Mistranslation Serving War Propaganda: Did He Say THAT?

by **StarmanSkye** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:33 pm

<a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm">www.informationclearingho...e12790.htm</a> Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust? An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad . By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann Translation to English: Erik Appleby 04/19/06 "Kein Krieg!" -- -- - "But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course -- (applause) -- the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and -- (applause.)" George W. Bush, US-President, 2006-03-20 in Cleveland (Ohio) in an off-the-cuff speech (source: www.whitehouse.gov) But why does Bush speak of Iran's objective to destroy Israel? Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map? To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world. But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30: "They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." (source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below) It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed. Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy. This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig - namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda. Marginally we want to mention that it was the former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is assured. Let's pick an example: the German online-news-magazine tagesschau.de writes the following about Iran's president on 2005-10-27: "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in countenance of the Islamic world." Instead of using the original word 'wave' they write 'wave of assaults'. This replacement of the original text is what we call disinformation. E.g. it would be correct to say: "The new movement in Palestine will erase the stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." Additionally this statement refers to the occupation regime mentioned in the previous sentence. As a precaution we will examine a different translation of the speech - a version prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington: "They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved. [[[...]]] "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime [[[...]]] and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country [[[...]]] Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable." (source: <a href="http://memri.org,">memri.org,</a> based on the publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by MEMRI in squared brackets -- missing passages compared to the 'New York Times' in triple squared brackets) The term 'map' to which the media refer at length does not even appear. Whereas the 'New York Times' said: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" the version by MEMRI is: "Imam [Khomeini] said: This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history." MEMRI added the following prefixed formulation to their translation as a kind of title: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable". Thereby they take it out of context by using the insertion 'i.e. Israel' they distort the meaning on purpose. The temporal tapering 'very soon' does not appear in the NY-Times-translation either. Besides it is striking that MEMRI deleted all passages in their translation which characterize the US-supported Shah-Regime as a regime of terror and at the same time show the true character of US-American policy. An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time. The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking. Again following the independent translation: "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world". It must be allowed to ask how it is possible that 'spirtual movement' resp. 'wave of morality' (as translated by MEMRI) and 'wave of assaults' can be equated and translated (like e.g tagesschau.de published it). Does Iran's President deny the Holocaust? "The German government condemned the repetitive offending anti-Israel statements by Ahmadinejad to be shocking. Such behaviour is not tolerable, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated. [...] Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed Ahmadinejad's statements to be 'inconceivable'" (published by tagesschau.de 2005-12-14. But not only the German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and the Federal Chancellor Merkel allege this, but the Bild-Zeitung, tagesschau.de, parts of the peace movement, US-President George W. Bush, the 'Papers for German and international politics', CNN, the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, almost the entire world does so, too: Iran's President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. What is this assertion based on? In substance it is based on dispatches of 2 days - 2005-12-14 and 2006-02-11. "The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and the Western states and has denied the Holocaust. Instead of making Israel's attacks against Palestine a subject of discussion 'the Western states devote their energy to the fairy-tale of the massacre against the Jews', Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a speech at Zahedan in the south-east of Iran which was broadcasted directly by the news-channel Khabar. That day he stated that if the Western states really believe in the assassination of six million Jews in W.W. II they should put a piece of land in Europe, in the USA, Canada or Alaska at Israel's disposal." - dispatch of the German press agency DPA, 2005-12-14. The German TV-station n24 spreads the following on 2006-12-14 using the title 'Iran's President calls the Holocaust a myth': "The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and called the Holocaust a 'myth' used as a pretext by the Europeans to found a Jewish state in the center of the Islamic world . 'In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets' the Iranian head of state said." The Iranian press agency IRNA renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows: "'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.' [...] 'If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there.' [...] Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets [...] The president further said, 'If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.'" There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust. CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: "If you have burned the Jews why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?" The Washingtonian ''Middle East Media Research Institute' (MEMRI) renders Ahmadinejad's statements from 2005-12-14 as follows: "...we ask you: if you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed people of Palestine be punished for it? * [...] If you committed a crime, you yourselves should pay for it. Our offer was and remains as follows: If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal - a piece of Europe, of America, of Canada, or of Alaska - so they can establish their own state. Rest assured that if you do so, the Iranian people will voice no objection." The MEMRI-rendering uses the relieving translation 'great crime' and misappropriates the following sentence at the * marked passage: "Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions." This sentence has obviously been left out deliberately because it would intimate why the Israeli state could have forfeited the right to establish itself in Palestine - videlicet because of its aggressive expansionist policy against the people of Palestine, ignoring any law of nations and disobeying all UN-resolutions. In spite of the variability referring to the rendering of the statements of Iran's President we should nevertheless note down: the reproach of denying the Holocaust cannot be sustained if Ahmadinejad speaks of a great and huge crime that has been done to the Jews. In another IRNA-dispatch (2005-12-14) the Arabian author Ghazi Abu Daqa writes about Ahmadinejad: "The Iranian president has nothing against the followers of Judaism [...] Ahmadinejad is against Zionism as well as its expansionist and occupying policy. That is why he managed to declare to the world with courage that there is no place for the Zionist regime in the world civilized community." It's no wonder that such opinions do not go down particularly well with the ideas of the centers of power in the Western world. But for this reason they are not wrong right away. Dealing out criticism against the aggressive policy of the Western world, to which Israel belongs as well, is not yet anti-Semitism. We should at least to give audience to this kind of criticism - even if it is a problematic field for us. 2006-02-11 Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA: "[...] the real holocaust should be sought in Palestine, where the blood of the oppressed nation is shed every day and Iraq, where the defenceless Muslim people are killed daily. [...] 'Some western governments, in particular the US, approve of the sacrilege on the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), while denial of the >Myth of Holocaust<, based on which the Zionists have been exerting pressure upon other countries for the past 60 years and kill the innocent Palestinians, is considered as a crime' [...]" The assertion that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust thus is wrong in more than one aspect. He does not deny the Holocaust, but speaks of denial itself. And he does not speak of denial of the Holocaust, but of denial of the Myth of Holocaust. This is something totally different. All in all he speaks of the exploitation of the Holocaust. The Myth of Holocaust, like it is made a subject of discussion by Ahmadinejad, is a myth that has been built up in conjunction with the Holocaust to - as he says - put pressure onto somebody. We might follow this train of thoughts or we might not. But we cannot equalize his thoughts with denial of the Holocaust. If Ahmadinejad according to this 2006-02-11 condemns the fact that it is forbidden and treated as a crime to do research into the Myth of Holocaust, as we find it quoted in the MEMRI translation, this acquires a meaning much different from the common and wide-spread one. If the myth related to the Holocaust is commuted to a 'Fairy Tale of the Massacre' - like the DPA did - this can only be understood as a malicious misinterpretation. By the use of misrepresentation and adulteration it apparently succeeded to constitute the statements of the Iranian President to be part and parcel of the currently fought propaganda battle. It is our responsibility to counter this. Concluding: A dispatch by Reuters confirms 2006-02-21: "The Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki has [...] repudiated that his state would want the Jewish state Israel 'wiped off the map'. [...] Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. 'Nobody can erase a country from the map.' Ahmadinejad was not thinking of the state of Israel but of their regime [...]. 'We do not accredit this regime to be legitimate.' [...] Mottaki also accepted that the Holocaust really took place in a way that six million Jews were murdered during the era of National Socialism." The next step is to connect the Iranian President with Hitler. 2006-02-20 the Chairman of the Counsil of Jews in France (Crif) says in Paris: "The Iranian President's assertions do not rank behind Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'". Paul Spiegel, President of the Central Counsil of Jews in Germany, 2005-12-10 in the 'Welt' qualifies the statements of Ahmadinejad to be "the worst comment on this subject that he has ever heard of a statesman since A. Hitler". At the White House the Iranian President is even named Hitler. And the German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel as well moves over Iran's President towards Hitler and National Socialism by saying 2006-02-04 in Munich: "Already in the early 1930's many people said that it is only rhetoric. One could have prevented a lot in time if one had acted... Germany is in the debt to resist the incipiencies and to do anything to make clear where the limit of tolerance is. Iran remains in control of the situation, it is still in their hands." All this indicates war. Slobodan Milosevic became Hitler. The result was the war of the Nato against Yugoslavia. Saddam Hussein became Hitler. What followed was the war the USA and their coalition of compliant partners waged against Iraq. Now the Iranian President becomes Hitler. And someone who is Hitler-like can assure a hundred times that he only wants to use nuclear energy in a peaceful way. Nobody will believe him. Somebody like Hitler can act within the scope of all contracts. Acting contrary to contract will nevertheless be imputed to him. "Virtually none of the Western states recognize that uranium enrichment is absolutely legal. There is no restriction by contract or by the law of nations. Quite the contrary: Actually the Western countries would have the duty to assist Iran with these activities, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as a state renounces the bomb it is eligible for technical support by the nuclear powers." (Jörg Pfuhl, ARD radio studio Istanbul 2006-01-11) But - all this does not count if the Head of a state is stigmatized as Hitler. ****** The Messianic Neocon Chickenhawks (in collusion with the 'Nuke 'em First!' Idjits in the Pentagon) sure have the Mass Media buffaloed not just in the US but in the UK and Germany too, to follow the demonization 'nuclear-armed wannabe-Hitler' script. And the cud-chewing rubes just eat it up, eh? And so it goes... Starman

by **hmm** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:23 am

There is no truth,everything about the western world is a lie, we are morally bankrupt and i feel we almost deserve the future these "people" are preparing for us for our stupidity, greed, and lack of empathy... <blockquote>Quote:<hr> MEMRI was founded by a retired Israeli colonel from military intelligence, and co-run by Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser. David Wurmser is close to the Likud Party in Israel and served in Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon, where he helped manufacture the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to al-Qaeda. David Wurmser, who wants to get up American wars against both Iran and Syria, then moved over to Vice President Dick Cheney's rump national security team. MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year by someone, and it is a sophisticated anti-Arab propaganda machine.<hr></blockquote> Meyrav Wurmser co-wrote the infamous "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for more info: <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3899.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3899.topic</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>US army internal briefing:The Zarqawi PSYOP program<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm17.showMessage?topicID=28.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=28.topic</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>1 degree of separation: Al-Qaida terror message & neocon<hr></blockquote>

by **starroute** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:08 am

A little more on Meyrav Wurmser, from an article on the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI): <blockquote>Quote:<hr><a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Is_Iran_Next.html">www.thirdworldtraveler.co..._Next.html</a> The CDI's Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on "the future of Iran' sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute's Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney's leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Un Lubrani of Israel's Ministry of Defense. Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: "Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster."<hr></blockquote> And this, from a recent article in The American Prospect, on her husband: <blockquote>Quote:<hr><a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11401">www.prospect.org/web/page...leId=11401</a> Even among ardent supporters of Israel, Wurmser -- and his wife, Meyrav, who runs the Hudson Institute’s Middle East program -- is considered an extremist. In 1996, the Wurmsers, Perle, and Feith co-authored the famous “Clean Break” paper for then–Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, which called for radical measures to redraw the map of the entire Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine) to benefit Israel. Later, in a series of papers and a book, Wurmser argued that toppling Saddam was likely to lead directly to civil war and the breakup of Iraq, but he supported the policy anyway: “The residual unity of [Iraq] is an illusion projected by the extreme repression of the state.” After Saddam, Iraq will “be ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,” he wrote. “Underneath facades of unity enforced by state repression, [Iraq’s] politics is defined primarily by tribalism, sectarianism, and gang/clan-like competition.” Yet Wurmser explicitly urged the United States and Israel to “expedite” such a collapse. “The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance.” Later, with former cia director James Woolsey and others, Wurmser proposed restoring the Jordan-based Hashemite monarchy in Iraq. While Wurmser’s OVP allies may share his neoconservative fantasies of the willy-nilly reorganization of the Middle East, few experts do. “I’ve known him for years, and I consider him to be a naive simpleton,” says a former U.S. ambassador. Adds Wilkerson, “A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own.”<hr></blockquote> Meyrav Wurmser is also a client of Benador Associates, the PR firm founded after 9/11 to propagandize for regime change in the Middle East. She is not just a Neocon but a professional propagandist, and MEMRI's mistranslations have done a world of harm.

by **wordspeak** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:02 pm

The Murmsers and MEMRI are one side of the coin, but there's another. I want to post this article in full that I linked to in the previous thread, in case people missed it. <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/helping.htm">emperors-clothes.com/docs/helping.htm</a> Iran is Working with the US in Iraq If the U.S. has hostile intentions towards Iran, shouldn't someone tell the Iranians? Following my comments is an article from the London Financial Times about Iranian involvement in the current US-British invasion of Iraq. According to the Financial Times: [Start Financial Times excerpt] Iran is the only one of Iraq's neighbours that wholeheartedly supports regime change in Baghdad, even if via a US-led invasion. ...Since becoming convinced that the Bush administration is indeed determined to effect forcible change in Iraq, Tehran has been egging on Washington, albeit in private. Whenever the US has needed Tehran's help, the Iranians have been more than happy to oblige. -- From "War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour of Revenge," Financial Times  [End Financial Times excerpt] This contradicts the popular notion that a) this is a war against Islam per se and therefore b) Iran "is next." The "Iran is next" line is very popular. Yesterday I got together with a friend, a Palestinian Arab. He tends to be apolitical but of course we talked about Iraq. We agreed that Saddam Hussein's Baath party is fascist. We agreed that the US war will not - was never intended - to bring democracy to Iraq. He expressed concern for U.S. soldiers. I expressed concern for ordinary Iraqis. And then he leaned forward and half-whispered, as if afraid of being overheard, "Do you think they'll attack Iran next?" ========================================================= Public enemy, private friend ========================================================= The US attack puts Iran in an interesting position. While Iran Radio can proclaim... "With the beginning of the illegitimate war on Iraq and particularly with the offensives spreading to the cities and civilian targets, the necessity for the immediate involvement of the UN and particularly the Security Council to stop the war has increased more than ever before." -- Iranian Radio, March 27, 2003 [1] ...much evidence suggests the Iranian leaders take a different approach on the ground. Consider the following interview with Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). SCIRI is an Iran-sponsored Iraqi opposition group, with a base among the majority Shi'ite population of Iraq. He was interviewed on Iranian TV March 7th. Asked how he would feel if the US invaded Iraq *despite Security Council opposition* he said: "The Iraqi people want to get rid of the Iraqi regime and Saddam's regime in any way possible. The regime is a source of torture, suppression and destruction for the Iraqi people.... However, if America wants to enter Iraq to act as an occupier and to control Iraq, then undoubtedly no single Iraqi is going to accept this. They will oppose it. All the Iraqi opposition parties have rejected such an approach...However, if their aim is to destroy the Iraqi regime and to allow the Iraqi people to conduct their own affairs, then the Iraqi people will welcome this. The Iraqi people know that a war now will be destructive for the infrastructure and there is going to be heavy civilian casualties, but despite all this and if they are given the assurances that the war is going to lead to the destruction of Saddam and his regime they approve it." [1A] Note that Hakim openly - on TV - welcomed a unilateral US invasion! A US invasion that Iranian government radio officially labeled "illegitimate." Indeed, he welcomed an invasion that he himself said would mean "heavy civilian casualties." Keep in mind that Mr. Hakim's SCIRI is dominated by pro-Iranian Islamic fundamentalists, is based in Iran, is sponsored by Iran, and its militia is armed by the Iranian government. It presently has thousands of soldiers in Northern Iraq. So, to put it bluntly, Mr. Hakim is expressing the real Iranian policy: support for a US invasion despite the certainty of heavy civilian casualties. Of course, it is true that Mr. Hakim says he doesn't want a US military occupation. But doesn't he have to say that? How could any Iraqi opposition group maintain its credibility if its leaders did not publicly oppose military occupation? By the same token, now that the fighting has started, the Iranian media is now denouncing the U.S. invasion as the work of Satan. This mixture of cooperation and denunciation results from the contradictory character of the US government-Iranian relationship. On the one hand, very public expressions of mutual hostility are needed to mobilize the core groups on whom the US-led empire and the Iranian fundamentalists rely. For the US empire, it is crucial to have the support of people who oppose Islamic terrorism and fear Islamic fundamentalist expansion. For the Iranians, the core group is militant Muslims and non-Muslims who oppose US hegemony. While Mr. Bush and the Iranian leaders say harsh things about one another in public, there is considerable evidence they work together behind the scenes. And there is evidence that there is more at stake in this relationship than only Iraq. ========================================================= A revealing interview ========================================================= For example, consider the excerpt below from Dan Rather's September 16th CBS TV interview with Hamid Karzai. Hamid Karzai is the President of Islamic fundamentalist Afghanistan. I am talking here about post-Taliban Afghanistan and, yes, it is reasonable to say it remains an Islamic fundamentalist state. For example, it is governed by Shari'a, the Islamic law that includes criminal penalties for violating rules of personal conduct, with decisions handed down by religious authorities. [2] By the way, the U.S. *continues* to ship millions of Islamic fundamentalist textbooks into Afghanistan. [2A] Karzai was picked to be President of Afghanistan by Zalmay Khalilzad, the special US envoy for both Afghanistan and Iraq. [3] During the September 16th CBS TV interview, Dan Rather asked President Karzai what he thought about Iran. Here's their exchange: [Start Rather-Karzai excerpt] Karzai: I've had a good experience with Iran. Rather: For many Americans this is confusing, because President Bush has described Iran as a part of the quote 'Axis of Evil'. Karzai: Well, we have made very clear to our neighbors that regardless of what sort of relations they have with the United States of America, that the United States has helped Afghanistan twice -- when the Soviets invaded and now, too, the fight against terrorism has been won with the help of the United States. Rather: You have no problems with Iran? Karzai: I have no problems with them, no.[4] [End Rather-Karzai excerpt] ========================================================= Karzai speaks...but perhaps too honestly ========================================================= In the above excerpt, Dan Rather expressed surprise that Karzai would have positive feelings about Iran: "Rather: For many Americans this is confusing..." But Karzai replied: "Well, we have made very clear to our neighbors that regardless of what sort of relations they have with the United States of America, that the United States has helped Afghanistan twice -- when the Soviets invaded and now, too, the fight against terrorism has been won with the help of the United States." Notice that Dan Rather's comment amounts to a request that Karzai explain why he has positive feelings about Iran, because "for many Americans this is confusing." But Karzai does not address this point at all. Instead, he changes the subject and talks about something that is on his *own* mind, namely, his efforts to sell Iranians on the virtues of cooperating with the US. Now that's an interesting thing for an Afghan President to be talking about to Iranian leaders, isn't it? Since Hamid Karzai works for the US, his overtures to Iran cannot be seen in isolation from US policy. While the US and Iran sometimes attack one another verbally in public, Karzai's remarks are an indication of how they work together in private. But if Karzai has been forging a working relationship with Iran, what is the focus of that relationship? I think the focus is Central Asia and the Caucuses. [4A] As we predicted, the U.S.-led Empire did not take over Afghanistan in order to eliminate Islamic fundamentalist rule there; rather, the fundamentalists were tamed. To what end? So that Afghanistan could be made an effective base from which fundamentalist movements could be fostered all over the Caucuses and Central Asia, thus weakening Russia, China and India. [4B] But to do that most effectively, the U.S. needs the cooperation of Iran. Zalmay Khalilzad, envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq, is a long-time advocate of allying with Iran. [3] He was also the chief strategist of the Pentagon at the outset of the Bosnian war. During that war, the Pentagon coordinated joint efforts by Iran and Saudi Arabia to bring mujahideen from Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere into Bosnia to support the local Islamic fundamentalist faction (the 'government' in Sarajevo) and terrorize Bosnian Serbs and their non-fundamentalist Muslim allies. [5] The Iranian fundamentalists have imperial ambitions. They are interested in Bosnia as a base in Europe. And they are interested in expanding their influence in the Caucuses and Central Asia as well. Concerning Iran's imperial ambitions, consider the importance here of oil. Many opponents of the war think the US has invaded Iraq to get control of the oil resources, but what would be the point of trying to *directly* control oil wells in the face of a population which would, therefore, be unanimously hostile? Oil companies much prefer to work through local elites who therefore have a stake in maintaining social peace. Its more stable, not to mention safer, and in the long run much more profitable. But if Iran can maneuver into a position of great influence in Iraq - a majority of whose population are Shi'ite Muslims, like the Iranians - it may be able to use some of that oil wealth to further its own imperial ambitions. Now, getting back to the belief, held by my friend and many others, that the US will "attack Iran next," let me point out that the Iranian leaders are not fools. They are working with American operatives in Afghanistan and Iraq, just as they worked together - and undoubtedly continue to work together - in Bosnia. They have access to information about US intentions that is not publicly available. And as we saw, the SCIRI's Mr. Hakim, whom the Iranians sponsor, welcomed the US invasion, complete with 'heavy civilian casualties.' Therefore, where is the evidence that the Iranians are worried? Since it appears that the US and Iran are working together, why are various opponents of US policy suddenly saying that Iran is the next target? That is a very good question. We'll try to address it soon. Below is the article from the Financial Times. *** Jared Israel Editor Emperor's Clothes ======================================================== War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour of Revenge By Khairallah Khairallah (London) Financial Times March 24, 2003 Financial Times; March 24, 2003, Monday Usa Edition 1; Section: Comment & Analysis; Pg. 17; Headline: War Sirens Herald Iran's Hour Of Revenge; By Khairallah Khairallah ======================================================== It may be part of George W. Bush's axis of evil; some predict it will be next on the list for US pre-emptive action; but Iran is the only one of Iraq's neighbours that wholeheartedly supports regime change in Baghdad, even if via a US-led invasion. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his government is one of the few objectives on which the various factions of the Tehran regime agree. Since becoming convinced that the Bush administration is indeed determined to effect forcible change in Iraq, Tehran has been egging on Washington, albeit in private. Whenever the US has needed Tehran's help, the Iranians have been more than happy to oblige. Take last December's London conference of Iraqi opposition groups. That gathering would not have been possible had Iran not encouraged its Shia cats-paw, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), to attend. Iran strong-armed Abdulaziz al-Hakim, the Sciri representative, to adopt positions similar to those espoused by Zalmay Khalilzad, the US government representative. In exchange for its efforts, Iran was rewarded with a political statement from the conference that - for the first time in modern Iraqi history - spoke of a "Shia majority" in Iraq. This meant the US was no longer able to ignore the sectarian reality of Iraq. Iran, keen for change in Iraq, realised early on that this could be achieved only with US military involvement. Iranian interference angered many liberal Shia who warned Washington that, by supporting Sciri, they would be committing the same mistake they made when they encouraged Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the Taliban not that many years ago. They warned the Americans that Sciri would cause even more damage to Iraq's relatively open, multicultural and multi-ethnic society than the Taliban managed to inflict on Afghanistan. America, they predicted, would regret having backed Sciri, just as it now regrets helping the Taliban. Liberal Iraqi Sunnis, meanwhile, protested that the Iranians had succeeded in hijacking the Iraqi opposition by entering into a secret alliance with the Kurds and the Americans. One of the main reasons Tehran wants the Hussein regime out of the way is because it has realised it is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of Iran's attempts to increase its influence in the region; especially in Iraq proper, which cannot conceivably retain its old character after the US is done with it. Any new regime in Iraq - whatever its character - will have to take the country's Shia majority into consideration. Should the US fail to reshape Iraq into a prototype for neighbouring countries, Iran (which would in this case become one of the biggest operators in Iraq) would then succeed in sowing more confusion and forcing Washington to involve itself even more in Iraq. As a result, the Americans would increasingly need Iran. Even the hardline conservative faction in Iran believes there are benefits in the US war on Iraq. This faction calculates that by having the US army on Iran's border, it would be able to justify its repressive domestic policies. What better reason for maintaining a hardline stance than having the "Great Satan" on your doorstep? Overthrowing the Ba'athist regime in Iraq has been an Iranian objective since the days of the Shah. Yet Iran's attempts to change the regime have failed despite its support for various Iraqi opposition movements, including the Kurds, for more than 30 years, the 1980-1988 war between the two countries and more than 12 years of sanctions. Tehran therefore came to the conclusion that the only way it could get rid of its old enemy would be through a third party - in this case, the US. Contrary to popular belief, the Iranians have learnt how to co-exist with the Americans, as the experience of Afghanistan has demonstrated. Whether Iraq manages to remain whole, or civil war breaks out, Iran has been preparing itself for some time to play a role in both the US-led war and in post-Hussein Iraq. In fact, the only unanswered question is whether Iranian military intervention will be direct or indirect. Will the Badr brigade, Sciri's military arm, which includes large numbers of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, cross over into Iraq in military or civilian garb? In either case, it seems that the hour of revenge is at hand for the Iranians. Tehran believes it is time to redraw the political map of the Middle East, giving the Shias a bigger role everywhere, from Afghanistan to the Gulf to south Lebanon. The writer is a London-based Lebanese political ana

