Ahmadinejad Press Conference (discussion)

"Why should a small handful of people ignite the entire world, merely in order to fill their pockets? Why?

We are against this method of running the world, and we say this clearly. I am declaring clearly that I am against the policies of the U.S. and England in running the world.

And by the way, I support peace and quiet, and I am a very peace-loving man.

How come whenever someone criticizes you or exposes your mistakes, you attack him through the media that you finance, and portray him as a criminal?

This is not right! Ahmadinejad is a schoolteacher and a very peace-loving man. To this day, I have never harmed an ant in my life. And God willing, I will never harm any living or inanimate object."

The man in his own words...





His latest position on the Nuclear issue.

And now: dispelling the myths.


A different side of things than Fox News Corp. Breath of fresh air?

Opinions very welcome.

Good post.

Bottom line. People believe what their intentions allow. Western world says this guy is a sadistic freak who's out to kill all jews. "They" think that western world is arrogant hypocrits who control and bleed profit while disguising it altruistically (badly).

Depending on your heart and your passion for the truth, only one side is right.

I think Pink Floyd said it best; "Hey, Teachers, leave those kids alone!"

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Good post.

Depending on your heart and your passion for the truth, only one side is right.

I think Pink Floyd said it best; "Hey, Teachers, leave those kids alone!"

AAC

You just summarized the intent and the intention brilliantly, AnAbsoluteCreation.

He's got a point. What the US and the UK may think is the best way of life doesn't apply for everyone. If you ask me, We should but out of other's business, and spend our time taking care of internal affairs.

Originally posted by JessicaS
He's got a point. What the US and the UK may think is the best way of life doesn't apply for everyone. If you ask me, We should but out of other's business, and spend our time taking care of internal affairs.

I wish this realization could TRUMP the elitist motivation for control. Otherwise, I would like for more humans to see this hypocratic ideology and free themselves from the falsehood of their alegations.

AAC

[edit on 24/2/07 by SteveR]

How can a nation which supplies its own country with energy through the use of Nuclear power deny another nation the ability to do the same? Does that not place unfair competitive advantage upon them?

How can a nation which holds nuclear bombs, nuclear submarines, and tips their bullets with depleted uranium be in any position to accuse another nation of wanting their own weapons? Especially if that nation is declaring its peaceful intentions to the global community.

Why is it that when Iran states that they would consider ending their nuclear programs if the West did the same, such an offer is laughed off of the negotiation table? As an "American" I would be proud of my country if we decided against nuclear as a fuel or weapon source.

Ahadminejad:
...justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle programme too. Then we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere.[]How is it that your [nuclear] production facilities work 24 hours a day, but you feel threatened by our newly established complex and we need to shut it down for talks?"

We are borrowing this world from our children. Why should we be leaving our youth spent nuclear waste to deal with at all? Just what is the cost of cheap nuclear energy if the waste must be dealt with and contained for generations?

Plant a tree, heat your home with wood, and insulate with earth.

May the Love of God and Life find the leaders of this world.

I am,

Sri Oracle




[edit on 24-2-2007 by Sri Oracle]

haha

I don't really have a comment about the specific politics, agree or disagree, but as far as this guy saying "I have never harmed an ant in my life" forgive me if I think what he says is rediculous and people who believe him are duped fools.

You don't become an officer in the Al Quds brigade without being mr. toughguy. He is clearly not the peace loving gentle soul he claims to be, because to be that would be counter to his positions to first successfully become mayor of Tehran then become president of Iran. Do people honestly think of peace activist when you talk about former special forces officers who become politicians?

Be honest, there are examples everywhere, Putin is former KGB, and that ruthless streak of former KGB officers is what has made Putin such an effective leader for his country during recent economic turmoil.

The whole notion that any major world politician is pure as the snow is white is rediculous. Anyone who gives credibility to any politician who is a world leader as being harmless, innocent, or otherwise honest is simply spreading propaganda, and it doesn't matter if that politician is from the Middle East or America. Does anyone seriously think Bush is harmless even though he is clearly anything but a tough guy? Does anyone consider Pelosi as harmless simply because she is liberal or a woman? They swat people like ants for breakfast, and have no problem ruining careers to advance themselves.

Final example, the reason Hillary Clinton is thought to be such a good presidential candidate isn't because people think she symbolizes a gentle mother of 5 children, rather it's because she represents the cold hearted bitch in an American woman of power who may have even been involved in killing political enemies of her husband. Her ruthlessness is a political strength, just like Ahmadinejad's ruthlessness is his political strength, although he would sure love sympathetic morons to "feel" for him. People must be sheep.

Anyone claiming Ahmadinejad is any different is spreading propaganda themselves. He is just like other politicians in major positions of power worldwide, but in this case he is playing the wounded Persian role while trying to stand tall in defiance to the west, looking for both sympathy and support, utilizing the same sympathetic tactics that every other political leader has tried to capitalize on at some point.

How easy people forget, particularly people worldwide, how Bush capitalized on world sympathy to go blow the hell out of the Middle East. Hey, what a great idea, lets be sympathetic of Ahmadinejad over his nuclear program, because there certainly couldn't be any dangerous side effects of that...

sheep.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Why is it that when Iran states that they would consider ending their nuclear programs if the West did the same, such an offer is laughed off of the negotiation table?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Sri Oracle]

why is it that Iran would give up nuclear energy if it was for peaceful purposes if the US did the same?

We cannot disarm, the world would be in chaos. Our nation would be threatened at every turn. The only reason we have achieved lasting peace is because of superior firepower.

If the US gave up nuclear power, would the chinese? would the russians? or the french?

The US would be taken advantage of by a very angry and jealous world. They spout things like "nuclear disarmament" yet they build nuclear weapons in the meantime.

Just because this man has threatened to wipe out entire countrys doesnt make him a bad man,right peeps??Im sure some here would have advocated giving hitler the bomb in the interests of fairplay(?).Would'nt harm an ant my a**.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

why is it that Iran would give up nuclear energy if it was for peaceful purposes if the US did the same?

That would be considered a very good question. . .If we see what is happening in the middle east right now and what is happening in Iraq and how our nation has found its way in that area of the world. . . we may think that Iran perhaps has a valid reason to hold to nuclear power be for energy reasons or for defense, while the Bush administration is "fighting terror and bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" . . . the results of that freedom and liberation are covering another important reason of our administration been in the middle east.

The last place were is to be found the biggest resources of energy . . .

Oil.

Mahmood changes his rhetoric to suit his audience. He is a very slimy, two faced politician.

Originally posted by Peyres
Mahmood changes his rhetoric to suit his audience. He is a very slimy, two faced politician.

Just like all politicians they all lie . . .

yes, no doubt. But multiple threads on this site are elevating Ahmadinihad to a God-like saviour status. He's just as twisted and hypocritical as every other politician in positions of power.

Originally posted by darksided
Do people honestly think of peace activist when you talk about former special forces officers who become politicians?

Ahmadinejad served in the Iran-Iraq war and others I beleive. Even if you confine your view to American internal politics, history has shown us that leaders with more military experience in their past tend to be more restrained.

Originally posted by darksided
he would sure love sympathetic morons to "feel" for him. People must be sheep.

I don't know about you, but I can feel for anybody.

Originally posted by darksided
He is just like other politicians in major positions of power worldwide.

I agree that human nature attempts its manifestation in every man from time to time, but I disagree that one can surmise the mental position of a group of men, and expect that group to be completely homogeneous.

Originally posted by darksided
lets be sympathetic of Ahmadinejad over his nuclear program, because there certainly couldn't be any dangerous side effects of that...

Right. Let's strongarm developing nations because their proposed nuclear energy generations "could have dangerous side effects".

Originally posted by Xfile
Just because this man has threatened to wipe out entire countrys doesnt make him a bad man,right peeps??

Xfile, links were invented to be clicked on. However, if you care to tell us about your phD in Farsi you have my sincere apologies for wasting your precious time here, sir.

Originally posted by marg6043
The last place were is to be found the biggest resources of energy . . .
Oil.

Depends if you beleive in peak oil. My thoughts is that economic control of the oil reaps the most benefit. Venezuela has more reserves than Saudi Arabia and look what happened there (Western financed coup of oil-nationalizing government).

Originally posted by Peyres
But multiple threads on this site are elevating Ahmadinihad to a God-like saviour status.

Hey, this thread is based on his own words. Nothing more, nothing less.

SteveR

Yeah as much as I don't appreciate the demonization of the man and twisting around of his words, on the other hand he is a political creature and not to be trusted.

The "threats to destroy Israel" are, when examined carefully, pure bunk.

On the other let's not forget hand the man is a fundamentalist that would make Pat Robertson look like William S. Burroughs, and a demagogue leading his country into a fruitless confrontation based on a reckless nationalism and a deluded messianic religious fanaticism.


[edit on 2/24/07 by xmotex]

exactly, he's a fanatic. But throw in a few throwbacks from the 60's liberal movement into a speech drawing upon a comprehensive grasp of his respective languages, and he's really just a great down to earth, peace loving man...

He may not want to destroy Israel, or wipe out the jews, but I do believe he wants to see the state of 'Israel' vanish and be replaced by a similarly fundamentalist run Islamic state on par with his own. That would be a disaster.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Peyres]

Honestly Peyres. Who really knows? How can we make such assumptions? Because of his religion? Maybe the colour of his skin, perhaps? The news reports about him?

What? I'm dieing to know


p.s. watch the wallace interivew.

February 23 2007.
President Ahmadinejad, in comments carried on state television, said that Iran should not show weakness in the face of Western demands to suspend its nuclear program, adding that resistance would force the West to back down on its demands.

Earlier this week, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply concerned that the Iranian government did not meet the Wednesday deadline set by the Security Council." Permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany will meet in London on Monday to discuss further sanctions against Iran.

voanews.com...


The question is now "when" not "if".