BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site

Subject: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Sep 09 - 07:46 PM

The news this morning is that Iran has for some time been developing a secret nuclear development site underground, and only announced it when it learned that it was a secret no longer.

Two points of note:

The timing of this broke well for President Obama and the United States, poorly for 'President' Ahmadinejad and Iran. They were at the United Nations, and Ahmadinejad made a poor performance, as he is perceived by most of the world as illegitimately holding an office he actually lost in an election that started out to be maybe fair and partially free, but devolved to the level of a Chicago mayoralty run of the thirties. He is also seen as a mouthpiece of the unelected religious council that actually calls the shots in Iran for now.

Secondly, Obama, unlike his predecesser, consulted with American allies, especially Great Britain, and those not necessarily our allies but concerned in the region, Russia and China. Gone are the days of prepossessing pride and go-it-alone antics.

We will see how these tactics fare in comparison to the former US admin.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 03:59 AM

Yes, well, the former US admin even had Ahmadinejad's predecessor (a moderate) to work with, and they even botched that.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 04:06 AM

"Obama, unlike his predecesser, consulted with American allies, especially Great Britain, and those not necessarily our allies but concerned in the region, Russia and China. Gone are the days of prepossessing pride and go-it-alone antics.

We will see how these tactics fare in comparison to the former US admin."

Always nice to be in at the birth of a new MYTH Robo. Your second point of note, quoted above, is totally inaccurate as even the most cursory examination of events and actions shows. But what the hell I'll ask the question, "prepossessing pride and go-it-alone antics" were demonstrated in what way with regard to Iran and its illegal nuclear weapons programme??

The record shows nothing but unbroken engagement by the previous US Administration with the IAEA; UN Security Council; the EU-3; Russia and China - But as they say never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 04:08 AM

It would be a disaster if any country in the region had nuclear weapons, and the international community is quite right to keep the Middle East free of them... oh, hang on...

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 07:41 AM

Well who'd have thought it!
Gee, I wonder who sold them all those centrifuges?
Russia, China, Korea, Pakistan?
I sometimes wish they'd blow the whole world up, so whatever was left, albeit only cockroaches, could start all over again.
I mean, even cockroaches couldn't make a worse fucking mess than humanity has done, could they?

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 09:17 AM

Man, geeze oh Pete!!!

Hey, don't get me wrong... I like Obama in general and voted for him but...

...give me a friggin' break here... This is a bogus and political act on the Obama administration's part... Sure, they get credit for boxin' in Iran and gettin' Russian and Chinese support in doin' so but...

...still, IMHO, bugus and, frankly, a tad disgusting...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 10:06 AM

Iran doesn't actually appear to have broken the rules on this one. They have given the required information to the IAEA in advance of being in sight of being able to start producing any nuclear materials.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: bankley
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 10:18 AM

"we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"...

now where have I heard that before ? hmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 10:22 AM

Gosh Teribus, surely you don't expect the editing on this site to be sensible or consistent do you?
JM

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 10:25 AM

The word is that they (Iran) hurriedly cobbled together a 'release' for the IAEA after they heard they were going to be outed. They 'seemed' to be hoping to keep it secret. They will, of course, claim otherwise. No one, including the IAEA, is likely to believe they were going to make it public unless forced. It puts them in an embarrassing spot, no matter what the 'legal' position is determined to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 10:48 AM

Very likely that's true - but they still appear to have kept within the legal requirements.

"You're only driving within the speed limit because you know there's a speed camera up ahead."

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 12:31 PM

Having nuclear weapons in any part of the world is a prescription for total disaster.
It's hypocritical for those who possess most of them to sanction a country that doesn't have them yet. Why should we trust the American military or the Israeli military not to use theirs under certain circumstances?

It's too bad that we set the model for Iran by admitting these weapons into our
country.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 12:40 PM

Teribus you have a point insofar as Iran is concerned. I had made a much longer initial message and at the point of sending it into the precious little startup window it disappeared without a trace, and I was under some time pressure to reconstitute it.

I think the previous administration did relatively well on Iran by doing little. I don't think 'W' made much of an effort to cobble together allies or do anything very creative on the issue, because in many ways it had blown relationships with potential allies. I believe that the underground project was discovered during this time, but I don't know how much information is available on that subject, because it's a matter of high tech observing or covert ops and any admin is going to discourage any light on that subject. It made the odd 'grunt' and kept its options open, thus raising the unspoken threat of military action but not actually doing much more. It could have been worse (which in present tense was my repeated mantra about the previous admin, given in softer and softer tones as the long terms wore on).

Anyhow, we'll see how much steel Obama can summon on deck and on the decks of others.

Bobbert, the fact that yore a bit ticked off at the current occupant bodes well- for the current occupant. If you want to bring any actual factual backing to yore pinions, feel free, otherwise feel free to bless us with your insites unencumbered by thot.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 12:49 PM

I'm hoping that Obama won't get sucked into this new quagmire. Iran is part of a bigger picture that constitutes a takeover of military solutions to diplomatic ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 02:00 PM

Looks to me like Iran is baiting or pleading for someone to take those nuke sites out , hoping that the only country that is likely to actually do it now would be Israel, and the site is bomb proof - they'd need some bunker busting type nukes to do it. How's that for speculation! Then the Iranians could perhaps legitimately claim the right to do their intended task - to finally take out Israel. This Ahmadinejad is a dangerous daredevil. All the rhetoric coming out of Iran now shows they will proudly & boastfully claim when their weapons are ready. All this previous nice talk from The Obama administration about diplomacy with Iran which Bush wouldn't do is looking like idealistic fantasy now - reality is setting in. Here we go again.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 02:25 PM

I think there is another state with even greater concern than the U.S., and about the same concern as Israel in this:

Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 03:03 PM

The second site was known to the U. S. (and probably most EU nations) some years ago, according to news releases.

Israel apparently has the bomb; if Iran develops one, it would provide some balance in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 03:27 PM

Balance shmalance. Israel has had nukes for quite some time. They don't boast about them. They never threaten to wipe any other state off the map with them. Iran however?

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 03:52 PM

Iran has not ever threatened to wipe any country off the map.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: bobad
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 03:53 PM

Here we go again.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 03:56 PM

A bit off the subject, but what about Saddam's WMD program...the nuclear bomb program he didn't have:


"...an AP report that 550 metric tons of 'yellowcake' uranium has successfully been removed from Iraq. The operation lasted three months, and it required 37 separate flights and an 8,500-mile trip by boat to reach a port in Montreal. Quoting:

'While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called 'dirty bomb' -- a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material -- it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth 'tens of millions of dollars.' A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.'" ~ July 2008


[actually, we removed the uranium from Iraq so it would not be an "issue" anymore...the money was not of any real importance]

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 03:58 PM

If people continue to repeat the Big Lies, I will continue to knock them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 04:06 PM

That yellowcake uranium had been documented and kept secure by the UN since before the 1991 Gulf War. It was not evidence of an ongoing nuclear program.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 04:29 PM

No, it was kept secure by the US and coalition forces since 2003 and is in violation of many agreements and UN resolutions. Saddam agreed in the Safwan accords to turn over all such material and allow weapons inspectors to arrange disposal. He didn't do what he was required to do. Neither has North Korea and Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 04:45 PM

Nope. That's another one of those Big Lies. It was from before 1991.


"The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program - a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium - reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" - the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment - was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad - using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" - a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material - it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives - kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.

Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger - and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims - led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 04:49 PM

And I would like to see the part of the Safwan accords where Saddam agreed to do what it is claimed he agreed to do in an above post. Personally, I don't believe the person who brought up the subject of those accords can produce any part of them here.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 04:54 PM

It's the USA that frequently threatens to use military force on other countries, not Iran, and it is the USA that HAS used military force on other countries, not Iran.

If I was the Iranians, I would want 10 powerful nuclear weapons in my hands as soon as humanly possible and I would want everyone to know I had them. Why? For an effective deterrent against outside attack or invasion, that's why. It has so far proven to be the ONLY possible effective deterrent against an invasion of a minor power by the Superpower.

Iran has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The Ayatollah did once make a statement that the present Zionist regime would someday "pass from the page of time"...as it no doubt will...because all regimes eventually pass from the page of time. He did not state that Iran had any intentions of doing anything military to MAKE that happen.

Ahmadinejad simply quoted that previous statement by the Ayatollah, and other people chose to mistranslate it and interpret it to suit their own propaganda purposes as "wipe Isreal off the map", which is not what was said at all. But they wish it was! That would give them the supposed excuse to attack pre-emptively.

The Soviet regime has passed from the page of time. No one wiped them off the map. Russia is still there. All regimes pass from the page of time. You just don't know how soon they will, that's all, but no regime lasts forever (though they all act as if they were immortal...and the best thing since sliced bread).

In that respect, regimes are a lot like people. They all seem to think they'll be around forever. Fat chance.

bObviously, Both the Zionist regime in Israel AND the present Iranian fundamentalist regime are eventually going to pass from the page of time. I can't say when, but they both will. I doubt that it ocurred for a moment to the Ayatollah that he could just as well have made the same prediction about his own regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 05:09 PM

Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 05:24 PM

CarolC,

MSNBC made essentially a corect statement but poisond it with the last line and that is all one is supposed to remember. The statement "there is no evidence" is a propaganda ploy and can be inserted at will. Read the article again and leave the "poison pill" out.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: bobad
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 05:27 PM

"Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map."

Not so according to our resident Israel hater and her acolyte. I choose to believe sources with much more credibility than these two.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 05:31 PM

Israel is slowly gobbling up the West Bank, and more of the Middle East will follow. The sooner the Iranians get nuclear power, the more likely Israeli objectives will be limited and the safer other Middle Eart nations will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 05:48 PM

Well well, and which other nations are still living on land the conquered in war?
Would Texas count perhaps, as occupied territory?
Not pro anybody, just anti double standards.

JM

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 05:48 PM

Iran has never threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Not ever.

People who throw terms like Israel hater around instead of backing any of their arguments up with any facts, are trying to substitute smears and invective for rational argument. They do this because smears and invective is all they've got to work with. They have no facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 05:54 PM

Back to the subject of the yellow cake - the yellow cake that was sold to Canada was the same yellow cake that the UN had already secured before the Gulf War. Since the US invasion of Iraq, the US had allowed that yellow cake to just sit around unsecured, and some of it had been looted, and the rest of it was just lying around in the open making the local people sick. The US finally decided to get it out of Iraq so that it would be secure and so that it would no longer make the local population sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 07:18 PM

Yo, Robo,

Stay tuned for the facts... They will come out that shows that the US wasn't all that surprised by this weeks "new" developements...

Might of fact, you prolly won't have to wait all that long before these facts find the surface... Of course, the Obama administartion will deny it... What else can they do now that Obma has huffed and puffed and threatned to blow Ackmadingaling's house down...

I didn't like much when Bush played war mongre and it ain't too flattering on Obama either...

I mean, can't we all just get along???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 07:36 PM

from today's Washington Post... C&P from longer article

"Iran, which as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has a right to enrich uranium, has already signaled that it intends to dismiss questions about the Qom facility as a legalistic dispute of little importance. Salehi said that it was hidden to protect it from possible attacks and that Iran had actually been overly cautious within the framework of the IAEA rules. "We have to inform the agency of the building of nuclear facilities 180 days before insertion of nuclear fuel, but we informed them even sooner," he said.

U.S. and U.N. officials sharply disputed such claims. In 2003, Iran signed an amended rule under the nonproliferation treaty that required nations to reveal any new facilities to the IAEA as soon as the decision was made to build them.

The amendment, called "Code 3.1," was permanently binding. But in March 2007, Iran announced that it was withdrawing unilaterally from the agreement and would instead abide by an earlier version of the treaty, which allowed countries to delay notification until six months before a new plant became operational.

But even under Iran's unorthodox interpretation of the rules, Tehran appears to have crossed the line. According to U.S. officials with access to classified reports, Iran's work on the Qom site began long before March 2007. At the time construction began, Iran knew it was obligated to notify the IAEA immediately about the new project, the sources said.

In any case, the IAEA never accepted Iran's argument that the strict disclosure rules did not apply."

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 08:03 PM

Bobert: Good to read from ya, I was a bit snappish earlier this morning as I hadn't got down the espresso that I need in order to embrace all mankind.

I think we are seeing that Obama is a practitioner of all the arts of managing information to his advantage. It is not nice, but I think it is necessary for a world leader. So I take the administration's managing of this news in a positive manner, and in going beyond that to build a consensus among other world nations, I feel he is superior in effectiveness to the previous occupant.

As for Iran's threat to Israel, I personally feel it is being managed on the Iranian side as a goad to the West, of which they regard Israel a puppet. I don't think Iran gives a sh*t about the Palestinians. However, Israel tends to get beleaguered by her neighbors, so Israel might take it a whole lot serious.

