Of course we can say it will be bad if they get nukes. I’m just not so sure that we’ve reached a point whereby an attack is justified.
Links?
Assuming those are all accurate translations (which is a crucial point, as I mentioned), these would support the idea that it’s the regime he’s been talking about. Aside from the first one. The second would appear to be the one that everyone uses, possibly incorrectly.
“We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago [Israel] and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
That sounds like Israel and not the regime. We should be clear exactly what he is talking about.
I agree that we need to be precise in terms of what he’s talking about, which is why I raised the issue. Things ‘sound’ like certain things, and we can assume he means something, but if we are going to make a case for war (or an attack) then we have to go way beyond guessing.
So, where does this quote come from, who translated it, and did he mean a Zionist state or a state of Jewish people where the translator has put “[Israel]” Presumably there may a preceding sentence or so that might or might not clarify it.
If he’s talking about a Zionist-led state, then he might be talking about the regime. If he means a Jewish state, then yeah that would indicate that he doesn’t want a state of Jewish people.
It’s ok for people to just assume here on a discussion forum, but I’d start worrying if people are actually thought that action should be taken (like war, or some sort of an attack) based partly on presumptions and assumptions.
Well unless he is speaking clear English he can only show his hand via someone translating. It’s only going to be as accurate as the translation.
And then, once that’s sorted, ugly might very well indeed be real ugly.
Ahmadinejad and Iran better get busy on those weapons of mass destruction, Israel is not stockpiling weapons for a Hanukkah fireworks display.
Of course Israel’s main concern is ‘the war on terror’ and defence of their great nation right,? the Lebanese and Palestinians may have a different opinion on that one.
And shock, horror,! the good old USA are involved...again
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33993
CM, even if I accepted uncontested your “light” version of Prez AMadJihad’s remarks I still think he means the same thing even if the wording is a little more oblique. If he had not been a hostage taker funded and trained and armed Hezbollah and Hamas and had helped run an oppressive theocracy then maybe I could accept he was misunderstood. But again, context is laid on the altar of political convenience. His personal history and that of his friends and nation all matter. I find it neigh impossible to be he meant that a sea of fire (or whatever) was only going to remove the current Israeli government. Once the Pallies get autonomy in west bank and gaza then its all good, mate, right? Can you seriously tell me that?
Btw, it pisses them off having the Jews nearby in an organized and prosperous state, but the Iranians and pretty much the rest of the region despise the pallies even more than the Israelis. The pallies are just a useful stick to use on Israel.
Ahmadinejad and Iran better get busy on those weapons of mass destruction, Israel is not stockpiling weapons for a Hanukkah fireworks display.
Israel would do well to nuke everyone they hate before Iran has nukes, too, and braveyt acts out in self-defence, like they did against the tender poets of Iraq.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have faced ridicule in the United States by suggesting there were no homosexuals in Iran, but he won praise at home on Wednesday for taking his country’s case to “the Lion’s Den”.
What did he have to fear, exactly, this mighty warrior? Censorship, torture, death?
In his speech, Ahmadinejad denounced the “master-servant relationship of the Medieval Age” imposed by the United States and other leading nations through the Security Council. He expressed confidence that [b]God would not allow the Bush administration to launch a military attack against his country and said Iran has “spared no effort to build confidence” that it wants only civilian energy, not nuclear weapons
There’s a hell of a lot of prejudiced people out there who I’m sure are pissed off having to sit on their hands on the gay issue. Seems they share at least some of his views, which must leave them feeling a little uncomfortable.
The ultimate in denying people their rights is to deny they even exist (the nonexistent obviously have no rights.) There could be a debate over whether the gay lifestyle exists in Muslim countries, as a matter of identity politics, of course, but Ahmadinejad is not that sophisticated. He was saying that all Iranians are straight. Of course, gays are punished very severely in Iran, in reality.
