digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

The Biggest Lie Told To The American People...

huffingtonpost.com — As someone who was born in Tehran, lived there for seventeen years and is a native Farsi speaker, I have read the original transcripts of the speech in Farsi and want to inform you that Ahmadinejad never said "Israel must be wiped off the map," but rather, his statement was grossly mistranslated and taken out of context, ...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caferrell, on 11/20/2007, -47/+380I have heard other translations of this sentnce by farsi scholars. None of them say that Ahmadinijad said "wipe Israel off the map"
    Why does only 1% of Americans know this? Why doesn't the MSM tell th truth?
    • coyoteblue, on 11/20/2007, -22/+123because the media gets their funding from fat ***** who back another war
    • zorpscorp, on 11/20/2007, -10/+42All of the above. Corporations all serve the almighty dollar, the media is no different. Politics is all business. War, and its vast consumption of human life, is becoming a rational, well-oiled business transaction.
      • stupergenius, on 11/20/2007, -3/+11Yeah...just look at what it did to the dollar...
        • chubby127, on 11/20/2007, -6/+5yeah and watch what happens to oil if the US attaks Iran. In the recent OPEC summit in Saudi Arabia, Chavez said that the price of oil would double if Iran was attacked... I would also like to add that i am not proud to say that I am American because of Bush. The dumbass ruined the country, and Hillary will to if she gets elected.
        • EditorResponse, on 11/20/2007, -14/+4And Americans should believe what Chevez the COMMUNIST says because....Huh!? What? He is no better than Fidel Castro so lets watch his Venzuela go down the tubes too. F*K him
          • Vindexus, on 11/21/2007, -2/+13I agree. If someone is a communist they cannot know anything about any subject.
          • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -13/+3You miss the point...COMRADE. Venezuela was NOT a communist country and Chevez is trying to copy the political system of Cuba. I guess I should have stated that for a person who doess not really know what is going on. Sorry if I was not clear enough for you comrade.

            Instead of working through the problems in a democratic way Chevez is turning toward communism and away from the democratic system that has been ion Venezuela. Check the facts yourself. Try and find a few sites devoted to democracy in Venezuela I know they exist and you will see awaht is going on. Chevez is trying to be appointed for life.

            Google "Venezuela democracy" and see for yourself
            http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=venezuela+dem ...

            RIP Venzuela Democracy
            http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/2 ...
          • chubby127, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6No, they should believe him because his country and Iran have about 18% of the world's oil. Oil makes the world go 'round EditorResponse. Thats why the US is in Iraq today.
          • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -9/+2The oil is going to run out very soon. 30 years tops.

            Oil makes the world go around TODAY, but within ten to twenty years oil will be a thing you talk about to your kids. I promise. The Muslim Arab problem may NEVER go away, it has to be dealt with NOW, oil or no oil, that is why the USA is there. Sure oil is important...but if you added up the cost for the wars that the USA has had in the Mideast since 1990 and Afghanistan the amount could NOT be satisfied with ALL of the oil out of Iraq. This is a fact. Iraq does NOT have enough oil to pay the US back for the wars if the USA took all of it by force, which they will not. So then why is the USA in the Mideast? THINK. The USA is in Pakastan too. Its the NUKES and other assorted WMDs along with the smooth transition to a world with NO OIL. There must be peace because in the end there is going to be short term chaos over the entire world, lasting at most ten years until we transition away from oil. In that time the USA cannot stand by and watch terrorist countries become atomic states and attack the world with their new found oil capital.

            If the Mideast weren't breeding such hate they muight have a chance. The Koran is treacherous with hate, and the Bible and Torah is not as bad but does not help either. I am not fond of any religion either so don't hit me over the head with any of it. I was baptised a Catholic and no longer believe in God...I am a humanist. I believe that mankind when he evolved came up with many solutions that were similar, i.e. many similar religions praying to many different things but still believing in a god that cannot be touched, and that one must have faith in to find peace in this world...all nearly all revolve around killing those who do not believe in their god...and there is NO god. The muslims REALLY make me KNOW that there is NO GOD. They really drove it home for me.

            A week or two ago I saw that Toyota is coming out with a new car that does not use gas at all, a new Prius model and VW has a car that already getting 250 miles per gallon. It is only a matter of time and then the Mideast oil will not matter. In the space of time thirty years is so small and insignifigant. What the Arabs do to themselves will last A MILLENIA or two. If they want to change and be peacefull they better reach out NOW before it is too late. They are going to set themselves back THOUSANDS OF YEARS. The biggest problem is that hate speach and propaganda will last for at least ONE generation, 50 to 75 years. They have brainwashed their children and it may not be reverseable. This will eventually lead to nuclear war. This is the problem. That is why the USA is leaning HARD on Iran.

            Israel will have to respond when a nuke is dropped on them. Tens of millions will die. Iran after attacking Israel will surely be given two to three strikes...maybe more. If any other Arab neighbor decides to join the fray, many tens of millions of Arabs are going to be dead. If you sdon't want nuclear war you better support the USA and demand that Iran NOT have a nuklear ANYTHING.
          • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -6/+3That is what Bush meant when he said that if you don't want world war three then don't give Iran nukes. Lots of people like to bash Bush and he isn't the most well rounded well spoken president we have ever had but he is right on the mony in this instance. Nearly ALL of the other countries in the Mideast are behind what he is saying. Iran stands ALONE with Russia and China behind them. Iran stands alone amongst the countries in the Mideast, you have to come all the way over to Venezuela in South America to find another ally....a COMMUNIST named Chevez.
    • Otto, on 11/20/2007, -13/+55>>>"Why does only 1% of Americans know this?"

      Because only 1% of Americans know who "Ahmadinejad" is. Or indeed care.
    • epicstruggle, on 11/20/2007, -28/+22Actions speak louder than words. Has Iran funded terrorists groups that attack Israel. Simple yes or no. Im sure this post will be dugg down. ;)
      • amoro99, on 11/20/2007, -7/+21You could look at it as Iran funding freedom fighters for the Palestinian cause. Check out this if this perspective is unacceptable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
        • Pake, on 11/20/2007, -12/+13I wouldn't call what they're doing as freedom fighting.
          • Tetraca, on 11/20/2007, -5/+11But they view themselves as that. Terrorists for one country are saviours for another. There is no good, and there is no bad in this world anymore. There are just interests, all of them crooked.
          • jsg7, on 11/20/2007, -5/+26If the Soviets had invaded and occupied America (like in Red Dawn), we'd be doing the exact same thing that the "terrorists" are doing.
          • wpi97, on 11/20/2007, -9/+9@Tetraca Right... killing children in schools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre , indiscriminate murder of civilians by suicide bombers, firing missiles into day care centers... It's all relative, right? It's just freedom fighting, if you look at it from the right angle, right? Ever heard of moral relativism?
          • Yez70, on 11/20/2007, -7/+10The American Revolutionaries were terrorists in the eyes of the King.
            Words mean nothing. It's the actions people take and the reasons they do so..
          • DooM, on 11/20/2007, -2/+10@jsg7: If the Soviets invaded America we wouldn't have civilian targets available to attack so the scenario doesn't exactly hold up. But even so, there is little to nothing in this world that would make me purposefully blow up women and children for political gain, so I disagree that "we" would be doing the exact same thing the terrorists are doing. And I think that's a good line to draw between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" - are they attacking military or logistical targets or are they attacking nightclubs and churches?
          • Pake, on 11/20/2007, -4/+6DooM is dead on with what I'm feeling. There has to be a line drawn and the moment you overstep that line, you stop being a freedom fighter and start being a terrorist.
        • TheRealAlzabo, on 11/20/2007, -7/+13What would you call what we're doing in Iraq?

          What would you call it if we were doing in our country with the same situation what the people in Iraq are doing in their's? As we have done in the past, what's it called then?
      • joeyjojo, on 11/20/2007, -5/+20You are, of course, correct (and diggers seem to agree).

        The point, though, is no matter how evil/crazy/dangerous Ahmadinijad is, the media still shouldn't be putting words in his mouth.
      • wishninja, on 11/20/2007, -6/+15What of the actions of the United States and Israel? What message do they speak? We have been funding terror in Iran since I think the 1950's and Israel has a good amount of blood on its hands as well. We need to stop this insane posturing and killing.
      • claytorris, on 11/21/2007, -3/+16Yes or no, has Saudi Arabia funded terrorists? Yes or no, has Pakistan funded terrorists? Yes or no, has the United States funded, um, "freedom fighters"? Not hard to play that game.
      • AnotherJewboy, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1By your definition of terrorist, you've included every military man on the planet.

        Has Israel funded terrorists? Yes.

        Do I give a ***** for your false dichotomy? no.

        Guess why Ron Paul is so popular? Its not really what what he says, its what he doesn't say, which is Israel. Ron Paul is simply going to cut Israel off and leave em stranded in the middle of muslim land. Say gnight, because America doesn't give a *****.
    • Scruffydan, on 11/20/2007, -22/+3it's the far-left media. they pulled the organic wool over our eyes
      • rootofunity, on 11/20/2007, -2/+17"Reality has a well known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert
      • bemenaker, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Far left huh? Since when do liberals fear monger? Since when do liberals go around trying to misinterpret what others say to spread war? How in the ***** hell can you make such a retarded asinine idiotic stupid ***** statement? No wonder America is in the sad shape it is. Too many retarded ***** like you run around regurgitating whatever stupid ***** your close minded idiot friends tell you.

        Read a ***** dictionary and learn what liberal means douchebag
    • Trublmakr, on 11/20/2007, -5/+25Propaganda 101 - If you repeat a lie often enough....
      • masturbator, on 11/21/2007, -6/+1... you'll be naked from the waist down and have 1st to 3rd degree burns on your legs.
        • Trublmakr, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1WTF dude? You must have gone to Borat university for your political science. Perhaps you should focus all your efforts on jerking off and abandon political commentary.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Truthiness.
    • Thex1138, on 11/20/2007, -1/+3Because the fears of the many are of more value than the fear of the few, or the one..
    • designer, on 11/20/2007, -20/+10Its amazing how people will defend evil.
      • TheRealAlzabo, on 11/20/2007, -5/+17It's amazing how some people define evil.
      • joeyjojo, on 11/20/2007, -7/+11it's amazing how many people fall for the silly spin of 'if you're not with us, you're against us' logic.

      • mrurc, on 11/20/2007, -6/+2Let me guess. You define Iran as "evil" because their president said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Frankly, that is the only way that this could be considered a defense of "evil." It is a correction on a mistranslation for which the mistranslation is frequently repeated in order to demonize Iran. If you want to demonize Iran, fine; just do it based on facts.
        • jaynemother, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5Yeah because the only basis for thinkink that Iran is evil is that one line
        • wpi97, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3@jaynemother \sarcasm?
    • BarryMcCawqiner, on 11/20/2007, -22/+18The correct translation of the statement is as follows: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times."

      Wow, that's so different than "wipe off the map."

      Please, there is no conspiracy here, just muck-racking at Huffingpost.com
      • TheRealAlzabo, on 11/20/2007, -12/+17Big difference between "regime" and "Israel", and big difference between "the page of times" and "wipe off the map", but facts aren't your strong spot I'm guessing....?
        • pintomp3, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1regime change? that sounds familiar.
      • xxrealmsxx, on 11/20/2007, -3/+7It is different. He was quoting the Imam who made that statement when comparing Israel to the USSR. The regime will fall in his eyes it can't last.
      • mrurc, on 11/20/2007, -6/+14And it is completely lost on you what the first part of the statement is: "Imam said"

        He's QUOTING SOMEONE ELSE.

        Also, "wipe off the map" is significantly different from "it must disappear from the pages of time." We are using this mistranslation to show that Iran plans to destroy Israel by force, when the statement is actually social commentary.
        • wpi97, on 11/21/2007, -6/+6"We are using this mistranslation to show that Iran plans to destroy Israel by force, when the statement is actually social commentary."

          It all depends on your definition of "is"... By all means, let us ignore the context, such as the fact that Iran has been fighting a proxy war against Israel by arming, training, and financing Hezbollah.
    • wright3279, on 11/20/2007, -11/+13Peace loving, beautiful country. Hanging "criminals" with a crane so that they slowly strangle doesn't happen. That's western propaganda!
      And flogging accused homosexuals? Western myth! and stoning a girl to death when she wouldn't marry who was chosen for her? Never happened!
      • xxrealmsxx, on 11/20/2007, -4/+9Everything you've stated is true, but that still doesn't mean he said it. What we need is the truth on both ends, positive and negative.
      • siddhartha1138, on 11/21/2007, -3/+8Wright3279 points out that the regime in Iran has done plenty to deserve criticism and condemnation, so why make things up? We should look at our own actions with the same critical light. What about the Black Water employees we've given legal immunity to after they unjustifiably killed 14 Iraqi civilians? ***** like that is what they show over and over on the news in the middle east, and its just as unrepresentative of the nation and regime as any "Iran is Brutal" type news story.
      • mdepaul, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9This article is full of errors specifically "60% of all the donations to the Republican Party or candidates come from Jewish sources" (Why don't people realize that Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats, oh wait the Jews must like Bush because he is supporting Israel)
        On the other hand the USA's great ally Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to flogging and prison for being gang raped. Yeah, that's really fair.
        • m0tbaillie, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7Out of sheer curiosity, why the ***** is this guy being dugg down?
          • Trublmakr, on 11/22/2007, -4/+1Pointing out examples of foreign injustices (even theoretical or manufactured) is often easier than looking in the mirror.
          • foopirata, on 11/23/2007, -0/+4That's a great observation. So, when are you going to get a mirror?
        • aki009, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6Because there are some for whom ideology and mincing meanings is more important than facing reality.
    • OsiVert, on 11/20/2007, -0/+7Wikipedia delves a little bit deeper into this whole thing:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a ...
    • delmar14, on 11/21/2007, -18/+3anyone who speaks farsi probably hates Jews...seriously.
      • art42, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6Pretty sure there's a few Jews that speak Farsi...
      • plato1123, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7Anyone who sees how the israelis keep palestinians as cattle probably hates (israeli) jews
    • FongoBongo, on 11/21/2007, -6/+6"Why does 1% if America only know this?"

      Because the mainstream media is owned by the Jews and the Jews perceive Iran as a threat to their middle-east hegemony. Therefore, it suits their interest to advocate this demonizing image of Iran via their various news outlets, to sell a war based on their intent, but fought with the blood of Americans.
      • wakananda, on 11/21/2007, -5/+1Israel was created as a beachhead in the ME for the anglo-american establishment. Moneypower has no religion or ethnicity. Those are merely vulnerabilities used to gain a purchase on the mind of the masses, to pit them against eachother, for PROFIT.
        • wpi97, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5Wrong. After WWII the British authorities vehemently opposed Jewish immigration into Palestine. The US did not give Israel any significant support until 1967. The only country that actually provided any kind of tangible support right after Israeli independence was the USSR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
  • dt07, on 11/20/2007, -21/+48They say what they're told....mostly lies...
  • 2trkpony, on 11/20/2007, -33/+143Check these out:

    The propaganda war against Iran. Professional liars at work in the service of war.

    Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ

    Rumour of the century (wiping Israel off the map)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7rH4egQBU

    Mainstream Media is Selling Another War
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwxzt4iPkNE

    Also:
    A Fox, a Wolf, and a Whole Lot of Bull (1 of 2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLILFlK7CFA

    A Fox, a Wolf, and a Whole Lot of Bull (2 of 2)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ht1bo5UhOs
    • epicstruggle, on 11/20/2007, -18/+13Does Iran fund terrorist organizations that have and are attacking Israel?
      • joeyjojo, on 11/20/2007, -6/+13I don't know. What does that have to do with the media putting words in other people's mouths?
        • stevenb, on 11/20/2007, -9/+6I think the question should be.

          How does that apply to the United States? Seeing how Israel is it's own country, their business is their business.
          • DooM, on 11/20/2007, -4/+9We're allies with Israel so we care what happens to our friends which is as it should be. JoeyJoJo has it right, though - the real issue here is the traction this mistranslation got in the media. That doesn't mean that Ahmadinejad isn't a crazy radical - it just means that our media is crazy, too. :)
        • stevenb, on 11/20/2007, -5/+6@doom

          I thought being allies was mutually exclusive.. each party shared something the other needed and they had common goals.

          Seeing how we give them billions of dollars a year, free money... that they won't even take in USD. Along with lots of military equipment, etc..etc. And they give us... well... nothing really. I fail to see how we're allies... other than the fact that Israel dictates our foreign policy in the middle east, and they don't like Iran.
          • RogerStrong, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4I feel sorry then, for anyone who considers you a friend or ally. They're wrong - by your thinking, as soon as they have nothing to offer you, you'd abandon them.

            For the rest of us, friends and allies - whether people and countries - mean more than just a profit stream. Start with common interests and goals, add the ability for one to rely upon the other, and go on from there.

            Abandon Israel without a damn good reason, and no other country would be able to trust the US as a friend or ally - only a stranger with common goals that could disappear at any time.
      • k3ano, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1Does the US fund terrorist organizations and attack any country it deems a threat to its own interests?

        http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interven ...
    • KyleRayner, on 11/20/2007, -4/+9Does setting up a straw man argument refute the point you are replying to?
  • DreadPirate, on 11/20/2007, -85/+42You idiots focus on this single statement, completely ignoring the rest of the many statements Ahmadinejad has made about gays and jews. "We don't have gays in Iran" You know why that is? Because they are stoned to death! And yet you trivialize that by focusing on this single statement, trying to use a possible error in translation to exonerate this madman from every other hateful thing he has said in public over the past decade or more.
    • caferrell, on 11/20/2007, -25/+82Pal, it is shocking that Iran has archaic laws that outlaw overt homosexuality. But do you consider that sufficient reason to go to war?
      Do you realize that beating the war drum only strengthens the hardliners?
      Grow up and quit being a coward, let us put the deadly toys away and send some adults to talk to the Iranians.
      • Otto, on 11/20/2007, -37/+9>>>"But do you consider that sufficient reason to go to war?"

        Yes. I do. It's called justice, and if it takes wiping them off the map in order to improve the species, then yes, I feel it's perfectly justified.

        War is, of course, the last resort. But it is a *potential* resort, and you cannot simply discard it as "not an option".
        • tybris, on 11/20/2007, -8/+17"Yes. I do. It's called justice, and if it takes wiping them off the map in order to improve the species, then yes, I feel it's perfectly justified."
          By that definition the United States should have been wiped off the map 5 years ago. Please use your brains. I know you can't see them, but they're right behind your eyes.
          • Ziggygallaway, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4War involves the entire society, when they themselves support and believe in the process of it. We do not need war to improve our species (in re U.S.) we need to cleanse our political arena. Hopefully our next elections will allow us to "pick" a better representation of our people.
        • soot, on 11/20/2007, -6/+10"Yes. I do. It's called justice, and if it takes wiping them off the map in order to improve the species, then yes, I feel it's perfectly justified."

          Justice for who?
          • Otto, on 11/20/2007, -14/+6The ones that have been stoned to death, perhaps? Do try and pay attention.
          • soot, on 11/20/2007, -2/+6So... "Wiping them off the map" (To cite Ahmedinejad) in your words is somehow supposed to bring justice to those that have been executed in the past under Iranian law? Or those who live their lives subverting the law today?

            I think we've had enough military conflict already.
          • Otto, on 11/20/2007, -11/+3>>>"So... "Wiping them off the map"... is somehow supposed to bring justice to those that have been executed in the past under Iranian law?"

            Yes, exactly. What part of this do you not understand?

            >>>"I think we've had enough military conflict already."

            That's okay. You're entitled to your opinion.
          • stevenb, on 11/20/2007, -1/+11Otto,
            So wait...
            We're supposed to force our laws down their throats? Does that mean that China can do the same to us?
          • DaManDOH, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion, Otto. Even you. Some opinions are simply better informed, more understanding, and perhaps even more humane. Your opinions, for instance, have proven to be consistently otherwise, in my humble-yet-informed opinion.

            Could one argue Iran is run by a tyrant? Absolutely. Yet one could argue the same about our country. How would we feel -- whether we're Bush decriers, defenders, or dismissers -- if another nation invaded and started killing civilians just to get to the President?

            We can't just kill anyone who disagrees with us, especially if it turns out they haven't done anything to hurt us. That's called being human, you see. Try it sometime.
          • Otto, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1@DaManDoh: Hah! That's not called being human. Again, history backs me up on this one. Humanity is, in general, quite good at killing each other.

            And, in point of fact, *yes*, we can kill anyone who disagrees with us. That's called "superior fire power". Get it?
          • DaManDOH, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1I didn't write "more human," I wrote "more humane."

            http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=humane

            The general human condition does indeed... well, generally suck. But IMHO it is in our interest, as individual humans and as societies of humans, to be as humane to our fellow humans as possible. That is, after all, the definition of "humanity," if not necessarily its consistent practice. It seems to me that's how we keep the general human condition from sucking even more.

            To switch gears on you, Otto, I suspect you believe you know a thing or two about the Christian Bible. Ever heard of the Beatitudes? Those eight suggestions for the best way to live our lives that Jesus Christ itemized for his followers while standing on a hill? Of course you have. I doubt I'm the first one to put this to you, Otto, but those Beatitudes are actually about being humane to other humans. *Humane* to other *humans*... especially those humans we consider our inhumane enemies. Of course, there's also that one list of ten... commandments, are they? ...that predates the Beatitudes. If I remember correctly, they include one that says something like "Killing sucks," but that's just icing on the cake.

            Mind you, I've not been to church in a goodly while, so maybe my interest in not killing people is more pragmatically secular than beatific, but I figured I should simplify my point as much as I could.

            Oh! And before we get into a whole "He started it," argument, four points:

            1. Kill all the Iranians you want; the assault will only serve to crystallize Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the minds of the survivors.
            2. The history of the Middle East and its current condition extends beyond Ahmadinejad, Bush, and the current world stage.
            3. Two wrongs don't make a right.
            4. Next time someone breaks into your house, holds you captive at gunpoint/knifepoint, and robs you blind before wounding/killing you, come back to me and talk about "superior firepower."

            Yes, I am fully aware that corpses have a tough time typing.
        • NYC10004, on 11/20/2007, -4/+9Justice for.... I'm sorry Otto, exactly who is it we're going to war for again?
        • Luminoth, on 11/20/2007, -4/+15So you want to kill people who do things you disagree with, which is namely killing people for doing things they disagree with. I can see you've through this through to a great degree.
          • Luminoth, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1By all means, enlighten me to my mistake.
        • lasko, on 11/20/2007, -2/+11"It's called justice, and if it takes wiping them off the map in order to improve the species, then yes, I feel it's perfectly justified." hmmm....wiping people off the map to improve the species. hitler 2.0?
        • joeyjojo, on 11/20/2007, -3/+5"Yes. I do. It's called justice, and if it takes wiping them off the map in order to improve the species, then yes, I feel it's perfectly justified"

          As do some people in Iran. Wars are NEVER the solution if for no other reason than that...both sides feel that they are just.
        • twisterrust, on 11/20/2007, -4/+4@ " if it takes wiping them off the map in order to improve the species, then yes, I feel it's perfectly justified"
          Yeah man, you really have to be a Retard to say this, given the num of -ve diggs you get here, I think I can assume that you are a minority here with "conflicting" views, so how about we apply the same logic "wiping you off the map to improve" on you?
          just because you are an ***** does not give me the right to do so? or does it?
        • siwu, on 11/20/2007, -0/+6"in order to improve the species" : you are such a nazi.

