Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel

Only, you conveniently forget to cite the contents of the same page (scroll down)

Translation controversy Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9] Ahmadinejad's phrase was "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود" according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10] The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14] Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime.

The start of the Wiki page says:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel refers to the relations between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Israel, characterized by contentious speeches and statements, including what many commentators perceive to be calls to destroy the country.

Well, what some people PERCEIVE is not a fact, it is merely a perception.
Wiki

The same tactic as the OP.
How does it feel that debunking this propaganda is easier and easier as the days go by?
On the other hand, there is THIS statement that a critical poster found on the last page of this thread:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

ABC News

Clinton, a leading politician of the US at present, did clearly imply obliterating the country of Iran - I hasten to add - IN CASE they attack Israel. (I add this disclaimer because unlike the neo-Nazis here, I do perceive contradictions even where it serves my opponents.) We also have to add that she was not yet speaking as the official representative of the US but as a front runner for the Democratic nomination.

A similar disclaimer applies to the article cited in the OP: it advocates attacks on Israel etc. IN CASE it mounts an attack on Iran. That much is clear even from Google translation.

The thread title is ambiguous. Ayatollah says. As I pointed out about ten pages back, it is no news as it was the former ayatollah that said these inflammatory remarks.

However, as the OP pointed out later, the timing of this quotation from Khomeini is not by chance. I think it is most likely that it is a reaction to this psychological warfare against their regime AND by some, their whole country. However, it could also be a subtle signal of Iran's intention to attack - we cannot decide this, we are not intel experts.

I must add that the hoax about the "wipe off the map" statement (looks like it was started by a mistranslation by IRNA anyway), was also a quotation from Khomeini.

I think I am going to ask mods about how to report repeated hoaxes as some people here refuse to consider prima facie linguistic evidence.

Can a hoax be repeated day and night again and again after it was debunked many times? I ask this siding with casenately.

People are still entitled to guesswork of Iran's true intentions - but words are words.
Map was not there in Persian, and "rezhim" means regime and not country.
THESE are facts, and not out-of-context quotes.

Plus the New York Times - published this when? After it was debunked or before?

reply to post by Kokatsi


The list on the Farsnews site lists the criteria to destroy Israel and kill Jewish people where ever they are comes from the Ayatollah (1979).

All the hoopla about Ahmadenijad and the supposed mistranslation (which im not buying) was based on him talking to people about the doctrine set forth by the Ayatollah (1979). Going back and watching the speeches he has given show this, that he is referring to the doctrine.

So while people want to argue he never said this or that, the fact of the matter is he did say it because he was quoting the Ayatollah.

Recently the current ayatollah has publicly made comments about cutting the cancer out, referring to Israel.

The Ayatollah and Ahmadenijad are not leaving any room for ambiguity. They are putting the doctrine into play, which calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of jewish people around the world.

The Farsnews site article is the doctrine the ayatollah (1979) set forth and is the current game plan they are going by now.

reply to post by mpwaite



That MAY be a plausible interpretation. I don't recall the part about not one Israeli dying.

Do you have ref's?

I don't think anyone has all the battles and sequences of major events figured out accurately. Doubt they will . . . until after the fact. LOL.

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by bronxbull

., they are manics when it comes to religion. why would they make that up.

Actually all followers of any religion are manic.

. . .

Welllllllllll . . . for those who believe that rather extreme assertion, that would include . . . given the ALL . . .

the RELIGION of ATHEISM . . . yes the Supreme Court did declare it, accurately, to be a RELIGION . . . as it is.

AND

the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM etc. etc. etc.

I won't repeat the info about INTRINSIC vs EXTRINSIC religiosity here. Wiki has a section on it.
.
.

reply to post by Xcathdra



Great points.

I don't expect folks really want to deal with the realities involved.

They seem interested only in throwing rocks at those they . . . revile . . . because of our values and beliefs.

IF they really wanted to deal with reality and facts, they'd discuss the verses in the Koran and Hadith which exhort, order the extermination of

the Jews particularly but actually all nonMuslims.

.

Well, Khomeini was truly rabid.
The new ayatollah was for a while greeted as a more moderate person.
The real question is not the rhetoric - despite the inaccuracies I proved, it IS inflammatory today - but why this "doctrine" was resuscitated recently?

Because the Revolutionary Guards basically took over Iran in recent years. There are much more of them than used to be and they hold Fascist style marches. They have accumulated immense power since Ahmad is President. THAT is a real problem. There has been a quiet military coup on top of the Theocratic state.

Khamenei and Ahmad are on their side. Against all the moderate Islamic Iranians and the secular ones.

We Westerners are partly responsible for this because our psychological warfare for years (started by neocon extremists) has strengthened the Iranian regime' paranoid side. For several years we treated them basically as less than equal, issued fatwas against them. We make nothing of threats (see the Clinton quote above.)

Wouldn't you be scared to hear that if you were a moderate Iranian?
Wouldn't you perhaps contemplate after several years that perhaps these crazy religious nuts in government are partly right because it DOES appear so as the West wants to make war no matter what and they might want to annihilate all - moderates and religious and everybody?

Nothing fortifies a military dictatorship as much as an external threat, especially if perceived as unjust.

Enters the resuscitated rhetoric from radical Khomeini, who by the way solved Iran's opium problem by murdering thousands of addicts and had his enemies torn apart alive by trucks.

The damage is already done.

To draw an imaginary historical parallel, it would be like pushing back Brezhniew's Soviet rule to the times of Stalin by constant threats to annihilate all Russians.
Who knows, if we didn't corner Iran, they might have had their Islamic Gorbachev.

It is too late. I am pulling out of here because from now on, rhetoric (misquoted or real), will simply matter less than the timing and the firepower of radicalized Revolutionary Guards on the one hand, and radical Barak backers on the other hand.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Great points.

I don't expect folks really want to deal with the realities involved.

They seem interested only in throwing rocks at those they . . . revile . . . because of our values and beliefs.

IF they really wanted to deal with reality and facts, they'd discuss the verses in the Koran and Hadith which exhort, order the extermination of

the Jews particularly but actually all nonMuslims.

.


I wish people would stop this mindless hacking away at other faiths.
Christians did not exactly excel from tolerance in history. Manuals of the Inquisition specified that converted Jews had to be interrogated to test whether they were truly Christian.... and this was done in Spain for hundreds of years.
On the other hand, I am not happy about people misquoting the Talmud either. (It does NOT say all people of non-Jewish origin can be mistreated. It establishes differences based on belief and not ethnicity.)

It seems to me that some people want the members of all three Abrahamic religions to start hating and accusing each other more than they ever did in human history. Glad I do not belong to any of the three.

Please quote your sources - Arabic, transcript, translation, interpretation (as Talmud is for the Torah, which includes a commentary of how an old text is supposed to be understood.)

reply to post by Kokatsi



Interesting points.

I appreciate your perspective.

It is similar to that of some Iranian friends I had in San Diego.

However . . . the 'radical' aspect of Islam does not originate from nothing.

There is plenty of fodder for that in the founding documents.

Muslims who don't . . . own . . . the radical assertions in the founding documents often do not consider themselves to be pure devout Muslims. And certainly the more passionate do not consider them to be devout Muslims.

reply to post by Kokatsi



I'm collecting my own group of quotes and refs . . . a slow task.

Christians--the authentic Chrisitans I know--do not hate Muslims at all. We hate the violence and genocidal nature of the more passionate Muslims and the demonic moon god origin of Islam.

We also hate the looming threat of Shariah law and conquest by birthrate etc.

And, we hate the terrorism.

We do recognize that the globalists are merely using Islam and are worse than even violent Islam themselves.

A huge percentage of authentic Christians cherish Israel and Israeli's as chosen of God and seek the blessing that God promises to those who bless them.

I think only Orthodox Jews are very rabid toward non-Orthodox Jews and most of them are not very violent at all.

Originally posted by BO XIAN

A huge percentage of authentic Christians cherish Israel and Israeli's as chosen of God and seek the blessing that God promises to those who bless them.

A few questions if I may sir.
Do Christians believe in Jesus.

Do Jews believe in Jesus.

Do Muslims believe in Jesus.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Some of the Christian quirks..

reply to post by Tw0Sides



Satan himself believes in Jesus.

WHAT one believes about Jesus makes all the difference.

As has been said . . . either He was insane . . . or . . . He was who HE said He was.

There's no room in the historical record for middle ground, imho.

Originally posted by BO XIAN

WHAT one believes about Jesus makes all the difference.

Sir , if you dont know the answers , thats fine, just let me know,

Do christians believe in Jesus.

Do jews believe in Jesus.

Do muslims believe in Jesus.

Originally posted by BO XIAN

As has been said . . . either He was insane . . . or . . . He was who HE said He was.

You are right. And since he NOT ONCE said he was God ...

(Pretty please: Since this is a FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF, provide me with ONE SINGLE VERSE where Jesus says "I am God". You can't)

There are a lot of Youtube videos of Iran chanting death to America and Israel so either it is made up or there are those trying to fool people on ATS saying that is not case; eventually it becomes obvious that it makes me wonder why people on ATS would spend the time to deny it.

Had Iran embraced Christ their sense of language would have been more peaceful instead of the Rhetoric they chant in the same koranic tone of their religion.

Iran is a rich,Diverse and beautiful country.
The problem,as with many countrys is the Leadership.

I could see if many on ATS actually supported the people of Iran. What I cant for the life of me see,is those supporting Irans regime.

And that is what I see repeated on ATS.

Many in Iran dont support their regime.

Originally posted by sonnny1

I could see if many on ATS actually supported the people of Iran. What I cant for the life of me see,is those supporting Irans regime.

Can you tell me how to separate the two. People from Regime.

And if the bullets fly, who will get hurt, the people of Iran.

Do you see our Dilemma.

reply to post by Tw0Sides



Sorry, I thought my answer to that was obvious.

1. Yes, most Jews believe that Jesus was a historical figure; Jewish and not their Messiah. Blasphemy to them to call Him the Son of God.

2. Yes, probably a majority or near majority of Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet but not the Son of God--blasphemy to them. Actually a LOT of Muslims don't know anything about Jesus at all. The founding documents may mention Him but He is not discussed a lot in the mosques. And IIRC, it's still the case that most Muslims do not read.

Many 100's of Muslims all around the world are having dreams, visions, visitations of Jesus in the middle of the night. Sometimes several adult family members in an extended family the same night--or even several leaders of a tribe the same night. They realize during the dream/ vision/ visitation that He is God and accept Him as their Savior during the experience. He informs them to get a Bible as soon as workable to learn more of Him. They do--as hazardous as that is. Most of those people have never heard of Him before.

3. Do Christians believe in Jesus? One wonders . . . in terms of many who go by the label. LOL. Some act like it. Some don't.

Now. I've answered your question.

4. The reality is that each of the beliefs articulated above is QUITE DIFFERENT.

5. Again . . . One either takes WHAT JESUS SAID ABOUT HIMSELF AS FACT

OR ONE DOES NOT.

There's no middle ground. One can't be half pregnant about Jesus.

ALL the cults compromise on or dismiss the idea that Jesus is Creator God--or any part of God or from God at all.

Authentic Christians believe that is a super critical issue. There is no middle ground; no compromise. Treating Jesus as less than God is blasphemy to Christians.

Christ asked the Disciples--"Who do you say that I am?" Peter gave the correct answer and Christ noted that Holy Spirit had revealed that to Peter--not flesh and blood.

100's of Muslims have had such revealed to them as well . . . and become His avid followers at risk of death.

That's one of the reasons the NT historical record can be considered reliable.

It is plausible that folks would risk death for the Truth, in that era and context. It's not so plausible that they would risk death for something they knew to be a lie.

reply to post by BO XIAN


There was a reason for my questions, Im trying to understand something regarding the faiths of these religions.
I thank you for your response, those werent Gotcha Questions.
I need to look more to understand things.

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by BO XIAN

As has been said . . . either He was insane . . . or . . . He was who HE said He was.

You are right. And since he NOT ONCE said he was God ...

(Pretty please: Since this is a FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF, provide me with ONE SINGLE VERSE where Jesus says "I am God". You can't)

WRONG.

JESUS THE CHRIST AFFIRMED THE FACT IN SEVERAL PLACES.

www.godonthe.net...

Mark 14:61b-62 [61b] Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" [62] "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Luke 22:66-70 [66] At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. [67] "If you are the Christ, " they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, [68] and if I asked you, you would not answer. [69] But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." [70] They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

Proverbs 30:4 [NKJV] Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?

And several translations below are available at


bible.cc...


Mat 16:16

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Shimeon Kaypha answered, “You are The Messiah, The Son of THE LIVING GOD”.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Yeshua answered and said to him, “You are Blessed, Shimeon Bar Yona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven.”

New Living Translation (©2007)
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus replied, "You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.

Weymouth New Testament
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jonah," said Jesus; "for mere human nature has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven.

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

John 17:10 [Speaking to the Father] All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.

===========================

The notion that Christ never affirmed that He was God is simply nonsense and displays a gross lack of awareness of the historical Biblical record.

Thankfully, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has NOT left us in our sins unredeemed. Yet, we must choose HIS BLOOD as covering for our missing the mark of perfection as in an archery bull's eye.