Iran - We Have No Homosexuals

[Harry]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday challenged a university audience to look into "who was truly involved" in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, defended his right to question established Holocaust history and denied there were gay Iranians.

When pressed about the harsh treatment of women, homosexuals and academics who challenge Iran's government, Ahmadinejad painted a rosy picture, saying, "Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom," he said.

He elicited laughter and boos from the audience at Columbia University when he said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."

His remarks, which lasted about an hour, made several general references to God, religion and science. He portrayed himself as an academic, misunderstood and unfairly criticized in the United States.

Ahmadinejad is in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. He spoke at the invitation of Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, who in his introduction excoriated the leader by saying he "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

Blaming his schedule, Ahmadinejad left Columbia after his speech before answering many questions posed to him, Bollinger said.

Hundreds gathered to protest Ahmadinejad's appearance, incensed that a leader who has publicly denied the Holocaust and called for the destruction of the state of Israel was given a prestigious forum to espouse his beliefs.

Christine C. Quinn, speaker of the New York City Council, said Columbia should not be giving Ahmadinejad a platform. "All he will do on that stage ... is spew more hatred and more venom out there to the world," she said.

Hamid Dabasi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia called the whole forum "misguided."

Refusing to back off of his stance on Israel, Ahmadinejad again questioned whether the Holocaust happened.

"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" he asked.

The Iranian leader has made statements in the past suggesting Israel be politically "wiped off the map," though he insists that can be accomplished without violence. See some of Ahmadinejad's controversial remarks »

While he would not respond with a "yes" or "no" when asked Monday if he sought the destruction of Israel, he said the status of Israel should be determined by a free election.

"Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future," he said.

Ahmadinejad has drawn fire for defying international demands that Iran halt production of enriched uranium.

At Columbia, he said Iran is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's central nuclear technology governing body, and has submitted many times to IAEA inspections. "Over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation," he said.

Washington and other nations accuse Tehran of trying to create a nuclear weapons program. VideoWatch reaction to Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University »

Ahmadinejad said Iran questions "the way the world is being run and managed today."

But he said Iran would hold talks with the U.S. government "under fair and just circumstances."

U.S. officials have said Iranian explosives and weapons are making their way to Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq's sectarian conflict and have been used against U.S. troops in the four-year-old war. U.S. commanders have said they have captured Iranian agents involved in supplying those weapons to the militias, some of which have longstanding ties to Iran.

On this point, Ahmadinejad employed a tactic he used often Monday -- answering questions with more questions.

Bollinger asked, "Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?"

Through a translator, Ahmadinejad replied, "Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you reward them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist."

Earlier Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to visit ground zero in New York to "pay his respects" to those who died in the attack on the twin towers at the World Trade Center. Several groups were outraged. Security became an issue and the visit was canceled. Asked what he hoped to accomplish there, the Iranian president said it was unfair he could not extend his sympathies to victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Addressing the press directly, he seemed to make a connection between the "root causes" of the September 11, 2001 attacks and a solution in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined."

He stressed repeatedly that Iran wants to negotiate with the United States and other nations, several times describing Iran as a "cultured" and "civilized" nation.

"I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation," he said. "For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another."

As he ended his talk at Columbia, he invited faculty and students to visit any university in Iran they choose.

"We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say," he assured.

Earlier Monday, in a question-and-answer videoconference with the National Press Club, Ahmadinejad said the Middle East can govern itself without interference from the United States and other Western nations.

Speaking from New York to the luncheon in Washington, Ahmadinejad said Iran wanted to see "an independent powerful Iraq ... which will benefit the entire region."

"We are two nations interconnected," he said of Iran and Iraq. "We are brothers and friends."

But he said the region didn't need U.S. help.

"We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world. ... We propose more humane methods of establishing peace," he said.

:irked:

[Thanks to Trainz for finding the article and the picture.]

[Pigs in Space]

:irked:

[Thanks to Trainz for finding the article and the picture.]
Obviously there can't be any gay people in Iran if they kill them all.


duh.

[The Winslow]

"We make sure our homosexuals aren't happy. That way, we have no gay!"

Sheer genius, really.

[Sobek]

I've been inspired to move to Iran. It is an obviously superior and utopian culture.

Maybe I get get Fred Phelps to go with me on the premise of lynching some faggots.

*Hopefully, I don't have to explain the sarcasm. But this shit is what comes back to bite you.

[Northcott]

Three things occurred to me immediately upon scanning the article:
1) Combined with his recent writings on the evils of Canada, this guy could be a satirist of the highest calibre if only he possessed some modicum of introspection.

2) I was originally puzzled by Columbia agreeing to give him a venue, and was left shaking my head at the way the press rushed to cover it. Even if somebody had let me tailor his speech to try and make the man look foolish, I couldn't have done a better job than he did.

