The Forum > Article Comments > Ahmadinejad’s dubious Latin American friends > Comments
Ahmadinejad’s dubious Latin American friends : Comments
By Kees Bakhuijzen, published 30/10/2009Iran’s successful diplomatic actions in Latin America are disturbing. The more Iran's 'friendships' grow, the less resistance worldwide for its nuclear ambitions.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
-
- All
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 1 November 2009 6:23:13 PM
| |
Sancho, I usually agree with you, but I can't agree with your relativist comments here.
There's no valid comparison between the US and Iran. When abhorrent regimes are criticised, the first response is often blaming the US. I'm sick of that back-door being abused. Some say that they're "no fan of Ahmadinejad, but..." before slamming the US. Fair enough, however it still feels a little like: "I'm not racist, but those people..." I'm not equating these arguments to racism but these preambles are often the prelude to a relativistic argument that's about to discount the full extent of how horrific something can be. 1. Ahmadinejad's threatened nationwide genocide. The US hasn't, and for all of their nasty interventions, they haven't attempted to cleanse any religious groups or ethnicities. Iran has said they will to Israel if they get the chance. 2. Treatment of women. I won't go over well trodden ground, I'll simply reiterate it. 3. Iran hangs people for their sexuality. Look no further than this. It really ought to be enough to finish this argument outright: (warning, a graphic image of a hanging is included). http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/10/shocking_new_ph.html It's a city street. Broad daylight. People are crowded around. These people were publicly hanged. That's the stuff of horror. This isn't ancient history, those pics were from five years ago. They were fodder for Ahmadinejad's public image. I'm sure there are horrific images of US atrocities, but I'd bet they're not government sanctioned public executions for *crimes* such as these. I dunno about you, but when I see things like that I realise how much worse the world could be with a different superpower. The US has undoubtedly done nasty things. They've shown a cavalier disregard for human life in favour of profit. But I don't believe the people in their government are inherently evil (with the possible exception of Cheney). Greedy, misguided, idiotic and capable of making mistakes causing death on a large scale, yes. Look again at those photos and tell me again there's a valid comparison. There isn't. This is a good article. I concur with it wholeheartedly. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 2 November 2009 1:03:24 AM
| |
There really is little point in trying to base an argument on international politics on the relative moralities of countries. There are always going to be relatively good stuff and relatively bad stuff on both sides.
Seriously, how can you objectively measure the relative morality of extraordinary rendition against the punishment of homosexuals? And while making the same points against relativism, TRTL, you seem to fall into your own verbal trap... >>Some say that they're "no fan of Ahmadinejad, but..." before slamming the US. Fair enough, however it still feels a little like: "I'm not racist, but those people..."<< It's a good point, but somewhat devalued by your own excursion into the same territory... >>The US has undoubtedly done nasty things. They've shown a cavalier disregard for human life in favour of profit. But...<< Posted by Pericles, Monday, 2 November 2009 9:07:16 AM
| |
Fair point Pericles. In which case I'll just state outright that I find Iran far more heinous than the US.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 2 November 2009 11:05:00 AM
| |
Dear TRTL,
You said, “Ahmadinejad's threatened nationwide genocide. The US hasn't, and for all of their nasty interventions, they haven't attempted to cleanse any religious groups or ethnicities.” My understanding is that Ahmadinejad threatened the state of Israel not the Jewish race. Can you confirm otherwise? As to the US does this mean you regard Bush's envoy Richard Armitage's threat to Musharraf that the US would bomb his “country back to the stone age” unless it supported the 'War on Terror' was hollow and without foundation? Musharraf certainly didn't think so and his actions now have that country in all sorts of trouble. Just a little more 'relativist argument' if I may. Your picture is indeed heinous as is the following; “On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.” Times It was found that at the time of Dilawar's death, the injured muscles in his legs had become "pulpified." Wikipedia. I think most of us, if facing death, would prefer your pictured method compared to the above. Finally I would be interested to know which country you regarded as the more heinous, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Posted by csteele, Monday, 2 November 2009 4:37:52 PM
|
I look forward to your next piece which I'm sure will highlight the deficiencies of Saudi Arabia.
It is responsible for much of the spread of extreme forms Wahhabism that you profess such concern about.
The pilgrimage to Mecca by so many of the world's Muslims facilitates its transmission.
Osama Bin Laden is of course Saudi as were most of the 9/11 attackers.
Many millions of dollars going to the Taliban are from Saudi funds.
Women make up only 5% of the Saudi workforce, the lowest in the world (27% in Iran).
Women can't testify in court unless it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men (In Iran, while their testimony is only worth half of a mans, at least they are able to give it).
Women are not permitted to drive a car (in Iran they are).
Non-Muslims can't testify full stop (In Iran they can).
Its courts don't have a penal code allowing judges almost unfettered freedom in deciding what is punishable and to what degree(Iran does).
Punishment for homosexual behaviour ranges from prison to lashes and sometimes execution.
Amputations are another corporeal punishment regularly exercised in Saudi Arabia (rarely in Iran).
Amnesty reports “Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity.
Freedom of speech is severely curbed and political parties are banned (in Iran political parties are allowed and are quite vocal).
All its citizens in Saudi Arabia must be Muslim (In Iran the constitution protects the rights of Zoroastrians, Jewish and Christian Iranians to perform their religious rites and ceremonies but admittedly the Bahai faith is indeed banned).
So go forth young scribe and right some wrongs with your mighty pen.
P.S. When speaking about human rights at the UN in 2007 Ahmadinejad said certain unnamed powers were guilty of "setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process". I wonder who he might be referring to?