the Iranian wack job

[burmafrd]

Love how some want to gloss over this idiot and ignore him. People like that ignored Hitler too. Loved the part about no gays in Iran. Was listening to a morning show and the DJs were having all sorts of fun with that. Cindy Sheehan's group was saying that he was just misunderstood and is really an ok guy if we just give him half a chance.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Somebody should have pulled a Putin on him...except with successful results.

[burmafrd]

really he is just a mouthpiece for the Mullahs- he does not do or say anything they don't approve of. WHich is really bad since you cannot dismiss what he says.

[Crown Royal]

What did he say today? is there a transcript yet?

[trickblue]

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/09-25-07.jpg



"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like you do"...

[jterrell]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/columbia.president/index.html#cnnSTCText


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Columbia University president Lee Bollinger took Iran's president to task Monday, bluntly criticizing his record and saying he exhibits "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

Columbia University president, Lee Bollinger, excoriated Iran's leader Monday.

Bollinger's assessment came as he introduced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an audience of students and faculty.

As he read a long list of documented actions and remarks by the firebrand Iranian leader and his government, the crowd of 600 applauded.

Ahmadinejad was at the university to give a speech and take part in a question-and-answer session.

During the introduction, Bollinger cited the Iranian government's "brutal crackdown" on dissidents, public executions, executions of minors and other actions.

He assailed Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust as "ridiculous." Video Watch Bollinger slam Ahmadinejad »

"For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda," he said. He called the Iranian leader "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."


"The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history," he said.

"Will you cease this outrage?" he demanded.

Bollinger said he doubted Ahmadinejad would show the intellectual courage to answer questions posed to him.

Ahmadinejad opened his remarks by saying Bollinger's introduction was discourteous, intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.

He said academic freedom should prohibit the "vaccination" of the audience with negative comments about a guest speaker and his ideas.

"I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here," Ahmadinejad said through a translator.


"In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all," he said.

During his introductory remarks, Bollinger said Columbia would offer a faculty position to Kian Tajbakhsh, an Iranian-American social scientist who was released last week after having been held in Iran since May.

Tajbakhsh, a Columbia graduate, will be offered a position as visiting professor of urban planning as soon as Iran lets him leave the country, he said.

Bollinger asked Ahmadinejad to allow Tajbakhsh to lead a university delegation to address collegiate audiences in Iran on the subject of freedom of speech.

During a question-and-answer period after his remarks, Ahmadinejad invited Columbia students to visit Iran and promised to provide a list of universities for them. The audience applauded.

"I am only a professor who is also a university president, and today I feel the weight of all the civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad. "I only wish I could do better."

After the session, Bollinger said Ahmadinejad left without properly answering many of the questions that were posed to him.

[jterrell]

Love how some want to gloss over this idiot and ignore him. People like that ignored Hitler too. Loved the part about no gays in Iran. Was listening to a morning show and the DJs were having all sorts of fun with that. Cindy Sheehan's group was saying that he was just misunderstood and is really an ok guy if we just give him half a chance.

Who is Cindy Sheehan's group and what exactly did they say? Any link to that?

I tried to google but got nothing.

She actually quit the anti-war protest group recently; the apparent new leader is, oddly enough, an active Marine.

The guy is pretty clearly wacked out of his skull denying the Holocaust existed.

And I am pretty sure there are Iranian gays. Just because you don't make it public doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Senator Craig isn't 'gay' either....

[vta]

What's more disturbing is the misplaced focus of his speech and his lack of answers.

Too many are citing the more glamorous aspects like his statement about gays, and how Bollinger was rude.

The very fact that the President of a nation does not answer one question leveled at him is telling and legitimizes our country's concerns over all of their intentions and actions. He evaded everything with hypotheticals and counter questions.

It also goes unsaid that instead of looking forward to a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he intends to dig back into dead, unchangeable history. Look back with what, as he calls it, another perspective. Which is of course only intended to rewrite history and legitimize any actions based on it today. A retrograde ideology indeed.

He's transparent and shallow and it's not even addressed.

[peplaw06]

I'm confused as to why Bollinger would have this guy speaking at his school if he were so disapproving of his messages...??

[Crown Royal]

I'm confused as to why Bollinger would have this guy speaking at his school if he were so disapproving of his messages...??


Kind of how I felt. I wonder if it was specifically so he could berate him.

[Garland powerplay]

He took advantage to nuke him. The Iranian president pandered to the public and won major support from his people for playing the victim. It was a clever move and he knew exactly what he was doing. No doubts he probably gained sympathizers inside and out.

[silverbear]

I'm confused as to why Bollinger would have this guy speaking at his school if he were so disapproving of his messages...??

That's what I was wondering, too... if you so completely disapprove of what a speaker stands for (which is perhaps a defensible position here), why invite him to speak to your students?? What exactly is the point behind that, unless it was to give ol' Bollinger a chance to go off on a rant??

[BrAinPaiNt]

I'm confused as to why Bollinger would have this guy speaking at his school if he were so disapproving of his messages...??

Wonder if he was doing it to try and curb the criticism that Columbia has garnered as a result of letting a dictator come and speak at their school.

[burmafrd]

I think that is EXACTLY why Bollinger did it. His BS about Free Speech is a joke. Columbia has denied several conservative speakers the same rights they granted the wack job. One of the Minutmen spoke and was threatened by a group of students with physical attacks and Bollinger pretty much ignored it. He got so much well deserved criticism for this mess that he probably thought if he did what he did he could skate. And he probably will.
By the way- that bit about Cindy Sheehans group I heard on the radio. A spokesman (woman actually) really looked bad as she refused to criticise the wack job for ANYTHING. The group is called something like Pink for Peace (or something weird like that).

[joseephuss]

What's more disturbing is the misplaced focus of his speech and his lack of answers.

Too many are citing the more glamorous aspects like his statement about gays, and how Bollinger was rude.

The very fact that the President of a nation does not answer one question leveled at him is telling and legitimizes our country's concerns over all of their intentions and actions. He evaded everything with hypotheticals and counter questions.

It also goes unsaid that instead of looking forward to a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he intends to dig back into dead, unchangeable history. Look back with what, as he calls it, another perspective. Which is of course only intended to rewrite history and legitimize any actions based on it today. A retrograde ideology indeed.

He's transparent and shallow and it's not even addressed.

Sounds like any other leader of a country. :D

I didn't need to see him yesterday to know that he and Iran are a concern. Felt that way before he was in power and before we went into Iraq. I thought Iran was and is the bigger concern. I also think they have the most potential to actually becoming a working democracy. Well at least they were several years ago. They have quite a group of young people that want to get away from religious leadership.

[Mavs Man]

Kind of how I felt. I wonder if it was specifically so he could berate him.

Ding ding ding.

[Doomsday101]

I think it was stupid inviting the guy to start with. Hell why not invite Charles Manson or the Grand Wizard of the KKK next time.

[vta]

Sounds like any other leader of a country. :D

I didn't need to see him yesterday to know that he and Iran are a concern. Felt that way before he was in power and before we went into Iraq. I thought Iran was and is the bigger concern. I also think they have the most potential to actually becoming a working democracy. Well at least they were several years ago. They have quite a group of young people that want to get away from religious leadership.

Their population is very much a liberal bunch, in that they enjoy freedom from religious oppression. They're the most like a Western population tahn any in the ME.

They are the biggest concern, and the reason America is in Iraq right now. It may or may not have turned out to be such a great strategy, but it sure wasn't about WMD's, or an aging dictator.

[vta]

I think it was stupid inviting the guy to start with. Hell why not invite Charles Manson or the Grand Wizard of the KKK next time.

I think it was a good idea, and I wish I had been able to attend. Too bad it was packed within the first hour of being announced.

It ended up a dissapointment, because it became about Bollingers preamble, and no one persisted in the proper line of questioning.

[Doomsday101]

I think it was a good idea, and I wish I had been able to attend. Too bad it was packed within the first hour of being announced.

It ended up a dissapointment, because it became about Bollingers preamble, and no one persisted in the proper line of questioning.

What makes it a good ideal?

[vta]

What makes it a good ideal?

Because talking is always a good idea. In an effort to understand his gripes or supposed gripes, to expose his hypocrasy, to expose his intent and therefore legitimize concern and action. To hear from his mouth what form of diplomacy he can offer. Which is of course none, as evidenced by his evasion of all questions. He doesn't want answers, he wants to legitimize his country's bad actions, and as always claim someone else is to blame.

I think then would have been a great time to expose the very retrograde mindset that we're dealing with, in terms of his idea of fixing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

[burmafrd]

Sad fact is that most of the media did not cover the columbia joke very much, nor the UN address. they are too busy with Britney and OJ.

[vta]

Sad fact is that most of the media did not cover the columbia joke very much, nor the UN address. they are too busy with Britney and OJ.

'No gays' in Iran and Bollinger, that's the big hub bub...

"Fantasy-based analysis rules the airwaves, and fantasy-based policymaking dominates Washington." -Robert Spencer.

[jterrell]

I think that is EXACTLY why Bollinger did it. His BS about Free Speech is a joke. Columbia has denied several conservative speakers the same rights they granted the wack job. One of the Minutmen spoke and was threatened by a group of students with physical attacks and Bollinger pretty much ignored it. He got so much well deserved criticism for this mess that he probably thought if he did what he did he could skate. And he probably will.
By the way- that bit about Cindy Sheehans group I heard on the radio. A spokesman (woman actually) really looked bad as she refused to criticise the wack job for ANYTHING. The group is called something like Pink for Peace (or something weird like that).

Pink for Peace
...


rofl!!!

I'll have to google them but I bet I get more porn results then anything else, lol.

[Doomsday101]

Because talking is always a good idea. In an effort to understand his gripes or supposed gripes, to expose his hypocrasy, to expose his intent and therefore legitimize concern and action. To hear from his mouth what form of diplomacy he can offer. Which is of course none, as evidenced by his evasion of all questions. He doesn't want answers, he wants to legitimize his country's bad actions, and as always claim someone else is to blame.

I think then would have been a great time to expose the very retrograde mindset that we're dealing with, in terms of his idea of fixing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I believe in meaningful talks not what this guy has to say. He seldom makes any sense what so ever and you would waste time with him to talk? I don't think so. He actually hold no real power in Iran, he has no control over the budget, the army or much else. He is a figure head of the Immans they control what takes place in Iran

[vta]

I believe in meaningful talks not what this guy has to say. He seldom makes any sense what so ever and you would waste time with him to talk? I don't think so. He actually hold no real power in Iran, he has no control over the budget, the army or much else. He is a figure head of the Immans they control what takes place in Iran

I know his position, but if this what they want to put forward as a mouthpiece, then all the better to expose them for what they are. An opportunity was missed. The meat of the matter was missed and we're left with the usual dead end insults.

I suppose I can't be too harsh, as it wasn't policy makers with focus doing the questioning, and it didn't help when bags in the audience clapped when he called America terrorists and blamed the U.S. for terror problems in his own country.

I should have expected nothing better.

[Doomsday101]

I know his position, but if this what they want to put forward as a mouthpiece, then all the better to expose them for what they are. An opportunity was missed. The meat of the matter was missed and we're left with the usual dead end insults.

I suppose I can't be too harsh, as it wasn't policy makers with focus doing the questioning, and it didn't help when bags in the audience clapped when he called America terrorists and blamed the U.S. for terror problems in his own country.

I should have expected nothing better.

What I'm saying is it was nothing meaningful, he came here and used Columbia for his own propaganda purposes and Columbia took the bait hook line and sinker. This is playing into what Ahmadinejad and Iran want and will spin this throughout the Middle East. I do believe in meaningful dialog with leaders who truly want peace but a terrorist controlled country is not interested in peace they are interested in spreading their form of Islamic law throughout Europe and the world. People talk about Israel and Palestinian peace yet Hamas and many of the groups that Iran supports are not interested in peace they want the destruction of Israel and nothing short of that will ever do. How can you talk to someone whose intent is to basically kill you?

[Ben_n_austin]

If that was the President of my University, I'd be ashamed of the method that was used, his speech and the fact that this idiot was affiliated with my school's staff.


That was absolutely a terrible tactic, and I think Iran's leader made a tool of him.

The students seemed to agree. I don't think the guy is that bad of a guy. He comes from a different culture. We should be more concerned with how the military industrial complex controls ours.

[trickblue]

If that was the President of my University, I'd be ashamed of the method that was used, his speech and the fact that this idiot was affiliated with my school's staff.


That was absolutely a terrible tactic, and I think Iran's leader made a tool of him.

They both look like tools...

The students seemed to agree. I don't think the guy is that bad of a guy. He comes from a different culture. We should be more concerned with how the military industrial complex controls ours.

Ahmadinejad or Bollinger... :huh:

[vta]

What I'm saying is it was nothing meaningful, he came here and used Columbia for his own propaganda purposes and Columbia took the bait hook line and sinker. This is playing into what Ahmadinejad and Iran want and will spin this throughout the Middle East. I do believe in meaningful dialog with leaders who truly want peace but a terrorist controlled country is not interested in peace they are interested in spreading their form of Islamic law throughout Europe and the world. People talk about Israel and Palestinian peace yet Hamas and many of the groups that Iran supports are not interested in peace they want the destruction of Israel and nothing short of that will ever do. How can you talk to someone whose intent is to basically kill you?

What better way to prove an assertion but let your enemy prove it himself? By taking the opportunity to scrutinize his words for their deeper meaning and watching his response to it?

Yes, it ended up as nothing meaningful, because there was little interest in identifying the flaws in his assertions, and instead relying on insinuating he is a dictator was the topic of the day. Columbia invited him, and he offered nothing useful to spin, nothing he hasn't said elsewhere. The opportunity to expose him, to legitimize our concerns and actions was missed; because like it or not, there are plenty crying politics over the whole thing and still do not think Iran is at the heart of our war. Iran is just a little country with out bigger designs trying to get along in a world dominated by the bully, America.

Nonsense. He proved it in his appearance at Columbia and it was still sorely missed.

By showing him for what he is, to a pubic that's very skeptical, would legitimize our country's lack of interest in diplomacy, and the need to take further action where necessary. But the brains were lacking and the moment passed.

[vta]

If that was the President of my University, I'd be ashamed of the method that was used, his speech and the fact that this idiot was affiliated with my school's staff.


That was absolutely a terrible tactic, and I think Iran's leader made a tool of him.

The students seemed to agree. I don't think the guy is that bad of a guy. He comes from a different culture. We should be more concerned with how the military industrial complex controls ours.

Case in point, Doomsday101.

[Doomsday101]

Case in point, Doomsday101.

I just think Columbia was stupid for inviting the guy to start with I saw no reason what so ever to invite him.

[Ben_n_austin]

They both look like tools...



Ahmadinejad or Bollinger... :huh:

What are we going to do? Impose our beliefs on that country, too?

We see how well it's working in Iraq.

We can't Americanize everyone, and, as VTA said, a huge opportunity was missed for diplomacy.

Instead, were left with a dim-witted anecdote from an "intellect" of a highly regarded university... and what doomsday said, something for the middle east to spin (the one part I agree with).

But we spin more than anyone in this world--with our media.

I found it interesting that the students, those interested in learning, weren't quick to boo Ahmandinejihad, but instead they seemed to be objective -- as opposed to the media.

He made some good points about our countries tendencies to want to dominate the way others live.

[burmafrd]

I don't know what media you are talking about but ours certainly does not spin it the Government way. And I find it hard to take anyone seriously that thinks the Wack Job is "not that bad of a guy". Seriously have you BOTHERED to see what he has SAID in previous speeches over the last 2 years?

[trickblue]

What are we going to do? Impose our beliefs on that country, too?

We see how well it's working in Iraq.

We can't Americanize everyone, and, as VTA said, a huge opportunity was missed for diplomacy.

Instead, were left with a dim-witted anecdote from an "intellect" of a highly regarded university... and what doomsday said, something for the middle east to spin (the one part I agree with).

But we spin more than anyone in this world--with our media.

I found it interesting that the students, those interested in learning, weren't quick to boo Ahmandinejihad, but instead they seemed to be objective -- as opposed to the media.

He made some good points about our countries tendencies to want to dominate the way others live.

That's not what I was asking...

You said:

I don't think the guy is that bad of a guy.

In regards to dominating the way others live, you might want to take a look at how he rules his own people. He's a Dictator...

Did you know: (multiple sources)

Former hostages have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the key individuals holding Americans inside the embassy in 1979?
_________________________

The Canadian government listed Iran as one of the thirteen worst abusers of human rights in 2006.
_________________________

Amnesty International said that dissidents who oppose the government non-violently face harassment, torture and execution and the election of Ahmadinejad signaled the defeat of "pro-reform" supporters.
_________________________

According to Human Rights Watch, "respect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement."
_________________________

In Austria, an exiled Iranian dissident accused Ahmadinejad of playing a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of a Kurdish opposition leader and two associates in Vienna.
_________________________

On October 26, 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "World Without Zionism". According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain on the Islamic world" that must be "wiped off the map." This coupled with the fact he is developing nuclear weapons can't be ignored.

Along with most of the rest of the world, Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed concerns over Ahmadinejad's speech.
_________________________

Ahmadinejad has made several controversial statements about the Holocaust, calling it "a myth", and criticizing European laws against Holocaust denial. In a May 30, 2006 interview with Der Spiegel Ahmadinejad again questioned the Holocaust several times, insisting there were "two opinions" on it. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it"
_________________________

There are many more examples...

He is "that bad of a guy"...

[Ben_n_austin]

That's not what I was asking...

You said:



In regards to dominating the way others live, you might want to take a look at how he rules his own people. He's a Dictator...

Did you know: (multiple sources)

Former hostages have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the key individuals holding Americans inside the embassy in 1979?
_________________________

The Canadian government listed Iran as one of the thirteen worst abusers of human rights in 2006.
_________________________

Amnesty International said that dissidents who oppose the government non-violently face harassment, torture and execution and the election of Ahmadinejad signaled the defeat of "pro-reform" supporters.
_________________________

According to Human Rights Watch, "respect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement."
_________________________

In Austria, an exiled Iranian dissident accused Ahmadinejad of playing a key role in the 1989 execution-style slayings of a Kurdish opposition leader and two associates in Vienna.
_________________________

On October 26, 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a conference in Tehran entitled "World Without Zionism". According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain on the Islamic world" that must be "wiped off the map." This coupled with the fact he is developing nuclear weapons can't be ignored.

Along with most of the rest of the world, Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed concerns over Ahmadinejad's speech.
_________________________

Ahmadinejad has made several controversial statements about the Holocaust, calling it "a myth", and criticizing European laws against Holocaust denial. In a May 30, 2006 interview with Der Spiegel Ahmadinejad again questioned the Holocaust several times, insisting there were "two opinions" on it. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it"
_________________________

There are many more examples...

He is "that bad of a guy"...

Trick, I'm aware of all of this. But if you only want to see one side of it, then you're only going to see one side of it. That's what I'm saying.

We play part in this "evil" thing, too.

[trickblue]

Trick, I'm aware of all of this. But if you only want to see one side of it, then you're only going to see one side of it. That's what I'm saying.

We play part in this "evil" thing, too.

That was the point of my whole post Ben... what one side am I seeing?

Is it the anti-dictator side?

Those weren't conservative entities by any means that I quoted...

Are you saying I am missing something? How is he not a bad guy?

How am I seeing one side of this. My sources are pretty liberal....

I find it interesting a self-prescribed dictator is termed as "not that bad of a guy"

I don't like Bush by any means, but I see you run him in the ground constantly. Then I see you describe a dictator as "not a bad guy"...

I guess I am confusing politics and agenda with clear thoughts...

Here is the bottom line...

Ahmadinejad > Bush
Bush > Ahmadinejad

Can one be better than the other without a conspiracy? I am not being disrespectful in that Ben, I'm not...

It is nothing against you Ben... I like ya... but compiling things over the years, it seems you lean to Marxism. Is that a fair assumption? :D

[Garland powerplay]

We should pull out and let them fight it out. It will reduce the population of religious fighters and suicide bombers.

[Ben_n_austin]

That was the point of my whole post Ben... what one side am I seeing?

Is it the anti-dictator side?

Those weren't conservative entities by any means that I quoted...

Are you saying I am missing something? How is he not a bad guy?

How am I seeing one side of this. My sources are pretty liberal....

I find it interesting a self-prescribed dictator is termed as "not that bad of a guy"

I don't like Bush by any means, but I see you run him in the ground constantly. Then I see you describe a dictator as "not a bad guy"...

I guess I am confusing politics and agenda with clear thoughts...

Here is the bottom line...

Ahmadinejad > Bush
Bush > Ahmadinejad

Can one be better than the other without a conspiracy? I am not being disrespectful in that Ben, I'm not...

It is nothing against you Ben... I like ya... but compiling things over the years, it seems you lean to Marxism. Is that a fair assumption? :D

I'll ignore the attempt at a personal attack and just point out what's going on here. :)

You've been a guy whom on several occasions has stood up for Bush and, at the same time, has basically came to the conclusion that he's not a bad guy (I've called him a flop from the beginning; over the years, respectivley).

Yet you say "Ahmendinejihad > Bush; Bush > Ahmendinejihad...

So is what you're trying to say is that Ahmendine is a bad guy and that Bush is a bad guy as well?

The fact that Bush can't hold a candle to this guy in an intellectual sense is part of the problem of why we're dealing with the conflict.

Not only is Bush a bad guy, but he's too stupid to deal with someone of another culture that possesses keen mental faculties, as radical as we may view him, and accept the realities of that culture while also being diplomatic.

I think the problem is that we have two guys who are firm in their beliefs, but one of them is too stupid to compromise in any rational manner.

I know he has a history of anti-americanism, but so does the whole middle east....

What are we going to do, nuke everyone?

This an ordeal that calls for a certain level of diplomacy that cannot possibly be provided by the current nitwit in chief.

[Ben_n_austin]

Is your country tired of playing world police yet?

[burmafrd]

any given sunday. ANYONE that thinks the wack job is "not a bad guy" really has very little reason to complain about anyone else.

[vta]

I'll ignore the attempt at a personal attack and just point out what's going on here. :)

You've been a guy whom on several occasions has stood up for Bush and, at the same time, has basically came to the conclusion that he's not a bad guy (I've called him a flop from the beginning; over the years, respectivley).

Yet you say "Ahmendinejihad > Bush; Bush > Ahmendinejihad...

So is what you're trying to say is that Ahmendine is a bad guy and that Bush is a bad guy as well?

The fact that Bush can't hold a candle to this guy in an intellectual sense is part of the problem of why we're dealing with the conflict.

Not only is Bush a bad guy, but he's too stupid to deal with someone of another culture that possesses keen mental faculties, as radical as we may view him, and accept the realities of that culture while also being diplomatic.

I think the problem is that we have two guys who are firm in their beliefs, but one of them is too stupid to compromise in any rational manner.

I know he has a history of anti-americanism, but so does the whole middle east....

What are we going to do, nuke everyone?

This an ordeal that calls for a certain level of diplomacy that cannot possibly be provided by the current nitwit in chief.

I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that Bush can't hold a candle to Ahmadinejad, intellectually.

The first deficiency is the language barrier. His interpreters may speak very well, but does he? The general pop of Iran already thinks he's a fool, let's see how his intellect holds up. Next time I see my Iranian friend, I'll be sure to ask him. There's nothing keen about Ahmadinejad, mentally or otherwise. He's transparent and offensive.

The second is the sheer lack of attention given to his transparent backwards ideology. His idea's at solutions to the Israel/Palestine conflict are so backward, he makes our President look like a pioneer. We know he's not.

Bush's intellectual capacity, whether high or low has nothing to do with why we're dealing with a conflict with iran. It's something that has been going on since before his father took office. It has fluctuated in it's intensity, yet has existed since before our current goofball in office.

[jrumann59]

For those that thought diplomatic relations with this guy is good, one word for you, CHAMBERLAIN

[vta]

For those that thought diplomatic relations with this guy is good, one word for you, CHAMBERLAIN

I'm not so much about being diplomatic in the face of his behaviour, but more for having someone smart enough to have dialogue with him and expose his rhetorical nonsense.

[jrumann59]

I'm not so much about being diplomatic in the face of his behaviour, but more for having someone smart enough to have dialogue with him and expose his rhetorical nonsense.

Unfortunately you can't find someone that is recognized in Islamic community that has the acorns to call him out. A high ranking Muslim is the only that can credibly denounce him everyone else in the world for the most part already thinks he is crazier the Kim Jong Il

[burmafrd]

that really is the big problem. Most of the Islamic community are too afraid to speak out against the fundamentalists. So they have basically allowed them to become the face of Islam. And as time goes by, more and more people will do that. And it will get worse for the Islamic community in the rest of the world. Even here in the US they refuse to step up. There have basically been no real steps taken by any US Islamic leader to counter the fundamentalists- or too even expose those that could be dangerous here in the US.

[jrumann59]

If this country gets attacked again the racial tension and haterd that will arise will make the Civil Rights movement look like a walk in the park. There will be mayhem and the muslim population i this country will have to leave or reap what their fanatics have sown.

[ologan]

Is your country tired of playing world police yet?

Which country are you asking about being tired of playing world policeman? Which country are you from?

[Garland powerplay]

The problem with the guy from Iran is he is telling one thing to the world ,while he is telling his own people something else. The
islampic law is fundamentally flawed.

[jterrell]

The problem with the guy from Iran is he is telling one thing to the world ,while he is telling his own people something else. The
islampic law is fundamentally flawed.

Islamic law is much like what the Christian Conservatives would push through here.

The wack jobs are the best evidence of why we have a separation of Church and State.

I am Christian and would feel like the masses here that "we" are right and Osama is full of absolutely crud but he feels the same way obviously and I am more concerned about being committed to ideals we can share across religions and what we can prove than what we feel or believe.

[Garland powerplay]

The separation of church and state means to me that you will not take away my freedom to express my beliefs within the borders of US. I will pray when I want how I want ,and when I want.
The law doesn't work because man cannot keep the law. A savior is needed due to the sinful nature of man but thats another subject. They are all behind closed doors doing the exact thing the religious police won't let them do on the street.

[Ben_n_austin]

Islamic law is much like what the Christian Conservatives would push through here.

The wack jobs are the best evidence of why we have a separation of Church and State.

I am Christian and would feel like the masses here that "we" are right and Osama is full of absolutely crud but he feels the same way obviously and I am more concerned about being committed to ideals we can share across religions and what we can prove than what we feel or believe.

That's sort of what I was saying. We're not going to make the Muslims Christian. I've denounced my faith due to the mis-usage of its fundamentals for evil deeds.

But this is sort of what I was saying. I'm not saying that I like the dude... just that he's from a different culture.

Given that, I think that a certain level of diplomacy would serve his inflated ego relatively well.

[Ben_n_austin]

If this country gets attacked again the racial tension and haterd that will arise will make the Civil Rights movement look like a walk in the park. There will be mayhem and the muslim population i this country will have to leave or reap what their fanatics have sown.

If this were early 1900s you'd have a point. But it's not; and you don't.

Most people, other than obviously yourself, wouldn't "hate" someone based on their religious preference; and most people wouldn't be so ignorant as to hate everyone that falls under a certain religion, culture or "population" based on what a small portion of that group chose to do.

This is America; not white America. I've been reading an awful lot of clueless posts from the above poster.

What he is saying is that if we're attacked by Muslim fanatics that the public, in general, would assert hatred and violence against even those who practice Islam to a moderate degree--pretty stupid thing to say.

This statement shows lack of knowledge about what America is all about.

[burmafrd]

Any given- I don't know where you live but it must be in dreamland. Another attack like 9/11 and the reaction would be ten times what it was on Sept 12, 2001. If you don't see that, then you are truly blind. But then anyone that subscribes to the thought that the 10s of millions of Christians are like Islamic Fundamentalists probably is not smart enough to figure that out. There are probably a lot fewer so called christians that are that rabid then there are Islamic fundamentalists- but then you don't want to hear that.

[Ben_n_austin]

Any given- I don't know where you live but it must be in dreamland. Another attack like 9/11 and the reaction would be ten times what it was on Sept 12, 2001. If you don't see that, then you are truly blind. But then anyone that subscribes to the thought that the 10s of millions of Christians are like Islamic Fundamentalists probably is not smart enough to figure that out. There are probably a lot fewer so called christians that are that rabid then there are Islamic fundamentalists- but then you don't want to hear that.

I honestly do doubt the proposition that American would assert hate towards Muslims in general, as a whole, if attacked.

I think our society has more capacity to understand that there are a lot of individual Muslims who aren't a threat to us at all. I think the majority Americans - at least the educated ones - don't feel this way at all. And a lot of us, see people of many different backgrounds as being American.

Sorry, I don't buy the "if you attack us, we'll hate you all". I know a lot of civil Muslims--same with the American public in general.

[jterrell]

The separation of church and state means to me that you will not take away my freedom to express my beliefs within the borders of US. I will pray when I want how I want ,and when I want.
The law doesn't work because man cannot keep the law. A savior is needed due to the sinful nature of man but thats another subject. They are all behind closed doors doing the exact thing the religious police won't let them do on the street.

The separation of church and state goes back to Thomas Jefferson and creates a "wall" between religion and government.

See for our founding fathers Christianity had been the oppressive religious force.

They would have been completely opposed to the majority of the Christian right rhetoric because they had seen first hand what that lead to. If they approved of it, they'd still be in England.

Our religion, like any other, is not immune to fundamentalist extremism and brain washing talking heads. A simple turn of a phrase and we go from a humble peace-loving message to a war-faring, bitter, fascist.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

[jterrell]

I honestly do doubt the proposition that American would assert hate towards Muslims in general, as a whole, if attacked.

I think our society has more capacity to understand that there are a lot of individual Muslims who aren't a threat to us at all. I think the majority Americans - at least the educated ones - don't feel this way at all. And a lot of us, see people of many different backgrounds as being American.

Sorry, I don't buy the "if you attack us, we'll hate you all". I know a lot of civil Muslims--same with the American public in general.

There would be the typical idiots beating up random arabic folks; be they muslim or not. We are a big country and certainly idiots exist.

I do not think it will be worse than before however because if anything we are more educated as a country now regarding arabic nations and muslims in general.

[Ben_n_austin]

There would be the typical idiots beating up random arabic folks; be they muslim or not. We are a big country and certainly idiots exist.

I do not think it will be worse than before however because if anything we are more educated as a country now regarding arabic nations and muslims in general.

I agree. I wasn't saying that it wouldn't happen in a few places. But like you said, we're more educated as a whole due to our previous experiences.

[Garland powerplay]

I doubt there would be 'christian suicide bombers'. It contradicts everything the faith stands for.