Iran: misguided patriotism or dangerous fanaticism?

[Flappycat]

Please explain your answer.

 

[pete29]

If you're talking about the average Iranian, I would say it was misguided patriotism, but their leaders are obviously deranged fanatics.

 

[Flappycat]

If you're talking about the average Iranian, I would say it was misguided patriotism, but their leaders are obviously deranged fanatics.

Explain your reasoning.

 

[UnityNow101]

I believe that the average Iranian has distanced themselved from the rhetoric of their leader although if attacked, they would unite to fight the invaders on their soil. The people of Iran are not particularly fond of the President and we would be best served to allow everything to take it's course. The breeze of true democracy may be blowing over Iran at this moment.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I think a majority of Iranians are just normal men who go to work during the day and come home to their families at night and normal woman who do whatever is allowed by the tenants of their religion. The kids have quite the underground culture, which seems to be tolerated by the government. Seems like not such a horrible place to live. However, the Iranian government and Hezbollah are fanatical and extremely dangerous to the United States.

 

[James the Persian]

I had to vote other. Iran is a country and I fail to see how a country can be either fanatical or patriotic (although the latter would additionally imply narcissism if possible).

If you were talking about Iranians... I'd still have to reply with other as you didn't give me an option for both and neither. I'm sure some Iranians are misguidedly patriotic and some are dangerously fanatical and I'm sure there are others that are indifferent or even harbour an antipathy towards their country. They're people like any others after all.

If, though, you'd asked about Ahmadinejad, I'd have taken the second option, because I do believe him to be both dangerous and fanatical.

James

 

[Flappycat]

If, though, you'd asked about Ahmadinejad, I'd have taken the second option, because I do believe him to be both dangerous and fanatical.

Explain why you think so. I understand him to be more conservative than some of his political rivals, but I'm not clear on why he's thought to be unstable.

 

[pete29]

Explain your reasoning.

Israel must be destroyed. Death to America. Believing that if you blow yourself up and take innocent people you go to heaven. That sounds pretty fanatical to me. Perhaps the misguided patriotism label was in error,but their leaders do seem to have the support of the people. People who support leaders whos main interest seems to be to destroy two countries and bend the whole world to their religious will is misguided at the very least.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Explain why you think so. I understand him to be more conservative than some of his political rivals, but I'm not clear on why he's thought to be unstable.

He is the most vocal antisemitic in the world. He is second to Chavez in anti-American rhetoric. He is in the top five leaders in the world with regard to defiance of the international community (of course, the US could be said to also be in that category). But he is undoubtedly a madman.

 

[James the Persian]

Explain why you think so. I understand him to be more conservative than some of his political rivals, but I'm not clear on why he's thought to be unstable.

I didn't say he was unstable. I said he was dangerous and fanatical. His views appear to be extremely fanatical. Even if it's rhetoric to speak the way he does about the destruction of Israel, it certainly sounds fanatical and, as I cannot read his heart, I can only make judgements based on his actions in public. As for why he's dangerous, that's mainly down to the position he's in. Were he a subsistence farmer, his views could be more fanatical yet and not constitute a danger, but as he is actually in a position of some power he does. Of course, this is only dangerous in the way that Blair or Bush are (and if you'd asked the same question about the latter, you'd have got a similar answer).

James

 

[Flappycat]

Even if it's rhetoric to speak the way he does about the destruction of Israel, it certainly sounds fanatical and, as I cannot read his heart, I can only make judgements based on his actions in public.

What exactly do you think he meant when he spoke about the destruction of Israel? Explain the context of his speech and how you think this affects its meaning or meaningfulness. Just explain what you know as of the moment about the context and circumstances of his remarks.

 

[James the Persian]

What exactly do you think he meant when he spoke about the destruction of Israel? Explain the context of his speech and how you think this affects its meaning or meaningfulness. Just explain what you know as of the moment about the context and circumstances of his remarks.

Firstly, I owe you no explanation as to why I perceive him to be a fanatic. Secondly, and by far more importantly, there is no context to that speech that could possibly alter the impression of fanaticism that this gave me. To speak of the destruction of an entire state, of wiping it off the map, is fanatical, pure and simple. It's also far from the only fanatical thing, in my opinion, that he has stated publicly. If I might turn the tables, what is it about the circumstances of his speech that you think mitigates against an understanding of it as fanaticism? I presume you have some reason for holding to such an understanding and aren't just trying to provoke an argument for the sake of it?

James

 

[Flappycat]

Firstly, I owe you no explanation as to why I perceive him to be a fanatic.

I had the impression that you had volunteered it. I apologize. I am attempting to be open-minded for the purposes of this thread, though.

Secondly, and by far more importantly, there is no context to that speech that could possibly alter the impression of fanaticism that this gave me. To speak of the destruction of an entire state, of wiping it off the map, is fanatical, pure and simple.

I was actually curious as to what exactly you think he meant by this statement, though. Do you think that he was referring to abolishing the state of Israel? Or do you think that he intends to level cities? Or do you think that he was speaking in terms of a conventional Islamic Revolution?

Here is the context of his remarks, by the way. They were made in front of a student group called A World Without Zionism, just before the anti-Israel demonstration they were to have following Ramadan. It is quite usual for Iranian leaders to address this group on the last day of Ramadan, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's predecessor's have generally been more tactful.

It's also far from the only fanatical thing, in my opinion, that he has stated publicly.

I am interested in hearing examples. Perhaps the reason that my opinion differs from the majority is that I am less knowledgable about his political speeches. It would be a great sin for me to go against my own judgement, but perhaps you can provide me with facts that can affect it. My assessment of the facts will be as they will be, but I am generally dutiful in acknowledging matters of fact.

If I might turn the tables, what is it about the circumstances of his speech that you think mitigates against an understanding of it as fanaticism? I presume you have some reason for holding to such an understanding and aren't just trying to provoke an argument for the sake of it?

Certainly. For one thing, he was addressing a group of students, and, being a crowd pleaser by nature from what I understand, he was prone to speak in language that would appeal to Iranian youths. For another, judging from his attempts to form military alliances with some of his neighbors, I think that he is more likely to be interested in taking Israel (or at least some of Israel's land, perceived to belong to others) by conventional means, for, if he intended anything exotic, he would have been less likely to upset the West by overtly meddling in neighboring regions. He would have been more inclined to work on it quietly and covertly. Instead, he is showing himself to be quite fiercely proud of his nuclear program. I think that this is a relatively innocuous point of pride.

if you want my personal opinion (read as you will), I think that the wisest thing for us to do at this point will be to draw our forces altogether out of Iraq and relocate them to Israel. I have very little doubt that he intends a full assault on Israel's borders by conventional military and possibly some precision weaponry, and we may be able to keep him from taking anything important to Israel's welfare if we have a heavy military presence in the region. The US and EU could also use the assistance of Turkey in stemming the movement of troops through the region, which could be gained with the bait of the possibility of eventual EU status.

If my predictions about Mahmoud's intentions are correct, then he may be "crazy like a fox," using our paranoia over his nuclear program to get us to stretch our resources attempting to end it. Therefore, I think that we are either falling into a snare or jumping at shadows over Iran's nuclear program.

He is the most vocal antisemitic in the world.

Ridiculous. If he were an anti-Semite, he would also be anti-Arabic by definition. How many times do I have to point this out?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Ridiculous. If he were an anti-Semite, he would also be anti-Arabic by definition. How many times do I have to point this out?

lol and I'M the one who sounds ridiculous?!?! Hating Jews has nothing to do with hating "Arabs".

 

[Flappycat]

lol and I'M the one who sounds ridiculous?!?! Hating Jews has nothing to do with hating "Arabs".

Yes, you sound ridiculous. Arabs are also a Semitic people. You cannot be fully anti-Semitic unless you also have antipathy toward Arabs.

 

[Flappycat]

By the way, the conclusion that Mahmoud is planning a full assault on Israel by conventional means occurred to me as I typed it. Iran has every reason, based on their history, to be against weapons of mass destruction, but they also have every reason to wish to make land acquisitions against Israel on behalf of the Palestinians and Syria. This conclusion fits neatly with the facts and historical backdrop, so, once again, we need to throw all of our resources into defense of Israel against such an effort. Besides, our troops could hardly have much objection against hanging out in Tel Aviv for a while. I've heard it's lovely.

Does anyone see anything wrong with how I've connected one thing with another? Don't leave me stranded here. I'm doing my best to grok.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Yes, you sound ridiculous. Arabs are also a Semitic people. You cannot be fully anti-Semitic unless you also have antipathy toward Arabs.

Taking into account modern semantic, anti-Semitic means "Jew hater". At least, on this side of the world, that is its generally accepted meaning. You seem to be the only one who doesn't recognize this definition.

 

[Flappycat]

Taking into account modern semantic, anti-Semitic means "Jew hater". At least, on this side of the world, that is its generally accepted meaning. You seem to be the only one who doesn't recognize this definition.

Wrong. I am following the most correct definition. The correct definition for an opponent of Israel is "anti-Zionist." There are Jews who are anti-Zionist as well and who participate in Arabic politics, such as Uri Davis.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Wrong. I am following the most correct definition. The correct definition for an opponent of Israel is "anti-Zionist." There are Jews who are anti-Zionist as well and who participate in Arabic politics, such as Uri Davis.

Their beef isn't just with Israelis. It's with Jews. Also with the West, Christians, Buddhists, and other non-Shiite Muslims.

 

[Flappycat]

Though Iran is highly suspicious of the local Jewish community, Jews are allowed a measure of religious freedom in the country. The suspicion is based upon some paranoia that they're in contact with the Zionists, though, so the root concern is entirely with Zionist ideology, not Jews as race, people or religious group. Iranians may not be particularly friendly toward Jews, generally speaking, but their politics are not based upon any general resentment toward the Jews. Otherwise, the Council of the Jewish Community would not be allowed to exist there.