digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The "Wipe Israel off the Map" Hoax (2007)

prisonplanet.com — What Ahmadinejad really said - breaking apart any justification to attack Iran. Breaking the propaganda...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MarkEarhart, on 07/21/2008, -6/+34I am so sick of the enemy using a misquote to demonize and justify an attack on Iran.
    • beatles901, on 07/21/2008, -7/+23It's not just a misquote, but a deliberate mistranslation. It's akin to me saying, "I'm going to get a McDonald's hamburger tomorrow." in Farsi and the NY Times running a front page headline that quotes me as saying "I'M GOING TO FEAST ON THE BLOOD OF COWS AT MCDONALD'S". Well, not perfectly analogous, but I'm sure you get the message ;)

      Also, it's taken out of context. The quote begins with "As the great Imam once said" - in reference to Ayatollah Khomenei, who originally stated the quote about 30 years prior.
      • MarkEarhart, on 07/22/2008, -5/+12I suppose "misquote" is a bit of an understatement. I couldn't remember the exact translation of what was said off the top of my head, but remembered that it did not resemble anything close to "Wiping Israel off the map".
  • beatles901, on 07/21/2008, -4/+41In 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.

    Sorry for the long post. Please feel free to spread the word.
    • quesi, on 07/21/2008, -4/+14it was tantamount to someone's malicious doing (propaganda for war)

      IMO- Citizens who push that same line, after learning the true translation, are traitors to this country.
      • ciaran036, on 07/22/2008, -2/+7A lot of traitors then! The many times I've seen people say "Ahmadinejad said he wanted Israel wiped off the map" on Digg comments, BBC Have Your Say, Guardian Have your say, Daily Mail Have your say, BBC Question Time.... etc.
    • MarkEarhart, on 07/22/2008, -3/+13No need to apologize for a long post. Say what you want or need to. If people don't want to read a couple of paragraphs they can ignore it, but they're probably in the wrong place anyway if they can't handle a post longer than two lines.
    • DreadPirate, on 07/22/2008, -9/+6One fact all of you seem to ignore was that Iran's *own* news agency posted the translation that you all say is the false one. Rather ironic, that.
      • ciaran036, on 07/22/2008, -5/+4Really? Do you have a link to that? That's interesting.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/22/2008, -4/+6@Ciaran036 -

        "'World without Zionism'

        Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world.

        He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna.

        "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. "

        That section is from the BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm
      • Rabbit63, on 07/22/2008, -6/+5It is not hard to make the mistake because the words wipe from the map are an easy mistake to make depending on who made the translation.

        The important thing is that he did NOT make any threats and the constant claims by the media to the contrary are bold faced lies.
      • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -5/+5"The important thing is that he did NOT make any threats and the constant claims by the media to the contrary are bold faced lies."
        Riiight... And Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman... Miss Lewinsky... You have clearly misunderstood the meaning of the word "is".
      • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1The BBC article that SAYS that Iran's news agency reported with that specific translation. Nice. Wow, DreadPirate!!! Very convincing! /s
    • Hangly, on 07/22/2008, -2/+10Thank you very much for posting that.
    • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -6/+7Thank you for the literal translation. However, unlike most Middle Eastern Countries, Israel is not governed by a dictatorial regime, but by a government _elected_ by its people. Given that, as well as the history and the overall context of the situation, the statement is a clear threat to the people of Israel. Claiming that it is not, based on the literal meaning of each word taken out of context, is like Bill Clinton claiming that whether or not he had sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky depends on the meaning of the word "is".
      • Rabbit63, on 07/22/2008, -5/+6No it is not a clear threat to Israel.

        The fact is he also spoke of the passing of the USSR as an example in the same speech and this makes his meaning VERY clear so that even foaming morons who want to believe otherwise must have a hard time twisting it.

        As for your phony example of Israel NOT having a regime....I know a lot of people, Americans included who would argue that REGIME is a perfectly legitimate term for the present admin in the USA, what makes you think Israel's enemies have any more regard for the rapists and war criminals in power in Israel?
      • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -3/+7So if I say that you should vanish from the pages of history just like Hitler, while pointing a Shihab missile at you, that would not be a threat, right?

        "what makes you think Israel's enemies have any more regard for the rapists and war criminals in power in Israel"
        Slander much? http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/1 ...
      • kooft, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4"So if I say that you should vanish from the pages of history just like Hitler..."

        Wrong. Your analogy should reference the government of the country in which Rabbit63 resides. Ahmadinejad never spoke of Jews or even Israelis in general, he spoke of the Israeli government. Regime change does not equate to genocide.

        Way to throw Hitler into the equation too, that was pretty slick.
      • wpi97, on 07/22/2008, -4/+5I threw Hitler into the equation as an analogue to the USSR. IMHO, the analogy is perfectly valid. If Ahmadinejad can say "Israel will vanish from the pages of history just like the USSR", without it being a threat, then I can say that Rabbit63 will vanish from the pages of history like Hitler, without it being a threat. See what I did there?

        You and I have already had this discussion ad nauseam. Given the context, the history of attacks on Israel with the expressed purpose of genocide of the Jews, Ahmadinejad's other statements, Iran's support of anti-Israeli terrorists, I see absolutely no way to interpret his statement as anything other than a threat. A threat to the State of Israel, and a threat to its people.

        One can very easily convey one's hatred of a group without explicitly mentioning the group's name. In fact the word "antisemitism" was coined by Jew-haters as a euphemism for Jew-hatred.

        You are a reasonable person, but I could never understand why you continue to be an apologist for this thug.
      • kooft, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2"See what I did there?"

        Now I do and it's a reasonable comparison. My first thought, when Hitler is brought up, is the crimes he committed.


        "...I could never understand why you continue to be an apologist for this thug."

        I'm not. Never have I said he's a reasonable guy with wholesome ambitions. I've only ever dismissed the whole genocide rhetoric. He spoke loosely of the Israeli government changing (not even specifically regime change) and everyone runs around screaming genocide. That's just silly.

        I truly believe the problem lies in US foreign policy. The US has been hostile towards Iran for 50+ years and the Islamic Revolution developed an anti-Israel policy to counter US influence in the region. That's not an act of an anti-Semitic genocidal maniac, that's an act of self-defense (i.e., both Israel and the US do similar things).

        I don't believe I've heard Iran threaten to strike Israel, unprovoked. In fact I think I recently heard the Iranians say 'we will not attack first, but we will respond if attacked'. On the other hand I have heard Israel threaten unprovoked action against Iran. It seems to me that Iran has more to fear from Israel than Israel does from Iran.
      • wpi97, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4"He spoke loosely of the Israeli government changing (not even specifically regime change) and everyone runs around screaming genocide."
        If he said "the Bush administration will be erased from pages of history", I would have agreed with you. However, using euphemisms like "the Zionist entity" or "the Zionist regime" for Israel, and "the Zionists" for Jews is rather common among the Middle East officials. In addition all attacks on Israel so far, including the ones by the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas had genocide as their ultimate goal, not a mere toppling of the Israeli government. So, with all due respect, I must disagree.

        "...the Islamic Revolution developed an anti-Israel policy to counter US influence in the region."
        Again, I must disagree. The leaders of Iran, just like any other authoritarian regime, need an external enemy to justify their own existence, and to divert attention of the public. That is the real reason for Iran's anti-Israeli policy.

        "I don't believe I've heard Iran threaten to strike Israel, unprovoked. "
        I believe Iranian officials have made plenty of statements to make the Israeli leadership very nervous. And the actions of the Iranian leadership, such as supplying, funding, and training Hezbollah, and developing long-range missiles and nuclear weapons speak for themselves.

        "It seems to me that Iran has more to fear from Israel than Israel does from Iran."
        Israel does not share a border with Iran. Israel has no territorial disputes with Iran. The only reason Israeli leadership is even considering a confrontation with Iran is fear, caused by the threatening rhetoric of the Iranian leadership, development of weapons capable of striking Israeli territory, and Iran's continuing support for anti-Israeli terrorists. Israel is too small a country to be playing "chicken". It simply cannot afford to wait for the other guy to blink.
      • kooft, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3"If he said "the Bush administration will be erased from pages of history", I would have agreed with you."

        I'm sure he's used the term Zionist on more than one occasion, but this mis-interpreted quote wasn't one of them. He said, "the regime occupying Qods (Jerusalem)".


        "The leaders of Iran, just like any other authoritarian regime, need an external enemy to justify their own existence, and to divert attention of the public. That is the real reason for Iran's anti-Israeli policy."

        I couldn't disagree more. In fact, back in 2003 Iran offered Israel recognition, withdrawal of support from Palestinian militants and unfettered access to its nuclear facilities. Why would they make such concessions if they desperately needed to justify their own existence? They don't. In fact these concessions support my point of view that Iran wants to mitigate US based anti-Iranian influence in the region and is just collecting bargaining chips to attain a stronger national security:

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

        "Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups."

        These sound like all the things Israel and the US are currently asking for, so why did they shun the offer?


        "But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said."

        Ahh, there we go. The US wants the destruction of the Iranian government (the same thing you're justifying Israel's paranoia over).


        "The document lists a series of Iranian aims for the talks, such as ending sanctions, full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its "legitimate security interests." Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, "decisive action" against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending "material support" for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation."

        So it could have been (by this time) a Middle East with Iran recognizing Israel, the anti-Israeli Palestinian resistance quashed, US inspectors in Iran's nuclear facilities, security agreements, Iranian soldiers working with the US in Iraq quelling the Shia's and Iranian anti-terrorist units in Afghanistan working with NATO. Instead the West chose a hostile approach towards Iran (just as they've been doing for the past 50 years).

        But was this offer legitimate?

        "Leverett said Guldimann included a cover letter that it was an authoritative initiative that had the support of then-President Mohammad Khatami and supreme religious leader Ali Khamenei."


        There you have it. Iran willing to put aside differences with Israel in exchange for security and the lifting of sanctions. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a country that's bent on killing Jews.
      • wpi97, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3If that proposal was genuine, ignoring it was a terrible blunder. A deal like that would have made the Iraq war a triumph for the US, and it could have lead to stability in the region. Thanks for the link. Washington Post is certainly respectable, but I will still google for confirmation from other sources in my copious free time.

        However, this still does not change the fact that Iranian leadership has been supporting anti-Israeli terrorists, and it has been demonizing Israel at least in part to redirect the anger of the Iranian people. This is what dictators do. They cannot stay in power for very long without an external enemy, real or imaginary. You must have read "1984", right?

        But I guess you are right, if Khatami was ready to stop supporting terrorists at a moment's notice, then it is also a part of a political game. A way to increase Iran's influence in the region. Sick, really. The stakes in this game are the lives of Israelis in Haifa, who got bombed by the Iranian-made rockets, and the lives of Lebanese civilians who got bombed in retaliation.

        I also resent your comment about Israel's "paranoia". Regardless of what the US did or did not do, Iran is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, and its leadership has repeatedly declared Israel to be their arch-enemy. It is like saying that Saddam only bombed Israel just to spite the US, and that is somehow supposed to make the Israelis feel better about the SKUDs falling on their heads. You may not believe that Iran is capable of first strike, but it would be a logical continuation of its long-time policy.

        "There you have it. Iran willing to put aside differences with Israel in exchange for security and the lifting of sanctions. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a country that's bent on killing Jews."
        It sounds like a government willing to use the lives of entire countries as bargaining chips to achieve political goals. If Khatami could stop supporting terrorists just like that, he should have called for direct negotiations with Israel, instead of treating it as a hostage. And he should have done that publicly. That would have put Iran on a tremendous moral high ground in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately, that is not what happened.
      • kooft, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2"This is what dictators do."

        I agree, but I wouldn't limit that political ideology to dictators. The US has supported terrorist organizations (think Central America) to further its international political goals. In fact the US supported Saddam Hussein, as anti-Israel as he was, to further its Middle Eastern goals. We can all agree that Saddam was a mass murderer that used WMD's on innocent civilians all the time under the watchful eye of the US.


        "Sick, really."

        Yes. I totally agree. I believe that the majority of Israelis (Jewish or otherwise) are innocent bystanders in this conflict and don't deserve this the horror that's unleashed upon them. Again, I don't limit my compassion to just Israel, but to the Iranian civilians that have had decades of horror unleashed upon them by the West (US, UK, Europe, etc). The fact is that this is an acceptable (when the West does it) foreign policy tool but it only becomes 'sick' when used by 2nd or 3rd world countries. It's a double standard.


        "You may not believe that Iran is capable of first strike..."

        I do believe they're capable of a first strike, but I don't believe they'll attack Israel on a whim just to kill some Jews. If Iran feels its national security is threatened by the West, its well within its right to strike first. After all, the ideology of preemption has been deemed justifiable again by the West.


        "It sounds like a government willing to use the lives of entire countries as bargaining chips to achieve political goals."

        Again, this is a policy the West uses and I firmly agree that it's just as despicable when Iran uses it too. But there you are, this is the state of modern politics. It's all about leverage.


        "If Khatami could stop supporting terrorists just like that, he should have called for direct negotiations with Israel, instead of treating it as a hostage."

        Israel can't guarantee Iranian security. Sure, Israel can agree not to attack but it can't prevent Europe or the US from attacking, nor can it lift international sanctions against Iran.

        When Iran's nuclear issue was still new, Iran and Europe entered into negotiations. At Europe's request, and as a sign of good faith, Iran ceased all enrichment activity. One of the deal-breakers that Iran demanded was a guarantee of security from US aggression, which Europe obviously couldn't provide.

        The fact of the matter is that the US could let the air out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by negotiating with Iran. If the US did this the outcome would be a more stable Islamic Republic in Iran but it would also mean less Israeli's being killed. It's sad but it's the current state of affairs.

        Again, and for the record, I'm against the Islamic Republic. I have had family members imprisoned, and certainly tortured, by them. I would love nothing more than a Westernizing of Iran under a democratic umbrella but not if it means the entire country has to be destroyed (e.g., Iraq). The US made this mess (of Iran) by killing Iranians but I seriously doubt that killing more Iranians will do anything more than polarizing the fence-sitters against the West.
    • diggetoipi, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Now 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!?
  • beatles901, on 07/21/2008, -10/+23Also, re-submitted to one-up the "bury brigade" of AIPAC activists:

    Ahmadinejad says, "Iran has no plans to attack Israel."
    http://digg.com/world_news/Ahmadinejad_says_Iran_h ...
  • girwen, on 07/21/2008, -2/+10Has Iran ever been involved in a war that it started?
    • Hangly, on 07/22/2008, -2/+11Do the wars of the Persian Empire(s) count? If not, then no.
    • yonoz, on 07/22/2008, -7/+5Yes. In 2006, the Iranian embassy "hosted" Hizbullah's secretary-general.
    • JohnReb, on 07/22/2008, -4/+6Attacking a foreign embassy is an act of war.
      • Hangly, on 07/22/2008, -4/+3Then I guess we've been at war with China since 1999.
      • JohnReb, on 07/22/2008, -3/+5First, we weren't specifically responsible for the protection of the Chinese embassy in question. Iran was.

        Secondly, China accepted our explanation and apology. Has Iran offered us one?
      • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Have we ever apologized to Iran?
      • JohnReb, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Did we attack their embassy?
      • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3No - we overthrew their government in 1953. That just MUST be an act of war...
      • JohnReb, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2So two wrongs make a right?
      • quesi, on 07/24/2008, -2/+33 rights make a left...

