Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's UN Convoy In New York.
- Thread starter MASTERBAKER
- Start date
The only reason I view his comments from that perspective is because of the 60 minutes interview he did Sunday.
He was asked repeatedly a number of direct questions which he generally responded with some religious, islamic response citing verses from the koran and historical events from over 60 years ago.
I wasn't wholeheartedly in favor of this speaking opportunity because of my own dislike for him. However, when you consider the comments made at the forum, it really made the guy look foolish.
Perhaps something like this will be a wake up call to foreign leaders that say they have free speech in there own countries but don't fully comprehend what it means. The dynamics of free speech and debate is a "two" way discussion as opposed to something along the lines of a " my way or the highway debate." Which is typical of what happens in countries like Iran.
For the record..I was stationed in South Korea back in 1978. During that time President Park Chung Hee (he never lost an election in 30 years) was considered a dictator (yes, he was a dictator but he was "our" dictator). Park Chung Hee was known to have a "secret" police force that was quick to suppress any type of dissention or political opposition. The South Korean people knew it but never spoke openly about it. You could easily sense fear in the air at the mention of his name. Kinda makes you wonder how terrible things are in the North under Kim Jong Il.
Most americans would say... why didn't they "sue" or enforce the constitution or some other "wet" blanket response.
Well, it was not that kind of party for the people of South Korea. The price for going against your government or president was arrest and at worst death. And the "media" did not dare go against the president... so everything was kept well hidden and behind closed doors. It all ended when Park Chung Hee was assasinated back around 1980.
We can damn near say everything on our minds in this country without any fear of government or public reproach. Its a damn shame we don't insist our harshest foreign critics do that in there own countries.
An Apology to PHD Ahmadinejad and other Thoughts on Iran
[FLASH]http://www.liveleak.com/player2.swf?token=f29_1190736932[/FLASH]The way in which Bollinger treated PHD Ahmadinejad was shameful and disgraceful. My thoughts and other things said by the President of Iran at Columbia University.
[FLASH]http://www.liveleak.com/player2.swf?token=f29_1190736932[/FLASH]The way in which Bollinger treated PHD Ahmadinejad was shameful and disgraceful. My thoughts and other things said by the President of Iran at Columbia University.
Of course, we can insist upon our harshest foreign critics to allow free and open debate in their countries but its unlikely that very many, if any at all, we heed the criticism. Even if there is a legal mandate to do so, dictator tends to means exactly what it says, dictator (whether its our dictator or not).
On the other hand, I think it can be a good thing when those who do not allow free expression in their own countries get the opportunity to participate in open debate in this country -- because -- it provides an excellent opportunity to confront and call-out the dictators in a forum where they have to defend themselves and their policies in an open give and take. Of course, if those posing the questions aren't sharp, its an opportunity lost; or, if the dictator refuses to honestly engage in the give and take (as appears to have been the case with Ahmadinejad in the clip above), its practically useless.
QueEx
On the other hand, I think it can be a good thing when those who do not allow free expression in their own countries get the opportunity to participate in open debate in this country -- because -- it provides an excellent opportunity to confront and call-out the dictators in a forum where they have to defend themselves and their policies in an open give and take. Of course, if those posing the questions aren't sharp, its an opportunity lost; or, if the dictator refuses to honestly engage in the give and take (as appears to have been the case with Ahmadinejad in the clip above), its practically useless.
QueEx
Does anyone have a link to the actual speach?? I missed it on C-Span yesterday?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University demonstrates
the futility of attempts at US-Iranian dialogue
the futility of attempts at US-Iranian dialogue
DEBKAFile
September 24, 2007, 10:29 AM (GMT+02:00)
The Iranian president, clearly enjoying every moment of the uproar he provoked in American discourse, parried the tough questions posed him at the end of his speech to 600 students and faculty Monday, Sept. 24, by throwing questions back, longwinded evasions and barefaced lies.
From his first words, Ahmadinejad showed that, far from being a potential partner for dialogue, he incarnates the arrogant, intolerant certainty that there is only one correct path, the one pursued by the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran. Even so, his glib, hectoring style of speech is known to grate on more than one of his colleagues at home.
As demonstrators rallied outside the campus, the Iranian president was asked if he supported terrorism. He replied that Iran was itself a victim of terrorism. He did not mention the US, but cited the camps in Iraq housing terrorists responsible for 4000 Iranian deaths, a transparent reference to the opposition Iranian Mujahedin Qalq. The Americans banned this group for many years, reactivating it last year in response to Iran’s massive aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting US troops.
