More Good Advice for Barack Obama: From Islamist Groups This Time

President-Elect Barack Obama has no shortage of advice.

Yesterday, we learned that Iran's President Ahmadinejad told Obama that "...the expectation is that the unjust actions of the past 60 years..." will be end, and that "...The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region...."

Today, it's the Islamic State of Iraq's own Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, "urging the 'new rulers of the White House' and presidential allies from 'Christian nations' to remove their forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim regions." (CNN)

Sounds like Abu Omar al-Baghdadi wants Obama to 'give peace a chance.'

I'm dubious about al-Baghdadi's advice. For starters, it looks like the "Islamic State of Iraq" is a sort of front for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi says he's the leader of the "Islamic State of Iraq." The American military says he's an actor, who gives the "Islamic State of Iraq" a voice.

Al-Baghdadi offered some hardly-surprising insights:

• The global financial crisis happened because of wars "launched in Muslim countries"
• Western civilization is
  • "Nothing but a civilization made of cardboard"
  • Built on gambling and usury
  • "Robbed" Muslim lands
  • "Oppressed" the residents of Muslim lands

Sounds like Professor Churchill would love this guy.

A Sunni insurgent group, the Mujahedeen Army, had advice for President-Elect Obama, too: Get troops out of Iraq. Now. Or else Obama will face "days that will be more difficult than the nightmare experienced by his predecessor."

The Associated Press says, "Obama has called for an increase in forces in Afghanistan and a withdraw of combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, but said that the time period wasn't rigid and could be adjusted."

It's Different, When You're in Charge

I've said it before: Things look different when you finally get to sit behind the desk.

I think there's a good chance that President Barack Obama will recognize this advice from President Ahmadinejad, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, and the Mujahedeen Army for what it is: more standard-issue propaganda from people I'd rather call Islamist than Islamic.

At least, I hope so.

In the news:

• "Insurgents to Obama: Pull troops from Iraq"
  Associate Press (November 7, 2008)
• "Militant's message to 'new White House' "
  CNN (November 7, 2008)

Barack Obama's Presidency: History Being Made

Barack Obama will soon be America's first black president.

I don't think who a person's ancestors were is as important as who the person is, but each ethnic group's 'first president' is a matter of some note.¹ As important as President-Elect Obama's ancestry is, to some, Barack Obama has achieved another first. Before being sworn in.

President Ahmadinejad congratulates President-Elect Obama

Heads of state sending congratulations to the winner of an American presidential election is usually a pleasant routine. In the case of President Ahmadinejad, though, it's the first time an Iranian President has congratulated an American president-elect since - well, ever.

It hasn't happened since 1976, when the Shah was kicked out of the country and the Ayatollahs started popularizing the "Death to America" slogan.

This diplomatic first could mean quite a few things, including:

• President Ahmadinejad has oil to sell
• Barack Obama is viewed as a
  • Soft touch
  • Open-minded leader
  • Gullible newbie
• Peace, love, and siblinghood² are at hand
• Something completely different

One way or another, it looks like change really is coming.

President Ahmadinejad's Advice to President-Elect Obama

A translation of the whole letter is available at the Washington Post. Here are some excerpts:

"...I hope you will choose to honor the real interests of people and justice and equity over the insatiable appetites of the selfish minority. Use this chance to serve to the extent you can. And leave a good name behind for yourself...."

"...In the sensitive Middle East region, in particular, the expectation is that the unjust actions of the past 60 years will give way to a policy encouraging full rights for all nations, especially the oppressed nations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region...."

This is going to be an interesting four years.

In the news:

• "Translation of Ahmadinejad's Letter"
  Washington Post (November 6, 2008)
• "IRAN: Ahmadinejad congratulates, cautions and advises Obama"
  Los Angeles Times (November 6, 2008)
• "Ahmadinejad welcomes Obama change"
  CNN (November 6, 2008)

---

¹The next big "first" I'm looking for is the first Japanese, Chinese, or Vietnamese president. Or, for that matter, the first Hmong in the Oval Office. I'm not holding my breath, though. These things take time.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

---

²Can't say "brotherhood:" that wouldn't be politically correct.

America, Iran, Freedom of Speech, Censorship: Be Careful What You Wish For

I'm glad that I am an American, and live in America.

Newspapers and news services here frequently report this nation's, and the world's, events in a way that I don't like. (I've posted about a standard American - and international - attitude before: "Global Patriot Incident: No News, But Lots of Opinions" (April 7, 2008), "Global Patriot Reporting: Anti-American Bias? Could Be (March 25, 2008).)

But, that's what happens when a country practices the idea of freedom of speech. I'd rather see a little more diversity of opinion in traditional journalism, but cable television and the Internet have taken care of that deficit: for those with cable and Internet access.

Hate Crime Laws, Holocaust Deniers, and Free Speech

I've heard people say that 'there oughta be a law' against criticizing:

• The government
• Cultural icons like Martin Luther King and Ronald Regan
• Their own opinion about national and world affairs

Sometimes people with views like that have their desires granted.

Take Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example. Back in 2005, he said that Israel should be wiped off the map. He's also said that the Holocaust is 'a myth.'

In Iran, that's okay: the Ayatollahs have no trouble with people voicing that sort of opinion.

However, Ahmadinejad might get in trouble if he made that last statement in Germany. The current leaders of Germany are understandably sensitive about what a previous regime did in their country, about sixty years ago.

They're so sensitive, that in Germany it's against the law to say that the Holocaust didn't happen.

I think I understand why the German government takes that stand. What the Allies found when they reached places like Auschwitz-Birkenau, Buchenwald, and Dachau, was profoundly unpleasant and distasteful. The reality of the German National Socialist party's social reforms were - and are - an embarrassment to people who promote similar philosophies.

Just as Japan is dealing with people who don't like what happened in WWII, Germany's leadership seems determined that Germans not forget.

The American government has laws against "hate speech," too. I haven't made up my mind, whether these are silly attempts to enforce civility, on a par with the old sumptuary laws, or if existing law regarding slander and libel really is deficient.

Whatever You Do, Don't Insult the President

Back to Ahmadinejad. It's not that Iran is big on freedom of speech. Ahmadinejad can say that Israel should be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust is a myth, because those opinions are approved of by the Ayatollahs.

Other opinions aren't treated so favorably. Tehran Today used to be a newspaper published in Iran. Yesterday, the paper ran a story that offered an opinion about Ahmadinejad and his comments about Israel. The paper said that what the Iranian president said "seems to have led to a different result — more pressure on Iran and more support to Israel."

The paper's publisher was hauled into court for insulting the president, and the newspaper is banned.

I'll give the Iranian government credit for having an efficient court system. That was fast work.

Free Speech: Annoying, but Valuable

Although I make a distinction between slander, libel, and free speech, I think that it's a good idea to allow a country's president to be 'insulted,' as President Ahmadinejad was. That sort of feedback and commentary is, in my view, important in keeping a government in good working order.

All things considered, I'd rather live in a country where newspapers occasionally indulge in selective reporting, than in one where few citizens were exposed to criticisms of "Dear Leader."

Sic Transit Tehran Today: Iran's Press in the News

"News agency: Iran shuts down Tehran newspaper critical of Ahmadinejad"
International Herald Tribune (June 22, 2008)

"TEHRAN, Iran: Authorities have shut down a Tehran newspaper, the official IRNA news agency reported Sunday, after the paper published a story critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel.

"The Press Supervisory Board, which is controlled by hard-liners, banned Tehran Today on Saturday after the paper's editor was summoned to court for publishing material deemed as insulting Ahmadinejad, IRNA said.

"The news agency did not provide more details. But the announcement comes after the paper published a story Saturday that said Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel 'seems to have led to a different result — more pressure on Iran and more support to Israel.' "

---

More, about my views on the Holocaust, some aspects of World War II, and the mess we're in today, at: "Holocaust Remembrance Day: May 1, 2008" (April 30, 2008).

Holocaust Denial: Embarrassing Facts

People who would just as soon not believe that Islamic terrorists flew airliners into New York City's World Trade Center aren't alone.

One of the simplest and quickest ways of dealing with uncomfortable or embarrassing facts is to deny those facts.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth." I think his claim is understandable, considering his government's policy toward Jews - and the generally negative opinion about Germany's WWII-era attempt to exterminate Jews, Poles, and other undesirable people.

I believe I understand the desire to make believe that unpleasant realities never happened. But, I also believe that it's wiser to face facts, than to deny them.

There's a pretty good reality check at Emory University's website:

"Holocaust Denial > Learning Tools > Myth/Fact Sheets"

I learned that I need to revise my view of the Dresden bombing, which I picked up in the proto-PC 1970s.

Iranians at Monkey Point: Economic Development, or Monkeying Around?

There's a major project in the works in Central America that could be good news for Nicaragua and, in the long run, America. But I'm very concerned about what may actually be going at Monkey Point.

Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Iran have teamed up to compete with the Panama Canal. Their plan is to set up a deep-water port at Monkey Point on Nicaragua's east coast and run pipelines, a highway, and a railroad to the Pacific coast.


View Larger Map

In strictly economic terms, the project makes sense: to me, at least. I'd like to see every country with a lively domestic economy, and a lot of foreign trade. My motives aren't entirely disinterested. The more comparatively wealthy a nation is, the more likely the people there are to buy American agricultural products, computers, and all the rest of things American companies make. And that will, indirectly, help me.

Nicaragua's economy isn't doing too well these days. It has:

• Among the most unequal distribution of income on Earth.
• The third lowest per capita income in the Western Hemisphere
• Energy shortages that stunt growth

It's not all bad news in Nicaragua. In addition to the Monkey Point project, Nicaragua's getting getting foreign help:

• Foreign debt reduction with the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative
• Over $800 million in debt relief from the Inter-American Development Bank
• Nicaragua has ratified the US-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which should attract foreign business, creating jobs and economic development
  (and, I suspect, news pieces about exploitation and/or unfair foreign competition

Even though it will probably benefit the Nicaraguan economy, not everybody is happy about what I call the Monkey Point Project.

After the second military helicopter in two days came to Monkey Point, a delegation of Rama Indian and Creole locals wanted to know who had landed on their territory. They didn't appreciate the newcomers' refusal to identify themselves, and expressed their displeasure with machetes.

The locals tell time by the sun and tides, live on fish and jungle animals, and aren't at all eager to be dragged through a few thousand years of economic, political, and technological development.

Besides, quite a few of them fought with Contras against the Nicaraguan President Ortega a few years ago, and might be against an Ortegan project, even if they were in a better position to benefit from it.

The people on Monkey Point aren't the only ones who don't like what's happening on their land. The "San Antonio Express-News" reports that Iran may be planning to use its influence in Nicaragua's Monkey Point Project to stage attacks on America.

The idea of Nicaragua as a staging point for terrorist attacks isn't as crazy as it may seem. The country's about a thousand miles away from the American southern states, with regular, convenient commercial flights between Managua and Miami.

Then, there's the reputation that the three "Monkey Point Project" countries have earned:

• Nicaragua
  A corrupt government gave way to Marxist Sandanista rule in the late seventies, then free elections in the nineties ended Sandanista rule, but a 2006 election returned (former?) Sandanista Daniel Ortega Saavedra to power
  President Ortega has said that he isn't Marxist any more, and wants peace.
  That may be true: People change, and the Cold War is over. The Department of Homeland Security didn't seem concerned, a few months ago.
• Venezuela
  More-or-less benevolent generalissimos ran the country for most of the first half of the 20th century. They helped the country's petroleum industry and let some social reforms happen. Elected governments have run the country since 1959. The latest president is Hugo Chavez, who's held the post since 1999. President Chavez has said
  • "I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell."
  • "I hereby accuse the North American empire of being the biggest menace to our planet."
  • "A coup happened in Venezuela that was prepared by the U.S. What do they want? Our oil, as they did in Iraq."
  • "The left is back, and it's the only path we have to get out of the spot to which the right has sunken us, ... Socialism builds and capitalism destroys."
  • (In reference to President Bush's September 19, 2006 speech at the U.N.) "The devil came right here... And it still smells of sulfur today."
  • "[The planet] is being destroyed under our own noses by the capitalist model, the destructive engine of development, ... every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the neo-liberal, capitalist model."
  If he was a speaker on the American college and university circuit, Hugo Chavez could probably make a good living: although I think he'd have to avoid cracks like that "neo-liberal" remark. As the leader of a nation with significant oil wealth, and one which engages in trafficking in persons - providing women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor to places like Spain, the Netherlands, and Caribbean nations - I'm very uncomfortable with President Chavez's acknowledged beliefs.
• Iran
  The nation was called Persia until 1935, became an Islamic Republic in 1979, and has been ruled by the Supreme Leader, learned Islamic scholar who answers only to to the Assembly of Experts. The current leadership set the tone for its administration by raiding the U.S. embassy and kidnapping the people inside. The current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made it clear that he doesn't want Israel to exist, a preference that quite possibly extends to many infidel nations.

The idea of these three nations cooperating to set up a globally significant transportation system a few hours south of America should be a concern to people who prefer a free market and religious tolerance to what Presidents Chavez and Ahmadinejad offer. As for President Ortega, he may have found a substitute for his Cold War patron in the anti-American and oil-rich rulers of Venezuela and Iran.

Nantanz Next? MOP Could Mop Up Nuclear Program

The bomb weighs around 30,000 pounds, is 20 feet long and has a three-and-a-half inch thick steel skin. It's designed to go as much as 200 feet underground before exploding. It's called "Massive Ordnance Penetrator," or MOP. Reporters call it a bunker-buster.

ABC News reporters discovered that U.S. military commanders wanted it for "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."

Some politicos seem to think that refitting B-2 bombers to hold the MOP is a plot.

ABC started its online article with:

"Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for military action against Iran.

"The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP."

ABC says that stealth aircraft like the B-2 wouldn't be needed to take the MOP to tunnel complexes on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, but that a stealth bomber would be useful in an attack at the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.

I ran into a discussion on television this morning, where one politico was concerned about the White House trying to sneak in preparations for a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, without consulting Congress.

Fair enough. Congress is supposed to be in the loop, where decisions like that are concerned.

I just hope that our leaders don't buy Iran's story about the Nantanz facility being "aimed at the eradication of deserts." It's about as likely to be true as Syria's claim that the Israeli jets blew up sand, an agricultural research station, an unused military building/warehouse, or (more plausible) nuclear reactor

It's just barely possible that Iran is run by nice people, and that Ahmadinejad's and other Iranian leaders' remarks about destroying Israel, their 'death to America' rallys and their habit of shelling Iraq are silly misunderstandings. Or, to use a currently popular word, misconstruings.

And, it's just barely possible that I'd buy a winning Minnesota Millionaire Raffle ticket down at Casey's today.

Serious matters can't be decided on the basis of wishful thinking and long odds. Well, they can: but it's a bad idea.

I think that the least-unlikely explanation for Iran's nuclear program is that Iranian rulers want nuclear weapons, and that they intend to use the things to make the world safe for Islam. Their version, that is.

