Why does the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad make such outrageous statements?

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ghislaine

unionist, then Iran should be thrown out too as well as Cuba. They both jail people for political protest. Walking out of a speech is a lot less drastic than throwing out every member that violates resolutions!!

Unionist

sanizadeh wrote:

The Iranian activists here also petitioned the world leaders to walk out during Ahmadinejad's speech.

So what? When Iran starts violating some international law or U.N. resolutions, we can think about that. Otherwise, we can wind up the U.N. tomorrow because everyone will be walking out on everyone else. Does the word "diplomacy" really mean nothing to some people? Do these activists think China has more democratic elections than Iran????

As for Israel, it should be thrown out of the U.N. for violating its resolutions and international law. Not for Netanyahu's stupid speeches; not because of how he jails young people who refuse to do military service; not even if he uses strong-arm methods to stay in power and cheats on elections or whatever. Are these distinctions really so difficult for progressive people to understand??

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I think the UN has become useless because it is controlled by the global industrial military complex.

Yeah, kropotkin, please, don't go there. Whether we like it or not, it's light years better than the alternative. Your "global complex" couldn't even manage to get it to bless the U.S. invasion of Iraq, so please don't exaggerate. It only helps our enemies.

 

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

unionist, then Iran should be thrown out too as well as Cuba. They both jail people for political protest. Walking out of a speech is a lot less drastic than throwing out every member that violates resolutions!!

Please re-read my post and pay attention: I said Israel should NOT be thrown out for jailing protestors.

NOT.

N-O-T.

These are domestic affairs - like Bush stealing an election - like Saudi Arabia executing everyone in sight - like Karzai and the Saudis and the Pope being misogynist homophobes. They are bad things, but they are not violations of international law or the prohibition of aggressive war, etc. Israel should be thrown out for violating U.N. resolutions, many of them, over the decades.

 

Ghislaine

Israel is not the only country to have violated UN resolutions. Iran for starters has violated several! So, let's just kick them out rather than walking out of a single speech.

Polunatic2

Out of curiosity, which resolutions has Iran violated? 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Diplomacy is reserved only for those countries that have nuclear weapons. The US will sit down and talk with China, Russia, or North Korea (sometimes all of them at the same time) but countries like Iran and Cuba it can just bully and shun.

The reason they are afraid of Iran becoming a nuclear power is that they are afraid they might have to actually sit down and talk to them someday, instead of threatening to nuke them.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Heh.

Ken Burch

Ghislaine wrote:
I don't support Harper's foreign policy - I think we should get out of Afghanistan yesterday, not in two years. I do support not sitting through Ahmadinejad's speech though. I canot understand why would support sitting through it.

Those watching at home could probably get a great drinking game out of it.

"OK...we do a shot of Jim Beam for every 'Great Satan', a swig of Mogen David for every 'Little Satan'..."

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

Israel is not the only country to have violated UN resolutions. Iran for starters has violated several!

No kidding. You mean, like all those countries it invaded? Or the land it stole? Refresh my memory.

Quote:
So, let's just kick them out rather than walking out of a single speech.

Even the United States is not boycotting the speech. Harper is trying for the title of the worst sycophantic bootlicker in the world - the first to withdraw aid from the Palestinian authority; the first to boycott Durban II; and now this piece of theatre. Harper is by far the most dangerous criminal Canada has had the misfortune to have as head of government. People should be very careful and think many times before supporting anything he does.

As for some Jews getting sucked in by this miscreant, it wouldn't be the first time in history that they have tragically confused enemies with friends. He is much smarter than they will ever be.

 

sanizadeh

Ahamdinejad speaking to empty seats at UN session today (from minute 1:14):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP2_2i7tAhQ

(Even Lebanon's seat was empty!)

 

A group of protesters (clips are still coming in; stay tuned):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiv5AOVrurI

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

sanizadeh wrote:

Ahamdinejad speaking to empty seats at UN session today (from minute 1:14):

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP2_2i7tAhQ

 

The speech sounded pretty good, until he got to the part where he said, "By the grace of god, Marxism is gone."

