Support NeoGAF

[DSWii60]

Question 1:

Why do you hate Jesus?

Question 2:

Why do you hate Jesus and Americans.

Question 3:

...could you explain why you hate Jesus again?

Jesus is a Prophet in Islam aswell BTW.

 

[DSWii60]

In Persian he said literally, "[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history" (translated by MEMRI). He was referring to the Israeli government, which we all know is a govt with Zionist ideals.

Yet, Western news sources have changed the context in two ways. First they've changed the reference to the government to the reference of a nation. Secondly, they've somehow took "pages of history" to mean a "map".

I know this because I look at multiple sources of information.

What did he say exactly in Farsi?

 

[FightyF]

What did he say exactly in Farsi?

een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad

(according to wikipedia, but it is consistent with all the damage control the Iranian govt came up with after this made a splash in the West)

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Jesus is a Prophet in Islam aswell BTW.

owned?

 

[DSWii60]

een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad

(according to wikipedia, but it is consistent with all the damage control the Iranian govt came up with after this made a splash in the West)

So the generally accepted English translation is spiced up. I always thought that he had actually said "Israel should be wiped off the map," but what he said was more like "this regime that is occupying Qods must be taken off from the pages of history."

 

[Frank the Great]

they are obviously setting him up to be assassinated

 

[DSWii60]

they are obviously setting him up to be assassinated

That would be pointless. Ahmadinejad is just a face, he doesn't actually have much power at all. Instead we'd get a brand new face who would be even over the top in his anti-American rhetoric.

 

[FightyF]

So the generally accepted English translation is spiced up. I always thought that he had actually said "Israel should be wiped off the map," but what he said was more like "this regime that is occupying Qods must be taken off from the pages of history."

That's the thing. I'm not defending Ahmedinejad as far as who he is and such, but it's quite obvious that there is a whole lot of spin from the Western media.

To the point where obviously some Americans like APF thought he was hinting at genocide. Of course, APF probably listens to extreme right wing radio and they're the ones responsible for pushing such extreme interpretations, but if a person like yourself thought that he said something akin to doing anything to "Israel"...obviously it is a widespread problem.

Also, I think WickedAngel was facetious, hinting at how people there could be totally ignorant and off-base.

 

[DSWii60]

That's the thing. I'm not defending Ahmedinejad as far as who he is and such, but it's quite obvious that there is a whole lot of spin from the Western media.

To the point where obviously some Americans like APF thought he was hinting at genocide. Of course, APF probably listens to extreme right wing radio and they're the ones responsible for pushing such extreme interpretations, but if a person like yourself thought that he said something akin to doing anything to "Israel"...obviously it is a widespread problem.

Also, I think WickedAngel was facetious, hinting at how people there could be totally ignorant and off-base.

I'm amazed that so many people have mistranslated him. Bookmarking this topic for future use in political threads where "wiping Israel off the map" may come up.

Edit: It means "The regime who are poking their nose into Qods (Jerusalem), need to be removed from daily life (i.e. need to stop existing)," according to an Iranian I know.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Hm, something I'd like to see. I mean, there won't be any large amounts of people there cheering for him so I don't understand the protests. I'd see it as a chance to listen to a another point of view from a president of a country getting much attention right now for various reasons, no matter how wrong or crazy it might be. Maybe it'd be a first step to sort things out?

 

[APF]

Oh, so the Jews only need to be removed from history, not the map. Got it. And the holocaust is a myth, but the guy respects Jews nonetheless. Damned Neo Con talk radio, telling me the wrong things again!!!! If only I listened to rational level-headed douchebags like FlightyF

 

[GSG Flash]

Oh, so the Jews only need to be removed from history, not the map. Got it. Damned Neo Con talk radio, telling me the wrong things again!!!! If only I listened to rational level-headed douchebags like FlightyF

How you got "Jews" from "Zionist regime" I can never understand. FWIW, a lot of people here in the west talk about the Iranian regime being removed from the pages of history (not in those exact words, but basically the same meaning), even here on GAF, but that's never implied as nuking all Iranians out of this world.

 

[Particle Physicist]

FWIW, a lot of people here in the west talk about the Iranian regime being removed from the pages of history (not in those exact words, but basically the same meaning), even here on GAF, but that's never implied as nuking all Iranians out of this world.

ive never heard a leader of a country say that.

and i think many people misconstrue what zionism is. and sometimes use it interchangeably with jew. especially people who are holocaust deniers like our main man here (Ahmadinejad ).

 

[APF]

How you got "Jews" from "Zionist regime" I can never understand.

First off, here is Flighty's translation:

"[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"

Note what isn't there, the word "Zionist" which you believe was part of this quote. No, it did not say, "Zionist regime," nor did it explicitly say, "Jews." But how can the Jewish rule of the Jewish state be eliminated from the pages of history, without... killing the Jews? Simply invade their country and forcibly remove them? The credulity certain people want to give Ahmadinejad as being an honest and misunderstood speaker would be naive if it didn't largely come from the same Defense Squad this sort of spin always comes from, when it comes to people in a certain part of the world trying to tiptoe around what we all know they're thinking but they don't want to come right out and say in public because they realize they can have their cake and eat it too, with doucebags mindlessly defending obvious hints phrased in obvious ways for obvious benefit.

FWIW, a lot of people here in the west talk about the Iranian regime being removed from the pages of history (not in those exact words [...])

Yeah, *no one* thinks when people talk about war with Iran, that it will affect the people of Iran....

 

[GSG Flash]

ive never heard a leader of a country say that.

and i think many people misconstrue what zionism is. and sometimes use it interchangeably with jew. especially people who are holocaust deniers like our main man here (Ahmadinejad ).

Although Bush never said it directly, stating that all terrorists in this world must be destroyed and then calling the Iranian regime "terrorists" can strongly be constructed to mean that he wants a regime change in Iran, which would mean exactly the same thing as Ahmedinejad saying he wants the Zionist regime to be removed from existence, just in different words.

Anyways, those a pretty big assumptions you're making about Ahmedinejad..

 

[APF]

calling the Iranian regime "terrorists"

Let's play FlightyF's game: when did Bush say that?

can strongly be constructed to mean that he wants a regime change in Iran

Wait, regime change??? What kind of pussy-wording is that?? We all know it's, "eliminating a regime from history," meaning we burn the books and brainwash the populace (if not the world) to forget about them. Wait, Bush didn't say he wanted to eliminate a regime from history? He said just change it? He said, for Iraq, if Saddam acted differently, the regime would have sufficiently "changed?" You mean, there's no comparison between the two statements? Oh. But but ... .neocon talk radio!!!

 

[Eric P]

In Persian he said literally, "[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history" (translated by MEMRI). He was referring to the Israeli government, which we all know is a govt with Zionist ideals.

i seriously did not know that.

 

[GSG Flash]

First off, here is Flighty's translation:

"[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"

Note what isn't there, the word "Zionist" which you believe was part of this quote. No, it did not say, "Zionist regime," nor did it explicitly say, "Jews." But how can the Jewish rule of the Jewish state be eliminated from the pages of history, without... killing the Jews?

Same way how the Soviet Union was dismantled without any casualties. Same way how the US and UK orchestrated an Iranian regime change in the 50's without any casualties.

The only argument I see from you guys are assumptions and unless you are fluent in Persian and can actually confirm what you think Ahmedinejad said or can get someone else fluent in Persian to confirm what you think he said, your arguments will stay as assumptions.

 

[DSWii60]

@ APF:

Ahmadinejad does only mean Zionists and not Jews. Note he used the word "regime" implying some sort of government and often in he speeches he refers to the "Zionist regime," that it needs to be stopped, eliminated etc. I'm not trying to defend anything he says or does, I'm just pointing out that he does actually mean Zionists rather than Jews here.

 

[GSG Flash]

Let's play FlightyF's game: when did Bush say that?

These are his exact quotes:

"world's primary state sponsor of terror."

Now if he is waging this "war on terror", would he not want to end a regime that he believes is the "world's primary state sponsor of terror"?

Wait, regime change??? What kind of pussy-wording is that?? We all know it's, "eliminating a regime from history," meaning we burn the books and brainwash the populace (if not the world) to forget about them. Wait, Bush didn't say he wanted to eliminate a regime from history? He said just change it? He said, for Iraq, if Saddam acted differently, the regime would have sufficiently "changed?" You mean, there's no comparison between the two statements? Oh. But but ... .neocon talk radio!!!

Are you this dense? If you destroy a regime and another steps in it's place, would that not be called a regime change? If not, what would it be called? Please enlighten me.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Ahmadinejad you so crazy

 

[APF]

Note, for example, that GSG Flash does not respect even close to the degree of nuance or benefit-of-doubt for Bush you Islamist Defense Force folks are pleading needs to be respected for Ahmadinejad. Note that none of you are allowing for Ahmadinejad to say one thing literally, while suggesting another thing figuratively, in the context of his buildup of nuclear weaponry, his country's constant back-and-forth of hostile diplomatic rhetoric towards Israel, his personal belief that the holocaust was a myth, his personal belief that Israel shouldn't exist--or at least, not where it stands, etc. The idea that I necessarily have to take at face value that he happens to be talking in hypothetical and lofty terms that have absolutely nothing to do with the obvious, just because I'm relying on other people's translations, is farcical. Note of course that these Columbia students will in large part have to rely on another person's translation, meaning from your perspective his talk there is useless in terms of communicating any sort of understanding.

 

[StoOgE]

I think its a great idea. He is a world leader and will be one of the people that is most central to forming the next decade of world history. Agree with him or not, you cant deny the educational value in having him speak at your university. The marketplace of ideas only works if dissenting views are heard and then rejected through logic and dialouge. Restricting dissenting views from the marketplace will only allow them to linger as a subculture.

 

[APF]

I think its a great idea. He is a world leader and will be one of the people that is most central to forming the next decade of world history. Agree with him or not, you cant deny the educational value in having him speak at your university. The marketplace of ideas only works if dissenting views are heard and then rejected through logic and dialouge. Restricting dissenting views from the marketplace will only allow them to linger as a subculture.

As I've said before, the idea that he is going to present an idea that is new to Columbia students of all people, is a joke. As well, the idea that Columbia students have not already been exposed to his critiques of American foreign policy and our support of Israel, or to his idea that it's ok cool for his country to develop nuclear weapons, is bizarre--I'd argue that ~80% if not more of the student body (and faculty) likely agrees! The only part of his professed beliefs that may "dissent" from the beliefs of people there, is his suggestion that the holocaust was a myth. But aren't there KKK members and other neo-Nazi groups which can speak on this issue with greater detail, since that's their specialty? Not to mention that "the marketplace of ideas" has already soundly rejected that notion, in educated cultures.

 

[GSG Flash]

Note, for example, that GSG Flash does not respect even close to the degree of nuance or benefit-of-doubt for Bush you Islamist Defense Force folks are pleading needs to be respected for Ahmadinejad. Note that none of you are allowing for Ahmadinejad to say one thing literally, while suggesting another thing figuratively, in the context of his buildup of nuclear weaponry, his country's constant back-and-forth of hostile diplomatic rhetoric towards Israel, his personal belief that the holocaust was a myth, his personal belief that Israel shouldn't exist--or at least, not where it stands, etc. The idea that I necessarily have to take at face value that he happens to be talking in hypothetical and lofty terms that have absolutely nothing to do with the obvious, just because I'm relying on other people's translations, is farcical. Note of course that these Columbia students will in large part have to rely on another person's translation, meaning from your perspective his talk there is useless in terms of communicating any sort of understanding.

All of what you wrote looks like just a bunch of random sentences put together to form a paragraph, different from your other posts, well to me anyways.

And I'm not a part of "Islamist Defense Force", I think Ahmedinejad is causing more harm to Iran and it's social values than good, but when you and whoever else spread ignorance and talk lies based off of assumptions without thinking, I have to speak up.

Anyways, I said unless you have someone fluent in Persian confirm what you think he said, your posts will stay as assumptions. I hope for the sake of the students at Columbia that they have someone fluent in Persian translating the questions and answers.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Here GSG Flash, I'll translate this piece of art for you:

Note, for example, that GSG Flash does not respect even close to the degree of nuance or benefit-of-doubt for Bush you Islamist Defense Force folks are pleading needs to be respected for Ahmadinejad.

He's trying to destroy your credibility by saying you're committing a double standard by not being "liberal" with Bush's words (which he is accusing you of doing with Ahmadinejad).

[my commentary]
But I think this objection is a little weak, because you are actually familiar with english so you know the nuances and the expressions of the language and so on (well I assumed you do, since you're attempting to communicate your ideas on this board).

Note that none of you are allowing for Ahmadinejad to say one thing literally, while suggesting another thing figuratively, in the context of his buildup of nuclear weaponry, his country's constant back-and-forth of hostile diplomatic rhetoric towards Israel, his personal belief that the holocaust was a myth, his personal belief that Israel shouldn't exist--or at least, not where it stands, etc.

He doesn't like what Ahmadinejad said in the past (contingent on the assumption that his beliefs were represented correctly, but GSG is questioning a part of this premise by actually bringing up the farsi of a specific belief).

The idea that I necessarily have to take at face value that he happens to be talking in hypothetical and lofty terms that have absolutely nothing to do with the obvious, just because I'm relying on other people's translations, is farcical.

"Whatever translation I read is absolutely accurate and I have to take it at face value. You're stupid if you think otherwise." He's saying you're interpretation of his sentence is on "lofty and hypothetical terms", and not necessarily realistic and obvious.

[my commentary]However, this avoids the core objection that you put up GSG. You're saying that this expression doesn't imply the same thing in Farsi as it does in English. So you're interpretation could be completely obvious and not "lofty" and "hypothetical" because this is what the Farsi necessarily implies. It's the same thing with going between Arabic in English, there are some Arabic expressions that simply don't sound right, but when studying what they imply and how they convey meaning, then it makes much more sense on what he or she was trying to say.

So eh, this is where things get kind of stupid.

Note of course that these Columbia students will in large part have to rely on another person's translation, meaning from your perspective his talk there is useless in terms of communicating any sort of understanding.

LOL YOUR PREMISE INVALIDATES HIS COLUMBIA LECTURE. (however, if you take a close look at GSG Flash's stance, it really doesn't, because he's referring to a specific translation, not ALL TRANSLATIONS).

Then the rest is just the embedding of attacks, such as "Islamist Defense Force" rhetoric that attempts to present one's opponent as irrational.

 

[itsinmyveins]

As I've said before, the idea that he is going to present an idea that is new to Columbia students of all people, is a joke. As well, the idea that Columbia students have not already been exposed to his critiques of American foreign policy and our support of Israel, or to his idea that it's ok cool for his country to develop nuclear weapons, is bizarre--I'd argue that ~80% if not more of the student body (and faculty) likely agrees! The only part of his professed beliefs that may "dissent" from the beliefs of people there, is his suggestion that the holocaust was a myth. But aren't there KKK members and other neo-Nazi groups which can speak on this issue with greater detail, since that's their specialty? Not to mention that "the marketplace of ideas" has already soundly rejected that notion, in educated cultures.

The main point is that it could be the opening for a dialouge between USA and Iran, isn't it? The guy is an idiot, but the idiot in charge nontheless. How long has it been since USA actually talked to Iran?

 

[Jacobi]

IMO Ahmedinajfadhscd is an intelligent guy, he's just either misleaded or fakes his limited knowledge in history.

 

[itsinmyveins]

IMO Ahmedinajfadhscd is an intelligent guy, he's just either misleaded or fakes his limited knowledge in history.

Aside from all the retarded shit he says, what smart thing has he ever said?

 

[APF]

But I think this objection is a little weak, because you are actually familiar with english so you know the nuances and the expressions of the language.

I find your spin a lot weak. In that case, how can you compare the two sentences? The problem with nuance is that, if you agree it's there and must be respected, then things phrased differently mean different things.

"Whatever translation I read is absolutely accurate and I have to take it at face value. You're stupid if you think otherwise."

Wait, what? That's retarded. I'm taking FlightyF's translation (MEMRI's) as accurate, yes, but so is everyone else...?

LOL YOUR PREMISE INVALIDATES HIS COLUMBIA LECTURE. (however, if you take a close look at GSG Flash's stance, it really doesn't, because he's referring to a specific translation, not ALL TRANSLATIONS).

We're all looking at the same translation, idiot! I expect more from you.

The main point is that it could be the opening for a dialouge between USA and Iran, isn't it?

Not really. There aren't many Bush Administration officials on the Columbia campus, AFAIK.

The guy is an idiot, but the idiot in charge nontheless. How long has it been since USA actually talked to Iran?

Through the UN or one-on-one? Privately or publicly?

 

[GSG Flash]

Here GSG Flash, I'll translate this piece of art for you:



He's trying to destroy your credibility by saying you're committing a double standard by not being "liberal" with Bush's words (which he is accusing you of doing with Ahmadinejad). But I think this objection is a little weak, because you are actually familiar with english so you know the nuances and the expressions of the language.



He doesn't like what Ahmadinejad said in the past (contingent on the assumption that his beliefs were represented correctly, but GSG is questioning a part of this premise by actually bringing up the farsi of a specific belief).



"Whatever translation I read is absolutely accurate and I have to take it at face value. You're stupid if you think otherwise."

This is where things get kind of stupid.



LOL YOUR PREMISE INVALIDATES HIS COLUMBIA LECTURE. (however, if you take a close look at GSG Flash's stance, it really doesn't, because he's referring to a specific translation, not ALL TRANSLATIONS).

:lol

Classic APF

Oh and APF, Stealth Fox is right, the reason why I'm not respecting "even close to the degree of nuance or benefit-of-doubt for Bush" as I am for Ahmedinejad is because I know exactly what Bush said and can interpret exactly what he meant since I am fluent in English. Folks fluent in Persian have already confirmed that the west's translations of Ahmedinejad's words aren't correct, which is what I'm basing my argument off of.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Not really. There aren't many Bush Administration officials on the Columbia campus, AFAIK.

I'm sure you're not assuming that I meant something like that, are you? I mean having Irans president in the country is better than ignoring him. The thing I'm wondering; could it be a first step towards grown up dialouges?

Through the UN or one-on-one? Privately or publicly?

One-on-one, publicly. I'm guessing a hell of a long time ago. I'm under the impression that the last president of Iran was easier to deal with (?) and that talks should already have been initiated then.

 

[APF]

The Stealth Fox: I just noticed your edit, that elaborated on your "translation" of what I was trying to say. Ironically, you completely missed the point.


ItsInMyVeins: I just question the idea that a speaking engagement on an American campus is the push we need to get Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The idea that we're ignoring him, is unfortunately perhaps directly in agreement with people hawkish on the idea of preemptively attacking suspected nuclear sites, or invading wholesale...

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I find your spin a lot weak. In that case, how can you compare the two sentences? The problem with nuance is that, if you agree it's there and must be respected, then things phrased differently mean different things.

I don't think you quite get it sir. I broke down your post into easily digestible tidbits and provided some commentary in parentheses. Which two sentences are you talking about again?

 

[APF]

The Stealth Fox: that too seems beneath your ability; if you want to pick me apart and poke fun at me, at least do so while also addressing what I'm trying to convey. The two ideas, "eliminating a regime from history," and, "regime change," are two different phrasings that, in English at least, mean two entirely different things.

Edit: aha! that too you edited to be less obnoxious

 

[The Stealth Fox]

The Stealth Fox: that too seems beneath your ability; if you want to pick me apart and poke fun at me, at least do so while also addressing what I'm trying to convey.

Edit: aha! that too you edited to be less obnoxious

I don't give a shit on what you think is beneath my ability. Your political posturing irritates me. You actually don't say much and try to show double standards but you fail miserably. If you want people to address your objections, BE CLEAR. I literally have to sit down and search for your argument.

The two ideas, "eliminating a regime from history," and, "regime change," are two different phrasings that, in English at least, mean two entirely different things.

This is the exact dispute right here. GSG, state your position on this statement. Why should "eliminating a regime from history" necessitate the interpretation of "regime change". Here is the question: IS THIS WHAT THE FARSI IMPLIES?

The problem here APF, is not what was translated and English, but what was MEANT IN FARSI.

 

[itsinmyveins]

ItsInMyVeins: I just question the idea that a speaking engagement on an American campus is the push we need to get Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The idea that we're ignoring him, is unfortunately perhaps directly in agreement with people hawkish on the idea of preemptively attacking suspected nuclear sites, or invading wholesale...

Of course it's not a "push", but every motion starts small with a signal through nerves, don't they?

Ignoring the issue for I dont know how long (Two decades? Three?) is certainley not the push needed, that much I do know.

And one another thing; are they, in fact, pursuing nuclear weaponary or is it simply plants which have people suspicious?

 

[APF]

The problem here APF, is not what was translated and English, but what was MEANT IN FARSI.

No, you're not arguing against my point. My point is secondary to what is being explicitly stated; my point is, he's coyly dancing around an obvious implication without having the balls to outright say it, because he knows people who need to know what he's suggesting will get it, and people who are desperately trying to avoid conflict will desperately try to spin and hand-wave statements like this away.

Example: "It doesn't matter who was behind the attacks on 9/11. It doesn't matter if it was The Stealth Fox, or if it was GSG Flash, FlightyF, or whomever. The point is, they are evil men who must be eliminated from history." Now, there's some nuance in that sentence, and there is a favorable and unfavorable interpretation of what it is trying to say. But even if, in context, you believed I wasn't directly trying to suggest you were evil, you would still think I was an ass for coyly suggesting it.

 

[APF]

And one another thing; are they, in fact, pursuing nuclear weaponary or is it simply plants which have people suspicious?

There are many ways for the international community to verify one way or another; ways they can easily assent (reassent?) to.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

No, you're not arguing against my point.

I'm not trying to argue with you damn it! I'm trying to avoid it. I'm trying to "track the argument", that is, make it easy for other people to see what you're saying. But anyway, your objection still stands, because if you couldn't interpret what I said as "arguing against your point", then I'm obviously not representing your position properly.

State your point in the following way:

The statement in question:

What you think that statement means, and its implications:

And I'll take a look at GSG's argument and see if it actually addresses this point.

 

[itsinmyveins]

There are many ways for the international community to verify one way or another; ways they can easily assent (reassent?) to.

So there's no proof of weapons being developed?

Anyhow, I could live with them having nuclear plants if they'd open up more, and preferably changed president soon.

 

[APF]

TSF: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7921828&postcount=88

ItsInMyVeins: nuclear plants or weapons? Under the NPT (if it hasn't aready been completely trashed) they're allowed to have nuclear power. As for the first part of your question, the only likely "smoking gun" "is a mushroom cloud."

 

[The Stealth Fox]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7921828&postcount=88

ItsInMyVeins: nuclear plants or weapons? Under the NPT (if it hasn't aready been completely trashed) they're allowed to have nuclear power.

Whoa, I somehow missed that second paragraph.

"[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"

Note what isn't there, the word "Zionist" which you believe was part of this quote. No, it did not say, "Zionist regime," nor did it explicitly say, "Jews." But how can the Jewish rule of the Jewish state be eliminated from the pages of history, without... killing the Jews?

After digging (man do you write a lot), this is the relevant point. Someone address this point explicitly!

I do have an objection. There is a logical "disconnect" in your statement. There's no reason to read that much into it and say "OMG HE WANTS TO KILL JEWS BECAUSE HE WANTS TO ELIMINATE THE REGIME". Second of all, you don't need to kill Jews (as collective, religious or ethnic organization) in order to (underlined for careful wording) eliminate a "regime". You could just hypothetically force a regime change.

 

[DSWii60]

No, you're not arguing against my point. My point is secondary to what is being explicitly stated; my point is, he's coyly dancing around an obvious implication without having the balls to outright say it, because he knows people who need to know what he's suggesting will get it, and people who are desperately trying to avoid conflict will desperately try to spin and hand-wave statements like this away.
Example: "It doesn't matter who was behind the attacks on 9/11. It doesn't matter if it was The Stealth Fox, or if it was GSG Flash, FlightyF, or whomever. The point is, they are evil men who must be eliminated from history." Now, there's some nuance in that sentence, and there is a favorable and unfavorable interpretation of what it is trying to say. But even if, in context, you believed I wasn't directly trying to suggest you were evil, you would still think I was an ass for coyly suggesting it.

How come you haven't replied to any of my posts? Ahmadinejad was clearly referring to Zionism with his use of the word "regime" (see previous posts). He has clearly stated many times that he wants the Zionist regime to be eliminated so you saying "he's coyly dancing around an obvious implication without having the balls to outright say it" is completely false. Ahmadinejad, whatever you may think of him, is one of the most straight talking politicians ever. He gives it to you as he sees it without indulging in flowery language.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

How come you haven't replied to any of my posts? Ahmadinejad was clearly referring to Zionism with his use of the word "regime" (see previous posts).

DING DING DING DING DING, THE ISLAMIST DEFENSE FORCE IS GETTING SOMEWHERE!

As for APF, I get what you and GSG are arguing over now, you're arguing over what's implied by that translation. You believe you have the obvious and correct interpretation of the Qods statement.

Now, finally, I will state an opinion on this Ahmadinejad fellow.

Now, from what I've read, Ahmadinejad HATES the Zionist regime. To me, it doesn't make sense that he really wants to wipe "Jews" off the map.

As for Holocaust denial as evidence as someone is anti-semitic, I have a few viewpoints on that. It's contingent on this premise: there are two types of holocaust denying, one for argumentative purposes and one for seeing jews as ethnically and religiously inferior.

I for one, believe that Ahmadinejad is doing it for argumentative purposes. Why? It's quite obvious that many arguments for Isreal's existence are based upon the idea that "the jews need a homeland or they'll always be oppressed", which is contingent upon the holocaust. Everytime Ahmadinejad brings up the holocaust from speech to speech, he brings up Israel. The last thing he wants to do is acknowledge Israel's existence, the easiest way to argue against the Zionist regime is to deny the fundamental premise of the popular argument for Israel's existence, that is the Holocaust. He believes that this is a safe platform and the best way to argue against it because there are lots of people out there that believe this (but lol, they're really kooks). Hence, I believe that there really is no reason to believe Ahmadinejad is NECESSARILY an anti-Semite, although.

Explicitly speaking, holocaust denial is not synonymous with anti-semitism, but implicitly, IT COULD BE depending on the type of rhetorical purpose it performs.

My beliefs would be invalidated on the premise that being anti-israeli govt is automatically being anti-semitic. However, that premise needs to be questioned.

As for nukes and so on. I dunno.

 

[DSWii60]

Just to make it clear again, Ahmadinejad referred to Zionists in his statements and not Jews as a whole because the word "regime" in Farsi (pronounced ray-zheem) is more limited in scope than the equivalent in English. The Farsi word can only mean "government" or "people in power."

Another important point is that Ahmadinejad bears no animosity towards Jews, just Jews that support the "Zionists." If he was in any way anti-semitic, the Jews living Iran would be kicked out or imprisoned. Instead, they have a permanent member in parliament which may not seem much, but is the equivalent of e.g. Native Americans being given a permanent seat in the House of Representatives (although there are many more Native Americans in the U.S.A. than Jews in Iran).

As far as the Holocaust denial goes, he does not deny that the Holocaust happened, rather he denies the scale of what happened. Also he doesn't like its use as the justification for evicting the Palestinians out of there homes for the creation of Israel.

I'd like to point out that I am not agreeing with anything above, just pointing out that his position isn't as extreme as people believe.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

OMG IT JUST CLICKED. Now I see why GSG argued "regime change".

APF, if you don't see this, you're as blind as a bat. Let's look at the statement quickly.

"[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"

What the hell? The only thing that this implies IS regime change.

Let's rephrase it: "I don't want this regime to exist anymore" By not wanting a regime to exist anymore, aren't you wanting a "REGIME CHANGE?"

Who is doing the hand-waving now? :lol :lol :lol You're stretch of him "wanting to kill the Jews" is one of the biggest spins I have ever seen you perform. You accuse others of spinning constantly, yet you're willing to tell me, with a straight face too and abundant whining about the "Islamist Defense Force", that GSG was stupid for arguing regime change. The Soviet example summed it up perfectly. There was no spin involved. You do more handwaving by stretching his words to "killing 'the Jews'", than GSG does, this is blatantly obvious.

"I don't want this regime to exist anymore" = wanting a new regime. You don't need to kill "the jews" in order to achieve this objective (hence soviet example).

You can take your IDF whining and shove it up your ass. I'll retract my rude comments if you can accurately show what's wrong with this logic. This is by far the most inflammatory post I've written on GAF, but I can't believe your comments sometimes.

 

[Mandark]

There's a very strong anti-Israel sentiment in Iran, but no corresponding desire for the genocide of the Jewish people. If Ahmadinejad was playing to the crowd, which is a reasonable assumption, that wouldn't support the "nuclear war" interpretation of his statement.

It's still a hostile stance towards Israel, but it seems like a fairly important distinction to me.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Unless I see proof of Iranian pursual of nuclear weapons or inteference in Iraq (which despite consensus, still isn't proovable) -- I'll take to the streets to stop the UK being involved in any US action against Iran.

It seems clear to me that the US and Israel are heading into a possible conflict in the next few years.

Ahmadinejad's comments are

1) often rhetorical posturing to appease his supporters and
2) misinterpreted, as other posters have already assertained

I find myself often considering the idea that Iran and Shiite Islam are under a rather spurious attack here.

For the record -- I believe Iran deserve the right to nuclear energy as much as any other. The UK are going to be tackling the renewal of existing nuclear energy sites in the next decade, and I'm sure the US will too. Every nation in the world deserves the benefit of the doubt when using this energy source. There's no doubt that any nation even considering the use of nuclear force would be wiped off the map by more than one country, so why the cold-war esque panic?

 

[The Stealth Fox]

There's a very strong anti-Israel sentiment in Iran, but no corresponding desire for the genocide of the Jewish people. If Ahmadinejad was playing to the crowd, which is a reasonable assumption, that wouldn't support the "nuclear war" interpretation of his statement.

It's still a hostile stance towards Israel, but it seems like a fairly important distinction to me.

THANK YOU LORD!

Note that none of you are allowing for Ahmadinejad to say one thing literally, while suggesting another thing figuratively, in the context of his buildup of nuclear weaponry, his country's constant back-and-forth of hostile diplomatic rhetoric towards Israel, his personal belief that the holocaust was a myth, his personal belief that Israel shouldn't exist--or at least, not where it stands, etc.

APFs core argument is context. He believes that the Qods statement means his "killing Jews" interpretation given the context of nuclear weapon development, apparent holocaust-denying (which was addressed by some people, I like my conditional argument when dealing with this because it's pretty explicit that he is guilty of denying the holocaust, "holocaust denial" being in the sense that one denies the incident OR the extent to which it occurred), and hostile diplomatic rhetoric (WELL HE HATES "THE REGIME" DOESN'T HE AND WANTS A REGIME CHANGE).

APF, this isn't an issue of figurative vs. literal, or trying to protect Ahmadinejad's reputation because of all those things you've insinuiated about the Muslims that have posted in this thread.

It's simply being apocalyptic vs. not being apocalyptic.