What would Jesus do?

If you haven’t checked out Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush, please do—it’s a riot.
This is obviously a form of communication Kim Jong-il should look into.

19 Comments

  1. michael your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    That guy is fruit loops.

  2. snow your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Except for the part about Allah and the Koran, I would say that his platform could have been written by any number of leftist groups. He blames the US and Israel, flogs the poverty and humanitarian angle, shows his anti-corporate, anti-capitalist creds by claiming that Africa is being looted and criticizes christians for not acting like Christ. Sounds like a leftist to me, just add a dolop of Islam.

  3. snow your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and he also alludes to the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. All fitting perfectly into an extreme leftist world-view. Any enemy of the US is a friend?

  4. michael your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Hell, he sounds exactly like President Roh, right down to the rambling non sequiturs.

  5. Posted May 11, 2006 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Forget Jesus. I want to know what baduk would do.

  6. michael your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    Baduk IS Jesus.

  7. Posted May 11, 2006 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Why the fuck should a leader of any western (dare I say civilised ?) nation give two shits what Jesus Christ would think about his ruling strategy ?

    Not that I have any great vitriolic hatred of the man (hell for the most part his ideas are pretty well spot on in my mind … Jesus I mean) but religious ideology has no place in politics … except in the middle east it would seem.

    Ok I am aware I should probably make a thousand caveats to that as I realise no-ones politics are free from their conecept of right/wrong, morailty etc… I just think it is dangerous to base a government entirely on superstitious … erm I mean religious … precepts.

    peace.

  8. Pyotr your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    I’m not so sure. He’s speaking as the leader of one theocracy to another and asking that the other not be hypocritical - not to preach Jesus (Peace Be Unto Him) and act like a warmonger.

    He tries to point out the commonality between his and Bush’s religions and does so respectfully and persuasively.

    I don’t agree with running a state on religious principles, but the letter itself doesn’t to me seem as ridiculous as some are suggesting. It is certainly a lot more articulate than anything we’ve heard from the American president.

  9. snow your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Yes, it’s articulate if you buy into all the typical leftist canards.

  10. Haisan your flag
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    > Sounds like a leftist to me, just add a dolop of Islam.

    Jesus was no capitalist.

  11. Posted May 11, 2006 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Jesus was no capitalist.

    So he traded his cabinets for food stamps ?

    Render unto caesar and all … I’d say Jesus has no problem with capitalism (if that was the next step in your assertion Haisan).

    peace.

  12. MrChips your flag
    Posted May 12, 2006 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    Biggest difference between this rhetoric and that coming out of KJI propoganda machine is that 100s of millions of people around the world like what this guy is saying. Shameful but true. From muslims in general to leftists and probably even a number of moderates willing to embrace some measure of “dialogue” people will listen to this and find something in it to agree with. Don’t think that can be said of much coming from KCNA. With that said the flowery excessiveness does ring familiar. The more adjectives the more the people listen??

    I’ve never quite able to follow all the twists and turns of the historical context of Israel/Palestine. I want to sympathize with each group but can’t quite. However, contrary to what Mr.Ahmadinejad seems to think Jews do exist in the world with claim to the land sipmly because the entire world has labeled them such, when convenient. His argument and one I somewhat agree with is that these people are not Israeli, but European and Russian, and a hodgepodge of stuff from here and there. Well, tough nuts Mr. A.!! Thats what a lot of “Jews” in the 1930s thought as well and they didn’t consider themselves Jewish and didn’t have any notions of realizing a state of Zion. But Jewish they were labeled anyways and paid for it with their lives, however diluted their blood might have been or how secular they might have been. Lots of people, more than just radical muslems, want the world to believe that their is no connection between WWII and Zionism, or at least that the one does not justify the other. I say false. The world stood by and let the holocost take place. Isn’t it natural for these “Jews” to turn to a way in which they can secure their own future since they obviously can’t depend on their own governments. So they did that. Wrong methods employed? sure. Is the “Ends” wrong? I can’t argue with it. Many didn’t want to be called Jews but they were. Now muslims want us to disregard their Jewish status. Get used to disappointment Mr.A.

    As to religion and politics, separate the institution from the simple religion and I say politics needs religion…but true religion: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction. C.S. Lewis said, “Of all bad men, religious bad men are the worst.” From, GWB to Mr.A. to KJI whatever your religion when it blinds you from “true religion” it’s bad.

  13. MrChips your flag
    Posted May 12, 2006 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    One caveat….I said I sort of agreed with Mr.A’s argument. Only that it can be accepted in a vacuum for even if true his claim that Jews aren’t Jews has no bearing on the situation today; it’s too late for that in Israel. I believe Fait Accompli is the appropriate expression.

  14. Haisan your flag
    Posted May 12, 2006 at 2:47 am | Permalink

    Well, the biggest and most obvious failing of Ahmadinejad’s letter is his analysis of the modern, liberal state. He talks about how liberalism and democracy has failed (and should be replaced by a “just” theocracy), but his criticisms of Bush’s actions are almost all based on the assumptions of liberalism.

    For example, he says: “There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation…” But where is legal representation more important, Iran or the West? Similarly, he supports the Palenstinian Authority because it was democratically elected, but then he says democracy is a failure (not to mention how well the last elections worked in Iran).

    Sorry, but when I look around the world at the (relatively more) stable, just, and peaceful societies, I see a lot more liberal democracies than theocracries.

    However, if one is a theocrat and a believer in one of the “big three” religions, then his letter makes total sense. You can tell Ahmadinejad read The Conference of the Birds. But a better title for his note could have been, to paraphrase CS Lewis, A Letter From a Senior to a Junior Theocrat.

  15. R. Elgin your flag
    Posted May 12, 2006 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    The most evil people in the world are those who never doubt for one moment the rightgeousness of their cause and never pause in their pursuit of such, even when slipping on the blood of others.

    Ahmadinejad and his ilk are just such people. They want the bomb and I fear that the Iranian people are in for one hell of a blood bath.

  16. Posted May 13, 2006 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    The letter is badly composed. It reads like ramblings of a drunken man, very difficult to follow his logic. This former teacher should go back to the university to write better, or at least spell out what he wants.

    He actually left out the punch line, “Therefore, Mr. President, I am building a nuclear bomb. But, do not attack me or my Iranian people. We want the Bomb for world peace.

    P.S. this letter is not really for you, Mr. President. I believe some members of the U.S. public are really stupid. They see me as a man of peace. Ha,ha,ha, even after the 9/11. This letter is for their consumption.”

  17. Remort your flag
    Posted May 13, 2006 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    There’s no reason for diplomacy here. Let’s just give Iran and Israel nukes, and let them slug it out.

  18. Posted May 14, 2006 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Okay, so I haven’t read the letter. I’ll read it tomorrow.

    But this much I know today.

    Bush is a DICKHEAD.

    RR

  19. LetterT your flag
    Posted May 20, 2006 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    If anyone has trouble understanding his letter even with all its non sequiturs and religious references, you will have great difficulty in fully understanding the conflict between the Islamic fundamentalists and the West.

    This is a very important document for getting into the minds of the Islamic camp - if nothing else, it is an honest and sincere message straight from his heart.

    The problem is there are few places where people like him can learn to understand the West. It’s about education, it’s about dialogue over terms and worldviews, it’s about getting people to spend some time with each other before they start presuming they understand where the other person is coming from.

    This letter is vital because it’s a wonderful distillation of what Muslims (and others) around the world find evil about the West.

    You got to take a moment to stop laughing or criticizing this letter, and try to understand where this man’s coming from with all this…

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*