Interpreting Ahmadinejad's latest ravings

[astronaut]

then he's just displaying his machiavellian tendancies

I think we all have machiavellian tendencies, but not all of us get to use them like Bush.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

How can you be so inclined to reject everything the media/govt. says?

Ooh. Tough one.

Experience? Intuition?

Well they've twisted his words; he was talking about "the Zionist regime":

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," he said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
telegraph



I've also gone back and checked the "Israel wiped off the map" phrase - turns out he was quoting Khomeini.
telegraph

Well, I've seen the footage...

You were shown footage. Never forget that.

Here's a mental exercise:

Imagine that there were Iranian troops occupying Canada and Mexico, threatening to invade the US.

What do you think Bush would be saying?

 

[nino_savatte]

Well, I've seen the footage of hundreds or thousands of Iranian suide bombers marching through Tehran, and Iran is claiming this itself - it is not something which the Western media/govt just made up.

How can you be so inclined to reject everything the media/govt. says? Even Iraqi commanders seem to have though there were WMDs in Iraq.






Even though I don't really believe myself, saying you believe in god doesn't make you insane or irrational.

And how can you be so inclined to believe that this is anything but reportage? We could go on like this forever but I warn you, I'm likely to get bored.

You remember the run up to the Iraq invasion, I presume?

 

[Lock&Light]

You remember the run up to the Iraq invasion, I presume?

How much more patronising can nino get, one wonders.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I agree. He said nothing about any military attack, let alone a nuclear one.

They are trying to make it politically impossible to argue against attacking Iran.

Well at a time when everyone is on edge over the nuke tension with Iran, why does Ahmedinejad need to make comments like this?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It seems to me that most of the president's stupid gobshite antics have been to play to a domestic audience. A bit of a dumb game to play with the US in such an aggressive mood, but that's the only reason I can think of for his verbal attacks on Israel. Of course he wouldn't nuke them, but I think he wants the Iranian population to think that he might. I reckon he wants to try and legitimise the rule of the current government by making grand populist statements and by trying to look like he's standing up to the West.

Otoh, he's a believer in an apocalyptic sect. Maybe he sees it as his religious duty to bring about the end of the world, thereby delivering the maximum number of people into the hands of God.

 

[astronaut]

Here's a mental exercise:

Imagine that there were Iranian troops occupying Canada and Mexico, threatening to invade the US.

What do you think Bush would be saying?

Well I would hope he wouldn't be making matters worse - like a bullfighter waving the most provocative red cape he could find.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well I would hope he wouldn't be making matters worse - like a bullfighter waving the most provocative red cape he could find.

Any rational individual would express such a hope.

Thing is that neither Ahmadinedjad or Bush are "rational individuals" but rather figureheads, expressing sentiments and viewpoints that accord with particular beliefs.

I'm quite convinced that if Iranian troops were occupying Canada and Mexico, president Bush would be voicing bellicose sentiments expressing all kinds of vitriol and detailing the horrid possible fates of anyone foolhardy enough to invade the territory he commands.

It may be that we're seeing part of a giant chessgame conducted via media.

 

[nino_savatte]

How much more patronising can nino get, one wonders.

Is this relevant? No. Now kindly fuck off and take your sad, tired wee remarks with you.

 

[tangentlama]

Everytime Ahmadinejad opens his gob, there's a gaggle of journos hanging on his every word, waiting to spin into something that sounds more belligerent than it actually is. There is a reason for this, of course, and that is to prepare the minds of the general public for future military action in Iran. The media are currently in the process of constructing a demon out of Ahmadinejad - though he makes the task relatively easy because of his inflammatory rhetoric.

indeed. the media are spinning their worst, but their construct is full of holes. I've been reading the IAEA report on how Iran's Khamenei also issued a fatwa on 9 August 2005 forbidding the development, production, and use of nuclear weapons in Iran, and more generally, for anyone who considers themselves to be Islamic and subject to Islamic Governance.

I expect more of the same together with a few choice Iranian 'dissidents' speaking out against the "brutal, tyrannical" regime of the mullahs.

Like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...9.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/16/ixportal.html
?

 

[nino_savatte]

indeed. the media are spinning their worst, but their construct is full of holes. I've been reading the IAEA report on how Iran's Khamenei also issued a fatwa on 9 August 2005 forbidding the development, production, and use of nuclear weapons in Iran, and more generally, for anyone who considers themselves to be Islamic and subject to Islamic Governance.
Like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...9.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/16/ixportal.html
?

Aye and I see on another thread that the Telegraph are leading some sort of PR charge on this issue. A

Perhaps those in Washington and London think they are the only ones who can play the game of brinkmanship.

Naturally, the author's credentials are impeccable.

Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe

 

[goldenecitrone]

Otoh, he's a believer in an apocalyptic sect. Maybe he sees it as his religious duty to bring about the end of the world, thereby delivering the maximum number of people into the hands of God.

I know. If only Bush had stuck to booze and coke we'd all be a lot safer.

 

[nino_savatte]

Otoh, he's a believer in an apocalyptic sect. Maybe he sees it as his religious duty to bring about the end of the world, thereby delivering the maximum number of people into the hands of God.

This sounds like the sort of propagandist line that I've seen you espouse time and time again.

Please provide proof of this "apocalyptic sect".

 

[tangentlama]

When he talks about ZIONISM, he's talking about POLITICAL IDEOLOGY that's secular, and has both Jewish and Christian supporters. When he talks about Zionism being on it's last legs, he's not far wrong. Much of the old Revisionist Zionist War propaganda about the founding of the State of Israel, and it's impact on Palestinian indigenous population was fabricated to perpetuate the slogan that here was a Land without a People, just waiting to be colonised by anyone fitting the immigration criteria, has been blasted out of the water for the thin propaganda that it was, largely serving a US audience. Post-Zionist historians have begun to redress the historical record, but this is by no means complete.

Zionism gives someone born in New Jersey, the right to settle in Israel by nature of being born to a Jewish mother, from anywhere in the world. Whereas a Palestinian born in what is now Israel, but who was driven out in the Nabqa of Israel's Founding, have no rights to return, regardless of whether they have the keys to their property, deeds or some other proof of land-owner or tenants' rights to their land. Zionism is on it's last legs, since a hugh proportion of world jewry, whilst supporting Israel, are absolutely aghast at it's treatment of it's Palestinian neighbours. For every relations-damaging public statement made by some Jewish elder or other, there are 40 of us, quietly going about our business in the Diaspora, who would gladly give their 'Right of return to someone who was actually lived there - a Palestinian refugee for instance!
To give you some idea of the division of opinion on Zionsim, a debate at Cambride on 16th February 2006 found 'This House believes that Zionism is a danger to the Jewish people'. The motion was carried by 125 AYE to 121 NO and 71 abstenstions.
That's over half who believe that 'Zionism has had it's day' and there's plenty of post-Zionists in Israel too, it's not a purely Diaspora thang.

Moishe the peddler was pushing his cart down an alley in Vitebsk (a town in the so-called Pale of Settlement in Russia), minding his own business, when he was stopped by an antisemite. “Hey Jew!” yelled the antisemite. “Who gave you the right to control the world?” Moishe looked puzzled. “You mean me, personally?” he asked. “Don’t be a smart aleck,” retorted the antisemite. “I mean you, the Jews, collectively.” Moishe was amazed. “You know something I don’t know?” “You know perfectly well what I mean,” said the antisemite gruffly. “I’m talking about your cousins, the Rothschilds.” Suddenly Moishe’s face lit up with pleasure. “The Rothschilds!” he exclaimed. “I had no idea they were family!”

 

[tangentlama]

Aye and I see on another thread that the Telegraph are leading some sort of PR charge on this issue.

Is John Bryant, ex-Daily Mail still acting editor? Telegraph is the UK equiv. of the Jerusalem Post - what some call centre right, and all touting mutually supported perspectives and sharing OPs

Perhaps those in Washington and London think they are the only ones who can play the game of brinkmanship.

It would help if Iran would provide their own translations, since we can hardly trust NGO translation services who provide the centre-right with their juicy out-of-context quotes.

Naturally, the author's credentials are impeccable.

someone joked: "Another Chalabi". Is this Daily Newspaper which the author was Editor of, Iran's Telegraph/Mail 'centre-right equivalent'? He sounds like another ex-pat who's disgruntled with the way the country and it's foreign policy is run.

Should we now refresh our minds as to the role of exiles in the preparation for 'regime change'. Plant a CIA bomb, anyone?

 

[nino_savatte]

Is John Bryant, ex-Daily Mail still acting editor? Telegraph is the UK equiv. of the Jerusalem Post - what some call centre right, and all touting mutually supported perspectives and sharing OPs


It would help if Iran would provide their own translations, since we can hardly trust MEMRI to be unbiased or accurate.


someone joked: "Another Chalabi".
Should we refresh our minds as to the role of exiles in the preparation for 'regime change'. Plant a CIA bomb, anyone?

"Another Chalabi"...that's a good one.

Even if the Iranians provided their own transations, Washington would still accuse them of duplicity.

Bryant is still listed as "acting editor" of the Torygraph.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

How nice to be unusual. Without knowing, i was the first to vote option 4 but it is a can of worms subject for sure.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

“We must expel the Arabs and take their places … and, if we have to use force — not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places — then we have force at our disposal.”

— David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, in a letter to his son, Amos, dated Oct. 5, 1937.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

indeed. the media are spinning their worst, but their construct is full of holes. I've been reading the IAEA report on how Iran's Khamenei also issued a fatwa on 9 August 2005 forbidding the development, production, and use of nuclear weapons in Iran, and more generally, for anyone who considers themselves to be Islamic and subject to Islamic Governance.
Like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...9.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/16/ixportal.html
?

Journalists hover around every politician. It just so happens that this one comes out with a lot of newsworthy drivel.

 

[TAE]

Well at a time when everyone is on edge over the nuke tension with Iran, why does Ahmedinejad need to make comments like this?

See post #9.

 

[nino_savatte]

Journalists hover around every politician. It just so happens that this one comes out with a lot of newsworthy drivel.

Whereas the White House have a dedicated press team whose mission is to filter and spin information...in some cases they actually plant stories.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Mr Taheri is a member of Benador Associates, a Public Relations firm that is a clearing house for international Public Policy Speakers.

About Benador

According to Benador's web site,[1] (http://www.benadorassociates.com/about.php) Benador Associates is a "Public Relations, Media and International Speakers Bureau." Benador was founded by Eleana Benador. Offices are "located in New York City as well as in Paris and London. However, the activities of the firm are expanding throughout the American continent, as well as in Europe and the Middle East."

Jim Lobe describes Benador as follows:

"When historians look back on the United States war in Iraq, they will almost certainly be struck by how a small group of mainly neo-conservative analysts and activists outside the administration were able to shape the US media debate in ways that made the drive to war so much easier than it might have been… But historians would be negligent if they ignored the day-to-day work of one person who, as much as anyone outside the administration, made their media ubiquity possible. Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for Perle, Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neo-conservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months."
— Jim Lobe, The Andean Condor among the Hawks (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH15Aa01.html), Asia Times, August 15, 2003.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benador_Associates

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Maybe the thread should be titled "Interpreting Taheri's latest ravings"?

 

[tangentlama]

Maybe the thread should be titled "Interpreting Taheri's latest ravings"?

excellent bit of info on Taheri, Backatacha
i think that prog on BBC4 which i cut short watching 'cos of Ben Griffin's appearance on Newsnight was talking about <i>those</i> PR groups' far reaching influence on SA politics and elections...i'll have to search back on myself to find what it was called...brb

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The regime has spent twenty-five years trying to make these young Iranians deeply pro-Islamic, anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israeli. As a result, most of them are resentful of Islam (at least in its current, state-imposed form), rather pro-American, and have a friendly curiosity about Israel. One scholar, himself an Islamic reformist, suggested that Iran is now—under the hijab, so to speak—the most secular society in the Islamic world. Many also dream of life in America, sporting baseball caps that say, for example, "Harward [sic] Engineering School." Quite a few young Iranians even welcomed the invasion of Iraq, hoping it would bring freedom and democracy closer to them. Seeing how the US invasion has benefited the Shiites in southern Iraq, they joke that President George W. Bush is "the thirteenth imam."


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18390

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

In a November 16 speech in Tehran to senior clerics who had come from all over Iran to hear him, the new president said that the main mission of his government was to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mehdi (may God hasten his reappearance)." The mystical 12th imam of Shiite Islam disappeared as a child in 941, and Twelver Shiites have awaited his reappearance ever since, believing that when he returns he will reign on earth for seven years, before bringing about the Last Judgment and the end of the world.

To prepare for the Mehdi, Ahmadinejad said, "Iran should turn into a mighty, advanced, and model Islamic society." Iranians should "refrain from leaning toward any Western school of thought" and abstain from "luxurious lives" and other excesses. Three months into Ahmadinejad's presidency, his views of the 12th imam are being widely discussed in Tehran. According to one rumor, as mayor of Tehran, Ahmadinejad drew up a new city plan for the imam's return.

In recent weeks, Ahmadinejad's aides have denied another rumor that he ordered his Cabinet to write a pact of loyalty with the 12th imam and throw it down a well near the holy city of Qom, where some believe the imam is hiding. Those who give credence to the rumor point to an early decision of his Cabinet to allocate $17 million to renovate the Jamkaran mosque, where devotees of the 12th imam have prayed for centuries.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=21113

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The thing is, after Afghanistan and Iraq, the propaganda style is all too familiar. What I'm still not sure of though, is what exactly it is we're being sold. Air attacks on Iran? Invasion of their oil province? Of all of Iran? Sanctions & bombing like the period between Gulf War's 1 & 2? Sponsoring terrorism within Iran to overthrow the clerics?

I really can't tell what the proposal is. I just recognise the smell of war PR.

 

[nino_savatte]

The regime has spent twenty-five years trying to make these young Iranians deeply pro-Islamic, anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israeli. As a result, most of them are resentful of Islam (at least in its current, state-imposed form), rather pro-American, and have a friendly curiosity about Israel. One scholar, himself an Islamic reformist, suggested that Iran is now—under the hijab, so to speak—the most secular society in the Islamic world. Many also dream of life in America, sporting baseball caps that say, for example, "Harward [sic] Engineering School." Quite a few young Iranians even welcomed the invasion of Iraq, hoping it would bring freedom and democracy closer to them. Seeing how the US invasion has benefited the Shiites in southern Iraq, they joke that President George W. Bush is "the thirteenth imam."


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18390

These aren't your words - are they Johnny?

Are you familiar with the word "plagiarism"? If you are going to cite a piece of text it is necessary to enclose the text with quotation marks.

Some lawyer you are.

 

[nick1181]

Well actually, I think the link to the source at the bottom of the page is enough of an indication as to where the words come from. No quotes required.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well actually, I think the link to the source at the bottom of the page is enough of an indication as to where the words come from. No quotes required.

Er, some people comment on the link and this looked, for all intents and purposes, like a comment....until one realises that it isn't.

Sorry but plagiarism is plagiarism.