NationStates Jolt Archive

I personaly prefer to think that the US invaded Iraq specifically so that it could build top-secret gay-artillery posts along the boarder, from which it can launch gay-shells into Iran to make the population homosexual. That or shells filled with gay people. Whichever.No, the US invaded Iraq because its people chose to elect a moron for president. Whatever crap the current Iranian president may be talking, the deeds of the current US president are far more severe.

"We don't have homosexuals in our country like you do. That phenomenon doesn't exist. I don't know who told you it did." Denying the Holocaust is bad enough but really?

Note to the pests: "I like turtles."
Technically he isn't lying. They don't have any because they all get executed. Doh! LOL

"Doh! Lol" yourself. We got over that dozens of posts ago.:headbang:

I like how all these threads devolve into us just spouting our opinions...kind of like I'm doing now.That's only because there is such a huge number of threads but only a small number of issues worth discussing. And there have been way too many Ahmadinejad threads with no real purpose already. The hurtful part about this is the fact that Ahmadinejad is in fact ultimately irrelevant. He does not hold the real power in Iran and his rants are not even entertaining any more. And the US kids around here are only using Ahmadinejad to divert from their own country being responsible for the real bad things going on in the region. After all, it's not Iran that has invaded two countries bordering Iran for the "vengeance" of one president.

But in a democracy you do not just get what you deserve, you get what you choose, which in the given case says a lot about the American people indeed.

Typically the minority gets what the majority chooses. This often is not what they deserve.

And while Ahmadinejad just talks Bush has already started two wars and alienated almost every former ally.

Yeah, while I agree this guy is an asshat, what is taking him so long. Over two years into his term and he hasn't started even one war!!?! Come on man what's wrong with you? If you want to be a tinpot dictator, you need to get to work and start losing some wars.

No, the US invaded Iraq because its people chose to elect a moron for president. Whatever crap the current Iranian president may be talking, the deeds of the current US president are far more severe.
See, if you were TRA you would've come up with some amusing conspiracy, like, "Bush eats babies and supplies the pre-digested blood to his reptillian overlords on the moon as fuel for their mind-slave machine which is generating CFC's that are eating the ozone!"
Your post isnt amusing. Its just the same thing as half of NSG distilled into two sentences. Boring, flat, not very attention-getting. You took a joke about the Iranian presidents quirky little paranoid fantasies and turned it into Bush-bashing. Thats no fun at all. Maybe true, but it contributes little to the discussion, and isnt funny.

That's only because there is such a huge number of threads but only a small number of issues worth discussing. And there have been way too many Ahmadinejad threads with no real purpose already.
True, I see your point.

And the US kids around here are only using Ahmadinejad to divert from their own country being responsible for the real bad things going on in the region. After all, it's not Iran that has invaded two countries bordering Iran for the "vengeance" of one president.
No, I think Ahmadinejad keeps coming up because he is funny two-fold: One, he's from another culture, which is always funny (if morally wrong to laugh at). Two, he is to Iranian culture what George Bush is to American culture.
That being said, I think there is a degree of, "Well, we could have done worse..." among Americans about Ahmadinejad. After all, here's a guy who denies the Holocaust. Our president only denies things like scientific facts, or events going on in front of him.

Oh, kind of like Bush except replacing "the zionists" with "9/11... terrorists... 9/11... terrorists". :p

I can only imagine how stimulating any public debate between those two would be. :p

W: freedom, terrorists, 9-11

A: zionists, palestine, zionists, palestine

Repeat.

See, if you were TRA you would've come up with some amusing conspiracy, like, "Bush eats babies and supplies the pre-digested blood to his reptillian overlords on the moon as fuel for their mind-slave machine which is generating CFC's that are eating the ozone!"
Your post isnt amusing. Its just the same thing as half of NSG distilled into two sentences. Boring, flat, not very attention-getting. You took a joke about the Iranian presidents quirky little paranoid fantasies and turned it into Bush-bashing. Thats no fun at all. Maybe true, but it contributes little to the discussion, and isnt funny.You know, fun is not the purpose of life. And there is nothing funny about the typical USAmerican reaction to every crap coming from the Iranian president. By now it's boring, flat, not very attention-getting. It is in fact pretty inappropriate considering what the US and its president are responsible for in the vicinity of Iran while the Iranian president only gives dumb speeches.

Yeah, while I agree this (AhmedJihad) guy is an asshat, what is taking him so long. Over two years into his term and he hasn't started even one war!!?! Come on man what's wrong with you? If you want to be a tinpot dictator, you need to get to work and start losing some wars.well yeah, If Bush was Iran's president he would have already gotten his country into -at least- 2 quagmires.. :D

I personaly prefer to think that the US invaded Iraq specifically so that it could build top-secret gay-artillery posts along the boarder, from which it can launch gay-shells into Iran to make the population homosexual. That or shells filled with gay people. Whichever.

OMFG ROFLMAO!:p

You know, fun is not the purpose of life.

I thought the purpose of life was 42?

How can someone say that after sentencing two gay teenagers to death?

Officially, the two teenagers were not killed for being gay, but for raping a thirteen-year-old.

But Iran is crap, Ahmadinejad is crap, his ideas are and always have been crap. It's fairly reasonable to conclude that an anti west, anti semetic person who speaks crap 99% of the time, is going to speak crap especially about the holocaust and 9/11 since he is so obviously biased. Oh and guess what, what he said was crap.

Freedom of Speech? He can say what he wants, even if you think it is crap. The stupid university guy didn't even set out good points. It seemed like the only idea that idiot was trying to make was to make fun of the Iranian President. Kinda funny considering the fact that the uni pres, Lee Bollinger, is pro-Zionist.

We treat his speech like crap because it is crap.

This is the EXACT kind of thing I was talking about. Making up points without any info. Just because it's crap. Put some detail in your post, next time, please.

An interview with gay activists in Iran (http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=9&ZoneID=3&FileID=681)

A little old, but interesting nonetheless.

No Holocaust? No homosexuals? No unhappy Iranian citizens...?

What DOES exist in that 'man''s head?

Oh yeah! A worldwide Jewish/American conspiracy to undermine Allah's magical Kingdom under the Sea!

Why didn't anyone else realise it earlier; it's so obvious! Quickly to the Crazy-mobile: We must prepare another speech for the President!

I can only imagine how stimulating any public debate between those two ....a AhmedJihad-VS-Bush? OneonOne Last man standing wins?

Bush would piss on his pants if he is not allowed to bring Dick Cheney with him.. :D

And for teh zomgz (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6947494,00.html)

You know, fun is not the purpose of life. And there is nothing funny about the typical USAmerican reaction to every crap coming from the Iranian president. By now it's boring, flat, not very attention-getting. It is in fact pretty inappropriate considering what the US and its president are responsible for in the vicinity of Iran while the Iranian president only gives dumb speeches.

Really? Whats the other purpose of life? Living? 42? Life is boring. Fun is far more entertaining.
Ahmedinajad is funny, at the least.

Life is boring.Only speak for yourself.
BTW boredom is a point of view.

yeah...

If Hydesland and other like him (Bush, Romney, etc) thinks it is Crap, then we should all intermediately suspend Ahmedjihad freedom of speech and dismiss whatever he says. [/sarcasm]

Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator, and so I ask you, why have women, members of the Bahá'í Faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?"
"Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and the civil society of the region? Frankly, and in all candor Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions, but your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mind-set that characterizes what you say and do.


Would you like to explain the outright disrespect made by the University President in his opening line of his speech? That is somewhat odd..

Freedom of Speech? He can say what he wants, even if you think it is crap. yeah...

If Hydesland and other like him (Bush, Romney, etc) thinks it is Crap, then we should intermediately suspend Ahmedjihad freedom of speech and dismiss whatever he says. [/sarcasm]

Only speak for yourself.
BTW boredom is a point of view.

Did I say I was speaking for anybody else?
BTW, thats an opinion. I think boredom is a state of mind.

Actually 11-12 million people died. 6 million of which were Jewish.

Thanks for the fact-check.

This thread will sink lower once AP, UB, and OD enter it.where are the sparks you promised?
.
Why can't they just hang out in stormfront?stormfront is more inline with your racist line of thinking.. so why dont you go spend/waste some time over that silly forum?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/ahmadinejad-questions-911-holocaust/n20070925062109990016

And people wonder why we do not trust Ahmadinejad? This is why!



We know that the Holocaust happened and roughly how many were killed and we also know who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Come on Ahmadinejad, research before speaking. It will make you look better.

Point being?

i only heard excerpts of what this guy had to say today on a
public radio program out of Boston tonight. along with two
different guest perspectives.
Here's one from the end of 2006.





The Anti-Empire Report
Some things you need to know before the world ends
December 17, 2006
by William Blum



Designer monsters

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man seemingly custom-made for the White House in its endless quest for enemies with whom to scare Congress, the American people, and the world, in order to justify the unseemly behavior of the empire. The Iranian president has declared that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". He's said that "the Holocaust is a myth". He recently held a conference in Iran for "Holocaust deniers". And his government passed a new law requiring Jews to wear a yellow insignia, à la the Nazis. On top of all that, he's aiming to build nuclear bombs, one of which would surely be aimed at Israel. What right-thinking person would not be scared by such a man?

However, like with all such designer monsters made bigger than life during the Cold War and since by Washington, the truth about Ahmadinejad is a bit more complicated. According to people who know Farsi, the Iranian leader has never said anything about "wiping Israel off the map". In his October 29, 2005 speech, when he reportedly first made the remark, the word "map" does not even appear. According to the translation of Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad said that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." His remark, said Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all," which presumably is what would make the remark threatening.[1] Readers are advised that the next time they come across such an Ahmadinejad citation to note whether a complete sentence is being quoted, and not just "wipe Israel off the map".

At the conference in Teheran ("Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision"), the Iranian president said: "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."[2] Obviously, the man is not calling for any kind of violent attack upon Israel, for the dissolution of the Soviet Union did not occur through force or violence.

As for the Holocaust myth, I have yet to read or hear words from Ahmadinejad's mouth saying simply and clearly and unequivocally that he thinks that the Holocaust never happened. He has commented about the peculiarity of a Holocaust which took place in Europe resulting in a state for the Jews in the Middle East instead of in Europe. And he argues that Israel and the United States have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for their own imperialist purposes. He also wonders about the accuracy of the number of Jews -- six million -- killed in the Holocaust, as have many other people of all political stripes, including Holocaust survivors like author Primo Levi. (The much publicized World War One atrocities which turned out to be false made the public very skeptical of the Holocaust claims for a long time.)

The conference gave a platform to various points of view, including six members of Jews United Against Zionism, at least two of whom were rabbis. One was Ahron Cohen, from London, who declared: "There is no doubt what so ever, that during World War 2 there developed a terrible and catastrophic policy and action of genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany against the Jewish People." He also said that "the Zionists make a great issue of the Holocaust in order to further their illegitimate philosophy and aims," indicating as well that the figure of six million Jewish victims is debatable. The other rabbi was Moshe David Weiss, who told the delegates: "We don't want to deny the killing of Jews in World War II, but Zionists have given much higher figures for how many people were killed. They have used the Holocaust as a device to justify their oppression." His group rejects the creation of Israel on the grounds that it violates Jewish religious law in that a Jewish state can't exist until the return of the Messiah .[3]

Another speaker was Shiraz Dossa, professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. In an interview after the conference, he described himself as an anti-imperialist and an admirer of Noam Chomsky, and said that he "was invited because of my expertise as a scholar in the German-Jewish area, as well as my studies in the Holocaust. ... I have nothing to do with Holocaust denial, not at all." His talk was "about the war on terrorism, and how the Holocaust plays into it. Other people [at the conference] have their own points of view, but that [Holocaust denial] is not my point of view. ... There was no pressure at all to say anything, and people there had different views."[4]

Clearly, the conference -- which the White House called "an affront to the entire civilized world"[5] -- was not set up to be simply a forum for people to deny that the Holocaust, to any significant degree, literally never took place at all.

As to the yellow star story of this past May -- that was a complete fabrication by a prominent Iranian-American neo-conservative, Amir Taheri. There are as well other egregious examples of Ahmadinejad's policies and words being twisted out of shape in the Western media, making him look like a danger to all that's holy and decent. Political science professor Virginia Tilley has written a good account of this. "Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized?" Tilley asks. "Need we ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements has been bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme."[6]

Ahmadinejad, however, is partly to blame for this "disinformation". I heard him in an interview while he was at the UN in September being asked directly about "the map" and the reality of the Holocaust, and he refused to give explicit answers of "yes" or "no", which I interpret as his prideful refusal to accede to the wishes of what he regarded as a hostile Western interviewer asking hostile questions. In an interview with the German news magazine, Der Spiegel (May 31 2006), Ahmadinejad states: "We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust." The Iranian president is also in the habit of prefacing certain remarks with "Even if the Holocaust happened ... ", a rhetorical device we all use in argument and discussion, but one which can not help but reinforce the doubts people have about his views.

It may already be too late. The conventional wisdom about what Ahmadinejad has said and meant may already be set in marble. Ban I Moon, at a news conference on December 14, after being sworn in as the new secretary-general of the United Nations, was asked by an Israeli reporter whether the United Nations was going to address the issue of Holocaust deniers. Ban replied: "Denying historical facts, especially on such an important subject as the Holocaust is just not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of any state or people."[7] Let's hope that this is not very indicative of the independence of mind that we can expect from the new secretary-general. Myths die so hard.

Time magazine has just foregone its usual selection of "Person of the Year" and instead chosen "You", the Internet user. Managing editor Richard Stengel said that if it came down to one individual it probably would have been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but that "It just felt to me a little off selecting him."[8] In previous years Time's "Person of the Year" has included Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.




NOTES
[1] AlterNet, www.alternet.org/, May 5, 2006
[2] Associated Press, December 12, 2006
[3] nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-ACohen.cfm (Cohen's talk); Telegraph.co.uk, article by Alex Spillius, December 13, 2006; Associated Press, December 12, 2006
[4] Globe and Mail (Toronto), December 13, 2006
[5] Associated Press, December 12, 2006
[6] counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
[7] Washington Post, December 15, 2006, p.27
[8] Associated Press, December 16, 2006


Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II" "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" "Freeing the world to death: Essays on the American Empire" & "West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir"
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer40.htm

tl;dr

uh....huh?

tl;dr

Islamaphobia is bigger than the World Cup, the Super Bowl, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup and the World Series combined in the West. Anything that caters to the popular minstrelsy of The Evil Brown Jihadi will always gain rave reviews in Western eyes, and attempts to balance them will be shouted down as terrorist sympathy.

Ahmadinejad - Ahm A Dine Jad - Ahm A Die Jihad - I'm a die Jihadi.

Fact? Fiction? Perpendicular Universe?

Or simply a controversial issue?

*yawn*

tl;dr

same

tl;dr
same


title? direct?

title? direct?

Too Late;Drunken Rampage

title? direct?
too long; didn't read

Too Late;Drunken Rampage

ahh, so the person who is posting is too drunk at this time of night to post their angry response?

attempts to balance them will be shouted down as terrorist sympathy.

No, doubt. This super-patriot at another site called Mr A my buddy and quoted about MrA's denial of gay people in Iran.

My only response was "did you even read the post?"

As if attempts to get what MrA said straight, were an agreement with him over everything he has ever said. Typical McCarthyst tactics. How ignorant.

Ahmadinejad is gay. Elisabeth Hasselbeck told me so.

Yeah, that's true.

That said: Ahmadinejad is still a disgusting reactionary homophobic authoritarian fundamentalist against whom every decent person should stand.

My only response was "did you even read the post?"

tl;dr

;)

I listened to him at the UN today. I must say as a speaker he did quiet well. A lot of veiled references to the US but I was expecting this. I agreed with a lot of things he had to say about the need to rewrite the way in which the UN works so that 5 nations don't run it like a tiny kingdom.

tl;dr

;)


sigh. i know. i always seem to post ridiculous things like this elsewhere.
i added some spaces in there.

but at least i know what tl;dr means.

totally loused; don't rain

:upyours::fluffle:

its a strange form of denial eh?

there are no gays in iran but they regularly execute gays. where then do they come from?

he is probably not allowed to admit that of course there are gay people in iran.

He has always just had the last one executed. Just like we have always just killed 75% of Al Qaeda's leadership.

I thought the purpose of life was 42?

It is 42. Most people have not come to the realization yet. ;)

Because hes deemed "unfriendly". If he greased US palms, or greased his ass for US whatever, he'd not receive half the crap he does. Look at the chinese - are they treated like a brutal bunch of
bastards? Not likely.

No and they should be though. Of course, they have to watch their step next year. Of course, if Taiwan declares independence during the Olympics, China would be hard pressed to do anything.

Was Ariel Sharon? Not on yer nelly. In Uzbekistan they were boiling them alive in oil drums while being boasted of as allies in the 'war of terror'.

