Is Ahmadinejad insane or politically driven? Or both?

[MaGZ]

And while we're on the subject, has he really called for the destruction of Israel? Or was he misquoted?

I wouldn't be surprised if he really looks forward to Israel's destruction, but I'd really like to see a direct quote (not an implied one).

David Duke said he was misquoted.

 

[Chaos]

David Duke said he was misquoted.

David Duke is hardly an objective source.

 

[SnakeTongue]

We've seen his latest 9/11 truth statement. After reading everything he's said for the last few years, I'm convinced that if I would have said such things, nobody would take me seriously. In fact, I'd probably be advised to see a psychiatrist.

So do you think Ahmadinejad is really insane? Or do you think he does everything for political posturing? Or both (not mutually exclusive)?

No, I think he is not insane.

I think he have "balls of steel".

 

[JihadJane]

No, both men were clearly insane.

Calling them insane is about as valid as saying they were possessed by the devil. It's meaningless.

 

[Pardalis]

Calling them insane is about as valid as saying they were possessed by the devil. It's meaningless.

The way they killed so many people without batting an eyelid clearly shows they are psychopaths.

 

[JihadJane]

The way they killed so many people without batting an eyelid clearly shows they are psychopaths.

If that is all you need to diagnose someone as a psychopath, then you are going to have to include every leader who has sanctioned lethal violence against against large numbers of people for political ends, such as Stalin and Hilter's contemporaries Winston Churchill and Harry S. Truman and, more recently, Tony Blair, George Bush and Barack Obama.

You may be right, of course, but there are many ways for people to distance themselves from the horror they are responsible for besides being psychopaths. Labeling one's victims as "The Enemy", "terrorists", "cockroaches" etc can effectively clear one's conscience, as can delegating one's dirty work to others or simply not facing the human consequences of one's actions via psychological denial.

Do you bat an eyelid everytime a "terrorist" is killed by a computer-operated drone in Pakistan, along with their families and neighbors? If not, would you call yourself psychopathically insane?

Hitler and Stalin may also have been neurologically different. Do you know that they were not?

On the previous page, you appeared to be suggesting that President Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN contained evidence that he was a raging lunatic. Please point out where, specifically.

 

[Pardalis]

Please point out where, specifically.

The fact that he thinks the US is behind 9/11, and that the number of casualties has been exaggerated or invented.

Just for starters.

 

[Pardalis]

If that is all you need to diagnose someone as a psychopath, then you are going to have to include every leader who has sanctioned lethal violence against against large numbers of people for political ends, such as Stalin and Hilter's contemporaries Winston Churchill and Harry S. Truman and, more recently, Tony Blair, George Bush and Barack Obama.

No, these people didn't have a history of ruthlessness, they never order civilians to be killed for their allegeance, they didn't send hundreds of thousands to work and concentration camps.

Read up on Stalin's history of murder if you're interested, and compare it to the life of Tony Blair, if you can't see the difference then there's really nothing I can say to help you. I'm not going to play historical revisionism with you.

 

[ddt]

No, these people didn't have a history of ruthlessness, they never order civilians to be killed for their allegeance, they didn't send hundreds of thousands to work and concentration camps.

Have you ever read Churchill's memo on the use of poison gas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_gas_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920

The fact it most probably hasn't actually been used is irrelevant; Churchill authorized its use. The language of the memo is also very revealing: Iraqis (Kurds in this case) are "not civilized" so you may throw at them whatever you fancy.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Uuuuuugh,

It was Tear Gas. Not Mustard Gas.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

If that is all you need to diagnose someone as a psychopath, then you are going to have to include every leader who has sanctioned lethal violence against against large numbers of people for political ends, such as Stalin and Hilter's contemporaries Winston Churchill and Harry S. Truman and, more recently, Tony Blair, George Bush and Barack Obama.

Completely different contexts. Harry Truman, Bush, Blair and Winston Churchill were fighting a Total War, which meant that horrible decisions had to be made, and you have to be tough mentally to live with yourself after horrible decisions. They did not just wake up one morning and say "oh, i'll go and kill 100s of thousands for the lulz". These sort of choices aren't taken lightly, especially whenever there was a military doctrine of Total War, or whenever Wahhabism first appeared, unless one is a complete psychopath, like Hitler or Stalin.

You may be right, of course, but there are many ways for people to distance themselves from the horror they are responsible for besides being psychopaths. Labeling one's victims as "The Enemy", "terrorists", "cockroaches" etc can effectively clear one's conscience, as can delegating one's dirty work to others or simply not facing the human consequences of one's actions via psychological denial.

Are you seriously comparing the war with Jihadism to the Rwanda Genocide, where up to a million people were chopped to death with machetes, clubs and knives by their schoolfriends, their neighbours, their relatives?

Do you bat an eyelid everytime a "terrorist" is killed by a computer-operated drone in Pakistan, along with their families and neighbors? If not, would you call yourself psychopathically insane?

So carefully considered cost/benefit decisions on whether or not to assassinate terrorists in a time of war are comparable to cold blooded murder?

Hitler and Stalin may also have been neurologically different. Do you know that they were not?

What do you mean?

On the previous page, you appeared to be suggesting that President Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN contained evidence that he was a raging lunatic. Please point out where, specifically.

Oh, saying 9/11 was an inside job, combined with his track record of holocaust denial, that doesn't bode well for his sanity. Well to be fair, David Irving isnt insane, yet he's a despicable racist.

 

[ddt]

Uuuuuugh,

It was Tear Gas. Not Mustard Gas.

Oops.

ETA: This paper, linked in the wiki page, gives evidence that Churchill was pushing in 1919/1920 for the development of gas bombs and grenades, and advocated its use; and not only limited to the use of various tear gases, but also mustard gas. Counter to the position of most of his colleagues in the War Cabinet, TBH.

[nitpick]there are more poison gases than mustard gas, but it was the main one around back then.[/nitpick]

[Tony Blair voice]I have it on reliable intelligence Churchill also authorized the use of poison gas.[/TBv]

Completely different contexts. Harry Truman, Bush, Blair and Winston Churchill were fighting a Total War, which meant that horrible decisions had to be made, and you have to be tough mentally to live with yourself after horrible decisions. They did not just wake up one morning and say "oh, i'll go and kill 100s of thousands for the lulz". These sort of choices aren't taken lightly, especially whenever there was a military doctrine of Total War, or whenever Wahhabism first appeared, unless one is a complete psychopath, like Hitler or Stalin.

No disagreement here about Truman or Churchill in the context of WW2. But Bush and Blair, really? And Wahhabism, the state religion of their ally? The Iraq war of 2003 was a war of choice for them. The lies about WMD etc. were deliberate.

Oh, saying 9/11 was an inside job, combined with his track record of holocaust denial, that doesn't bode well for his sanity. Well to be fair, David Irving isnt insane, yet he's a despicable racist.

Indeed. And in Ahmadinejad's case, his statements may well be calculated political utterances. Yes, they're vile, no disagreement about that. But that doesn't mean they're symptoms of mental illness.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I have issues with the "cosy relationship" that the US had with saudi Arabia, but it was mostly realpolitik to contain Iraq as well as SA having the West by the throat with oil.

As for Iraq, that would require Bush and Blair absolutely knowing that Iraq had no WMD. Before you even cite Hussein Kamal, remember that he had been dead for YEARS, which immediately invalidated him as a source and it was considered at the time that it [the wmd programme] would have just as likely have been resumed. Whatever the truth of the matter, i am just glad that bush took out that monster.

Then again "relations only with those who had an absolutely 100% perfect human rights record" would have limited the Us's choice of allies.

 

[ddt]

I have issues with the "cosy relationship" that the US had has with saudi Arabia, but it was mostly realpolitik to contain Iraq as well as SA having the West by the throat with oil.

