However, an advertisement like that would never have appeared in an American or British newspaper, not because our governments censor it, but because

… the editors and publishers wouldn’t want to be convicted of incitement to murder; a rather serious criminal offence in civilised countries.

so i can only offer 1.00

thanks

What does it say about the mullahcracy that their primary news agency, even if not controlled directly by the state (which it is), did countenance such an advertisement?

I’d say it’s tantamount to a declaration of war.

And if called out on it, these papers’ editors would explain that they were a) “speaking truth to power”,
b) only “joking” and “gee why cant you wingnuts take
a joke” or c) “just asking questions.”

A week later the same paper would feature multiple letters from readers praising the “courage” of the paper for telling those Hateful Criminal Warbots where they can go.

Keep clinging to that fantasy, Ed. It will comfort you in your golden years.

Hmm, if enough money was offered to place the ad, I’m not 100% sure Pinch Sulzberger of the NY Times would turn it down.
Barb Dwyer on January 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Depends on who the target was. If it was Bush, he just might. If it was Obama, never.

Someone’s been playing close attention to Obama’s handlers.

fogw on January 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I thought that was Al “no controlling legal authority” Gore.

What does it say about the mullahcracy that their primary news agency, even if not controlled directly by the state (which it is), did countenance such an advertisement?

Look at Iranian history since at least the 18th century and you’ll have your answer.

Iran has painted itself into a corner with the over-the-top “Death to Israel!!” message.

cs89 on January 8, 2009 at 10:49 AM

and it doesn’t help neighborly relations much when the message is followed by “And Death to the Arabs too!”

Oh, her neighbors might think the same thing, but they’d rather not have it splashed across headlines around the globe.

Advertisements of that nature? No. Op-eds by terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and useful idiots who excuse terrorism when there’s Israel bashing to be done? Absolutely promoted by US media.

lawhawk on January 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM

The sad truth.

However, an advertisement like that would never have appeared in an American or British newspaper, not because our governments censor it, but because our societies reject terrorism and assassinations so totally that no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.

Boy, ain’t that the truth.Well, unless the ad was promoting killing Bush or Cheny. Ed is being very generous to the NYT and WAPO here.

The two counterexamples Al-Fiqqi uses are also telling. First, he acknowledges the freedom of speech that exists in America and the UK and that doesn’t exist in Iran. However, an advertisement like that would never have appeared in an American or British newspaper, not because our governments censor it, but because our societies reject terrorism and assassinations so totally that no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.

Advertisements of that nature? No. Op-eds by terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and useful idiots who excuse terrorism when there’s Israel bashing to be done? Absolutely promoted by US media.

“…no editor would ever countenance such an advertisement.”

Hmm, if enough money was offered to place the ad, I’m not 100% sure Pinch Sulzberger of the NY Times would turn it down. After all, it is news, isn’t it? Of course, he might include a disclaimer — just to cover his liberal ass.

jgapinoy on January 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Mubarak doesn’t want to piss off his population, though I’m sure in his head he’d actually love it.

The Iranians rebutted that claim, saying that Fars is a private enterprise and that they have no control over its content.

Someone’s been playing close attention to Obama’s handlers.

JiangxiDad on January 8, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Heh. Nothing wrong with using gasoline to put out fires.