Suddenly Conservative christians are Worried about Gay Rights??
As I wrote in more detail on The Public Intellectual, Irani president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck me as reasonable, humble, articulate, and informed at his question and answer session at Columbia University. (Our own leader, it should be noted, is none of these things).
Popular folklore and propaganda about Ahmadinejad centers on four issues:
- Iran Funds Terrorism and is a Terrorist Nation
- Iran Has a Nuclear Program
- Ahmadinejad Wants Israel “Wiped Off the Map” and Believes the Holocaust Never Happened
Let’s explore briefly the reality of each of these issues.
IRANI TERRORISM
The reality here is that for years Irani’s have been victimized by terrorists, as have most (or possibly all) Arab nations. Here in the U.S. we tend to believe terrorism in the Middle East is one cohesive unit, that al-Qaeda is a single terrorist organization whose members all have exactly identical beliefs. Anyone who has lived over there can tell us how simple and absurd we are to believe in these limited explanations. But here in the U.S. we’re not big fans of getting our information from people who actually know what they’re talking about. At worst, we take our politician’s words for it. At best, we send over troops who don’t speak they’re native language and have them report back to us on the cultural intricacies of the countries they’re ordered to occupy. But I digress.
The point is that our American ignorance allows us to believe these lies. As a result of our gullibility, powerful corporations and our government can portray any Arab nation as a terrorist state. If Iran has ties to terrorist regimes, these ties are no different than American ties to bin Laden during the Cold War. Alliances form when two entities have a common enemy. If Iran gave money to terrorists it was because one terrorist group hated (for religious regions) another terrorist group that was killing Irani civilians. So for very different reasons Iran had a common enemy. As America learned after we supported bin Laden’s crew in the late 1980’s, you have no control over what terrorists do with the money and knowledge you give to it. But terrorists attacking U. S. troops was no more Ahmadinejad’s goal in recent years than 9/11 was a goal of Ronald Reagan’s in the 1980’s.
IRAN HAS A NUCLEAR PROGRAM
Iran does have a nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad states that every step they take is and will be “by the book.” Nuclear power is the energy source of the future, and any country that doesn’t develop it will be surpassed economically. It is wrong for the U.S. to deny a country with the means to develop this technology the right to do so on account of our paranoia.
As Ahmadinejad pointed out in his 60 Minutes interview, if having nuclear weapons was an effective tool for world power the Soviet Union never would have collapsed. The time for the atomic bomb was in the past (WW II). Now that multiple countries have nuclear weapons and all of those countries are aware of its capabilities, all countries realize there’s no point in actually using them. The developing countries may still think its a big deal, but Iran clearly has surpassed that level of thinking.
ISRAEL & THE HOLOCAUST
What would wiping a country off the map entail? Would it entail murdering all of its citizens? Or would it simply mean that “Israel” as a nation would no longer exist. I know that sounds frightening to us, atrocious or even unthinkable. But we do need to ask ourselves how that’s any different from what happened to the Palestinians in 1948. And I for one don’t have a clear answer to that question. Do you?
As for the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad’s position here is similar to that of any other scientist–that no topic can or should ever be considered “closed” from further research. He is not a Holocaust denier, in fact he freely admits that it indeed occurred. His focus centers more on the role that Palestinians played in the Holocaust–which was, presumably, none. After all, if we explore the Holocaust in terms of how it has effected people who are alive today, we must allow that one of the significant stories is its impact on a nation of Arabs who had absolutely nothing to do with it. Since Israel’s existence as a nation is justified by the fact that its people were victimized by unthinkable atrocities, it follows that one might want to explore how the decision was made to compensate the Jews for their loss. That way other ethnic groups who have been victimized by unprovoked attrocities (such as the Palestinians) might become familiar with how exactly the process of compensation works.
WOMEN & GAYS
As with most world leaders, not everything Ahmedinejad says is morally correct. I was somewhat appalled by the Irani president’s assertion that there aren’t any homosexuals in Iran. Further, his comments about women showed that Iran still has some progress to make in the arena of women’s rights.
But we must consider his comments in context. American propaganda claims he is building a nuclear bomb, he is funding al-Qaeda, and he does not believe the Holocaust ever occurred. Since Ahmadinejad debunked all of these myths in his speech and elsewhere, the far right racists now have to reach for something else to make the guy look bad.
So all of a sudden the “jesus Hates Fags” Right is deeply concerned about gay rights and egalitarianism. If so then why not prove it by supporting those ideals in the ‘08 election? And why not be honest about the fact that certain christian nations are at least as adamant as Iran about denying the existence of its homosexuals.
But unfortunately, to those Americans who are trying so desperately to demonize Ahmadinejad, human rights are far less relevant when they can’t be leveraged for political gain.
September 27, 2007 at 8:45 pm
HEH. good stuff.
By the way, I just came across the following website
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
and seeing how you often talk about the zionists etc, thought you may be interested in checking it out.
September 27, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Iran bombed Khobar Towers and killed your countrymen. Even if we ever worked with terrorists, these guys are still our enemies or close to it. And just because you don’t think gays should get married doesn’t mean they should hang from lamp-posts either.
September 27, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hello Mr. Roach-
Did you actually read my post, or just its subheadings?
Here’s the Cliff Note’s version in case you missed something: The night before Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia U. we were worried about his sponsorship of anti-American terrorism, his nuclear weapons program, and his plan to kill all Jews. Just a few days later we’re bickering about homophobia and Iran’s not-so-egalitarian gender norms. And now people like you are back to mentioning the Khobar Towers, something that happened a full DECADE before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad even took office. Now come on–the rationale you’re using in order to cling to the notion that Iranians are “our enemies or close to it” is rather iffy, is it not?
And what is your solution, anyway? Retaliate now for something that happened over twelve years ago? Coax the American people into more wars by simply making sure they never learn ANYTHING about the people you decide are “evil-doers.” Is that your plan?
Its unnerving to watch our administration behaving in such an irresponsible manner; to watch our good citizens, disengaged and oblivious, consenting to all the pain we bring to the world. This is not the America I pledged allegiance to? What kind of government scurries to PREVENT its people from having a peaceful DIALOGUE with the so-called “enemies” they may soon be ORDERED to KILL??? Isn’t that even SLIGHTLY ass backwards to you??
September 28, 2007 at 5:23 am
Not really. Dialogue is fine and good, but not with slimy, disingenuous psychopaths like A-jod. I like the kind of dialogue that ensues after a few Tomahawk missile strikes. Just ask Qadaffi.
September 28, 2007 at 5:30 am
Also, you keep saying he debunked this and he debunked that. Have you considered he might be a liar?
September 28, 2007 at 5:51 am
could care less about gay rights…just find it odd that this was the only thing the libs could think to BOO about
September 28, 2007 at 9:08 am
Mr. Roach-
Hopefully you recognize the irony in calling some other country’s leader slimy and disingenuous. Name the last president we’ve had who wasn’t a serial liar himself.
Unlike our guys however, Ahmadinejad backs up his statements with verifiable facts, rather than calls to gods who don’t exist. After his little prayer (through which I fast-forwarded) I hardly heard Ahmadinejad mention “god” at all. Bush does the opposite–no intro prayers, but incessant bad decisions based on the same irrational thinking that’s required to buy into the god delusion in the first place.
So other countries should not have the right to communicate with us BEFORE we bomb them? It’s scary that people think like you in real life, and not just in movies. Do you ever think anything through, or do you just react to your raw and simple emotions?
September 28, 2007 at 9:13 am
Chris-
The difference between liberals and conservatives in America is that the former wants to badly to believe everyone is good, while the latter wants to believe everyone is bad. That’s why everything we get ourselves into these days becomes a total catastrophe, because we approach problems blindly, guided by our emotions (as your buddy Mr. Roach demonstrates above, and as counterparts on the far left demonstrates as well with their insinuations that there is NO terrorism anywhere in the Middle East).
