60 Minutes with Ahmadinejad

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=col_10022]
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.
[/QUOTE]

The short answer is because the land was under the controll of the British, there hadn’t been a soveriegn power in the region since the Ottoman empire controlled the land (i.e. there WAS no sovereign ‘Palestine’ nation) before the end of WWI, there WERE Jews living (quite a few actually) there all through that time, and the British had promised the Jews (prior to WWII) that they would be given soveriegn control of that land. In addition, the UN wanted to provide a soveriegn area for the Palestinians…recall, this was originally SUPPOSED to be a two-fer with the formation of both Israel AND Palestine…where there had been NO sovereign nation before (British mandate and all that).

As for Northern Germany, would have been kind of hard to do that as much of Northern Germany was in the Soviet occupation zone.

-XT

82

[QUOTE=xtisme]
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
[/QUOTE]

Bush’s administration is winning the PR war as far as portraying Mideast leaders as warmongers, terrorists, and nutjobs. That’s why I was so surprised at the Ahmadinejad interview. I didn’t know anything else but what I saw on 60 Minutes, and Ahmadinejad didn’t come off like a crazy man. (There have been many press conferences where I couldn’t say the same about George Bush.)

I’m not so different from millions of other Americans. Until this interview, I haven’t seen Mideast leaders as possibly having a point, when they say they fear US “aggression”. We don’t get “the other side”, at least not in mainstream media. We have to look for it, and we’re still not sure because who knows who can be trusted to be impartial?

So yeah, Ahmadinejad got some PR points with me in that interview.

83

Ahmadi has more extreme views than Bush but Bush actually invaded a country and killed a hundred thousand people. I don’t know if that matters in your calculus but I have a neighbor that talks a LOT of sh*t, he is 10 times worse than Bush but I still criticize Bush a lot more than I criticize my neighbor. Its all a matter of scale isn’t it? When Ahmadi deceives his people to convince them to wage unilateral pre-emptive war that results in the death of over 100,000 civilians, I guess I would say Ahmadi deserves stronger criticism than Bush.

Before anyone thinks that means I love terrorists, I think we need to prevent Iran from getting nukes (I have no moral grounds for saying this other than the fact that Iran is looking to change the world order and we (being on the top) are not so we are far less likely to use Nukes than Iran).

[QUOTE=Marley23]
What is the problem here, elucidator?

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
3) Throughout the interview I kept contrasting Mr. Ahmadi-nejad’s style, control, knowledge of facts, candor, and believability with Bush and concluded that Mr. Ahmadi-nejad would wipe the floor with Bush in a debate, if you can call a one-sided thrashing a debate.

And, of course…

:wink:

Seriously, elucidator, come on. A number of times in this thread, Onomatopoeia has criticized Bush in stronger terms than he is willing to use on Ahmadinejad. Bush is “an evil blight on the world” and gets that subtle comparison to the Nazis [Herr]; Ahmadinejad simply has “views … too radical for our society.”
[/QUOTE]

84

[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
Bush’s administration is winning the PR war as far as portraying Mideast leaders as warmongers, terrorists, and nutjobs.
[/QUOTE]

I suppose it hasn’t occured to you that many leaders in the Middle East ARE ‘warmongers, terrorists, and nutjobs’, ehe? :stuck_out_tongue: Or that this isn’t exactly a new portrayal in the US unique to the Bush Administration?

[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
That’s why I was so surprised at the Ahmadinejad interview. I didn’t know anything else but what I saw on 60 Minutes, and Ahmadinejad didn’t come off like a crazy man.
[/QUOTE]

Did you expect him to be foaming at the mouth or chewing the carpet? To put it in perspective, have you never seen historical footage of Hitler or Stalin when they were speaking calmly and rationally? I have…several times. I’ve seen interviews with all manner of dictator in fact, and most of them were quite charismatic and personable. It didn’t change their fundamental nature. How about this analogy…I’ve seen interviews with Bush where he was not foaming at the mouth or chewing the carpets either, and where he was quite engaging, charismatic and personable.

[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
I’m not so different from millions of other Americans. Until this interview, I haven’t seen Mideast leaders as possibly having a point, when they say they fear US “aggression”. We don’t get “the other side”, at least not in mainstream media. We have to look for it, and we’re still not sure because who knows who can be trusted to be impartial?
[/QUOTE]

Why would you assume they have no point? EVERYONE has a perspective, and generally if there are two sides there are going to be two different perspectives. Its silly to think that the other side REALLY doesn’t think they are right from their own perspective. But…that doesn’t mean that you should take their perspective necessarily at face value, or forget the history or context behind WHY things are the way they are. These guys (Bush included) tend to gloss over that context and show you only the highlights they WANT you to see…especially if the interviewer either lets them steamroll the discussion by softballing them, or is ignorant themselves of the context. Its called ‘spin’.

[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
So yeah, Ahmadinejad got some PR points with me in that interview.
[/QUOTE]

Obviously so.

-XT

85

Why do people think that great evil requires great intelligence. Great evil only requires the will and the means. Intelligence only allows you to leverage your resources to commit more evil with the same resources.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not that I like Ahmadinejad, but who’s done more damage ? Bush, easily. If anyone is a blight on the world, Bush is; Ahmadinejad is more of a local irritant. Not the the Nazi comparison is really fair either; Bush lacks the vision and drive to achieve that level of evil.
[/QUOTE]

86

I think he is predicting that Ahmadi would do even worse things than Bush has if Ahmadi had the same power as Bush. So by that rationale Hitler wasn’t the most evil man in the last century because there is likely someone out there who would have done even worse things if they were given the resources.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
So Bush has done worse things, but is a better person. You’re ethical matrix is too subtle for me.
[/QUOTE]

87

I don’t think that was exactly Der Trihs’s point col_10022. This was just his little way of trying to say Bush et al are worse than the Nazi’s because they don’t even have their abilities or drive…while not saying it out loud because he’s been laughed at in the past when he DID try and relate Bush to the Nazi’s. IOW its standard Der Trihs code speak…

-XT

88

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The short answer is because the land was under the controll of the British, there hadn’t been a soveriegn power in the region since the Ottoman empire controlled the land (i.e. there WAS no sovereign ‘Palestine’ nation) before the end of WWI, there WERE Jews living (quite a few actually) there all through that time, and the British had promised the Jews (prior to WWII) that they would be given soveriegn control of that land. In addition, the UN wanted to provide a soveriegn area for the Palestinians…recall, this was originally SUPPOSED to be a two-fer with the formation of both Israel AND Palestine…where there had been NO sovereign nation before (British mandate and all that).

As for Northern Germany, would have been kind of hard to do that as much of Northern Germany was in the Soviet occupation zone.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I have asked some pretty knowledgable people for an ungarnished history of the Middle East and Israel that explains todays situation and I get a different answer from everyone I ask.

Everyone seems to focus on different details depending on their personal perspective. I have basically given up trying to get an objective account of the situation in the Middle East. Heck, I have heard people blame the whole situation on the Brits.

89

[QUOTE=col_10022]
I have asked some pretty knowledgable people for an ungarnished history of the Middle East and Israel that explains todays situation and I get a different answer from everyone I ask.
[/QUOTE]

Its a complex question…thats why I gave you the short answer that only hit the high points.

[QUOTE=col_10022]
Everyone seems to focus on different details depending on their personal perspective. I have basically given up trying to get an objective account of the situation in the Middle East. Heck, I have heard people blame the whole situation on the Brits.
[/QUOTE]

Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. My suggestion would be to look into things yourself, try and get information from both sides, learn the context and the history, and then draw your own conclusions.

As for the Brits…no, I wouldn’t say they are to blame for the WHOLE situation. They certainly played their part however.

-XT

90

xtisme:

Is this statement meant in a humorous vein, or are you genuinely unaware of the inherent contradiction in this statement?

91

Sorry, it was meant to be a bit of both. Yes, I’m aware.

-XT

92

[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
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.
[/QUOTE]

First, I think that’s a strange attitude, that the sins of our own leaders somehow prevents our criticizing foreign leaders. Second, you’re not ignoring Ahmadinejad, you’re complimenting him over and over; had you just ignored him, I wouldn’t be arguing with you.

Third, though, Iran IS a country that we’ve broken abroad. Were it not for our support of the Shah, were it not for our invasion of Iraq, it’s pretty likely this thug wouldn’t be in power. What you describe as “introspection” must look like unforgiveable cowardice to the poor human-rights advocates in Iran, who saw us help a thug into power in their country. How dare we abandon the problem we helped to create?

Again, I’m not saying a military solution is wise; indeed, I think a wise course might involve us withdrawing from the territory. But if we do so, taht doesn’t mean we can speak about human rights abuses when we see them, nor does it mean we can’t criticize tyrants when we see them.

Yeah, we should clean up our act. No, that doesn’t mean we can navel-gaze.

Daniel

93

re: the public relations battle. On another messageboard, when I proposed that Islamic terrorists had goals beyond hating freedom and wanting to destroy our way of life, I was accused of supporting the terrorists. That is not an exaggeration, nor are the other posters exceptionally stupid (although they were very stupid). The Administration stance does seem to be that the terrorists are just freedom-hating madmen, as though there’s no coherent philosophy (however awful) behind their actions, as though they don’t have utopian visions of the Middle East free of Western influence.

I may think that the Islamic revolution taht iran exports is a terrible, terrible thing, but I do think it’s great when we get a chance to hear its leaders speak. We need to understand how they appeal to their supporters; it helps us understand that they’re appealing to more than just sociopaths, and that enables us to figure out how to persuade the fence-sitters not to go into the terrorist camp.

Daniel

94

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
re: the public relations battle. On another messageboard, when I proposed that Islamic terrorists had goals beyond hating freedom and wanting to destroy our way of life, I was accused of supporting the terrorists. That is not an exaggeration, nor are the other posters exceptionally stupid (although they were very stupid).
[/QUOTE]

Then they were obivoulsy morons. Of COURSE the terrorists (and other militants in the region) have greater plans than simply destroying our way of life, blah blah blah. In fact, I think their ‘war’ against the west is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself.

I’d have to however disagree with you…I think they WERE ‘exceptionally stupid’. :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The Administration stance does seem to be that the terrorists are just freedom-hating madmen, as though there’s no coherent philosophy (however awful) behind their actions, as though they don’t have utopian visions of the Middle East free of Western influence.
[/QUOTE]

Then you’ve only listened to the general consumption sound bites. I’ve heard various members of the administration (and various high level military types) talk about more substantial goals (creation of a super state in the ME that would be a rival power, attempt to distract the west/US so that they would have a free-er hand in the ME without interference, etc etc).

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I may think that the Islamic revolution taht iran exports is a terrible, terrible thing, but I do think it’s great when we get a chance to hear its leaders speak. We need to understand how they appeal to their supporters; it helps us understand that they’re appealing to more than just sociopaths, and that enables us to figure out how to persuade the fence-sitters not to go into the terrorist camp.
[/QUOTE]

But as with out own leaders, we need to take whatever these folks say with a very large grain of salt. Bush et al aren’t the ONLY politicians in the world who spin, distort and outright lie. They don’t have a monopoly on such things after all. Also, one has to realize that being well spoken and fast on ones feet is pretty well essential in ANY high level public figure. It doesn’t reflect their underlieing nature after all but only the mask they choose to show us. After all, having heard Bin Laden talk and having his words translated by a friend of mine who is a native speaker, HE sounds both reasonable and personable. He’s hardly foaming at the mouth or chewing the carpets either, and his following in the Arab world is HUGE. One has to ask ones self…why? How? And looking at those answers put interviews with guys like Ahmadinejad in perspective…

-XT

95

[QUOTE=col_10022]
When Ahmadi deceives his people to convince them to wage unilateral pre-emptive war that results in the death of over 100,000 civilians, I guess I would say Ahmadi deserves stronger criticism than Bush.
[/quote]

Again, it’s not about who deserves more criticism. Praising Ahmadinejad at all is ridiculous; praising him in comparison to Bush when they share many of the same faults is even more so.

[QUOTE=col_10022]
I think he is predicting that Ahmadi would do even worse things than Bush has if Ahmadi had the same power as Bush. So by that rationale Hitler wasn’t the most evil man in the last century because there is likely someone out there who would have done even worse things if they were given the resources.
[/QUOTE]

The first statement is a fair reading of what I said, but the second isn’t (plus it’s a nitpick). It’s not a theoretical comment; I’m just saying that it’s not defined by body count. “Is Hitler worse than Stalin or Mao?” is a topic for another thread.

96

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, as long as we are discussing outrageous quotes by politicans, I can think of one who is a Holocaust denier, and has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. You find Ahmadinejad’s “knowledge of facts” to be more “believable” than Bush. And you admire his “candor”.
What interesting standards you have.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry to be a bit late, but I just came across a site that states his “wiped off the map” statement is a terrible translation of what he actually said

Anybody know anything about this journal and it’s credibility?

97

[QUOTE=Balduran]
Sorry to be a bit late, but I just came across a site that states his “wiped off the map” statement is a terrible translation of what he actually said

Anybody know anything about this journal and it’s credibility?
[/QUOTE]

No idea, but did you notice that even your cite translated his speech not as “would somday be gone” but as “Must vanish”.
Not a small difference.

98

This sounds interesting

  • I had not heard of this interview until this thread (I’m UK)

Thanks for the hyphen in Ahmadi-Nejad’s name - that makes sense

This looks a bit like Saddam’s final days, when he realized that he had gone too far, but did not know how to back pedal.

I’m beginning to wonder whether his offer to debate with Bush was a serious olive branch, like Saddam his understanding of Western culture is probably very limited.

The Iranians were seriously confused by the West’s reaction to the Bam earthquake, same in Kashmir. Different people don’t share the same values.

If I were Ahmadi-Nejad I would hire the best Western public relations company that money can buy, buy prime time TV (as insurance), and start wearing a suit.

We Westerners are not good at recognizing peace overtures (I lie, in the UK we educated enough future leaders to the extent that they understand us better than we understand them - which is why the Commonwealth exists - including some non-official members who have Rhodes Scholars in their upper echelons)

A curious development, I am looking forward to hearing the BBC World Service take on it tonight.

If it is what it sounds like, it is a really interesting development.