I think that Saudi Arabia takes nukes in Iran a whole lot serious as well. The Saudi ruling family can be effectively beleaguered by its own terrorists/ fanatics* and does not see a Shiite state gaining power as anything other than a threat that can lash out externally or internally at them. I think the Saudis are threatened MORE than Israel by an Iranian nuke, and they know it.


*We are on the threshhold of the thirtieth anniversary of the Siege of Mecca by armed Sunni fundamentalists. It led to armed conflict around the Holy Shrine, and the deaths of hundreds. The Iranian Ayatollah lied on the air that it was due to Americans and Zionists and the US embassy in Islmabad was overrun and razed to the ground by a mob.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 08:24 PM

Well, Robo, expresso 'er not, yeah, I'll be the first to admit that Obama took that fast ball and put it over the fence... Bush never hit one so clean...

But the larger question to me is why take the shot in the first place...

Just follow my thinking here: It's kinda like why did the US drop a nuclear bomb on Japan??? Well, IMHO, they didn't have to... They could have just dropped it off shore and more than likely would have gotten the Japanese attention BIG time... So Obama had 2 choices this past week:

1. Jam Ackmadingaling, force Achmadingaling to dangle and twist in the wind or...

...2. Have a private talk with Ach-ie, lay out the scenerio that unfolded, look the man in the eye and ask him for his help in resolving some serious differences in solving these little problems...

The Obama I voted and worked for would have taken the 2nd option...

Yeah, I understand that Obama is trying to show the Republican base that he is some tough guy but who cares... Those folks have allready written him off as some kinda socialist Islamist terrorist...

Obama's best bets are to work one-on-one with folks and get some stuff working behind the scenes... That's diplomacy... Not show-boating...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Sep 09 - 09:28 PM

Iran doesn't need to destroy Israel. Israel is doing an excellent job of destroying itself, and the Iranian leadership knows it. I note appreciatively the "I think" part that precedes the speculation about Saudi Arabia above. Fortunately, I think the Obama administration is too level headed to start any new wars in the region on the basis of such speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:11 AM

There's none so blind, as those who will not see.

Ahmadinejad Threatens Israel with Destruction

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:59 AM

CarolC

You keep ignoring the fact that the Iranian nuclear bombs will kill ALL the Palestinians, in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jordan, when they are used against Israel. Look at the map and the wind patterns.

But then, as long as those evil Jews are killed, I guess that will be ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:12 AM

I'm not ignoring that at all. That's part of my argument about why Iran would never attack Israel. And I would suggest that the above poster stop calling Jews evil. It makes them look like an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:15 AM

I just read that whole "Ahmadinejad Threatens Israel with Destruction" article, and I don't see any language in there that threatens Israel with destruction other than the headline, which is hardly evidence of his having done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:57 AM

Oh dear

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:29 AM

If someone can find that language in that article, perhaps they would like to quote it in the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:03 AM

other people chose to mistranslate it and interpret it to suit their own propaganda purposes as "wipe Isreal off the map", which is not what was said at all. But they wish it was! (Little Hawk about the "wipe off the map" translation)

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting English language report about Ahmadinejad's speech

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Now tell us, Little Hawk, why did these people chose to mistranslate the speech and how does this mistranslation suit their own propaganda purposes? To me it looks as if that is what Iran wants the world to know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:21 AM

It's definitely a mistranslation, and it suits their purposes of trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran. Here is the correct translation...


"He made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:38 AM

it suits their purposes of trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran. (Carol)

Huh? Do you really think the Iranian Broadcasting Company is trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran?

Wolfgang (puzzled)

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:54 AM

I would suggest that that website is a forgery. Here is the website for the Iranian Broadcasting Company...

http://www.irib.ir/English/

And here is the website found in the URL that the forged page gives as its own URL in the banner at the top of the page...

http://english.iribnews.ir/

Subject: RE: BS: Iran Had Secret Nuke Building Site
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 01:06 PM

Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel? (New York Times)

If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate.

But translators 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 Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran's most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say "wipe off" or "wipe away" is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive. ...

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.

In my eyes, "the correct translation" is a statement that goes far too far. Whoever has written in or translated to or from a foreign language knows that such a thing as "the correct translation" does not exist.

Wolfgang