Iran’s Words Mistranslated Again by Americans Trying to Start a War

George Washington's picture

Most Americans confuse zionism and Judaism.

While many assume that zionism simply means allowing the Israeli nation to exist, many zionists in high positions within the Netanyahu and Sharon administrations advocate for very different policies altogether, including the use of offensive wars throughout the  Middle East.  See this, and read the section entitled “Securing the Realm” here.

In reality, many devout Jews are against zionism as being antithetical to traditional Jewish values.  As such, many Jews say that criticizing zionism is not anti-semitism. … and some zionists themselves admit that even non-Jews have the right to criticize Israel.

Zionists can be also be Christian. Indeed, millions of fundamentalist Christians – including many in the American military -  want to start WWIII to speed the “second coming” of Jesus Christ.

As such, the common practice of American politicians and media of interchanging Iran’s words about the “zionist regime” with the word “Israel”  is disingenuous.  For example, AP reported today:

Israel‘s existence is an “insult to all humanity,” Iran’s president said Friday ….”The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity,” Ahmadinejad said.

Criticizing a particular “regime” in Israel is akin to criticizing the “Bush administration” or the “Obama administration”.  For example, saying that Bush should have been impeached is not calling for the American government to be overthrown.

Similarly, the AP story repeated the old canard:

Tensions between Iran and Israel have intensified since 2005, when Ahmadinejad said in a speech that Israel will one day be “wiped off the map.”

In reality:

As a New York Times translation notes, Ahmadinejad wasn’t referring to Israel at all, but to the “regime” – i.e. the current political administration – in Israel.


Moreover, it was not Ahmadinejad himself speaking. He was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, who died in 1989 (and who looked exactly like Sean Connery’s long-lost twin).

People can debate whether zionism is helpful or counter-productive, or which form of zionism is best.  But interchanging zionism and Israel without explanation is misleading.

And anti-semitism is wholly unacceptable, as is prosecution of Christians, Muslims or anyone else for their religion or race.

But whatever Iran’s faults, the fact is that:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Uncle Remus's picture

What, you don't watch "700 Club"?

AnAnonymous's picture

As such, the common practice of American politicians and media of interchanging Iran’s words about the “zionist regime” with the word “Israel” is disingenuous.


The politicians? the media?

Nope, in short 'Americans'

It is quite easy to find on this site 'Americans' who do the same when confronted to the reality of 'Americanism'

They've claimed that any word going to 'Americanism' has to be understood as being directed any person living on the soil of the US of A for example.

There is no discontinuity between the elite and its base in 'Americanism'

But there are profits claiming that there is some, pouring all the blame on the elite while keeping the depositors of power, that is the 'American' middle class, safe from any connection to what is performed to better the middle class' welfare.

Bugsquasher's picture

Gibberish, twaddle, and claptrap all rolled into one.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous, fountainhead of hypocricy, said:

It is quite easy to find on this site 'Americans' who do the same when confronted to the reality of 'Americanism'

They've claimed that any word going to 'Americanism' has to be understood as being directed any person living on the soil of the US of A for example.

Nope, wrong again. Language can only function if there is a common agreement between users on the meaning of words. Otherwise all you have is glossolalia,

You're simply whining because you want to redefine words on the fly as a part of the little games you play here. Your redefinitions are rejected, which causes you to throw a tantrum.

Nothing more, nothing less. It's just the way it is.

There is no discontinuity between the elite and its base in 'Americanism'

Ha ha, charade you are.

AnAnonymous's picture

'Americanism' has been redefined? By whom?
By people who claim that 'Americanism' does not exist, that 'Americans' do not exist so they can insulate themselves.

On the other side, I have recalled time and time over again that, contrary to the claims made by 'Americans', 'Americanism' has not changed one bit since its inception.

'Americans' are all likely to call what is going on under many other names, like fascism, nazism, corporatism... When it is just plain old good 'Americanism'

And who is supposed to play little games, redefining things as they go?

Self indiction is a big thing in 'Americanism'

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Here we see another AnAnonymous tantrum. Once again, he is the sore loser in his little game of redefining all forms of evil as Americanism or "US citizenism". Like an obnoxious child playing Chinese citizenism checkers, when he sees that he is losing, he throws a fit, overturns the game board, and runs home to his mommy.

'Americanism' has been redefined? By whom?

The comment to which he is responding clearly stated that he is the one playing games with word definitions. Predictably, his first reaction is indignant denial.

By people who claim that 'Americanism' does not exist, that 'Americans' do not exist so they can insulate themselves.

Notice above how he has now attempted to set up and kick over a strawman, responding to a claim which was not made in the post he is responding to. The claim was regarding his practice of redefining words to suit his needs of the moment. Unable to address this claim, he builds a strawman.

On the other side, I have recalled time and time over again that, contrary to the claims made by 'Americans', 'Americanism' has not changed one bit since its inception.

This statement can only make one chuckle. The 'Americanism' to which he refers has not changed one bit since its inception. Actually, since he claims this 'Americanism' was responsible for the collapse of the society on Easter Island, which occurred in the early 1700s, 'Americanism' has not changed since before its inception. Yet this granite-like consistency of 'Americanism', unchanging since the very dawn of the stone age, is bent, twisted, stretched, and reshaped in each of his posts, like silly putty in the hands of a child.

'Americans' are all likely to call what is going on under many other names, like fascism, nazism, corporatism... When it is just plain old good 'Americanism'

Here we arrive at the essence of his little game of Chinese citizenism checkers. Unable to come to terms with his own flaws and shortcomings, he reverses them and projects them onto 'Americanism', a.k.a. "US citizenism", an external bogeyman he has created for this purpose. In his view, 'Americans' attempt to split apart 'Americanism' and redefine it as fascism, naziism, corporatism, et al., while actually he is trying to redefine those terms, along with any other evil du jour, as 'Americanism'.

And who is supposed to play little games, redefining things as they go?

He can find his answer by looking into a mirror.

Bugsquasher's picture

Odd no?  Were here a lot about those crazy zionist and fundamentalist Christians from GW and crew. Yet we hear not a peep about tht 12th Imam who is supposed to magically appear from the bottom of his well and usher in some global Islamic empire and the same sort of armageddon the bible speaks of.  Does it not appear on their radar that Iran is useing those Jews in Iran as propaganda tools and political cover of their own?  So what if "Zionism" is the political expression of Judeism as a state.  Since when are not the vast majority of the Islamic states political expressions of Islam? 

AurorusBorealus's picture

According to Islamic eschatology, one nation in the end-times, a Great Satan, will seduce many other nations with greed, away from God and morality.  It is the duty of every Muslim to resist this Great Satan... of course, there is disagreement as to whether this resistance (jihad) is a spiritual battle or an actual battle.  When Muslims proclaim America "the Great Satan," this is what they are, in fact, claiming: that America has seduced many other nations away from morality.  The Islamic belief in a "Great Satan" among the nations is not so different from the Christian portrayal of "Babylon" in the Revelations to St. John the Divine.   Labeling everyone and everything a "terrorist" is precisely the type of sloppy thinking that government propaganda plays upon in order to support the theft of other peoples' oil and fighting Israel's wars by proxy.  You actually help to prove AnAnonymous' point that elites have a willing audience in the American public.

Vuke's picture

Thanks for the explanation AB.  That lends an understanding to a lot of puzzling things and almost makes Islam an attractive religion.

Except for banging the head on the floor five or six times daily.  Of course Jews sensibly only bang their head against a wall on occasion, (like Mitt Romney did) while Christians satisfy themselves by occasionally persecuting both.

The world might be a better place if people viewed reality directly instead of filtering it through their particular indoctrination.

GoinFawr's picture

They're all batshit crazy! I'm telling ya! Imagine if hordes of JK Rowlings acolytes overran the planet... you know, some followed the teachings of Weasly, others the Platitudes of Hermoine... Silverin factions! Ravensclaw Zealotry! The dominant denomination of The Righteous Noble House of Gryffindor.  "So sayeth the Hoggle Poggs that attacked the Huffle Puffs, yay o verily and with malice of afterthought...", Quidditch would be an Olympic get the idea.  And they'd want to split your liver if you looked at it sideways! Just imagine...


RichardP's picture

G.W. is educating people to the distinction between the country of Israel (geography and people) and the government of Israel (politics).  It is the government of Israel that Iran et. al. wish to drive into the sea, not the country or its people.  Iran et. al would be quite happy to recognize the State of Israel as a legitimate State if it were full of Jews and ruled by a government of Jewish folks who were non-Zionist.

The story of the 12th Iman is a separate story.  It is an interesting story.  But it doesn't help educate people about what Iran et. al. really mean when they talk about the Zionist regime.

casfoto's picture

I am tired of the small dog barking with his Mastiff ready to defend. If Israel wants to attack Iran then let them. I just do not want a dime of my tax dollars to go towards these assholes. They are on the very fringe of humanity. You would think they would know better. If they are destroyed by the attack that comes upon them...then let it be. Not a bullet to be sent. They started it and let them finish it. The Economist, after Israel attacked Lebanon, the front cover said (and rightley so) that Hizbaalah won the war. Israels honor was on the line and even after using illegal cluster bombs , phosphorus bombs and no telling what else (condmened by their own from south Africa)...they still lost the war to determined Hizbaaleh.

If the Christians here were real Christians they wouldn't support such horrors. That doesn't say much about the Christians. They are really hard to find.

GW, you are a good read. Thanks for bringing this to the forefront. Trolls, go home.

rwe2late's picture

Regarding HR4133 which was recently passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to "reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the US….

- Ron Paul 

scrappy's picture


ZI believe we have a duty to God (Creator if your Native American) to explore and confirm the accuracy of the Bible

 Israeli scholar completes mission to 'fix' Bible

First seven Ecumenical Councils Second Council of Nicaea in AD 787

The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden

Remember that Jesus said "The Truth will set you free."

Have a great weekend ZHrs,   Scrappy :-)


PatientZero's picture

As a Christian, why the flying fuck would I care about Israel or some hook-noses? Christ referred to them (correctly) as the Synagog of Satan. They refused Christ. Screw them. The only way I would give even the remotest shit is if Israel was a Christian kingdom like it was after the First Crusade. Anyway it is a shitty piece of land not even worth fighting over.

I should become an Odinist so I would give even less of a shit about Israel.

falak pema's picture

btw : Jesus was semitic and had a hooked nose. He wasn't blue eyed and blonde. 

i-dog's picture

LOL ... You've seen a colour photo taken of him?

As a Khazarian, he would certainly look as he has consistently been portrayed ... red-blonde hair, light eyes, fair skin, long straight nose....

falak pema's picture

you got the message. If you read the annals of the arabs you will realise, as did Anna Komnena the first woman historian in western world, daughter of Emperor Alexios Komnenos, who saw the first blonde men in the course of the first Crusade; notably Bohemond Hauteville of Taranto, head of the Sicilian branch of Norman Crusaders, who impressed her by his beauty, strength and perverse cunning.

The Arabs, as the Greeks, were seeing a profusion of blonde people during this first Crusade of 1099 and it impressed them greatly.

Dont need photoshopping to deduce that the probability of Jesus being Franco-Viking in looks was prettly small! Even the Romans of old were all dark haired. 

Anna Komnene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i-dog's picture


"Even the Romans of old were all dark haired."

Not the ruling class. You need to read some history.

Julius Caesar was a blonde...Cleopatra was a blonde...Josephus was a blonde...Lucius Silva (1st century general, governor of Judea, conqueror of Masada) was a blonde...Xenophon was a blonde...Domitian was a blonde...Vespasian was a blonde......

There's a reason for this, but I'll save that for another time...after you've done some reading (of real history, rather than just mythology).

falak pema's picture

I knew Vercingetorix was blonde but Caesar! lol, you live n learn. Real history is like real wine.

Cleopatra was of Ptolemy origin so northern greek like Alexander. Maybe she was blonde.

PS/ about Caesar's hair colour : 

According to the Roman historian Suetonius, born in the 1st century, Julius Caesar had brown hair and brown eyes. His predecessor, Sulla, had blond hair, per Plutarch. 
stiler's picture

You're a closet Odinist already, so why not.

stiler's picture

I noticed that Geo Wash left out the true def of "zionism", the belief that the Land is God's, the inheritance of it is to Abraham and his descendants.


RichardP's picture

Would that include Ishmael and his decendants?

disabledvet's picture

The geopolitical condition compels Israel to attack. Since the US is already up to our eyeballs in "over there" that makes the US position BEYOND complicated. I've said my satirical two cents here, there and everywhere...but when I fell compelled to pick up the movie The Hurt Locker just to gird anyone who even gives a crap anymore about "what's coming" then maybe...just maybe...someone out there will understand that while the media never cared about the folks who've served the last ten in this thing will start thinking about the folks who will serve in the next ten. "I am reality" said the sergeant in Platoon. And how long shall we "demand the dream or else" instead? And why the hell do I even care in the first place?

Vooter's picture

"just maybe...someone out there will understand that while the media never cared about the folks who've served the last ten in this thing will start thinking about the folks who will serve in the next ten..."

Hey, here's an idea: DON'T SERVE. Because the ONLY thing you're "serving" are the greedy, thick-fingered, SCUMBAG bankers and corporatists who don't care about you, and who absolutely don't care about the United States of America. When are you people going to get it? You're not protecting anything when you fly halfway around the world and shoot people who have done NOTHING to you or the United States of America (except, of course, if those people are retaliating for the century of SHIT that the U.S. and U.K. have dumped on them). If you volunteer to serve in the U.S. military, you're volunteering to serve as a thug and a hit man for the bankers. YOU ARE ONE OF THEM. And by volunteering to serve as a hit man, you are keeping the military-industrial complex in the United States in business--and trust me, the military-industrial complex in the United States IS THE ENEMY. Which, of course, makes YOU the enemy. Get it?

cjbosk's picture

My boy Benjamin is gonna take Iran back to the stone age, without one lick of help from our teleprompter in chief... in fact the US aint invited to this party.

Wake up do gooders, Israel doesn't want or need our help. Netanyaho said fuck you Obummer, and I celebrate his enthusiasm!

Now let's drop some f-n bombs!!!

Vooter's picture

Personally, I can't wait to see the new fleet of open-air buses in Tel Aviv...ka-BOOOOM!!!

GCT's picture

Is it me or are more kooks and pundits coming out of the wood work lately?  Some of the comments in this thread are downright confusing!!!

Darned election year!

DoolieDoink's picture

All US and Israel information is propaganda to create a basis for war.

One would have though that these claims of nuclear "weapons of mass destruction" would have rung some familiarty bell when reflecting on Iraq. 

Israel the actual owner of nuclear weapons of mass destruction is allowed by the US to ignore the nuclear proliferation treaties.

What hypocracy !




boiltherich's picture

Religion, all of it, is for the insane and the retarded. 

mofreedom's picture

Then I proscribe relugion to you my retarded fuctard, hah!


tony bonn's picture

george - your closing bullet points cannot be nailed on the head the wicked bellicosity of american banksters, plutocrats, and academicians....they are the root of many many evils....the largest and most brutal terrorist state in the world is the usa under the aegis of the bush crime syndicate and rockefeller axis of evil.....

Rodin's picture

GW, historicly rich and informative article by Robert Dreyfus and others on Zionism and Judaism

NuYawkFrankie's picture


If the word was DISMANTLED - then I'd have to admit that it WOULD solve a lot of problems...

Cap Matifou's picture

Problem is only: also _that_ word could have been replaced in the same manner at will.

Zap Powerz's picture

Of this I am certain:

Nothing is as it appears to be.

Skepticism has liberated me from believing in anything.  I no longer carry the burden of thinking Im right or have any answers because I am operating under the assumption that all the information I have ever been given has been tainted or manipulated in some way.

I refuse to strongly believe in anything but my own (and my children's) survival and prosperity.  I think Im pretty good at figuring out what will and will not kill me and when I make the final mistake and do something that kills me I wont be around any longer to fret about it.

Have a good weekend.

RichardP's picture

Skepticism has liberated me from believing in anything.

So you don't ever flip on a light switch or turn on a water faucet?  Or flush your toilet?  Or set your alarm?  Or go to the grocery store?

Unless you sit in one place and do nothing, you must believe in a lot of things just to get through the day.  I'll bet there is a lot more stuff that you believe in without realizing it.

Element's picture

Utter bullshit, none of that crap you mentioned is belief-based!

Prior experiences of real things has nothing to do with belief.

No one 'believes' that when they turn a tap, water will most likely come out of it, if it's funtioning properly.

It's observed fact, tested, repeated and shown to be physically true, many times a day.  No belief involved in that.

Observed factual evidence is what mere belief has ZERO of ... otherwise it would no longer need to be 'believed' in, it would be materially known.  Not going too fast for you, am I?

The fact that you equated 'belief' with the actions of real and material and physically routinely testable things, reveals you're either an outright liar, a fool, a dementer or just unfamiliar with utilising physical evidence to substanciate true from false.

Or all of the above.

RichardP's picture

One of the definitions of believe is this: to accept something as true, genuine, or real.  How do we come to this acceptance about anything without first testing it?  You say belief has no part in testing.  Au contraire.  Belief (or non-belief) is the outcome of testing.

In spite of your surprisingly vigorous rant, the fact is that we turn on the light switch only because we believe it will work.  We turn on the faucet only because we believe it will work.  We do many things each day, often without thinking about it, only because we believe that the expected outcome will happen.

What do you believe in?  Only those things that you have proven to yourself to be true?  Admittedly, there is much about life that you can prove to yourself is true, or not true.  You can't see electricity - but you can prove to yourself that the light switch can be relied on, right?  At least until the switch or the generator or the power line or the transformer fails.

Note, however, that one's life will be extremely limited if the only things they allow themselves to believe are what they can test personally.  A great deal of the adventuresome life is lived by believing what a trusted other has determined to be true.  Think bridges, airplanes, elevators, boats, etc.  The fact is that you won't use any of these things unless you believe that someone else has tested them first.  If you doubt, consider how few things you will use if you know for certain that no one else has tested it yet (e.g., the rope bridge across the canyon).

We believe what has been tested and proven, either by ourselves, or by trusted others.  (Note that I trust you to do the wrong thing everytime can be a trusted other.)

Carl LaFong's picture

You, sir, are a moron. This is like nitpicking what Hitler said about the Jews. He made some really nice comments about them....and then murdered 6 mil along with millions of commies, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. Surely, this should go under the "Friday Humor" section.

PatientZero's picture

OY GEVAULT!!!! How dare you say Hitler and the goyim killed only 6 million of G-d's Chosen?!?!?! This is ANTISEMTISM and HOLOCAUST MINIMIZATION!!! The correct figure is 600 TRILLION. I'm calling the local ADL and SPLC!!! This is a complete HOLOCAUST!

(don't forget to go to your nearest holocaust museum and theme park, goy)

Savyindallas's picture

Hey Carl LaDumb - quit spouting BS- Hiltler didn't murder 6 million Jews either - God, people will believe anything. Go learn some real history  -you lazy turd

AurorusBorealus's picture

There is no "smoking gun" order from Hitler to begin operating death camps.  The camps did, in fact, exist... mountains of historical evidence point to their existence, all the way down to tens of thousands of eye-witness testimony.  Jews were killed there, along with political dissidents, gypsies, Slavic resistance members, and others.  Millions of people were killed in these camps.  Who issued the order? Why does it matter?  Exactly how many were killed?  Why does it matter?

Element's picture

Wish I knew.

'Death-camps' and slavery work camps existed in many countries during WWII.  But I'm kind of tired of the rank bullshit of those who assume the mantle of the eternal victim, and downplay that any one else suffered (as you have pointed-out in your comment), and David Irving lays this out quite clearly, that the story we've been getting pummelled with by zionist Jews is 95% opportunistic fabrications, and neurotic guilt-tripping to extract financial gain, and to obtain special favours and political latitude for many decades ... while they treated others just as badly.

The event itself is just another cross cultural action-reaction of, "you reap what you sew".

Irving is also an interesting speaker, and has a lot to say which we should not be afraid to hear him speak about openly, minus the farcical zionist suppression of historical record accounts and their implications.

The obvious question is, why are they so afraid of the truth coming out?


Element's picture

This might help out the less aware and the uninformed dupes of zionism:


The Holocaust Lie - David Irving (full) 1 hour 53 mins