Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Ahmadinejad gets blistering welcome from Columbia

Los Angeles Times

What stood out for me is that Ahmadinejad quite clearly does not deny the holocaust a subject of great debate here a few months back.

MSNBC

Also seemingly to deflate the claims that he said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map."

I can just imagine how his comments will be selectively edited for presentation on cable news shows.

Listening to and reading his comments, Phil, I think his message on the Holocaust is that 'the jury is still out". He simply refuses to say "the Holocaust really happened and millions of people died". He says with regard to the Holocaust "everything is subject to doubt" and yet he also says "there is no doubt that Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is for peaceful purposes only".

It is demonstrably true that Jews in Iran enjoy more freedom and representation than Jews in other Muslim countries. It seems to me that when he says "We love all nations, we are friends with the Jewish people," he is avoiding saying "we love all nations including the Jewish nation", but he is also showing through his actions that his beef with Israel is political rather than ethnic in nature.

One of the cited articles posits that his "softened stance" on the "wiped off the map" comment may have been a result of "backlash" in his own country, even among hardliners, apparently, who feel his statement has hurt Iran's international standing. This is of course utter nonsense, since Iranians are able to read or hear his comment in Farsi and understand that he didn't say "wiped off the map". More likely they see this backlash as coming about because Ahmadinejad was so publicly frank about his (and many of his compatriots') position vis-a-vis the Jewish nation, with the result that he is being catty about it now.

I note too that the President of Columbia, who accused Ahmadinejad of "astounding ignorance", demonstrated astounding ignorance himself when he accused Iran of persecuting Iranian Jews, and asked the astoundingly stupid question of why Iran is giving material aid to Iraqi insurgents. Bollinger fails to comprehend a fundamental truth about the insurgency: no one in Iraq is protesting against, or taking up arms against, an Iranian Occupation.

Finally, I was astounded to find the results of this online poll, showing that more than half of respondents thought Ahmadinejad should not have been allowed to speak. I guess, as George W. Bush is quoted as having said about Columbia extending the invitation, "that speaks volumes about America". One reader queried "would they let American leaders come to Iran to talk?" apparently unaware that they would and they do.

Actually, he is very clear:

In addition:

Al Jazeera

yes, there is not the "phenomenon" in Iran because you kill them.

You call that clear?

The al Jazeera link also offers this incredible ignorance froma New York City Council Person:
Anyone care to explain that?

I've heard this three times now:
Could you direct me to some reading material on this?

I guess anti-Zionism is not too popular even in more religiously conservative countries such as Iran?

How did this maroon become president of a prestigious university?

I can't go on .... too surreal for even me.

Steve, i don't have links handy, but we have discussed this here I believe. At any rate, there have been several news reports of hangings and stonings and imprisonment of homosexuals, a couple of them teens if I recall correctly.

BTW, those are done as a religious matter so have no idea of the President had anything to do with them.

Well okay, but murder is murder, right? I would think that if Ahmadinejad actually believes there are no homosexuals in Iran, and if some teenage zealots murdered someone because they claimed the person was gay, he would be extra sure that the young men were prosecuted.

So let's see what happens if I google "iran homosexual murder", shall we?

Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct

I consider Human Rights Watch to be a very credible source. Too bad their English grammar is less than stellar.

I think they probably hanged the two men, who, their crime would surely indicate, were already hung.

According to the article, there is a pattern of abuse by the Iranian judiciary and police force, which as you point out is under the jurisdiction of the Guardian Council, not the President. I can't help but think, however, that were the President in a position to do so, he might very well exert all possible effort to ensure that his characterization of Iranian demographics was accurate.

The Bush Administration has a typical tactic, which has been documented many times.

They construct two possible scenarios, and only two.

One scenario requires that you believe that evil must triumph, and that you consciously want it to win.

The other is their planned course of action.

In the case for invading Iraq, it was "Launch an invasion" or "A mushroom cloud over Cleveland".

Now it is, "Go to war with Iran", or "You deny that the Holocaust ever happened (and, by the way, you still want a mushroom cloud over Cleveland").

How about this.

The President of Iran, a fundamentalist Muslim, has taken some very unpopular, and in my mind, deragotory positions regarding Israel and the United States.

The President of the United States, a fundamentalist Christian, has taken a position that sets the United States on a course for war with Iran, with his declaration that he "will take care of Iran" before he leaves office.

Both these individuals are scaring their respective populations to distract the people from noticing both how incompetent and bellicose they are.

Additionally, hard-line conservatives in both countries are beating the drums for war, for various reasons.

My conclusion.

George W. Bush is SO INCOMPETENT, that he must not be permitted to make another war-starting decision, ever.

President Bush, along with his "Thinkers" at the American Enterprise Institute, have demonstrated that they take absolutely no interest in preparing for the aftermath of the initial war-making action, preferring to pretend that everything will work out just as their rosy scenario imagines.

When real life intrudes, these same individuals are SHOCKED, SHOCKED that the fantasy they constructed did not happen. They declare "mistakes were made", as though the mistakes appeared through some sort of dimensional rift, then go on to compound those msitakes with PR campaigns that do nothing but smear those who did warn them.

I want George W. Bush to do absolutely NOTHING about Iran. Now or as he runs out the clock to January 2009. I wish such a prohibition cold be codified into law, but the Democrats in Congress are too feckless and the Republicans to blindly loyal for that to happen. So all I can do is continue to point out that I do not really care whether the President of Iran speaks at Columbia or not. Or whether he lays a wreath at Ground Zero or not (although it would be a nice gesture on the part of the president of a country that had nothing to do with the attacks).

I just want to run out the clock to get Bush out of office before he bequests America with a third failed war, to add to his current two.

Is that plain enough?

Human Rights Watch is a VERY credible source. I would take them at their word.

This is very disturbing about the Fundamentalist Muslim control of Iranian society. I had though that such conduct was limited to such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan.