So, I listened to the parts that I could while working today, and I was quite impressed with Columbia U's president and his directness about the issues. I was also pleased to hear that the US didn't try to stop Columbia from allowing Ahmadinejad from speaking-- better to oppose a tyrant with open debate where people would run circles around him than to just try and shut him up.

Thoughts?

~String

Depends on who the tyrant is, Bush or Ahmedinijad, if not both the same? I would love for Bush to go to Beirut University, or Damascus U, and get his faced fucked up...LOL!


I do think, however, that this would be an important strategic move. It shows that anyone in the US can enjoy the "freedom" of the nation.

I liked how he said Iran had no homosexuals.

I liked how he said Iran had no homosexuals.

Whether it does or doesn't, it shouldn't.

Wether or not your name has vowels in it, it shouldn't.

Whether it does or doesn't, it shouldn't.

It shouldn't have lying bigots either

So, I listened to the parts that I could while working today, and I was quite impressed with Columbia U's president and his directness about the issues. I was also pleased to hear that the US didn't try to stop Columbia from allowing Ahmadinejad from speaking-- better to oppose a tyrant with open debate where people would run circles around him than to just try and shut him up.

Thoughts?

~String

Ha! Ha! :D

You actually use the Fox headline for your thread title. There's something ironic about a people who are free to speak their minds parroting a hate-mongering anti-free-speech propaganda machine like Fox.

At least it helps the rest of the world understand how Americans are caught up in the jingoistic 'got to bomb them' mentality. :rolleyes:

It shouldn't have lying bigots either

I'm afraid there is no country on Earth without lying bigots. You have the good and the bad.

Now, whether or not they do, he meant as in it shouldn't. Don't compare vowels to gays. Vowels are part of speech. Gays are filthy beasts that do not abide by Nature's law.

...he meant as in it shouldn't.....

So you are his translator saying what he meant to say?? He meant to say there shouldn't be gays, not that there weren't any gays. :rolleyes:

I would have taken it as such.

I liked how he said Iran had no homosexuals. ”

Whether it does or doesn't, it shouldn't. Gotta make you wonder what happened to them all - it wasn't that long ago all those English boarding school gentlemen were hieing themselves off to the Middle East, where willing young men were so much more easily and frequently encountered.

? And you are saying...?

Depends on who the tyrant is, Bush or Ahmadinejad, if not both the same? I would love for Bush to go to Beirut University, or Damascus U, and get his faced fucked up...LOL!

Well, I'm not going to allow this to be turned into another "let's bash Bush" debate. Although one cannot totally separate the issues surrounding Iran from the issues that Bush causes, this is not about Bush, much as many would like it to mean.


I do think, however, that this would be an important strategic move. It shows that anyone in the US can enjoy the "freedom" of the nation.

I agree. The true way to oppose a despot is not by silencing him but by exposing his idiotic nature to the light of day.


Whether it does or doesn't, it shouldn't.

That's as moronic as Ahmadinejad. You are living in a delusional state of mind when you spread the same hatred that has caused every genocide since the dawn of man. So who's the monster then?


You actually use the Fox headline for your thread title. There's something ironic about a people who are free to speak their minds parroting a hate-mongering anti-free-speech propaganda machine like Fox.

ONE-- I thought I was being witty by inventing, what turns out to be, a pretty obvious title.

TWO-- I get my news from a combination of Deutsche Welle, The BBC, Al Jazeera, The Economist, The New York Times, and Fox News. My McNews is hardly distilled down to the conservative side only.

THREE-- I won't deny Fox's conservative slant [who the hell could], but you are engaging in typical liberal pharisaical bitching. Fox has its flaws, like all news agencies. So your witty response is to throw out hyperboles implying that I am somehow closed minded because I happened to come up with an obvious line which a conservative news agency uses? This also proves a great deal about you.

This is typical of extremists, and you're obviously one of them: the only truth is a liberal truth and everything else is jingoistic hate speech. BRAVO! Right wingers squeal about an impending destruction at the hands of liberals, liberals caterwaul about the end of times being brought on by conservatives. It's so tiring.

