& Cozy Corner: Iran Archives

Main

September 13, 2006

Khatami's doublespeak

By now you know that Khatami spoke at Harvard. Via Dinocrat, we find the Amir Taheri commentary on what really went on:

The visitor was the former president of the Islamic Republic - Hojat al-Islam wa al-Moslemeen Sayyed Muhammad Khatami. He too, decided to "edit" his name to cut a less outlandish image with his American interlocutors. Gone was the title Hojat al-Islam wa al-Moslemeen ("Proof of Islam and of Muslims") and the sobriquet of Sayyed ("master") used by those who claim to be descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.

Throughout, he presented himself as former president of "Iran," rather than of the Islamic Republic - although, legally speaking, there is no state known as Iran. He also insisted on describing himself as hich-kareh - someone with no official position at all - hiding the fact that he is a member of at least 11 organs of the Islamic Republic, including the all-important Assembly of Experts.

Khatami altered more than his identity: He edited Islam into a lovey-dovey cult that abhors the use of force, is uncomfortable with capital punishment, would never fight except in self-defense and actively welcomes other faiths.
...
He used a vocabulary carefully designed to hoodwink the Americans without angering his fellow Khomeinists back home. The trick was reinforced by the fact that he often said one thing in Persian, while the interpreter said something else in English for the benefit of the Harvard audience.

For example, Khatami would speak of khoshunat, which means "roughness," but the interpreter would translate it into "violence" or even "terror." Thus, the Harvard audience would think that Khatami admits that there may be terrorism in the realm of Islam - while back in Tehran, he would appear talking only about "roughness" and "coercion."

In Persian, he would speak of "sodomy," but the Harvard audience would hear "gay sex." Referring to the leader of al Qaeda, he would say "that gentleman" (Aan Agha) in Persian, but the interpreter would say "Osama bin Laden."

Asked what he thought of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's various outrageous statements, the Hojat al-Islam never mentioned his successor by name. In Persian, he took pains to endorse Ahamdinejad's basic position - but in English he gave the impression that he did not fully agree with his successor.
...
Khatami was practicing an art known as taqiyah, which could be translated into "dissimulation" or "obfuscation." This began as a theological tool to allow Shiites to hide their beliefs in hostile environments - but Khatami used it as a political tool to deceive Americans who obviously longed to be deceived.

And sadly, a lot of folks are going to just eat it right up.

September 09, 2006

Khatami reveals Harvard's intolerance

Alan Dershowitz has an op-ed on Khatami's visit to Harvard:

THE KENNEDY SCHOOL of Government at Harvard University should not cancel the scheduled speech by former president Mohammad Khatami of Iran. Universities must never submit to censorial pressures by individuals or groups that disagree with, or are deeply offended by, a speaker's ideas.

This does not mean that those who invited Khatami to deliver a lecture on the ``Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence" -- a subject on which, based on his lifetime of intolerance, he has nothing to contribute -- made a wise decision. Would they have invited David Duke to lecture on racial harmony or the late Meir Kahane to educate our students on the proper way to protest? I doubt it.
...
Derek Bok, acting president of Harvard, is right when he says that ``a wide exchange of views" is essential to a university. But there are only two tenable positions a university may take in this regard: the first is that they have no substantive standards for who should be invited -- in other words any speaker who wishes to engage in ``a wide exchange of views," and who is invited by any student or faculty group, must be entitled to stand on the Harvard podium. Under this ``taxi cab" approach -- a cab driver must accept any rider who can pay the fare -- Duke and Kahane would have to be invited to speak if there were students or teachers who wanted to hear them, regardless of who might be offended. The second alternative is to have substantive standards -- such as academic achievement or political prominence -- that are applied rigorously and equally, without regard to whether the speaker is left or right, offensive to Jews or to Arabs, etc.

Sadly, Harvard is selective. I recall ROTC cadets having to fight simply to allow their commissioning to take place on campus, simply because any serving military officer was offensive to some groups.

I think Khatami chose the perfect spot to speak from - an intolerant institution.

Update: I see Betsy has much the same thought.

September 05, 2006

No love for Khatami

Go Mitt:

Governor Mitt Romney denounced Harvard University today for inviting former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s to speak at the school on Sept. 10 and ordered all state agencies to boycott the visit by refusing to provide state police escorts and other service typically given to former heads of state.

"State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney said in a written statement, calling Khatami’s visit a "disgrace" on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

So, I wonder who is going to provide security for Khatami?

Update: I should have read to the bottom; the State Dept is providing it. Maybe he can have Armitage on site.

September 01, 2006

The Doomsday Clock

Gus Van Horn wonders why the Doomsday Clock has stopped:

That famous symbol of the Cold War, the Doomsday Clock (of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) appears to have become stuck at seven minutes to midnight since some time in March or April of 2002.
...
"Surely," I thought, "What with Iran being so close and so defiant, and with North Korea likely to have the bomb already, the clock has had to be moved."

Well, actually, he's not wondering:
Well. OK. I lied. For one thing, I know how far to the left many scientists are: I am, after all, the only scientist I know of in my department at work to have voted for Bush and so was outnumbered three-to-one by scientists in my lab who voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Democrat primaries. For another, the first time I looked at this site I noticed the strong tendency to assume the worst of United States policies while only very reluctantly admitting that anyone else might possibliy be, perhaps, up to no good.

Too bad. Apparently, even nuclear scientists can believe in appeasement.
(h/t: Cox and Forkum)

August 19, 2006

I feel fine

August 22nd is just around the corner. I'm not an End-Timer, but when a lunatic threatens to light up the sky over Jerusalem, and calls my country the Great Satan, I tend to listen. When terrorists plan to blow up airplanes, and murderers walk into charities and gun down innocent women, it behooves one to be a bit prepared.

In three days, maybe we'll look back and scoff at our worries. Me? I went to Costco, and did a little shopping.

August 13, 2006

Look who's blogging!

Via Captain's Quarters, we learn that Ahmadinejad has a blog. And yes, this one looks legit.

It's really too amusing.

Update: Silly me. Via Giyus we learn that it's a malware site, and has tried to infect PCs in Israel. I'm one of those devil-may-care Mac users, running an even less-than-standard browser, so I didn't even think twice about it, even though I should have. I've disabled the link. (hat tip: Carl in Jerusalem)

August 07, 2006

It's the end of the world as we know it

Omar Fadhil, of Iraq The Model, opines on Iran's motivations in backing Sadr and Nasrallah:

Continue reading "It's the end of the world as we know it" »

August 06, 2006

Iran: stabilization through radiation

From the Sunday London Times:

IRAN is seeking to import large consignments of bomb-making uranium from the African mining area that produced the Hiroshima bomb, an investigation has revealed.
A United Nations report, dated July 18, said there was “no doubt” that a huge shipment of smuggled uranium 238, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the Congo.

Tanzanian customs officials told The Sunday Times it was destined for the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, and was stopped on October 22 last year during a routine check.

The disclosure will heighten western fears about the extent of Iran’s presumed nuclear weapons programme and the strategic implications of Iran’s continuing support for Hezbollah during the war with Israel.

By "heighten", you mean "demonstrate the validity of", right?

A senior Tanzanian customs official said the illicit uranium shipment was found hidden in a consignment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered via Bandar Abbas, Iran’s biggest port.

Guys - it's cocaine and coffee, not uranium and coltan.

Lubumbashi is the capital of mineral-rich Katanga province, home of the Shinkolobwe uranium mine that produced material for the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

The mine has officially been closed since 1961, before the country’s independence from Belgium, but the UN investigators have told the security council that they found evidence of illegal mining still going on at the site.

In 1999 there were reports that the Congolese authorities had tried to re-open the mine with the help of North Korea. In recent years miners are said to have broken open the lids and extracted ore from the shafts, while police and local authorities turned a blind eye.

Hmmmm. As Powerline notes:

Quick, someone send Joe Wilson to Tanzania so he can come back and explain why this report can't possibly be true.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Visitors since 17 July 2006

Contact

andy [at] cozikin [dot] com