June 30, 2005: Dept. of Pigs and Dogs

It seems Iranian president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his hostage-taking days, was a master of the "sophisticated" rhetoric of Islamofascism.

One of the former US embassy hostages tells us: "In one incident he just called (Army attache Col. Charles Scott) pigs and dogs and we deserved to be locked up forever," he said. "When you're placed in a life-threatening situation of that nature, you just remember those things."

I imagine you do.

Mind you I don't have anything against pigs and dogs, but it's clear these people do. As a matter of fact, I think my greyhound Zane is often my superior. (He knows how to stay calm better than I do and he can see a tiny rodent at a hundred yards while I'm still shuffling for my glasses.) Still, things in Iran are clearly headed for the Dark Ages in a hurry. Let's hope this paranoid swing to medievalism foments an even more definitive swing to democracy and modernity. And soon.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Actually, Roger, I heard the hostage (lost the name--"Woods"?) interviewed on FoxNews this morning, The (future) President of Iran told the guard that the pigs and monkeys were to be locked up "until executed". But, I guess that's much the same as "forever". Kinda crappy for the pigs and monkeys to have to have on their minds, tho.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 11:03 AM

Amazing what we let these barbarians (in both the root and the common sense of the term) get away with. If somebody had said that to me, the question would be when and how I'd nail him, not whether.

The Iranians, the rest of the Islamofacsists, and their allies here in the United States (some vocal Democratic politicians, some columnists, etc.) seem to be unacquainted with behaviorist theory. If you're going to call me a dog and a pig when I've done nothing to you, there's that much less reason for me to avoid doing things to you. If you're going to complain about the treatment of terrorists in prison, there's no reason to take prisoners, is there?

Posted by: Silicon valley Jim at June 30, 2005 11:47 AM

I imagine a little bit of soft power, mixed with a dollup of understanding, would clear this little misunderstanding up right quick.

Posted by: ambisinistral at June 30, 2005 11:58 AM

I wish Jimmy Carter were on the case. He'd know what to do.

Posted by: Morgan at June 30, 2005 12:09 PM

Just a question. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was part of the embassy hostage taking and American embassies are considered to be on American soil, then isn't Mahmoud Ahmadinejad guilty of crimes committed on American soil. Can't we put out a warrent for him? I know we don't have an extradition treaty with Iran but if he travels to any country we do have a treaty with....? Just a thought.

Posted by: moondoggy at June 30, 2005 12:10 PM

From memory, a TV news blurb, other of the hostage-takers are or were the Iranian ambassadors to Syria, (France or Russia?), Belgium, and Sweden. And one of them was visiting Beirut when the 241 Marines were blown up in their barracks there, during our mission to stop the killing in the early 80s.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 12:22 PM

moondoggy,

"Just a question. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was part of the embassy hostage taking and American embassies are considered to be on American soil, then isn't Mahmoud Ahmadinejad guilty of crimes committed on American soil."

Unfortunately, there was a letter of understanding that went along with the hostage release. Kidnapping diplomatic personnel is an act of war, in exchange for the release of the hostages, we agreed not to prosecute the war.

Posted by: Soldier's Dad at June 30, 2005 12:23 PM

I only pray that Israel has an inside eye on the gadget.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 12:29 PM

Buddy--

No wonder your Labs don't like people who don't like GWB. Ahmadinejad sure wouldn't pass their smell test.

Posted by: Connecticut Yankee at June 30, 2005 1:04 PM

I'm sure THAT guy wilts oak trees when he walks past, CY.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 1:10 PM

It's off topic, but I am just *so* jealous of Roger having thought of Zane as a name for a greyhound.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 30, 2005 1:47 PM

Roger, when you're calling you dog, do you say "Come back, Zane!"

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 30, 2005 1:48 PM

I think maybe I'll go lie down until this urge passes....

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at June 30, 2005 1:49 PM

I wonder why the mullahs 'elected' such an outrageously provocative man...what can be their game?

Posted by: PJ at June 30, 2005 2:12 PM

Is Zane Grey?

Posted by: c at June 30, 2005 2:41 PM

Morgan

Jimmy Carter was a useless do-gooding, bible-bashing, bleeding heart liberal piece of excrement.

The tragedy of the Iranians was to have this nobody as the president of Iran's most powerful backer, who did his best to undermine the Shah and his regime and bring about the tragi-comic 'Islamic revolution'.

I have so much more to say about that...but that's for another time.

Posted by: Mehran at June 30, 2005 2:45 PM

"in exchange for the release of the hostages, we agreed not to prosecute the war."

Thanks SD but I'm suggesting we attempt to prosecute Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not a war. We've lived up to our commitment not to wage war but I'd still like to know if we can get him extradited in the event he travels to a friendly country.... say maybe France?

Posted by: moondoggy at June 30, 2005 3:01 PM

"I have so much more to say about that...but that's for another time."

You will need to write for a thousand years, Mehran.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at June 30, 2005 3:09 PM

Roger,
Not only that ,he can run faster than you and do things in public that only a dog and a rock group can do.

Posted by: PeterUK at June 30, 2005 3:49 PM

The dog of course,but then again..

Posted by: PeterUK at June 30, 2005 3:50 PM

the pictures, figured out.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at July 1, 2005 4:30 PM

Email This Post