Ahmadinejad in US [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Ahmadinejad in US

RickDaStick
09-22-2007, 01:10 AM
He will be at Columbia University Monday to give a speech. He also wants to visit the WTC site to pay his respect to the victims but the NYPD doesn't think its a good idea and don't want him there. Of course he can still go if he wishes. What is everyone's opinion on this?

El Legenda
09-22-2007, 01:37 AM
from what i hear, he's been banned from the site.

GlennMirnyi
09-22-2007, 01:52 AM
I'm not American, so I guess it doesn't count, but what's the big deal about him going there? It's not like he'll go there spit on the site or anything...

Johnny Groove
09-22-2007, 01:57 AM
I expect him to be welcomed with open arms and a standing ovation :rolleyes:

RickDaStick
09-22-2007, 02:04 AM
from what i hear, he's been banned from the site.

I dont think anyone can be banned and he said today if he has time that he still would like to go. I also don't see a problem with him coming and giving a speech and visiting the site but i've seen a lot of people who do.

GlennMirnyi
09-22-2007, 02:08 AM
The last thing that will happen is an attack when he's there.

Scotso
09-22-2007, 04:31 AM
Personally I don't think he should be even allowed in the country. He's nothing more than a terrorist. :shrug:

zicofirol
09-22-2007, 08:24 AM
I dont think anyone can be banned and he said today if he has time that he still would like to go. I also don't see a problem with him coming and giving a speech and visiting the site but i've seen a lot of people who do.
for one the attacks are glorified by his country, state television runs programs shwoing how it was the jews who did 9-11, I am sure this idiot shares those sentiments... he shouldnt even be allowed in the country...

mtw
09-22-2007, 11:07 AM
Behaviour of american politicians shows how simple and primitive people are. I don't understand. This man ( Iranian president ) is the president of Iran. And if he wants to come and lie flowers in so called ground zero zone to honour the memory of victims, why is it forbidden to him. And why is he not treated as normal head of another country?
Their eternal, boozed Bush goes to every country of this world. He is seen unwelcome everywhere, but he is treated politely by other politicians, because the political culture demands it. It sees that a new mark of american politicians appears: boorishness. Till now genocide and breake of international law was appeared.

cobalt60
09-22-2007, 11:52 AM
Behaviour of american politicians shows how simple and primitive people are. I don't understand. This man ( Iranian president ) is the president of Iran. And if he wants to come and lie flowers in so called ground zero zone to honour the memory of victims, why is it forbidden to him. And why is he not treated as normal head of another country?
Their eternal, boozed Bush goes to every country of this world. He is seen unwelcome everywhere, but he is treated politely by other politicians, because the political culture demands it. It sees that a new mark of american politicians appears: boorishness. Till now genocide and breake of international law was appeared.

How about an opinion on Ahmadinejad's views and political statements? This is not a thread about Bush.

Jim Jones
09-22-2007, 01:00 PM
Last year we were entertained by Chavez. This year it is the Iranian leader. Next year who knows maybe the dear leader of DRPK may be the entertainer in the arena.

Bilbo
09-22-2007, 01:09 PM
Ahmadinejad has done nothing bad. So he can go wherever he wants :shrug:

ReturnWinner
09-22-2007, 06:29 PM
Personally I don't think he should be even allowed in the country. He's nothing more than a terrorist. :shrug:

He is not a terrorist

ReturnWinner
09-22-2007, 06:32 PM
Last year we were entertained by Chavez. This year it is the Iranian leader. Next year who knows maybe the dear leader of DRPK may be the entertainer in the arena.

you have been entertained by Bush since 6 years ago :shrug:

ReturnWinner
09-22-2007, 06:34 PM
but I have to agree Iran goverment is not very good, and they do apologogy of terrorism

Julio1974
09-22-2007, 06:35 PM
He is not a terrorist

Interesting to see someone from Argentina definding the head of State of a country which is accused by Argentine Courts of organizing a terrorist attack on Argentine soil.

ReturnWinner
09-22-2007, 07:08 PM
Interesting to see someone from Argentina definding the head of State of a country which is accused by Argentine Courts of organizing a terrorist attack on Argentine soil.

where i did defend him?? :retard:, he had not relation with that attack, but as i sad he does apology of terrorism and iran goverment does not want to coperate with Argentina for that mentioned attack

Julio1974
09-22-2007, 07:54 PM
where i did defend him?? :retard:, he had not relation with that attack, but as i sad he does apology of terrorism and iran goverment does not want to coperate with Argentina for that mentioned attack


Iran is a country that still supports, finances, and organizes terrorist groups and terrorist attacks. So, to say its head of the state is not a terrorist is the same as saying Bush is not a criminal.

El Legenda
09-22-2007, 08:41 PM
i think they told him we wont give you any protection, so if you go you might get killed.

World Beater
09-22-2007, 09:24 PM
i think they told him we wont give you any protection, so if you go you might get killed.

no chance of that happening. They can tell him whatever they want, but i guarantee you they will make sure every security measure is taken.

If ahmadinejad goes down on american soil, it will only strengthen the resolve and determination of terrorists and their allies. The US doesn't need more enemies in that region.

World Beater
09-22-2007, 11:19 PM
im not so educated on the crimes against citizens and support that the iranian president has provided terrorists with, but isnt it a stretch to call him "the new hitler"

Scotso
09-23-2007, 01:32 AM
isnt it a stretch to call him "the new hitler"

I'm sure the Baha'is wouldn't think so.

mtw
09-24-2007, 03:20 PM
Iran is a country that still supports, finances, and organizes terrorist groups and terrorist attacks. So, to say its head of the state is not a terrorist is the same as saying Bush is not a criminal.

Firstly, it seems that you are Jew and your opinion is not objective. You don't like Arabians and Persians. Why do you feel hatred against these people, I don't understand it. For me it is incomprehensible. Stop to incite to hatred against this president and against this country. Nobody of us knows him and nobody of us knows the problems of this state. None of us can Persian language and we don't know, what this president says. Opinion of some people, such people as you are, are based on proamerican, TV informations controlled by rulling probush party or maybe by a tycoon, who hatres Iran and their president.
And I think that comparison this Iranian president with Bush, who is real criminal and genocide, should have not place.
It seems that USA and some of their allies support terroristic attacks.

mtw
09-24-2007, 03:34 PM
How about an opinion on Ahmadinejad's views and political statements? This is not a thread about Bush.

He said that he doesn't need nuclear weapon. He wants to use nuclear power for civilian usage ( nuclear power plants ). Your american regime does not like him, because he as the only president and leader of this world can say the truth about american politics and that's why he and his country are prosecuted by USA.
Besides are these guys in your so called american army gays? Why do they still kidnapp Iranian diplomats? There are not such handsome dark-haired men between american myrmidons.
It is the next crime and violation of international law. But what can be expected after your degenerated and moral degraded genocides?

Lee
09-24-2007, 03:40 PM
He said that he doesn't need nuclear weapon. He wants to use nuclear power for civilian usage ( nuclear power plants ). Your american regime does not like him, because he as the only president and leader of this world can say the truth about american politics and that's why he and his country are prosecuted by USA.
Besides are these guys in your so called american army gays? Why do they still kidnapp Iranian diplomats? There are not such handsome dark-haired men between american myrmidons.
It is the next crime and violation of international law. But what can be expected after your degenerated and moral degraded genocides?


You believe every single word by him. Kudo to your intelligence.

What does the sexuality of american army have anything to do with this thread? Again, kudo to your intelligence. :drink:

G4.
09-24-2007, 04:29 PM
You believe every single word by him. Kudo to your intelligence.

What does the sexuality of american army have anything to do with this thread? Again, kudo to your intelligence. :drink:



just like everyone believes him when he gives demagogic speeches saying he is going to destroy Israel etc

Julio1974
09-24-2007, 04:37 PM
Firstly, it seems that you are Jew and your opinion is not objective. You don't like Arabians and Persians. Why do you feel hatred against these people, I don't understand it. For me it is incomprehensible. Stop to incite to hatred against this president and against this country. Nobody of us knows him and nobody of us knows the problems of this state. None of us can Persian language and we don't know, what this president says. Opinion of some people, such people as you are, are based on proamerican, TV informations controlled by rulling probush party or maybe by a tycoon, who hatres Iran and their president.
And I think that comparison this Iranian president with Bush, who is real criminal and genocide, should have not place.
It seems that USA and some of their allies support terroristic attacks.

Just for the record: you are wrong. I'm not Jewish. I'm catholic.

As for Iran, it's a country that is accused by Argentine Criminal Courts of organizing and financing a terrorist attack in Argentina. So, as an Argentinian, I don't have any kind of sympathy towards its authorities, including his current head of State.

Iran has totally refused to cooperate with the investigation and has even threatened Argentina.

Clear enough?

World Beater
09-24-2007, 07:25 PM
he just said there are no homosexuals in Iran.

:lol:

deluded.

yep there are none cos you executed them all. :retard:

tennisgal_001
09-24-2007, 08:15 PM
I think it's a good move that Ahmedinajad is in the US even if, in my opinion, he's a complete lunatic. The speech at Columbia U cerainly made things more interesting, and just to note that it was really disappointing that Columbia received such a negative reaction to its invitation.

World Beater
09-24-2007, 08:39 PM
I think it's a good move that Ahmedinajad is in the US even if, in my opinion, he's a complete lunatic. The speech at Columbia U cerainly made things more interesting, and just to note that it was really disappointing that Columbia received such a negative reaction to its invitation.

while ahmadinejad is crazy, the homosexual rights issue was a cheap shot seeing as how the USA and other western countries aren't exactly the model of rights concerning gays.

that opening segment by the columbia president was very provactive.

Jim Jones
09-24-2007, 09:24 PM
If one did not know who Ahmadinejad was and if the translator was not heard one could think the guy was a stand-up comedian. When he was talking about no gays in Iran, you heard people laugh.

Maybe Ahmadenijad has a future career as stand-up comic. The Iranian Seinfeld he must be. :)

Someone should put the extracts of the clip of him on youtube with the Seinfeld theme when people laugh as he is talking. :lol:

Black Adam
09-24-2007, 09:25 PM
Well that was a nice show by him :haha: Hilariously dumb stuff he had to say. :rolls: Him and Mugabe always have this circus like aura around them. I wouldn't mind going to New York and listen to Chavez, Mugabe and Amadinejhad entertain the whole world with their anti-western/anti-capitalism rants.

And of course there are no homosexuals in Iran since he has any one who comes out of the closet executed :rolleyes: :o

buddyholly
09-24-2007, 10:38 PM
The Columbia students seemed to be giggling when he said there were no homosexuals in Iran. The fact that his government just executes people for what they are should not have been a laughing matter for adults. But from what I read, it seems Columbia is no longer a serious university and it should be no surprise that their students just giggle at ''I'm-in-a-jihad'', but when someone comes to speak about the problem of illegal immigration they rush the stage and try to kick and punch them. They feel so good about extending freedom of speech to a foreign terrorist, but withhold it from Americans that are not radical enough for their tastes. Stupid people. They are probably the type of student that demonstrates to have degrees given out without the humiliation of exams.

The NY police should have told him he was welcome to visit ground zero, but that they could not guarantee his safety.

R.Federer
09-24-2007, 11:09 PM
The US is a secular nation, so much as Ahmadinejad's words on some aspects of Jewish history have been offensive to many, I don't see why they should refuse him a look at the 9/11 sites. Many Muslims (not the fanatics who did it, but the ones who worked there) died in that site, who knows there may have been Iranis who died there, too. Not that he is going there to pay condolences. Morbid curiosity, I guess.

I have gone to the WTC site in 2001 (November), 2002, and on my last visit in 2006. Sorry to say, there was really not much to see. The buildings surrounding the original towers were shrouded in black, like widows themselves, and there was still a strong police presence. I don't think anything would happen to him. But you certainly feel like you are in a cemetery. People whisper even though they are not required to. No one is laughing or behaving boorishly.

R.Federer
09-24-2007, 11:53 PM
He received a hostile welcome from Mr Bollinger, who described the Iranian leader as "a petty and cruel dictator".

"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," Mr Bollinger told Mr Ahmadinejad, referring to his denial of the Holocaust.

In response, Mr Ahmadinejad said that Mr Bollinger's remarks were "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience".

Addressing the Holocaust issue, Mr Ahmadinejad said he simply wanted more research to be done.
He also said the issue was abused by Israel to justify what he said was its mistreatment of the Palestinians.
"Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?" Mr Ahmadinejad asked.


BBC

AgassiDomination
09-25-2007, 12:20 AM
You guys were quick to jump down his throat. I doubt many of you even listened to what he had to say.

I was pleased to hear he did not wish to go to war with anyone, he sounded genuine to me. He seemed like he really wanted to open up a dialogue with Americans, something I believe we should have accepted instead of mocking him. Where will that get us?

My two cents.

G4.
09-25-2007, 12:38 AM
i bet these people would not have complained if it had been a Saudi Arabian -which is a country that is mostly responsible for sunni terrorism and where gay people get executed just like in Iran- leader giving a speech instead of Ahmadinejad. bunch of hypocrites ...
that said Ahmadinejad is still a scumbag

mangoes
09-25-2007, 01:33 AM
I do not agree with the things said by Ahmadinejad, in fact, I consider him to be a bit crazy. However, I don't think he should be banned from speaking at Columbia University. I was rather interested to hear what he was going to say. Furthermore, he seemed to want to use this as a stage to dilute talks of war..........which isn't exactly a terrible thing. Getting into a war with Iran should be avoided as best as possible.


The Columbia students seemed to be giggling when he said there were no homosexuals in Iran. The fact that his government just executes people for what they are should not have been a laughing matter for adults. But from what I read, it seems Columbia is no longer a serious university and it should be no surprise that their students just giggle at ''I'm-in-a-jihad'', but when someone comes to speak about the problem of illegal immigration they rush the stage and try to kick and punch them. They feel so good about extending freedom of speech to a foreign terrorist, but withhold it from Americans that are not radical enough for their tastes. Stupid people. They are probably the type of student that demonstrates to have degrees given out without the humiliation of exams.

The NY police should have told him he was welcome to visit ground zero, but that they could not guarantee his safety.

A. Chill out with attacking Columbian University students. What did you want them to do??:rolleyes:

B. So, you'd rather start an international crisis by having him executed on Ground Zero on US
Soil...........If anything, that would play into his hands of making him a beacon of encouragement for the Muslim Terrorists.

Behaviour of american politicians shows how simple and primitive people are. I don't understand. This man ( Iranian president ) is the president of Iran. And if he wants to come and lie flowers in so called ground zero zone to honour the memory of victims, why is it forbidden to him. And why is he not treated as normal head of another country?
Their eternal, boozed Bush goes to every country of this world. He is seen unwelcome everywhere, but he is treated politely by other politicians, because the political culture demands it. It sees that a new mark of american politicians appears: boorishness. Till now genocide and breake of international law was appeared.

Do you have any sympathy for the horror that happened at Ground Zero? If so you would understand why we wouldn't want him placing flowers at the site. I have no problem with him talking at Columbia University, but thank goodness he was not allowed to place flowers at the site. It would have been an insult.

AgassiDomination
09-25-2007, 02:07 AM
Do you have any sympathy for the horror that happened at Ground Zero? If so you would understand why we wouldn't want him placing flowers at the site. I have no problem with him talking at Columbia University, but thank goodness he was not allowed to place flowers at the site. It would have been an insult.

What does he have to do with 911?

Scotso
09-25-2007, 02:39 AM
You guys were quick to jump down his throat. I doubt many of you even listened to what he had to say.

I was pleased to hear he did not wish to go to war with anyone, he sounded genuine to me. He seemed like he really wanted to open up a dialogue with Americans, something I believe we should have accepted instead of mocking him. Where will that get us?

