Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran President, Slams Homosexuality As An 'Ugly Behavior'
Source: Huffington Post
CNN's Piers Morgan engaged in a heated debate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over homosexuality, in which the Iranian president slammed the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community as engaging in "an ugly behavior."
Through a translator, Morgan asked Ahmadinejad about what he'd do if one of his children told him he or she was gay. Ahmadinejad fired back, "Do you believe that someone is born homosexual? Homosexuality ceases procreation."
The conversation grew increasingly tense before Ahmadinejad ( who also denounced the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims"
even compared LGBT lifestyles to thievery. "Perhaps in a country, they wish to legitimize stealing...if a group recognizes an ugly behavior or ugly deed as legitimate, you must not expect other countries or other groups to give it recognition," he noted.
Ahmadinejad's views aren't particularly surprising, given that homosexuality is a crime punishable by imprisonment and, in more extreme cases, execution in Iran. In May, four Iranian gay men were reportedly executed for sodomy under their nation's Shari'a laws.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-homosexuality-gay-rights_n_1909548.htmlurce
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JustAnotherGen
(38,037 posts)He is who he is.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Response to oberliner (Original post)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Their government's human rights record is atrocious.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)As for example in Palestine.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)All over the world, unfortunately.
Hopefully there will come a day when homosexuals are not treated like criminals in their own country.
Like the repetitive killing of innocent "collaborators" ?
Like the abuse of women who've had acid throw in the faces?
Where kids are forced to wear suicide belts to blindly murder innocent Jews?
Those kind of atrocities ??
MADem
(135,425 posts)suggestions about what people "like" because they point out what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on the Piers Morgan show...
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Like China. And Burma. And Colombia. And Belarus. And Tajikistan. And uganda.
Oberliner doesn't post any articles about China, Burma, Colombia, Belarus, Tajikistan, or Uganda.
Benjamen Netanyahu doesn't want to turn a bunch of Chinese, Burmese, Colombians, Belorussians, Tajiks, or Ugandans into flying hamburger, though.
Interesting confluence, really. I'm sure it's totally coincidental.
I have been reading DU for quite few years and just started posting and you are correct.
I notice oberliner only seems to go after those he sees,and feels as not being friendly enough to his most favorite state.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I used to live in Iran so I have an interest in that nation. I never lived in Burma or Belarus.
Your suggestions are out of line if that's your only "evidence." Particularly since the OP has said, repeatedly, that he opposes war with Iran.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here, let me give you an example.
"I do not think Eurasia should go to war with Eastasia. However, we have to acknowledge that Eastasia is full of barbarians who want to destroy us all. Eastasia, it is well-known, harbors war criminals and sends spies into our government here in Eurasia. Eurasia is absolutely right in everything they say about Eastasia, and I support whatever it takes to keep Eurasia safe from those Eastasian savages. But I do not endorse war with Eastasia, even though they are incorrigible cannibals and zoophiles. Those who criticize Eurasia are Antisurasiers, Eurasia has an absolute, unquestionable right ot defend itself against all who would come. And it's well-known by all that Eastasia has pledged several times to eradicate Eurasia. But I don't think there should be war."
Wink wink, nudge nudge.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am one hundred percent opposed to war with Iran. I do not feel that Iran is "full of barbarians" - in fact, I find your characterization deeply offensive.
You have been critical of comments made by Netanyahu. That doesn't mean you want to bomb Israel over them or think Israel is full of barbarians.
The Iranian president has made comments that are condemnable and should be condemned.
There is no justification here for going to war. But there is also no justification for ignoring or dismissing offensive remarks made by the president of Iran in a widely seen interview with a major US news outlet.
I would think that any liberal/progressive would agree with that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, it doesn't. But then - maybe you haven't noticed - but there's no coordinated effort to propagandize Americans about the eminent and existential threat to the entire world that Israel poses for its nuclear program, there are no other nations literally campaigning in the United States to win our government's support for the mass murder of Israelis, nor does every scrap of shit that falls out of that fascist fuckwidget Avigdor Lieberman's mouth end up smeared across every news site by a media eager to justify going to war against Israel.
Now, what i'm thinking... I'm thinking that someone who is "one hundred percent opposed to war with Iran" would logically have posted things critical of those who actually want such a war. Not unreasonable, right? I mean if you oppose the war, you would oppose the warmongers. I could also reasonably expect someone who is "one hundred percent opposed to war with Iran" to not spend a lot of time posting stuff intended to damn the nation in question.
Similarly, I would expect someone who is "deeply committed to LGBT rights" to chime in on the subject pretty frequently. I mean hey, right over there, is a whole group dedicated to the subject. And it pops up pretty much everywhere else, too.
Funny how neither of these seem to be the case with regards to your posting habits.
I think liberals and progressives would have stuff to say about liberal / progressive issues. You don't, yet you seem pretty quick on the draw on setting rules for us to play by. You're just an awfully complicated fellow, aren't you?
Has there been a point in the last six years where Ahmedinejad has said something that didn't make him a giant asshole? Honestly, has there? Or for that matter, has he said anything in the last five years, that he hadn't already said in that first one?
Yes, there is justification for dismissing and ignoring it. it's the same justification for dismissing and ignoring Fred Phelps or Rush Limbaugh when they do the exact same asshole act. You know it's coming, you know they've got nothing else, and you know that it's a grab for your attention. "Ahmedinejad said something assholish" isn't news, it's just a bland statement of accepted fact. Yet, you seem compelled to give us minute-by-minute updates on what an asshole he is.
I suppose that much like another poster, and their constant posts about what a steaming heap of absolute shit Julian Assange is, you have absolutely no agenda, no ulterior motive, and are just a dispassionate, uninterested informant.
My advice? Go pad your post count in the LGBT forum before heaping praise on yourself for how committed to the cause you are. Post some shit critical of the warmongers screaming for war against Iran, before clapping your own back about how much you are against the idea of such a war. And make some input on actual progressive issues before you try to set rules for progressives to follow.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The president of Iran has made loathsome comments on a major US news channel about homosexuals that ought to be condemned.
That's what the OP is about.
Good luck with whatever it is you are carrying around in your head.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Berating another member for criticizing a hateful homophobic bigot ..
The president if Iran is a hateful bigoted homophobic jerk asshole and has support on DU ?
( that is a question )
And I don't need to "pad my count in the LGBT forum.
Ahmadinejad is a fucking hate filled bigoted homophobic jerk ... And good for Oberliner for pointing this out.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Sure.
And my point is, Oberliner isn't giving us anything we didn't already know. He's not "pointing out" that Ahmedinejad is an asshole. You say the name, people go, "oh, the asshole." Constant updates on what an asshole he is are kind of unnecessary, after six years of repetitive assholery.
I'm not berating him for criticizing Ahmedinejad. I'm berating him for being a warmonger. I'm berating him for being disingenuous about it as well.
King_David
(14,851 posts)For what you are so condescending ?
It make you feel good ?
Re-read your posts .
(Hint : they do not make me feel inferior )
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Just to point out that you're wrong.
Namely, your claim that I'm berating Oberliner for "calling out a homophobic bigot." I'm not. In fact, Oberliner and I actually share more or less the same views on Ahmedinejad.
Where we differ is that Oberliner thinks every asshole utterance the guy makes is newsworthy, and I think Oberliner's motives for that are sketchy. That's what we're going on about here.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)This is part of the anti-Iran propaganda campaign. There are many other countries in the world that behave worse than Iran. But not coincidentally, Iran is being threatened with unprovoked war by a war-mongering country that the war lovers love.
MADem
(135,425 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)If one was and they made a similar comment, I would certainly hope it would be posted here and roundly condemned.
I find this reaction very bizarre.
One would think a world leader making hateful remarks against homosexuals on a major American cable news program would be something that we could all get behind condemning.
Again I do not support anyone turning the people of any other country into "flying hamburger" - this is a position I have repeatedly made clear.
When the president of Iran gives an address to the UN in a widely covered speech and is then interviewed extensively on CNN where he makes bigoted comments about homosexuals (and odd statements about the veracity of the Holocaust) - are these remarks not worth noting and/or condemning?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)should be asked, why was Iran's leader interviewed and asked questions we already know the answers to?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It is shameful the way certain conflicts around the world are almost completely ignored by the Western media, especially the US media.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That's a rule of life that I wish the neocons would acknowledge. But, I think they're more interested in starting another war than anything else.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)We have seen this happen across the region - where isolated and threatened dictatorships (i.e. Libya) were deposed and replaced with democratically elected leaders.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)opposition group or constellation of groups within Iran.
Sorry. Same size does not fit all.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)People are not allowed to freely express their opposition to the regime in Iran without consequences.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)in Iran three years ago.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Perhaps President Carter or someone from the Carter Center could monitor them.
Given the opportunity, perhaps the Iranian people would want to ditch the "Supreme Leader" concept and choose a more democratic model.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That just won't happen under present near-war circumstances and conditions. 
An absurd question.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I'm sure you'll let the Iranian people know when they can go ahead and take action.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You're deluding yourself if you think Iran is ripe for regime change.
Missycim
(950 posts)but there is no chance in Hell of that happening.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Who would've thought the regimes in Egypt and Libya would've fallen?
Missycim
(950 posts)I would love to see the people rise up and throw down their leaders but they are too entrenched. Syria and Egypt are/were led by single brute dictator, Iran on the other hand is more dominated by religion. there's no single person to rally against. IMHO.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Though in 2009, many Iranians did attempt to rally against The Supreme Leader (who has held absolute power there since 1989). There were calls for his death - but the crackdown was severe enough to silence those demonstrations.
Missycim
(950 posts)revolution will be the only chance to change that govt.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)A referendum making constitutional changes favoring liberal reformists would need more support than the current 60-40 conservative/liberal split(detailed in post 147). It would at least need to be 60-40 in the other direction. That actually wouldn't even force a constitutional change in the US, given our system, but Iran is different. On the bright side, it is trending that way, but sabre-rattling and hyperbole from world leaders and media figures won't help the liberals. It always pushes people into the arms of conservatives.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's just over 30 years.
