"And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world." -Martin Luther King

Revolutionary guard commander killed testing intercontinental missile...

 

Hmmmm.....I wonder...??? 

We need another volunteer for the next test, please.

 

 

IMPERIAL MEDIA, LIBYA AND THE BATTLE OF BANI WALID

 

September 13, 2011

The Western Media

Examining the facts and finding the truth of what began Friday night as The Battle for Bani Walid has not been easy due to the many conflicting stories published by the pro-invader media. That the western media has organized itself to blantantly lie about the NATO war on Libya is irrefutable; indeed, they make no attempt to defend their deception depending rather on repetition and brute media force on minds akin to the savagery of NATO’s assault with bombs and missiles. In their coverage of the Battle for Bani Walid we argue that the media has warped into publication of deliberate contradictions meant to confuse the reader, hiding or ignoring the facts.

The Imperial Media and Their Grand Deception

Before we look at the Battle for Bani Walid, the BBC and Reuters serve as examples of the grand deception. The BBC reports today on the discovery of bodies found buried outside Tripol. In their title, the BBC calls the burials “roadside graves,” a subtle minimization for mass graves that contain up to 15 bodies. The victims are slain African workers whom the BBC states, “They were said to be mostly the remains of African mercenaries who had been fighting for Col Gaddafi.” – a rumor propagated by the western media that led to the hysterical murders of African migrant workers by the NATO mercenaries. The corporate media has never provided any evidence that Africans were hired by the Libyan leader to fight against the NATO attacks.

The first of the two photos below is a Reuters photo that includes Reuters descriptions. The second is published by the BBC with their descriptions of the image. The reporters and camera crews from Associated Press, Reuters and the BBC were present in these and many similar scenes showing they had full knowledge of the mercenaries. We can only imagine the photos they have which they chose not to publish. Of course none of the pro-invader media was “embedded” with the Libyan military despite numerous invitations.

One of the Reuters photos of African workers, rounded up by the NATO “rebels” on the basis of their skin color on March 24, 2011. It is featured with others by Reuters under the title, “Gaddafi’s Mercenaries.” Reuters describes these men without evidence or qualification, “Mercenaries and soldiers loyal to Gaddafi sit inside a prison in Benghazi.” In some of the other photos in the same series, Reuters calls them, “Suspected Mercenaries.”

In typical western media fashion, the BBC also states, “It is not known who the victims are or who killed them,” – after identifying them as mercenaries hired by and fighting for Col. Qaddafi. The BBC also suggests that the “rebels” were probably not responsible for these murders by reporting that the Africans were killed a month ago but the “rebels” arrived in Tripoli 3 weeks ago. It has been well-established that the beatings, lynchings, rapes, murders and dismemberment of African workers by “rebels” were also the rotten fruit of lies spread by the western media.

CNN serves as our last example of organized deception by the western media. Sara Sidner, their reporter in Tripoli during the sacking of the city was embedded with the mercenaries even as they rode into Tripoli in the wake of NATO bombing. In one scene on August 23, dressed in battle gear she reported as CNN’s camera crew filmed the pillaging of the compound and home of Col. Qaddafi and his family. Sara praised the mercenaries as they fired through the exterior walls with heavy weapons for hours and later as they entered the Bab Al Aziza compound. As CNN cameras showed the mercenaries looting the compound, waving their stolen goods, Sara’s CNN anchors cheered for the mercenaries and NATO, often laughing audibly in their studio back in Atlanta, Georgia … while Tripoli burned. Such psychotic behavior. showing not a trace of genuine remorse or sadness for dying Libyans reveals the loathsome culture of the corporate media. Interestingly, CNN did not show any footage of unarmed Libyans who went to the compound to protest the invasion and were summarily executed with hands bound behind their backs.

This is CNN’s Sara Sidner reporting on the pillage of the Bab Al Aziza compound in Tripoli on August23.

Here is part of an actual transcript of a televised exchange between CNN anchor, Brooke Baldwin in Atlanta talking to Sara Sidner in Tripoli on August 22:

BALDWIN: Sara, I know you have been covering some of these rebel groups for a number of weeks. And just looking back to months ago, when we were reporting on them, the last adjective you would use to describe these men would be sophisticated.

But I want you to characterize for them for me. As we have seen them take down this capital city, how do they appear?

SIDNER: Yes, it’s very interesting, because we met a lot of different kinds of rebels, if you will. I mean, they are human beings, they are people who lived in neighborhoods. Some of them, many of them live in Libya. They are people who were planning on trying to protect their families, protect their homes, protect their neighborhoods, and indeed, protect their cities.

Some of them are Libyans who lived outside of the country. There are ex-patriots who decided that they were going to leave their comfortable lives and return to Libya to fight what they felt like was the good fight to try and rid this country of the Gadhafi regime. They came back into this country and had to learn, for example, how to shoot a gun, never having touched a gun before.

And so, within the few months that this has gone on, we’re talking about an army that really doesn’t have that much training. And that is pretty concerning when you think about what they thought they were going to encounter when they got to Tripoli. And that is why there is a lot of surprise here in the minds of a lot of these opposition fighters. They cannot believe in some ways that they have done this so quickly and just basically 24 hours from getting to the edge of the city they’ve pushed their way all the way in and have taken over most of the neighborhoods — Brooke.

Another media synchophant gives Sara her “kudos” :

“CNN’s Sara Sidner has been garnering much positive attention — and rightfully so — for her in-depth,compelling live coverage from Libya, where rebel forces have been clashing with those supporting ousted leader Muammar Gaddafi. While covering the continually unfolding events in Tripoli, Sidner was actually grazed by a bullet wayward shell casing, likely from celebratory gunfire. Throughout it all, Sidner has proven herself to be a tenacious, aggressive and downright fearless reporter. So, for helping to bring astonishing, up to the minute coverage of a faraway revolution to American viewers (and for not letting something like a little bullet get in the way of her reporting), we say kudos to CNN’s Sara Sidner. And, just to drive home how exceptionally fearless this women truly is, here’s the footage of her dodging bullets.

All for you, America. All for you!”

Definition of Terms

A NATO Mercenary

NATO Mercenaries: The government controlled media run by their corporations in the west have gradually shifted their name for the mercenaries from “Rebels” to “Freedom Fighters” and now to “Revolutionaries” and soon they will be called presidents, congressmen, officers and soldiers to give them an aura of credibility. If it’s important enough for the government / corporate media to place so much emphasis on their shifting status, it’s important for us to remind ourselves who and what these people have been from the beginning of their “uprising”. Even as their leaders will be photographed by AP and Reuters in fine suits, shirts and ties bought with stolen Libyan reserves and even as their gunmen begin to don NATO-issued military uniforms with medals pinned to the breasts of their new colonels and generals, we will continue to call them what they have always been -”mercenaries,” armed and funded by western regimes in Washington, London and Paris. Nothing can change that. The only real revolutionaries in Libya are those who overthrew a corrupt US-backed king 41 years ago and then led Libya to become the most advanced nation in Africa.

A Libyan Soldier

Libyan Soldiers: As early as February, the western media began by calling Col. Qaddafi a “brutal dictator,” the government “a dictatorship” and since then they’ve called the Libyan military “Gaddafi’s Forces”, “Murderous Thugs,” Gunmen,” Mercenaries” … and now the western media seems to favor application of the term, “Gaddafi Loyalists.”

We continue to call them the Libyan Military and the Libyan soldiers and forever shall they be. This is the case regardless of what “Regime Change” the U.S. and NATO are able to achieve – for the government and military that has existed for 41 years cannot be de-legitimized by western regimes putting in place their own NTC puppet government. Nor can the only legitimate Libyan government be erased with future “elections” created and manipulated by foreign regimes.

The War: The corporate media has continuously changed terms they apply to this war on the Libyan people. It began as a “rebel uprising,” then a “civil war” and now, a “revolution.” The US/NATO attack began as a “No Fly Zone” to protect civilians called an “intervention,” immediately converted to a massive, bombing campaign calling civilian targets “military installations.” We call it what it is – War.

Battle for Bani Walid

Our current study of the western media’s coverage of the Battle for Bani Walid is meant to counter-attack the lies of the the government-controlled media of the west with the weapons of close examination and exposure.

Some may feel that these details are not important as our general knowledge of the US/NATO/NTC assault on the Libyan people is already all too obvious. Maybe so. Nonetheless, in this analysis we attempt to clarify, to the degree possible how the battle for control of Bani Walid began and to establish facts about what is happening today, even as the slaughter is underway with the real mercenaries reportedly entering the city on Sunday, having had their path paved by NATO destruction from the air.

Preparation for the assault on Bani Walid

Over the last couple of weeks, “Thousands of rebel fighters have converged on Bani Walid in recent days from multiple directions,” as they prepared for their assault on the city.

Bani Walid, a town of 100,000 was probably chosen for the assault because unlike the City of Sirte, it was considered to be one of the softer targets being defended by Libyan soldiers. Two weeks ago, the NATO mercenaries laid siege on Bani Walid cutting off electricity, food and water supplies and the people have only food and water stocks they have stored. A pretext for this assault is laden with rumors that Col. Qaddafi and/or his sons are in the city and variably, the objective is to capture the city, rout out the “Gaddafi Loyalists” and to capture Col. Qaddafi and his sons.

Meanwhile, the western media flooded the newswires with propaganda that the mercanaries have been trying to negotiate a peaceful solution with the Libyan soldiers and residents in the city, ostensibly due to their desire to to avoid the spilling of more blood. One NATO mercenary allegedly told TIME, “I hope there is no fighting. We want no more blood and no more killing.” But anyone who has followed their war on the people of Libya knows that they have left nothing but blood in their tracks over the last 6 months which have included executions, beheadings, lynchings, cannibalism and serial rape and killing, not only of Libyan soldiers but civilians and migrant workers from Africa.

For NATO and their mercenaries, “a peaceful solution,” means unconditional surrender. Libyan soldiers who have been defending Bani Walid have flatly rejected their demand for surrender. Again, the Western media comes to fore, condemning the Libyan military for refusing to negotiate for a “peaceful settlement.”

September 3 Deadline: On Tuesday, August 30, 2011 NATO, the NTC and their mercenaries first set a deadline for Libyan government forces in the city of Bani Walid to surrender by the following Saturday, September 3. As the deadline approached, they extended the deadline by one week, again claiming the extension was motivated by their desire to save lives. It should be obvious that the mercenaries extended their deadline due to their fear of the Libyan military in Bani Walid just as they fear them in the City of Sirte. They have not made any advances against the Libyan military even in small towns like Zitlin let alone Tripoli, without advance carpet bombing by NATO to clear the way for them.

September 10 Deadline: On the eve of their September 3 deadline for Libyan forces in Bani Walid to surrender, they extended the deadline to Saturday, September 10.

The Battle Begins: It began Friday night, before the NATO deadline expired. The western media publishes two accounts of how the battle began and who made the pre-emptive strike. One of two things happened, depending on what news report one reads. Either the Libyan soldiers inside the city launched a pre-emptive attack on the mercenaries who awaited NATO bombing to be completed – or the mercenaries attempted to attack on the eve of the deadline. These conflicting reports also depend on when one reads these reports because the corporate media is continually “updating” their reports, seemingly to put the best possible face on what happened on Friday night.

Reports that NATO and Mercenaries attacked first, before the deadline

Today, Associated Press and Israel’s Haaretz headlines: Former Libya rebels attack Bani Walid, Sirte on day before surrender deadline. They load their news report with anti-Qaddafi rhetoric, “The fighting came after Interpol issued arrest warrants for Gadhafi and two others Friday …” They continue, “Former Libyan rebels began attacking the loyalist holdouts of Bani Walid and Sirte on Friday night, a day before their own deadline for the surrender of those cities took effect.”

Then the Isaelis qualify their statements,

” ‘The former rebels reportedly were inside Bani Walid but fighting continued’, Busin said. Busin said the Bani Walid attack took place early because loyalist forces inside the small city had opened fire on former-rebel positions outside. As for the attack on Sirte, he said, ‘They may have pushed forward a few hours early simply because it was a strategic advantage’.”

Xinhua News reports that NATO Mercenaries entered Bani Walid:

The battle broke out one day earlier before the deadline set by the rebels for the Gaddafi forces in the town to surrender. According to earlier reports, the rebel forces had been nearing a deal with the Gaddafi loyalists in the town for a peaceful handover of the town.

Al Jazeera TV reported that NATO’s mercenaries entered Bani Walid, one day ahead of the Sept. 10-deadline the rebels set for Gaddafi loyalists to surrender …. from the north, east and south and had been just 2 km (1.5 miles) from the town center.

Reports that Libyan soldiers inside the city launched a surprise attack.

But today, Dr Abdullah Kenshil, a rebel spokesman told Reuters that the battle began with a pre-emptive attack by the Libyan military: “… the fighting, which began late on Friday – ahead of Saturday’s noon deadline – after the Gaddafi troops launched artillery attacks on rebel positions.”

And Wikipedia has an entry already today about the battle:

The National Liberation Army said its fighters had entered Bani Walid from the north and east, penetrating to within two kilometres of the city centre, and heavy street fighting was underway. The offensive apparently began in response to a Grad rocket barrage against besieging anti-Gaddafi forces originating from within the city.

And One India News (AP) reports,

Libya’s new rulers had set today’s deadline for Gaddafi loyalists in Bani Walid to surrender or face an offensive but
decided to attack yesterday evening after Gaddafi forces fired volleys of rockets at the fighters’ positions around the town.

NATO Mercenaries Flee the Battle

Across the board, the western media reports that the rebels have retreated from the assault laid on them by the Libyan soldiers around and within the city of Bani Walid. But the reports put forth conflicting stories about the reason they fled the battle. One Reuters reporter witnessed “dozens” of mercenary vehicles fleeing Bani Walid.

Mild digression: a Google search on “Rebels flee battle of Bani Walid” or any variation, only produces thousands of western media reports with propaganda about “Ghaddafi Loyalists fleeing” from one battle or another or from the country itself. The western media avoids any suggestion that the mercenaries ran from the battle.

Reasons why the mercenaries fled.

The mercenaries have not won – or even fought – a single major battle with Libyan forces without pre-NATO bombing. There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that they fled the battle of Bani Walid out of fear. But the media has published two conflicting stories about NATO’s involvement in their retreat. One story is that they retreated because of the fierce attack or counter attack by the Libyan forces. The other story is that NATO ordered them to retreat as a prelude to NATO bombing when it was clear that they were not able to withstand the Libyan forces.

The NTC negotiator Abdullah Kenshil, told AFP that the mercenaries came under attack by Libyan forces but, “later withdrew for tactical reasons decided by the military commanders which could be linked to military operations which NATO might be planning.”

While running from the battle in his pickup truck, one mercenary fighter, Abdul Mulla Mohamed, told Reuters,

Field commanders have told us to retreat because NATO will be bombing soon.

Several other mercenaries fleeing the scene also said they expected a NATO strike. The Reuters reporter, “saw dozens of vehicles pulling back from the
town.”

Al Arabiya reported that “Libyan rebels retreated from Bani Walid before the start of NATO’s bombing to the Qaddafi loyalist town.” An Alarabiya correspondent reported this on Saturday. But we know from numerous reports that the US, English and French have been bombing the city at least since last Wednesday. (See the report on the Libyan living in Scotland below.)

Abdul Mulla Mohamed quoted above told a Reuters reporter,

Field commanders have told us to retreat because NATO will be bombing soon [while] driving away in one of dozens of vehicles leaving the town, which lies 150 km (95 miles) southeast of Tripoli. All our troops have retreated because of NATO. We are waiting for orders from our comrades to go back in again.

And Reuters reported,

Forces of the ruling Transitional National Council (NTC) said they had advanced to within 500 metres (yards) of the town centre, but then pulled back shortly before NATO aircraft struck at least seven times at Gaddafi positions around the town.

But also speaking to Reuters, a NATO spokesman in Brussels denied reports that it had warned NTC fighters to withdraw ahead of air strikes, saying it had no contacts with the NTC:”NATO did not contact the rebel forces to let them pull back from positions on Bani Walid. We don’t have contacts with the NTC forces.”

On the other hand an AFP correspondent reported, “NATO aircrafts could also be heard overhead early on Saturday.”

One India News reports that NATO planes are seen in the air:

Loud explosions were heard about 10 kilometres from the front line, followed by plumes of black smoke in the already hazy air. NATO planes circled above.

And contradicting earlier statements by the NATO spokesman in Brussels, asked about its bombing of Bani Walid, he admits,

NATO says it is acting under a UN mandate to guarantee the safety of Libya’s civilian population. Its bombing campaign has been crucial to the advance of Gaddafi’s military opponents.

We look at NATO’s bombing of civilians from Zliten to Tripoli and throughout the country and we understand it’s UN mandate to “guarantee the safety of Libya’s civilian population.” NATO did not deny that it began to bomb Bani Walid at least 3 days ago on Wednesday September 7 when Mohi Alghazali inquired about his family in Bani Walid. Mr. Alghazali is a Libyan man living in Scotland who received word from relatives that his aunt, uncle and 3 of their children were killed in the city by NATO bombing. He is a senior production engineer, who studied in Edinburgh for four years before moving to Aberdeen. He also has other close family still living in Libya, among them his parents who live in the City of Sirte which is being bombarded by NATO. Mr. Alghazali has contacted NATO asking for answers as “Nato as it carries out its own investigation into the incident.”

From NATO’s War Crimes in Libya: Who Grieves for the Fallen Heroes?
by James Petras:

If the destruction and occupation of Libya marks a time of infamy for the NATO powers, it also establishes a new awareness that a people can struggle and resist 6 months of intense, massive bombings from all the NATO powers. Perhaps when their heroic example becomes clear and the fog of media propaganda is lifted, a new emerging generation of fighters can vindicate the battle of Libya, as a continuation of the struggle for the definitive emancipation of the Afro-Arab and Islamic peoples from the yoke of Western imperialism.

As with the 2004 Battle of Falluja in Iraq and the U.S. deeds in the Abu Ghraib prison and many other atrocities, the truths about the Battles of Bani Walid and Sirte will eventually leak out. The “misdeeds” of the imperialists will be admitted in pieces for years to come, peppered with lies, revisionist history demonizing Col. Qadaffi and the Libyan government and military. The US, NATO and Israeli imperialists will have their way. But in the now famous words of President Hugo Chavez Frias when he was imprisoned in 1992 after an attempted coup by Venezuela’s revolutionaries, “Por Ahora” – “For Now.”

THE TRIBES STILL HAVE CONTROL OF BANI WALID
NATO USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN BANI WALID

 

http://libya360.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/imperial-media-libya-and-the-battle-of-bani-walid/

stop believing corporate news they feed you a line of bullcrap and like sucker fish you eat it up hook line and sinker!!! you people won't even back check thier sources, even if to out come is nuclear world war!!! It's amazing how you people support the very people that are destroying this country like you have stockhomles syndrome or something!!!! (http://counsellingresource.com/lib/therapy/self-help/stockholm/) European and america corporation control europe and America and they're trying to take control of the middle east!!!! they are trying to bankrupt these countries to bring in a communist state. research who are the men who funded the creation of communism, it was european and American industrialist and bankers( the 1%) and do some more research and see they funded the rise of hitler too!!! oh yeah don't forget osama and hussein!!! It's all a big game and they use us has cannon fodder!!!! There's ton of evidence that this country is being socialize(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html)

 

associated propaganda

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3158-associated-propaganda.html

 

associated propaganda is one of it's nicknames

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/associated_propaganda_associated_press_nickname/

 

media-owned or controlled by U.S., rothchilds

http://www.luckinlove.com/rothmedia.htm

 

america losing her freedoms

http://www.helium.com/items/940200-america-is-losing-her-freedom

 

video murdoch doesn't want you to see

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-OWS-Video-Rupert-Murd-by-Gustav-Wynn-111111-147.html

 

is America turning to socialism?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2001530/is_america_turning_to_socialism.html?cat=37

 

agenda: grinding america down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQf_QfitmKE

 

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963

 the communist goals of america!!!

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

 

it's the same thing JFK was talking about in his "President and the Press" Speech (April 27, 1961)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfQbQiAY1YA

 

IKE's warning http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

full text speech transcript Iran President Ahmadinejad September 22, 2011 UN General Assembly

JTA Jewish news agency (Jewish Telegraphic Agency):

The U.S. delegation walked out during the U.N. address of Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling its anti-Semitism "abhorrent."
Ahmadinejad accused a shadowy Western conspiracy of being behind the
slave trade, both world wars, economic disparity and godlessness.

Washington Post:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad triggered a mass exodus from the
U.N. General Assembly's chamber Thursday with a combative speech that
blasted the United States and other Western powers and questioned
whether Islamist terrorists were behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Iranian leader, known for his bomb-throwing rhetoric, used his
allotted 15 minutes before the world body to blame the West for a list
of ills throughout history, from slavery to the two world wars and the
global economic crisis.

He also criticized the Obama administration for killing Osama bin
Laden, suggesting that the al-Qaeda leader could have been the star
witness at a trial that would reveal the true culprits behind the
attacks on New York and Washington.

His words sent diplomats streaming for the exits, starting with the
U.S. delegation and followed by dozens of Europeans and others. More
than a third of the General Assembly seats were empty by the time
Ahmadinejad finished speaking, to polite applause.

Voice of America:

Iran's President Hammers West at UN Meeting

... slammed the United States, Israel, and the West, accusing them of
provoking wars, promoting global discord and spreading
"totalitarianism."

Intl. Business Times:

'U.S. Too Incompetent to Run World'

... speech on Thursday angered a number of world leaders, especially
the delegates from the United States, who walked out of the General
Assembly while Ahmadinejad soliloquized.

... alleged that the United States was and still is an imperialist,
Zionist oppressor responsible for many of the world's wars.

He also attacked NATO as a whole, alleging that the organization is a
war-mongering hegemony that is responsible for causing more misery
than it has abated. This, in a way, was actually his most salient
point. He cited the fact that NATO and the United States are spending
significantly more money on each of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Libya than they are on humanitarian disasters such as the famine in
Somalia.

What Ahmadinejad didn't address, however, was Iran's record on the
same humanitarian issues that he used to attack the United States.
Iran actually is a significant contributor to Somalia, and has so far
provided more than $25 million in aid and set up a camp in Mogadishu.

The United States has also pledge a significant amount to Somalia, but
under the provision that the aid not be sent to any region controlled
by rebel group al-Shabaab. Al-Shabaab is an al-Qaeda backed rebel
group that controls most of the six areas in Somalia where famine has
been officially declared.

AFP:

Prime Minister David Cameron launched a personal attack on Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad on Thursday minutes after the Iranian leader's anti-West
speech caused a mass walkout.

Jerusalem Post:

In typically-florid prose, Ahmadinejad's 20-minute speech bemoaned the
world's inequities of wealth and power.

.. he posed a series of rhetorical questions which implicitly posited
that the United States is at the root of the world's ills due to its
foreign policy decisions.

The (Israeli) Foreign Ministry issued a statement following the speech
saying Ahmadinejad once again "brought a message of hostility towards
the family of nations as well as threats to global peace and
security."

The statement said Iran's disdain for the international community is clear ...

BBC:

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force
One that he "found it rich" that Mr Ahmadinejad would criticise US
policy,

===== FULL TEXT ======

Mr. President,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am grateful to the Almighty Allah who granted me, once more, the
opportunity to appear before this world assembly. I have the pleasure
to express my sincere thanks to H.E. Joseph Deiss, president of the
sixty-fifth session for his tremendous efforts during his tenure. I
also would like to congratulate H.E Nassir Abdulaziz AI-Nasser on his
election as the president of sixty-sixth session of the General
Assembly and wish him all success.

Let me seize the moment to pay tribute to all those who lost their
lives in the past year, particularly to the victims of the tragic
famine in Somalia and the devastating flood in Pakistan and especially
the earthquake and the ensuing explosions in the nuclear power plant
in Japan. I urge everyone to intensify their assistance and aid to the
affected populations in these countries.

Over the past years, I spoke about different global issues, and the
need to introduce fundamental changes in the current international
order.

Today, considering the international developments, I will try to
analyze the present situation from a different angle. As you all know
the dominance and superiority of human beings over other creatures,
lie in the very nature and the truth of humankind which is a divine
gift and a manifestation of the divine spirit including: faith in God,
who is the ever-lasting creator and planner of the entire universe.

Showing compassion to others, generosity, justice-seeking, and having
integrity both in words and in deeds.

The quest for dignity to reach the pinnacles of perfection, the
aspiration to elevate one's material and spiritual status, and the
longing to realize liberty; Defying oppression, corruption, and
discrimination in trying to support the oppressed; Seeking happiness,
and lasting prosperity and security for all.

These are some of the manifestations of common divine and human
attributes which can clearly be seen in the historical aspirations of
human beings as reflected in the heritage of our search for art and
literary works both in prose and poetry, and in the socio-cultural and
political movements of human beings in the course of history.

All divine prophets and social reformers invited human beings to tread
on this righteous path. God has given dignity to humankind to elevate
his status to assume his successor role on Earth.

It is vividly clear that despite all historical achievements,
including creation of the United-Nations, which was a product of
untiring struggles and efforts of free-minded and justice-seeking
individuals as well as the international cooperation, human societies
are yet far from fulfilling their noble desires and aspirations.

Most nations of the world are unhappy with the current international
circumstances. And despite the general longing and aspiration to
promote peace, progress, and fraternity, wars, mass-murder, widespread
poverty, and socioeconomic and political crises continue to infringe
upon the rights and sovereignty of nations, leaving behind irreparable
damage worldwide.

Approximately, three billion people of the world live on less than 2.5
dollars a day, and over a billion people live without having even one
sufficient meal on a daily basis. Forty-percent of the poorest world
populations only share five percent of the global income, while twenty
percent of the richest people share seventy-five percent of the total
global income.

More than twenty thousand innocent and destitute children die every
day in the world because of poverty. In the United States, eighty
percent of financial resources are controlled by ten percent of its
population, while only twenty percent of these resources belong to the
ninety percent of the population.

What are the causes and reasons behind these inequalities? How can
bone remedy such injustice?

The rulers of the global management circles divide the social life
from ethics and spirituality while claiming the situation is the
outcome of the pursuit of the path of divine prophets or the
vulnerability of nations or the ill performance of a few groups or
individuals. They claim that only their views and approaches can save
the human society.

Wouldn't you think that the root cause of the problems must be sought
in the prevailing international order, or the way the world is
governed? I would like to draw your kind attention to the following
questions:

Who abducted forcefully tens of millions of people from their homes in
Africa and other regions of the world during the dark period of
slavery, making them a victim of their materialistic greed?

Who imposed colonialism for over four centuries upon this world?

Who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations,
destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of
nations?

Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy
millions killed and hundreds of millions injured or homeless. Who
created the wars in Korean peninsula and in Vietnam?

Who imposed, through deceits and hypocrisy, the Zionism and over sixty
years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian
people and on countries of the region?

Who imposed and supported for decades military dictatorship and
totalitarian regimes on Asian, African, and Latin American nations?

Who used nuclear bomb against defenseless people, and stockpiled
thousands of warheads in their arsenals?

Whose economies rely on waging wars and selling arms?

Who provoked and encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade and impose an
eight-year war on Iran, and who assisted and equipped him to deploy
chemical weapons against our cities and our people?

Who used the mysterious September 11 incident as a pretext to attack
Afghanistan and Iraq , killing, injuring, and displacing millions in
two countries with the ultimate goal of bringing into its domination
the Middle East and its oil resources?

Who nullified the Breton Woods system by printing trillions of dollars
without the backing of gold reserves or equivalent currency? A move
that triggered inflation worldwide and was intended to prey on the
economic gains of other nations?

Which country's military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion
dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world
combined?

Which governments are the most indebted ones in the world?

Who dominates the policy-making establishments of the world economy?

Who are responsible for the world economic recession, and are imposing
the consequences on America, Europe and the world in general?

Which governments are always ready to drop thousands of bombs on other
countries, but ponder and hesitate to provide aid to famine-stricken
people in Somalia or in other places?

Who are the ones dominating the Security Council which is ostensibly
responsible for safeguarding the international security?

There exist tens of other similar questions. Of course, the answers are clear.

The majority of nations and governments of the world have had no role
in the creation of the current global crises, and as a matter of fact,
they were themselves the victims of such policies.

It is as lucid as daylight that the same slave masters and colonial
powers that once instigated the two world wars have caused widespread
misery and disorder with far-reaching effects across the globe since
then.

Dear Colleagues and Friends;

Do these arrogant powers really have the competence and ability to run
or govern the world. Is it acceptable that they call themselves the
sole defender of freedom, democracy, and human rights, while they
militarily attack and occupy other countries?

Can the flower of democracy blossom from NATO's missiles, bombs and guns?

Ladies and Gentlemen;

If some European countries still use the Holocaust, after six decades,
as the excuse to pay fine or ransom to the Zionists, should it not be
an obligation upon the slave masters or colonial powers to pay
reparations to the affected nations?

If the damage and losses of the period of slavery and colonialism were
indeed compensated, what would happen to the manipulators and
behind-the-scene political powers in the United States and in Europe?
Would there remain any gaps between the North and the South?

If only half of military expenditures of the United States and its
allies in NATO was shifted to help solve the economic problems in
their own countries, would they be witnessing any symptom of the
economic crisis?

What would happen, if the same amount was allocated to poor nations?

What is the justification for the presence of hundreds of US military
and intelligence bases in different parts of the world, including 268
bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, 87 in South Korea, 83 in Italy, 45 in
the United Kingdom, and 21 in Portugal? Does this mean anything other
than military occupation?

Don't the bombs deployed in the said bases undermine the security of
other nations?

The main question is the quest for the root cause of such attitudes.
The prime reason should be sought in the beliefs and tendencies of the
establishment. An assembly of people in contradiction with the inner
human instincts and disposition who also have no faith in God and in
the path of the divine prophets, replace their lust for power and
materialistic ends with heavenly values.

To them, only power and wealth prevail, and every attempt must bring
into focus these sinister goals.

Oppressed nations have no hope to restore or protect their legitimate
rights against these powers. These powers seek their progress,
prosperity and dignity through imposing poverty, humiliation and
annihilation to others.

They consider themselves superior to others, enjoying special
privileges and concessions. They have no respect for others and easily
violate the rights of all nations and governments.

They proclaim themselves as the indisputable custodians of all
governments and nations through intimidation, recourse to threat and
force, and abuse the international mechanisms. They simply break all
the internationally recognized regulations.

They insist on imposing their lifestyle and beliefs on others. They
officially support racism. They weaken countries through military
intervention, and destroy their infrastructures, in order to plunder
their resources by making them all the more dependent.

They sow the seeds of hate and hostility among nations and people of
different pursuits, in order to prevent them from fulfilling their
goals of development and progress.

All cultures, identities, lives, values and wealth of nations, women,
youth, families as well as the wealth of nations are sacrificed to
their imperialistic tendencies and their inclination to enslave and
captivate others.

Hypocrisy and deceit are allowed in order to secure their interests
and imperialistic goals. Drug- trafficking and killing of innocent
human beings are also allowed in pursuit of such diabolic goals.
Despite NATO's presence in the occupied Afghanistan, there has been a
dramatic increase in the production of illicit drugs there.

They tolerate no question or criticism, and instead of presenting a
reason for their violations, they always put themselves in the
position of a claimant. By using their imperialistic media network
which is under the influence of colonialism they threaten anyone who
questions the Holocaust and the September 11 event with sanctions and
military action.

Last year, when the need to form a fact-finding team to undertake a
thorough investigation concerning the hidden elements involved in
September 11 incident was brought up; an idea also endorsed by all
independent governments and nations as well as by the majority in the
United States, my country and myself came under pressure and threat by
the government of the United States.

Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main
perpetrator and threw his body into the sea.

Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring
to trial the main perpetrator of the incident in order to identify the
elements behind the safe space provided for the invading aircraft to
attack the twin world trade towers?

Why should it not have been allowed to bring him to trial to help
recognize those who launched terrorist groups and brought wars and
other miseries into the region?

Is there any classified information that must be kept secret?

They view Zionism as a sacred notion and ideology. Any question
concerning its very foundation and history is condemned by them as an
unforgivable sin.

However they endorse and allow sacrileges and insult against beliefs
of other divine religions.

Dear Colleagues and Friends;

Real freedom, justice" dignity, well being, and lasting security are
the rights of all nations. These values can neither be achieved by
reliance on the current inefficient system of world governance, nor
through the invasion of the world by arrogant powers and the gun
barrels of NATO forces.

These values could only be realized through independence and
recognition of others' rights and through harmony and cooperation.
Is there any way to address the problems and challenges besetting the
world by using the prevailing international mechanisms and tools to
help humanity achieve the long-standing aspiration of peace, security
and equality?

All those who tried to introduce reforms whilst preserving the
existing norms and tendencies have failed. The valuable efforts made
by the Non-Aligned movement and Group 77 and GrouplS as well as by
some prominent individuals have failed to bring fundamental changes.
Governance and management of the world require fundamental reforms.

What should be done now?

Dear Colleagnes and Friends;

Efforts must be made with a firm resolve and through collective
cooperation to map out a new plan, on the basis of principles and the
very foundation of universal human values such as Monotheism, justice,
freedom, love and the quest for happiness.

The idea of creation of the United Nations remains a great and
historical achievement of mankind. Its importance must be appreciated
and its capacities must be used to the extent possible for our noble
goals.

We should not allow this organization which is the reflection of the
collective will and shared aspiration of the community of nations, to
deviate from its main course and play into the hands of the world
powers.

Conducive ground must be prepared to ensure collective participation
and involvement of nations in an effort to promote lasting peace and
security.

Shared and collective management of the world must be achieved in its
true sense, and based on the underlying principles enshrined in the
international law. Justice must serve as the criterion and the basis
for all international decisions and actions.

All of us should acknowledge the fact that there is no other way than
the shared and collective management of the world in order to put an
end to the present disorders, tyranny, and discriminations worldwide.
This is indeed the sole way to prosperity and welfare of human society
which is an established and vivid truth.

While acknowledging the above truth, one should note that
acknowledgement alone is not enough. We must believe in it and spare
no effort toward its realization.

Dear Colleagues and Friends;

Shared and collective management of the world is the legitimate right
of all nations, and we as their representatives, have an obligation to
defend their rights. Although some powers continuously try to
frustrate all international efforts aimed at promoting collective
cooperation, we must, however, strengthen our belief in achieving the
perceived goal of establishing a shared and collective cooperation to
run the world.

The United Nations was created to make effective participation of all
nations in international decision-making processes, possible. We all
know that this goal has not yet been fulfilled because of the absence
of justice in the current management structures and mechanisms of the
UN.

The composition of the Security Council is unjust and inequitable.
Therefore, changes including the restructuring of the United Nations
are considered the basic demands of the nations that must be addressed
by the General Assembly.

During last year session, I emphasized the importance of this issue
and called for the designation of the current decade as the decade of
shared and collective Global Management.

I would like to reiterate again my proposal. I am sure that through
international cooperation, diligence and efforts by committed world
leaders and governments and through insisting on the realization of
justice and the support of all other nations, we can expedite the
building of a common bright future.

This movement is certainly on its rightful path of creation, ensuring
a promising future for humanity. A future that will be built when
humanity initiates to trend the path of the divine prophets and the
righteous under the leadership of Imam al-Mahdi, the Ultimate Savior
of mankind and the inheritor to all divine messengers and leaders and
to the pure generation of our great Prophet.

The creation of a supreme and ideal society with the arrival of a
perfect human being who is a true and sincere lover of all human
beings, is the guaranteed promise of Allah.

He will come alongside with Jesus Christ to lead the freedom and
justice lovers to eradicate tyranny and discrimination, and promote
knowledge, peace, justice freedom and love across the world. He will
present to every single individual all the beauties of the world and
all good things which bring happiness for humankind.

Today nations have been awakened. With the increase in public
awareness,they no longer succumb to oppressions and discriminations.

The world is now witnessing more than ever, the widespread awakening
in Islamic lands, in Asia, Europe, and America. These movements are
ever expanding their spirit everyday and influence the pursuit of the
realization of justice, freedom and the creation of a better tomorrow.

Our great nation stands ready to join hands with other nations to
march on this beautiful path in harmony and in line with the shared
aspirations of mankind.

Let us salute love, freedom, justice, wisdom, and the bright future
that awaits humankind.

Thank you.

 

Analysis: what was so objectionable about Ahmadinejad’s speech?

Madison Ruppert
Activist Post
Friday, September 23, 2011

It is clear that Ahmadinejad’s address to the 66th Session of the United States General Assembly was not well met. That is a bit of an understatement, as the entirety of the United States delegation, along with Israel and EU nations, totaling over 30 countries, walked out in the middle of his speech.

He was quickly lambasted in the press for his “anti-Semitic slurs” and “conspiracy theories” but when one takes a look at his address found on the UN’s official website, it doesn’t quite measure up to this picture.

One thing that truly surprised me in his speech was his praise of global governance. If you removed these passages and attributed them to some of the greatest campaigners for a new world order, like many American Presidents and the likes of Kissinger and others, I would not find it out of character.

The passage that stands out most as being clearly pro-global governance and what I would consider strange compared to the rest of his statements is found on page 9 of the transcript of his address. It reads:
“All of us should acknowledge the fact that there is no other way than the shared and collective management of the world in order to put an end to the present disorders, tyranny, and discriminations worldwide.” [Emphasis in original]
He also praises the institution of the United Nations calling it “a great and historical achievement of mankind,” while criticizing its structure by saying that there is an “absence of justice in the current management structures and mechanisms”.

Of course these parts of his speech are being ignored by the Western media because they betray the picture of a Holocaust-denying, blood-sucking tyrant and instead paint a picture of someone who considers “the very foundation of universal human values” to be “Monotheism, justice, freedom, love and the quest for happiness.” While I think that labeling monotheism a universal human value is going a bit far, he clearly said some things which betray the image we are presented here in the West.

Before I go further in my analysis I must make it clear that I do not support Ahmadinejad or the human rights abuses attributed to him. I do not necessarily support the Iranian regime and what they stand for, either. That does not mean that I can’t rationally analyze his words, and it definitely does not mean I will go out of my way to demonize him for his statements like the rest of the mainstream media.

The Jerusalem Post reported today that the moment when many of the delegates walked out was when “he suggested that European countries use the Holocaust as a pretext for giving aid to Israel.” Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this is not quite accurate.

The point Ahmadinejad tried to make, which seems lost on the entire staff of The Jerusalem Post, is the same exact point made in Norman Finkelstein’s highly controversial work The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.

Finkelstein argues that the tragedy of the Nazi Holocaust has been exploited for political and financial gain, as well as to silence critics of Israel’s human rights violations and illegal occupation of Palestine.

Neither Ahmadinejad nor Finkelstein argue that “European countries use the Holocaust as a pretext for giving aid to Israel.” The closest one could get to that is the point that criticism of funding Israel is stifled by bringing in the “Holocaust shmata” (shmata is Yiddish for a rag or towel) in order to silence critics.

The Jerusalem Post also fails to bring in the second half of his statement which is wholly logical. I would like to hear a real refutation of his point, if anyone can provide one to me.

Ahmadinejad said:
If some European countries still use the Holocaust, after six decades, as the excuse to pay fine or ransom to the Zionists, should it not be an obligation upon the slave masters or colonial powers to pay reparations to the affected nations?
This statement is based on relatively solid logical grounds. How can you say that Germans (and other Europeans) still have to pay reparations and pensions to Jewish people and organizations for the Holocaust while African-Americans haven’t received a penny? What about the Spanish paying reparations to the native people they displaced, raped and slaughtered? You can’t pretend to stand for social justice but only apply it to one group who has been harmed; that is ludicrous.

I’m not sure how you can demonize someone for calling for real justice and reparations for peoples and nations subjugated and mistreated, but The Jerusalem Post managed to do so.

Another point worth mentioning is that, in that statement, Ahmadinejad effectively silenced anyone who calls him a Holocaust denier. He clearly knows the Holocaust occurred and makes it clear by saying “the Holocaust” not “the alleged Holocaust” or “the alleged killing of Jewish people by Nazis during WWII”. Can we stop pretending he is denying the Holocaust now?

On that note, let’s investigate some of the claims that his speech was anti-Semitic. First we must accept the fallacious definition of anti-Semitism that includes Jewish Europeans who are in no way Semitic other than the fact that Hebrew is classified as a Semitic language. Refuting this definition would take a full-length article unto itself, so let’s just pretend that all Jewish people are Semites but not any of the other Semitic peoples throughout the Middle East.

The spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations, Mark Kornblau, said that Ahmadinejad “again turned to abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs and despicable conspiracy theories”.
To analyze this statement and its validity, we must make another assumption: the “official story” of 9/11 is not a conspiracy theory, even though it is a theory involving a criminal conspiracy, solely involving al Qaeda operatives, to commit an act of terror against the United States. While the official story is literally a conspiracy theory in every single way, we must toss that aside and pretend that a spade is not a spade in order to analyze Kornblau’s claims.

Since Kornblau didn’t identify a single of the apparently multiple “anti-Semitic slurs” I am forced to attempt to find “abhorrent” statements that are clearly “anti-Semitic slurs”. This isn’t quite as easy to do as one might think.

Starting on page 2 of the transcript, Ahmadinejad begins down a laundry list of wrongs carried out by the Western world, specifically America and Western European nations. Nowhere does he place responsibility on Jewish people, or even Zionists as one might assume he would.

The closest he gets to a blatant case of anti-Semitism is when he asks:
Who imposed, through deceits and hypocrisy, the Zionism [sic] and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries of the region?
If you read this by itself out of context you very well might think this is an “abhorrent anti-Semitic” slur. However, when you read the points both before and after, you realize that he is not talking about Jewish people but about Europeans.

The question he poses before is:
Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy millions killed [sic] and hundreds of millions injured or homeless. [sic] Who created the wars in Korean peninsula [sic] and in Vietnam?
Then after the possibly anti-Semitic remark he says:
Who imposed and supported for decades the military dictatorship and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African, and Latin American nations [?]
Who used nuclear bomb [sic] against defenseless people, and stockpiled thousands of warheads in their arsenals?
Clearly he is not talking about Jewish people or Israel, or if he is he thinks that Jewish people started WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam; dictated the foreign policy decisions of America and other Western European nations; and he even thinks that Jewish people dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki while also stockpiling thousands of nuclear warheads in their secret Jewish arsenals.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  

Ahmadinejad might not be the brightest bulb in the world but is he really crazy enough to believe that? He very well might be but there is no indication that he was talking about Jewish people when he ran down the laundry list of questions. In fact, his target seemed to be mostly America and Western Europe, but not Israel, Zionists, or Jewish people.

I wish Kornblau was able to point to one of his “abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs” as I do not seem to be able to find them.

Ahmadinejad seems to be pointing to a nebulous group of the Western elite who control foreign and economic policy. And in all of the cases where he cites multiple governments, in order for it to be anti-Semitic one would have to say that either Ahmadinejad believes Jewish people run every government he speaks of, or indeed Jewish people run every government he speaks of. I’m not prepared to say either one of those statements is accurate.

For Kornblau’s statement regarding anti-Semitic slurs to be correct when Ahmadinejad says, “Whose economies rely on waging wars and selling arms?” he would have to actually be speaking of Jewish economies, not the economies of America the UK and other NATO countries like one would rationally assume.

Furthermore, when he says, “Which country’s military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world combined?” he must be speaking of America, unless Kornblau thinks that Jewish people are behind the American military-industrial complex in which case it could be construed as anti-Semitic.

Another comment that might have been seen as anti-Semitic was when he said:
They view Zionism as a sacred nation and ideology. Any question concerning its very foundation and history is condemned by them as an unforgivable sin. However they endorse and allow sacrileges and insult against beliefs of other divine religions.
Is Ahmadinejad talking about Jewish people here? He would have to be in order to claim that this is an anti-Semitic slur. Unfortunately for those who might try, not all Jewish people view Zionism as a sacred ideology, nor do all Jewish people unquestioningly support the very foundation and history of Israel.

On the other hand, the government of America arguably blindly supports Israel, and thus the Zionist ideology, along with their foundation and history, along with Israel’s right to “defend herself” even if it means hideous war crimes like the ones committed during Operation Cast Lead.

Again, where are the “abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs”? I was expecting a lot more when I finally sat down to read the text of his address, but I walked away without anything that was clearly an abhorrent anti-Semitic slur. In order to find one I would have to ignore logic, facts and maybe even what he actually said in favor of what I think (or would like to think) he said.

When it comes down to it, Ahmadinejad was not Jew-hating in his speech. He was, however, doing a lot of hating on the oppressive, evil and corrupt history of American foreign policy and European colonialism along with imperialism as a whole.

If the United States Mission to the United Nations wanted to be accurate, they might have opted for the truth instead of pretending there were “abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs” where there clearly are none to cover up the fact that they couldn’t take the heat and simply left the kitchen.

Kornblau didn’t elucidate what exactly he meant by “despicable conspiracy theories” either, but one can assume that it is Ahmadinejad’s mention of September 11th, which he has brought up in the past and is usually quickly attacked for mentioning outside of the context of blind reverence for the official American story.

Ahmadinejad said:
Last year, when the need to form a fact-finding team to undertake a thorough investigation concerning the hidden elements involved in September 11 incident [sic] was brought up; an idea also endorsed by all independent governments and nations as well as by the majority in the United States, my country and myself came under pressure and threat by the government of the United States.
Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea.
Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to trial the main perpetrator of the incident in order to identify the elements behind the safe space provided for the invading aircraft to attack the twin world trade towers?
Why should it not have been allowed to bring him to trial to help recognize those who launched terrorist groups and brought wars and other miseries into the region?
Is there any classified information that must be kept secret?
I think that Ahmadinejad makes some great points here which are the antithesis of conspiracy theory.

Justice and the need to identify what exactly happened on 9/11 that allowed NORAD and other defense systems to fail in every way humanly possible are not conspiracy theories. If Kornblau thinks that Justice and the right to a fair trial are conspiracy theories he clearly hasn’t read the documents upon which our nation was founded.

What are some other conspiracy theories pushed by Ahmadinejad?

He said, “They insist on imposing their lifestyle and beliefs on others.” Well, that’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s called the Bush Doctrine. No dice once again, Kornblau.

How about, “They officially support racism.” Is that a conspiracy theory? For decades, that was a legal fact in the United States. Today, it is an irrefutable fact that the state of Israel, also known as the Jewish state of Israel, is a racist state. It’s a bit hard to argue that a “Jewish only” road isn’t a policy of a racist state.

America is still a racist nation, but most of the official support for racism has withered away over recent years. However, one could argue that our official support of the racist state of Israel is officially supporting racism.

However, much of the above was not even heard by Kornblau or the other diplomats who left part-way through the speech. In fact, if The Jerusalem Post is correct in their timing of the exit, most of what one could argue as “abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs” and “despicable conspiracy theories” were brought up after they had left. The point at which The Jerusalem Post says many of the diplomats left was near the bottom of the 5th page, out of the 11 total pages of text.

So, before you take the mainstream media’s word for it and consider Ahmadinejad a rabid anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, you might want to take a few minutes to read his words yourself.

Like me, you do not need to be a supporter to realize that he is being given an unfair treatment in the media and that some of what he has to say has merit.

One quote that I would like to close this analysis with from Ahmadinejad’s speech — one that I find especially prescient given the expansion of the imperialist crusade to Libya, Somalia and Yemen is this:
Can the flower of democracy blossom from NATO’s missiles, bombs and guns?
What do you think about Ahmadinejad’s speech? Was it like Kornblau made it out to be? Did I miss something? Need to ease your stress and curse me out to make yourself feel better? I’d love to hear from you at admin@EndtheLie.com and I might use your comments in an update or future article!

 

Did President Ahamdinejad ever threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"?

ACCORDING to the Jews, that's what Iranian President Ahmadinejad said in a speech in October 2005. So what did he actually say? The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

To quote his exact words in farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime.

This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem ).

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

A word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods ( Jerusalem ) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"?

The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

Kurt Templin

---

ON the leading edge of busting this myth [writes another reader, Friday, March 23, 2007] was University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole, who studies modern Middle Eastern history and has a very informative daily weblog.. Cole has been the "go-to" guy for sometime when wanting to understand the Middle East, and the hidden reasons for news events.

Cole takes down this "Wipe Israel off map" myth in several of his blog entries, while also countering other lies fostered by the pro-war crowd: [1] [2] [3] [4]

For this and other postings not seen as "politically correct," he has become the target of many characters on the far right, and has even been branded with the "anti-semitic" label. Cole has joined other professors in a group dedicated to protecting one another from such charges, and defending real research and real scholarly work. 

 

As the Bush Administration beats the drums for another war of choice with another country that had nothing to do with 9/11, they are using another series of fabricated facts to indoctrinate the American people into thinking that Iran poses a serious threat to our security. At the core of these fabrications is the claim that on October 25, 2005, during a speech at the Ministry of Interior conference hall, the then newly-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remarked that "Israel must be wiped off the map." As someone who was born in Tehran, lived there for seventeen years and is a native Farsi speaker, I have read the original transcripts of the speech in Farsi and want to inform you that Ahmadinejad never said "Israel must be wiped off the map," but rather, his statement was grossly mistranslated and taken out of context, perhaps to help make a case for military action against Iran.

Let's analyze what Ahmadinejad said. His exact words in Farsi were as follows: "Emam goft een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzegar mahv shavad."

The correct translation of the statement is as follows: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times."

And the word-to-word translation of the statement is as follows: Emam: Imam (Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution); Goft: said; Een: this; Rezhim-e eshghalgar: occupying regime; Qods: Jorusalem; Bayad: must; Az: from; Safheye: page of; Ruzegar: times; Mahv shaved: vanish.

There are several important points to understand about this quote:

1) The original transcript does not contain the words "Israel," "wipe off" or "map."

2) Ahmadinejad in fact misquoted Imam Khomeini who really said "sahneyeh roozegar," or "stage of times," not "safheyeh roozegar."

3) "Occupying regime in Jerusalem " does not refer to the state of Israel because the word "regime" does not mean "state" or "country." Merriam-Webster defines the term "regime" as a "mode of rule or management" or "a government in power." Furthermore, the terms "stage of times" or "page of times" both are highly abstract and metaphorical terms and cannot possibly be translated to "map," which is a real object illustrating countries with defined political borders. To translate "page of times" to "map" shows a conscious effort to give people the idea that Ahmadinejad's statement was not a metaphorical expression of discontent but a real foreign policy declaration. This effort becomes even clearer when one learns that Ahmadinejad used the verb "vanish" — not "wiped off" — to describe what he wished would happen to the regime in Israel. Vanish is a transitive verb, meaning "to disappear." By definition, disappearance is something that an object does to itself or naturally happens to it without an outside party's intervention. "Wipe off," on the other hand, has a strong emphasis on the party that does the wiping off. In other words, as opposed to vanishing, things can't wipe themselves off; they require some external force to do the wiping off. By translating "mahv shavad" to "wiped off" instead of the correct translation "vanish," the translators consciously framed Ahmadinejad as implying that an outside party — i.e. Iran, by implication — should have a role in wiping off the regime in Israel while he was merely wishing an outcome on a regime he did not agree with. He could have said "wiped off" or "Iran will (or shall) wipe Israel (or the regime in Israel) off the map," but he did not. The U.S.'s official translation of his statement misrepresents what Ahmadinejad said or meant.

4) The fact that Ahmadinejad specifically mentioned the occupation of Jerusalem indicates the main reason for his discontent. It is certainly legitimate for one to wish the fall or disappearance of a regime — "a government in power" — based on the policies that that government has pursued. American presidents, public officials and various activists — including this blogger — have openly expressed hope that the regime in Iran would vanish, although for different reasons. The United States ' official policy throughout the entire Cold War was to actively pursue policies that would lead to communist regimes vanishing, and some may argue, that policy continues today. And groups like "The World Can't Wait" openly hope for the end of what they call the "Bush Regime." And it only takes basic research to find out that the Israeli "regime" has been illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip, built settlements, built roads, expropriated land, deported, tortured and killed Palestinians, restricted freedom of movement, harmed the economy and made them impoverished for four decades, all in direct violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. And they have done all of this with U.S.'s aid and 47 vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions against Israel since the beginning of Reagan administration alone (Chomsky). Israeli regime has also militarily supported the military regime of Burma, which recently used Israeli weapons to kill pro-democracy civilians (British Jane's Intelligence Review). That is state sponsorship of terrorism. America is also a partner in this enterprise as it continues to give Israel 3 Billion Dollars of military aid every year. In fact, between one-third to one-fifth of the entire U.S.'s foreign aid goes to Israel each year.

Within that context, it is certainly a legitimate position to wish an outlaw regime that has defied the will and moral standards of the international community vanished and perhaps see it replaced with one that opposes apartheid. But to say that wishing a ruling regime, system of government of or ideology in a country vanished equates wishing that country vanished or the people in it harmed is an egregious departure from the truth.

Iranian regime's position on Israel is that there should be a referendum with both Jews and Arabs participating based on their right of self-determination to decide whether they want a single- or double-state solution. While Iran believes in a single-state solution, the country's official policy is to support the referendum. Besides, Iran has been issuing empty rhetoric against America and Israel since the 1979 revolution. Yet that is what they have been; empty rhetoric for domestic consumption, not a foreign policy doctrine. In fact, as opposed to the United States or Israel, Iran has not attacked a foreign country without provocation for over a hundred years.

I am fundamentally against the theocratic regime in Iran for its human rights violations and know that the reformist students' movement in Tehran can gain momentum again and lead to a nonviolent democratic change if given the time and opportunity. But as I speak with some of these students everyday, I sense how much anti-Ahmadinejad rhetoric from America is hurting their movement — especially when the rhetoric is based on lies — because those lies make it easier for the outlaw Iranian regime to call America out on those lies, undercut the West's legitimacy, rally the people around itself and cut the legs from under the pro-western reformers. One of these pro-democracy activists wrote to me the following in English on Sunday: "One should try to mainstream discussion of Israel in the US media. Israel is paranoid and paranoia in a place like the mid east is extremely dangerous. I dislike and despise A[h]madinejad, but I disagree with the way he's been portrayed and treated in the US. His reception at Colombia, for example, was every bit as despicable as he himself is! I think the greatest threa[t] to American hegemony is America's double standards. That's far more dangerous than Al Qaida."

Whether it is because of the fact that 60% of all the donations to the Republican Party or candidates come from Jewish sources (Washington Post) or that four out of five largest media conglomerates in America are Jewish (Jewish Times of Los Angeles), Israel and "The Lobby" — i.e. AIPAC — have been dominating American foreign policies, especially those toward countries in the Middle East. And it is as part of their desperate effort to make a false case for attacking Iran that the Bush administration has employed the most deceptive and manipulative practices — such as grossly mistranslating Ahmadinejad's statements and lying about the idea that Ahmadinejad wants Israel off the map — to manufacture a false image of world affairs and create a false context within which he could sell another disastrous war of choice to the American people.