3) With Ahmadinejad and Bush appearing at the UN at the same time, I was very worried about Bush putting his foot in his mouth and looking foolish as Hell, while Ahmadinejad talked rings around him, emerging to make Iran look golden in comparison to Bush's accusations.

Bush may still put his foot in his mouth, but it would have to be an epic fuck-up to erase the public's memory of Ahmadinejad's bumbling.

[Andreas]

http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1807&stc=1&d=1190688866

:irked:

[Thanks to Trainz for finding the article and the picture.]

Oh well...

"According to reports, they were convicted of sexual assault on a 13-year-old boy and had been detained 14 months ago. Prior to their execution, the two were also given 228 lashes each for drinking, disturbing the peace and theft."

Hmm, i guess they would have gotten the chair in Texas...

[Andreas]

Some more information:

Public execution for the teenagers convicted of rape
By Our Foreign Staff
IRAN has publicly hanged two male teenagers convicted of raping a 13-year-old boy at knifepoint. After the Supreme Court upheld the verdict of child rape, they were executed on Tuesday in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad.

The British gay rights group Outrage! has accused Iran of torturing the two into confessing that they had homosexual sex. It believes that the assault charges were a smokescreen to justify killing homosexuals.

Pictures of the hangings, on the ISNA student news agency website, showed the terrified young men crying as they were interviewed by state media in a lorry on the way to the gallows. Another picture showed hangmen in balaclavas tightening the nooses around their necks.

Iran’s religiously conservative judiciary decided that the pair had raped the 13-year-old at knifepoint while he was out cycling in the northeast province of Khorassan. The young men’s ages were not released but Ruhollah Rezazadeh, the lawyer for one of them, told ISNA that he was under 18, yet the judiciary had refused to spare him for being too young. The other accused was said to be 18 years old.

Iranian newspapers reported that the two were also given more than 200 lashes for theft and drinking alcohol. The press carried conflicting reports about the fate of three other men accused of involvement in the sexual assault. Qods newspaper said that they were still on the run, although the Mardomsalari daily reported that they had been jailed.

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article546754.ece)

The more you know...

[Limper]

1) Combined with his recent writings on the evils of Canada, this guy could be a satirist of the highest calibre if only he possessed some modicum of introspection.

Thats what I'm saying. If you read his speaches and such as if it were an Onion article the guy is a riot.

[Northcott]

The more you know...

Indeed. Out of curiosity, why didn't you also bold the part where it mentions that the two were tortured into confessing? I'd say that's worth knowing as well.

[Limper]

Indeed. Out of curiosity, why didn't you also bold the part where it mentions that the two were tortured into confessing? I'd say that's worth knowing as well.

Because we know what they were charged with but the torture was suposition by a group with an agenda.

Not to say it wasn't likely.

[Northcott]

Thats what I'm saying. If you read his speaches and such as if it were an Onion article the guy is a riot.

Thing is, the Onion's scary as Hell if you read the articles from the POV that somebody might actually think that way.

Apparently Ahmadinejad's presidency is on shaky ground. There's been talk about the brewing political situation in Iran that may see him removed. One can only hope.

[Limper]

Thing is, the Onion's scary as Hell if you read the articles from the POV that somebody might actually think that way.

More proof IMO.

Apparently Ahmadinejad's presidency is on shaky ground. There's been talk about the brewing political situation in Iran that may see him removed. One can only hope.


1) See maybe he is angling for a new job.

2) Why would you expect a better replacement for him and his government to come from the elections?

[Northcott]

Because we know what they were charged with but the torture was suposition by a group with an agenda.

Not to say it wasn't likely.

True enough. After what they did to a Canadian photojournalist there a couple years back, and her "accidental" death (by brutal beating) in police custody, I'm a little leery of Iran's legal system.

[Limper]

True enough. After what they did to a Canadian photojournalist there a couple years back, and her "accidental" death (by brutal beating) in police custody, I'm a little leery of Iran's legal system.

Iran has an ancient cultural tradition and have held to it for tens of thousands of years now.

[Northcott]

2) Why would you expect a better replacement for him and his government to come from the elections?

The possibility exists. Whether or not it's allowed to happen is another thing entirely. A significant portion of Iran's population are young, educated individuals who want to see the prosperity that comes with having their country more accepted by the rest of the world. There's been some mention that he's considered something of an embarassment by that segment of the population: sort of a scary, sociopathic version of Bush who's better at spinning lies.

Chances are they'd angle for a more moderate leader who'd be more interested in bringing Iran into step with the rest of the world, with all the massive perks that would bring an oil-rich, stable country. The old guard still holds massive influence there, though, from what I recall -- I'd love it if somebody could correct me on that.

[Northcott]

Iran has an ancient cultural tradition and have held to it for tens of thousands of years now.


"Kill first, ask questions later"?

[Limper]

"Kill first, ask questions later"?

I believe that falls into the cultural lexicon of neolithic steppe nomads.

[there_is_no_bob]

"In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."Then how the hell does he explain the giant rod the mullahs have shoved up his ass?

[Limper]

The possibility exists. Whether or not it's allowed to happen is another thing entirely. A significant portion of Iran's population are young, educated individuals who want to see the prosperity that comes with having their country more accepted by the rest of the world. There's been some mention that he's considered something of an embarassment by that segment of the population: sort of a scary, sociopathic version of Bush who's better at spinning lies.

Chances are they'd angle for a more moderate leader who'd be more interested in bringing Iran into step with the rest of the world, with all the massive perks that would bring an oil-rich, stable country. The old guard still holds massive influence there, though, from what I recall -- I'd love it if somebody could correct me on that.

The segment of their population that you are refering to has never been able to get enough power to once and for all drown out the lunatic fundamentalists. The poor and ignorant have ruled in Iran since the fall of the Shah back in the 70's.

[Andreas]

Indeed. Out of curiosity, why didn't you also bold the part where it mentions that the two were tortured into confessing? I'd say that's worth knowing as well.

Oh, come on...
I thought torture is ok (http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6260/1/245/), as long as you torture only the bad guys...

And they confesed, so they are the bad guys, right?
After all, they raped the kid.

[The Winslow]

oil-rich, stable country

This is very nearly an oxymoron.

[Limper]

This is very nearly an oxymoron.

Canada has a lot of oil... never mind you're right.

[Harry]

"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" he asked.

Holocaust denial is something that angers me to no end. The deniers are either incredibly ignorant or unbelievably evil. There is no middle ground.

[Limper]

Holocaust denial is something that angers me to no end. The deniers are either incredibly ignorant or unbelievably evil. There is no middle ground.

Or wanting to piss people off.

[Northcott]

The segment of their population that you are refering to has never been able to get enough power to once and for all drown out the lunatic fundamentalists. The poor and ignorant have ruled in Iran since the fall of the Shah back in the 70's.

Sad truth, that. Never pays to give up hope for the future, though. History is a long, slow march toward the evolution of tolerant societies.


Oh, come on...
I thought torture is ok (http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6260/1/245/), as long as you torture only the bad guys...

And they confesed, so they are the bad guys, right?
After all, they raped the kid.

Man, that dry wit of yours almost got me there. :)

[Harry]

Or wanting to piss people off.

That is covered by Option B. Using the pain and death and horror of the Holocaust, and causing further pain to its survivors, to further a political agenda is evil.

[Limper]

Sad truth, that. Never pays to give up hope for the future, though. History is a long, slow march toward the evolution of tolerant societies.

As a history major I have to disagree with your hypothosis there buddy. I don't think tolerant societies are an inevitability of historical 'progress'.

History is what was. It can be used for other things but seldom is.

[The Winslow]

Sad truth, that. Never pays to give up hope for the future, though. History is a long, slow march toward the evolution of tolerant societies.

Is that predeterminism?

[Northcott]

As a history major I have to disagree with your hypothosis there buddy. I don't think tolerant societies are an inevitability of historical 'progress'.

History is what was. It can be used for other things but seldom is.

We'll have to agree to disagree. In each case where standards of living, freedoms, or emphasis on rights of an individual have increased the quality of life for a society, that society has fought to keep those elements from being stripped away. Certainly not always successful, this trend has lead to the Western world's current state -- one which I believe we're now in a stage of abusing until it collapses somewhat.

Without a doubt it can be said that dips backward exist, but the spread of our current standard has a viral quality. If anything, I'd say it's hindered by the overt attempts to spread it that have been engaged in using weapons of war.

Is that predeterminism?

Just a rare bout of optimism. You're not likely to see it again. ;)

[Hatter]

Someone forgot to tell him about Mr. Gay Iran (http://www.eonline.com/gossip/planetgossip/detail/index.jsp?uuid=8cd47639-c350-445b-b91b-80204d0a5523) from Tehran.

He lost to Mr. Gay Israel, though I'm sure that didn't happen either.

[Ditto.]

As a history major I have to disagree with your hypothosis there buddy. I don't think tolerant societies are an inevitability of historical 'progress'.

History is what was. It can be used for other things but seldom is.


As a history major I diagree with you here Limper. There have been some pretty shiteous developments over time as well but larger concepts have developed and begun to color our way of thinking. The Englightenment as just one example. There are paradigm shifts from time to time, and what universally becomes "ok" or "not ok" changes. The nature of the conflicts we do have don't really change though.

[Ancalagon]

Since we are talking about Iran, I thought I would share some pretty thought provoking words from Scott Addams (dilbert author). He has a blog. The following is three posts in a row - the opener, reaction to the comments, reaction to the comments to the reaction.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/

A Feeling I'm Being Had

I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad
to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia
University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like
that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom
of speech.

I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he
said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct
translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's
government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering.
What an ass-muncher!

Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is
something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and
act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country
because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it
does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me.

Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't
happen. Fuck him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the
historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of
saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of
confusing me. God-damned fucker.

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language
except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian
words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just
being an asshole.

Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the
Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of
bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the
launch codes for nuclear weapons.

The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the
Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd
agree the best course of action for the United States is to be
constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil
as the Iranians. Those fuckers.

Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this
country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our
leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they
damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's
called leadership.

If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and
opening a dialog, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him.
Fucking idiot. I hate him.


Sorry I Confused You

In reading the comments to my post yesterday, I see that many of you were confused about my positions. Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end. With your indulgence, allow me to clarify.

1. I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives.
2. I do not support the killing of Americans
3. I do not support nuclear annihilation of Israel
4. I do not support the stoning of virgins in Iran
5. I believe the holocaust happened

I also don’t argue there’s a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States, or Israel and the Palestinians, or anyone and anyone else. Groups pursue their own perceived self interest. Arguing relative morality is an idiot’s game. Pointing out similarities in policies, and shaking the box, is good clean fun.

Next, I believe that if Iran is in fact helping Iraqi insurgents harm Americans, it’s an act of war, and a legitimate reason for attacking Iran in some fashion. That doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests of the United States to do so, but I would view it as legitimate.

Likewise, if the Iranians really are developing a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it on Israel, and there was some way to confirm that other than suspicious translations of speeches, then attacking Iran makes perfect sense, and I would support it completely. My problem is that I keep seeing patterns:

1. Iraq is helping Al-Qaeda
2. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
3. Al-Qaeda is operationally non-functional
4. The surge is working
5. Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans

I believe there’s a good chance Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans, simply because it might be in their perceived best interest to do that. But I’d be an idiot to believe it simply because the government told the media it was true and the media told me. You can only fool me five or six dozen times before I start getting suspicious.

I think Iran would be foolish to let matters in Iraq unfold without trying to influence it. It’s in their best interest to meddle. That doesn’t mean I support it. I prefer they didn’t. But it’s not a realistic option. I presume the dark forces on our side are making sure any Iranian offenses are being met with consequences, and I’m all for that.

I also support Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest. I’d be a hypocrite to do otherwise, since I also support the United States, despite what it did to the Native Americans a few hundred years ago. At some point you have to release on the past and accept the present realities. Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere.

If Israel had an enemy that it could make peace with, then I might feel different. But it doesn’t, so Israel’s best interests dictate keeping the neighbors too economically weak to purchase expensive weapons, and to control as much territory as possible. I don’t begrudge any country that makes rational decisions in support of its own safety. I don’t even begrudge Israel’s influence on American foreign policy. I respect them for how well they do it.

Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman. Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof.

Here’s your hypothetical question of the day: If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?



What Qualifies as a Mental Problem?

This post will come off sounding argumentative, but I don’t intend it that way. It’s based on a genuine curiosity. After reading the comments to my posts for the past few days, it’s clear that people fall into some interesting categories. This made me wonder who gets to decide when a certain way of thinking qualifies as a genuine mental problem.

For example, as many of you noted about your fellow posters, a common way of thinking goes like this:

“If you think Jack the Ripper was a doctor in his day job, and you think doctors are positive role models, you must support Jack Ripper and celebrate the killing of women. Die, you woman-hater!”

Is that a form of mental problem, or does the fact that it describes how the majority of the population forms political opinions make it good mental health by definition? That’s a serious question.

Suppose we give this way of thinking a name. Let’s call it ripperitis. Sometimes labeling things is enough to change how we deal with them. Perhaps having a name for the condition will allow scientists to get funding to find a cure. I hope so, because it would give me something new to say to end political debates.

“Well, Bob, based on your rant, I’d say you have a bad case of ripperitis. I hear they’re working on a pill that lets people like you appreciate the complexity of arguments.”

And then Bob would say, “If you think drugs are such a great idea, why don’t you go marry a cocaine dealer in a civil union?”

[Varaj]

“If you think Jack the Ripper was a doctor in his day job, and you think doctors are positive role models, you must support Jack Ripper and celebrate the killing of women. Die, you woman-hater!”

Is that a form of mental problem, or does the fact that it describes how the majority of the population forms political opinions make it good mental health by definition? That’s a serious question.

Suppose we give this way of thinking a name. Let’s call it ripperitis. Sometimes labeling things is enough to change how we deal with them. Perhaps having a name for the condition will allow scientists to get funding to find a cure. I hope so, because it would give me something new to say to end political debates.

“Well, Bob, based on your rant, I’d say you have a bad case of ripperitis. I hear they’re working on a pill that lets people like you appreciate the complexity of arguments.”

And then Bob would say, “If you think drugs are such a great idea, why don’t you go marry a cocaine dealer in a civil union?”

This part is beautiful.

[Stratego]

I gotta say, I think "Bulletproof Ghandi" would make an awesome band name.

[doc]

The Far Left wing nuts at Columba is so Anti Bush that I'm not surprised they invited him, this will bite them in the ass I'm sure.

Anc, you're my new hero for your post

[Varaj]

The Far Left wing nuts at Columba is so Anti Bush that I'm not surprised they invited him, this will bite them in the ass I'm sure.

Anc, you're my new hero for your post


Doc you are aware that he is making fun of people with your position, right?

[Northcott]

I thought Adams had some solid points, but his method of presenting them was horribly flawed, as were some of the parallels he drew to try and illustrate them. No wonder he got smacked with backlash.

[Varaj]

I thought Adams had some solid points, but his method of presenting them was horribly flawed, as were some of the parallels he drew to try and illustrate them. No wonder he got smacked with backlash.

Yup. The Canada/Iran insurgent comparison was really poopy.

[doc]

Doc you are aware that he is making fun of people with your position, right?

Don't really care, it's the whole Mad Scientist thing I dig. I'm a Moderate so I swing both ways :rolleyes:or try to see all aspects. Anyone who really believes Iran is a peaceful country is delusional and needs to up thier meds.

[Northcott]

Yup. The Canada/Iran insurgent comparison was really poopy.

Particularly given the way that Iran and Iraq have, y'know, tried to wipe each other out in the past. Whereas our nations are to the point of joking about our past aggression with each other.

It's hard to imagine other areas in the world doing that, but it's a pleasant thought.

[Ancalagon]

The Far Left wing nuts at Columba is so Anti Bush that I'm not surprised they invited him, this will bite them in the ass I'm sure.

Anc, you're my new hero for your post

Actualy, Scott has more to say about that :)

I bolded the key point - it's the power of free speech. Let him talk, and let him defend his ideas - or fail to do so.

Penis Jokes

Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went to Columbia University and asked Israel to bomb his country. At least that’s how it sounded to me. Meanwhile, the President of Columbia hurled personal insults at the leader of a soon-to-be-nuclear power and strengthened their reasons for wanting us dead. I wonder if those guys had tense conversations with their wives later that night.

Wife: “Mahmoud, you flaming elf turd, did you just give our enemies political cover to annihilate our country?”

Amadinejad: “Okay, so sometimes I say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Big deal. How about coming over here and giving me some scarf.”

And who was the smartest person involved in yesterday’s events? George Bush. Criticize him all you want, but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut. He shrugged off the whole controversy about Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia and let the Iranian President shoot himself in the foot. Well played.

The most entertaining part of Ahmadinejad’s speech is trying to figure out what the Hell is happening in his tiny bearded skull. The things he says that sound crazy, stupid, or ignorant can also be interpreted as routine political talk. In this country, we expect our politicians to say whatever plays well with voters, no matter how preposterous. You can never be sure what professional liars are thinking. So here are my best guesses about Ahmadinejad.

1. Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn’t have gay people. There is zero chance he believes that. He just wanted to change the subject. I interpret that as acknowledgment that Iran is executing homosexuals. (I don’t approve of that, in case you wondered.)

2. Ahmadinejad acknowledged that the holocaust happened, but thinks it is unfair that the holocaust skeptics in Europe are prosecuted whereas skeptics on other issues are not. I believe that’s his true opinion now, whether or not he was a holocaust denier in the past. If he didn’t believe the holocaust happened, he’d have no reason to stop denying it now while he’s openly skeptical about the cause of 9-11.

3. I think Ahmadinejad is genuinely skeptical that Bin Laden accomplished 9-11 all by himself. I don’t think it’s crazy to ask whether some dark forces in the U.S. and Israel had the means and the warped motive to help with the logistics, even if only in some small support way. Ahmadinejad lives in a country whose government was once overthrown by the U.S., so I can understand him being genuinely skeptical. And it plays well back home.

4. Ahmadinejad didn’t respond directly to questions about wanting Israel wiped off the map. But he said Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons and has no need for them. In other words, he ruled out nuking Israel. I believe the leadership in Iran isn’t collectively crazy enough to nuke Israel. And I don’t think Ahmadinejad knows of any other realistic way to wipe Israel off the map. It sounds like politics and wishful thinking to me.

5. I think Ahmadinejad is lying when he says Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons. They have the means and the motive (defense). It’s in their best interest to have nukes, and they always have the option to give them up, and allow inspectors, if America masses troops on the border.

While I think it’s highly unlikely that Iran would ever nuke Israel, either directly or by proxy, the odds are not zero. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia, plus Iran’s support for Hezbollah give Israel a legitimate reason to attack Iran in self defense. I think Ahmadinejad knows that, and is taking a calculated risk that any attack on Iran would be limited in nature and cause Israel to lose international support.

Likewise, Ahmadinejad didn't deny Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran. It's a separate question as to whether an attack on Iran is in America's best interest.

I wasn’t planning to blog on this topic, but my hit count went through the roof yesterday thanks to the various groups mustering their forces of darkness to misinterpret what I wrote and screech at me. (Thank you!)

DMD

[Harry]

Yeah, there are more recent threads but this one is slightly more on topic.....

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad's birthplace, and the name derives from "weaver of the Sabour", the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior.

Experts last night suggested Mr Ahmadinejad's track record for hate-filled attacks on Jews could be an overcompensation to hide his past.

Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies, said: "This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him.

"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith.

"By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

A London-based expert on Iranian Jewry said that "jian" ending to the name specifically showed the family had been practising Jews.

"He has changed his name for religious reasons, or at least his parents had," said the Iranian-born Jew living in London. "Sabourjian is well known Jewish name in Iran."

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said it would not be drawn on Mr Ahmadinejad's background. "It's not something we'd talk about," said Ron Gidor, a spokesman.

The Iranian leader has not denied his name was changed when his family moved to Tehran in the 1950s. But he has never revealed what it was change from or directly addressed the reason for the switch.

Relatives have previously said a mixture of religious reasons and economic pressures forced his blacksmith father Ahmad to change when Mr Ahmadinejad was aged four.

The Iranian president grew up to be a qualified engineer with a doctorate in traffic management. He served in the Revolutionary Guards militia before going on to make his name in hardline politics in the capital.

During this year's presidential debate on television he was goaded to admit that his name had changed but he ignored the jibe.

However Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer.

Mr Ahmadinejad has regularly levelled bitter criticism at Israel, questioned its right to exist and denied the Holocaust. British diplomats walked out of a UN meeting last month after the Iranian president denounced Israel's 'genocide, barbarism and racism.'

Benjamin Netanyahu made an impassioned denunciation of the Iranian leader at the same UN summit. "Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium," he said. "A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies the murder of six million Jews while promising to wipe out the State of Israel, the State of the Jews. What a disgrace. What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."

Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistently outspoken about the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he declared at a conference on the holocaust staged in Tehran in 2006.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Were_Ahmadinejads_Ancestors_Jews_/1375318.html

Mehdi Khazali, the son of the conservative Ayatollah Khazali, has written on his personal website that he recently learned that President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has Jewish roots.

Khazali notes that Ahmadinejad changed his family name from Saburjian, and says that the origins of the Saburjian family in the town of Aradan should be investigated.

Ahmadinejad's relatives had told Britain's "The Guardian" following his election that the family had changed its name for "a mixture of religious and economic reasons."

"The name change provides an insight into the devoutly Islamic working-class roots of Mr. Ahmadinejad's brand of populist politics," journalist Robert Tait wrote in "The Guardian." "The name Saborjhian derives from thread painter -- sabor in Farsi -- a once common and humble occupation in the carpet industry in Semnan Province, where Aradan is situated. Ahmad, by contrast, is a name also used for the Prophet Muhammad and means virtuous; nejad means race in Farsi, so Ahmadinejad can mean Muhammad's race or virtuous race.”

Ahmadinejad, of course, is known for his frequent slurs and threats against the Jewish state of Israel. The claim about his background should be seen in the context of a growing rift among the president's political allies, the so-called principlists, in the run-up to the June presidential election.


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Funny you don't look Jewish
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, joins a long list of figures in history whose possible Jewish ancestry has caused shock and surprise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6258048/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-Funny-you-dont-look-Jewish.html

[shiningbrow]

I saw that earlier today in the Huffington Post. Just goes to show you, there's no hatred like self-hatred. Who are the worst anti-semites? Jews, of course. The worst misogynists? Women! The list goes on...

It sort of reminds me of this great skit on Chappell's Show where there's this blind black Klansman and the other Klan members just love him for his racist supremacist rants until someone pulls off his hood...

[Dacke]

This was debunked by one of the Swedish newspapers today (or at least by an opinion article in it).


The name Sabourjian is not an exclusively jewish name, and is very rare among Iran's jews. The name means "thread painter", which refers to a simple task in carpet weaving (which is a bit of a Persian specialty).
Ahmadinejad's mother was a Sayyede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid), a (supposed) direct descendant of Muhammed. That's not a title you can get when converting to Islam, you have to be born with it.
The Ahmadinejad family changed their name from Sabourjian when moving to Teheran. That's fairly common, in order to not be considered country bumpkins.
It is also claimed elsewhere that the original name was Sabaghian, not Sabourjian, meaning dye-master. I don't know if that's just different ways of transliterating from Farsi/Arabic.

[shiningbrow]

I thought that most of the people engaged in those kinds of textile-related industries were assumed to be Jewish, based on the fact that dyeing and other work was considered unclean by Muslims and beneath their dignity. I say turn him over to the Mormons. They're especially keen on converting dead people to the Church of Latter Day Saints by researching their genealogies. We could make a nice Mormon boy out of that guy by the end of the week if they will get cracking!

[Old Fart]

I'm waiting for the rumor and "proof" that Ahmadinejad was actually born in Kenya.

[Varaj]

I thought that most of the people engaged in those kinds of textile-related industries were assumed to be Jewish, based on the fact that dyeing and other work was considered unclean by Muslims and beneath their dignity. I say turn him over to the Mormons. They're especially keen on converting dead people to the Church of Latter Day Saints by researching their genealogies. We could make a nice Mormon boy out of that guy by the end of the week if they will get cracking!

No matter how often this one gets covered people just don't want to get rid of their personal bigotries. I guess some people like to revel in their personal ignorance and prejudices.

[shiningbrow]

?

[Varaj]

?

Let's break it down for you.

I thought that most of the people engaged in those kinds of textile-related industries were assumed to be Jewish, based on the fact that dyeing and other work was considered unclean by Muslims and beneath their dignity.

Just flat out wrong.
The first one I'm almost willing to give you a pass on since it combines a good amount of anti-Semitic bigotry wrapped with up in clever Stannis style anti-Muslim bigotry. That level of ignorance and bigotry is hard to doing anything but laugh at.


I say turn him over to the Mormons. They're especially keen on converting dead people to the Church of Latter Day Saints by researching their genealogies. We could make a nice Mormon boy out of that guy by the end of the week if they will get cracking!

This one is wrong too.

Basically your post if full of nothing but wrongness.
But when combined with the second which has been pointed out enough times I had to say something.

Mormons don't "convert to the Church of Latter Day Saints by researching their genealogies." Jesus H Christ fucking his mother in the ass. There are so many good reasons to poke fun of the Mormons why do people have to make up ones?
The LDS practice of Baptism for the dead does not convert people to LDS after they are dead.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that baptism is a prerequisite for entry into the kingdom of God as stated by Jesus in John 3:5: "Except that a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (KJV).

The LDS Church teaches that performing baptisms for the dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered to those who have died without accepting or knowing Jesus Christ or his teachings during their mortal lives. It is taught that this is the method by which all who have lived upon the earth will have the opportunity to receive baptism and to thereby enter the Kingdom of God. This concept is similar to but more specific than the idea of Anonymous Christians, posed by Karl Rahner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rahner).

The LDS Church teaches that those in the afterlife who have been baptized by proxy are free to accept or reject the ordinance done on their behalf. Baptism on behalf of a deceased individual is not binding if that individual chooses to reject it in the afterlife.[7][8]

Two important points.
1. It is not joining the dead fucker to the LDS Church.
2. The dead fucker can accept or reject it.

[shiningbrow]

I was simply reiterating what I'd read in a source posted on the Huffington Post. I know next to nothing about Iran and was making an attempt to inform myself. I do know that traditionally, Jews adopted certain professions that were considered off limits to other religious groups due to laws within those other religions, so this did not seem beyond the pale. If I can find the cite, I'll post it for you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html

As for the references to the practices of the Mormons regarding their interest in supporting genealogical research--the information comes from a friend of mine who is fluent in German and who volunteers at the local Temple to aid others in their research. I can't vouch for the accuracy of his assertions, but he's not a moron, so I naturally tend to credit his statements. This does not mean he's infallible.

[Varaj]

I was simply reiterating what I'd read in a source posted on the Huffington Post. I know next to nothing about Iran and was making an attempt to inform myself. I do know that traditionally, Jews adopted certain professions that were considered off limits to other religious groups due to laws within those other religions, so this did not seem beyond the pale. If I can find the cite, I'll post it for you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html

:rolleyes:
Reiterate means to repeat right? It does not mean make shit up right?
Funny that article doesn't mention anything about Islam viewing clothing dying or weaving as unclean. Care to try to cover your ass again?


As for the references to the practices of the Mormons regarding their interest in supporting genealogical research--the information comes from a friend of mine who is fluent in German and who volunteers at the local Temple to aid others in their research. I can't vouch for the accuracy of his assertions, but he's not a moron, so I naturally tend to credit his statements. This does not mean he's infallible.

Mormons do study genealogy to practice Baptism for the dead but it has nothing to do with converting the dead or did you not read what I posted?

[DarwinOfMind]

*hugs Varaj* there there it's ok... you'll be ok....

[Varaj]

*hugs Varaj* there there it's ok... you'll be ok....

Wait didn't you change your name from Baker? I bet it is because your new religion doesn't allow cooking. :rolleyes: Only those dirty fuckers you used to hang out with cook.

[DarwinOfMind]

Wait didn't you change your name from Baker? I bet it is because your new religion doesn't allow cooking. :rolleyes: Only those dirty fuckers you used to hang out with cook.
:rolleyes:

[Varaj]

:rolleyes:

That is the logic shiningbrow is using. I just threw an English name into the mix.
Then she linked to an article and tried to claim she pulled it from the there even though the news story didn't saying anything about Islam considering dying clothes unclean or Jews doing the work instead.

[shiningbrow]

I"m sorry, Varaj. You are right. That's not the article I read. In providing you with that erroneous link, I had already spent 10 minutes trying to find the article I did read when searching for it on the Huffington site and that was all I could find. I didn't read the article thoroughly before posting the link today. All I can recall is reading an article in Foreign Affairs about Soviet Rockets being sold to Iran, but I forget the source of the Ahmedinejad heritage discussion.

Apparently the Huffington Post updates its links every day. I'm new to this online digest, and didn't realize it would be so hard to find something I read 24 hours ago. But real life demands are rendering me less than stellar in my forum performances. My cite is slop, but my memory isn't. The article I did read, and I can't remember its source, (because I didn't realize I'd be examined on it so didn't take notes or write down the citation) specifically talked about how dyeing practices were considered unclean among Iranian Muslims, so it was normally done by Jews instead. Given the dietary restrictions practiced by several groups in the area (Jews, Muslims, and others) this didn't seem at all odd to me. I didn't mean to offend you.

[Varaj]

Given the dietary restrictions practiced by several groups in the area (Jews, Muslims, and others) this didn't seem at all odd to me. I didn't mean to offend you.


This is how ignorance and bigotry breed.
Oooh they do something weird so they must do something else weird. I won't even check into it I will just believe any totally unrelated bullshit.

Let's follow what you did so everybody is clear.
You jumped from knowing they have some dietary restrictions (probably don't even know specifically what they are) and some unrelated groups in the area have some as well to believing some unrelated bullshit and then making a bigoted joke about another group using further bullshit you were wrong about.

It is bigotry and misinformation using faulty logic that you were spreading. Your memory may be working but your morals and logic aren't.

[shiningbrow]

Dear Varaj
You aren't the first person to miss my elliptical sense of humor. I meant no offense to any religious group. I simply made the reference to the Mormons to indicate how absurd religious prejudices are. I'm reminded of a wonderful old film, Mme. Rosa, in which a retired prostitute took in children and raised them. She once played a great joke on some prejudiced parents by suggesting that she'd raised a Jewish child as a Muslim and a Muslim child as a Jew. The child in question was being reunited with the opposite group, of course. This kind of faith-based bigotry is inimical to everything I stand for. We are all human beings at the end of the day with similarities that overcome any differences.

As for my purported bigotry and faulty logic, I try not to prejudge anyone based on their faith, even though I'm an agnostic myself. I have plenty of Jewish and Muslim friends and wish that the strife in the middle east would simply cease, but I understand all too well that each side harbors legitimate grievances. I would never deign to suggest that I am an expert in anyone's dietary restrictions, religious or otherwise, although I know there are some commonalities among devout Muslims and Jews regarding the consumption of flesh from animals believed to be unclean. You can think I'm an idiot, a sloppy thinker and a bigot, but then again, how much do you really know about me? I won't belabor you to cite articles to support your assertions, at least, not here.

[DarwinOfMind]

That is the logic shiningbrow is using. I just threw an English name into the mix.
Then she linked to an article and tried to claim she pulled it from the there even though the news story didn't saying anything about Islam considering dying clothes unclean or Jews doing the work instead.

Very true, but I did not say any of it, all I did was come into a thread where I saw you very excitable and did a playful attempt at chill, it's not a big deal.

so when you directed it my way all I can do is roll my eyes.

[shiningbrow]

Varaj, I came here at the invitation of Harry Joy and Lady Fury in an effort to escape rampant sexism and antisemitism at another forum.

For you to call me a bigot begs belief. If you would like me to go away, just say so and I'll ask to have my account deleted.

[Varaj]

Varaj, I came here at the invitation of Harry Joy and Lady Fury in an effort to escape rampant sexism and antisemitism at another forum.
You are welcome here no matter who invited you. ;)


For you to call me a bigot begs belief. If you would like me to go away, just say so and I'll ask to have my account deleted.

Why in the world would I want you to go away? 95% I really love your posts. The other 5% of the time you have a special talent. :) Both of those are worth keeping around.

[shiningbrow]

You mystify me, Varaj. Just remember, my skin isn't as thick as it used to be. Maybe I scrub myself too much.

[Varaj]

You mystify me, Varaj. Just remember, my skin isn't as thick as it used to be. Maybe I scrub myself too much.

You have my apologies. I will make an effort to be less assholish.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

You have my apologies. I will make an effort to be less assholish.

I recommend tacos and a 12 pack of PBR.