Mahmoud Ahmadinejad murders gay people!
POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:14
VIEWED: 7501
PAGE 2 of 10
Well, I honestly don't know anything about that. I suppose he'd probably have a dozen people stand up and say that he was playing golf at the time of the incident.
But, really, it's a bad idea to arrest heads of state who have been invited or accepted to the attendance of a diplomatic conference. It makes future diplomatic conferences difficult to conduct.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've stated that the best thing to come from this appearance was that the world saw what a buffoon Ahmadinejad was in his denial that homosexuals were in Iran.
And I'm not missing the point that Bollinger was a bad host. It seems to me that the thumbed his nose at most of America who didn't want the Iranian President to speak at C.U., then thumbed his nose at everyone else when he attacked his 'guest'. I think he put himself in a poor position, and then only made matters worse. And perhaps I'm just more outraged at the Iranian leader, with the human rights violations, the assisting of terrorism in the world, and sending IED's to Iraq which ends up killing our soldiers than some U President for his bad manners.
But I agree. It is poor taste to invite someone and then attack them if they show up. Let the audience have their way w/ this guy, and have at it.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
So, I suppose this is the reason to invade Iran. Save the Iranian gays from their leader. There is another alternative though, we could have the Iranian gays apply for status as political refugees.
BTW, I'm not joking or being sarcastic.
Who said anything bout invading Iran?
No one said anything about invading Iran but me...it's my cynicism with regards to the present administration. OK so that's sarcastic...
Does anyone here want to help those identified as gay in Iran? Does anyone here want to do anything other than bitch about it? I have merely offered a solution of my own to the problem of mistreating those individuals while casting a cynical eye to the present administration. As for how the president of Iran was treated at Columbia - disgraceful seems too inadequate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is he smarter than he seems, or a lot dumber?
He handled President Bollinger's bombshells with great patience and calm. That's usually the sign of a very calculating man....ie. nothing was going to upset him...not Bollinger, not being able to go see Ground Zero, not all the protesters outside, nothing. A lesser polished maniac, like Hugo Chavez for example, would probably have charged up to Bollinger and either spit in his face or decked him. I think the experience demonstrates how cold-blooded and determined this guy is. You can believe his daily rabid threats against Israel and the West.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Is he smarter than he seems, or a lot dumber?
He handled President Bollinger's bombshells with great patience and calm. That's usually the sign of a very calculating man....ie. nothing was going to upset him...not Bollinger, not being able to go see Ground Zero, not all the protesters outside, nothing. A lesser polished maniac, like Hugo Chavez for example, would probably have charged up to Bollinger and either spit in his face or decked him. I think the experience demonstrates how cold-blooded and determined this guy is. You can believe his daily rabid threats against Israel and the West.
Actually it's worse than you think.
He's always come across to me as a reasonable man with an unreasonable worldview. By that I mean he isn't a raging nutjob like Chavez and others. Under normal circumstances politics aside you'd probably think he was a nice, thoughtfull and reasonable guy, he probably loves children and puppies.
The problem is that the world view he has and believes is reasonable, logical and natural is entirely opposite to ours. He doesnt see his worldview as being superior like guys like Chavez and Bin Laden do. That's why he doesnt campaign like they do to promote his vision. Instead he just sees his view as being correct and ours wrong. That's why he can take these insults with good humour, in his mind you are not challenging his belief you are just throwing a tantrum and being a nice guy he forgives you for it.
It's like when a child gets a foolish idea that you as an adult know is wrong. Some folks may get angry but nice people just try to correct the error and show good humour.
In his mind we're just wrong, and he's humouring us.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
First of all, it looks like the primary reason the Iranian president was invited to speak at the University was so that he could be insulted.
Actually the primary reason he was invited was so he could be insulting. The left took this as an opportunity to embrace a leader who would come here and insult American policy, American culture, and most important to the liberals, to insult the American President. That he could then insult the American gays and the American left was surprising, after all they are the ones standing up for him. He should appreciate them, as should we all, the left would argue, for giving him a forum, a mild rebuke, and showing that the American left are the pillars of civilzation, diplomacy, and achievement.
Its the sort of thinking that went out of fashion when it directly resulted in World War 2. Early 20th Century liberal idealism, that wants to talk to Hitler...not confront and kill them. Hitler needed to be confronted in 1933, before he built the Nazi war machine, did the groundwork to ready the greatest mass executions in world history, or started the most widespread and destructive conflict we've seen yet.
Make no mistake, modern Iran is as hard on liberals, free thinkers, artists, writers, and professors as it is on gays and Jews. In that respect they have a lot in common with Hitler.
Quote:
And I guess... I guess I'm the only one who thinks that's wrong.
I really don't care who it is, but when you invite someone to speak you have a duty to be civil and respectful.
I agree. This man should NEVER have been invited. Columbia University is a place that is not safe for American speakers, like the Minutemen, and where American soldiers are not welcome, yet they welcome a brutal dictator.
Free speech does not mean providing a forum for a man like this. He's free as anyone to get on a soapbox and shout for all to hear, but we as a people are under no obligation to give him a hall, a microphone, and an audience.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, is there a liberal under your bed? Not everything is a 'left wing' conspiracy designed to bring down the ' (self?)righteous.' If we can't rationally discuss and exchange information in a civil way, diplomacy has no chance of effectiveness. This man may not to be trusted, but if we can't talk to him in a calm manner, we'll never figure things out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero....you're right on about Liberals and peaceniks....the end result of their "beliefs" is death....death of millions...always! It was the Liberal Peace Movement during the '30s that kept America from declaring war on Germany when England declared war on Germany. America sat on the sidelines....America watched England get pounded and pounded, night after night, buzz-bomb after buzz-bomb, thousands dead...while we did nothing...We did nothing as our friends in France, Holland and dozens of countries lost their countries to Hitler's invading hordes. We sat by and watched Japan commit countless atrocities against China and Manchuria....ONLY when WE were attacked did we get in the fight. If I were a British citizen I don't think I'd like America as a friend very much. Roosevelt's refusal to declare war back in early 1940 ultimately led to millions of deaths...deaths that could have been prevented if we had united with England right away to defeat Hitler.
If Iran DOES attack Israel or Saudi Arabia with nukes the LIbs here will not have the stomach for a fight....millions more will die because Ahmadinjad was allowed to expand his influence....hell I bet the "first" nuke or dirty bomb attack won't be carried out by Iran "officially"...they'll just hand it off to Al Qaida. That is a concept Liberals will not or cannot comprehend. Liberals forced America to hastily withdraw from Viet Nam...what was the result?...A fucking bloodbath of our friends and forces of democracy....millions tortured and killed because we didnt finish the job...and of course Liberals NEVER see their responsibility for all of it. These are the same Liberals who CRY for murderers like Tookie, but call our troops Nazis.....they oppose the death penalty by lethal injection on grounds of cruel & unusual, but they promulgate abortions...all types of abortions, including those that rip the fetus out piece by piece. They are a sad, pathetic demented lot of suicidal idiots, ever-determined to allow our country and way of life to be destroyed in the name of what they deem appropriate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
First of all, it looks like the primary reason the Iranian president was invited to speak at the University was so that he could be insulted.
Actually the primary reason he was invited was so he could be insulting. The left took this as an opportunity to embrace a leader who would come here and insult American policy, American culture, and most important to the liberals, to insult the American President. That he could then insult the American gays and the American left was surprising, after all they are the ones standing up for him. He should appreciate them, as should we all, the left would argue, for giving him a forum, a mild rebuke, and showing that the American left are the pillars of civilzation, diplomacy, and achievement.
I think that's a partial analysis. I think there was a degree of grandstanding here, I think the message Columbia was ORIGINALLY going to send was that civilised people talk to the enemy and try to change their minds through discourse rather than violence. I don't think that anyone there thought he was a friend of the liberal worldview, in fact his worldview (Israel aside) has more in common with some right wing Christians than it does with anyone else in the US, after all he does live in the theocracy.
My guess is that sometime in the last week, when the media, pro-Israeli students and Alums started asking WTF were Columbia thinking, a decision was made to firmly show that Columbia wasn't endorsing him. That was what the pre-speech speech was all about.
Quote:
Its the sort of thinking that went out of fashion when it directly resulted in World War 2. Early 20th Century liberal idealism, that wants to talk to Hitler...not confront and kill them.
Your history is different from mine then. I don't know that anyone on the "liberal" side in Europe actually trusted Hitler for a moment. There was a move by industrialists in Europe to support Fascism because it was seen as a valid alternative to Communism. That was a time in Europe when the ruling and property owning classes really feared that Russia Communism would spread through their own socialist and communist movements. The idea that Fascist states would be a buffer between capitalist Europe and communist Russia was not really a liberal notion.
Quote:
Hitler needed to be confronted in 1933, before he built the Nazi war machine, did the groundwork to ready the greatest mass executions in world history, or started the most widespread and destructive conflict we've seen yet.
Nobody wanted to confront Hitler in 1933, European losses in WW1 meant most European leaders could not get a mandate for pre-emptive action and America was in an isolationist phase dealing with the depression. It wasn't that lberals prefered to talk it was that nobody prefered to fight.
Quote:
Make no mistake, modern Iran is as hard on liberals, free thinkers, artists, writers, and professors as it is on gays and Jews. In that respect they have a lot in common with Hitler.
Theocracy in action.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nonsense Hero,
Nothing is better for instigating thought than abrasive ideas. They create a friction that forces you to look seriously at an issue. I'm not generally inspired to post when I read something here that I agree with, but when I read something from you or Auraptor it makes me tackle the issue in my head. It makes me look at something that otherwise I might have continued to accept without delving. I generally don't come away agreeing with you, but I come away with a better understanding of my own position.
I say he should be given a forum to speak, and to be questioned as he was. I don't completely agree with antonyt that he should have been treated with respect in terms of the types of questions thrown his way. I believe that when you have somebody like that in that kind of venue, its your duty to ask him the hard questions.
And it sounds like he was.
so for all your accusations about what the left was looking for, where is your proof? Don't give me some bullshit line suggesting that they asked a question about homosexuality and expected him to go..."I'M GAY!"
that's not to say these distasteful platforms should be given the kind of play that our main-stream media gives them. Anne Coulter's hate peddling has been mainstreamed to the point where people might actually start thinking she's not so far out from the middle...that's the power of shifting our perception of what is the norm by overplaying radicalism...
This reinforces my feeling that the Iranian President should be grilled when he speaks. When you talk to somebody you feel is radical and out of touch with reality you can't publically accept their bull. Give them a chance to defend their bull, sure, but giving them a pass on it in the world of media is very near to condoning and reinforcing it.
...........
Sadly, the Bush administration doesn't like it when we talk to anybody. It's almost as if they feel their own position so tennuous that any digging would undermine them rather than to strengthen their own cause. That's probably true. They are kings of rhetoric. They like it when we don't examine the issues...when we allow our gut reactions to allign our sentiment with their agendas.
I'm not buying either of their bullshit...but I like to know what it is. they are both leaders with different goals and different pressures, and what they say should never be considered without taking into account those contexts.
Right now the Bush administrations goal seems to be to ratchet up a reason to invade Iran.
The Iranian President's goal is to make himself into a martyr for the middle east, and other sympathetic countries getting tired of Americas foreign policy.
It looks like they're both going to get what they want. The rest of us...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME