President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has got to be secretly pleased with himself. His visit to the United States so that he can once again harangue the United Nations General Assembly with his warped and twisted view of history and current events has generated so much controversy, he must be hugging himself with glee that his name is on the lips of so many, his every move watched and commented upon.
This is unavoidable. There is a great gulf of misunderstanding between Iran and the west – largely the fault of the mystical Ahmadinejad. In a word, the Iranian President is oblivious. He has made it clear in his public utterances that he is blissfully ignorant of western values, sensibilities, and interests. Further, he has expressed no desire to be enlightened. He is an anti-intellectual in that he is not a seeker of knowledge but a purveyor of dogma. Because of that, he willfully misconstrues what he hears from America and the west, carefully twisting and shaping his take on current events to fit the preconceived outlines of his theocratic worldview.
The relativists among you will point out rather petulantly that we don’t “understand” Iran either, that Ahmadinejad’s understanding of history is formed as a result of western imperial machinations and that we shouldn’t blame him if he thinks we’re a beastly bunch of cutthroats.
And if one more lefty throws the coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh (after he had prorogued Parliament over a dispute involving compensation to the Brits for nationalizing the oil industry) in my face as a reason that the Iranians hate us, I am going to slit my wrists. We certainly supported it. But Mossadegh was not the mild mannered democrat heroically resisting US imperialism as he is so often portrayed by the left. His move dissolving parliament was done to forestall impeachment proceedings against him and caused many of his own supporters to turn against him and assist the plotters. The Iranians selective memory regarding Mossadegh has been useful to the mullahs as they lay the typical third world guilt trip on the US and the west in order to justify their hatred.
It isn’t that Ahmadinejad is misinformed. He is deluded. To believe that Israel has no right to exist as a nation and that the Palestinians are only poor, defenseless Muslims being slaughtered wholesale by the evil Jews for no reason flies in the face of reality. Ahmadinejad portrays the Palestinians as only wanting “justice” (so do many on the left in the west which calls into question their sanity as well as their judgement). The problem is, that is not all the Palestinians want. They have made it absolutely clear – both Hamas and Fatah – that nothing short of kicking the Jews out of what is now the state of Israel will satisfy their lust for “justice.” No word on where all the Jews would end up although their are huge numbers of Palestinians who would like to see them in mass graves.
So Israel continues to be roundly condemned and criticized for fighting for its own survival against a genocidal enemy who, after 60 years of negotiations, refuses to compromise on even the most basic and elemental of points; that Israel is. In any other universe, we would look upon Ahmadinejad and his supporters in the west who agree with the Palestinians and their “right of return” (think “Final Solution”) as lunatics worthy of being committed. But in the here and now, the Palestinians are portrayed as “freedom fighters” and the Israelis, in what is surely the cruelest and most nauseating irony in the long, sad history of anti-semitism in the west, are referred to as “Nazis.”
For this reason, the relativists tell us that Ahmadinejad has every right to desire nuclear weapons. After all, Israel has them, don’t they? Why don’t we take the Israelis to task for possessing the ultimate weapon?
The stupidity involved in ignoring the fact that Israel is an ally, outnumbered 10-1 by its hostile Arab neighbors (whose governments that are currently not in a state of war with the Jews are so unstable that they could be overthrown tomorrow and radicals thrown up in their place) would be shocking if we weren’t so used to it by now. The reason we vouchsafe Israel her nuclear weapons is exactly the same reason we tacitly support the Brits and French being nuclear armed; Israel is an ally and has a demonstrable need for them. This is so obvious that to try and bring some kind of childish notion of reciprocity regarding the Iranian nuclear program into the discussion is tantamount to lunacy.
But despite this sympathy for some of Ahmadinejad’s agenda, his appearance at Columbia University will no doubt draw fire from the left. But not for his anti-Israeli policies nor for the Iranian regime’s quest for weapons of mass destruction. Rather, it will be for the cultural peculiarities of the Iranian theocracy that sees gays and women a little differently than we do in the west:
A U.S. attack on Iran, which is not an inevitability but is a real possibility, would have consequences just as terrible as the invasion of Iraq. Thousands would die in initial air strikes, and more in the resulting backlash and regional conflagration. The work of Iranian campaigners for free speech, women’s rights, and lesbian and gay liberation, and against racism and anti-semitism, would be set back immeasurably. As Iranian Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi has pointed out, “Human rights are not established by throwing cluster bombs on people. You cannot introduce democracy to a country by using tanks.”There are other means for engagement with Iran than war, and other means for disagreement with Ahmadinejad than the planned protest. We call on those who do not support a war with Iran to be wary of the vilification of Ahmadinejad, to avoid Monday’s rally, and to express vocally their opposition to military intervention.
Now here is relativism writ large. Plus a dash of laughable ignorance about the nature of the Iranian regime. All those Iranian “campaigners” for free speech are about as effective as a vegan proselytizing at a cattle auction. Those not jailed for a variety of “crimes,” are regularly silenced by shutting down their newspapers. And is anyone outside of the left not laughing uproariously at the prospect of “gay and lesbian liberation” while the mullahs are in power? These “reformers” need to become armed revolutionaries in order to achieve any of their goals.
And to use Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia to criticize those who are outraged that he is given a forum to spew his hateful nonsense makes one truly think they have fallen down the rabbit hole and entered Wonderland. Except in the left’s version of Dodgson’s universe, up is down, black is white, and the March Hare is sane.
I actually support Columbia University’s decision to invite the Iranian President to speak. Academic freedom must be as close to absolute as possible. Ward Churchill may be a fool but trying to shut him up only makes him a martyr. Similarly, hearing what Ahmadinejad has to say will be an eye opening experience for some, I’m sure. He will condemn himself out of his own mouth and save the Administration from having to gin up outrage over the danger posed by he and his government.
In the end, Ahmadinejad can’t help himself. As a man who believes that when he addressed the UN back in 2005 that world leaders didn’t blink the entire time he spoke and that there was a halo surrounding him, he will be unable to restrain himself from proving that he is insensate to reality.
He is not evil but pathetically childlike in his view of the world. Unfortunately he is determined to acquire some very dangerous toys. For that, the world should unite to deny him his perilous playthings so as to keep him from injuring himself or others.
I don’t believe that we have to go to war with him to keep the world safe – at this point. We still have time – up to 3 years if you believe the experts - before the Iranian regime would threaten the region with nuclear weapons. Diplomacy and sanctions can still work if the world can coalesce to stop them. Is this test beyond the capacity of the nations to pass?
Frankly, there isn’t much of a choice otherwise.
8:48 am
“And if one more lefty throws the coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh (after he had prorogued Parliament over a dispute involving compensation to the Brits for nationalizing the oil industry) in my face as a reason that the Iranians hate us, I am going to slit my wrists. We certainly supported it. But Mossadegh was not the mild mannered democrat heroically resisting US imperialism as he is so often portrayed by the left.”
Oh so you did delete my last post with that video. Very lame. Your above comments are simply making excuses for our interfering with the governments of sovereign nations. When you have to do that and when you have to protect your sheep from these facts you have decisively lost the debate.
He was a democratically elected leader. The fact that YOU are making excuses for the USA acting as an imperialist nation and the fact that you are making excuses for government supported interventions in the markets tells me you truly believe neither in democracy or free markets.
Yeah go ahead and delete this too. When you delete I know I won and you still have to look at the coward in the mirror that can’t even be honest with himself.
8:51 am
You’re a liar. Or an idiot. I NEVER delete comments unless they contain obscenities.
As for the rest of your comment, I answered it above.
9:21 am
lol, sheep? he is an idiot.
9:27 am
Ahead of trip, Iran?s president rips U.S….
A day before flying to New York to speak directly to the American people, Iranian President Mahmoud …
10:42 am
I was all prepared to find some good old fashioned silly relativism, but instead what I found was a robust moral claim that a war would be unethical.
Disappointing, and it makes me wonder if you know what relativism is or if you just throw it around because it sounds bad.
10:47 am
‘I don’t believe that we have to go to war with him to keep the world safe – at this point.’
Well, then you are naive. But I already know you are.
Criminals like Ahmadinejad are unable to negotiate. War is not just always the best option, it is this time the only option.
Cease rationalising every threat.
10:56 am
#6
Perhaps you might want to refrain from going to war until it is necessary. And I’m naive? Ahmadinejad is not a criminal. As far as negotiations, please pick some stocks for me as you are obviously qualified as a psychic.
Only an idiot makes a statement like “War is not just always the best option, it is this time the only option.” There are always options other than war – some are less palatable than others.
Stop blowing things out of proportion.
#5
You’re kidding, right? Ahmadinejad threatens the peace of the world and the liberal loons are concerned lest protests against him be seen as helping neocons?
Nope…no relativism there…
11:54 am
With all due respect (because I think you’re a reasonable person), I think you severely underestimate Ahmadinejad. He’s not an idiot. Quite the contrary, he’s a savvy politician who has become very skilled at baiting American leaders and pundits into doing and saying things that increase his profile and benefit him domestically. When Khatami was president, you couldn’t read anything about him that didn’t mention how totally powerless he was, that the Mullahs controlled everything. But in an effort to portray the Iranian threat in a maximalist terms, right-wingers have essentially elevated Ahmadinejad to the level of dictator (Hitler! Stalin!). This has made him seem like a much more important figure than he actually is, which has helped him politically.
Similarly, the fact that so many American pundits and politicians are absolutely flipping out about the possibility of Ahmadenijad being allowed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero or speak in an open forum just plays into Ahmadinejad’s hand. It validates the arguments that he makes domestically, that Americans are hypocrites, that they look down on all muslims, that they disrespect Iran, etc. Even Iranians who don’t like Ahmadinejad (and there are many) are probably offended by the response his visit is generating. They know Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and they likely don’t appreciate their head of state being treated as if he and his country were somehow responsible for those events.
Ahmadenijad likes to bait American conservatives into overreacting. When they do so, they make America look like a country filled with anti-Muslim yahoos and he benefits politically.
The way to deal with Ahmadinejad is to marginalize him, not to make a big deal out of everything he does.
12:45 pm
[...] Pamela Geller says “Sue the Bastards” (she means CU). Pam Meister says it’s just another reason to withdraw from the UN. Boker Tov, Boulder! says the midget wannabe mullah will be on ‘60 Minutes’ tonight, too. Curt at Flopping Aces reports that the hypocrisy is pretty blatant. Gateway Pundit finds Muslims against the little fella’s forum. Little Green Footballs speculates on the type of people who’ll show up seriously interested in what the dwarf has to say. Michele Malkin says he also plans to meet “9-11 families and war critics”. My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s Beth says they really did invite Hitler to speak – imagine my surprise. Wild Thing at PC Free Zone wraps Ahmadinejad in bacon and claims Reagan would have stopped him from visiting New York. Right Voices has the details on the National Press Club tele-luncheon Note to NPC members, the deli down stairs is much better than the luncheon fare at NPC - trust me. And in this case, the company will be much better). Rick Moran at the Right Wing Nut House writes “The Devil Went Down to Columbia” And I’m sure Hatemonger’s Quarterly would have something to say about Ahmadinejad, except that the “crack young staff” has a government mandate to discuss OJ Simpson. [...]
2:11 pm
And if one more lefty throws the coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh (after he had prorogued Parliament over a dispute involving compensation to the Brits for nationalizing the oil industry) in my face as a reason that the Iranians hate us, I am going to slit my wrists. We certainly supported it.
We didn’t just support it, Rick. We engineered it. And what came after Mossadegh was a reign of terror and savagery that was among the worst of the 20th century. And we supported it. And so did Israel. I think we should allow for the possibility that Iranians’ collective memory deserves to be taken seriously, and not dismissed as “selective.” We would not like it if Iran dismissed our national memory of 9/11 as “selective.” And that was one day, not 25 years.
4:24 pm
“And what came after Mossadegh was a reign of terror and savagery that was among the worst of the 20th century.”
Your ignorance of the shah’s reign could fills volumes if you think his unfortunate regime was among the worst of the twentieth century. There were/are several more savage regimes in Southeast Adia. There were a dozen worse leaders in Europe during the past century. There were a dozen more regimes in the Arab world worse than his. There were countless more horrific dictators on the African continent.
You’re as bad as the people who said Saddam was the next Hitler. Your stupidity and defamation of history disgust me.
“And that was one day, not 25 years.”
For all the bad things the Shah did, he did also liberalize society and modernize it and the Iranians decided that they’d much rather live in a society devoid of freedom where homosexuals are hanged and women treated as second-class citizens. So the Iranians did far more harm to their own country than the United States ever did (why do the blame America first crew never turn such methodology on other countries – are they the only ones who are allowed external reasons for response?).
4:41 pm
The concern is that their morals are incorrect, not that they’re relativist. A relativist claim would be that Iran is right because it believes it is right, or something.
4:45 pm
The relativism is that the left is more concerned that joining any demonstration against Iran would help their political enemies than they are the crimes of Iran against human rights.
What is so difficult to understand there? The left would rather their political enemies lose than Iran lose in the PR battle. That is selective morality, i.e. relativism.
Duh.
7:58 pm
The Free Speech argument is a Red Herring. Ahmedinejad has every right to speech but we do not need to give him the prestigious forum of Columbia so that he can use his speech for propaganda at home in Iran. The Constitution is not a suicide pact; To give such a forum to an expressed enemy of everything we believe, who is providing material support to kill our soldiers and innocents in Iraq, and who kills his own people who are not behaving like they are supposed to, is just plain stupid—called “common sense” by some. Yeah, let an enemy consolidate their position and strength at home—just to please the Free Speech fetishists. Dumb.
6:34 am
“Ahmadinejad is not a criminal”
Sorry, Rick, he actually is. My FSO fellow language student Kathy Kolb tells how Ahmadodojihad was one of the nastiest kidnapper/guard/prison guard at the US Embassy in Teeran in ‘79-80. Other FSOs and American prisoners attest to his being one of the guards. As Kathy says, you don’t forget a person who upbraids you for showing a bit of forearm when you are walking in the Embassy courtyard & threatens you with a gun.
Tell me, Rick, what is the difference between this now head of state & other prison guards who were prosecuted for guarding concentration camps during WWII even though they might not have even wanted to do so? Ahmadodojihad was one of the instigators of the kidnapping according to recent accounts of the events leading up to the Embassy takeover—-the author of Blackhawk Down touches on it.
John Limbert, another FSO colleague of mine and a fluent Farsi speaker, also thinks A….d was one of the guards. Is there a statute of limitations for kidnapping/prison guard? Or did the US prosecute the hapless prison guards in Nazi-occupied areas by mistake?
A….d is a wily fanatic who preys on the gullible silly chattering-class libtards who believe talk will disarm this violent reactionary.
6:38 am
ZM:
Your comments were deleted because they were non germane to the posts they were made at.
Plus, the first comment I deleted was exactly the same comment you left on another thread. We don’t do duplicates.
Finally, you are being banned because of your insulting language toward me.
7:12 am
“You’re kidding, right? Ahmadinejad threatens the peace of the world and the liberal loons are concerned lest protests against him be seen as helping neocons?”
Actually, and quite literally, Ahmadinejad (need shorthand for that I think) hasn’t threatened war with anyone. You can interpret his Anti-Israel language in a avriety of ways of course, but he has certainly never said that Iran has any intention of doing anything active to help the end of Israel.
(Now, of course, you can suggest that he isn’t saying what he means, but threats really have to say what they mean or else they aren’t threats)
On the other hand (and no, this isn’t relativism, merely observation. I don’t think that relative ethics means what you think that it means) the US has and continue to threaten open war with Iran with monotonous (even tedious) regularity. It is, as far as I can tell, official US policy to pursue regieme change in Iran, and to pursue it actively. It certainly isn’t Iranian official policy to pursue regime change in the US.
Just out of interest, a relative ethicist could suggest that such threats from the US were acceptable, because such actions were considered fair and reasonable given the underlying assumption in the US that it is acting in the interests of humanity as a whole. Someone who holds that there are fundamentals to ethics beyond cultural norms would be forced to conceed that, if threatening war is a bad thing, then the US is as guilty if not moreso than Iran in this matter.
I have a feeling that, when you say “relative ethics”, you mean something more like “Ignorant, uninformed ethical comparisons which don’t use the full context”. That’s not relative ethics, it is just bad ethics. The idea of comparing the ethical situation between two societies actions is outside of relative ethical calculations as, by definition of the school of thought, since the two cultures are radically different, there could be no meaningful comparison. To compare you have to either;
1) Have an absolute standard to measure them against
or
2) Declare one of them to be the absolute standard and judge the other against that.
Hope this clears that up for you. It isn’t like it is important, as there are vanishingly few relative ethicists around to get upset about it, but I know that you like to be accurate.
” There are other means for engagement with Iran than war, and other means for disagreement with Ahmadinejad than the planned protest. We call on those who do not support a war with Iran to be wary of the vilification of Ahmadinejad, to avoid Monday’s rally, and to express vocally their opposition to military intervention.
Now here is relativism writ large. ”
Here in your writing is a great example of this error. The writer of the piece obviously does not think that it is OK to kill gays because they are in Iran, it is just that in a calculation of practical behaviour, in which is included a weighing up of various ethical demands, a certain course of action is calculated to be less harmful, or more productive than another. Do you see the difference here?
The true moral relativist would have no problem with the execution of Iranina homosexuals because they are in Iran, and should therefore conform to the prevailing society’s ethos. They would also consider gay-bashing in the US with abhorrence, as it is clearly against the prevailing ethos of the society at large.
This absurdity is why, of course, there are very few true relativists around. It was more of a handy way to enable anthropologists to watch the savages killing each other while avoiding the need to actually stop them. Kindof went out of fashion with the Pith helmet.
To sum up, you disagree with the translation of ethical pressures into action performed by this person. You do not (I assume) actually disagree with any of her ethical pressures (War is bad, killing is to be avoided if possible, and homosexuality is acceptable), just how she puts these into action.
And the reason you disagree with this translation is because;
“Plus a dash of laughable ignorance about the nature of the Iranian regime. ”
While you agree (I presume) with her ethics, you disagree with how those ethical pressures should be translated into action, because you consider her context for making such a translation to be flawed.
7:18 am
“What is so difficult to understand there? The left would rather their political enemies lose than Iran lose in the PR battle. That is selective morality, i.e. relativism.
Duh.”
Selective morality isn’t relativism. It is hypocricy, a completely different thing.
In this case they think of “their political enemies lose” as meaning “The chances of a destructive, risky and criminal war being started are lowered”, and consider this a goal which is more important than any other.
Of course, they’re wrong. Hilary is just as likely to push the trigger on Iran as any Republican, but you’ve got to keep hope alive, haven’t you?
7:43 am
Ahmadinejad In America: Open Thread…
I figure this will dominate the news today…so I’ll just put a thread up. If you’ve got something on Ahmadinejad, please link it up via the open trackbacks.
Gateway Pundit: NY Times will run an anti-Ahmadinejad ad…from Freedo…
10:11 am
One more time:
The left applies a different moral standard to judge the US then they do Iran. And that fits this definition given by Wikpedia:
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth; it is the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences…
By judging Iran and the US differently, the left sees the moral values of the two sides applicable only in the “context of individual preferences.” They see no objective moral truth that would allow them to judge the two sides equally.
It is not “hypocrisy” – it is a textbook example of relativism.
11:53 am
A good summary of why this is no big deal.
11:59 am
GOP Senator Hagel: “The Republican Party Has Won Two Elections On…Fear And Terrorism…[It’s] Going To Try Again”
And you all are their willing propagandized subjects. The same, “create an enemy” approach to consolidate power worked using the Jews in Germany and the Totsies in Rawanda. This scenario is played over and over through history on those to ignorant to know the game.
12:01 pm
#22
I don’t cotton to being compared to Nazis.
You’re banned.
6:01 pm
[...] PUNDIT VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM ZERO POINT BLOG THE WORLD IS STILL HERE HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY BLOG THE DEVIL WENT DOWN TO COLUMBIA IS KEITH OLBERMANN REALLY A JOURNALIST? Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN Design by: Hosted by: Powered by: 9/24/2007 THE WORLD IS STILL HERE CATEGORY:Iran [...]
6:03 pm
“They see no objective moral truth that would allow them to judge the two sides equally.”
For that to be true, in this case of homosexual rights and prospective war, this is obviously not true. The speaker obviously does not think that the situation of homosexuals in Iran is acceptable, nor do they think that America treats homosexuals in a way that is even on the same scale as Iran. They think that
(a) the greater moral outrage of a proposed war with Iran demands that the prevention of this is a higher moral requirement, and that the advancement (or lack thereof) of the rights of homosexuals in Iran is a lesser concern than avoiding war with the country
and
(b) That they might have a chance of changing the behaviour of America wrt war, but they have little chance of changing the behaviour of Iran wrt homosexuals.
“Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth;”
I would doubt very much that the person does not believe in an objective right for homosexuals not to be persecuted for their sexuality.
“Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences…”
For this to be the case the speaker would have to be OK with the situation of homosexuals in Iran which they are pretty obviously not.
A moral relativist is not someone who puts certain moral demands above others for reasons of expediency or efficiency, they are someone for whom the persecution of homosexuals in Iran was morally good, since it conforms with the cultural mores of the society in question.
Is that honestly what you think they meant? It seems very clear from a cursory reading of the text that they are simply saying that the priority must be opposing upcoming war and that other concerns must be subordinate to that. This is a perfectly rational position based on practical considerations and not in any way a suggestion that Iran’s record on human rights is acceptable.
But that is irrelevant. The thing that you ought to grasp is that a moral relativist would think that the oppression of homosexuals in Iran was morally good. Obviously this is not the case here so you are not looking at moral relativism.
10:07 pm
I don’t cotton to being compared to Nazis.
You’re banned.
Rick Moran
KA LASSIC!