May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Proof of God’s Existence | Main | Sorry I Confused You »


Tim Hughes

Absolutely brilliant! I'm not some Ahmadinejad fanboy or Antisemite, but we've treated this guy like he's some creature created from bits of Satan, Mengele and Hans Blofeld, and we HAVE given Israel (the NATION, not the PEOPLE) a pass on more than has been justified. Another thing for folks to keep in mind is that Israel, while ostensibly a democracy, is a THEOCRACY, built upon the principles of Zionism. No separation of church and state there, no siree... just like that eeeeevil Iran.

I'm glad you had the guts to post this wonderful piece. Maybe it will open some eyes and cause people to do some investigation of their own on the unfair reporting from the Middle East.

Oh, and don't get me started on the "crime" of denying the Holocaust. Should we be charging people with not believing in the moon landings or the Warren Commission's report on the Kennedy assassination? I say it's thumbscrews and the rack for anyone denouncing man's role in Global Warming!


Scott! Nice rant! And all these double entendres... So much better than those times when you are being your cool reserved intellectual self. Bit less Fiat and a bit more Ferrari please, if at all possible.

I am happy that Mahmud Ahmed or whatshisname (kidding!) was allowed to speak at Columbia. He made a fool of himself a dozen times as fast as you could have.

Also, he said he wants to place a wreath at Ground Zero. Did he ever say if he wants to honor the victims or the pilots? Just wondering...

loser of guitar picks

what happened to you when i was away, scott?

Rich T.


You didn't get what I meant; apparently I didn't write my last post clearly enough. I actually agree with you, and that was the point I was trying to make: we shouldn't cling so tightly to our "side" that we can't accept truths on *both* sides of the ideological fence. That's why I thought it would be a useful exercise to suspend the hostilities long enough to defend even one position normally associated with the other side. And if we can't even manage that much, then I guess we have to let things take their course - which is what I meant by "proceeding accordingly", which was used in jest. My words applied to people on *both* sides. (And FWIW, my post was not in response to your original post, which I did not have in mind as I composed mine.)

I agree about supporting the facts, but facts only go so far, and it becomes a matter of how people interpret the "facts" they think they know, and how they arrange them within their ideological world view. Some facts seem beyond dispute, while others are flawed to begin with (have you ever seen a newspaper write-up of an event that you personally witnessed?). Facts are either embraced or denied, depending on one's world view. There's some wisdom in the phrase "Everything you know is wrong" - or at least enough doubt that we should not be too sure of ourselves. Mark Twain: "the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt".

You wrote: [There is no "hate" in pointing out others' "hate." There is no "hypocrisy" in pointing out others' "hypocrisy." This only becomes so if those who accuse others of such things display the same characteristics.]

And pretty much everyone does. See the "cognitive dissonance" thread. One person's passion or conviction is another's "hate"; one person's logic and flexibility is another's "hypocrisy". Anyone who is so devoted to one side that he/she denounces the other side without abandon is an excellent candidate for CD. I'm sorry, but I indeed perceive legions of intolerant champions of tolerance, hateful denouncers of "hate", and hypocritical denouncers of hypocrisy. Fresh examples come forth in the media on a weekly basis. And those people don't seem to notice it, or accept it when it's been pointed out. Rationalization reigns supreme.

[Oh, BTW, people who don't get Mr Adams' wonderful piece of sarcasm aren't "intellectually" challenged -- they're just satirically challenged.]

I meant that each side views the other side as intellectually challenged in general, rather than satirically challenged in this instance.

(FWIW, I actually didn't notice many posters who didn't get the sarcasm, and those people can probably be excused for scanning Scott's post too quickly. I mean, it wasn't that hard to get, if you read the post carefully. But satire is not always evident if you're not expecting it, and maybe they don't know that you should always expect satire from Scott.)


Nice commentary, but my favorite part is the comments where everyone congratulates themselves on spotting the obvious sarcasm...


Did he say he thanked Jesus? Thats strange.I don't care what anyone says.He is still a typical hollywood Jew.Watch your children around him.Jews are known to be pedophiles.Besides,Jews have been persecuted out of a country 79 times!It's about to happen again.


I love the post. Finally, there is atleast one person who is not brainwashed by the mainstream media. This country believes that if you think someone is your enemy, you just have to paint him evil in every possible way.

This is the reason why this country needs Obama. He is atleast willing to listen.


Just an observation about Rich T's "general observation":

This quote makes no sense:

"Maybe we all need an exercise in which we support just one view of the opposing side - and not using satire. If we can't even do that much, we know the divide is truly
emotional/ideological/psychological, and not based on fact, and should proceed accordingly..."

Maybe we all need to realize that supporting "sides" is just exactly how we got to this impasse -- following the "facts" doesn't require "supporting" a "side" or any of the views therein. It simply means "supporting" THE facts.

There is no "hate" in pointing out others' "hate." There is no "hypocrisy" in pointing out others' "hypocrisy." This only becomes so if those who accuse others of such things display the same characteristics.

In my comment I pointed out the "hate" -- and I basically called it "kooky" and "zany." In my comment I pointed out the hypocrisy surrounding the Iranian President's visit -- and took NO "side." Those two observations are based on the "facts" common to this thread -- as well as many other discussions regarding this issue.

Oh, BTW, people who don't get Mr Adams' wonderful piece of sarcasm aren't "intellectually" challenged -- they're just satirically challenged.


We believe what we want to believe.

If we believe that the mainstream media which is run by giant corporations doesn't report things out of context to artificially build consensus (and hence ratings) and *always* reports things verbatim so we can make up our own minds, then we will believe them...

Rich T.

Just a general observation...

I'm struck by how many commenters seem to fall into the following categories:

- the apparent hypocrites who label others "hypocrites"

- the apparent haters who label others "haters"

- the apparently intellectually challenged who call others intellectually challenged

It all depends which side you take, and facts take a back seat to emotion born of ideology (which itself is born of psychological predisposition and childhood experiences?).

In any case, all I see are "this vs. that" arguments, instead of "this AND that" agreements.

Maybe we all need an exercise in which we support just one view of the opposing side - and not using satire. If we can't even do that much, we know the divide is truly emotional/ideological/psychological, and not based on fact, and should proceed accordingly, i.e. irrational disputes that one day could escalate to further wars (including civil war).

S@ns S@nity

I love the "try living in [insert random third world country]if you are not happy with USA" people. Just because some place is in a worse condition doesn't mean you shouldn't strive to improve your homes butt-holes. I hope you will be happy when the standard of living in USA stays the same, or becomes slightly worse and countries of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Advanced APAC and even China and India all overtake you.


Bravo Mr. Adams!

I actually believe that this post is the most intelligent piece that I've read regarding President Ahmadinejad's visit and the sheer hypocrisy that has been associated with it. I began reading the comments but stopped after I realized that many of them were written by people who really aren't the sharpest pencils in the case.

I will say though that the Zionists sure picked up on this one. You know that these wacky Zionist groups actually have software made in Israel that is designed to direct them to hot topics regarding Israel on the web. The users are given talking points and they just go crazy with their "we are the victims" and "saying you want justice in Palestine is just code for your hidden anti-semitism" whine, whine, blah, blah.

The real meaning of your post just goes way over their kooky heads. They don't even realize that the more they whine, hate, and fabricate, the more they substantiate your satire that illustrates the hypocrisy surrounding this whole issue.

Thanks man, not only was this bit very bright, but it was also very brave. Truth To Power!

Kara X

All you Jorj Boch luvers.....screw him with all of you..... and screw all of you with him! America can do without all these ass jockeys! Hearz to u FUCKERS!!!


Too iranic and sotiricol for 90% of the reader's to understand. However, I personally enjoyed it immensely.


I am amazed by two things. The amount of Hillel/ADL shills spewing their zionist hate on the comments, as well as your "former fans" who can't grasp the irony. I strongly suggest people read the experiences of a European student of Columbia Law School. A law school which by the way hands out 1/2 of it's scholarships to Israeli's. Israel has a population of 5 million in a world of 6 billion.

"Columbia Unbecoming"


Hamid, clearly you're debating skills are far superior. Please, excuse me.

If you're Iranian and so upset about a totalitarian regime in your former country, then it is up to you (if you so choose) and other Iranians living there to take matters into your own hands and take the course of action you see fit to remedy the situation, just as we Americans should be vigilant that our government doesn't abuse power over here and trample all over OUR rights. Further, it is not the obligation of hard-working Americans to sacrifice themselves and finance the overthrow of every tin-pot dictator in the whole world. If we Americans believed that, we would find ourselves enslaved to an impossible to achieve ideal that would ultimately leave us broke and penniless as well as beholden to a home-grown totalitarianism---except, that is, for the Halliburtons, the Boeings, the Carlyle Groups and the rest of the politically privileged corporatist death merchants who benefit from this endless orgy of self-sacrifice that we Americans are supposedly morally obligated to uphold.

That is not to say that I don't empathize with people living in unfree conditions, it's just that we're only human, not divinely empowered to wipe all evil off the face of the earth forever, as our reality-challenged president seems to think. We can show the way of freedom by example, but to force it upon other nations by force is both immoral and defeats the objective of freedom supposedly sought. As I pointed out before, dropping bombs and missiles on an oppressed people doesn't "liberate" them---it KILLS them. Is that your idea of freedom? Liberty through death?

And I don't know if you've noticed, but our own gov't isn't exactly virtuous when it comes to human rights. We have several million people in jails and prisons in this country, many of them for victimless crimes. The PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security has reduced us to herded sheep, even as we're told it's supposed to protect our freedom. Our gov't is abducting people all over the world under flimsy pretenses and torturing them in secret prisons in Arab countries that have governments friendly to ours.

And BTW, I live where I choose to live, provided that I respect the rights of others and that I make my living through voluntary exchanges and not coercion and force. And I would never convert to a religion that promised only 72 free virgins. I require AT LEAST 150---72 just don't satisfy, y'know?

Hamid Reza

Dear Vierotchka - if you were not so clueless, you would have noticed that I spelled Ahmaqihitler with a 'q' - "Ahmaqi" meaning 'idiocy'. Furthermore your low level of "savâd" (comprehension) is so obvious because you cannot figure out who the author of my piece is and wrongly attribute it to Alle - (dear Adam, this is a deficiency of your comment section and something you should fix to improve the quality of discourse). Vierotchka, you are making a literal translation and in Farsi, "safheye ruzegâr mahv šavad" does not mean "vanish from pages of time" because this is a western concept - it means "remove from existence" where safheye ruzegâr is an existential concept. So Imam Khomeini (may he be sodomized by his favorite camel in hell) is saying "Israel MUST be obliterated from existence".

This much of a Farsi lesson for you anti-Iranian traitors who have destroyed Iran with your fascistic religion of peace - May your Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) the assassin bandit and child molestor get sodomized along with your favorite dictator Imam Khomeini.

Killing 100,000 intellectuals by the religious secret police in Iran since 1980 is not enough for you and now you defend this pathetic police state?

Not only I am Iranian, I am a proud Muslim apostate and there is not a rat's behind that you can do about it on the internet. May your xodâ, allâh, or parvardegar get shafted by the šeytân zalim martikeye or zanike'ye qoromsâq. No secret police here, so boro goh boxor va bemir mâdar qahbeh naneh jendeh az Tâzi koon xor.

@HA! -- so you could not join the discussion without attacking the poster? You post-colonial reactionary leftists have no clue what it takes to have a debate, do you? Get out of America and go and live in Qom or Gaza and enjoy the human rights over there and attack the non-existant posters over there, idiot. Convert to Islam while there and get your 72 virgins for free.


If one reads this one piece in isolation, you can't really figure out what the author's position is on the issues, only his purpose, which is to cleverly force the reader to consider several different perspectives on issues which he might feel very strongly about, but not have exhaustively explored due to the strength of his feeling.

By the way, WWJB? Who would Jesus bomb?


Wow so its just fine that he kills and blows up American soldiers in Iraq? Geez.


Thank you for posting this, Scott. The knee-jerk reaction people are having to Ahmadinejad being "allowed" to speak is frankly sickening. Specifics about his speech aside, where the hell do we live anymore? Isn't this the United States of America? Don't we have a right to say (and to hear) anything we want, from anyone we want?

We allow demostrations by the KKK, neo-nazis, Nation of Islam, Rush Limbaugh, Lyndon LaRouche, the American Socialist Party, Communists, Anarchists, and pretty much any other nutbag who wants to open his/her mouth. Why? Because it helps to protect our rights to open our mouths and spout any crap we want to!

You want to bash this guy, people? Fine. Attack his arguments. Posit your own views about why his views are flawed and wrong. Condemn the things he says. But attacking the fact that he is "allowed" (or even *gasp* "invited"!?!?) to speak is just stupid.

You want the government to restrict who can say what? You want whoever is in charge at the time to decide who may speak? All you conservatives want to reconsider your "yes" answer to this question in 2008 when a liberal is in the white house AND they control congress? Sound like fun??

Scott. Keep speaking. I may not agree with everything you say, but thank you very much for saying it.

And don't let the idiots get you down.


[Democracy gets where Iran wants to go if Israel incorporates the occupied territories, demographics continue as they have, and everyone gets a vote. I believe that is Iran's proposal. -- Scott]

I see, so you think the one state solution is the right way to go? I thought we already agreed that Jews have a right to control their own destiny. Are you renegging on this?

99% of Jews are against the one state solution as the emerging state will not be a Jewish state. A large majority of Israelis as well as the current government are for a two state solution in which most of the territories occupied by Israel will become part of the Palestinian state.

In addition, don't you see how infantile and disingenious the one state solution is? The Chechs and Slovaks could not live in one country. The Wallons and Flemish are on the verge of breaking up Belgium. These are nations that "get along". I am not even talking about what happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lebanon where the groups can't get along.

So the Iranian proposal is to put in one country the Jews and Palestinians in equal numbers. Two communnities that have been at war for 100 years and hate each other's guts. In addition the Jews are about ten times richer than the Palestinians. Isn't it clear that the one state solution will lead directly to civil war and the trashing of Israel? The Arabs cannot stand each other in Lebanon, Iraq etc. but the Jews and Palestinians will get along just fine?

Why can't you see through the cheap Iranian rhetoric and understand that Iran is advocating the annihilation of the Jewish state and the death of an untold number of Jews?


Congratulations, Adams, you drew all the drooling, pro-war nutjobs out of their dark little caves and got them beating their chests and grunting like gorillas.

My question to all you lunatics who think Iran should be attacked because their leader is so god-awful is this: How does dropping American bombs and missiles on the heads of ordinary Iranian men, women and children help them against tyranny? The only way such an attack could help them is if you view death as a kind of "liberation," I suppose.

And another question: Why does an argument against attacking another country have to necessarily prove that the head of state in that country is a saint?

We're talking about an action that would most likely kill thousands of human beings. Christ, you people scare me a hell of a lot more than any Iranian politician.


[Has the current leadership of Iran ever expressed an interest in killing all Jews? I've only heard expressions like "wiped off the map," which sounds to me more about literally getting rid of the concept of Israel as a country and replacing the form of government with something more pro-Islam. Otherwise, why say "map" when you mean "earth"? -- Scott]

For the sake of argument, let's suppose your "charitable" interpretation holds. The "Zionist regime" that needs to be wiped out is the liberal democracy for the 80% of Israelis which are Jews and that strongly support this "regime" and basically ARE the regime. How do you go about doing this without fighting a war against the Jews living in Israel and defeating them? So at the very least, according again to your "charitable" interpretation, Jad is advocating a war against Israel.

As an Israeli I cherish my freedom and am prepared to fight for it. Jad is telling me that I either become a second class citizen in an Islamic state or he will fight me till one of us surrenders.

So no, Iran has not expressed interest in killing all Jews, just those that stand in its way of changing the "regime" in Israel. That is about 6 million of us.

[Democracy gets where Iran wants to go if Israel incorporates the occupied territories, demographics continue as they have, and everyone gets a vote. I believe that is Iran's proposal. -- Scott]



Have you no shame? Who was responsible for the "wrong" translation? This is the explanation given in the link YOU pasted:
"The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. "

IRNA is fully controlled and is under the thumb of the Iranian regime. They knew EXACTLY what the meaning of the words were and they translated the sentence to English.

In the end, what does it matter if Jad said it or the official news agency of the Iranian regime said he said it? In fact, that IRNA said it is even worse. And pray, do show us where Jad says IRNA got him wrong.

Of course, people finding excuses for tyrants that stand up to the US are a dime a dozen. Scott Adams, having no full grasp of the facts, supports a tyrant that has clearly stated that he wants to annihilate me and tries to sell the fact that this tyrant has perhaps been misunderstood. Sorry Scott, this is personal. You remind me of the ignorant liberals and appeasers in Europe that tried to put a cheery spin on Mein Kampf (all for the best intentions of course, who needs war, right?).

[Has the current leadership of Iran ever expressed an interest in killing all Jews? I've only heard expressions like "wiped off the map," which sounds to me more about literally getting rid of the concept of Israel as a country and replacing the form of government with something more pro-Islam. Otherwise, why say "map" when you mean "earth"? -- Scott]


Alle (September 26, 2007 at 03:32 AM) wrote:

"You f'ing idiot Adam - I am an Iranian and he says "Israel MUST be wiped off the map" - plainly and clearly. You must have believed the obfuscations put out by that Farsi-illiterate Cole?

"Did you not see the "Down with Esrael" poster in the military parade 2 days ago in Tehran which Ahmaqihitler presided? In Farsi and Arabic right above the English it said "Death to Israel".

"F'ing post-colonial reactionary leftist douchebag who did not love any primitive Islamic petty dictator you did not meet. And Oh BTW, Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) raped a 9 year old girl and assassinated his critics. Now go and apologize for Islam - religion of peace needing a fascist police state to rule."

It is painfully obvious to anyone who knows Parsi (Farsi) that you are not an Iranian. "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." does NOT translate as "Israel MUST be wiped off the map". Furthermore, the rest of your post also indicates that you are not Iranian. Eeshala tah akhareh ohmret geryeh bokoney.

The comments to this entry are closed.