The Iranian Bomb

[Aztec Warrior]

Actually Iran has never said it wants to wipe out Israel nor would it use nukes against it mostly because while they hate Jews and would like nothing more then to wipe them out Israel is their holy land too. Iran also never once said they wanted to wipe Israel off the map just it's occupiers...

Israel has been looking for a reason to go to war with Iran and vice versa.... I don't take sides I say let them wipe each other out if it comes to it.

Both nations want war and I refuse to support one side or the other... If Israel attacks Iran they will start a regional war which yes will result in them being wiped out unless other nations jump in...

As ofr evidence regarding Israel as an aggressor just as much as Iran is their calls for war with Iran and rhetoric pertaining to bombing them etc...

Oh really? Do you really believe that or are you just propagandizing like Bob?

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it".

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles...eats_141201.htm

[Q24]

Oh really? Do you really believe that or are you just propagandizing like Bob?

Aztec, don't you think it's a little unfair to accuse Bob of propagandizing and then produce yourself a cherry-picked quote from Rafsanjani giving a slanted view of his character? In any case, in the quote you used, Rafsanjani was referring directly to the hypothetic future use of weapons in the face of what he percieves to be Israeli colonialism. It is not a statement of intent to attack Israel, but a view that Arab countries could be defended if they had parity of weapons in the case of Israeli expansion/aggression.

Here another, more recent, quote from Rafsanjani: -

I believe the main solution

[referring to the nuclear issue]

is to gain the trust of Europe and America and to remove their concerns over the peaceful nature of our nuclear industry and to assure them that there will never be a diversion to military use.

In Iran, Rafsanjani is seen as a moderate who wants the best for his country and to normalize relations with America.

Edit: Above quote taken from article here

Edited December 19, 2007 by Q24

[+DieChecker]

Q24,

It says right in the article that this is the strongest statement yet. Not like Aztec said this is an average quote.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

It also says that the Iranian media was critical of the statement.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it".

Here another, more recent, quote from Rafsanjani: -

I believe the main solution

[referring to the nuclear issue]

is to gain the trust of Europe and America and to remove their concerns over the peaceful nature of our nuclear industry and to assure them that there will never be a diversion to military use.

In Iran, Rafsanjani is seen as a moderate who wants the best for his country and to normalize relations with America.

Q24 you forgot to give your source for this quote. Otherwise this is hearsay or made up. I'd like to read the article and see if it reads the same to me.

[Stixxman]

I believe it's mostly US propoganda yes....what have they done?...once again?

thats just ignoring stuff on purpose. He went on national television, and said he would like isreal to be wiped off the map, the words came out of his mouth, he also said women were inferior.

[Bob26003]

thats just ignoring stuff on purpose. He went on national television, and said he would like isreal to be wiped off the map, the words came out of his mouth, he also said women were inferior.

For the 1000th time, that is not what he said.

Lost in Translation: Ahmadinejad Never said Israel Should Be "Wiped off the Map"

« H E » Radical Left Politics :: Propaganda & The Media :: Asian Affairs :: Islam Challenges The West :: Middle East: Zionism & Imperialism :: email

posted Sunday, 18 June 2006

Ahmadinejad: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

My recent comment piece explaining how Iran's president was badly misquoted when he allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has caused a welcome little storm.

The phrase has been seized on by western and Israeli hawks to re-double suspicions of the Iranian government's intentions, so it is important to get the truth of what he really said.

I took my translation - "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - from the indefatigable Professor Juan Cole's website where it has been for several weeks.

But it seems to be mainly thanks to the Guardian giving it prominence that the New York Times, which was one of the first papers to misquote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came out on Sunday with a defensive piece attempting to justify its reporter's original "wiped off the map" translation. (By the way, for Farsi speakers the original version is available here.)

