Is Ahmadinejad mentally unstable?

toomevara

Given the increasingly bizarre and esoteric rantings emananting from Mahmood Ahmadinejad I'm starting to believe that he may genuinely be mentally unstable (did anyone see the astonishing interview he gave to Morley Safer recently or his recent pronouncements following a speech at the UN regarding a manifestation of the hidden imam).

Given his stange millenarian desire to create the conditions which lead to the return of the hidden imam should we do all in our power to ensure that the iranian regime does not get its hands on a nuclear weapon? Is an Osirak style attack justified in the light of such an argument?

RedPlanet

I don't know toomevara are you a student of psychology?
You should at least have linked to the article your commenting on.
"The Western press" appear to have a preponderance to misquote and mis-translate what Ahmadinejad says so i'd have my doubts about your intrepretation.
I don't see any problem with Iran having nukes since they don't have much a history of military aggresssion, in stark contrast with Israel and the USA (whom by the way are being led by some wierdo Christian fundementalist type that allegedly believes god told him to invade Iraq and whom also apparently believes in some freaky 2nd coming of Christ prophecy and that the Jews must inhabit the original "Holy Land" or some such nonsense inorder to make that happen).
But i guess it's OK that those 2 nations have nukes so go figure.

toomevara

Interesting points RedPlanet...sorry about not providing a link..I saw the interview on Newsnight last night. Have you read this weeks Spectator, the interview with Netanyahu? (I'd provide a link but you've got to subscribe) In it he compares the current scenario vis Iran with Germany circa '37,'38, where you have the leader of a dictatorial regime clearly laying out a policy of genocidal intent prior to carrying it out. Thought provoking stuff on one level, especially the paralells between the annexation of the sudetenland and the situation in Palestine..

eddyc

Ahmadinejad is just posturing, he saw what happened in iraq and he knows the neocons would like nothing more than to see iran 'wiped off the map' , after all it is an oil rich country. As for his views on the zionists, I dont like them much either, I wouldnt want them ejected from israel like he would , but he see's them and israel as an american outpost in the middle east and a threat to his country.
The nuclear thing, whether he is making bombs or not, I'll assume he is, is at least one way to guarantee that his country wont be invaded.
He seems to have clear motives for his behaviour and although he can be extreem in his views I dont think he's crazy.

banaman

You have to remember that the last time Iran had an elected government before the present day the US overthrew it and installed the Shah.
I dont think we get his views reported fairly, nor am I sure about the standard of the translation.
I read in an article possibly on Znet or Al-jezeera that what he said was not that Israle should be eradicated or wiped from the face of the earth but something rather different depending on how you translate certain verbs.
Sorry I cant give you a link but it was months ago and my memory is far from photographic.

Frederico

He can speak quite a few languages, is very well educated, and apparently a very good public speaker compared to saaay George Bush...

LostinBlanch

Hmmm reading about Ahmedenijad, I think possibly a little from column a and a little from column b.

I read about him visiting the well where the 3rd Imam is supposed to be hiding, and dropping down his list of wishes or requests. It's a bit like sticking your letter to santa up the chimney to me. Pity it's not a laughing matter though. But I have also read about the fact that a lot of these translations from arabic come via Israel so that makes me realise I'm probably only going to see him and his aactions in a particular light.

But as Replanet has said there is also a Christian Zionist wing with a lot of influence in the US who actively want to bring about armageddon so Christ is going to return and pat them on the head for doing a good job. Pity I never found that actual bit in the bible. :rolleyes:

So we're "lucky" to live in such interesting times.

BTW watch out for the 22nd of August - apparently the Shias believe that he is going to appear in a blaze of white light over Jerusalem on this day, they just don't know the exact year. I heard that on Newstalk yesterday morning in the (non) Dunphy show.

toomevara

Frederico wrote:

He can speak quite a few languages, is very well educated, and apparently a very good public speaker compared to saaay George Bush...

Not questioning his intellectual capacity at all, merely his psychological well being. Can't possibly go with you on the public speaking riff though frederico. Obviously Bush is about as effective a public speaker as Mr. Bean but Ahmadinejad's 'speeches', at least the ones I've heard, are little more than hysterical rants straight from a comedy Hitler routine...

toomevara

eddyc wrote:

Ahmadinejad is just posturing, he saw what happened in iraq and he knows the neocons would like nothing more than to see iran 'wiped off the map' , after all it is an oil rich country. As for his views on the zionists, I dont like them much either, I wouldnt want them ejected from israel like he would , but he see's them and israel as an american outpost in the middle east and a threat to his country.
The nuclear thing, whether he is making bombs or not, I'll assume he is, is at least one way to guarantee that his country wont be invaded.
He seems to have clear motives for his behaviour and although he can be extreem in his views I dont think he's crazy.

Tend to go along with alot of that eddyc, but what worries me is that we have a guy who has clearly stated that he'd like to see he destruction of the 'Zionist Entity', a very interesting bit of foreign policy, and he's about to get his hands on some nukes. I guess what i'm trying to get at is; should we take the guy at his word? In which case life is about to get even more complicated for those on all sides of the middle eastern divide...

freddyfreeload

Is he crazy? Strange question. The important thing is he was elected.

Should he have nukes? Should anyone? The US remains the only nation to have deployed them, and to my knowledge remains the only nation that has stated its future intent to use them. Iran being the venue now most likely.

When considering anything Ahmadinajad says, you should first bear in mind that the most powerful nation on earth (a Weapons & Oil backed, Christian Fundamentalist, Neo-con regime with the worst track record for international criminality on the planet) is threatening him and his country.

Personally, I doubt Iran has a nuclear weapons capability. Just like I doubted Iraq had WMD. Why? Cos the US wouldn't consider military intervention if there was any risk of WMD.

I can forgive people for believing Bush's & Blair's lies once. But come on! Why on earth should we believe them a second time? What is this - once bitten, twice, doh! bitten again!

Am I worried about Ahmadinajad? No, I'm worried about Bush!

ff

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

...."The Western press" appear to have a preponderance to misquote and mis-translate what Ahmadinejad says so i'd have my doubts about your intrepretation....

Yes he seems to be the only world leader with this problem doesn't he. And it just keeps happening and happening. Coincidence or what.

RedPlanet wrote:

I don't see any problem with Iran having nukes since they don't have much a history of military aggresssion,

Apart from the Iran-Iraq War and the recent little misunderstanding in Lebanon that is. Quite frankly the thought of Iranian nukes should scare everyone on the planet s**tless.

RedPlanet wrote:

in stark contrast with Israel and the USA (whom by the way are being led by some wierdo Christian fundementalist type that allegedly believes god .....

Ahmadinejad makes GWB seem normal.

RedPlanet

But that's just it toomevara and Mick86. He didn't call for the destrcution of Israel, nor for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Rather he called for the desruction of the Israeli regime, just like GWB did about Saddam Hussein.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12949.htm
BTW, what did Iran have to do with the Lebanon/Israel conflict other than provide weaponry for Hezb'Allah?
The US provides loads of weapons for Israel and we all saw the destruction that caused.

dam099

freddyfreeload wrote:

Is he crazy? Strange question. The important thing is he was elected.

He was elected in an election where the Religious council vetoed many of the viable reform candidates, not exactly what could be termed "free and fair".

toomevara

RedPlanet wrote:

But that's just it toomevara and Mick86. He didn't call for the destrcution of Israel, nor for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Rather he called for the desruction of the Israeli regime, just like GWB did about Saddam Hussein.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12949.htm
BTW, what did Iran have to do with the Lebanon/Israel conflict other than provide weaponry for Hezb'Allah?
The US provides loads of weapons for Israel and we all saw the destruction that caused.

OK Red, but isnt calling for the destruction of the Israeli 'regime', a democratically elected government, however you may regard it's actions, tantamount to the same thing?

I would also say, in response to the curent crisis, that it appears that Iran does a lot more than merely arm the Hezballah, it provides is with finance, ideological support and direction, and in the shia extremism of Nasrallah, mirrors exactly the fundamentalist philosophy of the clerics who are the real power in Iran, can this be a mere coincidence?

RedPlanet

toomevara wrote:

OK Red, but isnt calling for the destruction of the Israeli 'regime', a democratically elected government, however you may regard it's actions, tantamount to the same thing?

I would also say, in response to the curent crisis, that it appears that Iran does a lot more than merely arm the Hezballah, it provides is with finance, ideological support and direction, and in the shia extremism of Nasrallah, mirrors exactly the fundamentalist philosophy of the clerics who are the real power in Iran, can this be a mere coincidence?

No, not the same thing at all.
But I would agree with Ahmadinejad that Israel as a state shouldn't exist.
That doesn't mean i call for the destruction of people, nor for ethnic cleansing.
I also don't think NI should exist, similarly that doesn't mean i want Unionists to be killed or forcibly removed.
I don't know much about shia extremism but i don't get your point? Are you saying people have no right to hold certain fundamentalist philosophy?
Or that if folks who do have that inkling, have no right to export it?
Even tho the West is a particular exporter of it's ideas and doctrines?
How does "ideological support and direction" equal Ahmadinejad's mentally unstable?

InFront

I think he's a bad ambassador for Iran and indeed for the Middle East. Just like GWB, he was a poor choice for President. However just like GWB, he was elected democratically, and there's little we can do to change it.
Whether he is mentally stable or not is largely irrelevant. Adolf Hitler is almost universally considered to be on a mental health level consistent with the normal healthy population. Sane people are capable of doing crazy things.
I dont want him to have nukes, but then, I dont want the world's most articulate chimp to have nukes either.

There can be little doubt that Ahmadinijad has had his words manipulated by certain media organisations whose patriotic philosophies it suits.
That said, I doubt many people here think of him as a man they would invite into their homes or welcome in this country. He does seem to have some very ugly perceptions of others.

BTW watch out for the 22nd of August

You'd be a day late. Apparently the end of the world is on the night of the 21st not the 22nd.:rolleyes:
On the issue of Rajab 27, al-Isra' and an Mi'raj, LostinBlanch, If you are going to buy into exaggerated conspiracy theories, you might want to look for more reliable sources than Newstalk 106. That story about God's coming is definitely not an authenticated opinion, and Muslims are not advised to give any special importance to it, although lighting candles and other token observances are permitted.

EDIT: On the issue of wiping Israel off the map, give it a rest. It must be the single most hyped up issue that pops up whenever Ahamdinijad is mentioned on this website. It has been clarified so many times at this stage that you'd wonder why people feel the need to constantly bring it up. I think everyone knows very well the truth behind that accusation, can we not just let it rest?

aidan24326

toomevara wrote:

OK Red, but isnt calling for the destruction of the Israeli 'regime', a democratically elected government, however you may regard it's actions, tantamount to the same thing?

Perhaps. But he has not just called for Israel to be 'wiped out' as has been reported in the press here, he has questioned Israel's legal right to exist. A question he is entitled to ask.

I would also say, in response to the curent crisis, that it appears that Iran does a lot more than merely arm the Hezballah, it provides is with finance, ideological support and direction, and in the shia extremism of Nasrallah, mirrors exactly the fundamentalist philosophy of the clerics who are the real power in Iran, can this be a mere coincidence?

Any arming or financial support that Iran may give to hezbollah is only a small fraction of the massive financial and military support that Israel gets from the US. Bush is conveniently implicating Iran in all of this recent conflict as Iran has been on the neocon agenda for some time.

We all know Bush and his cronies take great liberty with the truth when it comes to choosing who to blame for anything. They might be right in this case, but fact is they are proven barefaced liars who can never be trusted and everything they say has to be treated with scepticism.

As for Iran and WMD, take this quote from WRH:

"In 20 years of inspections, nobody has found any evidence that Iran is doing anything other than building power stations. Contrary to the war-mongers, it is NOT a trivial exercise to take fuel rods, which are 3-5% enriched, and make them into bomb material, which requires 80-90% enrichment. To go from 3% to 90% requires vast resources, such as 500-700 acre sized centrifuge farms.

Israel is screaming that Iran could create a clandestine nuclear plant under their reactor. Israel should know that such is possible because that is precisely what Israel did under their Dimona plant. But there is a lesson to be learned from Dimona (other than that Israel is a nuclear power). Israel failed to keep Dimona secret. Everyone knows about it. And Israel never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and does not have to allow inspections. And still the secret of their nuclear weapons factory got out. Therefore, it is NOT possible to have such facilities and keep them hidden for very long."

Mad Finn

Mick86 wrote:

Apart from the Iran-Iraq War and the recent little misunderstanding in Lebanon that is. Quite frankly the thought of Iranian nukes should scare everyone on the planet s**tless.

I think you'll find it was Iraq that started the Iran Iraq war by trying to get its hands on some Iranian oil fields. With the full connivance of the Americans at the time of course. They even forgave Saddam when his army accidentally sank a US warship (or it might have been shooting down a plane I can't really remember). But they were more understanding times for the Iraqis.

banaman wrote:

You have to remember that the last time Iran had an elected government before the present day the US overthrew it and installed the Shah.

Damn right we do. Especially those who are so concerned with 'liberating' it again.A little bit of research on the democratically elected Mr Mossadeq should open a few people's eyes.

Frederico

toomevara wrote:

Not questioning his intellectual capacity at all, merely his psychological well being. Can't possibly go with you on the public speaking riff though frederico. Obviously Bush is about as effective a public speaker as Mr. Bean but Ahmadinejad's 'speeches', at least the ones I've heard, are little more than hysterical rants straight from a comedy Hitler routine...

Do you ever listen to what George Bush says? what about Rumsfeld? ever read some of his quotes? Cheney too? and these guys dont get misquoted like Mr Ahmadinejad does half the time. I agree that Ahmadinejad has made some strange statements, but then again I am indoctrinated by Western propaganda, I can't even say Iranian Government I have to say Iranian Regime, and I believe Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are fine nothing wrong there, shining beacons of democracy, etc.

toomevara

RedPlanet wrote:

No, not the same thing at all.
But I would agree with Ahmadinejad that Israel as a state shouldn't exist.
That doesn't mean i call for the destruction of people, nor for ethnic cleansing.
I also don't think NI should exist, similarly that doesn't mean i want Unionists to be killed or forcibly removed.
I don't know much about shia extremism but i don't get your point? Are you saying people have no right to hold certain fundamentalist philosophy?
Or that if folks who do have that inkling, have no right to export it?
Even tho the West is a particular exporter of it's ideas and doctrines?
How does "ideological support and direction" equal Ahmadinejad's mentally unstable?

There's alot there Red...I've no problem philosophically with your belief that Israel shouldn't exist and I appreciate that you're not calling for violence, no question of that! Indeed sometimes I think that the creation of Israel in '48 was, in retrospect a bad idea, but we are where we are I guess, and we've got to somehow accomodate the facts on the ground and get people living together peacefully. How in the name of God that happens I've no Idea, better people than me..and all that...but as long as Iran and Syria are engaging in idelogical struggle by proxy through Hamas and Hezbollah any solution is going to be very difficult to implement.

Re: Shi'a extremism, its a thorny issue. For me ,islamic fundamentalism in any form, is extremely unpalatable. I've got huge issues with the ingrained anti-semitism, the treatment of women, homosexuality, the glorification, indeed almost fetishisation, of violence and the victim mentality which are promoted by fundamentalism. Now please note I speak largely here only of fundamentalism of the wahabi, salafist variant, not the moderate, tolerant Islam practiced every day by the vast majority of Muslims. So yep, i suppose I do believe that some worldviews and philosophies are less equal than others. I wouldnt like to see any further propagation of that and indeed i'd go out of my way to enagage with and combat it. And yep, I know too that Western Civilisation has a lot wrong with it (dont get me started, we could be here all day!).

RE: the ideological direction of hezbollah, I was only responding to your assertion that all Iran did was supply arms, I wasnt referring in any way to Ahmadinejad's mental stability, or indeed lack thereof, in respect of that. Wasnt trying to make any connection in that respect.

toomevara

Frederico wrote:

Do you ever listen to what George Bush says? what about Rumsfeld? ever read some of his quotes? Cheney too?

I do frederico, God love me I do, usually from behind the couch through my hands!...you'll get no argument for me on any of the points you make, especially re: Saudi, just discussing the nighmare that is lebanon here..dont think I could handle a digression into the nightmare that is Saudi...

toomevara

aidan24326 wrote:

Perhaps. But he has not just called for Israel to be 'wiped out' as has been reported in the press here, he has questioned Israel's legal right to exist. A question he is entitled to ask.

Wholeheartedly agree aidan,as long as it remains limited to the sphere of debate and discussion and doesn't veer into incitement and active arming of groups dedicated to fulfilling this goal.

aidan24326 wrote:

Bush is conveniently implicating Iran in all of this recent conflict as Iran has been on the neocon agenda for some time.

Again a very valid point, and its a great tragedy that we've got to factor in this consideration, further muddies the water and I for one am a lot less inclined to accept anything this lot will tell me re: Iran at face value

aidan24326 wrote:

As for Iran and WMD, take this quote from WRH:

"In 20 years of inspections, nobody has found any evidence that Iran is doing anything other than building power stations. Contrary to the war-mongers, it is NOT a trivial exercise to take fuel rods, which are 3-5% enriched, and make them into bomb material, which requires 80-90% enrichment. To go from 3% to 90% requires vast resources, such as 500-700 acre sized centrifuge farms.

Israel is screaming that Iran could create a clandestine nuclear plant under their reactor. Israel should know that such is possible because that is precisely what Israel did under their Dimona plant. But there is a lesson to be learned from Dimona (other than that Israel is a nuclear power). Israel failed to keep Dimona secret. Everyone knows about it. And Israel never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and does not have to allow inspections. And still the secret of their nuclear weapons factory got out. Therefore, it is NOT possible to have such facilities and keep them hidden for very long."

Interesting, do you know what Hans Blix's opinion on the iranian programme is?

mike65

Ahmadinejad is also a holocaust denier is'nt he?

Mike.

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

But that's just it toomevara and Mick86. He didn't call for the destrcution of Israel, nor for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Rather he called for the desruction of the Israeli regime, just like GWB did about Saddam Hussein.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12949.htm

I notice Al Jazeera seem happy to run this story

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini. His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.

This may already have been gone into, and apologies if I'm digging up a long settled issue. But I would not have thought that they would be depending on a translation service with links to Dick Cheney and a former Israeli Military Intelligence officer, as suggested by your link.

I'm just conscious of the need to bear in mind that the US is not the only Government who want to spin this agenda.

aidan24326

toomevara wrote:

Wholeheartedly agree aidan,as long as it remains limited to the sphere of debate and discussion and doesn't veer into incitement and active arming of groups dedicated to fulfilling this goal

Agreed. But America's continued arming and support of Israel is creating an obvious imbalance in the region and it's inevitable that countries sympathetic to the plight of the palestinians might attempt to redress this imbalance even a little. There is no way that he could possibly attempt to 'fulfill this goal' of removing Israel so long as Israel are being protected by the USA, as they currently are.

Again a very valid point, and its a great tragedy that we've got to factor in this consideration, further muddies the water and I for one am a lot less inclined to accept anything this lot will tell me re: Iran at face valuE

After the farce of Iraq and Saddam's WMD's it's going to be difficult to swallow anything this lot say ever again.

Interesting, do you know what Hans Blix's opinion on the iranian programme is?

Not exactly, but I do know that he has been a vocal critic of the US and UK administrations over the handling of Iraq. The UN weapons inspections team (UNMOVIC) have been in Iran and reported no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. In fact they concluded that Iran is nowhere near to having that technology, nor is there any evidence that they are on the way to getting it, though there's no doubt they would take it if they could get it. And why wouldn't they? America showed Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis what can happen to oil-rich countries who don't have nuclear weapons to protect themselves. If I was Ahmadinejad I would be asking my friends in Moscow for the lend of a few.

LostinBlanch

Well if the US does attack expect the gulf to be mined and anti ship missiles to take out some tankers and other ships. Wath the price of oil shoot up again!

Of course Cheney will be crying all the way to the bank. :mad:

RedPlanet

Schuhart wrote:

I notice Al Jazeera seem happy to run this storyThis may already have been gone into, and apologies if I'm digging up a long settled issue. But I would not have thought that they would be depending on a translation service with links to Dick Cheney and a former Israeli Military Intelligence officer, as suggested by your link.

I'm just conscious of the need to bear in mind that the US is not the only Government who want to spin this agenda.

Maybe he did say it, I don't know for a fact either way.
Regardless, Iran is not attacking anybody militarily, and they don't have a history of military intervensionism and so they can say what they bloody well like but it's actions that count.

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

Maybe he did say it, I don't know for a fact either way.
Regardless, Iran is not attacking anybody militarily, and they don't have a history of military intervensionism and so they can say what they bloody well like but it's actions that count.

Indeed, but firstly is it fair to say that talk of translations by companies linked to Israeli intellegence officers seem irrelevant. And, tbh, if Al Jazeera are running with this wording it there would seem to be no particular reason to doubt it.

It is possible that this is just the usual domestic rhetoric of Iranian politics, and has no more substance than an election promise, just as its possible there's a china teapot orbiting the Sun. But why do we particularly want to find a way of excusing comments by the Iranian President? Do we owe him money or something?

Frederico

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but firstly is it fair to say that talk of translations by companies linked to Israeli intellegence officers seem irrelevant. And, tbh, if Al Jazeera are running with this wording it there would seem to be no particular reason to doubt it.

It is possible that this is just the usual domestic rhetoric of Iranian politics, and has no more substance than an election promise, just as its possible there's a china teapot orbiting the Sun. But why do we particularly want to find a way of excusing comments by the Iranian President? Do we owe him money or something?

Why do we? very interesting.. what about what Mugabe says, or the leader in Belarus? oh wait, they aren't in the media.. why not?

I can't go into a big spiel, anyway America doesn't like him, they can turn the media screw on him just like they did Saddam, Bin Laden, Saddam again, etc, I am sure the right wing think tanks have names for what that is called

RedPlanet

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but firstly is it fair to say that talk of translations by companies linked to Israeli intellegence officers seem irrelevant. And, tbh, if Al Jazeera are running with this wording it there would seem to be no particular reason to doubt it.

They probably don't like him either, he's Persian.

Schuhart wrote:

It is possible that this is just the usual domestic rhetoric of Iranian politics, and has no more substance than an election promise, just as its possible there's a china teapot orbiting the Sun. But why do we particularly want to find a way of excusing comments by the Iranian President? Do we owe him money or something?

Possible or Most Likely?
No, "we" do this because international personalities whom have shown a penchant for marching into war (GWB and cronnies) constantly hark-on about Iran being some evil incarnate when Iran haven't done anything to anybody.

sovtek

I don't know where this came from but smells of the mainstream American press.
Anytime there is an official enemy they always make out that he/she/it/ is crazy.
Examples: Gore, Hussein, Nader, Moore, Chavez

sovtek

Mick86 wrote:

Apart from the Iran-Iraq War and the recent little misunderstanding in Lebanon that is. Quite frankly the thought of Iranian nukes should scare everyone on the planet s**tless.

Ummmm Iraq attacked Iran with a little help from his friends at the time...ie Donald Rummy

RedPlanet

We all remember the Iranian president penned a letter to GWB and what did he do? Did he sit down with quill in hand and pen a well worded letter back, to try and reach some consensus with his Iranian counterpart? Did he use the opportunity to bridge the divide or at least move things from accusations to conversation?
Of course not, sure GWB is no statesman.
He's a spoilt little redneck that didn't grow up, still playing cowboy n' injuns.


Is GWB mentally stable?
That is surely a fairer question. Afterall, he's a recovering alcoholic. (that never attended an AA meeting or other counseling)

sovtek

RedPlanet wrote:

We all remember the Iranian president penned a letter to GWB and what did he do? Did he sit down with quill in hand and pen a well worded letter back, to try and reach some consensus with his Iranian counterpart? Did he use the opportunity to bridge the divide or at least move things from accusations to conversation?
Of course not, sure GWB is no statesman.
He's a spoilt little redneck that didn't grow up, still playing cowboy n' injuns.


Is GWB mentally stable?
That is surely a fairer question. Afterall, he's a recovering alcoholic. (that never attended an AA meeting or other counseling)

He's known as the Xanax cowboy.

oscarBravo

mike65 wrote:

Ahmadinejad is also a holocaust denier is'nt he?

Is he? Genuine question. Have you anything to back this up?

toomevara

oscarBravo wrote:

Is he? Genuine question. Have you anything to back this up?

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday expressed doubt the Holocaust took place and suggested the Jewish state of Israel be moved to Europe.

His comments, reported by Iran's official IRNA news agency from a news conference he gave in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, follow his call in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map", which sparked widespread international outrage.

The latest comments also provoked quick condemnation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called them "totally unacceptable" and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said "I condemn them unreservedly. They have no place in civilised political debate."

Ahmadinejad was quoted by IRNA as saying: "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in
jail."

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said.

oscarBravo

Ta.

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

Is GWB mentally stable?
That is surely a fairer question. Afterall, he's a recovering alcoholic. (that never attended an AA meeting or other counseling)

I’d say an equally fair question, and his speed to coin phrases like Islamic Fascism deserves all the attention it gets.

I just don’t see the apparent need for us to manufacture apologies for the Iranian President making inflammatory statements about Israel or casting doubt on the Holocaust. That might be the kind of thing that goes down well in the equivalent of the Kevin Barry Cummain in the Tehran North Central constituency. But I don’t see why we need to duck, dive or generally avoid acknowledging that this is part of the reality of the situation.

RedPlanet wrote:

They probably don't like him either, he's Persian.

I see. The conspiracy against Ahmadinejad now comprises Dick Cheney, Israeli intelligence and any non-Persian media outlets.

Do we owe him money? Is he a great man for standing his round? I’m just trying to understand the need to be licking so far up his arse.

RedPlanet

Schuhart wrote:

I’d say an equally fair question, and his speed to coin phrases like Islamic Fascism deserves all the attention it gets.

I just don’t see the apparent need for us to manufacture apologies for the Iranian President making inflammatory statements about Israel or casting doubt on the Holocaust. That might be the kind of thing that goes down well in the equivalent of the Kevin Barry Cummain in the Tehran North Central constituency. But I don’t see why we need to duck, dive or generally avoid acknowledging that this is part of the reality of the situation.

I see. The conspiracy against Ahmadinejad now comprises Dick Cheney, Israeli intelligence and any non-Persian media outlets.

Do we owe him money? Is he a great man for standing his round? I’m just trying to understand the need to be licking so far up his arse.

Nobody is "licking his arse" and infact, i find that an offensive thing to say.
Rather I am doubting the accuracy of the translation.
Actions speak a lot louder than words and Bush's actions are clearly more a threat to Iran and other nations in the MiddleEast than Iran's actions are to Israel and the US.
Besides i would think the fact that GWB is self admitted recovering alcoholic (addictive personality) actually provides a sounder base for psychoanalysis than Ahmadinejad's alledged public statements.

uberpixie

http://www.counterpunch.org/cox08072006.html

"u[SIZE=-1]rine samples from President George W. Bush, some of them almost five years old, have shown exceptionally high levels of testosterone, according to leaked reports. [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Samples collected and preserved at Bethesda Naval Medical Center in the course of routine presidential check-ups, but not examined for testosterone until recent weeks, indicate that Bush had normal levels of the hormone from January through early September of 2001. However, the Sept. 14 sample -- the first taken after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 -- shows a sudden and sharp increase in testosterone concentration."[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Tests showed consistently elevated levels of the hormone in samples taken in 2002 through 2005 as well. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, while testily dismissing any suggestions that the President has received any testosterone supplements, pointed out that even if he had been doing so, Article One of the US Constitution does not explicitly disqualify a chief executive for hormonal doping."[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Bush in dopping scandal, allegedly :-)[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Really if Iran want nukes, it's to protect themeslves from an invasion from the US and air attacks from Israel.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Doubt they would be stupid enough to use them, they can't be any crazier than the knuckle dragging Christian fundies in the US in power.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]And really the Irainians have a point, if it was Europeans that commited geneocide on the Jewish people, should it not be European land that was used to setup Israel?[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Why should the people in the Middle East pay the cost of the Holocost, when it happened and was commited in Europe?[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]The setting up of Israel was a huge show of disrespect by the Western World to the Middle East in Arab and Persian minds and still burns them to this day.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]Throw in foregin meddling on top of it and you have a great mix
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

But that's just it toomevara and Mick86. He didn't call for the destrcution of Israel, nor for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Rather he called for the desruction of the Israeli regime, just like GWB did about Saddam Hussein.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12949.htm

I believe that Ahmadinejad meant exactly what was originally reported, the destruction of Israel and the eradication of the Jews. I don't believe the subsequent explanations of "what he actually said was..." because they are just attempts at damage limitation. I take it that you think the US intervention in Iraq was great for the Iraqis by the way.

RedPlanet

How could you possibly deduce that i'd think US intervention in Iraq was anything but a complete and utter disaster.

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

Nobody is "licking his arse" and infact, i find that an offensive thing to say.

Sorry, that should have been translated as 'promote appropriate anal hygene'. Damn Mossad at it again.

Can you see any irony in your apparent offence, in the context of your wishing away the rather more vitriolic rhetoric of the Iranian President?

RedPlanet wrote:

Rather I am doubting the accuracy of the translation.

Indeed, but there would look to be no need to doubt the translation for any reason other that discomfort at having to face the reality that this is pretty much what he said.

I have no difficulty in facing the reality that the US have given two terms to a conservative Christian President, with all that goes with that. I've no problem with the reality that the Iraq war was a disasterous adventure. I have no problem accepting that Iran has chosen a conservative Islamic President, will all that goes with that.

Again, where is the need to deny reality? Is it so necessary to see the world as divided into saints and devils?

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

How could you possibly deduce that i'd think US intervention in Iraq was anything but a complete and utter disaster.

Your previous post implies that you have no problem with Iranian-sponsored regime change in Israel which would be no worse than US-sponsored regime change in Iraq.

RedPlanet

Schuhart wrote:

Can you see any irony in your apparent offence, in the context of your wishing away the rather more vitriolic rhetoric of the Iranian President?
Indeed, but there would look to be no need to doubt the translation for any reason other that discomfort at having to face the reality that this is pretty much what he said.

No, not at all.
Do tell.

Schuhart wrote:

Again, where is the need to deny reality? Is it so necessary to see the world as divided into saints and devils?

Who is denying reality?
It is absolutely not necessary to "see the world as saints and devils" as you say.
:rolleyes:

Schuhart

Mick86 wrote:

Your previous post implies that you have no problem with Iranian-sponsored regime change in Israel which would be no worse than US-sponsored regime change in Iraq.

This is, more or less, the size of it.

RedPlanet

Mick86 wrote:

Your previous post implies that you have no problem with Iranian-sponsored regime change in Israel which would be no worse than US-sponsored regime change in Iraq.

No it doesn't.
It means that i defend the Iranian's President right to SAY it.

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

No it doesn't.
It means that i defend the Iranian's President right to SAY it.

Do you see any consequences flowing from the fact that the Iranian President makes such comments?

RedPlanet

Schuhart wrote:

Do you see any consequences flowing from the fact that the Iranian President makes such comments?

Do you see any consequences flowing from the actions taken by USA and Britain to create Israel in the first place?

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

Do you see any consequences flowing from the actions taken by USA and Britain to create Israel in the first place?

Absolutely. Without writing a book about it, it created a displaced nation who quite reasonably asked 'where's our country', and set off a chain of events that brings us to the current unhappy position. However, much as traditional Irish nationalists have to get used to the idea that Unionists are here to stay, both Israelis and Palestinians have to get used to the idea that they are both around.

I've no problem acknowledging realities. Now, do you see any consequences flowing from the fact that the Iranian President makes such comments, or would you rather duck and dive by asking me another question?

RedPlanet

No, i see no consequences of the Iranian president making such statements, bar boosting his popularity at home.
Like i said, he can say what he likes.