North Korean purges continue. Klling latest with mortar execution.

[John Mekki]

Let me see if I've got it. If something is false yet but matches "the media's" bias, then it will be repeated and repeated.

No.
Try to think about it.
I never said repeated by all media.
If a false news will be repeated by all media then you would have no way to find out the truth, do not you think so?
But if some authoritative media show that the information was, alas, a lie and they give official statements of political persons in this sense you would expect that the other media who told the lie to stand up and say that they were mistaken or that they were right, because of...
If they just keep mum is probably because the lie was, in fact, a lie, and they just want to get away with it.
This is the only reason I can think of.
If you have another..

 

[John Mekki]

I didn't say it. So stop lying about me!

I said Ahmadinejad didn't say it. So stop lying about me!

Wait..
Yes, you are right, I have mixed up you with HoverBoarder as you jumped in the exchange I had with him.
Sorry for that.
To be precise he is the liar, you were not lying, simply misrepresenting facts here:

[..]This is not entirely true. Although Amadinejad did not say "wiped off the map", the initial translation of it that way was on Iranian state media.
[..]

..which does not mean much since the same Iranian state media immediately clarified the issue (six years ago)
And the Westerners are still reporting it as fact.
So, my apologizes, you did not lie straight away, HoverBoarder did, you are simply discounting the lie as if it was not a "real" lie while it is.

 

[angrysoba]

..which does not mean much since the same Iranian state media immediately clarified the issue (six years ago)
And the Westerners are still reporting it as fact.
So, my apologizes, you did not lie straight away, HoverBoarder did, you are simply discounting the lie as if it was not a "real" lie while it is.

Did you not see the link I posted of Iranian state media translating it as "wiped from the map"?

It is dated October 2005:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070927213903/http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247

Your "immediate clarification" came in February 2006:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\22\story_22-2-2006_pg4_15

And I'm not discounting any lies. There no doubt are people who are happy to lie about it and there are also plenty of people who simply don't know that it was a mistranslation.

 

[John Mekki]

Did you not see the link I posted of Iranian state media translating it as "wiped from the map"?

It is dated October 2005:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070927213903/http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247

Your "immediate clarification" came in February 2006:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\22\story_22-2-2006_pg4_15

And I'm not discounting any lies. There no doubt are people who are happy to lie about it and there are also plenty of people who simply don't know that it was a mistranslation.

The article I have quoted was not necessarily written the day after the clarification by the Iranian authorities.
It is not even an article from an Iranian source.
And probably it may be that the mistranslation went unnoticed until some Western media made some use of it.
In any case, when the correction comes, people should take note of it, for some reason, many western media still are not.
And therefore, they are lying.
We are talking about a correction made six years ago, so there is no way Western media do not yet know about it.
And, if I may, saying that a lie is not completely a lie when a lie is infact a lie is also not good.
Not that I like the Iranian government and their rants against Israel, tought..

 

[angrysoba]

The article I have quoted was not necessarily written the day after the clarification by the Iranian authorities.
It is not even an article from an Iranian source.
And probably it may be that the mistranslation went unnoticed until some Western media made some use of it.
In any case, when the correction comes, people should take note of it, for some reason, many western media still are not.
And therefore, they are lying.
We are talking about a correction made six years ago, so there is no way Western media do not yet know about it.
And, if I may, saying that a lie is not completely a lie when a lie is infact a lie is also not good.
Not that I like the Iranian government and their rants against Israel, tought..

It seems you are running out of steam. Do you actually have any point to make now or can we now close this discussion and return to the subject of North Korea? No need to thank me for educating you, of course. I consider it a public service.

 

[John Mekki]

It seems you are running out of steam. Do you actually have any point to make now or can we now close this discussion and return to the subject of North Korea? No need to thank me for educating you, of course. I consider it a public service.

I agree that we should go back to the subject of North Korea.
No need of educating me, I already watch Fox News and Press TV sometimes and they are fairly better in educating people

 

[angrysoba]

No need chance of educating me, I already watch Fox News and Press TV sometimes and they are fairly better in educating people

ftfy, I think.

But just in case you're still in the mood, I found one of those dastardly Western media sites still proclaiming the "wiped from the map" lie in 2008, long after Iranian media had in 2006 "immediately clarified" Ahmadinejad's 2005 words. Obviously this means they are lying because by your criteria repeating something that has been clarified is lying. Who are these devious lying merchants of lies?

The people who operate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's English website:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Monday that the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map.

"O dear Imam (Khomeini)! You said the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map. I should say that your illuminating remark and cause is going to come true today. The Zionist Regime has
lost its existence philosophy... the Zionist regime faces a complete deadend and under God's grace your wish will soon be materialized and the corrupt element will be wiped off the map," said President Ahmadinejad.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110716100837/http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114

 

[Craig4]

Did they use a point already on the mortar crew's range card or did he have to stand there while the bracketed the rounds?

 

[A'isha]

A lot of the confusion seemingly stems from the fact that Ahmadinejad inadvertently (and slightly) mangled Khomeini's original quote, and most versions of his speech "corrected" it. Khomeini used an apparently unusual phrasing that literally means "stage of time" but had generally been interpreted (and translated) as "geographical map". Ahmedinejad garbled a word that caused the phrase to instead mean "pages of time".

This neatly resulted in a sort of "both sides are technically correct" sort of deal, since Ahmadinejad himself didn't actually say "wipe off the map", but the person he was quoting said (and thus what he undoubtedly meant to say) was "wipe off the map".

A rather exhaustive explanation can be found here.

 

[John Mekki]

ftfy, I think.

But just in case you're still in the mood, I found one of those dastardly Western media sites still proclaiming the "wiped from the map" lie in 2008, long after Iranian media had in 2006 "immediately clarified" Ahmadinejad's 2005 words. Obviously this means they are lying because by your criteria repeating something that has been clarified is lying. Who are these devious lying merchants of lies?

The people who operate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's English website:



http://web.archive.org/web/20110716100837/http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114

You look very punctual in singling out what Ahmadinejiad says.
Are you at the same way punctual in singling out that the Western leaders say?

US President George W Bush has refused to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bu...-nuclear-attack/2006/04/19/1145344114235.html

From the terrorist site Sydney Morning Herald.

Since you are so good in pointing out issues on the "Israel must be wiped off the map" and/or "Israeli regime canceled from the pages of history", what about refusing to rule out a nuclear and unilateral strike against a foreign country that has not attacked you?
When shall you also discuss this, Angrysoba?

What would you have said had Khamenei stated that he does not rule out a nuclear strike against Israel?

Note
I do agree with the opinion that the Iranian leadership is made up by a large number of Israel-hating retards.
The point is that the US leadership is not any better

 

[HoverBoarder]

You have given nuclear technology to other countries in the past and continue to do so. The nuclear weapons my country has toted around for the last 50 years or so were largely of US design.

Hi, thanks for the post.

While somewhat semantic, the key part that I was trying to convey with my post was the "who would use them" part. When a country supports groups that include genocide as one of their key goals (Hamas, and to a lesser degree Hezbollah), there is a greater threat that they would give nuclear weapons to groups who would use them.

While I am in favor of getting rid of all nuclear weapons everywhere, you have to agree that there is a different threat level for who will use them. I think the greatest threat of nuclear weapons being used was during the cold war, but currently I think that threat is greater threat is from extremist groups.

Which is specifically troubling with Iran because of their relationship and support for these groups.

You can find "bomb them back to the stone age" rhetoric in the US, too. For instance one of the things the US right is running on right now is how they should be "tougher on Iran". Whilst the politicians won't say they want war, many of their supporters do.

And if you're going to tote up how much blood Iranian politics has on its hands in the last decade or so versus how much blood the US has... well the US would lose that comparison rather badly.

I don't claim there's no difference here, by the way. It's true that Iranian leaders openly call for genocide whilst American leaders do not. But personally I think the statements Iran makes are of the "Death to America!" kind of level. They're for public consumption at home, nothing more. I doubt a nuclear Iran would attack Israel, or America. They're not suicidal.

I read a somewhat amusing book where the author noted how his taxi driver in Iran would yell "death to traffic!"

I would agree with the internal focus of many of the messages from Iran, but it is still a problem.

One of my really good friends is from Iran, and I have no desire whatsoever for their country to be attacked by my country, or an ally of my country.

Still, I don't think that means we should stay silent about their attacks on their own people, their support for killing people in Syria, or their support of extremist groups.

I think Iran would be a stronger country without the genocide supporting aspect.

Yes it is. And yet... North Korea, perhaps the most insane nation in the world, has not in fact used nuclear weapons. Interesting, no? It's almost like no matter what people say, no matter how crazy they appear to be, the calculation of "If I do this then I, personally, will almost certainly die along with everything I care about." weighs heavily on them.

I don't think N. Korea is really that crazy. I think it is bad that they kill so many of their own people, but I don't think the leadership is crazy.

Besides for the most part Cuba, mass killings are just part of what is required for a communist country to function.

However, while they are definitely more than happy to let their own countrymen die, the leadership wants to retain power, which is the primary reason why N. Korea will likely never use nuclear weapons.

 

[John Mekki]

Besides for the most part Cuba, mass killings are just part of what is required for a communist country to function.

Another bunch of bull..

Each cross will represent one of the men, women and children who were killed by the Salvadoran military in the village of El Mozote in December 1981. Each would be a reminder that the dead man now celebrated in the media as a lover of freedom and democracy oversaw a foreign policy that empowered and enabled murderous brutes and thugs in the name of anti-Sovietism. Many innocents in other lands paid dearly for Reagan’s crusade.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan made nice with dictators—no matter how nefarious—as long as they parroted his opposition to communism. As soon as he entered the White House, his administration tried to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the dictator of Chile, who was responsible for a bloody coup that overthrew a democratically elected (but socialist) government. The Reaganites also cozied up to the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina, which tortured, slaughtered and disappeared its political opponents. And don’t forget Reagan’s attempt to woo Saddam Hussein, even after it was known that Hussein had used chemical weapons. (Reagan assigned this task to Donald Rumsfeld.)

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php

Just to show of people can be easily fooled in one way or the other

 

[HoverBoarder]

I wouldn't call that 'crazy', because...

...they have a specific objective they achieve with the labour camps (suppression of dissent, slave labour). I think it's an egregious breach of human rights, but I would not necessarily call it 'crazy'.

I would agree, just business as usual.

Not something that most people living in most other countries would accept, but it's not like the N. Koreans have a choice.

Using a mortar to execute someone though? That's like something a James Bond villain would do. I dunno. I suppose it's possible, but I'd like more evidence than is being presented right now before accepting the claim.

Fair enough, but the only real question is 'how' he was killed. Not so much 'if' or 'why.'

The famine in North Korea was partly (largely?) caused by massive flooding.

And this is part of what I'm talking about, I guess... a famine caused partly by drought in 'non-enemies' is attributed to drought; a famine caused by partly by flooding in an 'enemy' is attributed to their 'evil system'. Or so it seems, to me...

A famine that NEVER would have happened in modern day China or South Korea.

The difference between these countries is not their climate. It is their socioeconomic system.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Another bunch of bull..

Each cross will represent one of the men, women and children who were killed by the Salvadoran military in the village of El Mozote in December 1981. Each would be a reminder that the dead man now celebrated in the media as a lover of freedom and democracy oversaw a foreign policy that empowered and enabled murderous brutes and thugs in the name of anti-Sovietism. Many innocents in other lands paid dearly for Reagan’s crusade.

Throughout his presidency, Reagan made nice with dictators—no matter how nefarious—as long as they parroted his opposition to communism. As soon as he entered the White House, his administration tried to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the dictator of Chile, who was responsible for a bloody coup that overthrew a democratically elected (but socialist) government. The Reaganites also cozied up to the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina, which tortured, slaughtered and disappeared its political opponents. And don’t forget Reagan’s attempt to woo Saddam Hussein, even after it was known that Hussein had used chemical weapons. (Reagan assigned this task to Donald Rumsfeld.)

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/reagans_bloody_legacy.php

Just to show of people can be easily fooled in one way or the other

What are you even talking about, and why are you so worked up?

How does that address my point that "Besides for the most part Cuba, mass killings are just part of what is required for a communist country to function."



Mass killings (except for the most part Cuba) are just one of the things required for Communist countries to function. Just like regulations are needed for capitalist countries to function.

 

[HoverBoarder]

A lot of the confusion seemingly stems from the fact that Ahmadinejad inadvertently (and slightly) mangled Khomeini's original quote, and most versions of his speech "corrected" it. Khomeini used an apparently unusual phrasing that literally means "stage of time" but had generally been interpreted (and translated) as "geographical map". Ahmedinejad garbled a word that caused the phrase to instead mean "pages of time".

This neatly resulted in a sort of "both sides are technically correct" sort of deal, since Ahmadinejad himself didn't actually say "wipe off the map", but the person he was quoting said (and thus what he undoubtedly meant to say) was "wipe off the map".

A rather exhaustive explanation can be found here.

You don't really have to dig that hard to find similar statements from Ahmadinejad. The main disagreement is mainly between those who want to acknowledge what he has actually said, and those who don't.


Iran’s President Calls Israel ‘an Insult to Humankind’

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech, as reported by the official Islamic Republic News Agency, added some new and incendiary flourishes to a theme he had pushed for his entire presidency.

“The very existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to humankind and an affront to all world nations,” the news agency’s English-language report on the speech quoted him as saying. “Confronting Zionists will also pave the way for saving the whole humankind from exploitation, depravity and misery.”

In another passage, Mr. Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying that Jerusalem Day, which the Iranians call Quds Day after the city’s Arabic name, was “an occasion for all human communities to wipe out this scarlet letter, meaning the Zionist regime, from the forehead of humanity.”

A violently anti-Israel message was also the theme of Jerusalem Day commemorations in Beirut, Lebanon, the home base of Hezbollah, the militant political organization that fought a war with Israel in 2006 and is aligned with the governments of Iran and Syria in what they call the axis of resistance. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah secretary general, said in a televised speech that its arsenal of missiles trained on Israel included precision-guided rockets that could transform “the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zionists into hell.”

'Cancerous tumour' Israel will soon be destroyed, says Ahmadinejad

Israel is a "cancerous tumour" that will soon be finished off, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday told demonstrators holding an annual protest against the existence of the Jewish state.

"The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumour. Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of (Palestinian) land, in the future this story (of Israel's existence) will repeat," he said in a speech in Tehran marking Iran's Quds Day that was broadcast on state television.

"The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land.... A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists," he said.

 

[HoverBoarder]

IIRC this story originated with The Chosun Ilbo, who used an unnamed source to correct their previous story on the purge, which stated that the executed officer had been killed by firing squad.


One suggestion was "The regime which is occupying Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time".

Thanks for the post. Good info.

 

[angrysoba]

You look very punctual in singling out what Ahmadinejiad says.
Are you at the same way punctual in singling out that the Western leaders say?

US President George W Bush has refused to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Bu...-nuclear-attack/2006/04/19/1145344114235.html

From the terrorist site Sydney Morning Herald.

Since you are so good in pointing out issues on the "Israel must be wiped off the map" and/or "Israeli regime canceled from the pages of history", what about refusing to rule out a nuclear and unilateral strike against a foreign country that has not attacked you?
When shall you also discuss this, Angrysoba?

What would you have said had Khamenei stated that he does not rule out a nuclear strike against Israel?

Note
I do agree with the opinion that the Iranian leadership is made up by a large number of Israel-hating retards.
The point is that the US leadership is not any better

For Gawd's sake!

This tactic of yours is called "whataboutery". If someone says, "North Korea has locked up tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people in its gulags", your response is, "whatabout the US and Guantanamo Bay". Presumably if someone says, "Guantanamo Bay is an affront to human rights" you would say, "whatabout North Korea!"

No?

No, I thought not. You are selective about how you want to change the subject. Anyway, if you want to talk about all those things that you can't not talk about then why not start a thread on those things and stop cluttering up someone else's thread on North Korea with your "whataboutery".

 

[SezMe]

Try to think about it.

Just had to include the condescension, eh?

I never said repeated by all media.

Neither did I.

If a false news will be repeated by all media then you would have no way to find out the truth, do not you think so?

No. There are other sources of information, especially in the internet age,

But if some authoritative media show that the information was, alas, a lie and they give official statements of political persons in this sense you would expect that the other media who told the lie to stand up and say that they were mistaken or that they were right, because of...
If they just keep mum is probably because the lie was, in fact, a lie, and they just want to get away with it.
This is the only reason I can think of.
If you have another..[/quote]
I have one that makes a lot more sense.

In this post, you engage in black-and-white thinking. You think something is either a lie or not a lie. That's just silly.

When talking politics, we are talking about values. Values can differ without either party lying. When dealing with the media, there are all kinds of shades of grey. Take Fox for the last couple of days. They have not reported the Sandy story for two days in spite of the fact that it is the major story and the fact that their headquarters are right in the middle of the storm and presumably some of their people have suffered.

Now, is Fox lying? Yes, not covering a major story like Sandy is lying to their viewers. No, because every word they've spoken has been truthful.

Finally, if you decide to reply, stuff the holier-than-thou approach.

 

[trustbutverify]

A lot of the confusion seemingly stems from the fact that Ahmadinejad inadvertently (and slightly) mangled Khomeini's original quote, and most versions of his speech "corrected" it. Khomeini used an apparently unusual phrasing that literally means "stage of time" but had generally been interpreted (and translated) as "geographical map". Ahmedinejad garbled a word that caused the phrase to instead mean "pages of time".

This neatly resulted in a sort of "both sides are technically correct" sort of deal, since Ahmadinejad himself didn't actually say "wipe off the map", but the person he was quoting said (and thus what he undoubtedly meant to say) was "wipe off the map".

A rather exhaustive explanation can be found here.

Thanks, well explained.

 

[John Mekki]

In this post, you engage in black-and-white thinking. You think something is either a lie or not a lie. That's just silly.

When talking politics, we are talking about values. Values can differ without either party lying. When dealing with the media, there are all kinds of shades of grey. Take Fox for the last couple of days. They have not reported the Sandy story for two days in spite of the fact that it is the major story and the fact that their headquarters are right in the middle of the storm and presumably some of their people have suffered.

Now, is Fox lying? Yes, not covering a major story like Sandy is lying to their viewers. No, because every word they've spoken has been truthful.

Finally, if you decide to reply, stuff the holier-than-thou approach.

I have never said that everything is either a lie or not a lie.
You are babbling about things that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.