Igor Writes-
If you've been Digging or Redditing lately, you'll already know about this. However, this was so shattering to my perceptions that I simply had to post it up.
Many of you will recall the media's slandering of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. One of the major arguments that was used to label him "crazy" was that he had, in October of 2005, called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
Now, there are a number of things wrong with this. First, if you've ever actually seen Ahmadinejad speak (like on 60 minutes, where he trounced his interviewer), you already know he isn't "crazy". In fact, he's rational, intelligent, but tends to say things that makes Americans unhappy.
Now, about "wiping Israel off the map".
It never happened. He never said it.
It was a mistranslation.
This article dives deeper into it:
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."
Basically, it was a call for a REGIME CHANGE. Heard that anywhere before? I do believe our president called for the exact same thing in Iraq.
More than that, he was QUOTING the late Ayatollah Khomenei to begin with!
Now consider that the two main arguments for war with Iran are that 1)Their leader is insane, and 2)They will have nukes!
For reasons we've already discussed, he isn't crazy. And if (and I use IF strongly, since I can't possibly trust our government anymore) Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, can you blame them? One more than a few equations, bush administration officials said that "everything was on the table" regarding dealings with Iran. Mike Gravel said it best when he said that this was code for a nuclear attack. In fact, Ahmadinejad is unpopular with his own people for not doing enough to defend them. When threatened with nuclear attack, is it inconceivable for a nation to defend itself by attempting to build its own nuclear arsenal? After all, the only defense against nukes is a nuke.
After all, remember that 18-page letter that Ahmedinijad wrote to Bush explaining in plain and respectful language why the Iranian people were unhappy with the west? If you don't you could (and should) read it here. That was a call for negotiations, for some kind of dialogue, and maybe a truce. BUT OUR ADMINISTRATION BLEW IT OFF. It strikes me as inconceivable that our government would turn away what could be the last olive branch in this conflict.
If you watched the Republican debate, you already know that if any Republican other than Ron Paul is elected, we are going to war with Iran. I wouldn't put it past some of the lamer Democrats either.
If you think Iraq was a disaster, just wait until we dive into Iran. Mark my words, it would be a complete disaster.
My point here is that politicians lately have been throwing Iran and Ahmeninejad around in their speeches along with this "war on terror" (read: war on brown people). We need to think critically, and punish those who simply make things up. If we don't, we are doomed to a fate worse than Iraq.
I would love to hear your comments, and hopefully start some kind of a discussion.
2 comments:
Fair point, I've read that before that the whole "off the map" quote was distorted.
However, the Western world, noteably Israel and the US, have far greater issues with Iran besides that quote and saying things that make Americans uneasy. Repeatedly, Ahmadinejad muddles into conflicts simply for the sake of sticking it to Israel. Recently, Ahmadinejad held a conference debating the authenticity of the Holocaust. In that conference, Ahmadinejad brought in neo-Nazis and anti-semites (including the USA's own David Duke, former KKK president) througout the world to conclude that the Holocaust is largely a work of fiction and "exaggerated". This, Igor, irks Israelis and Westerners far more than the "off the map" discussion.
Ahmaninejad, also, is rather unpopular in Iran. Simliarly to Bush in the US, he is very much in a love/hate relationship with his governed. However, if recent polls are an indication, Ahmadinejad has fallen out of favor with his people. Not that Iranians could do anything about it, of course. Recent elections, hailed by the UN as "faulty" and "rigged", indicate Ahmadinejad and his clerical regime is out of touch and out of favor in Iran. Iran has a long and proud tradition of distancing itself from its Arab neighbors and their often volitile politics, instead placing value on an efficient and secular government. Remember that Iran, before the Revolution in 1979, maintained a healthy alliance with the US for over a century. Iranians, although proud Shiite Muslims, are traditionally more like the Turks (and for that matter the Western world), in that they both have traditionally been opposed to integrating religion and politics. Student rebellions have constantly threatened to usurp Ahmadinejad's regime over the past few years, and the US (as briefly mentioned in the movie "Syriana) places great hope in that the Ahmadinejad regime will be toppled - ultimately from within.
My point in all this history is that Ahmadinejad is going against the traditional values and religious entities that Iranians proudly held prior to the Revolution. Ahmadinejad is far more conservative than even his strictly clerical predecessors, even domestically maintaining a "moral police" that forces people, regardless of religious beliefs, to conform to a strict set of Muslim ethics. Iranians, by a wide margin, oppose these religious views held by the government and resent being subjugated to these rules. The Muslim moral conduct in Iran is comprable to that of the Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia, an absolute no-no in traditional Persian culture.
So Igor, although you may certainly be right that Ahmadinejad's global perception may be focused on a myth, the perception itself is not necessarily wrong. Ahmadinejad has drawn the ire of global politicians from almost every corner of the world and remains a hated figure even in his home nation, and for good reason.
You make a lot of good points, and I completely agree with most of them. The thing is, even though he isn't the nicest of guys when it comes to Israel, it isn't popular with the people. So should we attack them because their leader is controversial?
Besides that, he has never threatened the US, which makes me wonder why we are even in the picture. I understand that we are allies, but unless I see Israel taking action, I don't see the need to threaten nuclear war.
Post a Comment