Ahmadinejad Wants To Visit Ground Zero

[deep]

what can you actually believe?

between the two nations

the U S
and
Iran


Which nation has intervened/ interfered more in the others existence?

 

[U2democrat]

It was funny to me, the media analyzing his speech, criticizing him for dodging the questions, as if this is exclusive to Iranian dictators He was just being a politician

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Apparently they showed it on MSNBC, damn that would have been some entertainment. Maybe they have it on YouTube. He's just being a politician, but I don't think the elevator goes all the way to the top floor either

 

[diamond]

between the two nations

the U S
and
Iran


Which nation has intervened/ interfered more in the others existence?

erm.
i dunno.
you tell me einstein.

 

[U2democrat]

Apparently they showed it on MSNBC, damn that would have been some entertainment. Maybe they have it on YouTube. He's just being a politician, but I don't think the elevator goes all the way to the top floor either

It was on CNN too, and I assume Fox but I wouldn't know

 

[Irvine511]

Iran and U S Armed Forces and GOP Senate all have something in common.

and they'd all proudly sing along to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77R_prkCkg

 

[A_Wanderer]

I much prefer this fight for liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAzMuHyg8Eg

 

[toscano]

i can't help but think if it was Bush denying the holocaust, wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, saying there are no gay people in the Us, we'd be taking a much harsher line than we are with the Thug-In-Chief.......

 

[Irvine511]

i can't help but think if it was Bush denying the holocaust, wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, saying there are no gay people in the Us, we'd be taking a much harsher line than we are with the Thug-In-Thief.......

but would such a person be taken seriously enough to be elected in the US?

i mean, such a person could be the head of Focus on the Family, and he'd be given veto power over SCOTUS nominees, but i'd like to hope we hold US presidents to higher standards.

and what's the harsher line here? do we pretend these people don't exist? his introduction at the forum was a fairly vicious smack-down, and he was beseiged by protestors. what else do you want?

 

[toscano]

but would such a person be taken seriously enough to be elected in the US?

i mean, such a person could be the head of Focus on the Family, and he'd be given veto power over SCOTUS nominees, but i'd like to hope we hold US presidents to higher standards.

Like Ahmadimibulb, he could always make the comments AFTER taking power......

 

[melon]

It's been noted that the Iranians, themselves, are actually baffled as to why the West is focusing on Ahmadinejad--when they aptly note that he's little more than a figurehead in Iran. The office of Iran's presidency is nothing more than a puppet office subordinate to where the true power in Iran lies: in that of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini.

So this does beg a couple of questions. Are Westerners too dumb to realize that Ahmadinejad isn't the true power in Iran? Or are we merely playing this game according to Iran's playbook? I don't think it is a coincidence that the office of the presidency was probably created to keep all criticism and attention off of their Supreme Leader. Presidents, as such, can be replaced easily, as they are completely expendable as long as their Supreme Leader remains in power.

 

[deep]

If I was his manager
I'd be pretty happy


Who do you people think his target audience is?


Hint - it ain't us.

Ahmadinejad hailed in Middle East

The president of Iran, who has made a point of defying the West and Israel, has won admiration even among Sunni nations.

By Jeffrey Fleishman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 24, 2007

CAIRO — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a flinty populist in a zip-up jacket whose scathing rhetoric and defiance of Washington are often caricatured in the Western media, has transcended national and religious divides to become a folk hero across the Middle East.

The diminutive, at times inscrutable, president is a wellspring of stinging sound-bites and swagger for Muslims who complain that their leaders are too beholden to or frightened of the Bush administration. Ahmadinejad, who arrived in New York Sunday ahead of a U.N. General Assembly meeting, is an easily marketable commodity:a streetwise politician with nuclear ambitions and an open microphone.

"I like him a lot," said Mahmoud Ali, a medical student in Cairo. "He's trying to protect himself and his nation from the dangers around him. He makes me feel proud. He's a symbol of Islam. He seems the only person capable of taking a stand against Israel and the West. Unfortunately, Egypt has gotten too comfortable with Washington."