Asked about his government’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said its intentions were peaceful. Therefore, he said: “Iran does not want the bomb.”
Ahmadinejad dodged the question about his declared wish to wipe Israel off the map by saying the Palestinians must have the freedom to self-determination. But at the end of his speech, he said: Iran has always sought friendly relations with all nations except for two, “the South African apartheid regime (which no long exists) and the Zionist regime.”
He thus obliquely reaffirmed his wish for the latter to go the same way as the former, off the map.
Regarding his denial of the Nazi Holocaust, he declared piously: “We academics must always pursue more research.”
Women are free and respected in Iranian culture, said the Iranian president with great solemnity, when asked why Iranian women were denied human rights. As to the execution of homosexuals, “We do not have homosexuals in our country like you,” said he with a straight face.
Interestingly, the Iranian president was not heckled or interrupted even once, even at his most outrageous. Some of his comments were greeted with applause. He clearly attained his main objective: a respectful hearing in the heart of a prestigious American center of learning in New York.
Ahmadinejad showed he was skeptical not only of the “Holocaust myth” but America’s affirmation of the “real hands” behind the 9/11 atrocities when he asked: “Who really did execute the attack?” This question will be understood in Arab and Muslim bazaars as echoing the anti-Semitic libel current there that the al Qaeda attack was a Zionist plot.
Even though Columbia University President Lee Bollinger greeted the Iranian visitor as “a cruel and petty tyrant and terrorist,” there his no gainsaying that he granted a coveted platform to a world figure who abused it to disseminate a creed which preaches the superiority of the Iranian race, culture and religion and whose highest objective is the downfall of Big Satan America and Little Satan Israel.
Re: An Apology to PHD Ahmadinejad and other Thoughts on Iran
Frankly, I applaud Bollinger for the way he addressed Mr ahmadinajad. On top of that, to even say the man "lacked" the intellectual courage to answer questions, was right on point.
Sorry, but just like he has a "right" to state his position... in a free society, those who have opposing points of view, have the right to comment as well.
No one said that he was "wrong" about his choice of words, it was more like.... we don't agree with what you're saying.
Frankly, I applaud Bollinger for the way he addressed Mr ahmadinajad. On top of that, to even say the man "lacked" the intellectual courage to answer questions, was right on point.
Sorry, but just like he has a "right" to state his position... in a free society, those who have opposing points of view, have the right to comment as well.
No one said that he was "wrong" about his choice of words, it was more like.... we don't agree with what you're saying.
I believe in order to make a judgement on the Middle East situation objectivity is imperative and anything less clouds ones ability to see the facts. This is a political,religous conflict going back eons to the story of Abraham and his banishment to the desert.The expulsion and scattering of the Jews by the Romans on up to the efforts of Zionist at the beginning of the 20th century to find a homeland for Jews and bring them back together. The crimes of the Germans brought about the perfect oppurtunity to accomplish that with world sympathy on their side to petition for a homeland. The British took up the cause for it's own geopolitical reasons not out of any benevolent feelings for Jews. The U.S. was the main country(Eisenhower in particular)blocking the Jewish Homeland.You would have to read up on it yourselves. the ceation of Israel was a long and tortured affair. Needless to say no one listened to the Palestinians when they said no to this idea being the weak nation they were.
Lets jump forward to the issues of today. From day 1 Palestinians have had a legitimate complaint that isn't being addressed. Until it is no peace can be had. So ignoring it or saying Israel is here so deal with it is a non-starter and does nothing to advance Israels security.
Those fearing Iran or others getting the bomb have no real arguement as to why not. Israel has had the bomb since at least the 70's and guess where they are pointed. So the arab nations have lived under the threat of nuclear annilation for decades and the expectation that they should continue flies in the face of human nature. The question is why is Israel and it's allies afraid to live under the same nuclear threat. Anyone remember M.A.D.....that concept kept the peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union for decades. Seems as though maybe just maybe the Arabs are attempting to recreate that same scenario. Hell thats as good an idea as any. As long as Isreal has the upper hand militarily there is no incentive for them to negotiate in good faith. Both will finally realize the futility of this conflict and sit down and hold real talks to end it. If not bye bye world as we know it.
Lets jump forward to the issues of today. From day 1 Palestinians have had a legitimate complaint that isn't being addressed. Until it is no peace can be had. So ignoring it or saying Israel is here so deal with it is a non-starter and does nothing to advance Israels security.
Those fearing Iran or others getting the bomb have no real arguement as to why not. Israel has had the bomb since at least the 70's and guess where they are pointed. So the arab nations have lived under the threat of nuclear annilation for decades and the expectation that they should continue flies in the face of human nature. The question is why is Israel and it's allies afraid to live under the same nuclear threat. Anyone remember M.A.D.....that concept kept the peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union for decades. Seems as though maybe just maybe the Arabs are attempting to recreate that same scenario. Hell thats as good an idea as any. As long as Isreal has the upper hand militarily there is no incentive for them to negotiate in good faith. Both will finally realize the futility of this conflict and sit down and hold real talks to end it. If not bye bye world as we know it.
where's colin powell when we need him....???
Israel's right to exist will always come down to American backing within the Judeo-Christian concept of Jewish birthright to the land. I myself have an affinity with this concept.
But what is going on now is wrong, and it was wrong in '47, how it was done.
One can't say, the Israelis, have not done anything to the Palestinian people. The disengagement plan was a farce when they then turn around and put settlements, here, there, and everywhere cutting up the land, and enforcing Nazi like checkpoints, and illegally settling the high ground and cutting off Palestinians from water.
When you don't have adequate subsistence, what are you gonna do.
Both parties are at fault.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has alot more political reasons to say that crap he sometimes says. He's highly intelligent and wants to be a leader against the Zionists. He'll play his card as best he can.
Good article - African Herbsman
You want to know what the Muslims really think...
http://memritv.org/
...be sensible, enemy within...
http://memritv.org/
...be sensible, enemy within...
Typical.
It means he doesn't want to read the article.
Supposedly it stems from Colin getting one Iraq report and him saying it was bullshit, and tossing it, saying the infamous line, " I'm not going to read all this shit!! "
Urban legend???? Or truth???
In any event, BGOL made it into a joke when you don't want to bother to read something.
And isn't it ironic he said in his speech the subject of discussion about Nukes in Iran is "case closed."
I guess if you press him hard enough then he will give you a "straight answer."
Well... not going along the lines of his "confusing responses" and need to engage in more "socratic" discussion about the Holocaust...
the more "concise" response to his "case closed" statement about Iran's nuke's is.... no it's not.
My feelings as well. Except, however, I continue to try to read between the lines and gestures to see where that guy is really coming from. It seems clear, nevertheless, that he is buying time, all through it all, and for what? Some say to build a nuclear arsenal as that's his and Iran's right. Probably. But, on the other hand, there are those who feel it is their right to protect against such an occurrence.
I read BigUnc, above, on the point of Iran's right to nuclear arms and his argument that "MAD" applied to Iran, (as it stands between and among the U.S., Russia and China) essentially means there is little to fear. He made some great points, however, I don't think though that the Russians, the U.S., or Russia were in the hands of someone like Ahmadinejad (though Mao, Kruschev, Brezinski, et. al., were some bold som bitches). But one difference for sure was that none of the rulers of Russia or China were radical Muslims. Communist doctrine being one thing, but we have all seen what can happen if the Koran is read and interpreted in a particular way by some particular people. That is, social ideology ain't religious ideology; and the fervor from same and how far one may be willing to go in the name of same isn't exactly comparable.
QueEx
Last edited:
This is why Iran will always cross the U.S. path. China can't afford to take over another country *referring to their struggles against Taiwan*. Russia has a common beef with Radical Islam just like we do. Sooner or later, we will be in a war against Iran. No matter what party is in the majority, or what president would be in power. The real question is, are we going to fight them when they are strong, or when they are weak. Ahmadinejad is buying time, only because he wants to see who we will vote into office. This is why he is pulling this P.R. campaign. The good thing about this situation, we are now dissecting his rhetoric, and we are figuring out what he is all about. I guess you have to take the curse with the blessing...
Re: An Apology to PHD Ahmadinejad and other Thoughts on Iran
Why is it such a taboo, when people want to question or look into the holocaust?
Why is it such a taboo, when people want to question or look into the holocaust?
Re: An Apology to PHD Ahmadinejad and other Thoughts on Iran
Co-sign the co-sign.
-VG
Co-sign the co-sign.
-VG
Brother QueEx is correct that the Mutually Assured Destruction concept is not a perfect fit. The religious aspect throws a question mark into whether the human survival instinct will override religious fervor and political brinkmanship. I believe,from reading the tea leaves, that Iran is attempting to change the military dynamic to something more equal in order to enhance it's bargaining position in any future talks. They have succeeded in erasing the Israeli Defense Force aura of invincibility with the performance of Hezbolla(sp.)in Lebanon. Now they are increasing their stature in the Middle East by standing toe to toe with the west and not backing down. This has really pissed off those who support Israel without question and those with a imperalistic slant whom appear to be in a near grand mal seizure state because Iran has dared to defy the most powerful country ever. I'm close to saying to them get over it
but that wouldn't be ummm diplomatic.
I was surprised to hear a few talking heads say that it appears Bush doesn't have the political capital to launch an attack on Iran and is just biding time and leaving it to his successor. So we have time unless some unfortunate and unplanned
incident happens that triggers a shooting war.
I guess we'll find out
Peace
but that wouldn't be ummm diplomatic. I was surprised to hear a few talking heads say that it appears Bush doesn't have the political capital to launch an attack on Iran and is just biding time and leaving it to his successor. So we have time unless some unfortunate and unplanned
incident happens that triggers a shooting war.I guess we'll find out
Peace
Brother QueEx is correct that the Mutually Assured Destruction concept is not a perfect fit. The religious aspect throws a question mark into whether the human survival instinct will override religious fervor and political brinkmanship. I believe,from reading the tea leaves, that Iran is attempting to change the military dynamic to something more equal in order to enhance it's bargaining position in any future talks. They have succeeded in erasing the Israeli Defense Force aura of invincibility with the performance of Hezbolla(sp.)in Lebanon. Now they are increasing their stature in the Middle East by standing toe to toe with the west and not backing down. This has really pissed off those who support Israel without question and those with a imperalistic slant whom appear to be in a near grand mal seizure state because Iran has dared to defy the most powerful country ever. I'm close to saying to them get over it
I was surprised to hear a few talking heads say that it appears Bush doesn't have the political capital to launch an attack on Iran and is just biding time and leaving it to his successor. So we have time unless some unfortunate and unplanned
I guess we'll find out
Peace
The only reason why Bush doesn't have a political capital is because Iraq has been politicize so much. Our generation does not have the will that the World War 2 generation had. With a party cutting every move Bush does, its nearly impossible to fight a clear cut war with Iran. Thats why we are giving many of our allies weapons....
willpower is not the issue, it's justification. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and did nothing to the U.S. warranting an invasion. Japan attacked the U.S. and Germany declared war. Both were clear threats and demonstrated it.Even if Iran gets 100 nuclear warheads next week it still poses no real threat to the U.S. , to Israel yes. So does the U.S. attack Iran on behalf of Israel???...I say hell muthafuckin no!!!Granted Iran is conducting very low intensity warfare operations through surrogates in Iraq but the U.S. has been through that before during the cold war and should know how to handle it without getting salty. You don't hear Iran crying about U.S. covert operations going on insde their country to any great extent.
Bush squandered his political capital nationally and internationally by blatantly lying so he could conduct an unwarranted and unjust war.With the exception of Bush's diehard supporters the nation has come out of the fog and any effort to talk the nation into a conflict with Iran would probably be met with derision and hopefully a national
not to mention the Presidential elections and the slim hope that republicans can hold onto the White House being big factors. Attack Iran and kiss the White House goodbye for at least 8 years. Although the president of Columbia U. and others think Ahmadinejad is some kind of mentally retarded religious nut,I do not, and believe he is playing a shrewd geopolitical game that so far is bearing fruit. The U.S. and Israel seem to be stumped on how to respond other than, as of now, harsh words and clearly bogus threaats.
You know 3A, you've said the above before but you still haven't shown at all how the political discussion has retarded the efforts of the troops in Iraq.
You haven't shown what the troops would have accomplished, without the debate.
You haven't shown how many would not have have died, but for the debate.
You haven't shown a single battle that would have been won, but for the debate.
You haven't shown how politics between Shia and Sunni would have been different, but for the debate.
QueEx
S
Snark8
Guest
long live President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fuck those jews and the zionist U.S. aggression!
for one, please do not be naive. Our enemies hear what we are saying, and they react to our political will. With us debating a war thats already going on shows a sign of weakness. Thus, more troops are in danger. The debate about if we should be there, or not, is past tense right now. The only debate that needs to start is how we are going to deal with this situation that would reflect on our country as a whole.
