Mahmoud Ahmadinejad live on CNN, at Columbia University

[Lateralus]

He's speaking at Columbia, right now. There's a link to a live video broadcast on CNN's main page, if you care to see it.

A few minutes ago, someone asked him about homosexuals and he said Iran "doesn't have that problem". There are apparently no homosexuals in Iran.

[stopharian]

He's speaking at Columbia, right now. There's a link to a live video broadcast on CNN's main page, if you care to see it.

A few minutes ago, someone asked him about homosexuals and he said Iran "doesn't have that problem". There are apparently no homosexuals in Iran.

Actually the majority of the world is homosexual free. China's status as Gay free helped push things that way.

[rek]

If I lived in Iran I wouldn't admit to being homosexual, if I was, either.

[Ferrus]

A few minutes ago, someone asked him about homosexuals and he said Iran "doesn't have that problem". There are apparently no homosexuals in Iran.
I think they do:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

[rek]

I think they do:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm


Iranian law punishes all penetrative sexual acts between adult men with the death penalty.

My point exactly... Compared to much of the world the US is very accepting of peoples right to sleep with whoever they want to... Who would admit to being gay if it meant being rejected by society and/or killed? Not me.

[Luminith]

Yeah, at first I was kind of following his speech (he did very well deflecting a lot of the criticism with counter-criticism and overall he looked very polished as a debater). The "we don't have that phenomenon" comment (subtext "because we killed them all?") was really what sent his whole speech tumbling very rapidly into idiocy. Lee Bollinger is my hero though, calling the President of Iran a "petty and cruel dictator" with it's awesome PC cloak of "you exhibit all the signs of" to his face made burst out laughter.

[Ferrus]

Compared to much of the world the US is very accepting of peoples right to sleep with whoever they want to
Really? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3022026.stm

[Lateralus]

Really? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3022026.stm
Pardon me Ferrus, but I don't see how that article refutes Rek's claim. That article is about a law being overturned. There are many laws like that throughout the US, but they're generally not enforced, and when some retarded cop tries to do it, the courts overturn them. I believe it's still technically illegal to have sex outside marriage in Utah (unless that was overturned recently). I'm certain that you're aware of the US's puritanical origins.

[Ferrus]

Pardon me Ferrus, but I don't see how that article refutes Rek's claim.
It doesn't, and neither was it intended to: but it does suggest that it is not a simple black-and-white picture of 'evil' illiberal states against US law which allows for absolute sexual expression. Certainly in the UK homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1967, although the law had, except in certain circumstances been practically unenforcable.

[meanlittlechimp]

Never saw him interviewed before. He's pretty charming for a guy running a fascist theocracy. Imagine him debating Bush with a neutral moderator - Bush would get so embarrassed.

Made me even more embarrassed who my president is.

[Ferrus]

Never saw him interviewed before. He's pretty charming for a guy running a fascist theocracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm

I think it is slightly misleading to regard him as 'running' the theocracy. (The language used is actually quite Platonic)

[Luminith]

If Ahmadinejad is kosher with allowing a delegation from Columbia University to tour virtually any Iranian University, couldn't Columbia come up with a delegation composed primarily of Jewish Zionist gays & lesbians? Diplomatically, they pretty much have to let them in the country after what Ahmadinejad said in his speech and that would include keeping them safe throughout their tour.

[garak]

I don't know a whole lot about Ahmadinejad, but considering how disastrous and deadly our own president has been, I find it hard to fall for the fear-mongering that our media seems to be putting out. Why aren't they this tough on Bush? (nevermind, don't answer)

[Luminith]

I don't know a whole lot about Ahmadinejad, but considering how disastrous and deadly our own president has been, I find it hard to fall for the fear-mongering that our media seems to be putting out. Why aren't they this tough on Bush? (nevermind, don't answer)

Two words: Cowboy hat

[int]

Was his introduction as good as CNN made it out to be?

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

[Luminith]

Yes, I couldn't believe the president of Columbia University actually would give such a scathing introduction. For awhile I was kind of wondering if Pres. M.A. was just going to walk out of the room. I kind of wonder if the translators toned any of it down for the translation to him.

See if you can find it on YouTube or something, the sound bites the media took won't do it justice.

[silady79]

The president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger was just on CNN and when he was asked if he regretted using such strong words he said he didnt and that he believes now more than before in the scathing words used in his introduction. So I guess that means no apologies are gonna be made.

[Luminith]

As undiplomatic as his words were, there's something appealing about an academic speaking his mind like that to such a high ranking government official. Arguably his words did not make him appear as "cordial" as President M.A. would have preferred, but after hearing President M.A. speak, I didn't think he warranted such contrived hospitality.

[airjaw]

Never saw him interviewed before. He's pretty charming for a guy running a fascist theocracy. Imagine him debating Bush with a neutral moderator - Bush would get so embarrassed.

Made me even more embarrassed who my president is.

He doesn't run it. He's not the King like Bush is in America. There's a Guardian Council which pretty much has control over everything.

[Ferrus]

Why aren't they this tough on Bush? (nevermind, don't answer)
Eh, the ideological consensus, simple. To use an extreme analogue, before 1938 the world media was generally harsher on Stalin than Hitler because of the prevailing ideology. (Which is not comparing Bush to Hitler or any such rot, but an object lesson in public perception)

[Karl]

Actually that´s a fairly accurate comparison. We see real issues, (religious fundamnetalism in the government but not the mind´s of the people) which are then exagerated to the point where the government is demonized, whereas in reality it´s pretty far from being the worst government in existence right now.