You know, because FOX news hates the idea of free speach... they're secretly plotting to end it and they spread hate. Care to back up those claims? Or is this typical liberal histrionics at the ghastly notion that someone dares have an opinion other than a liberal one and [GASP!] dares to espouse that opinion! [PERISH THE THOUGHT!]

Well, I'm all for free speech. I was obviously in the minority of most people [liberal or conservative] in my support Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia U. I knew that the students would clobber him and that he'd dodge all questions and make an even bigger ass out of himself. I was pleased to see that he pussied out of all the tough questions. But I NEVER knew that the president of the university would deliver such a stinging rebuke-- good for him! It was wonderful to see Ahmadinejad prance around the issues and prove that he truly had a low intellectual capacity.


At least it helps the rest of the world understand how Americans are caught up in the jingoistic 'got to bomb them' mentality. :rolleyes:

Wow... you added the rolleyes icon too! Very witty!

~String

Note: You obviously read the article on Fox. I heard the debate on NPR.

Well, I'm not going to allow this to be turned into another "let's bash Bush" debate. Although one cannot totally separate the issues surrounding Iran from the issues that Bush causes, this is not about Bush, much as many would like it to mean.



I agree. The true way to oppose a despot is not by silencing him but by exposing his idiotic nature to the light of day.



That's as moronic as Ahmadinejad. You are living in a delusional state of mind when you spread the same hatred that has caused every genocide since the dawn of man. So who's the monster then?



ONE-- I thought I was being witty by inventing, what turns out to be, a pretty obvious title.

TWO-- I get my news from a combination of Deutsche Welle, The BBC, Al Jazeera, The Economist, The New York Times, and Fox News. My McNews is hardly distilled down to the conservative side only.

THREE-- I won't deny Fox's conservative slant [who the hell could], but you are engaging in typical liberal pharisaical bitching. Fox has its flaws, like all news agencies. So your witty response is to throw out hyperboles implying that I am somehow closed minded because I happened to come up with an obvious line which a conservative news agency uses? This also proves a great deal about you.

This is typical of extremists, and you're obviously one of them: the only truth is a liberal truth and everything else is jingoistic hate speech. BRAVO! Right wingers squeal about an impending destruction at the hands of liberals, liberals caterwaul about the end of times being brought on by conservatives. It's so tiring.

You know, because FOX news hates the idea of free speach... they're secretly plotting to end it and they spread hate. Care to back up those claims? Or is this typical liberal histrionics at the ghastly notion that someone dares have an opinion other than a liberal one and [GASP!] dares to espouse that opinion! [PERISH THE THOUGHT!]

Well, I'm all for free speech. I was obviously in the minority of most people [liberal or conservative] in my supported Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia U. I knew that the students would clobber him and that he'd dodge all questions and make an even bigger ass out of himself. I was pleased to see that he pussied out of all the tough questions. But I NEVER knew that the president of the university would deliver such a stinging rebuke-- good for him! It was wonderful to see Ahmadinejad prance around the issues and prove that he truly had a low intellectual capacity.



Wow... you added the rolleyes icon too! Very witty!

~String

Note: You obviously read the article on Fox. I heard the debate on NPR.

Yea String take him to school, he needs it.

I'm afraid there is no country on Earth without lying bigots. You have the good and the bad.

Now, whether or not they do, he meant as in it shouldn't. Don't compare vowels to gays. Vowels are part of speech. Gays are filthy beasts that do not abide by Nature's law.


looks like someone is a captain angry pants, dont get mad cause gays can get away with wearing tighter pants than you :D

I liked how he said Iran had no homosexuals.

it just hit me...

the regime's policy is to make Iran gay free. do you realize that if you go to a police station in Iran and swear on the Qur'an you're gay they'll arrest and execute you?

that's the same fate Hitler had for gays... that is the biggest similarity between him and Hitler, i.m.o.

I liked how you couldn't tell where he was speaking from by the black podium and background. Free speach my ass. I think he had something to say but all we heard about was how homosexuality isn't in his country. Does anyone honestly believe this is the most important thing the man came all the way over here to say?

So, I listened to the parts that I could while working today, and I was quite impressed with Columbia U's president and his directness about the issues. I was also pleased to hear that the US didn't try to stop Columbia from allowing Ahmadinejad from speaking-- better to oppose a tyrant with open debate where people would run circles around him than to just try and shut him up.

Thoughts?

~String

In what way is this man a tyrant?

a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

HE may have to answer to the Ayatollah, but the government he leads is certainly tyranical.

If you can't see that then there's really no point at discussion.

~String

So was Khatami also a tyrant?

Once the power is obtained, all those fuckers are the same - the bush's, the dictators, the Ahmedinijad, the Kim Jong illllls of the world all love the power they command. They all have the interests of their own countries first(perhaps behind some friends and family). The world is NOT a democracy as GWB has gorgeously demonstrated.

What is good about democracy is that each power mongering slimebag gets fewer years at the helm.

HE may have to answer to the Ayatollah, but the government he leads is certainly tyranical.

If you can't see that then there's really no point at discussion.

~String

You cannot see the point of a discussion when your beliefs are questioned with rational thought?

He may have to answer to the ayatollah? No, he answers to the ayatollah. The ayatollah is the supreme leader of Iran. Ahmadinejad is a president of the government that answers to the ayatollah.


The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader.

yet you insist the president may be a tyrant? While all power is with the supreme leader? A president who is elected and can only stay in power for 4 years.

So I caught you in bullshit and now your defense is that I have to believe your bullshit. No discussion is possible.

Indeed. No discussion is possible when what you claimed is bullshit.

So was Khatami also a tyrant?

Khatami attempted to change the government (dare I say, "liberalize"?), Ahjadinejad reinforces it.

You be the judge.

~String

Khatami attempted to change the government (dare I say, "liberalize"?), Ahjadinejad reinforces it.

You be the judge.

~String

So that makes him a tyrant? Despite the fact that they were both elected?

He may be a nutcase, but in the same way that GWB is a nutcase.

Ahmedinutjob is not a tyrant. he is the spokesman for the real power, which is Khamenei and his Council of Guardians. (though, had he had the real power he would certainly be one)

Khatami tried to liberalize Iran, but he didn't really have the power to implement his liberal platform.

the mullahs have a really nice system going for them. they wield all the power, yet maintain an appearance of a legitimate democracy with their elections. the Iranian people elects a freakin spokesman.

though this particular spokesman's platform is very close to the real rulers' platform, hence his actions are not interfered with, hence there is a misleading appearance of him actually having the power. but in reality he doesn't.

I think he had something to say but all we heard about was how homosexuality isn't in his country. Does anyone honestly believe this is the most important thing the man came all the way over here to say?

Well considering the high position that gays enjoy in the US, especially in government, army and in civil rights, that was the most important point to address.

I'm surprised he did not ask the Columbia professors what they thought of the Iraq invasion, of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Facility 1391, the appalling state of the Palestinains and how they considered this as supporting liberty.

But I guess he was there merely to present his POV, not get those of the university.

Would have been interesting to hear the responses though.

Well considering the high position that gays enjoy in the US, especially in government, army and in civil rights, that was the most important point to address.

I'm surprised he did not ask the Columbia professors what they thought of the Iraq invasion, of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Facility 1391, the appalling state of the Palestinains and how they considered this as supporting liberty.

But I guess he was there merely to present his POV, not get those of the university.

Would have been interesting to hear the responses though.

Like Barney Franks? and many who in the Military abide by the don't ask don't tell?, and the fact that Homosexuals are covered under the hate crime legislation?, and the fact that it isn't Government Policy to Hang Homosexuals when they are found out? the fact that if you kill a human in this country you answer before the Bar of Justice, and pay for your criminal act weather you killed a straight or Gay human, can the same be said of India? the Arab countries of the Middle East?

Hell, I would gladly accept String into my Platoon a think I had a dam good man, from the attitude that he displays here on the sight, and I doubt that his being gay would have ever come up for him if he chose to serve, and I sure wouldn't question his preference, as long as it didn't interfere with the mission.

I am sure that at various time I had Homosexuals in my Platoons, they didn't push it, and I didn't look for it, the only thing I graded my men on was could they do the job, and did they disrupt unit cohesion.

So, I listened to the parts that I could while working today, and I was quite impressed with Columbia U's president and his directness about the issues. He was an ass, channeling Hannity and using rube-level talking point language, insulting an invited guest and attempting to pre-guide the discussion before the speaker has even had their say; and he handed AJ a golden opportunity to outclass and outperform a major Western university in an intellectual arena, solo and in a foreign language.

Which he almost ran with:
Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen. At the outset, I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the Almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.

At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

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. 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. Most certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak. And that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that is given to us in this country.

In many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media and the political sort of mainstream line that you read here, that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.

Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment. At that point AJ had achieved everything he could have hoped for from his visit. And his time was more than half gone - the rope he was to hang himself with was almost too short to knot.

Lucky for the reputation of Columbia that gay denial and similar foollishness came up, and that AJ is a politician with a base to consider.

Well its easy to throw stones in the safety of your home. I wonder how many would be willing to go to Iran and do the same? :)

Well its easy to throw stones in the safety of your home. I wonder how many would be willing to go to Iran and do the same? :)

How about you taking your own advise, instead of sitting at home in safety, throwing stones, why don't you go to Iraq and oppose the Evil American War, or maybe Palestine, maybe strap on a bombers belt and kill some innocent children.

Come now, we don't want to take ALL the jobs away from Americans.

Maybe Bush will massage some Iraqis instead.

So was Khatami also a tyrant?


Isn't the answer obvious?

No.

Come now, we don't want to take ALL the jobs away from Americans.

Maybe Bush will massage some Iraqis instead.


Americans arent the only ones killing Iraqis S.A.M.

Americans arent the only ones killing Iraqis S.A.M.

Perhaps, but how much are you willing to bet that the elected Shiite government is not to their taste, or why they are now liberating the Sunnis who were Saddam supporters? How much money, arms and training these men have received and what that bodes for a civil war, with Saudis pouring in their support, as warned (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6619303)?

Interestingly enough, after the Sunnis receive the arms and guns, the "al Qaeda" disappear.

As some US troops have said, they are arming the guys who were shooting at them.

http://yellow_pages.blogspot.com/

You can see the video linked on this page for the Anbar surge hypocrisy.

I liked how he said Iran had no homosexuals.

WEll UH WHAt can i say? everyones gay:D - thats what kurt said.

So I state my opinion, and I am suddenly "ignorant".

And of gays! You'd think it was actually a serious insult, but of gays!

Genocide? Genocide is the murder of a certain people because of racism. The murder of gays is merely a punishment. They committed the crime against Nature, and We punish them.

I don't see ANYWHERE where Nature intended for Humanity that a sperm and a sperm make a baby. Nope, it's a sperm and an egg.




Ahmedinijad? A tyrant? Defintely! But then again, no. Wouldn't a tyrant be someone that is abusing their power? He is not a tyrant to the Iranians. Iranians love him. He is more loved in his country than Bush in his.

Crazy? Ahmedinijad is crazy. Oh yes, he defintely is. I don't think he should deny the holocaust, because I do believe it happened, and it is a sensitive issue. But he's also very funny sometimes. Like I've said, as a person, not a leader, he is pretty cool.

Hey Norsefire, people have enough problems without taking your crap.

Now your saying the Iranians love ther "crazy" leader.

Show me the "crap"


Oh yes. Iran is a patriot nation.

Show me the "crap"


Oh yes. Iran is a patriot nation.

I am talking about your other comment. What do i know about iran? I've never been there.

The murder of gays is merely a punishment. They committed the crime against Nature, and We punish them.

Moderator note: Norsefire has been banned from sciforums for 3 days for advocating the murder of people on account of their sexuality.

Well considering the high position that gays enjoy in the US, especially in government, army and in civil rights, that was the most important point to address.

I'm surprised he did not ask the Columbia professors what they thought of the Iraq invasion, of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Facility 1391, the appalling state of the Palestinians and how they considered this as supporting liberty.

But I guess he was there merely to present his POV, not get those of the university.

Would have been interesting to hear the responses though.

Wow SAM, I was wondering how long you would take to twist this back around on the USA. Is this tough for you to wrap your mind around? I know it's a difficult concept for someone of your unquestionable stature to grasp-- but the Q&A session wasn't about the USA or its actions, it was about Iran and it's intolerances.

God forbid another nation EVER be questioned as to their actions.

FIRST OFF-- you can bet that few of those professors agree with anything the USA is doing right now, Columbia is chocked full of Bush/Republican hating Liberals.

SECOND OFF-- the Columbia staff is not responsible for the actions of the USA, they do however have the right to grill Ahmadinejad as to the actions of the nation he leads.

THIRD OFF-- you can throw out whatever red herrings you want, but gays, women and followers of Baha'i enjoy a substantially better freedoms in the west (including the USA) than they do in Iran.

Pitty you can't see past your childish hatred of the USA to actually focus on the topic at hand.


He was an ass, channeling Hannity and using rube-level talking point language, insulting an invited guest and attempting to pre-guide the discussion before the speaker has even had their say; and he handed AJ a golden opportunity to outclass and outperform a major Western university in an intellectual arena, solo and in a foreign language.

Which he almost ran with: At that point AJ had achieved everything he could have hoped for from his visit. And his time was more than half gone - the rope he was to hang himself with was almost too short to knot.

Lucky for the reputation of Columbia that gay denial and similar foollishness came up, and that AJ is a politician with a base to consider.

I was wondering how long it would take you to jump in and defend a despot. Does your stance come from the fact that he hates the USA? Is there no treating a monster (or the head of a monster, or whatever) like the evil monster he is?


yet you insist the president may be a tyrant? While all power is with the supreme leader? A president who is elected and can only stay in power for 4 years.

So I caught you in bullshit and now your defense is that I have to believe your bullshit. No discussion is possible.

Indeed. No discussion is possible when what you claimed is bullshit.

Wow... throwing a temper tantrum really makes you more believable.

He's a tyrant. He's the head, figurehead, mouthpiece, whatever, of a tyrannical government. You can split the hairs of his governmental role, but he is the president of a horribly oppressive government.

Sure... there's no discussion Spurious, I mean, you've already given us your sagacious judgement on the issue. What more is there to say?

~String

Trust the US to take a giant leap backward in dialogue.


US House votes to tighten Iran nuclear sanctions

11 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US House of Representatives aimed a sharp jab at Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday, slapping new energy sanctions on Tehran, and branding its Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group.

A measure targeting the elite military corps and the lucrative Iranian energy sector sailed through the House by 397 votes to 16, hours before Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations General Assembly.

What a surprise. All the hardliners in Iran will be celebrating.

A link to the complete video of the SIPA-World Leaders Forum
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html

Wow SAM, I was wondering how long you would take to twist this back around on the USA. Is this tough for you to wrap your mind around? I know it's a difficult concept for someone of your unquestionable stature to grasp-- but the Q&A session wasn't about the USA or its actions, it was about Iran and it's intolerances.

God forbid another nation EVER be questioned as to their actions.

FIRST OFF-- you can bet that few of those professors agree with anything the USA is doing right now, Columbia is chocked full of Bush/Republican hating Liberals.

SECOND OFF-- the Columbia staff is not responsible for the actions of the USA, they do however have the right to grill Ahmadinejad as to the actions of the nation he leads.

THIRD OFF-- you can throw out whatever red herrings you want, but gays, women and followers of Baha'i enjoy a substantially better freedoms in the west (including the USA) than they do in Iran.

Pitty you can't see past your childish hatred of the USA to actually focus on the topic at hand.


Interesting how you spend your time criticising people for their opinions.

As a wise man said, there are no homosexuals in conservative America either, only guys who like to f*ck with other guys.:rolleyes:

Hey Norsefire, people have enough problems without taking your crap.

Now your saying the Iranians love ther "crazy" leader.

From what I hear on Fox and "Left Wing" MSNBC, the people of Iran dislike Ahmadinejad.

As a wise man said, there are no homosexuals in conservative America either, only guys who like to f*ck with other guys.:rolleyes: Although I agree with everything else String had to say, I do not believe in people being, as in born that way or turned, gay as to people choosing to be gay.

I was wondering how long it would take you to jump in and defend a despot. Does your stance come from the fact that he hates the USA? Is there no treating a monster (or the head of a monster, or whatever) like the evil monster he is? Quite the opposite, if you had paid the slightest attention to what I actually posted.

