Is Israel preparing to attack Iran ?

dlofnep

I was waiting for something to bring that up.

No, he did NOT say that he wanted Israel wiped off the map. It was taken out of context. The true translation was referring to removing Zionism - And not Israel. Iran was one of the first countries to acknowledge Israel as a state FTR.

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, 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]

Norouzi's translation is identical.[11] 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."[13]

rosboy

dlofnep wrote: »

I was waiting for something to bring that up.

No, he did NOT say that he wanted Israel wiped off the map. It was taken out of context. The true translation was referring to removing Zionism - And not Israel. Iran was one of the first countries to acknowledge Israel as a state FTR.

Perhaps, but his own translators diasgree:

But 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 Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If it was a missrepresentation of what he said, some one should tell the people he works for.

dlofnep

It's common knowledge that is was mistranslated. It has been translated by multiple independant sources.

Secondly, when asked - he confirmed it by stating he did not threaten Israel. He expressed that he wanted removal of "Zionism". There is a difference. However, Israel publically threatens Iran every week. That's the difference.

Iran was never going to attack Israel.

rosboy

dlofnep wrote: »

It's common knowledge that is was mistranslated. It has been translated by multiple independant sources.

Secondly, when asked - he confirmed it by stating he did not threaten Israel. He expressed that he wanted removal of "Zionism". There is a difference. However, Israel publically threatens Iran every week. That's the difference.

Iran was never going to attack Israel.

Fair enough it, was a mistranslation. The media do twist a lot of comments to make sensational headlines, and to serve other needs.

But you haven't addressed my last point. The people who work him, who are in charge of getting his message out, have translated it as referring to "wiping Israel away"

But 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 Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), 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.

dlofnep

He confirmed himself that he was referring to Zionism, and not Israel. I think it's safe to say that the man who said it knows what his intentions were.

You have to look at this at face value. Iran is not threatening Israel. At any point where he has been asked to clarify his comments, he has confirmed that he is not attacking Israel. Iran is not an aggressive state. Israel has been the aggressor in this entire situation and has confirmed on numerous occasions it's intentions to attack Iran.

CPT. SURF

marcsignal

I can only partially agree with you on this. At the time he left office Carter's presidency was certainly viewed by some as a failure, however his activities since leaving office, especially his many peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, have led him to be widely hailed as one of the most successful ex-presidents in U.S. history. I'd also argue that that attempts to villify him have not suceeded, and his popularity as a statesman has actually risen since he has left office.

Sorry marcsignal but I really have to disagree with you on this one. I live in the states, and have done so for quite a while now, and Jimmy Carter is not generally popular. Its not that people hate him or anything, in fact he would be more popular than the current president (not too hard considering he has the worst approval rating of any president in history right now), its just that he is seen as weak. He may be extremely popular outside the US though.

Personally, I like Jimmy Carter but I have heard negative opinions on him from Americans across the political spectrum. My good buddy is a history teacher in a high school, well educated, democrat, and he thinks Jimmy Carter was a crap president. Now go ask an uneducated country bumpkin what they think of Jimmy Carter and Im sure you can imagine the reaction.

He will always have his fans but without any data to back up my opinion, I have experienced a people who do not hold Carter that highly at all.

brianthebard

rosboy wrote: »

Hasn't Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on numerous occasions that he would like to "wipe Israel off the map"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1164881801325

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209627040670&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html

Don't get me wrong guys....I'm not a war monger. I don't condone Israels behaviour in certain matters. Neither do I support Iran.

But black and white statements like "has not at any point threatened Israel" annoy me when they are obviously wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL01_1BE4eE

If you watch this interview and the second part you will hear this issue of whether he threatened Israel being brought up-he explains the situation quite well imo. the other thing about Ahmadinejad is that ito power he is closer to Ireland's president than the USA's, except he doesn't even have power over the armed forces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran

CPT. SURF

Iran is not an aggressive state. by dlofnep

Do non agressive states have a history of kidnapping and taking hostages?

Memnoch

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Iran is not an aggressive state. by dlofnep

Do non agressive states have a history of kidnapping and taking hostages?

Well the U.S. kidnaps, tortures and murders. And weren't most European governments, including Ireland, complicit in the activity of rendition?

I guess there is no such thing as a non-aggressive state?

oscarBravo

Let's all stay on topic, ta.

wes

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Iran is not an aggressive state. by dlofnep

Do non agressive states have a history of kidnapping and taking hostages?

Wasn't that in response to the US, getting rid of the democratic Iranian government and installing a dictator, whom was then over thrown and then the Iranian's took hostages. Looks to me the US were the aggressor in that situation. Of course that doesn't excuse the Iranians actions at all, but still there actions were in response to US aggression regardless of there being right or wrong.

Also, didn't the US kidnap a bunch of people from Afghanistan and Pakistan? Does that make them the aggressor in that case then? Of course the actions of the US doesn't excuse the Iranians, but it does illustrate that kidnapping isn't necessarily the sole province of an aggressor.

Anyway, the simple fact remains the Iranians have not engaged in an aggressive war in a very long time (50 years I think). The current regime for all its faults are remarkably restrained, when compared to most of the major players in the region. While Adminjaed is a very much a blow hart, but he has no power. Israel and the US know he doesn't and know the power lies with the Ayotollah, who actually holds the power and the only one who can actually back up threats with military action. I honestly find it odd that people are always making Adminjaed out to be far more than he really is.

CPT. SURF

Thats awesome guys but I was talking about Iran, not the USA. Iran has also captured British nationals too don't forget.

But I would love to hear some more about how terrible the USA is, its so interesting.

ejmaztec

wes wrote: »

Anyway, the simple fact remains the Iranians have not engaged in an aggressive war in a very long time (50 years I think). QUOTE]

Aren't they carrying out war by proxy, particularly regarding their support for Hezbollah etc? It's easy to keep your hands clean if you pay someone else to dirty theirs. Not that Iran is the only regime involved in this kind of activity of course.

wes

ejmaztec wrote: »

Aren't they carrying out war by proxy, particularly regarding their support for Hezbollah etc? It's easy to keep your hands clean if you pay someone else to dirty theirs. Not that Iran is the only regime involved in this kind of activity of course.

The key word is aggressive. Israel is the aggressor in that case, as there still occupying Lebanese territory.

ejmaztec

wes wrote: »

The key word is aggressive. Israel is the aggressor in that case, as they're still occupying Lebanese territory.

I think that one might regard Hezbollah as being in the aggressive category. Aggression by proxy? Hezbollah and Israel are as bad as each other.

St_Crispin

marcsignal wrote: »

This was certainly true in the past, until very recently. The reason there are more Americans willing to listen to them now, is because of the blooper the Pro-Israel lobby made by calling "Jimmy Carter" an Anti-Semite.

Any time anyone criticized Israel in the US in the past, the Pro-Israel lobbiests' immediate reaction was to resort to 'name calling' and to label them an Anti-Semite, to the point that it almost became a reflex action.

Just wanted to point out that semites are the decendants of abraham. Arabs are a semite race. So technically arabs can't be anti semitic. (I know Jimmy Carter isn't an arab, but considering israeli rhetoric, I just thought it was worth mentioning)

wes

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Thats awesome guys but I was talking about Iran, not the USA. Iran has also captured British nationals too don't forget.

Whom were spying on Iran btw, so not the best example.

Sailors Were 'Intelligence Gathering'

So the Iranians grabbed people who were spying on them, that puts a very different spin on things.

CPT. SURF wrote: »

But I would love to hear some more about how terrible the USA is, its so interesting.

I never said the US were terrible at that point. Just asking if you consider it aggression when the US kidnaps foreign nationals. I mentioned it to compare the behavior of the US and Iran. Why is one considered aggressive and the other not?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because one country keeps our economy afloat, and one doesn't.

wes

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that one might regard Hezbollah as being in the aggressive category. Aggression by proxy? Hezbollah and Israel are as bad as each other.

Well they don't control Hezbollah. They may support them, but remember Hezbollah were created after Israels first invasion of Lebanon. As far as there concerned there still fighting the same fight, as Israel is still occupying the Sheba farms.

I agree Hezbollah are not nice people at all and have caused a lot of trouble.

St_Crispin

rosboy wrote: »

Perhaps, but his own translators diasgree:



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If it was a missrepresentation of what he said, some one should tell the people he works for.

Once again it's down to context. He was saying that the State of Israel should be wiped off the map. Not that the physical land and it's occupants should be obliterated. Many people in the middle east believe israel to be an illegal state which is on captured land. From what I know he was refering to the political entity.
The key is that he said he wanted it wiped off the map. Not the earth.

St_Crispin

wes wrote: »

Well they don't control Hezbollah. They may support them, but remember Hezbollah were created after Israels first invasion of Lebanon. As far as there concerned there still fighting the same fight, as Israel is still occupying the Sheba farms.

I agree Hezbollah are not nice people at all and have caused a lot of trouble.

They're not actually that bad. Their militia wing is, but hezbollah is more than just that.

Hezbollah also organizes extensive social development programs, running hospitals, news services, and educational facilities. Social services have a central role in the party's programs. Most experts believe that Hezbollah's social and health programs are worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually.[11]

Hezbollah organizes an extensive social development program and runs hospitals, news services, and educational facilities.[11] Some of its established institutions are: Emdad committee for Islamic Charity,[136] Hezbollah Central Press Office, Al Jarha Association,[137] and Jihad Al Binaa Developmental Association.[138] Jihad Al Binna's Reconstruction Campaign is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon.[139][140] Hezbollah has set up a Martyr's Institute (Al-Shahid Social Association), which guarantees to provide living and education expenses for the families of fighters who die in battle.[141] In March 2006, an IRIN news report of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs noted: "Hezbollah not only has armed and political wings - it also boasts an extensive social development program. Hezbollah currently operates at least four hospitals, twelve clinics, twelve schools and two agricultural centres that provide farmers with technical assistance and training. It also has an environmental department and an extensive social assistance program. Medical care is also cheaper than in most of the country's private hospitals and free for Hezbollah members".[11]

According to CNN: "Hezbollah did everything that a government should do, from collecting the garbage to running hospitals and repairing schools."[142] In July 2006, during the war with Israel, when there was no running water in Beirut, Hezbollah was arranging supplies around the city. "People here [in South Beirut] see Hezbollah as a political movement and a social service provider as much as it is a militia, in this traditionally poor and dispossessed Shiite community."[142] Also, after the war it competed with the Lebanese government to reconstruct destroyed areas. According to analysts like American University Professor Judith Swain Harik, Jihad al-Binaa has won the initial battle of hearts and minds, in large part because they are the most experienced in Lebanon in the field of reconstruction.[143]

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Social_services

The US give massive amounts of money and equipment to Israel. If a fraction of that went into humitarian aid and development then israel might not have a load of angry people sitting on it's doorstep.

nacho libre

wes wrote: »

Whom were spying on Iran btw, so not the best example.

Sailors Were 'Intelligence Gathering'

So the Iranians grabbed people who were spying on them, that puts a very ?

That link doesn't work. I bet this bit of news wasn't featured in the likes of the Daily Telegraph.

wes

nacho libre wrote: »

That link doesn't work. I bet this bit of news wasn't featured in the likes of the Daily Telegraph.

Odd the link is working fine for me.

Here it is again, just copy and paste it into your browser and it should work:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20082851259413

dlofnep

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Iran is not an aggressive state. by dlofnep

Do non agressive states have a history of kidnapping and taking hostages?

You obviously do not understand the meaning of aggressor.

The US hostage crisis was in retaliation for the US lead coup d'etat. I might add that America holds hostage 100's of people in Guantanamo Bay who have not had the right to a trial. Over 400 have been released without charge, which would give me good reason to believe that the US is capturing and torturing random people who are anyway linked with a specific nationality.

So before we try attack Iran's retaliation to the US coup d'etat, you need look no further to see the horrible human rights abuses by the US.

