Israel mulls military option for Iran nukes

Thursday 07th August, 06:59 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 124 Total Comments Show All

SezWho2 at 11:06 PM JST - 11th August

kinniku,

Ahmadinejad's response did not answer the interviewer's question. That is the most that can be truthfully said. However, a clear response does not demand an answer to the question--as every American politician knows.

I think you've got it right when you suggest that Ahmadinejad doesn't really care what you think about his statement. He's content to let you be overexcited about his words. Again, he doesn't need to clear the air. Khamenei has done that for him.

Yes, we are talking about IRNA and I'm not a reader of it. So what? If I were a reader, not being fluent in Farsi, I would not be able to judge the accuracy of its translations. I have offered you (1) arguments as to why all translations should be called into question and (2) the opinion of one Farsi speaker who does call the translation into question. Your only offer has been your opinion that IRNA renders accurate translations.

Norouzi's comments hardly favor your argument, by the way. Your argument is that Ahmadinejad's meaning is clear and that if he meant something different he has not disabused people who misunderstood him. Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to attempt to wipe Israel from the map.

Your argument about the word "recent" is a bit picky. Furthermore, it's a bit diversionary. I grant that if I had read your source more carefully the first time, I would have chosen a different word. However, I would not have chosen a different counterargument and that counterargument remains unrefuted. Hostile signs on missiles in parades do not signal intent to unleash those missiles in attack--and that is if our understanding of the sentiment behind the signs is correct.

I can't show you any banners that say "Death to America--if it keeps interfering with us". What I can show you is almost 3 years of time when none of those missiles have come down on either Israel or the US. I can also show you a country--Iran--which is not going to start a war with either the Israel or the US.

Regarding your second post, of course the banners are not friendly. Why should they be? Not only does every predominantly Islamic country in the Middle East have cause to be resentful of--if not openly hostile to--Israel, but the decades long demonization of Iran has not been helpful. There have been many things that are not conducive to peace in the Middle East and that is certainly one.
kinniku at 12:10 PM JST - 12th August

SezWho2,

Ahmadinejad's response did not answer the interviewer's question. That is the most that can be truthfully said.

Yes, this is my point.

However, a clear response does not demand an answer to the question--as every American politician knows.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean here. "A clear response does not demand an answer to the question"? What does this even mean? Lastly, what do US politicians have to do with this? Ahmadinejad is Iranian.

I think you've got it right when you suggest that Ahmadinejad doesn't really care what you think about his statement. He's content to let you be overexcited about his words.

Yes, that is the problem. Ahmadinejad is not looking for peaceful solutions and his responses reflect that.

Again, he doesn't need to clear the air.

Yes, he does because after close to three years we are still having this conversation in the world and even more so they are having this conversation on the streets of the Middle East. If he were sincere in wanting the air to be cleaned, he would have cleaned it. He isn't and he hasn't.

Khamenei has done that for him.

No, he hasn't if the conversation is still taking place. Khamenei is aware of the friction caused by Ahmadinejad's words and he could easily have Ahmadinejad clear the air. He hasn't does this. It is Ahmadinejad's words that linger in the streets of the Middle East not Khamenei's.

Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to attempt to wipe Israel from the map.

No, in the end, Norouzi comes to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive. No one has specifically been able to say what Ahmadinejad meant to say. Remember, this is not like we are guessing what Moses, Mohamed, Jesus or Buddha meant to say. We are talking about a living human being who could at any time clarify his statements.

Hostile signs on missiles in parades do not signal intent to unleash those missiles in attack--and that is if our understanding of the sentiment behind the signs is correct.

My point is that the same words that Ahmadinejad spoke were written on missiles. You have not proved that the words on those missiles are not hostile. By the way, most people look at hostile words to mean that there is the potential for hostility. I see you take the meaning to be something else.

Your argument about the word "recent" is a bit picky.

Not really. You admitted you really did not look at the article. So it seems I was correct in saying so. It is probably better to read more carefully before commenting.

I can't show you any banners that say "Death to America--if it keeps interfering with us".

Then you probably should not suggest that it is possible that the banners would have said such a thing. Making up banner slogans does not help your argument.

Regarding your second post, of course the banners are not friendly. Why should they be?

The banners reflected the words in Ahmadinejad's speech and those of Khomenei before him. They are words of hate and words of hostility. To then say, "Hey, he just means he wishes Israel would peacefully disappear someday" is to misrepresent the atmosphere in Iran.

Yes, we are talking about IRNA and I'm not a reader of it. So what?

You and one Farsi speaker are claiming IRNA's translations are faulty. As I asked you, please show me the original translation of the original quote by Khomenei. Also, show me some sort of history of bad translation on the part of IRNA.

While we are on the subject, why is it that Aljazeera also had a reporter at Ahmadinejad's speech and also took the same meaning from the speech as IRNA did? Why did other Middle East news agencies also take that same meaning? Could it be that it is because that is the meaning that can be taken from Ahmadinejad said. Certainly Ahmadinejad himself has given us no reason to think otherwise.

but the decades long demonization of Iran has not been helpful.

Yes, well, they probably should not have taken over the US Embassy for over 400 days. That will get you demonized right quick. Ahmadinejad should probably not speak so much either.

Let me end by saying, Ahmadinejad could shut up me and people with opinions like mine by just saying that he didn't mean to say what people have quoted him as saying. However, as you have correctly admitted, he doesn't want to do that and it seems you don't want him to either. So the demonization will probably continue for quite some time.
kinniku at 06:58 PM JST - 12th August
Let's enjoy some more healthy, wholesome thoughts from Ahmadinejad, shall we?

Gee, I wonder if there will now be claims that the Iranian Mehr News Agency doesn't understand Farsi, too.

Anyway, on with the fun: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkqvlPndHPxXMqNzQLCQAPNyxbdQ
```
  "I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said.
```
"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

"I
seansezso at 11:07 PM JST - 12th August

kinniku,

Mate, they have been spouting tripe like that for decades! Its all bluster!

Please remember Saddam and his empty bluster. He talked talked talked, but he wasnt holding any cards, remember? The Iranians also do not have the cards to do what Ahmadinejad is blabbling about. Its just a circus for the people of Iran, who I suspect are barely listening anyway.
SezWho2 at 12:11 AM JST - 13th August

kinniku,

That was your point? That Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question? I don't think so. I think your point was that he didn't answer the question so he is threatening Israel. If that was not, then we are left with him simply not answering the question, about which nothing more can be said.

A clear response can be given without satisfying the interviewer's question. If you ask me if I have stopped beating my wife yet and I respond that I like strawberries better than tomatoes, my response is clear. It just doesn't dignify your question. I know Ahmadinejad is an Iranian, but if you haven't listened to American politicians and seen how deftly they dodge questions, you've missed a lot of the fun. So American politicians would be an example.

I think if anyone is definitely not looking for peaceful solutions here, it is you. You seem to be rather exercised by what you imagine Ahmadinejad to have meant. When you speak I hear, "Take it back or else."

In your opinion Ahmadinejad needs to clear the air. In my opinion he does not. Khamenei really did clarify Iran's intent. He didn't need to take Ahmadinejad to the woodshed and make him do anything. Ahmadinejad's comments linger more in your mind than in the streets of the Middle East.

I say that Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map. You say, no, that Norouzi comes to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive. I think you are engaging in double speak there. If Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive they do not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map.

Of course I have not proven that the words on the missiles were not hostile. I even said they were hostile. It is inexact to say that hostile words indicate a potential for hostility. Hostile words indicate the presence of hostility. It's just that the presence of hostility does not indicate that military action is forthcoming--as for example the long hostility between the Soviets and the US.

You entirely miss the point about the banner slogans. I'm not making them up. I'm supplying a context that is different than the context which you want to insist is present. Your context is "Death to America--and we're coming for you." That is the context you are making up.

I'm sure that Iran wishes Israel would disappear now. I'm sure a lot of people wish that, in the Middle East, in the West, in Asia, everywhere. A good number of Iranians are hostile but that does not mean they will attack without a reason. Israel attacking Iran would be a reason.