Website · by **MinM** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:55 am

Thanks for the MEMRI - DEBKAfile - SITE

Selective Memri | World dispatch | Guardian Unlimited

MEMRI Loss

As we have known for some time now, MEMRI, short for the Middle East Media Research Institute, specializes in disinformation by distorting translations of film and print media stories originating in Arabic, Iranian and Turkish media. In essence, what MEMRI does is change the context of news stories by way of mistranslation and excision. Call it MEMRI loss, the deliberate mangling of media. MEMRI did this to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by turning a speech he delivered in 2005 into a racist and genocidal screed. MEMRI accomplished this through mistranslation. Not a day passes now we do not witness corporate media claims Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map. In fact, Ahmadinejad said the “regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.” He did not say Israel must be wiped off the map. But this engineered lie is repeated constantly by the corporate media and to such a degree it is now accepted as fact.

CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS: Rita Katz, SITE and Bin Laden

Al-Qaeda: Sort of Like the Energizer Bunny : Another Day in the Empire

Rita Katz and S.I.T.E.: How two people can find out more than the CIA and FBI Combined. | Wake Up From Your Slumber
Rita Katz and S.I.T.E. are set to release yet another "aL-Qaeda" tape (12-29-07)
Rita Katz folds S.I.T.E. Institute and opens SITE Intelligence Group. Can another Bin Laden tape be in the making? | Wake Up From Your Slumber
Congress, using disinfo from MEMRI, set to cut Egypt's aid | Wake Up From Your Slumber

by **bigearth** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:17 am

i did rather know about this, as i had an independent farsi translation service go thru it for me..surprise surprise, the neo-con pirates were LYING TO US!

seeing as the general theme seems to be bullshit, i would like to draw peoples attention to the following:

The Power of Nightmares

The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis. Its three one-hour parts consist mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration. The series was first broadcast in the United Kingdom in late 2004 and has subsequently been broadcast in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.

The films compare the rise of the Neo-Conservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and claiming similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

The Power of Nightmares has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States. Its message and content have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

they are 3 x 1 hour documentaries that i STRONGLY urge everyone to watch. i have seen it 3 times.

THE documentary for our times..see how they LIED to you.

also (most people prob know this):
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

3 parts:
1 EXCELLENT part on religion,
1 part on 9/11 (the usual stuff),
and the final important scary part on the federal reserve and apparently how david rockerfella knew about OBL before it even happened..("they will go to afghanistan and find nothing")..

enjoy!

Mistranslation Serving War Propaganda: Did He Say THAT?

Mistranslation Serving War Propaganda: Did He Say THAT?

Re: MEMRI = Israeli spies and whitehouse neocons

Re: MEMRI = Israeli spies and whitehouse neocons

but... what' really going on in Iran and Iraq?

Who is online