Is Ahmadinejad mentally unstable?

history_buff

toomevara wrote:

Given the increasingly bizarre and esoteric rantings emananting from Mahmood Ahmadinejad I'm starting to believe that he may genuinely be mentally unstable

Maybe he thinks you're nuts.

And given the recent conduct of his enemies, I'm inclined to think some of the things Mr. Ahmedinejad says with regard to the world situation should be taken on board.

Schuhart

Darragh29 wrote:

Don't think what Ahmadinejad said at the UN about the hidden Imam demonstrates mentally instability any more than when George W Bush told us that God told him in a dream to go and invade Iraq.

Can I just quickly spin this into what I'm saying. Much like InFront, I think the pair of them could be tied together.

Mick86

Darragh29 wrote:

Don't think what Ahmadinejad said at the UN about the hidden Imam demonstrates mentally instability any more than when George W Bush told us that God told him in a dream to go and invade Iraq.

Both fruitcakes obviously have little grasp of reality. It doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea to let one fruitcake set about forming a nuclear armed Islamic superstate just because the other fruitcake has a nuclear armed Christian superstate.

history_buff

Mick86 wrote:

Both fruitcakes obviously have little grasp of reality. It doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea to let one fruitcake set about forming a nuclear armed Islamic superstate just because the other fruitcake has a nuclear armed Christian superstate.

You think George W. is a Christian, and that the U.S. is a Christian superstate? My God. Wake up. I wish people would stop painting this war as something representative of Christianity.

Mick86

history_buff wrote:

You think George W. is a Christian, and that the U.S. is a Christian superstate? My God. Wake up. I wish people would stop painting this war as something representative of Christianity.

George is a Christian. He may not act in a Christian manner but then Mahmood does not act in an Islamic manner either. The US is largely Christian I believe. I didn't actually mention a war at all, Christian or otherwise.

aidan24326

A couple of points about Ahmadinejad being a 'holocaust denier'.

1.What exactly is a 'holocaust denier?', or how is this defined? I ask because no-one denies that many Jews died in WW2, but there is much controversy about the actual numbers not to mention the cause of death. The original figure for Auschwitz was 4 million, revised down to 1.5 million, subsequently revised down to 700,000 in 1990. The figure was even changed on the official memorial at Auschwitz. The official Red Cross report concluded that the true number was max. 160,000 and most died from causes other than deliberate extermination. Still a tragic loss of life, but a long way short of 4 million.

From:http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/18220.php

One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report: "In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims.
In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff) - Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities. Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged.

2.Why has it become a crime in many countries to 'deny the holocaust'? People have been jailed for this 'crime'. Why? Academic researchers such as Dr.David Irving and Ersnt Zundel have gone to prison for publishing their findings (from serious research) that question the 'myth' (in their opinion) of the holocaust. If they're wrong then just produce the evidence that will prove them wrong and discredit them. Why the need to silence these people by jailing them and wrecking their careers? And they are just two examples, there are others.

3.An estimated 60 million people died in WW2. Of that number, perhaps a couple of million were Jews. So how did the Jews come to hijack WW2 as their own personal tragedy? As if the other tens of millions are somehow of lesser importance? Some 20 million Soviets died. And even in the concentration camps not all were Jews, some were of other ethnicities, gypsies etc.

4.The true figures of how many Jews died may never rightly be known, as the true figures of casualties in general can only be estimated. In any case whether it was 200,000 , 2 million or whatever, it was pretty bad either way from a humanitarian perspective. But Ahmadinejad and others have rightly pointed out that the Jewish people (and Israel in particular) have used the 6 million figure and the alleged but never verified mass exterminations by gassing and execution to turn WW2 into a primarily Jewish tragedy and thus manipulate international opinion in the furtherance of an exclusively Zionist agenda.

If the Zionist sympathy vote really has been based on exaggerations, then it's not surprising that they would now be taking drastic measures to silence those who ask awkward questions, since the very creation of Israel was largely built on the back of WW2 guilt and as an appeasement to the oppressed and stateless Jews. Far from being WW2's biggest victims, the Jewish people became it's biggest benefactors.

SeanW

Darragh29 wrote:

Don't think what Ahmadinejad said at the UN about the hidden Imam demonstrates mentally instability any more than when George W Bush told us that God told him in a dream to go and invade Iraq.

Can you point to where Bush said that? He probably did say and believe that but I'd like to know where you found that out.

the_syco

Its not so much the evidence the Allies found, its more to do with the excellent records which the Axis kept. They, in essance, dug their own grave, with their precise records.

Also, one of the many people in charge who are now in prison, wrote a book, but is currently being with-held by the Isreali goverment. In it, seemingly, is what went on in the camps, but was never released due to its content being "horrorfiying".

freddyfreeload

Sorry, I wasn't really referring to the method by which he was elected, merely that Ahmedinejad is Iran's elected leader, and that the rest of the world should respect, and deal with him as such.

But while we're on the subject of fair electoral proceedure... The US and UK systems of economically pre-selecting who can and cannot stand is hardly free or fair either, yet few people within these societies kick up any real fuss about it.

Bush stole his first election, and was only voted for by 32% of the US electorate to his second term.

Labour currently holds 65% of commons seats despite support from just 21.8% of the British electorate in 2005.

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has an electoral mandate of 61.1% behind him.

I think it's fair for the likes of us to question the systems on both sides. But it's the hieght of hypocrisy for the US and UK govts to critisise fledgling democracies, when their own have become little more than sick parodies of what they preach.

ff

toomevara

history_buff wrote:

Maybe he thinks you're nuts.

Oh mad as a balloon, me....but I doubt I register on Mad-Mahmood's radar of thinly veiled mentalism. Still I await confirmation on this, so, Mahmood if you're out there......

Akrasia

banaman wrote:

You have to remember that the last time Iran had an elected government before the present day the US overthrew it and installed the Shah.
I dont think we get his views reported fairly, nor am I sure about the standard of the translation.
I read in an article possibly on Znet or Al-jezeera that what he said was not that Israle should be eradicated or wiped from the face of the earth but something rather different depending on how you translate certain verbs.
Sorry I cant give you a link but it was months ago and my memory is far from photographic.

I saw that article. They translated his statements as 'I want to wipe out the zionist regime' or something like that, but that is different from saying he wants to wipe israel off the map.
He views zionists as imperial terrorists, just like America views Al Qaeda as imperial terrorists

toomevara

Akrasia wrote:

I saw that article. They translated his statements as 'I want to wipe out the zionist regime' or something like that, but that is different from saying he wants to wipe israel off the map.

I would respectfully submit, Akrasia, that you're splitting hairs on this one. Israel is a constitutional democracy, it is unlikely to vote itself out of existence. Turkeys dont generally vote for Christmas in my experience.

Failing this highly unlikely turn of events, the only way to 'wipe Israel of the map/wipe out the zionist regime'...whatever way you want to characterise it, (both, incidentally, equally unpalatable and unacceptable modes of discourse) is through genocidal violence.

sovtek

toomevara wrote:

I would respectfully submit, Akrasia, that you're splitting hairs on this one. Israel is a constitutional democracy, it is unlikely to vote itself out of existence. Turkeys dont generally vote for Christmas in my experience.

Failing this highly unlikely turn of events, the only way to 'wipe Israel of the map/wipe out the zionist regime'...whatever way you want to characterise it, (both, incidentally, equally unpalatable and unacceptable modes of discourse) is through genocidal violence.

So it's ok for the US/UK etc etc to call for regime change without implied genocidal violence and it's not for the leader of a country that faces a constant threat, decades old, from said leaders including Israel?

toomevara

sovtek wrote:

So it's ok for the US/UK etc etc to call for regime change without implied genocidal violence and it's not for the leader of a country that faces a constant threat, decades old, from said leaders including Israel?

Of course it isn't OK sovtek, just referring to the current debate, two wrongs and all that....

Schuhart

banaman wrote:

I read in an article possibly on Znet or Al-jezeera that what he said was not that Israle should be eradicated or wiped from the face of the earth but something rather different depending on how you translate certain verbs.

Akrasia wrote:

I saw that article. They translated his statements as 'I want to wipe out the zionist regime' or something like that, but that is different from saying he wants to wipe israel off the map.

You may have missed my post above. Al Jazeera ran the story using the phrase ‘wiped off the map’.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini. His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.

toomevara wrote:

I would respectfully submit, Akrasia, that you're splitting hairs on this one. Israel is a constitutional democracy, it is unlikely to vote itself out of existence. Turkeys dont generally vote for Christmas in my experience.

Failing this highly unlikely turn of events, the only way to 'wipe Israel of the map/wipe out the zionist regime'...whatever way you want to characterise it, (both, incidentally, equally unpalatable and unacceptable modes of discourse) is through genocidal violence.

Indeed, at the end of the day all of the arguing over the translation is really just to avoid facing the reality that this is what that rhetoric means. It may just be said for domestic consumption, but I really don’t see why we have to make this excuse for him.

I don’t see a reason for us to let this kind of stuff pass on the basis of an assurance from Father Dougal McGuire that ‘It’s probably only a bit of a laugh, like all that stuff they taught us in the Seminary.’

Schuhart

freddyfreeload wrote:

Bush stole his first election, and was only voted for by 32% of the US electorate to his second term.

Labour currently holds 65% of commons seats despite support from just 21.8% of the British electorate in 2005.

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has an electoral mandate of 61.1% behind him.

I'd have a bit more confidence in this line of thought if there was an Iranian equivalent of Michael Moore.

RedPlanet

Is Schuhart agruing that Ahmadinejad is mentally unstable, or is not mentally unstable.

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

Is Schuhart agruing that Ahmadinejad is mentally unstable, or is not mentally unstable.

I don't know whether he is or not. But I don't see that being a fanatic and/or telling the home crowd what they want to hear is grounds for deeming someone insane.

My main point is simply that some seem to go to great lengths to avoid facing the reality of the man's rhetoric.

RedPlanet

Schuhart wrote:

I don't know whether he is or not. But I don't see that being a fanatic and/or telling the home crowd what they want to hear is grounds for deeming someone insane.

My main point is simply that some seem to go to great lengths to avoid facing the reality of the man's rhetoric.

So, basically your not here to agrue the merits or demerits of the original post, rather your interested in the posters.

nacho libre

why is it the comments atrributed to George Bush about God telling him to invade Iraq were mistranslations, but the comments ascribed to ahmadinejad are accurate.?
additionally;
If ahmadinejad seeks to rid the middle east of all jews. why hasn't he started with the jews in his own country? yes, Iran has a Jewish community.
There is a video on you tube which mentions this. I'll try to find it.

sovtek

toomevara wrote:

Of course it isn't OK sovtek, just referring to the current debate, two wrongs and all that....

OK but then do you consider the statements by Bush et al calling for regime change as being threats of genocidal violence?
And if you don't then why do you consider them as such by the Iranian leader?

toomevara

Schuhart wrote:

I don't know whether he is or not. But I don't see that being a fanatic and/or telling the home crowd what they want to hear is grounds for deeming someone insane.

I think this is a really interesting point and one which approaches the kernel of the argument we're teasing out (rather interestingly) here, and that is, is Islamic fundamentalism as currently constituted, in both its shi'a and sunni forms, a 'pathology' so to speak?

Is it a set of beliefs, so fundamentally at variance with the reality of the world as experienced and seen by vast majority of humanity, including I hasten to add, almost a billion moderate muslims around the world, that it is legitimate to speak of it, and its adherents in terms ordinarily reserved for those exhibiting obsessive and irrational personality traits?

For me islamic fundamentalism is fascism/totalitarianism of the worst kind and one which through violence and terrorism seeks to stifle debate, suppress basic human rights and sow chaos and disorder wherever it rears its head. It's strange millenarian creed is to my eyes medieval irrationality of the first water and, if left unchecked and unchallenged, a recipe for catastrophe on an horrific scale. The possibility that Mahmood Ahmadinejad may cleave to this poisonous worldview while nominally head of a state about to 'go nuclear' worries me greatly.

toomevara

sovtek wrote:

OK but then do you consider the statements by Bush et al calling for regime change as being threats of genocidal violence?
And if you don't then why do you consider them as such by the Iranian leader?

No I wouldn't consider them to be threats of genocidal violence sovtek (much as I may disagree with their actions). It may have been all about oil, it may have been all about Bush's hatred for Saddam or any number of other reasons, but what the (in my opinion idiotic and misguided, for the record) intervention in Iraq was definitely not about, was the destruction of the state of Iraq and its people (although unfortunately it sometimes looks like that's what's happening out there).

I do believe that Ahmadinejad and his regime are infected with the poisonous anti-semitism which is a hallmark of fundamentalist Islam and that their denial of the holocaust puts them in some very dodgy totalitarian company, and would indicate to me that their ultimate agenda goes far beyond the resolution of say the palestinian or the lebanese question. It seems to me that their ultimate goal is the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

RedPlanet

Doubtless it is the actions of the west that have agravated the situation.
Looking back at the very rise of Islamic fundamentalism, chiefly: the Russian/Afghan conflict; ironically it was the USA that assisted and financed the various mujahideen factions. And even accepted and assisted calls of "jihad".

It may also be arrogant to interpret behavior within other cultures thru a western prism.
You may find this interesting:


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8CA7632B-B21C-47AD-A5C6-25AAC0AE2BC5.htm

toomevara

nacho libre wrote:

If ahmadinejad seeks to rid the middle east of all jews. why hasn't he started with the jews in his own country? yes, Iran has a Jewish community.

This is absolutly true nacho, Iran has a very ancient jewish community, and indeed there is a specific seat reserved in the Iranian parliament for a jewish MP.

toomevara

RedPlanet wrote:

It may also be arrogant to interpret behavior within other cultures thru a western prism.

