Ah Foxnews, you sly old . . . channel

Ahmadinejad’s Mideast Solution: Destroy Israel

Screams the headline. The up-front summary?

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

And then we read the actual quote, which is this:

“Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,” Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site Thursday.

Isn’t it embarassing that the country (and news channel) that popularized “regime change” as a euphamism for war are now blind to its usage in other contexts?

H.

It’s Associated Press, actually. No idea how it came out of there.

Maniac.

Something similar’s on cnn.com, too: “Iranian President: Destroy Israel”


“Am I turning you on yet?”

If Bush talked about the Iraq invasion as “the elimination of the Saddam regime”, would that also be described as “Bush wants to destroy Iraq”?

What he wants is bad enough, I don’t understand the need to make it sound even worse.

Funny, Tim, I don’t think he said “The Olmert regime” I think he said “The Israeli regime”. Seems to me that one could compare that to Bush saying “the Iraqi regime” or to Reagan saying “The Soviet regime” which might indeed be interpreted as a desire to destroy the sovereign entity.

You certainly can’t accuse Ahmadinejad of ever being specific about the destruction of Israel on any occasion, er, wait…

He said Zionist regime.

That’s the point, you can’t. I actually went back and read his real words, not what the bobbleheads tell us. He has consistently called the creation of Israel bullshit, and wants the nation, regime, map designation, etc. removed. He has NEVER called for killing or other violence, he just thinks Israel The Nation is crap. Which, while perhaps not a friendly point, is still a point.

H.

If Reagan had said he wanted to eliminate the communist regime in the USSR, or Bush the Islamic regime in Iran, we wouldn’t describe that as them wanting to “destroy” those countries. Jesus, if the press had quoted Reagan as saying he wanted to “destroy USSR” because he wanted to get rid of the communist regime, it could have been a diplomatic disaster bordering on nuclear suicide.

true, but the job of the news is to report today what a guy said today. Not to paraphrase him and edit his words to make him sound like a moustache-twirling villain. If we make the guy out to sound like an extremist nutcase even when he doesnt talk like one, where exactly is the incentive for him to cool his rhetoric at all? I dont see any reason why his regime cant transform like ghaddafis did, but we need to stop treating them like comic-book enemies first.

I reckon i spelt lots of stuff wrong there.

The difference, though, is that Israel is not Russia or Iraq. You can’t really seperate it out from “the Zionist regime” because it’s a country founded specifically by and for said “regime.” Israeli regime change and the destruction of Israel are synonymous, for all practical purposes, and I’m pretty sure all reasonable people realize than when someone says they want to “eliminate the Zionist regime,” that means they want to wipe Israel off the map.

I am slipping into a dreamworld of double posting.

The media is a bunch of fucking cunts lately. They won’t ask our people any hard questions, they don’t even doublecheck the chuld-molesting horseshit that passes for justification of invasion. Then on the other hand, they had us a frothy glass of piss when it’s time to conduct foreign fucking relations by whipping fifty million shitlicks into a vapid fucking frenzy when they refuse to provide any translations or taglines that are less that inflammafuckingtory. Inaccurate and inflammatory.

Just how, precisely, is our president supposed to justify to our people warming relations with this man? Thank you, media! Thank you so fucking much for foreclosing another motherfucking option that presents itself as an alternative to war, you bald eagle-headed cockless dipshits.

Fixed.

The difference, though, is that Israel is not Russia or Iraq. You can’t really seperate it out from “the Zionist regime” because it’s a country founded specifically by and for said “regime.” Israeli regime change and the destruction of Israel are synonymous, for all practical purposes, and I’m pretty sure all reasonable people realize than when someone says they want to “eliminate the Zionist regime,” that means they want to wipe Israel off the map.

Maybe he just wants to install an Islamic dictator to rule over the state. While an abhorent concept, it isn’t the same as wanting to destroy the state. Wanting to destroy a state suggests you want to crush it militarily, maybe even with nuclear weapons, whereas wanting regime change does not. If Reagan had said that he wanted to destroy Russia, there wouldn’t be anything in that statement that might suggest that he was just thinking of installing a US friendly dictator in the Kremlin.

Wanting to destroy a state and wanting regime change are not interchangeable terms.

Didn’t Reagen call for the end of the Soviet empire a number of times? I’m gonna have to look that up. I don’t mean the “tear down this wall” stuff in 89, I mean during his term.

Fixed.

Maybe you should take that up with the [zionist puppet] AP.

Well, what do you consider calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map?”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm