Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New York's reaction to the president of Iran.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedNew York's reaction to the president of Iran.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Poll Question: New York's reaction to the president of Iran
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
2 [11.76%]
3 [17.65%]
6 [35.29%]
6 [35.29%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
Zitro View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1321
Direct Link To This Post Topic: New York's reaction to the president of Iran.
    Posted: September 30 2007 at 08:16
What do you think?

I believe that he's kind of out of his mind, but:
_He made some reasonable points about the U.S. policing the world (especially the middle east), that the U.S. was the only one to use nuclear energy to do harm, and his point on the suffering of the Palestinian. The media failed on just purely commenting on his ridiculous "no gays in iran" statement
_The president of the University's insulting remarks were uncalled for. It's not gonna help the U.S image. The comparison with Osama Bin Laden did not make much sense.
_Not being allowed on ground zero to pay tribute to the 9/11 victims makes things more complicated, though I have the feeling he asked permission knowing that he would be denied and use that for political reasons at home.

I think this was a huge diplomatic bust and would only give fuel to the neo-con machine to bomb Iran.



Edited by Zitro - September 30 2007 at 08:17
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2007 at 08:23
I agree with your post.

I voted for the "welcomed politely" option, I believe in treating others the way I want to be treated.
Back to Top
Chicapah View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2007 at 10:10
He was so informative.  Who knew that Iran is the only country in the world that doesn't have homosexuals?  I  did  not  know  that!
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 15860
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2007 at 10:16
The whole thing is a publicity stunt on the part of Washington. The man is a lunatic, and Washington knows it. One could say it takes one to know one etc..

The purpose of the visit was to bolster support, among the US electorate for an attack on Iran. We did the same in the UK. Channel 4 news conducted a pointless interview, designed to make the Iranian leader look evasive and look like a liar, which of course he is. That said I do not want to see war with Iran. I'm not sure people realise how serious that would be, in terms of the damage to global security, and global economics.

Still, as Britney Spears once said, we sould trust Bush. He knows what he's doing. I found that reasurring..
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 62483
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2007 at 10:22
Originally posted by Chicapah Chicapah wrote:

He was so informative.  Who knew that Iran is the only country in the world that doesn't have homosexuals?  I  did  not  know  that!
 
"Are there any queers in the audience tonight? Put them up against the wall."  I think that Mr. I'm a Nut Job might be a Pink Floyd fan.  (Name botch courtesy of Jay Leno).


Edited by rushfan4 - September 30 2007 at 10:22
Back to Top
jimmy_row View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2007 at 20:14
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

The whole thing is a publicity stunt on the part of Washington. The man is a lunatic, and Washington knows it. One could say it takes one to know one etc..

The purpose of the visit was to bolster support, among the US electorate for an attack on Iran. We did the same in the UK. Channel 4 news conducted a pointless interview, designed to make the Iranian leader look evasive and look like a liar, which of course he is. That said I do not want to see war with Iran. I'm not sure people realise how serious that would be, in terms of the damage to global security, and global economics.

Still, as Britney Spears once said, we sould trust Bush. He knows what he's doing. I found that reasurring..
The irony in this situation is that the pro-war neo-con media was completely outraged at the gesture...almost as if they're too damn stupid to even see that such a gesture is swinging the sheep around to their agenda.
 
 
I think he should have been received politely and treated like a human: allow him to make an ass of himself before jumping on him - did the school president really need to come down with his contrived moral hammer?  As if we might actually allow Ahmadinejad to convince the student body to become terrorists.  Gimme a break!  There was so much self-righteousness in the air that you could smell it through the tv set.  Having said that, there is no way a man who denies the Holocaust and hangs homosexuals is "misunderstood", he is a lunatic, but lunatics deserve a certain level of humane treatment.
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 15860
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2007 at 06:37
Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

The whole thing is a publicity stunt on the part of Washington. The man is a lunatic, and Washington knows it. One could say it takes one to know one etc.. The purpose of the visit was to bolster support, among the US electorate for an attack on Iran. We did the same in the UK. Channel 4 news conducted a pointless interview, designed to make the Iranian leader look evasive and look like a liar, which of course he is. That said I do not want to see war with Iran. I'm not sure people realise how serious that would be, in terms of the damage to global security, and global economics. Still, as Britney Spears once said, we sould trust Bush. He knows what he's doing. I found that reasurring..
The irony in this situation is that the pro-war neo-con media was completely outraged at the gesture...almost as if they're too damn stupid to even see that such a gesture is swinging the sheep around to their agenda.
 

 

I think he should have been received politely and treated like a human: allow him to make an ass of himself before jumping on him - did the school president really need to come down with his contrived moral hammer?  As if we might actually allow Ahmadinejad to convince the student body to become terrorists.  Gimme a break!  There was so much self-righteousness in the air that you could smell it through the tv set.  Having said that, there is no way a man who denies the Holocaust and hangs homosexuals is "misunderstood", he is a lunatic, but lunatics deserve a certain level of humane treatment.


Apparenrtly there are no homosexuals in Iran, according to Armoureddinnerjacket...

There would probably have been some trepidation in Washington about what effect his visit may have had on the nations student population. Of course the fears were ill founded, but it's quite offensive how little credit Bush gives Americas youth.   
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1353
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:47
He's not a lunatic, he's a shrewd politician. I voted that he should have been treated politely. He certainly shouldn't have received have received the treatment he did for the quarter it did. It's gross hypocricy for the elite media and the neo-cons to lambast someone for human rights abuses when they're responsible for far greater suffering.
Back to Top
jimmy_row View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:49
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

The whole thing is a publicity stunt on the part of Washington. The man is a lunatic, and Washington knows it. One could say it takes one to know one etc.. The purpose of the visit was to bolster support, among the US electorate for an attack on Iran. We did the same in the UK. Channel 4 news conducted a pointless interview, designed to make the Iranian leader look evasive and look like a liar, which of course he is. That said I do not want to see war with Iran. I'm not sure people realise how serious that would be, in terms of the damage to global security, and global economics. Still, as Britney Spears once said, we sould trust Bush. He knows what he's doing. I found that reasurring..
The irony in this situation is that the pro-war neo-con media was completely outraged at the gesture...almost as if they're too damn stupid to even see that such a gesture is swinging the sheep around to their agenda.
 

 

I think he should have been received politely and treated like a human: allow him to make an ass of himself before jumping on him - did the school president really need to come down with his contrived moral hammer?  As if we might actually allow Ahmadinejad to convince the student body to become terrorists.  Gimme a break!  There was so much self-righteousness in the air that you could smell it through the tv set.  Having said that, there is no way a man who denies the Holocaust and hangs homosexuals is "misunderstood", he is a lunatic, but lunatics deserve a certain level of humane treatment.


Apparenrtly there are no homosexuals in Iran, according to Armoureddinnerjacket...

There would probably have been some trepidation in Washington about what effect his visit may have had on the nations student population. Of course the fears were ill founded, but it's quite offensive how little credit Bush gives Americas youth.   
No homosexuals in Iran?  That would probably be a blessing to said homosexuals....the truth is that they live in fear and if their secret ever comes out, there is terrible punishment (ie. they are hanged, tortured, etc.).
 
I've come to think that Bush & co. aren't really underestimating the youth...in fact they are likely afraid that we (the youth) will begin to think for ourselves and reach beyond the everpresent propaganda they've sold to us....of course the whole outrage surrounding this event is just another power-play; anytime the media and politicians notice something that they can't control, they don't know how to handle it, so they blow it into a huge ordeal as to not go out unheard. 
Back to Top
jimmy_row View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:55
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:

He's not a lunatic, he's a shrewd politician. I voted that he should have been treated politely. He certainly shouldn't have received have received the treatment he did for the quarter it did. It's gross hypocricy for the elite media and the neo-cons to lambast someone for human rights abuses when they're responsible for far greater suffering.
not to sound hostile, but I think this is going a bit too far.  A shrewd politician would be Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan...knowing the public and marketing your goals and beliefs to gain a following.  Ahmadinejad is a violent dictator, there's no masking the torture and suffering that he causes, and the absurd things he says...he's clearly more ridiculous than American neo-cons and politicians.
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1353
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2007 at 14:33
Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

not to sound hostile


Not at all.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

I think this is going a bit too far.  A shrewd politician would be Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan...knowing the public and marketing your goals and beliefs to gain a following.


Sounds like that's what Ahmadinejad is doing to me, with all his comments about Zionism and American imperialism. Using them as smokescreens to distract the Iranian people from domestic issues. Just as the Reagan administration talked utter rubbish about Nicaragua being only a few days away from Texas, all the while supporting a vicious terrorist campaign against Nicaragua.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

Ahmadinejad is a violent dictator, there's no masking the torture and suffering that he causes


Not really a dictator, per se. He was voted into power after the real power of Iran excluded the candidates he didn't like. Iran is really a theocracy with mild democratic pretensions.

As for torture and oppression. Yes, that's rife in Iran, and Ahmadinejad is partly to blame for not doing anything about it, though it must be said, with much of the legal system under the control on clerics he has little influence in this area.

No matter what the suffering in Iran, not inconsiderable as I've said, it pales in comparison to what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should I say the West Bank and Gaza, all of which the Bush adminitration is in some way responsible for.

Originally posted by jimmy-row jimmy-row wrote:

and the absurd things he says...


Sure, he says absurd, sometimes provocative things, I wasn't aware that claiming Iran has no homosexuals makes one less of a shrewd politician (given the demographic he's aiming to sway) and a cause of more suffering than an adminitration that started a war of aggression that has claimed over 1,000,000 lives.

Originally posted by jimmy-row jimmy-row wrote:

he's clearly more ridiculous than American neo-cons and politicians.


Leaving aside the fact that I made no mention of him being absurd or not, what makes him more absurd than GW Bush?

Edited by Forgotten Son - October 05 2007 at 14:33
Back to Top
jimmy_row View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2007 at 16:15

Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

not to sound hostile


Not at all.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

I think this is going a bit too far.  A shrewd politician would be Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan...knowing the public and marketing your goals and beliefs to gain a following.


Sounds like that's what Ahmadinejad is doing to me, with all his comments about Zionism and American imperialism. Using them as smokescreens to distract the Iranian people from domestic issues. Just as the Reagan administration talked utter rubbish about Nicaragua being only a few days away from Texas, all the while supporting a vicious terrorist campaign against Nicaragua.

It gets a bit hazy here becuase Reagan's role in that whole plot is debatable (now, I'll admit that I am not as familiar with this point in history as yourself, because I wasn't alive yetEmbarrassed) but, say it's an extreme case, I would say that Reagan was a corrupt leader and (obviously) a hypocrite if it's completely true....but his motives were probably somewhat different, as the Reagan administration wasn't particularly violent (although they surely did some questionable things and get entirely tooooo much credit for the whole USSR downfall).  I don't think that Ahmadinejad's goal is to win elections; he craves power in a different way, and he doesn't seem to put the betterment of his country above his own power, image, and 'legacy'.



Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

Ahmadinejad is a violent dictator, there's no masking the torture and suffering that he causes


Not really a dictator, per se. He was voted into power after the real power of Iran excluded the candidates he didn't like. Iran is really a theocracy with mild democratic pretensions. true, but his position belies that of a "dictator" moreso than the president or prime minister of a democracy or republic, whereas a theocracy gives more power to one or a select few individuals - he may have been 'voted' in but he does very little to his people's will, and they still don't have some of the freedom's that any human being should have, even in a theocracy.

As for torture and oppression. Yes, that's rife in Iran, and Ahmadinejad is partly to blame for not doing anything about it, though it must be said, with much of the legal system under the control on clerics he has little influence in this area.

No matter what the suffering in Iran, not inconsiderable as I've said, it pales in comparison to what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and should I say the West Bank and Gaza, all of which the Bush adminitration is in some way responsible for. Hazy again...this really depends on your opinion/perception of the war; if, for example, GW & crew went into Iraq believing it was the right thing to do, it doesn't make them bad people, just pre-emptive and hasty (along with all the other supporters at the time, including both political parties...they couldn't have all been fooled now could they?), even considering the terrible death toll, these things can be difficult to predict.