If the leaders who follow in the steps of Chamberlain have their way, something like this could happen.

• America and other non-Islamic countries make resolutions, send delegations, and express concern, but do nothing to stop Iran's nuclear program.
• Ahmadinejad gets a Nobel Peace Prize for talking with the delegates (this is far from impossible: remember Arafat in 1994)
• Iran gets at least one nuclear weapon
• A city, probably in America, loses 10,000 or so people and several blocks of real estate, and has to evacuate the survivors.

Another option is to get as much proof as is practical that Iran is, in fact, developing a nuclear bomb. Then, destroy the facilities that Iran is using.

Obliterating the desert eradication/nuclear facilities that Iran's tucked under Nantanz and buried elsewhere won't end the underlying issues, but it will at least delay the bomb-making program.

The problem is that doing the rest of the world such a favor will leave the benefactor with a serious question: Was saving thousands of people's lives the right thing to do; or would it have been better to act like the good guy in stories, and let the bad guy strike first?

Resolutions "Worthless Papers" - Iran's President Ahmadinejad

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran are "worthless papers." He declared that Iran will not give up what he calls its right to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

In a way, I admire his clear declaration. At least you know where he stands.

The U.N. has imposed sanctions on Iran, twice, and now we're into the second day of talk with the European Union's foreign policy chief, about Tehran's nuclear program: That Tehran didn't acknowledge until it was uncovered several years ago.

America and its allies say that the ayatollahs of Iran want to make nuclear weapons. Iran's rulers say 'no.' They say that the major oil-exporting nation needs nuclear reactors to provide power to its people.

Here's what President Ahmadinejad said: "The so-called dossier at the Security Council is a pile of papers that have no value. They can add to those worthless papers everyday because it has no effect on the will of the Iranian nation," at least according to Iranian state television.

I don't often agree with Ahmadinejad, or the ayatollahs who actually run Iran, but this time I think he's got a point.

Another man, a little over ninety years ago, had a few words about how useful ink on paper is. It was 1914, an eventful year:

• June 28: Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated
• August 3: Germany declared war on France
• August 4: Germany declared war on Belgium
• September 15: first western front trenches dug

America's President Franklin Roosevelt wrote a 3,000+ word piece for the New York Times:

"In the first place, events have clearly demonstrated that treaties not backed by force are not worth the paper upon which they are written. Events have clearly shown that it is the idlest folly to assert, and little short of treason against the nation for statesmen who should know better to pretend, that the salvation of any nation under existing world conditions can be trusted to treaties, to little bits of paper with names signed on them, but without any efficient force behind them. The United States will be guilty of criminal misconduct, we of this generation will show ourselves traitors to our children and our children's children, if, as conditions are now, we do not keep ourselves ready to defend our hearths, trusting in great crises not to treaties, not to the ineffective good will of outsiders, but to our own stout hearts and strong hands."

Theodore Roosevelt, writing in The New York Times (October 18, 1914 Magazine Section, Page SM1) (Previewed in The New York Times Archives)

I don't often find myself on the same page as Presidents Ahmadinejad and Theodore Roosevelt. But this is one of those times.

Resolutions and treaties are are effective: as long as the nations affected are law-abiding, and want to cooperate. If the nations affected don't want to comply, resolutions and treaties are no more valuable than so much scrap paper.

Unless there is force to back up the agreements.

I heartily agree with those who believe that it would be nice if everyone were nice.

This isn't a perfect world, though, so accommodations have to be made for nations whose leaders want to bring death and disruption. Unhappily, some of those accommodations involve using military force to stop terrorists and others who don't like freedom.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Iran's New Nuclear Negotiator

Iran's President Ahmadinejad presumably got more control over nuke negotiations when the Ali Larijani was quit the job - presumably so he could work on "other political activities."

I read that Larijani is more "moderate" than average in Iran's government, when it came to Iran's nuclear program. Seems to me, that wouldn't take much.

The AP says that Iran's deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, Saeed Jalili, gets the nuke negotiator job now.

Since Jalili is supposed to be low on the ladder, talks with some collection of European diplomats presumably will be Ahmadinejad's show now.

I'm not sure how much difference it makes, who is Iran's front man in negotiations. My impression is that, however prominent a diplomat is, the diplomat doesn't determine policy. The diplomat's job is to carry out the policies of someone higher on the ladder.

Besides, this "key meeting with European negotiators" doesn't impress me as much as it might. I've gotten the impression that the current crop of European powers are very good at negotiating diplomatic talks about discussions of more negotiations.

All of which provides employment for government employees and reporters, but doesn't seem to produce much substance.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Iran and Russia and Germany and Japan

I was going to write about Russian's Vladimir Putin and his apparent relationship with Iran's President Ahmadinejad, and the rest of Iran's leadership. But, someone beat me to it. "Vladimir's convenient relationship" (October 19, 2007) has commentary, quotes, and links on this subject.

As usual, in situations like this, I have the usual disclaimer about opinions on other blogs or websites not necessarily being my own, and my having no control over their content.

However, I think that American Interests is a very good place to get an intelligent alternative to the standard-issue views endemic to places like Berkeley, Amherst, and Boulder.

Finally, Why Germany and Japan in the title?

I don't think that the war on terror is a replay of WWII, but there are interesting parallels here and there.

One is the peculiar relationship of Germany and Japan (an alliance of a nation dedicated to the superiority of their leadership's notion of the "Aryan Race" and a nation which is very sincerely not "Aryan" by anyone's standards).

Russia and Iran show signs of becoming an similar Odd Couple. Time will tell.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Russia's Putin and Iran's Ahmadinejad: More Complications

As if things weren't interesting enough already, Vladimir Putin has been talking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The two leaders were at a meeting of leaders whose countries are on the Caspian Sea.

I'd rather not believe that Putin's Russia would want the ayatollahs' Iran to have a working nuclear reactor, 'peaceful' or not. On the other hand, this wouldn't be the first time that an ambitious leader over-estimated his power.

It's late, and I need time to think. Plus, sleep to make thinking reliable.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Wisdom (?) From Iran: Boycott Peace Conference

Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must answer to, has told Muslims to boycott an American-sponsored peace conference this November.

Iran has shown a sincere interest in solving the Jewish problem in the Middle East before. Among other Iran's efforts are support of

• Hezbollah (Shiite, southern Lebanon
• Hamas (Sunni, Palestine/Gaza)
• Islamic Jihad ((I haven't learned which flavor of Islam), Palestine/Lebanon)

The Supreme Leader of Iran says the peace conference, scheduled to start November 26, at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, is no good because it will hurt the Palestinians.

Since the conference is unlikely to swear death to Israel, death to the Great Satan America, I suppose the Ayatollah Khamenei's attitude is understandable. I could be wrong, but considering Iran's track record and the position of Khamenei's subordinant Ahmadinejad on the destruction of Israel, I don't think so.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

"Pope attacks Iran at Jewish Congress"

That's the TimesOnline's headline: attention-getting; calculated to raise fears.

Good heavens! The Pope attacking Iran?! What, oh what, is this world coming to? Maybe, just maybe, to a more reasoned, and reasonable, approach to world affairs in general, and the war on terror in particular.

Pope Benedict XVI got together with the World Jewish Congress, at the Vatican: this week, I think. While there, the Pope said Iran was "an issue of big concern" to him.

This is an attack?

Actually, it did get worse. The Pope said he was concerned about an increase in anti-Semitism in Iran. He apparently outlined a campaign using educational tools to work against the hatred shown by Iranian leadership towards Israel, and the Jews in general.

Educational tools? Shocking!

From a certain point of view, 'the Jews' are in with the Pope in this 'plot.' After an audience with the Pope, the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, Maram Stern, had this to say: "We thanked the Holy Father for everything he did for the Jewish people, and more importantly what he will do."

Ominous?

I don't think so, but then I don't think that there's some sort of Jewish conspiracy either running the world, or striving for total world domination.

In fact, I think that breaking into parts of the Islamic world with facts would be like getting oxygen to trapped miners.

The World Jewish Congress also discussed rising anti-Semitism in Europe, but I'd say that the big problems are in the Islamic world. Mostly because I tend to believe what people say, particularly when they're making speeches. Iran's president has made his attitude toward Israel, and those who support Israel, quite clear.

President Ahmadinejad may have good reason for his beliefs. Iran has the largest concentration of Jews in the Middle East, aside from Israel. About 20,000 Jews live in the country of the ayatollahs.

I suppose saying that means that I'm with the Pope on the "confrontation road with Moslems and Islam" that a Jordanian wrote of, commenting on the TimesOnline.com article. I can live with that. I do believe that a reasoned approach to sorting out the war on terror is not to find out what the most unreasonable people in Islam want, and then give it to them.

As to what President Ahmadinejad of Iran has said about Israel and the Jews, someone over in the United Kingdom collected statements made by Iran's President Ahmadinejad made about Israel.

I'm no expert, but there may be a touch of anti-Semitism here. More than a touch, in fact. See what you think of these samples.

