Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "There are no Homosexuals in my country.

[amicus]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/25/africa/ahmedinejad.php

NEW YORK: He said there were no homosexuals in Iran - not one - and that the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews should not be treated as fact, but theory, and therefore open to debate and more research.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, aired these and other bewildering thoughts in a two-hour verbal contest at Columbia University on Monday, providing some ammunition to those who said there was no point in inviting him to speak. Yet his appearance also offered evidence of why he is widely admired in the developing world for his defiance toward Western, especially American, power….”

~~~

The event at Columbia was televised, I watched it; as I did the rant at the UN, the following day. The news channels talking heads did their thing.

Scanning through the various threads on the AH, I suddenly realized that no one is talking about that event....hmmmm.

I suppose it is a consistent symptom of secular humanists, relativists, whatever y'all refer to yourselves as, concerning ethics and morals; value judgments and such.

The general opposition to the liberation of the Iraqi people is almost a litmus test here on the forum; thus any suggesting intervention in the human rights morass of Iran, is also beyond your moral conceptions.

The sin of omission is sometimes very telling and I suspect such is the case here.

Amicus...

 

[Belegon]

right...

after all, we've accomplished such wonderful things for the people of Iraq.

I think we need to fix our own house before we start sending architects and carpenters down the street. Seems to me that before we tear down and rebuild Iran, we might consider rebuilding New Orleans first.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Belegon]right...

after all, we've accomplished such wonderful things for the people of Iraq.

I think we need to fix our own house before we start sending architects and carpenters down the street. Seems to me that before we tear down and rebuild Iran, we might consider rebuilding New Orleans first.[/QUOTE]


~~~

Well, thas a clever evasion if ever I read one.

New Orleans, outside the port facilities, should not be rebuilt and everyone knows that.

As Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, threatened the shipping lanes for oil going all over the world, securing that area and attempting to stabilize it was the main concern, liberation was secondary. Even so, the Iraqi people will have to determine their future as we are not and have never been a colonial acquisitive nation.

Iran also threatens the stability of the area, especially with the threat of nuclear weapons and their already publicized missile capabilities, so even there, liberation would be secondary and perhaps pre-emptive, for if we do nothing, the Israeli's will, to protect their own nation.

But all those applauding students at Columbia, even they found the intestinal fortitude to 'boo' when Ahmadinejad made his statement about homosexuals.

But perhaps you did not notice.

Amicus...

 

[reignophelia]

[QUOTE=Belegon]right...

after all, we've accomplished such wonderful things for the people of Iraq.

I think we need to fix our own house before we start sending architects and carpenters down the street. Seems to me that before we tear down and rebuild Iran, we might consider rebuilding New Orleans first.

~~~

Well, thas a clever evasion if ever I read one.

New Orleans, outside the port facilities, should not be rebuilt and everyone knows that.

As Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, threatened the shipping lanes for oil going all over the world, securing that area and attempting to stabilize it was the main concern, liberation was secondary. Even so, the Iraqi people will have to determine their future as we are not and have never been a colonial acquisitive nation.

Iran also threatens the stability of the area, especially with the threat of nuclear weapons and their already publicized missile capabilities, so even there, liberation would be secondary and perhaps pre-emptive, for if we do nothing, the Israeli's will, to protect their own nation.

But all those applauding students at Columbia, even they found the intestinal fortitude to 'boo' when Ahmadinejad made his statement about homosexuals.

But perhaps you did not notice.

Amicus...

It's been discussed in my household already. I feel no need to discuss it with you, or prove anything to you for that matter.

What happened to the last AV you were using? It was way cuter.

-Ophelia

 

[oggbashan]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a liar.

Why shouldn't he lie? He has no real democratic system of electors who can hold him to account.

There are no homosexuals in his country? There are few who would admit their homosexuality because they might be stoned to death by the religious "police" in the name of orthodoxy. It does tend to deter those who might consider coming out.

The holocaust is a "theory"? It wouldn't be popular with his religious puppet-masters if he sympathised with the Jewish people.

Iran has no ambitions to produce a nuclear bomb?

What is one more lie among the rest?

Og

 

[scheherazade_79]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/25/africa/ahmedinejad.php



~~~

The event at Columbia was televised, I watched it; as I did the rant at the UN, the following day. The news channels talking heads did their thing.

Scanning through the various threads on the AH, I suddenly realized that no one is talking about that event....hmmmm.

