This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

breaking news! prez of iran has no homosexuals! — Brooklynian

breaking news! prez of iran has no homosexuals!

alafairnadia
alafairnadia
edited November -1 in The Lounge / Random Stuff
my friend is a journalist and is watching his talk at columbia. she just updated me with the fact that there are NO homosexuals in all of iran!

ay yi yi

(and I ran, I ran so far away ...)
«1

Comments

  • pitu
    pitu

    Subject: Re: breaking news! prez of iran has no homosexuals!

    alafairnadia wrote: my friend is a journalist and is watching his talk at columbia. she just updated me with the fact that there are NO homosexuals in all of iran!

    ay yi yi

    (and I ran, I ran so far away ...)
    I have some volunteers to fact checking that... :D
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    The only way that it could possibly be true is if all Iranian homosexuals left the country (which isn't that farfetched). But I do know that there is an underground gay scene in Iran (which is awfully fraught because it's a death sentence if you get caught).

    I couldn't watch it. NY1 broadcast it live (is it still going on?) which is just compounding the damage. This gives liberals a bad name, practicing tolerance with views that should not be tolerated. It isn't bad enough that the guy spreads hate propaganda, but a university should not hold forums on views that are at variance with reality. This is why Holocaust revisionism should not ever be taught at a university or have the legitimacy of being under the auspices of a university. This isn't a free exchange of ideas here. The guy's a nutball.
  • alafairnadia
    alafairnadia
    apparently the president of the university was totally mocking the guy in his introduction.
  • pitu
    pitu
    NYT CityRoom was practically live blogging it
    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/protests-at-columbia-over-iran-leaders-speech/

    I totally support Columbia for having him. It's a great opportunity for the grad students in their school of foreign affairs. Ahmadinejad invited Columbia profs to Iran
    He added that Columbia’s faculty members were “officially invited” to come to Iran to speak — to which the audience gave a rousing round of applause. “You are welcome to choose any university in Iran,” he said. “We’ll give you the platform, we’ll respect you 100 percent, we will have our students sit and listen to what you have to say.”
    I hope some of them take him up on it.

    Anybody read the Persepolis graphic novels?
    image
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    Look, I don't have a problem with that guy speaking at the U.N. He's the head of state of a country and that platform he's entitled to.

    However, I draw the line at a university inviting someone to speak who denies that a historical fact like the Holocaust ever happened. This is totally different from inviting, say, a Republican to address a mostly liberal student body, because if we're talking about a mainstream Republican like Senator Lugar, he doesn't go against the facts, it's just the interpretation of those facts that differentiate him from liberals. And that's AOK. That's a free exchange of ideas. You can't have a free exchange of ideas with someone who says an event that may have decimated your family never really happened.

    And I'm not surprised that he invited Columbia professors to speak in Iran. It's a common gambit among dictators. "Look at how free and liberal we are!" It's a propaganda ploy, nothing more.

    I've studied a lot about Iran and it seems to be a wonderful country in many ways, but that's because of the way the populace resists the government, not because of the government itself.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    I managed to watch most of it:

    Hats off to the Columbia University President Bollinger for supplying a supreme, verbal ass-spanking to Ahmadinejhed.

    re: the "unvitation"; hope you like prison if you plan on going over there to speak freely:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070924a.html
    Columbia Alumnus Freed in Iran in Advance of Ahmadinejad's Speech
    By Susan Jones
    CNSNews.com Senior Editor
    September 24, 2007

    (CNSNews.com) - The president of Columbia University is expressing relief that a Columbia alumnus was released from an Iranian prison -- just days before the Iranian president is scheduled to speak at Columbia University. ...
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    [quote=pitu]
    Anybody read the Persepolis graphic novels?
    image

    my favorites! and i just indoctrinated 60 college freshmen, too. (used "the vegetable" as an in-class reading.)
  • shishkab
    shishkab
    i can think of no better way to find a way to engage the president of a country we have officially broken ties with than a university forum. i applaud Columbia for doing the brave thing. and FWIW, the U. of Tehran was a great place for learning in its day, so i think Iranians respond well to university settings in general and may pay close attention to what was being said today.
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    Oh, I know. That university has a great reputation, and students have been at the forefront of challenging the government. If Ahmenijad actually meant what he said about inviting Columbia professors there to speak, I'm sure the students would enjoy it very much.
  • livetotravel
    livetotravel
    That attitude would actually play well in Iran. Here, however, we believe in academic freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Such is the price of freedom.

