Sigh. If he hasn’t said it outright he spends a whole lot of time defending statements so easily misinterpreted.
So didn’t say it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Or, he did say it, but has been backpedaling since. Much more likely, in fact.
No. Not more likely. He has said repeatedly and in many situations that he means, and this is the explicit analogy he used, like the Soviet Union disappeared as a political entity.
["]
A commentator’s analysis]([URL="Lost in translation | Jonathan Steele | The Guardian)
He’s still an obnoxious little shit though and the sooner him and his ilk adorn a few street lights, the better for all concerned.
I’ve come to realize that Ahmadinejad is a net negative on the world stage, and needs to go. However, it always sticks in my craw when misquotes are perpetuated for expediency or political gain.
Quite. It’s The Boy Who Cried Wolf on a giant scale.
People like Daniel Pipes, who see it as their job in life to unconditionally support Israel no matter what, by fair means or foul do Israel no service with their cynical lies.
One day maybe the world will need to pay attention and we’ll just assume it’s the same old same old.
He is quoting what Ayatollah Khomeini said.
Whatever Khomeini said is what he meant by his comment because that is who he was trying to quote. Anyone know what that was?
Another quote in the article that pretty much says the same thing:
Statement on Israel on the Anniversary of Death of Ayatollah Khomeini
Does anyone translate disappear off the geographical scene as anything other than disappear off the map? Now he does say regime, but how does a regime disappear off of a map? It doesn’t, a country can.
The Soviet Union isn’t on any maps is it? Any luck finding Nazi Germany? Kampuchea seems a bit shy. Anyone who maintains he was calling for the physical destruction of Israel is either a cynical ideologue or a fool.
Yeah, you’re right. How could anyone mistake Ahmadinejad for someone who doesn’t care?
Nazi Germany was destroyed, btw. Not a good example.
And what, exeactly, does “regime change” constitute as far as Israel is concerned?
Changing the government? Changing the political system? Changing the borders? Changing the population? Be specific.
The point, which as a cynical ideologue you know already, is that a regime vanished from the map. Just like the Soviet Union and the rest of the Communist Bloc. And Pol Pot’s regime. And the Saigon regime.
The regime changed and the people and country remained in different political units. Some of them in Poland, some in the GDR some in West Germany.
And good riddance to the lot of them.
No one, with the slightest coating of brain cells on the inside of their skull, can believe that he was threatening to nuke Israel. It remains a cynical lie perpetrated by people who appear to put loyalty to a foreign power above all else and swallowed whole by unthinking fools.
It’s about time the Big Lie approach to politics stopped working.
There’s reason enough to fear Islamic fundamentalism without making shit up. Making shit up just hurts that fight.
Either you are informed enough to take part in a debate or you aren’t. And if you aren’t then let Google Be Your Friend.
He favours the ‘tyranny of the majority’ solution of a single state within the borders of Palestine/Greater Israel.
He no doubt also believes in flying pigs and the tooth fairy. Being a lunatic.
WTF? I don’t remember ever saying he was going to nuke anyone? According to the link I posted he even makes mention that it would be stupid to do so. It doesn’t change the fact that if there wasn’t anyone to stop him and no consequences for doing so, he’d likely do it.
And who the hell is making stuff up? You see one translation and others see another. And frankly, I don’t speak farsi to know which one is correct. Based on the character of the individual, it isn’t a stretch to assume which one is correct. Sheesh.
And again, most of those countries you quote changed regimes through the death of thousands, if not millions. So, when Alessan asks what regime change means, you’ve pretty much said it means lots of people get killed.
Not familiar with the Socratic Method, are you?
Anyway -
We agree that Achmedinajad intends grevious and permanant harm to my country and, in all likelihood, to my countrymen. How is this different from what you define as the “incorrect” way of translating his statements?
I don’t either, but I have friends who do. While the words are ambiguous and don’t translate directly into English well, given the attitude of the speaker they tell me it’s pretty much a no brainer as to what he meant.
-XT
I’d also like to add that Israel boasts tens of thousands of native Farsi speakers, including the Minister of Defense in office when the statement was made in 2005. We certainly don’t need Juan Cole or the New York Times to translate for us.
There is no doubt here as to Achmedinajad’s intentions.
Interesting. It’s like when Khrushchev said the USSR would “bury” the West. In English that sounds like a threat, but in Russian it’s an idiom meaning “to attend someone’s funeral.” IOW, he was only predicting, “We will outlast you,” i.e., capitalism would eventually collapse or self-destruct as Marx predicted.
He’s a politician. Don’t confuse his statements with his intentions.
I hate to Godwinize the thread, but Hitler was a politician too…so was Stalin. Don’t confuse what you want to hear with what he’s actually saying, and don’t forget that YOU (and me, and everyone in this thread) aren’t his target audience. To the people who ARE his target audience his statements are pretty much crystal clear, seemingly.
Also, don’t forget for a moment that this guy represents the REAL far right…ultra conservative, fundamentally religious.
-XT
Yes, actually I need to start following your lead on this. I am asked to repeat myself quite a bit.