And while you’re about that, you might try to explain the President’s words in the Ramadan messages he sends every year to the Muslims in our military.
Actually, I think that shows a lot about the lack of imagination on the part of the person making that subtle comparison. It’s not cute, it’s not funny, and it’s insulting (in my humble opinion) to Germans. One day, maybe, the bigots will figure out that German does not equal Nazi.
So the Holocaust-denying, Israel-hating Ahmadinejad doesn’t strike you as a fundamentalist crazy? And the fact that the Iranian assembly punctuates its debates with shouts of “death to America” doesn’t indicate any animus towards us?
What exactly would it take for you to “know” any of these things? Or is this more of the “Bush said it, it is automatically wrong” kind of thinking we get so much of hereabouts?
True dat. I also saw the interview on CSPAN. Wallace (to give him credit) went after him at least as hard as he would at Bush.
No higher accolade can be given to the modern America media.
Regards,
Shodan
No. I didn’t listen to the unedited interview, and maybe it’s there. But I didn’t hear him deny the Holocaust.
Holocaust denial is something else I don’t understand. My impression is that Holocaust deniers don’t deny that the Holocaust happened, but that they reject the Holocaust as a myth used to justify the occupation of Palestine.
I haven’t taken Holocaust denial literally, but as part of a political statement or agenda. (Somewhat like WMDs in Iraq, and spreading democracy.)
So the way I understand it is that nobody’s saying that 6 million Jews weren’t murdered by the Nazis, just that this isn’t justification for stealing another country.
Isn’t that what Ahmadinejad was getting at when he asked (paraphrasing) why the Jews weren’t given land in Europe or America?
Feel free to correct my mistaken thinking. I’m new at this. 
The quote in question, although I think he’s made these statements other times, was “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.” You’re right that Ahmadinejad was also rejecting it as a justification for the location of Israel, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t ‘really’ saying the Holocaust didn’t happen.
Actually many do deny that it happened.
Is a “myth” the same as a “lie”, the way Ahmadinejad uses the word?
Calling the Holocaust a myth isn’t quite the same as saying it never happened. I’m looking at the definitions here
Although if he’s been misunderstood, he’s probably had plenty of opportunities to clarify.
It boggles the mind that anyone can say it never happened, and expect anyone to believe it.
A distinction without a difference.
He’s both denied it happened, and said that “if” it happened, then move Israel to Europe since they’re the ones who caused it. As if that’s a positive suggestion of how to settle the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
Glen Beck interviewed Wallace about the interview. Beck asked Wallace if he believed Ahmadinejad. Wallace said yes.
Iran is a nasty place these days. They’ve got a nasty history.
The US and Great Britain helped the original Shah take power, and when he became too great a liability during WWII, they helped create propaganda that forced him to abdicate in favor of his son. Both shahs were very oppressive, censoring the media, disallowing political opposition (or only allowing sham opposition controlled by their cronies), executing the clergy when the clergy didn’t agree wtih them, and doing very little to give the traditionalists a seat at the table.
So the traditionalists took their seat violently. And we’re still paying the price for that.
Iran is the major success story for theocratic Muslim revolution. They’re an inspiration to theocrats and extremists all over the region. They export revolution as much as possible. Their clergy have held onto power through means fair and foul.
Pre-2003, though, the modernists, the secularists, the capitalists, and the humanists were making strides. It looked like they might take power back from the radicals, and while the clergy resisted, it wasn’t at all clear how long they could resist successfully.
Then the US invaded Iraq, and scared the crap out of the region. Could this happen to us? Iran wondered. They were, after all, #2 on America’s Shit List, the Axis of Evil.
When your enemy saddles up, what do you do? You saddle up, too. The humanists, the capitalists, the modernists–they were the US’s potential allies in the region, and they wre viewed with suspicion and hostility. The clergy surged back into power. And now we’ve got a top-notch religious conservative in power in Iran.
He deserves no love from the West, and only the respect due a very dangerous, villainous man. How you feel about Bush should have no impact on how you feel about him. How you feel about the wrongs done to the people of Iran by the West should have no impact on how you feel about him. He is evil, and he is dangerous, and he has the capability of causing tremendous suffering in the region.
That does not mean that a military solution is appropriate or ethical. In fact,I think the best possible solution would be to give Iranians plausible evidence that we don’t present a military or economic danger to them. Right now, we’re doing exactly the opposite, and that’s exactly what the religious conservatives need us to do in order for them to maintain power.
Daniel
Mike Wallace was WAY over his head and should have never been given this interview. It was the most poorly conducted interview I’ve ever seen. Mike’s trademark “Come on!” doesn’t work with someone who doesn’t care to fit it within an American sensibility. Wallace asked questions which had an obvious spin answer for Ahmadinejad and was flabbergasted when he took that route. Christ I was cringing before the question was even finished. Wallace also came off as a tool of American interests rather than a journalist.
We rarely agree on anything, but excellent post, LHoD.
KidCharlemagne, I’m assuming you saw just the edited interview.
Marley, although I know you are strongly opposed to the position I took, and still hold, about Mr. Ahmadi-nejad, I do feel you honestly want to understand why. I can also appreciate the inevitable emotional component that courses through a topic like this, even as expressed by the few posters who’ve resorted to base, and somewhat inappropriate, sexual allusions.
After reviewing all the posts again I’ve come to the conclusion that not only do I hold the minority position in this debate, which I have no problem accepting; I’ve never lock-stepped anything in my life, I’m certainly not going to start now, I also have yet to convince anyone here that I’m not totally wacked because of it, which I admit does concern me. Given the choice of either being liked or being understood, I’d rather be understood. Hate me, but at least comprehend what the heck I’m saying.
In your responses to me I sensed true astonishment at my position and an honest attempt not to be judgemental. Although you ultimately succumbed somewhat I appreciate the effort.
Contrary to an assertion made here I don’t hate America, or Americans. I hate those who’ve co-opted the American political system to promote what I consider to be nefarious and distructive agendas. I don’t give a damn what the leaders of other countries do to or for their own people. I do, however, care what our leaders do to and for us, and I care greatly when a leader decides to pick an apple from someone else’s tree. I believe President Bush 1 was right to contain Saddam after his incursion into Kuwait. I believe we did it for the wrong reasons, as I’m convinced the US could not care less for the Kuwaiti people no matter what was asserted, but it was the right thing to do nonetheless. We now have an administration which not only seems to want complete and unquestioned power over everything and everyone within its purview, but truly expects the world to acquiesce and genuflect in serf-like subjugation to its every whim.
For arguments sake, let’s say everything I’ve heard from Mr. Ahmadi-nejad’s lips was specifically tailored for US consumption, and his cool, soft-spoken demeanor masks a deep-seated hatred of all things American. I’m willing to grant this is a possibility. However, I’m also willing to grant the possibility that his rhetoric is sincere and all he wants is the right to an equal share of the world’s bounty for his people, unfettered and uncontrolled by outsiders. Yes, Mr. Ahmadi-nejad has said things that have made me uncomfortable, but there’s a context that, in my opinion, should always be considered, when there’s a history of perceived wrongs perpetrated by the US (I harken to the Anglo-Iranian/BP confrontation and subsequent coup in this case).
Someone, I believe it was you, Marley, asked how does satisfying Mr. Ahmadi-nejad’s desire that Israel should be moved to another location resolve anything. I believe you were making a ‘two-wrongs-don’t-make-a right’ argument, because, if I may be presumptuous, maybe the supplanting of Palestinians from their land wasn’t right, but removing the Jewish people from their land now would be just as wrong. I agree with your reasoning here. It’s a terrible situation. I actually feel badly for both groups. I am, however, convinced that there will never be peace for either the Palestinians or the Israelis as long as both groups are there. It’s nothing less than cruel to hold out the fantastic carrot of peaceful coexistence to people who believe, and have it confirmed every day of their their lives, that their neighbors want to control or kill them. But to be frank here, the only reason I care at all about the situation over there is becuase we’re involved in it. I don’t believe it’s our responsibility to protect Israel. Whether Israel survives as a nation or not should be the sole responsibility of Israel. If they want to buy weapons from us, fine. We should sell them all the weapons they need or could ever use, but we shouldn’t get involved. Ah, but there’s the strategic advantage to the US to have a solid stake in Israel, isn’t there? But I digress.
Mr. Ahmadi-nejad looks at Israel as a false, unnatural phenomena, the existence of which is only allowed as a result of American influence. He doesn’t reason that it’s just as bad to remove the Jewish people as it was to supplant the Palestinians. It’s in his (and many, many Arab and Muslims) craw that this wrong perpetrated on his religious and, perhaps, ethnic brethren is allowed to go on unchecked. Of course it could also be argued that the Palestinians could be relocated as well, after all, there’s certainly no shortage of available land in the region, but I would imagine allowing this, even as a mental construct, would be taken as the ultimate insult, especially to the Palestinians who were not only shunted away against their will in 1948 to give the Jewish people a homeland, but would now be removed from Palestine completely for peace, which would be construed as a Jewish peace borne from the suffering of forced displacement of Palestinians. You think there’s tribulation in the region now?
I haven’t seen the complete Wallace/Ahmadi-nejad interview I hear now has been played on CSPAN, but I wish to. As I said earlier, I felt the interview as broadcast on 60 Minutes was disjointed. Perhaps I’d have a somewhat different (better) opinion of Mike Wallace’s performance if I saw the uncut version.
It’s my opinion that Mr. Ahmadi-nejad is a charismatic and eloquent communicator. I believe he is highly intelligent, and I believe he wants what’s best for his people, by ‘his’ definition, not ours. By our standards Iran is an oppressive theocracy, but our standards shouldn’t matter when it comes to how Mr. Ahmadi-nejad and the theocrats run Iran, nor is it honest to compare a closed, religion-oriented country with one such as the US, which was ostensibly founded on freedom of expression and equality. However, in my opinion, it is valid to compare leaders, in fact I contend it’s important to do so. All leaders, to an extent, are adversaries of each other, with maybe Bush’s poodle as the errant exception, and having the ability to size up the prowess of one’s adversary can give a leader a political advantage. So, yes, I compare Bush to Mr. Ahmadi-nejad. I compare Bush to all 1st world nation’s leaders, and I find him lacking in almost every area that counts in my book.
I believe Bush is a delinquent, and one who’s never grown up. I believe he’s an abysmal communicator, but I also believe he doesn’t care about such things. I believe he’s the willing tool of the neocons. I believe he believes in the Christian God, but willingly uses religion when it suits him to galvanize true-believers to his questionable causes. I believe Bush feels he had the right, and was right, to commit the unjust and criminal act of war on Iraq, and it scares me to think he may actually believe his God told him to do it. It embarrasses me when the president of the United States denies evolution by advocating the teaching of intelligent design as science, and makes me wonder how stupid such positions make us look to the citizens of other nations. I believe Bush is an eager pawn in the neocon’s plans to restrict our freedoms. I believe Dick Cheney is Bush’s Walsingham, only moreso because of Bush’s utter incompetence. I believe Bush should be impeached, removed from office, prosecuted in an international court, and sent to prision for the rest of his natural life…I guess I can dream. I don’t respect Bush at all, and I would say it to his face given the opportunity.
Someone mentioned my use of the German honorific ‘Herr’ when referring to Bush as a thinly-veiled attempt to connect him with Nazism. I agree that was my intent as my estimation of Bush makes it easy to imagine corollaries, but I also agree it was somewhat inappropriate. Even Bush hasn’t achieved that ignominious status…yet.
Some have asked me questions about what Mr. Ahmadi-nejad has said in certain situations, and at certain events. “What about when he said this or that, Ono? Huh? What’s your explanation for that?” I’m not Mr. Ahmadi-nejad’s biographer. I’m sure I’ve only heard or read a small fraction of what’s been published by or about him. I read a little more each day. I offered my opinion on the man, and contrasted him with Bush (and admittedly threw in a little vitriol about the current US administration), which is very easy to do.
Someone else remarked that the 60 Minutes interview wasn’t all that good. I have to agree with that assessment but, of what I did see, I reiterate that I was impressed by Mr. Ahmadi-nejad.
Good night.
Why on earth shouldn’t they? Calling a country an oppressive theocracy isn’t just semantics: it’s real suffering of real people.
YOu can read about dozens more.
So what we’ve got is another culture with mores different from our own. And there’s a struggle in this culture. On one side of the struggle is Abbas Lisani, a guy who doesn’t like the government and is telling people so. On the other side of the struggle is Ahmadinejad, running a government that beats and imprisons anyone who says they don’t like his system.
Yes, sometimes thugs are well-spoken and intelligent. Yes, sometimes they exist in other cultures. What I don’t understand is why on earth, in this conflict in another culture, you decide it’s the jailer and the killer whom you should side with.
Daniel
Ahmadinejad is a political leader. He’s not a historian, so he’s not much concerned with the past. The present and future and action are his concerns. And within those concerns he’s correct. As you’ve identified, for his purposes the Holocaust is a myth.
Conversely, there’s not much point assessing whether he’s a ‘Holocaust denier’ because as far as is evident, he’s shown no interest in scholarly history.
Your points are well taken, LHoD, and if the US were Nirvana, or a Utopia, I’d be right there with you. But our house is burning, and our leaders stoking the fires. I don’t believe we have the luxury, in this time, to concern ourselves in the affairs of others if their acts, as reprehensible to our sensibilities as they may be, don’t directly affect us. I believe it’s a critical time of introspection for the US. We need to admit to and fix what’s broken here, and what we’re breaking abroad, before we point the finger at anyone else, or concern ourselves in the affairs of others.
No I saw the C-span version. I’m not sure how long it was but I only caught the last hour.
That Ahmadinejad is a wild and crazy guy. And his Holocaust cartoons program to ‘test of the boundaries of free speech espoused by Western countries’ a stroke of genius.
Good stuff, ehe? Its becoming increasingly clear that the Arab World, emphasized by Iran in this case, is winning the PR war. One has but to note the OP and several other posters on this board (which is purportedly dedicated to fighting ignorance) to see how effective they have been…
-XT
To be fair, I always wondered why Western guilt over the holocaust was cleansed with the land of Middle East land. I understand that there was a large Aliyah population at the time but I couldn’t be the only one that wondered why they didn’t give north Germany to the Jews.