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

He's an idiot.

"This (the Israeli) regime's days are numbered and it is on its way to collapse. This regime is dying."

I just hope he's right.

martin, in the context of the way he means that quote - your comment is disgusting. I think you are just naive though, not intentional.

re: the thread title question: because he's an anti-semitic dictator who doesn't believe in human rights?

...every developing nation, (and in fact every OTHER nation on Earth, since no other country on earth would defend such an act) would join in outrage against the U.S. or Israel(and thus also the U.S.) for such a despicable act...

You mean like they did when the U.S. levelled Iraq?

So you are suggesting that the discriminating factor would be the use of nuclear weapons. But if Israel and the U.S. conventionally carpet-bombed Iran('s alleged military nuclear program installations), it is safe to think that that would be met with Canadian and world tolerance/approval, right?

I have a deep respect for expatriat Iranians who speak out for courageously against the tyrants and idiots in Tehran. We all must support them in any way we are able.

remind, there are plenty of threads about Israel - why not make your comment in one of those?

How so, remind? He never mentioned Israel.  There is going to be a huge protest against Ahmadinejad, as sanizadeh outlined. Are all of those protesters working a pro-Israel mantra?

Quote:

There is no point in wasting time refuting Ahmadinejad's claims, but it is worth saying a few things about them. Setting aside questions of probity, Ahmadinejad's argument does not even amount to a particularly effective attack on Zionism. [b]It concedes the wholly false idea that the legitimacy of the 'Jewish state' derives from the Nazi holocaust - the logical corollary of his point being that if the judeocide did take place, which it did, then Israel has legitimate grounds for existence.[/b] It concedes the lie that Zionism would be a natural and logical response to antisemitism, pogroms and extermination - it was and is nothing of the sort. It is as if the ideological bases for Zionism were not established well before WWII, as if the project was not already well under way under British tutelage, and as if its founders had nothing to be embarrassed about in terms of their relationship to the Third Reich (see Francis R Nicosia's The Third Reich and the Palestine Question). [b]I would infer that the reason for Ahmadinejad's focus on the Nazi holocaust is that he thinks that Zionism is about Jews, not about colonialism or ethnic nationalism as such.[/b] He thinks that if he can undermine the claim that Jews have suffered horrendous oppression, he can undermine the moral basis for the "Jewish state". It is an antisemitic argument, precisely because it concedes so many of the intellectual underpinnings of Zionism.

The interesting thing about this is that [b]anti-Zionism among Palestinians is far more historically sophisticated.[/b] The PLO never adopted "revisionism", as it is euphemistically called. Its official position was always that the Nazi holocaust did take place, that it was a tragedy, and that this did not remotely justify the oppression of the Palestinians. Even Hamas, who are often attacked on this question, have been increasingly distancing themselves from that idiotic 'charter' with its references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hamas leaders have been openly denouncing Holocaust-denial, because they understand that it is no alibi to their cause. So what Ahmadinejad is doing is retrograde even in the context in which he would prefer to have it understood, that of the Palestinian struggle....

No doubt Israel's apologists would prefer to cite Ahmadinejad's nonsense as proof of some 'genocidal' intent toward Israel. This is rather cheeky given the frequency of explicit genocidal sentiments coming from authoritative sources in Israel. Consider the Israeli defence minister's threat of a 'Holocaust' in Gaza. Or the rabbis indoctrinating IDF soldiers with exterminationist doctrine and venerations of the racist murderer Baruch Goldstein during the assault on Gaza. Or the messages left by IDF troops and settlers in Gaza and the West Bank: "Arabs need 2 die", "Die you all", "Make war not peace", "1 is down, 999,999 to go", "Die Arab Sand-n****rs", "Exterminate The Muslims" and "Arabs To The Gas Chambers". Ahmadinejad has nothing on these guys.

[url=http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/09/ahmadinejad-on-question-of-zionis...

Strangely enough this man receives significant support in elections.  Whether or not he won the last election outright is debatable but the fact that he received over 40% of the votes cast does not appear in dispute. Obviously either his Israeli remarks resonate with the population or they see them as insignificant in their choice of leaders.  

I suspect that the Israeli propaganda that consistently argues that pre-emptive military strikes against Iran are Justified might just not play that well with the average Iranian who will be bombed for the sins of their leaders.  Why should Israeli leaders on one hand talk like a war hawks and then demand their enemy sound like an appeaser.  I know that I would not be very receptive to any country that said bomb Canada in response to any question about our foreign policy.

Interesting and useful analogy, sanizadeh.

[url=http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+boycott+Iran+speech/2022648/sto... Canada set to boycott Iran's UN speech [/url]:

Quote:

 

Walking out of the chamber is seen as a strong diplomatic show of disgust at the UN -- and since the 192-member chamber is generally packed on the first day of the annual summit, Canada's empty seats will not go unnoticed.

"President Ahmadinejad's repeated denial of the Holocaust and his anti-Israel comments run counter to the values of the UN General Assembly, and they're shameful," said one Canadian official.

"He uses his public appearances to provoke the international community, and that is why Canada's seats will be empty."

The gesture is stronger than one announced Tuesday by the German Foreign Ministry, which asked other European Union member states to walk out of the General Assembly chamber if Ahmadinejad again denies the Holocaust, or makes anti-Semitic statements.

 

The Harper government knows nothing about diplomacy. They regard it as a last resort, when all else fails, including war.

First you start with the threats and posturing, then you move to economic sanctions, then to war, and only after it's clear you can't win the war do you actually resort to diplomacy.

Really makes a fella proud to have a government like that.

Staging temper tantrums at the UN is not"diplomacy", pal. It's under the heading of "threats and posturing" - Stage One.

M. Spector wrote:

Staging temper tantrums at the UN is not"diplomacy", pal. It's under the heading of "threats and posturing" - Stage One.

Boycotting a speech is "staging a temper tantrum"? I guess Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein et al threw a "temper tantrum" at the Toronto Film Fest then. You seem pretty keen on boycotting Israel. Is that a temper tantrum? Or is it only a temper tantrum when government officials boycott a crazy Holocaust denier who steals elections?

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Boycotting a speech is "staging a temper tantrum"?

Staging a walkout is a temper tantrum. That's what Harper is planning.

Quote:

I guess Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein et al threw a "temper tantrum" at the Toronto Film Fest then.

What did they boycott? Did they stage any walkouts?

Besides, drawing comparisons between the tactics of political activists and the international relations between heads of government is nonsense. Of course, I wouldn't expect anyone who has been living in the USA to understand anything about diplomacy, since that has been a dead letter in your country for sixty years.

"Is that a temper tantrum?"

Maybe it is.

So fucking what?

Government leaders aren't supposed to have temper tantrums. They are supposed to try to avoid conflicts and wars, not start them. I know that's hard for a pro-Zionist resident of the USA to fathom, but we'll try to forgive you.

Right. If only the Canadian delegation sat politely through his speech, I'm sure he would have an epiphany, realize he's been wrong, schedule a new election with international monitors, suspend his nuclear program, and turn to the Israel delegation and merrily wish them a happy Rosh Hashana.

There's no point discussing with these people. Diplomacy doesn't work with supporters of Harper's foreign policy. I'm not suggesting war - just smile and ignore. Eventually they'll realize they've stumbled on the wrong discussion boad.

Israel: Jump.

Canada: How high?

All of these preparations for the next principled massacre on our nickel.

Unionist wrote:

Because it's the same as sitting through the speeches of all the other two-bit thugs that head up the world's countries. How about the Russian president? How about various African leaders? How about Pakistan? What about Afghanistan? Or the thug in charge of Colombia? How about Obama (or George W. Bush, if you entertain the notion that there's some huge difference between the two)? How about Stephen Harper? Sarkozy?

Yeah, lots of bad countries in teh world, eh? Funny how certain people, yourself included, only seem to call for boycotts of Israel. I wonder what that is all about. As the grandchild of Nazi genocide survivors, let me tell you what MY nose says...

Could some one provide a list of countries that Canada should boycott as well as Iran.  What is the criteria? Should it begin and end with Iran?  

How about Burma or China or Honduras or Columbia or Saudi Arabia or Israel or the United States or Russia.  What is worse, saber rattling like Iran does or invading like Israel and the US do?  Last time I looked Iran had not invaded anyone.  If it is arms dealing that is not good then Canada would have to boycott itself since our arms dealers are some of the most prolific in the world supplying a number of nasty regimes and dictators. As for Iran's nuclear program has none in our foreign office noticed they are surrounded by states with nuclear weapons from Pakistan and India to Israel and Georgia and Russia and Turkey but somehow it is totally illegitimate for them to want the same kind of weapons as the people who call them evil.

When the west destroys its nukes and imposes strict regulations on the countries that have them like India, Pakistan and India then we might have some moral authority to speak about nuclear proliferation.  Lets face the fact that Iran not buying a Candu reactor is why they didn't already have nukes, so much for Canada's high ground on nuclear proliferation.

unionist, I would be quite happy if people walked out on countries that refuse to recognize human rights. I think the UN has become useless due to the fact the some of the worst human rights abusers have positions on human rights councils or whatever the hell they changed the name too.

If Harper was making a speech and other leaders walked out in protest of our treatment of FN I don't think this would be any sort of war declaration. I think it would be an embarassment and an act of solidary with FN people here. Hopefully it would cause further pressure on gov't to act after being embarrassed on the world stage.

"I think the UN has become useless..."

That line from Washington seems to be turning into a meme. Shall we soon have children write assignments developing that proposition?