DescentBB

He's just a poor and misunderstood world leader that has all of his words twisted against him by neocon zionist criminals.

Yeah, you all are just zionist pigs. We all know that the jews killed 6 million of themselves so they could start their zionist plot against the islamic world. Heil Hithammed!

\"We don't have gays in our country.\"
And apparently no schools either!

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001206.html

Follow the links...

Remind me to feel sorry for the poor dear some other time. My sympathy glands are all busy right now.

Totally accurate and impartial coverage of the speech at Colombia University back home in Iran:

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-2 ... 013529.htm

New York, Sept 25, IRNA

Ahmadinejad-Colombia Varsity-Address
Despite entire US media objections, negative propagation and hue and cry in recent days over IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's scheduled address at Colombia University, he gave his lecture and answered students questions here on Monday afternoon.

On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world.

Before President Ahamadinejad's address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran's stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.

He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression.

Referring to the technological achievements of the Iranian nation in the course of recent years, the president considered them as a sign for the Iranians' resolute will for achieving sustainable development and rapid advancement.

The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.

At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students' questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran's nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters.

ThunderBunny wrote:Before President Ahamadinejad's address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran's stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.

That's kind of glancing over what's really a long winded opening statement that condemned Ahmadinejad before he could say much of anything. What kind of host, no matter how dubious the other side, opens a debate by calling the opposition a "petty and cruel dictator?" Calls the opposition "astonishingly uneducated?" Calls him "dangerous," and only then yields the floor? You call that a debate? Where did this academic clown get his degree? If this dictator is so petty and cruel, uneducated and dangerous, why the hell did you choose to invite him into your ivory tower in the first place?

It is rather ironic that in a debate with a "raving lunatic," it's this President that came off as the idiot.

I don't have any sympathy for Ahmadinejad, mind you. But if you invite someone to a debate, by all means debate!

Let me point out one other thing. I don't like this Administration's "Talk to the Hand" policy when it comes to individuals it perceives as terrorists or hostile. But this scenario demonstrates why having skilled diplomats involved in negotiations is so important, rather than the self-important nut down the street. It is concerning that his reckless actions may have actually painted a sympathetic portrait of this infamous figure.

Ahmadinejad's eyes are too close together.

LOL....

In the bar the other night someone said, isn't it funny that in civilised countries we kill our peacemakers and roll out the carpet for our enemies. We all said Hmmmmmm! and carried on watching the footie.

Kyouryuu wrote:That's kind of glancing over what's really a long winded opening statement that condemned Ahmadinejad before he could say much of anything.....

It is rather ironic that in a debate with a "raving lunatic," it's this President that came off as the idiot.

They both come off looking bad.

I suspect the president of Columbia U only made his statement because of the amount of pressure on him. A lot of people had been calling for him to withdraw his offer to let Ahmadinejad speak. In the days leading up to this, he said he'd have let Hitler speak too. So he kind of backed himself into a corner -- he wanted to let the guy talk, but he also wanted to clearly and obviously disapprove of his message.

How to put the pressure on Iran:
http://www.theonion.com/content/infogra ... source=cnn

Lothar wrote:They both come off looking bad.

True, but as far as Ahmadinejad goes, that goes without saying, right?

Lothar wrote:http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001206.html

Follow the links...

Here, we argue if gays should be married. In Iran, they argue over the proper method of executing them.

That's because our culture is superior......... ......added for the anal.

When it comes to gay rights we are.

I don't see the argument in Iran? Just throw'em over a cliff. Geez...

Oh wait, they don't have cliffs. Argue away!

Gooberman wrote:Here, we argue if gays should be married. In Iran, they argue over the proper method of executing them.

Yeah, but here, we argue over the proper method of executing Iranians...



('Here' being America)

i would like to point out that it is a common Christian teaching that homosexuality is an illness.

Looks like President Ahmadinejad believes this as well - what he is essentially doing here is talking up his nations' healthcare system.

He'd be at home in most churches in America.

Obviously he's not at home in America's god forsaken Liberal Universitys with his pro-family views.

roid wrote:i would like to point out that it is a common Christian teaching that homosexuality is an illness.

uhm Roid you might want to research something before you post about it. you couldn't be more wrong if you tried

How is he wrong? That's all I hear from Christians.

Growing up I was always taught in catholic school that it was a sin not an illness.

Perhaps to christians it could be viewed as in illness in so far as kleptomania is reguarded as an illness.

illness? that's new to me.

Gooberman wrote:Here, we argue if gays should be married. In Iran, they argue over the proper method of executing them.

In Soviet Russia, gays execute you!

Duper wrote:illness? that's new to me.

I take that back. sorta, it wasn't "christians" that considered it an illness; although I'm sure that many parroted this. It was psychiatrically diagnosable as an illness until recently. Can't remember when it was officially changed.

Me too, I forgot, Christians were always saying that it was a choice, and a sin. It's neither.

To see a very rational, and yet still conservative, Christian view on Homosexuality, check out: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

Testiculese wrote:Me too, I forgot, Christians were always saying that it was a choice, and a sin. It's neither.

On what do you base your theory that it's not a sin? Christians fall on both sides of this issue, but I'm curious what the foundation for your view is, sin-wise that is.

Whether Homosexuality is a choice or not has nothing to do with whether Homosexual behavior is a sin. They are unrelated issues.

There are sound arguments that genetics can predispose you to alcoholism, that doesn't change whether getting drunk is a sin or not. According to Christian doctrine, we are ALL predisposed to sin. We believe that it is possible, through divine help, to overcome that predisposition.

Me, I have a genetic predisposition to be sexually attracted to women. That doesn't have anything to do with whether it is a sin for me to have sex with a woman I'm not married to. Nor does it have anything to do with it NOT being a sin to have sex with my wife. The "predisposition" issue simply has no bearing at all on the issue of what kind of sexual behavior is sinful, or not.

I wasn't trying to relate the two, I just used them in the same sentence.

The foundation is my own. Nothing is a sin (unless you're Catholic, of course, then everything is a sin. ) because for me sins don't exist. Just because some old drafty cardinal who doesn't like fun and doesn't want others to have any fun a thousand years ago doesn't mean I'm not going to do something I like.

There's a huge list of sins (Check out the Jewish list! Holy ★■◆●!) that are outdated and meaningless. The most benign things in the world are sins. Having doubt is a sin? C'mon... If I recall, it used to be a sin to eat meat on Friday. A MORTAL SIN! (wtf..) Glad the dim bulb of reason lit up in some high-ranking old drafty codger and that idiocy was repealed.

People aren't predisposed to sin, they're forced into it. Just like we're forced into being criminals by having our government make everything illegal, religion strives to make everything a sin to better control you. (This statement, of course, ignores the true bad things that people do to each other)

Testiculese wrote:it was a choice

Well, that is a bit true. It depends on your psychological intelligence.