am getting sick of it.

Please remember Saddam and his empty bluster. He talked talked talked, but he wasnt holding any cards, remember? The Iranians also do not have the cards to do what Ahmadinejad is blabbling about. Its just a circus for the people of Iran, who I suspect are barely listening anyway.

I hope no one is really listening. However, look what happened in Iraq because Saddam Hussein could not manage to keep his mouth shout. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric are not good for the people or the country of Iran. They make a perfect excuse for war and for others to use those words for making other wars or terror. The Supreme Leader and Assembly of Experts needs to shut him down before things get out of hand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

And that is very likely to be the case--for Israel as we now know it--unless it gets a 2-state solution pretty soon.

Well, we have found something for which you have a disagreement with Ahmadinejad. He does not believe in the two state solution and he does not support it. Quite the opposite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

I give you a 2-screen (on my computer) post. You give me 6, larded with with snippets of what I have said to you. Then for good measure, you add a coda in a separate post. Should I respond by quoting myself, then quoting you and then adding my comment? Hmmmm....

You do not demonstrate understanding by using quotations. You demonstrate understanding by paraphrasing. Let's take your responses to my first paragraph and last paragraph as examples.

I said that you misstated your point--that your point was not that Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question but that his non-answer indicated that he is threatening Israel. You agree that this is your point (and you state that he wants other people to think so too). You also said that it was your point that Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question. However, that Ahmadinejad did not answer the question is not a point and I did not agree with such point. Instead of being a point in itself it is a fact that you are using as evidence for your point and I agree with that fact. You are playing fast and loose with language.

Further to that first paragraph you have made two statements about what Ahmadinejad wants and what Ahmadinejad likes. You have made these statements without evidence. You seem to want me to accept your conjecture as fact. The fact is that it is very difficult for any human being to know what another human being wants or likes without direct verification from that other human being. As far as I can see, you have no evidence for your claim.

Finally, as for your last thought, you say that "we" have found a point on which I disagree with Ahmadinejad. That's slimy. In making this statement you posit a "we" that is examining our conversation and siding with you. Additionally, you place me rather firmly on Ahmadinejad's side. And, it seems to me, you have made your opinion of Ahmadinejad rather clear. Most importantly, however, I am not agreeing with Ahmadinejad. I am disagreeing with you.

Furthermore, you invent. Nowhere did I say that I support a 2-state solution. The likelihood is that this is the only way Israel can survive as a Jewish democracy. I have no intrinsic interest in Israel's survival in that form and am indifferent as to whether there is a 2-state solution or not.

We clearly disagree. You clearly have your knives sharpened for Ahmadinejad. However, in my opinion those knives are not so sharp. Ahmadinejad does not speak for Iran and today his popularity in Iran is less than when he was elected. I could agree that he is impolitic, but then I'd have to include luminaries such as Chavez and Bush as part of the impolitic crowd even though they are all impolitic in their own unique ways. But until you have some solid evidence to the contrary, I can't agree that his rhetoric is indicative of an intent to attack Israel.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostile

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know. However, this bluster always ends up with people getting killed. I am getting sick of it.

So you think people should be killed because you are sick of it?

I am sick of it too. But violence is not the way to end it. Violence is the way of getting more people dead.

However, look what happened in Iraq because Saddam Hussein could not manage to keep his mouth shout.

Do you know why Saddam talked like that? Hint 1: America was not Saddam's only worry. Hint 2: Saddam had a certain hostile neighbour, to whom he thought it best to show no weakness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

You may think it is not 'a point', however the fact that Ahmadinejad cannot manage to clarify his remarks after 3 years speaks volumes about his attitude about what he said. You used US politicians as a supposed example of how avoidance of questions is possible. I countered with the fact that dragging a lack of clear response out for three years is rather rare. Even McCain responded about his idiotic comment. Ahmadinejad likes things the way the are. The way things are are not very good for his country.

As far as me quoting you, that is common on JT. I have responded to the issues we are discussing. You have your way of writing, I have mine. You seem to enjoy playing word games. Interestingly, so does Ahmadinejad. I would prefer he be straightforward. You don't seem to think that is neccessary. However, much of Europe for a start thinks it is. You claim Ahmadinejad doesn't mean to say he wants Israel to be attacked. Yet, since he himself has not indicated this specifically, you cannot say that for sure. I am going by what the man has said, without clarification from the man himself. You are going by what others say about what he said.