Ahmadinejad's appeal is especially strong in Egypt, where he is compared to the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose bold, yet doomed vision of pan-Arabism in the 1950s was also aimed at stemming Western influence. In the minds of many Egyptians, Iran's quest to expand its nuclear program despite United Nations sanctions is similar to Nasser's confrontation with the British and French over nationalizing the Suez Canal.

What's striking in Ahmadinejad's case, however, is that the leader of a non-Arab Shiite nation has ingratiated himself with the Middle East's predominantly Sunni Arab population.

In praising the Iranian president, Arabs quickly navigate around historical religious animosities and present-day fears that Iran is undermining Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere. They prefer to speak of how Ahmadinejad is a rallying voice for Islam at a time the region is bewildered by its powerlessness to fix Iraq, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"He's a brave man," said Tayseer Ibrahim, an employee of the Egyptian Education Ministry, who was hurrying toward the subway the other day. "He's standing up to the U.S. He could have been intimidated after what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but he's not. The Iranian people must love him a lot. Hopefully, our Arab leaders will see that you can defy the West and nothing will happen to you."

Munther Farrah, who sells nuts and chocolates in Amman, the Jordanian capital, said he and other Sunnis are troubled by Iran's Shiite theocracy. "But Ahmadinejad is still liked," he said. "We are with him as long as he's against Israel and the U.S."

The passions are decidedly different in New York, where Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the U.N. on Tuesday in an effort to block another round of sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program. Some American politicians have said the Iranian president should be turned away. Public pressure has forced him to cancel a visit to Ground Zero.

His U.N. appearance comes as Iran, which the U.S. regards as a state sponsor of terrorism, balances two diplomatic tracks: It has moved to soften international criticism of its human rights record by allowing three Iranian American academics and writers accused of spying to leave the country. On the other hand, it has intensified its defiance of the U.S. and Europe after the French foreign minister suggested that the world prepare for the possibility of war between Western nations and Iran.

The static of threats and counter-threats has enhanced Ahmadinejad's brand of populism, which stands in vivid contrast to the detached styles of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah II of Jordan and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. All three U.S. allies regard Iran as a dangerous enemy, most notably over Tehran's support of the militant groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But they have also borrowed a bit from Ahmadinejad's script by criticizing Bush administration policies and the bloodshed in Iraq.

The governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have undercut media freedom and suppressed political dissent, and are viewed by some of their people as corrupt and ineffectual in addressing economic and social problems. Iran runs its own version of the omnipresent, repressive state, but Ahmadinejad's intense distrust of the U.S. and hatred of Israel have elevated him to mythical status for the frustrated Arab mechanic, taxi driver or lawyer seeking a pure, forceful message.

The sentiment is similar to the respect won by Hezbollah, which fought a war with Israel in 2006, and Hamas, the radical Palestinian party that seized control of the Gaza Strip in June. Both were credited with tenacity and portrayed as underdogs battling against larger enemies. This type of resolve, along with Iran's pride as a sovereign state, echoes through Ahmadinejad's speeches and asides.

"It is more of a scream that reflects the incapacity of both the Arab regimes and Arab peoples to achieve anything on the regional level," said Nabil Abdel Fattah, a political analyst with Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

Ahmed Taher, an Egyptian doctor, credits Ahmadinejad for pursuing nuclear technology, which Tehran says is for civilian use, but the U.S. suspects is for weapons.

"It's beyond doubt that Ahmadinejad's popularity surpasses any other leader in the Middle East," Taher said. "We shouldn't blame him for seeking nuclear weapons. Israel has them. It will be more balance for Muslims if we have them too. Israel is much more dangerous to the world than Ahmadinejad."

Some of the Iranian president's admirers, however, are concerned about his provocative nature, bellicose quips and coyness about Iran's nuclear intentions. Comparisons to Nasser's triumphs and defeats limn the edge of conversation about the Iranian leader: Nasser was victorious in the Suez crisis, but a decade later his miscalculations led to humiliating Arab defeat by Israel in the 1967 Middle East War.

