Archive for the 'Kenneth R. Timmerman' Category

Re Kenneth Timmerman on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Columbia

September 24, 2007

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D9982757-9390-45A6-A9B2-59DFDC77A603

Hitler’s Muslim Nephew Comes to New York
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, September 24, 2007

Comment on above article:

Kenneth R. Timmerman has fallen into the same trap that some on the left do, trying to stop people from speaking and making the debate over procedure and not substance. Its what Ahmadinejad has to say and his credibility that matter, and the response to that. This works for Timmerman but he can’t pursue it partly because Front Page is pushing him towards theatrics and away from substance.

Timmerman talks about suing in court. When you sue, you send out depositions to make the other side’s people talk. Timmerman is doing an anti-deposition service here. Timmerman is helping Iran protect its president from running off his mouth, something not in Iran’s interest.

Iran is letting him have a long rope because they think we are impotent, for domestic consumption, for Islamic consumptions, and because they have mis-estimated. Ahmadinejad sends the message that Iran is dangerous. He should speak everywhere he wants and take questions without the police hovering around those asking questions.

This is an error Front Page has a tendency to lurch into. It undermines its credibility by adopting some of the worst tactics of the left at precisely the wrong time. Ahmadinejad is here, and we need to concentrate people’s attention on substance, Iran is supplying weapons to use against US troops.

Has a fatwa already been approved that attacking all Western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is Islamic? NATO is in Afghanistan.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Was this because Iran has already prepared a secret fatwa saying it is Islamic to attack Western forces in both Iran and Afghanistan? That includes NATO in Afghanistan?

The protests have become agitprop against their own side. The issue should be what is Iran doing, are they attacking US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan through proxies, have they already approved a fatwa that in effect declares war on the US, NATO and other coalition forces such as Australia. The question should be what is the credibility of the Iranian president.

Instead, the tactic adopted, protest marches, pressure on Columbia or Bloomberg not to let him speak or appear, focuses the attention away from Iran and onto the protest movements. This may help them with fund raising but undermines them with the public. If the goal is to get the apathetic middle to focus on Iran and its president, this is failing.

The neocon right is instead making itself look ridiculous. They are making themselves look like a caricature, anti-Islamic warmongers who can’t talk substance. Iran’s leaders probably were not smart enough to predict this would happen, but if they were, the neocon right has fallen into their trap.

== 8:51 AM 24 Sep 2007 Reply to a Comment at Front Page

“Your Freedom of Speech, is payed by the lives of our students. ”

This shows the misconception that Front Page is under as well. The issue is being cast as a free speech issue by those against Iran. They are missing their chance to be heard. Its not Iran that is not being heard, its those who have criticism of substance of Iran whose chance is being lost to be heard or taken seriously.

We need a draft of 2 million men. We need to have Congress pass a set of conditions for Iran. We need a bipartisan team to negotiate with Iran in Geneva. This takes getting the public to buy in to these measures.

Where are the neocons headed? A missile strike on Iran when our army is next door. You don’t attack a country with missiles that your army is next to unless you are ready for a ground war. We need a much bigger army. That takes getting the support of the US public.

To get the support of the US public, we need the president of Iran to run his mouth.

Islam is a legalistic system. They are supporting attacks on our troops. To do that, they had to make a fatwa or other finding that it was Islamic to supply munitions against US and NATO forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If its required by Islam to oppose the West in Iraq, then it is also required to oppose the West, i.e. NATO in Afghanistan.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Ahmadinejad is saying this is a matter of religion to religion. The munitions supplied by Iran’s government required, within the legalistic system of Islam to be justified on Islamic grounds. A fatwa against US forces in Iraq on Islamic grounds would apply to NATO on Islamic grounds. Thus Iran has likely approved a finding that it is at war with NATO in Afghanistan on Islamic grounds.

This is the issue, not a free speech issue.

== Comment at Jihad Watch

Link to Columbia webcast info and 60 Minutes transcript links

Has Iran issued a secret fatwa that finds that it is Islamic to supply munitions against US forces in Iraq? Does that mean it is Islamic to do the same against NATO forces in Afghanistan? Has Iran, in effect, made a finding that it is at war with the US and NATO as well as coalition members such as Australia?

That is discussed at the above link and at the link at my name.

quote from 60 Minutes interview:

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

Ahmadinejad is saying this is a matter of religion to religion.

This comment is consistent with the hypothesis that an Islamic fatwa was prepared and approved in Iran for supporting operations against US troops in Iraq and NATO in Afghanistan. Islam has a legalistic tendency in it. So a finding that Iran has a duty under Islam to support the fight in Iraq seems like a logical necessity for the more than casual and sustained support they are making. If its Islamic to support the insurgency in Iraq, then it must also be in Afghanistan?

“All infidels are but one nation”? Also, the US is one nation and is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be strange if Islam required Iran to fight the US in Iraq but not in Afghanistan. But if Islam requires fighting the US in Afghanistan, it also requires fighting NATO in Afghanistan.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018247.php

==Added 12:54 PM Monday Sep 24 2007

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070924/cm_huffpost/065519

 Azadeh Ensha  Sun Sep 23, 10:21 PM ET

Once again, the American right is going about things all wrong. Ahmadinejad is their best tool. Rather than working to shut him down, they should sit back and let him speak. Here’s why: Sound bites from Ahmadinejad’s Columbia appearance will inevitably produce more “evidence” the administration and its hawks can use to push the need for this regime’s elimination — like his incendiary remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations last year. It is Ahmadinejad’s words the administration consistently cites as supporting evidence for its cause. If Ahmadinejad wasn’t afforded the opportunity to speak, and to offer up more inflammatory remarks, then the right would be without this easy ammunition in its ongoing campaign to invade Iran.

As leading campus free speech and first amendment scholar Robert O’Neil rightly notes: “If you suppress a viewpoint by disallowing or barring a controversial speaker, you make the speaker a martyr.”

%d bloggers like this: