he's a very good and poetic speaker, but most of what he said is shit. he talks as if the iranian government doesn't have to look in the mirror.
Originally posted by: yllus
Avoided every question so far, and has now claimed there are no homosexuals in Iran. Haha.
Originally posted by: yllus
Avoided every question so far, and has now claimed there are no homosexuals in Iran. Haha.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Maybe the translation was off. There is no way he said there are no homosexuals in Iran. Maybe he meant there are no homosexual killings in Iran.
If he said there are no homosexuals in Iran I am done with this thread as the guy is an idiot.
Originally posted by: yllus
I'm a little critical of the Columbia side of things here.
The questions are framed in an amateur, biased way. They could have been restated in a much clearer way to allow Mr. Ahmadinejad much less wiggle room. I also think the Columbia official posing the questions should say thank you after each answer (if you can call them that).
The air of superiority from Columbia is a little worrisome. Don't get me wrong, I consider Western society the better of Iran's in nearly every way. Despite this, I think the president of a sovereign country should be treated as an equal, even if we don't really believe it.
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I think it was great that he was allowed to speak freely today. This is what we need, dialogue.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
No gay parades in Iran yet. I see.
Originally posted by: EndGame
Already on all the news sites/channels....
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you that we have it."
Thank goodness we've improved, but give Iran some time.
Let's also note that in Iran there is a legal statute (The Islamic Penal Law Against Homosexuals in Iran) that states that sodomy is punished by killing (the method of killing to be determined by the Sharia judge), whereas we have no such similar law in the US and never have.Originally posted by: Craig234
His statement on Iran not having gays is obviously wrong, and contemptible. As usual, it's the 'benefit' of the society repressing gays that makes it easier, in a circular way, for people to deny their existence, and thereby the nature of homosexuality as naturally occurring.
I'll also note though that it wasn't that many decades ago that the US was largely filled with people who are nearly as ignorant, with homosexuality as an official mental illness, and movies pretending it didn't exist as actors like Rock Hudson had to hide their sexual preference.
I'll also note that we have a large faction in the US, who currently has their guy in the Presidency, who also has these false beliefs about homosexuality as a 'choice', who have a syndrome of leaders who are gay secretly, caught in a gay scandal, and get 're-educated' to heterosexuality, to gain support from the base.
If we want to ridicule the president of Iran for his statements that deserve it, let's remember the head of the US Senate pronounced that Terri Schiavo had brain activity and could recover, as the president returned early from vacation to sign an emergency bill in the middle of the night, in an act filled with hypocrisy as he did the opposite in other less visible situations.
Edit: and let's not forget how the norm in our popular culture until recent years was for males to say they'd happily 'beat the crap out of a gay person if the met one'.
I recall many 'average' people saying that and it wasn't considered something to challenge. Thank goodness we've improved, but give Iran some time.
We are viewed as similarly backwards by much of the rest of the world on capital punishment and universal healthcare, among other things.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Of course, if you're merely a lesbian you only get 100 tongue lashes
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Of course, if you're merely a lesbian you only get 100 tongue lashes:thumbsup:
The reason why we can't have reasonable debates was demonstrated at Columbia University. When Jim Gilchrist tried to speak groups of students - including the Chicano caucus, the African-American student organization, and the International Socialist organization - rushed the stage and tried to attack him. Ahmadinejad was permitted to speak without such interruptions. That is more symbolic of discussion in America today than anything Rush Limbuagh can spew out.Originally posted by: Lemon law
Even Rush Limbaugh is glad Ahmadinejad got ripped into in the Q&A. Not yet ready to quit advocating censorship, but still talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Rush Limbaugh and Ahmadinejad are both symbolic of why we can't have reasonable debates. In a more open and pluristic societies, each would explode in a inconsequential burst of hot air. And become the laughing stocks that they are. Ideas need to be put into the open and examined, and bad ideas thrive only in the dark.
Thank God Ahmadinejad does not represent the thinking of Iran. He can go home with a well deserved verbal spanking from the American and world public.