is it acceptable when the U.S. talks of changing the regime in other countries.
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1518&highlight=wipe+israel+map"I ask this, you see, because MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), gives this as the correct translation: ""'Imam said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise." http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305 This sentence comes immediately after 4 paragraphs which when taken together belie the BBC translaton....
As you can see from this translation the previous paragraphs talked about various regimes: the Shah's regime, the Communist regime in USSR, and Saddam Hussein, all examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. They weren't "wiped off the map"Should this clause only apply to others, maybe we need to take the lead in toning down our language as well.
"Whereas Article 2, Section 4, of the United Nations Charter, to which Iran has agreed as a Member State of the United Nations, requires all Member States of the United Nations to `refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state';"
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
