Is Ahmadinejad mentally unstable?

Yes, I think he is a nutjob.

toomevara

RedPlanet wrote:

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.

I would agree and disagree with your charcateristion of my position there. In that yes I would fight the advance of Islamic fundamentalism, as vehemently on an ideological level as say a member of the taliban would resist the spread of western secularism. But unlike Islamic fundamentalists I would never,ever resort to terroristic violence to achieve my goal.

[/QUOTE=RedPlanet]
As for myself, i say: Live and Let Live.
If folks prefer to live under Sharia law, let them have it.[/QUOTE]

Again agree completely, if say for example the population of saudi Arabia chose to live under sharia, that is entirely their affair and nothing to do with me. A problem does arrive however when their dissemination of a particularly fundamentalist, irredentist version of Islam (wahabism,salfism,call it what you will) across the globe by the Saudi regime, causes muslims in say britain or Spain to embrace violence and terror. I also have major issues when members of the muslim community in Britain like hizbut el tahrir and the now proscribed al mahajiroun advocate the impostion of Sharia by force.

toomevara

aidan24326 wrote:

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.

I really can't disagree with any of that aidan, I reckon you've hit the nail precisely on the head. The question is how do we accomodate the reality on the ground and move away from concepts of God-Given rights and past grievances on both sides?

RedPlanet

toomevara wrote:

I also have major issues when members of the muslim community in Britain like hizbut el tahrir and the now proscribed al mahajiroun advocate the impostion of Sharia by force.

Well i'd find these things disagreeable too, however i've come to realise that it is not so different then those that advocate violence in far flung regions of the world to advance their own beliefs: "communism", "democracy", "free-market".

toomevara

sovtek wrote:

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

Because, as I said earlier, the current Israeli 'regime' is in fact a democratically elected government, which can only be changed by two methods; the settled will of the israeli electorate (incidentally I think this is quite likely after the lebanon debacle) or massive external military intervention culminating in the complete destruction of the Israeli state. Given the clearly expressed anti-semitism of the current Iranian government, I think there's a good chance that it would culminate in a de facto genocide on the ground.

sovtek wrote:

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?

I think once we start getting into questions of who started what, and when, we end up in a circular argument which serves only to further muddy the waters. Incidentally let me say that i'm not a zionist or an apologist for the state of Israel, I believe that the recent intervention in Lebanon was a complete disaster and utterly disproportionate.

As for the Jewish comunity in Iran, I know that they are a tiny minority and they have suffered a great deal of repression in the past, especially under the khomeni regime.

Schuhart

RedPlanet wrote:

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

That certainly one way of avoiding the point, but I think you know that what's at issue is looking at the full reality of the situation. Questions were raised in relation to the translation of the reported comments. It would, on balance, look like those remarks were accurately reported.

I don't believe those comments necessarily mean he's unstable. They do suggest he's a fanatic. But at least lets look at the full reality of the situation.

Wibbs

aidan24326 wrote:

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.

Well they haven't exactly got it rosey either, but it seems better than other parts of the middle east. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Current_status_in_Iran
http://www.iranian.com/BTW/Aug97/Jews/index.html

The last President Khatami was a more liberal guy than the present bloke. He was making some headway in lots of ways. I dunno, I have hope for Iran. I suspect that Iran will surprise us all. It's a country with a young population for a start.

toomevara

Wibbs wrote:

I have hope for Iran. I suspect that Iran will surprise us all. It's a country with a young population for a start.

This is an excellent point, isn't over half the population under 25 and very secular and western in outlook? But what would worry me is that the tentative reforms begun under khatami have know largely been rowed back by the ultra conservative clerics.

Voipjunkie

toomevara wrote:

Because, as I said earlier, the current Israeli 'regime' is in fact a democratically elected government, which can only be changed by two methods; the settled will of the israeli electorate (incidentally I think this is quite likely after the lebanon debacle) or massive external military intervention culminating in the complete destruction of the Israeli state. Given the clearly expressed anti-semitism of the current Iranian government, I think there's a good chance that it would culminate in a de facto genocide on the ground.




I think once we start getting into questions of who started what, and when, we end up in a circular argument which serves only to further muddy the waters. Incidentally let me say that i'm not a zionist or an apologist for the state of Israel, I believe that the recent intervention in Lebanon was a complete disaster and utterly disproportionate.

As for the Jewish comunity in Iran, I know that they are a tiny minority and they have suffered a great deal of repression in the past, especially under the khomeni regime.

How about they let the 4 million UN recognised Palestinian refugees return to the place perhaps then claims to it being a democracy could be taken a little more seriously

toomevara

Voipjunkie wrote:

How about they let the 4 million UN recognised Palestinian refugees return to the place perhaps then claims to it being a democracy could be taken a little more seriously

The right of return ,yeah, I'm sure with a bit of creative thinking and a willingness to compromise on all sides, an accomodation could be reached on that one. Failing an actual right of return resolution perhaps compensation or restitution for lands lost? Could that work?

On the democracy issue, in terms of how Israel is currently constituted, it is, imo, a vibrant, robust, democracy containing a huge range of diverse political viewpoints.

history_buff

Mick86 wrote:

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.

Bush is a Freemason. Freemasons cannot be Christians, ergo he is not a Christian.

toomevara

history_buff wrote:

Bush is a Freemason. Freemasons cannot be Christians, ergo he is not a Christian.

Without getting into a theological quagmire here history_buff, I think you may be confusing 'catholic' with 'christian'. The catholic church frowns on freemasonry , at least theoretically (incidentally this hasn't stopped some very prominent catholic figures becoming freemasons).

Many (though not all) of the protestant churches take no position on freemasonry, believing it to be a matter of individual conscience. While a person who may adhere to the teachings of christ, and thus by logical extension be considered a christian, can also become a freemason if they wish. The fact that they may not be a member of an organised christian church is largely irrelevant. So, it's quite possible for a person to be both a christian and a freemason at the same time.