Friendlier to Ahmadinejad than to the U.S. military

[Mr_Perceptive]

"Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established"

Wasn't the taking of hostages in the U.S. embassy in Tehran part of this "revolution?"

Too bad I was not the CA. I would have taken them back by force, regardless the cost in soldiers and resources and glazed over the capital city.

Go ahead: I dare any one of you to seriously state this was NOT a violation of international law.

These type of actions must not be allowed to go ahead without repercussions.

Nations need to be able to be somewhat assured that other nations act predictably if not sanely.

[Michael Tee]

Ahmadinejad handled himself very well, IMHO.  Obviously, he's no dummy.  Just as obviously, your own "President" will NEVER accept Ahmadinejad's challenge to a debate.  He'd be massacred.

OTOH it was very disappointing to see the performance of Columbia's questioners, or perhaps it was the format of the debate.  Given the evasiveness of the speaker, which was very well known, the format should have allowed for three to five follow-up questions for each question asked. 

Iran's record on human rights is just deplorable.  When Ahmadinejad waffled (as in "We have no homosexuals in Iran") he could easily have been pinned down by specific references to the two teenage boys who were publicly hanged from a crane, had follow-up questions been allowed and had the questioners been better prepared.  Absolutely nothing was asked about Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi, tortured to death in Ervin Prison in Teheran, or about the Ba'hai women tortured, raped and then executed in the same prison - - a little preparation, names, dates, sentences, and he wouldn't have been able to wriggle out of the accusations so easily. 

But I thought he brilliantly turned the tables on the questioners in a number of other fields, including the "terrorism" one, where the pitcher lobbed an easy one right over the plate and Ahmadinejad sent it straight back in a line drive, nearly taking his head off with it. 
And he started off on the right foot, earning a good round of applause, by reminding his hosts of such things as courtesy and respect for a guest, but that was more of a culture clash - - Americans are more brash and in-your-face, niceties be damned, and a lot of people love them for it.  They don't always stand on ceremony.

[Richpo64]

>>TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic. <<

What he was doing was giving us all the chance to convert to Islam before he kills us. It's part of Islam. Bin Laden did it in his latest propaganda film.

So now the little Nazi's conscience is clear and he can go on with his lies. Which of course is also a part of the teachings of Islam.

[Richpo64]

From our resident sociopath:

>>Ahmadinejad handled himself very well, IMHO.  Obviously, he's no dummy.<<

He's at least as mentally unstable as you Mike. Read the first paragrah, then see a doctor because you are seriously deranged.


A Maniac in Morning Side Heights

By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/25/2007

Contrary to what you may have heard, Iran doesn?t ?believe? in nuclear weapons. And pay no heed to reports of young Iranian women being stoned to death for adultery. Actually, Iranian women are among ?the freest in the world.? In addition, further research is needed to determine whether the Holocaust happened, and to discover who was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Oh, and there are no homosexuals in the Islamic Republic.


These and other pearls of wisdom were brought to you by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he took the stage yesterday at Columbia University to deliver a rambling and often incoherent speech that should never have taken place.


But grant the genocidal maniac this: he knows how to make the most of an occasion. Surrounded by running cameras and a rapt audience, Ahmadinejad delivered a memorably opposite-world rendition of Iran?s political activities. Typical in its sinister absurdity was his lofty judgment that in ?a university environment we must allow people to make up their own mind.? Coming from the head of a regime that has launched vicious crackdowns on universities, students, human-rights activists and political dissidents, the statement might almost be amusing, were it not tragic. Ahmadinejad seemed all too aware of the fact, and throughout his remarks he wore a sly grin that seemed to say, ?Can you believe I?m getting away with this??


That he has gotten away with it is principally the fault of one man: Columbia president Lee Bollinger. To give Bollinger his due, he was impressively severe in introducing Ahmadinejad yesterday. ?Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,? Bollinger said, pressing him to account for Iran?s successive crackdowns on dissent, for its funding of terrorist groups, and for waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq. Addressing Ahmadinejad?s doubts about the destruction of European Jewry, Bollinger appropriately called it ?illiterate and ignorant? and ?dangerous propaganda.?


There were some stumbles. Bollinger?s strained attempt to defend the invitation as a victory for free speech was feeble and unconvincing. By what obscene standard is the participation of a Holocaust-denying Islamic zealot a prerequisite for ?vigorous debate? about any subject? Even so, his reference to the need to ?confront the mind of evil? at least cast the guest in his proper light. If not quite a proud moment in Columbia?s history ? the mere fact that Ahmadinejad was accorded a platform precluded the possibility ? it was at least not another embarrassment.


Alas, the damage has been done. Simply by appearing at Columbia, Ahmadinejad could claim the unearned legitimacy imparted by the esteemed location. As one might expect, Iran?s government-owned media were quick to pounce on the propaganda coup. In its account of the speech, Iran?s official news agency gleefully recorded the ?standing ovation of the audience? and its ?repeated? applause for the president. They needn?t have bothered. Why waste energy singing the president?s praises when a modern university, in the heart of the Great Satan no less, is happy to provide free publicity?


Not the least destructive consequence of Ahmadinejad?s appearance is that it has humanized the leader of a rogue regime that has the blood of American soldiers on its hands and the murder of Israeli Jews on its mind. Bollinger seemed to anticipate the possibility. In his introduction yesterday, he revealed to Ahmadinejad his ?yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.? Here is some novel advice for Bollinger. For future reference, the best way to show your complete and utter disdain for a fanatical dictator is not to offer him a forum for his hateful views.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Laksin is a senior editor for FrontPage Magazine. He is a 2007 Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellow. His e-mail is jlaksin@gmail.com

[Henny]

>>TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic. <<

What he was doing was giving us all the chance to convert to Islam before he kills us. It's part of Islam. Bin Laden did it in his latest propaganda film.

So now the little Nazi's conscience is clear and he can go on with his lies. Which of course is also a part of the teachings of Islam.

For crissake, he was not. All Muslims preface talks, speeches, statements, etc., with "In the Name of God, the compassionate and merciful..." or some take on that.

[Michael Tee]

You and Laskin are both nuts.  The only thing you can fault Bollinger for is discourtesy to an invited guest, and some might even consider it an example of homespun American plain talking.  Whoever approved the format for the question period fucked up by not allowing for several follow-up questions to pin the guy down.  Whatever victory Ahmedinejad achieved (and let's be honest, he was impressive and he did score points) was due at least in part to inadequate preparation, although on some points, since his country's in the right and yours is clearly in the wrong, no amount of adequate preparation would suffice.  I refer to:
1.  accusing Iran of "terrorism" - - ludicrous when the world's biggest terrorist nation is the U.S.A.;
2.  arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture and murder - - ludicrous case of the pot calling the kettle black
3.  nuclear weapons - - ludicrous, since any nuclear attack by Iran on the U.S. would be signing its own death warrant; plus Iran is
     complying with IAEA inspector protocols

I don't think "the U.S.A. does it too" is a good defence to anything, so he could definitely have been taken to task over his country's abuses of prisoners.

I think he could have been vulnerable to attacks based on persecution of gays, but since America's GOP is resolutely anti-gay, he's probably have a lot of good counter-arguments; America hasn't executed gays (officially) but the killers of Matthew Sheppard had a lot of public support from Christian churches (manifested as further attacks in the form of public demonstrations against gays, including signs that Matthew was burning in hell) and officially supported by the failure of the justice system to deliver death sentences to the perps.

What Ahmadinejad was not easily contradicted.  He said a lot of truths about his country and the U.S.A. that the leaders of the U.S. would rather see buried.  Probably made Americans think.  Even his Holocaust research questions made sense - - why SHOULD further research from various perspectives be rejected?  If currently-held concepts are true, they can only be reinforced by further study; if the studies are flawed, they will not damage the current perceived truth.  If they are flawless, they will either support or alter the current view and either way, it's a good result.  This is a win-win situation.

[Richpo64]

>>For crissake, he was not. All Muslims preface talks, speeches, statements, etc., with "In the Name of God, the compassionate and merciful..." or some take on that.<<

What's the big deal? They all do it, and you can't deny it's part of the religion. What's to defend?

[Richpo64]

>>Even his Holocaust research questions made sense - -<<

Like I said, see a doctor because you are one sick fuck.

[Henny]

>>For crissake, he was not. All Muslims preface talks, speeches, statements, etc., with "In the Name of God, the compassionate and merciful..." or some take on that.<<

What's the big deal? They all do it, and you can't deny it's part of the religion. What's to defend?

Total bullcrap.

[sirs]

She's right, Rich

[Xavier_Onassis]

The truth is that the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, but it was the Palestinians who lost their country as a result.

Taking the embassy hostages captive was a breach of international law, but not nearly so great a breach as the overthrow of the elected Mossadeigh by the CIA.

Ahmedinejahd's government did not sign any nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran has as much right to nukes as Israel at the very least.

This guy is very far from being crazy, despite his ridiculous statement about how there are no homosexuals in Iran, especially in light of some of these nonexistent persons being executed for this ostensibly non existent behavior.

His speech went over quite well back in Teheran.

His interview on Charlie Rose was better than his UN presentation.

It was rather pathetic for Juniorbush to try to upstage him. Everything Juniorbush does these days is pathetic.
Never has a lame duck been more lame.

[Richpo64]

>>Total bullcrap.<<
How do you figure?

Muhammad did tell belivers to tell the truth. That is, to each other. Muhammad espoused the principle: "War is deceit." He taught that lying was permissible in battle. From that came two Islamic principles: political assasination for the honor of the prophet and his religion and  the practice of deception in wartime.Taqiyya and Kitman are most often identified with Shi'ite Islam and rejected by Sunnis. Relilgious deception is however, taught by the Qur'an.

I take it you've heard of Taqiyya and Kitman?

[Richpo64]

>>She's right, Rich<<

Okay. Show me.

[sirs]

>>She's right, Rich<<

Okay. Show me.

Been there, done that already.  You can find passages all over our Holy Bible that if taken to their extremes, could be considered advocating the killing of non-believers, carnal sinners, etc.  Passages taken out of context can be used to justify a whole host of barbaric activities.  Passages taken verbatim minus the overall context and theme of the scriptures can also be used to justify the killing of innocent people.  Radicals in both christianity and islam, the ones using and skewing these selected passages, are the areas of danger, NOT the religion itself, unless of course you want to go on record as proclaiming how evil Christianity is.  The other pertinent point being there's an exponentially greater # of radicals mutating the religion of Islam than there are in twisting Christianity.

[Richpo64]

Okay, you can't.

All you seem to be able to do is parrot the enablers.