I absolutly agree on this one and, as a product of a western secular society which often tends to arrogantly assume that its way is the only way, I try not to fall into that trap, but I put my hand up and say that sometimes I'm guilty as charged!

But for me there are a number of basic tenets which are non-negotiable and which I will never aplogise for defending to the last. They are; freedom of speech/expression, freedom of religion, gender equality, the sanctity of life, freedom of sexual expression, democratic constitutionality, among others.

When I look at Islamic fundamentalism and many traditional muslim countries I see, quite clearly, that none of these basic fundamental human rights are guaranteed. Any world view which doesnt enshrine these basic tenets, is for me, worthy of contempt and needs to be fought vigorously at every opportunity.

sovtek

toomevara wrote:

No I wouldn't consider them to be threats of genocidal violence sovtek (much as I may disagree with their actions). It may have been all about oil, it may have been all about Bush's hatred for Saddam or any number of other reasons, but what the (in my opinion idiotic and misguided, for the record) intervention in Iraq was definitely not about, was the destruction of the state of Iraq and its people (although unfortunately it sometimes looks like that's what's happening out there).

Then why do you consider the calls for regime change in Israel genocidal?

I do believe that and his regime are infected with the poisonous anti-semitism which is a hallmark of fundamentalist Islam and that their denial of the holocaust puts them in some very dodgy totalitarian company, and would indicate to me that their ultimate agenda goes far beyond the resolution of say the palestinian or the lebanese question.

Being that the Palestinian and Lebanese "question" started with attacks and invasions by Israel, why do you believe they would carry it further?
As someone else pointed out...if Ahmadinejad is such a vehement anti-semitist why isn't he starting with the Jews in his own country?

RedPlanet

toomevara wrote:

I absolutly agree on this one and, as a product of a western secular society which often tends to arrogantly assume that its way is the only way, I try not to fall into that trap, but I put my hand up and say that sometimes I'm guilty as charged!

But for me there are a number of basic tenets which are non-negotiable and which I will never aplogise for defending to the last. They are; freedom of speech/expression, freedom of religion, gender equality, the sanctity of life, freedom of sexual expression, democratic constitutionality, among others.

When I look at Islamic fundamentalism and many traditional muslim countries I see, quite clearly, that none of these basic fundamental human rights are guaranteed. Any world view which doesnt enshrine these basic tenets, is for me, worthy of contempt and needs to be fought vigorously at every opportunity.

In one way then you are really not so different than those that you are fighting. You disapprove of what the other side represent and resist it, just like they do toward you.
As for myself, i say: Live and Let Live.
If folks prefer to live under Sharia law, let them have it.

aidan24326

toomevara wrote:

I do believe that Ahmadinejad and his regime are infected with the poisonous anti-semitism which is a hallmark of fundamentalist Islam and that their denial of the holocaust puts them in some very dodgy totalitarian company, and would indicate to me that their ultimate agenda goes far beyond the resolution of say the palestinian or the lebanese question. It seems to me that their ultimate goal is the complete destruction of the state of Israel.

You are right, but this works both ways. The Zionists would also be only too delighted to see the end of every muslim in the Middle East, preferably in a big cloud of smoke. If you think Ahmadinejad's views are poisonous you'd do well to look up some of the things that have been said by senior Israeli figures over the years. Netanyahu in particular, and Sharon more recently. Poisonous hardly covers it. These men are thugs in suits, no better than their Arab counterparts and frequently worse.

There is clearly alot of hatred on both sides. But unless the two factions can learn to live with each other this will never end. However this is where we run into a problem. What this ultimately boils down to is that the Zionists in Israel consider these lands their God-given right and will never agree to share it with the Muslim community. There is a massive arrogance in their way of thinking, of being 'god's chosen people' and all that BS, and everyone knows this is the real reason. But while the west (especially the US) continue to take Isreal's side there will be no chance of any resolution.

A truly impartial USA could go a long way to resolving this. Israel needs a severe rap on the knuckles, but so long as the US are at Israel's beck and call there's no chance of that happening. Any UN resolution deemed to be undesirable for Israel gets immediately vetoed by Washington. And therin lies the crux of the problem IMO.

aidan24326

Originally Posted by nacho libre
If ahmadinejad seeks to rid the middle east of all jews. why hasn't he started with the jews in his own country? yes, Iran has a Jewish community.

Good point. Hadn't really thought of that before. It's funny how conveniently selective the term 'anti-semitism' can be. Indeed if he was such a jew-hater there would surely be reports of jewish oppression and genocide in Iran. Calling him an anti-semite is an easy way for the jews to label him and immediately put him in the enemy camp. I would think Ahmadinejad's problem is not with jews per se, but a problem with how Israel came to be and how they have since treated the Palestinians.