"He's too audacious and this hurts him," said Reda Kheshein, an accountant scanning headlines at a newsstand in Tahrir Square in Cairo. "He doesn't have the right to say he wants to destroy Israel. He needs to be reasonable, not risky. Unfortunately, we suffered from riskiness in the past. Look at Nasser, he made a very risky decisions. We don't need any more martyrs."

Other Arabs wonder about Ahmadinejad's strategy in a region where political theater and hyperbole often mask quieter, behind-the-scenes diplomacy. They suggest that the Iranian president, who seldom displays shades of nuance and is given wide latitude by Iran's ruling religious establishment, is as spooky as he is inspiring.

"He has a sense of belonging to the Muslim world. He always stands by Muslim nations," said Hussein Ali, a guide waiting for a bus. "But I don't like his inability to unify his own people and his insistence on developing nuclear capabilities that would be dangerous to the whole world. But we need his strong Islamic voice to protect us from the West."

Ibrahim Sufa, a Jordanian shop owner, said Ahmadinejad is shrewd and calculating when it comes to spin.

"He's good. I feel he's really a moderate. He talks in the extreme, but he acts with restraint," Sufa said. "If America hits him, the whole region will go on fire."

 

[maycocksean]

Ahmadimibulb

The misspelling speaks volumes. Volumes.

 

[toscano]

The misspelling speaks volumes. Volumes.

Well, one thing it says is that I have little respect for a holocaust denier

insert-ineffective-silly-smiley-of-your-choice-here

 

[deep]

Well, one thing it says is that I have little respect for a holocaust denier

On another question, Ahmadinejad appeared agitated and denied he was questioning the existence of the Holocaust. "Granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestian people?" he said.

 

[toscano]

convenient........

wonder what his position will be next week when he's back home reading those european scholarly reports he seems to be keen on.............


I swear, if this was Bush (who I did NOT vote for) he's be pilloried, chastised and amde fun of like no one's business


There's a double standard here, still maybe it's heaqrtening to know we hold the Iranian leadership to lower standards.

Speaks volumes. Volumes.

 

[dazzlingamy]

Uhm what do you think we should do? He's not our president, he doesn't control anything to do with us, so what should we do? Invade his country under the pretence of 'you're country has a slightly odd president, you fail.'??

I mean, there are a shitload of fucked up, mental horrible president/generals/prime ministers who are evil, kiniving, nasty pieces of work, who lie and steal and backstab and cheat, but you know what, its nothing to DO WITH US. We have our own shit to deal with, and until Ahmadinejad declares war, or lets of an atomic bomb - he ain't any of your damn business.

Bush has said some pretty stupid and horrendous things, the only problem is, there are too many people who agree with what he says for there to be an outrage. THAT is the saddest part.

 

[Irvine511]

I swear, if this was Bush (who I did NOT vote for) he's be pilloried, chastised and amde fun of like no one's business


There's a double standard here, still maybe it's heaqrtening to know we hold the Iranian leadership to lower standards.

or we could say that we hold American leadership to higher standards? does this surprise you? yes, if bush had said the tings the president of Iran had said, then i'd be throwing even more of a fit than i am now. but here's the thing: Bush (whether i like it or not) does represent me; Ahmadinejad does not.

i really don't know what your'e getting at. you're basically making the statement that the president of the United States is more rational than the president of Iran. are you surprised by this?