By the way, I assumed by your last statement you think a 2 state solution is the best one and that you agree with it. I added that Ahadinejad doesn't agree with you. Nothing slimy about that. Now I see that you don't support and/or care about a 2 state solution. Fine, you have made your point. Neither does Ahmadinejad. So, I guess you do have one more agreement with him. You say you are disagreeing with me and not agreeing with Ahmadinejad. The only problem is I am going solely by what the man says in his speechs (note not 'speech', but speeches). You are going by what others say about his speeches. The man hasn't clarified his position, yet you are sure that he means something different that the way he is quoted. Prove it. Show me where he clarifies and I will say, "Okay, I was wrong." Until then, you also cannot say for certain what he means to say and you certainly cannot claim that the way he is quoted is incorrect. The man himself has not said so after all.

It is not my 'knives' that Iran or Ahmadinejad should be worried about. You seem to want to focus solely on the translations of one quote from one speech. I have read quite widely what the man has to say and his message is much clearer in the hostile direction than you would like to believe. If it were not, he would have said so. In the Middle East, that is how wars start. You seem to want to measure things based on the 'western way' of doing things and thinking about things. People in the Middle East know differently.

In the last set of quotes I gave you, Ahmadinejad is clearly (as he has done before) called for Islamic countries to band together against the satanic countries. This is how wars start. This is how people get killed. This is especiall true in the Middle East.

Until the man proves differently. His quotes even as recently as June 2008 indicate a man who is willing to get people riled up and ready to fight. If he is not careful, he will get that fight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seansezso,

So you think people should be killed because you are sick of it?

Sean, please don't be silly. I said I am sick of people getting killed. Was I that unclear? I don't want there to be another war because leaders can't keep their tongues in their mouths.

Do you know why Saddam talked like that? Hint 1: America was not Saddam's only worry. Hint 2: Saddam had a certain hostile neighbour, to whom he thought it best to show no weakness.

Yes, of course I know why he talked that way. That is the way people have been talking in the Middle East for quite some time now. As I wrote, look where it got him and his country. He could have played nicely and he would still have his country. No way Iran would have gotten in if that were the case. Ahmadinejad's ridiculous rhetoric is possibly going to get people killed. For what? What is to be gained by it for Iran? Certainly not a better life for its people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

I have been reading over our discussion. I would like to add that if you feel I have been overly personal with you, I apologize for that. I am enjoying our exchange. However, with your last post, I am getting the feeling (words like 'slimy' probably did it;-) that you are taking this conversation personally.

Let me just say clearly. I am not convinced that Iran as a country wants to attack another country. I have written this a number of times, but it is worth repeating. However, I feel Ahmadinejad's words have added vitriol and fire to a situation that does not need it. Worse yet, the man himself gives no indication of wanting it to end. In every situation where he is asked to clarify his position, he does not. Nothing said by anyone else can change this.

Anyway, if I have somehow offended you, I apologize. I did not mean to do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kinniku,

I don't think US politicians can avoid questions from US citizens for 3 years. I think they can avoid questions from foreign citizens 'till the cows come home. I don't think the length of time is significant unless we want to also observe that in this length of time he has not moved to attack Israel.

Whether cutting and pasting is common practice on JT or not, it detracts from clarity rather than adding to it. Paraphrasing is a clear way to make sure that comments are understood correctly. It also tends to ensure that people are addressing the argument as a whole rather than as a string of disconnected phrases and sentences.

You say that I claim that Ahmadinejad doesn't mean to say that he wants Israel to be attacked. That is untrue. I claim that Ahmadinejad doesn't mean that Iran is going to attack Israel. I don't think he'd mind if someone else did. I can appreciate your point that Ahmadinejad's comments will shape the way people in the Middle East think and I think that is your strongest point. But, I have to ask whether that is happening in Iran, for example, or whether the opposite is happening. If Ahmadinejad's comments shape anyone's thinking, it seems to me it is more likely to be yours.

You say I that you believe I play word games. Perhaps you could give me an example. Moreover, you continue to find points of comparison between Ahmadinejad and me when you say the he does so, too. You say that's interesting. I say it's irrelevant at best and underhanded at worst.

It is the identification of me with Ahmadinejad that is dishonest. You are right that there is nothing dishonest about your saying that I, as opposed to Ahmadinejad, prefer a 2-state solution. It's presumptuous and incorrect, but not dishonest. What struck me as dishonest, however, was the language with which that presumption was introduced: "Well, we have found something for which you have a disagreement with Ahmadinejad."

If you said and meant "...with Ahmadinejad instead of with me" then I think I would not have termed that "slimy". As it was, however, it sounded rather as I have been supporting Ahmadinejad right down the line until that point and that wonders never cease with the discovery of a difference. I don't support Ahmadinejad, but I oppose the hysteria with which many people fulminate against him.

Yes, you are right that I cannot say for a certainty that the way he was quoted is incorrect. You ask me for evidence that it is incorrect and I give you arguments about the general problem with translations and a source which provides an alternate meaning. You dismiss them and offer your opinion that the translation is correct because you say the translators are reputable. I'd have to say that you cannot say for a certainty that the quotation is correct.

I don't think it is the lack of clarification which is your real concern. If Ahmadinejad "clarified" his statement tomorrow by saying, "Yes, I am saying that Iran will destroy Israel," I very much doubt that you would then be satisfied. I think your real concern is that Ahmadinejad would be as happy as a clam with the cessation of the Jewish state of Israel and that you believe that even as a prophecy such speech should be forbidden.

Now I'm not sure whether you believe that or not, but I think Ahmadinejad has every right to those feelings and every right of prophecy. You say you fear that his speech will cause a banding together in the Middle East and that this is how wars start. There has already been a banding together in the Middle East with the Coalition of the Willing. That is how wars really start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

For the record, I have offered my opinions and if you would notice you claimed that it was I that was not looking for peaceful solutions. Since there is no place where I call for war, I think that is basically where you seemed to start getting personal. In response, assuming (evidently incorrectly) you were following Ahmadinejad's line, I compared your thinking to his. I have never given any indication of wanting anything but peace. For you to have written otherwise was inappropriate. I will not use the kind of words you use (slimy) however because I feel they distract from the conversation.

Why should I paraphrase what you have written? That doesn't make sense. I have carefully taken time out of my day to respond to each of your comments. One would think you would have sensed that I was interested in what you had to say and was careful about trying to get the true meaning. Would you have me paraphrase like people are attempting to paraphrase Ahmadinejad? I quoted you and responded to what you wrote. What could be clearer than that? Feel free to do the same with me.

For example, in your above post you paraphrase what you think I mean several times explaining what you think I believe. I find this strange when I have clearly told you how I feel. I have explained now several times that I would like Ahmadinejad to clarify his position. That is it. No amount of paraphrasing will change this. That is why I quote you and respond to those quotes. In your post and your paraphrasing you succeed in ignoring what I have written about how I feel and replaced it with how you think I feel.

You write that you doubt I would be satisfied if Ahmadinejad said "Yes, I am saying that Iran will destroy Israel". Again, you are not making sense. When did I even suggest I would be satisfied with such a response? You were suggesting he didn't mean that Iran didn't have any intention to attack Israel. That is the clarification that would satisfy me. Do you see why paraphrasing does not always work? You have succeeded in incorrectly paraphrasing what I have written on numerous occasions in this thread. The only thing that sets you right about how I really feel is my clarifications about what you have paraphrased. Do you see? I am doing what Ahmadinejad should be doing if he is sincere in wanting people to understand what he really wants to say.

Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be attacked, whether by Iran or by others is not clear. I don't believe either is helpful to the situation in the Middle East. As I have written many times, it is not just Iran that I am concerned with, it is the groups that Iran supports such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Of course, Ahmadinejad shapes my opinion of him. However, my opinion doesn't really count for anything. I am concerned about him continuing to shape the opinions of Hezbollah and Hamas. To think he is shaping my opinions more than of those in the Middle East is rather naive and a bit insulting to me. Believe me, I am not that self-centered. Calling for the destruction of another country should be condemned as it has been. The thing is, there are people claiming that Ahmadinejad isn't calling for that. You seemed to have been saying that in this very thread. I often see people writing, "Hey, he is just hoping Israel will disappear." As if he is just making a prophecy. However, when asked if that is what he means, he declines to clarify.

As far as my 2 state solution comment. I have made my sincere comment and I even apologized. Take it or leave it. Although it seems you have already left it. However, I will not apologize again for the same thing, especially since you have also made rather personal comments. Especially since you have stuck your claws out a few times on this thread and I did not see the need for name calling.

My bottom line is that you can try to explain what Ahmadinejad meant and continues to mean with his speeches. However, you are not Ahmadinejad. No amount of paraphrasing on your part will replace his own words and his own clarification. That is what I want to hear. Until I hear them, I cannot say for sure that the IRNA and Mehr News Agency translation are faulty. I dismiss your comments about the translations because the man himself has not said they are or were wrong.

I am a man of peace and I try to find the truth in the words that people say and write. When I am asked what I mean, I clarify. When I think I am wrong, I apologize. Ahmadinejad is not brave enough to do either. Nothing anyone else, including you, says will change that.

Good day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites