Excerpts from AP interview with Ahmadinejad

#1
I feel very relieved to read that Ahmadinejad has said Iran is not pursuing any nuclear weapons program. Obviously the IAEA report last week is in error and is merely another example of the pro-western bias of the UN.

Excerpts from AP interview with Ahmadinejad


The Associated Press

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

On the three American hikers who were detained after straying across the Iranian border:

"Several American citizens crossed through our border which in fact violates the law in our country. ... We're not happy that this has happened, but when the law is broken the law itself foresees a procedure that has to be carried through. What I can ask isthat the judiciary expedites the process and gives it its full attention, and to basically take a look at the case with maximum leniency."

On the Holocaust, and specifically what he would say in New York, the city with the world's largest Jewish population, to Jews for whom the Holocaust is a personal memory:

"I feel that I've arrived at the United Nations. It is true that the United Nations is located in New York, but at the end of the day we are at the United Nations. Of course I care about the people of New York, and American people in general.

"With regards to the question of Jewish people and their sentiments I have to say that in our opinion their issue is different than the issue of Zionism. Zionism is a political party. But the Jewish people, like many other people, follow a divine prophet. I fundamentally raise two questions regarding the Holocaust, and I can ask them here again from you. I think that if you attempt to answer my question we might move a step forward in answering the question. The first question is that assuming the Holocaust did happen, where did it exactly happen and who were the perpetrators? The second question is how exactly does that connect to the Palestinian issue?"

When told the Holocaust was perpetrated in Europe by Adolf Hitler and a group of his compatriots:

"So I would like to know how then does that this relate to the Palestinians, and the Palestinian issue. If this indeed happened in Europe by the hands of European governments, why exactly should the Palestinian people pay for it?"

When asked if he agrees the Holocaust occurred:

"In my opinion it is not the first part of the question that matters but really the result of that question. The first half relates to history. The second part relates to contemporary world affairs. ... In your opinion if something has occurred in Europe by the hands of European governments can we seek remedy for it in other lands and territories? Is it the Palestinian people that should be compensating for the act through becoming displaced and why? Or through the occupation of their lands, and why? Or through the mass murder of these people, and why? Through genocide of these people, and why? These are some clear-cut questions that we have too.

"We are opposed to the killing of people wherever. As a fundamental rule we are opposed to the killings that occurred during World War II, wherever. We know that over 60 million people were killed in the course of the Second World War. Each and every one of them were human beings. And their lives were, are respectful, no matter whether they are Muslims or Jews or Christians. Really, it doesn't make a difference..."

"...From where I stand, I wasn't there 60 years ago, we weren't there, but we are here now and we can do something about it. We are alive now. And what we see are Palestinians being killed. So I think today it is our task to stop that. ... If the Holocaust is being used as a pretext to kill the Palestinian people, then inevitably it's also necessary to discuss the Holocaust...."

On cooperating to help stabilize neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq:

"...The question I'd like to raise here is the occupying forces or the groups that have sent in the military to these two states, if indeed their policy has led to further instability, what do they want us to do? What exactly can we do?"

"...What exactly can we do for a car that has decided to speed up and basically crash down the hill? I don't see exactly what we can do under that scenario. We will simply be the traffic sign that warns ahead of time that there is basically downhill over there and to take the right turn. The feeling we have is that we are dealing with drivers that have chosen to close their eyes, speed up the car and basically go way down..."

"Let me just say one issue to clarify the point. The problems of our region - there's no military answer to the problems in our region. Historical experience shows amply that the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan is fruitless. Approximately 100 years ago, the British forces left Afghanistan in total defeat. And some 30 years ago the Soviet troops were forced out of the country with the same fate. So exactly what historical experience or any other signal do the people who are in Afghanistan today have in their hands to show that the same fate will not be theirs? Expansion of military into Pakistan is not going to help resolve the issue either..."

"I read in the news that in the past seven years, $250 billion was spent on the military presence in Afghanistan. Well, I don't know how exact this figure is, but I believe the situation in Afghanistan could be resolved with one-fifth of this figure. Afghanistan has 25 million people, and 5 million of them are displaced. ... And let's assume that all the 5 million are unemployed. To generate employment in Afghanistan, it only takes $10,000 per job. And that's how you can build the roots for stability. This is just a very minor example. I certainly don't try to look at this naively or statistically, this is just a mere example to demonstrate why the policies that are currently pursued are wrong..."

—On how Iran will respond when talks set to begin Oct. 1 touch on the country's nuclear ambitions:

"The discussion on the nuclear issue is certainly free and open. We will not seek to avoid any form of discussion or prevent it. But it's really not on our agenda. We will pursue the nuclear issue only through the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), because that provides that legal framework and it's the law. ..."

"From our viewpoint there are three clearer issues that can be discussed. The first issue is full nuclear disarmament around the world. ... Secondly, we need to pave the way to increase opportunities for the peaceful use of nuclear technology and energy. ... And the third issue that I would like to bring up is that for our reactor in Tehran, we need uranium enriched with a level of 20 percent. And we're interested in buying it..."

"We do enrich uranium today, to the grade of 3 1/2 percent. And that is basically for our power plants. But the reactor in Tehran basically creates medicine based on radioactive technology, which needs an enrichment grade level of 19.75 percent, so we basically say 20 percent."

— On whether he regrets the deaths of protesters after Iran's disputed election:

"I'm definitely opposed to that. These were our citizens who were killed, and they were not at fault. Those who were at fault were a group of politicians who basically instigated the events that transpired after the elections. I've asked the judicial system to follow up with the cases completely and to find out who the perpetrators of those acts were.

"Regrettably, around 30 people, our fellow citizens, were killed. Of course on a daily basis I would say that you would have more victims here in the United States as a result of police action. But nonetheless, we're sorry for any loss of life as such..."

— On U.S. President Barack Obama:

"I'd like to point to two issues here. We believe that the world really needs to go through some changes. And I hope Mr. Obama will move in the direction of change.

"A second point is that the policies pursued in the past were not correct and they need to be improved. We also think that Mr. Obama does not have an indefinite period of time and that the changes should happen quickly. And they have to be real and fundamental changes. We have announced that if these changes are real and fundamental, we will welcome them and will basically assist in pursuing the ideas that come through. We hope this will happen. We also pray for it."

On Iran's failure to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty and sign the additional IAEA protocol allowing spot nuclear inspections, despite its insistence that it has no ambitions to develop nuclear weapons:

"...The nuclear test ban treaty is not on the agenda for our talks. And as far as our discussions with the agencies involved, they have said on numerous occasions that they have not found any evidence of the distortion of our nuclear program toward a weapon program. But I'd like to ask you — exactly which states should be signing the additional protocol? A state that possesses 10,000 nuclear warheads and has in fact used them in the past, shouldn't that be the state to sign the additional protocol, or a state that is in the early, embryonic phases of developing peaceful nuclear technology?

"...We're not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. We believe that the most important step that needs to be taken, first and foremost, is to basically eliminate nuclear weapons that already exist, and the stockpiles out there that destabilize the world."

On the new U.S. proposal for missile defense in Europe, potentially targeting Iranian short-range missiles, and why Iran feels the need to build such missiles:

"...I heard Mr. Obama saying that the next threat is Iran. Iran is an opportunity for everyone, and everyone can use the opportunity by being friends with our nation. I'd like to clarify two points. I don't think that these words spoken are sufficient cover up for the deep economic and political problems confronting the United States and European countries, nor are there solutions to the problems that were created in Iraq or Afghanistan by the United States government, to make up for it in other words. So again I'd like to say that Iran is an opportunity, and remind you that Mr. Obama is not the first president here that believes that Iran is a threat. We would appreciate it if you could advise him to revisit history and read it again to see what the fate is of viewing these problems from this perspective..."

"We do have basically a rough guess of something else that's happening, and I think that the remarks that he made was in fact a respectful way of basically buying out the program that was out there earlier to put in the missile defense shield system against Russia. Our military defense strategy is based on deterrence, and we simply seek to defend ourselves..."

http://www.reflector.com/news/world...ew-with-ahmadinejad-854362.html?service=print
___
 
#2
Mr A-Mad Dinnerjacket is just as flaky and troublesome as Colonel Gadflie..... maybe somebody within the Iranian political opposition will suggest Mr Dinnerjacket takes a long walk down a lonely country lane one day by himself....... :?
 
#3
uncle_vanya said:
Mr A-Mad Dinnerjacket is just as flaky and troublesome as Colonel Gadflie..... maybe somebody within the Iranian political opposition will suggest Mr Dinnerjacket takes a long walk down a lonely country lane one day by himself....... :?
Your "political correctness" quotient is slipping--you need a recharge. I feel the aura of "change" everywhere over here in the US after today's love fest with the speeches of Obama and Kaddafi at the UN and the reassuring words from Mr. A-Mad Dinnerjacket. We have nothing to fear anymore and can look forward to reasoning together with these fellows and our other former "enemies" to achieve world peace once and for all. I feel a song bubbling up--Kumbaya anyone?
 
#4
"We are opposed to the killing of people wherever"

Thats not what we saw in Tehran immediately after the elections in June. The country was awash at that time with armed groups working on behalf of Mr. Madmullah and his corrupt regime. Mind you non of his competitors are any better, they are all murdering scum.

I agree with him that something should be done to lift the Afghans out of poverty and thus stabilise their country - and that the costs of alternative solutions to military action might be comparable with the military spending going on there now. However there will be no stabilisation possible in Afghastlystan until Terry Tellytubby and his Talibabble bunch are neutralised.

Having lived in Iran for most of this year, I often wondered how it is that Iran, a country said to have the third largest oil reserves in the world, still has third world infrastructure. Whatever it is they spend their oil revenues on, it isnt health care services, better communications, schooling, roads or public services. They do however hang people in the street for being homosexual and other perceived crimes - and publicly stone wimmin to death for alleged infidelity as well as perpetrate a host of other atrocities against ordinary people.

And there is one big difference between Afghastlystan and Iran: In Iran, a large slice of the population would welcome assistance in getting rid of that smiling c unt Ahmadinejad and his cronies, to the extent that many people I spoke to privately said that they would welcome intervention by Israel and America on Iranian soil.
 
#5
eodmatt said:
"We are opposed to the killing of people wherever"

Thats not what we saw in Tehran immediately after the elections in June. The country was awash at that time with armed groups working on behalf of Mr. Madmullah and his corrupt regime. Mind you non of his competitors are any better, they are all murdering scum.

I agree with him that something should be done to lift the Afghans out of poverty and thus stabilise their country - and that the costs of alternative solutions to military action might be comparable with the military spending going on there now. However there will be no stabilisation possible in Afghastlystan until Terry Tellytubby and his Talibabble bunch are neutralised.

Having lived in Iran for most of this year, I often wondered how it is that Iran, a country said to have the third largest oil reserves in the world, still has third world infrastructure. Whatever it is they spend their oil revenues on, it isnt health care services, better communications, schooling, roads or public services. They do however hang people in the street for being homosexual and other perceived crimes - and publicly stone wimmin to death for alleged infidelity as well as perpetrate a host of other atrocities against ordinary people.

And there is one big difference between Afghastlystan and Iran: In Iran, a large slice of the population would welcome assistance in getting rid of that smiling c unt Ahmadinejad and his cronies, to the extent that many people I spoke to privately said that they would welcome intervention by Israel and America on Iranian soil.
Thanks for the first hand perspective--good insight. I suspect they will be seeing Israelis long before any Americans.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads