Time and Mr. Ahmadinejad

Fri Sep 29 18:00:37 EDT 2006

<http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060919_TimeandMrAhmadinejad.php>http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060919_TimeandMrAhmadinejad.php

Henry See / 19 September 2006

Signs of the Times Time magazine went to Cuba and met with Iranian 
president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while they were willing to print 
the man's words, they made sure that Time correspondent Scott Macleod 
put them in "context". In the case of Ahmadinejad, that means 
painting him as a crafty war-mongerer. Never-mind that Iran is fully 
within its rights as a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
to develop its nuclear industry. Never-mind that the United States of 
Pathocratic Corruption has singled Iran out, alone, as the target of 
its ire, while Brazil and India have proceeded apace with their own 
development.

It is the US and Israel who are making an issue of Iranian nuclear 
development, not because Iran is a threat to anyone if it is left 
alone, but solely because the US and Israel have decided to enforce a 
"regime change" in Iran, and 1) they need a pretext, even one that is 
as flimsy or even less so than Saddam's WMDs, and 2), were Iran in 
fact to develop nuclear weapons, the true war-mongerers, the US and 
Israel, would be the potential targets because of their less than 
innocent interest in toppling the government and installing their own 
puppet regime there. Were the rest of the world to agree with Bush's 
argument of "preventative defence", then Iran would have every right, 
according to Bush himself, to attack Israel, because Israel doesn't 
even attempt to conceal its desire to get rid of the current 
government there.

Therefore, in order to ridicule Ahmadinejad, nothing is too little to 
go unremarked. Notice this first comment, describing Ahmadinejad as 
he enters the room and sits for the interview:

"For a moment, he seems irked by the chair, perhaps because it makes 
him seem even smaller than his 5 ft. 4 in., but soon he's smiling, 
prodding, leaning forward to make his points."

Did you notice that: "perhaps because it makes him seem even smaller 
than his 5 ft. 4 in."? Do you really think that this is what is going 
on in Ahmadinejad's mind? Are we meant to associate Ahmadinejad with 
Napoleon, well known for his short stature? Are we meant to think 
that his "craziness", always implied, comes from his preoccupation 
with his small height?

Another comment fills the reader in on how to read his words:

"Ahmadinejad is a skilled, if slippery, debater. In his press 
conferences, he has shown himself to be a natural politician, gifted 
in the art of spin and misdirection."

You'd think he was describing his ownh president or vice president.

When I read the interview, as well as other interviews with the man, 
I find him to be quite reasonable. His arguments are logical, and he 
is willing to call out the interviewer on his own biases. Notice this 
response on the question of Israel:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the 
map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

AHMADINEJAD: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. 
We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward 
the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been 
displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their 
own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have 
come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our 
suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to 
their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a 
referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a 
democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?

TIME: Do you believe the Jewish people have a right to their own state?

AHMADINEJAD: We do not oppose it. In any country in which the people 
are ready to vote for the Jews to come to power, it is up to them. In 
our country, the Jews are living and they are represented in our 
Parliament. But Zionists are different from Jews.

This response and approach is extremely reasonable. The Zionists, 
through the complicity of their pathocratic brothers in Britain and 
the United States, stole Palestine from its rightful inhabitants. 
They erected the United Nations to give this theft the semblance of 
legality. The theft has continued since the founding of the Zionist 
entity in 1949. The Palestinians are being extinguished, drop of 
blood by drop of blood, and their land stolen acre by acre ever 
since. Ahmadinejad is proposing nothing more than allowing the people 
who live in Palestine to elect their own government, but that is too 
democratic a solution for a people who call themselves the "chosen 
people" of Yahweh and who refuse to live by the laws of the goyim.

Moreover, Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be wiped away. 
That was a misquote, and under the conditions of the threat of war, 
it was undoubtedly an intentional misquote, that is, a lie. In the 
speech that was so misquoted, the Iranian president made essentially 
the same comment, that the people who wished to live there should 
decide for themselves.

Of course, suggesting that the state of Israel should be changed, 
that it should give way to a state of all of the people of Palestine, 
is "anti-Semitism".

"His incendiary statements--he has declared the Holocaust a 'myth,' 
has said Israel should be 'wiped away' and has called the Jewish 
state 'a stain of disgrace'--have made him the most polarizing head 
of state in the Muslim world."

As for his statement that Israel is "a stain of disgrace", what other 
conclusion can we come to when we look at its history? When we look 
at the continual murder of Palestinians, when we look even no further 
than the recent war against Lebanon, with the million cluster bombs 
dropped on civilian territories in the last days of the fighting, 
when Israel knew a cease-fire was only days away. What else is such 
an act if it is not a "stain of disgrace" for people of conscience. 
The conscious, methodical, and cold-blooded targeting of civilians, 
of woman and children, is that not unconscionable?

In the final part of the interview, that most objectionable of 
subjects was raised: the Holocaust. According to Time:

"He waved a hand dismissively when I couldn't grasp his logic in 
questioning the Holocaust. Asked to defend his claim that the 
Holocaust was a myth, he went on a rambling rant, claiming that those 
who try to do 'independent research' on the Holocaust have been 
imprisoned. 'About historical events,' he says, 'there are different 
views.'"

The following is the so-called "rambling rant" that was Ahmadinejad's 
response to the question:

TIME: Have you considered that Iranian Jews are hurt by your comments 
denying that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust?