          The truth is that there is nothing noble in being superior to somebody else. The only real nobility is in being superior to your former self.
          ~ Whitney Young

          Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
          ~ George Bernard Shaw
        • siddhartha1138, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4His name is Otto, he must be Blotto!
        • art42, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4"Yes. I do. It's called justice, and if it takes wiping them off the map in order to improve the species, then yes, I feel it's perfectly justified."

          Who decides what "improves" the species?
        • thecoolestguy, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Some would argue wiping homosexuals off the map improves the species. It's all relative. I think what we can all agree with is that killing 10 million Iranians to punish a government for killing 2 homosexuals is evil.
        • FongoBongo, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2you're a douchebag
      • thebru, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6"let us put the deadly toys away and send some adults to talk to the Iranians."
        Great point, why don't more people think like that?
      • jpy321, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Did he say anything about going to war? I think his point is that Ahmadinejad is still an evil *****, even if the Israel comment was off base.
        • thecoolestguy, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1He's an evil ***** because Fox keeps showing pictures of him accompanied by evil sounding music.
    • leunghoi, on 11/20/2007, -18/+69Actually, "We don't have gays in Iran" might have been mis-translated also. I heard that the correct translation is "homosexual is not a problem in Iran."
    • coyoteblue, on 11/20/2007, -13/+19Yeah? Well what happens if your gay in Wyoming? Apparently they don't like gays either.
      • 5JimBob, on 11/20/2007, -2/+16got to call you on that one coyoteblue - The murder of a gay man in Wyoming was a crime. The hanging of homosexuals in Iran is the law. When you fall for the old moral equivalence argument you are as good as lost. The other side certainly doesn't give you that benefit.
    • objectcode, on 11/20/2007, -4/+8"You idiots focus on this single statement"
      the misquote keeps getting repeated. maybe you should focus your insults on those who keep saying it?
    • CheeseburgerBro, on 11/20/2007, -6/+4Right, so now you're suggesting what, exactly? The War on Homophobia?

      I bet Poland will get right behind that.
    • iainc, on 11/20/2007, -5/+9... and given half a chance to get away with it, the bible-thumping neocon god-squad would love to outlaw homosexuality, too. As it is, America is a cat's whisker away from becoming a fully-fledged fascist theocracy, so don't crow too loudly now.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 11/20/2007, -4/+6hey man don't blame the conservative republicans... its the liberals that are banning everything.. smoking... personal expression... (want to ban) handguns..etc
        • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2Oh right. It's the Democrats who are trying to ban personal expression. The neocons would be very happy to ban political expression with which they don't agree.
          • Wosat, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5Proof? Links? Something?

            It's the Dems who are pushing the fairness doctrine -- something that would give the government direct control over the political content of the airwaves.
    • fknc, on 11/20/2007, -7/+2'Homosexual' has a different meaning in Iran than it does in the western world. Please do some research before you spout on about things you don't understand. It will do you some good to learn about this on your own, so I will not inform you.
      • wpi97, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Priceless!
      • DreadPirate, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5"It will do you some good to learn about this on your own, so I will not inform you" = I can't find links to defend my statement, so I'll make you do it for me.
    • dave11980, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3Honestly I don't care what they do or don't do with their fags. They are a sovereign nation and we have no business attacking them over anything up to and including their scientific research into nuclear weapons, if they are even doing that.
    • jpy321, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2I'm with DreadPirate on this one. First, I don't think we should go to war with Iran in the current situation, and I'm not sure that DreadPirate was advocating that. I believe his point is that even if Ahmadinejad may not have said that particular thing about Israel, his is still an evil *****. I wish all of you digging this articlecould live in Iran for a while - then I'd like to see how many of you would be sticking up for this brutal totalitarian regime.
    • superRoot, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1Actually, gays are hung in Iran. Isn't it worth exposing this statement as being misquoted as long as the the war mongers are using this one statement more than any other as some kind of justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iran? Sure, the Iranian government may be evil, but so is Israel's government. So is the United States' government. The truth is, the Iranian people don't have anything against Americans, in fact, the younger generations in Iran like western culture.
  • noremorse1, on 11/20/2007, -20/+64This is enlightening... and shocking. Dugg!
  • johnburk, on 11/20/2007, -31/+123The biggest lies are that

    Bush won the election (twice)! And that the US has a healthy economy and that the people in Iraq are much happies and have more freedoms now!
  • musters, on 11/20/2007, -37/+26Biggest lie:
    Marijuana is bad for you.
    • bagelpirate, on 11/20/2007, -11/+17It is a lie, but not the biggest by far.
    • MalDON, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't say it's good for you either.
      • lordspidey, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1If you have a cancer or another painful illness then Yes it is good for you.
        • MalDON, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2But how many digg users have cancer? I never said it didn't have medical uses.
      • superRoot, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Smoking anything is bad for you. But marijuana is a hell of a lot better for you than alcohol or tobacco. Don't believe me? How many people have died from overdosing on marijuana? Anyways, what does this have to do with Iran?
  • jtbndy, on 11/20/2007, -13/+44I really hate to say this.... but this is not surprising at all...
    • clala1220, on 11/20/2007, -4/+7I have to agree with you on that.
    • ronaldinho, on 11/20/2007, -3/+2old news, but I'm going to digg it because I hope to raise awareness of this false translation
  • Zakhran, on 11/20/2007, -10/+30The most common human mistake it to take other humans at their word. Believe it or not, all humans have an agenda and will put forward the information necessary to confirm their point. So my advice is to take everything with a grain of salt unless you can independently verify the information.
    • tybris, on 11/20/2007, -2/+10bah, I bet you're human as well.
    • isaactwito, on 11/20/2007, -1/+7Even assuming Zadhran is human, this is probably the most intelligent comment on this page, probably on digg in a while.
    • laeger, on 11/20/2007, -5/+2And yet, the most fundamental principle allowing us to interact with each other on a civil level is... TRUST. The willingness to take others at their word. There is no such thing as complete objectivity.
    • rockefeller2, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1I don't believe you.
    • JCM0165, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I'm taking your advice is to take everything with a grain of salt . . . with a grain of salt
  • fadeout, on 11/20/2007, -39/+75His leading chants of "death to America" are just as misunderstood, right?
    • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -34/+25Death to America, if i was in the middle east i might say that. Look what we do to other people around the world isnt interpreted like you christian bush like folks thinks it does. Just because fat america thinks it right by killing other countries kinsman, doesnt mean they are going to "welcome us with open arms".

      We have not justified the war in iraq so the innocent people that have died, do you think that all families are greatful we decided to go broke on making NWO members rich.
    • cambob76, on 11/20/2007, -8/+25I've never heard him say that. Link?
      • Chode2235, on 11/20/2007, -13/+3You'll never get a link or anything. Typical Right Wing strawman.
      • foopirata, on 11/20/2007, -5/+14Try these:

        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/ ...
        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c4e_1194369798

        in these cases, Google is your friend. You'll be overwhelmed.
        • Cybermaul, on 11/20/2007, -8/+3"Anyone who supports terror, pledges to destroy a sovereign nation [Israel] (NEVER HAPPENED), punishes by death anyone who 'insults' religion (*ahem* Crusades, inquisition, modern persecution by several Christian sects) ... denies the Holocaust and thumbs his nose at the international community(*ahem* Bush) has no legitimate role to play at a university,"

          Look, he's mad at the US because we're threatening to attack his country on false, unfounded, and unproven pretenses. Have we actually attempted any form of negotiations with some of these countries recently? Honestly, I'm not saying right out that the US hasn't, but I would appreciate any indication of peace talks and attempts to come to some form of resolution regarding the whole matter. They're human, just as we are, and I would like to extend any graciousness to others as I would appreciate having extended to me. Possibly, if we try that out, they'll be able to see that we aren't over-hyped monsters, we'll see that THEY aren't over-hyped monsters, and their leaders will see that our religion(s) do have similar beliefs to their religion and they'll hate us less.
          I hate to say this on Digg, with such an anti-religious bent, but religion and the understanding of religions is essential to a peaceful world solution.
          • foopirata, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5Let's for a second leave aside your "NEVER HAPPENED" allegation. Which, btw, Iran itself will be happy to invalidate. Let's instead focus on "he's mad at the US because we're threatening to attack his country on false, unfounded, and unproven pretenses" - where have you been since, let's make this an easy one, '79 ? Do you think the current crisis begun only last monday or tuesday?
            Learn some (modern, at least) history. Inform yourself. Then come rant, and you'll have half a leg to stand on.
        • yobrodude, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3If you think for one second the Daily News (owned by Murdoch) is printing the truth you need to go back to school. Your liveleak link is even worse. Ppl that post links to liveleak need to go join the military.
          • foopirata, on 11/21/2007, -1/+8And what's wrong with joining the military, pray tell? I'm a quite proud veteran. Some of my best friends I met while in the military. Got a good measure of discipline, self-respect, self-reliance and resourcefulness that helps me in my daily life, too. But...I guess you wouldn't know about that, would you?

            And I see you have no comments about the results of a Google search. How so very comfortable.
          • vguard, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2Agreed. The quoted "sources" are propaganda.
      • siddhartha1138, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4not one of these show Mahmoud (yes we're on a first name basis) saying "death to america"! Nor do they show him leading chants. Some accuracy and REAL links to info would be nice here people.
      • byrdgang, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2Death to America? There was a banner above his head that said Death to America, but I don't see any evidence of him having said it. Don't direct me to Google. If there is a lot evidence proving he did say so, just provide a single link.
        • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5Go to the top of this document and scroll down. I've provided plenty of links to chants of Death to America....but if you need another one here goes.

          November 2004
          Iranian Kids: "Death to Israel, Death to America"
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-DiaBi7VE&feature ...
          • byrdgang, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1You must be unable to read. I asked for links proving that Ahmedinejad said "Death to America," not a bunch of kids in Iran. Again, a link to Ahmedinejad saying this.
    • Luminoth, on 11/20/2007, -9/+15Those chants (if what you're saying is even true) obviously being somehow less justified than our chants of "death to Iran".
      • 5urr3al5am, on 11/20/2007, -3/+10yes because people in the US went out in the streets and danced when the US attacked Iraq...
        • bobdotcom, on 11/20/2007, -5/+4No, they were all glued to CNN instead of actually asking questions. America was too busy watching Iraq die instead of finding out that the "intelligence" was about as true as the dragon a first grader hangs on the fridge. If there was someone asking questions, holding their leaders accountable, maybe the US debt wouldn't have increased 100s of billions of dollars in the last 4 years.
    • blindhammer, on 11/20/2007, -6/+28Ah, so let me get this straight, when the Cold War was starting and the chants of "The only good Commie is a dead Commie" was echoed throughout the halls of Congress, the people of the United States were, at the time, openly advocated the entire annihilation of the Soviet Union and China. And Cuba. Wait, so in otherwords, Americans wanted to "obliterate" roughly 40% of the world's population.

      Words are just words.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 11/20/2007, -12/+3words are just words... spoken like a true ass who is trying to justify something that they can't. How can something like this be explained to someone to ignorant?
        • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5You're right. I guess it can't be explained to someone ignorant.
        • blindhammer, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2If you're going to lecture me about being ignorant, at least learn the difference between "too" and "to" before doing so.
    • pintomp3, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2just like the chants of "death to terrorists" right after 9/11. replace "death to" with "down with" and the translation works better. if you look at our history with iran, it is quite understandable why they don't like our govt.
    • Berkana, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Hey, at least they are honest. We can't even be honest about our motivations for invading Iraq—namely, oil. Instead, we go about pretending it's about their freedom. (As if we gave a damn about the freedoms of the Iraqis. We don't give a damn about anything else they're suffering, and treat them like animals.) Or WMDs, or other ***** like that.

      Chanting "death to America" certainly doesn't make me, as an American, very happy about Iran, but if you look at how our country has behaved in the past, it is understandable why they are angry. We said we wanted to bring democracy to the middle east, but WE were the ones who carried out the coup that overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mosadeq, in the 1950's, because his promised policies were not favorable to western oil companies with ambitions in Iran. They wanted a 50/50 profit split off of Iranian oil, whereas they were getting a raw deal from foreign oil companies investing in Iran. We overthrew their democracy and installed the autocratic and tyrannical Shah, who then let the oil companies have their way. Yet this is conveniently omitted from our world history lessons. And we wonder why the Iranians hate us.

      I am a patriot, but I am ashamed of what our country has done, all while continuing to feign righteousness. You know how most Americans have a negative impression of China, thinking that the Chinese government is a bunch of liars and hypocrites motivated by self interest, while their altruistic acts are really fronts for ulterior motives? That's what most of the rest of the world thinks of the US right now.

      Accountability to history is patriotic. Taking the log out of our own eye before picking on the speck in our brother's eye is patriotic. If you love your country, expose the wrongs we tolerate and turn a blind eye to, and be humble and honest about our errors and blatant sins. True national security does not come from taking money that could be better spent on real needs to fund wars and weapons development; true national security comes from doing right, from lifting up the condition of the poor, from developing renewable energy that reduces our dependency on foreign resources, from protecting our national public ecological heritage from corporations that treat it like their private property. Starvation, unemployment, crime resulting from economic desperation, pollution and environmental damage, and even car accidents kill more Americans each year than all the terrorist acts against us in the past decade combined. Why then do we spend so disproportionately to fight such a threat? We've blown hundreds of billions to fight terrorism in the name of the 2,000-3,000 Americans killed during 9/11, yet we have never marshalled such an effort to fight obesity or poverty. Shame on us! Shame on those who continue such folly, and those who tolerate it by pointing out that others hate us. I want to be proud of my country again.
  • sentime, on 11/20/2007, -3/+16http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa ...

    Call Waxman, let Sibel Edmonds speak.
  • SeenByMany, on 11/20/2007, -14/+25That lie about WMD's was pretty big too, but this one is certainly up there as well.
    • imacoder, on 11/20/2007, -4/+1There was no lie about WMD...http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id= ...
      • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1Sadamm had WMD. The weapons they had which were WMD were sarin gas and nerve gas left over from the war with Iran. They had several tons of chemicals to make additional nerve gas...hence they had a guy named CHEMICAL ALI arond who was an expert on these materials...or didn't you ever hear of him? He was hanged too. F*Kers gone.
        • chubby127, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2dumb ***** that was back in the gulf war, back in like '89. that was a different war... and btw, where are the WMD's then?
        • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1The CURRENT troops found the WMDs I'm taklking about what do I have to go dig it up for you? You must be a grown man or woman and can do reesearch via google can't you? Do I have to spoon feed your CHUBBY FAT lazy American ass?

          Try this...google "sarin gas" "nerve gas" iraq"...worked for me just now.
          • chubby127, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2do you honestly think thats why the US invaded iraq? you'd have to be stupid to believe that.
          • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -2/+0Go read my reply to you at the top of this document. All the oil within the boundaries of Iraq would NOT pay the USA back for the loss of life or the cost in dollars to wage the wars we have waged. It is all in the name of a peacefull transition away from oil and so as to make sure that the people getting capital from oil at this time do not spend it on nuclear weapons to wage war against the rest of the world...as the wealth transfers from us to them. If Iran states emphatically and proves without blocking inspections at any building in Iran and further to live without nuclear weapons all of this ends.
        • dawurz, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1This guy literally gets nothing right ever. As usual for his propaganda, the substance comes nowhere near the hype: Go ahead and google what he suggests andthe foxnews story contains the following "Two weeks ago, U.S. military units discovered mustard gas that was used as part of an IED. Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) — a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction — and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."
  • foopirata, on 11/20/2007, -30/+95I just find it hysterically funny that so many Farsi speakers feel the need to re-translate and tell what Imadinnerjacket said or didn't say, and meanwhile, IRIB, the frikking Iranian News Agency, controlled and fed by the Iranian government, has happily been showing this for the past 2 years (of coooooourse it's all a neocon/zionist plot...):


    http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247
    2005/10/26
    Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map
    01:34:13 È.Ù
    Tehran, Oct 26 - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

    "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the President told a conference in Tehran entitled 'the world without Zionism'.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/20/2007, -11/+23Actually, Ahmedinajad used a common phrase "wiped off the map," but changed the words so it translates into "erased from the pages of history." Furthermore, Ahmedinajad refers to the Israeli "rezhim-e," which translates into "regime" but the translators don't even use it in the article, omitting it completely.
      Blame the broadcast translators if you want, but that's objectively not what he said. It was a bad translation.
      • 5JimBob, on 11/20/2007, -8/+13somehow I'm not comforted. In his heart of hearts we all know what Ahmadinejad wants and we know what he'd do to get it if he had to. His reference to the "rezhim-e" is supposed to be a qualifier? So, if the Israeli "rezhim-e" is "erased from the pages of history" the replacement - presumably an Islamic one, will just leave all those Jews alone? Besides if I'm supposed to take comfort in Ahmadinejad's "real" moderate point of view, I'm still stuck with worrying about Khomeini's mutterings - including his stated willingness to see Iran 'erased from the pages of history' if it meant the final victory of Islam in the world.
        • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -5/+2I see. So now we are all empathic.

          How would you know what he wants in his "heart of hearts?" Have you talked to him in his own language or are you just convinced by the propaganda? You have just been told that one of the reasons Iraq is demonized by our government and our media is a lie and your response? "I know in my gut what he thinks because I believe the demonization of Iraq."

          All hail truthiness.
          • foopirata, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5Same thing, other foot. How can YOU ?
            Fact his, he's had enough opportunities to show his true feelings for Israel. The name "Hizzbalah" rings a bell. His acts speak louder than his words.
            But, what can one do, those that choose to be blind will stay blind. and call their blindness righteousness.
      • foopirata, on 11/20/2007, -5/+9ZenMojo, you fail. The IRIB is their face to the world - if the Iranian government wanted to send a different message, they had 2 years to correct the bad translation (and probably, in true Iranian fashion, hang and quarter the "bad translator"). The fact they do nothing about it means they agree with it. Also, a search in that site will show more links where the same phrase appears.
        • Cybermaul, on 11/20/2007, -5/+0Oh, like we should blame their media for a bad image with the way the US media is screwing up every international story that crosses their desks.
        • mrurc, on 11/21/2007, -7/+4This translation has been repeatedly corrected but the mainstream media doesn't pick up the reports of mistranslation for very long. Every so often someone mentions this on US mainstream media but it is left out of subsequent reports. You are stating that because YOU haven't seen a correction, that it must be what they really meant. However, I have seen corrections for well over a year and they have been coming from unbiased third parties. (This one may not be unbiased.)
          • foopirata, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Dude, WHAT MSM MEDIA???? I posted a bloody link to the frigging IRANIAN NEWS SERVICE, that's the media arm of the Iranian government, is your head THAT MUCH UP YOUR ASS??
      • foopirata, on 11/20/2007, -7/+8ZenMojo, you fail. The IRIB is their face to the world - if the Iranian government wanted to send a different message, they had 2 years to correct the bad translation (and probably, in true Iranian fashion, hang and quarter the "bad translator"). The fact they do nothing about it means they agree with it. Also, a search in that site will show more links where the same phrase appears.
        • blindhammer, on 11/21/2007, -5/+0Actually, if you watched his speech when he came to the United States, he did, if I recall correctly, state that he never Isreal should be wiped off the map.
        • foopirata, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4So, he did say but then he did not say but then he didn't say that he said that he wouldnt say? What's this, he's a new US potential presidential candidate?
      • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5Yea, WTF! Ahmadinejad ONLY wants to remove them from the pages of time...I mean WTF! He actually wanted to exterminate them in the womb.
    • jmichaelg, on 11/20/2007, -2/+13Hey! Cut the Iranians some slack here. They're new to historical revisionism.
      Save the linked page before it's wiped by those who seek to rewrite history.
    • djpants428, on 11/20/2007, -16/+9I'm no fan of the guy, but calling him "imadinnerjacket" shows about as much maturity on your part as if you were to make jokes about how "his momma's so fat..."
      • foopirata, on 11/20/2007, -5/+14Seriously, have you seen what he wears to dinner?
        Besides, he calls me "a son of monkeys and pigs". What respect exactly do I owe him?
        • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5I can see the commercial now. "What all dictators wear to dinner the 1975 cheap smoking jacket from K-Mart." Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il
        • proliance, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8I prefer "My_Mood I'm_in_a_Jihad"

          (say it out loud)
    • krypritcmind, on 11/20/2007, -4/+15Nice dude, you totally owned this one!
    • thecoolestguy, on 11/21/2007, -5/+2They have a lot of English mistakes on their website so it's not exactly a good source for translation.

      In the actual statement the word "rezhim-e" is used, that is REGIME, meaning not a country, but a regime.

      Remember, Israel was close allies with apartheid South Africa in the 1980's. Israel and Apartheid South Africa are the only two governments that Iran has refused to recognize, and one of those two is now gone.
    • foopirata, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6"They have a lot of English mistakes on their website so it's not exactly a good source for translation." - what does that have to do with anything? It is THEIR translation, they are an OFFICIAL part of the government, therefore, it's the government stance. You can try and squirm out of it as much as you want, but it's there, green on white.

      "Remember, Israel was close allies with apartheid South Africa in the 1980's. Israel and Apartheid South Africa are the only two governments that Iran has refused to recognize, and one of those two is now gone."

      So that means that if Iran doesn't recognize you then you disappear? Is that your gloom and doom? Pathetic.
      Btw, many nations were doing business with SA in the 80's. So ?
      Way to try and misdirect, egoboy.
    • thecoolestguy, on 11/24/2007, -2/+3--------------------"They have a lot of English mistakes on their website so it's not exactly a good source for translation." - what does that have to do with anything? It is THEIR translation, they are an OFFICIAL part of the government, therefore, it's the government stance.-------------------

      THEIR ENGLISH IS NOT GOOD, what do you mean what does have to do with the translation. You have to be good at a language to be able to translate something into it. You're ***** stupid.

      -------------------------"Remember, Israel was close allies with apartheid South Africa in the 1980's. Israel and Apartheid South Africa are the only two governments that Iran has refused to recognize, and one of those two is now gone."

      So that means that if Iran doesn't recognize you then you disappear?-------------------------------------------------

      Israel not only traded with South Africa but actively supported it and worked with on a secret nuclear weapons program. Iran was right to shun Apartheid South Apartheid and they are right to shun the arrogant Jewish state.
    • foopirata, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3"You have to be good at a language to be able to translate something into it. You're ***** stupid." - stupid is as stupid does. Do you really think that the Iranian government doesn't have the resources to employ someone that speaks "good english", you idiot? Are you so racist that you consider Iranians incapable of mastering a foreign language?

      "Israel not only traded with South Africa" - as did Iran.

      "Iran was right to shun Apartheid South Apartheid" - which they didn't, "and they are right to shun the arrogant Jewish state." - says you, egoboy.
  • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -41/+169/11 ranks up there with biggest lies.
    • fleischner, on 11/20/2007, -9/+8Tell me: what's it like to hate yourself, this country, and life in general that much? Oh, and what it's like to be only a few IQ points above "vegetable"?
      • plizard, on 11/20/2007, -5/+7you're giving him too much credit for the few iq points above a vegetable
        • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -4/+4Thank you for your time. Are here to say you believe that the laws of physics can not be applied on the day of 9/11?
        • floridiot2, on 11/20/2007, -2/+4No, 9/11 (or 11/9 for the rest of the world rite guise?) was not adherent to the laws of physics for that day. Everyone knows that.
      • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -4/+8Because i question the government and use crital thinking i dont love my country? Are you ok is the question? When has anyone, anyone ever told you to trust the government. Name one time the founding fathers said that the government should be trust. Explain to me why we have the right to bare arms?

        Do i need quotes from real patriots. Or do i need to follow suite behind every report from the same administration that liedto you about the reason our countrymen have died in what dick cheney described years ago as a quagmire.

        You will never, never get to question my patriotism. And you will never find a reason in government.

        Lets skip this and talk about building 7 you coward.
        • objectcode, on 11/20/2007, -8/+3you dont trust your government, you hate America. moonbat
        • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -1/+10You might be 5.

          Why would i need to explain my distrust to the goverment? Torture, tapping phones, happeus corpus, military commissions act, patriot act, the Iraq lie, the Iran lies. Congressmen who molest pages and leave office and you dont hear from it again.

          My question is what has the government done to earn your trust?
        • JCM0165, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2The right to bare arms? I can wear a tank top in public?
          Love those phonological ambiguities.
      • objectcode, on 11/20/2007, -2/+6those who wrote the constitution told us not to trust our government. to trust someone who calls the constitution "just a god damn piece a paper" is unamerican.
      • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2are you bineg sarcastic, if so sorry for the comment about 5
  • fucter, on 11/20/2007, -28/+12im so gonna get thumbs down, but isreal should be. well not wiped off the map perse (makes people think that the country should be nuked or something) but that the Palestinians did get the ***** end of the deal here, and a restructuring needs to take place - on the other hand, if the middle east fights with itself, then maybe they'll leave us alone - whoops - we have seen that it doesn't work that way huh?
    • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -4/+11Ignorance gets you dugg down at digg. Most of these people dont even know when or why isreal was created. They just think its politically incorrect to use historical facts.
      • wpi97, on 11/20/2007, -2/+4And, once again, it appears that most people can't even spell "ISRAEL"... Especially those that refer to "facts", without ever stating what those facts are.
    • objectcode, on 11/20/2007, -1/+4we left the middle east alone?
    • srettber, on 11/20/2007, -5/+6You're an idiot. The Native Americans in this country got a ***** end of the deal also, should we be nuked? How many countries that exist today had to steal there land to have their own country? It's unfortunate for the Palestinians, but the Jews put themselves first, just like anyone else would.
  • n8f8, on 11/20/2007, -7/+19Actions speak louder than words.
    • epicstruggle, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2Exactly.
    • blindhammer, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2Non with this generation ...
    • Me1000, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1who gives a *****!
      It isnt our place to police the world! Israel has near 300 nukes, they can defend themselves! Iran has ummm... NONE!
      Plus it will be close to 10 years before Iran gets any nukes at all!
  • BridgeBurner, on 11/20/2007, -29/+20The biggest mistake the Greatest Generation made was creating Israel after Wold War II. And that mistake is going to destroy the world.
    • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -18/+5People might be suprised to hear how Isreal was formed. Isreal was a land deal in world war 2 where the prize for getting the USA in the war was a piece of palistine.

      9/11 was an inside job. Path of most resistance?
      • wpi97, on 11/20/2007, -6/+2People may consider learning how to spell "ISRAEL" before they make complete fools of themselves.
      • krypritcmind, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4You have little idea of what you're talking about. Israel was in the forming as a state already in the late 1800, during the British mandate in that region.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/20/2007, -8/+12The Greatest Generation didn't "create" Israel. Israel won it through terrorism. Not that the Palestinians were any better, using terrorism to prevent it.
      • wpi97, on 11/20/2007, -3/+5Israel won itself through terrorism? And the Palestinians used terrorism to prevent Israel from winning itself through terrorism? You really should try reading to yourself the posts that you yourself write, before you post them.
        • iregistered4ths, on 11/20/2007, -4/+3Your post has 0 value regardless of how many diggs that it gets. Why should he reread his post? All that we get from your post is that you are smug.
          You really should try reading to yourself the posts that you yourself write, before you post them.
          See its perfectly valid for me to say this to you because I dont say why but all I did was waste the time of the reader.
          • wpi97, on 11/20/2007, -2/+1"Why should he reread his post?" Because not only does contain a historical inaccuracy, it is also worded in such a way as to make almost no sense at all. Still don't get the joke?

            "You really should try reading to yourself the posts that you yourself write, before you post them.
            See its perfectly valid for me to say this to you because I dont say why but all I did was waste the time of the reader."
            Valid, but not funny. I do not write the way ZenMojo does. If you wish to make fun of my writing style, you have to come up with something else.

            Now, if you really want to get some value from this post, then here is a good starting point for learning about the history of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
    • ibookfast, on 11/20/2007, -3/+5actually the Zionists convinced the Brits to give the "Palestinian Mandate" to them if they could convince Wilson and Co. to join the Brits in defeating the Germans who were about to win WWI. And then the Zionists, with Industry backing (think Prescott Bush) built up the Third Reich in order to justify stealing Palestine. Hard to believe, I know, but Zionists (who aren't really true Jews anyway, they are Khazarians, look it up) are ruthless, even to their own kind.
    • geoken, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3The American's played a pretty big role. Their were half a million displaced jews in british internment camps. The brits didn't wan't these refugees going to the palestinian protectorate because ***** was already pretty unstable their. The US told the brits that their loans which they needed for reconstruction were going to be impacted if the refugees were not relocated to palestine.
  • gavreaux, on 11/20/2007, -13/+19In the end, this is merely the arguing of wording, as opposed to what the person who said them really wants. Nobody is trying to tell you that Ahmadinejad doesn't want to see killed, or kill himself the Israelis, they are just saying that he didn't say a specific set of words.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/20/2007, -4/+12So...basically your point is, "Even if he didn't actually say it or even anything that could be translated into something close, I just know he meant it."
      • vastrightwing, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2.. because we all know just how mean these people are.
      • alphasixtyone, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1no. his point, i think, is to say "the argument isn't over what he really wants, its about what he said; regardless of what he wants, he did not say these words."
  • Otto, on 11/20/2007, -51/+75What they said he said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."
    What he really said: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times."

    I fail to see the difference. He wants to get rid of Isreal, yes? Same thing. Burying this story as inaccurate, because it's not a lie when the two statements have equivalent meaning. It's a minor translation difference, BFD.
    • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -21/+7You need to understand why and how Isreal was created.
    • ZenMojo, on 11/20/2007, -15/+7Blind much? Bush said the same thing about Saddam Hussein. Do you think he actually intended to wipe out the citizens of Iraq? They are two different things.

