Yeah, those are such "American" media outlets there. :rolleyes:
I was referring to the fact that the article above pointed to a mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's speech being mistranslated by a U.S media outlet. I was assuming that a number of international media outlets had picked up the story - hence 'snowball effect'.
Yeah, those are such "American" media outlets there. :rolleyes:
Let's get this straight...
Bankok Post
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.
Al-Jazeera
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
BBC
"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
So... Only one of these sources calls for the destruction of Israel and that is Al-Jazeera. They are saying as Ayatollah Khomeini said... Well Khomeini said the Zionist Regime must be removed, and that correlates with the other two sources. Poor translation.
Look, I'm not taking the side of Ahmadinejad. I'm just sick of the demonizing propaganda. All sides are to blame, all sides are driven by religious and political motives. Kiss and make up.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"must vanish from the pages of time" or "eliminated from the pages of history"
Can any of those be positive????? George Bush has said less about Iran and half of the people here are going apeshit about the US "starting a war". What's the difference?
Exactly. That's what I've tried to say, but whose listening?
Bankok Post
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.
Al-Jazeera
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
BBC
"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
So... Only one of these sources calls for the destruction of Israel and that is Al-Jazeera. They are saying as Ayatollah Khomeini said... Well Khomeini said the Zionist Regime must be removed, and that correlates with the other two sources. Poor translation.
Look, I'm not taking the side of Ahmadinejad. I'm just sick of the demonizing propaganda. All sides are to blame, all sides are driven by religious and political motives. Kiss and make up.
I'm just sick of your demonizing propaganda, like the exact words really matter - The man wants to destroy Israel (regime, country, people - same thing in that case), end of story.
Exactly. That's what I've tried to say, but whose listening?
Apparently no one. It's so ridiculous. Let's imagine that all Ahmedinejad really wants is to tackle the issue of Jerusalem (the bare minimum that his words can be interpreted as). Let's imagine that's all he cares about and ignore everything he's ever said. So all he wants is an Arab government in Jerusalem. Will Israel ever allow that to happen? No. So the question is now, how will you get it? Ok - you'll have to fight for it. Does Ahmedinejad have a problem with that? Obviously not since his administration is and has been funding active military efforts to accomplish just that. So where does that leave us? Iran is willing to fight a war over a piece of fucking land and install a new government in that process.
Even at the bare minimum you still have a guy who's ready to fight a war to install a new government in a foreign land. Is that acceptable? No, as so many of these other posters have already indicated by rightly chiding George Bush for the exact same thing.
I just cannot believe that this goes on. I understand that a lot of people really despise America or American policy or whatever. There's a lot of good reasons to do so. So many good reasons that you never have to contradict yourself with this kind of bullshit. Ahmadinejad is an Islamic hard-liner people. When he was mayor of Tehran he declared that men and women should ride in separate elevators for Christ's sake. During his inaguration speech he said "the wave of the Islamic revolution will reach the entire world". He is pursuing nuclear weapons. That's his right, but let's not pretend for a second that the only reason he's doing this is for defensive reasons. He's as much an imperialist as George Bush and probably more so. He very much wants to extend Iranian influence beyond the Middle East.
If you like this guy so much, put Jerry Falwell for president on your goddamn ballot in 2008. Or better yet I'll be more than happy to pay for anyone's one-way ticket to Iran.
"must vanish from the pages of time" or "eliminated from the pages of history"
Can any of those be positive????? George Bush has said less about Iran and half of the people here are going apeshit about the US "starting a war". What's the difference?
The difference is one is radically more beligerent. It's demonizing propaganda. It's also the difference of referring to "Zionism" rather than "Israel", that's a big difference to me. If you think that those two terms are synonymous, then maybe Israel should be removed.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The difference is one is radically more beligerent.
Huh?! Man, you can't just use totally false assertions to prove your points on here! How so?! Even assuming you're right about Iran's president (and you're not, but let's assume), what he and Bush said amount to the same damn thing! Removing a regime!
Huh?! Man, you can't just use totally false assertions to prove your points on here! How so?! Even assuming you're right about Iran's president (and you're not, but let's assume), what he and Bush said amount to the same damn thing! Removing a regime!
If you are referring to Bush's statment about Saddam then you are correct.
However...
"Wipe Israel off the Map"
and
"Eliminate the Zionist Regime"
are completely different. One calls for the destruction of a state, the other calls for a change of leadership. One is like the USA bullying Saddam out of Iraq and the other is like the USA taking ownership of Iraq.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The difference is one is radically more beligerent. It's demonizing propaganda.
It's not "radically beligerent" to suggest that a government should be removed in favor of another via force? If George Bush said that the "Iranian Government should vanish from the pages of time", would you not call that "radically beligerent" particularly considering existing military involvement aimed at removing that government?
It's also the difference of referring to "Zionism" rather than "Israel", that's a big difference to me. If you think that those two terms are synonymous, then maybe Israel should be removed.
Can you tell me the difference between "Zionism" and the common belief among Arabs that they belong in that land?
It's not "radically beligerent" to suggest that a government should be removed in favor of another via force? If George Bush said that the "Iranian Government should vanish from the pages of time", would you not call that "radically beligerent" particularly considering existing military involvement aimed at removing that government?
While I feel that both statements are radically beligerent, one is radically more beligerent.
Can you tell me the difference between "Zionism" and the common belief among Arabs that they belong in that land?
The arabs inhabited the land for centuries after the Jews fled from Roman occupation. While I don't agree with the Roman exile of the Jews, I don't consider that a ticket to kill arabs and steal the land back.
At this point, we can't just say "what's done is done" "it's water under the bridge" because the Israeli settlements in Palestine are grand and spread out, allowing Israel to claim ownership of that occupied land effectively eliminates Palestine as a sovereign state. So, Israel needs to retreat to pre-1967 borders where Palestine can have a definate solid state. As sad as that is, I believe it's the only way it will work, and the Jews can have their precious Israel aswell.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The arabs inhabited the land for centuries after the Jews fled from Roman occupation. While I don't agree with the Roman exile of the Jews, I don't consider that a ticket to kill arabs and steal the land back.
Edit: While I don't agree with the Israeli exile of the Palestinians, I don't consider that a ticket to kill Israelis and steal the land back.
Edit: While I don't agree with the Israeli exile of the Palestinians, I don't consider that a ticket to kill Israelis and steal the land back.
Exactly, but it is a ticket to stop Israel from killing Palestinians and stealing their land. This is a rather unique situation because in ancient Palestine the Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully. But the Jews somehow got this idea they should own the land without any arabs and thus the reason for seperation. If you look at a map of Israeli settlements in present day palestine, you will see Israel needs to evacuate it's occupation of Palestine in order for their to be a two-state solution.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
While I feel that both statements are radically beligerent, one is radically more beligerent.
Ok. Thank you for the clarification.
The arabs inhabited the land for centuries after the Jews fled from Roman occupation. While I don't agree with the Roman exile of the Jews, I don't consider that a ticket to kill arabs and steal the land back.
And can I also infer then that you don't consider Arab exile a ticket to kill Israelis and steal the land back?
At this point, we can't just say "what's done is done" "it's water under the bridge" because the Israeli settlements in Palestine are grand and spread out, allowing Israel to claim ownership of that occupied land effectively eliminates Palestine as a sovereign state. So, Israel needs to retreat to pre-1967 borders where Palestine can have a definate solid state. As sad as that is, I believe it's the only way it will work, and the Jews can have their precious Israel aswell.
And can I also infer then that you don't consider Arab exile a ticket to kill Israelis and steal the land back?
Correct
And if Israel refuses do so?
The international community needs to stop kissing Israel's ass and put some sanctions on them. Personally I think the USA needs to take the initiative on this.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The international community needs to stop kissing Israel's ass and put some sanctions on them. Personally I think the USA needs to take the initiative on this.
I'm not sure the international community really kisses Israel's ass. The USA certainly does though. And I'd like to see the USA pull its funding and support. But I don't think Israel has any fundamental obligation at to retract its borders. If a "two-state" solution is only possible with those borders, it makes me wonder what the hell people were clamoring for in 1966.
I see a lot of people quoting Ahmadinejad as saying this, and I want you all to know that you are wrong. That's just what the headlines say, nowhere have I seen this directly quoted and/or properly translated. Read the below article for a better understanding, please.
HE NEVER SAID IT AND YES, THE HOLOCAUST REALLY DIDNT HAPPEN RIGHT?
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
so ... everyone thinks that the president of iran (much easier to type than his actual name) sole purpose is to build nuclear weapons so he can destroy israel?? ...
what do you guys take iranians for? ... for pete's sake ... i guess in the end - it makes it easier to put a real hate on the guy for future actions against iran ...
i don't have any love for right wing hardliners like him but i'm not gonna buy into this marketing ad to support more war ...
HOW ABOUT AMERICAN HOSTAGE TAKING WAR LIKE ENEMIES TO OUR STATE, AKA THE GREAT SATATN.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Bankok Post
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.
Al-Jazeera
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
BBC
"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
So... Only one of these sources calls for the destruction of Israel and that is Al-Jazeera. They are saying as Ayatollah Khomeini said... Well Khomeini said the Zionist Regime must be removed, and that correlates with the other two sources. Poor translation.
Look, I'm not taking the side of Ahmadinejad. I'm just sick of the demonizing propaganda. All sides are to blame, all sides are driven by religious and political motives. Kiss and make up.
YOUR PASTING PRO AHMADNIJAD STUFF ALL OVER THIS BOARD. GIVE ME A BREAK
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
HE NEVER SAID IT AND YES, THE HOLOCAUST REALLY DIDNT HAPPEN RIGHT?
I am glad you agree he never said it. The holocaust though, I'm suprised you think that didn't happen. There is plenty of evidence to prove it did.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
YOUR PASTING PRO AHMADNIJAD STUFF ALL OVER THIS BOARD. GIVE ME A BREAK
That is a blatant lie. Pro Ahmadnijad stuff would look completely different. I'm simply sorting out the bullshit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.
"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.
"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.
"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.
This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.
"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.
"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.
Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."
From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967)
So Ahmadnijad never called Jews Zionists? And he never called for the removal of the Zionists? I call BS! So Does MLK
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Comments
Does this matter?
It shouldn't.
But bias runs deep.
I was referring to the fact that the article above pointed to a mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's speech being mistranslated by a U.S media outlet. I was assuming that a number of international media outlets had picked up the story - hence 'snowball effect'.
Let's get this straight...
Bankok Post
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.
Al-Jazeera
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
BBC
"If European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II... why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranian television.
So... Only one of these sources calls for the destruction of Israel and that is Al-Jazeera. They are saying as Ayatollah Khomeini said... Well Khomeini said the Zionist Regime must be removed, and that correlates with the other two sources. Poor translation.
Look, I'm not taking the side of Ahmadinejad. I'm just sick of the demonizing propaganda. All sides are to blame, all sides are driven by religious and political motives. Kiss and make up.
Exactly. That's what I've tried to say, but whose listening?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/27/wiran27.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/003360.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2152412005
I'm just sick of your demonizing propaganda, like the exact words really matter - The man wants to destroy Israel (regime, country, people - same thing in that case), end of story.
Apparently no one. It's so ridiculous. Let's imagine that all Ahmedinejad really wants is to tackle the issue of Jerusalem (the bare minimum that his words can be interpreted as). Let's imagine that's all he cares about and ignore everything he's ever said. So all he wants is an Arab government in Jerusalem. Will Israel ever allow that to happen? No. So the question is now, how will you get it? Ok - you'll have to fight for it. Does Ahmedinejad have a problem with that? Obviously not since his administration is and has been funding active military efforts to accomplish just that. So where does that leave us? Iran is willing to fight a war over a piece of fucking land and install a new government in that process.
Even at the bare minimum you still have a guy who's ready to fight a war to install a new government in a foreign land. Is that acceptable? No, as so many of these other posters have already indicated by rightly chiding George Bush for the exact same thing.
I just cannot believe that this goes on. I understand that a lot of people really despise America or American policy or whatever. There's a lot of good reasons to do so. So many good reasons that you never have to contradict yourself with this kind of bullshit. Ahmadinejad is an Islamic hard-liner people. When he was mayor of Tehran he declared that men and women should ride in separate elevators for Christ's sake. During his inaguration speech he said "the wave of the Islamic revolution will reach the entire world". He is pursuing nuclear weapons. That's his right, but let's not pretend for a second that the only reason he's doing this is for defensive reasons. He's as much an imperialist as George Bush and probably more so. He very much wants to extend Iranian influence beyond the Middle East.
If you like this guy so much, put Jerry Falwell for president on your goddamn ballot in 2008. Or better yet I'll be more than happy to pay for anyone's one-way ticket to Iran.
The difference is one is radically more beligerent. It's demonizing propaganda. It's also the difference of referring to "Zionism" rather than "Israel", that's a big difference to me. If you think that those two terms are synonymous, then maybe Israel should be removed.
Huh?! Man, you can't just use totally false assertions to prove your points on here! How so?! Even assuming you're right about Iran's president (and you're not, but let's assume), what he and Bush said amount to the same damn thing! Removing a regime!
If you are referring to Bush's statment about Saddam then you are correct.
However...
"Wipe Israel off the Map"
and
"Eliminate the Zionist Regime"
are completely different. One calls for the destruction of a state, the other calls for a change of leadership. One is like the USA bullying Saddam out of Iraq and the other is like the USA taking ownership of Iraq.
It's not "radically beligerent" to suggest that a government should be removed in favor of another via force? If George Bush said that the "Iranian Government should vanish from the pages of time", would you not call that "radically beligerent" particularly considering existing military involvement aimed at removing that government?
Can you tell me the difference between "Zionism" and the common belief among Arabs that they belong in that land?
While I feel that both statements are radically beligerent, one is radically more beligerent.
The arabs inhabited the land for centuries after the Jews fled from Roman occupation. While I don't agree with the Roman exile of the Jews, I don't consider that a ticket to kill arabs and steal the land back.
At this point, we can't just say "what's done is done" "it's water under the bridge" because the Israeli settlements in Palestine are grand and spread out, allowing Israel to claim ownership of that occupied land effectively eliminates Palestine as a sovereign state. So, Israel needs to retreat to pre-1967 borders where Palestine can have a definate solid state. As sad as that is, I believe it's the only way it will work, and the Jews can have their precious Israel aswell.
Edit: While I don't agree with the Israeli exile of the Palestinians, I don't consider that a ticket to kill Israelis and steal the land back.
Exactly, but it is a ticket to stop Israel from killing Palestinians and stealing their land. This is a rather unique situation because in ancient Palestine the Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully. But the Jews somehow got this idea they should own the land without any arabs and thus the reason for seperation. If you look at a map of Israeli settlements in present day palestine, you will see Israel needs to evacuate it's occupation of Palestine in order for their to be a two-state solution.
Ok. Thank you for the clarification.
And can I also infer then that you don't consider Arab exile a ticket to kill Israelis and steal the land back?
And if Israel refuses do so?
The international community needs to stop kissing Israel's ass and put some sanctions on them. Personally I think the USA needs to take the initiative on this.
Good.
I'm not sure the international community really kisses Israel's ass. The USA certainly does though. And I'd like to see the USA pull its funding and support. But I don't think Israel has any fundamental obligation at to retract its borders. If a "two-state" solution is only possible with those borders, it makes me wonder what the hell people were clamoring for in 1966.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
YOUR PASTING PRO AHMADNIJAD STUFF ALL OVER THIS BOARD. GIVE ME A BREAK
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
I am glad you agree he never said it. The holocaust though, I'm suprised you think that didn't happen. There is plenty of evidence to prove it did.
That is a blatant lie. Pro Ahmadnijad stuff would look completely different. I'm simply sorting out the bullshit.
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.
"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.
"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.
"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.
This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.
"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.
"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.
Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."
From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967)
So Ahmadnijad never called Jews Zionists? And he never called for the removal of the Zionists? I call BS! So Does MLK
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006