My two cents.

I'm sure you were pleased to hear his comments on homosexuals, too.

You're really a piece of work. Please, move to Iran and join him. I'll be only too happy to buy your plane ticket for you.

AgassiDomination
09-25-2007, 02:53 AM
I'm sure you were pleased to hear his comments on homosexuals, too.

You're really a piece of work. Please, move to Iran and join him. I'll be only too happy to buy your plane ticket for you.

Actually I have no interest in any policies revolving around homosexuality. It doesn't affect me one way or another. My interest is in foreign policy relations what with the war and what not.

PM me and I'd be happy to receive my free ticket.

buddyholly
09-25-2007, 03:52 AM
A. Chill out with attacking Columbian University students. What did you want them to do??:rolleyes:

B. So, you'd rather start an international crisis by having him executed on Ground Zero on US
Soil...........If anything, that would play into his hands of making him a beacon of encouragement for the Muslim Terrorists.





Strange that you think you can order me to stop saying what you do not want to hear.

What I wanted the students to do was show outrage when the leader of a country that publicly hangs people for being homosexual makes a joke about it. That is about as low as a human being can go - and he got giggles. Sickening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The comment about letting him go to ground zero was a joke. Your response should have been to just giggle at picturing him being stoned to death by the public.

buddyholly
09-25-2007, 03:59 AM
while ahmadinejad is crazy, the homosexual rights issue was a cheap shot seeing as how the USA and other western countries aren't exactly the model of rights concerning gays.

that opening segment by the columbia president was very provactive.

And which countries exactly are the models of rights?

mangoes
09-25-2007, 04:28 AM
What does he have to do with 911?

Do you really need me to explain to you why most Americans would be sickened to see a leader of a muslim country-whose citizens threw sweets in the air to celebrate 9/11-lay flowers at Ground Zero??


Strange that you think you can order me to stop saying what you do not want to hear.

What I wanted the students to do was show outrage when the leader of a country that publicly hangs people for being homosexual makes a joke about it. That is about as low as a human being can go - and he got giggles. Sickening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The comment about letting him go to ground zero was a joke. Your response should have been to just giggle at picturing him being stoned to death by the public.

Firstly, I didn't order you to do anything. I said "Chill Out". I didn't say Shut the hell up or Stop writing such BS. It was a lighthearted response to you. Secondly, I didn't get the impression from your post that you were making a joke. I guess I missed your humor. Sorry. Nevertheless, I wouldn't find it funny to laugh at the thought of someone being stoned to death:shrug: Just not my cup of tea.

Every student listening to that speech considers Ahmadinejad to have more than a couple screws loose. What would getting angry at him have accomplished. Homosexuality is considered a serious sin in the Arab countries. So, most homosexual men and women there either hide or not even acknowledge their true selves. It's not a simple issue. But, Ahmadinejad answer was rather naive .......and I wouldn't be surprised if he truly believed his answer.........afterall, that's the man who said there was a glow around him as he addressed the UN a couple years ago.

I personally get angry with politicans in the US that try to make Homosexuality an issue. An issue more important than homelessness, war, health care, etc.

World Beater
09-25-2007, 04:52 AM
And which countries exactly are the models of rights?

America isn't a country that is the model for gay rights, and to the Arabs/persians, america = western world.

i dont believe there any countries out there that are the model but if any country does come close it is the netherlands.

Bilbo
09-25-2007, 09:55 AM
If one did not know who Ahmadinejad was and if the translator was not heard one could think the guy was a stand-up comedian. When he was talking about no gays in Iran, you heard people laugh.

Maybe Ahmadenijad has a future career as stand-up comic. The Iranian Seinfeld he must be. :)

Someone should put the extracts of the clip of him on youtube with the Seinfeld theme when people laugh as he is talking. :lol:

Weird, usually it's Bush we laugh at with his dumb and lying comments. I don't think Ahmadenijad is as dumb as Bush in his speeches.

buddyholly
09-25-2007, 12:18 PM
America isn't a country that is the model for gay rights, and to the Arabs/persians, america = western world.

i dont believe there any countries out there that are the model but if any country does come close it is the netherlands.

I replied to your post because I just knew that you would throw out the Netherlands, even though, in your very own words, you had excluded America and ''other western countries'' from the possibilities.
Now it seems you are trying to cover up your mistake by claiming that in saying ''America and other western countries'' you were really just saying ''America,'' because Muslims understand the meaning of the ''western world'' to be the USA. Which, by the way, is nonsense anyway. Muslims seem to know what constitutes the western world much more clearer than you.
This flip-flopping is not a good way to try and convince someone.

buddyholly
09-25-2007, 12:29 PM
Firstly, I didn't order you to do anything. I said "Chill Out". I didn't say Shut the hell up or Stop writing such BS. It was a lighthearted response to you. Secondly, I didn't get the impression from your post that you were making a joke. I guess I missed your humor. Sorry. Nevertheless, I wouldn't find it funny to laugh at the thought of someone being stoned to death:shrug: Just not my cup of tea.

Every student listening to that speech considers Ahmadinejad to have more than a couple screws loose. What would getting angry at him have accomplished. Homosexuality is considered a serious sin in the Arab countries. So, most homosexual men and women there either hide or not even acknowledge their true selves. It's not a simple issue. But, Ahmadinejad answer was rather naive .......and I wouldn't be surprised if he truly believed his answer.........afterall, that's the man who said there was a glow around him as he addressed the UN a couple years ago.

I personally get angry with politicans in the US that try to make Homosexuality an issue. An issue more important than homelessness, war, health care, etc.

So let me get this straight. Getting angry at Ahmadinejad for executing homosexuals and then denying they exist would accomplish nothing in your opinion? But getting angry at US politicians that want to just discuss gay rights is a big thing with you? WOW, way to go!

And sorry, I thought ''Chill Out'' meant ''stop''. I guess I am not up to par on outdated slang. So what does it mean?

MisterQ
09-25-2007, 06:17 PM
Strange that you think you can order me to stop saying what you do not want to hear.

What I wanted the students to do was show outrage when the leader of a country that publicly hangs people for being homosexual makes a joke about it. That is about as low as a human being can go - and he got giggles. Sickening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The comment about letting him go to ground zero was a joke. Your response should have been to just giggle at picturing him being stoned to death by the public.

The laughter sounded derisive to me. Laughter stemming from the sheer absurdity of what he had said. I'm not sure they were laughing "with" him. But who knows, maybe some people were...

buddyholly
09-25-2007, 07:18 PM
The laughter sounded derisive to me. Laughter stemming from the sheer absurdity of what he had said. I'm not sure they were laughing "with" him. But who knows, maybe some people were...

I would like to think so too, but having listened over and over to the tape, it does seem to me that the initial laughter came from those that were there hoping to hear him come up with a few good lines. Of course they were probably the same students that next week will be off somewhere protesting the Bush administration's predjudice against gays.

buddyholly
09-25-2007, 09:47 PM
Now I'm confused. The UN speech of the Iranian Little Big Man sounded to me like he and the US religious right believe in exactly the same things, yet they are enemies. Maybe they just do not see how close they are in their extremism. If we would just give our lives over to God all will be well. I don't think so!

However one good thing about the speech. It seems that five minutes into the talk, Chavez called in to say that he would not be showing up to defend his UN Arse Clown title tomorrow. It only took that amount of time to know that no matter how ridiculous he could be, the title was lost.

Disappointing though that the US delegation did not turn out in full for the speech. I would have preferred to see them stare the little religious fanatic down.

World Beater
09-25-2007, 11:50 PM
:scratch: Just because homosexuals in the US don't enjoy the equal protections they deserve under US law doesn't mean that it's a cheap shot for a US citizen to raise objection to the execution of homosexuals in another nation. One doesn't have to live in a model country before one can rightfully criticize another nation for its heinous actions.


."

Ok. its hypocrisy...whatever.

i am not going to argue about degrees of protection because not all countries agree to the same standard of punishment for "indecency". Some countries think they are punishable by prison, death etc. Other countries don't punish but still do not recognize them and do not give tax breaks etc. Countries like singapore have long held homosexuals acts as punishable by law. So are we going to start criticizing every country that doesn't hold the same standards as our own? Fact is both countries do not think homosexuals deserve equal rights. And so i think its a cheap shot, because the US itself doesnt agree to the full equality. Its like a college tennis player telling a high school player "he sucks". Sure it may be true, but the college player isn't so good himself compared to the ATP player.

Much of the argument stems from ideology. Different countries have different philosophies. And for sure I prefer some to others, which is why if you read the context of my post, I clearly referred to ahmadinejad as "crazy". But at the same time i realize we dont recognize full rights. So i don't see why there should be huge objection to my comments. :lol:

World Beater
09-25-2007, 11:55 PM
I replied to your post because I just knew that you would throw out the Netherlands, even though, in your very own words, you had excluded America and ''other western countries'' from the possibilities.
Now it seems you are trying to cover up your mistake by claiming that in saying ''America and other western countries'' you were really just saying ''America,'' because Muslims understand the meaning of the ''western world'' to be the USA. Which, by the way, is nonsense anyway. Muslims seem to know what constitutes the western world much more clearer than you.
This flip-flopping is not a good way to try and convince someone.

No. The flip flopping of USA Vs. Western world happens quite frequently in the muslim world. And yes i have lived in countries where there are large number of muslims. This is my experience and it has nothing to do with "correctness". So your assumptions are not founded. If your experience tells you differently, fine. But that doesn't disqualify my own. So here's a small tip for you. usually when a poster starts to become patronizing in a discussion, it usually means he/she has run out of arguments and is unnecessarily getting frustrated;)

also i dont see how the netherlands is included in my comments. I said "other western countries".

Other doesn't include all western countries.

mangoes
09-26-2007, 04:36 AM
So let me get this straight. Getting angry at Ahmadinejad for executing homosexuals and then denying they exist would accomplish nothing in your opinion? But getting angry at US politicians that want to just discuss gay rights is a big thing with you? WOW, way to go!

And sorry, I thought ''Chill Out'' meant ''stop''. I guess I am not up to par on outdated slang. So what does it mean?

Obviously you are enjoying twisting my words. What would getting angry have accomplished?? Students laughed because what he said was stupid..... They laughed at his stupidity. Furthermore, I'm not getting angry at US Politicians "just discussing" gay rights. I'm annoyed that politicians spend more time running their mouths about gay issues versus doing things such as reforming the Foster care system. If you think bickering over gay issues is more important than preventing the abuse so many children are suffering in the Foster care system...... well.......:shrug: I'd rather the politicians spend time trying to reform the system. So, when I consider such social issues in need of attention, I get annoyed listening to politicans instead worrying about gay marriage. I personally don't have any issue with gay marriage. I don't consider it a deed that's "hurting" anyone. I think there are many more important social issues in America. Issues that are causing real pain to our citizens.

Lastly, since I don't keep up with the slang presently used, I think based on my other post, you should have grasped my meaning. There was no hostility meant in my statement. But you refuse to see this. I feel like you are trying to pick a fight, so on that note, I will cease replying to your posts.

Aloimeh
09-26-2007, 04:41 AM
The really wierd thing about Iran is that they persecute homosexuals but allow surgical sex changes. There is a surprisingly large number of men who have had sex changes and it's accepted. Really wierd....one would think that in Islam's moral system a surgical sex change is a bigger transgression against nature than homosexuality.

buddyholly
09-26-2007, 11:57 AM
Furthermore, I'm not getting angry at US Politicians "just discussing" gay rights. I'm annoyed that politicians spend more time running their mouths about gay issues versus doing things such as reforming the Foster care system. If you think bickering over gay issues is more important than preventing the abuse so many children are suffering in the Foster care system...... well.......:shrug:

How did my views on the reform of the Foster care system get involved in this?:shrug:

If getting angry at Ahmadinejad for executing innocent people would accomplish nothing, then I still don't understand why you get angry at US politicians for discussing gay issues. Surely you must realize your anger will also accomplish nothing.

Castafiore
09-26-2007, 01:51 PM
i dont believe there any countries out there that are the model but if any country does come close it is the netherlands.
Oh, there are a few, not just The Netherlands.
Belgium for instance (gay people can legally marry and adopt children here), Spain and a couple of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Belgium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage


About those students giggling at the statement that there are no homosexuals in Iran. The persecution of gay people in that country is no joke at all, that's true.
But I'm guessing that those students weren't giggling at the treatment of gay people there but rather at the politician seriously claiming that there are no gay people in an entire country. Yeah, right...who does he think he's kidding.

mangoes
09-26-2007, 02:20 PM
How did my views on the reform of the Foster care system get involved in this?:shrug:

If getting angry at Ahmadinejad for executing innocent people would accomplish nothing, then I still don't understand why you get angry at US politicians for discussing gay issues. Surely you must realize your anger will also accomplish nothing.

In terms of my American issues, I don't sit back and just be angry. I try to involve myself in organizations trying to cause some change to our social problems...... So my anger does accomplish something. It pushes me to get involved and try to make a tiny difference.

There's nothing I, personally, can do about Iran other than pray for the people in the country. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead and doesn't carry the powers of a dictator. The beliefs spun from Islam dictate the laws by which Iran is governed. But, that's getting off subject.

If I thought there was some way I could seriously help try to change a situation in a country, I'd start with Darfur. But as more time passes, and no one seems to be able to bring a stop to the crisis there, it feels like a lost cause.

The students were laughing at Ahmadinejad's stupidity. Students also booed his comments.

natasha_nana
09-26-2007, 02:58 PM
Personally I don't think he should be even allowed in the country. He's nothing more than a terrorist. :shrug:

I disagree with this...completely. He was primarily there to speak at the UN where he has every right as a world leader to be present at.

I often find it utter hypocrisy when Bush/Blair or other leaders who scoff at multilateralism speak at the UN...but I would never say that they should not.

Behaviour of american politicians shows how simple and primitive people are. I don't understand. This man ( Iranian president ) is the president of Iran. And if he wants to come and lie flowers in so called ground zero zone to honour the memory of victims, why is it forbidden to him. And why is he not treated as normal head of another country?
Their eternal, boozed Bush goes to every country of this world. He is seen unwelcome everywhere, but he is treated politely by other politicians, because the political culture demands it. It sees that a new mark of american politicians appears: boorishness. Till now genocide and breake of international law was appeared.

:yeah:

It doesn't matter if people were celebrating in Iran when 9/11 happened. Many people in many places have celebrated many things they should not have - but when their leaders come to make a symbolic gesture of respect, it should be encouraged. It's the only way we can get passed prejudice and hatred.

I think it's a good move that Ahmedinajad is in the US even if, in my opinion, he's a complete lunatic. The speech at Columbia U cerainly made things more interesting, and just to note that it was really disappointing that Columbia received such a negative reaction to its invitation.

I agree.

The US is a secular nation,.

:haha:

yeah in theory.


In terms of my American issues, I don't sit back and just be angry. I try to involve myself in organizations trying to cause some change to our social problems...... So my anger does accomplish something. It pushes me to get involved and try to make a tiny difference.

There's nothing I, personally, can do about Iran other than pray for the people in the country. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead and doesn't carry the powers of a dictator. The beliefs spun from Islam dictate the laws by which Iran is governed. But, that's getting off subject.


You might be surprised by how many people in the country are quite happy with their president...and live very comfortable lives. Of course these are mostly the Persian people. The minority races will probably have a different view of things...but such is the plight of minorities in most countries.

