Ahmadinejad

[popinjay]

By Middle Eastern and Iranian standards, Ahmadinejad is very liberal on women's rights issues.

Yes. But by Middle Eastern and Iranian standards, Michael Winner is very liberal on women's rights issues. And he is a complete sexist twat.

I don't compare instance A to instance B, and become an apologist for A because B is worse, pretending that I have an argument. I just call a spade a spade, regardless of the partisan benefits.

I know that the people we hate are planning an attack on Iran - and I am sick to the stomach about it with worry - but I will not compromise my own opinions and pretend that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is anything other than a loose-cannon nut-job. I mean, look at the polls, he's not even popular in his own country. Regular Iranians are even beginning to wonder if he is speaking Farsi or just Farce.

He's not popular in his own country because of the economy, management of universities and a few other things. His liberal positions on hijabs are very popular among the young.

If you want to have a mainstream women's rights movement, you need to go from A to B to C. You don't go from oppression to equality. You go from oppression, to less oppression, to equality. Ahmadinejad is step B for women's rights. He's a move forward.

You're being very elitist about this. Any step towards less authoritarianism should be supported, but you don't seem to care. If we're quoting George Galloway as an infallible source as you did on the first page, George understands the need to support people who don't have perfect records on certain issues. You'd rather disown Ahmadinejad has because you dislike other things he says. He has his good points too. Things aren't black and white. Elitism has been tearing the left-wing apart in this country since before I was born. On women's rights issues, Ahmadinajad is liberal and shouldn't be condemned for trying to introduce better gender laws by people who dislike other things he says.

[luke]

I am sick to the stomach about it with worry

good job you're not watching fox news ... but try not to worry yourself sick, you're no good to the revolution sick i bet george would tell you that as well ... or maybe not ...

heres ahmadinejads un speech

CLICK

[nekokate]

If we're quoting George Galloway as an infallible source as you did on the first page...

Now hang on a second. That's out and out false, and a tiny bit patronising. I have never quoted George in this thread, and nowhere on this forum or elsewhere would I quote him as an "infallible" source. Infact, if you look back through the forum, I'm usually among the first people to pull George up on occasional things he says that aren't quite correct.

The only reason, on the first page of this thread, I referred to the fact that George often says similar things to what I'd been pulled up on, was because this is the Galloway section of the website and it seemed a pertinent way to demonstrate that I didn't believe I was way off base with my comments.

I've taken in the rest of what you've said, however. It's a perspective I'll think more about.

[nekokate]

Sorry for the double-post, but I realised I have more to say.

The main point I was making has been buried in all this discussion of comparison to other regimes, so I'd like to reiterate it, as I think it's valid:

The reason I do not like Ahmadinejad is mainly down to the frustration I feel for Iran, and the future of Iran as it faces uncertainty before the power-hungry USA government. I'm frustrated with him because I see so many opportunities for him to correct misconceptions and to verbally disarm his critics, and he repeatedly squanders them.

The question he was posed about homosexuality, for instance. I've recently found out that Iran performs the second largest number of sex-change operations in the world (behind Thailand, of course) and that there are even unofficial "gay clubs" in parts of Iran. Why didn't he proudly declare those facts, and silence his critics? Why didn't he also point out that, while the Ayatollah's regime is, strictly speaking, against the concept of homosexuality, their understanding of Shari'a makes it clear that things that go on unwitnessed, behind closed doors, are not the business of the Republic and are never persued? That, also, would have disarmed many of his critics.

Do you see where I'm coming from here? I see Ahmadinejad handed on a plate opportunity after opportunity to prove his comparitive liberalism, and instead merely come out with some bizarre statement that is so easy to ridicule and so tempting to play over and over again on the right-wing US news networks to further increase the bloodthirst among certain Americans and Westerners in general.

Also, why did he refuse to answer the Jewish question with a "yes" or "no"? Even after being specifically asked for a "yes" or a "no".

Even if Ahmadinejad didn't see it as black and white (and it obviously wasn't that black and white) he could have said "No, but..." and then continued to talk about his belief in a referendum, whereas his choice to repeatedly avoid a "yes" or "no" will only confirm (wrongly) in many people's minds that he was using the avoidance tactic because his truthful answer would be "yes".

That, really, is my view.

[Mandy]

Also, why did he refuse to answer the Jewish question with a "yes" or "no"? Even after being specifically asked for a "yes" or a "no".

Even if Ahmadinejad didn't see it as black and white (and it obviously wasn't that black and white) he could have said "No, but..." and then continued to talk about his belief in a referendum, whereas his choice to repeatedly avoid a "yes" or "no" will only confirm (wrongly) in many people's minds that he was using the avoidance tactic because his truthful answer would be "yes".

Asking someone about "accepting Israel's right as a JEWISH STATE to exist" is like asking someone about Britain's right as a PROTESTANT state to exist. It is a very loaded question since if he said "no, but .. " he would be demonised more by the west (who you can bet would rarely never rebroadcast the "but"). If he said "yes", then he is accepting segregation and racism.