The US made some serious changes to the constitution much later in the game than that.
Abolishing slavery, instituting Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, right to vote for women and African-Americans, income tax, etc.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)In the late 80's. To make it even more conservative, sadly.
self-realized sadge
(10 posts)'Mkay? Because Gitmo is torturing people as you type and sip your no-foam latte.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I don't think we have to wait until the US has a pristine human rights record before condemning bigoted remarks made by other world leaders.
irisblue
(37,437 posts)this is being asked in a neutral voice, since I am not Oberliner, "You really dont like Iran, do you Oberliner"....is there something meant by that sentence?
Again, this is in a non critical voice, just asking for very early morning clarification
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I've posted several articles with respect to Iran lately that do not present their leaders in a favorable light.
Response to irisblue (Reply #6)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That is a ridiculous BS statement.
Fighting for LGBT rights around the world is a cause that is very important to me.
I am completely opposed to any unnecessary war - I do not support an Israeli attack on Iran.
I am, however, very critical of the Iranian government, as I would think any progressive or liberal would be.
They have been ruled be an unelected dictator with ultimate authority and zero accountability for over thirty years. Their record on human rights in general, and LGBT rights in particular, is abysmal (as any number of human rights groups have pointed out), and their leaders' tendency to make provocative statements is detrimental to regional peace and stability.
Criticism of Iran does not equal support for Israel (or anyone else) attacking it, nor does it mean excusing human rights violations committed by Israel or any other country.
Response to oberliner (Reply #30)
Scootaloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)The "wiped off the map" lies for one thing. Another thing.
This:
"They have been ruled be an unelected dictator with ultimate authority and zero accountability for over thirty years."
...is also not true, on all 3 points. The Ayatollah is appointed by an assembly that is directly voted on. The president is directly voted on. The constitution can be amended through referendum, and it has. Iran is a parliamentary government with ~12 parties in 2 coalitions, conservatives and reformists. In the last election, conservatives lost ground yet still hold an advantage. Iran is still, unfortunately, a very right-wing country. But at least it is trending toward the left.
This however:
"Perhaps in a country, they wish to legitimize stealing...if a group recognizes an ugly behavior or ugly deed as legitimate, you must not expect other countries or other groups to give it recognition,"
...is not a right wing lie. Remember, in the US, conservatives compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality in their speeches so they would not attack this. You were right on this one. Keep fighting for LGBT rights.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Wow.
Right-wing spin indeed.
All the best!
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)...but a large number of Iranians are very conservative, and actually voted for these people. It should serve as a warning to us of what could happen if we keep going to the right.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And they have no political recourse if they decide they would like to replace him (as was made evident in 2009).
I am amazed that you appear to be claiming that Iran is any kind of democracy.
There have only been two Supreme Leaders in the history of post-revolution Iran.
Two in 33 years.
The first one only being replaced upon his death.
The current one having held the position for the past 23 years.
Does that sound like a democracy to you?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Because it disproved what you wrote in the previous post. 2009 was not to replace the Ayatollah, but to elect the President. And I do think he won, though I was supporting the reformists. Polls by multiple Western organizations reflected a 60-35 split between conservatives and reformists on the presidential candidates. So unless you think organizations such as The New America Foundation and the International Peace Institute are stooges for Ahmadinejad, then your wows and amazement have no point.
In parliament, it's more like 60-40 now with more independents going left, so yay. I expect further gains in 2016 but still a conservative majority. All major conservative parties are very far right so none are going to switch. There will be a conservative president in 2013
To answer the question of whether I think Iran is a democracy. That is not a yes or no question. It needs to be more democratic than it is. The current Supreme Leader/Guardian Council/Assembly relationship is a huge obstacle to true democracy for one thing. It creates a closed loop political system that is hard for candidates to break into. The office of supreme leader should not even exist. I would rather see something akin to a European parliamentary system(The US system is also closed loop for other reasons, though less severe).
But using statements like "absolute power" "dictatorship" and "un-elected" is just ignorant. It reminds me of people who could not accept that Obama won it here and thought it was some kind of conspiracy. Or the "Bushitler" posters we had on this site until 2008. In order to have a constructive discussion, you have to accept the facts, even if they are sometimes ugly.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And the very first sentence you wrote here is factually incorrect, which makes me wonder where you are getting your info from.
I wrote that the Iranian people would have no political recourse if they wanted to replace the Supreme Leader as was made evident in 2009.
You respond by saying that "2009 was not to replace the Ayatollah, but to elect the President" which demonstrates either ignorance or willful misrepresentation.
Maybe you weren't following the news at that time so let me share with you a few
articles from that period:
Protesters cry: 'Death to Khamenei'
Excerpts:
Eyewitnesses described fierce clashes near Revolution Square in central Tehran after some 3,000 protesters chanted "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Khamenei".
Iranian state TV later confirmed police had used batons and other non-lethal weapons against what it called unauthorised demonstrations. General Ismail Ahmadi Moghadam said: "We acted with leniency but I think from today on, we should resume law and confront more seriously. The events have become exhausting, bothersome and intolerable. I want them to take police cautions seriously because we will definitely show a serious confrontation against those who violate rules."
