- #31
sneez
- 312
- 0
right on point mjsd
News Ahmadinejad Interview | 60 Minutes | CBS News
- Thread starter abdo375
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Interview
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the controversial statements made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, particularly regarding his denial of the Holocaust and his views on homosexuality. Participants express a range of opinions, with some defending his right to speak while criticizing his extremist views, labeling him a religious fundamentalist and a "nut." The conversation highlights cultural differences in perceptions of freedom of speech and political discourse, particularly in relation to Western media portrayals of Ahmadinejad. There is also mention of a popular Iranian TV show about the Holocaust, which some interpret as a complex political message rather than straightforward denial. Overall, the thread reflects deep divides in understanding and interpreting political rhetoric across cultures.
- #32
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..
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..
- #33
Moridin
- 692
- 3
Ivan Seeking said:
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
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #34
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,741
- 11,190
In order to have a double-standard, the situations have to be equivalent. None of those are.mjsd said:
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.
- #35
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,741
- 11,190
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.fourier jr said:
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.
Last edited:
- #36
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
<donning relativist glasses> So, what's the difference between Hitler and Gandhi? They were both excellent orators.hserse said:
- #37
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.
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.
- #38
mjsd
Homework Helper
- 725
- 3
hserse said:
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
.- #39
mjsd
Homework Helper
- 725
- 3
russ_watters said:
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!
Last edited:
- #40
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
- #41
Moridin
- 692
- 3
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.
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.
- #42
fourier jr
- 764
- 13
Moridin said:
Are you being sarcastic or are you being serious? Did you even watch the clips of Bollinger & Ahmadinejad?
- #43
sneez
- 312
- 0
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" !
- #44
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,
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,
- #45
mjsd
Homework Helper
- 725
- 3
hserse said:
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
- #46
TuviaDaCat
- 85
- 1
Ivan Seeking said: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.
Last edited: