News Ahmadinejad Interview | 60 Minutes | CBS News

[abdo375]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/60minutes/main3286690.shtml

I wanted to know what people thought of his interview, I'm from Egypt which had it's share of problems with Iran but I believe he's a reasonable man and I definitely give him more credibility than bush and his administration.

 

[Moridin]

He is a Holocaust denier and a religious fundamentalist. That makes him and unreasonable man.

 

[abdo375]

Please read this...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

 

[sneez]

What exactly that did he say that you judge him Holocaust denier? How is he religious fundamentalist, what fundamental did he do? or whatever that term means? That sentence Moridin, does not convey one information about Ahmadinejad but it says all about judging. Since when reasonableness has to do anything with religion?

 

[slugcountry]

LOL I enjoyed this one:

Asked about widely documented government abuse of women and homosexuals in his country, Ahmadinejad said, "We don't have homosexuals" in Iran. "I don't know who told you we had it," he said.

-------

OK the guy is obviously somewhere off the deep end (assuming he actually believes that).

 

[Moridin]

What exactly that did he say that you judge him Holocaust denier? How is he religious fundamentalist, what fundamental did he do? or whatever that term means? That sentence Moridin, does not convey one information about Ahmadinejad but it says all about judging. Since when reasonableness has to do anything with religion?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/10/iran.israel/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

Religion is generally inversely proportional to the level of reason a person has.

He is a religious fundamentalist when it comes to Islam as well as a fanatic.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?Fundamentalist
http://m-w.com/dictionary/fanatic

 

[abdo375]

Moridin, It's funny that you'd quote CNN when the title of the site I gave you was "NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN", I believe that his words were intentionally misinterrupted by the US media.

 

[sneez]

Moridin, I am sorry but again you fail to show how religion in generally cuts one's reason in half level.

The other statement is still void of a point. I know you love reason and you read books I have read, and I don't know how with that knowledge can you produce such misinformed and intentionally loaded statements?

They are intentional since you choose to read only "confirmatory" information about you prior knowledge which is I presume collective in its core anyway. As a reader of Sagan's you should know that you cannot confirm belief.

On general note, I am always trying to avoid political debates because people I know as reasonable in let's say science come out completelly "donkey brained" when it comes to reasoning out their "political" opinions. Rethoric one: How is this possible?

 

[Yonoz]

Ahmadinejad Claims Holocaust Invented to Embarrass Germany
It's a sad day when a holocaust denier is cheered by US students.

 

[Moridin]

Fine, here are more independent sources of his Holocaust denial:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iran-us,0,4908534.story?coll=chi-newsap_in-hed
http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2005-12/2005-12-13-voa5.cfm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101163.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2149241,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1807497,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2070190.ece
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nL14418509&from=business

If you think his denial is a myth invented by Western media, then you are indeed immunized against reason (presumably because of your religious views).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Today when asked if he executes homosexuals, he said: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals... I don't know who told you that we did"

 

[mgb_phys]

Today when asked if he executes homosexuals, he said: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals... I don't know who told you that we did"

In the same way that we didn't have homosexuals in the army when we had conscription.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps it would have been better to ask if he has ever had anyone excuted for engaging in homosexual activity.

I didn't get to watch his appearance at Columbia U today, but I look forward to the comedy. What a little snake he is.

Cafferty calls him Ahmadinnerjacket.

 

[sneez]

I see a lot of irrationality in people I expect it the least: Statements like ...cheered..., and assuming one statement justifies whole bag of emotionally loaded statement about some person and or person who is aking about nature of these assumption is best we can do in political debate ?

 

[sneez]

By the way I wish I could teach about truth of Holocaust, but its not possible to be rational on political debates. [Being jew descend and from Europe and large family, stories ..yada yada ] Politics is a means to reach desires, and as such cannot lead to truth, as at least in principle in science is not about desires but about observations. (I wonder how many ppl take this as statement about denial of Holocaust. And the same stop-and-think I want when talking about statesman )

 

[Xori]

Has today's questions-&-answers session between Ahmadinejad and a bunch of students at Columbia University been released yet? Anyone have a link?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's the funny thing about the Holocaust claims: The most popular TV show in Iran is about the Holocaust! Apparently dinnerjacket was over-ruled by an Ayatollah, and the show goes on.

A rather postive sign I thought.

Every Monday night at 10 o'clock, Iranians by the millions tune into Channel One to watch the most expensive show ever aired on the Islamic republic's state-owned television. Its elaborate 1940s costumes and European locations are a far cry from the typical Iranian TV fare of scarf-clad women and gray-suited men.

But the most surprising thing about the wildly popular show is that it is a heart-wrenching tale of European Jews during World War II.

... In fact, the government's spending on the show underscores the subtle and often sophisticated way in which the Iranian state uses its TV empire to send out political messages. The aim of the show, according to many inside and outside the country, is to draw a clear distinction between the government's views about Judaism -- which is accepted across Iranian society -- and its stance on Israel -- which the leadership denounces every chance it gets. [continued]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118912609718220156.html

 

[abdo375]

It's amazing that most people here are upset about his views on Homosexuals, Women and The Holocaust and not his nuclear program, although this is a good sign that a lot of people aren't seeing him as an actual threat it shows how much of a cultural differences appears to be between us, although you might find it astonishing, his views on homosexuality is widely accepted in the Arabic and Islamic world and I truly doubt there will be any changes to it soon. That being said it's funny to see how the limits of "freedom of speech" are being tested in the USA when that topic concerns the holocaust yet all the newspapers yell "freedom" when it's about mocking a religious figure from the Islamic world.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I went to college with many people from the M.E., and in particular people from Iran, and my old boss was from Iran, I can tell you that IMO, our two cultures do not have any fundamental problems in getting along. Sure, we have differences [esp when it comes to doing business], but I can honestly say that I've never met an Iranian that I didn't like.

The problem with this guy is that he's a nut. And it seems that even the Ayatollahs known it.

 

[abdo375]

Ivan, I'm from the ME and I believe when it comes to homosexuality, women, freedom of speech and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict our views differ a lot. but that wasn't the point I was aiming at, what I was saying is that sometimes we have to accept each others culture as it is. We will never change our views on jailing homosexual people just as you won't stop prosecuting people who deny the holocaust. the problem as I believe is that our views provoke you more than yours surprise us (we're used to your views due to your powerful media hammering us with them).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a new kind of social pressure that we all are beginning to feel - the world court of opinion. I think this, through the internet and modern media, will drive us all to a common center, just as we see with the dilution of ethnicity.

 

[fourier jr]

The problem with this guy is that he's a nut

...according to the US media. I just watched his thing at Columbia & the president sounded really like more of a nut than Ahmadinejad did. In the president's introduction he first made a bunch of thoughtless, banal comments about freedom of speech & then went into accusation after accusation, even before Ahmadinejad had a chance to speak. Ahmadinejad mentioned Palestine ("why should the Palestinian people pay for something that happened 60yrs ago that they had nothing to do with?"), the Nazi holocaust ("why is it taboo to study it & ask questions?"). He didn't say (not then anyway) anything that could even, in the most far-fetched interpretations, be interpreted as holocaust denial. If his speech at Columbia is anything to go by he sounds like a pretty sensible guy. He's certainly no more of a religious nut than any American politician. Could an atheist who has never served in the military ever get elected president of the US? I doubt it.

 

[mgb_phys]

It is rather reassuring that he is just a lying weasel willing to say whatever makes him popular at home and whatever his PR advisors say is appropriate for the audience abroad.
So obviously he is a politician first and a baby-eating fundamentalist maniac second - in other words, the kind of person we can deal with,

 

[Gokul43201]

We will never change our views on jailing homosexual people just as you won't stop prosecuting people who deny the holocaust. the problem as I believe is that our views provoke you more than yours surprise us (we're used to your views due to your powerful media hammering us with them).

Really? When did you last heard of bloodthirsty riots and destruction of property by people in the EU protesting the jailing of homosexuals in the ME? On the other hand...

 

[Yonoz]

Here's the funny thing about the Holocaust claims: The most popular TV show in Iran is about the Holocaust! Apparently dinnerjacket was over-ruled by an Ayatollah, and the show goes on.

A rather postive sign I thought.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118912609718220156.html

Freaky deaky: Iranian Holocaust miniseries sympathetic to Jews? Update: AP story has it all wrong?

Mohammed Reza Kazemi cleared up the matter in a recent SPIEGEL article (link in German only, sorry). Main points:

* the major point of the series is that it was allegedly the German Jews themselves who collaborated with Hitler to kill those Jews who opposed the re-settlement of Palestine
* for example, a plot line shows that a Jewish researcher is in possession of documents that prove the connection between Hitler and Zionists
* the credits of each episode feature the work of anti-Semite Roger Garaudy as a “historical source”
* “historical adviser” to the series is Holocaust denier Abdollah Shahbazi who openly admits in his blog that he’s a denier
* director and screenwriter Hassan Fatthi alleged to SPIEGEL that according to “historical evidence” a majority of Hitler’s victims were those who opposed the re-settlement of Palestine

 

[slugcountry]

We will never change our views on jailing homosexual people just as you won't stop prosecuting people who deny the holocaust.

You know its not often that I literally am at a loss for words - this statement is astounding...

 

[russ_watters]

That being said it's funny to see how the limits of "freedom of speech" are being tested in the USA when that topic concerns the holocaust yet all the newspapers yell "freedom" when it's about mocking a religious figure from the Islamic world.

There is no freedom of speech issue here. Heck, we even gave him a platform to speak from!

Freedom of speech does not mean people have to accept or even respect your message.

 

[Art]

AHMADINEJAD: Please, please, let me finish my thought. Actually, I very much oppose this behavior. Picture it. If an Iranian reporter kept repeatedly asking the same questions from a U.S. official, how would you feel? Would you feel good about that?

PELLEY: I would.

Isn't this the point where security guards rushed forward and Tasered the guy for being too persistent?

Oops wrong country.

 

[mjsd]

It's amazing that most people here are upset about his views on Homosexuals, Women and The Holocaust and not his nuclear program, although this is a good sign that a lot of people aren't seeing him as an actual threat it shows how much of a cultural differences appears to be between us, although you might find it astonishing, his views on homosexuality is widely accepted in the Arabic and Islamic world and I truly doubt there will be any changes to it soon. That being said it's funny to see how the limits of "freedom of speech" are being tested in the USA when that topic concerns the holocaust yet all the newspapers yell "freedom" when it's about mocking a religious figure from the Islamic world.

double standard is a fact of life... why is it ok to condemn Saddem's WMD but not Israel's nuclear arsenals? Why is it ok for Pakistan to have a military ruler but not in Afghanistan? Why is it ok for the US to take unilateral action against another country (without UN saction) but not for Russia in Chechnya?

We have the freedom of speech but don't have the right to insult. But where to draw the line? I say I don't like your religion, and you say you don't like my ideals? who is in the wrong? no one really... we must accept the fact that life is diverse and complex.

More importantly though, Ahmadinejad will need a lot more "public image" surgeries in order for ppl in the western to "respect" him, respect his comments and actions. Merely trading insults with Israel and Bush is not going to help that course. (that's western politics... it is often not about substance but image)

 

[mgb_phys]

More importantly though, Ahmadinejad will need a lot more "public image" surgeries in order for ppl in the western to "respect" him, respect his comments and actions. Merely trading insults with Israel and Bush is not going to help that course.

It's not impoprtant that western ppl respect him - they can't easily fire him. the speech was for home consumption and for other Arab leaders.

(that's western politics... it is often not about substance but image)

That's all politics - people assume when some random 3rd world leader makes a statement about the USA it's aimed at the USA, in fact it's aimed at the people who are thinking of replaacing him.

 

[sneez]

right on point mjsd

 

[hserse]

Confusion in the state of Relativity.

It was interesting that he's much more of an orator than our current President and to the very extent most of our politicians. I don't know him and I don't think anybody knows him other than from the media (televised). Therefore, who is to judge if he's good/evil-those term are relativitism. Just acknowledge and be aware his prowess, cunning and his postion as a leader of a country. We don't have to lookup to him or be scared of him. We have the ability to define who he will be and vice versa...Remember we are interconnected and interdependent. For every action there's equal and opposite reaction- we shape one another. Whether you all want to acknowledge or not, what we(mainly) do will shape what the world future will be. The outcome will be base on our RESPONSIBILITY as one the world leaders - RESPOSIBILITY- defines as the ability to response to circumstance and situation. You'll be the judge whether recently we have been effective on our RESPONSIBILITY as the world leader or as a nation. All of you will be a part of or play (no matter how minute it may be) a role whether he will become another Hitler or Ghandi.
FDR famous quote should help sum it, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." Be careful, we may destine to have future historian lable US as "The rise and fall of the American Empire," like we understood of the rise and fall of "The Ottoman Empire," etc.

I'm almost confidence or assume you all here in this Physic Forum are intellectual thinker in matter physical world, and thus you should have intellectual capability in the philosophical realm as well. Please think outside the sphere of influence. We don't have too much time to hate one another- the probability of our species to last as long as the dinosaurs are NONE.


Have a wonderful day..

 

[Moridin]

Perhaps it would have been better to ask if he has ever had anyone excuted for engaging in homosexual activity.

I didn't get to watch his appearance at Columbia U today, but I look forward to the comedy. What a little snake he is.

Cafferty calls him Ahmadinnerjacket.

You do not have to be enganged in homosexual 'behavior' to be executed in Iran, all you need to be is a homosexual.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071902061.html
http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005july/2604.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2176958,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=press&page=pr_8_03_05

We have the freedom of speech but don't have the right to insult. But where to draw the line? I say I don't like your religion, and you say you don't like my ideals? who is in the wrong? no one really... we must accept the fact that life is diverse and complex.

Just as you can be wrong in physics and history, you can also be wrong when it comes to ethics, such as the hanging of homosexuals. I will never such barbaric behavior and I do not really care if you find it culturally insensitive.

Actually, we have the right to insult people by criticizing ideas, ideologies and opinions. People do not have the right not to be offended. Also, a rational discussion of the facts is not an insult. Trying to restrict FoS by special pleading of religious 'disrespect' is, and it is a threat to our liberal democracy.

 

[russ_watters]

double standard is a fact of life... why is it ok to condemn Saddem's WMD but not Israel's nuclear arsenals? Why is it ok for Pakistan to have a military ruler but not in Afghanistan? Why is it ok for the US to take unilateral action against another country (without UN saction) but not for Russia in Chechnya?

In order to have a double-standard, the situations have to be equivalent. None of those are.

We have the freedom of speech but don't have the right to insult.

That is completely untrue. You don't have the right to slander, but that doesn't even apply to public officials. And besides - if it is true (or at least defendable), it isn't slander. Just plain insulting someone (ie, calling them a jerk) is perfectly within the right to free speech.

 

[russ_watters]

He didn't say (not then anyway) anything that could even, in the most far-fetched interpretations, be interpreted as holocaust denial.

You miss the point: the reason he was asked the question at all was because of his past Holocaust denial. Basically, people are trying to get him to stick his foot in his mouth again.

He's certainly no more of a religious nut than any American politician. Could an atheist who has never served in the military ever get elected president of the US? I doubt it.

Those things have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, unless you are of the belief that all religious people are nuts. And even if you do believe all religious people are nuts, you have to be able to differentiate different degrees.

There was an interview of one of Castro's advisors on Sunday morning TV two weeks ago. The interviewer asked questions about Castro's recent 9/11 conspiracy theory statements. The interviewer pointed out that if Castro really believes such things, it calls into question his mental state. The same applies to Ahmadinejad. Not believing things that any rational person would is what makes him a nut.

 

[Gokul43201]

It was interesting that he's much more of an orator than our current President and to the very extent most of our politicians. I don't know him and I don't think anybody knows him other than from the media (televised). Therefore, who is to judge if he's good/evil-those term are relativitism.
...
You'll be the judge whether recently we have been effective on our RESPONSIBILITY as the world leader or as a nation. All of you will be a part of or play (no matter how minute it may be) a role whether he will become another Hitler or Ghandi.

<donning relativist glasses> So, what's the difference between Hitler and Gandhi? They were both excellent orators.

 

[hserse]

My friend,

It was figuratively speaking, it was meant to convey the difference or polarity in ideology in which one's willing to lead. In my opinion, positive or negative consequenceswill result from we do and will do as nation. If we question as to "WHY" to rise to power of Hitler, the answers was the way the Allied powers treated Germany after WW I created Hitler. To the very extent we've also created Bin Laden, Saddam, Chavez, etc...for the betterment of our national interest. Of course, you may disagree with me in respect to your personal believes system, but its in the matter understanding all side of history, can we have common understanding.

 

[mjsd]

My friend,

It was figuratively speaking, it was meant to convey the difference or polarity in ideology in which one's willing to lead. In my opinion, positive or negative consequenceswill result from we do and will do as nation. If we question as to "WHY" to rise to power of Hitler, the answers was the way the Allied powers treated Germany after WW I created Hitler. To the very extent we've also created Bin Laden, Saddam, Chavez, etc...for the betterment of our national interest. Of course, you may disagree with me in respect to your personal believes system, but its in the matter understanding all side of history, can we have common understanding.

I think I know where you are coming from in this comment. I must however question, how does "Chavez" come into this suddenly...he doesn't have WMD, he doesn't invade other countries...? (deep down I think I know what you are on about.. but perhaps too controversial for me to say it here.. besides, it is kind of off-topic so I shall leave it as this)

Anyway, one of the major problem is that if you look back far enough into the history, no one/side has a clean hand. Iran and Iraq have their fair share of dirty acts, so are Syria, North Korea, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Serbia, ... and the list goes on. The issue here is that leaders of the western worlds tend to stop somewhere before Serbia in their list (I guess it is not easy to quote all countries in one go.. so they will just go for the "obvious")

But in my opinion, that big list includes all major countries or states in the world (The fact that tiny countries may be excluded from the list for now is because they are simply too weak to do anything to anyone and so they haven't had the chance to get their hands dirty yet! ). Seriously, who doesn't want to advance their own national interests? Who doesn't want to be no. 1? who doesn't want to alleviate poverty in his state? who doesn't want to be economically strong?

Sadly, the natural consequence of such advancement of one's interest, is the detriment of another always. unless we learn to share fairly, we shall never get out of this loop. In fact, we probably never will... because this world is diverse and complex and that you will always have someone who will spoil the party...
ok sorry so i did digress after all .

 

[mjsd]

In order to have a double-standard, the situations have to be equivalent. None of those are.

ah ha, are we now not just playing with already so-called moral principles but also with "words" too eh? There exists no two situations that are completely equivalent in this world (there are just so many factors!) just as no two crimes or court cases are exactly the same. If that's what you need to compare two situations and to make a point about double-standard, you may as well forget about the whole idea altogether for you will get nowhere. I hope by making that comment you didn't actually mean to say that double-standards do not exist in this world and you were simply pointing out some "bad" examples listed by me. ok, even if I agree with you that those are "bad" examples, it shouldn't change my statement that "double-standard is a fact of life"...well I hope at least.

Your comment though did lead me to thinking about something else... you know how there are always some "trump cards" floating around that politicians can use to make things just and make things seem different and so you can't really compare and use the double-standard argument. "Torture" is ok if it is in the national security interest; "climate change" is a myth if it going to cost jobs/economy; "retaliation" is ok if you use conventional combat tools and not suicide vests. two wrongs rarely make one good and usually cause more wrongs. yet, the trump card ($$$) can always make any wrongs to become goods (in their views of course).

it is not pretty but it is true

p.s. "Mr Ahmadinejad", if you think you can't win (and it looks as if you can't), just shut up, it will at least save you and your country from war in the near future... we don't need more of your rants to fuel the fire. Bush is a comedian so let him be. War between "the coalition of the willing" and Iran will affect the entire world deeply, so should be avoided at all costs!

 

[hserse]

MJSD,

I'm glad you and I are thinking in the same line of thought. Especially, I agree with your statement, "natural consequence of such advancement of one's interest, is the detriment of another always. unless we learn to share fairly, we shall never get out of this loop."

