http://greatreporter.com/mambo/content/view/1531/1/
24/. Media Misquotes Threat From Iran's President
A mistranslated quotation attributed to Iran's President Ahmadinejad, which threatened that, "Israel must be wiped off the map," has been spread around the world. Ahmadinejad's actual statements, however, were significantly less threatening.
"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).
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".
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
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).
Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site
www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm
This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
----------
24/. Media Misquotes Threat From Iran's President
A mistranslated quotation attributed to Iran's President Ahmadinejad, which threatened that, "Israel must be wiped off the map," has been spread around the world. Ahmadinejad's actual statements, however, were significantly less threatening.
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? 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).
"Regime occupying Jerusalem" is just a circumlocution which still identifies Israel. That he refuses to dignify the nation by calling it by name seems more, rather than less, ominous. When you raise a farm animal they always recommend not giving it a name, because it makes the process of slaughtering it more emotionally charged (except Andrew and his cow "Hamburger"!). Referring to it as a regime rather than a nation/country allows him to dehumanize the state in the same way Americans do with nations we don't like: Castro's regime, Saddam's regime, the North Korean regime ... "regime" is a word you use to describe an evil government of bad people.
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".
This seems kind of asinine to me. "Wipe off the map" is a colloquialism, and I'd be surprised if it directly translated into Arabic. There's always a challenge in translating about how you convey connotations - doing a literal, word-for-word translation often omits much of the meaning of the original statement. But making a big deal about how the word "map" was NEVER USED seems juvenile, at best.
For example, think about the Greek phrase "come home with your shield, or on it". It's understandable with a simple word-for-word translation, but there's additional contextual information you have to know about the culture in order to understand not just what the speaker said, but what the speaker meant. Translating those sorts of phrases is non-trivial.
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
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).
"Must vanish from the page of time" ... it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to imagine this phrase is a similar colloquialism to "wipe off the map". Vanishing from the page of time doesn't seem like a nice thing to have happen to you. It's a slightly different verb construction which may give it a different connotation: "must be wiped from the map" is in the passive voice, and implies an actor who performs the wiping. This sort of passive voice in most official documents tends to imply that the speaker identifies with that unnamed actor, though without directly taking responsibility for the statement (seeing the passive voice in any corporate/political communication should set off a red flag). "Must vanish from the page of time" doesn't have the same implication of an actor who would make the regime vanish, so it's a bit less threatening.
But that sort of analysis is pretty deeply rooted in English. It's not obvious what the connotation of the phrase would be to a native Iranian. The translation of that phrase into the colloquialism "wiped off the map" depends on a lot of contextual knowledge on the part of the translator. It may be the proper way of translating the meaning, and it may be an overstatement. But it's certainly not the sort of thing you can prove or disprove as simply as getting out your Arabic-English dictionary and doing some simplistic word-for-word translation.
Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site
www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htmThis is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
While I don’t personally believe that an Iran driven Israeli regime change would be peaceful, it is not hard to imagine someone wanting a regime change WITHOUT destroying the country. For instance, I imagine a great many Americans want a regime change in…America! The GOP and religious right and so on could I think easily be considered a new regime in America. So with Israel, there are particular policies that one may adhere to that would be extremely distasteful to Iran (expanding borders for example). The unfortunate thing is that Iran is still a theocracy and so it is basically a given that they hate Jews, as well as any other religion that is not their own. So when they say regime change that is probably a p.c. way of saying die infidel die. But the fact of the matter is that the American media didn’t offer the real words and then explain to you why they mean what they mean, they skipped step B through Y and went to Z, Iran wants to destroy Israel. So it seems to me the American media definitely got away with telling a half truth, sometimes more damaging than a full lie. I’ll throw this sentence to my Iranian buddy at work and see what he things it means. Not word for word, but a description of the meaning that it is meant to convey. I’ll see what he comes up with.
---------
This was a link from M's site so I have no familiarity with the source, nor do I speak Farsi (btw the predominant language in Iran is Farsi, not Arabic, because Persians are not of Arab descent). Maybe we shouldn't read into things so much or bother with semantics/interpretations. I think the more interesting question is, did someone deliberately embellish the translation of the quote so as to make Ahmadinejad appear more anti-Semitic, more crazy, and more repugnant to Western sensibilities? If so, then someone has an agenda to demonize Iran and its leader, presumably to increase popular support for anti-regime activities. And contrary to your assertions, "regime" does not imply evil government, and regime change does not have to be violent (more to come on this below). If not, then the author is a propagandist (to the other extreme) to try to mask Ahmadinejad's liabilities. So Iran's leader is a vocal anti-Semite who threatens his enemies. That makes him no worse than our allies Mahmoud Abbas or some Saudi leaders (who still haven't officially recognized Israel). Premier Khruschev threatened to "bury" America (and unlike Iran, the Soviets actually had the ability to do so), but did he? Nixon probably said nastier things about the Jews on his White House tapes, yet his administration gave Israel plenty of economic and military aid. Words are not actions.
I don't think it is useful to "psychologize" Ahmadinejad, armed with more assumption than evidence, to decipher the hidden connotations of him not calling Israel by name. It could have just been a slip of the tongue or a euphemism (like in America we call Israel "The Jewish State" but we are not trying to dehumanize them by doing so).
Regime change can be bloody but doesn't have to be. The Soviet Union was supposed to be the godless, belligerent "Evil Empire" bent on world domination and such. They had a bloodless regime change. East Germany called it quits nonviolently. There were also bloodless regime changes and movements towards greater democracy and less military rule in South Africa, South Korea, and Indonesia. The British and French granted several of their Caribbean and African colonies independence without any fighting. Do I think the fairly right-wing government in Israel will go down without a fight? Definitely not, but regime change does not equal war. Under Clinton, the official State Department policy towards the 3 Axis of Evil nations was "regime change". Did we fire a single shot? There are peaceful diplomatic and economic ways to encourage regime change. Do I think Iran would favor those choices over military aggression if they had the chance? Who knows and it's just speculation anyway. Bottom line, calling for regime change in another nation is not a declaration of war. Sometimes regimes are toppled violently, but often from the inside and not due to a foreign invasion.
"Regime" is just a word for a ruling body. In the Western mass media it has come to have a negative connotation, but really we can't assume that in all cases. There's nothing in that word that suggests "evil", whether Iran refers to the regime in Jerusalem or when Bush refers to the regime in Tehran. But it does seem that our press and politicians use "regime" to characterize unfriendly governments more often than allies. Though to me it's silly to blanket-label governments as good or evil. All governments do some good and some bad at various times. How do we draw the line when a regime is good or evil? Is it all in the eye of the beholder? Maybe in that case, we should keep "regime" as a neutral word as it was originally intended.
Webster:
re·gime 
1. a mode or system of rule or government .
2. a ruling or prevailing system.
3. a government in power.
4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.
5. Medicine/Medical. regimen (def. 1).
This year, 60 Minutes had a lengthy interview with Ahmadinejad that some members of the Jewish American community were very upset at ABC for airing. The host prodded Ahmadinejad several times to qualify what he meant in his previous speech when he supposedly said "wipe Israel off the map". But he didn't respond. If he and the rest of Iran are such anti-Semites, then why didn't he say anything derogatory on American mass media when he would reach the greatest audience to disseminate his "hate"? When he was invited to Columbia to speak (and NYC is home to more Jewish people than Tel Aviv), he again refrained from any anti-Israeli conversation. If he was such a racist and extremist, why would he back down from two of the biggest speaking forums in his life? Instead he discussed other socio-political issues.
Look, I make no apologies for Ahmadinejad. I think he's a poor leader and an ineffective politician, but he has a brain. He may say ridiculous things like, "There are no gays in Iran", but he is not a wacko. It takes some guile and skill for an engineering professor to become mayor of Tehran, climb the political ladder, tame the Ayatollahs, and eventually become president, even though his popularity numbers are poor and on the decline, and he may not win re-election unless he delivers on his promise to improve their economy. He got slammed in the recent Iranian election, where candidates loyal to Ahmadinejad were summarily voted down. To his peril probably, Ahmadinejad has focused his administration on standing up to Israel and America, mostly in the form of nuclear research as a matter of national prestige. The more we tell them "no", the more they want to continue. The more we criticize and try to isolate them, the harder it is for moderate, reformist voices to be heard.
We haven't approached diplomacy seriously or maturely, and that move has been counter-productive to our "regime change" agenda. Even Reagan invited Gorby to Santa Barbara against the wishes of the hawks in his party, but history validated his decision. And we won't even have a meet-and-greet among Iranian and US ambassadors? Ahmadinejad has invited Bush to discuss and debate on multiple occasions, but to no avail. Unlike North Korea and Saddam's Iraq, Iran under Ahmadinejad has also engaged in a lot of clever and productive diplomacy to improve ties with Russia, China, and Europe, as well as reach out to Sunni Muslim nations. His government has also bolstered Syria and Shia groups in Iraq and Lebanon, in constructive or damaging ways depending on whom you ask. Even Iraqi PM Maliki said that Iran was a positive influence on his country. Iran has millions of dollars worth of contracts with the Iraqi government, such as setting up a telecom network, and thousands of Iranians make pilgrimages to holy Shia sites within Iraq, contributing to the tourism economy. But when a reporter asked Bush about Maliki's statement, he replied, "If he truly believes that, then the PM and I need to have a heart-to-heart discussion."
----------
If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally
It is absurd to demand that Tehran should have made concessions before sitting down with the Americans
Jonathan Steele
Friday June 2, 2006
The Guardian
----------
Well, after having our profs incessantly make fun of the G. I wouldnt exactly
call the paper one of the best. Its better than most here in the UK, but thats
like saying CNN is better than Fox; true but still reveals just how crappy the
state of journalism in the UK is. The only paper here Id marginally trust to tie
their own shoes is the FT...
I agree our Iran position is basically retarded. I
think I saw an analysis that made a lot of sense to me; basically that Iran is
maybe Israel's largest security concern at the moment (which isn't to say that
it is unmanageable - the Israelis are worried but don't have the same hard-on
for war that the admin does right now, probably because they have to live with
the consequences). However, it is not our largest security concern (Iraq,
Afghanistan rank much higher obviously), and that the admin is basically
conflating the two problems.
Iran is a somewhat problematic player in the regional arena that concerns the US
a lot, but, played right, could work towards our ends (they aren't interested in
letting a bunch of crazies run Iraq either, because then they'd have no
influence), with the proper carrot and stick. However, treating Iran as our
greatest exisential threat more or less precludes this kind of nuance. So we're
shit up a creek in Iraq without their help and have no leverage on them except
war. Great. Obama's thoughts in this regard I thought were actually quite
interesting (I think he's best in class of the major three democrats wrt foreign
policy actually).
Q. The Bush administration has little influence on Iranian behavior in Iraq. How
would you elicit cooperation from Iran and Syria that the Bush administration
has failed to obtain? Would we offer assurances that we would not be engaged in
a policy of regime change. What would you do?
A. I think you foreshadowed my answer. You’ve got the Bush administration
expecting Crocker to make progress on the very narrow issue of helping Shia
militias at the same time as you’ve got Dick Cheney giving a speech saying it is
very likely that we may engage in military action in Iran and the United States
Senate passing a resolution, suggesting that our force structure inside Iraq is
dependent in someway on blunting Iranian influence. You can’t engage in
diplomacy in isolation. There’s got to be a broader strategic context to it.
The Iranians and the Syrians are acting irresponsibly inside Iraq. They perceive
that it is a way to leverage or impact or weaken us at a time when they’re
worried about United States action in a broader context. I’ve already said, I
would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian
leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a
whole host of issues are on the table. We’re not looking at Iraq, just in
isolation. Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started
seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive
that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may
not blow you up.
My belief about the regional powers in the Middle East is that they don’t
respond well to that kind of bluster. They haven’t in the past, there’s no
reason to think they will in the future. On the other hand, what we know, is
that, for example, in the early days of our Afghanistan offensive, the Iranians
we’re willing to cooperate when we had more open lines of dialogue and we were
able to identify interests that were compatible with theirs.”
Q. So what assurances would you offer them to get them to be more cooperative –
try to convince them that the U.S. would not pursue regime change?
A. There are a series of serious problems that we have. Iraq is one. Their
development of nuclear weapons is another. Their support of terrorist activities
– Hezbollah and Hamas are a third. On all these fronts, we’ve got severe issues
with their actions. We expect them to desist from those actions, but what we are
also willing to say is as a consequence of their changes in behavior, we are
willing to examine their membership in the W.T.O., we are willing to look at how
can we assure that they’ve got the kinds of economic relationships that can help
grow their economy.
We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing
some good faith. I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not
hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect
changes in behavior and there are both carrots and there are sticks available to
them for those changes in behavior. Where those conversations go is not yet
clear, but what is absolutely clear is that the path that we are on now is not
going to make our troops in Iraq safer. Iran has shown no inclination to back
off of their support of Shia militias as a consequence of the threats that
they’ve been receiving from the Bush and Cheney administration. If anything, it
probably accelerates their interest in trying to make a situation in Iraq as
uncomfortable as possible for us.”
Q. Would you be seeking a comprehensive rapprochement or if Iran insisted on
pursuing their weapons programs, which is entirely possible, would you still try
to carve out some sort of side arrangement that would pertain to stability? And
what would you be prepared to offer?
A. I can’t anticipate what their response would be. What I can anticipate is
that the act of us reaching out to them in a series [sic] way, empowered by the
Oval Office, not that we’ll have Crocker over here doing something, while we do
something else, but a serious, coordinated diplomatic effort will, if nothing
else, change world opinion about our approach to Iran and will strengthen our
ability should they choose not to stand down on the nuclear issue, for example,
or to continue to engage in hostile activity even if directly inside Iraq, that
it greatly strengthens our position with our allies – both in the region and
around the world and strengthens our capacity to impose tougher economic
sanctions and take other steps, not in isolation, but as part of a broader
international effort.
---------
Yeah totally, and we've pulled the same crap with Hamas, Castro, and other undesirables. What kind of BS infantile Condi Rice diplomacy is this? "If Iran stops its nuclear research and support of terror groups, then we will talk. We refuse to even meet with you until you make all the concessions that we asked for." Then there would be nothing more to negotiate! It's like expecting a commitment of marriage before you go on a first date. Even I know that is not how diplomacy works. It's like if the Iranians demanded that we pull out of Iraq, cut off aid to Israel, and dismantle our Mideast/Central Asian bases before they agree to sit down for talks with us. But maybe the Bushies don't want to negotiate at all, and just conjured up this "excuse" to blame the lack of communication on the "uncooperative, stubborn Iranians bent on nuclear ambitions".
Cheney, Giuliani, and others have not minced their words and basically declared that war is the best option, although it's hard to separate election-year grandstanding with actual foreign policy proposals. Iran-hating has become ever hotter for the GOP candidates (and the Dems to some extent) than illegals-bashing. That quack Tom Tancredo even went so far as to pronounce that he might threaten the destruction of Mecca and Medina to deter Iranian nuclear research and terrorism from "Islamofascists" (here's an interesting op-ed about that moronic term: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/06/opinion/edislam.php). As you said, Obama sounds promising because he actually isn't scared to admit that he'd want to TALK with Iran, offer quid-pro-quo concessions, and work out our differences peacefully. Though his stance on Pakistan in the war on terror leaves much to be desired (see below).
The Iranians are definitely not saints, but we mustn't underestimate their clever diplomacy. They have played the stalling, PR, and misdirection games well with the UN and IAEA, buying them time to continue research, delay meaningful sanctions/punishments, and throw the dogs off the scent. They also have China and Russia in their corner (plus Japan and other powerful nations are major importers of Iranian hydrocarbons). They may not sing Iran's praises, but they are definitely not so enthusiastic about stricter sanctions (as is the case with Sudan too). And unlike Iraq, we can't go it alone to halt Iran's nuclear progress. How do we attack nuclear knowledge anyway? We can try to bomb a facility, but we can't bomb it out of their memory. All the data is backed up and they can just rebuild and continue somewhere more fortified deeper in the mountains. Except now we've started a war, they've sent agents on reprisal attacks against us and our allies, and all the diplomatic options are off the table. At best our bombing will delay their nukes, and may even accelerate research (even moderate Iranians will see that the American threat is real, nationalism will dominate, and they'll push forward with even greater haste and motivation).
But if any of you have seen the movie "Michael Clayton", you'd appreciate this reference. Clooney is a "problem fixer" for a high-powered NYC law firm, and his life was threatened because he uncovered a secret about a company's big lawsuit. He tells them, "I am not the guy you kill; I am the guy you buy. Are you so stupid that you can't see that?" Iran is not a nation we attack; it's a nation we bribe. I know that sounds "un-American", but it may be the best option. As you said, the stick won't work with Iran because of their influence in Iraq, geographic/strategic advantages, and oil wealth. The carrot will work because they are clearly in need of economic assistance, enhanced trade, security assurances, and such. They are scared of outside attack and more scared of their own people revolting (hence the state-sponsored repression). Like East Germany or North Korea, no regime can survive if it spends the bulk of its energy policing and deceiving its own people. The theocracy can't last in its current form, and we can help the people without propping up the government. We can facilitate reforms and a peaceful transition for Iran to become a constructive, responsible, non-nuclear member of the international community. But our policy of isolation and name calling accomplishes just the opposite.
If political forces in Washington and Tel Aviv merge our two distinct national security priorities into one, we do so at both our perils. As you said, Israel's Mideast security priorities are: prevent Iranian influence and armaments from growing to dangerous levels, keep Hamas/Hizbullah down and out of the political process (and by extension, keep the Palestinians impoverished/fragmented), and then relative stability/coexistence with Saudi Arabia/Syria/Iraq. Our priorities are: counter Islamic extremism/Al Qaeda, fix Iraq, fix Afghanistan, two-state solution in Palestine, and then regime change in Iran. We are still bosom buddies despite our conflicting interests. Olmert and Israel fumbled in their invasion of Lebanon, and much of the Muslim world saw that war as a struggle between Iranian and American proxies for regional dominance. America's diplomatic shielding of Israel from UN censure makes us appear partisan and hypocritical to the Muslims we are trying to persuade to renounce violence and embrace reforms. During the first year of our occupation, Iraqis would often refer to US forces as "Jews". I am not saying the mess we've made in the Middle East since WWII is all Israel's fault, but I think we all realize that US foreign policy in the region would be vastly different (and probably better) if we totally divorced ourselves from Israel's national priorities (as the EU has).
In closing, I do like Obama and he has always opposed the Iraq War. But I worry about his ability to withstand the GOP and Hillary's attacks yet still appear electable (since image is more important than substance to the typical American voter). He was so desperate to counter the critics and demonstrate that he can be "tough minded" on foreign policy, that he uttered such an idiotic, ridiculous thing: he wouldn't seek the Pakistani government's approval to launch military operations within that nation in pursuit of terrorists. I still don't think he has recovered politically from this gaffe (maybe his "flip flopper" moment?). In Karachi they burned American flags in response.
He should know better to watch his tongue when discussing Mideast issues. His Dem rivals are eager to pounce on any misstep from "Mr. Clean", and even casual statements can inflame temperamental Muslim sensibilities, as was the case with the Mohamed cartoons. It was a stupid idea to begin with that wasn't even worth mentioning. As I said before, an uninvited US attack within Pakistan may accomplish short-term strategic goals, but will ultimately serve to increase anti-American extremism and violent blowback.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/obama.pakistan.ap/index.html
Obama terror vow angers Pakistan
ISLAMABAD , Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan has criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.
Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News on Friday. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.
Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror. Watch Obama's speech on fighting terrorism »
Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.
Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.
"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.
Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.
But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.
In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.
It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.
Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2141482,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
Pakistan criticises Obama after warning on military strikes
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday August 4, 2007
The Guardian
The response from Pakistan was mirrored in criticism from Hillary Clinton and other Democratic rivals.
Mr Obama, in a speech on Wednesday, said President George Bush had chosen the wrong battlefield in Iraq and should have concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He said he would not hesitate to use force to destroy those who posed a threat to the United States, and if the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, would not act, he would.
That speech may have played well with Democratic activists and the public at large. But before any poll could be held to test reaction, Mr Obama showed uncertainty on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press.
He appeared to be caught off guard when he was asked if he would use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.
Mr Obama replied: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He added: "... involving civilians".
Demonstrating a degree of unpreparedness, he went on to say: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
Ms Clinton pounced, portraying herself as more savvy and dependable on foreign affairs.
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said.
"Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
Joe Biden, another Democratic rival, described Mr Obama as naive, while Chris Dodd, who has only an outside chance of securing the nomination, said he was inconsistent.
Ms Clinton and John Edwards are almost neck and neck with Mr Obama in Iowa, where a caucus in January will provide the first election test.
Success in Iowa could be crucial, providing the impetus for the primaries in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. A poll in the Washington Post yesterday of voters likely to attend the caucus put Mr Obama at 27%, Ms Clinton at 26% and Mr Edwards at 26%.
Mr Obama and Ms Clinton, after largely avoiding criticising one another in campaigning over the last six months, have been exchanging personal jibes almost daily for the last two weeks over foreign policy.
Both will be attending a debate in Chicago today at a convention that brings together bloggers mainly from the left. Mr Obama will almost certainly receive a warmer welcome than Ms Clinton because of her 2002 vote for the Iraq war and their foreign policy positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment