::::::::
Ahmadinejad vs Bush: Is Either One Right?
In late September, 2007, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited the U.S. He was interviewed on television and then spoke before a college audience and the United Nations general assembly. He drew scathing criticism from Americans, partly because he puts on a mask-like smile on his face, apparently to hide his feelings, and mainly because of his stated beliefs.
To his credit, Ahmadinejad did level some very valid criticism against the Bush Regime and against Israel. Much of that is very well deserved, as you can see on the pages on this site addressing Bush’s Record and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
However, Ahmadinejad was not truthful about many things, and his denials were wide open to ridicule. For example, he denies that he would like to see Israel destroyed. He denies that the Nazis killed millions of Jews during the Second World War. And he even denies that there are any homosexuals in Iran, a denial that brought laughter from most Americans who heard it.
Unfortunately, none of these are laughing matters, and Ahmadinejad made a serious mistake because he underestimates his enemies and he grossly overestimated his ability to sway Western minds.
On September 30, 2007, the day after Ahmadinejad spoke at the U.N. and was soundly denounced by the American media, U.S. President George W. Bush announced that he would authorize "surgical air strikes" against Iran. He apparently wanted to destroy its nuclear facilities and weapons factories. He obviously felt that the time was right, since most Americans were very angered at Ahmadinejad.
Bush then increased his inflammatory rhetoric against Iran, claiming they have a nuclear weapons program that must be stopped. And even when on December 4, 2007, U.S. Intelligence Services broke ranks and released information from a report stating that Iran had in fact stopped their nuclear weapons program, Bush still insisted Iran is "dangerous."
He claimed he had not known about the intelligence report before December 4, but it is very apparent that he had know about it. He had already been choosing his words carefully, using language saying the Iran was dangerous because it "had knowledge" of how to operate a nuclear weapons program. And he kept it up and said the report changed nothing in his mind.
Tragically, Bush has chosen to not only to continue, but to expand his vain folly. So in my view, Bush is not really all that much better than Ahmadinejad. Granted, it might be true that Ahmadinejad is a deceptive and hypocritical hatemonger and warmonger, but he has very good reasons to hate Israel, America and England.
They have brought a lot of suffering, death and destruction to Arabs and Muslims for nearly a century. And Bush has compounded it. In fact, Bush is now the biggest reason many Muslims hate America, and he has, through his arrogant, misguided folly, made a terrible situation (regarding Muslims) ten times worse since 2001. He has been a big part of the problem, and certainly not part of the solution.
Because Bush has listened to certain right-wing conservative "Christian authorities" who insist that Islam is evil and that a war by Christians against Islam was "prophesied," he has been led to believe that he is fighting a "holy war. " He thinks that all this is in fulfillment of prophecy. The trouble is, Bush is nearly as misguided and deluded as the Muslim extremists who also believe they are fighting a holy war ("jihad").
But Bush is far more dangerous because he has much more military power at his disposal, and he upholds traditional views held by many Jews and Christians even though they are wrong. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) were meant to be a family of religions, and they were all inspired by the same God who wants us all to love one another and treat each other as family.
The truth is that Bush and Ahmadinejad are, in a certain respect, just like Osama bin Laden, Ehud Olmert (Prime Minister of Isael), and all other leaders of nations or religious sects or groups who believe they must fight a "holy war" or "jihad." They are simply wrong about that, because no war is holy, and we should not kill anyone if we can help it. Killing is justifiable only if and when it is to save the lives of those who are in imminent danger of being murdered, or to save people from horrible and unbearable tyranny, persecution and oppression, and ONLY if absolutely necessary as a very last resort.
Granted, these wars were foreseen and prophesied, but that does NOT mean they were caused or sanctioned by God. They were caused by egocentric, ethnocentric, spiritually blind men, and that was foreseen or prophesied. But they do not need to continue, and our Parent God wants his/her children to stop killing each other. The fact is that no one can "win" by killing their fellow human beings. It is a lose-lose situation.
We now must realize that those who judge, hate and try to destroy their enemies are misguided. That is why the Christ Jesus, like all other true servants of God, have advised us to love even our enemies. In fact, they advised us to live not by the sword; to not retaliate; to resist not evil (if we are tempted to judge); to overcome evil with good; and to overcome hate with love.
Easier said than done. I know. But it’s the right way. And it’s the only way that will save the world and unite us, and enable us to make peace.
By Joseph J. Adamson