Witnesses said between 50 and 60 protesters were seriously beaten by police and pro-government militia and taken to Imam Khomeini hospital in central Tehran. People could be seen dragging away those injured by baton strikes.
Tehran University was cordoned off by police and militia while students inside the university chanted "death to the dictator", witnesses said. Police and militia barred people from entering
. In Towhid Sq. a friend was hit by batons in the head and he's now in hospital. I don't know if the western governments are going to just sit there and watch us being hit and killed or if they will actually make a difference."
"If this goes on I don't think there will be more demonstrations in coming days. Today they showed a really brutal force and we Iranians know that they will do even worse because the are capable of that. There won't be mass demonstrations unless Mr.Moosavi or Karroobi come into streets themselves. That will make it different. But as for now I think they have silenced people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/protesters-cry-death-to-khamenei-1711553.html
From CNN:
Chants of "Death to Khamenei" broke a state-imposed, and a self-imposed absolute prohibition on criticizing a leader believed to be wielding the wisdom and authority of God himself.
But right now, the massive network of Iran's intelligence agents, Revolutionary Guard, paramilitary Basij, and police of all sorts, are cracking down.
Sources say they are also going house to house, through email accounts and web postings, through cell phone calls and SMS text messages (when the system is allowed to stay up) and even to taxi agencies whose drivers hoisted Mir Hossein Moussavi posters during the election campaign.
They are rounding people up and, as it was chillingly put to me, in Iran's prisons "we have room for all of them." In addition protestors are being paraded "confessing and repenting" on Iranian state TV.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-25/world/iran.election.amanpour_1_iranian-revolutionary-guard-corps-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-clerical-establishment?_s=PM:WORLD
There are numerous videos showing the "Death to Khamenei" chants posted on Youtube and elsewhere.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)And just move along?
That is what you are saying ?
When would it be "convenient"for you to challenge a backward ignorant bigoted idiot small minded jerk like Ahmadinejad ?
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
Why do you think the posts of some DUer will "cause" war? That, in itself, is just not logical at all.
Hyperbole, much?
I find the "lgbt rights in Iran" a matter of supreme concern, especially when they start hanging CHILDREN from drott cranes in the village square, and when the puppet-leader of their country comes to USA to rant at the UN and uses the international airwaves to spread his hate about a group of people who have done no harm to anyone.
Bad_Ronald
(265 posts)misreading/misunderstanding it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)And he does not like Netanyahu, or support war.
Neither do I.
To say that criticizing Iran is the same as wanting a war with them, is rather like the Bushies' arguments that criticizing the Bush government and its war is the same thing as supporting the terra-ists.
Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #122)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)So, wouldn't that be YOU who is not concerned so much with the LGBT rights?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bad_Ronald
(265 posts)Wow! Just wow. So, the only way to prevent a war with Iran is to not condemn Ahmadinejad when he spews his hateful bile against LGBTs?
SaltyBro
(198 posts)Seems reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq war/occupation.
Not anti-Iran.......anti rw Neanderthal oppressive Iranian government.
SaltyBro
(198 posts)to change their "Neanderthal oppressive" government? Is regime change a worthy cause to go to war?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Despicable statements like this from a world leader/figurehead ought to get attention and ought to be condemned internationally.
Certainly on a liberal/progressive board such as this one.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Saying that one thinks Iran's human rights record on gays SUCKS does NOT mean--and has never meant--that one is supportive of war. I don't remember George Bush standing up and crying for the "gays of Iraq." Never. Not once.
Anyone who makes that claim is not thinking very clearly at all. Anyone who insinuates that there is a connection between the continued and long standing wish for equal rights in Iran, where children are murdered for the "crime of being gay," and a sudden desire for war is engaging in speculation that is unfettered by any logical thought.
Response to darkangel218 (Reply #3)
Post removed
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am also very critical of the current Iranian leadership and believe they ought to be roundly condemned when making bigoted comments such as this one.
If any other world leader had made such remarks in a CNN interview I would imagine the reaction would be more in line with what would be expected from a liberal/progressive board.
Somehow with the Iranian president, the reaction is different.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)And we can not expect them to be.
onenote
(46,135 posts)Is there any behavior by any foreign government that you would condemn (and condemnation is not the same thing as calling for military reprisal) or would you excuse anything they did because "they're not like us"?
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I condem most of what they believe in. I'm also tired of people dying tying to change them.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think Mahmoud is the biggest asshole on the planet--a nasty, vicious tool of the ulema. I don't think much of them, either.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Just what would happen in the fundies like Michele 
Bachman got in power..
No reason for us to bomb them but we can still call their fundie structure out for being losers.
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)That's not the same as being against the people of Iran.
One can criticize a government without being against the entire country or supporting a war with them.
zellie
(437 posts)When this nut job calls to "eliminate" Israel off the face of the world , the endless responses are "he didn't REALLY say that" and who cares what he says.
Now again he talks about LGBT community....previously it was we ' don't have this problem' and now it's "ugly behavior". Guess he really is misquoted and who "really" cares what he says.
Every hundred years there is some psychotic who rises to power and the world looks the other way.
"Those who don't remember the past..."
SaltyBro
(198 posts)Do you think Iran should be invaded or bombed or occupied?
zellie
(437 posts)But being a Paulinian and burying your head in the sand sure isn't one of them.
SaltyBro
(198 posts)Way to pigeonhole peace lovers.
And being concerned the rise of a madman is now called a 'war monger'
Way to pigeonhole peace lovers indeed.
SaltyBro
(198 posts)Shall we go to war with them all?
I don't know...
How many run a despotic regimes that are giving the finger to the world and the IAEA and are trying to obtain nukes threatening the stability of the ME ?
Had to check which site I was on when I read stuff like that.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)"How many run a despotic regimes that are giving the finger to the world and the IAEA and are trying to obtain nukes threatening the stability of the ME ?"
Time to declare war on George Bush! 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Most sane people in this world oppose a war with Iran. Iran's crazy leader is THEIR business. If someone wants to start another war, let them do it but don't count on using this country's military for yet another failed illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. If you choose to label sane, anti-war-with-Iran, which is most rational people here and elsewhere, with epithets, that will only reflect on you, just FYI.
There are plenty of insane leaders in this world, some of whom we finance and arm. Why the focus on just this one? Is he threatening to invade the US? If not, we have no business even talking about the insanity of starting another war and anyone who does support such a disaster, has zero credibility with most sane people in this world.
sabbat hunter
(7,110 posts)a country or leader without wanting to go to war with them.
Iran promotes terrorism via hizbollah, its support of the current Syrian government. It is extremely anti-semetic (its BS 'reserved' seats for jews in its rubber stamp parliament not withstanding)
I hope the people of Iran rise up and overthrown the mullahs that rule that nation, but none of this means I want to go to war with them
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)I remember Hilary Clinton saying that Iran should be obliterated a few years ago,was that OK?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Very different from the words you typed up to put in her mouth.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)said, and I pointed that out. Changing the subject does not make that other post into a true statement, it was false and still is.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)has she said anything about Israel nuking another country? I'm just asking.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I was just correcting the slander placed in the mouth of our Sec of State who never, ever said the bullshit that other poster claimed she said. Why does the dishonesty of that post not matter to you? I'm just asking. I always say that when you want to hang a person for their words, it is important to use their actual words, not words you make up and put in to their mouths as reason to hang them. So Clinton did not say what the other poster claimed she said.
Why are you defending a mendacious and utterly false statement from that other poster, the very sort of lie that is often told to fan emnity and make trouble for the world? I'm just asking.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)She never said what that poster claimed she said. Lying is never acceptable.
And 'so hypocrisy is ok' is you putting words into my mouth, just like the other put words into Clinton's. Where do you learn that rude behavior?
msongs
(73,694 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Remarks like this could incite homosexuals to violence against Iranians around the world, could they not?
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)But I don't believe they are. Look, I am still trying to fight bigotry and hatred in my own country. I'm relentlessly fighting equality for all here in the USA. Until that is accomplished I am too tired to worry about what another country believes. Do you know how long its goingt to take the Middle East to accept homosexuality? Good God! We have work to do here first.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'I'm too tired' to think about those who are in prison for being who they are? Disgusting thing to say. Too 'tired' to so much as object to vicious libels? Can't even say you find the words aborhent, just too sleepy headed tired exhausted from the mall and happy hour?
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I said I condemn most of what they believe in. There is not much more I can do except condem it. In the US however, there is a lot I can do about bigotry. Educate and vote for instance.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you not condemn? I also suggest that claiming you are 'too tired' to care about the plight of others is a sad commentary on your state of mind and lack of empathy so much so that it seems as if you are defending hateful rhetoric out of some lethargy that I find repellent.
So if all you can do is condemn such rhetoric, why don't you do that instead of claiming you condemn 'most of' it? If all you have are your words, why are you not making use of them with great specificiity? Instead, you advocate for apathy toward others because you are 'too tired'. I reject that sort of apathy.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)When I said Most, I was speaking of their entire ideology, not just their bigotry against homosexuals. When I said I was too tired.. I stand by that. I am tired and sick of trying to convince people of other nations especially those in the Middle East. I mean it would take centuries to get them to accept homosexuality. I rather fight the ilks of michelle Bachman's 'pray away the gay' Rhetoric Here in the USA.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If you are 'too tired' that's your problem. The rest of us do not have that issue, we are a world community, and we can both walk and chew gum at the same time.
And again, you refused to specifiy which portions of his ideology you agree with, and you have been asked a few times. That says more than your blather, your silence is loud and specific....
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)LOL. Look, I just don't believe in Bombing the hell out of people all over the world. I'm anti-war of all nations. Last night he said 3000 Americans died on 9-11. Does that mean 1 million people must die in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? NO. That I agree with.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you claim that those who criticize this hate rheroric 'believe in bombing' which is not supported by any post in this thread. Characterizing others falsely is not cool. No one here is advocating war, yet you keep claiming that we are. That is dishonesty plain and simple. I have zero respect for your tactics here.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I don't know enough about you to say I don't respect you and I won't judge you by a few posts.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)We are so close to yet another war front, and possibly ww 3. Everyone should look at the bigger picture and think rationally, rather then get caught up in hate and preemptive strikes agendas.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And who is making insinuations about the motives of the thread starter, here? Over and over again, in this thread? Without evidence, and despite the repeated declarations of the thread starter that he objects to war.
