digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Ahmadinejad says, "Iran has no plans to attack Israel."

presstv.ir — This article has been resubmitted thanks to the bury brigade suppressing the truth in hopes of burying it before it reaches the wide audience of Digg.com. Please read the 5th paragraph in this article (past the rhetoric/opinion of Israel) and you will find a clear statement from Iran's President denying any plans to attack Israel.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • beatles901, on 07/21/2008, -7/+50Regarding the original, mistranslated Ahmadinejad quote:

    In February of 2008, I sent a message to Scott McLeod, TIME Magazine's Cairo Bureau Chief and author of many of TIME's pieces about Iran, with a word-for-word translation of the specific Ahmadinejad quote in question. Here is the most important excerpt of that message:
    --------------------------------------
    For your benefit, I will translate the quote from the original Farsi into English, word for word. In a phonetic of the Farsi: "Een rejim-eh isghalghar-eh qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzegar mahv shavad."

    1st word - "Een": this
    2nd word - "rejim-eh": regime
    3rd word - "isghalghar-eh": occupying
    4th word - "qods": Jerusalem
    5th word - "bayad": must
    6th word - "az": from
    7th word prefix - "safheh": page (does not mean map; never did)
    8th word suffix - "ye": of
    9th word: "ruzegar": time (does not mean anything else)
    10th word: "mahv": disappear (we can loosely translate this as wipe)
    11th word: "shavad": should

    Now, to "un-yoda" this translation:

    "This regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from the page of time."
    --------------------------------------

    Digg friends, please note that the above words do not have synonyms, or else those synonyms would be listed as I am an objective person with a strong distaste for Iran's current government. Pay attention to these critical words:
    (1) the 2nd word, "rejim-eh", cannot mean anything but "regime" (the word was, literally, adopted from the French).
    (2) the 7th word, "safheh", does not mean anything but "page" or "paper". You cannot use it to mean "map" in any context.
    (3) the 9th word, "ruzegar", means "time" or "period of time", and nothing else.

    Further, there is no Persian idiom for "wiping off the map" as there is in English.

    Background:
    I am an American-Iranian (and I say American first because my family fled Iran after the 1979 revolution for their lives) and take pride in speaking fluent Farsi at an academic level. I am completely against the regime in Iran, but a fervent believer of the profound need for truth. I was shocked when I saw the original Farsi mistranslated so erroneously that it was tantamount to someone's malicious doing (propaganda for war). The person responsible for the mistaken translation is Nazin Falthi of the New York Times. I urge everyone to send letters to the editor, and you may include the above text, to make sure that they take out a conspicuous, full, front-page retraction and correct this error that has shaped US and EU policy.

    Also, please see this digg:
    http://digg.com/world_news/The_Wipe_Israel_off_the ...

    Thank you.
    • crxvfr, on 07/21/2008, -3/+12Thanks for that translation. I wouldn't know if you are telling the truth or not but I do believe you.
      • beatles901, on 07/21/2008, -4/+11True, my own credibility should be questioned. Fortunately, it can be corroborated if you read the other digg in the comment.
      • kooft, on 07/22/2008, -3/+11"I wouldn't know if you are telling the truth..."

        Definitely google it, his translation is right inline with other reputable sources. The wikipedia page has some good references.
    • Rabbit63, on 07/22/2008, -3/+8This translation is correct. Also he spoke of the former USSR as an example in the same paragraph, making it clear his meaning was not in any sense a threat or even desire for violence. Merely that the unholy regime, the Zionist hardliners would pass in time. A perfectly Islamic way of looking at things.
    • contemplator, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4@Beatles901
      Sir - you are a gentleman.
      Stick around please.
      • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4Thank you. I'm amazed at people's beliefs that the lies will cover up the truth in the long run. Not to be too philosophical here, but I learned long ago that lies are the artifacts of man. In time, they will erode and vanish "from the pages of time", as may the men who created them. But the truth, it is a natural occurrence sown into the very fabric of time and space. It will last forever and stand alone as the sole vestige of human history in the end.
    • diggetoipi, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Now that's a world of a difference. Now the question becomes, what did he mean?

      "This regime occupying Jerusalem must disappear from the page of time." Hmm!?
  • mbelleghem, on 07/21/2008, -2/+23When's the last time Iran started a war, anyways?

    Just curious...
    • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -3/+191826 - the Russo-Persian War, when ruler Abbas Mirza led an army of 35,000 into the advancing Russian Imperial army.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War
    • yonoz, on 07/22/2008, -11/+7July 2006.
      • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -6/+9Prior to Hezbollah capturing 2 CIVILIANS, you might want to look into the IDF's kidnapping campaigns on civilians. Again, yonoz nuttin!
      • Chassit, on 07/22/2008, -7/+4Liar.
      • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -4/+6@beatles901
        "IDF's kidnapping campaigns on civilians" [citation needed].

        Hezbollah is a para-military terrorist organization supplied, funded, and trained by Iran. In July 2006 it conducted a cross-border raid into Israel using a missile attack as a diversion, killing and capturing Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil. I don't know where you live, but here on Earth this is called an act of war, a proxy war that Iran is waging against Israel.
      • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -5/+5My mistake, I meant to say Hezbollah capturing 2 soldiers of the IDF. They were not civilians. Currently, Israel has 10,000 prisoners. Most of them were not captured in what the US would consider Israeli territory.
      • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -5/+4WPI, long before that happened, Israel was funding the MEK and attempting to fund Baluchi rebels in terrorizing Iranian civilians. Not to mention the Mossad which trained the Shah's Savak to torture people. Is that not waging war?
      • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -4/+6"Currently, Israel has 10,000 prisoners. "
        Are they poor innocent people that were rounded up for no reason, or are they terrorists with blood on their hands?

        "WPI, long before that happened, Israel was funding the MEK and attempting to fund Baluchi rebels in terrorizing Iranian civilians. Not to mention the Mossad which trained the Shah's Savak to torture people."
        So are you saying that Israel was supporting the anti-government forces in Iran and the Shah at the same time? Sounds fishy, no? And the MEK was a pro-Saddam group. Why would Israel ever support it? You are throwing around a lot of accusations, none of which contradict the fact that Hezbollah, Iran's proxy, committed an act of war against Israel a year after it withdrew _completely_ from Lebanese territory.
      • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -6/+3WPI, as to your first question: it's likely they are just crucial to the Palestinian infrastructure. We won't know because Israel, the so-called democracy, has not entitled these prisoners to due process before a neutral magistrate and will not let UN inspectors in to check on the conditions.

        As to your confusing 2nd paragraph -- the Shah was in Iran until 1979. The MEK is currently being supported by Israel. That is 30 year time difference. How is that the "at the same time"?

        While you rest your arguments on conspiracy theories, I am going by evidenced fact.
      • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -3/+6So-called democracy? In this so-called democracy there are 33 political parties represented at various levels of government. Freedom of speech and press is guaranteed to the point that certain members of parliament have been able to travel to hostile countries, such as Syria, and urge an invasion of Israel. Oh, did I mention that there are Arab members of parliament? And the cabinet, and the supreme court? And the Arab MK are actually elected in nationwide elections. Not quite the same thing as the single token Jew in the Iranian parliament.

        Do you have any evidence that the inmates in Israeli prisons have not had due process? Israeli supreme court even interferes in the day-to-day operation of the military, prohibiting operating procedures if they are deemed illegal. Virtually nothing happens in Israel without due process.

        Samir Kuntar, the murderer of a four-year-old Israeli girl, was tried and convicted in full accordance with the due process. He looks very well indeed after 30 years in an Israeli prison. Much better, in fact, than the two captured Israeli soldiers, whose mutilated bodies came back in coffins.

        "the Shah was in Iran until 1979. The MEK is currently being supported by Israel. That is 30 year time difference."
        I thought you were trying to spin it so that Iranian support of Hezbollah is a response to the Israeli support of the MEK? I think you are the one who needs to get his arguments and time frames straight.
    • JohnReb, on 07/22/2008, -2/+6Nov 4, 1979
      • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -6/+2John Reb, that was not an act of the interrim revolutationary government (the Mullahs), but that of leftist students who raided the embassy to prevent the CIA from organizing yet ANOTHER coup of Iran's chosen government (ie. to prevent the Shah from coming back).

        Look up Stephen Kinzer, he's the foremost non-Iranian scholar on the topic.
      • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5I guess we should all thank the interim revolutionary government for immediately freeing the hostages then... Oh, wait...
      • JohnReb, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5First, the host nation has a legal and moral obligation to provide external security to accredited embassies in that nation. Come to New York City and see how much we spend, in both money and manpower, providing security to every delegation to the UN, regardless of their relations with the US. Or recall the actions of the British government when the Iranian embassy was seized on May 30, 1980.

        Secondly, if it wasn't with their approval, then why didn't the interim revolutionary government take the appropriate actions, under international law, of taking over control the embassy from the "students', returning the hostages to their home nation (declaring such as they wished "persona non grata") and either allowing the US to restore it's embassy or officially breaking off relations? Instead it allowed the "students" to remove hostages from the embassy, secreting them around Tehran, and never arrested or legally punished any of the "students" who took part in the attack. Or would you consider that an attack on the Iranian UN mission by US students shouldn't be blamed on the US Government, especially if it took no actions to end the attack or punish the perpetrators?

