Accusing the West of being “in the dark ages,” Ahmadinejad (who presides over a nation where tens of thousands of people live in mud huts and rape victims who defend themselves are sentenced to death) did everything today except pound his shoe on the table, while insisting that Poland belonged to him. Oops, that was another fascist. Here is the Reader’s Digest/Tammy version of the madman’s press conference today:
“We are a peaceful nation who would never want to hurt anyone. We want nuclear energy for electricity, and we don’t need nuclear weapons because we don’t want to to hurt anyone, but if the West continues to irritate us by saying we want to hurt people, we’ll have to hurt them. For implying that we want to hurt people. Which we don’t want to do so you better stop it, or we’ll hurt you because we are insulted by the accusation that we want to, uh, hurt people.”
Yeah, that’s about it.
I’d like to know exactly what an “ultra-islamist” is according to that article. It could be interpreted in a number of ways:
1. He is a strict adherent to Islamist philosophy.
2. He is an extremely powerful Islamist possessing a high level of influence in the Islamist community.
3. When he screams his name backward he is hit by lightning and gains super powers as well as a funky hairdo.
4. He is an extremist in the sense that he applies the most rigid and direct interpretation of the philisophical documents that guide his life.
So, just for the sake of examining the possibility of media bias, I’d like to know if anyone has ever called a strict constructionist an “Ultra-Constitutionist”.
Furthermore, why is it a necessity of critics to always tear down other nations by emphasizing the worst aspects of their enemy’s countries? And why do they always highlight the best aspects of their own? as if both are omnipresent.
Give ‘em the daisycutter – now!