Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Re:did ahmadinejad really say that israel must be wiped off the face of the eart
« Reply #15 on: 2008-12-14 09:45:08 » |
 |
[Hermit 9] I don't need to agree with people I cite on every possible issue. I chose her as a source because of the very broad brush she waves - and on the basis of her linguistic prowess. Wouldn't you agree?
[Mo 10] Yes, but you cited her in response to my point about Ahmadinejad (Mr. A) being a holocaust denier. That certainly wasn't "every possible issue", but rather the only major issue I had cited as of that point in the conversation. Wouldn't you agree?
[Hermit 13.0] I first cited her in [Hermit 2] in direct response to Mermaid's instantiating post. You were not in my thoughts at the time. She not only supported an accurate translation of "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)." and further with the fact that it was a quotation of Khomeni, but also provided what I thought was one of the best contextualizing overviews. So no, I wouldn't agree.
[Hermit 13.1] My comprehension of the point at issue, prior to your interjection, was the quality of the translation. The point as I comprehended it, when you raised it, was not whether Khomeni was, "a Holocaust denier" (which would be irrelevant to absolutely anything), but whether he hosted a "holocaust denier's convention". Which he didn't. So once again I wouldn't agree.
[Mo 10] Mo's first statement on this topic:
[Mo 2] I'm a hopeless monoglot - well, I can roughly understand the gist of Spanish, especially with the help of a little bit of context, so maybe I'm not completely hopeless. I of course have no opinion on what he actually said, but in terms of context we are talking about a man who proudly hosted a worldwide Holocaust deniers convention. So whatever actual words he says, when these sorts of things form his context, then I wouldn't be surprised if someone reasonably took away a message of existential threats towards Jews.
[Mo 10] I'm willing for the sake of argument to concede that I don't really know what Mr. A said, and Ms. Tilley may in fact be correct even if her translations sound rather vague to me. However, she agrees with me that Mr. A falls dismally into the Holocaust deniers ranks.
[Hermit 13.2] Perhaps you missed the point that I was citing Ms Tilley primarily as a credible supporting source to Juan Cole's translation; just like all the other credible sources.
[Hermit 13.3] I don't think he is a "holocaust denier." I think he is a holocaust contextualizer (as am I). To prevent thread degeneration I am not going to go into the context here. No matter what Ahmadinejad is or has said, the use of "reasonably" here is in my opinion unjustified. An "existential threat" requires capacity and will. See below for why these are absent, making any assertion of an "existential threat" unreasonable.
[Mo 10] And based on that, I'm not surprised that many people reasonably (if mistakenly) interpret these more "poetic" or otherwise possibly inscrutible translations as an existential threat to Jews
[Hermit 13.4] But when the statements were made by Khomeni (who may also have been quoting), they were not interpreted as "existential threats." Further, Israel possess an arsenal of at least 150 and more likely in excess of 350 nuclear devices, ballistic missiles and ultra quiet submarines to deliver them, probably unstoppably, anywhere on the globe, one of the worlds largest if not the largest biowarfare programs - and a history of using biowarfare; as well as a history of attacking its neighbors and running the world's largest and longest lasting illegal occupation. So in terms of capability and history, Israel has the means and the will to to pose "existential threats". No matter how you exaggerate Iran's weapon system capabilities, Iran does not and will not have the capacity to offer "existential threats" to anyone, and based on hundreds of years of history and the clear statements of it leaders, does not have the will to. In fact, given the thriving Jewish community in Iran, and the devastated Islamic community in Israel, the boot is indubitably on the other foot.
[Mo 10] given the context of Mr. A's incurious or otherwise unconcerned attitude towards the systematic attempt to exterminate of European Jews during WWII. Especially for someone who thinks its important to host a worldwide summit on the topic, I can't characterize his lack of concern as anything better than "dismal" and likely an open invitation to anyone (like Mr. Duke) who has a dogmatic or hypocritical axe to grind for Jews.
[Hermit 13.5] But this is your interpretation, based on what? I think what Ahmadinejad is asking, and if so, I sympathize with his viewpoint, how is what Europeans, British and Americans (North and South) did in WW II - which was arguably merely the culmination of 2000 years of repression (arguably sometimes earned) of Jews relevant to the Palestine today. That this is consistently projected to say other things (as you have attempted to do) by people with their own agendas does not alter what he is saying (and I try to read all his major speeches, just as I try to read all the major UN, Israeli, Russian, British, American, French, German, Chinese and Japanese politician's speeches), so I think I am reasonably competent to judge what he is saying.
[Mo 10] I also think this a good question:
[Mermaid 0] if the translation isnt accurate, why isnt iran trying to make it clear?
[Hermit 13.6] Iran has repeatedly stated it is not a threat to anyone, thoroughly rejecting the assertion that they have threatened anyone (including through interpretation errors). They go further. Much further. Iran has repeatedly stated that it is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons (although it has been repeatedly threatened with them by Israel and the USA which would justify Iran attempting to develop them) and has repeatedly requested the UN general and security council to act according to law and censure the US and Israel. Iran has also repeatedly stated that they perceive nuclear weapons as immoral, unlawful and "anti-Islamic" and proposed that the entire Middle East be declared a nuclear free zone. What more could they possibly do to make it clear? Why do you think they are not attempting to make it clear?
[Hermit 13.7] Ask the question the other way around, given that Iran has repeatedly stated that it sees peaceful negotiations and democratic transitions, has a longer history of trading with the modern state of Israel than any other Islamic state, and repeatedly affirms its commitment to peace and law, why are the US and Israel continuously making belligerent statements about Iran. If they don't mean this illegal aggression, why don't they make it clear? Why when the US and Israel place spy satellites in orbit over Iran, or place fleets and submarines in position to attack Iran is this not reported, but when Iran launches a test rocket to launch satellites, this is an existential threat? Why when Iran has no nuclear weapons capacity (you can't have nuclear weapons without high quality fissile material which the UN has repeatedly certified Iran does not have and high capacity missiles which Iran does not have), is Iran an existential threat to Israel, while the US and Israel, both having have large nuclear armories and multiple delivery methods, along with a history of attacking others, are not an "existential threat" to Iran? And if they are an "existential threat" to Iran, why does Iran not have a right to respond, and if so, what is that right?
[Mo 10] Anyway, as per my response to Blunderov, for the sake of real diplomacy I don't really see the point of creating needless extra drama and if Obama is willing to overlook some crazy rhetoric for the possibility of progress, I'm all for it. I think his attititude is probably better than Sarkozy's on this issue.
[Hermit 13.8] I grant that when Ahmadinejad starts on his religious stuff, he makes as little sense as Bush. But when Obama suggests that the US offer a "nuclear umbrella" to Israel, that is really crazy rhetoric. Worse, if he actually means it. If Ahmadinejad is willing to overlook something potentially much worse than crazy rhetoric for the sake of progress, I'm all for it. I think his attitude is MUCH better than Israel, the US and France on this.
PS Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly correct that "the regime currently occupying Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of time." Israel has now made this all but certain by making any Palestinian area non-viable, while destroying the aquifers and agriculture required to sustain life for any meaningful percentage of the people currently in the area. Which means emigration, conquest in search of lebensraum or genocide. Demographics means that without genocide the area will inevitably be Palestinian run. Which probably makes genocide inevitable. We may already be witnessing a transition from technical genocide to effective genocide in the 11 trucks a day currently permitted into the West Bank and consequent malnutrition of children coupled with limited water availability and raw sewage exposure. Israel's spin machine - and weapon systems - will ensure that they avoid the immediate consequences of genocide, but I suspect that the Israel would become increasingly isolated and that this will cause its ultimate failure (although it is likely to destroy many other areas in its death throes). In other words, I doubt that there are any good choices left. Unfortunately, unless we work together in a hurry, the same grim future is likely to overtake most of the peoples not just of the Middle East, but of the planet.
|
Author
Logged
