Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He says " Ahmadinejad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map". What an ignorant tool.
Are you saying that he didn't say it?
What did he say?
*Ahem*
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAre you saying that he didn't say it?
What did he say?
He saidi" My Imam says that this regime should vanish from the pages of time." then he went on to talk about how Israel and Arabs could have peace.
Anything to support that, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
Translation controversy
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]
Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]
Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation"wipe Israel off the map"suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]
The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[22]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Irans most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say wipe off or wipe away is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who noted that Bronner agreed that "map" or any other place noun had not been used and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for "claiming falsely" that Ethan Bronner had "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map
The western media? You didn't read the entire article.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHe saidi" My Imam says that this regime should vanish from the pages of time." then he went on to talk about how Israel and Arabs could have peace.
Anything to support that, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
Translation controversy
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]
Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]
Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]
The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[22]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who noted that Bronner agreed that "map" or any other place noun had not been used and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for "claiming falsely" that Ethan Bronner had "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map
Regardless of a controversy over whether the word actually used is "vanish" or "wipe away", the word "map" was never used. The fact that people just accept that western media has added that in on their own is pretty sad.
Tiny little discrepancies like this can cause major wars between nations that were otherwise unnecessary. It would be nice if western media would clarify themselves, but it seems obvious that they'd rather perpetuate the hatred against Iran. Maybe they'll get a war out of it and some more defense contractors can make a few more billion and kick it back to media cronies.
He says " Ahmadinejad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map". What an ignorant tool.
The western media? You didn't read the entire article.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAnything to support that, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
Translation controversy
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]
Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]
Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]
The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[22]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who noted that Bronner agreed that "map" or any other place noun had not been used and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for "claiming falsely" that Ethan Bronner had "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map
Regardless of a controversy over whether the word actually used is "vanish" or "wipe away", the word "map" was never used. The fact that people just accept that western media has added that in on their own is pretty sad.
Tiny little discrepancies like this can cause major wars between nations that were otherwise unnecessary. It would be nice if western media would clarify themselves, but it seems obvious that they'd rather perpetuate the hatred against Iran. Maybe they'll get a war out of it and some more defense contractors can make a few more billion and kick it back to media cronies.
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
The western media? You didn't read the entire article.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regardless of a controversy over whether the word actually used is "vanish" or "wipe away", the word "map" was never used. The fact that people just accept that western media has added that in on their own is pretty sad.
Tiny little discrepancies like this can cause major wars between nations that were otherwise unnecessary. It would be nice if western media would clarify themselves, but it seems obvious that they'd rather perpetuate the hatred against Iran. Maybe they'll get a war out of it and some more defense contractors can make a few more billion and kick it back to media cronies.
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Irans most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say wipe off or wipe away is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Did you miss the part where I said regardless of the discrepancy between whether he said "wipe away" or "vanish", he never said "map"?
Wiping something off a map implies some type of physical destruction by the nature of the idiom.
There's two main problems: It's widely understood that he's talking about the regime, first of all. No one disagrees that he actually used that word. And without the use of the word map, there's no connotation of physical destruction. A regime vanishing, wiping away, what have you, from the pages of time does not imply physical destruction.
That was where western media distorted it for whatever reason.
If you want to have another trillion dollar war with thousands of innocent lives lost because of a potentially misunderstood quote, go right ahead.
The western media? You didn't read the entire article.
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Irans most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say wipe off or wipe away is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Did you miss the part where I said regardless of the discrepancy between whether he said "wipe away" or "vanish", he never said "map"?
Wiping something off a map implies some type of physical destruction by the nature of the idiom.
There's two main problems: It's widely understood that he's talking about the regime, first of all. No one disagrees that he actually used that word. And without the use of the word map, there's no connotation of physical destruction. A regime vanishing, wiping away, what have you, from the pages of time does not imply physical destruction.
That was where western media distorted it for whatever reason.
If you want to have another trillion dollar war with thousands of innocent lives lost because of a potentially misunderstood quote, go right ahead.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not noo-onst enough to see the difference between "wipe off the map" and "wipe off" or "wipe away".
Given that neither you nor I speak Farsi, I'll accept the word of the experts: The guys who work for the man who said it, who know his intent.
Which experts?Did you miss the part where I said regardless of the discrepancy between whether he said "wipe away" or "vanish", he never said "map"?
Wiping something off a map implies some type of physical destruction by the nature of the idiom.
There's two main problems: It's widely understood that he's talking about the regime, first of all. No one disagrees that he actually used that word. And without the use of the word map, there's no connotation of physical destruction. A regime vanishing, wiping away, what have you, from the pages of time does not imply physical destruction.
That was where western media distorted it for whatever reason.
If you want to have another trillion dollar war with thousands of innocent lives lost because of a potentially misunderstood quote, go right ahead.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not noo-onst enough to see the difference between "wipe off the map" and "wipe off" or "wipe away".
Given that neither you nor I speak Farsi, I'll accept the word of the experts: The guys who work for the man who said it, who know his intent.
You don't see a difference between the statement with map added in, and without it? Ok.
And you don't seem to be getting it...we don't need to speak Farsi. The translation is already known by the experts to say "from the pages of time", with the word "regime" used beforehand. The only discrepancy is between "vanish" or "wipe away", which really doesn't change the statement either way.
Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.Do you want to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran because of one statement that could possibly have been taken out of context?
Which experts?I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not noo-onst enough to see the difference between "wipe off the map" and "wipe off" or "wipe away".
Given that neither you nor I speak Farsi, I'll accept the word of the experts: The guys who work for the man who said it, who know his intent.
You don't see a difference between the statement with map added in, and without it? Ok.
And you don't seem to be getting it...we don't need to speak Farsi. The translation is already known by the experts to say "from the pages of time", with the word "regime" used beforehand. The only discrepancy is between "vanish" or "wipe away", which really doesn't change the statement either way.
Oh, the ones who don't work for the man and who don't know his intent.
Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.Do you want to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran because of one statement that could possibly have been taken out of context?
Retard.
Ahmadinejad is a typical Iranian nutcase. He is an enemy of the Great USA and a psychopath. Nobody will give a rats a$$ when he is dead and gone.
Which experts?You don't see a difference between the statement with map added in, and without it? Ok.
And you don't seem to be getting it...we don't need to speak Farsi. The translation is already known by the experts to say "from the pages of time", with the word "regime" used beforehand. The only discrepancy is between "vanish" or "wipe away", which really doesn't change the statement either way.
Oh, the ones who don't work for the man and who don't know his intent.
Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.Do you want to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran because of one statement that could possibly have been taken out of context?
Retard.
Retard? Why name calling? I've been civil with you on this, but suit yourself if that makes you feel better.
As far as the experts, if you'd take the time to research this topic you would know that the translation is widely accepted by any of the experts who've translated it to read "from the pages of time", with no mention of any "map".
Map is not in the translation. Period.
My only problem is the media adding words that were never said.
You are indeed a retard.There's obviously no point in debating this with you if you think we should nuke them. Your mind is already made up about Iran so discrepancies over a simple quote mean nothing. Let's agree to disagree and move on.
But they have been supporting the war against the US in Iraq.Ahmadinejad is a typical Iranian nutcase. He is an enemy of the Great USA and a psychopath. Nobody will give a rats a$$ when he is dead and gone.
Personally..I can't stand Ahmadinejad or the Iranian high council, which makes Iran a defacto theocracy.
But other then those things..Iran is poised to become a full fledge democracy. The system is in place. They have a parliment, prime minister and a president.
And persians are not "typical nutcases". Iran hasn't initiated a war against another nation in over a century.
The same cannot be said about Iran's "enemies".
Which experts?
Oh, the ones who don't work for the man and who don't know his intent.
Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.
Retard.
Retard? Why name calling? I've been civil with you on this, but suit yourself if that makes you feel better.
As far as the experts, if you'd take the time to research this topic you would know that the translation is widely accepted by any of the experts who've translated it to read "from the pages of time", with no mention of any "map".
Map is not in the translation. Period.
My only problem is the media adding words that were never said.
You are indeed a retard.There's obviously no point in debating this with you if you think we should nuke them. Your mind is already made up about Iran so discrepancies over a simple quote mean nothing. Let's agree to disagree and move on.
Where have I ever...EVER...said anything about supporting a nuclear strike on Iran?
Hint: Nowhere. So, exactly as you say, there's no point in debating this with you if you've already got your mind made up about my views.
Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.Do you want to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran because of one statement that could possibly have been taken out of context?
Retard.
Ahmadinejad is a typical Iranian nutcase. He is an enemy of the Great USA and a psychopath. Nobody will give a rats a$$ when he is dead and gone.
Personally..I can't stand Ahmadinejad or the Iranian high council, which makes Iran a defacto theocracy.
But other then those things..Iran is poised to become a full fledge democracy. The system is in place. They have a parliment, prime minister and a president.
And persians are not "typical nutcases". Iran hasn't initiated a war against another nation in over a century.
The same cannot be said about Iran's "enemies".
Wow. You truly are stupid. I'd tell you to stop it, but I doubt if you can.Retard? Why name calling? I've been civil with you on this, but suit yourself if that makes you feel better.
As far as the experts, if you'd take the time to research this topic you would know that the translation is widely accepted by any of the experts who've translated it to read "from the pages of time", with no mention of any "map".
Map is not in the translation. Period.
My only problem is the media adding words that were never said.
You are indeed a retard.
Where have I ever...EVER...said anything about supporting a nuclear strike on Iran?
Hint: Nowhere. So, exactly as you say, there's no point in debating this with you if you've already got your mind made up about my views.
Are you really being serious here??
You just said:
Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.Do you want to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran because of one statement that could possibly have been taken out of context?
Retard.
I mean, if that was supposed to be your idea of sarcasm then you should probably take a class my man because you suck at it.
Wow. You truly are stupid. I'd tell you to stop it, but I doubt if you can.You are indeed a retard.
Where have I ever...EVER...said anything about supporting a nuclear strike on Iran?
Hint: Nowhere. So, exactly as you say, there's no point in debating this with you if you've already got your mind made up about my views.
Are you really being serious here??
You just said:
Yes, that's exactly what I want to do.
Retard.
I mean, if that was supposed to be your idea of sarcasm then you should probably take a class my man because you suck at it.
In case you missed it, genius, you claimed I wanted to nuke Iran before I made my astoundingly obviously sarcastic agreement.
But they have been supporting the war against the US in Iraq.Ahmadinejad is a typical Iranian nutcase. He is an enemy of the Great USA and a psychopath. Nobody will give a rats a$$ when he is dead and gone.
Personally..I can't stand Ahmadinejad or the Iranian high council, which makes Iran a defacto theocracy.
But other then those things..Iran is poised to become a full fledge democracy. The system is in place. They have a parliment, prime minister and a president.
And persians are not "typical nutcases". Iran hasn't initiated a war against another nation in over a century.
The same cannot be said about Iran's "enemies".
Does that count?
Ahmadinejad is a typical Iranian nutcase. He is an enemy of the Great USA and a psychopath. Nobody will give a rats a$$ when he is dead and gone.
Personally..I can't stand Ahmadinejad or the Iranian high council, which makes Iran a defacto theocracy.
But other then those things..Iran is poised to become a full fledge democracy. The system is in place. They have a parliment, prime minister and a president.
And persians are not "typical nutcases". Iran hasn't initiated a war against another nation in over a century.
The same cannot be said about Iran's "enemies".
I'm glad that their minister of propaganda was able to convince you of that.
Ahmadinejad and/or his followers are in a hurry to do what they can to cause the coming of the 12 Aman so to spur Armageddon.
So pardon me for thinking that their motives are less than peaceful
