PDA

View Full Version : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Lies About Homosexuality in Iran, and His Hypocracy Concerning


Politicz
09-26-2007, 08:51 AM
Sovereignty.


Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the Columbia University audience that homosexuality didn't exist in Iran, and was in fact a "phenomenon". His statement was met by laughter. :lmao2:

Hey, read the following article by Human Rights News, that reveals not only that homosexuals exist in Iran-just like everywhere else in the world, but they are being jailed, tortured, and executed just for being homosexual.

Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct (Human Rights Watch, 22-11-2005)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad then spoke at the United Nations on September 25, 2007. He spoke with eloquent sarcasm marked with blatant hypocracy. Here is some of what Ahmadinejad said at the United Nations:

" ...Mr. Ahmadinejad devoted much of his speech to criticism of “certain powers,” which he said were responsible for many of the world’s problems. These powers routinely breached human rights despite claiming to be exclusive advocates of those rights; aggressively attacked indigenous cultures and national values; promoted lewdness and violence; perpetuated gross economic imbalances between countries; violated rules of international law and disrespected their global commitments; and escalated the arms race.
Mr. Ahmadinejad warned these countries “to learn from history and their actions,” saying they had lost the competence to lead the planet, and that international relations would soon change.
“The era of darkness will end, prisoners will return home, the occupied lands will be freed, Palestine and Iraq will be liberated from the dominion of the occupiers, and the people of America and Europe will be free of the pressure exerted by the Zionists.
“The tender-hearted and humanity-loving governments will replace the aggressive and domineering ones. Human dignity will be regained. The pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the world, and people will live together in a brotherly and affectionate manner.” (:talktothehand:)

He announced that Iran would help establish the “Coalition for Peace,” which he described as “a front of fraternity, amity and sustainable peace based on monotheism and justice...”
You can get the full article at:
Iranian President tells General Assembly that nuclear issue is now closed

Now, if Ahmadinejad's politically tired assed speech at the United Nations wasn't hypocracy, then there's no such thing as hypocracy. He lied to Columbia University concerning if homosexuals existed in Iran, then he strolls over to the United Nations under thick security so that no one could shoot his pathetic, lying ass, and tries to gain sympathy from the U.N. audience with a hypocritical speech about love and brotherhood. Yet, homosexuals, and anyone considered to be immoral inside of Iran, are regularly jailed, tortured, put to death, or run out of the country. Yet, Ahmadinejad "arrogantly" stood before the United Nations like a fucking wolf in sheep's clothing, and stated that, "the tender-hearted and humanity-loving governments will replace the aggressive and domineering ones..." He even was foolish enough to announce that Iran would help establish the "coalition for peace", which Ahmadinejad called "a front of fraternity, amity and sustainable peace based on monotheism and justice." What complete hypocritical bullshit!

Ahmadinejad arrogantly stood before the United Nations assembly ranting on and on about the abuses of power by the Western nations, while cautiously reframing from talking about his own country's abuse of internal power, and being a state sponsor of terrorism inside of Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and South America. Then Ahmadinejad started sniveling about how the U.N. was impotent in its abilities to effectively solve the world's problems, and blah, blah, blah. Then news media cameras showed nation audience members. Some people were holding their own little private conversations, others were picking their noses, and one black man looked like his ass was nearly comatose because his mouth was hung open, and he was cutting some heavy zzzz. Several other people were asleep, too. Nobody seemed to really give a good damn what Ahmadinejad was saying, and this is probably why his ass wasn't arrested for human rights violations, or being a state sponsor of terrorism throughout the Middle East.

So, what do you think, should Ahmadinejad be taken seriously about wanting to help bring peace to the world? Is there really "sovereignty" inside of Iran, and do you thing Ahmadinejad is a hypocrit for trying to point a finger at the Western powers concerning violating other nation's sovereignty, when the Iranian people's sovereignty is violated by their own government if they so much as breath wrong? Or, should he be arrested and charged with human rights violations for executing people for being homosexual, or immoral? Should Columbia University have invited Ahmadinejad to speak at their school? And, do you think Mamoud Ahmadinejad is strang,crazy, or politically a lot like president Bush? :disbelief:,:o

disrupter
09-26-2007, 09:46 AM
Please don't remove the ignorance he shares with the American Religious Right.

Maybe they can have an international gay hate conference?

And hold it at Fire Island NY, lol
or San Francisco's Castro district?
West Hollywood?

if there were a god in heaven they would both mutually expose one another as the bigoted, hypocritical, moral frauds they both are,

reason #592 of 'Why I am an Atheist/Agnostic.'

Smurf-Herder
09-26-2007, 05:38 PM
Please don't remove the ignorance he shares with the American Religious Right.

Maybe they can have an international gay hate conference?

And hold it at Fire Island NY, lol
or San Francisco's Castro district?
West Hollywood?

if there were a god in heaven they would both mutually expose one another as the bigoted, hypocritical, moral frauds they both are,

reason #592 of 'Why I am an Atheist/Agnostic.'

You are such an ignorant ass.

Bill
09-26-2007, 05:44 PM
So, what do you think, should Ahmadinejad be taken seriously about wanting to help bring peace to the world?

I don't think this is a serious question.

Arrest him for killin' gays if you want, that's fine by me.

I nominate radio and smurf to slap the cuffs on him. They seem like big strong guys to me.

Moby
09-26-2007, 07:04 PM
Look, the guy is nuts but he's smart enough to play up to the people around him that are looking for hate. He claims that he's doing God's work and that he's a religious man. He is destroying his countries economy to fill his own pockets. He is spreading false propaganda around the world to meet his own personal desires.

Who am I talking about?

Smurf-Herder
09-26-2007, 10:50 PM
I saw his UN speech on C-Span. He started off with some sort of Islamic benediction type thing concerning the return of the Imam Madhi (remember, I've mentioned him in other threads). Then he started on about how the world needs to revere women more. Considering how women are treated in Iran, it really blew my mind.

Nothing this guy says can be trusted. Everything he said was wacko.

All the international press is pushing is how bad the University President insulted Ahmadinejad. So no matter what Ahmadinejad said, it doesn't matter. He got a propaganda coup out of it, overseas.

Bill
09-26-2007, 11:52 PM
So no matter what Ahmadinejad said, it doesn't matter. He got a propaganda coup out of it, overseas.

He sure did.

Your little psywar gambit backfired on you.

You're no closer to your war than before, he's more beloved in the middle east than ever.

Now he's a star, at the UN, the hero of the underdogs.

radioguy
09-27-2007, 12:04 AM
He sure did.

Your little psywar gambit backfired on you.

You're no closer to your war than before, he's more beloved in the middle east than ever.

Now he's a star, at the UN, the hero of the underdogs.

Our little psywar gambit? Who is "Our" supposed to be?

Bill
09-27-2007, 12:18 AM
The paranoid and frightened corporatist/neocon/media culture.

Republicans - the screaming and violent 29%.

Like the representative that threatened to cut off funding to columbia.

You. Personally. A signature representative of that culture.

The people that want to turn my country into a paranoid police state.

Politicz
09-27-2007, 07:41 AM
Please don't remove the ignorance he shares with the American Religious Right.

Maybe they can have an international gay hate conference?

And hold it at Fire Island NY, lol
or San Francisco's Castro district?
West Hollywood?

if there were a god in heaven they would both mutually expose one another as the bigoted, hypocritical, moral frauds they both are,

reason #592 of 'Why I am an Atheist/Agnostic.'

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I think that Bush and Ahmadinejad think a lot alike, and this is one of many reasons why they can't stand each other. I think Ahmadinejad really did believe what he was saying at the U.N. I also think he really believes he is right in jailing, torturing, and murdering Iranian citizens who are immoral in his eyes, and homosexual for engaging in sex with the same sex. Now, I find homosexuality to be repulsive-but that's because I'm a heterosexual. However, I don't think any person should be put to death for being homosexual, or having sex outside of marriage with the opposite, or for immoral behavior. And, Ahmadinejad has committed human rights violations against homosexuals, and other citizens of Iran. Yet, he's walking around free as a bird inside of the United States, and no one with any kind of authority has even bothered to arrest him. :disbelief:,:o

Politicz
09-27-2007, 07:47 AM
I don't think this is a serious question.

Arrest him for killin' gays if you want, that's fine by me.

I nominate radio and smurf to slap the cuffs on him. They seem like big strong guys to me.

I think Ahmadinejad should be arrested, too. However, as usual, no one with authority bothers to do so. I guess when one of Ahmadinejad's nuclear missles finally are built well enough to make it to America, and cause great destruction, the American government will finally decide to take appropriate action. And, Ahmadinejad will probably staunchly deny having launched the weapon at us-although grid coordinances will reveal that the nuclear weapon came directly from Iran.:disbelief:

Politicz
09-27-2007, 07:49 AM
Look, the guy is nuts but he's smart enough to play up to the people around him that are looking for hate. He claims that he's doing God's work and that he's a religious man. He is destroying his countries economy to fill his own pockets. He is spreading false propaganda around the world to meet his own personal desires.

Who am I talking about?

It sounds like you are talking about Bush-however, I hope you're talking about Ahmadinejad. Hell, you could be talking about Bush or Ahmadinejad.

Politicz
09-27-2007, 07:59 AM
I saw his UN speech on C-Span. He started off with some sort of Islamic benediction type thing concerning the return of the Imam Madhi (remember, I've mentioned him in other threads). Then he started on about how the world needs to revere women more. Considering how women are treated in Iran, it really blew my mind.

Nothing this guy says can be trusted. Everything he said was wacko.

All the international press is pushing is how bad the University President insulted Ahmadinejad. So no matter what Ahmadinejad said, it doesn't matter. He got a propaganda coup out of it, overseas.

Exactly, and this is why Columbia University shouldn't have invited Ahmadinejad. They should have known that Ahmadinejad was going to use his Columbia University and U.N. speeches to his own political advantages. He also knew just how to push Bush's and Bollingers political buttons in order to make them both behave in a certain way. It would have looked better for Columbia University, if Bollinger hadn't said a word, and just let Ahmadinejad carelessly rant on, and lie about homosexuals being put to death in Iran, and denial of wanting a nuclear program in Iran for "peaceful purposes. This way, Ahamdinejad would have put his foot in his mouth, and looked like the human rights violator, and Arab dictator that he truly is.

Politicz
09-27-2007, 08:00 AM
He sure did.

Your little psywar gambit backfired on you.

You're no closer to your war than before, he's more beloved in the middle east than ever.

Now he's a star, at the UN, the hero of the underdogs.

And, what a freaking shame this is-especially when in reality, Ahmadinejad is a war criminal.:o

Linkster
09-27-2007, 01:07 PM
Getting back to the original post - I truly believe that he really thinks that there are no homosexuals in Iran - and with really good cause.
I doubt that you could find one person in Iran that would admit to being homosexual - woman or man - as admitting to it (or being caught) is punishable by death. There have been many instances of non-muslims being caught in this and hung recently.
And they are rather serious about it - since 1979 they have executed over 4000 people for being homosexual - I dont have the numbers since 2005 when he took over as president - but then he wouldnt have any hand in it since it is run by the parlimentary religious branch - not the president.

Bill
09-27-2007, 03:22 PM
I guess when one of Ahmadinejad's nuclear missles finally are built well enough to make it to America, and cause great destruction, the American government will finally decide to take appropriate action. And, Ahmadinejad will probably staunchly deny having launched the weapon at us-although grid coordinances will reveal that the nuclear weapon came directly from Iran.:disbelief:

What's really hilarious is that I can tell you actually believe this is a possibility.

I think it would be wonderful to see iran launching a missile at us. It would be the freekin funniest thing that has happened on this planet in a long time.

Moby
09-27-2007, 03:30 PM
He also knew just how to push Bush's and Bollingers political buttons in order to make them both behave in a certain way.
This is one of the main reasons why Dubya is such a terrible leader (both in business and politics). He can be so easily manipulated. This of course was the main reason why the necons all abandoned McCain in 2000 and got behind Dubya.

Don't we need a strong leader that can't be so easily manipulated?

Jennifer
09-27-2007, 09:14 PM
This is one of the main reasons why Dubya is such a terrible leader (both in business and politics). He can be so easily manipulated. This of course was the main reason why the necons all abandoned McCain in 2000 and got behind Dubya.

Don't we need a strong leader that can't be so easily manipulated?

Actually, his being manipulated by the American left has driven many republicans AWAY from George.

The reason we don't rally behind McCain is because he is also a leftist, socialist.

We need a die hard conservative to run. If there was one running, he'd get over 90% of the nation's votes because true conservativism (not republicanism necessarily) wins every time and wins big. It's why Daddy and Reagan were in office. It's why JFK (another Conservative if you look at what laws he passed and what actions he took) won.

Liberalism (aka Socialism aka what most people think is communism) only wins when there is a lack of conservative leadership in the polls.

Linkster
09-27-2007, 09:27 PM
Actually JFK almost lost - he only won the popular vote by 100k votes - although with two states that he had rigged (at least that whats he was accused of back then) he won the electoral college. He was a liberal in those days - compared to Goldwater and other real conservatives - as his platform was racial equality, strengthening the military and social programs as well as many other liberal views for the time.
If you use that analogy you would have to include Clinton also as after Daddy Bush decimated the defense programs and military, Clinton sent in budgets asking for huge increases in military spending. They of course got turned down by the republicans in congress

Jennifer
09-27-2007, 09:37 PM
Clinton decimated the Military. He didn't grow it.


However, yes, JFK's version of "liberal" was very conservative. It was almost Reagan-esque.


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any enemy to ensure the success and continuation of liberty."

Sounds almost like President Bush after 9/11, doesn't it? More eloquent, but in essence, the same message.

Linkster
09-27-2007, 09:52 PM
Jennifer - please go back and read what I posted - Clinton tried to increase it and the republicans in congress blocked it - it had already been decimated by Bush Sr - and the pentagon worked with Clinton to increase it but he couldnt get congress to pass it - go do some research please before posting false statements