FTFY. The cosy relationship between the US and SA vastly precedes the enmity of the US and Iraq. But really, why not just admit it was a blunder to mention Wahhabism where the US never raised a finger against that.

As for Iraq, that would require Bush and Blair absolutely knowing that Iraq had no WMD. Before you even cite Hussein Kamal, remember that he had been dead for YEARS, which immediately invalidated him as a source and it was considered at the time that it [the wmd programme] would have just as likely have been resumed. Whatever the truth of the matter, i am just glad that bush took out that monster.

Backpedaling much? Anyway, the claims that were presented to the public were known to be fabrications. There was no credible threat to Iraq's neighbours, let alone to the US or the UK - which according to Tony B. Liar, could be hit within 45 minutes by Iraq. It was their (Bush & Blair's) unprovoked choice to go to war with Iraq.

Then again "relations only with those who had an absolutely 100% perfect human rights record" would have limited the Us's choice of allies.

Who in this thread asked for the part between quotes, or are you pulling this out of thin air?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I'm not too happy with SA, but there's not much the US could do. Ever since the Oil crisis, and probably earlier, the OPEC nations have had the west by the throat.

Why saddam had to go:

Let's see, giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine (oh, but they were attacking israel, which is "apartheid" , and was by default "freedom fighting"), supporting other terrorists, and for being a complete monster second only to Kim Jong Il for his time (who had the somewhat tepid backing of china, preventing the US and SK from doing snything about him).

And Blair never said Britain could be hit within 45 minutes - it was more like the wmd could be deployed within 45 minutes.

The last part was a hangover from the "cult of Che" thread, sorry for dragging it in .

 

[ddt]

I'm not too happy with SA, but there's not much the US could do. Ever since the Oil crisis, and probably earlier, the OPEC nations had the west by the throat.

The OPEC is more than just SA. And that still doesn't justify the cosiness of the relationship.

Let's see, giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine (oh, but they were attacking israel, which is "apartheid" ), supporting other terrorists,

Do you have a quote from Bush or Blair that that was a reason for attacking Iraq? If not, it's completely irrelevant.

and for being a complete monster second only to Kim Jong Il for his time (who had the somewhat tepid backing of china).

Ah, the "Axis of Evil". Do you have evidence that any of those two is responsible for more deaths than, say, the Rwandan Genocide, the Darfur Genocide, Suharto's policies in Timor Leste, to name a few other recent hotspots of monstrosity?

And Blair never said Britain could be hit within 45 minutes - it was more like the wmd could be deployed within 45 minutes.

Not quite. According to the Times, he did claim:

The claim that Saddam could fire chemical weapons at British troops in Cyprus at 45 minutes’ notice was one of the most controversial components of the 2002 dossier. The Butler report said that the Government should have made clear that the weapons were battlefield systems, not missiles that could have been targeted at the United Kingdom.

So not "mainland UK", but nevertheless at British troops.

The last part was a hangover from the "cult of Che" thread, sorry for dragging it in .

Okay, no problem.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The OPEC is more than just SA. And that still doesn't justify the cosiness of the relationship.

True, but SA so happens to be on one of the arteries of energy. The US would have been insane to have dropped SA like a tonne of bricks, no matter how despicable their regime was. As much as i detest it, SA is holding the Cards (no, i am not protected, even with stairs in my house)

Do you have a quote from Bush or Blair that that was a reason for attacking Iraq? If not, it's completely irrelevant.

it was part of the war on terror, and indeed, Support of terrorists was a big part of the Iraq War resolution.

Ah, the "Axis of Evil". Do you have evidence that any of those two is responsible for more deaths than, say, the Rwandan Genocide, the Darfur Genocide, Suharto's policies in Timor Leste, to name a few other recent hotspots of monstrosity?

Let' see, starting the Iran-Iraq War as well as KJI causing the worst famine of the late 20th century. But this is getting into numbers game here.

As well as that, "AoE" was well after many of the aforementioned events and the US couldnt really do much about Darfur.

Not quite. According to the Times, he did claim:

So not "mainland UK", but nevertheless at British troops.

did i hear the goalposts screech or something? and you have to bear in mind that Iraq was developing missiles that could reach cyprus, so the possibility was there.

 

[ddt]

True, but SA so happens to be on one of the arteries of energy. The US would have been insane to have dropped SA like a tonne of bricks, no matter how despicable their regime was. As much as i detest it, SA is holding the Cards (no, i am not protected, even with stairs in my house)

The relations were (and are) much more cordial than is required to get oil.

it was part of the war on terror, and indeed, Support of terrorists was a big part of the Iraq War resolution.

Bush was very worried about Saddam supporting Abu Nidal (who was dead anyway by the time the war started)?

We've only heard about alleged ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, which was a blatant lie. Do you have any cite of Bush or Blair about actual ties Saddam had to terrorist organizations?

Let' see, starting the Iran-Iraq War as well as KJI causing the worst famine of the late 20th century. But this is getting into numbers game here.

As well as that, "AoE" was well after many of the aforementioned events and the US couldnt really do much about Darfur.

You didn't give a specific timeframe and Saddam had been in power since before 1979, KJI since 1994. But do I gather from your response that you agree that it is ludicrous to single out these two as somehow being uniquely evil?

did i hear the goalposts screech or something? and you have to bear in mind that Iraq was developing missiles that could reach cyprus, so the possibility was there.

Technically, my rendering of Blair's claim was correct:

The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are two UK-administered areas on the island of Cyprus that comprise the Sovereign Base Areas military bases of the United Kingdom.

(link)
So yes, that is the UK. Misleading sure, but so was Blair's rendering of it and the media's (e.g. The Sun's) uptake.

Still, the statement was a lie (the source was a cabby ), both in the 45-min. part as well as in the WMD part.

So, do we agree that Blair lied about this all?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The relations were (and are) much more cordial than is required to get oil.

given that there are many hostile powers from the cold war, the US has very few allies outside of SA and Israel.

Bush was very worried about Saddam supporting Abu Nidal (who was dead anyway by the time the war started)?

Given that saddam was supporting Fatah, oh wait, they were fighitng Israel, which for the left today, would give saddam 100% approval, regardless of his atrocities.

We've only heard about alleged ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, which was a blatant lie. Do you have any cite of Bush or Blair about actual ties Saddam had to terrorist organizations?

You seem to assume that Bush and Blair had a crystal ball and knew absolutely every single fact, whenever intelligvence is more like a looking glass darkly.

You didn't give a specific timeframe and Saddam had been in power since before 1979, KJI since 1994. But do I gather from your response that you agree that it is ludicrous to single out these two as somehow being uniquely evil?

KJI and SH were the nastiest of the few remaining totalitarians in 2002, of course Bush would single them out.

Technically, my rendering of Blair's claim was correct:

(link)
So yes, that is the UK. Misleading sure, but so was Blair's rendering of it and the media's (e.g. The Sun's) uptake.

Did you move those goalposts again? man their stubs must be nonexistent.

Still, the statement was a lie (the source was a cabby ), both in the 45-min. part as well as in the WMD part.

for it to be a lie, they had to know it was.

So, do we agree that Blair lied about this all?

no.

 

[JihadJane]

The fact that he thinks the US is behind 9/11, and that the number of casualties has been exaggerated or invented.

Just for starters.

How is that proof of insanity?

Any other indications of raging lunacy in his speech?

No, these people didn't have a history of ruthlessness, they never order civilians to be killed for their allegeance, they didn't send hundreds of thousands to work and concentration camps.

Churchill was ruthless. The current state of the Middle East and South Asia is partly a consequence of it.

Read up on Stalin's history of murder if you're interested, and compare it to the life of Tony Blair, if you can't see the difference then there's really nothing I can say to help you. I'm not going to play historical revisionism with you.

A person only has to kill one person without remorse to be suspected of psychopathology.

War is patholological.