Iran: Now Free of Homosexuals!

[betsy]

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...

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

No, the US is not at war with Iran. But we all know for a fact that the USA is at war with Iraq....and there is a division among Americans regarding their war with Iraq.

We also know for a fact that there is a growing tension between the USA and Iran.

If there's to be any dialogue at all....perhaps a neutral country would want to sponsor it. I would go far to say that Bollinger did not think too much as to analyze what this would mean or how it may impact the USA. It's easy enough to say he's doing it for free speech....but really, I found it insensitive (to say the least) to bring this man on American soil and provide him with a podium.

I am not sure if Bollinger himself is anti-war. I would imagine he is.

I didn't bother to read the Catholic or any Christian religion's stance on the matter. That's their own opinion.

Edited September 30, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

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.

Why not the obvious? A devious and effective way to further divide the USA? To play mind games?

Give ammunition for the anti-war...so they can apply more pressure? To undermine their leaders?

To bolster his own image at home...to his supporters at his home or in every battlefield that pits the USA against fundamentalists...at the expense of the USA? "See all you soldiers of Allah, I am brave to come to the belly of the beast!"

So he can go ahead with his nuclear plans without any resistance?

the Christian groups that met with him felt that they made progress.

Edited to add another link:

National Council of Churches

I have no quarrel with that. He is already on US soil after all, so why not take advantage of that!

At least they're trying. But then again, that's their opinion. If they want to mediate, nothing wrong with that. That's my opinion.

Edited September 30, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Perhaps Bollinger should have done as you suggest. I'm not defending Bollinger, but I can't say I'm critical of him either. My belief is that heads of state should be able to take criticism from any source, at any time. This is why I am so critical of "free speech zones." Ahmadinejad had a fair chance to respond to Bollinger's comments. Had Bollinger said the things he did with no chance of rebuttal on Ahmadinejad's part, then critics would have grounds to say he'd been treated unfairly. But the right to free speech gives Bollinger the right to say what he did.

For the record:

"[in 2004] Amnesty International protested the death penalty carried out on 16-year-old Ateqeh Rajabi, in the northern province of Mazandaran, for "acts incompatible with chastity." Reports are sketchy, but it seems the mentally impaired Ateqeh had sex with a boy. The boy was punished by 100 lashes and released. Ateqeh was hanged in the main square after the Iranian Supreme Court upheld her sentence.

The Guardian newspaper reports that hundreds of Tehran bus drivers who attempted to strike were beaten and arrested in July of 2007. Their families were targeted by plainclothes police, who burst into their homes and beat the women and children.

Iran Focus recounts that a 13-year-old girl was raped by her brother. She became pregnant and gave birth to a child. The result? An Iranian court sentenced her to death by stoning. Her brother received 150 lashes.

Two young men accused of homosexual acts were hanged in the public square of the town of Gorgan in 2005. They were 24 and 25 years old. Countless other men suspected of homosexuality have been held without trial and tortured to obtain confessions."

I don't think Bolliger was required to put "politeness" above his feelings about such actions.

[Argus]

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.

Funny you should think that. Realistically, if Bush was going to be there the students would have rioted, and if he'd made it inside there would have been all sorts of students standing up and shouting, calling him names, holding up signs, blowing whistles, etc. We've seen it before at these types of left wing institutions where anyone considered right wing is invited to speak. Consider what happened at Concordia university when Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to speak.

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)

Yes, Hitler might have smiled similarly in saying there were no homosexuals in Germany - as he'd ordered them all killed.

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

No one has said he was stupid. What has been said is he is a vicious, brutal religious fanatic

Whether one agrees or not with him, which of course I don't on a few levels

Which few levels do you not agree with him on? Do you agree that girls who have sex outside of marriage should be executed? Or is that just a quibble on my part - no real reason to denigrate this great man, after all.

(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).

Your hatred for Harper and Bush is causing you to throw in your lot, due to your appalling ignorance, with a man a thousand times more right wing than they are. You despise Harper because he isn't in favour of gay marriage, but Ahmedinejad executing homosexuals is not much of a problem to you. You hate Harper because he is against abortion while Iran's practice of stoning women to death is no big deal. I'm not sure the depths of your bitterness towards conservatives has left you entirely sane in your judgment of such things. If Ahmedinejad was a fanatic ultra-orthodox Christian you'd loath the very mention of his name. But since he's one of those quaint "brown people" well, he really can't be faulted, now can he?

[ScottSA]

Your hatred for Harper and Bush is causing you to throw in your lot, due to your appalling ignorance, with a man a thousand times more right wing than they are. You despise Harper because he isn't in favour of gay marriage, but Ahmedinejad executing homosexuals is not much of a problem to you. You hate Harper because he is against abortion while Iran's practice of stoning women to death is no big deal. I'm not sure the depths of your bitterness towards conservatives has left you entirely sane in your judgment of such things. If Ahmedinejad was a fanatic ultra-orthodox Christian you'd loath the very mention of his name. But since he's one of those quaint "brown people" well, he really can't be faulted, now can he?

