Brazil Officially Starts First Uranium Enrichment Facility

I'm not wrong - I'm right!

sincerely,

Juan Cole

 

as usual hayes, the pavlovian dog, himself just reacts and doesn't examine the links like the one that cites others as agreeing with cole's translation and pavlov's dog also says that cole has 'abandoned' academic scholarship for blogdom, even though he's still publishing chapters and articles in scholarly texts and academic journals:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/cv.htm

 

This is rich. Allow me to post some parts of Cole's rebuttal:

Hmmm, so this can hardly be considered a comprehensive refutation of Hitchens article, lol.

Now - the whines:

Now the personal attacks - these are particularly telling. I don't think you can argue Cole is without his own agenda or bias, or that his 'reply' is anything resembling the work of a scholar:

What little refutation there is in Cole's reply:

Of course, Hitchens addresses this in his article. Then again, "it is absolutely positively NOT about military action - as proof let me say that it is probably from some poem." Now that's some heavy scholarship.

Apparently having been busted in his discussion group for 'misremembering' the exact phrase, lol.

This is exactly as Hitchens reports it.

Er, this is Cole giving his apologia for Ahmadinejad - not a direct translation.

Ah, ok - thanks for clearing that up. Again Hitchens addressed this in his article.

Actually Hitchens points out the translations were from a Persian speaking source.

As an aside: I don't think this is consistent with Creepy's advocacy of how things work in Iran! I guess there is a 'Supreme' title after all, lol.

 

Wow. Nice reply, Hayes.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Why thank you, kind sir.

 

The source that I use is Dr. Juan Cole: A Professor of History at the University of Michigan, who has published scholarly texts, countless articles in academic journals, is respected as an authority on the Middle East by his peers, has done field work in the Middle East, and speaks Persian.

The source Hayes uses is Christopher Hitchens: An ex-Trotskyite who has now turned into a neo-conservative backer of Bush and somebody who steals people's emails and also shows up at conferences drunk and doesn't speak Persian.

Now I provided a link that gives us the entire speech in the original Persian,
(http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm), and I had Cole's translation verified by a Professor of Persian Language and Literature at the University of Texas at Austin. Now you don't have to take my word, Juan Cole's word, or the UT Professor's word for it, you have the exact words in Persian go and find an objective individual who speaks both languages and can translate the passage for you.

Bottom line is that Cole's translation is correct. This article I also provided, that Hayes ignored, gives you links to people who also back-up Cole's translation and dispute and/or reject the mistranslation that everybody has come to accept as fact:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/the-importance-of-cole-v_b_20350.html

Thus, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did NOT say Israel should be wiped off the map.

He DID say that this occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.

So the only argument you Iran bashers had all this time has been completely, thoroughly, and factually discredited as being false.

Many of you are falling for the same trap that you did a little over three years ago in relation to Iraq. Also, another striking similarity, is that when somebody like myself, who is in the minority here, presents an alternate and more accurate view than the one being put forth by the US government in conjunction with the media, the messenger is attacked. I don't think we've learned any lessons since March 2003.

 

^ fixed link for the Ahmadinejad's speech in Persian:

http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

 

Hitchens addressed the 'off the map' discrepancy in his article and none of this addressed the rest of the points.

 

This sounds very poetic. Could you explain what it means?

 

Cole has as many detractors as advocates. But I'll let his own 'scholarly' words speak for him (see above).

This post is pretty funny coming from someone who is previously on record as stating that personal attacks are the last act of a desperate man, lol. Also it is interesting to note that Hitchens is in favor of engaging, not invading, Iran. So much for the 'neocon' conspiracy.

 

Hitchens is using an English translation instead of the orginal Persian

Plus, he has no credibility as I've pointed out

My post above addressed the main point of contention

I'm sure it's a reference to ending the illegal occupation of Palestine

 

My post above, #87, speaks for itself

 

And what would become of Israel?

 

i think it's a reference to the west bank and jerusalem, but you should go ask the iranian president himself, i suggest emailing his office

My post above, #87, speaks for itself

No need for me to further comment on this issue

 

Lol, that doesn't answer his contention.

he mentioned the last 50 years - that excludes the west bank, as hitchens pointed out. it is rapidly becoming apparent that you didn't even read hitchens article. you googled cole's response and pasted it up without reading either one i bet, lol.

 

i thought i did

 

This is great news. Maybe the Brazilians can do the world a favor and get rid of the International Paraguayan Conspiracy that controls the world.

 

i think this whole iran issue is a manufactured crisis and a clever ploy by the government in order to deflect attention away from domestic issues and real problems here at home and apparently it's working

bottom line, the president of iran did not advocate the destruction of another nation, but merely the end of occupation

 

Bush's ratings have been skyrocketing lately.

 

In light of the original source, the President who quoted him, and the context (a forum on "A Wolrd Without Zionism", where "Death to Israel!" was a commonly heard chant) it could only mean a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Anyone who says otherwise is a neocon Arab-hating Bush worshipper.