Ahmadinejad: The New Hitler?

[Ranger2]

If Ahmadinejad was assassinated, I would not be sad.

I think that Ahmadinejad can be compared to Hitler in many ways. And I agree with Israeli PM Netanyahu and Italian PM Berlusconi and Rev. John Hagee when say that Ahmadinejad is becoming Hitler 2.0 and Iran is becoming Germany 2.0.

Iran wants power. It's on its way to getting nuclear weapons, and it has said before that with them, they will destroy Israel. But that's for later. It wants the bomb so that it can play a powerful role on the world stage, and have the weapons to back up future invasions. You don't think Iran wants power in the rest of the middle east? It has a huge alliance with Syria, and it's feeding them weapons to fight Israel. I have no doubt that if they had the power, Iran would simply invade Israel and the other Middle East countries.

Iran is not a free country. You remember last year's elections, and how the government brutally opposed protestors and supporters of Mousavi? Face it. Iran is a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy. Why do you think they have a Supreme Leader position?

Iran wants power. In 2003, after we invaded Iraq, Iran wanted to "help" the United States govern the conquered state. This would involve Iranian troops occupying Baghdad.
Iran has a vendetta against Iraq. In the 80s they fought a brutal war against each other, and there's still hatred on both sides. There's no way Iran would help Iraq become a free republic, especially because a: Iran isn't a republic and b: they want to keep Iraq weak and occupied.

And, of course, anti-Semitism. Ahamadinejad uses the Holocaust to his own benefit and, frankly, quite contradictory. He says that the Holocaust never happened, yet also says that Jews used the Holocaust as an excuse to create their own state. So, Ahmadinejad, was there a Holocaust or not? Ahmadinejad says that Israel will be wiped off that map. Iranian state television has many anti-Semitic cartoons. Ahamdinejad funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other anti-Israeli terrorist groups. He wants the slaughter of the Jewish people and will not rest until he has that.
I have no doubt that Ahamadinejad is a big fan of der Fuhrer, but he only criticizes Adolf because no one would take him seriously if he didn't. He even compares Israel, calling it an offshoot of a group of people who *gasp* tried to kill all Jews.

I've heard of self-hating Jews, but that's ridiculous.

So, what should we do? Iran isn't that big a threat to Israel and the world that Germany was...yet.
The USA, the UN, and the EU need to take a stronger stance against Iran. They need to stop thinking that if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us. History doesn't work that way.

[poxpower]

At 10/30/10 08:16 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

I have no doubt that if they had the power, Iran would simply invade Israel and the other Middle East countries.

That would be the death of them. China wouldn't let that shit slide, nor would Russia, the US or Europe. Most of the advanced weapons in the middle east come from the USA too I bet. They'd have to buy their tanks and jets from the US to fight the US on equal grounds. Haha.

Iran is not a free country.

Hitler was elected you know.
Germany was also not a shitty borderline third-world theocratic regime. They had the very best engineering and technology when they started the war.

He says that the Holocaust never happened, yet also says that Jews used the Holocaust as an excuse to create their own state.

Still makes sense if you say they fabricated the holocaust to get sympathy.

I have no doubt that Ahamadinejad is a big fan of der Fuhrer

I doubt it as Hitler wasn't a Muslim.
But he sure hated Jews!

So, what should we do? Iran isn't that big a threat to Israel and the world that Germany was...yet.
The USA, the UN, and the EU need to take a stronger stance against Iran. They need to stop thinking that if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us. History doesn't work that way.

Well no one wants a war. Except arms dealers.

Those kinds of regimes are hard to deal with because you have to punish the people for the stupidity of their leaders and in the case of Iran, he cheats on the elections and silences protesters. He's basically got his own country as an hostage to make his crazy demands, just like in North Korea, except there it's even worse.

[StalkerGuy]

If a nuclear war starts, we are all dead.

[Chris-V2]

I think I owned a country I'd certainly want a nuke - we've gone back to this Cold War mentality of "Oh we can have them, but no one else can." These countries should have them, so should Europe. Cause when everyone in the room has a gun you're a little less likely to start shooting.

Fine, you don't like his politics. I don't like his politics. And yes he's a bit of a bigot. But did you know the reason Germany never had a nuke was because Einstein was the guy who made the E=MC*2 theorom? It was considerded "Jew Physics" (since he was a Jew and it was physics) and german scientists weren't allowed use or study it. While it's so overlooked I thought I'd mention it again - it wasn't just Jews who died in WW2. Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, the retarded, gays, oppositionslavic people. 11-14 million died, 6 million of which were Jews and upto 3 million were Russian POWs.

TL;DR I don't think Ahmadinejad gives a shit about Hitler, stop making this about Jews. I think Iran simply need to be allowed to think they are expanding their influence while keeping a close eye on him. That uranium enrichment situation was a debacle and I never blamed Iran for not trusting France. They're allowed do what they want within their borders and if we're not willing to interfere because of UN Human Rights violations then we definitely shouldn't interfere because of the birth of a new sphere of influence.

[kevinyam93]

i wouldn't mind someone wiping out Israel.. look at the atrocities they have committed upon Palestinians, displacing or slaughtering them so the Israelis can settle in, still I don't like ajmadinejad (sp?) since his elections were most likely fraudulent and from what i know, most Iranians don't even like him.

[Warforger]

Iran is NOT Anti-Semitic, as is tradition everyone is granted freedom of religion, the Iranian Jews are free to practice their religion, its just the State of Israel that they don't like, much like how Orthadox Jews oppose Israel as well.

Anti-Zionist =/= Anti-Semitic

[orangebomb]

Ahmadinejad may be a bigot, and an arrogant asshole, but comparing him to Hitler is a little lazy on the OP's part, considering what Hitler did during his reign compared to Ahmadinejad now. He is a very dangerous man to himself, his country and especially others around the world, there's no doubt about that, but all he can really do is beat his chest and say that Israel is evil, deny the Holocaust {and that is rather debateable claim}, and other stuff like that.

Although, I wouldn't oppose sending in a special forces team to kill Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah if they ever tried to make a move against us.

[BezFriend]

The OP is clearly showing signs of bigotry and bias.

[AbstractPathologist]

At 10/30/10 10:11 PM, kevinyam93 wrote: i wouldn't mind someone wiping out Israel..

That's cool. While we're trying to be offensive, here's my thoughts: I wouldn't mind someone wiping out all of the Middle East. They have caused the United States and the entire world so many problems. Let's just get rid of them.

orangebomb wrote:

Although, I wouldn't oppose sending in a special forces team to kill Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah if they ever tried to make a move against us.

Good point. Definitely not stupid and crazy. I agree.

BezFriend:

The OP is clearly showing signs of bigotry and bias.

It would be cool if you gave some examples of what you think is bigotry and bias.

[BezFriend]

At 10/31/10 02:05 AM, AbstractPathologist wrote:

At 10/30/10 10:11 PM, kevinyam93 wrote: i wouldn't mind someone wiping out Israel..

That's cool. While we're trying to be offensive, here's my thoughts: I wouldn't mind someone wiping out all of the Middle East. They have caused the United States and the entire world so many problems. Let's just get rid of them.

United States? Entire world? WHAT PROBLEMS EXACTLY? Your statement is just racist!

orangebomb wrote:

Although, I wouldn't oppose sending in a special forces team to kill Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah if they ever tried to make a move against us.

Good point. Definitely not stupid and crazy. I agree.

What not stupid and not crazy. Sending a special force to kill an innocent man is like Osama Bin Laden sending his special hijacking forces just to send a message.

BezFriend:

The OP is clearly showing signs of bigotry and bias.

It would be cool if you gave some examples of what you think is bigotry and bias.

Dude, the entire post is clearly bigoted and biased.

[AbstractPathologist]

At 10/31/10 02:42 AM, BezFriend wrote: Dude, the entire post is clearly bigoted and biased.

Okay, if YOU say so, DUDE. Sorry for the inconvenience, DUDE.

Also, let's go live on a dude ranch. ;)

[Musician]

Stupid post. Ridiculous premise. Comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler is sloppy at best, outright disingenuous at worst. Unsurprising given the poster. I'll only take a moment to contest some of points that especially bother me:

Iran wants power. It's on its way to getting nuclear weapons, and it has said before that with them, they will destroy Israel

I have no idea what Ranger2's source is for that last part. Iran has never claimed that it will destroy Israel. Presumably he's referring the Ahmadinejad's supposed remarks of "wiping Israel off the map". Which is a misquote perpetuated mostly by Western media outlets.

There's no way Iran would help Iraq become a free republic, especially because...
a: Iran isn't a republic

Iran is an Islamic Republic, and there's no reason to believe Iran would care what form of government Iraq has, so long as it's regime is friendly. Which isn't inconceivable given the Shia majority of Iraq.

b: they want to keep Iraq weak and occupied.

Is this a joke? No, sorry, Iran doesn't want US military bases in Iraq. Having them there poses a serious threat to their national security. Especially given the US's common policy of aggressively invading countries, bombing them back into the stone age, and installing repressive governments that support US interests.

And, of course, anti-Semitism

Does anyone care? We have Republican politicians in the US making hateful, bigoted statements towards Muslims. How is that any different from racism against the Jews? Ahmedinejad's statements aren't even particularly inflammatory if you take the time to read them. Which I doubt you have.

[BigLundi]

Ahmadinejad has not killed millions of Jews. Until he has, he is not near as bad as Hitler. He has not started a war, and he has not convinced an entire country that there is a master race, and all other races should be eradicated.

In fact, the only REAL similarity between the two is that both are in supreme places of power, and aren't necesarily very nice. That's just about it.

The Big A isn't any worse than most dictators, truly North Korea has fucked up FAR worse than him on the "We're evil sumbitches" scale, why aren't you talking about them?

[lapis]

At 10/30/10 08:16 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The USA, the UN, and the EU need to take a stronger stance against Iran. They need to stop thinking that if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us. History doesn't work that way.

Are you talking about sanctions? Sanctions are only effective when a country does not want or cannot afford to be isolated, like 1980s South Africa. Iran is already isolated and isolation might as well embolden the regime as the oppostion. I mean, sanctions did little to damage Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Hamas or (to some extent) Robert Mugabe and the Burmese junta, they mainly made the regimes (even) more hardline and paranoid and any potential change of power a lot more bloody. I think the strongest force against a tyrant is a powerful middle class that demands rights and privileges and sanctions don't do a lot to aid them. Also, from a point of view that's more in line with Realpolitik, aren't China and Russia the ones blocking tough(er) measures against Iran? What do you propose we do to put those two powers under pressure?

At 10/30/10 11:32 PM, orangebomb wrote: Although, I wouldn't oppose sending in a special forces team to kill Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah if they ever tried to make a move against us.

What "move"? Giving weapons to Iraqi insurgents that might be used to kill US soldiers? They did that, you know.

[Ledgey]

I don't think it's right to call Ahmadinejad an anti-semitic. He is certainly anti-Israel, but not from the perspective that he dislikes the Jews; there are thousands of Jews living peacefully in Iran at the moment. Furthermore, his 'denial' of the holocaust ties in more with his anti-zionism rather than ant-semitism.

[Ericho]

He would only be considered the next Hitler if he only killed tons of people. Does anyone know how many people he has killed? I think that if anyone would be considered the next Hitler, it would be Osama bin Laden or whoever was responsible for the September 11th attacks as those were the worst terrorist attacks in history. Granted, nowhere near the Holocaust, but still something of great historical note.

[bcdemon]

At 10/30/10 08:16 PM, Ranger2 wrote: He says that the Holocaust never happened, yet also says that Jews used the Holocaust as an excuse to create their own state. So, Ahmadinejad, was there a Holocaust or not? Ahmadinejad says that Israel will be wiped off that map. Iranian state television has many anti-Semitic cartoons. Ahamdinejad funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other anti-Israeli terrorist groups. He wants the slaughter of the Jewish people and will not rest until he has that.

No I believe he says there is a huge lack of proof pertaining to the number of Jews killed. He doesn't deny any jews were killed, he just contests the "6 million" number.
Nor does he want 'the total annihilation' of Israel as most Jews claim, he wants the border withdrawn. He feels Israel should have been created somewhere else (I sort of agree with him).
Placing it in the middle of an area where EVERYONE bordering the land voted NO was a bad idea from the beginning.

So, what should we do?

Chill the fuck out. It's the Israelis who always want to destroy something. Israel has attacked almost every country in the immediate vicinity. You complain about Iran wanting nuclear capabilities, yet Israel hides it's nuclear arsenal from the world, denying IAEA inspections all while bitching and moaning that Iran is ducking IAEA inspections. And you say Ahmadinejad is a hypocrite and contradictory.

[Ardavan]

People have said it before, but he's not anti-Semitic. There are many Jews living peacefully in Iran. Also, he met with the Neturei Karta organisation, which is Jewish.

He's stated that he never said he wanted to destroy Israel, but the media has mistranslated his words.

Iran has only fought one defensive war against Iraq. Israel's been killing Palestinians for quite a while.

Ahmadinejad also doesn't advocate genocide.

OP's bias is annoying.

[Imperator]

At 10/31/10 05:18 AM, BigLundi wrote: In fact, the only REAL similarity between the two is that both are in supreme places of power, and aren't necesarily very nice. That's just about it.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei.

[chairmankem]

At 10/30/10 08:27 PM, poxpower wrote: Germany was also not a shitty borderline third-world theocratic regime. They had the very best engineering and technology when they started the war.

The 1945 Wehrmacht could probably overwhelm that joke of an army that Iran has.

[HitIer]

I think that's an unfair comparison!

[adrshepard]

At 10/31/10 12:54 PM, Ardavan wrote: He's stated that he never said he wanted to destroy Israel, but the media has mistranslated his words.

Not that I agree with the OP 100%, but I'm tired of hearing this crap from everyone. Ahmedinejad is a politician, he knows what people will think when he uses the phrase, "wipe off the map", he hasn't attempted to clarify that statement as far as I know, and since then he has consistently reaffirmed his hostility to Israel. He clearly wants Israel, as the nation it is now, to be destroyed, which is a bad thing however you wish to interpret the metaphor. What Iran will actually do about it is another question.

[orangebomb]

At 10/30/10 11:32 PM, orangebomb wrote: Although, I wouldn't oppose sending in a special forces team to kill Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah if they ever tried to make a move against us.

What "move"? Giving weapons to Iraqi insurgents that might be used to kill US soldiers? They did that, you know.

We couldn't assassinate Ahmadinejad because our hands were tied between Iraq and Afghanistan, it would make no sense to fight with another country at the time.

Remember, I said that the assassination attempt of Ahmad and the Ayatollah was if they were going to threaten U.S interests from here on out, or if they tried another hostage attempt in the U.S Embassy, just like what they did in 1979. Now the odds of that happening is pretty low, but I wouldn't put it past them if they would do something like this in the near future if Ahmadinejad gets too bold for his own good.

[lapis]

At 10/31/10 05:02 PM, orangebomb wrote: We couldn't assassinate Ahmadinejad because our hands were tied between Iraq and Afghanistan, it would make no sense to fight with another country at the time.

"At the time"? You're making it sound like we're talking about the seventies or eighties here. We're talking about incidents that aroused suspicions of Iranian involvement that happened 10 months ago.

Remember, I said that the assassination attempt of Ahmad and the Ayatollah was if they were going to threaten U.S interests from here on out,

Why are incidents that happened ten months ago irrelevant but incidents that happen, say, one month from now something that warrants assassination?

or if they tried another hostage attempt in the U.S Embassy, just like what they did in 1979.

I say that training or arming insurgents is worse than what happened during the hostage crisis. After all, the former case involves US servicemen getting killed, wounded, or at least having their helicopter downed while in the latter case all US citizens were released eventually. The hostages lost more than a year of their lives but hey, that's better than (potentially) the total remainder of it.

[Musician]

At 10/31/10 04:49 PM, adrshepard wrote: Not that I agree with the OP 100%, but I'm tired of hearing this crap from everyone. Ahmedinejad is a politician, he knows what people will think when he uses the phrase, "wipe off the map", he hasn't attempted to clarify that statement as far as I know, and since then he has consistently reaffirmed his hostility to Israel. He clearly wants Israel, as the nation it is now, to be destroyed, which is a bad thing however you wish to interpret the metaphor. What Iran will actually do about it is another question.

Except he's never used the phrase "wipe off the map"(the persian word for "map" never even appeared in his speech) and besides that it's an english euphemism, not an international one. He's never "reaffirmed" hostility towards Israel, or even affirmed it in the first place. he, along with other Iranian politicans, have put their support towards the Palestinian resistance movement. But opposing a violent and illegal Israeli occupation isn't the same thing as calling for the destruction of Israel.

And even if Ahmedenijad was calling for the destruction of Israel, even if these claims you are making were anything more than tacit lies, it assumes more power than he has, since he can't perform any military action without the consent of Khamenei. You and your fellow propagandists would be better served scrutinizing the words of Iran's supreme leader, who holds most power in Iranian politics. Furthermore, Iran's (and Ahmadinejad's) official position has always been that it will respect an settlement between Israel and Palestine so long as the settlement is democratically ratified by the Palestinians, contrary to you're ill informed claims.

[BigLundi]

At 10/31/10 01:14 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 10/31/10 05:18 AM, BigLundi wrote: In fact, the only REAL similarity between the two is that both are in supreme places of power, and aren't necesarily very nice. That's just about it.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei.

Great, so they have nothing in common now.

[adrshepard]

At 10/31/10 05:47 PM, Musician wrote:

Except he's never used the phrase "wipe off the map"(the persian word for "map" never even appeared in his speech) and besides that it's an english euphemism, not an international one.

Lol @ link to antiwar.org.

He's never "reaffirmed" hostility towards Israel, or even affirmed it in the first place. he, along with other Iranian politicans, have put their support towards the Palestinian resistance movement. But opposing a violent and illegal Israeli occupation isn't the same thing as calling for the destruction of Israel.

When he says he wants the "Zionist regime" to fall, he's referring to the Israeli government, which is pretty much interchangeable with "Israel." He wants there to be an entirely new government in which all Palestinian refugees return after decades and vote. Doing so essentially destroys the Israeli government as well as all its citizens' claims to whatever land refugees would claim as their own.
It's like saying that the French and Indians should get their territories back and we should hold a new Constitutional Convention.

And even if Ahmedenijad was calling for the destruction of Israel, even if these claims you are making were anything more than tacit lies, it assumes more power than he has, since he can't perform any military action without the consent of Khamenei. You and your fellow propagandists would be better served scrutinizing the words of Iran's supreme leader, who holds most power in Iranian politics. Furthermore, Iran's (and Ahmadinejad's) official position has always been that it will respect an settlement between Israel and Palestine so long as the settlement is democratically ratified by the Palestinians, contrary to you're ill informed claims.

Oooh you're so angry that I don't buy into the Chomsky socialist alternative-media conspiracies, I can see it in your text. How you can condemn me as a propagandist and then lap up the drivel of the Iranian leadership, especially its commitment to democracy, should give you an idea of which of us is falling for propaganda.

[Chris-V2]

At 10/31/10 07:44 PM, adrshepard wrote:

When he says he wants the "Zionist regime" to fall, he's referring to the Israeli government, which is pretty much interchangeable with "Israel." He wants there to be an entirely new government in which all Palestinian refugees return after decades and vote. Doing so essentially destroys the Israeli government as well as all its citizens' claims to whatever land refugees would claim as their own.

You're putting words in his mouth. I think Ahmadinejad can speak for himself just fine. We can't say if he'd support Israel if they weren't so dogmatic in their attitudes and so hostile and defensive. And you definitely can't predict what would happen if (and that's a big if) he brought down the Israeli government. That's just speculation!

I can assume if he did it through military means he would just annex Israel.

[Musician]

At 10/31/10 07:44 PM, adrshepard wrote: Lol @ link to antiwar.org.

I don't get the joke. It apparently has better reporting than whatever you read.

When he says he wants the "Zionist regime" to fall, he's referring to the Israeli government, which is pretty much interchangeable with "Israel."

I'm really not sure where you get this interpretation. the statement was: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Note: the imam said, so you know it was a quote of Khomeini, and not his own words. He never even said that he "wants" the Zionist regime to fall, he said that the imam foretold the fall of the Zionist regime in Israel. As in it's something that's destined to happen, one way or another.

Whether or not you agree with that statement, it's clear that the western media has grossly misrepresented his remarks. I mean, lets compare his actual statements, to what you were saying just several posts ago. Which was that Ahmadinejad is proactively calling for the destruction of Israel via military force. I wonder if you even recognize how badly you misrepresented what he said. You could potentially be sued for libel if you made a similar claim about the remarks of an American politician

He wants there to be an entirely new government in which all Palestinian refugees return after decades and vote.

Why should I care what he wants? If that really is his position, then I agree with him. The Ethnic cleansing of Palestine after the first war was a horrific war crime. And the Palestinians should have the right to return to their historic homeland, and have democratic rights to participate in a bi national Israeli/Palestinian state. Whether or not this is a politically feasible solution is another matter.

Still not seeing how these positions are the same as calling for Israel to be nuked, or driven into the sea, or whatever the Israelis are pretending Iran wants to do to them these days.

How you can condemn me as a propagandist and then lap up the drivel of the Iranian leadership, especially its commitment to democracy, should give you an idea of which of us is falling for propaganda.

Actually, I never said anything about what I believe about the situation. I'm just introducing a little bit of reality into this thread. You claim that the Iranian government has called, openly, for the destruction of Israel. Which is a false a claim. Their official position towards the Israel/Palestine conflict is well known.

[adrshepard]

At 10/31/10 09:09 PM, Musician wrote:

At 10/31/10 07:44 PM, adrshepard wrote: Lol @ link to antiwar.org.

I don't get the joke. It apparently has better reporting than whatever you read.

You mean like this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekin review/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&
en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssn yt&emc=rss
Incidentally, it was Iran's own official press that translated it, not the Western media.
He's even said it again, years later, on his own freaking website:
http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114

He never even said that he "wants" the Zionist regime to fall

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.
html
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

I mean, lets compare his actual statements, to what you were saying just several posts ago. Which was that Ahmadinejad is proactively calling for the destruction of Israel via military force.

I never said anything about military force, I said he is hostile to Israel and wants it (it being its government and a nation, if not it's population, to be destroyed. You assumed I meant through military force. You accuse the "Western media" of incompetence or manipulation yet you can't even get what I said in few posts straight.

I wonder if you even recognize how badly you misrepresented what he said. You could potentially be sued for libel if you made a similar claim about the remarks of an American politician

Well no one's arrested you yet for your performance here, have they? In any case, I think they only really do that in places like, say, Iran.