PDA

View Full Version : Iran president requests to visit Ground Zero, politicians say F*** No!



elipson
20th September 07, 03:05 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/ahmadinejad.ground.zero/index.html

This really blew me away when I read this. Granted the guy is fairly nuts, but this would have been one hell of a step forward in advancing relations between the two countries. American Politicians are so fuckin short sighted.

What they should have done is allowed him to come to New York, which could have led to a top level meeting between the two leaders of the countries. This is the only fuckin way that anything over there is gonna be solved, by meeting and discussing shit. Instead the US is slamming any chance of this. Sure Ahmadinejah probably would have turned it into his own propaghanda thing, but think of the the oppurtunity for the US to do the same!

"President of Iran paying his respects at Ground Zero".

Just think how that would have been felt in the muslim world? That's huge! That would have driven a HUGE wedge between Iran and Anti-US terrorist groups. You think they are gonna come ask him for help after that? He would have been basically declaring himself a US sympathizer to all the other fundamentalist Muslims out there.

The leader of the Biggest Sunni country in the world paying his respects to dead Americans. That would have been a HUGE propaghanda victory for the US. Instead they turn down a man requesting to give his respects to the dead. Ya, that makes you look very compassionate.

What's that you say? Iran supports Iraqi insurgent groups killing Americans? America has been doing the same thing in Iran for decades, what's your point? Not only that, how do you think you're going to get him to stop? By talking face to face with him!

Oh, and Iran also doesn't like Israel? Join the fuckin club. Neither does Saudi Arabia, we still let them visit all the time.

Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and afterwards they helped hunt Al-Queda in their own country (granted they had an interest in this as well).

They sponsor the conflicts centered around Israel? So fucking what. So does the US and dozens of other countries.


This could have been made into a huge victory for the US, but they are too chicken shit and too proud to realise that. They would much rather push Iran into a war, or try to isolate them like they tried with Cuba, than to actually try to solve anything.

nihilist
20th September 07, 03:20 AM
You know why it was refused.
It's like a klan member asking to visit the NAACP.

bob
20th September 07, 03:22 AM
Hell, we don't want no tin pot raghead dictators posting on this forum anyways.

Cullion
20th September 07, 04:35 AM
You know why it was refused.
It's like a klan member asking to visit the NAACP.

The Bush administration has already decided they want to invade and they don't want to be distracted by somebody trying to give them a reason not to.

Lebell
20th September 07, 04:44 AM
he should be allowed to visit geround zero, and then be buried alive in it.

nihilist
20th September 07, 04:51 AM
The Bush administration has already decided they want to invade and they don't want to be distracted by somebody trying to give them a reason not to.

So it's more like Bush asking Cheney if he can make presidential decisions?

emboesso
20th September 07, 05:50 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/ahmadinejad.ground.zero/index.html

This really blew me away when I read this. Granted the guy is fairly nuts, but this would have been one hell of a step forward in advancing relations between the two countries. American Politicians are so fuckin short sighted.

What they should have done is allowed him to come to New York, which could have led to a top level meeting between the two leaders of the countries. This is the only fuckin way that anything over there is gonna be solved, by meeting and discussing shit. Instead the US is slamming any chance of this. Sure Ahmadinejah probably would have turned it into his own propaghanda thing, but think of the the oppurtunity for the US to do the same!

ehhh, did you read the link at all? As in, the very first line?


City officials in New York have denied Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's request to visit the site of the destroyed World Trade Center next week, a police spokesman said Wednesday.

It wasn't the federal gov't that reached this decision, but the local government.

I think they should have taken him to Ground Zero, via the Holocaust Museum which is only a few blocks away. Let him walk through that museum for an hour and then come outside and explain to the press how the Holocaust is a hoax.

Truculent Sheep
20th September 07, 07:53 AM
It's a PR stunt by a reprehensible little shit of a man. By denying him access, New York did the right thing. Although, it would be better if he'd asked permission to lie on the ground while a procession of footballers took turns kicking him in the nuts. I'm sure they'd have agreed to that.

Arhetton
20th September 07, 09:21 AM
I agree with cullion but it didn't stop me loling at the whole situation

Arhetton
20th September 07, 09:24 AM
and yes, 9/11 was horrible etc etc

but please, I bet an american made this video

De1wNLEGQ30

warning: possibly very offensive to everyone

nihilist
20th September 07, 10:25 AM
I agree with cullion but it didn't stop me loling at the whole situation

So you believe that the Bush administration runs NY local govt?

Do you also believe Bush was behind 9-11?

Dagon Akujin
20th September 07, 12:45 PM
The Bush administration has already decided they want to invade and they don't want to be distracted by somebody trying to give them a reason not to.

Wait. Iraq?



It wasn't the federal gov't that reached this decision, but the local government.

The feds definitely have a say in it. Like Bush always does, however, he's just hiding behind someone else. "Oh, see, I can't.... I didn't have nottin' ta do wit it becaus' I'm one of. I'm a fed. I'm wit a part of the fedral govment. It's not my job or something I do."

And Ahmadinejad has been to New York before. Since the United Nations is located there, there is ground where even the leaders we hate or want to go to war with can walk around and do business. Any of you New Yorkers know more of the specifics on this?

Dagon

P.S. They should let Ahmadinejad visit, and Bush should visit with him. Fuck not talking to enemies. Chavez can come too.

WarPhalange
20th September 07, 12:57 PM
Yes, all 3 should meet. That's the chance to get 3 birds with one stone.

Heffy
20th September 07, 01:14 PM
You know why it was refused.
It's like a klan member asking to visit the NAACP.

How is it like that?

WarPhalange
20th September 07, 01:15 PM
Because America is oppressed by the Middle East.

Heffy
20th September 07, 01:28 PM
Because America is oppressed by the Middle East.

I hope that was a joke. Otherwise I think I might kill myself.

WarPhalange
20th September 07, 01:30 PM
You should probably do that just to be safe.

Heffy
20th September 07, 01:47 PM
Did I say kill myself? What was I thinking? I meant kill everybody else. Cause then....see.....I'll always be right man!

anarki13
20th September 07, 02:18 PM
first reaction:
LOL! SERVES THE LITTLE FUCKER RIGHT!

second reaction:
hmm.. but now, he'll return to his country boasting how the west are "Eeevil"

personally i think they should have let him visit, but no speeches/publicity stunts/crap like that.
just a quick visit in and out.
dirty little bugger. i hope he rots in hell.

Shawarma
20th September 07, 02:31 PM
Two questions:

1) Why not let him visit? It's not as if he was Osamas co-pilot on the second plane or anything.

2) What stunt might he have pulled off by visiting it? It's not entirely transparent to me.

Heffy
20th September 07, 03:14 PM
I have to say. Bush is a dirtier little bugger. And we KNOW he has nukes, plus there's a lot to suggest he was/is a cocaine addict.

Reminds me of when everyone spazzed when North Korea got the bomb. I was like "so you trust Pakistan, India, Isreal, Russia, China, France, the UK, and America? But not North Korea?"

elipson
20th September 07, 03:41 PM
You guys are missing the point. Does he deserve to come to NY? Probably not. Can we turn this into a huge propaganda victory? Hell ya!

Just think of the PR victory it would be if ahmedijan was photographed shaking hands with US politicians, laying a wreath at Ground Zero. You think he would have any cred left with hardline fundamentalists? They would wanna burn the guy on a stake!

And I ask again, how is there any chance of negotiating a cooperation between the two countries if they don't meet?


If everyone really wants war with Iran, then OK, denying his visit makes sense. As long as thats what everyone wants.

elipson
20th September 07, 03:43 PM
In fact, I'd be willing to bet big money Ahmedijan was bluffing. He knew they would never allow him to come to New York, and everyone played right into it. If they had said, ya come on over, you think he would have? I doubt it.

AAAhmed46
20th September 07, 05:49 PM
This thread is amusing.

anarki13
20th September 07, 05:51 PM
good point(s) indeed..

re: Shawarma's 2nd question:
well, i had a point in mind, but after reading elipson's post.. meh!

a publicity stunt:
i had in mind something like before the war, Saddam Hussein came on Iraqi television saying he will donate 100M $ or so (the number escapes me, but it was in the hundreds) from Iraq's oil money to America's Poor and Needy. WTF? i mean, huh?

AAAhmed46
20th September 07, 06:16 PM
I bet it never happened(the 100 million)

RaiNnyX4
20th September 07, 06:21 PM
I'd be kind of worried about protesters doing something retarded if he were able to visit. Thus, adding more fuel to the fire of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.

Arhetton
20th September 07, 06:34 PM
do i think bush picked up the red telephone and called the NY local council? No. Do I think they understood the sentiment and political climate that is going on at the moment? Yes.

With all the talk of threatening/invading Iran there is no way a local politician is going to let the pres of iran visit america, for anything, let alone visiting the WTC site. and episilon has a point, it could be used to strengthen dip relations.

If there hadn't been all this posturing about 'maybe nuking iran' then this visit might not have been off the table.

and THX, my real stance on 9/11 - At the time, watching the footage, it was shocking and sad. 3000 people died. Now looking back, truthfully, i don't really care that it happened, I don't feel a thing. Because there is no consequence if I care either way. I'm neither punished nor rewared for caring/not caring, and caring about it would probably make a person upset about whats happened since. Its too far away, I don't know anyone affected, I can't even sympathize with the number of deaths because there have been much larger tragedies since then.

But theres no possible way I could dishonor the american dead more than the bush administration did.

kick
20th September 07, 08:01 PM
I don't know whether he should have visited or not, I would have told him to get stuffed. He spouts all this Anti- non Muslim fundamentalist crap then says, can I come and give my respects. If someone slags me and my family off, I don't invite them to visit my grandmothers grave.

As for Bush having something to do with saying no, there are plenty of people that are pretty angry about what happened, and rightly or wrongly attribute a lot of the blame onto Muslim Fundamentalists, and they act with their own free will.

Some people act as if Bush is some all powerful US deity that can command obedience, and that everyone will obey his will, and that everyone in the US hates him and all he stands for.

But he got elected.......twice, sure plenty of people don't like him, but plenty still do, and a lot of the time, people do whatever they personally feel is right.

Zub-Zub
20th September 07, 10:27 PM
.....But he got elected.......twice, sure plenty of people don't like him, but plenty still do, and a lot of the time, people do whatever they personally feel is right.

A lot of the time, people do what they are told is right.

The fact that there are many that still like him just shows you how many idiots there are in the US.

nihilist
20th September 07, 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by THX-1138

It's like a klan member asking to visit the NAACP.



How is it like that?

Well besides the hate agenda, terrorism, bigotry and religious fundamentalism I'd say not at all.

ironlurker
20th September 07, 11:09 PM
At some point, the US will have to decide whether it wants to fight Shiites or Sunnis. Fighting both at once, i.e. Iraq, is somewhat problematic. Also, Ahmadinejad is far from a fundamentalist. Several of his proposals have run into significant opposition from the hard line clerics of Iran. Deny him access because he's an asshole, holocaust denier, etc., but don't say it's because Iran caused /supported the attacks of 9/11 in some vague way (which I've actually heard people say over the past few days)

kick
20th September 07, 11:39 PM
Good point, please replace, Muslim Fundamentalist with Greater Arab fundamentalist.

Basically, he is anti, anyone who stands in the way of the greater arab nation ruling the world.

And whilst Iran may not have directly supported 9/11 or other terrrorist acts, they are certainly cheering them on.

If someone beat up my daughter, then their next door neighbour who had nothing to do with it, laughed and said good job, sucked in to you and your daughter, I would punch him in the face as well. And if after morally supporting his neighbours acts, he said, can I see where your daughter got punched in the face I want to show my respects, I would tell him to get stuffed, and want to punch him in the face again.

ironlurker
20th September 07, 11:57 PM
Good point, please replace, Muslim Fundamentalist with Greater Arab fundamentalist.

Basically, he is anti, anyone who stands in the way of the greater arab nation ruling the world.

And whilst Iran may not have directly supported 9/11 or other terrrorist acts, they are certainly cheering them on.

If someone beat up my daughter, then their next door neighbour who had nothing to do with it, laughed and said good job, sucked in to you and your daughter, I would punch him in the face as well. And if after morally supporting his neighbours acts, he said, can I see where your daughter got punched in the face I want to show my respects, I would tell him to get stuffed, and want to punch him in the face again.
Ahmadenijad is Persian, and their exists a strong Arab-Persian divide, especially given the Salafi/wahhabi leanings of the Gulf States. When the Safavid dynasty made Shiism the state religion of Persia several centuries ago after the efforts of the Qizilbash etc., many Sunni Arabs began to consider Shiite Arabs fifth columnists, in part due to Ottoman propaganda.

Iran hated the Taliban, and were the first and strongest country to oppose them after the Taliban's massacre/ethnic cleansing of Shiite Afghan tribes.

You only have two arms to punch people with. If the whole street is laughing at you, what I'm saying is you need to figure out who you want to punch and why.
Tito and Stalin were both Communist dictators, but there was a big difference between them.

elipson
21st September 07, 12:28 AM
And whilst Iran may not have directly supported 9/11 or other terrrorist acts, they are certainly cheering them on.

Dude you need to do some research into the area. Or better yet, read the damn article I posted! Let me read it for you, wouldn't want you to miss any of those silly little details everyone keeps talking about.


Iran is ruled by a Shiite Muslim government hostile to the fundamentalist Sunni al Qaeda.

Ahmadinejad's predecessor at the time of the September 11 attacks, Mohammed Khatami, condemned them, and Tehran cooperated with the U.S.-led campaign to topple al Qaeda's Taliban allies in Afghanistan that followed.


But who are we to let things like details stand in the way of letting ignorant fucks screw up the world.

nihilist
21st September 07, 12:40 AM
My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.

nihilist
21st September 07, 12:45 AM
Read about your precious champion:


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46060

ironlurker
21st September 07, 01:00 AM
My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.
That's definitely true. But my friend's enemy is not necessarily my enemy either,my friend/enemy is not necessarily my friend/enemy forever, and foreign policy should be more like a good game of Monopoly and less like a Chuck E Cheez game of whack-a-mole.

nihilist
21st September 07, 01:05 AM
That strategy has proven stupid in Afghanistan and also Iraq to name just two.

nihilist
21st September 07, 01:15 AM
But hey let's give this terrorist another chance We shouldn't judge someone for killing and torturing. just look at who we have running our country.

elipson
21st September 07, 02:36 AM
You're right Greese. The world will clearly be better off isolating this idiot and backing him into a corner. That will surely prevent a war that will cost more lives.

The guy is a nut and a freak. He also runs one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world. Like him or not, you still gotta play ball with him.

elipson
21st September 07, 02:38 AM
And for the record, I'm not saying he should be allowed to go to ground zero for any moral reasons, I'm saying he should be allowed because there are good political reasons to do so. Political reasons that will HELP fight the war on terror, and bring Iran back in line with the rest of the world.

emboesso
21st September 07, 04:55 AM
Any of you New Yorkers know more of the specifics on this?


Last I heard on the radio, he's going to get a Secret Service escort to Ground Zero.

He will also be speaking at Columbia University, which dis-invited the Minutemen the opportunity to return and try to complete their presentation.

anarki13
21st September 07, 06:48 AM
I bet it never happened(the 100 million)

of course it never did! he didn't have tenth that kind of oil-money to spend on Iraq itself (the sanction years) let alone donate to other countries..

but after all, it was just for publicity..

Heffy
21st September 07, 08:07 AM
But he got elected.......twice, sure plenty of people don't like him, but plenty still do, and a lot of the time, people do whatever they personally feel is right.

Surely you concede that the election was rigged.

I mean The DIE-BOLD(snicker) company made the voting machines, that were plagued by all kinds of problems, and kept no hard-copy of the votes to prove who voted for whom.

The DIE-BOLD company also makes the ATM machines at my bank.
Strangely enough, the ATM machine at the bank has never given me the wrong amount of money.

It's almost as if the voting machines were designed to be faulty on purpose.....

WarPhalange
21st September 07, 01:08 PM
You can't compare an ATM with a voting machine. An ATM has to interface with the database in the bank, making sure you actually have money to withdraw, an account to deposit money to, count any money it gives out, etc.

Whereas a voting machine has the complicated task of recording which of several choices a person chose. Then sending it off to a big database. Geez, do you have any idea how hard that is?

emboesso
21st September 07, 01:14 PM
I mean The DIE-BOLD(snicker) company made the voting machines, that were plagued by all kinds of problems, and kept no hard-copy of the votes to prove who voted for whom.

The DIE-BOLD company also makes the ATM machines at my bank.
Strangely enough, the ATM machine at the bank has never given me the wrong amount of money.

It's almost as if the voting machines were designed to be faulty on purpose.....

Bro, I wish I was there to tase you.

nihilist
21st September 07, 02:08 PM
You're right Greese. The world will clearly be better off isolating this idiot and backing him into a corner. That will surely prevent a war that will cost more lives.

The guy is a nut and a freak. He also runs one of the biggest Muslim nations in the world. Like him or not, you still gotta play ball with him.

Now imagine you are talking about Hitler.

emboesso
21st September 07, 02:17 PM
Now imagine you are talking about Hitler.

Now you tell us what would have stopped Hitler.

Diplomacy? Statesmanship? Appeasement?

We know what stopped Hitler.

We know what will stop I'm-In-The-Mood-For-Jihad.

Heffy
21st September 07, 02:26 PM
Bro, I wish I was there to tase you.

Why? Are you a bitchass who can't fight?

Heffy
21st September 07, 02:27 PM
Now you tell us what would have stopped Hitler.

Diplomacy? Statesmanship? Appeasement?

We know what stopped Hitler.

We know what will stop America


Fixed.

elipson
21st September 07, 02:39 PM
Hilter had the biggest war machine in the world. Does Iran? No fucking way. Iran knows damn well who would win in a war with the States.

And I wasn't aware that Iran had started committing genocide. Link pls?

Grease, you're doing nothing but fear mongering.

ironlurker
21st September 07, 02:42 PM
Bro, I wish I was there to tase Hitler. Would make an awesome gif.

emboesso
21st September 07, 02:52 PM
Hilter had the biggest war machine in the world. Does Iran? No fucking way. Iran knows damn well who would win in a war with the States.

And I wasn't aware that Iran had started committing genocide. Link pls?

Grease, you're doing nothing but fear mongering.

So the plan is to pretend the nuclear issue is non-existant? OK, gotcha. In that case let's leave him alone.

In fact, I think he'd make a swinging American Idol contestant.

Heffy
21st September 07, 03:05 PM
We HAVE nuclear weapons. So do half a dozen other countries. Quite frankly, America is the most prone to using them for retarded reasons. America is the only country going around INVADING everybody.

I mean come one, we are protecting our freedom, by invading other people. That doesn't make any fucking sense. Unless you're a retard.

Regardless I always hear people spouting this line of bullshit.
GROW UP! NOBODY IS ATTACKING THE STATES. THE STATES IS ATTACKING EVERYBODY.
Unless you consider 9/11 which was likely carried out by the government, or allowed to occurr because it benefitted them.

America is the 4th Reich. You are deluded if you think otherwise. There wasn't a single other country in the world where support for the war in Iraq rose above %10. Of course that didn't stop a bunch of countries from supporting it. Why? Csue everyone is scared shitless of America.

Most people around the world think America is about to have a civil war in the next 5-10 years. So think about that, maybe it will give you some perspective, but probably not because you're all too busy watching TV about the "terrorists" who don't exist.

Terrorism is the new communism.

elipson
21st September 07, 04:37 PM
So the plan is to pretend the nuclear issue is non-existant? OK, gotcha. In that case let's leave him alone.

And the best way to deal with this is to punish him, thinking that WON'T encourage him to find a bigger weapon?

Diplomacy is how you're going to end that problem. Trying to push him around like the US thinks they can do is NOT going to stop them from getting nukes. Its only going to encourage it. Just like it did with N. Korea.

Shawarma
22nd September 07, 08:55 AM
The pain of emboesso trying to make political points by referring to his incredibly flawed understanding of history is akin to the pain of having your cerebral cortex removed by a rusty spoon.

I deduct him one point for invalid LOL HITLER faggotry, which clearly has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.

Cullion
22nd September 07, 10:08 AM
Now imagine you are talking about Hitler.

Now imagine you're talking about Mao.

GuiltySpark
22nd September 07, 10:23 AM
Hilter had the biggest war machine in the world. Does Iran? No fucking way. Iran knows damn well who would win in a war with the States.


How many people said that about Iraq?
We'll blow those fucking pussies away! Everyone expected a neat and tidy battle, kicking their ass, winning the war and coming home.

Sure punch for punch we won the conventional battle with them, but is that winning the war?
We still have soldiers in Iraq dying every day. It's eating billions of dollars. Thousands of civilians are dying. The country is in a civil war.
Did we truely "win" that war?

Now how would we win a war with Iran and with what soldiers?
Iran knows they can rattle their sabre because the main body of their army isn't spread out all across the world.


Regardless I always hear people spouting this line of bullshit.
GROW UP! NOBODY IS ATTACKING THE STATES. THE STATES IS ATTACKING EVERYBODY.
Unless you consider 9/11 which was likely carried out by the government, or allowed to occurr because it benefitted them.
You're obviously ignorant to whats going on in the world. Arguing any of your silly points would be a waste of time.


Most people around the world think America is about to have a civil war in the next 5-10 years.

Most people huh? Just where are you getting *THAT* gem of a stat from? Maybe from the people who can't read, write, find america on the map, ever seen a map or know what the US even is?
You're talking out of your ass, maybe you shouldn't speak for "Most" of the world there heffy.

emboesso
22nd September 07, 11:20 AM
And the best way to deal with this is to punish him, thinking that WON'T encourage him to find a bigger weapon?

Diplomacy is how you're going to end that problem. We should follow the Clinton/Albright model. We should give Iran money, food, oil, and nuclear reactors if they agree not to pursue nuclear weaponry. That's what will work. Just like it did with N. Korea.

Fixed.

Cullion
22nd September 07, 11:23 AM
How many people said that about Iraq?
We'll blow those fucking pussies away! Everyone expected a neat and tidy battle, kicking their ass, winning the war and coming home.

Sure punch for punch we won the conventional battle with them, but is that winning the war?
We still have soldiers in Iraq dying every day. It's eating billions of dollars. Thousands of civilians are dying. The country is in a civil war.
Did we truely "win" that war?

There was never actually a definition of 'win', which by default means we lost. As we did in Afghanistan BTW.

This man you're punishing isn't big enough for you. I'd like to talk to him in person over a beer.

emboesso
22nd September 07, 11:24 AM
I deduct him one point for invalid LOL HITLER faggotry, which clearly has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.

... and one retaliatory point deducted from you.

I did not introduce Hitler to this thread.

Nor is it irrelevant to the topic at hand. "I'm-In-The-Mood-For-Jihad" has been complimentary to both Hitler and Nazism in the past, and is setting himself up as the world's foremost Holocaust denier.

But obviously, the USA clearly remains the world's most dangerous maniac.

<rolls eyes>

nihilist
22nd September 07, 01:27 PM
Now imagine you're talking about Mao.

Now imaging you're talking about the president of Iraq.

GuiltySpark
22nd September 07, 01:50 PM
Wait what we lost in Afghanistan?

Cullion
22nd September 07, 03:06 PM
Now imaging you're talking about the president of Iraq.

I am 'imaging' that, and he's got purple skin and a coat-hanger springing out of his crown. And I'm in that weird state which all right-thinking people occasionally experience betwixt wanting to gun him down, and supressing wood.

Sorry.

No really, Sorry.

nihilist
22nd September 07, 06:45 PM
A man of your intellect should not be picking on typos. Additionally the fact that I both arouse and provoke you is a testament to the power of my rhetoric.

If I start using spell check I may well become unstoppable.

Cullion
22nd September 07, 06:55 PM
A man of your intellect should not be picking on typos. Additionally the fact that I both arouse and provoke you is a testament to the power of my rhetoric.

If I start using spell check I may well become unstoppable.

Merci beaucoup

nihilist
24th September 07, 03:13 PM
Did anyone see the press interviewer laughing and joking with Ahmadinejad this morning?

Shameful.

Bukow
24th September 07, 03:30 PM
We HAVE nuclear weapons. So do half a dozen other countries. Quite frankly, America is the most prone to using them for retarded reasons...

...GROW UP! NOBODY IS ATTACKING THE STATES. THE STATES IS ATTACKING EVERYBODY...
Unless you consider 9/11 which was likely carried out by the government, or allowed to occurr because it benefitted them...

Most people around the world think America is about to have a civil war in the next 5-10 years. So think about that, maybe it will give you some perspective, but probably not because you're all too busy watching TV about the "terrorists" who don't exist....

This wins the award for Most Unintentionally Hilarious Post of the past month.

I'm loading up my 'MERICAN GUNS, getting ready to oppress some minorities, looking for the ter'rists in the meantime, and going to church on Sundays to reserve my spot next to Jesus if I die in the imminent civil war. Because if I get wounded, I won't have healthcare, since this is 'MERICA.

God damn dude, you're a freaking Canadian. And you think the US is on the brink of Civil War? I can't type enough lawlz.

elipson
24th September 07, 03:50 PM
Emboesso you truely are an idiot. After watching the US rampage over Iraq and Afghanistan, its pretty clear the best way to stop the US is to have a nuke. North Korea figured it out, and pretty soon Iran will too. Having nukes will stop the US from invading them. This wouldn't be such a big problem is the US didn't look and sound hell bent on making it happen! The fact that the US seems totally uninterested in actually pursuing any kind of diplomacy with Iran just emphasizes that point. AND, look how the US has positioned itself on both sides of Iran. And you say a war in Iran would be foolish, so that will prevent one. The same thing was said about Iraq! It didn't stop them then!

I really DON'T think the US will go to war with Iran anytime soon, but if I were the Iranians, I wouldn't be taking any chances. The current US admin is NOT known for their ability for rational thought!

And guilty spark, winning the war and winning the occupation are two different things. The regime in Iran knows that its government and its military wouldn't stand a chance against the US in a full out war. The occupation WOULD be a disaster, but that isn't what the current Iranaian leaders care about. They want to keep the system they have, therefore, they won't overtly provoke a war with the states.

And I never thought we would win a neat tidy battle in Iraq. I knew exactly what would happen. Collapse of the Iraqi military, followed by a civil war.

Dagon Akujin
24th September 07, 03:51 PM
I can't believe people were upset that Columbia U. let him come and speak. If anything, conservatives should have been delighted because Ahmadinejad was asked tough questions, repeatedly, and not allowed to simply sidestep them. The first stuff Ahmadinejad said was how in his country, you wouldn't invite someone to speak and then be so rude to him, and that was because the introducer hammered him with things he didn't want to talk about before he even stepped up.

I say, good job Columbia U. Now, if only Fox News can stop saying "I wonder how many Jewish Alumni are going to stop sending any money to Columbia U. for siding with the terrorists," or "How can I'm-In-Need-Of-Jihad even be a world leader? Iran should be ashamed at him for looking like a terrorist who just bought all his clothes in Baghdad."

I really wanted to reach through the screen and strangle that whore.

Dagon

Dagon Akujin
24th September 07, 04:14 PM
The was probably the best part of the afternoon though:

Student question: Why is it that you use capital punishment and excecute homosexuals.

Ahmadinejad: You guys use capital punishment too. You kill lots of people. But homosexuals? That is an American problem that you guys have. We don't have homosexuals in Iran. It's an American thing.

nihilist
24th September 07, 04:26 PM
He should have said: "we have no homosexuals in Iran to speak of"

Shawarma
24th September 07, 05:21 PM
Actually, the Iranian government WOULD very likely enjoy a small-scale war with the states just to bring their dissidents back in line and stop demanding change in Iranian society.

Iran isn't innocent by any stretch of the imagination if you ask me. They seem to be playing a very skillful game for regional power, now that the dumbass Americans have dismantled their biggest foe and made the Shiite parts of Iraq ripe for Iranian influence.

The nukes and such are a sideshow and not a threat to anyone. They most likely DO want nukes, but to use as bargaining chips rather than actual weapons, the way nukes are typically used these days.

Shawarma
24th September 07, 05:28 PM
Uncle Ammy is lying about the homos, incidentally. According to someone I know who've been to Iran and Persia many times, homos most certainly do exist in Iranian society. They just keep a significantly lower profile than other places, and the police largely leaves them alone.

This "tolerance" of people breaking the more strict of Iranian laws is apparently quite common-place, because the Iranian authorities don't want to turn TOO crazy-Islamic, in case their often rather bright populace might decide to swap Allah for secularism.

Lu Tze
24th September 07, 05:51 PM
He went to Iran and Persia?

Well he's certainly well travelled I'll give him that.

Shawarma
24th September 07, 05:54 PM
He was there before it became Iran. Or at least I think he did, I can't bloody well remember when this was.

Smartass.

Edit: Actually, now that I think of it, my Iranian history seems to be way off. Let's just say he was in Iran, then.

Edit again: Yep, I'm a dumbass. Persia changed its name to Iran in 1935, not after the Islamic revolution like I vaguely thought.

Sun Wukong
24th September 07, 07:54 PM
Shawarma's batting a perfect game in this thread, IMO. Absolutely right on all counts for sure. Homosexuality is actually fairly common in muslim countries because they live in such a gender segregated society.

As a matter of coincidence I know a healthy number of muslim homosexuals both male and female from the middle east. They told me that being a gay man is very risky and you have to pretend to either be obscessed with making an independent fortune before feeling suitable to marry or pretend to be devoutly religous to explain why you have no interest in women. Being a flamer is dangerous water.

For women, it's slightly less dangerous but they risk both death and rape if they are found out. The best strategy they tell me is to get the hell out of the middle east or go to a highly secular moderate government like Jordan or Dubai.

Lu Tze
24th September 07, 08:17 PM
Edit again: Yep, I'm a dumbass. Persia changed its name to Iran in 1935, not after the Islamic revolution like I vaguely thought.They've always called it Iran, Persia is just the name the Greeks used.

Persia sounds better IMO, but they were being fags about it, so all the maps had to be redrawn.

ironlurker
24th September 07, 08:28 PM
Shawarma's batting a perfect game in this thread, IMO. Absolutely right on all counts for sure. Homosexuality is actually fairly common in muslim countries because they live in such a gender segregated society.
Homosexuality has a "venerable history" in Muslim countries, but heterosexual prostitution is amply available in many areas, even in some of the Gulf states. True, you won't find it in a conservative neighborhood, but you could hop on the bus etc. and go into town. Unni Wikan's "Behind the Veil" describes a housewife who works as a prostitute in the context of an extremely conservative neighborhood and culture. The Egyptian government in the 1800's derived a lot of its income from taxes on prostitution. In Turkey, some of the most conservative elements are infamous for constant visits to whorehouses (same situation in Israel, btw).

In short, it may be difficult for you, as a man, to have a sexual relationship with a middle or high-status woman, but you can find a hooker if you really need to do so. In Iran, they have muta'a, temporary marriage, in which you can contract a marriage for a limited term -typically between a younger man and older woman- in order to get it on. This was forbidden by the Sunni hadith, so Shiites still allow it.

Technically speaking, what is extremely prevalent in the middle east - as in some countries in Latin America- is a form of bisexuality in which it's "ok" for high status males to make use of low status male prostitutes without being socially/culturally compromised.

Bruce Dunne has an excellent article on the topic: http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/bruce.htm

The anthropologist Malek Chebel, describing the Maghrib as marked by an "exaggerated machismo," claims that most men who engage in homosexual acts are functional bisexuals; they use other men as substitutes for women-and have great contempt for them. He adds that most Maghribis would consider far worse than participation in homosexual acts the presence of love, affection or equality among participants.18 Equality in sexual relations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, threatens the "hyper-masculine" order.

Basically, as long as you're the pitcher, not the catcher, you're not gay. Denial is a huge issue in the whole thing. Unni Wikan was practically attacked once by an Omani student here in Boston when she gave a talk describing the Omani institution of the mukhannith, the low-status, effeminate queens that it's "ok" for "straight" men to bugger.

Xioxou
25th September 07, 01:37 AM
The leader of the Biggest Sunni country in the world paying his respects to dead Americans.Shi'ite.


Basically, he is anti, anyone who stands in the way of the greater arab nation ruling the world.Iranians are not Arab, they're Persian.


It's eating billions of dollars. Still less than 2-4% of GDP.


setting himself up as the world's foremost Holocaust denier.As I read it, he didn't deny the holocaust, he questioned who benefited from propagating the notion.

kick
25th September 07, 02:43 AM
Iranians are not Arab, they're Persian.



I am prepared to admit I am wrong and stupid.

Is this true, Iranians are not Arabs. They don't identify themselves or share any ancestry with the people of Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

I am sure I read an article in time magazine about a year ago that said that Irans president, was intent on re-building the formerly great Persian empire, and this included Iraq and surrounding countries, and it had commentary, that he was using Persian to mean Arab.

So Iran didn't want to be part of a middle eastern empire.

And when Saddam wanted to be the centre of a greater arab community he didn't include Iran in this, I thought that was the whole reason he invaded.

Xioxou
25th September 07, 03:15 AM
Given the tenor of this board it is difficult to determine if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll pretend you're actually confused about this.

On the surface, Arabs speak Arabic. Novel, I know, but true. Farsi is the predominant language of Iran. Beyond that, Persians generally have a different ancestry separate from Arabs. While realitivly common religion and geography may lead to modern co-mingling of genes, since time immamorial the two have been separate entities.

Iranians, tracing their lineage from the Eastern Aryans (India/Burma/Nepal) and Arabs, tracing their lineage from the Western Semites (Arabian Peninsula/Northeast Africa) have separate culture, language, cuisine and politics. They are completely different enthnicities.

kick
25th September 07, 07:38 PM
Given the tenor of this board it is difficult to determine if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll pretend you're actually confused about this.

On the surface, Arabs speak Arabic. Novel, I know, but true. Farsi is the predominant language of Iran. Beyond that, Persians generally have a different ancestry separate from Arabs. While realitivly common religion and geography may lead to modern co-mingling of genes, since time immamorial the two have been separate entities.

Iranians, tracing their lineage from the Eastern Aryans (India/Burma/Nepal) and Arabs, tracing their lineage from the Western Semites (Arabian Peninsula/Northeast Africa) have separate culture, language, cuisine and politics. They are completely different enthnicities.

Huh... I genuinely didn't know this, I always thought that whilst there were differences they were the same ethnicity, sort of like USA and Canada. Same but different.

In relation to sarcasm, I have been known to use it, but not in this instance. That is one of the reasons I like sociocide, I actually learn things occaisonally in amongst the clamour.

Thank-you for a straighforward, easy to understand answer, I genuinely expected to be just flamed.

ironlurker
25th September 07, 09:23 PM
On the surface, Arabs speak Arabic. Novel, I know, but true.

Given the tenor of this board it is difficult to determine if you're being sarcastic or not
:rolleyes:

emboesso
26th September 07, 06:50 AM
Huh... I genuinely didn't know this, I always thought that whilst there were differences they were the same ethnicity, sort of like USA and Canada. Same but different.

The most important thing to understand is that both groups want you dead, infidel.

Dagon Akujin
26th September 07, 01:19 PM
The most important thing to understand is that both groups want you dead, infidel.
Yesterday, on the Mark Levin show, a caller said that all Muslims want to destroy the U.S. because it's a central part of their religion. He said that the only way to win this war would be to bomb the crap out of the countries until the people have nothing left, like we did to Germany in WWII.

The host agreed. I wanted to drive my car off a bridge and into a conservative.

Dagon

nihilist
26th September 07, 07:09 PM
Yesterday, on the Mark Levin show, a caller said that all Muslims want to destroy the U.S. because it's a central part of their religion. He said that the only way to win this war would be to bomb the crap out of the countries until the people have nothing left, like we did to Germany in WWII.

The host agreed. I wanted to drive my car off a bridge and into a conservative.

Dagon

I love it when people protest war and then express the desire to kill someone.

kick
26th September 07, 09:33 PM
The most important thing to understand is that both groups want you dead, infidel.

LOL + rep for you.