?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
29 November 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Wow  
I just read Ahmadinejad's letter to the U.S., and really... it's right on. I do find, as always, that the connection between Zionism and the impeded rights of the Palestinian people is somewhat exaggerated... but who am I to say?

As much as Iran is "evil" in America's eyes, you really should take it upon yourself to read this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15952309/
 
 
 
eric_andrew on November 29th, 2006 08:18 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

All I see is mostly poetic bullshit that even Adolf Hitler could have written (not meant to compare the two, just saying that it doesn't take a heart of gold to espouse crap about loving freedom and seeking truth.

There is nothing really profound in here at all. His critique of the US policy in Iraq is spot on of course, but it all is just weight for his argument that all of this suffering comes from supporting Zionists, so it doesn't really matter. Then he adds with some more flowery language that is essentially meaningless (maybe it lost something in translation), except apparently I'm supposed to draw upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.

The whole thing seems like it wants to have the same weight as Ho Chi Minh's letter to the American people in 1968, but it doesn't because...well, the two situations aren't really the same.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 29th, 2006 09:38 pm (UTC)
Yeah, looking back I'll agree with you on most points. It is a textbook critique of the US - things we have all heard before, and certainly wouldn't carry any more weight seeing who's saying it. But I don't really think you or I are the ones to learn something from this letter.

I think what would interest most Americans about this letter though is that, well, the leader of a country we deem evil doesn't seem to be as one-sided and bent on complete destruction of our country as we make him out to be. Unlike, say, our own leader, he seems to realize some specific things that are happening within our country, rather than treating the entire place as one big Zionist trash bin.

As for the flowery religious language, I don't think you or I can really say. The letter is directed to the American majority - as he says, a God-fearing, spiritual, largely ignorant demographic. They're the ones that might just get something from it.
Asyasimplycynical on November 29th, 2006 10:43 pm (UTC)
Coming from the former Soviet Union, I can't say that any nation can be labelled as "evil". The fact stands that the majority of that nation greatly dislikes the US. That nation is developing a nuke. That nation supports terrorists actively and openly - through government money (Hisbullah) and privately - through private investors and overall moral support.

Words mean nothing. Someone can sound entirely reasonable until it turns out that they are a psycho who just stuck a knife in your back. Only actions can be looked at for analysis of the degree of trust granted upon someone(s).
eric_andrew on November 30th, 2006 12:38 am (UTC)
Okay okay, while I am as suspicious as anyone about Iran's nuclear power program, it is not known that they are developing a nuke and we should definitely not make assumptions about that because that tends to lead to getting into wars.

While I don't think the US and the rest of the world has erred in being critical of Iran's nuclear energy program, it is also true that the US produces more nuclear energy than any other country. I do believe that Ahmadinejad cares deeply about his people on top of, you know, hating the Jews, and don't find it totally proposterous that they really do want nuclear power reactors for economic reasons.
eric_andrew on November 30th, 2006 12:41 am (UTC)
It's true. People have a tendency to associate radical mindsets with unintelligence, when it's really quite the opposite in many cases. Ahmadinejad has a Ph. D in something, and I remember reading somewhere that he got a very high score on his college entrance exams.

Of course, those college entrance exams might be something like "What is best way to defend from Jew?"
Rhaikhrhaikh on November 29th, 2006 08:34 pm (UTC)
Antagonist77antagonist77 on November 29th, 2006 11:16 pm (UTC)
This is poetic flowery bull shit. I'm suprised you posted it. This is supposed to appeal to anti-administration hippies and semi-retarded activists.

When all is calm we all share the same values, but what separates us is where we draw the line in the sand. If push came to shove, despite the letter, what country would you rather live in?
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on November 30th, 2006 12:04 am (UTC)
What does this have to do with me, and where I'd rather live? It's not supposed to appeal to those kinds of people. Like I said before, it supposed to appeal to quite the opposite.
eric_andrew on November 30th, 2006 12:32 am (UTC)
No, if you don't think every person in Iran is very very stupid you obviously are a terrorist and should try and move there now.
hellokaorihellokaori on November 30th, 2006 04:19 am (UTC)
The language of this letter is an entirely moot point. The thing we should be talking about is why write a letter to the American people, why now, and why the content? It really is an interesting gesture, and my guess is that it's a PR move on Ami's part, a way of saying "I don't hate the West, I just hate your leaders!" so that the no-doubt imminent invasion of Iran rallies even less popular support than the Iraq conflict did.
Josephloccster on November 30th, 2006 11:49 am (UTC)
In that case, props to him on a smart move.
שירן shiranne シラーン 冉施安gogalucky on November 30th, 2006 01:22 am (UTC)
I think in some places he's right on, in some places he's not. Mostly it's just nice to know he's looking at our insides, but I'm not necessarily cool with everything he sees.
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on November 30th, 2006 06:30 am (UTC)
I always thought that we all thought Mammy was 'evil'(read:nuts) because he was an Iranian religious zealot whose warped idealogy demand that he have no tolerance for Judaism. The letter didn't really dissuade me.

I would also like to point out that I explained the gist of the Bush Administation's foreign policy in the middle east to my cat and he came to a similar conclusion as Ahmadinejad. No I didn't cheat and show him the letter. My point being criticizing Bush (ESPECIALLY his War on Terror) is fairly straightforward and especially non-threatening for the Prime Minister of Iran because I don't think he's worried about being labeled a terrorist and being unable to give concerts in his home state for all the drawled out death threats.

If he's trying to appeal 'liberals' of America no dice because Liberals are vehemently intolerant of intolerance, redudantly enough... and as per the other side... He's a foreigner or some delightful racial epithet for a foreigner from the middle east. As per the libertarian and Ralph Nader, people please they can't pick a real side in their own country do you really think they're going to align themselves with Ahmadinejad?

As per the scripture and appealing to the Godfearing populous. I'm not that Godfearing... If I was I would be able to quote the verses about Jesus going into the desert and being tempted by Satan who took on pleasing forms and promised pleasing things. I think that's where get thee back, Satan/Devil/something came from.

Again, to me, crazy always trumped evil where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came up.
Josephloccster on November 30th, 2006 11:54 am (UTC)
Are liberals vehemently intolerant of intolerance? Are we anti-antisemitic or do we pretend to be? I've known a lot of antisemitic liberals.
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on November 30th, 2006 05:15 pm (UTC)
See I knew I might have gotten in trouble by painting complicated political idealogies in broad strokes.

But let me ask that were they just good old fashioned Achtung Juden anti-semetic or did it start off by attacking Sharom and other old guard Israelis or taking a dump on the zionist bent of neoconservatism? Both can be seen as intolerant groups. And when the other side is intolerant the gloves of tolerance are off... Hence all the 'let's hug' liberals calling middle and southern America toothless fucking hicks who if they could pull their head from out of their daughter's/sister's ass for a minute could see how much damage THEIR candidates are doing to the country.

But your statement fascinates me... How many constitutes alot and where did you come to know them and how did they demonstrate their anti-semitism?
Josephloccster on December 1st, 2006 07:14 am (UTC)
A lot is only really a few but a few is a lot more than a person would expect. Mostly they identify with the title liberal more than they care about its ideology and as for the type of anti-Semite: they either feel Jews monopolize markets or they may just make statements like "I fucking hate Jews" with little explanation except for maybe. They have been from Marin.
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on December 1st, 2006 05:14 pm (UTC)
I'd be more swift to call these people ignorant idiots than anti-semites. If their opinions are about one or two statements deep without any real ability to further expand, then they have all the resonance of a bleat. The fact that they live in one of the nicer parts in one of the ideal places to live in the whole wide world leads to believe that somebody in their family 'monopolized a market' or two as well.

While it's always a good idea to keep an eye on people like these -especially if a wildly gesticulating rant artist who knows a few good buzzwords is around to egg them on- personally, I think calling people like these 'anti-semites' is akin to calling a pomoranian puppy a timber wolf.

As for their 'liberal' bent. Well I can chalk that up to them wanting to debauch more than getting it trouble for it and that all sides have a broad spectrum of good people, brilliant people, frightening people and idiots.
Alex Davisjoevual on November 30th, 2006 08:25 pm (UTC)
I don't think he went into ENOUGH detail about the Zionist's opression of the Palestinian people.

I think Iranian society is surprisingly similar to American society. The difference in society is that when America under went a revolution, it lacked Human and Civil rights, allowing them to keep the slaves that would make them wealthy (I guess that's what happens when plantation owners bank-roll a revolution of independence.) When the Iranian people under went a revolution, they won independence and a war-debt. Shortly after their independence they were attacked by Iraq (who was funded by the US.) With Iran's defences in shambles from the revolution, its people were slaughtered. You can assume that a citizen of a war-torn and recently independent country would be very politically active and protective of the rights of themselves and others. I think however, we can take a lesson from the Iranians. To be human is be passionate about something. It is rare that Americans will take a break from TV and pop-culture to dilute their lives with humanitarian "stress" and guilt.