    "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    Livetotravel wrote: That attitude would actually play well in Iran. Here, however, we believe in academic freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Such is the price of freedom.

    "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
    Yea, after all is said and done, our republic still stands.
    If you listened to the speech it was a bit rambling and made comparisons about science, god, nature, truth, etc. He compared additional required "study" of the Holocaust to studying more about physics, for example.... I also learned from him it is NOT a crime to be a woman in Iran...(?)

    He , predictably, avoided answering any real questions about his stances. At the end of the day, he may have been the best advocate against himself and his beliefs. The comment about "no homosexuals in Iran like in the west" was hilarious if not indicative of exactly what we are dealing with: a guy out of touch with reality.

    I did hold out hope for campus security to take him down in an on stage scuffle if he got out of control.

    How do you say "Don't 'tase' me, bro'" in Farsi or Arabic, anyway?
  • theoryofpractice
    theoryofpractice
    [quote=pitu]Anybody read the Persepolis graphic novels?
    image

    Yep -- super cool
  • alafairnadia
    alafairnadia
    theoryofpractice wrote: [quote=pitu]Anybody read the Persepolis graphic novels?
    image

    Yep -- super cool
    in my to-read pile.
  • apollonia666
    apollonia666
    So, did anyone get tased?
  • sprite
    sprite
    theoryofpractice wrote: [quote=pitu]Anybody read the Persepolis graphic novels?
    image

    Yep -- super cool
    Agreed. I've got to get the sequel one of these days...
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    There is freedom of speech, but no one is required to give you a forum to do it.

    There were people who were saying that he shouldn't be allowed to address the U.N., but I think that's ridiculous.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    apollonia666 wrote: So, did anyone get tased?
    Sadly. no for President "I'm.in.a.mood.jihad"
    You have you must go to old footage to capture those golden memories:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

    When he said there are no homosexuals in Iran, it would have been the perfect time to step in with campus security and taser-esque action.
  • queencallipygos
    queencallipygos
    lilbangladesh wrote: Look, I don't have a problem with that guy speaking at the U.N. He's the head of state of a country and that platform he's entitled to.

    However, I draw the line at a university inviting someone to speak who denies that a historical fact like the Holocaust ever happened. This is totally different from inviting, say, a Republican to address a mostly liberal student body, because if we're talking about a mainstream Republican like Senator Lugar, he doesn't go against the facts, it's just the interpretation of those facts that differentiate him from liberals. And that's AOK. That's a free exchange of ideas. You can't have a free exchange of ideas with someone who says an event that may have decimated your family never really happened.
    I respectfully disagree. I see two benefits from allowing him to speak at Columbia -- the first one is more a might-have-been, but speaks more to your point. If he had entertained questions from the audience, and had had his ideas honestly and sincerely challenged, perhaps he could have been made to see the flaws in his reasoning and, maybe, down the road he could have had a change of mind. Allowing someone with unpopular ideas to speak subjects those ideas to public scrutiny, and lets everyone -- even the guy who thunk up the idea -- evaluate it more clearly, and if it does not hold up, allows everyone to discard it. If no one challenges his idea, then he still goes along thinking it's a-okay, and that's not good either.

    The other benefit to letting him speak is something that did happen -- more people heard what those ideas actually were. I had heard he was a Holocaust denier, but I hadn't heard that he believed that "we don't have gay people in Iran! Really!" Giving an unpopular idea exposure means you give the person who thought up those ideas exposure, much the same way that pulling up the loose floorboard lets you see how bad your termite infestation really is.

    I've just also learned that the best way to prove someone is a fool is actually to stand back and let them go ahead and talk -- and the longer they talk, the more listeners realize all on their own that he's a fool, and you've succeeded in proving him a fool without having to do anything at all. Remarkably convenient. :)
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    You know, that's a really good point.

    I was basically fearful that a university platform would otherwise give him legitimacy he doesn't deserve.

    You win.
  • queencallipygos
    queencallipygos
    lilbangladesh wrote: You know, that's a really good point.

    I was basically fearful that a university platform would otherwise give him legitimacy he doesn't deserve.

    You win.
    Heh; I respectfully refuse the victory, as I wasn't trying to "win." But thanks.

    I've just seen this kind of thing happen before -- the most recent time that springs to mind was in Northern Ireland, after the region had a public referrendum on whether or not to accept the peace treaty and power-sharing arrangement that had been worked out in 1998. The referrendum passed, with only 28% of the vote rejecting the deal.

    Now - one of the leaders in Northern Ireland was a Protestant minister named Ian Paisley, who back then was kind of like Jerry Falwell with Rush Limbaugh's temperment. He, unsurprisingly, was opposed to the power-sharing, and was in favor of keeping Northern Ireland united with the UK. But after the referrendum, he actually organized a victory parade, even though only 28% of the public took his position. Why was he claiming a victory? Because, he said, the polls had shown only 25% of the public were going to reject the treaty. He was celebrating the fact that only 3% more of the public rejected the treaty than had been expected. He was celebrating this, and claiming that this was absolutely a sign that those awful Irish were going to be run out of Ulster any day now!...

    ...But most of the rest of the country, including his supporters, saw him carrying on like that and it was a reality check for them all, as people quietly wondered, "....wait, we're on the same side as THIS nutbag?" Support for Paisley's political committee plummeted, and a peaceful resolution in Northern Ireland started moving a little quicker.
  • lmboogie
    lmboogie

    ...But most of the rest of the country, including his supporters, saw him carrying on like that and it was a reality check for them all, as people quietly wondered, "....wait, we're on the same side as THIS nutbag?" Support for Paisley's political committee plummeted, and a peaceful resolution in Northern Ireland started moving a little quicker.
    i have no issues with him speaking at Columbia for all of the reason's you pointed out and more. I do struggle in that the rest of this country may realize he is a nut job but no one in his country will get the opportunity to hear what was really said. he'll use this as proproganda for his benefit and continue promoting hate. in the end it's still worth it but i do struggle with it.
  • michaelkeys
    michaelkeys
    A humorous but pointed take on the Ahmadinejad visit--with a few nice jabs--can be found here.
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    lmboogie wrote: I do struggle in that the rest of this country may realize he is a nut job but no one in his country will get the opportunity to hear what was really said. he'll use this as proproganda for his benefit and continue promoting hate. in the end it's still worth it but i do struggle with it.
    you're probably right -- but think what good propaganda NOT letting him speak would have made. (and that not letting him visit ground zero doubtless will make. i know that's far from the only consideration; just sayin'.)

    also whoever said something about the opportunity to speak perhaps changing his mind about some things -- maaaaybe. but i'm more hopeful that having heard him speak will help some people hear think carefully about him and about iran. i'm thinking right now of a picture i saw of a young man outside columbia's gates with a banner reading something like "ahmadinejad = bad; bush = worse." uh, bush is an ass and everything, but....

    (if nothing else comes of it, all this controversy has forced me to nail down the pronunciation of his name. educational value? check.)
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    The only way Bush could be worse is that he is being an idiot in dealing with him. The only reason why Ahmadinejad (someday I will learn to spell it) even got elected was that Bush kept pushing Iran's back to the wall, and you just don't do that with a country like Iran. Iran actually extended offers of help after 9/11 only to have Bush tar them with "Axis of Evil".

    I'm not saying that Iran is a good world citizen or anything like that, but NOTHING good gets accomplished by such rhetoric. There was an opportunity to build a dialog after 9/11 that was completely blown by Bush thinking "An Arab is an Arab is an Arab." (Iranians aren't Arabs, but I doubt Bush could make the distinction.) It's why we ended up in Iraq. There was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded, and now the country is rife with them. Bin Laden had NO love for Saddam and his secularist ways. Instead of taking advantage of this natural factionalism, we ended up creating alliances among our enemies by lumping them all together.

    Basically, had Bush not been rattling his spear so much, it's doubtful that Ahmadinejad would even have been elected. The Iranians seem to feel, "Well, he may be a nutjob, but he's OUR nutjob!"
  • lmboogie
    lmboogie
    sweet tea wrote:
    (if nothing else comes of it, all this controversy has forced me to nail down the pronunciation of his name. educational value? check.)
    brilliant! make the same comments to a friend this afternoon.
  • eggcream
    eggcream
    This nutjob, who wants you and all of your liberal ilk killed, who wants Israel wiped off the map, denies the Holocaust, who murders gays, who murders young girls, stones women to death or hangs them, is a supplier of weapons which are killing our troops, allows al-queda leaders to reside in Iran, this supporter of terrorism you want President Bush to "deal with him" ?? You think he wanted to offer help after 9/11? You think Bush "kept pushing Iran's back to the wall" ? Yeah, no Axis Of Evil there.

    Do you know what Death To America means?

    It's downright freaking scary, yet not surprising, how many libs are calling President Bush a terrorist and supporting Ahmadinejab. Some wacko lesbian on Daily Kos knows she would be killed by this guy buy she still has a crush on him.

    Do you think all the Iranian people who have been murdered, stoned, hung and God knows what else or are held prisoner, who are denied free speech etc think of him as "their nutjob"?

    Scary what schools are turning out these days.

    lilbangladesh wrote: The only way Bush could be worse is that he is being an idiot in dealing with him. The only reason why Ahmadinejad (someday I will learn to spell it) even got elected was that Bush kept pushing Iran's back to the wall, and you just don't do that with a country like Iran. Iran actually extended offers of help after 9/11 only to have Bush tar them with "Axis of Evil".

    I'm not saying that Iran is a good world citizen or anything like that, but NOTHING good gets accomplished by such rhetoric. There was an opportunity to build a dialog after 9/11 that was completely blown by Bush thinking "An Arab is an Arab is an Arab." (Iranians aren't Arabs, but I doubt Bush could make the distinction.) It's why we ended up in Iraq. There was NO Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded, and now the country is rife with them. Bin Laden had NO love for Saddam and his secularist ways. Instead of taking advantage of this natural factionalism, we ended up creating alliances among our enemies by lumping them all together.

    Basically, had Bush not been rattling his spear so much, it's doubtful that Ahmadinejad would even have been elected. The Iranians seem to feel, "Well, he may be a nutjob, but he's OUR nutjob!"
  • michaelkeys
    michaelkeys
    Ahmadinejad is not a messenger of peace and tolerance, but a very dangerous man. (I would think this needs no explaining. To anyone. But we all know there are hyperbolic nuts on both sides of the political fence.)

    However, as the elected head of a nation he should not have been the recipient of the disrespectful introduction he was given by Columbia's president, whose remarks clearly indicate he kowtowed to pressure. Not so much by the content of what he said, but that he felt the need to make these remarks about someone his school had invited. Invite him or not to come speak at your school, I don't personally care either way. But it was in very poor taste to introduce him in that manner.

    What would we say if Pres. Bush went to speak at an Iranian university and the school's president introduced him as a draft-dodging, Bin Laden family ally, whose administration tried to disrupt "investigations concerning the September 11 attacks and whose closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes"?

    I have NO love for Mr. Bush but I wouldn't be happy if the above scenario came to pass. Because it's not W they'd be dissing, it's the US. And that's exactly what happened at Columbia with the introduction. Remember, it wasn't their equivalent to Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell that came to speak, it was their head of state, the representation of their country. And as such, Bollinger should've known better and treated his school's guest in the proper manner.

    By the way, if we EVER as a nation try to lecture anyone again about free speech, all they'll need to do is refer to these shenanigans to call us hypocrites.

    As a good friend wrote yesterday:

    "Our position on this should be simple; Americans who value freedom of speech must value it even when the particular speech disagrees with their own sensibilities, or you are not being true to the value itself. Freedom of speech does not end when it disagrees with you, and these phonies who are denouncing "hate speech" need to know that. I'm glad I live in a country where people like Ahmadinejad can be challenged in an open forum. And how can you possibly disagree with someone unless you actually hear their views for yourself and make your own determination?"
  • lmboogie
    lmboogie
    eggcream: thanks for stating the obvious. we didn't know all of that before you decided to educate us. the issue was not how "evil" the guy r is or even about all of the human rights he has violated.... again, that should be obvious.

    the beauty of this country is that a "wacko lesbian" can publicly say she has a crush on him. Big up to all of the wacko lesbians in the world, present company included.
  • lilbangladesh
    lilbangladesh
    I never said he wasn't a dangerous nutjob, just that the majority of Iranians aren't dangerous nutjobs. They're considerably less reactionary than Ahmadinejad, but probably elected him because they were afraid the U.S. was thinking about invading their country.

    When you isolate an entire country and demonize them, then what you get is a "wheel the wagons around" mentality and further radicalization.

    Ahmadinejad should be treated as dangerous because he is. But sometimes the most dangerous thing you can do with a dangerous person is to make him publicly lose face.
  • sevenoneeighty
    sevenoneeighty
    gotta love it: ( satire?)LOL

    After 10 minutes in a radio interview, she very RELUCTANTLY admitted that Ahmadinejad is WORSE than Bush...but she went down swinging though.....she would be stoned 3 times in Iran: for being a dissident, lesbian AND Jewish...

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/83652/6735

    Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
    by sallykohn
    Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:50:02 AM PDT

    I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...

    Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all…

    I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding....
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories