Iran: Now Free of Homosexuals!

[Higgly]

I think that this was a huge missed opportunity. Instead of Bollinger hectoring the man like some Shia cleric (and that is exactly what Bollinger's intro reminded me of), he had the power to have debaters waiting in the audience to engage him.

A real lost opportunity.

This happened in one of the greatest academic instituins in the US, a forum which I have always believd was the Ark of the Covenant when it comes to free speech. Very, very disappointed.

I am with Buffycat. The man may not be right, but he's got more balls than his enemies.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman @ Sep 24 2007, 07:22 PM)

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?

Here's what you say: "So, on the basis of facts, [the] president of Iran appears to be no less credible than that of the US..."

So what part of my post are you taking issue with? You are saying the president of Iran is no less credible than that of the U.S., as is Ghosthacked:

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

So I fail to understand why you have a problem with my questioning buffycat as to what makes the president of Iran "certainly far more believable" than Harper and Bush when apparently YOU don't think he is either.

[myata]

Let's put it this way: on credibility, I'd give both the same (failing) mark. But given the size of propapaganda machine working for Bush, I'll give Ahmedinejad one extra millionth of a point for sheer audacity.

[sharkman]

And how many points does each leader get depending on how many women, gays, and infidels are killed by the state each year?

To Higgly, you are mistaking cajones for straight up crazy. Don't worry about it, lots of people make that mistake.

[Higgly]

To Higgly, you are mistaking cajones for straight up crazy. Don't worry about it, lots of people make that mistake.

No, crazy is invading a country with no justification and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Sane is coming to your enemy's home turf and trying to engage them in a dialogue.

[sharkman]

Yes, Iran has been engaging in war both in Afghanistan AND Iraq, but technically, that's not invading. Spot on about the hundreds of thousands that have been killed with their various army organizations though.

Crazy is also going to an opponent's home turf and lying your ass off about everything from WMD to gays.

[Higgly]

Yes, Iran has been engaging in war both in Afghanistan AND Iraq, but technically, that's not invading. Spot on about the hundreds of thousands that have been killed with their various army organizations though.

So you feel that the US has more right to be there?

The Iran/Iraq war aside, can you provide some credible source about the hundreds of thousands you say Iran has killed? Enquiring minds would like to know.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Higgly

[betsy]

No, crazy is invading a country with no justification and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Sane is coming to your enemy's home turf and trying to engage them in a dialogue.

He is a psychopath!

"A psychopath can have high verbal intelligence, but they typically lack "emotional intelligence". They can be expert in manipulating others by playing to their emotions. There is a shallow quality to the emotional aspect of their stories (i.e., how they felt, why they felt that way, or how others may have felt and why). The lack of emotional intelligence is the first good sign you may be dealing with a psychopath. A history of criminal behavior in which they do not seem to learn from their experience, but merely think about ways to not get caught is the second best sign."

And he knows how to charm!

Edited September 26, 2007 by betsy

[Guest coot]

"A psychopath can have high verbal intelligence, but they typically lack "emotional intelligence". They can be expert in manipulating others by playing to their emotions. There is a shallow quality to the emotional aspect of their stories (i.e., how they felt, why they felt that way, or how others may have felt and why). The lack of emotional intelligence is the first good sign you may be dealing with a psychopath. A history of criminal behavior in which they do not seem to learn from their experience, but merely think about ways to not get caught is the second best sign."

Hmm...sounds more like Cheney to me.

[buffycat]

For those of you who actually like to read what people say instead of relying on bumper-sticker sound bites from the media shills here is a transcript of Ahmadinejad's UN address:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339

excerpt:

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over 6 billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.

******

You can read the whole thing at the link. He makes some very good points wrt the UN (in)Security Council and Iran's pursuit of nuclear power (NOT bombs). Keep in mind also that the IAEA has NOT found any kind of evidence that there is any attempt by Iran to make nuclear weapons - none. Iran further has now said it will allow all monitoring of its fuel cycle by the IAEA reps.

Again, all in all a pretty good speech from a politician.

[kuzadd]

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

So Iran is free of homosexuals eh?

Well I think that is the place all my fanatical christian pals, should LOVE !

[myata]

Caught an interview with the US' former ambassador Galbright? on CBC this morning - he was talking about American propensity to "build it's enemies". Sounds true to the single point to me and looks like nothing has changed. Sad.

[betsy]

Again, all in all a pretty good speech from a politician.

Of course. I wouldn't doubt that at all. In fact I'd be surprised if he did not do an excellent spiel!

That was a golden opportunity to let slip by! Ask anyone in sales.

Edited September 26, 2007 by betsy

[Melanie_]

I agree with Higgly about the president of Columbia University. I thought it was really rude and disrespectful to invite someone to speak, and then ambush them in the introduction. I know some of you will claim the man doesn't deserve respect, but Bollinger's actions reflect more on himself than they do on Ahmadinejad.

[Bonam]

Yeah I agree with that. While most of what Bollinger said about Ahmadinejad may be true, that doesn't mean it needs to be stated in the introduction. Let people judge for themselves.

[betsy]

I agree with Higgly about the president of Columbia University. I thought it was really rude and disrespectful to invite someone to speak, and then ambush them in the introduction. I know some of you will claim the man doesn't deserve respect, but Bollinger's actions reflect more on himself than they do on Ahmadinejad.

As for the rudeness, yes I suppose Bollinger made a boo-boo there. After all, he invited this man, and therefore he is Bollinger's guest. Bollinger should've taken the "high-road", so to speak.

[Moxie]

I follow a series of blogs called Women in the Middle East and I can assure you the people of Iran do not like this man. Frankly he's there because the mad radical Mullahs/Muftis want him there and when he stops towing the Radical Islamist line they will toss him into the trash. Over 3000 women have been rounded up and abused for not being Muslim enough. Mass executions of gays and rape victims. Women use to be allowed to study with males but not anymore, screens must be erected or these women can't attend University. He's regressing the people of Iran back into the seventh century.

I'm glad the President of Columbia told him what he thought of him, it mirrored the opinions of many of us.

Let us not forget he had a Canadian journalist killed her name was Zahra Kazemi, she was beated and tortured to death in Evin Prison in 2003. The PM believes a messenger of Allahs is coming (soon) to start a global holy war and this man "Mahdi" will lead Islam and it's true followers (Shi'ites not Sunnis) to global leadership. He really/really believes this is about to happen, he will not hesitate to use nucs if he believes it will speed up this global dominance. He's dangerous, but not crazy. Another religious zealot of Islam, a dime a dozen these days.

[sunsettommy]

All I know is that Iamajihadist is a flaming liar about having no homosexuals in Iran.

Surely 13 people fall for it but other than that he is peachy!

Most of the people in Iran actually like President Bush more than they like Iamajihadist.

[sunsettommy]

Yeah I agree with that. While most of what Bollinger said about Ahmadinejad may be true, that doesn't mean it needs to be stated in the introduction. Let people judge for themselves.

I judged him for merely being President of Iran.

He is a dirtbag.

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps Bollinger said what he did about Ahmadinejad in his introduction because he wanted to make it clear that even though he invited the man to speak, he doesn't approve of his actions; horrible actions, as Moxie has clearly pointed out.

Reading through this thread, I have to wonder how many people who dislike Bush would be singing the praises of someone who invited him to speak and then said exactly what they thought of HIM in their introduction.

Why people seem to be downplaying what Ahmadinejad has done, commenting on his 'good points,' is a mystery to me. I guess some people will always hate Bush and the United States first and foremost, and that is all too clear in these threads about Ahmadinejad. What Ahmadinejad has done is inexcusable, and why you would have less anger for him than you do for Bush boggles the mind. People are suffering under his leadership, and the man deserves to be called on his actions.

[betsy]

Bollinger should not have invited this man in the first place. Why did he give this monster a chance to speak before the American public on American soil, giving him a venue to cast more skepticism, confusion, division in an already divided country over their view on war....at the time when they are at war!

Just for inviting him alone had given some sort of credibility or respectability to this monster. Like as if despotic monsters are not capable of lying - I'd be surprised if most of them are not pathological liars!

If I am Ahmedinejad, of course I'll grab at this opportunity. Why, it's an excellent strategy to play with this people's mind...especially at this time when they are divided with their views on war, and are displeased with their leader!

Bollinger saw the criticisms in his actions for inviting this man and tried to rectify the error he'd made thus giving his intro the way he did.

[Guest American Woman]

Bollinger saw the criticisms in his actions for inviting this man and tried to rectify the error he'd made thus giving his intro the way he did.

What are you drawing this conclusion on? Nothing I've seen would indicate that Bollinger thinks the invitation was an "error." In fact, quite the opposite. He would have cancelled the invitation if he thought it was an error; from what I'm reading, he believes in the freedom of expression. I would imagine that belief extended to his own right to say how he felt.

"Protests over the event started last week at the school, but Columbia refused to cancel the speech..."Link

"Columbia University said it does not plan to call off a speech by Iran's president despite pressure from critics including the City Council speaker, who said the Ivy League school was providing a forum for 'hate-mongering vitriol...'"Link

"Columbia's invitation has drawn howls from politicians, religious groups and other organizations. But the university has not backed down..."Link

I repeat. Many who are critical of Bollinger would be singing the praises of someone who'd been as outspoken introducing Bush.

[betsy]

What are you drawing this conclusion on? Nothing I've seen would indicate that Bollinger thinks the invitation was an "error." In fact, quite the opposite. He would have cancelled the invitation if he thought it was an error; from what I'm reading, he believes in the freedom of expression. I would imagine that belief extended to his own right to say how he felt.

I only made an assumption, and I should've made it clear in my post that it was just an assumption on my part.

[Melanie_]

AW, I'm not a big fan of George Bush, but I would say the same thing if he were invited to speak and then treated with disrespect in the introduction. Bollinger should have let him speak first, then, in the question and answer period, asked specific questions to draw out his true position. Please understand, I am not supporting Ahmadinejad's position on Isreal, or any specific actions of his government - I just think it was incredibly rude to invite him to speak and then, before letting him do so, ambush him in the introduction.

Betsy...

Bollinger should not have invited this man in the first place. Why did he give this monster a chance to speak before the American public on American soil, giving him a venue to cast more skepticism, confusion, division in an already divided country over their view on war....at the time when they are at war!

Just for inviting him alone had given some sort of credibility or respectability to this monster. Like as if despotic monsters are not capable of lying - I'd be surprised if most of them are not pathological liars!

The US isn't at war with Iran, and the best way to avoid war is through dialogue. Apparently the Catholic Church agrees:

"We strongly believe that only through formal and informal diplomacy and respect for international law can there be peace between Iran and the U.S."

The Catholic group that was part of the delegation was organized by Pax Christi USA, the national Catholic peace movement, and included theologians, clergy and religious, and leaders of national Catholic organizations.

"Our message today, both in our words and by our actions, is that our country and our political leaders need to engage Iran in respectful and meaningful dialogue in order to overcome the historical enmity that has existed between our two nations," said Dave Robinson, executive director of Pax Christi USA.

I think Ahmadinejad's willingness to meet with US religious groups might be more political than anything else. Maybe he is looking for support on his views of homosexuality (I'm trying to tie this back to the purpose of the thread). Maybe he is hoping to connect with the more traditional views among Americans. Or maybe he is just trying to throw up a smokescreen.But whatever his purpose is, the Christian groups that met with him felt that they made progress.

But Joseph Fahey, professor of religious studies at Manhattan College in Riverdale, said he left the meeting feeling hopeful because of statements Ahmadinejad made about the "renunciation of war and the quest for peace."

Edited to add another link:

National Council of Churches

In the debrief meeting that followed, I said to my colleagues that I was very disappointed with his answers to two questions: one on the holocaust and the other on the State of Israel. However, I was pleased with his answers to the nuclear question. President Ahmadinejad came across as a deeply religious person and I am inclined to believe him that his nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes.

I am also pleased that he extended an invitation to religious leaders to continue the dialogue in Teheran. In a context of building distrust with the US government and impending military action such conversation, I believe is critically important.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Melanie_

[ScottSA]

Perhaps Bollinger said what he did about Ahmadinejad in his introduction because he wanted to make it clear that even though he invited the man to speak, he doesn't approve of his actions; horrible actions, as Moxie has clearly pointed out.

Reading through this thread, I have to wonder how many people who dislike Bush would be singing the praises of someone who invited him to speak and then said exactly what they thought of HIM in their introduction.

Why people seem to be downplaying what Ahmadinejad has done, commenting on his 'good points,' is a mystery to me. I guess some people will always hate Bush and the United States first and foremost, and that is all too clear in these threads about Ahmadinejad. What Ahmadinejad has done is inexcusable, and why you would have less anger for him than you do for Bush boggles the mind. People are suffering under his leadership, and the man deserves to be called on his actions.

There's a pathology at work when someone equates the leader of a barbarian thugocracy with the leader of the free world. I understand that some people don't like Bush, but the Bush derangement syndrome is as insane as the troothers.