If we ever find out...

There is a vast difference between calling for regime change and the obliteration of a nation.

As for regime change, it was OK when Bush and Blair were calling for it in Iraq.
 
Armitage Shanks said:
Wikipedia is quite good at explaining the translation controversy. I think this is the most relevant bit:

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.

So while he wasnt perhaps being quite so dramatic as reported its not exactly friendly towards Israel. Plus hes said plenty of other stuff worthy of concern on this subject.
Click to expand...
From the very same article it glosses over the fact that that wipe Israel off the map translation is actually even on the Presidents website!

Translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Click to expand...

OldCoals said:
There is a vast difference between calling for regime change and the obliteration of a nation.

As for regime change, it was OK when Bush and Blair were calling for it in Iraq.
Click to expand...
For Iraqi's the difference is moot given how many of them were killed during the "regime change".
 
shroomz said:
Considering that the US is also a known sponsor of terrorism that statement doesn't really mean much.
Click to expand...

i suppose we have different meanings of "sponsor terrorism"

how do you see the US being a sponsor of terror?

or is it all just semantics "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

and it just depend on which side of the fence you are standing on?
 
Paul11 said:
i suppose we have different meanings of "sponsor terrorism"

how do you see the US being a sponsor of terror?

or is it all just semantics "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

and it just depend on which side of the fence you are standing on?
Click to expand...

No, the US trained and armed the mujahideen and bin Ladin in particular during the war in Afghanistan to fight the "damn Russkies", I think it's darkly ironic that those very same weapons and training are now being used against them. Also, I would use terrorist to describe anyone trying to win conflict in this manner, including Nelson Mandela and Che Guevara. There are no rules to war but there are rules to being human(in my opinion).
 
Last edited:
shroomz said:
Considering that the US is also a known sponsor of terrorism that statement doesn't really mean much. As for Iran having nuclear weapons, I think that the day both Israel and Iran have them, they may well go to war which wouldn't be good for anybody. Queue the western countries joining the conflict to maintain the oil supply which our lifestyles depend on and Russia coming in because "those bullies in the US have started on Iran, we're gonna sort them out!" and we have World War 3
Click to expand...

Just where in the hell do you come up with that notion? Geez...:rolleyes:
 
rickss69 said:
Just where in the hell do you come up with that notion? Geez...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which part? That the US sponsored terrorists on at least one occasion? Read my previous post: the US trained and armed the very people who are now called Al-Qaeda. Or that Iran having atomic weapons would be a bad thing? In that case I welcome you to explain why I'm wrong; and you can have your :rolleyes: back :)
 
shroomz said:
Which part? That the US sponsored terrorists on at least one occasion? Read my previous post: the US trained and armed the very people who are now called Al-Qaeda. Or that Iran having atomic weapons would be a bad thing? In that case I welcome you to explain why I'm wrong; and you can have your :rolleyes: back :)
Click to expand...

They were not terrorist's at the time you putz and you know this...:rolleyes: again...
 
Hard to debate something with someone who speaks in half-truths. ;) (That adult enough for you?)

By your definition every nation who has commited to any foriegn conflict is a sponsor of terrorism...
 
Last edited:
rickss69 said:
Hard to debate something with someone who speaks in half-truths. ;) (That adult enough for you?)

By your definition every nation who has commited to any foriegn conflict is a sponsor of terrorism...
Click to expand...

What might be a half truth for you might be the truth for him...its called having an opinion and you know people are allowed to have them....dont get so wound up by peoples opinion.

And i havent even begun to define the term state sponsored terrorism...so i again ask you, what were they if they were not terrorists??.
 
So I am to assume you think the Afghan people are/were terrorist's for accepting military aid/training in their quest to oust the Russian occupation?
 
Last edited:
rickss69 said:
So I am to assume you think the Afghan people are/were terrorist's for accepting military aid/training in their quest to oust the Russian occupation?
Click to expand...

It wasn't the Afghan people, it was the Mujahideen. I'm not sure how much you know about the Afghan war but at risk of being patronising I'll tell you that the Mujahideen were most certainly not the Afghan people. They were a dissident movement that right or wrong were fighting to overthrow the government who had introduced many unpopular changes in Afghan law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom