CNN Larry King Live - Iranian President Interview

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Anyone from America bitching about Iran ought to focus their attention on AMERICA. Fix America first, then complain about Iran. Otherwise you are just fueling a clever distraction. American media wants to debate about how poorly every other country and every other government treats its people instead of tackling how the US treats its people.

So the president of Iran doesn't support a seperation of church and state or gay people? Since when has our secular country owned up to such a seperation? If it did bibles would not even be in court houses, the whole seperation of church and state is a JOKE. I have gay friends in the military who can't even openly serve whilst they are willing to die for this country so you don't have to. The US makes me sick sometimes, so I'm focusing my attention on changing that. We should start putting down everyone elses country once we've gotten rid of thing like the Patriot Act which trumps rights stated in the Bill Of Rights, and once we've truly seperated church and state and made everyone really equal.


[edit on 29-9-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]




posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Do you know what you are talking about when you say "seperation of church and state"? See if this helps you out - my underline for emphasis:

article


The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.


And the 1st Amendment says about religion:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .


So, if we had to worry about anyone forcing a religion on us in the U.S. (or banning a religion), it would be congress and not the president (or the vice president
).

[edit on 9/30/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shaker

Originally posted by Dermo
***Well Done***


This is what the US media does.. It creates enemies to keep the people rallied. Almost everything the US does on the World scale has been completely lied about.

I hope everyone in the US watches this interview and realizes that its the US government that are the scourge of the World.. not the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese or the French.


What I really hope is that for everyone that reads your comment, understands that you say the US government. NOT Americans in general.

Too many ignorant people out there in the world think that the government is representing us. I just wish I knew how to change that image.



hey guys, let me tell you that we don't!!!

We know that your Govenment is corrupt and last night I gave a whoop of encouragement when the Bill was apposed................
Keep fighting to opressors and stay strong to what you know to be right!!!!!!!!!!


The rest of the world is on your side....



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


Do you know what you are talking about when you say "seperation of church and state"?

Yes. I’m talking about a secular nation not favoring one religion over the other; or showing a clear bias towards social issues and rights by bringing religious bias into those issues.

So, if we had to worry about anyone forcing a religion on us in the U.S. (or banning a religion), it would be congress and not the president (or the vice president

I’d like for you to show me where I mentioned our president in my post? You don’t think that religion is wedged into several discussions in our secular nation, particularly one religion in general over the others? Well it is your right to believe that but I don’t see how anyone could. Religion is clearly a part of many political decisions and our justice system, the question is, is that a good or bad thing? To me it is not, especially when it is one religion in particular that is mainly involved in these decisions. Religion has been an oppressive, divisive force that is shaped and distorted depending on the social ideals existing in a time period. I won’t get into religion with you though since that would be drastically off topic, if you’d like to continue that part of this discussion U2U me or direct me to an appropriate thread .


[edit on 30-9-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Oh, and since you don't get the comparison. Simple, both Hitler and Ahmadinejad, or whatever seem to look at Jews in the same way - they believe only good one is a dead one.


And how many has he killed in Iran? How many concentration camps has he set up? How many Iranian Jews has he made to flee in terror? How many Jews has he personally called for the death of? When has he ever said "a good Jew is a dead one"?

Back up your claims.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by centurion1211
Oh, and since you don't get the comparison. Simple, both Hitler and Ahmadinejad, or whatever seem to look at Jews in the same way - they believe only good one is a dead one.


And how many has he killed in Iran? How many concentration camps has he set up? How many Iranian Jews has he made to flee in terror? How many Jews has he personally called for the death of? When has he ever said "a good Jew is a dead one"?

Back up your claims.


Ahmadinejad is not a dictator by definition as he does not hold absolute control of all internal affairs, it is the unlected mullahs who hold the power. The president is almost a symbolic position as to give the guise of a democracy when in fact it is a religious theocracy. They hold presidential election as to give the illusion that people are actually voting for policy when in fact the power of the president is quite limited. This is the nature of their political system.

In response to your question "how many has he killed?", well the people who he inevitably serves were and are responsible for thousands and thousands of slayings of their own people during the revolution! Not to mention Evin which has housed hundreds of thousands of political prisoners over the past 30 years, many of which were killed for merely voicing an opinion against the regime!

[edit on 30-9-2008 by theblunttruth]

[edit on 30-9-2008 by theblunttruth]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


Ok let me get a bit religious in sarcasm and Im not much keen on this, getting religious.

Do the Zionists(not Jews) feel that they are a favour upon the world that even Hasham and Mosses can be massacred at the behest of the Zionist that these Zionist are such a blessing that even Moses and Aron must kneel and sell them selves to the zionist whilst hasham is also a weakling who fate will be dissided by Zionist. Why do I say all this simple.

Learn to take some crticsm, you are not angels oblvious of wrong! In fact if the clamity as even Ahmedinijad termed it(he merely questioned the extent) befell you from another group of people shouldnt you be ashamed that then you inflicted pain and suffering on entirely another set of people. If your Hasham fearing people let me ask did Palestinians cause the Holocust? No? So why are they punished.

You slaughterd millions in Iraq at the prtext of WMDs and you have no shame, but you want more dead by the same peopganda for Iran, You called your economy resiliant and when it faltered you have no shame in asking for more of the same.

and Im not asking for shame in the eyes of humanity but in front of hasham

listen ill even grant you a bit of billigerence, people who are besiged by criticsm or worse mortal danger(even if the causes are of their own doing) are edgy, that much is given, especialy when now your loggerheads with a people who are very fanatical and hotheaded (extremist muslims), but if for one second you could look at your comments in isolation you sound not much diffrent then fantical muslims,


bottom line in so far as Islam and mainstrem muslims(inc Iran) though is concerned we dont hate dislike or want to harm the jews or christians, we respect and honour Moses, Aron, and even the mother that Raised Moses as her own son, as important and holy individuals. whilst Zionist may diplomaticaly say Christ was a good student, we have no diplomacy when we say we honour Christ his holy mother and his miraculous birth and life, and we believe in the second coming. We are not hostile to you, your religion nor your holy personalities who are holy to us as well.

Ignorance is the root cause, I believe intelgencia from all sets of beliefs has milsead people and played on their ignorances for personal gains which stokes hatred.

in Isolation to me zionist ideologies (beyond a certain amount of acceptable edgy reaction by jews to constant perceived danger) are as fanatical as the Taliban. The way Al-Qaeda and Taliban are a scrouge upon the name and beleifs of Muslims in the same way Zionsists are a scrouge upon the Real Beliefs and Name of Normal Hasham fearing Jews its just that zionists have a much more sophisticated and hidden way of pursuing their agenda. Ahemdinijad or any one is a monster to the extent you chose to make them, he is as much a monster as there are WMDs in Iraq!.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Tough enough ...


Still, to me Larry King now days more resembles a fugitive from a Harry Potter movie doing an interview than he does a human being.


I have watched Mister King on and off for ten years and not much has changed. In fact i wouldn't be surprised if his dead and this is some kind of robot.


And I don't much like Harry Potter movies or any other kinds of fantasy science fiction ...


Too bad, we can't all have imaginations and be able to suspend our disbelief.
I find this to be a common flaw with the uninformed but i suppose you are putting that time to good use somewhere else...


So, from that point of view, you have this H-P creature interviewing a possible monster and blowing pretty soap bubble at him instead of asking important questions.

Nah, I had better things to do.


Most do and that's why they don't watch Larry King 'live' ( without a alive looking presenter).


Oh, and since you don't get the comparison. Simple, both Hitler and Ahmadinejad, or whatever seem to look at Jews in the same way - they believe only good one is a dead one.


I have never got the impression that Ahmadinejad holds such a view but since i can't read minds i wont presume that there might not be something more sinister behind his very legitimate and logical calls that people should unite to end the regime of the Zionist leadership in Israel.

Either way whatever his threats we all know that if Iran does threaten violence ( and they don't seem to very often Western MSM mistranslations notwithstanding) they are writing checks they can't cash and that Israel is more than able to defend itself against any local alliance curtesy of decades of US taxpayer money and Israeli brilliance&ingenuity.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Yes. I’m talking about a secular nation not favoring one religion over the other; or showing a clear bias towards social issues and rights by bringing religious bias into those issues.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


The U.S. is based on the constitution. I've shown you in 2 posts on 2 threads what the constitution says and doesn't say about religion.

Recap: there is nothing in the constitution about seperation of church and state. That term came from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church.

The nation itself (as in government) has no religious bias. The people in this nation are another story. But any bias is simply due to sheer numbers of believers.

Do you also have a problem with religious bias in muslim countries where the religion and state are tightly coupled?

Either way, we don't have that in the U.S.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


have a read up on operation ajax - and what happened with the last shah of iran , and the hundreds of thousands he killed - all in the name of good relations with the west,



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


have a read up on operation ajax - and what happened with the last shah of iran , and the hundreds of thousands he killed - all in the name of good relations with the west,


I'm more than aware of operation ajax, which i regard to be the biggest foreign policy blunder the Brits/US of all time. Deposing Mosadaqeh for Reza Shah Pahlavi was a monumental mistake, but that said the social freedoms and the economy were still hugely superior to what they are today, thus lending a better standard of life for the ordinary Iranian. In fact many Iranians consider the Shah to have been too soft on the mullahs which ultimately gave them the platform to overthrow him.

Perhaps you should speak with some Iranians about how life was during the Shah compared with now? I personally have that privelage and i can tell you most iranians would switch back to that era in a heartbeat!!

[edit on 30-9-2008 by theblunttruth]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Thank goodness that someone is defending the American constitution!

You'll have to show me exactly which parts of that particular PIECE OF PARCHMENT having ANYTHING to do with what happens in the good old USA.


Ahmadinejad is a putz. No really... What exactly is he besides a cheerleader?

If you look closely at him, you can't help but notice his resemblance to our fearless leader... "I'm the Prezident of the United States of Earth!".

How old is Ahmadinejad? And where was GW senior nine months before that?



Re the LK interview... Chamberlain would be proud.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


mayeb a discussion with those who enjoyed the western style live BEFORE the shah brutally deposed the elected governement - it was even more liberal



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


The nation itself (as in government) has no religious bias.

It does, clearly it has been shown again and again. Even when it comes to smaller issues like gay marriage, so maybe the nation itself is not, our government officials since the beginning of this country overwhelmingly have, mainly leaning towards one religion. That still goes on today fluently and frequently, not even the president has trouble admitting some of his choices are made up directly resulting from his beliefs in God and said religion. But if you honestly think things like gay marriage have nothing to do with a religious strangle hold please follow me to this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... . Where I list what I have listed several times, there is no good secular argument against it; non-secular arguments dominate this issue in our secular country.

Do you also have a problem with religious bias in muslim countries where the religion and state are tightly coupled?

Yes, but I’m focused on fixing such bias operating in our own government before I whine about Iran.


Either way, we don't have that in the U.S.

That’s your opinion, one I’m willing to debate in an appropriate thread.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


The U.S. is based on the constitution. I've shown you in 2 posts on 2 threads what the constitution says and doesn't say about religion.

Yes, how kind of you to tell people things they already know.

However I am still waiting for you to back up why you started this debate in the first place. You did not address my full post, which went over how other atrocities have affected our people, not just religious bias. And you failed to show me where I stated I was talking about the president in my post. No offense but you seem like an arrogant debater, when your methods are less than stellar.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Also,


The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.


If you don’t think this goes on frequently or fluently our government officials wouldn’t be aligned with groups like the Ethics and Public Policy Center.


[edit on 30-9-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


SR

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I've got to agree with 'theblunttruth' and his words 'he certainely saw you's coming' cause he certainely did see you mugs coming a mile off.

The guy could be picked apart in under a minute by a skilled debator but yet here he is after all these years still running rings around the west and western political leaders with mere sabre rattling and well timed favourable media appearances. Lol you got to respect the guy for that.

Do you's think if GWB or Obama or Mccain returned the favour and went to Iran they'd be sat there having a nice chit chat?? You guys would get raked over the coals on the home turf to show the citizens how weak the west is and how strong Islam and Iran is.

That's even if the Iranian people are allowed to see the interview in the first place.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Do you know what you are talking about when you say "seperation of church and state"? See if this helps you out - my underline for emphasis:

article


The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.


And the 1st Amendment says about religion:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .


So, if we had to worry about anyone forcing a religion on us in the U.S. (or banning a religion), it would be congress and not the president (or the vice president
).

[edit on 9/30/2008 by centurion1211]



Okay,
1: You just argued on the last page that it's wrong for Iran's religion to influence it's governments.
2: You just sidestepped the same issue in regards to the united states.

So it's OK for the US not to hold a separation between church and state,
but it's wrong that Iran doesn't either?
... just clarifying on that, cause that's the way your posts read.

3: Their president didn't make the religious laws, nor introduce them into their justice system. The laws are the same now as when he became president. He isn't a dictator, meaning he doesn't have the authority to overthrow the country's vote to have those laws changed.
... unlike some president's I've seen.
If Iran's laws are going to change, it has to be the elected representatives that vote they do so.


I'm on board with everyone else... fix your own darn country before ridiculing others.


Right now in the US, you are undergoing a financial issue that exceeds any financial concern of Iran's.

You've entered into two wars, with talks of a third possible war.
Iran isn't fighting ANYONE.

In the US, it's still one country under god, and you still swear your oath on the bible... until recent history sodomy was also illegal in your country, that's a religious based law... actually, I think there might still be some states where it is. Yes, Iran has the same law... woopty freaking doo!
He clearly stated homosexual acts are NOT illegal within your own home... considering kissing is a sign of public friendship in their culture, they hardly have anything to worry about unless they start stripping and going at it in public... which is illegal for any sexual preference in almost every nation.

So, if you think the church's involvement in government in Iran is wrong... maybe, just maybe it should be abolished in the US as well.


And WATCH the interview. You've made quite a few points that show you haven't actually watched it all.

Not to mention blatantly admitted not wanting to watch it all on the last page.

... like claiming all he did was ask him about his family... you clearly skipped to the closing comments in the last minute of the interview.

NOT watching all of the interview that this whole thread is about, is an act of deliberate ignorance.
Especially when you attempt to post your opinions about the interview YOU DIDN'T WATCH !

[edit on 30-9-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


until recent history sodomy was also illegal in your country, that's a religious based law.

I completely agree johnsky. Don't forget our own president tried to get an amendenment passed that would ban gay marriage that had no argument to stand on other than religious beliefs, and the weak “tradition” argument that also admittedly from those debating for the bill comes from religious traditional beliefs as well. Those involved in our government did not shy away from the fact that the amendment was being proposed because of their own religious belief system.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by johnsky
 


I never "argued" or said any of that. Slow down and try reading the posts more carefully. I post factual and historical information relative to the thread and you choose to either ignore it or cherry pick items out of context.

Note: I recently decided to give you another chance and take you off of ignore. More of these tedious and uneducated posts directed at me will land you right back there. Same goes for the person who thinks "raping bats is all the rage". Why would you even presume to think I'd be interested in debating you off topic about anything? ***Yawn***



[edit on 9/30/2008 by centurion1211]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join