I'm not saying this is ideal or the way it should be, or that we should accept it as inevitable...just making a comment that Iran isn't as terrible a place to live in as many people seem to think it is.

mtw
09-26-2007, 03:09 PM
In my opinion pres. Ahmadinejad is very intelligent politician. His speech was very convincing. And he wants to defend independece of his country and essures normal economical development for own state. It seems that it is very good Iranian politician. He can defend his point of view. Iran is such normal state as every other country in this world for instance Germany, France, China, Russia. Besides it is no regime in Iran and this president was elected freely by Iranian people. And protesting persons were a few old american - iranians grandmas with red scarf ( maybe they remember time before the I world ) and some agressive representatives of american- israelis - so called concretes.
Some american policians and some other actuel French politicians, who truly said has guilty conscience and blood of many people on their hands ban it, because they measure other people of own measure and they think that all people in the world would make the same thing, what they would do. French president at the beginning of his term of office said that he would use nuclear weapon.Besides his french unrivalled, nosy predecessor made nuclear probe againts will of UN and own society. It seems that new french, nosy president will replace our Twins of disaster. It will be the next laughing stock for the press. It is very good. We will be not the worst.
americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the past. It is historical fact too.

buddyholly
09-26-2007, 10:30 PM
For the moment it is probably not worth the effort to take out their nuclear plants. The present government is so concerned with religious extremism and terrorism that they have let the economy go to hell. While the country is saturated with oil, they import gasoline because they can not refine their own oil. Thus we have the paradox of an oil-rich country having queues for scarce gasoline. If they are that distracted by terrorism and Muslim extremism they will probably nuke themselves by accident. So that would be OK by me and we should give it a chance.

buddyholly
09-26-2007, 10:40 PM
Weird, usually it's Bush we laugh at with his dumb and lying comments. I don't think Ahmadenijad is as dumb as Bush in his speeches.

So you probably think he is so smart that if he says there was no Holocaust, then there was probably no Holocaust.

It was laughable and sad that in his speech he did not see why people objected to his thinking that there should be more research on the existence of the Holocaust.
Either he or his speechwriters did not seem to be able to see the difference between research into the Holocaust and research into the existence of the Holocaust. Just like with eggs, for example, people do research into the healthful or harmful effect of eating eggs, but nobody as far as I know does research into the existence or not of eggs. Well, maybe in some Muslim fundamentalist countries they do.

mtw
09-27-2007, 03:01 PM
For the moment it is probably not worth the effort to take out their nuclear plants. The present government is so concerned with religious extremism and terrorism that they have let the economy go to hell. While the country is saturated with oil, they import gasoline because they can not refine their own oil. Thus we have the paradox of an oil-rich country having queues for scarce gasoline. If they are that distracted by terrorism and Muslim extremism they will probably nuke themselves by accident. So that would be OK by me and we should give it a chance.


Firstly USA and their strict friends and chieftains of every kinds are concerned in world terrorism and extremism: directly ( they committ crime against humanity day in day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is indisputable fact and even European and american TV and every worldwide TV gives these news every day. ) and indirectly ( how do you think, who is main sponsor of extremists and terrorists? It is sure for 99% that USA and maybe they superstrict friends GB ).
Secondly. Iranian president is relatively young man in relation to other politicians. He is dr engineer and some members of his government are secular engineers too. Maybe they think in other way than majority of politicians, who ,,studied,, so called administration and managing. Practically such people, who finished this administration and business and alike ,,specialisations,, can only fill in forms and nothing more ( they are very dumm ). And only such people can think that nuclear energy can be used only to produce a nuclear bomb. It is radiculous.
Thirdly. The idea of using nuclear energy as a main source of energy is very good. Nuclear energy is relatively secure. For instance France is based on nuclear energy ( it was built in times before nosy Sarkozy and Chirac, when France was governed by more intelligent politicians ). Besides if these unthinking politicians shrie every day than emission of CO2 is to high, so what can be done in this case in their opinion. We have no practically other source of energy: only petroleum, which combustion is reason of increase of CO2 level and climatical changes, nuclear plants, wind energy ( it is not sufficient ) and solar energy ( it is expensive and sufficient maybe in Africa), energy based on water - it must be much water there and practically nothing more. And what should this Iranian quite good government do in your opinion? To build own raffineries, stop to sell petroleum ( industry of Europe especially Germany will collaps then and some people will be such dissatissfied as people in Myanmar ( Birma - they are very dissatisfied, because the prises of oil were increased. It is naturally thanks to Bush and his British myrmidons, who were invaded Iraq and it is no end of their genocide noticeable )and to begin combusting own petroleum to gain energy? They have right to nuclear power plants.

Black Adam
09-27-2007, 05:44 PM
Wow looks like Amadinejhad and Mugabe have made pact of peace against the Western imperialists. BTW Mugabe's speech was the most entertaining at yesterday's UN summit. :haha: :rolls: :sobbing: Chavez's previous performance was completely put in the shade. :o

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on Wednesday delivered a particularly bitter denunciation of Western critics in the United Nations General Assembly, lashing out at U.S. President George Bush for what he called "hypocrisy" in describing his Harare government as "tyrannical," and denouncing U.S. policy in Iraq and elsewhere.
Mr. Mugabe accused the United States and Britain of seeking to maintain neo-colonial control over Zimbabwe and of attempting to engineer "regime change" there. "I am termed (a) dictator because I have rejected this supremacist view and frustrated the neo-colonialists in their endeavor to keep us as slaves in our own country."
Mr. Mugabe took exception to President Bush's reference to his government as a "tyrannical regime" in a speech Tuesday to the General Assembly.
President Bush said Mr. Mugabe's "tyrannical regime" was "an assault on its people and an affront to the principles of the (U.N.) Universal Declaration" of Human Rights.
Mr. Mugabe responded that Mr. Bush "has much to atone for and little to lecture us on (regarding) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His hands drip with blood of many innocent nationalities, and today with the blood of the Iraqis."
Mr. Mugabe dwelt on the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for terror suspects. "At that concentration camp, international law does not apply...laws of the United States of America do not apply. Only Bush's law applies."
He accused Britain and the United States of pursuing "a relentless campaign of destabilizing and vilifying my country." He said the two nations "sponsored surrogate forces to challenge lawful authority in my country," this a reiteration of the charge, often lodged by Harare, that the opposition is Western-sponsored.
"They seek regime change," he said. "They seek regime change - not my people."
Mr. Mugabe said Zimbabwe "will not allow a regime change offered by outsiders. Mr. Bush and Mr. Brown have no role to play in our own national affairs. They are outsiders and mischievous outsiders and should therefore keep out."
Mr. Mugabe expressed "gratitude" toward South African President Thabo Mbeki for his mediation of talks between the ruling ZANU-PF party and opposition Movement for Democratic Change which in recent days has yielded a compromise constitutional amendment which President Mugabe said "paved the way" for 2008 elections.
"Consequently, we will be holding multiple democratic elections in March" next year, Mr. Mugabe told the General Assembly. "Indeed, we have always had timeous general and presidential elections since our independence."
Zimbabwean elections since 2000 have been marred by allegations of ballot-rigging and official intimidation of voters. Sanctions targeting Mr. Mugabe's inner circle were imposed by Western countries after the contested 2002 presidential election.
The Southern African Development Community asked Mr. Mbeki to mediate crisis talks between the ruling ZANU-PF party and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change in late March after Mr. Mugabe's government launched a crackdown on opponents in which an opposition activist was shot to death March 11.
Photographs of the badly beaten opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai emerging from police custody galvanized world opinion and led Southern African leaders to convene an extraordinary summit at which Mr. Mbeki was handed his mediation brief.
Earlier Wednesday, Mr. Mugabe met with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in an encounter sources said was less than cordial. Mr. Mugabe was said to have refused to accept U.N. humanitarian assistance offered by Ban, and to have expressed himself “forcefully” when humanitarian issues, democracy and human rights came up.
See Mugabe is like mtw, big entertaining and complaining mouth and no action at all. Yet the country suffers. That country was even better than the whole Africa (exxcept South Africa) when I stayed there, but now it's even worse that an anarchy like Somalia :o Most of my friends have gone from leading great lives to leaving like paupers, Black and White alike :sad:
http://static.flickr.com/110/302976900_009e26c4fc_o.jpg
Two new buddies :rolleyes:
HARARE (AFP) — The leaders of Zimbabwe and Iran are looking to form a self-styled "coalition for peace" after receiving a joint tongue-lashing from US President George W. Bush, officials said Wednesday.
The government in Harare confirmed President Robert Mugabe and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discussed the formation of such a coalition on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, where Bush delivered a harsh assessment of their regimes on Tuesday.
"The United States and its allies are so bloodthirsty they don't want to see peace anywhere in the world," deputy information minister Bright Matonga told AFP.
"Our leaders are saying there is a need for like-minded countries to come together and form a coalition that will discuss constructive developmental issues."
The state-controlled Herald newspaper quoted Zimbabwe's ambassador to the United Nations, Boniface Chidyausiku, as saying Mugabe and Ahmadinejad discussed "areas of mutual interest" in New York.
"The leaders also discussed the need to come up with a coalition for peace in response to the aggression of global bullies," Chidyausiku added.
Isolated by his former allies in the West after being accused of rigging his re-election in 2002, Mugabe has forged new alliances with countries in Asia as well as buttressed ties with traditional US foes such as Cuba and Iran.
In his speech to the General Assembly, Bush said the people of Zimbabwe needed help to free themselves from suffering under a "tyrannical regime", and named Iran among a list of "brutal regimes".
While some commentators saw the idea of a formal alliance among states in the US doghouse as a logical move, others were unconvinced that it would serve any practical purpose.
"It will be viewed as a group of antagonists of the West coming together for political reasons and it's not going to be of much significance," Harare-based political analyst Takura Zhangazha said.
"It's essentially political grandstanding and I don't foresee anything coming out of it unless, perhaps, if they rope in (stand-in Cuban leader) Raul Castro and (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez.
"Zimbabwe and Iran have a history of agreements that were never completed."
Lawyer and political analyst Johannes Tomana however said the coalition would work if members are committed to its objectives.
"If they are coming together for a common goal and have unity of purpose there is no doubt that it will work," Tomana said.
"It's a question of determination. Look at what Britain has done. It has managed to rope in the EU into its bilateral row with Zimbabwe and the entire bloc has rallied against Zimbabwe."
Augustine Timbe, a commentator for the pro-government Chronicle newspaper, said Iran and Zimbabwe "share a common pain inflicted by the West" and should find more countries in similar circumstances to form an effective alliance.
The burgeoning alliance between Zimbabwe and Iran, part of Bush's original 2002 "axis of evil", has again highlighted the rift between Mugabe and his former Western allies who have imposed sanctions on his regime.
Matonga argued that events in Iraq meant the United States should be slapped with sanctions.
"Bush is the tyrant and a hypocrite for that matter. Look at what he has done to Iraq. There is no functioning government anymore," he said.
"He turns a blind eye to the damage he has caused in Iraq and Afghanistan and now he wants to usurp the powers of the UN and punish those who do not share his thinking.
"The US should have sanctions imposed on it and not the countries that Bush says should be punished."
I don't completely disagree with this but words aren't enough. If you are unhappy with certain going ons take action of force some people to also notice and take action. Iran should be allowed to have nuclear energy (only a nutter would actually use the bomb, Amadinejhad only wants to use it as a bargaining tool like USA&allies vs Russia&allies in Cold War)
Mugabe simply needs to hit the road and leave sane people in charge.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-27-2007, 10:18 PM
Ahmadinejad is a very intelligent leader and he is one of the bravest people to stand up to American Imperialism.

God Bless the World (except America)

Stgobaiano
09-27-2007, 10:26 PM
Ahmadinejad is a very intelligent leader and he is one of the bravest people to stand up to American Imperialism.

God Bless the World (except America)



I support Rafa=Fed Killa and mtw very good opinions the only terrorist here is George Bush

buddyholly
09-27-2007, 11:35 PM
That would seem to be the end of this thread.
A learned 16 year old with a murderer as his avatar has summed it up nicely. Someone posts a picture of two men who are murdering their own citizens and destroying their own economies (destroyed, in the case of Mugabe) and they get applause for what they do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well it seems if Bush started killing gays and bulldozing the homes of Democrats he might get some support here.

buddyholly
09-27-2007, 11:45 PM
Iran should be allowed to have nuclear energy (only a nutter would actually use the bomb

That is the best reason I have seen for making sure Iran's nuclear programme is stopped.

G4.
09-27-2007, 11:51 PM
so easy to underestimate Iranians and think that they are just stupid fanatics, they are neither dumb and nor suicidal .

buddyholly
09-27-2007, 11:53 PM
so easy to underestimate Iranians and think that they are just stupid fanatics, they are neither dumb and nor suicidal .

I wasn't referring to Iranians in general, just the nutters in charge.

Suicidal? Where did that come from?

G4.
09-27-2007, 11:57 PM
Ahmadinejad might be a scumbag but he is just playing chess with the western world , also he is only the number 5 in the Iranian state , the mullahs have much more power than him, and they people live lives of millionaires (they own big companies and live in mansions) , they love life more than you think , it would be foolish and suicidal to use the nuclear bomb

Stgobaiano
09-28-2007, 12:22 AM
That would seem to be the end of this thread.
A learned 16 year old with a murderer as his avatar has summed it up nicely. Someone posts a picture of two men who are murdering their own citizens and destroying their own economies (destroyed, in the case of Mugabe) and they get applause for what they do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well it seems if Bush started killing gays and bulldozing the homes of Democrats he might get some support here.


Che Guevara only murder people in the revolution, he wasn`t a bastard like Bush who send the CIA and FBI to kill people.
Well I assume you are fan of Henman, the ''gentleman'' ajajja stop believing this shit.

I am in the youth of the PS(Partido Socialista) of Chile and I don`t stand Bush he is a coward

El Legenda
09-28-2007, 12:42 AM
Ahmadinejad got owned by Columbia Univeristy President :lol: pretty much called him an idiot to his face :lol:

Paul Banks
09-28-2007, 03:57 AM
Well it seems if Bush started killing gays and bulldozing the homes of Democrats he might get some support here.

Yep.

Paul Banks
09-28-2007, 04:09 AM
Ok. its hypocrisy...whatever.

i am not going to argue about degrees of protection because not all countries agree to the same standard of punishment for "indecency". Some countries think they are punishable by prison, death etc. Other countries don't punish but still do not recognize them and do not give tax breaks etc. Countries like singapore have long held homosexuals acts as punishable by law. So are we going to start criticizing every country that doesn't hold the same standards as our own? Fact is both countries do not think homosexuals deserve equal rights. And so i think its a cheap shot, because the US itself doesnt agree to the full equality. Its like a college tennis player telling a high school player "he sucks". Sure it may be true, but the college player isn't so good himself compared to the ATP player.

Much of the argument stems from ideology. Different countries have different philosophies. And for sure I prefer some to others, which is why if you read the context of my post, I clearly referred to ahmadinejad as "crazy". But at the same time i realize we dont recognize full rights. So i don't see why there should be huge objection to my comments. :lol:

Err, every homosexual in the USA have equal rights, so I don't know what you're talking about.

undomiele
09-28-2007, 05:14 AM
You guys are all arguing over a man who actually has very little power in Iran. He's a straw man, a guy made up of smoke. The Iranian presidency is largely a ceremonial position very similar to what the VP is in the States (before Cheney). Ahmadinejad can't even pick his own cabinet members and key staff members - in power terms, he's a nobody.

The Ayatollah Khamenei is the man who actually calls the shots in Iranian foreign affairs. And the truth is he seems to be a very reasonable and open minded man. For example, in recent years he has openly declared that Iran supports the Arab League position of officially accepting the existence of Israel and has publicly rejected a lot of Ahmadinejad's statements and opinions. But of course, this is never reported in the American media. Ayatollah Khomeini doesn't exactly fit the image of the terrorist, evil Iranian in power you see. From the vantage point of most Western countries he is a non-entity to the flashier, controversial Ahmadinejad.

