Look, the fact is, it is said Americans are responsible for over 600,000 deaths in Iraq, over 130,000 due directly to American involvment.
And this makes a difference how? You're presenting a straw man argument.
New End said:
The statistical methods for this number gathering is the same as the holocaust.
The holocaust, horrible as it was, should still be open to historical scrutiny, like any other historical event.
That is what Ahmedinijad has said.
He has also said:
"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophet."
"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets." -Speech of 12/14/05 in Zahedan, Iran as reported by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
In December 2006, Iran hosted a holocaust denial conference including such noted anti-semites as David Duke and Frederick Toben.
New End said:
Furthermore, he said the Israeli "regime" should be wiped off the map. It sounds alot like a word game played by a certain American administration.
Yes and no. If you read the synopsis of the speech as published by his own office:
Speaking at a conference dubbed "World without Zionism" here Wednesday which was attended by thousands of students, he said any country which acknowledges the Zionist regime will actually be acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. -
Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Which differs greatly from the wording as published by the state-controlled IRIB:
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday 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 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 the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.-
Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting
New End said:
I call bullshit on homosexuals being executed by Ahmedinjad, and I want more than a right wing blog to prove it. [SIZE=-1]www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm[/SIZE] says bullshit, and so does [SIZE=-1]www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rsd/rsddocview.html?tbl=RSDCOI&id=441821a37&count=4 -
Only right wing-nut blogs like littlegreenfootballs claim otherwise.
Officials Execute Two Teens for Homosexuality. Complete with pictures of executions which you claim do not happen.-From the state-controlled
Iranian Student News Agency
New End said:
Furthermore, your claim that muslims don't admit they are wrong is bigoted, and of course, ignorant.
Which wasn't what I said. If you're going to summarize what I've said and then judge me for it at least try to be accurate.
I'm not so sure it was a mistake. I think it was Ahmaninejad who made himself look awful to the world.
A world leader who uses his notoriety to promote denial of the holocaust and other obvious stupidities should be questioned pointedly and put on the spot in a public forum, decorum or not. Let everyone clearly see what the guy has to say while not hiding behind diplomatic niceties. University forums are not the same as an address to the UN. Iranians may be offended by the way the questions were posed but much of the rest of the world may be offended by the answers (or non-answers) he supplies.
I think JustAsking got it right (see below). Politicians have a rule to always play to the home audience as they're the only people politicians have to answer to. Certainly he needs to be called out on his outrageous claims. In that sense, his remarks served a dual purpose both at home and abroad. Each audience wanted what they got. Ahmadinejad may be nuts, but he's not stupid.
On this point I agree with you. Everything Ahmadinajad does seems to be for the benefit of his standing with the people of Iran. We don't need to do anything that reinforces that just to enhance our own reputations. The allusion to Lot is apt.
You are an interesting person, Jason. I find myself often in violent disagreement with you and other times in total agreement with you. It makes life interesting around here.
I think your avatar suits you perfectly:tongue:. Thank you for the compliment and I return it in like spirit.
I just watched Christiane Amanpour being interviewed about Ahmadinejad. She has spent time in Iraq and has interviewed him a few times. I have tons of respect for Ms. Amanpour. When she speaks on foreign affairs I listen.
Anyway, she says that most Iranian citizens would like to have a good relationship with the USA. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has become a kind of folk hero among the Islamic Extremists in the Middle East in general. Anyone who seems to stand up to the US gets their admiration (think Castro, for example).
To me this explains his bizarre holocaust denial.
I wonder if he will screw up and lose his support in Iran?
I think she's very on-target. Iran has fascinated me since I was ten and visited the Iranian pavillion at the Montreal Exposition of 1976. People talk about Iraqis being sophisticated and cosmopolitan, but I think Iran is even more so. Their years under the shah, while difficult, gave the country great prosperity and the shah's policy of forced westernization has left a mark which still exists today even if only underground. Even then, Iran has always not quite fit in with the middle east. Not only are they religiously different from their neighboring states, they are also ethnically different.
Ahmadinejad, like Bush now, draws his support from a relative radical minority which has lost ground in face of Iran's dire economic problems. Like Bush, he's now in his administration's end game, trying hard to build a legacy for himself. I genuinely suspect he's not as radical as he makes himself out to be, yet we must accept what a man in his position actually says rather than what we might theorize he truly believes. Any Iranian president is caught between a population that genuinely wants broad reforms, and the mullahs who act as the supreme military and legal leaders. It's a no-win situation as no president can ever deliver just what the people elect a president for.