What if there was a vote in Israel about moving to a secular state and the secularists won. The Iran would be on record as saying they support the zionist factions in Israel.

Also, let the speaker define "Israel" (i.e. what borders) and "Jewish State".

There was simply no time.

This is the same trap question they put to the elected Palestinian Government as a precondition of being "accepted" .. but if they had accepted, then that means the right of return would be abandoned (since it would affect the religious balance).

Israel must first define what boarders it claims .. and what a "Jewish State" means

[nekokate]

You're right about that, Mandy. But this only further proves the ineptitude of Ahmadinejad. Why didn't he explain it like you just did? Why didn't he say "Destruction is a very strong word, I don't wish to see any state destroyed, but if by Jewish State you mean that non-Jews would be second class citizens then, yes, I am against that - I want people, regardless of religion, to live together in peace"??

Surely that would have been a rather bloody good answer, rather than avoidance, avoidance, avoidance, that only ever looks bad.

And what of the homosexual question? I notice you're not leaping to his defence about that.

[Mandy]

You're right about that, Mandy. But this only further proves the ineptitude of Ahmadinejad.

It proves he wasn't "preped" enough by his aides. I wonder if he were forewarned about which questions he will be asked (like what happens in the UK Prime Ministers' question (PMQ) time) -- but I doubt it.

And what of the homosexual question? I notice you're not leaping to his defence about that.

I don't agree with him on that point. His answer was possibly intended as a sort of a joke, but I know it was reported as fact.

[nekokate]

I don't agree with him on that point. His answer was possibly intended as a sort of a joke, but I know it was reported as fact.

Yea, his sense of humour is somewhat strange, isn't it? Remember when he announced he was going to tell a joke, and then said "People who want nuclear weapons are retarded".

Boy, what a one-liner! LOL! Get this guy to the Edinburgh Fringe!!

[mickyv]

Sadly I don't think it's makes any difference how he came across, in the sense of having a possibility of stopping the impending attack on Iran. The Neocons are fixated and nothing short of a miracle will stop them. Yes, if he had came across really well in a conciliating manner, it would have helped improve Iran's image as a Country, and gone some way in helping to expose some of the bias propaganda, but the war drum would still not have missed a beat.

[luke]

Sadly I don't think it's makes any difference how he came across, in the sense of having a possibility of stopping the impending attack on Iran. The Neocons are fixated and nothing short of a miracle will stop them. Yes, if he had came across really well in a conciliating manner, it would have helped improve Iran's image as a Country, and gone some way in helping to expose some of the bias propaganda, but the war drum would still not have missed a beat.

i think you're right, he could have been the worlds most articulate orator and it wouldn't have made a difference - they'd have just shown less of it. how many people do we think really took the time out to read his speech or watch it in full? i'll guess not many ...

that night after the speech fox did a special called 'target iran' - the most shocking bit of tv i've seen

[Mandy]

With all that FOX viewing, take care Luke .. the pull of the dark side is strong ..

[luke]

With all that FOX viewing, take care Luke .. the pull of the dark side is strong ..

yeah i'll be posting articles up soon from the likes of bill o'reilly and sean hannity ... if i ever do, give me a slap

[luke]

[web]https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShAr ... ntrassID=1[/web]

can you imagine if bush agreed - it would be so funny, blunder after blunder after blunder, i can't think of a less articulate president - which is both funny and extremely scary ... i don't think he could even do it, i don't think he'd be capable without condi or someone there telling him what to say

he went to a good school and university though didn't he, how did he end up so stupid? he did coke when he was younger didn't he? maybe that and his alcoholism finished off whatever brain cells may have been rattling around in his thick head ...

[Salim201]

a typically informative and thorough portrayal of the events of the past few days by the mainstream media. I'm sure they all received the memo.. "Lets focus on the trivial and misrepresented things he says to undermine the more serious allegations he makes about media manipulation, US/Israeli aggression and imperialism, and his condemnation of nuclear weapons."

Worked very well.

[mickyv]

" Iran-US-Parliament

Iranian lawmakers on Saturday labelled the US army and CIA as terrorist groups.

The parliament said in a statement that the US army has a record of terrorist operations citing bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons and CIA has been involved in establishment of terror networks and training terrorists worldwide.

"Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons and throwing depleted uranium bombs in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, waging war on Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting Israel in its crackdown on Palestinian and Lebanese people are the record of the US army and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)," the statement said.

The statement further noted that they have also supported Iraq former dictator Saddam Hussein, and terrorist groups including Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO), Al Qaeda and Taliban, and established secret prisons in Europe. CIA has also record of degrading treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

The MPs added that practices of the US army and CIA are tantamount to terrorist acts in contravention of the international norms and conventions.

"We, the representatives of great Iranian great nation condemn the aggressions by the US army, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and call on the United Nations to intervene in the global problem of US prisons in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret jails in other countries.""

https://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line- ... 180149.htm


Did the US think that labelling the Iranian army as a terrorist outfit would remain unanswered ?