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/lost_in_tran..._should_be_.htm

====================

Ahmadinejad : a powerless idiot, but a misquoted one nonetheless

Tags: Political Economy

Countrary to the beliefs of all too many in the West, President Ahmadinejad has no real power in Iran. All the real power is in the hands of Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader (for a good explanation look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran). Ahmadinejad is something of a figurehead, technically the head of the executive, but in reality little more than a voice of the Iranian people (who directly elect him, unlike the Superme Leader who is elected by the Assemby of Experts). So when Ahmadinejad is accused by Bolton and his likes of callinf for the genocide of Israelis, the ones should be condemned are the Iranian people (-: as Brecht said, the "people should be dissolved" :-). No doubt, the repeated statements of Ahmadinejad about something being "wiped-off" the map are a world-class blunder which, while making him popular with the Iranian, Arab and Muslim "street" do not help Iran's diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, Europe in particular.

But what did Ahmadinejad *EXACLTY* say? I found the answer in an article of Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801672.html). The article, which blasts the Jews who participated in the revisionist conference in Tehran, also provides plenty of interesting details about the exact words of Ahmadinejad:

Neturei Karta (a small religious faction in Israel - VS)rdi can spin it any way it pleases. By licking the boots of the Iranian president, however, the rabbis effectively endorsed Ahmedinejad's vision of the erasure of Israel.

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad told conference participants on Tuesday.

He went on to urge elections among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."

Asked to comment on the belief that Ahmadinejad's true aim is the extermination of the Jewish state, Hirsch (a Neturei Karta representative in Teheran - VS) said this week that it just wasn't so.

Ahmadinejad "says explicitly that he does not want to annihilate Israel," Hirsch told Yedioth Ahronoth. "He wants the Zionist state to cease to exist. That doesn't mean killing everyone who's here. Just as Communism passed from the world and the people there still exist, the same thing here: Zionism will disappear and the people will remain."

So from TWO Israeli sources (Haaretz and Yedihot Ahronoth) we have a confirmation that Ahmadinejad was referring to the *POLITICAL ENTITY* of the Zionist State of Israel and not to the people. He was no more advocating any genocide than an opponent of political systems the Soviet Union or South Africa advocated the genocide of the population of these countries.

Haaretz and Yedihot Ahronoth blast the jewish participants for being part of a conference which denies the gassing of 6 millions of Jews and they blast Ahmadinejad for wanting to eliminate the Zionist state of Israel, but they do not make the claim, like Bolton does, that he wants to nuke Israel and kill all its inhabitants.

The US corporate media and the Department of State are trying (and succeeding) in shifting the debate away from the nature and legitimacy of the Zionist state to a "stop the impending genocide of Jews". Frankly, Ahmadinejad's stupid choice of words and inability to understand the predictable reaction they would trigger among the philozionist Western corporate media deserve this kind of misrepresentation. It is the Western general public who deserves to be better informed and who, yet again, is lied to.

http://www.debianhelp.org/node/2420

Edited December 19, 2007 by Bob26003

[Bob26003]

You are probably right that they will not nuke Jerusalem. But, I would not rule out strikes on other cities or bases. Tactical nukes have a small area of effect and as seen in Japan, decade latter people are living there again.

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

You know Israel has been openly threatening Iran and discussing the possible use of tactical nukes against Iran.

Are you suggesting that Iran does not have a right to self defense?

After all, it is the Israelis making the threats.

After all, it is the Israelis who already have nukes............. And who will not allow inspectors in.

[Stixxman]

are you on crack bob? what exactly do you think "vanish from the pages of time" means?

And how could that ever happen while even one isrealis exists? It couldn't, it could only happen when there are no more isrealis. Stop playing footsie with words to suit your slight outlook on the world. You know exactly what he meant your just trying to change it because it makes your support of this turd seem stupid.. He meant genocide he's just not man enough to say it out right. But thats really no surprise that he's somewhat less than a man. Any of those middle eastern hardcore types that can only keep females around through intimidation or religious indoctrination really can't be considered much of a man.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Stixxman

[Bob26003]

are you on crack bob? what exactly do you think "vanish from the pages of time" means?

