Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The Threat That Is Iran’s President

You need to read Daniel Pipes’s article, The Mystical Menace of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s not that long, but it’s an eye-full.

23 Comments:

At 10:23 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

I've been reading about the Iranian's President Messiah complex. Lately he has made several references to the 12th prophet or 12th iman (I think this is the result of different translators) and the Mahdi. There is no doubt in my mind that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more than willing to sacrifice millions of his own people to his deluded sense of history.

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger cube said...

This is the scariest thing I've read all day. I think he wants to "suicide bomb" the entire world.

 
At 3:52 PM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

Ahmadinejad is going to lead his country down the path to total destruction. Israel isn't going to allow this madman to have his finger on the so-called button. Better to take him out and Iran's nuclear reactor before he starts building nuclear bombs.

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

I suspected that his open madness and outspoken lunacy was to provoke the US into some kind of action.

I'd say he shouldn't be left dissapointed.

 
At 6:01 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Ahmadinejad scares the hell out of me! I wrote abouthim last summer when he first got elected, and his threats and actions now get worse by the day.

 
At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Rory said...

We have to accept this maniac at his word. Most people didn't take Hitler seriously in the beginning.

 
At 9:41 AM, Blogger Gindy said...

The amazing thing about this is that many people don't seem to concerned about his Nazi like comments (in my opinion).

 
At 2:34 PM, Blogger Sergeant America said...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejadmoonbat is now waiting for the Anti-Christ?

 
At 2:46 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

And this is a voice of moderate mullah:

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 11 – Iran’s former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani vowed on Wednesday that the Islamic Republic would never back down in its nuclear drive, even if it meant being faced with United Nations Security Council sanctions.

“We cannot give up our rights”, he added.

 
At 4:07 PM, Blogger Regular Ron said...

This guy is one true blue Whack-Job. What is needed here is a few Big ass Bombs to be droped on Iran just wake him up out of his "Messiah like complex".

Gindy is right about his Nazi like comments. Wasn't the MSM saying this guy was a moderate when he was elected??

Hope you're doin well sweetie.

RR

 
At 4:39 PM, Blogger Timothy Birdnow said...

The clock is running out; if we don`t deal with this now we will be dealing with millions dead later.

 
At 4:57 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Count on the left to fixate on George Bush's views while saying zip about real theolocratic loon

 
At 7:21 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ex-President Clinton's husband long praised "moderates" such as the former American embassy hostage taker Ahmadinejad as being the closest thing to his personal political beliefs to be found anywhere in the world.

People who vote for Democrats and those who may have voted for them in the past on purpose should all be castigated as the anti-American terrorist supporters that they are.

 
At 9:00 AM, Blogger birdwoman said...

but but but, he wears a suit! He must be sane and logical, unlike the rest who can't be bothered to dress like westerners.

(*)>

 
At 10:44 AM, Anonymous Rory said...

Mr. Beamish,
I'm afraid you'll find that prior to the accession of Ahmadinejad, many people in the present administration were referring to some of the Iranian mullahs as "moderates". Here's a news flash for them. There are no moderates in Iran. The mullahs fall into only two categories. Radical and more radical. As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, he's probably in a class all his own. Also, I don't think it's fair to label those of us who voted for Democrats as "terrorist supporters." I'm sorry, but there's no way I would have voted for the elder George Bush with his sidekick, James ("F--k The Jews, They Don't Vote For Us Anyway") Baker.

 
At 11:30 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Also, I don't think it's fair to label those of us who voted for Democrats as "terrorist supporters." I'm sorry, but there's no way I would have voted for the elder George Bush with his sidekick, James ("F--k The Jews, They Don't Vote For Us Anyway") Baker.

So we got Bill "let's have Yasser Arafat over at the White House a few times for photo ops and sleepover parties while we provide air support to Al Qaeda affiliates in Kosovo" Clinton instead.

Hindsight's 20 / 20, I guess.

 
At 3:03 PM, Anonymous Rory said...

Mr. Beamish,
If you want to talk about Arafat and Israel, Bush Sr. had a very different attitude from his son. While I happen to think the road map is a crock, I believe that W is sympathetic to the Israelis. His father most certainly was not. Also, after 9/11, I'm not sure we would have gotten as tough a response from him as we got from his son. Of course, much of this is conjecture, but, when it came to the Middle East, the differences between the two were fairly significant. Now, if we want to talk about that imbecile, Jimmy Carter, that's one Democrat I can't disagree with you about.

 
At 5:26 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Rory: We have to accept this maniac at his word. Most people didn't take Hitler seriously in the beginning.

Has the world learned nothing about evil megalomaniacs? Dear God!

Hitler had the ovens; Ahmadinejad is going to get nukes. It's genocide all over again.

 
At 6:03 PM, Anonymous Rory said...

Always On Watch,
I couldn't agree more. This man isn't merely a loose cannon, he's a head of state. And while he may not have the majority of Iranians supporting him, the ones who do support him are the ones in power, and so the chances of this regime being overthrown probably aren't very good at the present time. Also, the last thing we needed was British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, saying that "the military option is off the table." As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, he has to be made to worry that every possible option is on the table.

 
At 2:22 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

"And while he may not have the majority of Iranians supporting him, the ones who do support him are the ones in power,"
Majority support is rather irrelevant in a totalitarian state.

Jack Straw is an useful idiot. I am afraid

 
At 3:46 PM, Anonymous Rory said...

Felis,
I think the fact that the majority of Iranians don't support the regime is thought to be relevant if the U.S. were able to give them enough support to somehow bring down the government. I'm not certain what form that support would take, but Iran is different from some other Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for example, in that you have a regime in Iran that's anti-American but a citizenry that's pro-American, so I guess the U.S. is looking for a way to use that to our advantage.

As far as Jack Straw is concerned, I don't know what he thought would be gained by letting the mullahs think that any sort of military intervention is completely off-limits. The only way that tactic would be useful is if the intention was to lull them into a full sense of security...and then clobber them. And we know that wasn't what he had in mind.

 
At 10:23 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

"if the U.S. were able to give them enough support to somehow bring down the government"

This is absolutely correct.

I meant irrelevant from the point of view of the given totalitarian government.

Going back to your first observation, the US did many strange things because it didn't want to get involved directly in support od such local majorities.

Let's take the whole creation and later on existence of the Soviet block.
95% of the people would have supported the allies if they wished to continue the struggle against the Soviets soon after WWII.
Just one decisive action and we would not have Korean, Vietnam or Afghan wars.
Instead the US made peace with their worst enemies and sold out their allies - the pro American majority.
I understand the US position which has always been poll driven - to win the next election and today's situation in Iraq is a typical example of it.
I think the key issue is the understanding and perception of recruitment equality into the vital US departments such as Defense, National Security or as you call it yourself the Foggy Bottom Dept.
There are very sinister people there, who knowing the US system definitely manipulate it not necessarily in the best US interest.
But... they are like holy, untouchable cows - Hiss like creatures.
They have quotas of Muslims in your FBI who are potentially security risks for example.
It has been explained that the dept needed Arabic speakers but at the same time they rejected loyal Arab Christians and Arabic speaking Jews.

Take the situation with PA or Hamas for example.
Have the mention above Departments acted in the best interest of the US there wouldn't be a problem by now.
Please do not take it as a criticism of the US in general for I am your strong supporter it's just that with the current situation in the Middle East and China I can see some nasty pattern emerging.

 
At 11:05 PM, Anonymous Rory said...

Felis,
Very good points, and you needn't worry about my getting insulted over criticism aimed at this country when it comes to certain aspects of our Middle East policy...particularly when it involves the State Department. Sometimes, my feeling is they ought to be put on the government's watch list as a terrorist organization.

Also, in addition to the situations you mentioned, where we royally screwed up, I would add our bailing on the Kurds after the first Gulf War. That was an absolute disgrace that really came back to bite us.

What happened in regard to the refusal of the FBI to hire Arabic-speaking Jews was sheer idiocy. Originally, it was thought the reason they weren't hired was because there were some who feared they may be too loyal to Israel...a canard that's been used by anti-Semites in this country for decades, I might add. But, I happen to have some familiarity with the Syrian Jewish community in New York City and these people have been firmly entrenched in this country for quite some time. They love America and their loyalty is unwavering, and questioning their patriotism was terribly misguided, at the very least. But, it also turned out there was a problem because some of the Arab translators didn't want to work side-by-side with the Jews. So, being good little dhimmis, we ended up hiring Muslims whose loyalties, it turned out, really were questionable. I wonder what it's going to take for us to stop this political correctness when it's inimicable to America's best interests? Apparently, for some people, even 9/11 wasn't a good enough reason.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home