Slashdot Mirror
Iran's President Launches Blog
02bunced writes "The BBC is reporting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has started his own blog, the launch of which was announced on Iranian State TV. This is perhaps slightly ironic, given that the Iranian Government actively censors blogs on the Internet."
When clicking through to the address referenced by the BBC story ( www.ahmadinejad.ir ) , and then clicking "English" (at the bottom left of the page) it takes you to http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/index.aspx , which does not contain the blog and reads like a big advertisement for the "National Integrated Services Network". I wonder if they will survive a slashdotting.
Leaders have always tried to simulatenously exploit and control the power of whatever media was current at the time. Does anyone doubt that the skald who came up with the original version of Beowulf was paid off to chant about the virtues of the king -- and knew exactly what would happen if he didn't? Through the age of pamphlet, newspaper, radio, and TV, nothing changed; I don't see why we should be terribly surprised now that it's ON THE INTERNET (tm).
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Let's see. A tyranny that restricts others' use of communication media while at the same time fully exploiting it's potential for propoganda purposes. That is unusual.
If you are going to crack down on a common method of dissemination of information, make sure you replace it with one of your own that repeats what you want to be heard, ad nauseam. Right out of Goebbel's playbook. For a guy who doesn't think the Holocaust happened, he sure seems comfortable using the same rhetoric and early tactics.
ironic, a.
Pertaining to irony; of the nature of or cotaining irony; =ironical
ironical, a.
1. Of the nature of irony or covert sarcasm; meaning the opposite of what is expressed.
2. That uses or is addicted to irony.
also see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ironical& db=*
I've read some of his stuff, and he actually seems very intelligent and capable of logical reasoning. You just, well, kinda have to get past his hatred of Jews, refusal to recognize Israel, fascist ideology, Holocaust denial, and slavish adherence to a pretty obviously false religion. (I think most of those are just to maintain his support from Iranians.)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Yeah, those crazy Iranians -- waging war by not waging war. Trying to destabilize the world by maybe, possibly, couldbe developing a handful of nuclear weapons to compare to Israel's 200-400. Those sneaky bastards!
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
It's good enough for him, but not his own people. This guy is a menace. He's neither stupid nor insane and is in fact the closest thing the region has ever seen to a leader who could fill in the shoes of a Middle Eastern Hitler. Read some of Mike Wallace's comments about him after an interview with him, if you think he is such a joke.
It is not ironic, it is fortunate. Which any luck MS will be put on terrorist enablers list for helping Iran develop weaps of mass attraction. It is even better that is was not FreeBSD that is supporting terrorists. Time to start selling the FeedomBSD sticker (I support our ports).
But seriously, MS does not care much who uses the software and for what, as long as they pay through the roof for it. MSN and Yahoo have no problem helping the Chinese put dissidents in jail, either.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Well, his opinion of American imperialism is reasoned, factual, and well-stated (remember the letter he wrote a few months ago?), as is his observation of the irony of Christians (purportedly) taking very un-Christian actions.
His response to American imperialism is a little less calm, but I suspect it is definitely reasoned pretty thoroughly.
Of course, it's quite possible to come to a logically correct conclusion that is still false, if one's precepts are false.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I think you are confusing the concepts of "fighting" a war and "waging" a war. Shooting back is not waging a war. While you can easily argue on either side of the palestinian question when discussing Israel, there is no doubt that this Lebanon-Israel war was waged by Hizbulah. Israel was at peace with Lebanon until Hizbulah crossed the border and killed 8 soldier and kidnapped 2. That was clearly an act of war. So you can't say that Israel "waged" this war. It did fight it with a lot of American help though. But the original discussion talked about Iran helping to "wage" wars -- not helping to fight them.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
There are almost no Holocaust deniers who say that "there was no Holocaust" - instead their standard operating procedure is to claim the numbers were exaggerated, say the deaths were an unintentional or inevitable part of the wider war, and to claim there is uncertainty about the history without making the slightest attempt to read the extensive literature (which must amount to literally millions of pages). Those who take this approach *are* denying the reality of the Holocaust, as it is generally understood, whether they admit it or not. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric - his use of the word "myth", his attempts to setup a Holocaust Conference, fits right in with the likes of David Irving, and it is not at all unfair to say that he is a Holocaust denier.
"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.
"'Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world.
"'In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight.
"'I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable.
The phrase "purged from the center of the Islamic world" is pretty damn close to "wiped off the map".
So much for your apology for genocide.
Well, lets just take a look at what Americans did when we were going to invade Iraq:
p g- protest-3.jpgg rab.jpg. brumm.com/antiwar/feb16/images/032-DefeatEvilProWa r2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brumm.com/antiwar/feb1 6/032.html&h=480&w=640&sz=103&hl=en&start=6&tbnid= Z_lFLjYPEHUHrM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq %3D%2522pro-war%2522%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3 D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG- protest-1.jpgr c_5620802281138515300128.jpgc ontent/sitebuilderpictures/wegavepeace.jpg
http://www.basetree.com/thumbs/theprinceofbombs.j
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-30/free-republic
http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.probush.082705.
http://www.beyondsatire.us/files/Pro-war.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/d30-30/free-republic
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/28/xins
http://home.earthlink.net/~bobbyfoto1/sitebuilder
Of course, that's not nearly as bad as what you see in Israel. There was the October 2000 riots which involved thousands of Jews chanting "Death to Arabs" while they ransacked arab property, for example. Oy, I could go on for hours about the sort of stuff you get in Israel. Tons of speeches by all sorts of politicians and army leaders referring to them as vermin, worms, cockroaches, a disease, etc. Sh'a Tova even carried a comic strip for children which said "Yes, a good Arab is a dead Arab." Here's a nice article, although it's only a start.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
why is it bad to say the initial numbers given right after ww-ii might have been exaggerated? The number of estimated deaths at Auschwitz, for example, has gone from millions to under one million in my lifetime. Millions of pages of textbooks from Jewish/Pro-Zionist educators, however well intentioned, might be a biased source. Yet sadly people who should be for honest historical truth turn into foaming rabid zealots if anyone wants to discuss or examine evidence. Revising or questioning an inaccurate historical account is neither anti-semitic nor an act or racial hatred, though of course there are those hate groups that engage in "revisionism" for the purposes of promoting anti-jew hate. But there are other folk like myself who are fascinated with history, and really want to know the numbers of Jews and other groups of people who were tortured, enslaved and mass-murdered by the Nazis and those who allied with them, and how many died in what manner. Making that subject taboo has exactly the opposite of the intended effect.
In the US we see things differently. Even though elected leaders may hold onto faith so strongly that it affects the laws that are passed, there is no state religion. More importantly though, none of the currently followed sects of Christianity in this country find any value in converting people through violence. My beliefs are (and they are echoed thoughout this country) that accepting Christ is a personal decision that nobody can convince you to make. You have to want to accept Christ or it is meaningless. If this idea was present in Islam there would not be the problems that we have now. Islam and Christianity could co-exist if this one idea was widely held in the Middle East. Now there are sects of Islam that reject violence but they are not popular in the Middle East and only really flourish in the freedom that they find in the United States.
When you have religious leaders proclaim that killing jews, wherever they are, is not only permitted, but also a duty
When you have people saying that the Israelis should be thrown into the sea
When you have people as young as 15 (women as well) strapping bombs on themselves and blowing themselves up on a bus or in a market
When you have kindergarden children being taught to hate Jews (you should watch this movie
Well, then I guess your idea of peaceful-purging takes on a new meaning.
Next thing you'll be telling me that Islam is a religion of peace.
I think it's the fact that the overwhealming majority of those who question the number of deaths are not doing so as unbiased historians, even if they try to pretend that they are. I'd call it a learned reaction: denial of the holocaust == politicaly motivated cant which cannot be justified by the sources.
This sig all sigs devours
Wow. Now, while I would have to agree that killing large amounts of people based on their ethnicity is a Bad Thing(tm), how exactly does that entitle them to their own country? Furthermore, how does it make the survival of that ethnic group the responsibility of everyone in the world? How many ethnic groups have faded from history over time? What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups? And what about the other groups that the Nazi's rounded up and killed en masse. Do the Gypsies and the homosexuals get their own homelands, too?
Additionally, "the only one they can use"? It was kind of in use before they came back. How was that area more appropriate (ignoring the geopolitical reasonings by the US and what not) for use than any other in terms of letting them set up a government and economy? For that matter, there's probably a lot of other more appropriate (and easier to survive in) places than where they are now. If they'd been given part of Brazil, you think they'd be having the problems they have now? Unlikely.
I'm not quite sure what the parent's point is with regard to the pictures of pro Iraq War demonstrators in the US. People (especially foreigners) seem to forget that the US is a country of 300,000,000 people. You can find people that support almost any cause imaginable. It is impossible to stereotype Americans into any one idealogy or groupthink. Yes, there were quite a few pro-war demonstrators, but I think it was very few. I know I saw FAR more anti-war protesters in and around Atlanta than I ever did pro-war protesters.
You link to 10 pictures and you think that this is somehow a reflective of 300,000,000 people. Whatever.
The fact that we are not animals. We are rational and, therefore, we become conscious of the suffering of others.
How many ethnic groups have faded from history over time? What makes the Jews more special than those extinct ethnic groups?
The fact that they aren't extinct yet.
And what about the other groups that the Nazi's rounded up and killed en masse. Do the Gypsies and the homosexuals get their own homelands, too?
If the Gypsies had an original homeland, yes. But, different from Jews, their culture was never associated to any particular land. Homosexuals are not a nation. I'm not saying that any group of people have a right to their own land, only those groups which came to exist associated with a land, like Germans, Italians, Scots, Tibetans, Navajos, Kurds, Armenians, etc.
It was kind of in use before they came back.
Palestine was a British dominion in 1948, which they got as a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WWI. When the United Nations decided for the creation of Israel, Palestine was partitioned in two countries: Jordan, which got most of the territory, was assigned to the Arabs, and Israel to the Jews. So, if you are willing to roll back history cancelling the effect of foreign domination on that land, it should be given to the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist in the 1920s.
For that matter, there's probably a lot of other more appropriate (and easier to survive in) places than where they are now.
The same can be said of Palestinians.
If they'd been given part of Brazil, you think they'd be having the problems they have now? Unlikely.
Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians?
If you feel it is necessary and proper for us to be guiding the fates of other countries, I suppose.
The fact that they aren't extinct yet.
Israel would be extinct without our aid, obviously. This, however, does not mean the Jews would be extinct. You're committing the common error of equating Jews with Israel. This had not been the case for almost 2000 years until mid-last-century.
If the Gypsies had an original homeland, yes. But, different from Jews, their culture was never associated to any particular land. Homosexuals are not a nation. I'm not saying that any group of people have a right to their own land, only those groups which came to exist associated with a land, like Germans, Italians, Scots, Tibetans, Navajos, Kurds, Armenians, etc.
See above. By your logic we should be not only evacuating the US to allow the native american tribes to take back their ancestral homelands, but seeking out the proper persons who are the true heirs to Babylon.
So, if you are willing to roll back history cancelling the effect of foreign domination on that land, it should be given to the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist in the 1920s.
Not only that, but really if you want to go the whole way on that, the Caananites had it first, even by Jewish reckoning. I have no problem giving the land back to their descendants. Do you?
The same can be said of Palestinians.
Sure. Except that the Palestinians were there for the Jews' 2 millenia absence from the place.
Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians?
Simply put, because there's more usable, unoccupied land in Brazil than in the middle east. But that wouldn't satisfy the people who believe, rather irrationally, that the Jews *need* a state (as if a concentrated effort by a organized nation state couldn't conquer them just as well all in one place as Nazi Germany did with them spread out across Europe), nor the American evangelicals who believe the return to existence of Israel is a sign of imminent messianic return.
My understanding is that when the US gave Israel to the jews, it wasn't exactly US soil, and he contests the right that the US had to give it; that they should have given a peice of US soil for the jews, or that of Germany, where it took place.
Seems to me often those who want short yes or no questions to complicated answers usually want them so they can twist them around for their own motives. And the Israel not being where it is, sounds more like "it should be on different (US or German) soil" to me. This once again shows how complex issues being broken down into multiple choice are an insult to the original question. It sounds like he doesn't trust the united states, and that he's very leary of trying to re-establish a relationship with an untrustworthy country that would very likely stab him in the back. Seems like a valid viewpoint, however, either a yes or no would be taken as a different meaning. If he says yes, that locks him into a position that the US would try and exploit. If he says no, then once again the US would try and exploit him in a different manner, such as "see, he doesn't want peace!" even though it was the US who broke off relations first as I understand it.Alot of these things aren't just yes/no answers. If you don't understand and take into context the full meaning and implcations of both the questions AND the answers, then its just propaganda and spin waiting to happen.
Not that I'm defending Ahmadinejad, but really, at first, I wasn't sure which politician you were talking about. I don't think any political interviewee likes being hit with yes or no questions, and certainly wouldn't just say yes or no given such a question.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
"The fact that we are not animals. We are rational and, therefore, we become conscious of the suffering of others."
But not the palestenians or the lebanese right?
"Why do you assume Brazilians would be more willing to give up part of their territory than the Arabs? If that's a solution, then why doesn't Iran or Syria give part of their countries to the Palestinians"
Why doesn't the US give up land to host israel? That would make a lot of sense. We have a lot of land, we love the jews and the jews love us. It's a marriage made in heaven.
evil is as evil does
Personally, my only beef with the way the holocaust is generally portrayed is that it is not very holistic (excuse the pun if you will).
Okay. But (pulled from wikipedia):
Thus, the number of non-Jews killed is around 2.8 million at the low end, and 4.5 million at the high end. It really doesn't get mentioned to any extent. And what I've never heard anybody shed a tear over is the total of 62 million people in graves because of World War II itself. What I'd really like to hear, actually, is why this kind of thing goes unmentioned, especially in primary and secondary education.
It's really hard for me to swallow that x number of people can die and it's a tragedy and .5x people die in the same manner for similar reasons and nobody gives a shit, and 10x people die a few miles away and it's not even really talked about.
Is it because the Hebrew people were hit hardest by percentage, and that they have no homeland to speak of to retreat to? False premises. Romani were hit hardest in raw percentages, and are also wanderers as a people. So is it because most cultures LIKE Jewish people more than the Romani? It's basically true: hardworking people of scientists, engineers, lawyers, and leaders vs. lazy people who live by stealing, trickery and exploitation. I wish somebody would fess up to it, though.
Is it because more Jews were killed in raw numbers? Well, more people were killed by the war in raw numbers, so that leads to the rather disgusting idea that Jewish lives are worth ten times what the lives of non-Jews are. I don't think anybody actually believes this, but the horror of the war itself is completely and utterly ignored, it really makes me wonder.
Is it because the Jewish portion of the Holocaust makes for good, simple rhetoric in tolerance and religious freedom? I guess that's true, but it really comes off as, "Don't hate the Jews," rather than, "Don't hate people who are different than you." See our treatment of Muslims.
Is it because the Jews were the primary targets of the holocaust? This probably has a lot to do with it. But seriously, if the primary term is 6 million, and the secondary terms add up is 4.5 million, it doesn't take a mathematician to figure out that the secondary terms are a significant portion of the final number.
Is it because you can learn from the Holocaust, but you can't learn from the war? You can learn plenty from the war in my opinion, but not everybody agrees on what that is. You can learn, for example, that it's a bad idea to fight a land war against Russia. Or that it's a bad idea to cripple the loser in a war to the point where they turn to extremists for hope - but nobody really likes the idea that the Treaty of Versailles was the cause of all that death. Or that ultra-nationalist wars for resources end in massive amounts of death.
Your post seems to imply that a Christian or a Muslim is inferior because of the bad deeds of other Christians or Muslims. Shouldn't we be judging people on an individual basis?
Well, all Iran would need to do is drop leaflets over Israel advising the citizens of the bombing campaign and telling them to move out. That way they can be sure that only hostile military forces remain.
After all, that was what Israel found to be an acceptable solution when they tried to wipe Lebanon off the map.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic