Social Question

Zen's avatar

Ahmendinejad. You didn't disagree with him about his Holocaust denial, how about his killing of the protesters?

Asked by Zen (7738points) October 9th, 2009

Where do you stand on this issue? Shouid Iran be allowed to just execute anyone who stands up against the regime?

Will you sit back quietly while Iran kills off the peaceful protestors of the rigged elections?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

34 Answers

Grisaille's avatar

we actually had quite the discussion about this here

Zen's avatar

I saw that. It outed a lot of anti-semites. But this is about his executing protesters.

Grisaille's avatar

I know (I remember your ”.”), it was more for people who wanted extended reading into the subject.

As I said in the other thread, it’s damn near hopeless. We didn’t do anything back when we watched people die in Iran, and we won’t do anything now. They are fighting for liberty, true democracy, peace and freedom, and we just look the other way. We do not stand for these things, they are just ribbony words we throw around whenever we see a flag.

Flame on, folks.

gussnarp's avatar

What exactly is the purpose of this incendiary question? Who doesn’t disagree with him? And what would you have us do? Shall we invade Iran and see how many thousands of Iranians we can add to our blood debt of Afghans and Iraqis?

whitenoise's avatar

I think this is a start to a hopeless thread. Nobody sane is agreeing to holocaust denial. Not even if they disagree with you on some other opinions or possible solutions to the problems that guy creates.

You seem to develop a “your either with us or your against us” attitude, which doesn’t help to foster a healthy discussion on any topic.

ragingloli's avatar

the dear mahmoud does not deny the holocaust.

mattbrowne's avatar

Just mentioning the name of this pervert makes me vomit.

whitenoise's avatar

If the purpose of this thread is venting…. Hey I think he’s a creep as well.

Zen's avatar

One of too many interviews where @rags’ cutey mahmoudy calls the Holocaust a myth:

I’ll thank all the nazis to stay out of my questions. Where’s a good ol’ block feature when you need one.

dalepetrie's avatar

@Zen – I’m curious what you think we as citizens of countries where it is legal for us to speak our minds should do to help citizens of countries where it is NOT legal. In America, we can say any stupid, untrue thing we want, even if it’s to deny the Holocaust, indeed allowing people to say crazy shit is the best way we often have of knowing who we need to keep an eye on. But as much as it would be nice if we could, we can’t apply US laws and US customs to foreign people and their leaders. And even if we could, Iran would just be scratching the surface. The planet is littered with countries where the citizens live under oppressive rule, indeed many people on the planet have it FAR worse than your average Iranian citizen, all things considered. No, people shouldn’t be killed for speaking their minds, but it happens all over the world, every day…even in America, do you really think there aren’t people in positions of power living among us this very day who have had people who dared speak against them killed?

Now sure, we’d like to think that because our leaders don’t have people killed (well we do have targeted assassinations carried out on Al Quaeda leaders from time to time, but that’s different if only because Al Quaeda has sworn itself an enemy of the state, which I’m sure is how Ahmadinejad sees people who protest his victory for what it’s worth), but by and large, that’s because the money and power structure in this country make these methods unnecessary. We are less than a century and a half removed from our own past history of wild west vigilante justice ourselves, a time when politicians would still meet untimely deaths if they went up against the wrong people. Hell, our political system in many cities was controlled by the mafia as recently as 75 years ago (some say there are cities in America where it still is), but OK, a President ordering the execution a person who disputes his victory…well, that isn’t really something we’d do in America. Of course, we don’t have to. Virtually every other country in the world ran front page headlines in 2000 when Bush’s cronies rigged the Presidential elections, but the majority of Americans never realized that Bush cheated and would argue with you about it to this day, because the powers that be had enough influence to be able to tell the media, “move along, show’s over, nothing left to see here,” but then threw them a bone of sensationalism by allowing them to focus on things like butterfly ballots and dimpled chads…giving little but lip service to why tens of thousands of Democrats had been turned away from voting in Florida, the state which a) gave Bush the election, b) was decided by a couple hundred votes, and c) happened to have Bush’s brother as the governor and his campaign chair as the Secretary of State. Our powerful in this country don’t NEED to stoop to something as inelegant as bloodshed, money sees to that.

But bottom line here, I don’t like someone who is batshit crazy at the helm of a country which targets our allies (and possibly us), which is looking to obtain nuclear weaponry, so I want the US to use whatever it has at its disposal as appropriate. And what tools do we have to deal with rogue nations and leaders? Well, there is diplomacy, which amounts to frank discussions…if they’re serious about moving up in the world they’ll engage, and if they’re hell bent on doing it their own way, then diplomacy fails. We have incentives and sanctions, aka carrots and sticks…if both sides can engage in a little give and take, we can strike a balance that works until Iran sees the error of its ways and a Democracy flourishes, the way it happened with every other formerly oppressive regime throughout human history. And if none of that works, we have war.

I say we can stand up and advocate taking a tough stance, using whatever diplomatic power and carrots and sticks we have to get them to stop killing people for speaking their minds, but that’s it. The US is not, and can not afford to be the police of the world. Maybe if we were willing to become one of the highest taxed nations on the planet, we could afford to undertake a global effort to wipe out tyranny, but right now, what am I, for example, an unemployed Accountant from St. Paul, Minnesota SUPPOSED to do about the leader of Iran, a country which has a LONG track record of appalling human rights abuses, silencing dissent about a stolen election via violent methods, when I was unable to do anything about a stolen election in my own country when the dissent was silenced by non violent means?

Zen's avatar

You asked: But bottom line here, I don’t like someone who is batshit crazy at the helm of a country which targets our allies (and possibly us), which is looking to obtain nuclear weaponry, so I want the US to use whatever it has at its disposal as appropriate. And what tools do we have to deal with rogue nations and leaders?

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan…

ragingloli's avatar

i watched the video and nowhere in it did he deny the holocaust.
what he complained about is that the palaestinians now have to pay for it.
my original point stands..

Zen's avatar

Last time I’ll respond to @rag and her ilk:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president of Iran. Since taking office in 2005 he has been a divisive figure in world affairs, cheering on the development of Iran’s nuclear program despite orders from the United Nations Security Council to halt it, calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map’’ and calling the Holocaust “a myth.” He was sworn in for a second term in August 2009 after months of turmoil over disputed election results that was put down by force by his allies in the Revolutionary Guards and the Basiji militia.

source: NY Times

ragingloli's avatar

the original quote in question is “Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets.”
Note that he said “myth in the name of” not “myth of”.
That is a vital difference, and it has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by various media outlets worldwide, either by neglect, or malice.
Here is his repsonse to the allegations of holocaust denial:
“If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II – which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.”

gussnarp's avatar

@Zen I am really having a hard time following what this is all about other than some kind of rant against unspecified people. What Nazi’s are you talking about on your thread? What are you talking about with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? We invaded Vietnam, lost, and the Viet Cong eventually became our allies and trading partners. Military failure, diplomatic success. We “won” in Korea, but left behind a repressive military regime in both Koreas. One of which later converted to being a bit more democratic and is an ally and trading partner: military success, diplomatic failure/success. Iraq – We supported a repressive military regime for years, then changed our minds. Now we have haos and an unknown future: military “success?”, diplomatic ???. Afghanistan: we conquered, set up a democracy, and it has turned out to be terribly corrupt and the terrorist safe haven we invaded to put an end to? Well the terrorists are still there, and still killing innocent people: military success, state building failure. Now which of these approaches is supposed to help with Iran?

Zen's avatar

One more for the road, from the infamous Holocaust denial conference sponsored by Iran, a real festival:

SquirrelEStuff's avatar


Please post the link to where he says he wants to “wipe Israel off the map?”

I have yet to see video of this being said

Zen's avatar

So many… just google it or youtube it. Here’s one:

gussnarp's avatar

I’m still waiting for you to clarify your point in asking this question, and for your follow up comments. First and foremost, what exactly do you propose we do about Iran’s treatment of protesters? And should we do the same to China or anyone else who oppresses their people? Second, who exactly are you calling a Nazi? If you want to throw around that kind of insult, you ought to have the courage to name names.

Zen's avatar

@gussnarp I don’t feel I owe you anything. The question was: You didn’t disagree with him about his Holocaust denial, how about his killing of the protesters?

Like most open-ended (and sometimes biased) questions, of which I’ve asked about 130, you can write and interpret whatever you want.

I read what you wrote, and do not feel like there is an “answer.”

Zen's avatar

I wrote: I’ll thank all the nazis to stay out of my questions.

They know who they are. Those who aren’t needn’t be offended, right?

ragingloli's avatar

let me guess…
some one who disagrees with you = nazi, right?

gussnarp's avatar

@Zen, if you want answers, you should clarify your question when someone asks for it. If you want discussion, you should respond to questions that your question raises. No, you don’t owe me anything, but you might owe the Fluther community something.

ratboy's avatar

That is just the next step in the direction chosen by the Bush administration when they began herding protesters into holding pens. Ironically, Bush’s presidency was also the result of a rigged election.

Zen's avatar

Hey @gussnarp, we’ve never spoken before. You know nothing about me. You chose this question as your first of mine to repond to when I’ve written well over a hundred. I barely understand what your point is, and yes, I owe you zilch.

As fo fluther, well, I don’t see how this thread has anything to do with that – or are you the King of fluther?

Go check out another question and we’ll continue to be strangers.

gussnarp's avatar

So, you don’t want to have a discussion? OK. Do you want me to do something about Iran killing peaceful protesters, or do you want me to “sit back quietly”? If you want me to do something, then why is it so much for me to ask what exactly you would like me to do?

Zen's avatar

—Look, guss, I’ve read all your comments and questions you’ve posted over the last two weeks you’ve been here. Have you read any of my 140 questions or 2500 reponses? Are you challenging me or threatening me? I am in 111 other fluthers, and they are in mine as well. Why? Because I love this place, and people love me back. Who… Are… You to tell me what I owe fluther?

You consistently have found a silly question, find someone to disagree with on it, usually on a trivial subject, then continue arguing with them throughout the thread. You just happened upon mine this time, and misread and misunderstood the question, then attacked me personally.

As the son of Holocaust victims, I am personally offended by this piece of shit ahmendijad. As a member of the human race, living in a free society, I think he should be stopped from having nukes, as he has consistently threatened Europe Israel and America.

Now he is executing the protesters.

What’s next? I wouldn’t want to wait and see. I hope Obama decides not to either.

I don’t know if this “answers” your question, I think you are used to another kind of Q and A site.

As I said before, you are welcome to move on to another question any time. I know I will after this post. This question has served its purpose, and probably will continue to do so.

gussnarp's avatar

@Zen Look, I’m new to Fluther, fine. Am I required to read all your questions before commenting on this one? Am I required not to disagree or take part in a discussion? Am I not entitled to an opinion? No, I’m not challenging you, nor am I threatening you. See, when I ask a question on Fluther it lets me choose whether I am asking for advice or starting a discussion. I assumed that the starting a discussion thing meant that people could state their opinions or ask for clarification, or otherwise have a discussion. I haven’t made any personal attacks, like calling people Nazis, so I thought I was taking part in a legitimate discussion and behaving appropriately. But hey, you’re the expert, so if I’m doing something wrong on Fluther, please do let me know.

Zen's avatar

@dalepetrie You wrote: I say we can stand up and advocate taking a tough stance, using whatever diplomatic power and carrots and sticks we have to get them to stop killing people for speaking their minds, but that’s it. Why stop now? Iran is clearly in violation of, and a very clear and present danger to the U.S. and its allies.

You wrote: ...what am I, for example, an unemployed Accountant from St. Paul, Minnesota SUPPOSED to do about the leader of Iran… You could voice your opinion, enlist in the army or just send an email to the President. It depends on who you are and how strongly you feel about it. I won’t bother quoting the saying about “all it takes is for Good people…

dalepetrie's avatar

Enlisting in the army is out, I’m too old, too fat and too a million other things. I voice my opinion with my Senators and the White House all the time. I speak my mind. Pretty sure though that my one letter to Obama wouldn’t stop Iran from executing people who speak their minds. And of course, where does it end? If we all had unlimited time on our hands and could all write to our government about every single thing we don’t like in the world, like I said unless we become the police of the world (and raise taxes through the roof to pay for it, a worl leader executing those who voice dissent in and of itself isn’t really ever going to be something that a citizen writing a letter is apt to fix.

Zen's avatar

@dalepetrie The toppling of Saddam’s regime wouldn’t have happened without 9/11, it’s true, but subsequent support by the public was vital. The same goes for the current wars. Of course it’s complicated. I was just upset about the apathy towards the monster who has recently begun killing the protesters. These tyrants have used even chemical weapons on their own people, let alone the “enemy” (read: us). Would you trust him with nukes? Doesn’t a pre-emptive strike make more sense, perhaps saving millions of lives in the long run? Only history will tell. But we should learn from history, and I venture, it supports (little ol’ me) on this.

dalepetrie's avatar

I’m not into a pre-emptive strike, I believe we can defang this monster with diplomacy and consequences without committing more lives (ours or theirs). Personally, I feel our military is for self defense, I don’t believe the best defense is a good offense, and I think our time and efforts should be spent on keeping us from being attacked and responding to hostilities against us. I’m not pleased that this madman is in power, but I’m far from worried about him, I suspect he’s regarded as mostly a joke.

Zen's avatar

@dalepetrie We’ll agree to disagree then. :-)

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther