Iran: Now Free of Homosexuals!

[M.Dancer]

Asked about widely documented government abuse of women and homosexuals in his country, Ahmadinejad said, "We don't have homosexuals" in Iran. "I don't know who told you we had it," he said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.ir...ml#cnnSTCOther1

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

Amongst other things, women in Iran are freest in the world, that there are no human rights violations and of course, they are not developing nuclear weapons.....

He strikes me as someone who is as honest as the winter arctic day is long

[guyser]

you forgot the " and now 20% better"

Apparently the Pres of Columbia tore him a new one in his preamble to introducing Ahmadinajad

[buffycat]

Did either or you even listen to it?

Frankly, I think Bollinger was really rather rude, but at least he did provide a venue for which Mr. Ahmedinejad could answer back and express himself. (Which he did quite well - regardless of whether one agrees with him or not). It was interesting to see the style of hardline questions addressed to Ahmedinejad, sharp and to the point, something which one would never imagine being asked of Mr. Bush or Harper - funny that.

All in all I think he did well. Outside of the homosexual comment (which I think perhaps might have been an attempt at humour - he was smiling) he was quite rational in all his responses and did raise some very good points wrt learning, understanding and questioning the status quo.

I kept imagining Bush trying to address a hostile crowd of uni students in Iran with the same grace, but somehow couldn't picture it.

Ahmedinejad is certainly not a stupid man - anyone who thinks so is totally fooling themselves. Whether one agrees or not with him, which of course I don't on a few levels (but I don't agree with ANY politician on all levels anyhow!), he is certainly far more believable than our southern nieghbour or our own dear leader. At the very least he had no fear in being asked VERY blunt and difficult questions. I'd like to see Harper or Bush do the same. (I'm not holding my breath).

[guyser]

he is certainly far more believable than our southern nieghbour or our own dear leader.

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey have a phrase that works here.

Oh yeah, Mahmoud A. is the paragon of truth.

[buffycat]

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey have a phrase that works here.

Oh yeah, Mahmoud A. is the paragon of truth.

I didn't say that he was - I just said he was certainly more believable. I also said I didn't agree with him.

Can you answer the question I asked? Or do you just have a quip little one liner with no intelligent substance? Just vieled insults?

Did you listen to the entire broadcast? Did you listen to his answers - off the cuff btw - to the many harlined questions he was asked?

(I'll answer for you - since you like to do it to everyone else around here - NO YOU didn't? )

[sharkman]

Did either or you even listen to it?

Frankly, I think Bollinger was really rather rude, but at least he did provide a venue for which Mr. Ahmedinejad could answer back and express himself. (Which he did quite well - regardless of whether one agrees with him or not). It was interesting to see the style of hardline questions addressed to Ahmedinejad, sharp and to the point, something which one would never imagine being asked of Mr. Bush or Harper - funny that.

All in all I think he did well. Outside of the homosexual comment (which I think perhaps might have been an attempt at humour - he was smiling) he was quite rational in all his responses and did raise some very good points wrt learning, understanding and questioning the status quo.

I kept imagining Bush trying to address a hostile crowd of uni students in Iran with the same grace, but somehow couldn't picture it.

Ahmedinejad is certainly not a stupid man - anyone who thinks so is totally fooling themselves. Whether one agrees or not with him, which of course I don't on a few levels (but I don't agree with ANY politician on all levels anyhow!), he is certainly far more believable than our southern nieghbour or our own dear leader. At the very least he had no fear in being asked VERY blunt and difficult questions. I'd like to see Harper or Bush do the same. (I'm not holding my breath).

It sounds like you have a new hero, buffy. Good for you. Interesting that you make a Bush comparison and can not remember ANY time that Bush has faced hardline questions. Hah. Try the last 2 presidential debates for starters.

Edited September 24, 2007 by sharkman

[August1991]

All in all I think he did well. Outside of the homosexual comment (which I think perhaps might have been an attempt at humour - he was smiling) he was quite rational in all his responses and did raise some very good points wrt learning, understanding and questioning the status quo.

If you knew anything about Iran or the Middle East, you'd know that he wasn't joking - except in a very sly, duplicitous way - a pathetic attempt at sophistication.

Ahmedinejad's interview with Der Spiegel gives a measure of the man.

Ahmedinejad has an ego the size of Tehran and a chip on his soldier that's larger. In short, he's filled with himself and bogus.

Goerge Bush will be gone in a little over a year. But people like Ahmedinejad will rule in Iran until some violent revolution overthrows them. Which country has the more civilized system?

[ScottSA]

I didn't say that he was - I just said he was certainly more believable. I also said I didn't agree with him.

Would you be happier living there? Truthful leader, no nukes, free women, no queers, what more could a woman want?

[Guest American Woman]

(guyser @ Sep 24 2007, 05:40 PM)

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey have a phrase that works here.

Oh yeah, Mahmoud A. is the paragon of truth.

I didn't say that he was - I just said he was certainly more believable.

I'm curious as to what makes him more believable. Was it when he said there are no gays in Iran? Was it when he said "you have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb" in regards to accusations that Iran is secretly trying to develop nukes? Was it when he said "Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom?" Or was it when he said Iran only executes "violent criminals and high-level drug dealers" when questioned about human rights violations in Iran?

I truly cannot begin to understand why you would find him "certainly more believable" that Harper or Bush.

"Blaming his schedule, Ahmadinejad left Columbia after his speech before answering many questions posed to him, Bollinger said." Link So much for your claim that "At the very least he had no fear in being asked VERY blunt and difficult questions." Or maybe the fear wasn't in being asked, but in answering.

Edited September 25, 2007 by American Woman

[betsy]

Did either or you even listen to it?

Frankly, I think Bollinger was really rather rude, but at least he did provide a venue for which Mr. Ahmedinejad could answer back and express himself. (Which he did quite well - regardless of whether one agrees with him or not). It was interesting to see the style of hardline questions addressed to Ahmedinejad, sharp and to the point, something which one would never imagine being asked of Mr. Bush or Harper - funny that.

All in all I think he did well. Outside of the homosexual comment (which I think perhaps might have been an attempt at humour - he was smiling) he was quite rational in all his responses and did raise some very good points wrt learning, understanding and questioning the status quo.

Why, do you think he'd be dumb enough to come unprepared for the kinds of questions that will be thrown at him?

Do you think he has no clue as to what kinds of questions he'll get? That he has no idea he is viewed as a monster?

What do you think, that he'd prove them right? Spout out all the threats and death-to-all-infidels in the face of the crowd?

Admit to being a cruel, despotic dictator? Duh.

Uh...I seem to understand now why you are so awed by him.

he was quite rational in all his responses

You were expecting to see an irrational, lunatic, raving and all!

Ahmedinejad is certainly not a stupid man - anyone who thinks so is totally fooling themselves.

I don't think anyone with any brains would think that he is a stupid man - on the contrary!

And speaking of "fooling themselves".....hrrrmmmm. On second thought, I better not say any more.

Edited September 25, 2007 by betsy

[GostHacked]

All you people are really hammin on buffycat so I will help her out a bit.

I do seem to understand her post. She is saying, NO MATTER WHAT HE IS SAYING, that Ahmadinejad carried himself very well in the interviews. He to me seemed more natural and did not seem like he was labouring in his speech. Something Bush does damn near all the time. Check out the CBS bit with Pelley and Ahmadinejad. Pelley laboured and sounded like he was tiptoeing around something. He was being pretty careful. Baiting him maybe. So, it is not that we agree with what Ahmadinejad is saying, it is how he carries himself in speeches and QnA periods. That is what is impressing. But go ahead and even fail to take in this bit of insight and just say he kills kittens.

But come on. This is the best title for this thread? War is around the corner (some say it is already happening) between the US and Iran. And all we can put up on a forum is this?

[Guest American Woman]

What she was saying is, and I quote, "he is certainly far more believable" than Bush or Harper. That is what my response was in regards to, so do you have anything to say about that? I'm not talking about how he carried himself. I wasn't responding to that. Untimately I don't find a person believable or not believable by how they 'carry themself' when they speak. I listen to their words and make my judgement based on what they have to say. So on that basis, in regards to the answers he gave, not how he carried himself when he gave those answers, do you find him "certainly far more believable" than Bush or Harper? Do you believe him "far more" than you believe Harper or Bush?

[GostHacked]

What she was saying is, and I quote, "he is certainly far more believable" than Bush or Harper. That is what my response was in regards to, so do you have anything to say about that? I'm not talking about how he carried himself. I wasn't responding to that. Untimately I don't find a person believable or not believable by how they 'carry themself' when they speak. I listen to their words and make my judgement based on what they have to say. So on that basis, in regards to the answers he gave, not how he carried himself when he gave those answers, do you find him "certainly far more believable" than Bush or Harper? Do you believe him "far more" than you believe Harper or Bush?

Shit no. None of those lying bastards are telling the truth.

[buffycat]

First off, thank GostHacked you seem to be the only one who caught my drift.

As for sharkman - whatever - do you ever actually add anything to a conversation outside of false accusations? pfft... whatevah!!

Betsy - well never mind...

AW - no I don't actually believe ANY politicians (with perhaps the exception of Ron Paul these days). I certainly don't trust or believe that Harper or Bush has the best interests of their nations at heart - does Ahmendinjad? Probably not - but - and please don't construe this as support for him on my part - he DID explain a few things which we in the West should pay some heed too. Things like 'stop messing around in other's countries'. Do keep in mind that the US/UK have been messing about for decades in Iran - so is it any wonder they are a tad upset with the MIC????

[buffycat]

Well for those of you here who did not listen to the entire Q&A session (which is most likely ALL of those who had comprehension problems with my previous posts ) here it is:

Iran Tube

I'm pretty sure this is most of it.

[betsy]

Betsy - well never mind...

Of course....what is there for you to say?

[buffycat]

Of course....what is there for you to say?

To you? Not much.... seeing you never seem to READ and COMPREHEND what others are saying to you!! It's just twist and shout all the live long day!!!

Did you watch the interview? Yet? Or have you already decided before actually hearing everything? (You usual modus operendi!!)

So, I restate: Betsy ....never mind....

[betsy]

What Buffycat and Ghostshack seem to fail to recognize is that this man jumped at the opportunity to come to the "Lion's Den" - an opportunity handed to him by Columbia on a silver platter - for a reason more sinister than what some of you realize.

You oooohhhed and aaaahhhhed over how well he carried himself, and oh how polished he is....and oh how nice that he seems to have a sense of humor....and oh yes, he knows how to handle the question - especially hardline questions - ....<gush>.....

Well, he didn't come here to satisfy your curiousity, you can be sure on that! He didn't express his wish to come and visit Ground Zero just so he could pay his "respect." He is selling you something.

And by the way Buffy and Ghost are reacting, I'd say this man's visit to the USA is a success. This Dinejad (or whatever his name is) was able to plant more seeds of distrust or skepticism to our own government leaders.

How many Buffy are there who are now spreading this distrust and skepticism for our own leaders, and at the same time gushing over the positive image of this monster?

He was able to add more fuel to the fires of division among us!

You remember the saying? "United we stand, divided we fall?" Don't pooh-pooh the truth in that statement.

That's how we're going to fall.

Edited September 25, 2007 by betsy

[buffycat]

This Dinejad (or whatever his name is) was able to plant more seeds of distrust or skepticism to our own government leaders.

Bahahahahahah!! You want me to take you seriously and you don't even KNOW his name?!!!

ROFLMFAO!!! :lol:

Believe me Betsy (see I know names!!) I don't need Ahmadinejad to plant seeds of skepticism wrt our government leaders!!!

Thanks for the laugh!!

Edited September 25, 2007 by buffycat

[betsy]

Bahahahahahah!! You want me to take you seriously and you don't even KNOW his name?!!!

Believe me Betsy (see I know names!!) I don't need Ahmadinejad to plant seeds of skepticism wrt our government leaders!!!

Thanks for the laugh!!

Oh good come back, Buffy. Of course, what else can you say after you've worn your heart on your sleeve.

I suppose you're one of those who belong to "Bush-Is-The-Terrorist" crowd! I'm sure one of these days you'd be demanding that they seek the mass grave at the ranch in Texas!

Wake up and smell the blood! Of course you'll have to work out where that smell is coming from.

Edited September 25, 2007 by betsy

[kuzadd]

Bahahahahahah!! You want me to take you seriously and you don't even KNOW his name?!!!

ROFLMFAO!!! :lol:

Believe me Betsy (see I know names!!) I don't need Ahmadinejad to plant seeds of skepticism wrt our government leaders!!!

Thanks for the laugh!!

B: you are forgetting the "government is good, the government is OUR leader, we should never question the government, God tell's us so" Also "Democratic governments never terrorize or kill their own populace"

repeat it over and over and over B.

BTW:

operation gladio

strategy of tension

left-behind armies

I am reading a new book now, about the NATO left behind armies, OMG!!!!!!!!!!

smokin!!!

http://www.amazon.com/NATOs-Secret-Army-Op...y/dp/0714685003

NATO's Secret Army: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (Contemporary Security Studies)

oh but, it's history..those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

A must read!!!

ties in quite nicely with the one I already read

http://www.amazon.com/Puppetmasters-Philip...n/dp/0094705909

Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy ...

Edited September 25, 2007 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

But come on. This is the best title for this thread? War is around the corner (some say it is already happening) between the US and Iran. And all we can put up on a forum is this?

If you like, I can change the title to.

The Iranian Armed Forces: No Homosexuals- No Chance Either.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Goerge Bush will be gone in a little over a year. But people like Ahmedinejad will rule in Iran until some violent revolution overthrows them.

Just like the one we engineered in '53? <sarcasm>Goody, I sure Iran's citizens cannot wait!</sarcasm>

Which country has the more civilized system?

What is your definition of 'civilized'?

Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic"

Palestinians should Decide on Two-State Solution

...given his [Ahmadinejad] alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.

As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed.

It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change.

Edited September 25, 2007 by lost&outofcontrol

[Higgly]

Coming as it does from the President of such a prestigious academic institution, Bollinger's intro was a good look at what the west really thinks of free speech. Bollinger looked like an idiot.

I can't say whether I thought Ahmedinejad was being silly or serious, but it is clear that a lot of people here are viewing both him and Iran through their George Bush eyeglasses. Too bad.

Aside from backing militant groups in the region, and I don't think abybody denies that it has, Iran has neve attacked another nation, except in the case of Iraq under Saddam, and it was Iraq that started that war. As far as those militant groups are concerned, I have to wonder what George Bush would do if the Chinese army were to come over here and start operating in Alberta.

If Iran is building nuclear weapons, one has to ask why it is that so much nail-biting is being done over this when other countries in the region have had them for decades. If I were an Iranian, I'd be thinking hyprocite here and I would be laughing behind my hands at the scolding I was getting.

As far as the women's issues are concerned, it is possible that people here are looking at Iran as though it were Saudi Arabia, which it is not. Imagine what the Iranians might think of western pornography, or "families" that have no children. This whole idea of applying our cultural measures to somebody else's country is a waterway strewn with shoals, IMHO.

What has been happening is that Iran has been getting tarred with somebody else's brush. Ot should I say, bush?

[myata]

What she was saying is, and I quote, "he is certainly far more believable" than Bush or Harper. That is what my response was in regards to, so do you have anything to say about that? I'm not talking about how he carried himself. I wasn't responding to that. Untimately I don't find a person believable or not believable by how they 'carry themself' when they speak. I listen to their words and make my judgement based on what they have to say. So on that basis, in regards to the answers he gave, not how he carried himself when he gave those answers, do you find him "certainly far more believable" than Bush or Harper? Do you believe him "far more" than you believe Harper or Bush?

I'll take issue with that (i.e, your post) too: Bush & Co are on record with their never substantiated claims of WMD in Iraq, Al-Kaeda in Iraq and god knows what in Iraq and anywhere in the world they may have interest in. Claims of WMD programs in Iran are also emanating from the same source, UN commission on nuclear energy is far more cautious.

So, on the basis of facts, president of Iran appears to be no less credible than that of the US (I wouldn't say more, because neither appears as a trustworthy source of information whom I'd take on their word). Sorry for for a disappointing conclusion, but it's better than to wake up in the middle of another bloody mess because you may have forgotten to think for yourself while jumping up on another patriotic bandwagon.

And it's not just me: in a recent world poll on credibility (which I posted somewhere on this board) US tied neck in neck with Iran. Coincidence?