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your last statement to silence an individual.
Personally, I preferred for him to speak. IRAN does not want war and his message was clear and precise in asking the American people (as well as the world) to avoid conflicts. However, you are right, he has fueled fires to those who have preconception of (him) IRAN and aren't willing to listen. He is an intellectual and a calculating man, he's see the probability of avoiding conflict with the super power by speaking to the world audience outweighs to being silence. Hence, the down fall of Saddam Hussein (in respect to his intellectual capacity, he wouldn't make much different anyway even if he spoke). A saying that goes "Becareful, if you cornered a tiger, for he runs out option." He knows more intellectuals throughout the world would understand his plight; however, its an irony, most are from in America-but are covered by media's unbrella of influence. He acknowledge Bush popularity and our war in IRAQ;therefore; probability is on his side. However, calculating of man he is, he should be respect for trying to avoid wars. Deep down he has fear, but fear has limitation when dignity and rights of a nation becomes jeopardize-especially in ARAB world. Therefore, we as a nation must try to figure out the fine line of intersection of fear/survival. Its unfortunate, there will be those who'll take my quote about the tiger literally- and say "we have weapons and ammunitions-we can surround and kill this animal." What they'll regret would be from flow of bloods OURS and THEIR beloved fathers, brothers, sisters, friends because blood of anymosity have been spilled- "so should be avoided at all costs!" MJSD

 

[Moridin]

I doubt that Ahmadinejad is an intellectual, but he is indeed a very calculating man. Apart from his denial of the Holocaust, his hatred towards Israel and the United States and his general Islamic fundamentalism of course.

It follows logically from his modified version of Islam that there is no problem in cheating the infidels to gain power (nuclear weapons). When Iran has its hands on its first nuclear weapon, Israel will vanish in a mushroom cloud. Alternatively, the US will have to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to save our civilization. Balance of terror will not work as it did during the Cold War - the fear of death is nonexistent for an Islamic fundamentalist.

 

[fourier jr]

I doubt that Ahmadinejad is an intellectual, but he is indeed a very calculating man. Apart from his denial of the Holocaust, his hatred towards Israel and the United States and his general Islamic fundamentalism of course.

It follows logically from his modified version of Islam that there is no problem in cheating the infidels to gain power (nuclear weapons). When Iran has its hands on its first nuclear weapon, Israel will vanish in a mushroom cloud. Alternatively, the US will have to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to save our civilization. Balance of terror will not work as it did during the Cold War - the fear of death is nonexistent for an Islamic fundamentalist.

Are you being sarcastic or are you being serious? Did you even watch the clips of Bollinger & Ahmadinejad?

 

[sneez]

Moridin I cannot believe the non-sense. If we were in medival times I can very much see you shouting on some inquisition forum "Kill the witch, kill all the witches" !

 

[hserse]

My friend,

Even Death fears death, what than of man. Man basic and rooted instinct is the struggle for survival. As I said earlier, fear has it limitation (the caliber of limitation are influence by social, culture, ideology, and external force etc...). Hence, you should be able comprehend why we have suicide bombers. On the side note: Why do we not labeled Kimakazi fighter pilots as crazed fundamentalist; they were label as hero by Japanese and now Japanese became our closest friend. It is the drive to retain its own identity and culture, that one is willing to employ excuses, religious reasons, or "self righteousness, " and lower the BAR of fear. It isn't just now, it has its history for century, even to dawn of man-hence religions. From your perspective, I may as well be labled as a sympathic towards Muslim. To you I say, life is too short to hate anyone.

Then again, I cannot shape your intellectual capacity and capabilty, for every man is born with subjective reasoning. However, I should say our philosophical or our understanding of the world should progress hand in hand with our advance society. It is very dangerous to put our level of reasoning and understanding in the Colonial or Medieval era in today's advance society.
ps. My friends, the word "intellectual or calculating" both are relative and subjective. To that extent, my reasoning could also subjective and relative, but only time will tell if I have spoken true.

Good day,

 

[mjsd]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your last statement to silence an individual.
Personally, I preferred for him to speak. IRAN does not want war and his message was clear and precise in asking the American people (as well as the world) to avoid conflicts. However, you are right, he has fueled fires to those who have preconception of (him) IRAN and aren't willing to listen....beloved fathers, brothers, sisters, friends because blood of anymosity have been spilled- "so should be avoided at all costs!" MJSD

i don't agree with "silencing an individual"... in fact it probably doesn't matter, even if he starts sucking up to Bush, he will be regarded as a terrorist anyway. It is no win situation for now... but one must ask how he got himself and his country into this mess... sure the US may have played a part but as I said if you don't have a clean hand.. it is very easy for others to exploit ya... damage control should be the game right now and not random insults... I am sure those comments aren't random... but not very good for damage control either... we'll see

 

[TuviaDaCat]

Today when asked if he executes homosexuals, he said: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals... I don't know who told you that we did"

well, he hanged two of them about a year ago.