I think someone owes the thread starter an apology.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)would you have complained about all those stories coming out of Germany about their treatment of Jews because "we just had a major war in Europe, why inflame another?"
If they don't want to inflame hatred against them they could stop saying and doing things that are hateful.
polly7
(20,582 posts)do you believe Iran's gay people would somehow miraculously escape the carnage?
You're destroying another flimsy argument these folks have to justify another costly and ridiculous war/occupation.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's obvious what's happening towards Iran, just as it was pre-Iraq invasion, but I'd really like to know if Oberliner is in favour of removing a Gov't by military might which does not discriminate between straight, gay, young, old, fit, ill, etc.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)One would think this would be a widely held position on this site.
I am not in favor of the US invading Iran because of their discriminatory government.
I am, however, in favor of worldwide international condemnation of these remarks.
At the very least, on a liberal/progressive board such as this one, that ought to be a no-brainer.
polly7
(20,582 posts)but to pretend this isn't being used to ramp up the reasons to invade is ........... bullshit.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If that were the case, it would be bombs away all over the world.
However, diplomatic pressure can and should be brought to bear on leaders who make bigoted remarks.
At the very least they should be publicly shamed and condemned for such comments.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Good people around the world loudly condemned him then, as they are now. It was not used then to 'ramp up' anything and so your logic that claims any criticism of a bigot shouting hateful rhetoric is a call for war is mendacious.
I criticized him last time as well. Did you also attack his critics then, claiming any truth spoken was a call for invasion? For an invasion that did not happen? Did you run about making the same claims on the various other occasions this self same bigot made similar international statements?
A bigot is a bigot, agents for bigots are also bigots, they just work cheaper.
Viking12
(6,012 posts)The fact that we find all of them disgusting doesn't lead to the conclusion that we support war. Google "non sequitur"
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)This hysterical anti-Iran campaign is being used to soften the public up for an unprovoked war against Iran. We've seen this disgusting game before, and we're not all buying it.
LeftishBrit
(41,453 posts)Frankly I'd say that's probably one of the few things that they like about the Iranian government!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to any and all criticism of Iran to accuse the poster of being a warmonger? Are we not allowed to discuss what life is like for the gays and women over there? Or should we just ignore your hysterical hyperbole?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Hopefully the people of Iran could take steps to rid themselves of this anti-democratic government and vote in leaders who are less bigoted against homosexuals and who are more respectful of human rights.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)I haven't seen a single post in this thread advocating an attack on Iran. Not a single one.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I thought he made a good point about 9-11. He said, yes. I mourned about the 9-11 attack I don't think anyone should die however to respond by killing about a million people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan is also not rational. About 3000 Americans died that tragic day. Another 5-6 thousand Americans serving in a war for that attack. Compare that to hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. Many children slaughtered or forced to see their family beg for life only to be left orphan.
Frankly most if not all Muslims, Christians and Jews are against Homosexuality. I was not one bit surprised. Before we get them to accept homosexuality or any other human right we must first come to terms that they are not like us, they have a completely differant belief system. Very differant. Honor before shame for example, while we process our thinking under guilty and innocent.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Do you have evidence to support this?
ikl
(15 posts)None of the three major religions support Gay rights,but few of their offshoots do, and these are so far 'Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian, some Quaker churches, several Jewish sects, and most of Buddhism'
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)The evidence is in their own teachings. The Bible, Torah, and the Quran all believe in the same God. The God of Abraham.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And the relationship between those who identify with a particular faith and their relationship with these texts.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of people who identify as Muslims, Jews, Christians for instance would consider themselves to be secular.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)They could identify themselves as secular but are they?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I know that there is in the Jewish community a fairly sizable percentage of people who consider themselves to be "Jewish Atheists" or something along those lines - I wonder if this is a phenomenon that is somewhat unique to Judaism or if this is something that occurs in similar percentages across other faiths.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or Lutheran, Buddhist, or Muslim the difference would be that as I am told being a Jew is matter of not only religion but ethnic designation as well and as this conversation has taken place in another DU group in fact between you and I and has come up quite a few time prior I am surprised you would make such a statement
oberliner
(58,724 posts)In fact, it's something I heard quite frequently: Lapsed Catholic or Recovering Catholic.
Not exactly sure the nuances of the terminology.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the former 2 can simply mean leaving the Catholic church do to differences over the churches policies with regards to abortion and birth control but not becoming a nonbeliever as being an atheist would indicate
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)Buddha isn't worshiped as a God and many Buddhists would be fine categorized as atheist.
Also many Jews carry on the cultural traditions and rituals of Judaism, but still consider themselves secular Jews, agnostic, or atheist.
It's rarer to find Christian churches with that sort of flexibility among its members, and it's virtually impossible among Islam and its followers, since its followers are probably the most rigid and dogmatic.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the first being that it does not as the Abrahamic religions do require adherence to any specific deity, that said I've never known any Buddhist to call themselves atheist either, however virtually all of the Buddhists that I know are SE Asian or Tibetan and most have spent time in monasteries as either a monk or a nun during their adult lives , that is also different from the Catholic version as Buddhist monks and nuns are not required to give a life long commitment
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Being anti-gay seems to be a fairly popular position.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,842 posts)Just because a person identifies with a religion doesn't mean he or she identifies with all that religion's dogmas...
King_David
(14,851 posts)Homophobia should never be acceptable.
There should never be any "coming to terms" or understanding of homophobic small minded asshole jerks like this Iranian leader.
And shame on anyone excusing the inexcusable ...
mikki35
(111 posts)This is very weird, reading this stuff on DU. What is the point of this? You cannot seriously be suggesting that the US declare WAR on Iran because they have a 14th century mentality on homosexuality? OK, say we did, and we won - I don't think they're gonna miraculously see the light about homosexuality when every Muslim extremist nutjob goes right on spouting hate about it. Did we 'fix' Iraq? Did we 'fix' Afghanistan? Last time I looked, the Taliban is still out there chugging along, just with far less cell phone use...
At this point, it would be nearly impossible to stopper up a country who already has at least some nuclear capability. If they wanted to stop it, they should have stopped it before the first nuclear facility went on-line. Pakistan has had nuclear bombs for quite a few years now. Their government is not stable, has not been for a long time. There's a hard-core element there that hates us, hates Israel. The only thing different is they're not saying 'Israel must be eliminated' every other day...for years.
This beating the drum rhetoric - homosexuality, threatening Israel, threat of nuclear bomb capability - sounds an awwwwfffullll lot like, 'We don't want the confirmation of our suspicions to be a mushroom cloud.' Granted, at least here there is solid evidence of nuclear material being present in the country, and I haven't even heard nary a mention of 'yellowcake from Niger' or 'WMD's! But the systematic demonization is the same. Iran is a sovereign country with very different ideas and a very different way of life that does not kowtow to us or Israel. I, for one, hope it stays that way. I hope they're not stupid enough to think there would be no retaliation for the destruction of an entire country in the name of holy bigotry.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Is that not something you can support?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It is so dishonest of you to protray discussion of the vicious shit this bigot said as calling for war, which no one here has done and none would. We loudly oppose war, but you do not loudly oppose the words of this bigot who chose to go on CNN and speak hateful rhetoric against a minority group.
If you can not soundly condemn what this bigoted fool said, you are in the wrong. There is no excuse for this shit. And this shit happends each time this bigot comes to the UN, he attacked gay people last time as well, and good people condemned him for it. Bad people found ways to excuse it.
mikki35
(111 posts)What was dishonest? I never once remotely stated or even hinted that this man is not a vicious bigot calling for war and that his hateful warmongering (among other hateful stupidities) should not be roundly condemned. It is - all the time - by me and everyone with half a firing neuron. My point is - he's been saying ALL OF THIS SHIT FOR YEARS. His message has never changed. 'Israel is bad. Israel is the anti-christ. Israel should not be allowed to exist.' Now, he's ranting about homosexuals, and he's demonstrated his 'bravery' and 'righteousness' by attacking those of his own citizens too weak to defend themselves. What a guy. Did I miss something? Has the guy DONE anything else besides talk? Constantly? There are words for people with big mouths and nothing else, who reserve direct action solely for those with no chance at defense - my guess is this guy would slot right in there.
He's trying to incite others. Looks like he did. You should congratulate him on his unqualified success! You should also learn to reserve your emotional condemnations for those who might deserve it, rather than those who simply have a different approach to the same conclusion.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)How much the leader of Iran sounds like a Republican? Birther, anti-gay, anti-liberal, and wants a war.
Sounds familiar?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And other far RW leaders around the world.
pampango
(24,692 posts)While they profess to hate each other, the fundamentalists here and 'there' feed off each other. Outrageous statements and actions from one side are fodder for outrageous statements and actions from the other side. And on and on and on.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)but the weird thing is that at this time they are saying the same thing. Scary.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)They just choose different subjects to be extreme about.
Authoritarian extremists should all be taken out and shot.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)the point I am making is that the extremist from Iran sounds so much like Republicans here, or at least on yahoo. And taking the extremist out to be shot a little extreme, anyway?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts) 
Pakid
(478 posts)don't like right-wing Muslims. They seem to share an lot of the same stupid ideas.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Throd
(7,208 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Her family didn't care much for me.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Just reminding people of how establishment media use propaganda to manufacture consent for the government's aggressive policies in the Middle East. We saw the same phenomenon on a more intensive level during the preparations for the Invasion of Iraq. It's always best to be aware of how the State uses propaganda to manipulate public opinion, no matter what one's beliefs are about a given issue.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)No one forced him to go on Piers Morgan.
He also was free to say that he has no problem with homosexuality and that he accepts the historical truth of the Holocaust, but he decided to go in another direction.
