^ did you miss the memo? He's independent.

3/19/2008 10:37:45 AM

Quote :

""We will wipe Israel from the face of the map""

This is not what was said and I hate when people skew it this way. In fact, this quote isn't even the commonly misconceived version that appears most of the time and is far more biased and misleading than anything else. usually you're pretty good with stuff, so i'll just assume you were in a hurry instead of trying to paint a poor picture.

All Ahmadenijad said was that Israel as a regime needs to cease. He never said he would wipe them off the map, or that they needed to be eradicated. That wasn't said explicitly and wasn't even suggested. He suggested that the regime that occupies the government there needs to cease, which is the same as me saying i feel like the current regime occupying the united states government needs to cease, but that is in no way me saying wipe it off the map. Also, thats a slang phrase and i doubt that such a phrase would exist in persian.

All he is doing is wishing an end to Zionism, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

3/19/2008 11:03:39 AM

^ Even if I take what you say as true, which I do not, what about Hamas? They ahve said such things.

3/19/2008 11:06:01 AM

And *drum roll* for the record:

Quote :

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini. His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies. "

From AL JAZEERA so you can't say "OH NO FOX NEWS LOL!"

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816




And who are we to say no to Israel after statements such as that?

3/19/2008 11:09:21 AM

As I stated above, that is the famous "error in translation". What you have there in that link, proves nothing. That'd be on par with me saying Iran is not training Al Qaeda, and then you copying and inserting a clip from the Hugh Hewitt show were McCain stated that little inaccuracy. However, I do applaud your attempts regardless of however misguided and failed they are.

The quote did start with IRNA, which can get stuff wrong just like any other news agency. In translation things often can lost. This is why I said "error" and not direct misquote.

As new agencies often do, they picked up a story and mostly copied and pasted it without concern for verifying accuracy. Check any news story across different channels and you will see almost the same story verbatim.

I will provide for you a few sources so you can make quick reference. Thanks.

NY Times

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss



More for you

Quote :

"THE ACTUAL QUOTE: So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem). So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel"."

http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/


Drum roll is awfully quiet now

3/19/2008 11:29:12 AM

Is it possible that we're not talking about the same quote? Has Ahmadinejad not made numerous fiery speeches about this very subject?


*drum roll crescendo*

3/19/2008 11:32:25 AM

I'd suggest posting your original language source then.

3/19/2008 11:33:20 AM

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=78985
From Bangkok in slightly different language "Israel will be removed"


He's done this numerous times.

3/19/2008 11:35:42 AM

^^^Seriously? Are you really going to try and contend that there are two such major incidences where this came up, even when in the quotes provided it mentions your quote directly and contests its accuracy? That seems a little ostentatious. Willing to fight any battle to the end rather than cut and run, huh?

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ^ + 1]
^

Quote :

""Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations,""

Did you actually even read the article you just posted, or proceed not to and assume someone else would do as little fact checking as you did? What is above is the quote from the article that you just posted. It is made clear in that article that he is talking about the Zionist regime that occupies Israel, and is not a threat against the nation of Israel nor indication of any type of urge to attack them. Advising the other nations to save themselves from the fury of regional nations is most likely not a threat of violence as well. Regardless of which the quote is much less of a threat than the quote we have been discussing (which is obviously the same quote and was even more so maliciously misquoted by yourself) and is admittingly more civil than the manner in which you have portrayed him thus far.

Oh and if you did read it, then I apologize. I guess reading comprehension FTW.


[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : more ^]

Quote :

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them"

i figured i best address this before you try and retrieve this from it and throw it back at me. The quote above is suggesting that the United States and other countries need to put an end to this regime and establish something that is sustainable to the region and fair. Not suggesting military action by any of those entities. The second part of the quote there is insinuating that he can foresee what will take place if they do not do it. Notice he does not say Iran will do this, but rather demonstrates that there are multiple groups in the region that Israel is coming to heads with and it is inevitable that someone at some point will try something. He is by no means suggesting that he will make an attempt to try something.



[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 11:53 AM. Reason : preemptive strike. since you like that kind of thing]

3/19/2008 11:38:46 AM

i wonder what would happen if we were like ok israel we are tired of you, you are on your own

3/19/2008 12:03:49 PM

Isreal would probably defend itself just fine. their air force might be the best in the world and they are a nuclear power. us supporting them is probably preventing nuclear holocaust.

3/19/2008 12:49:33 PM

^ exactly.

If we took a hands off approach, the Israelis would probably have no problems defending itself as it did in the 60s.

3/19/2008 12:53:59 PM

Quote :

"I understand your point and I am not saying the US wouldnt be pissed about it and/or tell them not do, but like you said, Isreal does what it wants and I cant imagine a scenario in which we would kill Isreali pilots for invading our airspace as a pass-through. That will not happen and it would also cause an international incident."

Israeli aircraft invading US air space? I say drop 'em. If, as a soverign nation, we tell them not to invade air space we control and they chose to do anyway, they do so at their own risk.

If we don't we run the risk of looking like a bunch of guys who say, "if you're Arab, you better do what we say, but we really can't control our allies the Jews* so they can do what they want."

International incident? Yeah, but not as big of one as we'd have if they did knock out the reactors. It doesn't matter how much we deny knowledge of the flight, the Arab world will blame us.








*I personally have nothing against Jews, but you have to understand that in the Arab world, everything is seen in light of the effect of the Jewish Cabal.

3/19/2008 1:01:46 PM

Quote :

"Israeli aircraft invading US air space? I say drop 'em. If, as a soverign nation, we tell them not to invade air space we control and they chose to do anyway, they do so at their own risk. "

i dont necessarily disagree but you and I both know in the real world that is not how it works... unless the invading aircraft have hostile intentions/perform hostile manuvers against us.

there is no getting around that they are an ally and an important one. they will not be shot down for a simple "fly over." plus, they would be doing the dirty work for us. so we win in that manner as well.

3/19/2008 1:13:50 PM

there sure are a lot of Curtis LeMays in this thread.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Reason : except, without any real experience]

3/19/2008 1:17:28 PM

Quote :

"If we took a hands off approach, the Israelis would probably have no problems defending itself as it did in the 60s."

I don't entirely agree with that. They do have a strong and active military, but if they were to make a preemptive attack this time as they did in 67 the world's reaction would be starkly different and most likely would not receive such large american and british troop support as was seen then. Also, at that time, countries such as Iran did not have countries such as russia as potential allies.

3/19/2008 1:38:52 PM

^ Wrong on a few points.

Egypt, Syria, and Jordan expelled their UN peacekeepers, amassed troops at their border and blocked Israeli access to the Red Sea.

Then Israel took care of business.

3/19/2008 1:44:34 PM

You really didn't point any points in which i was wrong or mistaken.

sounds like to me the only point your refuting is the concept of it being a preemptive strike. however, it was most definitely one. Yes they blocked usage of their waters to ships with israeli flags, but thats not a strike and if I am not mistaken they are free to do what they want to do in their own waters. Also some countries went as far to put tanks on their borders but they hadn't attacked a single individual nor make an actual strike on any israeli territory.

If you want to contend that the blocking of the waters constitutes a strike, then you'd also be suggesting, that for example, in WW2 when we didn't permit ships to pass through certain waters to japan to give them supplies or further hindering their trade was the first strike and that pearl harbor was deemed a justified retaliation in an already started war between japan and the united states, instead as viewing pearl harbor as an unprovoked action that pulled us into war.

3/19/2008 2:08:47 PM

^ Blockades have been acknowledged as a method for waging war for centuries, most pertinent to the US was the Supreme Court decision in the Prize Cases. I fail to understand how using naval ships to prevent you from supplying your country with necessities isn't an act of war. For a clear understanding of Preemptive Strikes, you really need to look to the British whom essentially legalized or at least introduced into Customary International Law preemptive strikes with the Caroline Incident in 1837. Israel was clearly acting defensively in the situation you describe.

While you cite Japan acting in retaliation to our patroling their waters, you fail to make note that we were doing so because of Japan's imperialistic expansion which was interfering with oil supplies that we needed to conduct our war in Europe. Most Americans regarded this [Pearl Harbor] as a “sneak attack,” but to the Japanese this was a response and arguably constituted self defense. As an island nation, Japan had to have oil and many other materials imported in order to survive and felt that military attack upon those restricting their access was the only solution. This is a very familiar scenario [need for foreign oil] to the United States both then and now. Prior to WWII, western nations were exerting control over many Pacific nations, including Manchuria. Japan annexed Manchuria in order to access its oil wealth. Western nations opposed this annexation largely because they wanted these resources for themselves. This led to sanctions, which in turn led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. This war in the Pacific was about slowing down Japanese Imperialism, which was starting to cut in on European and American Imperialism.

What you are all failing to realize is that this shit has been going on forever. I don't believe that there is a right or wrong side in any war. I believe that there are states that act belligerently in order to increase their power and wealth. This is basic human nature. These issues of morality in war date back to the Christianization of the Roman Empire and Grotius. The United Nations attempted to rid the world of "Just Wars" specifically with Article 51 and discussions of just wars is a little disturbing.


Oh and there is also this, just for effect....

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1824791220080319?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 8:39 PM. Reason : n]

3/19/2008 9:35:20 PM

If the US were blockaded, we would vaporize entire continents.

It's an act of war.

3/19/2008 10:46:35 PM

lol @ blockade of US


biggest issues right now = economy/ national defense

leaders of both issues = romney,economy / mccain,national defense


sounds like a solid ticket to me

3/19/2008 9:56:21 PM

Quote :

"If the US were blockaded, we would vaporize entire continents. It's an act of war. "

Short but sweet. I get a little long winded sometimes.

3/19/2008 10:05:06 PM

^^mccain might want to learn up on national defense before he makes that claim. knowing the difference between sunni and shiite is a start.

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2008 11:20:57 PM

please.

3/20/2008 7:34:47 AM

Quote :

"why is Lieberman still a democrat again?"

nastoute

Never venture into these parts again. Dumbass.

3/21/2008 5:18:37 AM

Quote :

"^^mccain might want to learn up on national defense before he makes that claim. knowing the difference between sunni and shiite is a start."

a gaffe != not knowing his shit. Does anyone really believe that McCain, in his 25+ years of foreign policy experience, is not educated on foreign policy?

3/21/2008 7:32:01 AM

^ Yeah, and Obama wants to negotiate NAFTA with the "president" (sic) of Canada. But the adoring media didn't pounce on that blunder--damned peculiar, don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp9KpbWjT-o

3/21/2008 8:31:17 AM

...


McCain / Lieberman 2008 ....it's an interesting scenario. I can even see the press release

Quote :

" John McCain: The US Senator and Former Maverick, would-be bomber of Iran, and current Christian Right Suckup from Arizona joins forces with Joe Lieberman in a bid to out-Zion the Dems for unfettered access to the Israeli Lobby's PAC money. "

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 12:16:40 PM

^ Damn, Schmoe, that's kind of salisburyboy-like.

^ and V Heavily edited--and I don't blame you.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2008 12:19:24 PM

yes, i edited it.

the slur was uncalled for, but more importantly it distracts from that which im becoming more
and more convinced is essentially true.





[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 12:20:17 PM

SalisburySchmoe?

3/21/2008 12:26:16 PM

I never thought Schmoe would go that far.

3/21/2008 12:27:34 PM

i did

schmoe care to point out the source of that edited quote? i'd be curious as to what radical sites you get your "news" from

3/21/2008 12:27:57 PM

dont misunderstand me, I am not anti-Semitic.

im not worried about the Jews too much (aside from their oppression and abuse
of the Palastinians.)

What I'm worried about are the Christo-Fascists. the problem with the Zionist Jews are that
they are completely willing to get into bed with Radical Fundamentalists and Dominionists
like Chuck Hagee, Tim LaHaye, et. al. -- who seek to ultimately destroy the Jews -- just because
their short-term goals involve the restoration of Israel to its pre-Exillic borders.





[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 12:28:18 PM

^ Um. . .you edited "Jew" Lieberman.

3/21/2008 12:33:20 PM

yes, I did edit it.






[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 12:34:45 PM

why?

3/21/2008 12:36:42 PM

I edited that because it was regrettable use of the word, and not meant as an indictment of the
completely valid and ancient religion of Judaism, nor to suggest anything remotely like denying
Israel's right to exist. I never want to be associated with any person or group who advocates that.

what it was, was a misguided attempt to draw attention to the odd alignment of Jewish Zionists and
the Radical Christian Dominionists wrapped around a presidential candidate who takes amusement in
the prospect of bombing Iran.




[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 12:41:38 PM

I actually respect SalisburySchmoe for his admission, although it was only made as a means of covering ones ass.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2008 12:42:53 PM

^^ Okay. But I think as punishment I shall have to refer to you as JoeSalisbury for a time.

3/21/2008 12:45:19 PM

its not CYA. its honestly what i believe.

yes, im vulgar, but i don't deny anyones right to exist, or practice their religion.

the problem with the Intolerant Christian Right is that they have all the elements of fascism,
and unequivocally seek to deny the ability of others to live, love, and worship as they please.

the fact that the Zionist Jews like Lieberman and others will align themselves with Christo-Fascists,
is truly disturbing.




[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 12:46:31 PM

^ What about the militant breed of Islam?

Christian's aren't going around chopping people's heads off in the name of God.

Do you hold the same opinion of them?

3/21/2008 12:49:23 PM

^^ JoeSalisbury, you go ahead and print up some pamphlets about the Zionist occupation to distribute in neighborhood driveways, okay? I'm sure they'll appreciate the warning about this "disturbing" conspiracy.

BTW, I find it more than a bit bizarre that the previous post hit on "666."

3/21/2008 12:54:47 PM

it was no coincidence

3/21/2008 12:55:49 PM

666? lol, yup im the anti-Christ. Tim LaHaye ... break it down.



of course I have issues with murder in the name of Islam, or any religion. It's entirely perverse,
and that breed of fundamentalism needs to be routed out where ever it occurs.

but the Christo-Fascists are the ones who have as their mission to destroy our democracy and
subvert the Constitution to biblical rule. It isnt the Islamicists who are taking control of the
mechanisms of our government.

Clean your own house first, I believe the saying goes.






[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 1:00:05 PM

we should've definitely done that around 1940...

3/21/2008 1:02:18 PM

done what around 1940? stamped out our religious fascists?

3/21/2008 1:05:10 PM

^^^

Quote :

"It isnt the Islamicists who are taking control of the mechanisms of our government."

Um. . .have you ever heard of sharia?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

3/21/2008 1:07:33 PM

^^ It was sarcastic.


We should've "cleaned our own house" instead of cleaning Europes.

3/21/2008 1:09:45 PM

^^ yes, thank you, im aware of Sharia Law.

and I agree that it is disgusting. but it's also not a credible threat here in the US.

what is a threat, is christians using any means they can to subvert the constitution and deny
basic rights to members of a group or class of people whom they dislike.




[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 1:15:50 PM