He can only wish.

sanizadeh

He does not disappoint anyone; left or right.

Ken Burch

M. Spector wrote:

 

 

The speech sounded pretty good, until he got to the part where he said, "By the grace of god, Marxism is gone."

He can only wish.

Wouldn't it have been great if somebody had shouted "YOU LIE!"?

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

 

Even the United States is not boycotting the speech.

 

 

Sorry you are [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-delegation-leads-walk... wrong [/url] about that:

Quote:
The United States had said its delegation wouldn't walk out, but leave only lower-level diplomats in the room. But as Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke, the U.S. diplomats left their seats to protest against what they called "hateful, offensive, and anti-Semitic rhetoric."

Diplomats from several other countries also exited the UN's general assembly, leaving a large portion of the chamber's seats empty.

Watch sanizadeh's link for a picture of just how many people stuck around to hear Ahmadinejad.

 

al-Qa'bong

Ghislaine wrote:

Well MSpector...Neville Chamberlain tried very hard to avoid conflict and war and be nice to Hitler - along with the rest of the world.

 

Hang on; Ahmadinejad's Hitler now? I thought Saddam was Hitler...or was that Qadaffi or Arafat? I keep getting my swarthy, turban-wearing evil villains mixed up.

martin dufresne

Remember that we were being fed similar State Department-lubed yuks when Chavez addressed the United Nations.

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 

Even the United States is not boycotting the speech.

 

 

Sorry you are [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-delegation-leads-walk... wrong [/url] about that:

No, you are wrong about that. The U.S. announced that they would attend, and they did. They walked out when they heard something they didn't like, as did some others. Harper, the asshole, announced that Canada would not attend - and that's the banner headline on sanizadeh's gloating CNN video clip. I can't help it if you don't understand the difference.

 

martin dufresne

Richard Parry broaches various questions - some well, some not so well IMHO - in his editorial "What Did Ahmadinejad Really Say?" I agree with his contention that it is irresponsible to put so much spin on his words that we end up having him say things he doesn't, to better demonize him, as we did Saddam Hussein.

If this were a philosophy class and not a word giddy with the prospect of nuclear war against a suitably hated country, we could discuss, for example whether the Holocaust does function as a myth. I think it does, and that this bears examination. It does not only for Zionists but for all of the West,  keen on covering for every heinous crime from Israel's government and international shills.

To point this out is no way to claim that the Holocaust did not take place; it is to point out a classical process of legitimacy construction, on the basis of unexaminable, taboo claims that do use a past horror as Truth to justify present-day horrors and unaccountability. 

Anyone who doubts this - and I am sure pseudo-principled heckling will soon erupt from the bleachers - can verify that I was silenced only yesterday here (post #99) for daring to cheekily denounce attacks against Jews. Farber being the "child of a Holocaust survivor" apparently made him untouchable. This is the essence of a myth. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

There was an Iranian academic on CBC today who was sympathetic to the Iranian opposition group.  He pointed out that every time Ahmadinejad comes to North America he sets up the visit by having a speach with the Holocaust mentioned in it.  Then the whole visit is then about the Holocaust and he avoids discussion of the other issues.

Ken Burch

Holocaust denial as misdirection...interesting...

Caissa

Meaningful diplomatic dialogue seems to be at its lowest point in my adult life. I'm not sure if it's attributable to a rise in neo-nationalism or if it is attributable to the information explosion where diplomats often have to play to the home front.

mahmud

 

Ahmedinajed is diverting attention from his government's  treatment of protesters -though mainly mercenaries and puppets of he CIA, the UK and France- and the West and Israel are exploiting his uttering to divert from Israel's deeds as confirmed recently by the Golstone Report.

Forget the Goldstone Report, forget innocent Gazans killed, maimed and burned by the deliberate actions of Apartheid Israel. Here, our Western citizens, our newspapers give you something to entertain yourselves with:  the verbal diatribes of Ahmedinajed and Khaddafi.

 

 

 

Ghislaine

Are you seriously calling the Iraninan protesters puppets?

Unionist

So - if Ahmadinejad just stopped making his gratuitous comments about the Holocaust, the world's attention would be squarely focused on the stealing of the Iranian election, the mistreatment of political dissenters in Iran, the atrocities of Israel against Gaza, Iran's nuclear program, ... He's one powerful dude, to accomplish all that just by slipping in an ambiguous two-line comment in every speech.

remind remind's picture

Canada had no business walking out. IMV, Harper was just using the whole damn thing to avoid attending the Climate Change portion and to smoke screen his not being there.

And ghislaine you were asked above about Iran's war crimes that you allege they have done, put up or retract. And even if there are any, why are you accepting ot the USA's, Israel's and others?

Prophit

martin dufresne wrote:

... I was silenced only yesterday here (post #99) for daring to cheekily denounce attacks against Jews. Farber being the "child of a Holocaust survivor" apparently made him untouchable. This is the essence of a myth. 

That was not my reading. You were "silenced" because what you wrote may have been defamatory and Babble had to rightly protect its ass..et...so to write.

mahmud

Unionist wrote:

So - if Ahmadinejad just stopped making his gratuitous comments about the Holocaust, the world's attention would be squarely focused on the stealing of the Iranian election, the mistreatment of political dissenters in Iran, the atrocities of Israel against Gaza, Iran's nuclear program, ... He's one powerful dude, to accomplish all that just by slipping in an ambiguous two-line comment in every speech.

That same powerful dude so capable of re-writing world history that every time he brings up his planned 2 line-mantra about the Holocaust, the ground shakes so much underneath Western media and politicians -such as our own- that they lose their balance. Or was it already lost?

How often did we read about Ahmedinejd talking about the West's double standard Iran v. Israel nuclear stuff? Apparently not as worth reporting as his Holocaust uttering.

sanizadeh

mahmud wrote:

Ahmedinajed is diverting attention from his government's  treatment of protesters -though mainly mercenaries and puppets of he CIA, the UK and France- and the West and Israel are exploiting his uttering to divert from Israel's deeds as confirmed recently by the Golstone Report.

Shame on you.Here are some of your "mercenaries".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jun/29/iran-election-de...

If you don't have information about an issue, why are you making a fool of yourself in public?

sanizadeh

remind wrote:

And ghislaine you were asked above about Iran's war crimes that you allege they have done, put up or retract. And even if there are any, why are you accepting ot the USA's, Israel's and others?

The Iranian government has been responsible for many human rights violations, but not "war crimes" (at least as far as the common international noms are concerned). Personally, I object to any suggestion about kicking Iran out of the UN. This is about Ahmadinejad, not Iran.

sanizadeh

Unionist wrote:

So - if Ahmadinejad just stopped making his gratuitous comments about the Holocaust, the world's attention would be squarely focused on the stealing of the Iranian election, the mistreatment of political dissenters in Iran, the atrocities of Israel against Gaza, Iran's nuclear program, ... He's one powerful dude, to accomplish all that just by slipping in an ambiguous two-line comment in every speech.

Not powerful; just have found an easy way to distract the media who are just too happy to focus on a non-issue. And playing on western sensitivity toward any mentioning of Holocaust.

mahmud

sanizadeh wrote:

mahmud wrote:

Ahmedinajed is diverting attention from his government's  treatment of protesters -though mainly mercenaries and puppets of he CIA, the UK and France- and the West and Israel are exploiting his uttering to divert from Israel's deeds as confirmed recently by the Golstone Report.

Shame on you.Here are some of your "mercenaries".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jun/29/iran-election-de...

If you don't have information about an issue, why are you making a fool of yourself in public?

You know or should have known -presuming you are in good faith- that I did not mean the victims but the CIA, UK and France's paid spies, agitators, agents and what have you. The CIA has been recruiting its Iranian spies in Dubai, in implemention of the US 2007 plan to destabilize Iran.

Oh, my God, sanizadeh! you caught this Hitlerian, cruel, insensitive excuse for human-being red-handed! I am being sarcastic, here.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ghislaine wrote:

Well MSpector...Neville Chamberlain tried very hard to avoid conflict and war and be nice to Hitler - along with the rest of the world.

A very weak reading of the history. Convenient mostly for people of conservative viewpoints who try and cover up the fact that it was they who were Hitler and Mussolini's fans. Churchill unlike Chamberlain opposed sanctioning Italy for its invasion of Abyssinia, and sung Mussolini's praises only a year later in his trademark sententious tones. Meanwhile, Chamerlain immediatly increased the war departments budget on returning from Munich. There was no "appeasement" at Munich, just politics. Neither the UK or France were ready for war, and the complete failure of the French to defend themselves a year later, indicates that Chamberlain's reading of the situation was correct.

"Peace in our times" was just a sop for the press, and Munich a British delaying tactic and parliment immediatly voted in re-armament measures upon Chamberlain's return and upon his advice. If Germany pressed its claims in a military manner, then it would be clear who was the beligerent. There was nothing that the British could do to save Czechoslovakia. Period.

Hitler wanted war with Britain and France.

Meanwhile the Wehrmacht was positioned for an immediate invasion of Czechoslovakia, poised to invade in a campaign that might have taken a couple of weeks. Hitler was completely committed to an immediate war, and it is said furious when the "Allies" complied with his demands. He was not bluffing. The orders for invasion were in the can already. That invasion did not happen. In fact the Munich agreement saved the majority of Czechoslovakia from immdediate German occupation by force.

So, precisely which countries has the President of Iran threatened to invade, and precisely what territories outside of the internationally recognized borders of Iran are they saying they want to annex?

remind remind's picture

Quote:
Convenient mostly for people of conservative viewpoints who try and cover up the fact that it was they who were Hitler and Mussolini's fans

Exactly, and it  is the same shit today, just a different pile.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

Not powerful; just have found an easy way to distract the media who are just too happy to focus on a non-issue.

Ah yes, the old trick of blaming the Machiavellian attacked for our innocent behaviour attacking them... Because what is an even easier way is blaming "the media" for our own false-flag State Department-induced fixation on Iran as Ahmadinejad and Ahmadinejad-as-Holocaust-denier-who-would-nuke-Israel-Jews-in-a-moment-and Western-civilization-along-with-it.. What a crock!

Why do Western "progressives" make such outrageously complicit statements?

I wasn't saying he was a holocaust denier.  I doubt that he said that, but he has made speeches refering to the holocaust now twice just before coming to NA and they have dominated the discussion. 

On the other side I am not jumping for a reason to defend him just because he is anti-american.  I attended too many peace rallies with speakers lauding the glory of Saddam to go down that road again.

martin dufresne

Not powerful; just have found an easy way to distract the media who are just too happy to focus on a non-issue.

Ah yes, the old trick of blaming the Machiavellian attacked for our innocent behaviour attacking them... Because what is an even easier way is blaming "the media" for our own false-flag State Department-induced fixation on Iran as Ahmadinejad and Ahmadinejad as Holocaust-denier-who-would-nuke-Israel-Jews-in-a-moment-and Western-civilization-along-with-it.. What a crock!

Why do Western "progressives" make such outrageously complicit statements?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Pogo wrote:

I attended too many peace rallies with speakers lauding the glory of Saddam to go down that road again.

Not in Canada, you didn't.

Cueball Cueball's picture

remind wrote:

Quote:
Convenient mostly for people of conservative viewpoints who try and cover up the fact that it was they who were Hitler and Mussolini's fans

Exactly, and it  is the same shit today, just a different pile.

 

Exactly, we move earth and water to save the Sunni-Salfist reactionaries in Saudi Arabia, who no doubt don't bother expressing their views on the Holocaust for reasons of politic while Amedinejad does for precisely the same reasons: politics. People just love to jump up and down when an official enemy such as the Iranian state represses civil dissent, meanwhile repression there is nothing like the kind that exists in Saudi Arabia -- people there no better than even to try demonstrating, under any terms whatsoever. Women aren't even allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, let alone be lawyers or elected officials.

Question: What is Women's sufferage in Saudi Arabia? Answer: "what is voting?"

Anyway, did I miss it, but does anyone have an exact quote in context of what Amedinejad is alleged to have said that was anti-semitic?

martin dufresne

[url=http://rabble.ca]Who needs "exact quotes" when we can just kick him out, nuke them, etc.?[/url]. (trying out my sarcasm tone)

Richard Parry's article - hyperlinked above - quotes the speech in question.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Quote:
“He added, ‘The pretext for establishing the Zionist regime is a lie; a lie which relies on an unreliable claim, a mythical claim, and the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust.’

So this is the statement we are discussing? Hard to defend that really, on the other hand he is right that the "occupation of Palestin has nothing to do with the Holocaust."

This is overtly true, since of course Palestine was occupied before the Holocaust, and indeed British authorities refused to allow Jews entry to the Commonwealth during the Holocaust, except to Palestine, and Israel is factually speaking a creation of the British Empire, and its inception pre-dates the Holocaust, and was authorized to come into existance at the request of the British, the occupying power, then authorized by the UN.

Perhaps if people didn't persist in upholding the lie that the occupation of Palestine is somehow a reaction to the Holocaust, perhaps the rest of the story would be less in dispute, and less easy to manipulate by people like Amedinejad.

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Prophit wrote:

martin dufresne wrote:

... I was silenced only yesterday here (post #99) for daring to cheekily denounce attacks against Jews. Farber being the "child of a Holocaust survivor" apparently made him untouchable. This is the essence of a myth. 

That was not my reading. You were "silenced" because what you wrote may have been defamatory and Babble had to rightly protect its ass..et...so to write.

That's a rather self-serving interpretation, to say the least. As the leading 'silencer' in the mob, I think you might want to consider that Martin's post was removed because it wasn't particularly pertinent to the conversation, and it was allowing smug, self-righteous twits to derail the topic at hand with their everlasting outrage, insult and indignation.

Prophit

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Prophit wrote:

martin dufresne wrote:

... I was silenced only yesterday here (post #99) for daring to cheekily denounce attacks against Jews. Farber being the "child of a Holocaust survivor" apparently made him untouchable. This is the essence of a myth. 

That was not my reading. You were "silenced" because what you wrote may have been defamatory and Babble had to rightly protect its ass..et...so to write.

That's a rather self-serving interpretation, to say the least. As the leading 'silencer' in the mob, I think you might want to consider that Martin's post was removed because it wasn't particularly pertinent to the conversation, and it was allowing smug, self-righteous twits to derail the topic at hand with their everlasting outrage, insult and indignation.

If what you say were true, then many more threads here would also be shut down.

sanizadeh

martin dufresne wrote:

Ah yes, the old trick of blaming the Machiavellian attacked for our innocent behaviour attacking them... Because what is an even easier way is blaming "the media" for our own false-flag State Department-induced fixation on Iran as Ahmadinejad and Ahmadinejad as Holocaust-denier-who-would-nuke-Israel-Jews-in-a-moment-and Western-civilization-along-with-it.. What a crock!

Yes, I do blame some western media (who could indeed be in line with state departments); the "media" who, in interviewing Ahmadinejad, spend half of the interview on his Holocaust comment, and the rest on three American "hikers" and one French "academic" arrested in Iran, and barely a single question about thousands of Iranians arrested and tortured in the past three months by this government, about hundreds of thousands of Iranians marching in defiance of a brutal oppression; that is machiavelian, not the conduct of those who blame the media.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Prophit wrote:

If what you say were true, then many more threads here would also be shut down.

...to your delight, no doubt.

But you've misinterpreted once again, because what I said is true.

sanizadeh

mahmud wrote:

You know or should have known -presuming you are in good faith- that I did not mean the victims but the CIA, UK and France's paid spies, agitators, agents and what have you. The CIA has been recruiting its Iranian spies in Dubai, in implemention of the US 2007 plan to destabilize Iran.

Yeah, Surrrrrrre. Those faceless and nameless "spies". For your knowledge, the Iranian government has accused all those very same victims and arrested people of being CIA spies through the Dubai office... So in parroting their line of argument, you indeed will have to include the victims too. Not only that, but also thousands who protested the regime inside and outside Iran. Including myself.

As I said, if you are not familiar with the nature and roots of the Iranian protest movement, at least stop making a judgment about it. or at least talk to an Iranian about it first.

 

sanizadeh

More clips from Iranians protest in New York:

 

http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/sep/big-green-apple

 

kropotkin1951

So if I am to read this thread correctly then Iran is the only country where the CIA is not recruiting people to spy and potentially work to install a USA friendly government.

Of course most of the protesters are not CIA agents but to deny the fact that the CIA is involved in the world in this type of spying is rather naive.  Do you really believe that the CIA is not actively trying to recruit people to promote American interests in Iran and China and Venezuela and Cuba and Canada.

kropotkin1951

Double click double post

sanizadeh

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So if I am to read this thread correctly then Iran is the only country where the CIA is not recruiting people to spy and potentially work to install a USA friendly government.

First of all, no one said there is no spy in Iran. Ahmadinejad's government actions have been so destructive to Iranian interests in the region that many are thinking he might be a CIA/Mosad agent :)

The question is what impact do those spies have on the events unfolding in Iran. "Mahmud" is claiming that, and I quote, "Ahmedinajed is diverting attention from his government's treatment of protesters -though mainly mercenaries and puppets of he CIA, the UK and France". Mainly mercenaries, Huh?

This is a home grown movement. Its current leaders have been almost one whole generation of Iran's revolutionary leaders.  Its supporters all grew up under strict ideological training of the Islamic government. CIA must have one magic touch.

For some of you, it seems, Ahmadinejad has suddenly become a criteria. To agree with him is to be a revolutionary, anti-US, freedom fighter etc, and to oppose him one automatically become CIA agent, US puppet, ... May I ask, what has he done, aside from empty rhetoric, to earn this unbelievable level of naive support? Has his government come anywhere close to what, for instance, Mousavi did in challenging world powers (in action, not rhetoric) and distribution of wealth back in 80s? Aside form slogans, what has his government done to challenge the world powers that you guys are willing to slander a whole nation of his opponents in such way?

Or are you really fooled so easily by words?

martin dufresne

The way I see it, we are not supporting Iran's president but challenging the Western forces demonizing him with every trick in Dick Cheney's book, if only because they sacrifice principles of objective analysis and democratic control over the forces about to wage illegal war on the Iranian people. But you are free of course to spin it as you want... or as your bosses tell you to ;-)

 

sanizadeh

Cueball wrote:

You demand absolute quietude in the face of clearly evident meddling in the affairs of Iran by foreign agencies that continues to this day.

No, Cueball. Because I have not accused you or anyone else of being on the payroll of the Iranian government. But I (along with my people) am being accused of being CIA agents, mercenaries, puppets etc.  I requested explanation of how on earth any opposition to this government is being labeled here as US-provoked. Is this demanding absolute quietude, or demanding answers for unfounded claims and labels that we hve received? Discuss it all you want. Even slander me all you want. But do not complain when I demand evidence to labels and slanders. Do not expect "absolute quietude" from me, as you put it.

Pages

Topic locked