No Homosexuality in Iran
 

I just heard Ahmadenijad say so. They don't have it in Iran like we have it here. "Who told you we have it?" he asked.

Maybe it's because they're getting rid of all of them . . .

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

Also there are no homosexuals in NFL locker rooms.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

They haven't gotten rid of all of them, they stoned it out of the populace

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also there are no homosexuals in NFL locker rooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in Iran, at least.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

I like how this will get so much focus, and when he said things that would really connect with the American people and were in the American vein it just gets buried by the media.

My favorite part of his speech:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though, by creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability.
Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents which might be witness in even the next generations to come. Presently, effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.
Another point of sorrow, some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.
This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophet. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like how this will get so much focus, and when he said things that would really connect with the American people and were in the American vein it just gets buried by the media.

My favorite part of his speech:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though, by creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability.
Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents which might be witness in even the next generations to come. Presently, effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.
Another point of sorrow, some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.
This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophet. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way would this connect with any American except a leftie with his head in the sand? Give me a P, give mean R give me an O....

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

What are you spelling, Copernicus?

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like how this will get so much focus, and when he said things that would really connect with the American people and were in the American vein it just gets buried by the media.

My favorite part of his speech:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though, by creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability.
Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents which might be witness in even the next generations to come. Presently, effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.
Another point of sorrow, some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.
This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophet. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way would this connect with any American except a leftie with his head in the sand? Give me a P, give mean R give me an O....

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

prophet? liberal = go Muhammad?

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

"I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American. "

Exactly the "head in the sand" leftie I was talking about.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just heard Ahmadenijad say so. They don't have it in Iran like we have it here. "Who told you we have it?" he asked.

Maybe it's because they're getting rid of all of them . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

The Atlantic Monthly article a few months back on the way homosexuality is treated in Saudi Arabia was pretty interesting. My guess is you read it (for the rest of you I won't bother with Atlantic Monthly links, they block access so you need to subscribe).

Gist of the article was that essentially it's very common and easy to find a hook up (i.e., you won't get your hands chopped off as long as they keep it discrete, sort of like "don't ask don't tell").

~ Rick

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug05/Iran-Hanging.jpg

That's what happens there if you are gay. Pic is from 2005, not sure if they still hang kids for being gay now.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American. "

Exactly the "head in the sand" leftie I was talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is reasonable to hold your view point, do you think it is reasonable to believe that the fear of terrorism is overblown?

I think that people in the middle east are generally poor with little access to much power, especially the kind of people who would actually be carrying out attacks. I am nearly sure that these people as a whole could launch attacks on america that would kill americans, I am at the same time fairly convinced that their ability to do anything that would effect the functioning of our country as much as our "war on terror", or kill anywhere near an many innocent civilians somewhat preposterous.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

Nothing warms your heart quite like a coersive state that understands its moral authority...

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

Whatever insight he might offer is mitigated by his authoritarianism, his out-and-out lying, and his inabiility to give a straight answer to any question asked of him. "Yes" and "no" are not in his vocabulary. His administration is cracking down on dissent, on women, and on homosexuals. When he gives yo ua whopper like there's no homosexuality in Iran, it makes his listeners think nothing he says can be believed.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

"QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?

AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom.

We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well.

It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth.

Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?

But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them?

People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.

(APPLAUSE) "


Do you think people realize they are applauding at someone who is promoting the death penalty for homosexuals? Or do you think they heard capital punishment and thought 'yeah, the US should get rid of capital punishment!' The ignorance is astounding.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

For those who don't know, President Ahmadinejad was in New York for a UN conference and he gave a speech at Columbia University. The Columbia President introduced him and ripped him during the introduction.

Transcript of Columbia President's speech

News article about appearance.

Earlier thread

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever insight he might offer is mitigated by his authoritarianism, his out-and-out lying, and his inability to give a straight answer to any question asked of him. "Yes" and "no" are not in his vocabulary. His administration is cracking down on dissent. When he gives you a whopper like intelligent design should be taught in school, it makes his listeners think nothing he says can be believed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which leader were we talking about again? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

Yah honestly. All this freedom crap...can't american's just look in the mirror for awhile? Wasn't like 2 weeks ago some Senator looking for some gay action in the washroom only to find out that they have cops in there looking to stop that kind of stuff. Oh so they don't kill people in America, it just ruins your career and public image? Okay fine...Oh and god doesn't think gays should marry so they can't...what if god told P.Bush that gays should all die?

I don't know, it just seems really screwy this whole visit. I mean what that hell, and that [censored] idiot of a University Pres...You have access to such a powerful person in an acedemic setting and all you can do is help hate monger your staff/country???? [censored] idiot.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

Oh and has Bush ever visited an Iraqi University to discuss his foreign policy?

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just heard Ahmadenijad say so. They don't have it in Iran like we have it here. "Who told you we have it?" he asked.

Maybe it's because they're getting rid of all of them . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Which just adds more irony to the fact that as of a couple of years ago, the only rock and roll allowed to be sold in Iran was Queen because Freddy Mercury was Iranian. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
All this freedom crap...can't american's just look in the mirror for awhile?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking everywhere is appropriate, including in the mirror.

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't like 2 weeks ago some Senator looking for some gay action in the washroom only to find out that they have cops in there looking to stop that kind of stuff. Oh so they don't kill people in America, it just ruins your career and public image?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy should not have been soliciting sex from strangers in a public restroom. There are plenty of gay bars or anonymous meeting sites or matchup services he could undoubtedly have found and used. I think people should have the freedom to use public restrooms without being hassled or solicited for sex by strangers. He was totally out of line and he is just paying the public price for it since he is in a job that places him under public scrutiny.

There are times and a places for everything and public restrooms are not the place for accosting strangers or making them feel uncomfortable or even potentially endangered, by propositioning them for sex. If someone did what he did in the stall next to me, I would have no idea that it was a "code", and I would feel threatened and think that the guy was probably a nut and possibly dangerous. Keep your foot in your own stall and don't press it against mine you creep. I can't see why people are defending his conduct. If some stranger rubs your butt it is assault, right? Why isn't this also assault of some type (?) or something like that; he is making deliberate and uninvited physical contact.

Maybe he shouldn't have been arrested but he at least should have been kicked out and warned not to return. He would probably claim the foot contact was "an accident", but the hand motion under the adjoining stall sure wasn't. Well I guess it would be "an accident" if someone next to him stood up and stomped on his toes. Come to think of it, I think that would have been more appropriate then arresting him. Toe stomp hard (doesn't have to be a policeman; better if it's not), "apologize", then get him kicked out for not keeping his feet to himself.

There is no reason men should be subjected to crap like this any more than women should have to endure a subway masher or something like that.

Thanks for reading.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to advance your agenda you don't use murderous lunatic leaders in your "for" arguments. It makes reasonable people question your judgement. This all reminds me of leftists using Stalin and Mao to help criticize the US Government. Woops! Turns out they are mass murderers.

This is the same reason I don't use George Bush or Dick Cheney as examples to support a point even if I happened to agree with some random thing they said. This isn't science where the person speaking shouldn't matter. It's politics, and it matters who they are.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to advance your agenda you don't use murderous lunatic leaders in your "for" arguments. It makes reasonable people question your judgement. This all reminds me of leftists using Stalin and Mao to help criticize the US Government. Woops! Turns out they are mass murderers.

This is the same reason I don't use George Bush or Dick Cheney as examples to support a point even if I happened to agree with some random thing they said. This isn't science where the person speaking shouldn't matter. It's politics, and it matters who they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the context of my post. I wasn't using MA as a poster child for an argument, I was asked what he said that a liberal could identify with. That is what he said and liberals definitely identify with that.

edit: tactically I agree with you, a liberal shouldn't use MA, mao, chavez, or stalin, a conservative shouldn't use Bush, Pinochet, Hitler, or Mussolini. That being said there is no problem with using certain arguments of their if they had inherent merit.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about?

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the context of my post. I wasn't using MA as a poster child for an argument, I was asked what he said that a liberal could identify with. That is what he said and liberals definitely identify with that.

edit: tactically I agree with you, a liberal shouldn't use MA, mao, chavez, or stalin, a conservative shouldn't use Bush, Pinochet, Hitler, or Mussolini. That being said there is no problem with using certain arguments of their if they had inherent merit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to look at the motives of the speaker. If someone on this forum starts a thread saying that the death penalty in the US is wrong, we can safely assume he wants to further discussion and profitably engage him on the subject. When MA mentions the US death penalty in his remarks, it's not because he cares who the US executes. It's to deploy a smokescreen over his own misdeeds and divert attention from what he was questioned about. Even if his point is valid, it's irrelevant to the point it was offered on, and it's used to stifle, not promote discussion. (See also for the liberally inclined when Bush or someone is asked about Iraq and they start talking about 9/11.) That's not the sort of behavior that should be encouraged or reported heavily by the media.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read some threads in this forum in the last days and I was really shocked. A lot of people want a war against Iran. If this would happen, people (some of them gay) will die. This seems to be ok for them. But if Ahmadinedjad kills gays, it's a huge crime against humanity. I think this ist grotesque. Sorry for my bad English, I am from Germany.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever insight he might offer is mitigated by his authoritarianism, his out-and-out lying, and his inabiility to give a straight answer to any question asked of him. "Yes" and "no" are not in his vocabulary. His administration is cracking down on dissent, on women, and on homosexuals. When he gives yo ua whopper like there's no homosexuality in Iran, it makes his listeners think nothing he says can be believed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

I never post in politics, and I follow it casually in the news. Was very interested in his talk yesterday, so I watched live. Was impressed and intrigued by his speaking ability, his attempts to explain his positions, and his overall reasonable-sounding nature.

Then he gave that response and it made me view everything he said in an entirely different light. (A light in which maybe I should have been viewing everything in the first place, but he's an excellent speaker, so I guess he had me going...)

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read some threads in this forum in the last days and I was really shocked. A lot of people want a war against Iran. If this would happen, people (some of them gay) will die. This seems to be ok for them. But if Ahmadinedjad kills gays, it's a huge crime against humanity. I think this ist grotesque. Sorry for my bad English, I am from Germany.

[/ QUOTE ]

Murderers will try to kill other people. A lot of people would like the police to stop them. This is going to result in a lot of dead murderers, killed by the police. yet somehow we are ok when the police kill people, but not when the murderer kills some innocent person, when people are dying both ways. I find this grotesque and appalling..... oh wait no i don't.

And, if that was too confusing, what I'm saying is aminenidijad is killing gays because he doesn't like gays. people dying in iran would be serving a greater purpose of protecting the world, etc. motive matters.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's really grotesque: People are denouncing Ahmadinedjad for killing gays but the same people have no problems killing the same gays with bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read some threads in this forum in the last days and I was really shocked. A lot of people want a war against Iran. If this would happen, people (some of them gay) will die. This seems to be ok for them. But if Ahmadinedjad kills gays, it's a huge crime against humanity. I think this ist grotesque. Sorry for my bad English, I am from Germany.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well because your from Germany i didn't want to the holocaust in my explanation but i will just cause its so easy not for any other reason. My point is there is a huge difference from killing random people than from singling out a specific group of people (ie the Jews during the Holocaust). My argument is terribly incoherent and probably should be just deleted...so just to sum this mess up...They didn't invent the word genocide for no reason. The singling out of a specific group of people is different from the accidental or intentional death of random people.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

Peyote,

To put these replies another way. You were right the first time, your comparison of homosexual genocide and war waged between states is indeed grotesque. Thanks for dirtying our day.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.


[/ QUOTE ]

No threat from the former Soviet Union i.e. there was nothing to be afraid of? I'll bet you weren't even 5 years old when the Soviet Union disintegrated.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]


That asshat's country signed a non proliferation treaty that stated they would not produce nuclear weapons.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

I would also point out that even if there were gays in Iran our bombs wouldn't harm them. Thanks to the progressive policies enacted during the Clinton administration US smart weapons no longer kill gays.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

Good thing they didn't give him his photo op at ground zero. I read he was basically questioning the U.S. governments involvement with 9/11. One can only imagine how he would have shot his mouth off their and on the U.S. dime to boot. That would have been very painful for the families of the victems there.

Bollinger did ok I thought when it was all said and done. I was taking a wait and see attitude about his visit to Columbia but now I'm glad they let him come there.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]


That asshat's country signed a non proliferation treaty that stated they would not produce nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

and we signed the Geneva conventions. Andyfox (who rules) mentions that he would never say yes or no. Neither would any US politician (especially bush) to a question with similar intent. I think the guy is pretty pathological and evil, but a ton of the things we criticize in him (and Iran) are beyond hypocritical.

this is neither a defense of MA or an attack on the US just an observation of bias.

Re: No Homosexuality in Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously i don't agree with all of it, but certainly many americans, myself included, believe that the Bush administration (or American politicians generally over the last 60 years) is purposefully creating an environment of fear.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks the "war on terror" is mostly a huge, though politically useful, distraction from issues that have an infinitely greater impact on the day to day life of the average American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you think about our administration, you are quoting a true asshat. Half of your quote is just him trying to justify an Iranian nuke. Something that would be a lot less troubling if someone like him weren't in charge there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is an asshat, but who gives a [censored], asshats can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]


That asshat's country signed a non proliferation treaty that stated they would not produce nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

and we signed the Geneva conventions. Andyfox (who rules) mentions that he would never say yes or no. Neither would any US politician (especially bush) to a question with similar intent. I think the guy is pretty pathological and evil, but a ton of the things we criticize in him (and Iran) are beyond hypocritical.

this is neither a defense of MA or an attack on the US just an observation of bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the U.S. has abided by the Geneva convention. So anyone can break any treaty anytime they feel like it in your mind.