Iran nuclear: War power, U.S. Congress U.N. resolutions: S. Con. Res. 78, H. Con. Res. 341

Query: “Wipe Israel off the map”?

Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say this?

And, if so, what did he mean?

These are very simple questions to answer.

If you have a transcript, of what he said, and a faithful translation of it.

But these transcripts and translations are carefully concealed, by U.S. and U.K. intelligence officers, implementing the political policy of their governments, to fan the flames of fear, to beat the drums of war.

And I refer to FBIS (CIA) and BBC Monitoring (MI6), who record and translate every word Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks, on every such occasion (TV and radio).

Bought and paid for, by U.S. and U.K. taxpayers, but concealed from them, and from Members of Congress (who don’t want to know what he said).

For an explanation, of what I’m talking about, see “FBIS,” an account of a prima facie criminal lie to Congress, by John Bolton, in a similar effort, that time to misquote Fidel Castro, to falsely portray him as a “terrorist.”

Whatever he said, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reported as simply quoting the words of his nation’s founding father, in 1979 (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini).

And what that means is this:

There’s nothing new about what he said.

Iran has not suddenly become a new threat, following the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iran’s policy on Israel is unchanged from 1979.

By concealing what he said, U.S. official liars — and that includes most of the Members of the U.S. Congress — want the public to believe that a new danger has suddenly appeared, which must be dealt with.

Whatever danger Iran’s policy on Israel may be, there’s nothing new about it.

The nation’s founding father explicitly referred to the Israeli “regime,” not to the Israeli people.

 

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902-1989), interview with the West German Radio-Television network, November 8 1979.

 

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, speech (Jewish Society of Iran, May 14 1979).

 

Juan Cole (Professor of History, University of Michigan), “Hitchens the Hacker” (Informed Comment, May 3 2006).

Subsequently: Jonathan Steele, “If Iran Is Ready to Talk, the US Must Do So Unconditionally” (Guardian, June 2 2006) {copy} (“It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war ...”). Ethan Bronner, Nazila Fathi, “Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel” (New York Times, June 11 2006). Jonathan Steele, “Lost in Translation” (Guardian Unlimited, June 14 2006). Juan Cole, “Steele on Ahmadinejad: Of Arenas of Time and Intransitive Verbs” (Informed Comment, June 15 2006). Philip Weiss, “Burning Cole” (The Nation, July 3 2006) {pf}: “Yale was drawn to Cole by top-rank scholarly achievement ... Campus Watch, a pro-Israel group that monitors scholars' statements about the Middle East ... Jewish Week: ‘... at least four major Jewish donors ... have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole's appointment be denied’... Yale's Senior Appointments Committee ... rejected Cole after three other Yale committees had signed off on him ... Cole: ‘If the US really wanted to stop terrorism, it would invade the West Bank and Gaza and liberate the Palestinians to have their own state and self-respect’.”

 
 

Iran’s policy on Israel is the same as U.S. policy on Iran:

They want regime change:

They want to free the people of Israel from dominion by Zionists. An aggressive, racist, apartheid, violent, criminal, political clique, which corrupts the character of its citizens, wages war on their neighbors, steals their land, destroys their houses, their farms, their livelihoods, their water, and corrals them into open prisons, separated from their friends, their families, their neighbors, dominated by military forces deaf to their cries.

Iran’s policy on Israel is like Sinn Fein’s policy on Ireland: They aspire to a single state, created by, and serving, all its residents.

But, all Iranian officials say the same thing:

They will accept whatever solution the people living there adopt, of their own free will, which cannot be expressed during a military occupation, the Israeli occupation of territory outside its 1949 borders.

The very same borders the U.S. government itself also insists upon (prior to George W. Bush).

 

Hadi Nejad Hosseinian (then Iran U.N. Ambassador), statement, Resumed Tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly on Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 14th meeting, New York City, October 20 2000), U.N. Doc. A/ES-10/PV.14, pages 18-20 at 20 {538kb.pdf, via this, or ODS} (U.N. General Assembly, Official Verbatim Record, October 20 2000, 3:00-10:15 p.m.).

 

Hussein Ali Montazeri (Grand Ayatollah), 84 year old government critic (“no newspaper dares to print a word I say”), interview in Qom, March 8 2006, by Channel 4 News, reported by Jonathan Miller (Channel 4 News, London, March 13 2006, 7:29 p.m.) (video not posted).

 

Query: “United Nation’s responsibility”?

Yes.

Jimmy Carter agrees with Hussein Ali Montazeri:

 

Jimmy Carter (U.S. President, Jan. 20 1977-1981 Jan. 20), speech, “The Major Obstacles to Peace in the Holy Land” (Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, March 2 2006), further cited below.

 

Query: “Denied the existence of the holocaust”?

Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do this?

Another very simple question to answer.

If you have a transcript, of what he said, and a faithful translation of it.

Which U.S. and U.K. intelligence officers, once again, conceal.

But the reports of what he said are plain, that he absolutely did not deny the holocaust.

He questioned the holocaust, and then he immediately proceeded to speak on the assumption that the holocaust is an historical fact.

Not least because, he said, Europeans themselves admitted there was a holocaust, and admitted that they did it (a previous generation of Europeans).

No holocaust denier ever made such an assumption or ever accepted such confessions.

This indicates the mind of a person who is personally not acquainted with the evidence, but who recognizes that it’s a generally accepted fact and, hence, likely true.

My guess is, the holocaust evidence has not been translated into Persian (Farsi), the language of Iran.

The most extravagant trial in the history of the world, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, was conducted, with simultaneous translations, in its four official languages (English, French, German, Russian). The transcripts were published by the IMT Secretariat (1947-1949) {SuDoc: W 1.2:C 86, ISBN: 0404536506, LCCNs: 47031575, 70145536, 95081592, WorldCat}, in those four languages, and the U.K. government also published the trial transcripts (1946-1951), but not the many volumes of documents, and only in English: The Trial of German Major War Criminals {ISBN: 0404536506, LCCN: 47015265, WorldCat}. Affidavits and documents were received by the prosecutors, in about 150 languages, but little of that is published, except those referred to in the trial.

I don’t recollect Iran, and it’s language, had anything to do with that trial. Adolph Hitler didn’t send anybody to Iran, to murder anybody.

The 12 additional big trials, before U.S. Military Tribunals, were later published, but only in English, by the U.S. government (1949-1953). These too quote many thousand pages of documents and testimony. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 {SuDoc: D 102.8, ditto, LCCNs: 49045929, 97071903, WorldCat}.

And likewise, the mostly unpublished, trial transcripts, of U.S. and U.K. military court martial trials, and trials in other countries, in their own languages. A few of these trials are reported, in a 15 thin-volume set, published, but only in English, by the U.K. government (1947-1949): Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals (“Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission”) {LCCNs: 47022747, 97080284, WorldCat}.

 
 

And so, if you’ve never read any of that evidence, and you’re a public figure, and you’ve listened all your life to Israeli government officials telling lies, about everything under the sun, you will naturally be cautious, in public, endorsing facts which you don’t know to be facts.

A good role model, for U.S. government officials, who continuously, endlessly, relentlessly, assert to be unassailable facts, what they know for a fact, they do not know to be a fact (a “reckless lie”). And omit to mention contrary facts, which they do know to be facts (willfully “misleading” “lies”). And a good example is this very topic, their chorus of deceitful assertions, about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very smart, very rational, character, first in his class in school. That indicates they don’t teach anything about the holocaust in Iranian schools, at least primary and secondary schools. He’s an engineer (as I recollect), and so in university he likely did not study such matters there either.

Nobody taught me anything about the holocaust, in my 19 years in American schools, grammar school (1948-1956), high school (1956-1960), university (1960-1964), law school (1964-1967).

And, on this topic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provides a second excellent role model too, another sharp contrast, to deceitful U.S. officials, and that includes most members of Congress:

He’s called for an examination, by Persians, into the facts of the holocaust, to discover what’s true and what, if anything, is untrue.

U.S. government officials, by contrast, are very hostile, to any honest inquiry into facts, about anything, which might thwart their many aggressive, dishonest, political, agendas. And so too the Israelis.

It’s pointless, foolish, and irrational, to pretend people can be compelled, and coerced, to believe a fact. And particularly a fact alien to their history, their culture, their language.

And, it’s likewise foolish and irrational for Iranians to allow themselves to remain in ignorance, of an historical fact as important as the holocaust.

A fact grounded on the most important issues in politics:

Educating Iranians about these important facts, and issues, is a very desirable, very laudable initiative, by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And that inquiry can be conducted only by Iranians themselves. People they can trust.

They need to do it.

Leaders, they can trust, need to spend the time necessary, to satisfy themselves about the facts.

And then, those leaders need to make their public pronouncements:

That the holocaust is indeed an historical fact.

That all those good, honest, people did indeed, do all those horrible, criminal, things, and murdered in cold blood, millions, and millions, of people.

That those good, honest, people, did indeed, stand by, and do nothing to stop it.

That many of those good, honest, people, participated in these crimes, without knowing, for sure, that’s what they were doing.

That those good, honest, people, yet had their suspicions, and did not, or could not, investigate, did not, or could not, intervene.

That some of those good, honest, people, nevertheless did what they could, to stop it.

It’s a massive, expensive, lengthy, undertaking.

Still today, a generation later, Iranians may still be translating into Persian, the documents they seized at the American embassy, in November 1979.

At least 77 volumes they’ve published so far, but very few libraries have a copy:

Iran: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1977-1980 (National Security Archive).

Translating just the 42 volumes of the IMT trial, and the 15 volumes of NMT trials, is a staggering prospect. And there is much, much, else besides.

But, today, computers can likely do the bulk of that work, the first draft, which editors can then start work with.

Provided, the Iranians can satisfy themselves, that the electronic texts they could start with — which have already been created over many years, at great expense — are accurate copies, of the original publications, which themselves are faithful copies, of the original transcripts and documents, and that the original transcripts themselves, are faithful to the audio, in the archives.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s plain purpose was not to doubt the holocaust.

His was a rhetorical device to focus minds on what he was about to say. His argument, which is this:

The state of Israel was created by Europeans, to finish Adolph Hitler’s work for him, the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Europe.

They copied what Adolph Hitler did in Poland, his Lebensraum policy: They seized land, expelled its