This all greatly benefits Iran's critics, like Bush and the neo-cons who want to take it one step further and absolutely isolate and "defeat" it as the US's main power rival in the oil-rich Middle East. Every other country is either in its pocket (Saudi Arabia), occupied (Iraq) or not strong enough to stand up to the States (the rest of them).

The thing is Ahmadinejad is a bit of a crazy man who likes to say crazy things, so how can the US media - who have seen Iran as an evil, rogue state ever since the hostage situation of the late 70's - resist reporting everything he says to the American people? Believe me, the Bush administration absolutely LOVE Ahmadinejad and couldn't get him over to the US and the UN fast enough to showcase his often insane opinions to a people who don't know shit about Iran and automatically think most people from the Middle East are terrorists.

It then makes it all that much easier to attack Iran if everybody thinks theyre Evil with a capital E. Its all propaganda guys. Don't fall for it. The administration wants to cook up another war and tell you its for the common good.

Bollinger was just another one of these ignoramuses who thinks that being a professor qualifies him to judge and condemn a country he knows jackshit about. And it was very clear he didn't know what he was talking about. He was on an egotistical, self-righteous high - and that can be more intoxicating than coke I hear. Who wouldn't stand up to an "evil dictator" in public if you could get away
with it? How great would that make you feel?

My two cents.

undomiele
09-28-2007, 05:36 AM
Here's an excerpt from an interview you guys should read if you want to learn more about the US, Iran and Israel.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/25/142247&mode=thread&tid=25

AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi is author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. Our guest also, Ervand Abrahamian, Iran expert, Distinguished Professor at Baruch College. I wanted, Professor Abrahamian, to read from Juan Cole's piece, who says, talking about Ahmadinejad, “He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament,” that Khamenei is the one with the real power.

ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: He is right on target, yes. I think Juan Cole sums it up. And the question is, then, why is basically in American politics so much focused on Ahmadinejad? I think he serves the function that Saddam Hussein played. He's an easy person to demonize. And yesterday's Bollinger's introduction, when he described him as a dictator, I think, shows how little people like Bollinger really know about the Iranian political system. One can call Ahmadinejad many things, but a dictator he is by no means. He can’t even -- he doesn't even have the power to appoint his own cabinet ministers. It's a presidency with very limited power. And to claim that he is in a position to threaten the United States or Israel is just bizarre, frankly. I think someone like Bollinger should know more about Iran before they sling around smears like terms such as “dictator.”

AMY GOODMAN: Well, talk about Khamenei, then, if he is the one with real power.

ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Here, again, he is, you can say, the Supreme Leader, but the Iranian system is actually very sort of a collective leadership. The foreign policy is made in a council, where the Supreme Leader appoints those members, but there are very different views there. And Ahmadinejad does not run that committee. Someone like Rafsanjani has a great deal of influence. The former President Khatami has a great deal of influence. And they are much more willing to negotiate.

In fact, they were, I think, the people who offered this grand bargain in 2003 to settle all the issues with the United States. And for reasons that are not clear, the White House just basically brushed it aside. They were not interested in pursuing this. And this is why it leads me to think that this administration is adamant in resolving the nuclear problem by military force, because if it was interested in resolving it through diplomacy, there were offers made to them to follow that route, and they have very consciously decided not follow the diplomatic routes. So if you don't follow the diplomatic route, the only other route there is is the military route. And, of course, it’s only a question of time when they decide on air strikes.

buddyholly
09-28-2007, 11:52 AM
Bollinger was just another one of these ignoramuses who thinks that being a professor qualifies him to judge and condemn a country he knows jackshit about. And it was very clear he didn't know what he was talking about. He was on an egotistical, self-righteous high - and that can be more intoxicating than coke I hear. Who wouldn't stand up to an "evil dictator" in public if you could get away
with it? How great would that make you feel?

My two cents.

So you are much more qualified to comment on Iran than the president of a major university. Who is the one on an egotistical self-righteous high here. How do you know he knows jackshit about Iran? How much do you know?

And your theory on Ahmadinejad seems crackpot to me. If he is a nobody and Khameni is the sane and reasonable man behind policy, then who gives the orders to execute homosexuals? It can't be Ahmadinejad because he has no power to make decisions and it can't be Khameni because he is an open-minded and reasonable man. Unless you consider execution of minorities an open-minded and reasonable policy, that is. Do you? If you don't, then pray tell who are the unreasonable and closed-minded people who can get these things done in Iran?
No, I am afraid the only conclusion is that Ahmadinejad is a nobody who is being used by the real men in power to put forward their real policy. But they rely on dupes like you to say, "Oh, don't worry about Ahmadinejad, he is just a nutcase who doesn't speak for the real intelligent Iranian government',' as they go about their real work, which is the eventual destruction of all Infidels, presumably including yourself. No wonder the Islamic fundamentalist world was so enraged at the cartoon of Muhammed with a nuclear bomb on his head. It cut too close to the truth.
The only conclusion I can reach is that people like you are so blindly anti-US that when someone like Ahmadinejad, who is an embarrassment to humanity, comes along, you will rush to excuse him, at any cost. And when that gets too embarrassingly difficult, then you just say, "Oh, ignore him'', as if that explains it all away.
BTW, what is your opinion on the Argentine president's speech criticising the Iran regime for with-holding co-operation on identifying the terrorists who killed so many Argentinians in Buenos Aires?

buddyholly
09-28-2007, 11:56 AM
Ayatollah Khomeini doesn't exactly fit the image of the terrorist, evil Iranian in power you see.

A Freudian slip?

I think you meant Khameni, and if so then the above sentence just shows how completely you have fallen for their smoke and mirrors.

It seems elementary to me. If Ahmadinejad has no power, then he can only be repeating what the men in power want him to say. If he was saying things they did not want said, then they would get rid of him.

G4.
09-28-2007, 02:16 PM
And your theory on Ahmadinejad seems crackpot to me. If he is a nobody and Khameni is the sane and reasonable man behind policy, then who gives the orders to execute homosexuals?

nobody , the Sharia is in use and it says that homos should be executed , it's not like Ahmadinejad personally executes them or he makes the laws
the Sharia have been used before Ahmadinejad became president . he is not responsible of everything bad that happens in Iran

G4.
09-28-2007, 02:23 PM
No wonder the Islamic fundamentalist world was so enraged at the cartoon of Muhammed with a nuclear bomb on his head. It cut too close to the truth.

arabs islamic fundamentalists are anti persian and anti shia. So i don't know what you are talking about

G4.
09-28-2007, 02:37 PM
The only conclusion I can reach is that people like you are so blindly anti-US that when someone like Ahmadinejad, who is an embarrassment to humanity, comes along, you will rush to excuse him, at any cost. And when that gets too embarrassingly difficult, then you just say, "Oh, ignore him'', as if that explains it all away.


i would like to make an opinion as objective as possible on the situatuon so i do not believe everything the US administration says, they have told enough grotesque lies. Like Amdadinejad they like to play chess games. So i'll wait for IEAI conclusions on the situation.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-28-2007, 02:55 PM
I support Rafa=Fed Killa and mtw very good opinions the only terrorist here is George Bush

So true.

If Bush and the American Imperialists didn't exist this world be a lot better.

Bush and America are responsible for so much death and suffering.

mtw
09-28-2007, 03:32 PM
so how can the US media - who have seen Iran as an evil, rogue state ever since the hostage situation of the late 70's - resist reporting everything he says to the American people?


american media should leave in peace Iranian president and take care of their own american mental-ill president-genocide and gives to society normal, independent opinion on him and his regime. Why do they do not it? The are 2 grounds of it: 1. they are financial dependent on his administration. It is very ugly and it is violation of independence of press. 2. They are usual cowards and they are afraid of Bush-regime. It seems that it is very hard regime.
Europe is step by step converted into ,,police-state,,. Thanks to orders and influences of Bush for some European rightists ( not very health too. How normal people can commit genocide? ) and chieftains, it was a special law brought in. Every exchange of opinions, informations between people, normal calls ( handy, stationary , internet )are registered and hold for 6 months to 5 years. It is dependent on country. Apart from financial grounds ( people, who work hard must pay for it ) of this next invention of mental ill american leader, what can such step carry to people? Nothing. Very slowly is created regime, who wants to control citizens. Maybe the next step will be installation of cameras and wire - tappings in the hosuses of citizens. It is known that they can exchange opinions in houses too and governments do not know, what they say. and maybe something wrong about superdemocracy or about governments? Admittedly our Polish, wonderful government read and read and tendered its resignation. It was the only positive aspect of this case in Poland.

mtw
09-28-2007, 03:46 PM
So i'll wait for IEAI conclusions on the situation.

IEAI said that Iran cooperates and it was given in press officially. What opinions should have it give now? Iran is normal,cooperative member of IAEI, as many countries including usa, Germany, France and others and IEAI is organisations, which takes care of safety. If Iranians enrich uranium, they make it to have fuel in reactors. Members of some governments can not know that these reactors, which are in nuclear power plants need fuel just alike engine in car ( this fuel in cars is produces from petroleum. It is called petrol ). And this uranium will be used in reactors of nuclear power plants in Iran. And every idiot knows that it is more easy to build nuclear bomb ( such primitive people as people during II world war had it already and advance of science was practically none in this time ) than to build nuclear power plant.
Besides there are now proekological vacuum bombs and nuclear bombs are already anachronism.

Jim Jones
09-28-2007, 05:57 PM
Ayatollah Khamenei indeed is the no. 1 leader in Iran and has far more power than the Iranian President. But he shares power with the Expediency Discernment Council, Assembly of Experts etc...In sum he does not have wide range of powers like Arab leaders. Foreign powers also tends to be domain of Iranian President.

undomiele
09-28-2007, 06:14 PM
So you are much more qualified to comment on Iran than the president of a major university. Who is the one on an egotistical self-righteous high here. How do you know he knows jackshit about Iran? How much do you know?

How silly of me to forget to highlight the main points of the interview excerpt I posted in my second post of this thread. The one that nicely quotes a Middle Eastern expert on everything I was saying about Ahmadinejad. In fact the post that comes right before yours. You know, the one you obviously didn't read. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Pffff. You're absolutely ridiculous and you don't even know it.

Please note that the post includes a link to the complete interview on the matter.

And for the record, what I said was not "my theory." Its a theory of bonafide experts out of which the source I quoted is only one. I can send you more primary-source material if you want.

Jackass.

G4.
09-28-2007, 06:20 PM
Ayatollah Khamenei indeed is the no. 1 leader in Iran and has far more power than the Iranian President. But he shares power with the Expediency Discernment Council, Assembly of Experts etc...In sum he does not have wide range of powers like Arab leaders. Foreign powers also tends to be domain of Iranian President.

yep , but it's easier to label Amadinejad as the devil and the worst dictator (as bad as he is , he is no worse than americans allies Saudi Arabian leaders). guess it suits one's simplistic and manichean views

*snowflake*
09-28-2007, 08:49 PM
This was the first time i listened to him and honestly i was surprised cause i didn't expect someone as smart and as good of an orator as he is. I didn't think he was stupid but i didn't expect to hear a few valid points conserning the modern day colonialism and the need for general primacy in the world. But being a part of the anti American propaganda and not the general principle it loses it's validity.
Then "his" nuclear program which is not justifiable, he made seem justifiable. If it was, for example, Canadian president making those points it would all seem very harmless and good willed but in his case it just doesn't hold water.
Also if i had no prior knowledge of the Iranian situation i'd think that it was a promised land by the way he described it, especially for women.
The ridiculousness or Holocaust denial makes my skin crawl whenever i hear it and i don't want even to address that subject, while the non exsistance of gays made me rofl.

Overall it was a lot of sugar coated bs, but imo it was worth watching.

ReturnWinner
09-28-2007, 09:05 PM
So true.

If Bush and the American Imperialists didn't exist this world be a lot better.

Bush and America are responsible for so much death and suffering.

I agree with you

ReturnWinner
09-28-2007, 09:09 PM
So you are much more qualified to comment on Iran than the president of a major university. Who is the one on an egotistical self-righteous high here. How do you know he knows jackshit about Iran? How much do you know?
Buenos Aires?

that means he can know everything and has the absolute true??? of course there are pmany eople who know more than him about many more things and it could be about Iran.

buddyholly
09-29-2007, 01:19 AM
for the record, what I said was not "my theory." Its a theory of bonafide experts out of which the source I quoted is only one. I can send you more primary-source material if you want.

Jackass.

I was referring to your ''two cents'' post when you quoted absolutely nobody and presented it all as supposedly your own ideas. And there are many other ''bonafide'' experts who would have contrary opinions. Just because you like what they say is not sufficient reason to declare them right.

But now that you are back to name-calling, I don't see the need to come down to that level of immaturity.

buddyholly
09-29-2007, 01:22 AM
nobody , the Sharia is in use and it says that homos should be executed , it's not like Ahmadinejad personally executes them or he makes the laws
the Sharia have been used before Ahmadinejad became president . he is not responsible of everything bad that happens in Iran

Nobody????????? Well who put the sharia in use then? Sounds to me like you think all the people in power are useless and can't do anything, it all just happens and they can not stop it.

G4.
09-29-2007, 11:33 AM
the Ayatollahs just after the revolution, next time he will be responsible of poverty in the world and high petrol prices

buddyholly
09-29-2007, 11:43 AM
Bollinger was just another one of these ignoramuses who thinks that being a professor qualifies him to judge and condemn a country he knows jackshit about. And it was very clear he didn't know what he was talking about. He was on an egotistical, self-righteous high - and that can be more intoxicating than coke I hear. Who wouldn't stand up to an "evil dictator" in public if you could get away
with it? How great would that make you feel?



I have to apologise. I checked Bollinger's academic career record and he has consistently spoken on the side of left wing liberalism. So it seems your summing up of his character was right on the bullseye.

Jim Jones
09-29-2007, 02:20 PM
I have to apologise. I checked Bollinger's academic career record and he has consistently spoken on the side of left wing liberalism. So it seems your summing up of his character was right on the bullseye.

Yes he is just a left wing extremist, glad to see undomiele criticize him.

mtw
09-30-2007, 05:52 AM
Iranian president is quite nice and intelligent man. He wants to defend independence of his country and it is very well. Besides Iran has right to use nuclear energy and build nuclear power plants. No normal person understands problems of USA. But CNN said in the last time that USA is based on petrol and ethanol ( their president )and it explains all. Only people based on ethanol have claims on somebody and only such people can commit genocide and crimes ( it is damage of brain caused by ethanol - damage of frontal lobes ).

lalit
09-30-2007, 08:49 PM
I'm sure you were pleased to hear his comments on homosexuals, too.

You're really a piece of work. Please, move to Iran and join him. I'll be only too happy to buy your plane ticket for you.thats harsh
i m asexual and i dont think his comments on homosexuality were anything out of the way
if he had answered anything else he would have been clobbered by the iranian clergy
dont forget iran is a theocracy
anyway technically hes right any muslim who is a gay is not a muslim cant say abt iranians
they are mutually exclusive same goes for catholics and other religions

Pfloyd
10-01-2007, 12:55 AM
Very interesting discussion.

However, I'll agree with those that say that it was not a bad idea to let him state his ideas, regardless of how radical they are.

I truly think that Ahmadinejad does not believe everything he says, especially when it comes to talking about denying the holocaust.

Homophobia, on the other hand is a more delicate issue in which a great deal of the arab community follows the Quoran when it comes making up there minds as to wether it is okay to like the same sex.

dimahenman
10-04-2007, 01:15 AM
it was ok that he came but the columbia president was so rude to him! when the middle east sees people in america treating with no respect, they will not respect or like us thats the last thing we need!

although i laughed when he said there are no gays in iran! he's crazy!!