And then they told us to get the hell out of their country and guess what? We left!

Azerbaijan - led by a dictator, complete with cult of personality and secret police. What funding do the pro-democracy people there get? nada. Why? Hes pro-western interests.

Naw really? Does this remind you of something else? Oh yea...the Cold War where the US propped up allies for being against the commies even if they were dictators and in some cases, put them in power? You sound like this is a novelty.

Now stop starting threads with naive schoolboy bullshit. You're in your twenties. Get sense.

I'm just going to let this go.

This is incredibly disrespectful to a foreign head of state to be treated in such a disgusting way, GW's views are just as outrageous as Ahmadenijad's, yet if he went to Iran I think at the least they would be respectful and not start talking about killing him etc. Once again, typical American arrogance.

And while Ahmadinejad just talks Bush has already started two wars and alienated almost every former ally.

What war did he start? The Iraq war has been going on since 1991 and Al Qaeda declared war on us in 1996 (I think). So tell me what war did Bush start?

What war did he start? The Iraq war has been going on since 1991 and Al Qaeda declared war on us in 1996 (I think). So tell me what war did Bush start?

Who has Iran invaded? Answer the question.

I have a few questions and a few things to say about all this...

First of all, everyone here needs to realize that you are not Ahmadinejad's audience. He is not targeting his words at you. He is trying to get more support in Iran. As well, I don't see why such big emphasis is placed on him, ultimately, if he decides something, and the Ayatollah disagrees, then it's not going to happen.

Now for the people that really dislike him, what was the purpose of the president of the university rambling on about Ahmadinejad's numerous violations on rights and such? Sure it may look good to some people in the U.S., but can you imagine how that's going to be seen in Iran? They're going to say, "Oh look how barbaric they are, they invite our president to a speech just to insult him!" I mean whats the fucking point of doing that, I mean, if you dislike him, why would you do something like that, which really only helps him?

So basically, in America, A. is portrayed as a devil, as usual. And in Iran, guess what? Well, I'll tell you their perception of it all is going to be quite different. His wanting to visit the WTC site was a good gesture, and he was refused. He went to speak at a university, and was totally disrespected before he even got to say anything. Ultimately, people in America think they won, but A. got exactly what he wanted, and all because the fucking hate-mongers.

I bet Bush wants to secretly tell Ahmadinejad that Iran has homosexual/religious legislation the entire GOP is envious of.

This is incredibly disrespectful to a foreign head of state to be treated in such a disgusting way, BW's views are just as outrageous as Ahmadenijad's, yet if he went to Iran I think at the least they would be respectful and not start talking about killing him etc. Once again, typical American arrogance.

Who talked about killing Ahmadenijad? No one that I can see. Typical AP ignorance. And who the hell is BW?

Who has Iran invaded? Answer the question.

Answer that question? How about half the middle east and into Greece or have you not heard of the Persian Empire? :D

Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust - Incorrect, he puts into context it's irrelevance and it's justification by the Israelis for racial/nationalist ideology and occupations/unilateralism.

Ahmadinejad calls for the destruction of Israel - Incorrect, he calls for the destruction of the Zionist regime that occupies Israel to pursue it's racial/nationalist ideology of war and subjugation.

Answer that question? How about half the middle east and into Greece or have you not heard of the Persian Empire? :D
Sorry, but the IRI has only ever since 1979.

Sorry, but the IRI has only ever since 1979.

:headbang:

No kidding the Islamic republic of Iran has been around for nearly 30 years but you asked about Iran. Not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Persia (AKA Iran) had a vast empire. That concludes your history lesson for the day and it is only 1206 AM here.

AP enters yet another thread leading to me falling on the floor in laughter at his ignorant posts.

:headbang:

No kidding the Islamic republic of Iran has been around for nearly 30 years but you asked about Iran. Not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Persia (AKA Iran) had a vast empire. That concludes your history lesson for the day and it is only 1206 AM here.

No, I said Iran as shortword for the Islamic Republic of Iran, as it is defined in wiki, the same reason I say Australia when referring to my birth country, and not the Commonwealth of Australia, or America instead of the USA. So when saying Iran it would be it's current usage, if I were referring to a historical Iran I would have said the Persian Empire.

No, I said Iran as shortword for the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Now you are moving the goalposts.

as it is defined in wiki, the same reason I say Australia when referring to my birth country, and not the Commonwealth of Australia, or America instead of the USA. So when saying Iran it would be it's current usage, if I were referring to a historical Iran I would have said the Persian Empire.

Sorry but you would still lose. Persia/Iran equals to the exact same country. Even I say Iran when referring to the government prior to the Islamic Republic. Persia is the nation's given name but now it goes by Iran and has for longer than the IRA. Ergo, you still lose.

I bet Bush wants to secretly tell Ahmadinejad that Iran has homosexual/religious legislation the entire GOP is envious of.
Probably.

But that doesn't change the fact that Ahmadinejad is a lunatic arsehole. Quit trying to change the subject.

You do realize that the Persian Empire was the greatest civilization/empire at its time? No civilization was greater before it, or during it's time. It was the largest seen, it respected the customs of its conquered, it had an effective and organized government, a complex and interesting religion that raised many important questions and concepts, and so much more. I realize this has nothing to do with the current topic, but I just love talking about the Persian Empire. They were just so amazing, and it's kind of saddening the way they were portrayed in 300. Because historically, the Spartans were the barbarians and the Persians were the cultured ones, but what can you expect in the age of misinformation? Again I realize this isn't really a part of your debate, but the Persian Empire was just too amazing... sorry...

You are right to a point about what you are saying about the Persian Empire. Remember though, the Persians were ruthless when it came to warfare.