But reading with attention is not what you guys do, is it ?

It's kind of like the misreadings that automatically follow this Iranian demagogue around - he is always held to have said what he was expected to have said, according to his predetermined character as established by the echochamber agitprop of years. His actual words are not nearly as important, in Americans determining what he has said. They never were.

John Steinbeck wrote, in IIRC "East of Eden", an illustrative scene (taken from experience, he said). In the scene an elderly Chinese man has just responded in broken Chinglish to a question from his employer, and the employer suddenly asks him why all the Chinese he knows speak such poor English.

The old man hesitates, and then replies in perfect grammatical English: that when he speaks good English, most white people cannot understand what he says. They do not even hear, let alone comprehend, the unexpected, and they expect according to their bigotries and assumptions. He illustrates this, later.

A similar effect showed up once on the TV show "All In The Family", where the punch line is the black kid from next door (who has just fixed Archie the bigot's TV for three bucks, and amused Archie by saying he wants to be "a 'lectikal injineah" ) saying "Give the man what he wants. How else am I going to be an electrical engineer ?"

AJ is not going to give the Western press what it wants. And he's winning this PR war on points, despite his considerable handicaps in character, situation, and necessity, because the Western press and intellectual establishment has forgotten its strenghs, and traduced its heritage right out in public. Once again, the only recourse of the West is going to be thuggery: with lies and agitprop, with sanctions, with missiles, with threats and bombs.

Wow... throwing a temper tantrum really makes you more believable.

He's a tyrant. He's the head, figurehead, mouthpiece, whatever, of a tyrannical government. You can split the hairs of his governmental role, but he is the president of a horribly oppressive government.

Sure... there's no discussion Spurious, I mean, you've already given us your sagacious judgement on the issue. What more is there to say?

~String

What tantrum? I'm merely pointing out general knowledge to you. Yet you insist he is a tyrant, and claim I throw a tantrum and this someone makes your position supported? No, it does not. You insist I have judged on the issue while I merely reproduced encyclopedic knowledge. Knowledge that is not under dispute.

Have a look in the mirror. You have judged the man without knowing what he really is. You accuse me of throwing a tantrum to hide the lack of support for you position. There is no need to apply the standard ad hominem tactic here.

Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

A little bit more effort on your part in this discussion would be more than reasonable. Your brain isn't a truth or fact generator. Nobody's brain is. That is why we have science, encyclopedias, text books, sources.

S.A.M., why didn't you tell everyone why Ahmadinejad said there were no homosexuals in Iran? Surely you know Islamic law.

Homosexuality and adultery are legally criminal acts and punishable by life imprisonment or death for males, and the same sentences apply to convictions of treason and apostasy. Death sentences are always administered for those convicted of murder, rape, and child molestation. Those accused by the state of homosexual acts are routinely flogged and threatened with execution. [4]. Iran is one of seven countries in the world that carry the death penalty for homosexual acts: all of them justify this punishment with Islamic law. The Judiciary does not recognize the concept of sexual orientation, and thus from a legal standpoint there are no homosexuals or bisexuals - only heterosexuals "committing" homosexual acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_system_of_Iran

S.A.M., why didn't you tell everyone why Ahmadinejad said there were no homosexuals in Iran? Surely you know Islamic law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_system_of_Iran

I'm not familiar with the Iranian judicary, nope.

I'm not familiar with the Iranian judicary, nope.


Then why do you post like you are, finally SAM admits she doesn't know what she is talking about, I wonder how many other subject she pontificates on are done in the same manner.

Then why do you post like you are, finally SAM admits she doesn't know what she is talking about, I wonder how many other subject she pontificates on are done in the same manner.

Please indicate where I have stated any unsupported opinion on the Iranian judiciary.

Is homosexual freedom in Iran really going to be the rallying-cry of American war-heads?

It seems they're reaching. But I don't think there will be a Rainbow Coalition invading Iran anytime soon. But it would be a sight to behold.

edit: oops, wrong Ahmedinejad thread. Sorry. As you were.

He did say something sensible, though. That politicians who develop nuclear weapons are retarted.