Saturday, January 20, 2007
Big Brother
Last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews asked Ben Ginsberg, Republican strategist and Swift Boat lawyer, if the preznut has the unilateral power to attack and/or invade Iran without having to get Congressional approval.
Ginsberg replied "Absolutely. Because we are in a generational war without end (i.e., the War on Terror), the preznut has expanded constitutional powers to make war without the need for Congressional approval."
Matthews then asked "Is there any check on this preznut's power at all in this matter?"
Ginsberg said "No. We're at war. The preznut has the power and the responsibility to protect the nation. He can do what he feels he must to protect us."
Matthews said, "I thought you guys were the party of limited power and limited government. Now you're telling me the president has the power to do anything he wants to do because we're at constant war. We have a president in this country, not a dictator. The president doesn't have unlimited powers."
Ginsberg said nothing. He just smiled.
Matthews said to him "You're smiling, but you're not saying anything. Aren't you guys the party of limited power and limited government?"
Again, Ginsberg said nothing.
And there was a reason for that.
The Republican Party as currently constituted is the party of expanded executive power, big government, and Big Brother.
Take a look at the Bush policies of the last six years that were rubberstamped by the Republican Congress and tell me this is not so:
Trumped up, unnecessary preemptive war. Torture. Rendition. Domestic spying. Illegal wiretapping. Ignoring Habeas Corpus. Government paying journalists to print Bush administration propaganda. Increased government secrecy. Deficit spending (guns and tax-cuts.)
Is this the track record of a party pursuing policies of limited power and limited government?
Or is this the track record of an executive dangerously close to giving himself Mussolini-like powers?
Matthews used the name Mussolini last night when talking about the expanded powers Preznut Bush has taken for himself after 9/11.
Harsh words, but looking at the Bush track record and listening to the silence of Republicans and conservatives who would be screaming bloody murder had Bill Clinton attempted such an expansion of power, I think they are appropriate words.
Now the preznut and his merry men and women are trumping up reasons to attack Iran. They believe that the only way they can win the war in Iraq is to expand it to a regional conflict and attack Iran.
Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says the administration's attempts to portray Iran as a growing threat to the United States is "uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003." He says key aspects of the case the Bushies are leveling against Iran are NOT supported by solid intelligence - just the way their charges that Saddam had WMD's, had reconstituted his nuclear program and was allied with Al Qaeda were not supported by solid intelligence back in 2003 either.
And yet, the war plans against Iran are becoming ever more clear. The administration is planning not just an air attack on Iran, they are planning what Reuters calls a broad attack:
War is coming- this preznut with his expanded powers and messianic vision is going to double-down on the Iraq war and expand the conflict to Iran.
Just listen to their rhetoric over the last few months - it's the same as it was in 2002 and 2003 before the Iraq war.
The Republican Party has laid the groundwork for this by allowing him to take these expanded powers over the last 6 years and by tarring any critics as "weak on terrorism."
The Republican Party has helped to create - Big Brother.
And now someone is going to have clip Big Brother's wings before he REALLY becomes Mussolini.
Ginsberg replied "Absolutely. Because we are in a generational war without end (i.e., the War on Terror), the preznut has expanded constitutional powers to make war without the need for Congressional approval."
Matthews then asked "Is there any check on this preznut's power at all in this matter?"
Ginsberg said "No. We're at war. The preznut has the power and the responsibility to protect the nation. He can do what he feels he must to protect us."
Matthews said, "I thought you guys were the party of limited power and limited government. Now you're telling me the president has the power to do anything he wants to do because we're at constant war. We have a president in this country, not a dictator. The president doesn't have unlimited powers."
Ginsberg said nothing. He just smiled.
Matthews said to him "You're smiling, but you're not saying anything. Aren't you guys the party of limited power and limited government?"
Again, Ginsberg said nothing.
And there was a reason for that.
The Republican Party as currently constituted is the party of expanded executive power, big government, and Big Brother.
Take a look at the Bush policies of the last six years that were rubberstamped by the Republican Congress and tell me this is not so:
Trumped up, unnecessary preemptive war. Torture. Rendition. Domestic spying. Illegal wiretapping. Ignoring Habeas Corpus. Government paying journalists to print Bush administration propaganda. Increased government secrecy. Deficit spending (guns and tax-cuts.)
Is this the track record of a party pursuing policies of limited power and limited government?
Or is this the track record of an executive dangerously close to giving himself Mussolini-like powers?
Matthews used the name Mussolini last night when talking about the expanded powers Preznut Bush has taken for himself after 9/11.
Harsh words, but looking at the Bush track record and listening to the silence of Republicans and conservatives who would be screaming bloody murder had Bill Clinton attempted such an expansion of power, I think they are appropriate words.
Now the preznut and his merry men and women are trumping up reasons to attack Iran. They believe that the only way they can win the war in Iraq is to expand it to a regional conflict and attack Iran.
Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says the administration's attempts to portray Iran as a growing threat to the United States is "uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003." He says key aspects of the case the Bushies are leveling against Iran are NOT supported by solid intelligence - just the way their charges that Saddam had WMD's, had reconstituted his nuclear program and was allied with Al Qaeda were not supported by solid intelligence back in 2003 either.
And yet, the war plans against Iran are becoming ever more clear. The administration is planning not just an air attack on Iran, they are planning what Reuters calls a broad attack:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday."I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.
"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.
"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.
"I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure," which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in Iraq, which could be confined to that country.
War is coming- this preznut with his expanded powers and messianic vision is going to double-down on the Iraq war and expand the conflict to Iran.
Just listen to their rhetoric over the last few months - it's the same as it was in 2002 and 2003 before the Iraq war.
The Republican Party has laid the groundwork for this by allowing him to take these expanded powers over the last 6 years and by tarring any critics as "weak on terrorism."
The Republican Party has helped to create - Big Brother.
And now someone is going to have clip Big Brother's wings before he REALLY becomes Mussolini.
Comments:
<< Home
reality, you wrote:
"Harsh words, but looking at the Bush track record and listening to the silence of Republicans and conservatives who would be screaming bloody murder had Bill Clinton attempted such an expansion of power, I think they are appropriate words."
Perhaps the preceding is true. So what? The Democrats are screaming bloody murder this very minute. Have political opponents in this country ever behaved in a different manner?
Then you veered into an alternate reality when you stated:
"Now the preznut and his merry men and women are trumping up reasons to attack Iran."
Uh huh. That's right. The Republicans put those words in the mouth of ahmadinejad. You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
You surmised:
"They believe that the only way they can win the war in Iraq is to expand it to a regional conflict and attack Iran."
This is probably your most accurate assessment of the nature of war in the middle east. Despite the conflict between sunnis and shiites, and any other internal problems in the muslim world, the people of that region are muslims first and citizens of sovereign nations second. They may fight with each other, but they all seek our destruction because they believe our fall is ordained by the koran, their ultimate guidebook.
And more:
"Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says the administration's attempts to portray Iran as a growing threat to the United States is "uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003.""
Iraq became our chief middle east target because it is centrally located, has a less fanatical religious population, and possesses enough oil reserves to finance its own modernization. Too bad there are so many nitwits living there who are determined to live in the past while they take their shots at becoming the next dictator.
Rockefeller went off his medication before he said:
"He said the Bushies are leveling against Iran are NOT supported by solid intelligence - just the way their charges that Saddam had WMD's, had reconstituted his nuclear program and was allied with Al Qaeda were not supported by solid intelligence back in 2003 either."
Yeah. The Iranians aren't developing a nuclear program and OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron Goldman. Get serious. The Iranian leadership is brazenly stating and re-stating its intention to develop nuclear power and destroy Israel. It doesn't take any spying to catch ahmadinejad's latest threats. They are available through every media venue on earth.
"Harsh words, but looking at the Bush track record and listening to the silence of Republicans and conservatives who would be screaming bloody murder had Bill Clinton attempted such an expansion of power, I think they are appropriate words."
Perhaps the preceding is true. So what? The Democrats are screaming bloody murder this very minute. Have political opponents in this country ever behaved in a different manner?
Then you veered into an alternate reality when you stated:
"Now the preznut and his merry men and women are trumping up reasons to attack Iran."
Uh huh. That's right. The Republicans put those words in the mouth of ahmadinejad. You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
You surmised:
"They believe that the only way they can win the war in Iraq is to expand it to a regional conflict and attack Iran."
This is probably your most accurate assessment of the nature of war in the middle east. Despite the conflict between sunnis and shiites, and any other internal problems in the muslim world, the people of that region are muslims first and citizens of sovereign nations second. They may fight with each other, but they all seek our destruction because they believe our fall is ordained by the koran, their ultimate guidebook.
And more:
"Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says the administration's attempts to portray Iran as a growing threat to the United States is "uncomfortably reminiscent of rhetoric about Iraq before the American invasion of 2003.""
Iraq became our chief middle east target because it is centrally located, has a less fanatical religious population, and possesses enough oil reserves to finance its own modernization. Too bad there are so many nitwits living there who are determined to live in the past while they take their shots at becoming the next dictator.
Rockefeller went off his medication before he said:
"He said the Bushies are leveling against Iran are NOT supported by solid intelligence - just the way their charges that Saddam had WMD's, had reconstituted his nuclear program and was allied with Al Qaeda were not supported by solid intelligence back in 2003 either."
Yeah. The Iranians aren't developing a nuclear program and OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron Goldman. Get serious. The Iranian leadership is brazenly stating and re-stating its intention to develop nuclear power and destroy Israel. It doesn't take any spying to catch ahmadinejad's latest threats. They are available through every media venue on earth.
no_slappz, you wrote:
You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
Oh dear, another example of piss poor research. When did Ahmadinejad say about wiping Israel 'off the map'??? I do hope your Persian is rather better than your knowledge of pharmaceutical practice.
You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
Oh dear, another example of piss poor research. When did Ahmadinejad say about wiping Israel 'off the map'??? I do hope your Persian is rather better than your knowledge of pharmaceutical practice.
korova, you asked:
"When did Ahmadinejad say about wiping Israel 'off the map'???"
Your answer comes from al-jazeera.
But his claims and dreams of wiping Israel off the map pop up almost every time he's interviewed.
I've seen denial before, but you really must work at it if you think this particular muslim isn't seeking a repeat of the Holocaust he claims never happened.
From al-jazeera:
Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map
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.
Call for unity
Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
Khatami was in favour of
'dialogue among civilisations'
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".
The term "oppressor" is used by the clerical government to refer to the United States.
"We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.
"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
Major change
Ahmadinejad, a veteran of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, took office in August after scoring a landslide win in a June presidential election.
His tone represents a major change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, whose favoured topic was "dialogue among civilisations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West.
But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a "historic war".
"It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he lamented.
"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"
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of Iran
"One hundred years ago the last trench of Islam fell, when the oppressors went towards the creation the Zionist regime. It is using it as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world."
In September, Bahrain announced it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. Earlier this month, Qatar said it was donating US$6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel.
Unprecedented steps
The modest but unprecedented steps were seen as a response to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad said, "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."
"Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government. He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s," said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs.
"By these comments, Ahmadinejad is committing himself to those goals. He is also sending the message that his government won't back down."
Israeli response
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev issued a vague response. "Today, Israelis heard two extremists speak openly about destroying the Jewish state. One was the new president of Iran, and the other was the leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar.
Scott McClellan said US fears
have proved accurate
"And it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions."
The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks proved the accuracy of Washington's fears about Iran's contentious nuclear programme.
"I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran.
"Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement," he said.
He said the comments gave Israel justification for urging the world to take a tougher stand against Iran and refer its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
"When did Ahmadinejad say about wiping Israel 'off the map'???"
Your answer comes from al-jazeera.
But his claims and dreams of wiping Israel off the map pop up almost every time he's interviewed.
I've seen denial before, but you really must work at it if you think this particular muslim isn't seeking a repeat of the Holocaust he claims never happened.
From al-jazeera:
Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map
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.
Call for unity
Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".
Khatami was in favour of
'dialogue among civilisations'
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".
The term "oppressor" is used by the clerical government to refer to the United States.
"We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.
"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
Major change
Ahmadinejad, a veteran of Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards, took office in August after scoring a landslide win in a June presidential election.
His tone represents a major change from that of former president Mohammad Khatami, whose favoured topic was "dialogue among civilisations" and who led an effort to improve Iran's relations with the West.
But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a "historic war".
"It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he lamented.
"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"
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of Iran
"One hundred years ago the last trench of Islam fell, when the oppressors went towards the creation the Zionist regime. It is using it as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world."
In September, Bahrain announced it was ending a decades-old law banning trade ties with Israel. Earlier this month, Qatar said it was donating US$6 million to help build a soccer stadium for a mixed Arab-Jewish team, the first such financial assistance by an Arab state for any town inside Israel.
Unprecedented steps
The modest but unprecedented steps were seen as a response to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad said, "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."
"Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government. He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s," said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs.
"By these comments, Ahmadinejad is committing himself to those goals. He is also sending the message that his government won't back down."
Israeli response
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev issued a vague response. "Today, Israelis heard two extremists speak openly about destroying the Jewish state. One was the new president of Iran, and the other was the leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar.
Scott McClellan said US fears
have proved accurate
"And it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions."
The United States said Ahmadinejad's remarks proved the accuracy of Washington's fears about Iran's contentious nuclear programme.
"I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, said Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran.
"Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement," he said.
He said the comments gave Israel justification for urging the world to take a tougher stand against Iran and refer its nuclear programme to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
korova, here's another article quoting ahmadinejad.
"Ahmadinejad: Israel a 'rotten, dried tree'
Email Print Normal font Large font April 15, 2006 - 11:44AM
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers a speech in Tehran in which he called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihiliated by "one storm."
And the country's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, accused the US of conspiring to put the entire region under Israeli control.
At the opening of a conference on supporting the Palestinians today, Ahmadinejad said Israel was a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated, and questioned the validity of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews in World War II.
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said.
The president provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." He repeated his line on the Holocaust today, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"
The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British-mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon".
"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."
The president spoke days after two Israeli generals spoke of the military potential of Iran's nuclear program.
The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, was quoted on Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade".
The day before, Ahmadinejad had announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges -- a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fuelling nuclear reactors or making nuclear bombs.
The US, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build an atomic bomb. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.
The security council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.
In his speech, Khamenei accused the US of conspiring against his country, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in order to place the entire region under Israeli control.
"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Iran's all-powerful leader said.
"If, by accident, the American government saw reason, it would respect the wish of the Iraqi people to form its government, respect the Palestinian government, free the prisoners of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, cease the conspiracy, (and) not create tension in the Persian Gulf region," he said.
The supreme leader also issued a thinly veiled appeal for Muslim countries to help the Hamas-led Palestinian government following a decision by the US and EU to suspend aid.
"The Islamic world cannot remain indifferent and silent to tyranny," he asserted.
"Your martyrs are our martyrs; your pain is our pain," he said of the Palestinians. "Islamic nations have the duty to help you in every possible way, and help you along this blessed path."
The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories.
Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.
"Ahmadinejad: Israel a 'rotten, dried tree'
Email Print Normal font Large font April 15, 2006 - 11:44AM
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers a speech in Tehran in which he called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihiliated by "one storm."
And the country's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, accused the US of conspiring to put the entire region under Israeli control.
At the opening of a conference on supporting the Palestinians today, Ahmadinejad said Israel was a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated, and questioned the validity of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews in World War II.
"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said.
The president provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map." He repeated his line on the Holocaust today, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"
The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British-mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon".
"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."
The president spoke days after two Israeli generals spoke of the military potential of Iran's nuclear program.
The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, was quoted on Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade".
The day before, Ahmadinejad had announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges -- a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fuelling nuclear reactors or making nuclear bombs.
The US, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build an atomic bomb. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.
The security council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.
In his speech, Khamenei accused the US of conspiring against his country, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in order to place the entire region under Israeli control.
"The plots by the American government against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon aimed at governing the Middle East with the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed," Iran's all-powerful leader said.
"If, by accident, the American government saw reason, it would respect the wish of the Iraqi people to form its government, respect the Palestinian government, free the prisoners of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, cease the conspiracy, (and) not create tension in the Persian Gulf region," he said.
The supreme leader also issued a thinly veiled appeal for Muslim countries to help the Hamas-led Palestinian government following a decision by the US and EU to suspend aid.
"The Islamic world cannot remain indifferent and silent to tyranny," he asserted.
"Your martyrs are our martyrs; your pain is our pain," he said of the Palestinians. "Islamic nations have the duty to help you in every possible way, and help you along this blessed path."
The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories.
Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognise Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.
Ok, I'll ask again. When did Ahmadinejad say anything about 'wiping Israel off the map'? Can you give me exactly what he said in Persian?? So far you have just given me the media's interpretation. Where is your direct evidence, with links, of what he actually said. I suspect you don't really know what he actually said.
You make a good point about the translation, korova. I hadn't actually thought about it before. Thanks for bringing it up.
korova, you asked:
"When did Ahmadinejad say anything about 'wiping Israel off the map'? Can you give me exactly what he said in Persian??"
The following is from a pro-Iranian website -- al-jazeera.com, which is NOT al-jazeera.net, the news service.
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."
"Ahmadinejad did not even refer to Israel by name, he instead used the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem)."
Despite the obfuscation provided by the interpreter of ahmadinejad's statement, it's painfully obvious that ahmadinejad seeks the destruction of Israel.
Even if we accept the translation, the translation expresses his desire for the end of the Israeli government, which is merely another way of calling for the destruction of Israel.
If the government of a country is destroyed, the country will become a different place when a new government emerges. Clearly, ahmadinejad anticipates that a muslim government will replace the Israeli government. That means Judaism and Jews will be driven from the country, just as they were driven from Iran.
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
korova, there is no doubt about ahmadinejad's desire for the destruction of Israel. His translated quote leaves nothing to the imagination.
"When did Ahmadinejad say anything about 'wiping Israel off the map'? Can you give me exactly what he said in Persian??"
The following is from a pro-Iranian website -- al-jazeera.com, which is NOT al-jazeera.net, the news service.
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."
"Ahmadinejad did not even refer to Israel by name, he instead used the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem)."
Despite the obfuscation provided by the interpreter of ahmadinejad's statement, it's painfully obvious that ahmadinejad seeks the destruction of Israel.
Even if we accept the translation, the translation expresses his desire for the end of the Israeli government, which is merely another way of calling for the destruction of Israel.
If the government of a country is destroyed, the country will become a different place when a new government emerges. Clearly, ahmadinejad anticipates that a muslim government will replace the Israeli government. That means Judaism and Jews will be driven from the country, just as they were driven from Iran.
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
korova, there is no doubt about ahmadinejad's desire for the destruction of Israel. His translated quote leaves nothing to the imagination.
no_slappz, you said:
Even if we accept the translation, the translation expresses his desire for the end of the Israeli government, which is merely another way of calling for the destruction of Israel.
The translation totally disproves your argument, as you well know. This translation has also been applied by Juan Cole, a leading expert on the Modern Middle East and South Asian History as well as The Middle East Media Research Institute. You can read Cole thoughts here. Furthermore, judging by your above statement, are you suggesting that when the West expressed the desire to end Saddam's government, that was another way of calling for the destruction of Iraq?? Of course not, so why does it apply here??
In your original comment you said:
You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
So far, you have provided no evidence that he ever stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. Just your own interpretation of what he said.
Even if we accept the translation, the translation expresses his desire for the end of the Israeli government, which is merely another way of calling for the destruction of Israel.
The translation totally disproves your argument, as you well know. This translation has also been applied by Juan Cole, a leading expert on the Modern Middle East and South Asian History as well as The Middle East Media Research Institute. You can read Cole thoughts here. Furthermore, judging by your above statement, are you suggesting that when the West expressed the desire to end Saddam's government, that was another way of calling for the destruction of Iraq?? Of course not, so why does it apply here??
In your original comment you said:
You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
So far, you have provided no evidence that he ever stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. Just your own interpretation of what he said.
Just to make sure that this is absolutely clear, the dictionary definition of regime is as follows:
regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order.
Very different to saying that there is a 'desire to wipe Israel from the map.'
regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order.
Very different to saying that there is a 'desire to wipe Israel from the map.'
korova,
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
Korova, you attempted to obfuscate by stating:
"regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order."
With respect to definition 1:
The middle eastern leaders of muslim countries all believe the middle east is sacred muslim ground that should submit only to the governing forces of islam and the koran.
However, if the discussion were focused on the “system of government or a particular administration” specifically in Israel, the geographic reference would cite Tel Aviv as the seat of the Israeli “regime.” Not Jerusalem.
Why Jerusalem? Because of its holiness and sacredness to Jews. And because this holy site is also holy to muslims. Since muslims do not respect other religions, evidenced by the persecution and eventual absence of non-muslims in muslim countries, we know muslims have no plans to co-exist peacefully with Jews in the New Israel they envision.
Meanwhile, for ahmadinejad and his followers, there is no distinction between government and religion. The koran supplies all the answers. It’s clear he believes the same holds for Jews in Israel when he identifies the Israeli “regime” by the location of its religious heart rather than its political offices.
From this we know he believes that it is Judaism that must “vanish from the page of time.”
Without Judaism, there is no Israel. Hence, the state is “wiped off the map,” and the religion with it.
You should learn the definition of a few terms, like metonymy and irony. Maybe you would benefit from knowing the meaning of synecdoche and litotes, too. Understanding a few basics of language would help you grasp ahmadinejad’s simple ideas.
When someone mentions The Vatican, you no doubt think of the governing body of the Catholic Church. Washington is understood as a reference to the US government. You probably get the picture. Tel Aviv has its broader meaning, and so does mention of the city of Jerusalem.
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
Korova, you attempted to obfuscate by stating:
"regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order."
With respect to definition 1:
The middle eastern leaders of muslim countries all believe the middle east is sacred muslim ground that should submit only to the governing forces of islam and the koran.
However, if the discussion were focused on the “system of government or a particular administration” specifically in Israel, the geographic reference would cite Tel Aviv as the seat of the Israeli “regime.” Not Jerusalem.
Why Jerusalem? Because of its holiness and sacredness to Jews. And because this holy site is also holy to muslims. Since muslims do not respect other religions, evidenced by the persecution and eventual absence of non-muslims in muslim countries, we know muslims have no plans to co-exist peacefully with Jews in the New Israel they envision.
Meanwhile, for ahmadinejad and his followers, there is no distinction between government and religion. The koran supplies all the answers. It’s clear he believes the same holds for Jews in Israel when he identifies the Israeli “regime” by the location of its religious heart rather than its political offices.
From this we know he believes that it is Judaism that must “vanish from the page of time.”
Without Judaism, there is no Israel. Hence, the state is “wiped off the map,” and the religion with it.
You should learn the definition of a few terms, like metonymy and irony. Maybe you would benefit from knowing the meaning of synecdoche and litotes, too. Understanding a few basics of language would help you grasp ahmadinejad’s simple ideas.
When someone mentions The Vatican, you no doubt think of the governing body of the Catholic Church. Washington is understood as a reference to the US government. You probably get the picture. Tel Aviv has its broader meaning, and so does mention of the city of Jerusalem.
korova, your favorite anti-Semite Juan Cole wrote:
"He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.""
These are the words I provided in my earlier posts.
Then the "professor" of middle east studies wrote:
"It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem."
With the preceding sentence, Cole presents himself as a moron. Either he intends to state a fact -- that the quote IS a reference "to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem" -- or the quote IS NOT a fact because it is qualified by the word "probably".
He's guessing. Actually, he's deceiving.
His reference to "some phrase" leaves no doubt he's desperate.
A true scholar would have found the poem and the phrase before tossing out this unsubstantiated idea. This gasbag has no credibility.
Cole is grasping for something, anything, that will allow him maintain his support for some of the world's most virulent anti-Semites. You seem to be a fan of his, which says plenty about you.
Cole concludes:
"It is not about tanks."
Tanks? Iran has virtually no functioning tanks.
Why this red herring? Perhaps he wants to move the discussion away from Iran's drive to acquire atomic weapons.
"He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.""
These are the words I provided in my earlier posts.
Then the "professor" of middle east studies wrote:
"It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem."
With the preceding sentence, Cole presents himself as a moron. Either he intends to state a fact -- that the quote IS a reference "to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem" -- or the quote IS NOT a fact because it is qualified by the word "probably".
He's guessing. Actually, he's deceiving.
His reference to "some phrase" leaves no doubt he's desperate.
A true scholar would have found the poem and the phrase before tossing out this unsubstantiated idea. This gasbag has no credibility.
Cole is grasping for something, anything, that will allow him maintain his support for some of the world's most virulent anti-Semites. You seem to be a fan of his, which says plenty about you.
Cole concludes:
"It is not about tanks."
Tanks? Iran has virtually no functioning tanks.
Why this red herring? Perhaps he wants to move the discussion away from Iran's drive to acquire atomic weapons.
no_slappz, you said:
Uh huh. That's right. The Republicans put those words in the mouth of ahmadinejad. You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
Again, where is the evidence that he said he would wipe Israel of the map?? So far, you have provided no evidence whatsoever. All you have stated is what you think he meant. Not what he actually said.
Uh huh. That's right. The Republicans put those words in the mouth of ahmadinejad. You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
Again, where is the evidence that he said he would wipe Israel of the map?? So far, you have provided no evidence whatsoever. All you have stated is what you think he meant. Not what he actually said.
no_slappz, you also said:
You seem to be a fan of his, which says plenty about you.
Errr, why?? Because I quoted him?? Does that mean you are a fan of al-jazeera, as you quoted them??
You seem to be a fan of his, which says plenty about you.
Errr, why?? Because I quoted him?? Does that mean you are a fan of al-jazeera, as you quoted them??
korova, you wrote:
"Again, where is the evidence that he said he would wipe Israel of the map?? So far, you have provided no evidence whatsoever. All you have stated is what you think he meant. Not what he actually said."
Well, you asked for ahmadinejad's quote in persian, which I provided. I followed that with a translation from two sources. Both sources provided almost identical translations.
The language was not ambiguous, except to you. Or so you pretend. But I don't think ambiguity has anything to do with your denial of Iranian desires.
Since you refuse to accept the words of Cole, your anti-Semitic guru, it's clear you want to practice your own brand of temporizing and obfuscation.
At first I thought you had merely overestimated your own intelligence. However, now it's obvious you won't or can't derive meaning from words written in English. It's evident you won't admit to the truth about islamic attitudes towards Jews and Israel.
Since we're on the subject, what are your views on Jews, Israel and the conflicts that involve Israel?
"Again, where is the evidence that he said he would wipe Israel of the map?? So far, you have provided no evidence whatsoever. All you have stated is what you think he meant. Not what he actually said."
Well, you asked for ahmadinejad's quote in persian, which I provided. I followed that with a translation from two sources. Both sources provided almost identical translations.
The language was not ambiguous, except to you. Or so you pretend. But I don't think ambiguity has anything to do with your denial of Iranian desires.
Since you refuse to accept the words of Cole, your anti-Semitic guru, it's clear you want to practice your own brand of temporizing and obfuscation.
At first I thought you had merely overestimated your own intelligence. However, now it's obvious you won't or can't derive meaning from words written in English. It's evident you won't admit to the truth about islamic attitudes towards Jews and Israel.
Since we're on the subject, what are your views on Jews, Israel and the conflicts that involve Israel?
korova, you wrote:
"Errr, why?? Because I quoted him??"
You quoted the words of Cole because he is, in your view, a credible and reliable source of information and analysis on this topic. You did not choose HIM and HIS WORDS because you disagree with his conclusions.
You added:
"Does that mean you are a fan of al-jazeera, as you quoted them??"
al-jazeera is the MEDIUM through which the words of others were passed. Cole was not the MEDIUM. He is the source.
The news venue of al-jazeera is irrelevant in this discussion because it was not the source of the statements. The words came from ahmadinejad. In fact, the same quotes from ahmadinejad were available from many sources. The quotes were not altered.
You can pretend the translations are faulty. But the original use of the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" occurred in the Iranian translation of ahmadinejad's speech.
But even if that were not the case, the meaning of the translated phrase is not obscured by the nuances or idiom of Persian or English.
"Errr, why?? Because I quoted him??"
You quoted the words of Cole because he is, in your view, a credible and reliable source of information and analysis on this topic. You did not choose HIM and HIS WORDS because you disagree with his conclusions.
You added:
"Does that mean you are a fan of al-jazeera, as you quoted them??"
al-jazeera is the MEDIUM through which the words of others were passed. Cole was not the MEDIUM. He is the source.
The news venue of al-jazeera is irrelevant in this discussion because it was not the source of the statements. The words came from ahmadinejad. In fact, the same quotes from ahmadinejad were available from many sources. The quotes were not altered.
You can pretend the translations are faulty. But the original use of the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" occurred in the Iranian translation of ahmadinejad's speech.
But even if that were not the case, the meaning of the translated phrase is not obscured by the nuances or idiom of Persian or English.
As a graduate in English, I am not going to take lessons on the language from a 'wall street analyst.' So far, you have made 8 comments and not a single one provides evidence that Ahmadinejad stated 'a desire to wipe Israel off the map.' All the evidence suggests that neither wipe, Israel or map appeared in that statement. We can discuss semantics all day long, but there was no statement of any sort. All 8 of your comments have only proved that you cannot find any evidence that he actually stated that Israel should be 'wiped off the map.'
As if to prove your inability to find any direct evidence of him calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map', you then attack me. Strange.
And I love the idea of the definition of 'regime' being an example of obfuscation. Not sure how providing the definition leads to obfuscation. I'm rather more interested in why you are trying to obfuscate the point that Ahmadinejad has never made a statement about 'wiping Israel off the map.'
I suggest that before you make your ninth obfuscation, you actually find evidence that his words were (in your words):
stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
As if to prove your inability to find any direct evidence of him calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map', you then attack me. Strange.
And I love the idea of the definition of 'regime' being an example of obfuscation. Not sure how providing the definition leads to obfuscation. I'm rather more interested in why you are trying to obfuscate the point that Ahmadinejad has never made a statement about 'wiping Israel off the map.'
I suggest that before you make your ninth obfuscation, you actually find evidence that his words were (in your words):
stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
Oh yeah, lots of points here...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
agree with terrorists
just never admit the truth
that you want them to win
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
agree with terrorists
just never admit the truth
that you want them to win
.
korova, you wrote:
"As a graduate in English, I am not going to take lessons on the language from a..."
Good thing you mentioned that English degree. Otherwise no one would have known.
That aside, since you are certain ahmadinejad did not express a desire for the destruction of Israel in the quote we have been examining, perhaps you can tell me what he did mean.
"As a graduate in English, I am not going to take lessons on the language from a..."
Good thing you mentioned that English degree. Otherwise no one would have known.
That aside, since you are certain ahmadinejad did not express a desire for the destruction of Israel in the quote we have been examining, perhaps you can tell me what he did mean.
korova, you wrote:
"...are you suggesting that when the West expressed the desire to end Saddam's government, that was another way of calling for the destruction of Iraq??"
Based on your definitions of "regime", which state:
"regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order."
Yes. The US aimed to destroy the "social system or order" that was Iraq, as well as the repressive government.
But the differences between US goals for the nation of Iraq and Iranian ambitions in Israel are stark.
We aim to put Iraqis in charge of their own destiny and assist them on their way to prosperity, which is easily in reach due to the annual oil revenue of roughly $100 billion that would flow into Iraq's economy after the country becomes a stable democracy.
Iran dreams of driving the Jews out of Israel and turning it into yet another middle east muslim slum.
"...are you suggesting that when the West expressed the desire to end Saddam's government, that was another way of calling for the destruction of Iraq??"
Based on your definitions of "regime", which state:
"regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order."
Yes. The US aimed to destroy the "social system or order" that was Iraq, as well as the repressive government.
But the differences between US goals for the nation of Iraq and Iranian ambitions in Israel are stark.
We aim to put Iraqis in charge of their own destiny and assist them on their way to prosperity, which is easily in reach due to the annual oil revenue of roughly $100 billion that would flow into Iraq's economy after the country becomes a stable democracy.
Iran dreams of driving the Jews out of Israel and turning it into yet another middle east muslim slum.
I rather sympathise with your position actually no_slappz. You have rather dug a hole for yourself with your initial statement. You claimed that Ahmadinejad stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. Unless you find a direct quote of him saying that, your argument is deeply flawed. You appear to be reasonably intelligent, and I suspect you are aware of your error. Instead of saying that he stated a:
desire to wipe Israel off the map.
It would have been far more sensible (and impossible to argue with), if you had actually said:
I believe his statements imply a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
The logic of that is inescapable. I certainly would not argue with it. As I am sure you are aware, what he stated and what he meant are two very different things. And as you referred to what he stated, the argument collapses.
I am no fan of Iran. One of the reasons I joined Amnesty was down to my opposition to the death penalty (whether in the US, Iran or China). I also added my support to their Irrepressible campaign, as I was concerned about the growing censorship of the internet by Iran (amongst others). I actually believe that Iran is a destabilising force in the region. However, it annoys me when people say that he said that Israel should be wiped from the map, when the words 'map', 'Israel' and 'wipe' never actually appeared in his speech.
desire to wipe Israel off the map.
It would have been far more sensible (and impossible to argue with), if you had actually said:
I believe his statements imply a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
The logic of that is inescapable. I certainly would not argue with it. As I am sure you are aware, what he stated and what he meant are two very different things. And as you referred to what he stated, the argument collapses.
I am no fan of Iran. One of the reasons I joined Amnesty was down to my opposition to the death penalty (whether in the US, Iran or China). I also added my support to their Irrepressible campaign, as I was concerned about the growing censorship of the internet by Iran (amongst others). I actually believe that Iran is a destabilising force in the region. However, it annoys me when people say that he said that Israel should be wiped from the map, when the words 'map', 'Israel' and 'wipe' never actually appeared in his speech.
korova, in your preceding dissembling post you never answered my question:
What is the meaning of ahmadinejad's quote: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
For a guy who claims to have studied English you would have analyzed a few poems, essays, short stories and novels to earn your degree. That suggests plenty of laboring over meaning.
So far, you're certain about what the quote does not mean. That implies you know what it does mean.
What is the meaning of ahmadinejad's quote: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
For a guy who claims to have studied English you would have analyzed a few poems, essays, short stories and novels to earn your degree. That suggests plenty of laboring over meaning.
So far, you're certain about what the quote does not mean. That implies you know what it does mean.
I tell you what, when you answer my question (ie can you provide a quote by Ahmadinejad actually stating that Israel should be wiped off the map), perhaps I might consider yours.
korova, you wrote:
"I tell you what, when you answer my question (ie can you provide a quote by Ahmadinejad actually stating that Israel should be wiped off the map), perhaps I might consider yours."
Wow. You wrote all that when you could have boiled down your evasion to simply stating its essence, which is "no".
Since this is an anonymous message board, your cowardice and lack of honesty and forthrightness is unfortunate, and somewhat paranoid.
All that aside, I did answer your question with respect to ahmadinejad's quote and its meaning.
You, however, previously took issue with the manner in which my statement was framed.
In your view it would have been argumentatively permissible for me to state that it is merely my OPINION that ahmadinejad meant that he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map."
You wrote:
"It would have been far more sensible (and impossible to argue with), if you had actually said:"
"I believe his statements imply a desire to wipe Israel off the map..."
and:
:The logic of that is inescapable. I certainly would not argue with it."
Thus, you have now admitted that it isn't my conclusion with which you disagree. It is the lack of a disclaimer in which I admit -- by stating "I believe..." -- that I'm wrong before stating the unambiguous truth of ahmadinejad's quote.
We're not engaged in any journalistic activity here, and we aren't subject to any libel laws. We're dealing with some obvious facts.
But you insist that I admit my position is wrong before you'll admit that you agree with my conclusion. Moreover, it's also clear you want to spar because you're hoping ahmadinejad makes good on his expressed desire.
Based on the following, perhaps you've been reading Alice in Wonderland lately:
"As I am sure you are aware, what he stated and what he meant are two very different things."
I see. Whatever he says means exactly what he wants it to mean. Nothing more and nothing less. That's good.
You closed with:
"And as you referred to what he stated, the argument collapses."
It only collapses in the mind of someone who wants to focus on wordplay and the formalities of debate rather than the obvious threat.
I'll bet we could assess the worth of your argumentative strategy and style if we apply it to a few exchanges between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler back in those parlous times when they were prominent leaders.
"I tell you what, when you answer my question (ie can you provide a quote by Ahmadinejad actually stating that Israel should be wiped off the map), perhaps I might consider yours."
Wow. You wrote all that when you could have boiled down your evasion to simply stating its essence, which is "no".
Since this is an anonymous message board, your cowardice and lack of honesty and forthrightness is unfortunate, and somewhat paranoid.
All that aside, I did answer your question with respect to ahmadinejad's quote and its meaning.
You, however, previously took issue with the manner in which my statement was framed.
In your view it would have been argumentatively permissible for me to state that it is merely my OPINION that ahmadinejad meant that he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map."
You wrote:
"It would have been far more sensible (and impossible to argue with), if you had actually said:"
"I believe his statements imply a desire to wipe Israel off the map..."
and:
:The logic of that is inescapable. I certainly would not argue with it."
Thus, you have now admitted that it isn't my conclusion with which you disagree. It is the lack of a disclaimer in which I admit -- by stating "I believe..." -- that I'm wrong before stating the unambiguous truth of ahmadinejad's quote.
We're not engaged in any journalistic activity here, and we aren't subject to any libel laws. We're dealing with some obvious facts.
But you insist that I admit my position is wrong before you'll admit that you agree with my conclusion. Moreover, it's also clear you want to spar because you're hoping ahmadinejad makes good on his expressed desire.
Based on the following, perhaps you've been reading Alice in Wonderland lately:
"As I am sure you are aware, what he stated and what he meant are two very different things."
I see. Whatever he says means exactly what he wants it to mean. Nothing more and nothing less. That's good.
You closed with:
"And as you referred to what he stated, the argument collapses."
It only collapses in the mind of someone who wants to focus on wordplay and the formalities of debate rather than the obvious threat.
I'll bet we could assess the worth of your argumentative strategy and style if we apply it to a few exchanges between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler back in those parlous times when they were prominent leaders.
It only collapses in the mind of someone who wants to focus on wordplay
Aaahhh, word play - or word definition as most people would call it. Let me remind you, you said that he 'stated' that. He did not. Your continuous evasion of this basic, simple fact is a worrying indication of your lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts.
All that aside, I did answer your question with respect to ahmadinejad's quote and its meaning.
I never asked for it's meaning. I simply asked you to provide evidence that he stated that 'Israel should be wiped off the map.' 12 comments and still no evidence. I never questioned your interpretation of what he said, I merely question your point that he said that 'Israel should be wiped from the map.'
Thus, you have now admitted that it isn't my conclusion with which you disagree.
Well done, I thought that was pretty clear. I have never stated that I disagree with your conclusion I disagree with the fact that he said 'Israel should be wiped from the map'.
For the love of God, you are making yourself look very foolish. We are all waiting for this conclusive proof that he said that 'Israel should be wiped from the map'. No what he suggested, what he said. Until you provide such evidence, you will be treated with the contempt you deserve. Particularly as you seem to be tripping on acid with your reference to Hitler and anti-semitism. Just because you can't understand that he never, ever said 'Israel should be wiped off the map' (actually, are you actually on drugs? It would suggest the impaired judgement. After all, we all know that most 'wall street analysts' are on coke anyway).
As you have failed to provide direct evidence, we'll call this one a defeat on your part. Unless, of course, you astound us with an amazing quote that none of us have yet seen. We won't hold our breaths.
note to reality - your trolls really are poor quality. They can't even grasp the finer points of the language. Particularly when he calls defining a word 'obfuscation'.
Aaahhh, word play - or word definition as most people would call it. Let me remind you, you said that he 'stated' that. He did not. Your continuous evasion of this basic, simple fact is a worrying indication of your lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts.
All that aside, I did answer your question with respect to ahmadinejad's quote and its meaning.
I never asked for it's meaning. I simply asked you to provide evidence that he stated that 'Israel should be wiped off the map.' 12 comments and still no evidence. I never questioned your interpretation of what he said, I merely question your point that he said that 'Israel should be wiped from the map.'
Thus, you have now admitted that it isn't my conclusion with which you disagree.
Well done, I thought that was pretty clear. I have never stated that I disagree with your conclusion I disagree with the fact that he said 'Israel should be wiped from the map'.
For the love of God, you are making yourself look very foolish. We are all waiting for this conclusive proof that he said that 'Israel should be wiped from the map'. No what he suggested, what he said. Until you provide such evidence, you will be treated with the contempt you deserve. Particularly as you seem to be tripping on acid with your reference to Hitler and anti-semitism. Just because you can't understand that he never, ever said 'Israel should be wiped off the map' (actually, are you actually on drugs? It would suggest the impaired judgement. After all, we all know that most 'wall street analysts' are on coke anyway).
As you have failed to provide direct evidence, we'll call this one a defeat on your part. Unless, of course, you astound us with an amazing quote that none of us have yet seen. We won't hold our breaths.
note to reality - your trolls really are poor quality. They can't even grasp the finer points of the language. Particularly when he calls defining a word 'obfuscation'.
korova, you wrote:
"I have never stated that I disagree with your conclusion I disagree with the fact that he said 'Israel should be wiped from the map'."
Oh. I have concluded that ahmadinejad stated his desire to wipe Israel from the map. You have stated that you agree with my conclusion. Therefore, you and I agree that ahmadinejad said he wants Israel wiped off the map.
wiped off the map = vanish from the page of time = ahmadinejad's statement. It's very basic logic. If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
Are you having trouble openly admitting you are an anti-Semite who supports ahmadinejad's efforts to wipe Israel from the map?
Your silence in response to my earlier questions about your views on Israel and the problems created for Israel by muslims leaves no doubt about your anti-Semitic beliefs.
By the way, coke is not popular on Wall Street these days, nor do I consume it. But you wouldn't know that. Health clubs are popular. I'm a World Gym member. Endorphins are the drug of choice.
You wrote:
Particularly when he calls defining a word 'obfuscation'."
The least significant word in ahmadinejad's quote was "regime." You attempted to move the focus to that one word rather than the entire quote, which says, in no uncertain terms, that ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Thus, your focus on "regime" was an attempt to obfuscate. Your other posts are excellent examples of dissembling and temporizing.
"I have never stated that I disagree with your conclusion I disagree with the fact that he said 'Israel should be wiped from the map'."
Oh. I have concluded that ahmadinejad stated his desire to wipe Israel from the map. You have stated that you agree with my conclusion. Therefore, you and I agree that ahmadinejad said he wants Israel wiped off the map.
wiped off the map = vanish from the page of time = ahmadinejad's statement. It's very basic logic. If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
Are you having trouble openly admitting you are an anti-Semite who supports ahmadinejad's efforts to wipe Israel from the map?
Your silence in response to my earlier questions about your views on Israel and the problems created for Israel by muslims leaves no doubt about your anti-Semitic beliefs.
By the way, coke is not popular on Wall Street these days, nor do I consume it. But you wouldn't know that. Health clubs are popular. I'm a World Gym member. Endorphins are the drug of choice.
You wrote:
Particularly when he calls defining a word 'obfuscation'."
The least significant word in ahmadinejad's quote was "regime." You attempted to move the focus to that one word rather than the entire quote, which says, in no uncertain terms, that ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map.
Thus, your focus on "regime" was an attempt to obfuscate. Your other posts are excellent examples of dissembling and temporizing.
no_slappz, you said:
simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
He did not state that, as you have already proved. I'm not sure how understanding the meaning to the word 'stating' proves that I am anti-Semitic. It certainly proves that you don't know what 'stating' really is. Again, you know you are wrong and that is why you have resorted to personal insults, rather than finding a direct quote from Ahmadinejad saying:
'Israel should be wiped off the map.'
After 13 comments you still don't understand what you have said. You can talk all you like about the meaning, I'm not disputing that (not a single one of my comments has claimed that he doesn't want to take action against Israel), I'm disputing the point that this is what he stated. The personal insults only diminish your argument.
13 comments and still no statement.
simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map.
He did not state that, as you have already proved. I'm not sure how understanding the meaning to the word 'stating' proves that I am anti-Semitic. It certainly proves that you don't know what 'stating' really is. Again, you know you are wrong and that is why you have resorted to personal insults, rather than finding a direct quote from Ahmadinejad saying:
'Israel should be wiped off the map.'
After 13 comments you still don't understand what you have said. You can talk all you like about the meaning, I'm not disputing that (not a single one of my comments has claimed that he doesn't want to take action against Israel), I'm disputing the point that this is what he stated. The personal insults only diminish your argument.
13 comments and still no statement.
As if to prove your ignorance again, you still claim:
ahmadinejad said he wants Israel wiped off the map.
Where? When? Let me see the quote where he actually says:
'I want Israel wiped off the map.'
ahmadinejad said he wants Israel wiped off the map.
Where? When? Let me see the quote where he actually says:
'I want Israel wiped off the map.'
Are you having trouble openly admitting you are an anti-Semite who supports ahmadinejad's efforts to wipe Israel from the map?
Not sure how you deduce that, given my stated (in it's proper context) opposition to the Iranian regime. Particularly when all I have questioned is your vocabulary, not your interpretation.
Clearly this is a blatant attempt at temporizing.
I await your conclusive proof (along with the rest of the world) of those words coming out of his mouth.
Not sure how you deduce that, given my stated (in it's proper context) opposition to the Iranian regime. Particularly when all I have questioned is your vocabulary, not your interpretation.
Clearly this is a blatant attempt at temporizing.
I await your conclusive proof (along with the rest of the world) of those words coming out of his mouth.
The problem is, you say he said the following:
"wipe Israel off the map"
The translation states:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
or:
Khomeini said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
The problem is that no words that you claim he 'stated' appear anywhere in the translation (except for 'the' of course), therefore he did not state that. In fact, if we take the dictionary definition as authority (which we must, of course), this translates as:
Khomeini said this administration occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
The difference between the two is stark. The first (what you say he said) implies some sort of holocaust (the wiping out of a whole country and therefore it's people). The second (what he actually said) implies that the administration must be destroyed. A huge difference.
You can argue all day long about what he actually thinks (individual interpretations are key to any discussion around linguistics), but if you don't get the words of the text correct (as you failed to do by claiming he said that 'Israel should be wiped from the map'), you simply cloud the issue, or obfuscate if you will.
As I have said before, I believe that your knowledge is greater than your current dialogue suggests. Sadly, at the moment, you seem stuck on this idea of saying that someone said certain words, when you have clearly demonstrated that they did not. Your argument diminishes your intellect.
"wipe Israel off the map"
The translation states:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
or:
Khomeini said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
The problem is that no words that you claim he 'stated' appear anywhere in the translation (except for 'the' of course), therefore he did not state that. In fact, if we take the dictionary definition as authority (which we must, of course), this translates as:
Khomeini said this administration occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
The difference between the two is stark. The first (what you say he said) implies some sort of holocaust (the wiping out of a whole country and therefore it's people). The second (what he actually said) implies that the administration must be destroyed. A huge difference.
You can argue all day long about what he actually thinks (individual interpretations are key to any discussion around linguistics), but if you don't get the words of the text correct (as you failed to do by claiming he said that 'Israel should be wiped from the map'), you simply cloud the issue, or obfuscate if you will.
As I have said before, I believe that your knowledge is greater than your current dialogue suggests. Sadly, at the moment, you seem stuck on this idea of saying that someone said certain words, when you have clearly demonstrated that they did not. Your argument diminishes your intellect.
One last thing, it is funny you only quoted the following from that article:
The following is from a pro-Iranian website -- al-jazeera.com, which is NOT al-jazeera.net, the news service.
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."
"Ahmadinejad did not even refer to Israel by name, he instead used the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem)."
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
But you didn't quote the rest:
While the false “wiped off the map” extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad’s actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the “map” comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a “world without Zionism”. One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the “Zionist regime” was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini’s own words foretelling that individual regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini’s unfulfilled wish: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise”. This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
The following is from a pro-Iranian website -- al-jazeera.com, which is NOT al-jazeera.net, the news service.
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."
"Ahmadinejad did not even refer to Israel by name, he instead used the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem)."
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
"Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."
But you didn't quote the rest:
While the false “wiped off the map” extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad’s actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the “map” comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a “world without Zionism”. One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West’s apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the “Zionist regime” was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world’s struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America’s powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini’s own words foretelling that individual regime’s demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini’s unfulfilled wish: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise”. This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
This Just In:
Iran says:
Israel, US will soon die
Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives
Yaakov Lappin Published: 01.23.07, 22:24
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.
The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."
Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.
Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."
Mualem called on "regional states to pave the ground for the establishment of peace and tranquillity… while preventing further genocide of the Muslims," the IRIB website said.
Iran says:
Israel, US will soon die
Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives
Yaakov Lappin Published: 01.23.07, 22:24
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.
The Iranian president also directly tied events in Lebanon to a wider plan aimed at Israel's destruction. He called on "regional countries" to "support the Islamic resistance of the Lebanese people and strive to enhance solidarity and unity among the different Palestinian groups in a bid to pave the ground for the undermining of the Zionist regime whose demise is, of course, imminent."
Ahmadinejad has threatened the State of Israel with annihilation several times in recent months, and has recently added the US and Britain to the list of countries he says will be destroyed.
Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."
Mualem called on "regional states to pave the ground for the establishment of peace and tranquillity… while preventing further genocide of the Muslims," the IRIB website said.
This Just In:
N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 3:23pm GMT 24/01/2007
A terrifying prospect
North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.
Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.
North Korea provoked an international outcry when it successfully fired a bomb at a secret underground location and Western intelligence officials are convinced that Iran is working on its own weapons programme.
A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.
There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests.
Now the long-standing military co-operation between the countries has been extended to nuclear issues.
As a result, senior western military officials are deeply concerned that the North Koreans' technical superiority will allow the Iranians to accelerate development of their own nuclear weapon.
"The Iranians are working closely with the North Koreans to study the results of last year's North Korean nuclear bomb test," said the European defence official.
"We have identified increased activity at all of Iran's nuclear facilities since the turn of the year," he said.
"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."
The disclosure of the nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Iran comes as Teheran seems set on a collision course with the West over its nuclear programme, although it insists it is entirely peaceful.
Both countries were named in President George W Bush's famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in 2002.
The United Nations Security Council has unanimously authorised the imposition of "smart" sanctions against Iran.
This is because of its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which most Western intelligence agencies believe is part of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.
France expressed concern yesterday over an Iranian decision to bar 38 UN nuclear inspectors from Iran, claiming that Teheran appeared to be singling out westerners from the inspection team.
Intelligence estimates vary about how long it could take Teheran to produce a nuclear warhead. But defence officials monitoring the growing co-operation between North Korea and Iran believe the Iranians could be in a position to test fire a low-grade device — less than half a kiloton — within 12 months.
The precise location of the Iranian test site is unknown, but is likely to be located in a mountainous region where it is difficult for spy satellites to pick up any unusual activity.
Teheran successfully concealed the existence of several key nuclear sites — including the controversial Natanz uranium enrichment complex — until their locations were disclosed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.
Western intelligence agencies have reported an increase in the number of North Korean and Iranian scientists travelling between the two countries.
The increased co-operation on nuclear issues began last November when a team of Iranian nuclear scientists met their North Korean counterparts to study the technical and political implications of Pyongyang's nuclear test.
The Iranians are reported to have been encouraged by the fact that no punitive action was taken against North Korea, despite the international outcry that greeted the underground firing.
This has persuaded the Iranian regime to press ahead with its own nuclear programme with the aim of testing a low-grade device, which would be difficult for international inspectors to detect.
N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 3:23pm GMT 24/01/2007
A terrifying prospect
North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.
Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.
North Korea provoked an international outcry when it successfully fired a bomb at a secret underground location and Western intelligence officials are convinced that Iran is working on its own weapons programme.
A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.
There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests.
Now the long-standing military co-operation between the countries has been extended to nuclear issues.
As a result, senior western military officials are deeply concerned that the North Koreans' technical superiority will allow the Iranians to accelerate development of their own nuclear weapon.
"The Iranians are working closely with the North Koreans to study the results of last year's North Korean nuclear bomb test," said the European defence official.
"We have identified increased activity at all of Iran's nuclear facilities since the turn of the year," he said.
"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."
The disclosure of the nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Iran comes as Teheran seems set on a collision course with the West over its nuclear programme, although it insists it is entirely peaceful.
Both countries were named in President George W Bush's famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in 2002.
The United Nations Security Council has unanimously authorised the imposition of "smart" sanctions against Iran.
This is because of its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which most Western intelligence agencies believe is part of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.
France expressed concern yesterday over an Iranian decision to bar 38 UN nuclear inspectors from Iran, claiming that Teheran appeared to be singling out westerners from the inspection team.
Intelligence estimates vary about how long it could take Teheran to produce a nuclear warhead. But defence officials monitoring the growing co-operation between North Korea and Iran believe the Iranians could be in a position to test fire a low-grade device — less than half a kiloton — within 12 months.
The precise location of the Iranian test site is unknown, but is likely to be located in a mountainous region where it is difficult for spy satellites to pick up any unusual activity.
Teheran successfully concealed the existence of several key nuclear sites — including the controversial Natanz uranium enrichment complex — until their locations were disclosed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.
Western intelligence agencies have reported an increase in the number of North Korean and Iranian scientists travelling between the two countries.
The increased co-operation on nuclear issues began last November when a team of Iranian nuclear scientists met their North Korean counterparts to study the technical and political implications of Pyongyang's nuclear test.
The Iranians are reported to have been encouraged by the fact that no punitive action was taken against North Korea, despite the international outcry that greeted the underground firing.
This has persuaded the Iranian regime to press ahead with its own nuclear programme with the aim of testing a low-grade device, which would be difficult for international inspectors to detect.
korova, very early in this thread you copied a quote of mine:
You copied:
"You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map."
I stated ahmadinejad's DESIRE to wipe Israel off the map. His DESIRE to kill Jews and replace Israel with yet another middle east muslim slum.
Depite stating the obvious MEANING of ahmadinejad's quote -- "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" -- you sought to change the focus from ahmadinejad's murderous intent to a silly sideline about the specific words he employed to state his vision.
Your digression into pointless minutia on the topic of Iran and its wish to destroy Israel looks like a fair basis for a Monty Python skit.
I can hear them now:
No, ahmadinejad didn't say he wanted to "kill" all the Jews. He said he wanted to "slay" them.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, Pozzo. He said neither. And he didn't say he wanted to "murder" them, either. "Vanish" was the word, I believe.
What's the difference, Astragon? It's all about the deaths of Jews.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no. It matters very much what he said, Pozzo. The very words are everything. Don't you see? One must employ exactly the right word for special occasions. Carelessness simply won't do.
Yes, I suppose you're right, ?Astragon. He could have meant any manner of things, Kill, murder, slay. Slay, for one.
You know, Astragon, he might have meant slaying an audience with laughter. And very possibly those muslim comics could do it. They're quite talented jokers, those muslims. I laugh my head off every time they explode on a bus in Tel Aviv. What a bunch of hams, those guys.
Well then Astragon, it's pretty clear nobody knows what he said, isn't it? And if nobody knows what he said, then obviously he didn't mean it, now did he?
Quite.
Mushroom cloud rises in the background.
You copied:
"You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map."
I stated ahmadinejad's DESIRE to wipe Israel off the map. His DESIRE to kill Jews and replace Israel with yet another middle east muslim slum.
Depite stating the obvious MEANING of ahmadinejad's quote -- "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" -- you sought to change the focus from ahmadinejad's murderous intent to a silly sideline about the specific words he employed to state his vision.
Your digression into pointless minutia on the topic of Iran and its wish to destroy Israel looks like a fair basis for a Monty Python skit.
I can hear them now:
No, ahmadinejad didn't say he wanted to "kill" all the Jews. He said he wanted to "slay" them.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, Pozzo. He said neither. And he didn't say he wanted to "murder" them, either. "Vanish" was the word, I believe.
What's the difference, Astragon? It's all about the deaths of Jews.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no. It matters very much what he said, Pozzo. The very words are everything. Don't you see? One must employ exactly the right word for special occasions. Carelessness simply won't do.
Yes, I suppose you're right, ?Astragon. He could have meant any manner of things, Kill, murder, slay. Slay, for one.
You know, Astragon, he might have meant slaying an audience with laughter. And very possibly those muslim comics could do it. They're quite talented jokers, those muslims. I laugh my head off every time they explode on a bus in Tel Aviv. What a bunch of hams, those guys.
Well then Astragon, it's pretty clear nobody knows what he said, isn't it? And if nobody knows what he said, then obviously he didn't mean it, now did he?
Quite.
Mushroom cloud rises in the background.
I stated ahmadinejad's DESIRE to wipe Israel off the map. His DESIRE to kill Jews and replace Israel with yet another middle east muslim slum.
No, you said that he stated a desire to wipe Israel off the map, look:
The Republicans put those words in the mouth of ahmadinejad. You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
You did not state that he had a desire to wipe Israel off the map, you claim he stated that. There is a difference.
As for the Monty Python, that really was a poor parody of a Monty Python sketch and, given their own views on the 'war on terror', I suspect they would be aghast to see you abusing their name in such a way.
One last thing:
regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order.
Please provide proof that, as you claim, he STATED a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Or, at least, read a dictionary to learn what the words 'state' and 'regime' actually mean.
Post a Comment
No, you said that he stated a desire to wipe Israel off the map, look:
The Republicans put those words in the mouth of ahmadinejad. You know, those words about developing nuclear power and simultaneously stating a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, a lot of "trumped up" stuff.
You did not state that he had a desire to wipe Israel off the map, you claim he stated that. There is a difference.
As for the Monty Python, that really was a poor parody of a Monty Python sketch and, given their own views on the 'war on terror', I suspect they would be aghast to see you abusing their name in such a way.
One last thing:
regime n. 1. a system of government or a particular administration. 2. a social system or order.
Please provide proof that, as you claim, he STATED a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Or, at least, read a dictionary to learn what the words 'state' and 'regime' actually mean.
<< Home
