Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the American people on Wednesday that he was certain they detested President Bush's policies _ his support for Israel, war in Iraq and curtailed civil liberties _ and he offered to work with them to reverse those policies.
[...]
"What have the Zionists done for the American people that the U.S. administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors?" Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote. "Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?"
[...]
"Civil liberties are increasingly being curtailed. Even the privacy of the individuals is fast losing its meaning."
The president made no reference to the level of poverty, political freedom or judicial independence in his own country.
After referring to Abu Ghraib in Iraq and the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, he wrote: "I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it."
Bush should take home one lesson from this exercise in diplomacy: while it's fine to criticize one's own country, it's annoying as hell to hear some know-it-all from another offer the same criticisms, particularly when his own record isn't exactly spotless. People in Iran aren't stupid, they feel exactly the same way when Bush offers these "heartfelt pleas" to them to rise up against their own government and boot out Ahmadinejad and the clerics. In fact Iran has an active political movement against its theocracy, one that is widely supported by the populace (and despite Mohammed Khatami's perceived ineffectiveness he did try to initiate pro-Western reforms in Iraq during his tenure.)
But condescending to the Iranian people through cheap publicity stunts like "open letters" will just piss them off and likely stoke support in the exact opposite direction. Notice that spontaneous pro-Ahmadinejad rallies haven't sprung up around the US in response to his letter.
The best way to support dissent in Iran is to lead by example and offer help to dissidents whenever they ask for it. No one wants opinions from foreign despots shoved down their throats though.
We can't trust him, any more than we can trust any other politician in the world. And he's a good politician - listen to him speak sometime. My friend who speaks Persian says he comes across even better as compared to the English translation.
Doesn't mean we should refuse diplomatic relations and open dialog. Refusing diplomatic relations and imposing sanctions does absolutely nothing, except harm the common man.
emperorreagan said:
Doesn't mean we should refuse diplomatic relations and open dialog. Refusing diplomatic relations and imposing sanctions does absolutely nothing, except harm the common man.
I'd just like to ad that when we live in a country where our "leaders" can't see this, it's time for new leadership!
Ahmadinejad made some good points, which will unfortunately be ignored simply because of who he is....
GeorgeJefferson said:
What's great is how any good points which he might happen to make will be demonized by accociation with the guy who made them.
I very much doubt he actually belives much of what he is saying, except for the antisemtic bullshit, and is instead saying it because he thinks it is what we want to hear.
Civil liberties are increasingly being curtailed. Even the privacy of the individuals is fast losing its meaning.
This - from the president of a regime that punishes homosexuality with death and forces women to dress like Batman.
Does anyone know if it's mandatory to give a warning before issuing a fatwa?
Dang, You forgot to mention flogging, stoning, beheading, cutting off hands, secret execution of those in opposition to his regime, exclusion of recognition of opposition political parties, and general sociopolitical intolerance. I do like a good random fatwa, though. Regardless of his apparent charisma, I find it interesting that anyone would align themselves with him, even against a President they abhor. Life is odd.
By the by, your first testimonial is the best thing I've read in a long time...
Ahmadinejad is not qualified to issue fatvas. He does not have the authority to issue fatvas. He has never issued a fatva. What do fatvas have to do with anything in this thread?
good point.
a lot of people have misconsceptions like that - they think Bin Ladin makes Fatwas and he is not qualified. He'd not even a cleric. Neither is Ahmadinejad.
Nice Avatar...
19
Zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
DEC 01, 2006 05:50 PM
arab_Misfit said:
good point.
a lot of people have misconsceptions like that - they think Bin Ladin makes Fatwas and he is not qualified. He'd not even a cleric. Neither is Ahmadinejad.
Exactly. Most Westerners don't even know what a fatwa is. They just heard about Rushdie and they assume it's some kind of death sentence, which is the sense in which uptight was using it (though, to be fair, it was the Iranian regime that issued that one as I recall, though obviously not the secular arm).
Well, I'm new here, so I don't know all your opinions,
...I'm just glad you are informed Zarth! i'm sure there
are many others. Sh*t, even i don't know half the things
I should know.
I believe that OBL has indeed issued "fatwas," though, notwithstanding that he is in no way qualified in any orthodox sense to issue fatwas. As far as I know, Ahmadinejad has not issued any "fatvas." If he did issue "fatvas" he would have serious political and possibly legal problems in Iran.
i think it was mullah Omar that issues the edicts and bin Ladin then spews them.
22
Zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
DEC 01, 2006 07:03 PM
arab_Misfit said:
i think it was mullah Omar that issues the edicts and bin Ladin then spews them.
That's about all we can do! I find it difficult being in the middle of this global mess, but I found that objectivity helps. The only way to be objective is to know facts.
legionnaire
United Kingdom
November 2003
NOV 30, 2006 05:38 PM