More Iranian photoshopping
July 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am by David FarrarReaders will have seen the reports of how Iran actually photoshopped photos of their missile launch to cover up the fact one of them failed to launch. This was actually revealed by the Little Green Footballs blog. A good thing do as Israel is less likely to attack Iran now, having one quarter of Iran’s offensive capability is Photoshop!
Anyway Wired has some more photos from Iran. My favourite:
Hat Tip: Whale Oil
Related posts:
- Nuking Iran
- Will Obama attack Iran?
- Iran wants Israel “wiped off the map”
- More warmongering from Iran
July 16th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Oh christ that is funny!
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:10 am
“Israel is less likely to attack Iran now, having one quarter of Iran’s offensive capability is Photoshop!”
Yes David having only three nukes dropped on Tel Aviv instead of three is really going to make the IDF stay their hand.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
A fictitious WMD – where have I heard that one before?
Vote:ps is it legal under sharia law to expose such a huge pussy in broad daylight?
July 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
It is clear from that photo featuring the giant cat (identified in Jane’s Defense Annual as a MEGACAT SS12 Mark II) that in fact Iran’s offensive capability is far more advanced and deadly than previously thought no matter how much the western Left and Iran apologists might claim otherwise. Clearly Iran have completely ignored the Cat breeding limitation treaty. Israel have no choice but to strike, the destruction a MEGACAT SS 12 could cause would be huge throughout the Middle East.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am
meowie bin scratchin.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Thats the Persian Pussy PP8 Mk III Richard. Easy mistake to make though.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Great image. Good to see that whoever put it together fought the urge to add “I can haz missile?” to it.
On a more serious note, the Israelis can’t strike Iran without US assistance, or at least permission. The US Air Force and Navy generally take a dim view to heavily armed warplanes flying over ‘their’ airspace, and they’re currently responsible for Iraq. And I’m not sure that the Israelis have the legs to mount a strike over Syria and Turkey (who might also have problems with this).
So unless the US green-lights it (which might happen, maybe), the Israelis can’t bomb the plants.
And if the Iranians are stupid enough to nuke Tel Aviv? The Israelis will use their approx 200 warheads to turn every major city in Iran into a glowing, glass sheet. So not really much incentive there for a direct strike by the Iranians I’d say (and an indirect one, via ‘terrorists’ is guaranteed to have Israeli uranium retribution too, so again, no dice). The Iranians aren’t completely insane.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
This latest development in biological warfare by the Iranians will surely mean death for the free world. I move for a preemptive war, for the sake of democracy because they hate our freedoms.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Tane – I don’t think you can ignore the implicit (well, almost explicit!) LOLcat reference even if there is no giant white subtext of:
“I can haz teh missile defens shieldz plz?”
Vote:or
“Nukez – I haz them 2 white boi”
July 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Tane you clearly have not the slightest idea of how seriously the Israelis take their security.
If they gave a crap about who took a dim view of what they
Vote:a. wouldn’t have hit Entebe.
b. wouldn’t have hit Saddams nuke plant
c. exist.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
From- aichttp://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherMerola/2008/07/11/have_your_yellowcake_and_eat_it_too?page=1
——————————————
On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq. The opening paragraph is as follows:
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.
See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, “Bush lied.” Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.
It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.
This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story? Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.
This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush’s war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said,
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.
Closing the book on Saddam’s nuclear legacy? Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Irrefutable evidence of the global left-wing conspiracy.
But the link doesn’t work – is this news story available anywhere other than a one-eyed little political website in the US?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I saw the original and the photo shopped version You gotta laugh at the Sand Shufflers the quality of the photo shopped was so pathetic.
Heh Wouldnt it be a laugh if they fired a missle and it went uyp and turned zround and came back down on the Sand Shufflers
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ChristopherMerola/2008/07/11/have_your_yellowcake_and_eat_it_too?page=1
Try that link captain tinfoil.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Back to the photoshopping, Boingboing has a few good ‘uns
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck-at-pho.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iranian-missile-phot.html
I like the clone tools one.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“Captain Tinfoil”???!? Whatever. You sure got me there, yeah…
Thanks for the link though – I’d sort of imagined ratbiter’s 1:10pm was his partly own work until then
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
If you approve of Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons, on what grounds do you disapprove of Iran having illegal nuclear weapons?
[DPF: Simple I trust Israel not to use them except as a last resort if facing extinction. I also trust them not to give nuclear technology to terrorists. I also think they have demonstrated over several decades that they do not use them as an explicit threat, unlike Iran which threatens to wipe Israel out on a regular basis]
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Google is your friend
Not sure how that relates to I can haz cheezcake though…
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
About that yellowcake…
The yellowcake the IAEA knew about?
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/SV/Invo/factsheet.html#indigenous
That yellowcake?
All the chatter seems to be based on the one AP report that didn’t do much in the way of background apart from mentioning the Niger forgeries; I’m gonna take a punt and say the uranium was under seal since 2001 or so.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
well google result no.1 tells me that “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.”, how bout dat.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Simple I trust Israel not to use them except as a last resort if facing extinction. I also trust them not to give nuclear technology to terrorists. I also think they have demonstrated over several decades that they do not use them as an explicit threat, unlike Iran which threatens to wipe Israel out on a regular basis
DPF,
A very common urban legend as a result of a mistranslation: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm – I trust you’ll put effort into countering the proliferation of such misunderstandings.
Israel has recently illegally invaded a neighbouring country, and for many years its prime minister was a man found responsible for war crimes by Israel’s own courts, which recommended he never be allowed in office. What is it about Israel that inspires you with confidence that her aggression and disregard for international law will not extend to the use of the illegal nuclear weapons?
[DPF: It is not an urban legend. It is after the fact spin you rely on. But hey if you want to be a champion for Iran developing the bomb, go for it.]
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Ahmadinejad has been confronted with the ‘wipe off the map’ quote a few times though, what did he say to it then?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Stephen,
According to Wikipedia:
Clarifying comments by Ahmadinejad
President Ahmadinejad has been asked to explain his comments at subsequent press conferences. At a later news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[28] “There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want.”
Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you… there won’t be any war in the future,” both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.[29][30]
And asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn’t mean that there are objections against the Jewish”. He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country’s parliament.[29]
[DPF: So you think we should beleive the Crosby Textor clarification of his speech, rather than all the times has has railed against Israel and made it clear he wants it gone]
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
ah
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“I also think they have demonstrated over several decades that they do not use them as an explicit threat, unlike Iran which threatens to wipe Israel out on a regular basis”
heh – I can’t believe you’re still peddling that line DPF. It’s been disproven many times here, and by numerous Middle East specialists elsewhere.
i.e. According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, 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).”
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305
So I’m with Ryan – you need to stop disseminating this untruth, and preferably make a clarification post on your bolg to undo the damage you’ve done by propagating this harmful myth.
[DPF: It is not a myth. The Iranian President is a mad Jew hater. You should be ashamed of your defence of him. He's a Holocaust denier to boot]
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
>>But the link doesn’t work – is this news story available anywhere other than a one-eyed little political website in the US?
Associated Press? little?
Then what site does Ryan Sproull back with us to counter this
Vote:Prison Planet – from the ‘matrix is pretty much true’ faction of the left side of the blogosphere
Which is technically correct, as the vast majority of us do not have access to spacecraft
July 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Then what site does Ryan Sproull back with us to counter this
Prison Planet – from the ‘matrix is pretty much true’ faction of the left side of the blogosphere
Emmess,
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
http://www.albionmonitor.com/0605a/iranmisquote.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
My apologies. I should have predicted your ad-hominem fallacy and spelled things out a bit slower for you.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
emmess – I agree that prison planet isn’t the best source, but what it asserts on that issue is true. Try visiting the sources I cite.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Nome- “Try visiting the sources I cite.”
Hahah, best laff I’d had on here today…
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
DPF:
Ryan is also correct in asserting that Irael is a persitant perpetrator of war crimes. For instance:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis7.html
Why you trust Israel’s crypto-fascist military leadership with anything other than its own self-preservation is beyond me.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Ryan, where did the thousands of rockets originate from that were fired into Israel from lebanon?
Vote:Were they fired from good people or bad people?
July 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I didn’t read it myself RRM. If you can’t show up with your own thoughts then don’t show up at all is my take.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“It is not a myth. The Iranian President is a mad Jew hater”
That may or may not be true. But that isn’t the issue at stake here. You claimed that Iran’s political leadership has “threatened to wipe Israel out on a regular basis”. Yet you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back this claim.
Also, you assume that Iran’s leadership would nuke Israel, only to be nailed by her second strike capabilities, and failing that, the US’s massive nuclear arsenal. What would be the point?
[DPF: You mean no evidence apart form the fact the Iranian President has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. I find it amusing how hard you try to dismiss this statement. And not even the NY Times agrees with your spin:
"New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "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 website, refer to wiping Israel away."
Incidentially all 15 members of the UN Security Council voted to condemn the Iranian President's remarks. Your propaganda effort on behalf of a mad holocaust denier just confirms how twisted you are. Even worse you are trying to suppress people who disagree with your benign interpretation by demanding they retract]
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Tane W >And if the Iranians are stupid enough to nuke Tel Aviv? The Israelis will use their approx 200 warheads to turn every major city in Iran into a glowing, glass sheet.
Therefore causing the reappearance of the Hidden Imam? That’s an objective of Iranian policy… why do you think they’d hesitate to cause it to happen?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Why dont you Sand Shuffler supporters just fact up to reality The Israelis are there and have been for 60 years. IMHO Id rather rely on the Israelis to keep the Sand Shufflers under control.
Good Grief the SS want to wipe the Israelis off the face of the planet and then start after the rest of us infidels.
How thick can you lot get You support people whose avowed wish is either to convert you to their religion or terminate you with extreme predjudice
Bunch of nutbars the lot of you.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Ryan, where did the thousands of rockets originate from that were fired into Israel from lebanon?
Were they fired from good people or bad people?
They were fired by criminals, in response to the kidnapping of a Palestinian doctor by the IDF. I’m not a fan of trying to divide the world into good and bad people.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: “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 website, refer to wiping Israel away.”
Here is The Guardian’s piece, citing what BBC translators agree with: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
The relevant part:
“As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October 29 2005. Here is what the spokesman told me about the “off the map” section: “The monitor has checked again. It’s a difficult expression to translate. They’re under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be “eliminated from the page of history”.
Would the BBC put out a correction, given that the issue had become so controversial, I asked. “It would be a long time after the original version”, came the reply. I interpret that as “probably not”, but let’s see.
Finally, I approached Iradj Bagherzade, the Iranian-born founder and chairman of the renowned publishing house, IB Tauris. He thought hard about the word “roozgar”. “History” was not the right word, he said, but he could not decide between several better alternatives “this day and age”, “these times”, “our times”, “time”.”
Incidentially all 15 members of the UN Security Council voted to condemn the Iranian President’s remarks.
It was only later that the mistranslation was cleared up.
Your propaganda effort on behalf of a mad holocaust denier just confirms how twisted you are. Even worse you are trying to suppress people who disagree with your benign interpretation by demanding they retract
I am simply recognising the authority of people who speak Farsi in translating Farsi. It was a call for regime change, not genocide or war, and it is disingenuous to spread the lie that what was said in Farsi approximates the English phrase “wipe off the map”.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Wodga is in fact Winstons speech writer.
No evidence… except that eight volume pack of folders labled “evidence”.
Keep batting for the left wodga, we’ll double what they’re paying you.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I should add that Ahmadinejad has said plenty of troublesome things (and allowed plenty of troublesome things to be written on the sides of missiles). This just doesn’t happen to be one of them.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
davidp,
Maybe some senior Iranians do want to bring on this ‘Hiden Iman’, in the same way that some senior Americans may want to bring on the Rapture. Whether they’d be stupid enough, or have the power to overcome every other Iranian who is not a frothing fanatic is another matter. Yes, Ahmedinejad is a Holocaust-denier. Yes, he’s declared that he would like to ‘remove the Zionist regime from the page of history (which is different to wiping Israel off the map). Yes he’s a frickin idiot. This isn’t the same as an automatic guarantee of an immediate nuclear hit on Israel. Or even a promise to do so. I remember a lot of talk about destruction during the Cold War, ‘bombing them back to the Stone Age’, blah blah blah. The Iranians know they’re toast if they ever do anything like this.
And besides, if it’s that bad, if Israel is getting nuked and overrun, the Israelis could nuke Mecca and Medina, probably with some particularly radioactive weapons. If Israel is going down, you can bet they’ll take Islam with them. Try telling people to go on the Hajj when there’s a 90% chance of thyroid cancer involved…… You might think the mullahs may not care about their people. But they will care about their religon; Allah can’t stop rockets.
As for confusing an air-strike with Entebbe, just remember that the Entebe raid didn’t involve sending heavily armed bombers over 120,000 US troops in the middle of an active warzone. The USAF and USN might take a dim view of this, so pre-arranged permission will be vital. The US must be involved in such a strike, even if only indirectly, so this can’t and won’t be a unilateral Israeli strike. Uncle Sam gets to play this time.
Anyway, can you blame the Iranians for wanting the bomb? Their main oilfields in Khuzestan border Iraq. The only thing that might stop the Big Red One Mech Infantry Division and the Screaming Eagles 101st Air Assault could be the threat of a few kilotons detonating on Iranian soil. North Korea has proven that nukes make sovereignty stick.
No, I don’t want the Iranians to get the bomb. But I don’t see that we have a choice. And I don’t see that they’ll be any worse with it than the Israelis themselves.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
DPF:
What do you mean “even the New York Times”? Sure, they’re no “fox-news”, but they’re a moderate centre-right, pro-establishment paper. Hell, they even supported the Republican’s invasion of Iraq, helping to propagate the Bush administration’s phoney intelligence about Saddam’s purported WMD programme (they ran a story which included intel that the CIA had already rubbished). This at a time when left wing political parties all over the world were opposing the war. (Incidentally it should go on record that John key supported the US-led invasion).
Also, all the references to Israel being “wiped out” (the idiom “wiped off the map” doesn’t exist in Persian), is in reference to the current militarist regime, and conveys a desire for them to “go the same way as the Soviets” – i.e. to collapse internally, and not due to external miltary force.
i.e. “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).”
Many Iranian officials have also since confirmed that the remarks were translated erroneously.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/
Also to clarify, to point out what should be obvious to all but the simplest of minds, I don’t support the Iranian regime at all – I merely point out that the Iranian leadership has never threatened war against Israel, and that a desire to see Israel’s current regime disappear, is not sufficient justification for a pre-emptive war.
I also note that it was official US government policy to assassinate Fidel Castro for a several years during the early 1960s. So they didn’t express a longing to see the end of Fidel Castro (incidentally George Bush has plenty of times), but rather sought to kill him in order to secure regime change.
Would have Cuba then been justified in seeking to bomb all of the US’s nuclear facilities? Indeed, would they now, given George Bush’s stated desire to see the end of the current regime in Cuba?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Ryan > Finally, I approached Iradj Bagherzade, the Iranian-born founder and chairman of the renowned publishing house, IB Tauris. He thought hard about the word “roozgar”. “History” was not the right word, he said, but he could not decide between several better alternatives “this day and age”, “these times”, “our times”, “time”.”
So what you’re saying is that even tho he KNOWS that the international community will be looking at every nuance of phrasing of his speeches in order to determine Iran’s position, and even tho he KNOWS that a particular interpretation can mean the difference between war or not, Ahmadinejad still chooses to use ambiguous language.
Why would he use such ambiguous language when so much is at stake, both for Israel and for Iran? He either doesn’t care if there is a war, or wants a war. But one where he can play the victim in the eyes of apologists for anti-semitism. Because there seem to be a whole lot of David Irving types around trying to ignore the overwhelming evidence is favour of argument based on trivia.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Tane W > Whether they’d be stupid enough, or have the power to overcome every other Iranian who is not a frothing fanatic is another matter.
Trouble is that the frothing fanatics have been grouped together in to the Revolutionary Guard and given responsibility for the nuclear weapons program, and also for working with terrorist organisations in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq.
It’s like if the US Air Force ONLY hired apocalyptic Christians who wanted to bring about a rapture, armed them and made them responsible to a religious dictator rather than an elected civilian, and then gave them control over nuclear weapons.
You might be happy to take the chance that these apocalypse-loving religious nut cases will behave sanely. But then you’re not the target.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Roger just called the NY Times centre right. This is hilarious beyond belief.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
You’re right DPF – certain reporters within the New York Times are of the far-republican right.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
davidp,
Good point, having the Revolutionary Guard in charge of the nukes is a worry. Whether they would launch them, or slip a few warheads to terrorists is another thing entirely. As I’ve said, the Iranians might get a couple of hits in first, but then they’d be annihilated. Punching someone in the balls isn’t such a good idea when you know they’ll mash your skull with a sledgehammer immediately after. Oh, and they’ll also make your most revered holy sites glow in the dark for a couple of centuries too, so Allah won’t be too happy with you. No virgins for you, Oh destroyer of Mecca.
Besides, what can be done, realistically to stop them? Israel can’t bomb alone, it would need American permission at least, and probably American logistic support as well. So the US has to get involved, which immediately opens them up to a possible blockade of the Hormuz Straits, and the withdrawal of Iranian oil off the export market (remember the 1979 oil shock?). China and Russia have interests here, maybe not worth shooting over, but they have other tools (like the billion plus dollars a day the Chinese lend America. Every day.) And this is assuming that bombing will actually stop or even disrupt the programme, which is not a given as the Iranians have learnt a few things from the bombing of Iraq. Bombing is an empty threat, and will only happen when the US (not Israel) is truly desperate.
It might be better to dial back the rhetoric about 12 notches, and focus on the real nuclear basketcase, which is Pakistan, our staunch ally in the never-ending struggle against Terror. The Pakistanis have nukes, they have Islamic extremists and they have an increasingly fragile government controlling an increasingly volitile state of disparate nations. Good luck with that one.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
So what you’re saying is that even tho he KNOWS that the international community will be looking at every nuance of phrasing of his speeches in order to determine Iran’s position, and even tho he KNOWS that a particular interpretation can mean the difference between war or not, Ahmadinejad still chooses to use ambiguous language.
Why would he use such ambiguous language when so much is at stake, both for Israel and for Iran? He either doesn’t care if there is a war, or wants a war. But one where he can play the victim in the eyes of apologists for anti-semitism. Because there seem to be a whole lot of David Irving types around trying to ignore the overwhelming evidence is favour of argument based on trivia.
I don’t think his English is good enough, nor his precognition, to think that using a Farsi phrase about regime change (not referring to any maps at all) could be translated by others into an English phrase, involving maps, that has connotations of war and genocide. He was certainly talking about the end of the current regime in Israel, but if vocally hoping for regime change in another country is a threat of war and genocide, he’s in large and (by some) respected company.
Are you so certain that you never post anything on this blog that could be, when translated by someone else, have connotations in Farsi, using turns of phrase that don’t exist in English, far beyond or alien to your intended meaning?
As I said, he says plenty of troublesome things. There is a lot of anti-Israel sentiment in his country, which he uses to his advantage in garnering popularity. But this particular thing – “wipe Israel off the map” – is not one of them. It was leapt on by the mainstream media before they knew their mistake – though one can hardly blame them for not double-checking a translation from Iran’s own media. And then it was repeated like a religious mantra by everyone in the world with the slightest hard-on for denouncing the (in the racist terms of one poster in this thread) “sand shufflers”.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Roger thinks one columnist makes a paper. Wow that means the Dominion Post has a communist editorial slant because Chris Trotter has a weekly column with them.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Tane W > Besides, what can be done, realistically to stop them?
I can’t imagine that its within the powers of Iran to block the Straits. And any cut off of Iranian oil is going to hurt them more than anyone else. We’ve already shown that you can double the price of oil without doing much more than slowing down Western economies, whereas without oil receipts rolling in, the Iranians either have to stop paying most of their population, or start printing money at Mugabe rates.
I’d be guessing that the Americans won’t be happy allowing Iran access to WMD. It’d give Iran a veto ability on regional issues and also allow them to make trouble in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza without fear of retribution. That’d lead to situations that, experience shows, the US ends up having to fix. Better to deal with issues early, rather than let them fester.
So why wouldn’t the US cooperate with Israeli? Either joining in air strikes, just ignoring Israeli ones, or even letting the Israelis refuel either in or over Iraq. How effective would they be? Not as effective as they should, but probably effective enough. It worked at Osirak, and recently in Syria. Personally, I’d hope that they could incorporate some special forces types, trashing the stuff hidden underground… helicoptered in and out from a US base in Iraq, perhaps?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
DPF – The Dom Post is widely considered centrist I would have thought? Also, Trotter can be pretty reactionary at times. I wouldn’t put him in the far-left camp. Matt Robson and McCarten on the other hand…
Anyhow, I think the main point to take away is that not everyone at the NYT is a lefty – so your story isn’t necessarily from a left wing source. I think I proved my case there.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Contrary to what has been claimed here, the BBC has not retracted the translation. When someone complained to the governors, this was their finding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/text/apps_aprjun2006_text.html
Also Reuters makes the same translation:
http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu?s=ahmadinejad&_ctl24.x=0&_ctl24.y=0&_ctl24=Search
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Wodga is so far left Trotskey is centre right.
Classic stuff.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Ryan S > Are you so certain that you never post anything on this blog that could be, when translated by someone else, have connotations in Farsi, using turns of phrase that don’t exist in English, far beyond or alien to your intended meaning?
I’m not the president of a country that is making statements that determine whether my country is involved in a war or not.
When the US President makes a speech about foreign policy, you can bet that dozens of senior people from several different agencies have reviewed the speech and discussed every word and phrase and nuance. This even happens with presidential candidates, with Obama using a pro-Israel phrase recently to a Jewish forum which he is now claiming was a mistake… yeah right! If the Iranians don’t do this, then they have to live with the consequences of their own ambiguity. But then I think ambiguity is exactly what they were aiming for, so that people like you would defend them while they hint at planning genocide and develop the tools to follow through with those plans.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
muzza -
Trotter has written some pretty anti-green, anti-Maori Party stuff in the recent past. I reckon he’s probably centre left these days.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Roger, you always think you’ve proved your case. You are almost always wrong. Maybe you should take that into account when you’re summing up – you thinking you’re right has a very low correlation with reality, and you should make allowances for that.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Yeah he’s “mainstream” alright.
Oh god I have to stop reading, too much laughing.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
PaulL – That’s a meaningless thing to say. Are you arguing that all reporters and stories associated with the New York Times are left leaning? If so why do you believe that, in spite of my showing that at least one of its reporters has close connections with the far-right neocons?
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
love whale oil pic even funnier
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“What do you mean “even the New York Times”? Sure, they’re no “fox-news”, but they’re a moderate centre-right, pro-establishment paper.”
Staggering. Utterly staggering. You unbelievably ignorant narrow minded stupid little know nothing communist dipshit. If you don’t know that the NYT is utterly loathed by everyone who isn’t a blind far left extremist like yourself then what the damn hell will you ever know? The editors and owners and most of the so called journalists should have been hung for treason years ago. Piss off you ignorant time wasting child. Jeez you’re so damn ignorant I dunno why you would ever think you were even half qualified to clog up the blogosphere with the tripe you call truth but is really just deliriously uninformed fable legend delusion and ignorant bigoted opinion.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Roger, no, I’m not arguing that. Did I say anything like that? You argued that the NYT is centre right based on one columnist. You then claimed you had proved your case. The only thing you proved is that you are an idiot.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Also I wouldn’t say 1/4 of Iran’s offensive capability is Photoshop;
Vote:Once you fire a rocket you generally can’t take it back and use it again, so I would have said that the Photoshop rocket is now 100% of their offensive capability, as that is the only rocket they have which is as good now as it was before the test…
July 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
roger nome (3715) –3 Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
“Trotter has written some pretty anti-green, anti-Maori Party stuff in the recent past. I reckon he’s probably centre left these days.”
Murray (895) +0 Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“Yeah he’s “mainstream” alright.
Oh god I have to stop reading, too much laughing”
Me too: Trotter “centre left”??????????????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa……….
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
When the US President makes a speech about foreign policy, you can bet that dozens of senior people from several different agencies have reviewed the speech and discussed every word and phrase and nuance. This even happens with presidential candidates, with Obama using a pro-Israel phrase recently to a Jewish forum which he is now claiming was a mistake… yeah right! If the Iranians don’t do this, then they have to live with the consequences of their own ambiguity. But then I think ambiguity is exactly what they were aiming for, so that people like you would defend them while they hint at planning genocide and develop the tools to follow through with those plans.
DavidP, my point was that this is something that could not have been foreseen and avoided. It wasn’t that he especially risked ambiguous language being misinterpreted. It was a translation into English by someone else, using a phrase that has connotations in English that did not exist in the original Farsi. It was in a speech at a conference about regime change in Israel, so there were always going to be elements that were critical of what they consider the Zionist regime. But the connotations of the English phrase “wiped off the map” were not present in the original Farsi. It was unforeseeable.
There is no ambiguity about Ahmadinejad’s desire for regime change in Israel, just as there is no ambiguity about Bush’s desire for regime change in Iran (“axis of evil”, for instance). I am not saying that he was walking a fine line between being anti-Zionist and being diplomatic and has been unfairly misinterpreted on the side of anti-Zionism. He is very openly and unambiguously anti-Zionist. But the “wiped of the map”, with the connotations it has in English, were never made in the original.
At a conference about a “World Without Zionism”, he made mention in his speech of a world without Zionism. That’s all.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
DavidP.
“I can’t imagine that its within the powers of Iran to block the Straits. And any cut off of Iranian oil is going to hurt them more than anyone else. We’ve already shown that you can double the price of oil without doing much more than slowing down Western economies…(snip)”
Iran couldn’t block the straits indefinitely, though I’m guessing a week or two wouldn’t be out of the question. Even letting random mines float free could be enough to stop insurers providing cover for tankers, or at least hiking the rates up into the stratosphere. And while a cessation of oil exports to the West would have huge consequences to Iran’s economy, it would have a huge impact here too. Yeah, doubling the price has only slowed Western economies so far (though the full effects haven’t yet filtered through), but double the price again, or even better, make some of it unavailable at any price and see what happens. It won’t be pretty.
Oh, and those Shia in southern and central Iraq who are being fairly quiet at the moment might get upset that their religous brothers are under the hammer. Yeah, they’re Arabs, the Iranians are Persians, they don’t like each other’s language. But I’m guessing they’ll raise a shit-storm that the US hasn’t encountered in the last, what five years? The US military agrees, and it seems that reading between the lines, they’re the ones who’re against the idea. After all, they know just how overstretched they are (particularly the Army and Marines).
Sending in Special Forces with masses of bombers is all very Tom Clancy and cool, but doing this will be the opening shots of the Third World War. You can bet the Chinese won’t sit back and let another huge slice of the world’s oil reserves slide under US control, and while they might not start shooting, they’ll find other ways to stick it to the Yanks. Stopping their loans to the US Govt would be a logical step. Hmm, how will the Yanks finance another war with a declining economy/tax receipts and no credit?
I can understand why you can see direct offensive action might be a good idea. I don’t think it is. If nothing else, for every action there are at least three unintended consequences, at least two of them bad. I think bombing Iran qualifies, with interest.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
When Trotter criticizes the left (and he does) it’s because they are not left enough.
I’m laughing with Murray and others. Great stuff Roger. With those rose tinted glasses, you look just like John Lennon.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Tane, I don’t agree with your analysis that this would be the first shot of the third world war. I do agree that Israel attacking Iran is pointless – I did a decision tree on this a couple of years back.
There are two options, attack or let them have the bomb. (I’m assuming here that all attempts at diplomacy will fail, and that Iran’s intent is actually to have a bomb, rather than them just having really weird ways to diversify their economy into nuclear technologies).
If we let them have the bomb, we have, say, a 5-10% chance they use it or give it to someone who uses it. And a 90-95% chance that nothing particularly bad happens. I personally think the chances of them using it are smaller, but it illustrates the point.
If Israel attempts to “take them out”, then one of two things can happen. The Iranians might say “ah well, it was never meant to be” and stop trying. 5% chance at best. Or, they might try again to build one, but this time put their facilities further underground, more hidden etc etc. So 5% chance of it actually stopping them getting the bomb. But, if they do get the bomb, the chance of them using it just went up. Because last time they lost it before they used it, so logically the thing to do is to use it or give it away as soon as you get it. So now the chance of them using it became 10-15%, or something like it.
If you work out all the relative costs and benefits, pretty much irrespective of the percentages you choose, any likelihood that bombing the Iranians makes them more likely to use the bomb when they eventually get it, means that it will outweigh any other option. It is really poor option taking.
Threatening to do something, however, has really no costs at all. I hope that is what the Israelis are doing.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I think you are trying to approximate an analysis based on game theory there paull.
hmmm
I agree with the analysis, however what about religios fanaticism, the 12th Iman and all that. Plus the Republican Guards, plus of course what happened to Saddam’s reactor and then his regime.
Anyone on the Iranian side working the numbers must accept a not-trivial probability that the US through Israel or Iraq may try and stop them.
Does this change the incentives on the Iranians to move straight to delivery? I suspect it increases this probability a bit.
Hence what do you do?
a) do nothing – they may distribute or use the weapon
b) do nothing – the weapon makes Iran feel more secure, it does nothing and the situation settles
c) act – but elsewhere- demonstrate you mean business (possibly as per Syria, certainly worked for Libya)
d) act – successfully disrupt the programme – forces them to stop and rething strategy
e) act – successfully disrupts the programme – forces them to go more covert and more aggressive
f) act – but fail – programme not disrupted, you lose first move advantage – what then?
f)i Iran strikes
f)ii Iran negotiates from strength -but what do they want?
Very complex equation. I hope Iran just decides to stop. But unlike idiot Phillip John Mason, I think the rhetoric from Iran is indesputable -you don’t need to go for an Arabist apologist like Cole – just look at the Iranian state media translation. Look at the video clip – notice the mushroom cloud and the missiles around the podium, you don’t need those for peaceful energy!
On balance therefore I go for sins of commission not omission, particularly if it was my country being threatened with nuclear armegeddon. But then I’m an evil neocon, so I would say that.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I find it almost unbelievable that many people on this thread appear hardly to recognise even the mere possibility that Israel is an extremely manipulative ME player.
Believing that Israel plays the straightest hand possible given she is surrounded by a seething cauldron of hatred and evil is useful idiot stuff of the highest magnitude.
It’s interesting for example that the two primary threats to Israel are Iran and Iraq, isn’t it.
Personally I also find interesting how in lockstep both US and Israeli ME diplomacy is, with respect to Israel’s particular issues it has at the time, extending even to minor countries like Lebanon and Syria. I also look at the influence of AIPAC and the emanations from congress and the WH.
I look at things like Olmert’s War in Lebanon which was following a battle-plan and was obviously not to look for two soldiers, and I think to myself, why did Israel need to drop millions of bomblets in South Lebanon in the last three days of the war, which need expensive clean-up. I believe one of our clearance teams is currently operating there. Idiots will argue she needed to keep out the terrorists. Duh – they did not do it for area denial. So why did they need to do that?
For example.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
You come in late in the evening after a hard days’ work followed by a hard evening of schmoozing, and you read DPF for a bit of entertainment, finding the most blackly cute photoshop art you’ve seen for ages. Your first reaction is to think to post “Christ, that’s cute”.
Then you read about 10 messages down and think “Too heavy, too much wine, too hard”.
Such is life.
Vote:July 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I still cant believe, after all the lies, and mass media garbage that convinced the western world to support Bush and Cheney to attack Iraq, somehow tied to 911, then WMD’s then Iraqi freedom, a large proportion or the world NOW believe again that Iran is the current major threat.
1 Can anyone supply real documented proof that Iran has been building a weapon?
2 Ask the Supreme leader the Ayatollah why he always rejects Nukes, yet may support building them, if that’s the case.
3 Supply proof that Iran has threatened war in the FIRST instance.
4 Answer why Iran is part of the NPT and not allowed this technology YET Israel is NOT part of the NPT yet can illegally have 200 nukes supplied by the USA.
5 Provide answers to why Iran must abide by western laws of democracy yet Israel can drop WMD on civilians and the USA can fund and supply weapons and money to terrorists, like the current funding of CIA operations in Iran right now to overthrow their government.
6 Answer why talks by the Iranian Govt has always been rejected, then why US media constantly saying Iran rejects all talks.
7 Why Iranian Oil reserves were lobbied in Whitehouse circles, along with Iraq’s before the war.
8 Why in the words of Ron Paul, are Congressmen going around joking about killing Iranians.
9 Why we have not learnt anything from Iraq and bombing Iran will devastate western economies and collapse the US economy.
When the Iran president talks about Israel, he does not condemn the Jewish people. This is evident because 20,000 Jews live in Iran peacefully and form part of their Govt. What he does condemn is the scourge of Zionism. The filth that has infested the US, and put the needs of Israel above that of Americans.
Zionist beliefs have infiltrated all areas of congress, Govt, Security and Military. Read any US blog and you will see growing distrust and even disgust of how Israel interests have surpassed that of Americans. How US strategic media, security and weaponry have been sold out to Israeli firms.
How lopsided news highlights Palestinian attacks and Jewish deaths yet hardly a mentions of how Israelis sniper children daily, how they bulldozer houses with families still in them, how they treat others like dogs at checkpoints, how they champion bombing raids in Parliament, how they regularly use WMD and Phosphorus bombs on civilians.
Iran has a right to exist; it is a peaceful country and from the start of 911, supported the US in capturing suspected terrorists voluntarily.
To this day still stop 80% of Afganistans drugs from reaching the US, in the process losing hundreds of police lives.
To attack Iran would, join a devided country into one force of resistance, as said the worlds biggest Jihad movement ever.
Will push up oil to $200 to $300 a barrel.
Will collapse the US economy.
May instigate a flowon effect to a world war.
Would intangle Russia and China.
Would cause the deaths of any American of Co-ilition troops in that area and Iraq as they will join with Iran.
Will intigate Israel to bomb Iran as always intended, but Iran will fire enough Bio weapons that will destroy 80% of Israels population.
Open a pandoras box of Nukes, and mass radiation drift accross Europe.
Will cause panic worldwide whereas Bushes already set up martial laws come into effect, and Haliburton hundreds of now completed US detentions centres will open to dissidents.
Whos more nuttier, a President whos words you cant even understand or a President who wants to bomb everyone into democracy and bring the rapture.
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 4:31 am
There is a very interesting analysis/interview, on the fragility of the Iranain regime:”The Mullahs Dead End”, by Jamie Glazov
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=10622C9E-1364-4C87-9F27-5C5638B7E176
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 4:34 am
itiswhatitis (31) –1 Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“I still cant believe, after all the lies, and mass media garbage that convinced the western world to support Bush and Cheney to attack Iraq, somehow tied to 911, then WMD’s then Iraqi freedom, a large proportion or the world NOW believe again that Iran is the current major threat.
1. Can anyone supply real documented proof that Iran has been building a weapon?………..”
Well, DUH. I suppose if you get all your information from “Uncensored” Magazine and similar agitprop, this level of ignorance can result. SAD…………
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Yikes, I have never read so much anti-semitic, “Jewish conspiracy” BS as has been spouted by itiswhatitis on this site. It is almost as frightening as Iran. Such people wish Jews (or “Israelis” or “Zionists” or whatever term they use) to be responsible for all the world’s problems because then the solution would be easy. Sadly, the world isn’t that simple.
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Iran is down with OPP.
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
http://dlow.org/index.php?/project/tell-a-lie/
Just some more Photoshopping.
Vote:July 17th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The posting by Itiswhatitis (July 16th) is a dead giveaway unambiguously representing that it is what it is, a sympathetic agent encompassing all the hallmarks of crude Iranian subterfuge who, if the speculation is anything to go by, is acting as a subaltern to Gen. Qassem Soleimani the recently detached regular Revolutionary Guards Corps al Qods commander and now appointed to spearhead action against the US and Israel and having direct contact to Iran’s supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
It would be advisable for Itiswhatitis to play a straight bat and not make a slip in the imagery of Iranian propaganda by revealing just a snippet of how intrinsically weak the Iranian regime is after having wrecked that country’s economy and earned the enmity of its population which yearns to be free of this tyranny and has been emboldened by the weakness of the west to crack down ever more ferociously on Iran’s suffering population. Such a slip-up would invoke a horror onto Itiswhatitis by the enforcement agencies of this apocalyptic messianic Islamist sect, similar to the outcome of a draft bill currently being debated that would force an onslaught onto Iranian bloggers – the world’s window into Iran – who are now to be punished by mutilation or death:
“Iran’s parliament is set to debate a draft bill which could see the death penalty used for those deemed to promote corruption, prostitution and apostasy on the internet, reports said on Wednesday. MPs on Wednesday voted to discuss as a priority the draft bill which seeks to ‘toughen punishment for harming mental security in society,’ the ISNA news agency said. The text lists a wide range of crimes such rape and armed robbery for which the death penalty is already applicable. The crime of apostasy (the act of leaving a religion, in this case Islam) is also already punishable by death.
Vote:However, the draft bill also includes ‘establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy’, which is a new addition to crimes punishable by death. Those convicted of these crimes ‘should be punished as “mohareb” (enemy of God) and “corrupt on the earth”,’ the text says. Under Iranian law the standard punishments for these two crimes are ‘hanging, amputation of the right hand and then the left foot as well as exile’”.