No Homosexuality in Iran

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I read he was basically questioning the U.S. governments involvement with 9/11.

He was citing 9/11 conspiarcy theories??? Quick! Get him a 2+2 account.

[warrantofice]

[ QUOTE ]
I read he was basically questioning the U.S. governments involvement with 9/11.

He was citing 9/11 conspiarcy theories??? Quick! Get him a 2+2 account.

[/ QUOTE ]

well played

[Felix_Nietzsche]

http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,2396,00.html

Just paste the link to see several photos of two Iranian teenagers accused of being gay. I saw a story yesterday where 40% of the Daily Kos subscribers would rather have Iranians President than Bush. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Barretboy]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,2396,00.html

Just paste the link to see several photos of two Iranian teenagers accused of being gay. I saw a story yesterday where 40% of the Daily Kos subscribers would rather have Iranians President than Bush. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Shows you just how truly uninformed the general public is.

[ikestoys]

[ 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 have a fundamental misunderstanding of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Killing people isn't automatically evil, killing people because they are gay is.

[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that anyone can break a treaty whenever they want. Obviously treaties that have no enforcement mechanisms are difficult to enforce and are worth whatever the word of the signing country is worth.

We say that we follow the Geneva conventions like MA says he follows the NPT, obviously we're both completely full of [censored].

[nicky g]

[ 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 ]

Asshat - despite what President Bush says to the contrary - says, inissts, he is not attempting to produce nuclear weapons. Questionable (I don't believe anyone knows 100% either way except people actually involved in Iran's nuclear programme), but of note that Iran isn't being asked not to produce nuclear weapons; it's being asked (threatened) not to engage in nuclear enrichment, which isn't forbidden by any treaty it's signed or international law that I'm aware of.

I'm also amused by the outrage (not yours, just in general) that "he signed a treaty". Would it be alright for Iran to build a nuke if he hadn't signed a treaty? The issue here isn't broken promises.

[kniper]

I always find it very funny when anti-American leaders try to criticize the US and their campaign against freedom by citing or insinuating the PATRIOT Act. Chavez did this in his speech to the UN, and this guy alludes to it here:
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. In the grand scheme of things, the PATRIOT Act is nothing compared to what these governments do to their own people. The fact that it is so hotly contested and has almost no affect on 99% of the people in the US shows our dedication to these kinds of rights.

[Chips Ahoy]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

US violations of the NPT (from wikipedia)
[ QUOTE ]
The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack

[/ QUOTE ]

The president has said "no option is off the table". If he wants to nuke Iran for violating the NPT, he'll have to violate the NPT to do it.

<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?printable=true" target="_blank">[ QUOTE ]
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

[/ QUOTE ]</a>

Well, we haven't nuked them yet, so we're just fixin' to violate it.

[ QUOTE ]
Article VI. The states undertake to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament"... non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, have interpreted Article VI's language as being anything but vague. In their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have failed to meet their obligation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone believe the US is interested in reducing its stock of nuclear weapons? The US will not negotiate in good faith to eliminate its nuclear weapons -- ever (I know Reagan proposed it). Neither will the other nuclear states. With no specific deadline, a lawyer can argue this isn't a breach. Think the non-nuclear states are impressed?

[ QUOTE ]
Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements [9]. Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, now argue this violates Articles I and II of the treaty

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooops, the US is actually breaching the plain language now.



Enough about the US, what about Iran?


[ QUOTE ]
The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this what Iran claims to be doing. What evidence is their to the contrary?

[ QUOTE ]
the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they haven't breached the treaty?

[ QUOTE ]
The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good enough for me. Nuke 'em.

[superleeds]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

In all seriousness, how is this much different from any 'western' politicion.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I agree this is stupid of him from an American POV, but these remarks are for his own domestic and religious masters back at home. I think this is very shortsighted as it gives an easy 'see, the man clearly hates tolerance and democracy'. The loudest accusers will proberbly be those who hate queers and those closeted senators. Ironic world isn't it.