Ahmadinejad!

[cob]

about a year ago i read a converstion on here where a poster said something in defence of mahmoud ahmadinejad and a lot of people jumped down his throat reeling off the old lines "he denies the holocaust; he wants israel wiped off the map; nuclear development"!!!! i want to know if people still are so blind as to not see it from his point of view.

the most touchy subject is probably the holocaust bit so il just use it as an example of how we simplify things and then get misunderstood and then get into a war! he said it was a myth.( i wish he wouldnt say such stupid things it just makes it harder for himself when already theres communication problems... ) anyway, if were going to go with soundbytes then lets take a soundbyte from his speech in colombia. "i never said it didnt happen" - he never said it didnt happen. "what does it have to do with palestine" ?? the man wants to know why the west uses the holocaust constantly to keep a monopoly on the discourse of suffering. yes it was a terrible thing. many atrocious things have happened since then. rwanda, yugoslavia, darfur, theres been wars in the middle east since 1980. no one can deny them either.

america asks why does iran sponsor terrorists, but these are only terrorists from the US point of view. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. if the man is evil because he sponsors violence, then too many of todays politicians are evil. bush has made equally aggressive statements about axis of evil states and at parochial level politicians can be known to be very vitriolic. and then, at the GA, of course they use completely different language. so does mahmoud! its how politics work. if we can simplify ahmadinejad to one or two out of context soundbytes, then we are not doing him justice. we could do the same with george bush by picking one of his classic axis of evil phrases, - and then obviously hes going to sound like a terrorist to Joe Iranian is he not??

im not saying ahmadinejad is a good leader. (im my own opinion hes overly obsessed with religion and the "almighty" and i think that if we lived in a perfect world we could all ponder a little bit more about the almighty but practical things need to be done in this life.) but if we accuse ahmedinejad then we have to at least see how things look from his point of view.

comments? (please dont jump down my throat, i just want to talk about it!!)

[saratoga]

about a year ago i read a converstion on here where a poster said something in defence of mahmoud ahmadinejad and a lot of people jumped down his throat reeling off the old lines "he denies the holocaust; he wants israel wiped off the map; nuclear development"!!!! i want to know if people still are so blind as to not see it from his point of view.

the most touchy subject is probably the holocaust bit so il just use it as an example of how we simplify things and then get misunderstood and then get into a war! he said it was a myth.( i wish he wouldnt say such stupid things it just makes it harder for himself when already theres communication problems... ) anyway, if were going to go with soundbytes then lets take a soundbyte from his speech in colombia. "i never said it didnt happen" - he never said it didnt happen. "what does it have to do with palestine" ?? the man wants to know why the west uses the holocaust constantly to keep a monopoly on the discourse of suffering. yes it was a terrible thing. many atrocious things have happened since then. rwanda, yugoslavia, darfur, theres been wars in the middle east since 1980. no one can deny them either.

america asks why does iran sponsor terrorists, but these are only terrorists from the US point of view. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. if the man is evil because he sponsors violence, then too many of todays politicians are evil. bush has made equally aggressive statements about axis of evil states and at parochial level politicians can be known to be very vitriolic. and then, at the GA, of course they use completely different language. so does mahmoud! its how politics work. if we can simplify ahmadinejad to one or two out of context soundbytes, then we are not doing him justice. we could do the same with george bush by picking one of his classic axis of evil phrases, - and then obviously hes going to sound like a terrorist to Joe Iranian is he not??

im not saying ahmadinejad is a good leader. (im my own opinion hes overly obsessed with religion and the "almighty" and i think that if we lived in a perfect world we could all ponder a little bit more about the almighty but practical things need to be done in this life.) but if we accuse ahmedinejad then we have to at least see how things look from his point of view.

comments? (please dont jump down my throat, i just want to talk about it!!)

I think you've fallen hook, line and sinker into the age old leftie trap of moral relativism. Just because America looks as bad to Joe Iranian as Iran looks to American doesn't mean that the two views share some kind of parity or equal validity. What terrorists engage in and what America is doing in response only share the description 'violence' in the same sense that Steve Staunton and Alex Ferguson share the description 'Football Manager'. Don't be so intimidated by your enemies that when they don't like you, and when this dislike looks a lot like your dislike of them, that this must meant that they're just as entitled to dislike you as you are to dislike them. It simply isn't so. The West is better.

[David Cochrane]

Ahmadinejad threads are already ongoing in Foreign Affairs cob.

[cob]

tell me exactly what you mean by america does it "in response." do you mean 9/11? how does america decides who it responds to? who "started it" then, and when was that ? by the way , im not being smart, i genuinely just want to know.

[wasioneofthosebigotsB4?]

Did he actually deny the holocaust..

Myth has two meanings in English..
A Myth can be a total fabrication,
it can also be a false of discredited, or abandoned, religion.
In what sense was the man using the word?
I always see the word "myth" in inverted commas, what was the full sentence, what was the context?

[storybud]

just vote getting as he is still a puppet under the ayatollah/Clerics, big strong man confronting the west ( little ************************ I would love to bounce into next week) but there are lots of other little ************************s waiting to take his place,

As the newstalk radio show said he is responsible for helping the Al-K-Da ( spelt on purpose as scum do not deserve any respect ) yet he can go to a University and bull************************ where as the U.S. army recruiter is banned on campus from recruiting people to join the army to get this little bitch with his nukes,

Maybe the U.S. is working on an oil free engine and need him against the Saudis down the road, nothing surprises us anymore,

[stewiegriffin]

just vote getting as he is still a puppet under the ayatollah/Clerics, big strong man confronting the west ( little ************************ I would love to bounce into next week) but there are lots of other little ************************s waiting to take his place,

As the newstalk radio show said he is responsible for helping the Al-K-Da ( spelt on purpose as scum do not deserve any respect ) yet he can go to a University and bull************************ where as the U.S. army recruiter is banned on campus from recruiting people to join the army to get this little bitch with his nukes,

Maybe the U.S. is working on an oil free engine and need him against the Saudis down the road, nothing surprises us anymore,

jesus dude u should join the marines!

[rkeane]

Storybud,

Al Qaeda despise the shi*te Ahmadinejad, they regard him as an apostate despot.....get your facts right b4 you post crap such as that. Al Qaeda in Iraq slaughter the shi*te forces of that idiot Nouri al-Maliki everyday, do u really think Ahmadinejad would be helping AQI? I think you must be watching Fox News 2 much.....seek help!

[saratoga]

tell me exactly what you mean by america does it "in response." do you mean 9/11? how does america decides who it responds to? who "started it" then, and when was that ? by the way , im not being smart, i genuinely just want to know.

Anything that is a threat to democracy has to be responded to in some shape or form, and on occasion that response will be in the form of force. Islamic fundamentalism has to be responded to, so does the threat of a nuclear Iran. I couldn't care less who started it, I care about who I want to see on the winning side at the finish. I want to see Western liberal democracy on the winning side.

[MichaelR]

Anything that is a threat to democracy has to be responded to in some shape or form, and on occasion that response will be in the form of force. Islamic fundamentalism has to be responded to, so does the threat of a nuclear Iran. I couldn't care less who started it, I care about who I want to see on the winning side at the finish. I want to see Western liberal democracy on the winning side.

I fully share this sentiment. But Western liberal democracy can be subverted from the inside, not only crushed from the outside. And in many respects, Bush is doing just that.

In invading Iraq, Bush trampled international law. But international law is one of the cornerstones of Western liberal democracy; the West in its modern form can not continue to exist in a winner-take-all world of international force.

There are worrying internal developments in the US as well.