President of Iran

dude, benditto, youre a fucking tool, alright?

I don't think the US is calling for an immenent war with Iran. More like reprimands against a nuclear program that nobody has sanctioned.

It is naive to think, however, that Iran has never been involved in terrorism (as you seemingly defended in that earlier post). I am not saying this is means to attack now, but remember 1983 (or course not, and neither do I)? Iranian funded and supported Hezbollah blew up the US Marines barracks in Beiruit, killing over something like 300 people. Not to mention the continuous support of Hezbollah to this day, but whatever.

And Ahmadinejad isn't the most beloved guy in the world when he says shit like "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" (although not said during this visit, but still).
 
Are you serious? Cause if you are then you are a fucking tool and the president of Iran may be crazy but you gotta admit he has some balls to do a speech like that in front of a bunch of Americans who hate him.
 
if you knew anything about the region you'd know it's a religious choice for women to dress the way we all perceive them to dress.

you see some oppressed women and say 'they must all be oppressed'

you see some women being treated unfairly and say 'they must all be treated unfairly'

get out of the stereotype and stop generalizing.
 
Okay, I'll take the bait one more time.

By brining up the US in an argument the is about the Iranian president, you attempt to draw comparisons. This is because you believe everything is fundamentally the same when boiled down to a basic level. Again, I used the example of Genghis Kahn to Hitler. They did some things that parallel, but differ greatly. Perhaps an even better example would be to compare Stalin to Hitler.

That is why I do not agree with what you saying, or at least what you are very strongly implying by the content of your posts. I have said nothing in this thread other than Iran's president is crazy. And I fully believe that, because he has demonstrated tendencies that lead me to believe he is a danger to the international community.

He's crazy. You may not think so, but he is. I said I could fill a book with all the stupid/harmful things he says and does...and I could. I wonder if you can do the same for all the good things he's done? It's not even as simple to say that everyone in Iran agrees with him. Hell, a fair percentage of the Persian population thinks he's nuts too. And don't bring up this "What about the US?" crap. It's deviating from the point.

Whats so great about they guy? That post you threw up doesn't mean anything. Words do not nessisarily constitute actions. I would also imagine he would be candid has hell being interviewed by American press. But thats just me.
 
ok all i'm trying to say is that i think the president of the united states is crazy and judging by the history of our own country that we have cause much more suffering and hurt for mankind than iran or its crazy president has ever done. i just wish you would see that point and realize that perhaps our country has done things which are much worse in the big picture than anything a tiny country like iran has done
 
I'm sorry but, not letting him visit ground zero was a very dumb idea, because now it just pushes the perseption that the U.S doesn't like the middle east and that everyone is crazy in the states. If you really want to solve things in the middle east you should probably let him come to the States, go to ground zero, go to Columbia and let him say what he came to say, make him feel welcomed, and then let him leave. You don't need to like the guy, in fact I don't know many people that do, but you show him respect and what the U.S is supposed to be about, and hopefully it will change his mind.

And, what difference does it make if he actually goes to the 9/11 memorial, he didnt fly the planes into the building. Alot of the press portrays him as a terrorist, but c'mon, beleive half of what you see and read. He is a nutbar, but not letting him visit the 9/11 memorial was simlpy dumb.
 
Which I do not agree with one bit. History and circumstances vary far too greatly to make a clear assessment as to why things did or didn't happen.
 
I keep hearing this from people, but I have yet to see any numbers that support that claim. Got any ideas on how to make a fair conclusion about that?
 
ok here we go good things the president of iran has said and this is just from one speech!

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The human path is a movement from darkness to light. The truth of the world, of this universe, is pure, and the creator of the world is free of all forms of lies and deceits and oppression. The right path is the path to piety.

Lies are incompatible with the truth of mankind and with the objectives that the divine lord has given us for humanity. Lies are an incorrect reflection of the reality and a reflection of those behavior of the liars and the way they think.

Lies have nothing to do with the divine spirit of mankind. Lies deviate thoughts and lead to judgments that weaken the truth and deviate man's path.

Therefore, lies and deceits are in fact a form of oppressing mankind.

We are all against that form of oppression, of oppression of all sorts. Powers or human beings who create insecurity and impose it on the world, who threaten this divine creature and disable him from flourishing his talents, commit the highest forms of oppression by disallowing that man -- not allowing man to move from this material world up to the divine, to the heavens.

So, from a divine prospective as well as from a humane prospective, insecurity, violence, terror, are not all simple challenges or perhaps one oppression or deviation from the collective rights of individuals and people. That is not just simply the case. Rather, it goes broader. That level of insecurity is oppressing mankind in its totality.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The press plays a connecting role and it provides information and can serve as channel for promoting correct thinking. The role of the press is to disseminate moral behavior, to disseminate goodness, purity, honesty, peace, security and all positive messages that arise from that. And this role is extremely significant.

God forbid, they must prevent the dissemination of hatred and impurity and insecurity. For in that sense, too, they play a very sensitive role.

The press can be the voices of the divine prophets or, God forbid, the voice of those who seek the worst and those who oppress humanity.

Time will pass and join history. So, it is best for all of us to seek peace, security and purity, and let that remain for prosperity.

There are some powerful groups that do not allow that. Their interest rests in belittling mankind. Their interests rest in the unawareness of mankind. Their interests rest in controlling the free flow of information. Their interests rest on attacking and aggressing other nations and the rights of other people.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Their interests rest on producing weapons and to sell those weapons and arms.

But our human responsibility requires us to reflect on the reality and truth as it is, and to bring the message of peace and friendship for all humanity. I hope that we will all succeed in our efforts.

I am very glad to meet with all of you again today and look forward to receiving your comments and views.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, President Ahmadinejad.

MODERATOR: The 2007 Amnesty International report on Iran said the following: "Freedom of expression and association were increasingly curtailed. Internet access was increasingly restricted and monitored. Journalists and bloggers were detained and sentenced to prison or flogging. And at least 11 newspapers were closed."

Why?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I think people who prepared the report are unaware of the situation in Iran.

In our country, law prevails. Freedom is flowing at its highest level. You know that the newspaper that also -- you know that a government newspaper was actually shut down because it engaged in illegal acts; a newspaper that was reflecting the views of the head of the state. But because it insulted a figure and disrespected the rights of the people by insulting a group, it was shut down.

You know that on a daily basis, we have tens -- many, many newspapers or dozens of newspapers in our country, and the number of those newspapers that are against the government in place right now are perhaps 10 times larger than the newspapers that are pro- government.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR: In our country there are tens of millions of people who are connected to the Internet. They have access to it.

So if you're talking about immoral -- like access perhaps to immoral sites, well, you would agree with me that those sites are harmful for society. Nobody can really allow access to those.

But our people are the freest people in the world, the most aware people in the world, the most enlightened, so to say. So the person who prepared this report I would say, had he had the chance to walk in Iran, in Tehran and other cities, and visit them in Iran, and to really sit down with people and speak with them, would have understood that people in Iran are very joyous, happy people, and very free, and very much aware of all world developments on -- as it continues on every minute, every second.

And they're very free in expressing what they think.

Last year in the university a minority group of 100 people stood against over 2,000 people, students who were -- who supported the president. And they were screaming and they tried to disrupt a session. They were left alone.

And the president sat down for two hours and listened to all of them. And right now they are free -- they're walking freely.

I think the people who give this information should seek what is the truth and, sort of, disseminate what's correct.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): So I invite everyone present in this meeting to come and visit Iran for themselves, to come freely and visit the country all over, to speak with the people there. Then their point of view will change.

MODERATOR: OK, I think we should move on from that question to the following: Iranian women are campaigning for an end to discrimination. You have charged them with acting against national security. Some women leaders have been beaten and tortured. How do you justify such violations of human rights?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Can you again tell me where you get this report from?

(LAUGHTER)

The freest women in the world are women in Iran. You should look at our women. They're active in every level of society, as researchers, in social groups, in universities, in parties, in the press, in the arts, in politics, in political associations. They're one of the most active women in the world and very free.

On the anniversary of the victory of the revolution, 22nd of Bahmani Iranian calendar, a year over 20 million women come to rally in support of the revolution and many of them hold key positions. There are two female vice presidents in our country.

In very high specialized fields they're involved, as well. Over 60 percent of university students are female. And especially in the, you know, very specialized fields, as I said, are women of -- have won medals in international, sort of, athletic championships.

MODERATOR: Why will Iran not agree to a civilian nuclear partnership with other countries? Why must Iran enrich its own uranium, when doing so raises suspicions that it intends to develop nuclear weapons?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): First of all, that's our right. We are a member of the IAEA, and the bylaws of the IAEA explicitly grant us that right.

Secondly, two years ago, I made the same proposal you just, sort of, referred to in the United Nations, but those selfish groups that didn't want to listen to it did not embrace it.

And why should a nation tie its future to another group, another nation?

Is the U.S. government willing to engage in partnership with us and advance its nuclear activities in partnership with us?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): If they're willing to do that, we're willing to do it, too.

Are they willing to divide their rights with us?

Why do you think the U.S. administration government, which is a member of the IAEA, should have more rights over Iran, which is also a member of the IAEA? If there is law, international law, it's equal for everyone. Why is it that some people want more rights for themselves?

MODERATOR: Would you be willing to go to war to defend your program?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We think that the talk of war is basically a propaganda tool.

Why is there a need for war? People who talk about it have to bring a legal reason for going to war. Why should they threaten another country? Why should they create more insecurity?

I think officials who talk this kind of talk should really be pressured and warned to know what to say and when not to say something. They cannot endanger world security. And if they haven't learned the lesson, then the international community has to tell them how to learn that lesson.

Of course, the foreign minister of France revised what he said. And I don't think that the French nation is a kind of nation who would want that kind of war.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They're a very cultured society, very cultured group of people, people who have good relations with the Iranian people.

I think, of course, give the foreign minister to gain more experience in his new position, too, and then I'm sure he'll talk from a level with more higher maturity.

Is there any circumstance in which the Islamic Republic of Iran and the state of Israel can coexist in peace?

AHMADINEJAD: (SPEAKING IN PERSIAN)

MODERATOR: Excuse me, we're not getting the translation. Excuse me. We are not getting your translation, Mr. President.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We do not recognize that regime because it is based on discrimination, ethnic discrimination, occupation usurpation, and it consistently threatens its neighbors.

Last week or so it attacked Syria, and last year or so it attacked Lebanon.

And when they talk about their goals, they speak about taking over the area between Nile through the Euphrates. This is occupation and expansionism in the true sense of those words.

And they discriminate between people. They kill people. They displace people. They kill young people in their own homes.

How is it possible to recognize it?

I'm surprised why members of the press don't raise voices of objection to the policies there.

MODERATOR: Would you be willing to meet with Holocaust survivors who wanted to discuss their experiences with you? And why or why not?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): What do you want to happen from this?

MODERATOR: I don't -- I'm just asking the question that was handed to me.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I raised two questions about the Holocaust.

I said if the Holocaust happened and is a reality -- when, granted that the Holocaust is a reality, then why don't we allow more research to be done on it?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Why are European researchers sent to prison when they question some nature (ph) or aspect of it?

Assuming that it -- the Holocaust -- well, the reality of the Holocaust is here, it saddens us when any human being is killed; Jews, Christians, Muslims -- no difference.

But let us remember then, when did -- where did the Holocaust happen to begin with? It happened in Europe. And given that, why is it that the Palestinian people should be displaced? Why is it affecting them? Why are they paying the damage by giving up their land? Why?

That's what our question is based on. It's a very right question to ask. It's very transparent. It doesn't need me to sit down and meet with anybody. Although, of course, I would welcome any meeting.

But my questions remain the same. They're very clear and I want answers that are as clear.

I just wanted to ask you, Mr. President, about your thoughts and your feelings about the reaction to your visit -- your proposed visit to ground zero and your visit later this afternoon at Columbia University. Why do you think both of those proposed visits have caused such controversy in New York City?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Last year I wanted to go to ground zero, as well. I was interested in expressing my sympathy to the victims of that tragedy. And I think that it is the responsibility of all of us to also understand the root causes of events like 9/11. And that was on my plan and agenda this year, as well.

Columbia University has invited me to be there. It is an official invitation. And there are some pro-government members of the press that were -- that objected to it very severely. They have provoked the people, so to say.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And this is sad to watch. I think we should all have the capacity to listen to everything.

I announce, explicitly and clearly, here: We oppose the way the U.S. government tries to manage the world. We believe it's wrong. We believe it leads to war, discrimination and bloodshed.

And that we propose more humane methods of establishing peace. We think that the world can be led in more humane ways than it is now, through peace, brotherhood and friendship, and through justice.

We say this very clearly.

Why is it that some people don't want to hear anything else, or people to hear just another point of view? It goes against the grain of freedom of speech and freedom of information here. All voices should be heard.

Last year, a reporter asked me about what the president of the United States had said to the Iranian people about addressing them. And I welcomed it. I said we want him to talk to our people every day. Whatever comes to his mind, he should tell our people. And we'll encourage people to hear what he has to say as well.

I'm surprised, in a place where they claim that they have freedom of information, they are trying to prevent people from talking. That's not good.

MODERATOR: OK.

In 1979, during the Islamic revolution in Iran, Iranian students captured more than 50 American hostages and held them captive for 444 days. Do you believe this was morally justified, and if so, why? Or was it wrong?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I propose we don't return to the past, because then we'd have to talk about records of 25 years of measures taken by the U.S. administration inside Iran and that history as well, from the coup in 1953 through its support of a dictatorship and the humiliation of the Iranian people and efforts to divide Iran and to insult the Iranian people, robbing Iran of its resources, and defending Saddam during an eight-year war against Iran.

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I think everything should be examined within it's own time period and frame, and instead of the past, we must now begin to think of the future.

Let the future be a bright future.
 
yea i do have an idea on how to make a fair conclusion about that. perhaps you could research what the united states has been doing aroundt he world since wwII and you would realize why people are telling you this. all the information is out there for you to discover
 
That is why America is so great. freedom and justice for ALL. I'm ignorant because I recognize the blatantly obvious human rights violations in Iran without trying to constantly make excuses for an irrational dictator?
 
And compare it to an Iranian regime that hasn't even been around since WW2? Thats not an answer by they way. Answering a question with another question isn't going to put this to bed. I want some numbers. You're telling to simply "go do some research." If its so obvious that I'll find what I'm looking for, shouldn't it be just as easy for you to show it to me?
 
No one has brought up that when he spoke at Columbia University they blacked out or covered up everything that had the Columbia University inisgnia on it. Someone definately doesn't want people to associate the two.
 
i really dont understand that reasoning. just because i question my own govternment does not mean that i should live in a different country. if you think thats the truth than you are rather unpatriotic so shove it up your piehole
 
Actually reading your previous posts....you seem totally against all the wars America has fought...which would consequently dispell all the liberties and freedoms America maintained by fighting....whos unpatriotic?
 
I agree with the kid everyone is calling a tool, after world war 2 how many of the wars did america really need to become a part in. why vietnam, why dessert storm, maybe the new Iraq war was warranted somewhat, but the reason for that war was because they had weapons of mass destruction funnily enough we didn't find them and 3 years later we are still in Iraq. you talk about the freedom that came with wars, none of those freedoms have occured since ww2 so your point person above is essentially irrelevant. Also, Iran's and America's leaders are NOT apples and oranges. They are the two leaders of their respective countries, therefore you can compare the two (Maybe not the countries). I find our government is bullying growing (economically, powerfully) countries more and more, obviously because we somewhat fear these coutries and in no way are a lot of america's policies justified. Maybe a lot of people need to start being a little less patriotic, and see what is best for the world.
 
Its funny to see people supporting the views of Ahmadinejad so feverishly. Iran is home to one of the biggest terrorist networks in the world and there has been much information to support them being in a kind of nexus with Hezbollah. How can you sit there and talk how we should diplomatically resolve issues with these "terrorists" when not so long ago 3000 innocent American lives were lost. Ahmadinejad can talk all he wants for peace in the middle east, but I have a feeling he is playing both sides of the fence....anyone can say the right things...
 
who has said that they are supporting his views? I think that people are just trying to show that maybe he isn't that bad, and that all the negative press against him is not deserved, which the majority of it is not. he has made some dumb comments, but he has also made some very intelligent ones too, but the media and news don't show the positive side only the negative.America have some reasonably sized terrorist organizations too. Also there have been terrorist attacks in other countries Spain, United Kingdom, etc. and we don't see all these countries running off to war. and "anyone can say the right things", the same applies to our own government. Just think about it.
 
Interesting read.

The whole thing changes when you read the whole thing and not just select out of context quotes.
 
I am not about to hop in with Ahmadinejad's opinions and policies. In his past comments he said the Holocaust was a complete myth, he has also called for Israel to be wiped off the map, along with other zionist nations. In the Quran it is stated that they must extend an invitation to the "infidels" to convert to Islam before they will be killed. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly extended invitations in his UN tirade and also at his little get together at CU. The man can talk fancy all he wants and talk in circles, but when it comes down to it...I am just going to sit back and watch as things develop
 
yeah last I checked their policy on homosexuals was a nice, "off with the head"....thats why im willing to bet most of the homosexuals are in the closet in Iran..
 
on the homosexual topic he said "in iran we dont have that problem, their are no gays, not one" what a fucker, we should just kill him while he's here
 
everyone likes to think that if its not a western culture, that its all markets and filth. they have office buildings. they wear suits and ties. they dont all drive around packed 100 to a bus, holding onto side railings. they have cell phones.
 
Freedoms a relative term. It rarely occurs to people that the majority of people in the middle east are comfortable living the way they have been for thousands of years and that any change should be made on their own terms. For the most part, they dont idolize our way of living, not the way the media presents it to be, which is to say millions of repressed people coerced by a police state crying for the same rights we have. Ask most women who are covered up and theyll reply that they wouldnt want to live any other way because its their duty to their god, which is fine.

Iran should be left alone and for that matter, as much of a bastard as Saddam was, Iraq should've been too.

I'll toe the different line for Afghanistan which has really started to benefit from the assistance, at least in the populated urban areas, which is more then the coalition in Iraq can say. Afghanistan was a truly fucked up state.

Take it with a grain of salt, I just see freedom as a matter of one's own perspective, not one golden ideal that applies to all nations and all peoples.
 
I do feel like we as society think if it is not a westernized culture that they aren't "happy" or "content" with their way of life. I have done alot of traveling to other "3rd" world countries on medical trips and in most cases these people are the most happiest. It seems like without all the "stuff" we put such a high priority on these people are the most genuine and happiest people ever...
 
I am sorry but their leader is a NUTJOB and he is trying to usher in the end-times according to the Quran....I have nothing against the Iraqi or Iranian people. But I am not about to stand up for the crazys and their parliaments along with the terrorist groups they support...
 
So theres consistent military plan transcending election terms? If only. I would dream of a day where any government is able to plan that far ahead for anything. It's a bit far fetched if you don't look at it though tinted glasses. The government has, however, for years kept war plans for each country and region in the world. If I remember correctly, its something that came together in the post-WWII era under Eisenhower. However, they are revised and updated constantly. And I find it unlikely its drafted so the presidents can play Real World Risk. Some collect a lot of dust while other stay fresh at the top of the pile. But the reason we have returned to the Middle East is not because of a master plan, but because there have been individual social, political, and economic implications as to the goings on in the region. The context is different every time. But to say they are all interrelated for the reason of conquest and control is rubbish. I'm inclined to think it would have already happened if that were the case. An exit strategy would also probably not exist. This "Long War" business sounds like the bogeyman. Sources are spotty too and largely out of context. Putin's opinion of Americans dealings shouldn't count for much. And the quotes from Zbigniew Brzezinski are out of context from writings that Brzezinski even says himself are outdated. For something thats trying to do an analysis of global affairs, I think the author is a bit behind the curve. It's not cost effective to blow shit up, leave for ten years, then come back and repeat the process.

I only skimmed the second link because I already have a predetermined dislike for Naomi Klein. That fact that she is still in this anti-globalization hoopla screws her perception of reality. I can't read it objectively, so I'm not going to waste anybodies time dissecting it.

Well, that was a great diversion of the tropic. The opinion pieces were nice and I have my own thanks. You have those numbers I actually asked for?
 
Benditto check this out http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3663456

The story states how Ahmadinejad recently met with Hugo Chavez and after talking he prublicly said that no one could defeat them. The exact quote is "Together we are surely growing stronger, and in truth no one can defeat us," the Iranian leader said through an interpreter. Apparently referring to the U.S., he said, "Imperialism has no other option: Respect the peoples (of the world) or accept defeat."

I know it will mean nothing to you and you will stand up for Ahmadinejad no matter what but just thought you could chew on that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top