It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome, and it's symptoms extend to any rightwing politician. It's Churchill's dictum, sloshed through the mushy leftist mind, to emerge on the other side as "If Casper invaded Hell, I'd invite the Devil and all his minions to dinner." It's crazed illogical gnashing of teeth. The danger lies in the fact that it's so entrenched that it has become a pseudo-religion, like the Church of Global Warming. It's motto seems to be "the enemy of my president is my friend."

Edited September 30, 2007 by ScottSA

[buffycat]

I really think there are reading comprehension problems with some folk on this board. I never said I support Ahmadinejad - I do however find him somewhat easier to bear listening to than Bush. so what?

Can you tell me when the last time Iran attacked another nation? How many military bases does she have worldwide? How many puppet dictators has she set up recently?

Realize this: The whole warmongering towards Iran right now has nothing to do with 'freedom' and 'democracy' or 'going after them there so they don't come here'. It has far more to do with resources and power balance in the ME - IOW people are dying for a RACKET.

Continue on with your quip little comments and terms.

Now, wrt when and how Iran will be attacked, you might want to give this article by Uri Avnery a little read:

It is highly unpleasant to think about a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands (and, indeed, in any hands.) I hope it can be avoided by offering inducements and/or imposing sanctions. But even if this does not succeed, it would not be the end of the world, nor the end of Israel. In this area, more than in any other, Israel's deterrent power is immense. Even Ahmadinejad will not risk an exchange of queens - the destruction of Iran for the destruction of Israel.

NAPOLEON SAID that to understand a country's policy, one has only to look at the map.

If we do this, we shall see that there is no objective reason for war between Israel and Iran. On the contrary, for a long time it was believed in Jerusalem that the two countries were natural allies.

David Ben-Gurion advocated an "alliance of the periphery". He was convinced that the entire Arab world is the natural enemy of Israel, and that, therefore, allies should be sought on the fringes of the Arab world - Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Chad etc. (He also looked for allies inside the Arab world - communities that are not Sunni-Arab, such as the Maronites, the Copts, the Kurds, the Shiites and others.)

At the time of the Shah, very close connections existed between Iran and Israel, some positive, some negative, some outright sinister. The Shah helped to build a pipeline from Eilat to Askelon, in order to transport Iranian oil to the Mediterranean, bypassing the Suez Canal. The Israel internal secret service (Shabak) trained its notorious Iranian counterpart (Savak). Israelis and Iranians acted together in Iraqi Kurdistan, helping the Kurds against their Sunni-Arab oppressors.

The Khomeini revolution did not, in the beginning, put an end to this alliance, it only drove it underground. During the Iran-Iraq war, Israel supplied Iran with arms, on the assumption that anyone fighting Arabs is our friend. At the same time, the Americans supplied arms to Saddam Hussein - one of the rare instances of a clear divergence between Washington and Jerusalem. This was bridged in the Iran-Contra Affair, when the Americans helped Israel to sell arms to the Ayatollahs.

Gush Shalom

[M.Dancer]

I really think there are reading comprehension problems with some folk on this board. I never said I support Ahmadinejad - I do however find him somewhat easier to bear listening to than Bush. so what?

Can you tell me when the last time Iran attacked another nation?

This year and last year too.

[buffycat]

This year and last year too.

Cite?

[ScottSA]

Cite?

Oy vey. WW II happened. Do you need a citation for that too?

[Canadian Blue]

When was this war, I can't recall any NATO nation invading Iran.

I hope to god you're not referring to the capture of those British sailors who were later freed.

[Sulaco]

When was this war, I can't recall any NATO nation invading Iran.

I hope to god you're not referring to the capture of those British sailors who were later freed.

Yeah, I hope to god as well - because if you are - well that was a peaceful act by a nation seeking to extend a hand of friendship to a bunch o' wussy brits.

It was a cultural exchange. I-Pods were synchronized.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Sulaco

[M.Dancer]

Cite?

Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah has said it is no secret that Iran is aiding Hezbollah by sending money and weapons via Syria.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821548.html

Mr Downer says he made Australia's position plain during a recent bilateral meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister.

"It is our view that the Iranians have been supplying lethal improvised explosive devises to militias in Iraq," he said.

"These are weapons that could kill our troops."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/27/2044646.htm

Today is tuesday, do you need a website to confirm?

[ScottSA]

Today is tuesday, do you need a website to confirm?

Cite?

[M.Dancer]

Cite?

http://www.ecben.net/calendar.shtml

[Sulaco]

http://www.ecben.net/calendar.shtml

It's not footnoted. And it's merely a collection of links. And I don't link to external websites.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Sulaco

[M.Dancer]

It's not footnoted. And it's merely a collection of links. And I don't link to external websites.

I call horsefeathers.

Your spelling has improved by a factor of ten thousand, you must be visiting a spell check site.

Edited October 2, 2007 by M.Dancer