AP enters yet another thread leading to me falling on the floor in laughter at his ignorant posts.

I didn't end up falling on the floor more shaking my head...again my argument as to why we need methods for thinning the herd...

:headbang:

No kidding the Islamic republic of Iran has been around for nearly 30 years but you asked about Iran. Not the Islamic Republic of Iran. Persia (AKA Iran) had a vast empire. That concludes your history lesson for the day and it is only 1206 AM here.

You do realize that the Persian Empire was the greatest civilization/empire at its time? No civilization was greater before it, or during it's time. It was the largest seen, it respected the customs of its conquered, it had an effective and organized government, a complex and interesting religion that raised many important questions and concepts, and so much more. I realize this has nothing to do with the current topic, but I just love talking about the Persian Empire. They were just so amazing, and it's kind of saddening the way they were portrayed in 300. Because historically, the Spartans were the barbarians and the Persians were the cultured ones, but what can you expect in the age of misinformation? Again I realize this isn't really a part of your debate, but the Persian Empire was just too amazing... sorry...

Now you are moving the goalposts.



Sorry but you would still lose. Persia/Iran equals to the exact same country. Even I say Iran when referring to the government prior to the Islamic Republic. Persia is the nation's given name but now it goes by Iran and has for longer than the IRA. Ergo, you still lose.

Again, your trying to refer ancient tribal/empire regimes to modern nationstates, saying that the Sassanid or Parthian Empires are the same country that is now Iran is massively ridiculous, on that logic if the Native Americans ever invaded other countries the USA is now responsible for it.

I'll take the Greek republic over Persian dictatorship...and they didn't have shit on the Romans

Again, your trying to refer ancient tribal/empire regimes to modern nationstates, saying that the Sassanid or Parthian Empires are the same country that is now Iran is massively ridiculous, on that logic if the Native Americans ever invaded other countries the USA is now responsible for it.

How about 1953 sound?

On March 21, 1935, Iran was officially accepted as the new name of the country. After Persian scholars' protests to this decision, in 1953 Mohammad Reza Shah announced both names "Iran" and "Persia" could be used.

Source? Wikipedia.

After looking at all important information, ther is nothing to indicate that Persia is not the same as Iran. You lose. AGAIN!!!

I'll take the Greek republic over Persian dictatorship...and they didn't have shit on the Romans

Over spartan society? You'd rather be a spartan? You really need to read more about ancient civilizations. As for the Romans, the Persians were before the Romans, and I said that the Persians were the greatest ever at their time, so it's still true.

Probably.

But that doesn't change the fact that Ahmadinejad is a lunatic arsehole. Quit trying to change the subject.

No it's more than relevant, it points out the hypocrisy of Americans that they are willing to protest and attack his foreign head of state when their own head of state is much the same, in fact he is worst given invasions etc. So my message is simple, Americans: Before you start telling your next door neighbor that his house is a dump, you best try to clean up your own.

How about 1935 sound?



Source? Wikipedia.

After looking at all important information, ther is nothing to indicate that Persia is not the same as Iran. You lose. AGAIN!!!

Well seeing as your immature tantrum seems to be getting out of control, I'll rephrase the question so even you can understand:

'The Islamic Republic of Iran has never invaded a foreign country as an aggressor'.

Please refer future questions to this comment, in the future I will say the IRI instead of 'Iran', and I will also expect you and others to hold to your own 'standards'.

Over spartan society? You'd rather be a spartan? You really need to read more about ancient civilizations. As for the Romans, the Persians were before the Romans, and I said that the Persians were the greatest ever at their time, so it's still true.

I did not specify which Greek city state I would like to have lived in...and yes of their time they were...but the Romans > all civilizations current and other wise...at least for a brief period..before they got over ran with corruption and all that...much the same way the USA is heading...

Well seeing as your immature tantrum seems to be getting out of control,

Can't handle the fact that you do not know what the hell you are talking about?

I'll rephrase the question so even you can understand:

'The Islamic Republic of Iran has never invaded a foreign country as an aggressor'.

And that is a question? Sounds like a statement of fact as it is written in statement form rather than an inquisative form.

Please refer future questions to this comment, in the future I will say the IRI instead of 'Iran', and I will also expect you and others to hold to your own 'standards'.

My standards? My standards are historical fact.

I did not specify which Greek city state I would like to have lived in...and yes of their time they were...but the Romans > all civilizations current and other wise...at least for a brief period..before they got over ran with corruption and all that...much the same way the USA is heading...

Which city-state would you have chosen?

I agree, the Romans were awesome too.

And how does that make it relevant. If the protests and "attacks" are based on truth and good reasons, they are valid regardless of who makes them and what else they do.

Are there gay people in Iran? Yes. Do those people deserve to be strung up in public? No. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes. Would destroying Israel improve anything? No. Would it be the right thing to do? No.

Ahmadinejad is an arsehole who either lies or is a complete nutcase. Anyone who points it out is factually correct, regardless of who it is.

Its AP. Since when does that stop him from spouting his rhetoric?

No it's more than relevant, it points out the hypocrisy of Americans that they are willing to protest and attack his foreign head of state when their own head of state is much the same...
And how does that make it relevant. If the protests and "attacks" are based on truth and good reasons, they are valid regardless of who makes them and what else they do.

Are there gay people in Iran? Yes. Do those people deserve to be strung up in public? No. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes. Would destroying Israel improve anything? No. Would it be the right thing to do? No.

Ahmadinejad is an arsehole who either lies or is a complete nutcase. Anyone who points it out is factually correct, regardless of who it is.

And how does that make it relevant. If the protests and "attacks" are based on truth and good reasons, they are valid regardless of who makes them and what else they do.

Are there gay people in Iran? Yes. Do those people deserve to be strung up in public? No. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes. Would destroying Israel improve anything? No. Would it be the right thing to do? No.

Ahmadinejad is an arsehole who either lies or is a complete nutcase. Anyone who points it out is factually correct, regardless of who it is.
Well even if what some of them say is factually correct (which I don't believe it is, most of the protesters are stupid band wagoners), you look pretty stupid protesting a country on the other side of the world that most have never visited and most likely know little about (save the 'truth' the media tells them), when your country is far worst. Again I believe what they are doing is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Which city-state would you have chosen?

I agree, the Romans were awesome too.

Not certain...have to get back to you on that one...that should be a message Italians get your shit in gear and go pacify the Mediterranean..quit dilly dallying with making Ferrari's...and riding scooters and saying "Chow"

Well even if what some of them say is factually correct (which I don't believe it is, most of the protesters are stupid band wagoners)...
Whether or not they are doesn't change the factuality of the statement.

...you look pretty stupid protesting a country on the other side of the world that most have never visited and most likely know little about (save the 'truth' the media tells them), when your country is far worst. Again I believe what they are doing is the very definition of hypocrisy.
I don't think they're protesting Iran, they're protesting Ahmadinejad in particular and the Iranian regime in general.

Plus, I find it hard to believe that if you're really being objective, you'd prefer living in Iran to living in the US right now.

Plus, I find it hard to believe that if you're really being objective, you'd prefer living in Iran to living in the US right now.
Well that's a matter of opinion, but what's clear is that America is no paradise where children swim in rivers of chocolate. Again it's the height of hypocrisy for Americans to protest the Iranian government when their own has a far worst track record, I mean at least Ahmadenijad was elected, Bush was appointed.

Well that's a matter of opinion, but what's clear is that America is no paradise where children swim in rivers of chocolate. Again it's the height of hypocrisy for Americans to protest the Iranian government when their own has a far worst track record, I mean at least Ahmadenijad was elected, Bush was appointed.

Actually bullshit on two counts. 1) Bush was elected twice in fair elections. He had to run through a primary in 2000 and defeated all of his party's candidates for President. He then defeated Al Gore for President. In 2004, he defeated John Kerry for President as well. 2) As for Iran, the ayatollas vetted out all candidates they did not like because of ideology. You lose again.

Actually bullshit on two counts. 1) Bush was elected twice in fair elections. He had to run through a primary in 2000 and defeated all of his party's candidates for President. He then defeated Al Gore for President. In 2004, he defeated John Kerry for President as well. 2) As for Iran, the ayatollas vetted out all candidates they did not like because of ideology. You lose again.
No, GOP voting caging and general illegal voting measures ensured his victories.

Well that's a matter of opinion, but what's clear is that America is no paradise where children swim in rivers of chocolate. Again it's the height of hypocrisy for Americans to protest the Iranian government when their own has a far worst track record, I mean at least Ahmadenijad was elected, Bush was appointed.

As my other post said repetitive ignorant posts ftl...and why the hell would you want to swim in chocolate...this isn't willy wonka's factory...do you have an orange midget chocolate fetish or something?

Well that's a matter of opinion, but what's clear is that America is no paradise where children swim in rivers of chocolate.
But it must be somewhere close to it, judging by the childhood obesity figures...

Again it's the height of hypocrisy for Americans to protest the Iranian government when their own has a far worst track record, I mean at least Ahmadenijad was elected, Bush was appointed.
Ahmadinejad was appointed too, by the Mullahs who decided who could and couldn't run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tACSopIZVdk
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,507684,00.html

No, GOP voting caging and general illegal voting measures ensured his victories.

Wrong again. Boy you are striking out all over the place. Fact: The butterfly ballot was designed by a democrat. Fact: The problems in Florida 2000 took place in a couple of democratic controlled counties. Fact: Recounts were showing that Bush was gaining votes through the methods that Gore wanted. Fact: When discovered, changes were made and recounts started again. Fact: There was no set standard for recounting votes. (Note: I am not talking about the recount itself but the method by which the recount was conducted) Fact: The US Supreme Court found irregularities in the way the recounts were being done and ended them.

Fact: Florida's electoral votes should have been thrown out and given to nobody.

Well voluntary voting is illegitimate anyways,

WTH?

democracy is for all or none at all.

Exactly. Why do you think very very very few states split their votes but give them to the winner of the State's popular vote tally?

Also you should read Greg Palast, he provides adequate proof for the elections Bush stole.

*yawns*

I'll stick with historical data that proves otherwise.

Well voluntary voting is illegitimate anyways, democracy is for all or none at all. Also you should read Greg Palast, he provides adequate proof for the elections Bush stole.

..you have yet to make one logical..non twisted non completely inaccurate post

Another person stating why this guy is being blamed:

Quite accurately too, if I say so myself. Why don't the Saudis get this public lynch-mob treatment? They're even more rigid, repressive, woman bashing, anti-semitic, anti and un-democratic....Not fucking likely to happen.

Why don't we see this aimed at the Chinese, the organ-stealing executing folk.....When did Ariel Sharon, the bastard, get that treatment?


Iran has super secret spys who found the only two gays in the entire country. Now Iran can sleep at night knowing that they won't be flooded with gays because they cannot reproduce

Yes, if you get them before they lay the eggs, alls well.


I personaly prefer to think that the US invaded Iraq specifically so that it could build top-secret gay-artillery posts along the boarder, from which it can launch gay-shells into Iran to make the population homosexual. That or shells filled with gay people. Whichever.

That was abandoned. And its never anything that funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
They have however, been slipping covert support to dissident Arabs who have set off the odd bomb...

Did it ever occur to you maybe this is just the direct result of democracy?Only of US democracy.

Fact: Florida's electoral votes should have been thrown out and given to nobody.

