I think the precisely correct punctuation relative to the subject would have been a colon.
I look forward to the silence from the GOP when, if we ever get a GOP president again, the Democrats invite the president of France to delivery a speech contrary to the GOP president’s warmongering
My point was that once upon a time, when a radical movement gained control of a country, its leaders made such outrageous statements that observers said “surely that’s just hyperbole- rhetoric to look tough and appeal to the unwashed”.
Nope, they meant it.
As a result, Israelis are now notoriously humorless when it comes to “remarks” about destroying Israel and killing Jews.
See also Khmer Rouge
I think that’s a fair point, and as I mentioned upthread most people’s default preference (mine anyway) ought to be that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. That’s clearly expressed in the administration’s diplomacy. But the potential that Iran intends to commit genocide with said bomb(s) has to be weighed against the likely cost of any prevention measures that go beyond the current negotiations.
Yet, people who want strong measures that go beyond the current negotiations (threats of sanctions that will likely derail diplomacy and lead to war) don’t seem to have such a ledger in mind. Rather, they act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that a nuclear-armed Iran = destruction of Israel.
The Khmer Rouge succeeded in committing genocide because their victims were their own unarmed populace in a part of the world few people gave a shit about. The Nazis succeeded because their victims were unarmed and stuck within Germany’s borders or those of conquered territories. Israel vastly outmatches Iran on both conventional and nuclear capability, and has much more powerful friends than Iran. Invoking the Nazis serves only to confuse and to take the debate to a totally irrational level.
Except Ahmadinejad didn’t actually say that. He said that the Zionist regime would be removed, which is quite different from throwing all the Jews into the sea. Israeli governments seem to have given up on trying to entice the rest of the (proportionally small, but sizable) Iranian Jewish community to immigrate to Israel. The Iranian government makes a show of pointing out that the Jews and Zoroastrians are not discriminated against, as, unlike some other religious groups, they don’t try to convert people.
In any case, he’s out of office, Rouhani lacks the same tendency to run his mouth, and there is no particular threat from Iran comparable to the threats that keep coming out of elements of the US and Israeli governments, both nuclear-armed powers, but not many people seem to have a problem with that.
It’s funny, when I first read your mention of a radical group seizing control, I thought you were referring to the political Zionists, who, though seen with considerable suspicion by everybody else in the region (cultural Zionists, other Jews, Muslim/Christian/etc. civilians of various ethnicities, the Ottoman government, the British peacekeepers, etc.) turned out to be far more radical and violent than most people anticipated!
As for the Khmer Rouge, indeed, most Cambodians either thought they were ridiculous rednecks or had never even heard of them. And then, to believe most historians, the US airstrikes brought the seeming apocalypse to Cambodia, giving Pol Pot credibility, which led to him and his cronies bringing a genuine apocalypse to that country, until they provoked the Vietnamese invasion (which the US opposed, by the way, along with China). Some historians say the airstrikes had little to do with it, and the Khmer Rouge success stemmed from prior assistance they got from the Vietnamese, but the airstrikes still did not help, and caused an enormous amount of death and destruction for no reason.
For something “over the top,” I was expecting screeching and all caps. This was written with lucid and calm prose, whether one agrees or disagrees with the content or message.
Lunacy, stupidity, general ridiculousness, and otherwise over-the-top-ness can be expressed with “lucid and calm prose”. In fact, IMO, the tone of something has pretty much nothing to do with whether something is “over the top”. Something can be screamed and shouted rationally, and something can be calmly explained insanely.
“Barack Obama is, simply put, the greatest president of the past 50 years. His is a statesmanship rivaling Pericles.”
Calm, lucid, but over the top. Perhaps you don’t recognize the Post’s over-the-top ness because you happen to share their adoration of Netanyahu.
That reminds me of an exchange I once had with my father-in-law. The subject of Glenn Beck came up, and he said, “I don’t see what the big fuss is about. I watched his show once, and he seemed pretty mild-mannered to me.” That’s how they get you!