Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ahmadinejad: John Locke or John Brown?

Expand Messages
  • World View
    German magazine defies Holocaust hate laws Dr Sahib Mustaqim Bleher 06/01 http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=538009 The first cracks in the political and
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 3 2:52 PM
      German magazine defies Holocaust "hate" laws
      Dr Sahib Mustaqim Bleher

      The first cracks in the political and legal edifice to protect the
      Holocaust industry from criticism have started to appear and are
      likely to widen over time.

      The German magazine Der Spiegel has landed a major coup in its latest
      edition - not for doing a rare exclusive interview with the Iranian
      president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, but for allowing him to express views
      which would have resulted in a lengthy prison sentence, had they been
      stated by a German national. It is not clear whether this was the
      intention of Der Spiegel, which in an editorial distanced itself from
      the remarks by the Iranian president, but the publication will have
      been as decisive a step towards scrapping the thought crime laws
      dating from the period of allied occupation as the publication of
      "Crabwalk" by the famous German author Günther Grass a few years ago.

      Grass' book was the first to break the taboo of talking about Germans
      and Germany in other terms than those of the evil perpetrators when
      dealing with the Second World War. He highlighted those "Other
      losses" and gave German readers the sense that they, too, had been
      victimised by those events.

      Discussing the Holocaust and the shadow it cast over Germany and
      generations of Germans, however, remained taboo, and German citizens
      would not only be punished for "defaming the memory of the dead", but
      even for not balancing any remarks casting doubt on the official
      holocaust dogma with the usual mantra of the eternal victimisation of
      Jews who were thereby absolved from any culpability for whatever they
      have done or might do to anybody else.

      In 1997, for example, a German court found Udo Walendy guilty not for
      knowingly publishing lies but for publishing a "one-sided" account of
      history and not giving sufficient attention to alternative
      interpretations. He was charged of having "on a very
      scholarly-historical basis" published quotations and facts that
      contradicted "in many specific points, the accepted version of German
      guilt for the Holocaust and other National Socialist crimes".

      Freedom of speech? For Walendy, Deckert, Toben, Rudolf and Zündel it
      comes at the price of several years in prison.

      So Der Spiegel filled several pages with a rebuttal of what
      Ahmedinejad had to say, but it allowed him to question the veracity
      of the official Holocaust version, let him get away with saying that
      if the Holocaust happened as claimed and Germans or Europeans were
      collectively guilty then Israelis should be repatriated to Europe,
      and if it didn't then there was even less justification for the
      Palestinians to suffer occupation and injustice at their hands.

      The Iranian president was even allowed to challenge the anachronistic
      situation where scientific research into the Holocaust is punishable
      by prison under German law, should it result in findings unfavourable
      to or objectionable by the Jewish lobby - and he was given permission
      to say that the young generation of Germans should not be made to
      feel guilty for whatever their great grandparents might have done,
      and that Germans should stop allowing themselves to be humiliated by
      the Zionists after having paid reparations for decades.

      So far there has been condemnation of Ahmedinejad - who performed
      infinitely better in this interview than in his lengthy letter to the
      [American] president - but no threat of legal action against Der

      If this published interview remains unchallenged in the courts, then
      it should now be permissible in Germany to report the views of
      Holocaust revisionists, and as long as the revisionists themselves
      are not German, no charges would be brought. Germans, hitherto
      forbidden from discussing these issues, might now do so simply by
      quoting what others have said without adding their own opinion or

      The first cracks in the political and legal edifice to protect the
      Holocaust industry from criticism have started to appear and are
      likely to widen over time.

      Dr Sahib Mustaqim Bleher is a German living in England, a Muslim
      and a pilot - in today's oppressive neo-fascist climate this means
      walking a tight rope. And it requires speaking out. He has done so
      through articles, pamphlets and books, many of which are available
      via his web site FlyingImam.com


      Ahmadinejad: Is he John Locke or John Brown?
      By Mike Whitney

      "Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help
      realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed."
      Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

      By Mike Whitney

      05/11/06 "ICH" -- -- President Ahmadinejad's 18 page letter won't
      soften attitudes in Washington or deter the western press from
      slandering him as the "new Hitler", but it may dispel the illusion
      that he is a fanatical jihadi who is endangering the free world.

      The letter shows that Iran would like to open a dialogue with the
      United States so the current standoff can be resolved peacefully. The
      Bush administration, however, has brushed aside Iran's gesture leaving
      many to believe that another war is imminent.

      Ahmadinejad's letter is statesmanlike, but heartfelt; more John Locke
      than John Brown. It articulates Iran's long list of grievances with
      the United States, but it also offers a constructive vision for
      working towards a common goal.

      Ahmadinejad pointedly asks how Bush can square his professed belief in
      Christ with the deliberate killing of "one hundred thousand people",
      the polluting of Iraq's water sources, and the utter destruction of
      its agriculture and industry.

      He challenges Bush's treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who
      have been deprived of their rights "and kept in a strange land outside
      their country". He also disparages the CIA's use of secret gulags
      where kidnapped victims are taken to be tortured.

      How "can one justify these undeniable contradictions", Ahmadinejad

      How can these actions be "reconciled with the traditions of Jesus
      Christ, the messenger of peace and forgiveness"?

      Ahmadinejad's letter is not argumentative or demagogic, but
      well-reasoned and insightful. Many others have questioned the
      inconsistencies of Bush's profession of faith, and for good reason.

      Never the less, the media has dismissed the letter as "rambling and
      scolding"; an obvious attempt to discredit its author.

      The letter contains none of the fiery rhetoric that is normally
      attributed Ahmadinejad to make him look like a menace. Could it be
      that everything we've heard about him in the press is just baseless
      libel to make him look like a threat or a racist?


      Americans are not supposed to like Ahmadinejad. The media describes
      him as a Muslim fanatic who "allegedly" wants Israel "wiped off the
      map". There's a great deal of dispute over this matter since
      Ahmadinejad's comments do not translate into what his critics say.
      But, let's assume that the media is correct that he is a religious
      zealot. What then?

      Should we kill him? Should we bomb his country back to the Stone Age;
      poison the water, destroy the civilian-infrastructure, spread depleted
      uranium throughout the countryside and kill and torture his people?

      If foreign nations have the right to kill religious fanatics, then
      we'd better start digging bunkers for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
      right now.

      Ahmadinejad's only crime is that he sits on an ocean of oil just like
      his friend Hugo Chavez. He's no threat to anyone except, perhaps, the
      American media which is paid to make up stories demonizing
      Washington's future targets. The real war criminals are in the White
      House cooking up their next genocidal intervention.

      Ahmadinejad has been widely criticized for his comments about Israel.
      In his letter, however, he presents his position clearly and
      persuasively. He states:

      "A regime (Israel) has been established which does not show mercy even
      to kids, it destroys houses while the occupants are still in them,
      announces beforehand its intention to assassinate Palestinian leaders
      and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison….Why is this regime
      being supported?" Should we allow outsiders "whether they are
      Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine the fate (of the Palestinians)?"

      Isn't this a fair question for someone, who has seen first-hand the
      appalling effects of Israeli occupation on innocent civilians, to ask?
      Or is this merely an example of the virulent anti-Semitism of which
      Ahmadinejad has been accused?

      Ahmadinejad asks, "Why are all the United Nations Security Council
      resolutions against Israel vetoed by the United States"?

      Why, indeed? Saddam was bombed and deposed without UN authorization
      while Israel gets a $3 billion bonus each year for thumbing its nose
      at the Security Council.

      Where's the justice?

      Addressing the nuclear issue Ahmadinejad says,

      "Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached
      in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a
      threat to Israel? Is not scientific research and development one of
      the basic rights of nations"?

      Ahmadinejad is right; if Iran is willing to play by the rules and
      follow the guidelines of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) who
      can forbid them to develop nuclear power to fuel their turbines and
      heat their houses?

      Ahmadinejad builds his case by asking why America supports "coup
      leaders in Latin America" and the ongoing "looting of Africa". He asks
      why the CIA toppled the democratically-elected government of Iran in
      1953 replacing it with the brutal Shah who ruled with an iron-fist for
      25 years.

      These are the queries of a reflective man; not the ravings of a
      radical Islamo-sociopath.

      His questions create the basis for understanding the context of the
      current nuclear standoff. That's why the media has scrupulously
      omitted the more important passages from their coverage.

      I have no illusions about Iran or Ahmadinejad. Any society that
      represses its people, treats its women like second-class citizens, and
      applies the death sentence to homosexuals deserves to be condemned by
      the international community. But, does that give the United States the
      right to flatten its towns and cities, killing hundreds and thousands
      of people in order to topple the regime and spread its free-market
      ideology from the barrel of a gun?

      Does it allow Congress to allocate millions of dollars to incite
      violence and foment revolution in the hopes of tightening America's
      imperial grip on the region?

      No; these solutions are more odious than the crimes of the regime.
      Nothing is worse than colonial exploitation. Any doubt of that has
      been removed by the bloody occupation of Iraq.

      Ahmadinejad on the Media .

      Ahmadinejad's analysis of the media could have been written by Noam
      Chomsky; both are equally perceptive in their grasp of the power of
      propaganda on the public mind:

      "American citizens live in constant fear"… They feel insecure in the
      streets, in their place of work and at home. ..The media, instead of
      conveying a feeling of providing peace of mind, feeds the feelings of
      insecurity. Some believe that the hype paved the way for the attack on
      Iraq. ….The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
      WMDs. This was repeated incessantly to set the ground for the attack.

      Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate?"

      Who would argue with this analysis of the media's part in paving the
      way for war? Even now, nearly 85% of soldiers deployed to Iraq believe
      that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks of 9-11, an
      astonishing admission of the corrupt and adversarial role of the
      corporate media in the US.

      Has there ever been a more effective propaganda-system?

      Ahmadinejad closes his letter with an appeal to Bush to take advantage
      of his position and use the opportunity to relieve suffering and
      poverty and practice the teachings of Jesus Christ.

      He asks:

      "Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did
      we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or
      insecurity andunemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or
      just supported special interest groups, and by forcing people to live
      in poverty and hardship? Did we bring the world peace and security or
      raise the specter of intimidation and threats?"

      Americans will find Ahmadinejad's questions easy to answer, although
      unsettling. The US is in the vice-like grip of zealots and
      war-mongers. It has alienated its friends, relinquished its moral
      authority, and is careening towards catastrophe. The administration is
      no more interested in alleviating "poverty and hardship" than it is in
      the "peace and security" of its people. It is ghoulishly fixated on
      expanding its global resource war and plunging the region into chaos.

      Bush is quick-stepping to war with Iran and the cautionary wisdom of
      the Iranian president is unlikely to slow him down.

      Iran is America's Rubicon; cross that river and there's no turning
      back. As Ahmadinejad warned, "The Lord is the companion of the
      oppressed and the enemy of the oppressors."

      Bush should take note.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.