Sarkozy comments spark Iran row

[Praxius]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Sarkozy comments spark Iran row

Iran has summoned the French ambassador in Tehran over comments made by the French president about his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this week that he would not be able to shake hands with someone who said Israel had to be wiped off the map.

Ambassador Bernard Poletti was told of Iran's strong objections.
He was told there would be repercussions for relations if such remarks were repeated.


In the speech, given on 8 December on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mr Sarkozy said: "How is it that a people such as the Iranian people - one of the world's greatest peoples, one of the world's oldest civilisations, sophisticated, cultured, open - have the misfortune of being represented as they are today by some of their leaders?"

"I have said this to my friend Kofi [Annan]: I find it impossible to shake hands with somebody who has dared to say that Israel must be wiped off the map."

"I know perfectly well that we must resolve what is perhaps the most serious international crisis we are having to resolve: that of Iran moving towards a nuclear bomb."

"We cannot resolve it without talking to Iranian leaders, but, after what was the Shoah, after what was the 20th century, I cannot sit at the same table as a man who dares to say: Israel must be wiped off the map."

The Iranian president has repeatedly called for an end to the Israeli state and has described the holocaust as a myth.
In October 2004, the Iranian president made a statement in which he envisaged the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state.

Well that's a good way to screw up PR with Iran, by repeating the same old crap that has already been clearly explained before, and assuming that they are actually trying to develope nukes when there is still no evidence of this.

It'd be nice if world leaders would pull their heads out of their asses and actually judge based on evidence before they assume something they know nothing about.... because there is no evidence to begin with.

And hanging off of that poor translation in reference to Israel? Just sad.

 

[Tyr]

..and Iran has a problem with that? Hmmm.

 

[Praxius]

..and Iran has a problem with that? Hmmm.

If someone was exaggerating what I have said and meant and throwing acusations my way based on no evidence whatsoever, yeah I'd have a problem too..... esspecially when it comes from a world leader who should be smarter and more mature then that.

Added:

And when you completely cut off any method of communication simply because of what someone said with their "Freedom of Speech/Expression" which was poorly translated to make it sound evil.... just shows poor leadership.

 

[Tyr]

If someone was exaggerating what I have said and meant and throwing acusations my way based on no evidence whatsoever, yeah I'd have a problem too..... esspecially when it comes from a world leader who should be smarter and more mature then that.

Added:

And when you completely cut off any method of communication simply because of what someone said with their "Freedom of Speech/Expression" which was poorly translated to make it sound evil.... just shows poor leadership.

Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this week that he would not be able to shake hands with someone who said Israel had to be wiped off the map


are you saying Ahmadinejad didn't say this? I don't even have to look it up. He's said it so many times that usually that's all people remember him saying....

 

[Praxius]

Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this week that he would not be able to shake hands with someone who said Israel had to be wiped off the map


are you saying Ahmadinejad didn't say this? I don't even have to look it up. He's said it so many times that usually that's all people remember him saying....

Ah yes, you wern't around when we talked about this before..... one moment:

The Iranian leader has in the past called for Israel's elimination, though his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while others say a better translation would be "vanish from the pages of time" -- implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.

CTV.ca | Israel considers military option for Iran nukes

It was already a pain in the arse to find that, so I'll give you the gist of the rest that adds to that:

The people who originally thought he said he wanted Israel wiped off the map was from a piss poor translator who was translating live on the fly who screwed it up..... those who believe he said "vanish from the pages of time" are Iranian translators who actually took the time to correctly translate what he said, since their language doesn't translate very well over to english most times.

And think about it logically, if he really wanted them wiped off the map, why hasn't he continued with his banter about it and has continually said their country has no intentions or desires to get involved with Israel?

A sneak attack?

They're not dumb and they're not all that aggressive in regards to that type of tactic, historically speaking. They as well as the rest of the world already know that attacking flat out, or using nukes would be the stupidest thing to do, and I don't think anybody is in the mood to sacrafice 80% + of their population through a nuclear retaliation, which is why Israel and the US have been talking all tough laitly and making a big deal over nothing.

Take Iraq for example. Their war machine was inactive, they had no plans on attacking anybody, esspecially after the 90's. And they sure as heck didn't have any WMD.

Even US Intelligence eventually corrected themselves and admitted that they never foud anything suspicious.

Of course they reported they wern't allowed everywhere they asked to go, but neither did Iraq..... and if you sent someone to the US, they won't be allowed to go in certain areas either "National Security" and all.

It's all a bunch of fearmongering over nothing, except to win over scared voters.

 

[Praxius]

Oh yeah.... and he only said it once..... in fact, he never really said it period. There was one speech... one translation, that was it and everybody freaked and started throwing their monkey poop.

 

[Just the Facts]

Arguing over whether he said "wiped off the map" or "vanish from the pages of time" is kinda like arguing over whether someone said "I'm gonna put you six feet under" or "the next time I see you your days are numbered".

The difference is really immaterial.

 

[Praxius]

Arguing over whether he said "wiped off the map" or "vanish from the pages of time" is kinda like arguing over whether someone said "I'm gonna put you six feet under" or "the next time I see you your days are numbered".

The difference is really immaterial.

Uh no, one means distruction by your own hands, the other is just wishing ill will but not a threat.

That's like me hoping some guy I don't like get's hit by a bus and dies..... I didn't threaten to kill him, but if something happens, I wouldn't be shedding a tear.

Just because I don't like a few countries in the world or someone and I got bad things to say about them, doesn't mean I am going to take action to make sure something unfortunate happens to them.

There is a big difference and if you can't see the difference and simply just want to believe what everybody ignorantly jumped on at the first word of fear, well there's not much point in continuing to debate the situation.

And your examples are not really good examples based on what each term means.

It's sort of like how I word myself. I may come off as an asshole, but I'm just saying what comes to mind without delay, and this is how most of the people I talk to talk where I live at least. I'm not purposely trying to sound like a jerk, I just sometimes come off that way.

And all kinds of misunderstandings occur because of how some people interpret what others say.

And just like the above.

 

[gopher]

Sarkrazy is just that ...

 

[Just the Facts]

Uh no, one means distruction by your own hands, the other is just wishing ill will but not a threat.

So you're buying the implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed claim. I just don't see that implication.

And your examples are not really good examples based on what each term means.

Actually they're perfect examples. You see, "the next time I see you your days are numbered" simply implies that I will avoid you until you die of natural causes and I attend your funeral. Get it?

 

[Praxius]

So you're buying the implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed claim. I just don't see that implication.

Unlike most people in the world it seems, I don't jump on the very first opportunity to go starting wars and nuking places based on hunches and wild assumptions.... solid evidence is required to convince the people (At least it always should have been like this) and if you can't prove to the public that there is a justified threat, besides some poor translation and assumptions on their intentions, then you're not going to have a lot of people willing to go join up and die for an unproven cause.

It's already been done twice before and I think eventually the public has to loose benifit of the doubt.

If they are saying they have no intentions on attacking Israel, that they have no intentions of nuking them, let alone any intentions of building nukes..... and they explained in perfect detail what was actually said and how it means (Which hasn't been the first time a screwed up translation literally screwed everything up.) Then what else could you possibly believe at this time based on evidence?

And the whole disputes on Iran's government actually being behind insurgents in Iraq is also questionable, as the only proof so far that I have seen on that was some boxes of weapons and ammo they claimed were made in Iran..... even though the boxes were in english :-? and a few captured fellas who looked a bit beaten around who apparently confessed to having ties with someone in Iran.....

..... and we all know very well how the US treats their prisoners in order to get confessions that suit their agendas, so I don't buy a dime of it all.

The US attempted to make Afghanistan out to be the enemy, then they did it to Iraq, and now they're doing it to Iran...... and once again, the US has their shoe lackies from France, Israel and the UK tagging along with the propaganda and ignorance..... and unfortunatly, Harper as well.

We've all been bitten twice before by this dog, and now they want to bite us a third time based on nothing? Me thinks not.

Actually they're perfect examples. You see, "the next time I see you your days are numbered" simply implies that I will avoid you until you die of natural causes and I attend your funeral. Get it?

Everytime I ever heard that mentions implied that those days will be numbered by you the next time you see them, which still sounded like you wanted to directly seek death for them at your hands...... which sounded a lot like the other example you provided, which is why I said the two didn't work so well.

If that is what you imply, that you have no intentions on getting involved in any fashion with someone's death, then that is what was originally meant.

 

[Just the Facts]

My mistake, I didn't realize we were talking about nuking places. I thought the topic was Iranian threats against Israel. One point though, it was definitely not intentionally mis-translated to sound evil, the wipe off the map translation came from the Iranian government itself.

Also, I don't feel real comfortable in your assertion that Iran would never be crazy enough to nuke Israel. They've attacked Israel by proxy already, and have been doing so for decades. Iran owns Hezbollah, and funds, arms and trains Hamas....both organizations sworn to the destruction of Israel. How's that for wiping off the map. Sure, they might not launch a nuclear tipped ICBM at Israel anytime soon, but you can bet it won't be long before Hezbollah pops, at the very least, a dirty bomb in Israel's direction.

The concern with Iran having the bomb is more with it's liklihood of supplying it to terrorists than it is with the liklihood of Iran launching all out nuclear war on it's own.

Anyway, if you think there's no evidence of Iran's intent to develop nukes then you have no business accusing anyone of having their heads up their ass.

Sorry if that came across a little harsh. ;-)

 

[Said1]

Sarkrazy is just that ...

How can you say that, you don't even know the man!

 

[Praxius]

How can you say that, you don't even know the man!

And Sarkozy doesn't even know Ahmadinejad, so what goes around comes around eh.

 

[Said1]

And Sarkozy doesn't even know Ahmadinejad, so what goes around comes around eh.

I suppose.

 

[gopher]

Sarkrazy has long been off his rocker.

I mentioned on this forum a LONG time ago that my close friend is an Iranian whose family opposes Ahmadinejad and he concedes that the Iranian leader never made any threats against Israel.

 

[Just the Facts]

the Iranian leader never made any threats against Israel.

lol he just keeps making predictions of their impending demise. On their own mind you. Israel will just vanish. By itself. Iran won't have anything to do with it.

 

[darkbeaver]

lol he just keeps making predictions of their impending demise. On their own mind you. Israel will just vanish. By itself. Iran won't have anything to do with it.

His remarks were aimed at the Zionist regime, those are the words he used. so the prediction was not specifically aimed at Israelis, it was aimed at the genocidal Zionists.
Most of the Israeli population agree with Amedinejads wish that the Zionists be eliminated once and for all. Zarkrazy is Zionist.

 

[Just the Facts]

Oh, by the way:

YouTube - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Death to Israel"
YouTube - Countdown to Israel's Destruction

 

[gopher]

Israel has made threats against Iran. Why don't people condemn the Zionists?