Have a good laugh my friends:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to W. Bush
Have a good laugh my friends:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to W. Bush
"Dear Mr. President,
Kindly eat shit and die.
A good interpretation:
News story: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. No work on whether it was hand-written in tiny type, margin to margin, and wrapped in tinfoil. Herewith are some excerpts.
Dear Infidel Crusader Zionist sock-puppet Saudi-lackey depoiler of Mesopotamia woman-touching pigdog fiendish (293 words excised) Shah-licking son of a toad?s offal: I trust this finds you well. I have much on my mind, and have taken the pen to unburden my breast. I have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope should you wish to reply.
(429 words concerning Jewish penetration of the Postal System excised)
. . . Do you not realize you are beaten, as a donkey is beaten, but knoweth not his donkeyhood is cursed? Your comics have turned against you in your own lair, and mock you without mercy. We have seen the videos of the Meal of the Correspondents, and we know how your left regards the men of the laugh as prophets and seers. It is only a matter of time before Johnny Carson (applause be upon him) returns from occlusion to request that you, Mr. President, take the Slauson cutoff, get out of your car, and cut off your Slauson, Hi-yo, salaam. And a third part of the Slauson shall be stained with the tears of the womenfolk, and (9323 words excised)
. . . Our people glow with pride over our nuclear efforts, sometimes literally. I repeat that the enrichment is for peaceful purposes only, and we seek only peace, and peace is our goal, and there is nothing more we love than peace. Except death. Sorry; forgot. Death is definitely number one. In third place of things we love, well, there were those nice ice-cream desserts they had at this little place in Tehran. When I was Mayor I had them brought in on Fridays. Good times, good times. But once I found a hair.
(2356 words excised concerning Jewish penetration of the Iranian Dessert-Industrial complex)
... Na na na nah, nah, everything?s underground! And your Congressors cut funding for the nuclear bombs which permit the busting of the bunker. Na na na! I do a taunting dance and cock my hips mockingly! In sudden seriousness, please to be thank them for this, although we lost a day?s work in the labs due to the celebration. I even permitted the drinking of whiskey, and decreed that the suppliers of alcohol be only lightly killed. (549 repetitions of ?na na na na? excised)
. . . and if you had the problem I have with razors you would know why my beard seems so tentative at times; if I may speak with you man to anointed hastener of the Apocalypse, how do you get such a smooth shave? A hot towel? Perhaps the Five-Blade Razor of which we have heard muttered rumors? Personally, I use an exfoliating agent which (8343 words excised)
. . . and Jack Bauer will not be able to save you this time, my friend. If there is an attack on our country we will double our aid to the Iraqi patriots, double our funding to Hezbollah and its female auxiliary wing Sisboombah, and double again our attempts to secrete through your borders weapons both chemical and biological.
Ah ? er, reduce everything I said in the previous paragraph by half. We will START doing those things. Yes, that is the thing that is the ticket: start. We will also use our fearsome weapons of unspeakable lethality to destroy your planes before they are even built, let alone launched. We can sink your mighty aircraft carriers by shouting in unison, so great is our national will.
. . . Seriously, when I came to the UN and you didn?t even send a fruit basket, it hurt. Did you not see how well I was received? Did you not see the light of God that surrounded me when I spoke, how no one blinked as I related our message, how doves came out of my mouth and the pants of all were filled with flowers. Did you not note how the exact number of letters I spoke divided by the sum (in Euros) we paid the Chinese engineers was the winning lottery number the following week? Including the Powerball? And you seek to confound my work to bring back the Messiah and bring the world once more into the arms of Islam? Including all penguins?
What are you, nuts?
Sincerely and Death to America,
Mahmoud, descendant of Xerxes, 34th degree Mason, personal valet of the hidden Imam, and not just a member of the Hair Club for Men ? I?m also the President! Death to America.
Sounds more like a pre-concieved parody than a legitimate stab at an interpretation.
I don't think any of us are in tune enough with Mahmoud's 'line of thought' to give a 'legitimate interpretation'.
Yeah, we'd actually have to read it to come up with any type of interpretation... how likely is that?
I've read the Move-On.org stuff, the Daily Kos stuff and the other stuff from which he obviously sourced his opinions, and I read the letter.
The parody was funny, insomuch as it captured the tone of the message, not for trying to make a critique. Perhaps you're a bit worried that his writing reflected your pre-conceived notions? Not that I know anything about you or your beliefs, but you seem kind of touchy....
Good to know that someone is coming to Mahmoud's defense on this issue (Or are you being sarcastic?). I'd hate to think that people are missing the point he's trying to deliver based solely on their literacy, apathy, preconceived notions about the moral ground he stands on, or previous messages he's delivered. You needn't argue any further vroom, OK? I'll cede defeat. You've proven me wrong, there is clearly one person around here who is coked far enough out of his skull to fathom and legitimately interpret the thinking of a disparate leader who is as severed from reality as Mahmoud.
I'm not supporting the guy in way whatsoever.
However, hiding behind your hatred by saying nobody but a whacko could figure out what he was saying is pretty cowardly and lazy.
Put in some effort and you'll be able to see what the message conveys. Heck, there are analysts on TV discussing what the letters intent and message were apparently supposed to be.
Those people aren't supporting the wingnut any more than I am. They are looking at the message and using their brains.
Don't be afraid to let your brain loose once in a while. I'm sure it would like to see the outside world from time to time.
as severed from reality as bush? thats the pot calling the kettle balck.speaking of coke, that is a another topic of interest to the bushster.
Other than legitimizing his arguments and libelling his critics.
It was aimed at the 'Sounds more like a pre-concieved parody than a legitimate stab at an interpretation.' argument. I'll be sure to tie in the teachings of Christ or Mohammed next time, sorry.
I got the message when it came from Monsieur Chirac and Herr Schroeder (among others). Why do I need to listen to it from Mahmoud? If anything, IMO, it weakens their (and your) position (whatever it may be) by agreeing with Mahmoud in his somewhat baseless criticism of President Bush, the American Media, the US, Europe, and Israel.
And they're coming up with accurate interpretations that Mahmoud won't immediately turn around and deny?
I think it's better off not seeing an outside world where Mahmoud's rhetoric is held in high regard and people should care what he thinks without 'supporting the guy whatsoever.' But that's me.
Is it just me or this prose presents an uncanny resemblance to Hitler's ramblings in the 30s -- that, at the time, convinced many people he was harmless?
Having said that, Iran is not Germany -- far from it -- so this is a much different situation than the one preceding WWII, however it does serve as a lesson that great care must be taken addressing this... mostly because not only the philosophy is similar to Hitler's, Iran has great concern and esteem for their pride (much like Germany at the time -- in fact, the fact that we humiliated the Germans in WWI had great influence in Hitler's rise to power), so one needs to not only take their pride into consideration, but also use it to contain this situation.
By the way, I'm not a Historian, so please do feel free to correct me if I'm on the wrong track here.
Either way, I have no expectation that this administration has ANY idea of how to deal with them and achieve an optimal outcome quickly (until now, Bush II and his pit-bull Condi have done a great job of making the situation worse, not better), but I still hope I'll be positively surprised -- for the sake of everybody.
How? He's just suggesting that we should read the letter and analyze it carefully, rather than just dismissing it. To use the vocabulary I used earlier today in another thread, he's basically suggesting that each one of us should rationally analyze this letter, and form their own interpretation and opinion based on that analysis, rather than just using heuristics and dismiss it.
That's just what intelligent people -- rather than idiots -- do.
His arguments do or don't speak for themselves. If you are afraid to even look at what they might be... that speaks volumes!
If you don't know what my position even is, how can you claim this letter weakens it? Have you been paying attention at all? Too bad you don't bother to read anything... my position on Iran has been pretty damned harsh around these parts.
Anyway, you have no idea if the criticisms (whether or not they even represent criticisms) are off base or not, you are afraid to find out what they might be.
It's got nothing to do with support. It has to do with deciding to open your eyes, take a look and think for yourself. Who exactly have you ceded your thinking to?
Scary indeed. You may as well be a fanatic, because if your brain has been given to someone that fully, who knows what you would do if you were but asked to.
Maybe we can drag Lucasa over to that other thread when discussing idiocy and politics?
I think it's a good anecdotal example...
Who, Ahmadinejad? You really think he got his opinions from western sites? The accusations he raised are common knowledge in the Middle East, as well as much of the world. Or maybe you were referring to the writer of the parody, in which case I don't quite follow your meaning.
I think the parody had some laughs, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with the content of the actual letter.
How so? I don't really see any similiarities besides the existing climate of nationalism in both countries. The major difference is that the Iranians don't have a major grudge and an axe to grind against America, the way the Germans did. They simply want to be left alone to their affairs. Germany, having been decimated by the allies after WWI, was out for blood by the time Hitler came around. That atmosphere made his ascent possible. Furthermore, in what could be the most important distinction between pre-war Germany and modern Iran, the former had absolutely nothing to lose; it was a decimated country after the first Great War. Iran, today, has plenty to lose from an armed confrontation with the West, as do, most likely, the Western powers themselves and Israel.
"Why is it that any scientific and technological achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?
"You are familiar with history. In what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc., must be opposed."
"September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies."
"All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property, and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection, and intelligence systems ? and even hunts its opponents abroad. September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services ? or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess?."[/i]
Here's a good analysis of the letter from a site that doesn't belong to either of the mainstream camps (liberal/conservative).
The author saturates all of his editorials with outside links to verify his claims, so I will refrain from copying the article here, minus said links.
Not the volumes that your continued assumption that I haven't read the letter speaks. Maybe you didn't understand the word libel? Maybe you just assumed I didn't read it.
1) Your defense of Mahmoud and 'rationalization of his message' weakens your credibility de facto.
2) Pretty damned harsh until you suggest that Mahmoud should be listened to and taken seriously in his moral diatribe to President Bush.
'Whether or not they even are criticisms'? Have you read the letter? (I assumed you had). As for being off base, how would I verify the 'unnamed prisons in Europe' where 'some people he knows' are being 'held by some unknown nation without trial'.
Pardon me? To whom would you assume my brain has been given to that fully? Or is this more libel or 'idiocy and politics' spewing from your own keyboard?
I am not saying the opposite -- what I'm saying is that his philosophy reminds me of Hitler's, but I also said, much like you, the climate (the context) is completely different...
If you re-read what I said, you'll understand.
I haven't defended the guy in any way, ever. Who's making assumptions around here? I do suggest that reading what he wrote is wiser than ignoring it, if only because it may offer insight into his thinking.
I bet you big bucks the administration has all kinds of analysis being done on the letter and what it might mean.
Oh please, is libel the word of the day around here? Don't be such a puss.
If you simply were to say that you felt the letter was worthless, after looking at it, instead of implying (at the onset) that you decided beforehand, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.