I have claimed that all translations have inherent faults and I have set forth arguments to that effect. I have also produced one Farsi speaker who indicated the translation was faulty. You have not refuted either of these points but now you want me to fetch you an accurate translation of Khomenei's original remark. Again you miss the point. You have claimed that IRNA translates with accuracy. That is your burden of proof.

Why did al-Jazeera and other Middle Eastern news agencies have the same take? I don't know, do you? Could it be that they were using the same source that you were?

Ah! There we go. The US Embassy. That's the sticking point isn't it. We just can't get past that, can we. It's time for America and Americans to grow up.

I don't care if Ahmadinejad satisfies you or not. Personally, I doubt that there is anything he could do that would satisfy you, whether he says he's very sorry to have caused so much trouble, he really didn't mean to frighten anyone and of course Iran has no plans to attack--or not. In my opinion, people who are overly excited about this have the responsibility to calm down.

Thank you for the new link. I may or may not chase it down and look at it. However, the quotation that you excerpt from it indicates nothing except a belief that Israel will be destroyed. And that is very likely to be the case--for Israel as we now know it--unless it gets a 2-state solution pretty soon.
kinniku at 02:00 AM JST - 13th August

SezWho2,

That was your point? That Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question?

Yes. That is one of my points. One to which you agreed.

I think your point was that he didn't answer the question so he is threatening Israel.

Yes, that is my point. I also think he wants others to think he is threatening Israel.

If that was not, then we are left with him simply not answering the question, about which nothing more can be said.

Actually, we can add that he likes people thinking about his statements the way they do. That says a lot about the man.

A clear response can be given without satisfying the interviewer's question. If you ask me if I have stopped beating my wife yet and I respond that I like strawberries better than tomatoes, my response is clear.

Sorry. Your response is not clear at all, except for the fact that we know you like strawberries better than tomatoes. Other than that we know nothing about whether you have stopped beating your wife yet. Just like we have no idea what Ahmadinejad meant in 2005 or in June 2008 when he made the statements in my post above.

It just doesn't dignify your question.

If others in his country, including Khamenei can manage to 'dignify' the question, I find it strange that only the very man who made the statements in question can manage to dignify the question and then goes on to make strangely similar statements this past June.

I know Ahmadinejad is an Iranian, but if you haven't listened to American politicians and seen how deftly they dodge questions, you've missed a lot of the fun. So American politicians would be an example.

What exactly would be the purpose of 'dodging' the question? To get more people to distrust Iran. If that is Ahmadinejad's purpose, he certainly is succeeding admirably. In addition, I disagree with your comment about US politicians. I believe it was McCain that made that idiotic song about Iran. When questioned about it, he said he was a joke. In cases such as this, I know of very few politicians in Japan or most countries that would let things go on this long without clarifying themselves.

I think if anyone is definitely not looking for peaceful solutions here, it is you. You seem to be rather exercised by what you imagine Ahmadinejad to have meant.

Again, this has nothing to do with me. There are many people around the world, including his supporters, who would like to hear him explain exactly what he meant to say and what he meant this past June. That does not seem that unreasonable, especially considering that people like you claim he must be misunderstood. If you will check, I also defend Iran on occasion as well. So, if you are thinking I have some sort of dislike for the country, you could not be further from the truth. I do not like Ahmadinejad and what he seems to stand for. I do not think he is good for Iran or its people.

When you speak I hear, "Take it back or else."

Well, you are hearing wrong. For me personally, there is no 'else'. I personally could not care less. However, what you should be hearing me say is, "Explain yourself or expect to continue to be 'misunderstood'.

In your opinion Ahmadinejad needs to clear the air. In my opinion he does not.

Well, we disagree. Your way keeps the world talking about Ahmadinejad though. Maybe that's the way he likes it too. After all, what kind of 'hero' to the cause of 'Islam' would he be if he explained himself rationally, right? Personally, I think he'd be a better 'hero'. Maybe that's just me.

Khamenei really did clarify Iran's intent.