As far as the British Sailors/Marines go - Iran claimed that they had illegally entered their waters. Iran did free all 15 of them unharmed and the issue was resolved quickly. It's up to you whether you want to believe that they were in Iranian waters or not. It's Tony Blair's word against Iran. And also, the captain involved confirmed that they were gathering intel. Iran isn't going to try push buttons with people without a cause. There is still a huge difference between this issue where they felt their territorial boundaries were breached where a foreign country was gathering intel - to a state flat out stating it is going to attack another state where Israel has threatened to attack Iran.

So no, I wouldn't consider Iran an aggressive state. I would consider them a state that's in a very cautious state of defense.

Manic Moran

St_Crispin wrote: »

They're not actually that bad. Their militia wing is, but hezbollah is more than just that.

Depends very much on if you happen to be a Hezbollah constituent or not. I recall reading a very good post by a Lebanese blogger basically saying that Hezbollah is taking non-constituents in the rest of the country along with them whether they like it or not. They drag Lebanon into a war with Israel that most of Lebanon didn't want, and then when the 'reconstruction' dollars came out from Hezbullah, they went only to Hezbullah constituents, and to hell with the rest of the country. They support the independent Lebanese military only as long as the Lebanese military doesn't interfere with Hezbullah operations. They aren't so much a political party for the nation, as much as an independent government working solely for their own little fiefdom. Great if you happen to be a card-carrying member of said fiefdom, not so great if you're being brought along in wake.

NTM

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

As far as the British Sailors/Marines go - Iran claimed that they had illegally entered their waters. Iran did free all 15 of them unharmed and the issue was resolved quickly. It's up to you whether you want to believe that they were in Iranian waters or not. It's Tony Blair's word against Iran. And also, the captain involved confirmed that they were gathering intel. Iran isn't going to try push buttons with people without a cause. There is still a huge difference between this issue where they felt their territorial boundaries were breached where a foreign country was gathering intel - to a state flat out stating it is going to attack another state where Israel has threatened to attack Iran.

Generally speaking, cross-border military incursions such as UK into Spain, Switzerland into Liechtenstein, India into Pakistan, Mexico into USA, USA into Canada, UK into Ireland and so on and so forth tend to be resolved by the members of the one country's military or police politely pointing out to the members of the other country's military that they have crossed over to the wrong side, and would they mind awfully if they turned around and went back to their side. Coming out guns at the ready and outright capturing them is a little on the aggressive/excessive end of the scale.

I would also point out that there's a difference between a focused gathering of intel in the devious sense and simply keeping an eye on activity in border region, on both sides of the border, which is a perfectly normal and sensible activity and which is what was admitted by the captain in charge.

NTM

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote: »

Generally speaking, cross-border military incursions such as UK into Spain, Switzerland into Liechtenstein, India into Pakistan, Mexico into USA, USA into Canada, UK into Ireland and so on and so forth tend to be resolved by the members of the one country's military or police politely pointing out to the members of the other country's military that they have crossed over to the wrong side, and would they mind awfully if they turned around and went back to their side. Coming out guns at the ready and outright capturing them is a little on the aggressive/excessive end of the scale.

I would also point out that there's a difference between a focused gathering of intel in the devious sense and simply keeping an eye on activity in border region, on both sides of the border, which is a perfectly normal and sensible activity and which is what was admitted by the captain in charge.

NTM

What if an Iranian military boat strayed into US waters?

Manic Moran

jonny72 wrote: »

What if an Iranian military boat strayed into US waters?

No reason to believe it would be treated any differently to a Cuban, Mexican, or anyone else's nation that happens to cross over. "This is US Coast Guard Cutter Blank. You are in US Waters. Turn around immediately"

NTM

brianthebard

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that one might regard Hezbollah as being in the aggressive category. Aggression by proxy? Hezbollah and Israel are as bad as each other.

one is an occupying force,the other is trying to defend their people.how are they the same?

DublinWriter

Victor wrote: »

No, they were posturing.

+gogolplex

It's exactly the same type of antic India and Pakistan carry-out every seven years over Kashmir.