And how could that ever happen while even one isrealis exists? It couldn't, it could only happen when there are no more isrealis. Stop playing footsie with words to suit your slight outlook on the world. You know exactly what he meant your just trying to change it because it makes your support of this turd seem stupid.. He meant genocide he's just not man enough to say it out right. But thats really no surprise that he's somewhat less than a man. Any of those middle eastern hardcore types that can only keep females around through intimidation or religious indoctrination really can't be considered much of a man.

Are you on Crack? Can you read?

Ahmadinejad: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

That in no way implies a genocide. To say it does is just absurd.

When Bush said that Saddam has to go, Did he mean kill every single Iraqi?

As usual, you are just regurgitating what the mainstream media has told you to think.

BTW, I dont support Ahmidinafjand, I am just asking for honesty. And not to be hypocrites.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Bob26003

[Princess Serenity]

Israel is threatening and has repeatedly threatened Iran. They are the aggressors in this situation.

Also, the statement about "wiping Israel off the map" was a clear mistranslation.

This is what he actually said: Ahmadinejad: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

Don't believe me? Research it yourself.

I'm sure it was a mistranlation. How about you ask Ahmadinejad yourself!

Are you on Crack? Can you read?

Ahmadinejad: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

That in no way implies a genocide. To say it does is just absurd.

When Bush said that Saddam has to go, Did he mean kill every single Iraqi?

As usual, you are just regurgitating what the mainstream media has told you to think.

BTW, I don't support Ahmidinafjand, I am just asking for honesty. And not to be hypocrites.

Can't you?

[Stixxman]

im just telling you that bush was talking about a person, this guy is talking about a whole race.

[Bob26003]

im just telling you that bush was talking about a person, this guy is talking about a whole race.

Even though he said no such thing.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Bob26003

[Stixxman]

i actually saw the tape of that comments so whatever, its not like you have the first clue anyway, your probablya card carrying member of this idiots religion anyway

[Bob26003]

i actually saw the tape of that comments so whatever, its not like you have the first clue anyway, your probablya card carrying member of this idiots religion anyway

Oh you can speak Farsi?

[Stixxman]

no but most of my lebanese friends can so thats that.

[+DieChecker]

Ahmadinejad: "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

Explain in clear detail what this means then Bob. What does from the page of time mean?

Are you suggesting that Iran does not have a right to self defense?

No Bob, I'm suggesting that if I was in a room with a man that hated me and had told me he would kill me if he could, and I had a gun on him, then I would not allow him to draw his own gun or simply give him one to allow for us to be equal. There is a difference between threatening retaliation and threatening a first strike.

Clearly tell us Bob what threats Israel has made to invade or otherwise damage Iran. You seem to be quite certain this is a fact

That in no way implies a genocide. To say it does is just absurd.

When Bush said that Saddam has to go, Did he mean kill every single Iraqi?

So then you would support the way the Iraq War has treated the Iraqi government? You seem to think that Iran would treat a captured Israel kindly. Trust me Bob, a significant percentage of the people of Israel would have to be killed for the "regime" to fall.

Oh you can speak Farsi?

Can you Bob? It will actually help your case if you can.

You are playing Iran's advocate here very well. Do you really have no gripe with the Jews or Israel?

[Stixxman]

Bob doesn't want to do that because he can't explain it without contradicting himself.

[Q24]

Clearly tell us Bob what threats Israel has made to invade or otherwise damage Iran. You seem to be quite certain this is a fact

An Israeli plan to strike Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz with nuclear bunker busters was disclosed to The Times in January 2007. The report alleged that: -

The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout. “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

Link

There are a number of similar reports I have read containing Israeli threats against Iran.

[Bob26003]

Like I said DieChecker, I am not explaining myself to you as everything you want me to explain to you is common knowledge and common sense.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Bob26003

[Stixxman]

isn't that convenient bob

[+DieChecker]

Like I said DieChecker, I am not explaining myself to you as everything you want me to explain to you is common knowledge and common sense.

But you are not supporting your arguement. I'm challenging your arguement and by not supporting it you then lose. And that is OK with me.

Edited December 21, 2007 by DieChecker

[ships-cat]

An Israeli plan to strike Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities at Natanz with nuclear bunker busters was disclosed to The Times in January 2007. The report alleged that: -

The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout. “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

Link

There are a number of similar reports I have read containing Israeli threats against Iran.

And that's it ? Un-named 'sources' within the Iraeli military ? Hardly an official government statement, is it ?

Actually, Olmert HAS said things - he has stated that Israel will react to any threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. Several other Israeli officials have stated similar things.

Notice the difference Q24 - Israel has officialy stated that it will react TO IRAN'S NUCLEAR THREAT if it feels it is in turn threatened by it. Nowhere have they made wider threats against Iran itself as a nation.

Compare and contrast with statements like "The regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", itself given at a conference called "A world without Zionism".

I would suggest that there is a world of difference.

Meow Purr.

[Bob26003]

Remember though ships:

Israel has Nukes and refuses to allow inspectors in.

Also, Israel has made threats of military action against Iran. Iran has not made any threats of attacking Israel.

And when it goes down, it will be Israel attacking Iran, not the other way around.

So who is the true aggressor here?

Also, Israel is threatening Iran over a program to which there is NO PROOF exists.

In fact , the IAEA says the opposite.

Yet the threats still keep coming

I mean, come on now, lets keep this in perspective.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Bob26003

[Q24]

I would suggest that there is a world of difference.

I don't see there is a great difference - a threat is a threat. I would actually take Israel's threats, certainly with the ability to implement them, more seriously than the rhetoric of some bitter Iranians. Also the mistreatment of the Palestinians and other Arabs by Israel justifies Irans words more so than Israel's threats due to the hypotheticial danger that Iran may or may not hold years down the line. Pre-emptive action, without absolute solid proof of an imminent danger, is not justified.

I was not though saying the Iranians are angels, simply responding to the false notion that Israel never made any threats against Iran.

[Stixxman]

what ships is saying is the only thing in Iranian culture thats at risk is their nuclear weapons program, what the Iranians are threatening is the whole culture.

[Bob26003]

what ships is saying is the only thing in Iranian culture thats at risk is their nuclear weapons program, what the Iranians are threatening is the whole culture.

"The regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"

How does that imply the entire culture?

That makes no sense whatsover.

I mean, it makes perfect sense if you are trying to stir up anti Iranian sentiment. It makes perfect sense if you are trying propagandize.

When I say the Bush Regime sux, does that mean I am talking about the entire population of America? Of course not.

That is just absurd

and the word Zionism refers to restoring Israel back to Biblical borders. It is a religous term. And that means, doing away with Palestine.

The word "Zionism" itself derived from the word "Zion" (Hebrew: ציון, Tzi-yon), one of the names of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, as mentioned in the Bible.

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

So of course Iran is against zionism.

I am too.

----------------

Dimensions according to the Bible

The Hebrew Bible contains several descriptions of the borders of the land.[1] These descriptions encompass a region that extends from the "River of Egypt"[2] to the Euphrates. Areas known to be included are the modern State of Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), the Gaza Strip, and parts of modern-day Syria and Lebanon. The biblically described region also encompasses the Sinai Peninsula, which is widely believed to encompass the route of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt. The land allocated east of the Jordan River in Numbers 34:1-15 includes much of Jordan.

Genesis 15:18-21 describes what is referred to in Jewish tradition as Gevulot Ha-aretz ("Borders of the Land") regarded as the full extent of the land promised to Abraham

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

Edited December 21, 2007 by Bob26003