AHMADINEJAD: As to the Holocaust, I just raised a few questions. And 
I didn't receive any answers to my questions. I said that during 
World War II, around 60 million were killed. All were human beings 
and had their own dignities. Why only 6 million? And if it had 
happened, then it is a historical event. Then why do they not allow 
independent research?

TIME: But massive research has been done.

AHMADINEJAD: They put in prison those who try to do research. About 
historical events everybody should be free to conduct research. Let's 
assume that it has taken place. Where did it take place? So what is 
the fault of the Palestinian people? These questions are quite clear. 
We are waiting for answers.

If this response strikes you as a "rambling rant", then you're 
probably very happy with the direction Mr. Bush is taking the world, 
or you should be.

Why is it only the relationship of the Jews to the Second World War 
that is off-limits? If a researcher tries to answer the question of 
"How many Poles were killed?" or "How many gypsies were killed?", he 
can publish as he pleases. Yet to question the official statistics is 
to invite imprisonment in some countries. Sixty million or more died 
during that global holocaust, and they had, as Ahmadinejad says, 
"their own dignities". But the dignity of tens of millions of 
non-Jews means nothing compared to one dead worshipper of Yahweh for 
those who eat of the poisoned apple of the "Chosen People".

Perhaps in his next interview, Ahmadinejad should point out the 
abundant documentation showing Zionist collaboration with the Nazis 
prior to and during the war. It served Zionist interests that "Jews" 
be persecuted, for such persecution was the only argument they had in 
favour of stealing Palestine from its rightful inhabitants. And while 
the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis, Zionist terrorists were 
being armed in Palestine by the British under the guise of fighting 
fascism, when in reality, the arms were being used to terrorize the 
Palestinians and prepare for the war of colonization and ethnic 
cleansing that would lead to the establishment of the Zionist entity.

Since the false flag operation of 9/11, the US and Israel have 
unleashed a crusade against Arabs and Muslims. Afghanistan has been 
sacked. Iraq is being sacked and dismembered. Other false flag 
operations have killed innocents in Madrid and London. And, of 
course, while the world's attention was focused elsewhere, the 
genocide of the Palestinians has continued unabated. Through their 
deeds, the leaders of the US, Britain, and Israel have proved that 
they see war as the only way to implement their policies, backed by 
torture, the illegal detention of whomever they deem necessary, and 
the breaking of the laws of whatever country they are operating in.

And yet Time portrays the Iranian president as the one leading the 
world to war:

"Though pictures of the Iranian President often show him flashing a 
peace sign, his actions could well be leading the world closer to 
war."

What actions are those? Those of refusing to be cowed by the imperial 
designs set in Washington and Tel Aviv?

TIME: Why won't you agree to suspend enrichment of uranium as a 
confidence-building measure?

AHMADINEJAD: Whose confidence should be built?

TIME: The world's?

AHMADINEJAD: The world? The world? Who is the world? The United 
States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world. Europe does 
not account for one-twentieth of the entire world. When I studied the 
provisions of the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], nowhere did 
I see it written that in order to produce nuclear fuel, we need to 
win the support or the confidence of the United States and some 
European countries.

TIME: How far will Iran go in defying Western demands? Will you wait 
until you are attacked and your nuclear installations are destroyed?

AHMADINEJAD: Do you think the U.S. Administration would be so irrational?

TIME: You tell me.

AHMADINEJAD: I hope that is not the case. I said that we need logic. 
We do not need attacks.

Time spells it out: Iran must meet "Western demands", not those of 
the world. And when analysed, "Western demands" comes down to the 
demands of a very small group, the neocons in Washington, and the 
leaders of Israel.

The word "demands" is also interesting because it is in fact 
extortion. Iran is being told: "Stop your nuclear programme or we 
will wage war on your country". That sounds more like the local mafia 
don speaking than what would pass for statesmanship in a class on 
political science.

We live in a world where the "West" has become the "world", where 
"Zionism" has become the "West", where illegally attacking a 
sovereign state has become "preventative defence" and the kidnapping 
and torture of individuals has become "extraordinary rendition". The 
process of ponerization so well described by Andrew Lobaczewski in 
his book 
<http://www.qfgpublishing.com/product_info.php?products_id=54&osCsid=02613737a0ee1c3460276a1fd7a16aff>Political 
Ponerology is so entrenched that words have lost their original 
meaning. That Time can serve its readers such a loaded concoction 
under the label of objective reporting, and that it is taken down by 
its readers without a burp, illustrates the dire situation we face.

The distance between a Time report and objective reality is the 
distance we must cross if we are ever to live in a world free from 
lies.

Of course, we expect nothing different from Time magazine or anyone 
else in the mainstream media. We expect no different from the 
majority of what calls itself the "alternative media". We have all 
swum in this cesspool of lies our entire lives. We were raised to 
consider our assumptions as self-evident truths.

We are all infected with this evil.

The decision to align oneself with truth must be a conscious 
decision, and it demands a continual putting into question of 
everything one reads and hears. It demands a constant putting into 
question of one's own assumptions and beliefs. The sad fact is that 
it is work, a lot of work. It isn't easy, and it isn't comfortable. 
It is much easier to continue to be swept away by the many currents, 
mainstream or alternative, that prefer to go only so far, that prefer 
not to bring the ultimate struggle down to what is going on inside 
your own head, your own emotions, your own programming from your 
families and your schools.

The sacred cows of Time magazine are clear to see. Our own are much 
more difficult.

-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20060929/a5fb617e/attachment.htm