Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel

[oberliner]

In the test of wills between the West and Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows no sign of backing down.

The Iranian president has said Israel should be "wiped off the map," called the Holocaust a "myth," and said Israelis should be given a province in Austria, but they should get out of Palestine. Whatever was done to the Jews, said Ahmadinejad, we didn't do it. Europeans did. Why should we pay the price?

This weekend, The New York Times provided supporting testimony for Ahmadinejad, citing secret Cabinet notes of Winston Churchill's in 1943:

"I'm committed to creation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Let us go on with that; and at end of war we shall have plenty of force with which to compel the Arabs to acquiesce in our designs. Don't shirk our duties because of difficulties…"

This weekend, Ahmadinejad was in Damascus, Syria, winning the backing of President Assad for Iran's nuclear program, meeting with Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and scoffing at Israeli threats. Iran has also reasserted its right to enrich uranium for nuclear power.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437

In keeping with the theme for today.

[cool user name]

1. No love for Mahmoud ...

... but I certainly detest misrepresentations and misquotes as if I was an idiot.

He never said "wiped off the map" or any other such similar remark. Not to split hairs, but in order for reasonable debate to occur, we must start with at least a modicom of the truth, even if we disagree with it. It does no one any good to quibble over fantasies.

[Kagemusha]

2. I've tried that line and you won't get anywhere either.

Because bad people don't deserve a modicum of truth and combatting them with open misrepresentations that expose the greater truth - that they are bad people - is perfectly acceptable.

That's what I got told.

[cool user name]

3. Oh. Well, I don't like travelling down roads to nowhere.

:shrug:

[everythingsxen]

4. It would seem that

wikipedia and Mr. Ahmadenajahds staff translators disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

But why let facts get in the way when you have clearly found such a nice hero to follow...

[breakaleg]

5. This was completely uncalled for. How does what the poster you are responding to

said mean in any way, shape or form that he's found a "hero to follow" in Ahmadenajahds? How does calling for accurate translations (and the translations have been questioned by various people) mean that he defends him or is in any way a fan?

This is just another attempt to attack the messenger rather than respond to the post. And it's pathetic.

[Scurrilous]

6. I guess she missed the part...

...where the poster stated "No love for Mahmoud."

[breakaleg]

8. The thing is, there are plenty of areas in which we can disagree with one another in this

forum, without having to fuel the fire by making things up.

[cool user name]

9. Thanks for proving my point re: fantasies

You wish to think Ahmedinejad is my hero, far be it from me to infringe on your right to engage in such a fantasy; however twisted it may seem.

It harms me none.

However, I do have to question if whether or not you read your own links?

(snipped from the source you provided)

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.<20><21><22><23> Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:<24>

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: (...) Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. (emphasis added)

Your ad hominem not withstanding, I don't interpret Ahmedinejad's own words (not that of his "supposed" translators) to be "wiped from map" which was my original refutation - one which you seem to be have issue with, which is refuted by your own source (regardless of both positions taken at said source). Like I said, it does us no good to quibble in fantasies. The original article misrepresented and misquoted Ahmedinjad (good grief, I tire of spelling his name), whether deliberately or mistakenly, it's still incumbant upon us, as discussants to work from what we know are facts and debate those.

[everythingsxen]

10. As you said:

He never said "wiped off the map" or any other such similar remark. Not to split hairs, but in order for reasonable debate to occur, we must start with at least a modicom of the truth, even if we disagree with it. It does no one any good to quibble over fantasies.

He never said it. At all. Or anything even similar to it, according to you.

You even disagree with Juan Cole's suspect translation of it where he says that it was actually "wiping them off the pages of history".

Yeah, I do read my own links. Do you read what you post?

In one post you have alleged that Ahmadinajahd never said Israel should be wiped off the map and then as proof of how wrong I am for calling you on it, you post an interview excerpt where he is asked point blank about it and he does not deny saying it, he simply explains what he meant by it.

[cool user name]

11. You are attempting to extricate the quote from context as well, I see.

Cole's interpretation is as follows:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must <vanish from> the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)

Which I happen to agree with, or I should put it this way; from everything I have read regarding this issue, and more importantly, the context in which it was said, seems to support this interpretation.

Why would you say that I disagree with Juan Cole? I mentioned nothing about Juan Cole yet you've seemed to conjure that "fantasy" as well.

From you:

In one post you have alleged that Ahmadinajahd never said Israel should be wiped off the map and then as proof of how wrong I am for calling you on it, you post an interview excerpt where he is asked point blank about it and he does not deny saying it, he simply explains what he meant by it.

I did allege, quite accurately, that Ahmadinejad never said "wiped off the map." You quite accurately (the only thing you've gotten correct), "called me on it" but never gave a compelling reason as to how I was incorrect. :shrug: I did give an interview where he was asked point blank and he didn't deny it because it's right there in the context (see context is important). He had nothing to deny! He explained himself in the interview as to exactly what he meant - for those that may have had an issue with original quote (was originally the Ayatollah Khomeini's, by the way). So while it may be reasonable for those to have an intitial concern regarding the "wiping off the map" rhetoric, he explains himself in the interview! What else is there to debate really? Why would the opening post deliberately (or mistakenly) misquote him after he explained himself? For pure misinformation - which is what I took with initially as well.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm through with this complete distraction in the guise of a debate. I wanted to avoid debating fantasies, and it seems I'm debating yours.

Edit: Italicize Juan's "Imam" quote

[everythingsxen]

12. How convenient...

that you won't be reading this apparently. Ah well. Let me make a few more points that you will be avoiding:

Why would you say that I disagree with Juan Cole? I mentioned nothing about Juan Cole yet you've seemed to conjure that "fantasy" as well.

Once again you seem to have "forgotten" what you said. I will refresh your memory (again).

He never said "wiped off the map" or any other such similar remark. Not to split hairs, but in order for reasonable debate to occur, we must start with at least a modicom of the truth, even if we disagree with it. It does no one any good to quibble over fantasies.

You have said that he NEVER said it or ANY OTHER SUCH SIMILAR REMARK. I would call "Vanish from the pages of history" etc. (depending on which translation you choose) a similar remark, thus if you say he never said it yet Juan does, then I would say you disagree with Juan.

Just for fun though. Here is his website: http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/08/4/index-e.htm#b3 It sure sounds like he thinks he said something similar to wiping out Israel....

I did allege, quite accurately, that Ahmadinejad never said "wiped off the map." You quite accurately (the only thing you've gotten correct), "called me on it" but never gave a compelling reason as to how I was incorrect.

You alleged, the accurately part has pretty well been disproven by your own words and links I provided. If you need something more compelling than a link to several direct sources and Ahmadinajahds own website, then I doubt there is anything else I can provide you with to show that you are the one indulging in fantasy.

I did give an interview where he was asked point blank and he didn't deny it because it's right there in the context (see context is important). He had nothing to deny! He explained himself in the interview as to exactly what he meant - for those that may have had an issue with original quote (was originally the Ayatollah Khomeini's, by the way). So while it may be reasonable for those to have an intitial concern regarding the "wiping off the map" rhetoric, he explains himself in the interview!

This is where things get really fun, to me anyway. You have in the space of a single paragraph said that I am wrong and that you are right, that Ahmadinajahd never said wipe Israel off the map and then in virtually the same breath say that he said it but didn't mean it the way it sounds.

Why would the opening post deliberately (or mistakenly) misquote him after he explained himself? For pure misinformation - which is what I took with initially as well.

This is where I get a bit muddled though. You say that it was misinformation because he never said it, but that he did say it and explained that he meant something other than genocide which is why saying that he said something that he did say is misinformation because he already explained what he really meant. And he never said it. Does that pretty much sum up everything you have said so far?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm through with this complete distraction in the guise of a debate. I wanted to avoid debating fantasies, and it seems I'm debating yours.

Lets debate the definition of fantasy then. In my world fantasy means something that is not real. Apparently though you consider fantasy to mean inconvenient facts.

[cool user name]

13. I will address, what are now your misrepresentations, shortly.

It's early morning now and I need to go to work but your misrepresentation will not go unaddressed.

[cool user name]

14. My answer (it has to be short)

that you won't be reading this apparently. Ah well. Let me make a few more points that you will be avoiding:



Why would you say that I disagree with Juan Cole? I mentioned nothing about Juan Cole yet you've seemed to conjure that "fantasy" as well.