Finally, after all these years, Corneliu says something I agree with.

Results should have been suspended, and voting should have been recalled in Florida. The result will always be subject to conjecture, speculation, and suspicion. That can only harm the perception of 'American democracy'.

Only of US democracy.

Oh brother.

Finally, after all these years, Corneliu says something I agree with.

Results should have been suspended, and voting should have been recalled in Florida. The result will always be subject to conjecture, speculation, and suspicion. That can only harm the perception of 'American democracy'.

I agree entirely.

Well voluntary voting is illegitimate anyways, democracy is for all or none at all.

That's not particularly democratic, after all, what if I were to desire to not vote, in order to use my lack of vote as a protest against the system itself? Not merely a "none of the above" option which registers displeasure with all the available candidates, but as a method of registering my displeasure with the system?

Also you should read Greg Palast, he provides adequate proof for the elections Bush stole.

Honestly, Greg Palast? If you want to look for anyone who's more of a wannabe messianic figure, you're going to be looking for a long time. He embraces every conspiracy theory, regardless of how trivial or questionable.

Honestly, Greg Palast? If you want to look for anyone who's more of a wannabe messianic figure, you're going to be looking for a long time. He embraces every conspiracy theory, regardless of how trivial or questionable.

Again, a claimed bias, (or an ad hominem argument), is not enough to invalidate a source.

When has a woman ever had fifty, thirty, or twenty children at all, let alone survived to adulthood? In the developed world, it's rare for a woman to have more than two. I mean, hell, even in the developed world a woman has maybe 40-50 years of viable child rearing years, and I can't think of anyone who has ever been constantly pregnant for their entire fertile life.

Strike one!

Tell me, how many brothers and sisters does Osama Bin Laden have?

Of course they will. Leaders of hungry nations don't stay in power very long.

Strike two!

See: Africa. China. Various other, smaller, third-world asian countries.

Who lives and who dies? Surely you would volunteer for this duty? It always seems the people advocating mass killing don't volunteer for it. Also, dehumanization (comparing humans to rabbits, for example) is the first step towards genocide, I'm afraid. Once you remove the value of human life, it becomes so easy to kill without conscience.

I'd volunteer.

Also, I see no value in human life. We're mammals - animals - just like the rest of them.

I'm pretty sure people wouldn't voluntarily allow themselves to be killed no matter how pleasant it is. Murder is still murder and execution still execution no matter who does it or for what purpose.

I would. If I could die painlessly and instantly and it was for a good cause, such as having a large amount of people die off to alleviate the burden upon the world, then I would do it.

To be effective, however, much of the losses would most likely have to come from the places with a higher population in the first place, i.e. China and Africa. Of course the US would take it's percentage as well, as would Europe.

Bigger populations equal more progress and growth. If you don't grow, you decay...even stable populations in the wild grow until they are checked.

What's the word I'm looking for... the one where everything eventually dies or collapses in on itself... entropy?

But even so, no woman will ever have that many kids. You'd have to be pregnant every single year from puberty to menopause.

Strike three!

The bolded parts I disagree with. You won't get 2x jobs, because jobs will disappear with a reduced need for services and goods.

Not all jobs are based upon population or demand, I would think. I'm very sick today, so I can't really think straight enough to imagine any specific ones.

It will be less costly to implement universal healthcare, but there will be fewer people contributing too.

I suppose, but just because the people died doesn't mean their money disappeared with them. It went somewhere - was inherited, given away, stored in a bank, something. It can be used again, and can still be taxed.

Other than that, yes, less traffic, more resources (so presumeably more food = less hunger), environment is still threatened though our threat is largely reduced.

Right-o.

that's 12 and 17 (and note, I said I didn't hear of families with this amount... well, now I can say I have. :p )

so are they still having more children? [not adopted] remember, the remark was 50 children.

50 was the extreme - it's, as far as I can tell, the highest I can imagine. The actual and more often is somewhere below that.

But let's forget the 20, 30, 50 for a second: if one generation has roughly 2 or 3 kids per woman or per family, the population effectively doubles or triples. Go to a daycare and look at how many kids there are - try and estimate how many of them are girls, and take a guess as to how many of them will have kids when they grow up, and how many of them will have more than one. It's exponential. The only thing that keeps the population down is the death of the previous generation, but with modern medicine and diplomacy and technology, people are living longer. Shit, with viagra, many men that previously were unable to give child are now able. We're not dying fast enough to offset our massive growth.

Again, a claimed bias, (or an ad hominem argument), is not enough to invalidate a source.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/26/83915/0129

A fairly thorough overview from DailyKos regarding criticisms of a specific incident that is key to Palast's arguments.

You appeared to be trying to make the point that he isn't as evil as all that, whereas I believe he is a lying bastard. Don't worry though, he's unpopular in Iran at the moment, and will be voted out at the next election. Not that he could do anything while in power anyway.

Negative. It doesn't matter if he does get "voted out" - the religious leaders are the ones with all the power anyway. He's just a figurehead.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/ahmadinejad-questions-911-holocaust/n20070925062109990016

And people wonder why we do not trust Ahmadinejad? This is why!



We know that the Holocaust happened and roughly how many were killed and we also know who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Come on Ahmadinejad, research before speaking. It will make you look better.

I doubt the official story on who carried out 9/11, but I recognize that Ahmie is a fucking moron. He's not doubting it because he thinks it's phony, he's doubting it to cause a stir and start shit.

I thought that part was as funny as his beginning where he was combining religion and science...and then tried to explain away the holocaust by using physics...the whole thing was quite laughable indeed...he has taken the international retard award from Prez Bush...

Oh don't worry, Bush will be coming back stronger than ever with something that blows Ahmie out of the water.

Amongst other things, the key to Palast's work is his reliance on theater and presentation. He presents himself in a manner that is extremely attention grabbing and unique. His visual appearance, even, is one that is only comparable to a reporter from the nineteen-fifties, rather than a journalist from anywhere this side of the last half century. He does what he does the way he does it to play it up, to create a lot of hype, to overemphasize the strong points of his claims, and underemphasize (or totally obliviate) the weak points. And trust me, there are weak points.

His style is unique, confrontation, secretive and at times, caustic. Amongst those elements, he also attempts to exude a messianic air, that he is some sort of savior, with access to secret knowledge that no one else seems to have been able to compile. A criticism that becomes all the more damning in recognition of the fact that he refuses to share certain bits of information, such as the "500 Rove emails". His style and his behavior make it hard for me to take him seriously.

Amongst other things, the key to Palast's work is his reliance on theater and presentation. He presents himself in a manner that is extremely attention grabbing and unique. His visual appearance, even, is one that is only comparable to a reporter from the nineteen-fifties, rather than a journalist from anywhere this side of the last half century. He does what he does the way he does it to play it up, to create a lot of hype, to overemphasize the strong points of his claims, and underemphasize (or totally obliviate) the weak points. And trust me, there are weak points.

His style is unique, confrontation, secretive and at times, caustic. Amongst those elements, he also attempts to exude a messianic air, that he is some sort of savior, with access to secret knowledge that no one else seems to have been able to compile. A criticism that becomes all the more damning in recognition of the fact that he refuses to share certain bits of information, such as the "500 Rove emails". His style and his behavior make it hard for me to take him seriously.

So basically his name is Jimmy and he works with Lois Lane and Clark Kent?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/26/83915/0129

A fairly thorough overview from DailyKos regarding criticisms of a specific incident that is key to Palast's arguments.

That seems to me to suggest you are, once again, trying to invalidate the source, based on an ad hominem. Again - just because you believe data may be compromised, or even if you suspect it is fictitious, there is still no reason to discredit the source. Indeed - there is reason to question the data if it is unsourced, but it could still be valid data - especially if it corroborates another source.

Your source makes one important point - approach all data with skepticism. But that doesn't mean you can just choose to ignore data from someone you don't like, or automatically assume that un-sourced data is false (after all, it might just be that a source is being 'protected').

Negative. It doesn't matter if he does get "voted out" - the religious leaders are the ones with all the power anyway. He's just a figurehead.



I doubt the official story on who carried out 9/11, but I recognize that Ahmie is a fucking moron. He's not doubting it because he thinks it's phony, he's doubting it to cause a stir and start shit.



Oh don't worry, Bush will be coming back stronger than ever with something that blows Ahmie out of the water.

I don't know saying gays don't exist in your country and calling homosexuality a phenomenon like its some anomaly in the universe as well as the whole combining science and religion bit in the first part of his speech is going to be a tough one to beat...but you are right if anyone can do better or worse rather it's good ol president Bush...

Actually bullshit on two counts. 1) Bush was elected twice in fair elections.are you kidding me?

He defeated Al Gore for President.riiight :rolleyes:

are you kidding me?

riiight :rolleyes:

You're getting closer and closer to being in the same category as AP..come back to the light!

are you kidding me?

No I am not.

riiight :rolleyes:

He did. Bush won the majority of the Electoral College. Ergo, he defeated Al Gore.

Negative. It doesn't matter if he does get "voted out" - the religious leaders are the ones with all the power anyway. He's just a figurehead.

Well, when I said "in power" I didn't actually mean having power, which was the point of "he won't actually be able to do anything". I phrased it badly. And as to the religious leaders having all the power, I know, as my posting record will attest.

No I am not.



He did. Bush won the majority of the Electoral College. Ergo, he defeated Al Gore.the SCrOTUS appointed Bush president.

You're getting closer and closer to being in the same category as AP..as long as I am not in the childish ("We are the goodies they are the baddies") category. ;)

the SCOTUS appointed Bush president.

And you are wrong on that point. They did not appoint Bush at all but ended a recount that had no set measure on how to recount. There was no one standard during the Florida Recount. So no. The Supreme Court did not appoint Bush.

Again, a claimed bias, (or an ad hominem argument), is not enough to invalidate a source.

There is one circumstance in which an ad hominem is valid, and that is in response to an argument from authority. AP only cited Greg Palast, not his arguments or evidence, so strictly speaking the attack was valid.

And you are wrong on that point. They did not appoint Bush at all but ended a recount that had no set measure on how to recount. There was no one standard during the Florida Recount. .... The election of Bush at Floridagate was conducted in a manner which was illegal, immoral and undemocratic.

Now, you can re-repeat -again and again- you denial.. .. but since you have no new elements since the last time.. I am going to put this in my sig so we don't have to repeat the same debate every 3 months. ;)

The election of Bush at Floridagate was conducted in a manner which was illegal, immoral and undemocratic.

Florida's votes should have been tossed out by Congress and they did not do so.

Now, you can re-repeat -again and again- you denial.. .. but since you have no new elements since the last time.. I am going to put this in my sig so we don't have to repeat the same debate every 3 months. ;)

So you are going to put something in your sig that I said was 100% correct? WOW THANKS!!!

Florida's votes should have been tossed out by Congress and they did not do so.
...

So you are going to put something in your sig that I said was 100% correct? WOW THANKS!!!your welcome, sig is up :cool:

I believe a certain Old Testament clearly expresses dislike for gays. I also believe the Koran does.

The two usual references that are used - the story of Lot which is actually relating to rape, not homosexual conduct.

And a Hadith which most scholars have actually dismissed as having very little evidence to have it traced back to the Prophet.

What we see is more to do with the macho/female hating culture rather than being a biproduct of Islam per-say.