        They were pissed, and rightly so.
      • JohnReb, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Of course, the "I was pissed" defense. Such an enlightened approach to relationships.

        You don't get to have it both ways. If it's OK for Iran to break international law, it was OK for the US to break it.
  • Conspiracy20, on 07/22/2008, -3/+11thanks so much to ciaran036 for bringing this up!
    thanks mark for shouting it!
    • MarkEarhart, on 07/22/2008, -3/+4Thanks for reminding me. I was wondering if I had shouted it. They only allow shouts about every five minutes and I sometimes get sidetracked while waiting.
  • Egoist, on 07/22/2008, -4/+13Ah yes, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" is so much more peaceful than "Wipe Israel off the map."

    Thanks for the clarification guys!
    • Aitese, on 07/22/2008, -8/+10The man himself was involved in changing a regime in his own country as a student...I doubt he wanted to wipe his own nation from the map. You yourself will be going to the polls in affect to change the regime in the White house...I suppose you're doing it to destroy America?
    • kooft, on 07/22/2008, -7/+7Regime change is a tool of US foreign policy (think Afghanistan and Iraq). Iran wanting regime change in Israel doesn't mean Iran wants all Jews dead. If Iranians hated Jews there would be no more synagogue's in Tehran, or elsewhere in Iran for that matter. I'm not saying modern day Iran is a bastion of religious tolerance, only that it's not genocidal.

      Ahmadinejad himself said he wants true democracy in Israel. He wants all those that were forced out of Israel in 48 to be given the right to return and then all of Israel hold a referendum on a new government, with Iran accepting (normalizing relations with) whomever was elected.

      True, this isn't likely to happen so we can't call his bluff per say, but it doesn't like genocide to me. In fact it almost sounds American (you know, the will of the people and all). Too bad he's not pushing this agenda inside Iran...
      • catcher6250, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4"Ahmadinejad himself said he wants true democracy in Israel. He wants all those that were forced out of Israel in 48 to be given the right to return and then all of Israel hold a referendum on a new government, with Iran accepting (normalizing relations with) whomever was elected."

        Nobody was ever forced out of Israel though.
      • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2yeah (it was still Palestine when they were forced out)
      • SharonItai, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2kooft you are disconnected from reality! So according to you, all those hundreds of thousands Iranians in those political rallies screaming death to America, death to Israel and death to the Jews don't really mean it??

        Catcher, Ahmedinejad does not care about the "palestinian" refugees which fled from the war. Which btw according to the UN, the palestinian refugee problem only includes those who were present and left during the war. It does not include any of their children. Meaning maybe 100,000 "palestinian" refugees are still alive today. Amedinejad only wants Israel gone so Hezbullah (Iran) can move in.
    • ciaran036, on 07/22/2008, -8/+6Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Israel and the US are Iran's friends. Definitely peaceful.
      • ciaran036, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3If you don't believe me I'll post up the links from PressTV.
      • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2no, no - digg him under so it's almost like he never said it : |
    • yonoz, on 07/22/2008, -3/+8@Aitese: read up on the meaning of the word "regime".
      Israel is a democracy. Changing the regime here would be undemocratic.
      • ciaran036, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5so is Iran!
      • yonoz, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4Right... and I'm Batman.
        Even if that were true, it does not excuse Ahmedinejad's comments.
      • JohnReb, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5"so is Iran!"

        Not as long as the Mullahs get to decide who is or isn't on the ballot.
      • decafmatan, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5Thank you. I actually laughed when I read your comment ciaran036
      • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -3/+4@yonoz - you might want to do the reading up
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regime
        your ***** stinks to high heaven

        Iran is a democracy as much as Israel, and as democratic as the US - which isn't even a democracy (Constitutional Republic, even if we don't act like it).

        @JohnReb - Not as long as the elites (and AIPAC) decide who is or isn't on our ballot

        @the 3 of you - If you are Americans, you should put more effort into making America your number one. I doubt you are, but if so - hang your heads low. Low enough to kiss your asses goodbye, 'cause it's doubtful you rate any higher than us in their big picture.

      • JohnReb, on 07/23/2008, -3/+3When the law of the land allows an unelected supervisory group to decide, without any guidelines, who may or may not run for office, it isn't a democracy, it is an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy.

        But that would be an example of a nation with a real set of elites, unlike your little fantasy of AIPAC, et al.
      • decafmatan, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4@quesi

        Iran is an Islamic Republic in name only, one of the only "true" Islamic Republics is Turkey. In Iran women and non-Muslims cannot run for the majority of offices. How is that democratic? Israel's government actually has a disproportionately high amount of Arab and Druze officials in both civilian and military sectors.
      • yonoz, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4Well, quesi, I guess you can get back to drinking the kool-aid and watching out for low-flying black helicopters with your friends MarkEarhart and lazerus9.
      • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2And you can get back to undermining my country.
      • yonoz, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3That's right, because I'm evillllllll!!!! muhahahAHAHAHAHA
      • quesi, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1No - just a pain in the ass.
      • yonoz, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3So a pain in the ass is undermining your country? Where do you live, Burkina Faso?
  • Regbooker, on 07/22/2008, -7/+9I can see the "Megaphone" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_too ... screaming like crazy compelling all the pro-Israel goons to come here and censor this story.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/22/2008, -6/+5Photo of Hezbollah billboard in Tehran saying "Israel Must Be Wiped Out The World"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast ...
    • Rabbit63, on 07/22/2008, -5/+5So what? Israel is trying to wipe Lebanon out and they are STILL technically at War you nincompoop.

      The same is not true of Iran.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/22/2008, -6/+5Please, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy army you doodyhead.
    • ciaran036, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3You still cannot use that as an excuse to bomb a country. Hezbollah do not represent the view of 70 million Iranians.
  • wkenri, on 07/22/2008, -4/+5Is there any end to the ***** Israel and its supporters in the US continue to shovel? You people are mentally ill; you have no happiness unless you are instrumental in making others suffer.
    • DrDreyfus, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3I suggest you open a history book or navigate over to Wikipedia.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreem ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_17_Agreement
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Conflicts_and_ ...

      "you have no happiness unless you are instrumental in making others suffer"

      That's pretty one sided. Israel has done some horrible and inexcusable things but to so blatantly dismiss the attacks carried out by the Palestinian "government" and individual "freedom" fighters is unacceptable and speaks to an obvious bias.

      If Palestinians so desperately want peace, why did they reject both Israeli peace offers?

      If Palestinians so desperately want peace, why has a peaceful protest never been executed?

      If Palestinians so desperately want peace, why do they, instead of teaching their children peace, encourage them to become martyrs with the sole purpose of killing Israeli civilians?

      If Palestinians so desperately want peace, why do they elect an organization with a charter that specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, to power?

      If Palestinians so desperately want peace, why do they, instead of attacking military installations, INTENTIONALLY attack CIVILIANS?

      The hypocrisy of your statements are stifling.
    • quesi, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3Wikipedia was compromised.

      The deals and agreements are ALWAYS in their best interests, huh? Of course they are. They ALWAYS are.
    • DrDreyfus, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2"Wikipedia was compromised."

      By the blood-thirsty Zionists right? And even the sources?

      "The deals and agreements are ALWAYS in their best interests, huh? Of course they are. They ALWAYS are."

      Peace is only in the Israeli's best interest? What kind of ***** is that?
      How does giving back the Sinai Peninsula only benefit Israel?

      Is nothing but the destruction of Israel in the Palestinians best interest?

      I'd be interested to hear how the past failed peace agreements are only in the interest of Israel. How do they screw over Palestinians?
  •  

    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.