US Leads Walkout on Iranian Leaders UN Speech

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by AllUrChips
[more

So you get your panties in a bunch because i pointed out your inability to know what a search engine is??

Shows how up to date you are in this topic.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Yawn.

edit on 22-9-2011 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)

All I see is your inability to stay on topic and produce something of relavence to the conversation. So they did this last year? DO YOU HAVE A LINK FOR THAT SIR?

reply to post by AllUrChips


My post is edited and you have a u2u waiting for you sir.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by AllUrChips

 

My post is edited and you have a u2u waiting for you sir.

ILL ASK AGAIN: Do you have a LINK supporting your claims? simple question

Perhaps an additional perspective on this event would be useful.

Over 40 diplomats representing Western nations walked out of the hall as soon as Ahmadinjad began to attack Israel, calling it a "cruel and repressive racist regime."

This included Malta, France, Germany, UK, US, and more. The objection of these countries, as far as I can tell from several sources, was to the "racist regime" comments. (As a personal note, I don't know what race the Israelis are racist toward.)

Top UN officials, who are now desperately trying to salvage the conference, deplored the speech. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon said he was disappointed that the speech had been used to "accuse, divide and even incite," directly opposing the aim of the meeting.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay told reporters that she was "shocked and deeply saddened" by the comments. She described Ahmadinejad as someone who "traditionally makes obnoxious statements," and said that delegates should not allow him to "sabotage" the conference.

When UN officials, not normally considered Zionists by anyone, are shocked and disappointed then perhaps there is more to this than the discussion so far has allowed.

Der Spiegel

Der Spiegel also gives German reaction from right, center, and left papers. Well worth reading.

reply to post by AllUrChips
[mor
Look at my past post and the links i put there,then look at the dates they were uploaded.
Done last year as well.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by AllUrChips
[mor
Look at my past post and the links i put there,then look at the dates they were uploaded.
Done last year as well.

pics or it didnt happen

It has been said that they want to pressure Iran into a dialogue. Well, firstly, Iran has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice. Secondly, methods based on disrespecting nations have long become ineffective. Those who have used intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council and the trust of nations for this body, proving once and again how unjust is the function of the Council.

When they threaten a great nation such as Iran which is known throughout history for its scientists, poets, artists and philosophers and whose culture and civilization is synonymous to purity, submission to God and seeking justice, how can they ever expect that other nations to have confidence in them? It goes without saying that domineering methods in managing the world has failed. Not only has the era of slavery and colonialism and dominating the world passed, the path to the reviving old empires are blocked, too.

We have announced that we stand ready for a serious and free debate with the American statesmen to express our transparent views on issues of importance to the world in this very venue.
dandelionsalad.wordpress.com...

The US led walk out is yet another example of what Iran's President mentions right here toward the end of his speech.

1) methods based on disrespecting nations
2) intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic
3) domineering methods in managing the world

Walk away rather than discuss, knowing that they hold the veto, and can "get away with" extortion (thread of violence to get it's way) Hey, isn't that part of the definition of terrorism? Indeed, it is.

Originally posted by charles1952
Perhaps an additional perspective on this event would be useful.

(As a personal note, I don't know what race the Israelis are racist toward.)

When UN officials, not normally considered Zionists by anyone, are shocked and disappointed then perhaps there is more to this than the discussion so far has allowed.

It is the same thing, the same nations, everytime someone holds up the mirror of truth to their ugly faces and that is what Ahmadinejad has done, nothing more nothing less.

They are cowards and hypocrits. Period! Who cares what that pathetic German newspaper has to say about it.

pthena,

I think your comments in your last post may be a little excessive. You'll remember that the gathering that many countries left has nothing whatever to do with the Palestinian vote. This was a conference, there wasn't any vote involved.

Would you do me the favor at looking at my post, just a couple up from here, and let me know what you think?
Thanks,
Charles1952

reply to post by Skewed

Screw the UN, half of Americas problems would be resolved just by ditching the UN.

And half of the world's problems would be resolved also.

A few years back, there was some discussion concerning UN headquarters moving to a different host country, after it was revealed that FBI had every phone and computer tapped. I don't know what happened to those ideas.

I was rather pissed picturing FBI agents sitting around laughing at numerous emails I had sent.

If its supposed to be called the UNITED NATIONS,then why are there nations not united yet??
Isreal,Palestine,Iran,America,China etc etc....yet its called the UNITED nations.

Am I missing something here???
Politics really sucks these days...either that or the people just suck to not see IT for what IT is.
Which i have no clue how to explain what IT really is and maybe they don't either.
Its pretty sucky regardless.

reply to post by charles1952

The problem with defining "terrorism" is that every one wants to define it in such a way as to exclude their own actions. War is terrorism. Economic sanctions are acts of war. Going around whipping up a bunch of 'willing' to help an invasion through bribes and extortion is terrorism. But what? That doesn't count if the US is the party engaged in such actions? Why? Veto power.

Would you do me the favor at looking at my post, just a couple up from here, and let me know what you think?

I haven't watched the video yet, I'm going by transcript(often transcripts reflect what is planned on being said rather than what is actually said) so I don't know if the quotes you listed are accurate or not. I'll withhold judgment about his speech then until I watch the video.

reply to post by pthena


pthena,

Thank you for your response. I think your quite right to point out that "terrorism" is a difficult word to use because of its varied meanings. And watching the video isn't a bad idea either. All in all, nice work. I hope to hear from you when you get back.

Charles1952

reply to post by pthena


The first 5 minutes of this sounds like the awakening of 2012. He speaks of prophets and the true self and that sounds like the mystic side of things people have felt and said is coming. POTUS would never even get close to speaking about something like this especially at the UN. Thanks Pthena, when I get the time I'll watch the rest and comment further.

reply to post by charles1952
I haven't watched the whole video yet. But this is exactly when the US delegates got up and walked out:
11:16 of the video

In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.[[[***US Delegation Stands UP and Walks Out***]]] The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.

Hopefully, I marked it clearly enough. The first use of Zionist regime was the cue prearranged. You can guess who orchestrated the walk out. The US has known for the last 5 years that they would either not show every time Iranian President speaks or walk out at some strategic point for show purpose. That's plenty of time to plan.

I would suggest that any paper that suggests the Iran President was ranting and raving is spreading lies and propoganda. You can guess for whom.

Thanks, pthena, for doing that work.

Ahmadinejad (Spelling?) is, at least, a colorful character. Leaving aside for the moment whether he is right or wrong, it seems that his style is divisive and polarizing. International diplomacy is complicated, but I wonder what his strategy is. Is he building up his personal prestige? Perhaps trying to raise the temperature so that those who feel oppressed resort to violence? I honestly don't know what his goal is.

If he was trying to increase international support for his position, it looks like it didn't work.

Charles1952

reply to post by ImmortalThought

The first 5 minutes of this sounds like the awakening of 2012. He speaks of prophets and the true self and that sounds like the mystic side of things people have felt and said is coming.

The last 4 minutes goes into greater detail. If you read the transcript you see he is in fact Shia, and he is preaching a bit.

All those seeking justice and all the free spirits have been waiting for this moment and have promised such a glorious time. The complete human, the true servant of God and the true friend of mankind whose father was from the generation of the beloved Prophet of Islam and whose mother was from the true believers of Jesus Christ shall wait along with Jesus the son of Mary and the other righteous to appear in those brilliant times and assist humanity. In welcoming them we should join ranks and seek justice

The Mahdi was an associate of the prophet. I'm not sure who he identifies as mother.

In the first few minutes he gives his version of the corrupting influence of Western systems of suppression of human nature:

Man with his potential for understanding the secrets of the universe, his instinct for seeking truth, his aspirations for justice and perfection, his quest for beauty and purity and his capacity to represent God on earth was reduced to a creature limited to the materialistic world with a mission to maximize individualistic pleasures. Human instinct, then, replaced true human nature. Human beings and nations were considered rivals and the happiness of an individual or a nation was defined in collision with, and elimination or suppression of others. Constructive evolutionary cooperation was replaced with a destructive struggle for survival. The lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love and unity.

Personally, I value the ability of humans to empathize with other humans, regardless of religion. I'm not likely to become a Shia Muslim, yet I think I know enough to appreciate that what he says here is consistent with that view.

I don't particularly think that Atheism is man's enemy. If it is then maybe people who can, in fact "represent God on Earth" as mentioned just go ahead and do it. Then, maybe Atheists will see something to believe in. Atheists usually have rational minds not swayed by fantastic stories on the one hand or threats on the other.

One of these days, God willing, I too may be an Atheist.

You can hear the very same appeals to love, and the best of humanity in the Martin Luther King speech called Beyond Viet Nam.
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, April 4, 1967

in the same context as the OP this is VERY important to have a look at



www.breakingnews.com... lose-an-ally-if-policies-alienate-country-reuters