        Lastly, fears, justified or not, of a possible CIA backed coup could have been dealt with by declaring any or all embassy personnel "persona non grata", ordering them out of the country, and even completely severing relations with the US and ordering the embassy closed. Those being the normal legal methods of removing foreign diplomatic personnel from a nations territories.

        If the attack wasn't originally planned and or approved by the Iranian Government, that government allowed it to continue, and, at the very least, tacitly supported it.

        By the way, raid has a specific meaning. It is an operation that goes into an enemy location, completes an objective and retires immediately. This was an attack since the students didn't leave for over a year. Calling it a raid is an attempt to minimize its illegality.
      • ZZeke, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2John, if another country staged a covert coup in your country, wouldn't you support those who take action to remove the intruders - "illegal" or not?
        Why is it right for us to knock over a democratically elected regime in foreign territory, but not right for those who live there to take it back by force?
        Do you really think the CIA would have ceded operations if the Iranian government simply said "get out'? You've got to be kidding me on that one...
        I'm not saying there's any easy answers, and I don't think two wrongs ever make a right, but your opinion is pretty one-sided - as usual, you just go with "US government right, everyone else wrong". I wish I could see the world in such absolute black and white ....sure does make things simple.


      • JohnReb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4ZZeke, embassies are not intruders. International law extends protections to them. Iran violated those protections.

        How is attacking the sovereign territory of the US, which is what international law says an embassy is, taking back anything?

        Do you think the CIA ceased operations in Iran just because the Embassy was attacked? That's even funnier than thinking actually throwing out the CIA personnel in the embassy would have at least hindered operations for a while.

        As for your little personal shot, I didn't just go with "US government right, everyone else wrong". I, in fact, pointed out what Iran did that was illegal and why it was illegal. Like it or not, even the US is the legitimately aggrieved party from time to time. But that does put a crick in the neck of those who think "everyone else right, US wrong." doesn't it?
      • ZZeke, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2"ZZeke, embassies are not intruders."
        Ok, this is true - but would you personally give a ***** about international law and the sovereign territory of a nation which stages a covert coup in your country? (P.S. I think that staging a covert coup to overthrow a democratically elected government is also against international law to begin with).

        "Do you think the CIA ceased operations in Iran just because the Embassy was attacked?"
        Not necessarily, but I also don't think that simply closing the embassy would have caused the CIA to cease operations.

        John - you always take the US government's side, and it's true that I usually don't. I would certainly agree that from time to time, the US is the legitimately aggrieved party, and if you look at this situation without considering the fact that we broke the rules first by covertly overthrowing the Iranian government and installing a puppet, then yes, the US had a legitimate gripe. I just don't see how you or anyone else can overlook that fact to begin with. This country will never survive if we expect everybody else to play by the rules when we don't lead by example to begin with.
        Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right....but first you have to come to terms with the fact that the US was wrong to begin with. There is no international law which says that the US can break the rules when it wants to, and everyone else has to behave, but in many cases that's exactly what this government has been doing for generations now. It's a ***** game and everyone knows it - especially in places like the Middle East. You can't have it both ways.

      • JohnReb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3"Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right...."

        Problem is, that's exactly what you are saying. Your position is that since the US was guilty of overthrowing an earlier Iranian government, the then current Iranian government was justified to break international law by attacking the US embassy.

        Mine is that regardless of what happened before, in this particular case, Iran broke international law in a manner that historically is considered an act of war. Where is there any part of "two wrongs..." in that?
      • ZZeke, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Well John, I have to admit that in that context, you're right. I guess my problem with the whole issue is that most people just think Iran acted out of sheer hostility and hatred for Americans - you know, like "terrorists hate us for our freedom", which is just as preposterous. They did what they felt was necessary in order to regain control of their nation - it wouldn't matter to them if it was Americans or Chinese or Swahilis who were illegally occupying their government. So yes, it's true that they acted illegally - But I'll leave you with this thought: Legality and morality are two entirely different things, and I think that you're well aware of a certain nation which found it's roots by acting out illegally towards it's oppressors in order to gain control of it's own land and government....
  • girwen, on 07/22/2008, -3/+12President Ahmadinejad said that the Islamic Republic has never waged war against any nation and does not intend to do so, adding that Israel is not an exception to this policy.
  • lazerus9, on 07/22/2008, -5/+16On a similar thread yesterday..(dkapuchino) commented:.."Jews are irrelevant to this discussion. It's about Israel and Iran"

    I commented."So now Jews are irrelevant? Finally you Zionists reveal what you're all about! The Zionists of Israel are the only ones that are important and to hell with the Jews! That sounds a whole lot like Nazi Germany to me!! You should be ashamed!!!."

    I hope that all of the Jews reading these posts will now understand that the Zionists see themselves as apart from and superior to the followers of the Torah!!!
  • yonoz, on 07/22/2008, -14/+7So now, spamming is alright as long as it's anti-Israel.
    Double standard much?
  • yonoz, on 07/22/2008, -14/+5Damn right your credibility should be questioned:
    http://digg.com/world_news/Iran_does_not_intend_to ...
  • lazerus9, on 07/22/2008, -4/+10http://digg.com/world_news/Iran_does_not_intend_to ...

    The above link is the post that I referenced in my above comment. As you can see the Zionist yonoz attempt at obfuscation by implying that the two posts had nothing in common are just more of his Zionist deception. Read the two posts and judge for yourself.
  • Rabbit63, on 07/22/2008, -4/+9Ahmadi Nejad NEVER said 'wipe Israel off the map" Here is the actual quote:
    "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).

    http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/

  • Rabbit63, on 07/22/2008, -3/+11Ahmadi Nejad NEVER said 'wipe Israel off the map" Here is the actual quote:
    "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).

    http://democracyrising.us/content/view/736/164/
    ............................................
    The Iranians are a proud, resolute and highly motivated people. They point out that for two thousand years they have never attacked another country, but during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war they have amply proved their determination to defend their own when attacked.
  • theelectricafro, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5Ahmadinejad says, "Iran has no plans to attack Israel." He might want to get on that considering everyone in the media seems to want to attack Iran.
    • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5The real question is, why isn't the story of the night on Bill O'Reilly? ;)
      • PolishLogic, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3O'Reilly is considered news? I thought it was a sitcom.
  • plimpton777, on 07/22/2008, -2/+4I ran it through Babelfish, and it translated Ahmidinijad's quote as "Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Night is nothing less than Oscar-worthy."
    • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Damn...epic fail on my part to fool you all!!!!!! aahahahahaha.

      Accepting in Heath Ledger's absence is Mahmoud. Come out, Mahmoud. Quick, get him a stool so he can reach the mic...
  • Vindicoth, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3This is exactly why our President of the United states, whomever it is at the time, should speak with the leaders of other nations. To find out the truth.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4Translation: Do you honestly think we'd ***** tell you if we did?
    • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1The point is: they didn't say it. It's being used as a lie to create support for Israel and to sanction Iran in its pursuit of a legal right. Iranians have the most monitored nuclear program in history. The intelligence agencies, all 16 of them, unanimously concluded that Iran gave up its nuclear arms pursuit in 2003, for sure. The IAEA has done surprise inspections and they are fully in accord with UN rules. On the other hand, Israel created a nuclear arms program by not signing the Treaty, JFK sent inspectors and asked questions, and was shot in the head...LBJ turned a blind eye... the Israelis are now the only nuclear nation in the Middle East. If Iran should have to give up a right to enrichment, then put Israel's nuclear program on the table to eliminate the double standard.

      Mind you, Israel has been nothing but a hostile entity that has illegally invaded countless neighbors, and has 60+ UN resolutions/verdicts against it, all of which the US has blindly vetoed. Seems fair, huh?
      • PolishLogic, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1That's a new one, the Israelis killed Kennedy based on their nuclear program.

        Just an FYI, you're preaching to a person that is becoming rather non-caring as to whether or not the Iranians wish to build a nuclear power plant, or stockpile 10,000 ICBMs. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the threat of use of nuclear weapons is about as close as we'll ever get to a nuclear war. Sort of like the Cuban Missile crisis, both sides speaking publicly about a possible WW3, while privately talking for 24 hours a day about how each could effectively make concessions while still saving face.

        Now, does our government like Iran? No. Is the feeling mutual? You bet it is. So you can't really be shocked that there's a certain unfairness with how they're treated by the US. I personally treat the people I like much better than I treat the people I hate. If the tables were turned and Iran was the one with all the power and the US was the one that was just emerging into the modern world, I be shocked if Iran didn't pull the same *****.
  • swrostmore, on 07/22/2008, -7/+1You can't trust anything Ahmadinejad says!!! Except when he says the Israeli regime should be wiped from the pages of time! Then you can believe him!!
    • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2No one said you can't trust what he says.

      The problem is that words are being put in his mouth to create a casus belli for war -- more false pretenses.
  • mikestrawman, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Since when does the American government listen to anyone? Especially when that someone speaks a different language and believes in a different god... and doesn't finance their debt?
    • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1This is going to surely veer into a religious conversation, but it should be known that Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the very same God. Think of Judaism as the original movie, Christianity as the sequel, and Islam as the third... ;p
  • RavenRed, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1i wonder if they like bollywood films.
    • beatles901, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1Persians? Yes, they regularly watch Indian-made films with Persian voice-overs. It's kind of funny.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.