Daily Wisdom

September 24, 2007

Ahmadinejad: A Man In Denial


Click to enlarge


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, seems to be in denial more often than Egyptian river bathers...

He denies that Iranian weapons are being used against U.S. forces in Iraq, even though U.S. forces have found weapons in Iraq that were clearly labeled with Iranian markings, and captured video shows Iraqi insurgents firing Iranian weapons.

He denies that the Holocaust ever occurred, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (including thousands of eye-witnesses).

He denies any need for a nuclear bomb, because he says "we want peace and stability".

He denies building a nuclear weapon, although Iran is an oil-rich country without any need for nuclear energy.

He denies claims that Iran is arming Iraqi militias, although an Iranian Quds Force officer was captured in Iraq this week.

He denies the existences of a secret arms agreement with Syria, although the Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported that Iran would provide $1 billion to Syria for advanced weapons procurement and would assist the country with nuclear research and the development of chemical weapons, with the understanding that Damascus would not negotiate peace with Israel.

He denies being one of the U.S. Embassy hostage-takers in 1979, although a photograph of one hostage-taker strongly resembles him, and 5 former hostages believe that he was indeed one of the hostage-takers.

He denies Israel's right to exist, although Israel was lawfully proclaimed a state by the authority of the United Nations on May 14, 1948.

He denies threatening Israel with attack, although he plainly said "Israel must be wiped off the map".

He denies helping Hezbollah, although somebody helped Hezbollah fire a sophisticated Iranian radar-guided missile at an Israeli warship during the Lebanese war in 2006.

He denies arming the Taliban, although NATO troops in Afghanistan have begun intercepting sophisticated Iranian arms bound for the Taliban.

He denies supporting Yemeni rebels, although the Shi-ite rebels there oppose Yemen's close alliance with the United States.

And now he denies that war with the U.S. is possible, or that there any homosexuals in Iran...

Would you buy a used car from this guy?

21 Comments:

At 9/24/2007 9:59 PM , Blogger Ms RightWing's Ink said...

So would he deny he is dead if a MOAB fell on his palace?

 
At 9/24/2007 10:15 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Ms RW,

Probably!

(:D) Best regards...

 
At 9/24/2007 10:46 PM , Blogger Maggie said...

Somebody stop me!!!!

He is the King of Denial.

 
At 9/25/2007 3:37 AM , Anonymous camojack said...

In "de Nile"...I get it.

Cute picture...

 
At 9/25/2007 8:23 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Maggie,
I guess that makes him a Pharoh?

(:D) Best regards...

 
At 9/25/2007 8:24 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Camo,
I couldn't help myself.

(:D) Best regards...

 
At 9/25/2007 8:44 AM , Blogger Maggie said...

Camojack.....Me neither.

 
At 9/25/2007 5:49 PM , Blogger Beerme said...

Maybe he's just a goat-herder in "de Euphrates"???

 
At 9/25/2007 10:42 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Beerme,
(In my best Bugs Bunny voice...)

Mmmmmm... COULD BE!

(:D) Best regards,
Hope all is well with you and yours.

 
At 9/25/2007 10:52 PM , Anonymous Just Ranting said...

Hawkeye,

This guy has a worse memory than Hillary Clinton.

 
At 9/26/2007 3:43 AM , Anonymous camojack said...

Hawkeye® & Maggie:
I guess you both need to learn some self-control...or not.

Oh, and: ELEVENTEEN!!!

 
At 9/26/2007 5:58 AM , Anonymous Elroy said...

Just thought you should read this:

'What Ahmadinejad is and what he isn't...
Posted by JCMach1 in General Discussion

Tue Sep 25th 2007, 02:51 AM

'It's type to separate the hype and media maelstrom from the man who is the President of Iran.

1. He is an elected President, not a Dictator.

2. Presidents in the Republic of Iran are largely figure heads for mullahs in charge of the Supreme Council.

3. He was elected as a right-wing populist... the common man who understood how to begin fixing Iran's economy. Think Pat Buchanan in a bad suit.

4. Right-wing populists in the middle-east tend to be anti-semitic across the board (keep in mind the Israeli counterparts tend to be profoundly anti-arab). Yet for some reason (perhaps with some legitimacy) the press has chosen to make Ahmadinejad the poster-boy for anti-semitism. The reality is that there is very little difference between his views and the vast majority of ME leaders. That doesn't make it right, but that's the way it is. It's vicious cycle of hatred for which both sides bear the responsibility (Israelis, and Arab/Muslims).

5. Iran has a legitimate need for electrical power. Nuclear is a logical step for them that avoids turning horrible pollution (already) in cities like Tehran into an even worse nightmare.

6. Iran sees their national security neighborhood as a dangerous place. India, Pakistan, and Israel all have the bomb. The US maintains bases all over the region. The only neighbor that it maintains good relations with is Armenia. So, the mullahs would not mind having the bomb themselves.

7. Having the bomb gives your nation incredible negotiating leverage (see the N. Korean experience). Iran needs economic sanctions to end to prosper economically.

8. The President of Iran has little control over what happens under local Sharia law. Just as an American president would have little control over people who are executed in Texas...

9. He isn't in control of how gays, or women are treated in Iran. This is completely dependent on how the mullahs are interpreting Sharia at a given time. Homosexuality in Persian culture is strictly don't ask, don't tell. You can think of Ahmadinejad's response to the question as the same type of response you might get from a military general. Uhhhhh, we don't have homosexuals here... A howler, but there it is.

The issue of women in Iran is more complex as issues of Islam get tangled with cultural issues. Islam itself was very progressive in its view of women (especially considering the Koran is an 8th century document). However, even those rights tend to get swamped when colliding with traditionally patriarchal and repressive societies.

So, Ahmadinejad would see women's issues through the rose-coloured glasses of Islamic views of women's rights. However, Shareen Ebadi would say that's exactly the kinds of rights that are being ignored in the overall culture... particularly in the legal system.

10. So what is Ahmadinejad then... Ultimately, he is the PR mouthpiece for the Iranian ruling council and a rather large mouthpiece at that. Unfortunately, he is a rather common guy/voice in the ME at this time. His views are not out of the mainstream here. We should take that as a warning, not that the evil, anti-semitic, atomic terrorists are coming... Instead, we should take it as a sign of how far any sort dialog for peace has drifted.

Peaceful dialog is ultimately what is needed here... Bush should have met him at ground zero with the hand of peace and a warning about just the sort of drift we are talking about.

Hey, but that would have taken a man of vision... a difficult thing when the US is a nation where the blind lead the blind.'

You listen to too much Hannity. On the Holcaust front, he has never said that ir didn't happen and neither did he say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth, altough his dislike of Israel is not surprising given its treament of Palestine.

Sorry about the truth. I don't like him either, but I hate war more.

Cheers

Elroy

 
At 9/26/2007 8:55 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
Your defense of Ahmadinejad sounds vaguely reminiscent of what people used to say about Hitler:

1. He is a Chancellor whose actions have been confirmed by plebiscite with the approval of 84.6% of the electorate. He is not a Dictator.

2. He is largely a figurehead for a coalition government.

3. He is a right-wing populist who wants to fix Germany's economy.

4. He is anti-semitic, but so what. Henry Ford is anti-semitic too. That doesn't make it right, but that's the way it is. And apparently the Jews don't like the Germans either, because those Jewish merchants steal from the average German with high prices.

5. Germany has a legitimate need for military power.

6. Germany is concerned about their national security since they were disarmed by the Allies after the Great War. They should be allowed to arm themselves in self-defense.

7. Having a strong military gives your nation incredible negotiating leverage. Germany needs the military sanctions against them to be lifted in order to prosper economically.

8. The Chancellor of Germany has little control over how people are treated by local law.

9. There are no homosexuals in Germany. Germans are the master race. Women should stay at home and make babies... more good future masters.

10. So what is Hitler then?... Ultimately he is just a common guy, voicing the opinions of all Germans everywhere. He's nothing to be afraid of.

We should have more peaceful dialog with this guy. We should offer him the hand of peace. That would take a man of vision...

Therefore, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain will meet with Hitler in Munich and straighten this whole thing out. I'm sure Hitler will listen to reason.

Cheers

 
At 9/26/2007 9:37 AM , Blogger Beerme said...

When I first read Elroy's lengthy apologia for Ahmadurnnutjob, I thought, why is he using someone else's words to say what he means. I looked at the citation and saw JCMach1 as the author, googled it and found JCMach1's journal posted on DU!
Now I understand!

The real message here is one of moral equivalence. JC and Elroy would have us believe that:

-Bush is no better than Ahmadinejad
-Israel is no better than Hezbollah
-Lawful executions in Texas are no better than the excesses of Sharia law
-Hanging gays is very similar to not allowing them in your military

In addition he requires the "willing suspension of disbelief" required to entertain such "howlers" as,

-a country awash in oil and natural gas needs nuclear energy to produce cheap electricity
-Iran is concerned about pollution
-having the bomb would be a more efficient method of getting around sanctions than simply acceding the the sanctioners' requests
-calling for further investigation into the legitimacy of the holocaust is not actually denying its existence

Wow! Now, that's a reasoned and "fact"-filled expose of how the man should be viewed...as opposed to Hannity's view that he's a nutjob and should be taken out. I'm no Sean Hannity fan but he sounds a bit more sensible than JCMach1 and Elroy...

 
At 9/26/2007 1:21 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Beerme,
Excellent post good sir!

(:D) Best regards...

 
At 9/26/2007 1:54 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
On the Holcaust front, he has never said that (it) didn't happen and neither did he say that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth

What planet are you from? Didn't you click on the links in my article?...

For the third time in a week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday the Holocaust is a "myth" that Europeans have used to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.

Ahmadinejad is suggesting here that a) the holocaust never happened, b) Europeans invented a "myth" (ie, something that is widely believed to be false) about the holocaust, c) that Europeans WANTED to create a Jewish state, and d) that Palestine is the "heart" of the Islamic world.

What a nut! The holocaust is NOT widely believed to be false. The suggestion that Europeans wanted to create a Jewish state implies his belief that Europeans are as anti-semitic as he is (or perhaps more so). And I thought Mecca was the heart of the Islamic world?

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting IRIB News Service have provided a text in English, titled "Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map" containing IRIB's selected key quotes by Ahmadinejad:

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini."


Seems pretty self-evident to me. Unless of course you are trying to make some kind of distinction between wiping Israel "off the earth" versus wiping them "off the map"? And that distinction would be what exactly...?

Cheers

 
At 9/28/2007 1:52 AM , Anonymous Elroy said...

Godwin’s Law, huh? OK, let’s play! Look, this is a nice try at analogy, except it doesn’t all quite work, does it? But bring Bush into the equation and Boom! It starts to fall into place! Let’s take a peek.

'1. He is a Chancellor whose actions have been confirmed by plebiscite with the approval of 84.6% of the electorate. He is not a Dictator.’

You leave out so much historical context it is laughable. Hitler was a dictator who manipulated the electoral process. Ahmadinejad was fairly elected, and looks like he will be fairly unelected.

Bush, however, rigged two elections and placed himself above the law -
far closer to a dictator than Ahmadinejad.

‘2. He is largely a figurehead for a coalition government.’

Ahmadinejad? Yes. Hitler? I don’t think so! Who were the Nazis in coalition with? Hitler was many things, but he was not a man known for consensus. And Bush? Oh, he consults the Dems on a daily basis! So, Ahmadinejad, yes – Bush and Hitler, not so much.

‘3. He is a right-wing populist who wants to fix Germany's economy.’
Right on all three counts!

‘4. He is anti-Semitic, but so what. Henry Ford is anti-Semitic too. That doesn't make it right, but that's the way it is. And apparently the Jews don't like the Germans either, because those Jewish merchants steal from the average German with high prices.’

GWB is pretty anti-Semitic too; just a different bunch of Semitics – probably because those Muslim oil merchants steal form the average American with high prices.

5. Germany has a legitimate need for military power.’

Now, where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right…two words, both five letters, first word begins with ‘W’, second word begins with ‘H’. both end in ‘E’, some guy lives there…

‘6. Germany is concerned about their national security since they were disarmed by the Allies after the Great War. They should be allowed to arm themselves in self-defense.’

Oh boy, you are a riot ain’t ya? How’s that ironectomy going? Who created a Department of Homeland Security? Who knows all about ‘arming themselves in self-defence’?

‘7. Having a strong military gives your nation incredible negotiating leverage. Germany needs the military sanctions against them to be lifted in order to prosper economically.’

With regards Ahmadinejad and his bomb, Bush has made it clear that ownership of a bomb is the only thing that will get his attention and stop him invading your country. This is not necessarily indicative of a fascist state.

‘8. The Chancellor of Germany has little control over how people are treated by local law.’

Oh, you’re just being silly now! Yes, Hitler had total control over how people are treated by local law. Ahmadinejad, not so much. Bush has lots of control and wants more.

‘9. There are no homosexuals in Germany. Germans are the master race. Women should stay at home and make babies... more good future masters.’

Did Ahmadinejad say that Persians are the master race? Not that I recall. Did Hitler say that Aryans are the master race? Indeed he did. Don’t Americans have some sort of ‘manifest destiny’? Are they not supposed to be God’s chosen ones?

As someone that is lucky enough not to live in the USA, I can say that you do manage to achieve a certain arrogance that sounds to the rest of us like you believe you are somehow special.

There were lots of homosexuals in Germany, until Hitler killed them. There are homosexuals in the USA, but if only they would keep quiet and not keep banging on about being allowed equal rights! I mean, if they carry on like that, well…

So you and yours are OK with gayness, Hawkeye? You wouldn’t mind if your kids came out and declared a love for their own gender that cannot be denied?

And forgive me if I’m wrong, but I was labouring under the apprehension that US conservatives were pretty keen on the stay-at-home mom too.

‘10. So what is Hitler then?... Ultimately he is just a common guy, voicing the opinions of all Germans everywhere. He's nothing to be afraid of. We should have more peaceful dialog with this guy. We should offer him the hand of peace. That would take a man of vision...'

So what is Bush then?... Is he ultimately just a common guy, voicing the opinions of all Americans everywhere? Or is he a dangerous sociopath as addicted to wealth, power and war as he was/is to booze and cocaine? Is he nothing to be afraid of? Or should we fight him at every turn?
Should we have more peaceful dialog with this guy? Or should we ensure regime change by any means necessary?

‘Therefore, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain will meet with Hitler in Munich and straighten this whole thing out. I'm sure Hitler will listen to reason.’

Should we offer him the hand of peace? Would that take a man of vision? Should British prime minister Gordon Brown meet with Bush in Washington D.C. and straighten this whole thing out? Or should he remember what happened to Neville Chamberlain when he spoke to Adolph? No appeasement! Say no to military aggression! Say no to dictators! Say no to Bush!

I’m sure Bush will listen to reason.

Y’see, matey, if you are going to compare people to Hitler you had better make sure that your own backyard is clean.

Beerme: Yes, moral equivalence. What of it? Why don’t you understand that the rest of the world does not perceive itself as America does?
So yes, Bush is no better than Ahmadinejad, Israel is no better than Hezbollah, lawful(?) executions in Texas are no better than anyone else that executes anyone else, hanging gays is oppressive and so is denying them the same rights enjoyed by the rest of society. Not as bad, but oppressive none the less.

Furthermore, if my history is correct, the USA was pretty much awash in oil when it sought nuclear power and, although this might hurt, calling for further investigation into the legitimacy of the holocaust is not actually denying its existence.

What could possibly be wrong with investigating history? I know the holocaust happened, but if we are to learn from history then we must try to ascertain to best the best of our abilities exactly what went on, no matter what the event.

Cheers

Elroy

 
At 9/28/2007 10:16 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
You are clearly ignorant of history...

1) Hitler was not perceived as a 'dictator' until well after he became "Fuhrer and Reichskanzler". Prior to that he was merely seen as a political activist "working the system". Obviously, there were those "with vision" who perceived Hitler as a potential tyrant. Their foresight proved accurate.

Ahmadenijad is likewise perceived by many as a potential tyrant. Evidence includes his moves to silence opposition from students; his proxy wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S.; his financial support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah; his financial assistance to state sponsors of terror like Syria; etc.

Your attempts to equate George W. Bush with Hitler and Ahmadinejad are laughable at best, and I have chosen to ignore all of your attempts to do so.

2) Hitler's Nazi party never obtained a full majority in any election prior to Hitler becoming the Fuhrer. The closest they came was when they received 43.9% of the vote. Therefore, they were forced to establish coalitions with other parties including the Roman Catholic Centre Party, and The German National People's Party (German: Deutschnationale Volkspartei or DNVP).

8) Your suggestion that Ahmadinejad has no influence over local law enforcement is equally silly. I was merely parroting your silliness.

9) Ahmadinejad believes that Islam will become the dominant religion in the world when the Mahdi returns... no less than the "master religion" See HERE. As such, Islam will rule the world. He also believes that he will be instrumental in bringing about the return of the Mahdi. See HERE. According to Muslim tradition, the Mahdi will return at a time of great chaos in the world. Ahmadinejad is attempting to create that chaos in the world in order to speed the Mahdi's return.

