"Israel must be wiped off the map."

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Yep, they think he was saying they should live in peace and harmony.....

When Hilary said Ghaddafi must go, she meant to the picnic she was inviting him too, not that he should be killed and disposed of.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Hmm... You're right he didn't say it should be wiped from the map, he stated the current regime controlling the region should vanish from the pages of time. Those are vastly different.... if you're a goddamn fucking retard.
They are vastly different. Regime change need not be achieved through war and he did not suggest Iran have any part (violent or otherwise) in that change. If you look at the correct translation and the context with an open mind, this is painfully clear.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
They are vastly different. Regime change need not be achieved through war and he did not suggest Iran have any part (violent or otherwise) in that change. If you look at the correct translation and the context with an open mind, this is painfully clear.

By regime change they mean, no Jews in charge. They mean Palestinian regime controlling the region. Don't be dense.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
So what?

The whole point is that Iran has not declared any intention to instigate that regime change through nuclear warfare, which is what the people who continue to spread the "Israel must be wiped off the map" propaganda imply. It's a lie and it's not a justification for a preemptive strike, and those who continue to use it for such have no credibility in my book. You still see this in the mainstream media, you still see it on forums and blogs, you still see it everywhere for some reason.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Then there are other considerations, it may be all well and fine for me to say that Mosquitoes and Measles should be banished from the pages of time, the problem is saying so does not make it happen even if this forum is 100% in agreement with that desire.

There is a giant difference between words and actual deeds, as Israel too threatens to bomb Iran.

Then there is another distinction as some, but not me, claim there is Moderator pro-Israeli bias on this forum. But what can we except in a mainly USA forum where a pro-Israeli press makes US man on the street opinion different from almost any nation on earth when we talk about mainly Israeli and mid-east issues.

But if we look at other countries and their internet forums, opinion tend to be location location and location.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
There is a giant difference between words and actual deeds, as Israel too threatens to bomb Iran.

The difference is that Irsael actually can and eventually will bomb Iran. Iran is just talking out it's ass, and has no ability to wipe Israel "off the map."
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
It's funny how easily some people fall for propaganda.

The President of Iran has a lot to like about him. But that doesn't mean he called for destroying Israel.

Propaganda is pushing a belief by spreading a falsehood with information people are inclined to believe, usually using a nugget of truth to tell a larger lie.

It's generally in a group's or nation's interest to get viewed sympathetically. This often means claiming an injustice from an opponent.

For example, in the leadup to WWII, no doubt you can find all kinds of war advocates who point at the opponents they want war with doing threatening or unjust things.

In the cold war, the US would make the USSR a threat by talking about the areas where the USSR was worse - rights and freedoms for individuals for example, the KGB - while Russia would talk about the 'Imperialist west' and its concentrated few people who ran things corruptly (which might ring more true lately), for example. All of which was designed to both convinced their own people they faced a threat from the opponent, and the world they were the better side.

The Soviets could point to things like offering aid to third world nations that were being exploited by Western colonialism, for example.

And we could point to incidents of the Soviets cracking down against something like the revolution in Czekoslovakia or police state policies in East Germany.

With the cold war in effect and both sides having strong measures to oppose the other, each side's 'hawks' found it very convenient to use the other side for an excuse.

If you wanted a police state measure for your own reasons, say it's for security. If you want war with another country for bad reasons, accuse them of being allied with the other side. Both sides found this very useful - and actually benefited from each other as these excuses.

Books like 'War is a force that gives us meaning' give a lot of other great examples of how this is done - how enemies are used for these justifications.

Wars are even sometimes started to create political unity at home for the benefit of the leaders - for example, when Chile went to war with the UK over the Falkland Islands.

It was the attack Republicans made against Clinton under the 'wag the dog' scenario, a fictional movie about a US President using war to deal with scandal.

1984 had its 'permanent war' as the same sort of useful conflict to justify bad government policies, even before the cold war started.

Anyway, it's good to understand how this propaganda works to manipulate people, playing on their patriotism, their vulnerability to being told there's an enemy.

Israel has a very real horror in its past - the Holocaust. That real fact has also given it a lot of sympathy and cover for anything it does wrong, with some people.

Just as the US is a nation with high ideals it has not always lived up to with things like slavery, native genocide, some unjustified wars (which, ironic for this thread, used the same techniques I'm discussing for public support), Israel has high ideals it doesn't always live up to. The threat of Palestinians can be used effectively for almost any measures they want to take - in turn giving the Palestinian terrorists or their supporters things THEY can use to justify their violence. Feeding off each other again.

Sometimes this can get so bad, feeding off each other, that the worst enemies of these groups for violence - whether the military industry, political groups based on pro-war policies, and so on, are the peace groups trying to end the conflict. Groups who stand to benefit from war pressure for war.

Nations almost always look to justify the wars they want - which often means trying to get an act by the other side to increase public support. The US has done this pretty much every war. You can review how the South was put in a position to 'fire the first shot' that gave Lincoln public support for war. When Polk wanted war with Mexico, he didn't launch an invasion, he sent some troops inside Mexico to 'patrol a new border' he'd declared Mexico didn't agree to, and of course Mexican troops encountered them inside Mexico and that conflict was an excuse for war. Not to mention 'Remember the Alamo', less about an injustice to people in the Alamo than using the attack for justifying war, against a group of foreigners who did not recognized the Mexican government and were inciting rebellion. With WWI, the act of an assassin was used to justify war; with both WWI and WWII, US Presidents had run on campaigns not to enter the wars and then found reasons to do so (Pearl Harbor giving FDR justification; an attack Japan claimed was needed for hostilities done to it, and so on).

In our most recent war with Saddam, they tried to justify a threat - citing 'attacks on his own people' from decades earlier, which at the time had no effect on our forming a closer alliance with him; exaggerating the threat of his launching a nuclear attack against us; stories of his using crop dusters to spread chemical agents in the US if not prevented, and claims he had banned WMD which we prevented the UN from investigating by accelerating the launch of war while inspectors were in Iraq.

Anyway, what these anecdotes are pointing at is simply how pro-war propagandists justify war.

And this use of the President of Iran saying he 'wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' or 'off the map' is EXACTLY the sort of propaganda they use.

It ends any discussion of 'issues' and why NOT to go to war and instead simply says 'he wants to destroy you. Do you let him or do you deal with the threat?'

There's a reason why everyone knows the quote, it's the one thing they can quote him as saying - because it's been highly publicized by interested parties.

One more anecdote - involving the sinking of the Lusitania. This is not about the direct use of the sinking for war justification - how Germany had a no-sailing zone around England at the time, and did not want to attack other ships, and told the Lusitania's company not to sail there, indeed the German government had taken out an ad in fifty American newspapers saying not to sail on it if it would go into those waters, including where it sailed from in New York, the ad next to the ad for the ship.

The Lusitania did sail into those waters, and was sunk; Germany apologized for this. But that incident used to get support for war isn't what this is about.

A private German citizen, a satirist, felt outraged that Cunard lines had been so irresponsible as to ignore the warnings and sail the ship into the war zone anyway. He created a few hundred medals mocking the event, such as a skeleton selling tickets and a slogan sarcastically saying there were 'no munitions'; Germany widely believed the ship was carrying munitions under cover as a civilian ship, supported by how there was a big second explosion after one torpedo that sunk the ship. (Britain claimed it was coal dust exploding; divers decades later confirmed that it had been carrying munitions and the Germans were right).

He had put a date for the sinking two days early based on a newspaper story error.

Now here's the point: Britain ran across one of these medallions, and their head of propaganda - yes, they had a head of propaganda - thought of a neat lie to tell the British people and the world. He ordered a large new minting of a slightly modified medallion and widely distributed them, with a pamphlet with a false story that the German government - far from its 'apology' - had minted them as gifts for the submarine crew to CELEBRATE the anniversary of the sinking - and that the incorrect date two days early proved it was a planned act. This was to build support for the war, painting the German government as bloodthirsty murderers who were celebrating the killing.

That's how these things work - and how using an invented quote about the President of Iran saying he wants to kill all Israelis is so useful to those with the war agenda.

But it's *playing to people's pre-disposed views they want* already. Hitler didn't demonize the nationally beloved Jews. Britain didn't lie about the Germans all Britains thought were peace-loving. The Bush administration didn't build a false case for war about a man the American people viewed as a great humanitarian. There are people hungering for excuses for war against Iran, sympathetic to the 'Israel under threat' issue.

Much of the Nazi case against Jews was built on a false document portraying Jews as having a terrible agenda, that fed into people's views.

This is a misquote portraying Iran as determined to obliterate Israel that feeds into people's views.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
This is a misquote portraying Iran as determined to obliterate Israel that feeds into people's views.

I agree completely: Regardless of whether Iran said it or not, they're the enemy of the US and Israel.
 

raviolissimo

Banned
Feb 14, 2008
14
0
0
Fictionnal conspiracies that suit the zionists agenda
are spreaded and presented as a truth, but this is nothing new,
the zio media brainwashing medication having all US politicians as die hard addicts.....

This is what Martin Luther was talking about when he wrote his famous book, "On the Jews and Their Lies". He wasn't referring to all Jews, he was referring to the telling of lies by Jews in positions of power.

Which obviously continues to the present day. Although I think if Martin Luther were around today, he might use the term "Zionist", instead of Jew.

http://www.amazon.com/Jews-Their-Lie.../dp/1593640242
 

Karl Agathon

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2010
1,081
0
0
The difference is that Irsael actually can and eventually will bomb Iran. Iran is just talking out it's ass, and has no ability to wipe Israel "off the map."

I wonder if the chimp realizes that his country would be turned into a parking lot?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The difference is that Irsael actually can and eventually will bomb Iran. Iran is just talking out it's ass, and has no ability to wipe Israel "off the map."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
If you like me believe a motor mouth idiot in Acmanisinjad is just talking out ass with empty threats , why get excited by any empty threats he makes? Yet at the same time, you are prepared to grant Israel the right to bomb Iran in what you concede is no threat?????????????

I will never understand the weird thinking of Nebor which is seming based on no discernable logic.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Whether he said it or not isn't all that important. At the end of the day it's actions that matter and Iran is waging a proxy war against Israel though it's allies.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
I will never understand the weird thinking of Nebor which is seming based on no discernable logic.

How many time did i tell you ?...
Zio brainwashing medication doing miracles,
1+1= 10 is easily solved...
 

Rebel44

Senior member
Jun 19, 2006
742
1
76
Saying
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Looks pretty much same as saying that he want Israel to be destroyed.

IMO he is lucky that his country doesnt have border with Israel.
 

Oric

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
877
53
91
The regime = Fascist government ...

Fascists seek to purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration, and to produce their nation's rebirth based on commitment to the national community based on organic unity, in which individuals are bound together by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
Yes, I can see why the OP rushes to defend him, since saying "wiping Israel from the map" is such a different sentiment than saying Israel should "vanish from the page of time."
it makes a huge difference.

If you wipe israel off the earth or something similar, zionists will yell that tehy want to nuke israel and that a pre-emptitive attack is necessary.

If it vanishes from the pages of time, it means that the zionist regime could dissolve like the URSS: with no wars.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
Answer the question.

It's your term. Give us a list.

Zio brainwashing medication is so successfull in the US that this
country s ziozombified masses are not even capable of spotting
those who have blatlantly highjacked their country s sovereignty
litterrally in daylight.

There s quite a lot of Zionists in this post :
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32114320&postcount=1
Validity of the OP theories can be questionned , but not the fact
that all peoples he s naming are die hard zionists...

Does US ziozombis know that Rahm Emmanuel was officer
in the israeli army?...
Such exemples are countless...

Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois to Jewish parents.[6] His father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a Jerusalem-born[10] pediatrician who was once a member of the Irgun, a Jewish paramilitary organization that operated in Mandate Palestine.
Son of a zionist terrorist became a US governement member..
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
The difference is that Irsael actually can and eventually will bomb Iran. Iran is just talking out it's ass, and has no ability to wipe Israel "off the map."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
If you like me believe a motor mouth idiot in Acmanisinjad is just talking out ass with empty threats , why get excited by any empty threats he makes? Yet at the same time, you are prepared to grant Israel the right to bomb Iran in what you concede is no threat?????????????

I will never understand the weird thinking of Nebor which is seming based on no discernable logic.

If Iran was not running a proxy war on Israel, I would be inclined to accept that he is a blowhard as his supporters claim.

But when you have shipments of arms going to Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, his intent is to destroy Israel. Iran also has increased the sophistication of weapons going to the proxies, so the realm of getting some nuclear material out becomes a real possibility.

Actions speak louder than words; Iran's actions are backing up their government's words
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
10,847
3,297
136
Actions speak louder than words; Iran's actions are backing up their government's words

So says the ziozombified half brain whose country openly
subside terrorists actions in Iran...

They once had a secular democratic elected government
but it was overthrown by a US sponsored coup.

Do not know Dr Mossadegh ?..

No surprise, Ziozombified take as granted the zionists fairy tales..
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
If you like me believe a motor mouth idiot in Acmanisinjad is just talking out ass with empty threats , why get excited by any empty threats he makes? Yet at the same time, you are prepared to grant Israel the right to bomb Iran in what you concede is no threat?????????????

I will never understand the weird thinking of Nebor which is seming based on no discernable logic.

Iran has intent but not capability. But are working towards attaining capability, which makes them a threat. That's why Israel is in the right to bomb them in order to destroy their long range destructive capabilities.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
So says the ziozombified half brain whose country openly
subside terrorists actions in Iran...

They once had a secular democratic elected government
but it was overthrown by a US sponsored coup.

Do not know Dr Mossadegh ?..

No surprise, Ziozombified take as granted the zionists fairy tales..

You sound like a retard speaking in broken english, repeating butchered versions of the word "Zionist" and "zombies."
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,384
0
76
All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.

Source

In any event, it doesn't really matter what Ahmadinejad said back in October 2005; his actions speak for him. See this report by the Council on Foreign Relations on Iran's sponsorship of terrorist groups.
 

Oric

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
877
53
91
Woofmeister : United States also supports terrorist/seperatist groups in Iran. How about that ? Is it OK when you do the same