[lit-ideas] Re: After August 22
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:24:07 -0400
In other words, it's okay for us to redesign the Middle East, and the countries
in the area have to take what we dish out. Is that what you mean?
How do you respond to the fact - the fact, Lawrence, or argue with Peter
Galbraith that he's wrong - that Iran made friendly overtures and we rebuffed
them at every turn? Why are you not focusing on our warlike rhetoric? It's
our right to be belligerent without push back? Do you think that's feasible?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 8/23/2006 12:09:22 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: After August 22
Irene, I know you can?t read very well and but when quotation marks are around
something it means something is being quoted. Now what might I be quoting?
Hint: the article that you are ostensibly responding to. It is right there in
the article. You didn?t need to make up an insult to account for it. The
reference wasn?t Mike Wallace?s interview -- mea culpa. It was a MEMRI report
-- as the article you were responding to indicates. Further hint: the MEMRI
report below is not unrelated to this paragraph. It includes the subject
Ahmadinejad quote.
Lawrence
Clip No. 1241
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The U.S and England Are Not Worthy of
Security Council Membership. Those Who Want Good Relations with the Iranian
People Should Bow and Surrender to its Right and Might
Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, which aired on Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 15, 2006:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: When they talk about a "New Middle East," they mean a
Middle East that is held captive by America, England, and the Zionist regime.
When they talk about a "New Middle East," they do not mean progress,
development, independence, or freedom for the countries [of the region]. They
oppose independence, freedom, and progress. Look at Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon,
and other places. I say to them: The peoples of the region have awakened. It so
happens that our peoples are also calling for a New Middle East. The Middle
East that our peoples want is a free Middle East, which is not under the
control of America and England.
[...]
Those who were involved in planning this barbaric attack, those who supported
this barbaric attack, and those who prevented the cease-fire are accomplices in
the crimes of the Zionist regime, and must be placed on trial. To be more
specific, America and England purport to support human rights, freedom, and
democracy. When a cat's leg is run over by a municipal vehicle in some city,
they hold a mourning ceremony. But they had the audacity to postpone the
cease-fire for at least three weeks. They explicitly declared that the Zionist
regime should be allowed to crush the resistance, and to occupy the land, and
that [only] then would there be a cease-fire. I want to declare loud and clear,
so that the whole world will hear: These two countries are not worthy of being
members of the Security Council.
[...]
If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you
should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you
should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not
accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:47 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: After August 22
Notably Lawrence's case is so indefensible he has to make up quotes. I saw the
entire interview, have it on tape in fact, and Ahmadinejad said no such thing.
You have reinforced the premise that the August 22 bit of scare mongering
embodies our approach to Iran. Thank you Lawrence.
Other related posts:
