|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Points:
1. The Iranians say they are developing nuclear weapons.
2. Ahmadinajad has stated he wished the destruction. He appears to be backed by the Mullahs.
3. Israel has between 200 and 30 nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear weapons.
4. Iraq is pretty well under control, except for interferance for Iran.
5. Israel could be crippled by one or two nuclear strikes.
6. The Soviets are no longer a meance. China is a menace and will be so as long as they continue in their imperial atttude (Tibet, Sinjiang, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and Viet Nam have all been invaded by Chins).
7. Iran is a huge oild producer in its own right. It does not need nuclear weapons for anything except to counter American power.
8. Ronald Reagan won the cold war.
9. The best thing to do is to take them out before they become any bigger threat. If it is necessary to use nukes to take them out so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Well, if you're earnestly opposed to nuclear non-proliferation, then i think it kinda has to start at home.
We have a pile of nukes that could blow up the entire world. Do we need more?
Well, in 1999, against Clinton's wishes, Congress decided we couldn't be part of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. How seriously concerned do you have to be about nukes before you stop your own nuke program?
We really didn't need more nukes in 1999. We have enough.
But it isn't about us right? It's about those crazies that might use them.
We're the only country who has ever used them.
Why don't more people use them?
MAD. MAD is what keeps them off the table.
We have serious issues with the Iranian government. We had the same issues with the Soviets. Despite all the characterizations of them as crazy, I don't see them as crazier than Kim Jong Il, and you might have a point if israel didn't already have nukes, but they do.
All of this calling people crazy while we appear possibly even crazier is not really sane.
How many non-aligned countries clenched their rectums while we had a throwdown with the USSR?
What some are saying is that it's not fair I clench my rectum while you others have it out.
I agree. It's no fun, but my sphincter was set into place back when India and pakistan had their stand-off.
I honestly don't think Iran is more insane than Pakistan.
Rather, I see Pakistan as the Sid Vicious of the nuclear club.
There are about 4 concrete walls and 2 barbed-wire fences between militant crazies and them getting their hand on the button.
Shall we bomb them?
The whole story about iran using nukes as a for an expeditionary campaign into surrounding countries is also bunko, war-mongering tactics.
just because a country has a nuke doesn't mean you can't oppose them with conventional forces.
To finish, I don't want to appear as wanting Iran to have a nuke. It's not like I like the idea. It's just that those who are now saying the sky is falling weren't interested a good ten years ago when they weren't against nuclear proliferation. |
Ali Khamani is crazier and far more ruthless than Mushsharif.
North Korea has gotten a lot of strategic leverage from its nuclear program.
Iran could use the threat of nuclear weapons to allow Iran to escape retribution for supporting Hizzbollah . Also other countries in the region would think twice about crossing Iran on any issue like oil output. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran will be attacked. No question about is, just like Iraq was attacked.
And not for it's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. That's just a decoy excuse for the gullible, just like wmds were for Iraq.
Here's why Iran will be attacked:
1. With allegedly the world's third largest reserves of oil - has begun accepting payment for it's oil in Euros which threatens to collapse the dollar and
2. Iran can flood the world with cheap oil - breaking the cartel of those who control the oil today.
Simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
Points:
1. The Iranians say they are developing nuclear weapons.
No they haven't. Give us one source where Iran says they are developing nuclear weapons.
2. Ahmadinajad has stated he wished the destruction. He appears to be backed by the Mullahs.
Ahmadinajad has said the Zionist political system should be wiped off the map. That's not the same as saying Israel should be destroyed.
3. Israel has between 200 and 30 nuclear weapons, including thermonuclear weapons.
And does not submit to inspections although they insisted Iraq and now Iran do.
4. Iraq is pretty well under control, except for interferance for Iran.
Iraq is no where near 'under control.'
5. Israel could be crippled by one or two nuclear strikes.
Yes, thank God. Let's do it.
6. The Soviets are no longer a meance.
You couldn't be more wrong.
China is a menace and will be so as long as they continue in their imperial atttude (Tibet, Sinjiang, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and Viet Nam have all been invaded by Chins).
The US isn't imperial?
7. Iran is a huge oild producer in its own right. It does not need nuclear weapons for anything except to counter American power.
Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy.
8. Ronald Reagan won the cold war.
Ronald Reagan was the napping US president when the USSR collapsed due to failed policies and was no longer propped up by US interests who needed an enemy to continue to fund the military industrial complex. That new 'enemy' was replaced by 'terrorism." The new enemy is world wide and nubulous and the perfect enemy for the government to protect the gullible from while they give up their liberty for safety and end up with neither.
9. The best thing to do is to take them out before they become any bigger threat. If it is necessary to use nukes to take them out so be it.
The best thing to do is nuke Israel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
Iran will be attacked. No question about is, just like Iraq was attacked.
