Over half of the people at the UN walked out during Ahmadinejad's speech

I caught the very end of the speech, and Lou Dobbs, alongside with the circle of critics, pointed out that a large portion (over half according to Lou himself) of those who could be seated to hear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech walked out. One of the critics compared the speech to Hitler, and the last critic even said that he should not have even been allowed to speak. What are your thoughts on it? Does Ahmadinejad's belief that the holocaust was not real mean he should not be allowed to speak at the G20? What was your overall impression on his speech, and does it mean much of anything?

Voltaire-"Tho i may disagree with everything you say, i will defend your right to say it".
Suprise suprise, in a show of juvenile ignorance, half of the attendee's got up and walked out.
So we don't elect adults who know how to remain calm, what we have are stroppy,vain,egocentrics that run away from frank debate.
If it wasn't for Libya and Iran the whole thing would be the massive predictable farce it usually is.
Gaddafi was excellent, i'm convinced Gaddafi has become a truther!
He held up a mirror to the UN today and they didn't like it.
The truth will set you free, but it will piss you off! Haha.

Disgusting.

Childish. Reprehensible.

They could have just turned off their translators or plugged their ears. Anyone who walked out deserves the same.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by KSPigpen]

reply to post by SonicInfinity


The actions were beyond childish. Why doesn't Israel unveil all the truth about the Holocaust??? I'm sure they of all People would have concrete visible evidence, and that way they could shut Ahmadinejad up. Let's go at it from the stand point of the truth of the situation. The UN is supposed to be an assembly where World leader's can come, and voice whatever opinion they have. Why are all half of the attendees to childish to sit through a speech??? They portray Ahmadinejad as a lunatic; so why not just let him ramble???

I may not be making my stance clear; the above two posters made it clear.

Aside from that this is an annual meeting, and with the talk currently of forcing the UN to sanction Iran, or else Israel will attack; why not listen?

This is not just one man, but an entire country....... From there these psychopathic children We call World leader's may just drag us all into WW 3.

We all should listen

I can only wait to hear "Bibi Mr.Iran" tomorrow make in his staff's own words, a dramatic plea to the UN in regards to Iran.

C'mon We're playing with war, and the children are showing their nature.
S&F

[edit on 23-9-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

reply to post by Cosmic4life


I think they should have walked out. Wouldnt you have walked out if Hitler was speaking at the UN?

The comment about Qadaffi being like a truther... that is just perfect that you truthers identify with a rambling lunatic and are proud of it.

"How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenceless women and children ... be supported unconditionally by certain governments," Mr Ahmadinejad asked.

"And at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied their basic needs, food, water and medicine?"

A French diplomat told Agence France-Presse the Iranian leader's speech was "unacceptable," adding that European delegations had co-ordinated their action in advance if they found parts of the address unpalatable.

Suggesting there was a Jewish conspiracy, Mr Ahmadinejad added: "It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks."

www.news.com.au...

he does have a point..
2nd

I haven't yet heard what Gaddafi said and didn't know Ahmadine-jihad was speaking until tomorrow.

I thought it was interesting that the Chinese were laughing at Gaddafi. Not sure for which thing he said though.

I think these people should have had monitors to watch movies or play on line computer games.

" YOU LIE " would have been interesting as well.

Those people who walked-out are aging backwards. Unfortunately, the only thing that's getting younger is their brains and not their bodies.

An adult (or anyone for that matter) should listen to what others are saying even though they may disagree with them so it will open an argument.

There should be a list of those immature walk-outers.

How many walked out as a sign of protest, and how many walked out so to be seen to be in protest?

What argument are you going to make against a person that doesn't even believe the holocaust happened? All he wants are ears, so those people who stood up and left in protest sent him a noticeable message way more powerful than listening and arguing could have ever been.

Ahmadinejad is a madman who's threatening a nation with genocide. Why was he even allowed a stage to speak at?

[edit on 23-9-2009 by EsSeeEye]

I loved his speech and I am fine with people walking out if they chose to do so. The speech confirmed (for me anyway) what I have thought all along about him. He is an idiot and a liar.

He watched as countless Iranian citizens were murdered after his glorious "landslide election" by a "free people". He continues to take Iran down a path that will in the end lead to confrontation for Iran and more death for his "free people".

That is my two cents.

Here's the transcript of his speech.
www.npr.org...
Just a sample paragraph:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness.

i watched his interview on TV with Katie Couric about all the hype.

i though his interview was good.

he actually said the holocaust was real, but the holocaust was exploited as vehicle for countries political gains.

she held up a photo of a mass grave to him and he said...

" 60 million people died on all sides of that war, i feel bad for all of them, not just a smaller percentage of them." which in reality he is right. the Jewish people that died seem to take the majority of the spotlight. "

he said thats what the media wanted you to think. he said the US govt. only will let us hear biased opinions. and brought up a photo of a muslim woman killed in USA that was killed cause she wore a muslin robe, how come that wasn't on the news...

if you get mad at the election deaths. WTF like GWII had 2 bogus elections and everybody took it like a bunch of chickens, just because the iranians stood up to it? if Americans stood up to crap that like they should have there would have been problems too. i bet if americans stood up against corruption it would be alot more deaths than the iranian election.

just cause the television brainwashed everybody like a bunch of sheep, now everybody hates people they don't even know.

im American, i love America, i don't hate people i don't know, maybey i should let the Media make my decisions for me. all you haters need your swine flu implants so your dead body can be identified when its all burnt up....





[edit on 23-9-2009 by werk71]

[edit on 23-9-2009 by werk71]

reply to post by werk71


I gotta say Your right; the amount of dead in the Second World War were a lot. Also, there is strong evidence out that the bombs on Japan weren't necessary as the Japanese were openly talking of surrender before hand.

From donttreadonme's link above:

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.

People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?

I have not finished Ahmadinejad's speech, but so far I've seen a speech; which seems like something out of Gandhi.

He's got a point. The US is constantly bragging about superior new nuclear weapons, and the only country in the World to use a WMD is the United States.

I'll keep looking for the hate in the speech

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


You keep stealing my lines.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Here's the transcript of his speech.
www.npr.org...

No, that's the speech from September 2006.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by vox2442]

Here's the video -

It sounds like he agrees with many of the sentiments shared by many people on these boards, and the world in general.

The dollar is worthless, it is created out of thin air and backed on nothing.

The world under US leadership does inflict its idea of democracy and consumerism on others, spouting about all that is right and proper, while themselves commit atrocities.

Israel has displaced millions of Palestinians over the last 60 years, while portraying them as terrorists. They are in violation of numerous humanitarian resolutions, while spouting about how great and how democratic and how humanitarian they are.

The US does have a "you're with us or your with the terrorists" attitude.

War has ruined the lives of millions, for the sake of globalisation.

Some countries do spend more money on military than anything else, or anyone else, while whining about arms proliferation.

Far from being racist, I think he spells it out quite nicely, Hypocrisy, hypocrisy hypocrisy.

But then he did say we need a new world system to deal with these issues, so er.....

Is this a game of pick the new world order?

That was an excellent speech. The only ones that look like dunderheads are the ones that walked out. Anyhow, let them walk out , that speech was the main event anyway, soon to be posted all over the internet and seen by millions . Who cares if these piddling nobodies weren't there to hear it.



[edit on 23-9-2009 by Drexl]

reply to post by quackers


Odd, isn't it...

I just finished watching it, and I can't pinpoint anything that he said that I have not read on ATS, by members of all political stripes and national backgrounds.