Yes, he did. However he did not clarify Ahmadinejad's intent. Only the man himself can do that and he hasn't.

He didn't need to take Ahmadinejad to the woodshed and make him do anything.

He has taken Ahmadinejad to the woodshed over other things and has made him do other things. Why should this be different?

Ahmadinejad's comments linger more in your mind than in the streets of the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad's remarks echo throughout the Middle East. They seem to have made him a bit of a hero to some in the Middle East. Do a bit of reading about the influence of his words before you pass judgement on my opinion. They certainly do linger there more than in my mind as the only time I think about it is when we are discussing it.

I say that Norouzi's position is that Ahmadinejad's comment does not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map. You say, no, that Norouzi comes to the conclusion that Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive. I think you are engaging in double speak there. If Ahmadinejad's words are inconclusive they do not clearly indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map.

I did not say I know what Ahmadinejad meant to say. I have no idea. As I have been trying to explain, I would like him to tell me what he meant specifically and clearly. Again, this is not unreasonable. Norouzi specifically states that Ahmadinejad confuses the issue with the way that he responds to interviewers such as the Washington Post journalist's questions. Norouzi thinks that Ahmadinejad's comments do not indicate an intent to wipe Israel from the map. However, clearly he is not sure. No one except Ahmadinejad is sure what he meant. However, the fact that he continues to repeat the comments even this year and that fact that these comments were used on banners on missiles shortly after he spoke them indicate a potential that they are meant to be violent words. All he need do is assure the word that they aren't. Again, it is only reasonable if that is his intent.

Of course I have not proven that the words on the missiles were not hostile. I even said they were hostile. It is inexact to say that hostile words indicate a potential for hostility. Hostile words indicate the presence of hostility.

Speaking of 'doublespeak'.

It's just that the presence of hostility does not indicate that military action is forthcoming--as for example the long hostility between the Soviets and the US.

I remember reading about a near-miss (why don't people say 'near-hit?) called the Cuban Missile Crisis. So there is always the possibility of military action. To poke away at an enemy makes that more of a possibility. To cheer that on tells me somewhat where you stand on peace yourself. In addition, the influence of this hostility on groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are potent as well. Maybe if they were being cheered on so much, Lebanon and Gaza would be in better shapes than they are. Then again, maybe not. However, if things continue the way they are we will never know.

You entirely miss the point about the banner slogans. I'm not making them up. I'm supplying a context that is different than the context which you want to insist is present. Your context is "Death to America--and we're coming for you." That is the context you are making up.

They have come for the US, both in the US and in places like Lebanon. People with such banners have exploded bombs in European airports. That is the context that I am referring to. I am not making anything up. When people respond to Ahmadinejad when he speaks, they are echoing hatred. I think we need less 'war words'. You think things are okay the way they are. We disagree.

I'm sure that Iran wishes Israel would disappear now. I'm sure a lot of people wish that, in the Middle East, in the West, in Asia, everywhere. A good number of Iranians are hostile but that does not mean they will attack without a reason.

I have not suggested Iran is going to attack anyone. If you will look above, you will see I have said the opposite. I am concerned about the influence Ahmadinejad's words will have both in Iran and outside of the country. Terror and war will not be decreased by his words and it is very possible they will end up causing more.

I have claimed that all translations have inherent faults and I have set forth arguments to that effect. I have also produced one Farsi speaker who indicated the translation was faulty. You have not refuted either of these points but now you want me to fetch you an accurate translation of Khomenei's original remark. Again you miss the point. You have claimed that IRNA translates with accuracy. That is your burden of proof.

That one Farsi speaker is the only proof anyone seems to bring up. Do a search of the internet. Everyone just copies his opinion. Sorry, I think there is a reason why Iranian News Agencies printed what they did. They think that is what they heard. Hey, I just provided you with a June 2008 speech reported by another Iranian News Agency in which Ahmadinejad says pretty much the same thing again. So, you have not shown me inconclusively what Ahmadinejad meant to say. All the talk about translations does not change this.

Why did al-Jazeera and other Middle Eastern news agencies have the same take?

I don't know, do you? Could it be that they were using the same source that you were?

There was more than one reporter at the speech. Are you suggesting only one reporter provided the source for the translation. If so, the burden of proof is all yours. For that would be a first in a political speech. Aljazeera had their own reporter at the 2005 speech, as did other Middle Eastern agencies.

Ah! There we go. The US Embassy. That's the sticking point isn't it. We just can't get past that, can we. It's time for America and Americans to grow up.

Meh, I don't know what Americans should or should not do. However, it is time for everyone to grow up. The complaints you made about "Muslim nations" in the sweeping way you did calls for the response to 'grow up' as well. If Iran wants to make nice with the world, they should stick to making nice.

I don't care if Ahmadinejad satisfies you or not. Personally, I doubt that there is anything he could do that would satisfy you, whether he says he's very sorry to have caused so much trouble, he really didn't mean to frighten anyone and of course Iran has no plans to attack--or not.

Since I said it would satisfy me, you are wrong. You do not know me. What I wrote earlier stands. If he were to assure the world that he meant no harm with his statment, I would believe it. I would have no choice for he would be telling us what he meant. Who am I to say otherwise? However, he refuses to do this.

In my opinion, people who are overly excited about this have the responsibility to calm down.

That is not the way it works in the world and you know it. Unfortunately so does Ahmadinejad. That is what is so sad.

Thank you for the new link. I may or may not chase it down and look at it. However, the quotation that you excerpt from it indicates nothing except a belief that Israel will be destroyed.

Take a look. He goes on to suggest that all Muslims should get together to make it happen. Nice guy.

And that is very likely to be the case--for Israel as we now know it--unless it gets a 2-state solution pretty soon.

On this we agree. The two state solution is the only solution. Hopefully it will come before the Middle East is a smoking hole.
kinniku at 02:08 AM JST - 13th August

seansezso,

Mate, they have been spouting tripe like that for decades! Its all bluster!

I know. However, this bluster always ends up with people getting killed. I am getting sick of it.

Please remember Saddam and his empty bluster. He talked talked talked, but he wasnt holding any cards, remember? The Iranians also do not have the cards to do what Ahmadinejad is blabbling about. Its just a circus for the people of Iran, who I suspect are barely listening anyway.

I hope no one is really listening. However, look what happened in Iraq because Saddam Hussein could not manage to keep his mouth shout. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric are not good for the people or the country of Iran. They make a perfect excuse for war and for others to use those words for making other wars or terror. The Supreme Leader and Assembly of Experts needs to shut him down before things get out of hand.
kinniku at 02:20 AM JST - 13th August

SezWho2,

And that is very likely to be the case--for Israel as we now know it--unless it gets a 2-state solution pretty soon.

Well, we have found something for which you have a disagreement with Ahmadinejad. He does not believe in the two state solution and he does not support it. Quite the opposite.
SezWho2 at 08:45 AM JST - 13th August

kinniku,

I give you a 2-screen (on my computer) post. You give me 6, larded with with snippets of what I have said to you. Then for good measure, you add a coda in a separate post. Should I respond by quoting myself, then quoting you and then adding my comment? Hmmmm....

You do not demonstrate understanding by using quotations. You demonstrate understanding by paraphrasing. Let's take your responses to my first paragraph and last paragraph as examples.

I said that you misstated your point--that your point was not that Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question but that his non-answer indicated that he is threatening Israel. You agree that this is your point (and you state that he wants other people to think so too). You also said that it was your point that Ahmadinejad didn't answer the question. However, that Ahmadinejad did not answer the question is not a point and I did not agree with such point. Instead of being a point in itself it is a fact that you are using as evidence for your point and I agree with that fact. You are playing fast and loose with language.

Further to that first paragraph you have made two statements about what Ahmadinejad wants and what Ahmadinejad likes. You have made these statements without evidence. You seem to want me to accept your conjecture as fact. The fact is that it is very difficult for any human being to know what another human being wants or likes without direct verification from that other human being. As far as I can see, you have no evidence for your claim.

Finally, as for your last thought, you say that "we" have found a point on which I disagree with Ahmadinejad. That's slimy. In making this statement you posit a "we" that is examining our conversation and siding with you. Additionally, you place me rather firmly on Ahmadinejad's side. And, it seems to me, you have made your opinion of Ahmadinejad rather clear. Most importantly, however, I am not agreeing with Ahmadinejad. I am disagreeing with you.

Furthermore, you invent. Nowhere did I say that I support a 2-state solution. The likelihood is that this is the only way Israel can survive as a Jewish democracy. I have no intrinsic interest in Israel's survival in that form and am indifferent as to whether there is a 2-state solution or not.

We clearly disagree. You clearly have your knives sharpened for Ahmadinejad. However, in my opinion those knives are not so sharp. Ahmadinejad does not speak for Iran and today his popularity in Iran is less than when he was elected. I could agree that he is impolitic, but then I'd have to include luminaries such as Chavez and Bush as part of the impolitic crowd even though they are all impolitic in their own unique ways. But until you have some solid evidence to the contrary, I can't agree that his rhetoric is indicative of an intent to attack Israel.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostile
seansezso at 11:34 AM JST - 13th August

I know. However, this bluster always ends up with people getting killed. I am getting sick of it.

So you think people should be killed because you are sick of it?

I am sick of it too. But violence is not the way to end it. Violence is the way of getting more people dead.

However, look what happened in Iraq because Saddam Hussein could not manage to keep his mouth shout.

Do you know why Saddam talked like that? Hint 1: America was not Saddam's only worry. Hint 2: Saddam had a certain hostile neighbour, to whom he thought it best to show no weakness.
kinniku at 01:53 PM JST - 13th August

SezWho2,

You may think it is not 'a point', however the fact that Ahmadinejad cannot manage to clarify his remarks after 3 years speaks volumes about his attitude about what he said. You used US politicians as a supposed example of how avoidance of questions is possible. I countered with the fact that dragging a lack of clear response out for three years is rather rare. Even McCain responded about his idiotic comment. Ahmadinejad likes things the way the are. The way things are are not very good for his country.

As far as me quoting you, that is common on JT. I have responded to the issues we are discussing. You have your way of writing, I have mine. You seem to enjoy playing word games. Interestingly, so does Ahmadinejad. I would prefer he be straightforward. You don't seem to think that is neccessary. However, much of Europe for a start thinks it is. You claim Ahmadinejad doesn't mean to say he wants Israel to be attacked. Yet, since he himself has not indicated this specifically, you cannot say that for sure. I am going by what the man has said, without clarification from the man himself. You are going by what others say about what he said.

By the way, I assumed by your last statement you think a 2 state solution is the best one and that you agree with it. I added that Ahadinejad doesn't agree with you. Nothing slimy about that. Now I see that you don't support and/or care about a 2 state solution. Fine, you have made your point. Neither does Ahmadinejad. So, I guess you do have one more agreement with him. You say you are disagreeing with me and not agreeing with Ahmadinejad. The only problem is I am going solely by what the man says in his speechs (note not 'speech', but speeches). You are going by what others say about his speeches. The man hasn't clarified his position, yet you are sure that he means something different that the way he is quoted. Prove it. Show me where he clarifies and I will say, "Okay, I was wrong." Until then, you also cannot say for certain what he means to say and you certainly cannot claim that the way he is quoted is incorrect. The man himself has not said so after all.

It is not my 'knives' that Iran or Ahmadinejad should be worried about. You seem to want to focus solely on the translations of one quote from one speech. I have read quite widely what the man has to say and his message is much clearer in the hostile direction than you would like to believe. If it were not, he would have said so. In the Middle East, that is how wars start. You seem to want to measure things based on the 'western way' of doing things and thinking about things. People in the Middle East know differently.

In the last set of quotes I gave you, Ahmadinejad is clearly (as he has done before) called for Islamic countries to band together against the satanic countries. This is how wars start. This is how people get killed. This is especiall true in the Middle East.

Until the man proves differently. His quotes even as recently as June 2008 indicate a man who is willing to get people riled up and ready to fight. If he is not careful, he will get that fight.
kinniku at 01:57 PM JST - 13th August

seansezso,

So you think people should be killed because you are sick of it?

Sean, please don't be silly. I said I am sick of people getting killed. Was I that unclear? I don't want there to be another war because leaders can't keep their tongues in their mouths.

Do you know why Saddam talked like that? Hint 1: America was not Saddam's only worry. Hint 2: Saddam had a certain hostile neighbour, to whom he thought it best to show no weakness.

Yes, of course I know why he talked that way. That is the way people have been talking in the Middle East for quite some time now. As I wrote, look where it got him and his country. He could have played nicely and he would still have his country. No way Iran would have gotten in if that were the case. Ahmadinejad's ridiculous rhetoric is possibly going to get people killed. For what? What is to be gained by it for Iran? Certainly not a better life for its people.
kinniku at 03:58 PM JST - 13th August

SezWho2,

I have been reading over our discussion. I would like to add that if you feel I have been overly personal with you, I apologize for that. I am enjoying our exchange. However, with your last post, I am getting the feeling (words like 'slimy' probably did it;-) that you are taking this conversation personally.

Let me just say clearly. I am not convinced that Iran as a country wants to attack another country. I have written this a number of times, but it is worth repeating. However, I feel Ahmadinejad's words have added vitriol and fire to a situation that does not need it. Worse yet, the man himself gives no indication of wanting it to end. In every situation where he is asked to clarify his position, he does not. Nothing said by anyone else can change this.

Anyway, if I have somehow offended you, I apologize. I did not mean to do that.
SezWho2 at 10:44 PM JST - 13th August

kinniku,

I don't think US politicians can avoid questions from US citizens for 3 years. I think they can avoid questions from foreign citizens 'till the cows come home. I don't think the length of time is significant unless we want to also observe that in this length of time he has not moved to attack Israel.

Whether cutting and pasting is common practice on JT or not, it detracts from clarity rather than adding to it. Paraphrasing is a clear way to make sure that comments are understood correctly. It also tends to ensure that people are addressing the argument as a whole rather than as a string of disconnected phrases and sentences.

You say that I claim that Ahmadinejad doesn't mean to say that he wants Israel to be attacked. That is untrue. I claim that Ahmadinejad doesn't mean that Iran is going to attack Israel. I don't think he'd mind if someone else did. I can appreciate your point that Ahmadinejad's comments will shape the way people in the Middle East think and I think that is your strongest point. But, I have to ask whether that is happening in Iran, for example, or whether the opposite is happening. If Ahmadinejad's comments shape anyone's thinking, it seems to me it is more likely to be yours.

You say I that you believe I play word games. Perhaps you could give me an example. Moreover, you continue to find points of comparison between Ahmadinejad and me when you say the he does so, too. You say that's interesting. I say it's irrelevant at best and underhanded at worst.

It is the identification of me with Ahmadinejad that is dishonest. You are right that there is nothing dishonest about your saying that I, as opposed to Ahmadinejad, prefer a 2-state solution. It's presumptuous and incorrect, but not dishonest. What struck me as dishonest, however, was the language with which that presumption was introduced: "Well, we have found something for which you have a disagreement with Ahmadinejad."

If you said and meant "...with Ahmadinejad instead of with me" then I think I would not have termed that "slimy". As it was, however, it sounded rather as I have been supporting Ahmadinejad right down the line until that point and that wonders never cease with the discovery of a difference. I don't support Ahmadinejad, but I oppose the hysteria with which many people fulminate against him.

Yes, you are right that I cannot say for a certainty that the way he was quoted is incorrect. You ask me for evidence that it is incorrect and I give you arguments about the general problem with translations and a source which provides an alternate meaning. You dismiss them and offer your opinion that the translation is correct because you say the translators are reputable. I'd have to say that you cannot say for a certainty that the quotation is correct.

I don't think it is the lack of clarification which is your real concern. If Ahmadinejad "clarified" his statement tomorrow by saying, "Yes, I am saying that Iran will destroy Israel," I very much doubt that you would then be satisfied. I think your real concern is that Ahmadinejad would be as happy as a clam with the cessation of the Jewish state of Israel and that you believe that even as a prophecy such speech should be forbidden.

Now I'm not sure whether you believe that or not, but I think Ahmadinejad has every right to those feelings and every right of prophecy. You say you fear that his speech will cause a banding together in the Middle East and that this is how wars start. There has already been a banding together in the Middle East with the Coalition of the Willing. That is how wars really start.
kinniku at 03:10 PM JST - 14th August

SezWho2,

For the record, I have offered my opinions and if you would notice you claimed that it was I that was not looking for peaceful solutions. Since there is no place where I call for war, I think that is basically where you seemed to start getting personal. In response, assuming (evidently incorrectly) you were following Ahmadinejad's line, I compared your thinking to his. I have never given any indication of wanting anything but peace. For you to have written otherwise was inappropriate. I will not use the kind of words you use (slimy) however because I feel they distract from the conversation.

Why should I paraphrase what you have written? That doesn't make sense. I have carefully taken time out of my day to respond to each of your comments. One would think you would have sensed that I was interested in what you had to say and was careful about trying to get the true meaning. Would you have me paraphrase like people are attempting to paraphrase Ahmadinejad? I quoted you and responded to what you wrote. What could be clearer than that? Feel free to do the same with me.

For example, in your above post you paraphrase what you think I mean several times explaining what you think I believe. I find this strange when I have clearly told you how I feel. I have explained now several times that I would like Ahmadinejad to clarify his position. That is it. No amount of paraphrasing will change this. That is why I quote you and respond to those quotes. In your post and your paraphrasing you succeed in ignoring what I have written about how I feel and replaced it with how you think I feel.

You write that you doubt I would be satisfied if Ahmadinejad said "Yes, I am saying that Iran will destroy Israel". Again, you are not making sense. When did I even suggest I would be satisfied with such a response? You were suggesting he didn't mean that Iran didn't have any intention to attack Israel. That is the clarification that would satisfy me. Do you see why paraphrasing does not always work? You have succeeded in incorrectly paraphrasing what I have written on numerous occasions in this thread. The only thing that sets you right about how I really feel is my clarifications about what you have paraphrased. Do you see? I am doing what Ahmadinejad should be doing if he is sincere in wanting people to understand what he really wants to say.

Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be attacked, whether by Iran or by others is not clear. I don't believe either is helpful to the situation in the Middle East. As I have written many times, it is not just Iran that I am concerned with, it is the groups that Iran supports such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Of course, Ahmadinejad shapes my opinion of him. However, my opinion doesn't really count for anything. I am concerned about him continuing to shape the opinions of Hezbollah and Hamas. To think he is shaping my opinions more than of those in the Middle East is rather naive and a bit insulting to me. Believe me, I am not that self-centered. Calling for the destruction of another country should be condemned as it has been. The thing is, there are people claiming that Ahmadinejad isn't calling for that. You seemed to have been saying that in this very thread. I often see people writing, "Hey, he is just hoping Israel will disappear." As if he is just making a prophecy. However, when asked if that is what he means, he declines to clarify.

As far as my 2 state solution comment. I have made my sincere comment and I even apologized. Take it or leave it. Although it seems you have already left it. However, I will not apologize again for the same thing, especially since you have also made rather personal comments. Especially since you have stuck your claws out a few times on this thread and I did not see the need for name calling.

My bottom line is that you can try to explain what Ahmadinejad meant and continues to mean with his speeches. However, you are not Ahmadinejad. No amount of paraphrasing on your part will replace his own words and his own clarification. That is what I want to hear. Until I hear them, I cannot say for sure that the IRNA and Mehr News Agency translation are faulty. I dismiss your comments about the translations because the man himself has not said they are or were wrong.

I am a man of peace and I try to find the truth in the words that people say and write. When I am asked what I mean, I clarify. When I think I am wrong, I apologize. Ahmadinejad is not brave enough to do either. Nothing anyone else, including you, says will change that.

Good day.