And not for it's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. That's just a decoy excuse for the gullible, just like wmds were for Iraq.
Here's why Iran will be attacked:
1. With allegedly the world's third largest reserves of oil - has begun accepting payment for it's oil in Euros which threatens to collapse the dollar and
2. Iran can flood the world with cheap oil - breaking the cartel of those who control the oil today.
Simple as that. |
Iran can not flood the world with cheap oil. In fact they are having problems with their own oil output and more and more of their oil is heavy crude which many naitons are unable to refine.
Amadinajad did in fact call for Israel to be wiped off the map.. His words were not misinterpreted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Amadinajad did in fact call for Israel to be wiped off the map.. His words were not misinterpreted. |
THE ACTUAL QUOTE:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
_______________________________________
I also misquote it was "vanish from the page of time" not wiped off the map. Learn something everyday.
____________________________________
Last edited by Zenas on Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Amadinajad did in fact call for Israel to be wiped off the map.. His words were not misinterpreted. |
THE ACTUAL QUOTE:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). |
source is Juan Cole?
That has been answered.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kindly show us how the quote has been refuted, and not simply refer to some other long winded web page that we have to wade through.
Simply point out the relevant passages or statements and we can take it from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How does Iran translate the remarks?
POSTER IN IRAN
| Quote: |
Cole continues to present himself as an expert on Shiism and on the Persian, Arabic, and Urdu tongues. Let us see how his claim vindicates itself in practice. Here is what he wrote on the "Gulf 2000" e-mail chat-list on April 22:
It bears repeating as long as the accusation is made. Ahmadinejad did not "threaten" to "wipe Israel off the map." I'm not sure there is even such an idiom in Persian. He quoted Khomeini to the effect that "the Occupation regime must end" (ehtelal bayad az bayn berad). And, no, it is not the same thing. It is about what sort of regime people live under, not whether they exist at all. Ariel Sharon, after all, made the Occupation regime in Gaza end.
There are two separate but related matters here. For a start, let us look at the now-famous speech that Ahmadinejad actually gave at the Interior Ministry on Oct. 26, 2005. (I am using the translation made by Nazila Fathi of the New York Times Tehran bureau, whose Persian is probably the equal of Professor Cole's.) The relevant portions read:
Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. � Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. � For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.
Ahmadinejad then denounced the recent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over Gaza as a sellout and added, "If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill."
Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:
Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.
My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:
Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.
This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."
Professor Cole has completely missed or omitted the first reference in last October's speech, skipped to the second one, and flatly misunderstood the third. (The fourth one, about "eliminating the occupying regime," I would say speaks for itself.) He evidently thinks that by "occupation," Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the Israeli seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. But if this were true, it would not have been going on for "more than fifty years" now, would it? The 50th anniversary of 1967 falls in 2017, which is a while off. What could be clearer than that "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zenas
Joined: 17 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."
Occupying regime, not Israel. From your own source.
We often hear of the US intending 'regime change" meaning a change in those in control, not a wiping off the map of the nation targeted for regime change. [although in many cases such as in Iraq, it seems the US is intent on wiping the nation off the map as well - eg, carpet bombing]. Same thing here.
Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime.
"Occupying regime." Not Israel - again from your own source.
For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.
Again, from you own source, 'occupying regime." Not the nation but Zionism - the Zionist occupying Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Would Washington dare allow Israel to use Iraq as a base for the attacks? Would the US join in? Might be a last hurrah for Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zenas wrote: |
"Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."
Occupying regime, not Israel. From your own source.
We often hear of the US intending 'regime change" meaning a change in those in control, not a wiping off the map of the nation targeted for regime change. [although in many cases such as in Iraq, it seems the US is intent on wiping the nation off the map as well - eg, carpet bombing]. Same thing here.
Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime.
"Occupying regime." Not Israel - again from your own source.
For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.
Again, from you own source, 'occupying regime." Not the nation but Zionism - the Zionist occupying Israel. |
| Quote: |
Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:
Esrail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.
My source here is none other than a volume published by the Institute for Imam Khomeini. Here is the translation:
Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.
This is especially important, and is also the reason for the wide currency given to the statement: It is making something into a matter of religious duty. The term "ghal-o-gham" is an extremely strong and unambivalent one, of which a close equivalent rendering would be "annihilate."
Professor Cole has completely missed or omitted the first reference in last October's speech, skipped to the second one, and flatly misunderstood the third. (The fourth one, about "eliminating the occupying regime," I would say speaks for itself.) He evidently thinks that by "occupation," Khomeini and Ahmadinejad were referring to the Israeli seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. But if this were true, it would not have been going on for "more than fifty years" now, would it? The 50th anniversary of 1967 falls in 2017, which is a while off. What could be clearer than that "occupation regime" is a direct reference to Israel itself? |
anyway we do know how Iran translated what was said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