I suppose it is a consistent symptom of secular humanists, relativists, whatever y'all refer to yourselves as, concerning ethics and morals; value judgments and such.

The general opposition to the liberation of the Iraqi people is almost a litmus test here on the forum; thus any suggesting intervention in the human rights morass of Iran, is also beyond your moral conceptions.

The sin of omission is sometimes very telling and I suspect such is the case here.

Amicus...

I think you're reading too much into it, Ami.

He's just a delusional little prick who isn't worthy of discussion.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

It could be as simple as they are too busy or like in my case I had not seen the news in days until last night. And then it was filled with the conflict in burma.

If I had to choose to worry over an event right now I'm afraid I'll have to take the burma one for the immediate threat to their people. Sad goings on in this world we live in.

 

[amicus]

I think you're reading too much into it, Ami.

He's just a delusional little prick who isn't worthy of discussion.

~~~

Well, that 'delusional little prick', spoke on a major university campus, before the UN, had front page, top story coverage throughout the media...ahem...not worthy of discussion?

That, 'Napoleonic' little bastard is supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents, funding terrorists to strike Israel, and is hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and delivery systems and is not worth considering?

Ahem...


Amicus...

 

[reignophelia]

It could be as simple as they are too busy or like in my case I had not seen the news in days until last night. And then it was filled with the conflict in burma.

If I had to choose to worry over an event right now I'm afraid I'll have to take the burma one for the immediate threat to their people. Sad goings on in this world we live in.

Agreed. My stomach just lurched.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7013638.stm

 

[Belegon]

I noticed. And, truth to tell, I must admit that I was not in opposition to the Iraq war in the beginning. Hussein was a sadistic bastard and the thought of him with WMD's was scary.

What it has turned into is a different kind of scary. The brave men and women over there are being killed and maimed and accomplishing very little. It is extremely sad.

Iran was already, in many ways, more of a threat than Iraq was even at the time of our invasion. Certainly, I find the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran no more attractive than I did that of a nuclear-armed Saddam.

But I do not feel that we should take it upon ourselves to invade Iran. We should not be the world's Police Force. The fact that we seem to already be that is not a positive to me nor is that an incentive for me to wish for it to continue. I am not interested in being the world's moral compass or guardian of "what's right."

Even if I were, I would want to finish the job we started in Afghanistan first. Another effort I initially supported. One that I feel we had far more right to begin and one I feel is being ignored in favor of Iraq. The Taliban has not been stamped out, and they are actually gaining ground again. They make the Iranian government look rational, too.

I feel that we should bring our young men and women home as soon as is feasible and that we should avoid any more "Cowboy Up" style foreign policy.

You have the right to disagree with me, of course. That is exactly what made this country great in the first place.

BTW, "everyone" does not agree with your position on the rebuilding of New Orleans...as you know, of course. And where are the dock-workers for the port facilities supposed to live? I find you stubborn, Ami...but not stupid.

 

[amicus]

Agreed. My stomach just lurched.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7013638.stm

~~~

Have to admit I did not follow the news on this event, but read the link you provided. I doubt many Americans would recognize even Mandalay and Rangoon and fewer still would connect them to Burma. Nor would most remember the world war two Burma Road incidents concerning US and British troops attempting to relieve China from Japanese aggression.

The world has changed greatly since world war two and the demise of colonial Britain and France and Holland. While in the west, the vacuum has been somewhat filled, it remains vacant in that part of the world with little attention directed there.

Amicus...

 

[Belegon]

Agreed. My stomach just lurched.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7013638.stm

I also must plead a limited level of knowledge of this. Very sad. Unfortunately, nothing seems so human as inhumanity.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Agreed. My stomach just lurched.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7013638.stm

Mine with you as I read that *shakes her head* it won't be long and they'll be shooting at this rate. I am half tempted to turn off all media related activities today and just do something peaceful.

</threadjack> ami

 

[amicus]

I noticed. And, truth to tell, I must admit that I was not in opposition to the Iraq war in the beginning. Hussein was a sadistic bastard and the thought of him with WMD's was scary.

What it has turned into is a different kind of scary. The brave men and women over there are being killed and maimed and accomplishing very little. It is extremely sad.

Iran was already, in many ways, more of a threat than Iraq was even at the time of our invasion. Certainly, I find the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran no more attractive than I did that of a nuclear-armed Saddam.

But I do not feel that we should take it upon ourselves to invade Iran. We should not be the world's Police Force. The fact that we seem to already be that is not a positive to me nor is that an incentive for me to wish for it to continue. I am not interested in being the world's moral compass or guardian of "what's right."

Even if I were, I would want to finish the job we started in Afghanistan first. Another effort I initially supported. One that I feel we had far more right to begin and one I feel is being ignored in favor of Iraq. The Taliban has not been stamped out, and they are actually gaining ground again. They make the Iranian government look rational, too.

I feel that we should bring our young men and women home as soon as is feasible and that we should avoid any more "Cowboy Up" style foreign policy.

You have the right to disagree with me, of course. That is exactly what made this country great in the first place.

BTW, "everyone" does not agree with your position on the rebuilding of New Orleans...as you know, of course. And where are the dock-workers for the port facilities supposed to live? I find you stubborn, Ami...but not stupid.

You make some very interesting points, Belegon, and last first, yes, I know, not 'everyone', but in an economic or practical sense it is unreasonable to rebuild New Orleans as it was.

There is something else to be considered, that of the climate of New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast region. For those who have never visited or lived in the area, the temperature and humidity is debilitating. It is a semi-tropical, if not tropical environment and even the scent is offensive to one or more temperate sensibilities. I have lived there, I know.

Although I will no doubt be accused of racism, what else is new, it is obvious why Africans thrive in such an environment and Caucasians do not.

We should not be the world's Police Force.

I think, if you consider the historical events, we really had no choice following world war two, when Berlin was partitioned and the Soviet Union began to expand.

Korea followed on the heels of the aftermath and a toothless UN could but appeal to the only remaining military power in the world to contain the Communist advance.

America is not comfortable or at ease in the position of 'Policeman', but what would you recommend as an alternative?

And had we not invested in the Marshall Plan and Nato and Seato and spent the billions upon billions of tax dollars to 'police' the world, can you imagine what the vitality of our economy might be?

It is a fast paced time we live in, at the same time observing history, making history and participating in history as events unfold, a most amazing time for one who can observe and contemplate.

Amicus...

 

[scheherazade_79]

~~~

Well, that 'delusional little prick', spoke on a major university campus, before the UN, had front page, top story coverage throughout the media...ahem...not worthy of discussion?

Sometimes in Wales the main news story is all about rugby. It doesn't mean that rugby is of any major national importance - just that there's nothing else newsworthy out there.

That, 'Napoleonic' little bastard is supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents, funding terrorists to strike Israel, and is hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and delivery systems and is not worth considering?

Ahem...


Amicus...

Not really. He's small fry. I think the more pertinent question in this case would be who's supplying the arms and the nuclear weapons parts to him? Unfortunately it's a question that's never likely to be asked, unless western relations with Russia deteriorate to the point where Putin can be used as a convincing scapegoat.

Because the horrible truth of the matter is that Mahmoud's military shopping sprees do the world of good to the western economy - especially the fat cat western arms dealers, who make millions from engineering the deaths of other people, including their own countrymen.

At the end of the day, if you're going to sell liquor to the neighbourhood yob, don't be surprised when he pisses up your front door and smashes a couple of windows.

Need a glass of water to help clear your throat, Ami?

 

[amicus]

Sometimes in Wales the main news story is all about rugby. It doesn't mean that rugby is of any major national importance - just that there's nothing else newsworthy out there.



Not really. He's small fry. I think the more pertinent question in this case would be who's supplying the arms and the nuclear weapons parts to him? Unfortunately it's a question that's never likely to be asked, unless western relations with Russia deteriorate to the point where Putin can be used as a convincing scapegoat.

Because the horrible truth of the matter is that Mahmoud's military shopping sprees do the world of good to the western economy - especially the fat cat western arms dealers, who make millions from engineering the deaths of other people, including their own countrymen.

At the end of the day, if you're going to sell liquor to the neighbourhood yob, don't be surprised when he pisses up your front door and smashes a couple of windows.

Need a glass of water to help clear your throat, Ami?

~~~

Water not needed, have my Heinekins at hand, but thanks for the thought.

I think the world is quite aware of the Russian black market arms, the Pakistani technology and the North Korean assistance, but you seem to dismiss the centrality of oil and the transportation thereof from the region, which, really, holds the trump suit for the entire issue.

There are all sorts of 'partial' truths one can pick and choose from to make a point or challenge one and I do it as well as anyone I suppose. But your inherent distrust of enterprise somewhat colors your rhetoric with a familiar dialectic.


The sun will rise tomorrow, regardless.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

I was going to post a thread about this when I got home. I was shocked when listening to the full version tonight, I heard the full question asked of Aqua-Velva-jad (I love that name ). He was directly asked about his country employing the death penalty as a punishment for someone being gay. His rambling answer compared them to drug dealers who destroy the culture. Then I was really shocked to hear a loud ovation from the liberals in the audience. I'm not sure if they were just too clueless to understand what he was saying or not, but they just applauded him saying homosexuals deserve to be murdered for being who they are. I know Bush hating is at an all-time high and there were a number of protestors saying Bush is worse than Aqua-Velva-jad, but how can anyone possibly applaud that? Especially an institution that is far to the left like Columbia.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I think the world is quite aware of the Russian black market arms, the Pakistani technology and the North Korean assistance,

True, but how aware are they of the fact that a lot of these weapons, especially the more sophisticated ones, are in fact sold by western 'entrepreneurs'?

but you seem to dismiss the centrality of oil and the transportation thereof from the region, which, really, holds the trump suit for the entire issue.

... Nope. Doesn't need a genius to work out that all the countries we've 'liberated' or are thinking of 'liberating' are either rich in oil, or in an ideal position for an oil pipeline.

As the old saying goes - sometimes it's better to give someone enough rope to hang themselves with. Keep selling arms to an excitable turnip of a leader, and sooner or later you can guarantee that he'll get big-headed and do something that gives you the perfect excuse to invade and liberate... and tighten your grip around the supply of oil in the meantime...

There are all sorts of 'partial' truths one can pick and choose from to make a point or challenge one and I do it as well as anyone I suppose. But your inherent distrust of enterprise somewhat colors your rhetoric with a familiar dialectic.

I just have a problem with using the term 'enterprise' to describe a practice that involves making money from goods that'll be used to kill your own countrymen and their allies.

Somehow it's just not cricket.

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

right...

after all, we've accomplished such wonderful things for the people of Iraq.

I think we need to fix our own house before we start sending architects and carpenters down the street. Seems to me that before we tear down and rebuild Iran, we might consider rebuilding New Orleans first.

Not to start a whole new argument but they shouldn't build New Orleans back. They should build it smarter and further back from the ocean. All of the money spent on rebuilding will just have to be spent again next time it happens.

 

[cloudy]

Not to start a whole new argument but they shouldn't build New Orleans back. They should build it smarter and further back from the ocean. All of the money spent on rebuilding will just have to be spent again next time it happens.

It wasn't the ocean that did the damage, it was Lake Pontchartrain that flooded the city when the levies broke.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Um. Yeah. Okay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5wBFCDZFHw

 

[jomar]

Um. Yeah. Okay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5wBFCDZFHw

That's just cultural manliness, Jenny, you scamp. I, for one, am quite reassured by his comments that their interest in nucular power is strictly for industry and utilities energy, not weapons.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

That's just cultural manliness, Jenny, you scamp. I, for one, am quite reassured by his comments that their interest in nucular power is strictly for industry and utilities energy, not weapons.

I have a hard time believing anything he said, Jomar. The problem is, he's president of Iran, but he don't run the country or make policy.

Iran has two independant governments. The official government under Ahmadinejad, and a second government under the Iatola Khomani (son of the original). The power rests with the Iatola, not the official government. The clergy owns the army and makes policy.

Ahmadinejad is the fall guy who takes the heat from the rest of the world for the terrorist activities of the clergy.

 

[jomar]

I have a hard time believing anything he said, Jomar. The problem is, he's president of Iran, but he don't run the country or make policy.

Iran has two independant governments. The official government under Ahmadinejad, and a second government under the Iatola Khomani (son of the original). The power rests with the Iatola, not the official government. The clergy owns the army and makes policy.

Ahmadinejad is the fall guy who takes the heat from the rest of the world for the terrorist activities of the clergy.

Oops. I guess I should have put an so the sarcasm would have shown through. No, I don't believe a word of what he says.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

That's just cultural manliness, Jenny, you scamp. I, for one, am quite reassured by his comments that their interest in nucular power is strictly for industry and utilities energy, not weapons.

*snerk*