Ahmadinejad is as capable of propaganda to manipulate public opinion as anyone else. Probably moreso considering the lack of freedom of press in his country.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)This claim, however, is obviously false:
Ahmadinejad is as capable of propaganda to manipulate public opinion as anyone else. Probably moreso considering the lack of freedom of press in his country.
By no stretch could Iranian state media wield the same power to shape public opinion on a global scale as Western media giants.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If he gives an interview and makes comments, that is his decision - the "Western media giants" aren't forcing him to come on their programs.
And it's amazing that you would think that obviously true statement is false.
State-controlled media absolutely wields much more power in shaping public opinion on a global scale.
In most of the world, this is the only media that it is possible to consume.
Socal31
(2,491 posts)I tried to spread the word about the hateful Prop 8 here in CA as much as possible. I also love our Freedom of Speech, and the general freedom to fall in love with who you wish.
Now it seems like bringing up anything negative about Iran or the "protesters" is met with an instant and predictable backlash, which I am not sure would have been the case the year I joined this board. Things have changed.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)when you joined DU the Us's willingness to enjoinder Israel in an attack against Iran was not a campaign issue in the 2008 elections, however unfortunately that is no longer the case
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)Bad_Ronald
(265 posts)
Shitty Mitty
(138 posts).
King_David
(14,851 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)of homosexuality, that homosexuality is not the totality of who you are - orientation, gender nonconformity, romantic orientation - but instead, it's merely a sex act?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Which plays well with fundamentalists.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
olegramps
(8,200 posts)This has been attributed to strict separation of the young males and females. Perhaps in his case it may be that he protests to loudly. It has also been noted that the stringent condemnation of it has prevented effective information concerning AIDs prevention.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...before the Islamic revolution of 1979.
They told me they had no difficulty finding dates among the local population in Isfahan and Tehran.
ETA I think it's safe to assume that the real incidence of homosexuality is rather consistent across cultures.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)...you must not expect other countries or other groups to give it recognition,"
Same goes for fundamentalist whackos killing and burning over a crappy, no-budget movie they haven't even seen.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)And as such, we should criticize the hell out of them.
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)wutang77
(31 posts)Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)wutang77
(31 posts)Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)Bad_Ronald
(265 posts)...Iran? Someone please explain that to me. Someone please explain that one to me good because from where I'm sitting, condemning an ugly, hate-mongering shit stain like this for his wanton bigotry should be the least anyone with any sense of justice should do.
elbloggoZY27
(283 posts)I really wonder who pulls the strings and writes the hate speeches for the Iranian President?
Also, why does the United Nations or United States allow him into this Country?
BVM
(9 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,245 posts)Otherwise, he's got very similar social values to Akin, Ryan and the rest of Tealiban.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Somehow with the Iranian president making them, the thread goes in another direction.
Response to oberliner (Reply #145)
darkangel218 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)By the responses I was starting to think I'd missed the invisible-type in your OP calling for carpet bombing Iran or something. 
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and take all the extremist right wing pro-Israelis with you. Fanning the flames of war and it's an obvious pattern observed here by your posts regarding Iran, Israel's boogeyman.
Gee... I wonder what religious extremists in Israel say about gays too?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And I especially oppose the sabre-rattling of the extremist right wing pro-Israelis.
My profound hope is that the current Israeli government is voted out of office and replaced by a coalition that is pro-peace and ready to get serious about ending the occupation.
There is a great deal of bigotry against homosexuals by religions extremists in Israel. Thankfully, however, the government is not controlled by those extremists, and Israel, is in fact, relatively progressive with respect to gay rights relative to other countries in the region.
It is startling to me that one cannot simply condemn the bigoted statements made by the Iranian president in this CNN interview without bringing other topics into the conversation.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)
Politicub
(12,327 posts)Anyone see his remarks today about how gay marriage isn't a human value?
It is to me and many of my friends.
sakabatou
(46,106 posts)I love weed
(50 posts)The people that don't want anyone to criticize Iran for this & other outrages so as to not "fan the flames of war" define the term "useful idiots".
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)I'm reading all these posts accusing the OP of this and don't see it anywhere. For that matter I don't see any one in ANY posts advocating this. :
:
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)I find many of the responses to you in this thread disturbing, in that it shows a real inability for a lot of posters to condemn human rights violations abroad by repressive regimes, for fear of looking like they support an invasion. I understand the frustration in how human rights violations have been used (and sometimes even exaggerated) in the past for propaganda purposes to help take the country to war. But such politicization should not silence the speaking out of and against such atrocities taking place. Such an action is neither liberal or progressive in any sense. It's simply cowardly and pathetic.
I appreciate you posting this news, because it's important to realize how awful A-Jad is and how poorly gays and lesbians are treated in the middle east. And I don't think you, me or anyone else on this board needs to offer a fucking disclaimer opposing invasions, everytime we state these facts.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I very much appreciate this response.
octothorpe
(962 posts)have been reported and most likely posted here on DU. The difference is that no one would claiming that we should ignore the comments, or that those discussing it have an ulterior motive.