The true problem is, we have a group of people who just do not like Bush. Anything Bush does, his criticism mounts even more. President Bush could be like "everyone I'm legalizing weed", and I bet you the group would disagree with it. In some eyes, this is more important than winning a war. Its actually sad if you really think about it. I've never heard this much hatred for OUR OWN LEADER.
as for the shia, and sunni question. Right now, we are like an older cousin in Iraq. In most cases, both sides look up to us, however, they are both too immature to get what we are saying. So they fight amongst each other. In most cases, you would let the two fight it out until they both become tired. In this case, however, outside influences are instigating the situation. So instead of letting the two fight it out, we have to beat up the people who are instigating the situation. When we beat up the outside influences "Iran, and Al Queda" the Shia and Sunni's will get along better. Politics always occur better after a war...
Last edited:
willpower is not the issue, it's justification. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. and did nothing to the U.S. warranting an invasion. Japan attacked the U.S. and Germany declared war. Both were clear threats and demonstrated it.Even if Iran gets 100 nuclear warheads next week it still poses no real threat to the U.S. , to Israel yes. So does the U.S. attack Iran on behalf of Israel???...I say hell muthafuckin no!!!Granted Iran is conducting very low intensity warfare operations through surrogates in Iraq but the U.S. has been through that before during the cold war and should know how to handle it without getting salty. You don't hear Iran crying about U.S. covert operations going on insde their country to any great extent.
Bush squandered his political capital nationally and internationally by blatantly lying so he could conduct an unwarranted and unjust war.With the exception of Bush's diehard supporters the nation has come out of the fog and any effort to talk the nation into a conflict with Iran would probably be met with derision and hopefully a national
Although the president of Columbia U. and others think Ahmadinejad is some kind of mentally retarded religious nut,I do not, and believe he is playing a shrewd geopolitical game that so far is bearing fruit. The U.S. and Israel seem to be stumped on how to respond other than, as of now, harsh words and clearly bogus threaats.
again UNC, Mr. Al Gore stated the same thing Bush stated WAY BACK IN 1992. Oh right, since its in 1992, and its Al Gore, its now IRRELEVANT.
There's 2 things that will stop Iran.
1. If Iraq gets its shit together, and fight off all the influence Iran is setting up.
2. The west unites and realize what type of threat Iran poses.
Bush won't attack Iran though, however, he will put it in law so the next president could.
Agreed.
Thats the part I just don't know.
At present, I doubt, as you do, that Iran has a delivery system to strike the U.S. mainland but it could have a system to hit U.S. interest elsewhere, other than Iraq and Israel. Would they hit those other interest? - probably not as that wouldn't be worth the retaliation sure to come. And, arguably, they wouldn't strike the mainland, because of the same retaliation. I know. I've argued myself right into MAD.
MAD seems credible when you omit Israel, but, that ain't happening, is it ???
BigUnc said:
I couldn't agree more.
I can only hope that isn't true. Its hard to measure the effect of strategy (carrot vs. stick a/k/a diplomacy vs. bomb) in the near short term.BigUnc said:
QueEx
I happen to believe Al gore is a spoiled punk ass brat.I believe Bush is the same so I'm not surprised tey may think alike.
Iraq isn't getting it's shit together anytime soon. Looks like a 50-50 chance it'll break apart.
Other than as a regional power what threat does Iran pose to the west?
1. Please don't discredit Al Gore because he proves your theory about Iraq wrong. If Bush lied, Gore and Clinton lied. Bottomline about that one.... For your viewing pleasure.... Al Gore "lying" about Iraq. http://youtube.com/watch?v=NVUO7voM-ns
2. So why look at it in a negative light then? I believe that this Iraq situation is an half full cup. Both parties know how important this situation actually is.
3. The threat most of our allies with oil "saudi, jordan, israel, and egypt" possibly uniting the Arab world. Starting World War 3, ect.....
OH YEA $6 a gallon gas....
Last edited:
i already answered them...
No. You didn't. Try again and this time cut and past your answer below each of the following
What the troops would have accomplished, without the debate.
How many of our troops would not have have died, but for the debate.
How any battle would have been won, but for the debate.
How politics between Shia and Sunni would have been different, but for the debate.
QueEx
What the troops would have accomplished, without the debate.
How many of our troops would not have have died, but for the debate.
How any battle would have been won, but for the debate.
How politics between Shia and Sunni would have been different, but for the debate.
QueEx