As far as my personal beliefs regarding homosexuality, they are not important to the discussion. However, I will share them. I believe that as the Bible teaches, homosexuality is a perversion. I believe that those who practice homosexuality (and are unrepentant) will find no place in heaven. I believe that ALL sex outside of the sanctity of marriage is a sin. I believe that for the most part, homosexuality is a promiscuous lifestyle choice. I also believe that some homosexuals and lesbians have made such lifestyle choices on the basis of questionable upbringing or psychological trauma sustained during childhood.

That being said, I do believe that there are truly some people with genetic defects. Such defects can and do affect gender identification within the individual. I feel sorry for such people, and they must make up their own minds as to which gender they prefer to be identified with. However, I reiterate that these are genetic "defects".

Regarding the treatment of homosexuals and lesbians, I believe that we must each stand before the judgment seat of Christ and account for own lives. I have plenty of sins of my own to explain. I am no saint... you can be sure of that. I will not condemn what people do in the privacy of thier own homes. Nevertheless, I should not be required to endorse a lifestyle which in my opinion is a perversion. Furthermore, I should not be required to subsidize a perverted lifestyle with my tax dollars through legislation which seeks to provide benefits for such people.

If I found out that a relative was a gay or lesbian, I would continue to love them in the very same way I did before. My love does not depend on whether a person agrees with my personal belief system. We all make our own decisions in life and must stand by them... in this life and the next. I pray that my own sins will not disqualify me from salvation.

Cheers

 
At 11/04/2007 1:42 PM , Anonymous Yasmailin said...

Mr. Hawkeye, you make a good point by saying that the neighboring countries want us to stay in Iraq, but unfortunately this is for the wrong reasons. The neighboring countries want us to stay because they don’t want to deal with any Middle Eastern conflicts. It’s neither our duty nor responsibility to try and bring democracy to Iraq, especially when we have problems that need solutions in the US. See Hawkeye, we are not the world police. We can’t make everyone happy, while making our own population suffer for the losses of our men and women in uniform. Aren’t you forgetting how many of our soldiers have died since the beginning of the war? Are you not obscuring the fact that our own people are asking our government to withdraw our troops because they fear another catastrophe? Aren’t you forgetting that in 2007 alone there has been numerous anti war marches asking the government to bring our troops back? An estimated 309,500 Americans united to march against the war on Iraq all over the US. And what has happened since? We are still in Iraq. How is it possible to bring joy to the world when our own people are discontent with what is happening? http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=8709

 
At 11/04/2007 11:02 PM , Anonymous Dominic M. said...

Mr. Hawkeye, your argument about neighboring countries wanting us to stay in Iraq is thought provoking, but I respectfully disagree with your assumption that the U.S is the world police. The countries want us to stay so we can clean up all the mess, and so that the actions that are going on won't carry over to their country. We have enough problems as it is in the U.S and bringing joy and happiness to everyone else is impossible. It seems that we are losing more soldiers to the war than the 9/11 attacks. I actually believe we lost more soldiers to the war. The U.S is not accountable for a stable Iraq and as I mentioned before soldiers are losing their lives because of this war. You are completely overseeing the fact that over half of our own citizens don’t want to be in Iraq. You are not acknowledging the protest in Washington where tens of thousands of people gathered to protest the war in Iraq. The government has already led us to war on false information and staying in Iraq is simply not the best option. We can’t please the world, especially when it is our troops that are getting the worst of it all.

 
At 11/05/2007 11:06 AM , Anonymous Dominic M. said...

Mr. Hawkeye, your argument about neighboring countries wanting us to stay in Iraq is thought provoking, but I respectfully disagree with your assumption that the U.S is the world police. We have enough problems as it is in the U.S and bringing joy and happiness to everyone else is impossible. It seems that we are losing more soldiers to the war than the 9/11 attacks. I actually believe we lost more soldiers to the war. The U.S is not accountable for a stable Iraq and as I mentioned before soldiers are losing their lives because of this war. You are completely overseeing the fact that over half of our own citizens don’t want to be in Iraq. You are not acknowledging the protest in Washington where tens of thousands of people gathered to protest the war in Iraq. The government has already led us to war on false information and staying in Iraq is simply not the best option. We can’t please the world, especially when it is our troops that are getting the worst of it all.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home