Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a leading figure in a tyrannical regime that has murdered untold numbers of his own people and which funds international terrorism that has claimed the lives of many Americans, including our soldiers in Iraq. He is a Holocaust denier and, like the government he fronts, is a font of vicious anti-Semitic invective that has repeatedly threatened to destroy the State of Israel. But, according to a Michigan congressman, Americans should mind their manners when speaking of him.
Republican Justin Amash is a second generation Palestinian-American and is apparently under the impression that any comparison of even one of the vilest figures on the international stage to a monkey is a sign of racism against Persians or perhaps prejudice against Muslims and Arabs. Amash lashed out at Senator John McCain today for a humorous tweet in which the Arizona senator made fun of Ahmadinejad’s stated desire to be the first Iranian in space. The Iranians made an unsubstantiated claim that they sent a monkey into space last week and when he heard Ahmadinejad’s comment, McCain, like many other Americans, couldn’t contain his mirth on his Twitter feed:
So Ahmadinejad wants to be first Iranian in space – wasn’t he just there last week? “Iran launches monkey into space” http://news.yahoo.com/iran-launches-monkey-space-showing-missile-progress-003037176.html
When he was told of criticism of his remark, the caustic McCain sent out another tweet:
Re: Iran space tweet – lighten up folks, can’t everyone take a joke?
But Amash doesn’t think taking Ahmadinejad’s name in vain is funny and tweeted the following:
Maybe you should wisen up & not make racist jokes.
Race is the third rail of American politics and any comment that smacks of hatred is abhorrent. But the attempt to depict Ahmadinejad as a victim of Western prejudice lacks credibility. The day that Americans can’t crack wise about a purveyor of hatred is one in which we not only have lost our sense of humor but also our moral compass.
The conceit of Amash’s attempt to take McCain to the woodshed is the idea that Westerners see all third world peoples as animals who are less than human and unworthy of respect. But McCain wasn’t trying to imply that Iranians or Muslims are monkeys. He was poking fun at a man whose fantastical utterances and unabashed hate has become the butt of jokes for Westerners for years. Indeed, the problem with Ahmadinejad is that too many Americans don’t take the hatred and the existential threat his regime poses to Israel as well as to the security of the world seriously because he is a comic figure and so easily lampooned. If American comics have dehumanized him, it is not very different from the way Adolf Hitler and his Nazi and fascist allies were depicted in American popular culture before the world learned the tragic truth about the Holocaust. It is a not unnatural reaction for those who are themselves dehumanized by haters to return the favor, if only in humorous context. Although he denies the Holocaust while plotting a new one, Ahmadinejad is not the equivalent of Adolf Hitler. But one has to wonder how anyone, let alone a member of Congress, can muster up much outrage about some comic sniping aimed at the Iranian leader.
Amash is probably trying to use McCain’s tweet to further the popular idea that American Muslims and Arabs are suffering under the burden of prejudice. Though the post-9/11 backlash is more myth than reality, it would have been a terrible thing had McCain actually slurred Muslims or Persians. But he didn’t. He just made a joke about Ahmadinejad and the poor primate that is alleged to have been strapped into a rocket by his terrorist masters.
Americans have always laughed at their enemies. It is a healthy reaction and speaks of our self-confidence as well as our justified contempt for those who despise our democracy and threaten the peace of the world. The only questions about Ahmadinejad’s humanity stem from the hate that he spews, not a silly jest. Amash’s faux outrage about the insult directed at the Iranian president tells us more about his priorities than it does about those of McCain.
Amash better not point fingers about racism. One look at his twitter account it appears that he retweeted the Guardian's happy antisemite Glenn Greenwald and seems to resent how often Hagel was asked about Israel. Seems that this Congressman is projecting his own racism onto others. Maybe someone should explain to this CAIR frontman the old adage that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
What did Greenwald tweet and Amash retweet?
I would have thought it tasteless to make fun of the retarded, even if he is a monkey.
Tasteless, maybe, but it isn't racist. We mock the man, not his race.
No doubt Justin Amash and the others who agree with him were also terribly offended by Gerald Scarfe's antisemitic cartoon of Netanyahu in the Sunday Times. Funny, I just can't recall any of them speaking out against it…
Don't know about Amash and other GOP libertarians, but plenty of people objected to the cartoon, and Murdoch apologized for it.
Oh shut up, for the love of God. Doesn't Mom have dinner ready? n n We were talking about Amash.
there wasn't much angry reaction in Iran. n nbut had McCain called Mahmoud an Arab, there would have been widespread outrage
McCain's not way off base here: There WAS an uncanny resemblance between Ahmedinijad and that monkey the Iranian Jihadists sent into space. However, an IQ test would have proven it to be an erroneous assertion , as the monkey's got a good 30 point higher IQ than the Iranian president, and also sits higher on the evolutionary chain than Mahmoud. Turns out to be just an incidental resemblance.
calling the cretinous Mahmoud a monkey is cool with Tobin, but a cartoon about Bibi that might have not faithfully reproduced the dude's nose was an alarming outrageous bit of bigotry, eh?
And Moron #2 weighs in.
There's more where that came from. Never a shortage.
it's like in the old TV sitcoms. one character says to another character: "But where will we EVER find anyone stupid enough to [whatever]"– n nand then ldubinsky comes in. n nhilarity ensues.
How exactly does this parse? Calling Amadinejad "cretinous," as ldubinsky, not Jonathan Tobin, did is OK, but likening him to the monkey Iran launched into space (did the return safely to earth or was a monkey double substituted?), as McCain did and Tobin thinks OK, that's wrong is n in ldubinsky's book?! n nBut the real gem here is "a cartoon about Bibi that might not have faithfully reproduced the dude's nose was an alarming outrageous of bigotry, eh?" No, no hint of bigotry in a depiction of Netanyahu in a way so reminiscent of Nazi representations of Der Jude with a big hooked nose (not "faithfully reproduced"[sic]), arched eyebrows, and a very sinister look, imuring tortured Palestinian bodies with their blood mixed with the mortar, a blood-dripping trowel in his hand. Is that a dem onstration of leftist honesty or obtuseness?
doc, try to focus. n n my question is ho does Tobin get offended as depicting Bibi as a ugly, evil human–and claim that so depicting one personas such demeans all Jews, not merely all Israelis- as not get offended at calling Mahmoud a sub-human— and does not so describe all Iranians as sub-human? n n n n
It's the elements of the graphic representation and that Nazi iconography that you either don't get or decline to acknowledge.
Agree with you 100% . Whenst do these cretins crawl out ?
Heil, heil, in the Imam's face?
You should learn to read in the American language. Mr. Tobin referred to the idiot Amash as of Palestinian-American origin. And how many so-called "Palestinian" Christians belong to terrorist groups? Quite a few. You should be critical of such evil trash calling themselves Christian. It is an insult to Christianity.
nAll of the monkeys I know were offended by McCain's tweet.
If I were a monkey, I too would be indignant!
This guy Amash is clearly in the wrong political party
"one has to wonder how anyone, let alone a member of Congress, can muster up much outrage about some comic sniping aimed at the Iranian leader"… n nno, one doesn't have to wonder. you said it yourself: Amash (from my state, unfortunately, probably Dearbornistan) is a "second-generation Palestinian." that means he's one of the Grievance Gang. and that means he's allowed to get outraged about anything he wants, and we're supposed to apologize for our insensitivity.
It's interesting to see that this head of the Liberty Caucus is against "abortion rights," which doesn't comport very well with libertarianism.
Some people were also against "slave owners rights" a few centuries ago.
Libertarians promote individual liberty and seek to minimize the role of the state. The majority of libertarians support legal access to abortion as part of their general support for individual rights, especially in regard to what they consider to be a woman's right to control her body.[1]…Other libertarians claim libertarian principles such as the non-aggression principle apply to human beings from conception, and that the right to life thus applies to fetuses. Some of those individuals express opposition to legal abortion.[3]
Calling someone a "monkey" in English is an expression that means they are a clown, not that they are literally an animal. There is some kind of misguided equivalence here between this and Morsi literally calling Jews animals a few weeks ago. I don't think people were calling the Bush/Monkey cartoons racist.
We could blast off Ahmadinejad, Chuck Hagel, and a monkey together on a spaceflight; but of course the monkey would have to be in charge.
Mr. Amash read my lips “stuff it!!” Ahmadinejad and his like are parasites infesting the body of a civilized world and the sooner an anti-parasitic is used ot rid the world of his ilk the sooner we can down to living in peace and harmony with each other.
I think it speaks volumes that Amash had the gall to defend Mahmoud and to publicly call McCain racist. One would think he would be embarrassed or inhibited to say such nonsense But no, and he probably feels "justice" and popular opinion are on his side. It shows how far politically correct b.s. has been ingested in this country and how it is second nature. I wish McCain had stuck to his guns and said, yes, the creep leading Iran is a monkey, though I mean no insult to the monkey species… and anyone who calls this a racist remark is a jerk.
I think John McCain is absolutely correct, Ahmadinejad indeed shares some resemblance to a monkey however the monkey they allegedly launched into space is a lot cuter. There is nothing racist in merely observing the visual similarity the two share and if Justin Amash has a problem with the obvious truth of McCain's statement, he needs to get his eyes corrected and/or remove his head from his rectum which will vastly improve his vision!
Isn’y it “funny” how Morsi and other Muslims can refer to Jews as descendants of apes and pigs but an infidel cannot make joke about Iran’s future spaceman.
Good for McCain; he got it right (and that is saying something – McCain is not the sharpest knife in the drawer). Jay Leno used to call Ahmadinejad by a more appropriate name: Ahmanutjob. He had it right, too.
What is that a link to, some Arab or Iranian source? You think that is a Streicher-like depiction of Ahamadinhad? What exactly do you imagine it says of relevance to McCain's tweet and/or the Scarfe cartoon?
it came from a site run by Americans of Iranian origin…… and I ran that picture of mahmoud drawn with him having a gigantic hooked nose to demonstrate the absence of anything such as that in the nasty little cartoon of bibi. n n
Thank you for the link, which allows us a better look at that image. And that look confirms what we already knew, which is that you are a fool and/or disingenuous, as well as unpleasant. n nIt matters not for our purposes here whether this Uskowi person is a lover of the Iranian theocracy or quite opposed to it, as you say he is. (At a glance, it appears that he favors Ahmadinejad against Ayatollah Khomenei.) You adduced that image as some sort of "counterproof" to show that there was nothing very exceptional about Scarfe's cartoon portrayal of Netanyahu, since Ahmadinejad had been similarly characturized. Well, it wouldn't mean much in any event how Ahmadinehad had been drawn by another characturist, but anyone with eyes can see for themselves that he was in no way portray like Netanyahu was, though the size of his nose may have been slightly exaggerated. He is smiling, as is the person portrayed alongside him, whoever that is; he is not engaged in anything evil, though he is certainly an evil person; and he doesn't look in the least sinister; all of that in marked contrast to the way Scarfe drew Netanyahu. n nAnd as we have come to expect of you, you don't rely on proof in support of your contention ("the claim the NIAC lobbies as agents for the Iranian gov't is…"), though there is proof to contradict you on the table. No, instead, as per usual, you go with personal attacks on the speaker. n nOK, we have wasted enough time on you and your ugly stupidities. (Thanks, though, for being so temperate as to go no further this time with the personal abuse than "goofball," and playing straight by us and letting us see that meaningless image for ourselves.)
what proof upon which table shows NIAC to be an agency for the Iranian regime???? n nEli didn't offer any proof of that and Rubin isn't the type to even worry about proof….. n n
1) The NIAC is irrelevant here. You pointed us to some website focused on Iran without identifying whose website it was, so I guessed it might be an NIAC one. No bearing on the subject matter of this thread. 2) Lake did offer proof that the NIAC functions as a lobbyist for Iran, you just chose to ignore it. 3) You continue to go the "personal" route ("Rubin isn't the type to even worry about proof….."), though a bit less offensively so than the last time ("Rubin is full of shift. as usual…I would suspect that Rubin is an idiot but it's not far more likely that he's simply a liar.") 4) Not that it matters, but is your guy Uskowi, whose blogging on Iran it seems you follow, an NIAC type? n nAnd you still haven't made anything like an affirmative case for your contentions in this thread, but that is par for the course where you are concerned. n nNow, come back with something substantive or be ignored.
Eli didn't offer any proof that NIAC works for the Iranian government whatsoever…….what he did offer was was no more than this…. n n"Law enforcement experts who reviewed some of the documents, which were made available to The Times by the defendant in the suit, say e-mails between Mr. Parsi and Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif – and an internal review of the Lobbying Disclosure Act – offer evidence that the group has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws." n nand that isn't proof but a suggestion that there might be some proof. n nI'm not at all ignoring what he wrote, but he's raising questions rather than making a case and oyu're claiming that the case is made when obviously it has not even been fully laid out. n n nI'm a regular reader of Uskowi on Iran and a person who hates the iranian theocratic dictatorship and wishes for it to be overthrown. Uskowi is not a supporter of the theocracy. n nYes, I do scorn Rubin's writings and personally attack him….and personal attacks are par for the course on this site and have been prominent for the more than four years since I first laid eyes upon it. n nI'll change when all change. n n
"Eli didn't offer any proof that NIAC works for the Iranian government whatsoever…and that isn't proof but a suggestion that there might be some proof." n nBlack's Law Dictionary: …"Any fact or circumstance which leads the mid to the affirmative or negative of any proposition." n nWhether you are persuaded or not to the conclusion that NIAC has or has not operated as a lobbyist for Iran, Lake has indisputably adduced "proof" of that proposition. His proof includes the fact that NIAC claimed that was a defamatory lie to say they lobbied on behalf of Iran and sued for libel, only to fold their hand when discovery started turning up embarrassing documents. (Very much like what happened when CAIR sued Andrew Whitehead for defamation, then fold their hand when it came time for discovery.) n n(Are you on a first name basis with Eli Lake?) n n"Yes, I do scorn Rubin's writings and personally attack him….and personal attacks are par for the course on this site and have been prominent for the more than four years since I first laid eyes upon it. n nI'll change when all change." Wow, that's a real grown-up response NOT! But fine, go on striving to be the stupidest and crudest commenter rather than make intelligent and civil contributions, just don't expect any respect, because you won't deserve any. n n"I'm a regular reader of Uskowi on Iran and a person who hates the iranian theocratic dictatorship and wishes for it to be overthrown. Uskowi is not a supporter of the theocracy." Uskowi is an irrelevancy here. But you may have noticed that the country re-named itself the Islamic Republic of Iran, making each and every member of the government from the top to the very bottom a "theocrat." Within the government there are conflicting factions, with Ayatollah Khomenei and Ahmadinejad not being each other's favorite flavor. Is Ahmadinejad hateful in Uskowi's eyes? Do you really see that caricature of Ahmadinejad that you pointed to as a hateful representation of him?