• "Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."
  October 26, 2005
  (In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, 'The World Without Zionism')
  NB The translation of this quote is debated and has also been read as "Israel must disappear from the page of history"
• "The Zionist regime is an injustice and by its very nature a permanent threat. Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
  April 14, 2006
  (In a speech at the opening of the "Support for the Palestinian Intifada" conference on April 14-16 hosted in Tehran)
• "Today, they [Europeans] have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets … This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [Jews] so that the Jews can establish their country."
  December 14, 2005
  (Speaking to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan)
• "The Zionist regime is the flag bearer of violation and occupation and this regime is the flag of Satan. …It is not unlikely that this regime be on the path to dissolution and deterioration when the philosophy behind its creation and survival is invalid."
  August 18, 2007
  (Address to an international religious conference in Tehran)
• "In parallel to the official political war there is a hidden war going on and the Islamic states should benefit from their economic potential to cut off the hands of the enemies."
• "The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan . . . Many Western governments that claim to be pioneers of democracy and standard bearers of human rights close their eyes over crimes committed by the Zionists and by remaining silent support the Zionists due to their hedonistic and materialistic tendencies."
  February 28, 2007
  (to a meeting of Sudanese Islamic scholars in Khartoum)
• "Zionists are people without any religion. They are lying about being Jewish because religion means brotherhood, friendship and respecting other divine religions…They are an organized minority who have infiltrated the world. They are not even a 10,000-strong organization."
  August 28, 2007
  (At a news conference in Tehran)
• "Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented."
  August 2, 2006
  (as quoted by Iranian TV)
• "[N]o Muslim nation would put up with this entity [i.e. Israel] in Islamic lands, not for one moment … If it's true that the [Europeans] committed a big crime in World War II, then they must take responsibility for it themselves, and not ask the Palestinian people to pay the price … Those countries that support this regime [Israel] were terrified at the suggestion that [Israel] should be relocated to their neighborhood. So why should the Palestinians and the countries in our region accept this entity?"
  (In a speech before an audience in the Iranian city of Qom, aired on television)
• "They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world."
  October 29, 2005
  (Marching in a demonstration alongside a crowd of students in Tehran)
• "Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, more divine, than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world."
• "By the grace of Allah, we (will be) a nuclear power."
• "If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
  April 19, 2006
• "Are they human beings?... They (Zionists) are a group of blood-thirsty savages putting all other criminals to shame."
  (as quoted by Iranian TV)

All thirty, with reader comments, are at "Ahmadinejad on Israel: 30 jaw-dropping quotes" (TimesOnline, UK, October 2, 2007)

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred

Students Demonstrating Against the President: in Iran

Tehran University kicked off the academic year with a something different this year.

About a hundred students demonstrated against the president Monday, October 8. That's hardly noteworthy, except for this detail: it was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who they called 'dictator.'

What's even more remarkable is that the students seem to still be alive.

Maybe it isn't so surprising: I've never thought Ahmadinejad was particularly stupid or foolish: and this isn't the time to emulate Burma/Myanmar's direct approach to opposing opinions. Not if Ahmadinejad wants to maintain an image of innocent victim of western oppression, at least.

The non-Ahmadinejad fans chanted "death to the dictator" (in Persian, I assume) while the Iranian president talked about how good science is, and how risky Western-style democracy is.

More conventionally loyal Iranian students chanted "thank you president," while the police stayed safely on the other side of the university gates.

I don't think this is the start of an Iranian "sixties," with student radicals taking over the colleges and universities. For starters, Iran seems to be much too well run for that sort of thing to happen. Besides that, pro-government student groups have more support, and the reform newspapers that haven't been shut down are being discretely muted in their criticism of official Iranian policies.

What's going on in Iran?

I think it's fair to say that not everyone is satisfied with how the ayatollahs are running the place. Which is something to remember, when thinking about what can, and should, be done about the very real danger of Islamic fanatics building nuclear weapons with Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Ahmadinejad's Plan for Peace: Banish the Jews to Alaska

President Ahmadinejad of Iran apparently has a non-violent 'final solution' in mind for the Jews.

It seems that I wasn't very far off. I opined that "the Muslims who celebrate Al Quds Day would be delighted to see Jerusalem free of Jewish control. They'd also, I suspect, just as soon have Jerusalem and Israel a Jew-free zone."

Here's how an Associate Press article put it. "The Iranian president once again said Palestinians should not pay any price because Europeans committed crimes against Jews in World War II. He said they could give a part of their own land in Europe or Alaska so that the Jews can establish their country there.

"'I ask European governments supporting Zionists and the American people ... will you allow occupation of part of your land under a pretext and then talk about a two-state solution?' Ahmadinejad said after the rallies."

Well, comparatively non-violent. I doubt that Jews in Israel would go quietly.

Thanks to the likes of U. of C., Boulder's Ward Churchill, 'everybody knows' how awful America was, committing genocide and/or moving people like the Sioux around without their consent. That seems to be why 83 Columbus Day Parade protesters spread fake blood and dismembered dolls on the Denver, Colorado, parade route today.

It's odd, how high-minded people are upset by the blatant treaty and human rights violations of 19th century America, but remarkably silent about what happened to Armenians around 1916.

One reason may be that Turkey says that what happened wasn't genocide, just a series of regrettable accidents that just happened to coincide with the deportation of some Armenians.

I'm inclined to see the attitude of many academics and journalists this way:

• Treatment of American Indians - Genocide!!!
• Armenian Genocide - What Armenian Genocide?
• Death to America! Death to the Jews! - America wants war!!!

Maybe that's unfair. It's been a dark, dreary day here in Minnesota: Maybe I'm just grouchy.

Or, maybe some of the important information gatekeepers in today's American culture don't see the big picture.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Kidnapped Israeli Soldier's Wife Asked Wrong Question at UN

The United Nations: A force for peace, sort of.

At least, they can usually control a news conference.

When President Ahmadinejad on Iran was at the UN, earlier this week, the wife of someone who was captured in Iran and then dropped out of sight had an opportunity to ask a question in the august body's headquarters.

She asked the Iranian leader to explain why Iran refused to give any information about her husband: whether he was dead or alive.

Her tone was earnest, but her demeanor was composed.

President Ahmadinejad was literally speechless. With a 'what is this' gesture, he started grinning.

The wife of the missing prisoner was speechless pretty soon after that. Her microphone was cut off, and she was "escorted" out of the UN chamber.

I can understand the United Nation's actions. The Iranian president was clearly at a loss as to how to answer this embarrassing question, and, if I caught the detail correctly, her husband is (or was) an Israeli.

I walked in on a televised reply of this this little incident, and didn't catch details. Something this dramatic usually hits the news somewhere, but so far I found only one probable reference to it.

If reference to "the wife of kidnapped Israel soldier Udi Goldwasser," in an op-ed piece in "Inner City Press," is the embarras President Ahmadinejad suffered.

Apparently the entire question-and-answer session was mishandled: an unusual situation in the UN. For example, earlier that day, the French mission wanted UN officials to keep non-French journalists out of a press conference: except for approved foreigners, of course.

Given how dramatic the situation, if not the woman's demeanor, was, I'm impressed that this seems to be a non-incident that never happened, at least as far as most news outlets are concerned.

Of course, there's a lot going on right now.

You might find other details in the ICP's op-ed piece "Amid US' Nick Burns' Tough Talk on Iran, Ahmadinejad Laughs At UN Press Conference" interesting.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

President Ahmadinejad: Let's Give Him the Credit He Deserves

I try to give credit where credit is due. The president of Iran is a skilled speaker.

Take his recent speech at the United Nations. His country had a nuclear program that it kept secret for 16 years, before it was discovered about four years ago.

Iran's story is that in needs nuclear plants to provide safe, clean power for its people. Iran sells roughly 3/4 of the oil it pumps out of the ground, but maybe they're being green, or preparing for the future, or something like that.

Whatever reason Iran has for maintaining a secret nuclear program, the Iranian position is that it's to make power. For civilian purposes. Strictly civilian.

Claims by other nations, now including France, that Iran may be trying to develop nuclear weapons, could hurt Iran.

Instead, the president of Iran is turning what could be a liability into a considerable asset. Judging from what he said in the United Nations, this is his somewhat new, improved, image:

• President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is standing up for the colonized world
• He's standing up for the right of colonized countries to develop nuclear programs
• He's standing up to the colonial powers: imperialist America and imperialist Europe

Never mind that America was a European colony, before we rebelled and became a model for constitutional democracies. Well, those American colonies were British, to be technical: but Britain isn't all that far from Europe, but the principle is the same.

To someone who knows history, it's fairly obvious that America got over imperialism sometime in the 19th century. With the exception of the irresponsible way that America participated in carving up Europe's colonies after World War I, the sort of "imperialism" that America has engaged in for the bulk of the 20th century has been a matter of self-defense, cooperation with the United Nations, or honoring treaty obligations. If that's "Imperialism," maybe we'd be better-off with more of it.

Back to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Let's give the man credit. He knows how to turn an political liability into an asset. And, as I've mentioned before, he's knows how to pace the rhythm and pitch of his delivery.

He's an effective speaker.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

President Ahmadinejad at Columbia University: The Transcript

Noted:

• "RAW DATA: Text of Ahmadinejad's Remarks at Columbia"
  FoxNews.com (Tuesday, September 25, 2007)

This is the only transcript I found online, of President Ahmadinejad's remarks at Columbia University. (And yes, I looked.)

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Ahmadinejad at Columbia, What Happened?

John Bolton, former UN ambassador, had something to say about President Ahmadinejad's appearance at New York's Columbia University. Bolton said that some people, Ahmadinejad included, have no regard for truth, and those people have no place in academic debate.

I'm inclined to agree, but I spent enough decades in American academia to realize that standards of veracity vary, according to the viewpoint of the speaker or writer.

For my part, I think that the Columbia's giving Ahmadinejad a platform may have done some good.

To my surprise, there were a few serious question asked, and in at least one occasion, his non-answer was not accepted. That, for me, was a very pleasant surprise.

My fear had been that Ahmadinejad would be given a sort of softball treatment, with questions intended more to give him opportunities for giving talking points, than to draw out meaningful answers.

My opinion of Columbia University went up a bit.

Ahmadinejad said that the Holocaust happened, that in happened in Europe, and that it is the (hyped) reason that Israel is (according to him) torturing children and oppressing the Palestinians.

One last thing. I missed a little of Ahmadinejad's remarks. Apparently, he said that Iran's women were the freest in the world. Interesting assertion.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Part 2 There are No Homosexuals in Iran?!

"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country." That's the first mistake I caught in Ahmadinejad's remarks. He actually got howls at that. It's a serious gaffe, in my opinion, considering how well www365gay.com defended his country's executions of homosexuals.

Also, women are respected in Iran.

Thanks to an electrical storm, and what I had to do to deal with its effects on my equipment, I missed a few of the Iranian president's remarks.

America has nuclear weapons, so Iran should have nucelar weapons, seems to be Ahmadinejad's position. Which is why Iran should have a civilian nuclear program which isn't for making nuclear weapons, which Iran wants.

'Iran is a civilized nation, a cultured nation,' is a recurring phrase in Ahmadinejad's speech: with variations, of course.

The man is a good public speaker. Quite good. I'm making the assumption, of course, that the translation is moderately accurate. The translation, and his expressions, gestures, postures, and vocal qualities, are effective.

I don't agree with him, but from a technical perspective: he's good.

Back to 'Iran is a civilized nation, a cultured nation,' Ahmadinejad says he is ready to engage in debate with Bush.

One of the points seems to be that, just as the (Post-Saddam) Iraqi government is now friendlly towards America (an oversimplification), so the people will welcome Americans.

If the translation was accurate, Ahmadinejad did a wonderful bit of trickry there. He started talking about the Iraqi government's attitude toward America, transitioned to Iran, and then asserted that the Iranian people would welcome America.

I wish I had a transcript, or could replay that, so I could be sure. But it sounded like the structure of a certain sort of whopper: where each piece is true, but where the pieces, as presented, are profoundly not true.

Well, Ahmadinejad thanked the throng, and Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University's World Leaders Forum is over.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

Ahmadinejad at Columbia University Part 1

I don't speak Persian, which I assume was the language being used by the Iranian president. I trust that the translator was being accurate.

I'm trying to make this post 'on the fly,' as this speaker at Columbia's World Leaders Forum addresses the forum.

President Ahmadinejad opened by saying that many of the claims made by Bollinger were incorrect.

He went on to compliment the professors at Columbia, identifying them with religious scholars. "Academics and relgious scholars who are torches" who spread light in the ignorant darkness that surround us. Quoting Moses ('peace be upon him'), Ahmadinejad asserted that the Creator was interested in delivering humanity from ignorance.

The had good words for science, too. According to him, science goes beyond physical and experimental sciences. It seems that he thinks that science illumiates all the nooks and crannies of reality. I think he's relating true science, purity of human spirit, and an enlightened view of the physical and spritual reality.

He said that realities of the world are not limited to the matieral. Also that science and wisdom can be misused, and that selfishness does not allow some to accept reality. And that material desires place humans against realities.

Sounds good, so far.

A little vague, though.

Ah, here we go. The unwise and selfish leaders use wiretapping and invasion of privacy to justify their warmongering against innocent nations.

That's not the best paraphrase, but it's close.

Nuclear and biological weapons are the result of big powers using selfish scientists. Now Ahmadinejad's line is becomming clear.

And, right on schedule, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are mentioned.

Yep. Making WMD weapons of Mass Destruction is misuse of science by big powers. Right on, as the relevant said, back in the day.

As an aside, I wish I could type fast enough to keep up with the translation. Even taken out of its original linguistic setting, Ahmadinejad is doing a very good job. This is, from a technical point of view, excellent rhetoric.

Ahmadinejad stated that his main job was as a university instructor, and sees himself as an academician. Trying to be academic, he said, all he got was a wave of insults. He said this calmly, to be fair.

"For sixty years, children ... are being tortured." That's what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad said. "I am awaiting logical answers...."

And, about the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad said that academics in Europe have been imprisoned for discussing it, and that research on the Holocaust is not being done. And that, if the Holocaust is real, why should the Palestinian people pay for it?

As far as I can tell, Israel is torturing children and oppressing the Palestinians because of the Holocaust.

Well, how can anyone argue with that? And please, don't blame me: I'm just paraphrasing what the Iranian president said.

About Iran's nuclear program, he says that it's peaceful, and it's unfair for

After Ahmadinejad was through, Columbia's audio feed failed, momentary, as boos started leaking through the applause and cheers.

The Q & A was interesting.

Asked about his view on whether or not he wanted to destroy Israel, he spoke eloquently and passionately that the Palestinians deserved self-determination. That was followed by appause.

Bollinger asked for a "yes" or "no" answer to the question.

Ahmadinejad didn't give a "yes" or "no" answer, again, at length.

Will Iran stop funding terrorists?

Ahmadinejad posed a question right back ("Socratic method," I'm told this is). How would you react if someone attacked you? Iran is a victim of terrorism, he says. That's true, as far as it goes.

In that part of the world, it's hard to shake the impression that their politicians use car bombs like American politicians use mud-slinging.

Apparently the unnamed terrorists attacking Iran is being supported by America. That would carry more weight, if the group was named. Quite a few sentences later, Ahmadinejad still hadn't named the group. It was quite obvious that he wanted America to be at fault, though.

I've noticed something about Ahmadinejad's speaking technique. He's got a habit of starting with a slow and measured pace, speeding up and using a higher vocal pitch as he goes along. It's a rhetorical technique used by a German leader a few decades back, and seems to remain effective today.

As to the Holocaust, another question resulted in another go at Ahmadinejad's stand. He says that he's upholding the right of European scholars to research the Holocaust (certain aspects of it, more than others). He might have a point. I haven't kept up with European academia.

Oh, blast. An electrical storm is here. I'll post this, and be back later. I hope.

Before I go: Ahmadinejad says that Americans can't criticize Iran because capital punishment is legal in some cases, in some places.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.