September 28, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Guided by my emotions? Give me a break. I’ve thought about this a bit, and surely you can’t say liberals aren’t guided by emotion on issues like race, gender, IQ, price controls, universal health care, government spending, and all the rest. I’m truly not sure if we should go to war with Iran and I’m inclined to say we should not, actually. But that doesn’t make A-Jod a good guy, anything less than a fraud and a charlatan, someone with whom we benefit by talking with, etc. People who view us as weak, decadent, and are biding time are not the peopel we benefit by talking with, nor do we benefit by letting him upstage us or look bad. Speaking of emotions, why are you guilty of such limp-wristed sentimentality. Sometimes you have to be tough. You learn this in life, especially if you’re in the business world or the military. You don’t learn this so much if you’re barrista or a public school teacher or an academic.
This guy is not merely an appropriate open-minded skeptic on the Holocaust, for instance, but is instead an agnostic. He’s no different than someone, like that retard on The View, who is skeptical about whether the earth is flat. There comes a time when certain factual judgments and skepticisms reveal that you’re beyond the pale intellectually and probably morally too.
Just because I pick a side–my country–doesn’t mean I’m an emotionally driven decisionmaker. Whose side are you guys on? And when you don’t pick one, don’t cry when we call you unpatriotic.
September 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm
There you go again. You really don’t think in any color other than black or white, do you? Good guys vs. bad guys; tough noble conservatives vs. liberal pussies; manly men like you vs. girlie men like me. It seems a rather consistent theme of yours to jump to false conclusions; to simplify complex issues until they start making sense to you; to hurl insults and stereotypes at anyone whose existence you find inconvenient. ALL anti-war patriots must be “limp-wristed sentimentalists” just as ALL Muslims are terrorists, right?
Read my comment to Chris just before your latest comment–I do not define as a “liberal” on all issues, and I actually agree with you that on many issues the Left is overly idealistic and sentimental. See, critical thinkers can side with one party on the war without also feeling obligated to side with that same camp when it comes to issues of “race, gender, IQ, price controls, universal health care, government spending, and all the rest.”
As for your friendly advice that I choose a side, I have already chosen one, sir. I am with the American people, rather than with corrupt American politicians & corporations. Why are you so annoyed by anyone who “supports our troops” by wishing they were invited to come home? If you truly consider yourself a patriot, then why aren’t you more critical of a administration that is hostile to the American constitution, deceives the American people, and has made a general mockery of everything that “freedom” used to mean?
Don’t be so paranoid that communicating with other countries makes us “appear weak.” Acting reasonably poses no threat to America’s hypermasculine, meathead image. We still have our tanks & our really large bombs.
September 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm
One more thing: Did you honestly compare people in the military to people “in the business world.” Please tell me that was a typo or something. You may be very tough & business savvy & probably financially successful, but manipulating consumers for a profit has absolutely NOTHING in common with fighting wars, despite the bullshit metaphors used in MBA programs and regurgitated by chickenhawk pseudo-”tough” businessmen like Wolfowitz & Cheney, & your other neocon pals.
September 28, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I’ve done both.
September 28, 2007 at 3:45 pm
The chickenhawks who declare war on America’s behalf have NOT done both! They were draft-dodgers. They’re more familiar with the insides of think tanks than the insides of army tanks. Does it not undermine the contributions of U.S. soldiers by comparing their particular brand of “toughness” to that of a C.E.O. in a suit & tie?
September 28, 2007 at 6:09 pm
They’re different, but they’re both better than the credulity and sentimentality of people that think yapping with A-Jod will accomplish much of anything.
September 28, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Most soldiers I know would rather that we negotiate through diplomacy than through war. Some of us care enough about the troops to actually listen to what they have to say. The rest cover their cars with pseudo-patriotic bumper stickers, watch the O’Reilly Factor, and call themselves patriots.