President Ahmadinejad Speaks, at Columbia University and at the United Nations Options

[The Fanatic]

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

The most interesting part of his entire speech is when the president was questioned about the persecution of women and the execution of homosexuals. At first he avoided the question talking about the execution of drug traffickers and people who "broke the law". When he was finally forced to answer, he claimed that Iran did not have "this problem" aka homosexuals in Iran , unlike the united states and other western nations. I laughed out loud when I heard this ridiculous claim. Perhaps homosexuals are not entirely "open" about their lifestyle in Iran because of executions, thus they do not exist and are not a "problem".

He also kept on claiming that the holocaust needs more research/scientific and scholarly criticism, as is true with other fields such as physics. However, he fails to realize or admit that there is actual forensic, eye-witness, and living people who can account for the holocaust, unlike some principals of physics.

Any other thoughts?

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Sep 24 2007, 01:48 PM

[The Fanatic]

Let's not forget who the real NON-ELECTED ruler of Iran is:



A few quick points:

Billy, comparing the big bang theory to the holocaust is preposterous. Definitely an apples and oranges thing. We have never observed the big bang. In fact, physics can not even explain the singularity. This is not a bad thing for the big bang, however it falls short in comparison to the holocaust which was widely documented, witnessed and experienced by millions of people.

Secondly, I don't see any problem with Columbia allowing the president of Iran to speak at their university. It is usually a wise idea to at least know something about the person your dealing with, and what better way to do that then to have questions fielded by faculty and students alike . Proving that politicians in Iran are a lot like politicians in America when it comes to answering question about policy.

Thirdly, we can call Iran brutal, evil, barbaric, along with many other things. And I know I am going to get slack for even suggesting that America has something to do with the regime that is in power today. However, we unfortunately do. Remember that revolution against the shah of Iran in 1979? Well we kind of put that dude in power after we helped oust the democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh (Which was headed by Kermit Roosevelt Jr, grandson to Teddy) because he nationalized the oil industry (which was controlled by British Petroleum at the time) in Operation Ajax in 1953.

a condition of restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the U.S. required that the AIOC's oil monopoly lapse. Five major U.S. oil companies, plus Royal Dutch Shell and French Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were designated to operate in the country alongside AIOC after a successful coup.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

So, naturally when the Iranians revolted in 1979 (originally a broad coalition of liberal, socialist, moderates, and unfortunately religious extremists) they were not exactly ethusiastic about the United States. In fact, that probably had a lot do with why they took the hostages.

I guess this is my point. Is Iran a barbaric theocracy with a different ideology then the United States. Yes. Do they want to destroy us? Probably, but I think they should be much more worried about us then we should be worried about them. Basically, this whole going around the world police bullshit is getting us in a lot more trouble in the long run. The short term goals always look more promising to us but is it really worth it in the end? Should we trust Iran? No. But I also don't think we need to judge the regime as harshly as we do considering the implications of the past.

This post has been edited by Dr. Gonzo: Sep 25 2007, 01:04 AM

[Billy]

Billy, comparing the big bang theory to the holocaust is preposterous. Definitely an apples and oranges thing. We have never observed the big bang.

I am not going to make a more in-depth rebuttal, but have you read up on the Big Bang before you made this claim? There is quite a bit of observation. I will let the wikipedia entry speak for me. After reading this entry, if you are still convinced that comparing a cosmological observation that is constantly denied by religious followers to an observed historic event that is constantly denied by political opponents is analagous to comparing apples and oranges, I doubt any internet debate will change your mind; nor mine.

I apologize for the tangent.

[THECHICKEN]

I am not going to make a more in-depth rebuttal, but have you read up on the Big Bang before you made this claim? There is quite a bit of observation. I will let the wikipedia entry speak for me. After reading this entry, if you are still convinced that comparing a cosmological observation that is constantly denied by religious followers to an observed historic event that is constantly denied by political opponents is analagous to comparing apples and oranges, I doubt any internet debate will change your mind; nor mine.

I apologize for the tangent.

Pretty sure most agree you are comparing apples to oranges (scientific theory to historical fact)


But nothing anyone says will change your mind so alas, what is the point.

[Billy]

Pretty sure most agree you are comparing apples to oranges (scientific theory observation to historical fact)
But nothing anyone says will change your mind so alas, what is the point.

Then most are wrong.