Shamik Das


Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Madman Ahmadinejad

"Sieg Heil"

A timely reminder from the President of Iran to all those who believe we should "leave him be", those in Britain who say "he's not a threat".

To hold a conference questioning the existence of the holocaust simply beggars belief. The sooner this Fascist tyrant is removed, the better.

Hopefully now all those stooges on the Left who don't believe in action will finally see the light ... but don't hold your breath!

He's also continually calling for the destruction of Israel. It's time we destroyed him.

11 Comments:

Blogger Harry Barnes said...

We need to work with those Iranians whose actions seek to change the nature of the regime towards democratic norms. Be it Bus drivers in Tehran seeking to take Trade union action, women wishing to attend football matches, or people wishing to use free speech to criticise the latest extremist rants. This rather than invasion was the option we should have taken up against Saddam. There are brave Iranians who will keep struggling for such principles.

12 December, 2006 17:32

 
Blogger Sham said...

Well said Harry, even though I disagree about Saddam, perhaps the way forward in Iran is the one you suggest.

Certainly doing nothing isn't an option, especially so now in the wake of Ahmadinejad's rant about the Holocaust and repeated threats to Israel.

13 December, 2006 12:52

 
Blogger Harry Perkins said...

What, you don't want to invade Iran and overthrow this murderous tyrant? You stooge, you! Apologist for mass murder! etc etc

14 December, 2006 15:20

 
Blogger Sham said...

"Harry",

For the umpteenth time, I'm not an apologist for mass murder!

In terms of Ahmadinejad, the real Harry - Harry Barnes - may well be right, but one thing's for sure, if Britain and America do propose invasion, I sure as Hell won't be taking to the streets alongside Galloway and his goons to keep the Tehran regime in power.

14 December, 2006 15:59

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do you propose we 'remove' him then? Our troops are pretty stretched and our alternative, the MEK, were complicit in overthrowing the Shah, taking and killing US hostages, and pursuing terrorism.

Just because he denies there was a Holocaust or that Israel should be annihilated (this is hardly new rhetoric coming from Iran). I'm glad folks like you weren't in the White House during the Cold War. After hearing that Khrushchev wanted to 'burry you', you'd have your finger immediately hitting that button.

I'd also bear in mind that the Iranian regim is both diffuse and opaque so to assume that this guy will have his finger on the button is pretty far fetched.

15 December, 2006 00:38

 
Blogger Sham said...

I'm not sure who you're having a go at, probably all three of us, but in my view to leave him be smacks of appeasement.

I don't accept that just because his statements about Israel and the holocaust aren't particularly new they are any less abhorrent.

As I said before, Harry Barnes's plan to overthrow Ahmadinejad may well be the right one, but I will stress once again that inaction simply isn't an option.

Re: the cold war, there's a big, big difference between the Soviet Union then and Iran now. Khrushchev would never, and didn't ever, strike with nukes, despite the rhetoric, but Tehran is something completely different. Given the chance they'd wipe out Israel at a stroke.

15 December, 2006 12:29

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Appeasement? What about containment? I think we're well past the stage we can stop them from acquiring nukes.

I never said that his statements weren't abhorrent, just that it doesn't warrant a military strike or regime change.

Put yourself back in the 1960s. How would you KNOW that Khrushchev would never have ordered a nuclear strike? Folks like George Kennan were invaluable in their analysis - the Kremlin would never want to see Moscow destroyed by a nuclear weapon. Why can't we say the same about 4,000 year old Teheran? If Teheran strikes Israel, Israel are hardly a country not to meet force with a 'similar' response. If I'm Iranian, I see little upstarts in North Korea and Pakistan with nukes, and Saddam and Milosevic (dead of course) in the Hague. You know what I would want? A nuke.

So, regime change. We overthrow the most accountable, 'democratically' elected President of Iran whilst preaching democracy. Yeah, way to go. I somehow get a feeling that the Iranian youth bulge won't be so pro-Western after that.

15 December, 2006 16:10

 
Blogger Sham said...

Ewan,

You appear to be saying that we should just let Ahmadinejad get away with it. Allow him the bomb, and do nothing about the human rights abuses in Iran.

14-year-old girls being stoned to death, for example.

And how about your pro-Pinochet remarks on Luke Akehurst's blog???

15 December, 2006 16:36

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not saying that we should let him 'get away with it'. I'm saying that there's really very little we can do about it. We've gifted Iran the bomb by providing them with the infrstructure during the Cold War and erasing their two largest geopolitical threats. We've done this.

Plus, it's not Ahmadinejad that's getting the bomb - it's the regime. In fact, it's the Iranian people! The vast majority of Iranians want the bomb!

Human rights abuses in Iran are truly awful. I've never condoned human rights abuses. This sort of slaughter is going on all around the world, but if you think that another 'democratic crusade' will stop this (see Iraq/Afghanistan), then I've got to disagree.

Pro-Pinochet remarks? I wouldn't say they were 'Pro' - merely a way of expanding the debate from "he's an evil fascist"... and what about them anyway?

15 December, 2006 17:58

 
Blogger Sham said...

The original point I was making about Iran was that it is anything but a liberal democracy, with equal rights for women, and certainly not for Jews.

I also can't understand the silence among the left when it comes to Ahmadinejad. If a right-wing European politician had made such remarks, they'd be up in arms, and rightly so.

Pinochet? A murderer, torturer, Fascist ... overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Allende.

17 December, 2006 00:15

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The original point I was making about Iran was that it is anything but a liberal democracy, with equal rights for women, and certainly not for Jews.

- Yes, I can't remember anyone stating that Iran was a liberal democracy. That goes without saying: it most certainly isn't. Nevertheless if we want to 'destroy' every state that we believe to be 'immoral', 'fascistic', or 'evil'... We're going to be very busy and should probably think about centralising everything and reviving the Empire. Also the point about 'certainly' not Jews, Iran's treatment of Iranian Jews is actually pretty impressive compared to other states in the Middle East: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_
east/5367892.stm

I also can't understand the silence among the left when it comes to Ahmadinejad. If a right-wing European politician had made such remarks, they'd be up in arms, and rightly so.

- This may be true and you clearly make a salient point. It's partly because a lot of the left want the destruction of Israel.

Pinochet? A murderer, torturer, Fascist ... overthrew the democratically elected socialist government of Allende.

- Yes, I'm aware of who Pinochet was, I'd be delighted if you could point out where I was asking for your advice on his background. I was merely asking 'what about' my remarks.

17 December, 2006 14:08

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home