The Yahoo news website featured a blog relating Ahmadinejad’s tactic against reporter Katie Couric. Ahamdinejad had asked her why the Western media did not report the murder of an Iranian woman, Marwa Ali El-Sherbini, by a neo-Nazi in a German court. He had said this to Couric after she had questioned him about the murder of Neda Soltan by Ahmadinejad’s security forces.
What Ahmadinejad was implying is that the West is really apathetic about Iranian women (by not reporting Marwa’s murder) and exposes Neda Soltan’s murder solely to make Iran look bad (i.e. not for ethical and legal reasons). But this is Ahmadinejad’s big lie. Not every story can be reported and there will always be some that fall “in between the cracks”. Therefore, the mere lack of Western coverage for Marwa’s murder does not logically prove Western callousness towards Iranian females (nor prejudice towards Iran).
So if the West is indeed concerned about despots murdering people, then free nations will expose it for ethical and legal reasons. Meanwhile, the same charge of callousness can be (correctly) leveled at Ahmadinejad.
Because Ahmadinejad is an Islamofacist, he actually approved of his security people murdering Soltan---one of many women to fall victim to Ahmadinejad’s minions. In fact, it is quite common for radical Islamists to brutalize and murder women then pretend it was an “honor kill”.
Since Ahmadinejad approves of murdering Iranian women, he has no compassion for Marwa when she was murdered by the neo-Nazi. So, if Ahmadinejad was not motivated by compassion for Marwa, then he had to have an ulterior motive for mentioning the lack of Western coverage of her murder: to dishonestly smear the West through implication.
By implying the West’s supposed “callousness” towards Iranian women and alleged “blind”anti-Iran "bias", Ahmadinejad uses subtle, not rational, means of smearing the West. Ahmadinejad does that because an implied assertion will be sensed, not scrutinized, by viewers and will consequently sway those viewers. The subtle is not explicit and therefore will not be critically examined. That is how a false charge against the West can become accepted or be allowed to bias the viewers.
By asking Couric why the West did not report Marwa’s murder by a neo-Nazi, Ahmadinejad could also have been implying Western sympathy for neo-Nazism. If so, then it is a false assumption. The free countries, including America, do not agree with neo-Nazi policies. If America did, it would be a dictatorship. It is not. That is due to America’s protection of individual liberties. By contrast, neo-Nazism is a collectivist ideology that establishes governmental power to violate individual rights. Ahmadinejad’s theocratic regime also negates individual rights---only the ideological nuances are different.
However, both Islamofacism and neo-Nazism achieve the same result: murdering women. That is why the neo-Nazi who murdered Marwa is the same type of thug that Ahmadinejad and his Islamofacist “colleagues” represent to their own people.
Furthermore, if Ahmadinejad really opposed Marwa’s murder, consistency would require him to oppose Soltan’s murder by punishing his security people. And everyone knows that the free nations respect their female citizens’ rights and, hence, are not callous towards them.
That will continue remaining true, so long as the West refuses to let radical Islamists inject their laws and government with Shariah Law and other Islamic rules.
