Iran's Ahmadinejad to speak at US university

reply to post by neformore


I dont want to be misunderstood, I'm not calling anyone who disagree with the policies of any particular administration a U.S. hater, when ever this country is doing something wrong it needs to be pointed out, at the same time is not all U.S. doing, our policies our part of the problem but NOT the entire problem.

You say U.S. should do this and that, now what Iran should do? what the palestinian, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria should do? Let me see what your thoughts are on those please.



[edit on 25-9-2007 by Bunch]

Originally posted by Bunch
You say U.S. should do this and that, now what Iran should do? what the palestinian, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria should do? Let me see what your thoughts are on those please.

They should engage in the same way, because they are regional players.

Of course, thats kind of hard, as the USA won't entertain the notion of discussing the regions politics with people who live in the region and aren't Israeli.

reply to post by neformore


May be the Bush administration won't engage them, but Clinton did, still nothing happen and in the mean time they keep killing each other. May be the next administration decides to open a dialogue that includes all the key players again, but mind that for this complicated issue there needs to be a realistic approach and realistic solution.

The "just send the Jews back to where they came from" is unrealistic and many people here need to realize that. (Not saying you)

Somehow all the threads surrounding Ahmadinejad revolve around "is he a good or bad guy?" "Are USA/Isreal the bad guys or are Iran the bad guys" with each poster taking sides for one of them and bashing the other.

But its not that simple and its not all black and white. The only thing we know for certain is that USA/Isreal and Iran are in disagreement. And that it would be preferrable to and in the interest of most of humanity that the disagreement not turn into war. When I have a disagreement with my spouse, its preferrable that the disagreement not turn into a fight. Disagreement is not the problem. The problem would arise when it escalates into war.

Therefore, the good guys are the ones who downplay the disagreement, sooth worries, negotiate, practice diplomacy, give in on some issues. And the bad guys are those who inflame and provoke and attack. So you have good and bad guys on both sides of the issue.

I think we all know where Bush is going with his 'world peace'. First the cover up with 9/11 then the oil in Iraq and now stirring with Iran. I find it quiet funny how the Americans still support Bush and listen to the government. I guess thats what Bush wants, more power and then world war 3.

I know how many of you guys here despise Fox News, just like to point out that they are off and running the Iranian gay issue, as I suspected we did not heard the last of it yesterday.

www.foxnews.com...

Don't know what to make of it, now, if they even have laws against it, then why lie about it?

reply to post by Bunch

Originally posted by Bunch
I know how many of you guys here despise Fox News,

Don't be fooled by this. Many "Fox haters" are actually closet viewers. They supposedly hate everything about it but at the same time they can quote chapter and verse of the latest newscast.

Originally posted by Bunch
just like to point out that they are off and running the Iranian gay issue, as I suspected we did not heard the last of it yesterday.

www.foxnews.com...

Don't know what to make of it, now, if they even have laws against it, then why lie about it?

Think about this. Why did Ahmadinejad answer the question the way that he did?

It's very simple, really. Homosexuality is not permitted in Iran. Why would he answer otherwise?

The same goes for their treatment of women. Ahmadinejad says that they respect women so much that they kiss their hands. And they "don't burden women with legal matters".

But then they hang prostitutes and stone adulterers. Would he ever say that? No, because "We kiss their hand" sounds so much nicer.
www.iranfocus.com...

Ahmadinejad is a smooth guy. He avoided direct answers and change the subject well. He even avoid the question of Iran arming militias. People may say it's rude to treat him that way, but people are just trying to understand him and the country. That's his fault for wanting to speak at a university. I'm pretty sure our president visiting Iran would get worst treatment and probably get shot, that's y u won't see that happening anytime soon.

The best thing about Ahmadinajad's speech was how Bollinger (God Bless his Soul!) spanked him at the beginning. Ahmedinajads speech I felt was pathetic, he kept talking about god, science, scholars, the koran, turds etc and in that dull boring tone of a mad man raving to himself.

I have to applaud the Columbia students present for not lynching this guy for wasting their time with his eclectic circumlocution.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by mallory-john
Prove this "anti-semitism". Give me links to sites showing government sponsored beatings/eradications of jews in Iran. Show me how the leaders are targetting the jewish people in their country. Are they segregating them in ghettos and taking their jobs from them? Are they shipping them off to gas chambers? Lets have some proper substance. And please, don't refer to the often misquoted "wipe Israel off the map" line because thats been proven to be wrong time and time again. Lets have some facts instead of hearsay and Fox news opinions.

[edit on 25/0907/07 by neformore]

How about a ANTI JEWISH ART Convention?
www.nytimes.com...

Remember the Anti Jew Cartoon Contest?

Remember that he denied the existence of the HOLOCOST.
Tell any jew on earth that the holocost did not happend, I bet he gonna call you a anti-semit.

I post later more. Now I have to work to protect you british butts against terrorists.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Don't be fooled by this. Many "Fox haters" are actually closet viewers. They supposedly hate everything about it but at the same time they can quote chapter and verse of the latest newscast.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, as the saying goes.

I realise the concept might be hard to understand but in order to be able to take a balanced viewpoint ALL sides of an argument need to be looked at.

When you are dealing with propaganda, and selective editing, all sources need to be looked at very closely indeed.

Originally posted by mallory-john
How about a ANTI JEWISH ART Convention?
www.nytimes.com...

Remember the Anti Jew Cartoon Contest?

Is that the best you can do? I thought crying over cartoons was funny, because I could swear there were half a dozen posts by right-wingers on this board several months back wondering what all the fuss the "stupid muslims" were making was about when cartoons were published that they found offensive. Maybe you missed that?

Remember that he denied the existence of the HOLOCOST.
Tell any jew on earth that the holocost did not happend, I bet he gonna call you a anti-semit.

What he actually said was that he disputed some facts and claims made about the holocaust, and that he personally found some of the information difficult to disseminate against other material he's come across. Now while I personally don't agree with that, someone did point out earlier that the guy is entitled to his own opinion

I post later more. Now I have to work to protect you british butts against terrorists.

Now this part of your post proves that you really are losing it. In case you hadn't noticed, Britain followed the US into there folly in Afghanistan and Iraq. So quite how you come up with the conclusion that you personally are doing something more that the UK forces deployed out there is beyond me, unless you consider yourself to be personally better than the 5,500 British troops deployed in Iraq, and the 1,700 Royal Marines in Afghanistan, and lets not forget the work carried out by the Counter Terrorism Units in Scotland Yard and MI6, so why don't you drop the macho BS and actually engage in a conversation instead of indulging in your own particular "hard man" fantasy?

reply to post by neformore

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by jsobecky
Don't be fooled by this. Many "Fox haters" are actually closet viewers. They supposedly hate everything about it but at the same time they can quote chapter and verse of the latest newscast.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, as the saying goes.

In your particular case, I would be willing to concede that as your motive. But I would not extend that courtesy to the majority of "Fox haters".

Originally posted by neformore
I realise the concept might be hard to understand but in order to be able to take a balanced viewpoint ALL sides of an argument need to be looked at.

Now why would such a simple concept be difficult to understand? Fair and balanced is Fox's motto, after all.

Originally posted by neformore
When you are dealing with propaganda, and selective editing, all sources need to be looked at very closely indeed.

As long as you apply that maxim to all sources, I'd agree.

reply to post by jsobecky


I do find it funny however, and I freely admit to watching FOXNews, that they will decry anyone who sources say Al Jazzera, but blindly accept the spint hey see from our media.

I watch many sources to get prespective from both sides of the coin. Fox is at the extreem end of one perspective (Its basicaly a neocon venture but thats a whole nother topic ) while many here would say Al Jazeera is a tool for the Jihadist's. As with most things in life the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I do give FOX News credit however, they did show the majority of the speech without interupting for spin. The spin came later