 

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad wishes to "wipe Israel off the map" and then denies saying it...then says similar things...then denies them.   As much as we don't like Bush, he isn't below this level.



Originally posted by jimmy-row jimmy-row wrote:

and the absurd things he says...


Sure, he says absurd, sometimes provocative things *you're too kind*, I wasn't aware that claiming Iran has no homosexuals makes one less of a shrewd politician (given the demographic he's aiming to sway) and a cause of more suffering than an adminitration that started a war of aggression that has claimed over 1,000,000 lives.
If denying homosexuality exists, while killing them for their "crime" is "shrewd" then I fear for the future of our planet (welll....I fear for it either wayOuch)
Originally posted by jimmy-row jimmy-row wrote:

he's clearly more ridiculous than American neo-cons and politicians.


Leaving aside the fact that I made no mention of him being absurd or not, what makes him more absurd than GW Bush?
 
I believe I've answered this throughout...I'll have to admit to a slight bias because I sure as hell hope that the president of my country isn't farther off the deep end than Ahmadinejad, but GW Bush hasn't done anything as ridiculous as denying the Holocaust.
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1353
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2007 at 11:51
Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

It gets a bit hazy here becuase Reagan's role in that whole plot is debatable (now, I'll admit that I am not as familiar with this point in history as yourself, because I wasn't alive yetEmbarrassed) but, say it's an extreme case, I would say that Reagan was a corrupt leader and (obviously) a hypocrite if it's completely true....but his motives were probably somewhat different, as the Reagan administration wasn't particularly violent (although they surely did some questionable things and get entirely tooooo much credit for the whole USSR downfall).


Oh the Reagan administration was far more violent than Iran. The only war Iran has fought in the last few decades was a defensive war against Iraq in the 80s, and a revolution in 1979 otherthrowing the corrupt, oppressive Shah. During that same period the United States was supporting some of the worst regimes in the world, as well as carrying out military operations in Grenada, Libya etc.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

I don't think that Ahmadinejad's goal is to win elections; he craves power in a different way, and he doesn't seem to put the betterment of his country above his own power, image, and 'legacy'.


This is true, Ahmadinejad craves power just like any politcian, and like most he has little real concern for bettering his country. He's still a shrewd politician, though, as he knows what buttons to push and how to distract people from domestic problems. Comparatively, though, he's not that bad.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

true, but his position belies that of a "dictator" moreso than the president or prime minister of a democracy or republic, whereas a theocracy gives more power to one or a select few individuals - he may have been 'voted' in but he does very little to his people's will, and they still don't have some of the freedom's that any human being should have, even in a theocracy.


Sure they're different, but I'd really question whether the neo-cons were doing a lot for the will of the people. In fact they do the opposite of what a lot of Americans want and the reason they get away with it is shameless propaganda, a lot of which is being spread about Iran, to stop the American people intefering in the upcoming war.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

Hazy again...this really depends on your opinion/perception of the war; if, for example, GW & crew went into Iraq believing it was the right thing to do, it doesn't make them bad people, just pre-emptive and hasty (along with all the other supporters at the time, including both political parties...they couldn't have all been fooled now could they?), even considering the terrible death toll, these things can be difficult to predict.


They are responsible, as Noam Chomsky points out, for the predictable conquences of their actions, many people warned that an attack on Iraq could be disaterous but they chose to ignore this evidence and attack, so whether or not their intentions were good or not (I doubt their intentions were good at all), they are reponsible for the carnage that resulted.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad wishes to "wipe Israel off the map" and then denies saying it...then says similar things...then denies them.   As much as we don't like Bush, he isn't below this level.


Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, he quote Ayatollah Khomeini who said:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

It's a prophetic statement which suggests that a regime will fall, it doesn't call for genocide, as is so unscupulously repeated by the Western media. Ahmadinejad, from what I can gather, supports a single state settlement, which is hardly lunatic or evil. Whether it'll work or not is another matter, but many intelligent people, including Israelis, also support such a settlement.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

If denying homosexuality exists, while killing them for their "crime" is "shrewd" then I fear for the future of our planet (welll....I fear for it either way


As I've said, that's been the situation in Iran for some time, long before Ahmadinejad became President. To be clear, when I say shrewd, I don't mean to compliment the man. Shrewd =/= respecting human rights necessarily. Kissinger, for example, was a shrewd politcian, that doesn't make the things he did any less attrocious.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

I believe I've answered this throughout...I'll have to admit to a slight bias because I sure as hell hope that the president of my country isn't farther off the deep end than Ahmadinejad, but GW Bush hasn't done anything as ridiculous as denying the Holocaust.


That was very much a political move on Ahmadinejad's part I think. He never outright stated that the Holocaust never happened, rather doubted the veracity of Western claims and rightly pointed out that, if the Holocaust was as bad as people say, that the Palestinians, and the Middle East generally, shouldn't have to suffer for the sins of Europe.

I read an article recently which suggested the reason why so many in the Middle East doubt the Holocaust is because it's used by Israel to justify some pretty barbaric things, and the people of the Middle East are used to hearing all sorts of wild apolagetics for Western colonialism, it could well be that Ahmadinejad is one of these people.

And yes, I think the Bush administration, and administrations before that, have made some far more ridiculous, offensive statements. A paralell example being the US government's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust.
Back to Top
jimmy_row View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2007 at 21:05
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

It gets a bit hazy here becuase Reagan's role in that whole plot is debatable (now, I'll admit that I am not as familiar with this point in history as yourself, because I wasn't alive yetEmbarrassed) but, say it's an extreme case, I would say that Reagan was a corrupt leader and (obviously) a hypocrite if it's completely true....but his motives were probably somewhat different, as the Reagan administration wasn't particularly violent (although they surely did some questionable things and get entirely tooooo much credit for the whole USSR downfall).


Oh the Reagan administration was far more violent than Iran. The only war Iran has fought in the last few decades was a defensive war against Iraq in the 80s, and a revolution in 1979 otherthrowing the corrupt, oppressive Shah. During that same period the United States was supporting some of the worst regimes in the world, as well as carrying out military operations in Grenada, Libya etc.
 

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

I don't think that Ahmadinejad's goal is to win elections; he craves power in a different way, and he doesn't seem to put the betterment of his country above his own power, image, and 'legacy'.


This is true, Ahmadinejad craves power just like any politcian, and like most he has little real concern for bettering his country. He's still a shrewd politician, though, as he knows what buttons to push and how to distract people from domestic problems. Comparatively, though, he's not that bad. well I'd like to know how GW is worse...he is just a much larger figure and thus comes under greater scrutiny.  The motives of the Bush administration are subject to speculation so it is impossible to say that they have any such agenda, they could be doing what they think is best (likely? maybe not, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, while Ahmadinejad is more explicitly disrespectful and wreckless).

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

true, but his position belies that of a "dictator" moreso than the president or prime minister of a democracy or republic, whereas a theocracy gives more power to one or a select few individuals - he may have been 'voted' in but he does very little to his people's will, and they still don't have some of the freedom's that any human being should have, even in a theocracy.


Sure they're different, but I'd really question whether the neo-cons were doing a lot for the will of the people. In fact they do the opposite of what a lot of Americans want you're underestimating the amount of neo-cons and sheep over here Ouchand the reason they get away with it is shameless propaganda, a lot of which is being spread about Iran, to stop the American people intefering in the upcoming war. Sadly this is very true, the prophecies of Orwell and Chomsky have never been more relevant.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

Hazy again...this really depends on your opinion/perception of the war; if, for example, GW & crew went into Iraq believing it was the right thing to do, it doesn't make them bad people, just pre-emptive and hasty (along with all the other supporters at the time, including both political parties...they couldn't have all been fooled now could they?), even considering the terrible death toll, these things can be difficult to predict.


They are responsible, as Noam Chomsky points out, for the predictable conquences of their actions, many people warned that an attack on Iraq could be disaterous but they chose to ignore this evidence and attack, so whether or not their intentions were good or not (I doubt their intentions were good at all), they are reponsible for the carnage that resulted.
yes they are responsible, but I chose a more virtuistic perspective - I think believe there's a possibility that this was done in defense and that the tragic death toll was difficult to foresee (this is a stretch for me because I am generally against any war. period.)
 
What we have here is a classic case of consequentialist perspective vs. deontological perspective, thus it's down to subjectivity...and I very much appreciate your points, this is the type of thing that really helps me gain more perspectiveSmile
Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad wishes to "wipe Israel off the map" and then denies saying it...then says similar things...then denies them.   As much as we don't like Bush, he isn't below this level.


Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, he quote Ayatollah Khomeini who said:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

It's a prophetic statement which suggests that a regime will fall, it doesn't call for genocide, as is so unscupulously repeated by the Western media. Ahmadinejad, from what I can gather, supports a single state settlement, which is hardly lunatic or evil. Whether it'll work or not is another matter, but many intelligent people, including Israelis, also support such a settlement. Okay it looks like I've fallen into the propaganda trap...but I could have sworn he said "wipe off the map", I'll have to look for that.  But anyway, his wish is for the regime to fall, and that beats out (well at least marginally) ol' George's will for the entire world to be democracy (or whatever it's called nowadays....no not proto-fascism! no way! not without a fight.)

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

If denying homosexuality exists, while killing them for their "crime" is "shrewd" then I fear for the future of our planet (welll....I fear for it either way


As I've said, that's been the situation in Iran for some time, long before Ahmadinejad became President. To be clear, when I say shrewd, I don't mean to compliment the man. Shrewd =/= respecting human rights necessarily. Kissinger, for example, was a shrewd politcian, that doesn't make the things he did any less attrocious.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

I believe I've answered this throughout...I'll have to admit to a slight bias because I sure as hell hope that the president of my country isn't farther off the deep end than Ahmadinejad, but GW Bush hasn't done anything as ridiculous as denying the Holocaust.


That was very much a political move on Ahmadinejad's part I think. He never outright stated that the Holocaust never happened, rather doubted the veracity of Western claims and rightly pointed out that, if the Holocaust was as bad as people say, that the Palestinians, and the Middle East generally, shouldn't have to suffer for the sins of Europe.
My opinion is that he is using it as a political tool, much worse than not actually believing it happened; I'd like to hear and example of a more crude statement than this from the current administration.
I read an article recently which suggested the reason why so many in the Middle East doubt the Holocaust is because it's used by Israel to justify some pretty barbaric things, and the people of the Middle East are used to hearing all sorts of wild apolagetics for Western colonialism, it could well be that Ahmadinejad is one of these people.

And yes, I think the Bush administration, and administrations before that, have made some far more ridiculous, offensive statements. A paralell example being the US government's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust.
Signature Writers Guild on strike
Back to Top
Zitro View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 11 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1321
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 09:35
another link about the rumor/propaganda of "Israel should be wiped off the map"

my opinions about him are negative and between the opinions of Forgotten Son and Jimmy Row. That makes him as bad as the Bush administration, not worse, not better.

And C'mon, this is the Frickin' United States, we can do better than this!Dead


Edited by Zitro - October 07 2007 at 09:37
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 14:53
To introduce him in such a poor manner is disgraceful. He carried out his arguments logically as far as I know. And wiping Israel off the map is not necessarily a military action.
Back to Top
Hirgwath View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 16 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 15:30
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

To introduce him in such a poor manner is disgraceful. He carried out his arguments logically as far as I know. And wiping Israel off the map is not necessarily a military action.


He is just as much of an idiotic fundamentalist as our own Bush is. Probably even more of one. He's a holocaust denier. This is pretty much a sign of insanity.

So, given his record of anti-Semitism, the Israelis shouldn't be worried about his statements at all?

Skwisgaar Skwigelf: taller than a tree.

Toki Wartooth: not a bumblebee.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 20:03
Originally posted by Hirgwath Hirgwath wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

To introduce him in such a poor manner is disgraceful. He carried out his arguments logically as far as I know. And wiping Israel off the map is not necessarily a military action.


He is just as much of an idiotic fundamentalist as our own Bush is. Probably even more of one. He's a holocaust denier. This is pretty much a sign of insanity.

So, given his record of anti-Semitism, the Israelis shouldn't be worried about his statements at all?


Not when he doesn't hold most of the power in Iran and when many people in his own government think he's crazy.
Back to Top
markosherrera View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 01 2006
Location: World
Status: Offline
Points: 3252
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 20:39
I BELIEVE THAT WAS BAD the discourse of the president of the University and was bad the discourse or responses of Mammoth Amadjihad....In Iran the discrimination against some  women rights  ,homosexuals(in the same status of criminals) etc is a consequence of  retarded  fundamentalist ideas of muslims
.The president of Ny University made insults....the idea is make attacks to some politics or sistems..not persons.
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1353
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2007 at 10:15
Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

well I'd like to know how GW is worse...he is just a much larger figure and thus comes under greater scrutiny.


Intrinsically he may not be worse, but he has more power so his actions have larger consequences.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

The motives of the Bush administration are subject to speculation so it is impossible to say that they have any such agenda, they could be doing what they think is best (likely? maybe not, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt


That's not particularly relevant. Ahmadinejad is just as likely to be doing all the bad things he does because he thinks it's for the best, it doesn't make them any less wrong.

And if you're willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt, despite being responsible for the deaths of far more people, you should certainly extend the same courtesy to Ahmadinejad.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

while Ahmadinejad is more explicitly disrespectful and wreckless).


I really don't think he is. He hasn't threatened to attack anyone, for example. Something which the Bush administration has done and followed through on.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

you're underestimating the amount of neo-cons and sheep over here


Of course there are many Americans that follow leaders blindly. There's a very complex system of control at work in our societies, developed to keep populations passive while their interests are undermined. Cut out all the spin though, and ask people straight up questions the real views of the average people are clear.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

Okay it looks like I've fallen into the propaganda trap...but I could have sworn he said "wipe off the map", I'll have to look for that.


It's very much a case of the lie being repeated so often that it becomes truth. I've taken to questioning everything I hear in the media, though it's really hard to break out of the habit of assuming that the mainstream media are telling the truth.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

But anyway, his wish is for the regime to fall, and that beats out (well at least marginally) ol' George's will for the entire world to be democracy (or whatever it's called nowadays....no not proto-fascism! no way! not without a fight.)


But the Bush regime have not only wanted regimes to fall, they've participated in their fall, which is very different from Khomeini's prophetic statement. We're not just talking about Dictatorships and theocracies, either, the US supported the coup of 2002 that overthrew democratically elected Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

I'd dispute that George Bush wants real democracy around the world, and could cite a number of examples to support my view, but I think we'd be going to far off topic.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

My opinion is that he is using it as a political tool, much worse than not actually believing it happened;


Exactly the reason the Bush administration denies that the Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of the Turks.

Originally posted by jimmy_row jimmy_row wrote:

I'd like to hear and example of a more crude statement than this from the current administration.


"What we've encouraged the Turks and the Armenians to do is to have joint historical commissions that can look at this, to have efforts to examine their past, and in examining their past to get over it," the AP quoted her as saying. "I don't think it helps that process of reconciliation for the United States to enter this debate at that level," Rice added.

Source

Eerily similar to Ahmadinejad's statements on the Holocaust. The paralells are obvious, but it goes without question that these similarities weren't widely reported. The mainstream media using circular reasoning to justify the demonising of official enemies. Why do we think Ahmadinejad is? Because he denies the Holocaust and threatens the collapse of other regimes. But Western politicians deny attrocities all the time and regularly topple governments that don't suit them? Ahh but that's different, we do these things for noble reasons, Ahmadinejad does them because he's evil.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.273 seconds.

Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.