 

[Muldfeld]

Well, one thing it says is that I have little respect for a holocaust denier

insert-ineffective-silly-smiley-of-your-choice-here

Look, the Holocaust is a HUGE deal to us in the West, especially to the US, because we have a sense of history that seeks to uphold what our enemies did, and we have a sizeable Jewish population. TV and film constantly propagandize the event. Ahmadinejad didn't grow up in our educational system with our sensitivities. It happened and it was terrible, but it's also been used to allow Jewish people to victimize others because they supposedly have a monopoly on suffering. How about how the US media has tacitly ignored the suffereing they've helped to inflict on the Palestinian peoples. Like it or not, the US is directly responsible for proping up Israeli governments with billions of dollars of aid to allow them to occupy Palestinians. This is grossly immoral, but no one talks about it; that's as good as denying the Palestinians' suffering to this day.

between the two nations

the U S
and
Iran

Which nation has intervened/ interfered more in the others existence?
Brilliantly stated!

erm.
i dunno.
you tell me einstein.

The Iranian regime is not Al Qaeda and the people of Iran stood with the American people on 9/11 with a million people mourning in the streets of Tehran. The Iranian government helped the US hunt down Al Qaeda members early on.

Bush's Axis of Evil speech and threatening invasion changed all that. They're scared now.

It's America's fault that they installed a brutal shah against the democratic will of the Iranian people and it took a fundamentalist revolution to overthrow it.

America also funded an 8-year war on Iran through Saddam's Iraq and supplied him with the bio and chemical weapons to use against Iranians. Where's the outrage about that?

So some hostages were taken. Regrettable, but Iran didn't kill anyone the way Americans are responsible for brutal repression and the deaths of surely thousands in Iranian history.

Get over the nationalism. Ahmadinejad may be a fool sometimes, and he has made some stupid comments about the Holocaust and wiping Israel off the map, but he clearly doesn't hate Jews. He's met with Jewish groups that oppose Israel's disgusting Zionism that's cause colonization, ethnic cleansing and occupation for the Palestinian peoples for half a century. He's a human being who wants to show his respect.

Stop listening to the Bush administration and its ideological flunkies who can only imagine enemies and war to show how powerful they are!

Bush made comments about waging a Crusade in the Middle East. How sensitive was that? Also, forget about the rhetoric. Bush has done terribly racist and colonial things in the Middle East. Iran has as much desire for influence in Iraq and America has had in Latin America. Bush has not forsworn permanent bases or that Iraqi oil will be used to help Iraqis. He's the reason Al Qaeda is such a threat by constantly helping their propaganda cause and torturing and murdering innocent Muslims every day in the war. Bush is why Al Qaeda's strength has grown, not Ahmadinjad. He's also exploited the deaths in 9/11, and proven lives don't mean much to him in how he's shamefully reacted to Katrina and the needs of the poor.

Ahmadinejad has more of a right or at least just as much of a right to be at Ground Zero than Bush!

 

[melon]

The Iranian regime is not Al Qaeda and the people of Iran stood with the American people on 9/11 with a million people mourning in the streets of Tehran. The Iranian government helped the US hunt down Al Qaeda members early on.

There's a huge difference between support for the U.S. amongst the Iranian public and that of it's government. Iranians, as polled, hold a favorable view of the U.S. However, as the Iranian government is a closed loop of power, they don't have to reflect the will of the people.

Bush's Axis of Evil speech and threatening invasion changed all that. They're scared now.

Except that Iranian mosques have been chanting "Death to America" for far longer than that speech.

It's America's fault that they installed a brutal shah against the democratic will of the Iranian people and it took a fundamentalist revolution to overthrow it.

It's not strictly the U.S.' fault, as it was also a joint U.K. venture, as their respective oil companies resisted their PM's nationalization attempts.

This is not something that I defend, and I find this to be one of the more regrettable events of the Cold War. We should have left Iran alone. However, I can point out your contradiction between the "democratic will" and "fundamentalist revolution," which are a contradiction in terms. Ayatollah Khomeini was a well educated man, that's for sure. And he very consciously created a nation that was undemocratic. Very specifically, Khomeini took inspiration from the 18th century concept of "Enlightened absolutism," thus "ruling with the intent of improving the lives of their subjects in order to strengthen or reinforce their authority."

So there's really no point in finding a good guy in all of this.

America also funded an 8-year war on Iran through Saddam's Iraq and supplied him with the bio and chemical weapons to use against Iranians. Where's the outrage about that?

The irony of all this is that Iran's military machinery was primarily American made, while Iraq's machinery was primarily from the Soviet Union.

The "outrage" is that Iraq and Iran's war was fueled by Cold War politics and strategy, where the blame cannot be shouldered merely on the U.S. Weaponry was obtained from both Western and communist bloc nations, while the war was primarily financed through oil-rich Middle Eastern nations.

So some hostages were taken. Regrettable, but Iran didn't kill anyone the way Americans are responsible for brutal repression and the deaths of surely thousands in Iranian history.

In the words of Wikipedia, "citation please."

Get over the nationalism. Ahmadinejad may be a fool sometimes, but he's met with Jewish groups that oppose Israel's disgusting Zionism that's cause colonization, ethnic cleansing and occupation for the Palestinian peoples for half a century. He's a human being who wants to show his respect.

Stop listening to the Bush administration and its ideological flunkies who can only imagine enemies and war to show how powerful they are!

All I can say for the rest of this is .

 

[Muldfeld]

There's a huge difference between support for the U.S. amongst the Iranian public and that of it's government. Iranians, as polled, hold a favorable view of the U.S. However, as the Iranian government is a closed loop of power, they don't have to reflect the will of the people.



Except that Iranian mosques have been chanting "Death to America" for far longer than that speech.

It's not strictly the U.S.' fault, as it was also a joint U.K. venture, as their respective oil companies resisted their PM's nationalization attempts.

This is not something that I defend, and I find this to be one of the more regrettable events of the Cold War. We should have left Iran alone. However, I can point out your contradiction between the "democratic will" and "fundamentalist revolution," which are a contradiction in terms. Ayatollah Khomeini was a well educated man, that's for sure. And he very consciously created a nation that was undemocratic. Very specifically, Khomeini took inspiration from the 18th century concept of "Enlightened absolutism," thus "ruling with the intent of improving the lives of their subjects in order to strengthen or reinforce their authority."

So there's really no point in finding a good guy in all of this.
QUOTE]

I wasn't saying the revolution was democratic, but the society was more democratic and likely to free itself up in the 40s and 50s. When you impose a brutal dictator, you stop such evolution. The coming of a fundamentalist regime was blowback from the CIA operation; the British suggested it, but it was America that did it.

The thousands I was referring to were those that died in an 8-year war against Iraq -- a war America supported just because of a hostage crisis. That's a lot of blood for an irrational reaction you were ultimately responsible for.

Also, if I were poor and desperate, I'd be chanting death to whomever, too. How many Americans have been chanting death to the Middle East for decades! They just use coded language and speak at family gatherings.

The basic fact is that the only way to improve the lives and political circumstances of the Iranian people is to negotiate and speak reasonably, not to constantly threaten war. America is always so impatient to get what it wants, while the rest of the world must wait as America allows a warmongerer to serve 8 years in office and are powerless to have a voice in all the destruction he's committed.

 

[BVS]

Look, the Holocaust is a HUGE deal to us in the West, especially to the US, because we have a sense of history that seeks to uphold what our enemies did, and we have a sizeable Jewish population. TV and film constantly propagandize the event. Ahmadinejad didn't grow up in our educational system with our sensitivities. It happened and it was terrible, but it's also been used to allow Jewish people to victimize others because they supposedly have a monopoly on suffering. How about how the US media has tacitly ignored the suffereing they've helped to inflict on the Palestinian peoples. Like it or not, the US is directly responsible for proping up Israeli governments with billions of dollars of aid to allow them to occupy Palestinians. This is grossly immoral, but no one talks about it; that's as good as denying the Palestinians' suffering to this day.

I'd like an example of how the Holocaust has been propagandized in the West...

 

[Muldfeld]

I'd like an example of how the Holocaust has been propagandized in the West...

How about every freaking show and movie. It's not been mis-represented, but constantly harping on about it has the effect of prioritizing the crimes of your enemy in a way that you stop seeing the cruelty of which we are all capable -- even America and even Zionist Israelis seeking land, while dispossessing Palestinians the same way white settlers displaced and abused native Americans. It's the same colonial behavior the US and Zionist Israelis have abetted, and they've manipulated the Holocaust in such a way that any resistance or criticism of Israeli policy is regarded as aligned with Hitler's irrational anti-semitism, when these people have good reason to hate Israel.

Secy of State Baker was called an ant-Semite by Israelis who didn't like his more fair-minded peace plans. Some Zionist Jews think anyone calling Israel's killing of 1000 Lebanese people last year a massacre anti-semitic.

Everyone's so afraid of being a Nazi, they've given Zionist colonialism carte blanche in the region, including the development of nuclear weapons which never went challenged.

 

[BVS]

How about every freaking show and movie. It's not been mis-represented, but constantly harping on about it has the effect of prioritizing the crimes of your enemy in a way that you stop seeing the cruelty of which we are all capable --

I'm not sure you understand what the true definition of 'propaganda' is, or maybe you've just been affected by some form of propaganda yourself.

It's probably the biggest horrific tragedy that has happened in documented filmed history. Of course it's going to be make into film, books, etc.

Harping on about it?! WTF? Wow, you have some issues.

Everyone's so afraid of being a Nazi, they've given Zionist colonialism carte blanche in the region, including the development of nuclear weapons which never went challenged.

 

[dazzlingamy]

While i understand your comments, where exactly are you getting the "Some Zionist Jews think anyone calling Israel's killing of 1000 Lebanese people last year a massacre anti-semitic."

You should source stuff like this, so your argument appears more valid.

While i agree that amercia shouldn't have helped israel in any way, and perhaps even think starting a settlement there was a bad idea, both sides have bloodshed on their hands, and i don't think the west have really been propagandizing the holocaust. I think the reason we see so much of it is 1. it happened in peoples lifetime. there are still plenty of holocaust survivors out there who tell their tales, and remanents are still over in euope of the atrocities.
2. Its fucking scary. to think that a 1st world country, with its morals, and technology, and on par with the US and the UK can turn on its people and other countries people just based on their religion, and not only intern them, but kill them in the most horrendous of ways, it leaves people cold, and questioning human nature and the deep cruel streak we have inside ourselves.
3. its dramatic - it makes for good movies. Hollywood ain't doing it just for good will, they want that cash.

 

[BVS]

You should source stuff like this, so your argument appears more valid.

Yes, I agree.

 

[melon]

I wasn't saying the revolution was democratic, but the society was more democratic and likely to free itself up in the 40s and 50s. When you impose a brutal dictator, you stop such evolution. The coming of a fundamentalist regime was blowback from the CIA operation; the British suggested it, but it was America that did it.

The thousands I was referring to were those that died in an 8-year war against Iraq -- a war America supported just because of a hostage crisis. That's a lot of blood for an irrational reaction you were ultimately responsible for.

Also, if I were poor and desperate, I'd be chanting death to whomever, too. How many Americans have been chanting death to the Middle East for decades! They just use coded language and speak at family gatherings.

The basic fact is that the only way to improve the lives and political circumstances of the Iranian people is to negotiate and speak reasonably, not to constantly threaten war. America is always so impatient to get what it wants, while the rest of the world must wait as America allows a warmongerer to serve 8 years in office and are powerless to have a voice in all the destruction he's committed.

The problem I see in all of this, with all due respect, is that it's tainted with the rose colored lenses of ideology.

Let's go to point #1:

1) The Iran-Iraq War was directly caused by Ayatollah Khomeini basically calling for the Shi'ite populations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait to overthrow their governments and form a united Shi'ite Islamic republic. This was coupled with a particularly harsh denunciation of Saddam's regime in Iraq, whom Khomeini referred to as "a puppet of Satan." Saddam, being a nut, thought that invading Iran would throw the support of Sunni nations behind him. As history as shown, the nations of the Middle East are never that united. So our first point here is that this war was directly caused by the two blowhards in Iraq and Iran, not the U.S.

Point #2:

2) As I stated earlier, Iran and Iraq's military situations were very complicated, as a result of Cold War strategy. Iraq's military was, contrary to popular belief, primarily Soviet in nature. And Iran's military was (and, to a degree, still is) primarily American in nature, due to prior arms shipments to the Shah's regime. Even at that, this war had the hands of several Western and communist bloc nations in it, not to mention large financial backing from oil-rich Sunni Arab nations. So our second point here is that the U.S., who openly backed Iraq and covertly armed Iran (the Iran-Contra scandal), cannot accurately shoulder the entire blame for this war.

Point #3:

3) It is downright fallacious to even remotely state that the people of Iran are "poor and desperate." Iran has had one of the highest standards of education and wealth, comparatively speaking, in the Middle East. This can be attributed to the strong Westernization campaign of the Shah during his reign. Iran, in fact, is still only operating based on the oil infrastructure from the Shah's era, and it is projected that, by 2012, domestic oil production in Iran may very well cease completely, due to lack of infrastructure upkeep.

"Death to America" is purely a propaganda campaign instigated by the anti-Western clerical elite, and it has long been noted that the Iranian public, who largely have a favorable view of the U.S., have long since ignored those chants, much like today's Christians think very little of the word, "Amen."

Point #4:

4) My last point here is to extol the virtues of nuance and the detailed study of history. I frown upon anyone who starts looking for "good guys" and "bad guys" in history, because the one thing both sides have in common is a "self-centered interest." A distaste for Bush should not translate into believing that Iran and its rulers are angels from the heavens. They, most assuredly, are not.

 

[diamond]

well, i'm glad we got that settled.

dbs

 

[maycocksean]

Well, one thing it says is that I have little respect for a holocaust denier

Well, that's one of the things it says. It also says that you're willing to stoop to name-calling and mockery (regardless of whether someone "deserves" it or not, it's still stooping). It also implies that a wider disrespect that goes beyond just one person. It doesn't just say this guy isn't worthy of me getting his name right, it implies that anyone with such a name (Arabic/Muslim/Persian etc) isn't worthy of me bothering to get his name right. It says "all those names are weird--why bother to get them straight. They're spelled weird and I can't pronounce them anyway so we'll just call this fellow Abiminabadab and it's all the same."

I'm sure you didn't mean to say all that. But it's what I heard.

 

[maycocksean]

The way I see it Ahmadinejad is politician, one possibly with some pretty grandiose visions of himself.

Like many politicians on both sides of the aisle here in the U.S. he is pandering to a particular extremist audience. He likes this vision of himself as the guy not afraid to "speak truth to power" and "tell it like it is" and stand up to "big, bad America." He knows good and well the Holocaust happened but suggesting that "maybe it didn't" throws a bone to people who might appreicate that. He's learned the value of saying outrageous things, not just to goad his opponents but to gain the admiration of the "base" as it were. That's pretty common these days, sad to say.

I personally find such cyncism revolting and I don't respect Ahmadinejad because of his cyncial use of fiery language to enlarge his own grandiose view of himself (that's pretty much how I feel about Rush Limbaugh too, come to think of it).

I think the best way to handle these types is to NOT play into their hands. You don't think he knew exactly what he was doing when we said he wanted to go to Ground Zero, when he accepted the invitation to speak at Columbia? He was counting on getting a rise out of America, he was expecting that people what be all wild-eyed and unreasonable about it, and he'd be able to stand back and say "Wha. . .I just wanted to pay my respects! :looks back at his watching Muslim audience: Can you get a load of these guys?" Well, that's pretty much what he got.

Much better if we'd not allowed him to "take the high road" (and I put that it quotes because it was NOT the true high road. It was all a lot of posturing) and taken it ourselves instead. We have to be bigger than a guy like this, and crying about him speaking at Columbia and what not is not doing it.