Quote:
Originally Posted by orbsycli  Who saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speach today given at columbia university, NYC? |
I had to stop and watch the whole thing. It was a jaw dropping event, both President Bollinger as well as Ahmadinijad.
What was the most fascinating, was that Ahmadinejad basically proved why you don't want to restrict anyone's free speech:
Quote:
Originally Posted by orbsycli "We don't have homosexuals in Iran, we don't have this phenomenon like you guys do" (he smiled after he said that just a tiny bit) |
As Aesop said: better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
You give anyone with wacky or evil ideas enough free speech and they will swiftly hang themselves with it.
His "stay on message" responses to the straight-forward questions about "do you believe the Holocaust occurred" and "Should Israel have a right to exist" were exactly the kind of performance we see in our own politicians in the US, and even if they required a attitude of "well, both sides kind of distort the facts, and each side has its greivances."
But when he said "we don't have homosexuals," whoever was responsible for prepping him probably lost his job. This one didn't even pass the laugh test, and the only real logical mental reaction possible is "well, the reason they don't have any is that they kill them whenever they find them." So that laughter was "black" at best.
Note of course that he *had* to say this: to admit that homosexuality exists in Iran would be blasphemy to the religious leaders. He would have lost his job if he either said "we don't discriminate against them" which their leaders tell them they *must*, or he'd have to admit that they throw them in jail or--as claimed--kill them: neither of these would have gone over well when he's trying to show how Iran should be treated as--as he claimed--an open, freedom-loving democracy. He'd be a complete hypocrite.
Going into denial and crossing his fingers was the only thing he could do.
And heck, Bush does it all the time, so he had every reason to think the US press would just take it at face value.
And guess what: it looks like he may have been *right*...
Why? because all the stories are about whether or not he should have been allowed to speak at all and whether his "rights" were abridged. All thanks to the flag waving right-wingers who were *indignant* that those liberal lefties at Columbia would provide him a platform.
Thanks a lot guys....
Let blatherers blather,
Buffy
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 
Re: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 
