WickedAngel said: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.
WickedAngel said: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?
FightyF said: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.
DSWii60 said:What did he say exactly in Farsi?
DSWii60 said:Jesus is a Prophet in Islam aswell BTW.
FightyF said: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)
Francois the Great said:they are obviously setting him up to be assassinated
DSWii60 said: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."
FightyF said: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.
APF said: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
GSG Flash said: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.
First off, here is Flighty's translation:GSG Flash said:How you got "Jews" from "Zionist regime" I can never understand.
Yeah, *no one* thinks when people talk about war with Iran, that it will affect the people of Iran....GSG Flash said: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 [...])
quadriplegicjon said: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 ).
Let's play FlightyF's game: when did Bush say that?GSG Flash said:calling the Iranian regime "terrorists"
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!!!GSG Flash said:can strongly be constructed to mean that he wants a regime change in Iran
FightyF said: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.
APF said: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?
APF said:Let's play FlightyF's game: when did Bush say that?
APF said: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!!!
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.StoOgE said: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 said: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.
APF said: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.
APF said: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.
Jacobi said:IMO Ahmedinajfadhscd is an intelligent guy, he's just either misleaded or fakes his limited knowledge in history.
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.The Stealth Fox said: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.
Wait, what? That's retarded. I'm taking FlightyF's translation (MEMRI's) as accurate, yes, but so is everyone else...?The Stealth Fox said:"Whatever translation I read is absolutely accurate and I have to take it at face value. You're stupid if you think otherwise."
We're all looking at the same translation, idiot! I expect more from you.The Stealth Fox said: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).
Not really. There aren't many Bush Administration officials on the Columbia campus, AFAIK.ItsInMyVeins said:The main point is that it could be the opening for a dialouge between USA and Iran, isn't it?
Through the UN or one-on-one? Privately or publicly?ItsInMyVeins said:The guy is an idiot, but the idiot in charge nontheless. How long has it been since USA actually talked to Iran?
The Stealth Fox said: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).
APF said:Not really. There aren't many Bush Administration officials on the Columbia campus, AFAIK.
APF said:Through the UN or one-on-one? Privately or publicly?
APF said: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.
APF said: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
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.
APF said: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...
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.The Stealth Fox said:The problem here APF, is not what was translated and English, but what was MEANT IN FARSI.
There are many ways for the international community to verify one way or another; ways they can easily assent (reassent?) to.ItsInMyVeins said:And one another thing; are they, in fact, pursuing nuclear weaponary or is it simply plants which have people suspicious?
APF said:No, you're not arguing against my point.
APF said:There are many ways for the international community to verify one way or another; ways they can easily assent (reassent?) to.
APF said: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.
"[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?
APF said: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.
DING DING DING DING DING, THE ISLAMIST DEFENSE FORCE IS GETTING SOMEWHERE!DSWii60 said: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).
Mandark said: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.
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.