The Guardian headline states that President Ahmadinejad’s support in Iran is “soaring” although there are no political polls to provide any firm evidence. Cue the quote from a Professor of political science at the University of Tehran that provides a figure without any indication of its accuracy:
“He’s more popular now than a year ago. He’s on the rise,” said Nasser Hadian-Jazy, a professor of political science at Tehran University. “I guess he has a 70% approval rating right now. He portrays himself as a simple man doing an honest job. He’s comfortable communicating with ordinary people.”
Other sources are “Iranian officials and western diplomats” although why their information should be treated as honest and impartial is not provided. We must assume that Iranian bureaucrats provide information about their elected President from a neutral stance. The article then states that the President is favourite to win a second term in 2009, which is only three years away. He may already be a lame duck given the electoral cycle! It is also attributed to his obigatory resistance to the United States.
Attributing his success to his populist style and fortnightly meet-the-people tours of the country, the sources said that as matters stood, Mr Ahmadinejad was the clear favourite to win a second term in 2009. The perception that the president was standing up to the US on the nuclear issue was also boosting his standing.
Further down, balance returns with alternative views that Ahmadinejad’s popularity stems from his lack of corruption and a high oil price that allows subsidies to be sprayed at the peasant and poor urban classes who voted for him. However, the recent unrest amongst minorities is wrapped into “US claims”: “US officials have described the Iranian president as a threat to world peace and claim that he faces a popular insurrection at home”. His denial of the Holocaust is only “apparent”.
Here, Iran is represented in the reporting as another democracy. with an emphasized subtext that Ahmadinejad’s popularity stems from threats by the United States as he is merely standing up for the rights of his country and resisting the demands of the West. An unbalanced article informed by unattributable sources, a lack of hard evidence, and a series of talking heads that are supposed provide a middle point from which readers infer the truth.
Well, apparently he is. What’s also apparent is that the authors of the article are using language in a peculiar way, which I submit we should avoid falling in with. Sometimes things are as they appear to be.
While on the flip-side we have Hossein Khomeini (grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini) calling for the USA to enforce its stand against Ahmadinejad and his ilk.
Whilst a bunch of experts spouting their opinions is never very interesting, I suspect that they happen to be entirely correct in this case. The interesting thing is that he is _so_ popular, the actual ruler of Iran, Khamenei, seems to be getting worried. Not only is Ahmadinejad more popular, but he’s more extreme as well. A serious public split between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would be interesting. I would rather see power move to a (somewhat) democratically elected leader, than stay with the clerics, even if the clerics in this case are more moderate.
Ahmadinejad is similar to Chavez in many ways, but I think his position is more vulnerable. The supreme leader dislikes him enough that he’s never going to get away with fixing the electoral system to secure his position like Chavez has. I think he’ll be replaced in the course of events without doing any serious harm to anyone. Chavez could still manage to de-stabilise Venzuela (or beyond…) quite seriously.
I would suggest that perhaps what this journalist is trying to convey is the idea that Ahmadinejad does not really believe that the Holocaust didn’t take place.
The idea being that of course Ahmadinejad knows that the Holocaust happened, the weight of evidence being to great.
Of course this is true, and it is fairly obvious that he uses his denial for political ends, both national and international.
Still, it’s very bad phraseology to say the least, and not particularly good journalism either.
The West do not seem to like what stands for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What about Ansar al Michelle Hughes attak on Iran from Iraq border arae. Iran has to but up with bombers from them all time too and Amrika is not the only person who was attacked by Ansar al Michelle Hughes on the 11 day of their Middle Autumn month in 2nd year of their current millenium.
Iran has religious goverment because gunners would kill us otherwise. Gunners tells us put Fatwa on Slaman Rushdie or Iranian cities bombed. Ayatollahs are too old and week to be able to stand up to gunners and Ansar al Michelle Hughes. Hate to say it but Iran needs a Saddam Hossein: a strong secular diktator who can kill off fanatic militia who hold government of Republic of Iran hostage. Iran and Amrika friends could be only for gunmen at embassy who held our feeble government as much to hostage in as Amrika government were held to hostage in. Imam Khomeyni had choice not to obey or else he be killed by gunmen or driven Iran out like Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Ahmadinejad brave stand up to all and hope he is diktator who can be liberal. Educated man he is. So hope Republic of Iran gets to be the country fathers our fout for and get the gun out of Iranian politics forever. But Arabistan and Baluchi Michelle Hughes not going away anytime in soon.
What does one expect from The Guardian?
This sounds suspiciously similar to the Soviet economic reports.
– Josh
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a case for querying the Holocaust. His argument is that Nazi Germany simply didn’t have the facility and technology to dispose of some six million corpses (or whatever it was) within the assumed time frame. Therefore, the authorized version, while not entirely a fiction, was a huge exaggeration. Well fair enough, if you shut out the Jewish lobby and consider this notion pragmatically as a question to be addressed by historical research. Perhaps I should avoid Austria unless I want to chat this over with David Ivring in the exercise yard. Putting people in jail for questioning the Holocaust: What’s next? Slammer time for saying Bin Laden (well-known international terrorist and recluse) didn’t mastermind 9/11.
The Holocaust was a pivotal historical event: The state of Israel was formed because of a collective European guilt complex and the need to establish a Western foothold in Arabia. Calling President Ahmadinejad an anti-Semite won’t wash, because anti-Semitism is a Christian invention. Anti-Zionism is a different matter, and I suspect a lot of people could identify with that. Consider this, from defector’s reports and escapees, the Allies were aware of what was going on in the camps. If they weren’t prepared to bomb the camps the least that could have done would have been to destroy the rail lines. But they didn’t; the reasoning presumably being, “Hitler may be a blackguard, but at least he has the right idea about the Jews.”
Now fast-forward: President Ahmadinejad could have said, “America is Israel’s bitch”, a charge wholly sustainable considering the influence of pro-Israel groups on US politics. The Jewish lobby has such an influence on US politics that it facilitates enactment of much legislation that is against America’s own interest, but very much in Israel’s interest. That’s taking political lobbying and media propaganda to a new level. Wake up America: Your enemy is Israel. That’s done it, my firewall will light up like a Christmas tree.
But before my MI5 file is upgraded to “Red Tag, Islamic Sympathizer”, let me say I wholeheartedly condemn Iran for its public executions of juveniles (both sexes) for such “crimes” as contempt of court and sexual crimes (sexual relations out of wedlock, homosexuality). Totally reprehensible and barbaric to execute teenagers at all, far less those convicted without legal representation in a kangaroo court, right George? However, it does explain the recent increased demand for mobile cranes at the Yokohama construction machinery auction. The mullahs have abandoned stoning for hanging from a crane jib.
Imagine this will get me banned from Samidata; the ultimate accolade (so copy it quick, guys). Your loss is another site’s gain. When you have a letter pulled for being “pompous self-justifying” you start to wonder what excuse will be next: Double negative and split infinitive, perhaps? Fortunately hypocrisy never quite made the Seven Deadly Sins. Hard to believe anyone male and heterosexual could be this childish, spiteful and vindictive, but perhaps I’ve answered my own question.
So let me get this straight, are you saying a person is NOT a liar and/or a complete jackass if he thinks that Nazi Germany, a nation which produced and operated tens of thousands of combat aircraft, fielded the world’s first operational jet fighters, built and deployed the world’s first effective guided missiles and glide bombs, produced and used the world’s first military supersonic ballistic missiles, installed tens of thousands of concrete fortifications and shelters, placed hundreds of thousands of concrete and metal anti-tank obsticles across Europe, surrounded its cities with great flak batteries with proximity fusing technology, laid thousands of kilometres of railtracks (regauging much of European Russia’s rail system!), had the logistic capacity to support millions of men equipt by vast fleets of motor vehicles in operational areas from North Africa to Norway and the French coast to the Urals, DID NOT HAVE THE FACILITIES OR TECHNOLOGY TO DISPOSE OF SIX MILLION DEAD BODIES OVER SEVERAL YEARS?
The notion is so absurd that I do not for a second thinks it could be said in good faith.
What I also find amusing is that in the unlikely event one of the editors decides they can be bothered to ban this harmless pinhead, said harmless pinhead thinks this will be to our detriment.
Andrew Milner – nothing original, interesting, clever or insightful can be gleaned from your deeply orthodox, leftist-sounding, holocaust-reductionist, anti-Israel boilerplate. At a site where contributors and commenters alike regularly toss up their original, interesting, clever and insightful ponderances for wider analysis, what on earth makes you think your departure would leave such people worse off?
Anti semitism (in the sense of Jew hating) is not a “Christian invention”.
Both the Greeks and the Romans (to name only two people’s) hated Jews because they worshipped only one God (thus insulting the others) – and (particularly) because they refused to worshop rulers (whether they were Kings of the states that were formed out of Alex the Great’s Empire or Romen Emperors.
As for the Muslims – Muslim rulers had invented identifying badges (and other humilations) for Jews long before the Christians did.
Also “the Prohet” wiped out whole towns of Jews (indeed almost all Jews in the whole of Arabia were murdered or enslaved) long before there was anything like this from Christians.
That some later Muslim rulers were far more tolerant misses the point that the President of Iran wishes to go back to the (evil) roots of his faith, shedding off later “corruption”.