      EDIT: Actually, it was George W. Bush...maybe that's exactly what he meant...
    • WayneCA, on 11/20/2007, -8/+29So regime change and bombing a country are the same thing now?
    • carfey, on 11/20/2007, -10/+5Firstly, vanish is a much more passive term than wiped off. Wiped off also suggests some sort of violent action like nukes. Word choice and manipulating connotation can hugely affect how things are construed - many people make a living off of doing so.
    • objectcode, on 11/20/2007, -9/+6what is the difference? lets drop a bomb on them
    • ronaldinho, on 11/20/2007, -6/+4I think the main issue of debate is whether Iran plans to do the wiping off Israel by THEMSELVES or whether they are just WISHING Israel to disappear. If it's the latter, what's the big deal? We know Bush hate Iran as well and won't mind Iran disappearing. But "wiping off" means one side is taking the initiative to destroy another, and that will definitely attract far more attention.
      • wpi97, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2Of course they are wishing... They only working on the nuclear weapons just in case the wish does not come true...
    • Haecceity, on 11/20/2007, -4/+21Regime change. Annihilation. You really think they're the same thing?
      • Otto, on 11/20/2007, -4/+2Quite often they are, yes. Look at, you know, history and such.

        However, his words included nothing that could be construed as either "regime change" or "annihilation". So who's putting words in who's mouth now?
        • throop77, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4" his words included nothing that could be construed as either "regime change" "
          uhhh....
          "this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish"

    • apetrie, on 11/20/2007, -1/+3You could interpret them to have the same meaning, but you could interpret them as very differently too. Just because you say thats what he meant, doesn't mean it was. One clearly means genocide, the other doesn't clearly mean that at all.. it could mean genocide, it could mean a removal of the government, it could mean.. well a lot of things, none of them nice, but not necessarily as extreme as you claim.

      I don't think anyone is attempting to say hes a nice fellow who didn't mean any harm and his words are being twisted. That would be silly. However, this statement is being used to justify a preemptive attack upon Iran, and I'm sorry but the *exact* wording and meaning of a statement is very important in a situation like that. Simply brushing it off as the same thing is ignorant and dangerous.
    • xxrealmsxx, on 11/20/2007, -3/+1The Imam was comparing Israel to the USSR in that the USSR fell. That it, and if Israel becomes truly democratic and Palestinians outnumber jews, it will be wiped off the map as a jewish state.
      • wpi97, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3Please explain why Israel is not truly democratic. Please be sure to address the facts, such as the right to vote for all citizens (yes, Arabs too), Arab political parties, Arab members of parliament, an Arab cabinet minister, freedom of religion, and equal rights for women. Also, if Israel suddenly stops being a Jewish state, what do you think will happen to the Israeli Jews?
        • xxrealmsxx, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1The Imam said it, but i would assume he counts the people living in the Occupied territories as people who should have a right to vote.

          There was a bill that passed recently which allows 80 members of the Knesset to expel another Knesset member for voicing criticism of cabinet ministers or senior army commanders is to me a bastardization of democracy.

          You can take a look at it here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3471396, ...

          I don't think Israel should stop being a "Jewish" State. I think they should withdraw from the occupied forces and push for a 2 state solution. The only thing that affects their identity is the fact that by taking territory by force they are also taking the people that live there. By not giving these people rights, they are being undemocratic, by occupying these territories they are creating terrorists.
    • isellmacs, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1I could say...

      "I dislike the way the Bush regime is ruining our country, and wish to see his regime crumble in the next election."
    • isellmacs, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3Sorry for the double post, cut off the rest of my post.

      I could say...

      "I dislike the way the Bush regime is ruining our country, and wish to see his regime crumble in the next election." Which is closer to what he said (relative)

      Or I could say...

      "I hate everything about america and want a vast swarm of nuclear bombs to turn the entire contitent into a smoldering ash mark." Which is the way they translated him

      Does that put it into better perspective? Wanting a corrupt government to fall without the use of violence isn't exactly the same thing as promoting the murder of an entire nation.
      • wpi97, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2I am assuming that you are not a president of a country about to develop nuclear weapons. That makes a bit of a difference, don't you think? It is common knowledge that politicians, especially leaders of nations, have to be careful of what they say. If you are a head of state, and you have to resort to hair splitting to show that what you have said did not threaten another country, then you have a problem.
  • fleischner, on 11/20/2007, -25/+21THAT'S the biggest? What about global cooling? Or is it global warming? I forget which is in vogue at the moment.
    • Marvelboy, on 11/20/2007, -2/+4The way the middle east is looking, I'd put my Euros on nuclear autumn.
    • hydroplane, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2Get out of your climate controlled cave sometime.
    • blindhammer, on 11/20/2007, -3/+9I remember studying global warming back in 1991, well before it was politicized. And well before conservative political hacks decided that "liberals" care for the environment and targeted them.

      If you want any indication that a runaway greenhouse effect will utterly destroy our planet, you need look no further than Venus. That's right. There's other planets out there. Venus is much closer to the Earth than Mars in many ways, but it's a virtual oven due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

      I can't really put your post in context, since I don't know you, but I will say that ignoring what 99.999% of scientists around the world say puts you in the same category as people that believe the Earth is 6000 years old. If you are happy with that comparison, by all means, please continue.
    • coleki, on 11/20/2007, -2/+0nonsense, what's going to kill us is when the magnetic poles begin to switch!
      • blindhammer, on 11/20/2007, -2/+0Stop looking at the Mayan calandar :D
  • heartcoldfusion, on 11/20/2007, -7/+41I think this is a pretty big lie, but I think the biggest lie told to Americans is that the government is working for you.
    • objectcode, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1"government is working for you"
      and a fool would believe it. only "moonbats" don't trust the government
  • ggnictee, on 11/20/2007, -7/+34I am not a supporter of war with Iran, or in Iraq. I'm really not sure about sanctions either.
    Also I know there is propaganda going around about Iran that is out and out lies.
    I have yet to pick a side in the Israel/Palestine issue. I believe there is a middle ground where both sides can live together, but neither side is totally innocent. Mostly I really think but sides need to stop saying "yah but look what he did"
    I just want to say that before i say: this might not be the battle to pick. "this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times." come on, saying that isn't a threat made against the Jewish state of Israel is pretty thin. There are a whole lot of reasons to distrust what this administration says about Iran and I don't think Ahmadinejad has any intention to actual start a war with Israel. But I do think he's a bit of a Bush in the "crazy leader" department and I think we need to support the democratic opposition in Iran (via non-military means). Food, open access to information, etc.) If only because the people are suffering. First and foremost we need to take care of people. I just think saying 'he didn't mean anything by that' is a bit of a stretch.
    I don't think we need to mess with of other peoples government. If you take care of people all the other problems will work themselves out. They're hungry. for knowledge, for security, for food sometimes.
    War with Iran won't change any of that. A ship or two full of rice might.
  • insomniacal, on 11/20/2007, -8/+13... according to the biggest rationalization written to the American people.

    That took some serious verbal contortion. The White House version may have been a paraphrase, but the communicated message is still the same: a desire to see Israel disappear.

    Iran's really going to sit by twiddling their thumbs waiting for the ruling Israeli politicians to abdicate and vacate?
    • Haecceity, on 11/20/2007, -1/+4So presumably George Bush calling for regime change in Iran/Iraq means he wants those countries to disappear?
      • insomniacal, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2I think we're in agreement here. Bush called for regime change in Iraq, then invaded. Now everyone fears he wants to invade Iran.
        The point is -- hostile language needs to be taken seriously. I'm sure you perk up when Bush beats the drums of war. It'd be silly not to do the same for Ahmadinejad.
  • forgottenhope, on 11/20/2007, -8/+8george bush called iran the axis of evil before the war in Iraq. That had to make Iran feel like talking to the USA.