It would be nice for the US Right to have us forget that they pull the Ahmadinejad act with regard to gays every day. Denying gays the right to marry is a way of erasing them from civil society. It is a way of denying that they really love one another, as straights do. It is a way of asserting that they do not exist.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military (so unlike the one followed by many NATO allies) is also a way of erasing gays. They don’t exist unless they themselves press the case that they exist. In order to remain in their jobs, they are forced to erase themselves by their silence. The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is a way of pretending that there are no gays in the US military. For if it could be proven that anyone is gay, he is immediately expelled. It is just as silly as what Ahmadinejad said, and just as pernicious. That policy is supported by the entire American Right, which is no better than Ahmadinejad in this regard.
Here are a couple of Christian statements resembling the vile ones spewed by Ahmadinejad, just for comparison.
Catholic Ahmadinejads from Hannity and Colmes:
‘ COLMES: group that is where I am. Let me just show you another quote, and you’ll be surprised at who’s saying this.
“Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature.”
The Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that, Congressman, Dornan.
DORNAN: Did you watch the—did you watch the debate? I watched six hours of debate, and I had a face-to-face fight with Cardinal McCarrick, who told me to my face there are no homosexuals in our seminaries. This is a discredited bunch of once holy men.
----FOX: HANNITY & COLMES, November 15, 2002 ‘
Evangelical Ahmadinejads. Bishop John Shelby Spong observes:
[Conservative] ‘commentators have not mentioned the blatant homophobia in both Africa and Southeast Asia. Christian leaders in Africa still maintain that there are no homosexuals in their countries, or if homosexuality is admitted, that it was “caught” from white Europeans. Christians throughout the Third World still assert that homosexuals are either evil people who can be changed if they are converted, or that they are mentally sick people who can be healed if properly treated. Such theories are dismissed as nonsense in Western medical circles today. Homosexual people in Africa have told me that they risk murder if they come out of their closets. They believe that if they were killed, the act would be endorsed by many Christian leaders of that continent, who quote scripture to justify it.’
So if some American Republicans, Catholics and evangelicals want to have the standing to laugh at Ahmadinejad for his prejudice, they have some work to do at home first.
There’s a hell of a lot of prejudiced people out there who I’m sure are pissed off having to sit on their hands on the gay issue. Seems they share at least some of his views, which must leave them feeling a little uncomfortable.
The ultimate in denying people their rights is to deny they even exist (the nonexistent obviously have no rights.) There could be a debate over whether the gay lifestyle exists in Muslim countries, as a matter of identity politics, of course, but Ahmadinejad is not that sophisticated. He was saying that all Iranians are straight. Of course, gays are punished very severely in Iran, in reality.
It would be nice for the US Right to have us forget that they pull the Ahmadinejad act with regard to gays every day. Denying gays the right to marry is a way of erasing them from civil society. It is a way of denying that they really love one another, as straights do. It is a way of asserting that they do not exist.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military (so unlike the one followed by many NATO allies) is also a way of erasing gays. They don’t exist unless they themselves press the case that they exist. In order to remain in their jobs, they are forced to erase themselves by their silence. The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is a way of pretending that there are no gays in the US military. For if it could be proven that anyone is gay, he is immediately expelled. It is just as silly as what Ahmadinejad said, and just as pernicious. That policy is supported by the entire American Right, which is no better than Ahmadinejad in this regard.
Here are a couple of Christian statements resembling the vile ones spewed by Ahmadinejad, just for comparison.
Catholic Ahmadinejads from Hannity and Colmes:
‘ COLMES: group that is where I am. Let me just show you another quote, and you’ll be surprised at who’s saying this.
“Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature.”
The Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that, Congressman, Dornan.
DORNAN: Did you watch the—did you watch the debate? I watched six hours of debate, and I had a face-to-face fight with Cardinal McCarrick, who told me to my face there are no homosexuals in our seminaries. This is a discredited bunch of once holy men.
----FOX: HANNITY & COLMES, November 15, 2002 ‘
Evangelical Ahmadinejads. Bishop John Shelby Spong observes:
[Conservative] ‘commentators have not mentioned the blatant homophobia in both Africa and Southeast Asia. Christian leaders in Africa still maintain that there are no homosexuals in their countries, or if homosexuality is admitted, that it was “caught” from white Europeans. Christians throughout the Third World still assert that homosexuals are either evil people who can be changed if they are converted, or that they are mentally sick people who can be healed if properly treated. Such theories are dismissed as nonsense in Western medical circles today. Homosexual people in Africa have told me that they risk murder if they come out of their closets. They believe that if they were killed, the act would be endorsed by many Christian leaders of that continent, who quote scripture to justify it.’
So if some American Republicans, Catholics and evangelicals want to have the standing to laugh at Ahmadinejad for his prejudice, they have some work to do at home first.
There’s a hell of a lot of prejudiced people out there who I’m sure are pissed off having to sit on their hands on the gay issue. Seems they share at least some of his views, which must leave them feeling a little uncomfortable.
The ultimate in denying people their rights is to deny they even exist (the nonexistent obviously have no rights.)
Actually, the ultimate in denying people their rights is to kill them unjustly. Question that? Here’s a little mental exercise: Would you rather your government, A) Pretend you didn’t exist, perhaps losing access to various entitlements, or B) drag you out of your bed at night, throw you in the back of a truck, drive you out to the middle of the desert, shoot you in the back of the head and leave your body for the vultures? If you chose A), then you probably agree with me.
There could be a debate over whether the gay lifestyle exists in Muslim countries, as a matter of identity politics, of course, but Ahmadinejad is not that sophisticated. He was saying that all Iranians are straight. Of course, gays are punished very severely in Iran, in reality.
So then, gays’ existence is not denied...it is severely punished, in reality.
It would be nice for the US Right to have us forget that they pull the Ahmadinejad act with regard to gays every day. Denying gays the right to marry is a way of erasing them from civil society. It is a way of denying that they really love one another, as straights do. It is a way of asserting that they do not exist.
So marriage is the only recognition that two people can love one another? Who’s limiting people now? Are there any combinations of two people that should be denied the right to marry? Does that mean they don’t exist?
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military (so unlike the one followed by many NATO allies) is also a way of erasing gays. They don’t exist unless they themselves press the case that they exist. In order to remain in their jobs, they are forced to erase themselves by their silence. The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is a way of pretending that there are no gays in the US military. For if it could be proven that anyone is gay, he is immediately expelled.
I might give him this, with the caveat that many other, and to me more pressing, rights are taken away from soldiers for the sake of discipline.
It is just as silly as what Ahmadinejad said, and just as pernicious. That policy is supported by the entire American Right, which is no better than Ahmadinejad in this regard.
Except that the military and the American right do not hang gays. Any cred from the last quote just went down the tubes.
Here are a couple of Christian statements resembling the vile ones spewed by Ahmadinejad, just for comparison.
Catholic Ahmadinejads from Hannity and Colmes:
‘ COLMES: group that is where I am. Let me just show you another quote, and you’ll be surprised at who’s saying this.
“Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature.”
The Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that, Congressman, Dornan.
DORNAN: Did you watch the—did you watch the debate? I watched six hours of debate, and I had a face-to-face fight with Cardinal McCarrick, who told me to my face there are no homosexuals in our seminaries. This is a discredited bunch of once holy men.
----FOX: HANNITY & COLMES, November 15, 2002 ’
Besides that information being relayed instead of quoted, if anybody sees Cardinal McCarrick trying to hang a gay, please punch him in the mouth (the Cardinal, not the gay), then call the police. See if the police then try to hang the gay. Until they do, comparing the Cardinal to Ahmadinejad relies solely on comprehensive sensory deprivation.
Evangelical Ahmadinejads. Bishop John Shelby Spong observes:
[Conservative] ‘commentators have not mentioned the blatant homophobia in both Africa and Southeast Asia. Christian leaders in Africa still maintain that there are no homosexuals in their countries, or if homosexuality is admitted, that it was “caught” from white Europeans. Christians throughout the Third World still assert that homosexuals are either evil people who can be changed if they are converted, or that they are mentally sick people who can be healed if properly treated. Such theories are dismissed as nonsense in Western medical circles today. Homosexual people in Africa have told me that they risk murder if they come out of their closets. They believe that if they were killed, the act would be endorsed by many Christian leaders of that continent, who quote scripture to justify it.’
Should this come to pass in Africa (which it probably has), compare them to Ahmadinejad. Then you’re in the ballpark.
So if some American Republicans, Catholics and evangelicals want to have the standing to laugh at Ahmadinejad for his prejudice, they have some work to do at home first.
How was that? I have to say that after thoroughly reading, digesting, and critiquing Juan Cole’s work, I’m really even less impressed than when I offhandedly dismissed him. Oh, sorry...that was bashing the author. Well, I can’t win ‘em all.
So, in summary, the difference isn’t the attitude towards, or prejudice against, gays, but what happens to them. So the outcry is not so much what Ahmadinejad thinks about gay people, just about what happens as a result of that? Yes?
I don’t care what anyone’s opinions are be the literary, musical, political, social or religious...DUH DUH DUH! Until they affect me or other people. I only care so much as I might denounce them or their views or choose to associate with them or not. However, I am not going to act against them with any kind of force because they are an island of petty ignorance or even hate. I DO NOT CARE. It is when they move off the island and begin afflicting others DUE to their belief system that I start sharpening my knife.
An illustration.
Scenario A :
ME: CM, You are descended from monkeys and pigs and you will burn in hell and definitely NOT get 72 semi-bearded virgins. I don’t want to even look at you. Just leave me alone.
Scenario B :
ME: CM, you are an infidel. You will burn in hell for all eternity and I can’t even stand for you to breathe my air so I’m going to give my neighbors some money and weapons to try to kill you or make you move off my block. Or maybe just the ‘regime’ that runs your house.
(attack fails)
ME: Ok, time to get a bomb, you will be blasted off the face of my neighborhood!
For extra fun time imagine I am the member not just of a crazy fundamentalist religion but I am also a member of an even crazier sub-sect of that religion that believes it needs to usher in worldwide bloodshed and chaos to hasten the arrival of my messianic figure.
Edit to focus on the “gay thing”
I think our old pal Souleata is a good example of this. He was obviously an ignorant bigot and said laughably stupid things regarding homosexuals (they can’t feel love) but (as far as we know) he never had any homosexuals executed or imprisoned or flogged till their backs looked like prime rib. One might say, “He simply didn’t have the power.” I disagree. I think his level of intolerance are entire orders of magnitude away from the sort of thing you see in Iran among other places.
Ahmadinejad and Iran better get busy on those weapons of mass destruction, Israel is not stockpiling weapons for a Hanukkah fireworks display.
Of course Israel’s main concern is ‘the war on terror’ and defence of their great nation right,? the Lebanese and Palestinians may have a different opinion on that one.
And shock, horror,! the good old USA are involved...again
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33993
You’re posting an article six days into a war that is over year old???
Did you do any analysis into the war crimes committed by Hezbollah?
Naw, that wouldn’t fit into your metanarrative. .
I don’t care what anyone’s opinions are be the literary, musical, political, social or religious...DUH DUH DUH! Until they affect me or other people. I only care so much as I might denounce them or their views or choose to associate with them or not. However, I am not going to act against them with any kind of force because they are an island of petty ignorance or even hate. I DO NOT CARE. It is when they move off the island and begin afflicting others DUE to their belief system that I start sharpening my knife.
An illustration.
Scenario A :
ME: CM, You are descended from monkeys and pigs and you will burn in hell and definitely NOT get 72 semi-bearded virgins. I don’t want to even look at you. Just leave me alone.
Scenario B :
ME: CM, you are an infidel. You will burn in hell for all eternity and I can’t even stand for you to breathe my air so I’m going to give my neighbors some money and weapons to try to kill you or make you move off my block. Or maybe just the ‘regime’ that runs your house.
(attack fails)
ME: Ok, time to get a bomb, you will be blasted off the face of my neighborhood!
For extra fun time imagine I am the member not just of a crazy fundamentalist religion but I am also a member of an even crazier sub-sect of that religion that believes it needs to usher in worldwide bloodshed and chaos to hasten the arrival of my messianic figure.
Edit to focus on the “gay thing”
I think our old pal Souleata is a good example of this. He was obviously an ignorant bigot and said laughably stupid things regarding homosexuals (they can’t feel love) but (as far as we know) he never had any homosexuals executed or imprisoned or flogged till their backs looked like prime rib. One might say, “He simply didn’t have the power.” I disagree. I think his level of intolerance are entire orders of magnitude away from the sort of thing you see in Iran among other places.
Oh I absolutely get the fact that not only does he take advantage of his power to kill/maim/whatever, but he also possesses the inhumanity to do it.
I’m just saying that their ‘theory’ on homosexuality is the same. They share some kind of hatred or fear or something similar, based on religious principles.
So I thought what Juan Cole was saying was that, on that level, the religious right can’t really attack him. To a certain point, the opinion is shared. It certainly takes a wide divergence at a particular point, so yeah they can take issue with that. They can say ‘yeah I hate gay people as much as he does, but I’m not sure that we should be killed for it’. Or ‘yeah it’s a sickness, but it’s up to God to eradicate it’ or whatever.
I’m talking about the fundamental Christians here. The ones the conservative movement have courted for a long time now (despite Sl0re trying to tell us that it’s only the left that courts and accepts the extremes).
Everybody draws a line somewhere. You can wax scientific (i.e. the opposite of religious) that paedophilia and bestiality are wrong all you want, but one thing tends to lead to another. Anyone who’s ever ogled porn knows this, both as a spectator and a praticipant.
Call it fear or hate, but Ahmadinejad and co. don’t want “debauchery” in their country, and they feel it would begin with accepting homosexuality.
Others are even stricter. This happened just last week:
Bollywood star and former British Celebrity Big Brother contestant Shilpa Shetty was detained by immigration officials at Mumbai airport, where she is still wanted following a public kiss with actor Richard Gere.
Shetty and Gere took the stage at a public AIDS awareness event in New Delhi last April, when Gere swept her into his arms and kissed her on the cheek, which goes against the anti-obscenity laws of the country.
Following the public display, a regional court issued an arrest warrant for the pair, which the Supreme Court overturned.
So just for fun, CNN asked a few folks where they draw the line. Public displays of affection: Acceptable or tacky?
Public affection too much? Come down to Mexico City where you see all kinds of displays and no one cares. Americans need to open their eyes and quit being scared.
I find it interesting to read an article, which applies, for the most part, to heterosexual couples.
I imagine most straight people have never considered the physical danger homosexuals can face if they even dare to hold hands in public.
The US was founded by the puritans after all… In most European countries, and even neighboring Mexico, affectionate kissing is perfectly acceptable
Give me a break! I have been married for 30 plus years and I have no problem giving my wife a tight hug and deep kiss In public. To grab the butt while while holding arms around each other is ok too.
I think Ahmadinejad & Company have a point. Allowing deviant sexual behavior leads to public butt grabbing (PBG) which is strictly forbidden in both the Koran and New Testament. I think it’s safe to say we all agree on this point. I mean, who the hell wants to turn the corner on isle 3 at the grocery and see Mike and his wife engaged in PBG right by the McCormick spice rack?
Richard Gere is considered by many to be a relatively enlightened American - as much as one can be living here - yet he is still so blissfully ignorant of other cultures existing outside fastfood Hollywood. Its not wonder then that the discussion quickly shifts away from India’s laws to them dumb, prude Americans.
Its all in my mind, tho.
Public affection too much? Come down to Mexico City where you see all kinds of displays and no one cares.
Hard to imagine anyone leaving Mexico for any reason, really.
Everybody draws a line somewhere. You can wax scientific (i.e. the opposite of religious) that paedophilia and bestiality are wrong all you want, but one thing tends to lead to another. Anyone who’s ever ogled porn knows this, both as a spectator and a praticipant.
Call it fear or hate, but Ahmadinejad and co. don’t want “debauchery” in their country, and they feel it would begin with accepting homosexuality.
