Iran: Holocaust remarks misunderstood

and the new translation.

I keep seeing "uh oh hot dog" asian translator reruns from MadTV dancing through my head.

more on edit:

While I don't trust him, it is a plausible explanation for these reasons:

1. it could have happened
2. what interest would a country who has to trade with non-arab partners have in pissing off the rest of the world over and over
3. why would they be concerned enough about it to issue a clarification?

Not being an apologist for their positions by any means, but I know that I EXPECT them to be irrational and anti-Israeli, so when the news spoon feeds me tidbits that validate my prejudice I don't question it too hard.

If there IS indeed another game afoot, I wonder what it is and whose interests are served by the possible outcomes.

He doesn't deny saying it. He says he didn't mean to say it, or that it was taken the wrong way.


2. what interest would a country who has to trade with non-arab partners have in pissing off the rest of the world over and over

Speaking of pissing off the rest of the world over and over, have you heard the crazy monkey-looking man on the teevee who yells about "terra" all the time?

I did catch that about not meaning to say whatever it was they didn't say }(

Is there an Evil Leader primer that these guys all operate from? They're all so similar I wonder some days.

"He doesn't deny saying it. He says he didn't mean to say it, or that it was taken the wrong way."

Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians. Completely different folks and they do not like Arabs.

his assassination call for Chavez of Venezuela. Who you gonna believe your own ears or my lying lips? Bush needs to go, Ahmadinejad needs to go, Robertson needs to go, on and on and on and on. We need leaders who are willing to talk to one another. Not out of greed, religious fanaticism, ideology, or any other bullshit. But out of reality and a common concern for the human race. There problem solved in a nutshell. :) Peace.

talk to each other.

Maybe before this rapidly aging Democrat bites the dust, please?

Don't bite the dust, at least not before I do. :) I hope we both have a few good years left. We HAVE to live to see another Democratic administration.

God willing, anyway.

They say something, people get outraged, then they come back to say what they really meant. What a bunch of fucking ASSHOLES! :eyes:

Mickey Mouse was right back in the 80's when he said FUCK YOU Iran!

be nice if the American media regularly reported on the goings on in Iran.
Of course then we would be reading news not scripted by Ruppert Murddock et. al.

his story. (And we'll see how that flies.) When Bush "misspeaks," because of "faulty intelligence," and just sort of accidentally slaughters tens of thousands of innocent Arabs, and tortures many more, he gets to say, "Oops! Darn those faulty intelligence people."

And if YOU were deemed a member of "the Axis of Evil," and had a super-power condemning you and talking of "regime change" every other day, you might just get rattled and "misspeak" something that NO ONE will give YOU a chance to clarify, or undo, and that WILL be trumpeted and magnified around the so-called "free world" by war profiteering corporate news monopolies who have a stake in your demise.

Whatever he said or didn't say, I think we have to back way, way, way up, with Iran--back to 1953, when WE destroyed their democracy, and removed their highly popular, democratically elected president, and installed the horrible "Shah of Iran" with his notorious torture prisons. THEY haven't forgotten this--though it may have been a mere blip in the news to agoraphobic Americans. We thus threw the Iranians right into the arms of the conservative religious mullahs. They STILL want democracy. Iran is a country full of young people who want to modernize. But they can't trust us. Can you blame them for that?

It was an unconscionable act. And it requires an APOLOGY. Period. THAT is the place to START with Iran.

The mullahs are trying to hold Iranian society together--and hold the country together as an independent, sovereign nation--in the face of unrelenting US and Israeli hostility to ITS existence as an independent, self-determined, self-governing country. We have nukes (and not enough manpower to invade). Israel has nukes. And the Iranian leaders know this. So now THEY want nukes. It is the only 'detente' they can think of.

We cannot, we should not--never a million years should we--invade that country again and install our own torture-loving government there, again. The grief to us will be endless. We will suffer a dozen 9/11's. And if we try to destroy them with nukes, then the whole planet's gone, all life on earth. (See Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," for the impacts to earth's atmosphere of even a limited nuclear exchange. The human race will not survive.)

Diplomacy, and forgiveness (on both sides), recompense, wisdom and generosity are the ONLY ANSWER. And that has to start with an apology for what WE did to them, back then.

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

The virulent reaction of the west to the idea that maybe Europe or some western country should have been the location for the state of Israel, rather than Palestine, may be a guilty reaction, in part--for there was, indeed, much anti-Jewish racism in the west, and dislike of the idea of hordes of displaced Jews flooding England and the US, which contributed to the decision of western powers to back the Jewish plan of returning to the Middle East. Some of the reaction is just hypocrisy.

And, as Mostafa Pourmohammadi pointed out (in the correction), it was not Arabs and Muslims who gassed 6 million Jews in the ovens. It was WESTERN EUROPEANS.

It's just plain wrong to think that the Jews don't have a right to be in the Middle East. It's their homeland, and what is more, their heartland--a long held dream of return, and of creating a safe place for Jews. The Arabs and Muslims who speak of it as all just being a western plot to invade their lands and steal their oil are clearly wrong, and viewing things myopically, in their own current self-interest. But then the Bush Cartel and the Neo-Cons are not helping to change that mis-perception. (Gee, why would Arabs feel that we in the west want to invade and dominate them, and steal their oil?)

It is a technique of diplomacy--of getting things done by peaceful means for the good of all--to IGNORE faux paus, or even ignore or downplay (don't overreact to) intended aggressive statements and positions--to act "as if" we're all reasonable and want peace, because that is often a good way to make it so, and that is the path to negotiation. Do you let the belligerent bleating and hostility go on and on, and hostilely bleat back, or do you find out what the other side really wants and put it on the table, along with what you want, and start working something out? As long as testosterone is in the air, peace cannot be achieved.

And, quite frankly, I don't think these war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who gave maximum coverage to this remark about the holocaust being a myth (if that's what he said, or what he meant), WANT peace in the Middle East. They want more war profits. Haven't we learned that?

And if I had a gold coin for every time George Bush made a stupid, ignorant, callous, belligerent, provoking remark, I'd be rich. One stupid, callous remark by an Iranian leader--and all the "regime change" talk gets up a new head of steam.

But, you know, it is not going to be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that we kill, if and when we invade or nuke Iran. It is going to be tens of thousands of innocent people who never did us or anyone any harm. Those are the stakes here.

We are being "played" again--just as with Saddam. We should be VERY WARY of these kind of media flurries. They are lethal.

I don't know what Ahmadinejad truly meant, or truly said...I just don't trust a lot of the reports. He may indeed be crazy or a hothead. He may be an awful and bigoted man. But my sense is that what could very easily have been no more than rhetoric in response to some other comments/actions that we didn't see or notice, got blown up into an international issue, without our knowing enough about the real significance of those remarks. And the all-to-real possibility that the rhetoric alone could possibly seen as a justification for "regime change" sends chills down my spine.

Thanks again for reminding us what diplomacy requires.

If you really believe that then you will deal with what was said, on live TV, as opposed to speculation ("But my sense is that what could very easily have been no more than rhetoric in response to some other comments/actions that we didn't see or notice, got blown up into an international issue, without our knowing enough about the real significance of those remarks."

I find it very telling that Arabic sources are saying he said the same damn thing as other sources are claiming, yet 'it could all just be a big misunderstanding.' Somehow I doubt all this 'hand-wringing' would be taking place if an Israeli said something to the same effect in Hebrew; it would be 'gospel!'

must be interpreted in that light, imho. Look at this article from April of this year, bta:

Iran: U.S., Israel threats to Islamic rule

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 12 (UPI) -- The chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards charged Tuesday that the United States and Israel posed a threat to Iran's Islamic rule.

The Iranian News Agency quoted Gen. Yehya Safawi as warning that "the defense system of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has been designed to counter such U.S. and Israeli threats."

Safawi warned Washington and Tel Aviv against attacking Iran, stressing that "the Revolutionary Guards' five divisions will respond firmly to any threat on Iran and its regime."

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050412-065418-3324r.htm

Do I see the Iranian president as a swell person? A sensible diplomat? Nah. Not even a particularly sensible politician! But I do see that there is a context to his remarks, and that context must be looked at in order for us to avoid rushing off into some new foreign adventure for the most flimsy of reasons. As I said, I think this may be posturing on his part, rather than an actual threat to Israel. Not pretty. And please note that I am not defending anti-semitic statements, I'm merely saying that I'm not certain that any such comments ought to be elevated to the level of an international crisis, or given such coverage and attention as they have.

Edited to add link.

I really see no context in what he said. Threatening to wipe an entire sovereign nation off the map is not just "poor wording!" You are correct in one thing though, Iran is not a threat to Israel, as is. However, a 'nuclear' Iran would be a threat to Israel (and if Iraq actually becomes so sibilance of a democracy, she will also be in danger).

As for your last statement, all I can say is one word: Hitler. (If you don't understand what I am saying, let me know.)

comments, however unacceptable, mean that we need to say that Iran has risen to the level of a Hitler. That seems to me to dangerously overstate the case. Can you not see that Iran sees a threat coming from Israel, which already has a nuclear program, with an estimated 200 nukes. And Israel, in addition, has made repeated comments suggesting "regime change" in Iran. The comments of the Iranians need to be viewed in that context, imho. The comments did not occur in a vacumn.

I myself feel highly uncomfortable with theocracies, Islamic or otherwise, so please don't mistake my comments for some sort of defense of the Iranian government, per se. I don't agree with the Iranian position on Israel in general. I am just concerned that an over-reaction on our part, based on comments without a complete understanding of the context, is very dangerous. I don't want our government to meddle further, and involve itself in "regime change" in the ME. Do you?

I was not saying Iran or even their president was Hitler or has risen to his level. You said, "...I'm merely saying that I'm not certain that any such comments ought to be elevated to the level of an international crisis, or given such coverage and attention as they have." My reply was "Hitler." Hitler didn't start out as "Hitler." When he was making his Jew-hating speeches few people, including Jews, took any heed. They just saw him as a little man seeking power. Even after he illegally invaded Poland, few people, again, including Jews, paid him much mind or didn't want to get involved.

As for "regime change" in Iran, Israel is hardly the only country to say such things. As a matter of fact, the US, which has recently illegally invaded and occupied another country, has been saying the same thing. However, Ahmadinejad didn't say anything about "wiping the US off the map." So, I say that, while it may be prudent to heed the words of Israel, when Iran is faced with the 'real' group looking for regime change, wouldn't it make more sense to see the US as the real potential enemy? The current US president said "regime change" for Iraq, then invaded and now occupies Iraq (Iran's neighbor). Despite world condemnation, no real actions were taken against the US, even by the Arab world, why was that? Because no one really liked Saddam. So, why they wag their finger in disapproval, there is a certain 'sigh of relief' that he is gone (although, the ends still do not justify the means). The same reaction would happen if it were Iran (which is really not liked by the Arab world). It wouldn't be as easy because of Chinese and Russian support for Iran is a little greater.

No, the only real action here is to distract. Create a sense that any action against Iran, mostly likely from the US, is all in the defense of Israel, thus allowing the Arab leaders to still do business with Washington and hate Israel more for being the real agent controlling DC and allow the far-left to say that our soldiers are dying for Israel again.

As for regime change, the only ones that should ever be involved are the citizens of that country, with a few exceptions.

Because we should all give multiple, repeated, benefit of the doubt to insane statements made by right-wing religious fudamentalists. That's the Democratic Underground way.

No. Wait a minute...

Since when do we bend over backwards to defend what nut-job right-wing religious fundamentalists say? Let's see...

Can somebody point me to a statement like the following when Robertson called for assassinating Chavez or when he and Falwell blamed 9/11 on lesbians? I must have missed it.

I don't know what Pat Robertson truly meant, or truly said...I just don't trust a lot of the reports. He may indeed be crazy or a hothead. He may be an awful and bigoted man. But my sense is that what could very easily have been no more than rhetoric in response to some other comments/actions that we didn't see or notice, got blown up into an international issue, without our knowing enough about the real significance of those remarks. And the all-to-real possibility that the rhetoric alone could possibly seen as a justification for "regime change" sends chills down my spine.

Thanks again for reminding us what diplomacy requires.

Yep. I must have missed it. But, I'm sure it was there since we're such great supporters of right-wing religious fundamentalist nut-jobs.

:sarcasm:

this is just one more example of iran-bashing. it doesn't really matter WHAT he says, everything will be twisted into maniacal ranting by the media. its gonna get worse too i think. i'm sure folks noticed the 'iranian caught with a truckload of fake ballots' story recently? it was stuff just like that which gw and crew made their case for a war with iraq. this time around though, (*note, this is about the coming iranian oil bourse, not wmd, terror, or whatever excuse bush uses) they'll likely foment some sort of crisis that demands 'immediate action', thus avoiding any need to deal with the un.

It does matter what he says!

My dear fellow, this is much, much more that a little harmless banter. Iran, a sovereign nation I believe, has a president who has severe problems controlling his mouth and for what purpose remains to be seen. He is obviously hell-bent on stirring things up.

Israel just doesn't need this.

Iran really doesn't need this either. There are many sane, rational and intelligent people who live in Iran and I'm sure they're cringing at the words of their illustrious leader.

Me thinks the president of Iran had better learn to keep a lid on it because he ain't making any new friends and I think Israel is pretty fed up with it too.

When it comes to translations. Remember Kruschev's mistranslated "We will bury you," when what he tried to say was "We will leave you in our dust."

The word "myth" in English is problematic. To me, it means an often repeated story with a deeper resonance. It doesn't mean a false story, as most seem to have interpreted it. "Myth" can refer to a true story that has become part of the collective knowledge of a society, like the Civil War myth, the JFK myth, the Constitutional myth, etc.

Taken in that way, which is my first instinct, all Ahmadinejad said was that the Holocaust was a western story about what westerners did wrong, and so westerners should solve the problem themselves instead of stealing lands from people who had nothing to do with it (whether that argument is valid is another discussion).

I can believe the comments were misconstrued, especially since after making the comment, he went on to say that the west should be the ones to atone for the Holocaust. If he didn't believe it happened, why would he add the part about the West shouldering the burden? I haven't seen the full comments, so I don't know if he said anything more specific. It could even be that he didn't really care whether the story was true or false, he only wondered why Palestine was the land "given" to the Jews as atonement for the sins of the West.

I've learned two things in my short life: one, don't trust the American media for accuracy, and two, aside from our own, most world leaders are not as stupid as we make them out to be. There are exceptions--I just assume my points are valid until I see proof otherwise.

The myth statement isn't even the worst of it. Here are a few passages from the Guardian UK article referenced below:


Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth".

He also said: "Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any who recognises the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

But Mr Ahmadinejad rejected compromise: "There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will wipe off this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Recalling the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, he said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html


President Ahmadinejad made his wipe-the-Jews-off-the-map remarks as part of a speech called “A World Without Zionism”, so my guess is this wasn't one of those subtle nuances lost in translation.

Here's some more "nuance":

Hassan Abbassi, Mr Ahmadinejad's chief strategist, has created a war plan based on the idea that “Britain is the mother of all evils” (by these he means the Anglosphere, including U.S., Canada, Australia, etc.) “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”

Wake up!!!! This is a frickin' madman, the kind of fundy theocrat true believer who won't be afraid of nuclear solutions - because Allah wills it.

I'm not trying to dis anyone here, just saying this is an extraordinarily dangerous man. The Israelis have nukes. If they think this guy is serious, they WILL do something about it. Talk about hitting a beehive with a baseball bat. What a dumbfuck.

The Iranians themselves were concerned about the possibility of something being lost in translation. That's why, when Mr. Ahmadinejad delivered his remarks, he did so in front of a banner which said, in English, "A World Without Zionism". You see, they were worried that someone might miss the point. Judging from this discussion, they were right.

The main thrust of his argument was that it was Europe that abused the Jews so Europe should pay the price not the Palestinian people. But then he denied the Holocaust, which invalidates his argument. Not clever.

It's pretty clear that you're a nutjob. Change in Iran can't come soon enough.

that's a fact. Jews displaced Palestinians from Palestinian land. That's a fact. The Iranian President is trying to draw a connection between the two. That's all I'm pointing out.

That's a fact. But nothing else you said was.

For example, you seem to be forgetting that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the de facto head of government in the area you call "Palestinian land") was an ally of the Nazis, was convicted of war crimes for organizing the extermination of the Jews of (then) Yugoslavia and negotiated with Eichmann to have a design made up for an extermination camp to be build just north of Jerusalem so that he could solve his own "Jewish Problem" after the war.

Just because a country wasn't in Europe or East Asia didn't mean they didn't work quite closely with either the Axis or the Allies. In the case of most of the arab states, they chose the Axis.

I thought they never tried him because of the uproar it would cause?

while he hid out in Egypt avoiding prosecution. The evidence was clear and overwhelming. Besides, I don't think there was much uproar expected in prosecuting a Nazi mass murderer back then.

together and mate.

He said the ocean is purple

He didn't say the sky is blue

He said oysters grow in trees

He didn't say elephants can dance

He said dust tastes like chicken

I'm glad he corrected our misconception

Uh huh.

...will use anything, no matter how ignorant, to build the pretense for invading Iran. Obviously, what the Iranian president said flies in the face of the massive amount of evidence that proves that the Holocaust really took place. But, we need to remember to keep our eyes on the REAL problem facing the world today, and Iran is not the problem.

PB

I meant to make it a response to the original message.

PB

Just because the NeoCons say it doesn't make it false. They're amoral but not stupid. (It'd be easier if they were)

Those of us who follow the region have been saying for years (long before Bush took power) that there are three governments that are real problems. Those are:

Saudi Arabia (the split inside the royal family between religious fundamentalists and secular modernists is a slow motion civil war)
Iran (a country run by nut-case right-wing religious fundamentalists)
Syria (a country that's become a hereditary monarchy with a dangerously incompetent virtual king)

That the NeoCons agree on two of these doesn't suddenly make the analysis wrong.

Sorry, the current governement of Iran is loony tunes. They may be less insane than a decade ago but they are still, clearly insane.

They said they would attack Iran in March, 2006.

Our regime has made military threats against Iran repeatedly over the last twelve months.

We are the aggressors in the middle east.

Our regime's energy plan is to take over southwest and central Asis piece by piece.

We are led by loony-tunes. The significance of the March date is tied more to a coming financial and energy crisis in America coming in 2006.

What you are apparently commenting on didn't "just" happen. There was an unattributed report in a British paper last week that reported that somebody had anonymously stated something to that effect. That was later denied and there's no evidence to back the story.

So, basically, you promoted an undocumented rumor from last week to "It Just Happened and Is Confirmed!!!!!" breathless headlines.

Whether it is a bluff or not remains to be seen. As former SecDef Perry said with respect to N.Korean proliferation, you must convince them that you are willing to go to war. Stories like these are deliberately placed in the news incident to the threat laden negotiations.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations...

“Israel — and not only Israel — cannot accept a nuclear Iran,” Sharon warned recently. “We have the ability to deal with this and we’re making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation.”

The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli defence ministry to the chief of staff. Sources inside special forces command confirmed that “G” readiness — the highest stage — for an operation was announced last week...

Aharon Zeevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief, stepped up the pressure on Iran this month when he warned Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, that “if by the end of March the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations security council, then we can say the international effort has run its course”.

Later in the same article, Netanyahu in so many words says he would do the same if the opportunity presents itself to him.


Title: IAF: Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran
Source: haaretzdaily
URL Source: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/543087.html
Published: Feb 21, 2005
Author: Haaretz Staff and The Associated Press
Post Date: 2005-02-21 19:33:49 by TLBSHOW
9 Comments

IAF: Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran

Israel Air Force Commander-in-Chief Major General Eliezer Shakedi said Monday that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran in light of its nuclear activity.

But in a meeting with reporters, Shakedi wouldn't say whether he thought Israel was capable of carrying out such a mission alone, as it did when it bombed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981.

When asked whether Israel has a plan for the Iranian nuclear program, Shakedi replied, "You know that for obvious reasons, I won't say even a word."

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_5543.shtml

Bolton: US 'very concerned' Israel might attack Iran
Jan 31, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Bolton: US 'very concerned' Israel might attack Iran
Jan 31, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS

An American envoy repeated US allegations Monday about an Iranian nuclear weapons program and said Israel might attack Iran's nuclear sites because the Jewish state has "a history" of such actions.

John Bolton, the State Department's top international security official, was referring to Israel's 1981 bombing raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

"The vice president said we're very concerned that this might happen," Bolton said, referring to a recent statement by US Vice President Dick Cheney.

Despite all the verbiage you list, none of it backs up the story as anything more than a British pseudo-journalist with nothing to do but make up stories to avoid having to do yet another "Isn't it a lovely time of year" piece. And every report on the story has said that. (Well, maybe not those in Iran but...)

Did you read them? Are you trying to say the quotes from Sharon and intelligence officials in newspapers like Ha'aretz are just made up stories?

Violet...

Every single person with any knowlege has said it wasn't true and the author presented no evidence. Yes, it's possible that everyone involved is lying and that this story with no evidence presented to back it up is true despite all but that's also the same logic used to say that the earth is flat, the moon landing was in a sound stage in Arizona and that the government is secretly run by shape-shifting alien lizards.

in 1953, and replaced it with a dictator who tortured his own citizens! And we are going to correct this horrendous act by SLAUGHTERING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRANIANS, installing our own puppet again and stealing their oil??????

The U.S. and Israel DROVE the Iranians into the arms of the mullahs. The Iranians felt it was their ONLY protection against more western coups, torture, death and thievery. And it is the U.S. and Israeli nuke and arms industry that WANTS their to be crazy mullahs in Iran, SO THAT they can steal US citizens blind, and use our sons and daughters as cannon fodder in their goddamn wars for oil. They DON'T WANT democracy in Iran. They DON'T WANT sanity in Iran. They DON'T WANT self-determination in Iran. They want to TAKE OVER Iran!

This is an orchestrated war campaign, just like with Iraq. Beware! Beware! Beware!

Yes, the US did overthrow the elected Iranian government in 1953 and place Reza Pahlavi on the throne (quite like the British and French created the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc.) but Israel at the time was 4 years old, recovering from the 1948-9 war caused by the invasion of those same Western-created governments and absorbing close to 900,000 Jewish refugees from North Africa and the Middle East who were expelled from their homes for the crime of being Jewish.

Sorry. You'll have to find something else to blame on "the usual suspects".

but I hope they understand that he is baiting the Israelis. Ahmadinejad's real goal is to have a reason to invade Iraq.