Once again you seem to have "forgotten" what you said. I will refresh your memory (again).


He never said "wiped off the map" or any other such similar remark. Not to split hairs, but in order for reasonable debate to occur, we must start with at least a modicom of the truth, even if we disagree with it. It does no one any good to quibble over fantasies.


You have said that he NEVER said it or ANY OTHER SUCH SIMILAR REMARK. I would call "Vanish from the pages of history" etc. (depending on which translation you choose) a similar remark, thus if you say he never said it yet Juan does, then I would say you disagree with Juan.

Just for fun though. Here is his website: http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384... It sure sounds like he thinks he said something similar to wiping out Israel....

Now you are splitting hairs. Juan's quote ("Vanish from the pages of history") at least takes what was said in context which is further supported by Ahmedinejad, himself. Talking about context, what must vanish from the page of time? The regime, according to Ahmedinejad - remember, he's the one on trial here so your attempt to misrepresent what I said regarding Juan Cole (who happens to have been accurate) is pretty silly, don't you think?

This is where things get really fun, to me anyway. You have in the space of a single paragraph said that I am wrong and that you are right, that Ahmadinajahd never said wipe Israel off the map and then in virtually the same breath say that he said it but didn't mean it the way it sounds.


Why would the opening post deliberately (or mistakenly) misquote him after he explained himself? For pure misinformation - which is what I took with initially as well.


This is where I get a bit muddled though. You say that it was misinformation because he never said it, but that he did say it and explained that he meant something other than genocide which is why saying that he said something that he did say is misinformation because he already explained what he really meant. And he never said it. Does that pretty much sum up everything you have said so far?


Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm through with this complete distraction in the guise of a debate. I wanted to avoid debating fantasies, and it seems I'm debating yours.


Lets debate the definition of fantasy then. In my world fantasy means something that is not real. Apparently though you consider fantasy to mean inconvenient facts.


Huh? I never contradicted myself. Ever. This is something with which you've conjured in your head. I can't believe you are this dense so I have to assume you are doing this deliberately.

Remember, you are the one who said Ahmedinejad is "my hero" and you wish to discuss this with me in all seriousness?

Get real. This whole debate is a distraction. I can't believe I got sucked into this.

Have fun now and you can, most certainly, have the last word on this.

[everythingsxen]

15. So the crux of your arguement would seem to be that...

You never said what you said and that Ahmadinajahd never said what he said and that even though you said what you said and he said what he said, they were just misrepresntations.

:wtf:

Now you are splitting hairs. Juan's quote ("Vanish from the pages of history") at least takes what was said in context which is further supported by Ahmedinejad, himself. Talking about context, what must vanish from the page of time? The regime, according to Ahmedinejad - remember, he's the one on trial here so your attempt to misrepresent what I said regarding Juan Cole (who happens to have been accurate) is pretty silly, don't you think?

You were the one who replied to the OP by saying that you didn't want to split hairs, but were anyway. I would have to say that hair splitting is what this whole debate has been about. You have argued that Ahmadinajahd never said what the article suggested, yet have consistantly agreed that he said it but that he has explained at another time that he meant something else.

Huh? I never contradicted myself. Ever. This is something with which you've conjured in your head. I can't believe you are this dense so I have to assume you are doing this deliberately.

You never contradicted yourself - ever. Uh huh. Except in every post after the first. I am apparently very dense. After all I am made of matter and I exist in the real world, not in fantasy land.

Remember, you are the one who said Ahmedinejad is "my hero" and you wish to discuss this with me in all seriousness?

Well technically that was a barbed jest, as you never actually /said/ he was your hero. However with as much defense as you have given to his statements, it does give one pause to wonder.

[bemildred]

7. This story seems a bit long in the tooth ...

Buchanan is not my cup of tea either. But, there is no test of wills between Iran and the US. Politicians do not back down because of empty threats or superior diplomatic posturing. The fact is that Bush and the neocon morons that encouraged Bush to invade Iraq handed Iran a really good set of cards, and Iran has been playing them. You don't like it, you need to play the game better, not bluff with a lousy hand all the time.