POINT

Ehh..

Keer-y.

TEYMOURTASH

HAHA...good point teymourtash. I lost interest sometime after "ebullient"

WTF. Unnecessary usage of descriptors, Papi.

Does anyone have a dictionary?

Oh my god, you successfully used "de riguer" in its proper context! Are you a budding linguist a la Chomsky? Good article, even better vocab. You should find a way to integrate your brain into Microsoft Word, or maybe the other way around. Either way, keep up the eloquent and ebullient Persian pomp ! ... - Peace -

I like you comments very

I like you comments very much thank you.

I agree with you!

Good article. You write well.

Where are you From ?

I am Iranian.

Are they civilized where you come from.
I never lived in Iran.
I was born out side Iran.

so you are eyeranian.

Yes. Are you ever going back ?
Will you go back ?

I woke up ! it was an agent trying to Interrogate me!

Yes, Yes, I LOVE my Country. I love Iran.

---------------------------------
You may not care but the new ME architects do.
Teach your children well.

Your comment about Ahmadinejad

As we say in farsi, sedaye shoma az jaye garm miyad. You are living in America, enjoy the benefits of the society there and saying you support Ahmadinejad. If so go and live in Iran and see how long you will support Ahmadinejad. I dont care if there are any homosexuals in Iran or not and I dont care if Israel is there or not but as a president he has to act so. He has to give correct and straight answers which he like all the mullahs never does. He is a shame for every Iranian and he has done very much to damage Iran's and Iranian's image.

Ali

Well, I agree with you. My friend who is Austrian-American, as an academic was appalled with Bollinger and I tried to explain to her that what was of much more concern to me was the following day seeing API's characterization of Ahmadinejad's reaction to Bollinger's "introduction" as "irate" and falling into the same type of rants which have alienated him from the American people in the past. Now this is not what I saw and as far as I know there is nothing wrong with my eyes and ears. Furthermore a significant amount of the chat on youtube regarding the speech itself was along the lines of "I expected a raving maniac and he was civilized and articulate despite Bollinger. The media have lied to us again, as with Iraq." So I tried to convince Helga that I don't really care what Bollinger says as long as it is reported truthfully and the critique is rational (and believe me as an alumna of Columbia, I cringed when I heard him) but that this kind of reporting is incredibly dangerous. She continued to be fixated on Bollinger, as others are fixated on red herrings on the Ahmadinejad side.

I guess I just assume that on this site anyone who sits anywhere close to where I sit as an anti-war secularist with spiritual and/or humanitarian commitment knows that Bollinger was disgracefully bellicose and Ahmadinejad conciliatory in his speech. Whether he was sincere or not I guess people have differing opinions. That's why I still think it's important in a forum like this one to discuss his comments on homosexuality, Hezbollah, Israel, the Holocaust etc. When he says things that sound over the top, does it mean he is totally crazy or stupid? Are they really so over the top? Personally, given who he is, I think not. Now my Czech friend wanted to know why he doesn't address the faulty translation of "wiping Israel off the map" which I told her about. Pooyan helped me out on this one. But the homosexuality statement is also important to me in trying to grasp the total picture of where he and his team are coming from. As well as trying to discourage others from fixating on it. He said it, people heard it, the media over-reported it, it needs to be addressed, it can't be undone. It's part of the mud that needs to be cleared up, in my own mind first, and then in the minds of others I know.

We need to focus on the big picture but also grapple with the troublesome details. They are part of it too.

I am Proud of Ahmadinejad

For the following reasons:

(1) Ahmadinejad fought for Iran behind the enemyline in Iran-Iraq war. He put his life on the line for Iran. What have you done for Iran?

(2) His speech at the UN was a landmark speech. Anyone who has an ounce of brain would realize that every sentence of the speech was correct.

(3) As far as his gay comment. This is what he said: “we do not have homosexual LIKE you do. That means that gays might be present in Iran but they are not holding hands in street and do not go to court to get a marriage license. I am over 70 years old and I have not yet seen a homosexual in Iran LIKE I have seen in America

Re: Ahmadinejad in America and what America missed!

Along with many others, I too was angered by Dr. Bollinger’s initial remarks and in turn baffled by President Ahmadinejad’s reactions to questions about Iranian homosexuals, the Holocaust, etc.

However, to be honest, I think that the recent discussion is missing the point. The mainstream media is of course also missing the bigger point, but I have unfortunately learned not to expect that much from them these days.

I think that in the context we are in, discussions about Bollinger’s lack of hospitality, the conditions of Iranian homosexuals and what Ahmadinejad thinks about the Holocaust are totally and completely irrelevant. I say this not because these issues per se are irrelevant (and they are not), but because there were more important issues in the speech that are being wholly ignored, while we continue to argue in circles about what implications Ahmadinejad’s views on the Holocaust or gay rights have on our lives.

On several occasions during the speech, Ahmadinejad stated that Iran does not have aggressive intentions against any other country and will not attack anyone. Admittedly he did not directly answer the question on whether or not “Iran seeks the destruction of Israel”, but I think this is understandable since no Iranian leader would be able to say a simple yes or no to that, just as the US never takes “any options off the table” when asked about plans to attack (or tactically nuke, for that matter) Iran.

More importantly, he stated very clearly and specifically that Iran is open to full dialogue with the United States. For example, on the issue of discussions with the US, the President said (and I quote):

“We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats. We don't need to point bombs or guns. We don't need to get into conflicts if we talk. We have a clear logic about that. We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate -- we don't have any issues about that -- under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides. You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States, and last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready in the United Nations to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues. So that shows that we want to talk. Having a debate before all the audience, so the truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations. I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but has this appeared in any of the analysis in the msm or even been quoted (except for in the transcripts of the entire event, which I doubt that many people will read)?

Perhaps I’m not looking hard enough or my expectations of the role that
media should play is too high, but I find it amazing that a lot of people who are constantly debating how and when the US is planning to go to war with Iran, turn completely deaf when Iran essentially extends an olive branch in this form (and there have also been others in the past that have been completely ignored).

I am not saying that this statement alone means that the entire Iranian system has reached a consensus on restoring ties with the US, but it certainly sounds a whole lot more rational and conciliatory than anything that has come out of the White House or State Department in the past few months.

How do we think decision-makers in Iran will react, when Ahmadinejad comes to the US, makes such clear statements about a willingness to negotiate with Washington and the only thing that receives attention is homosexuality and the Holocaust?

I find the whole thing ridiculous to be honest and think that as academics and professionals, we all need to help in shifting the discussion toward questions that are more serious and pressing for international peace.

We are not going to change Ahmadinejad’s opinion on the Holocaust or the fact that he cannot openly admit that homosexuality is a problem in Iran. I would be pretty angry if one of these days bombs start falling on Iran and we are all still spinning around ourselves trying to determine whether Ahmadinejad really said “wipe Israel off the map” or if he said “Israel will vanish” or if he through some magic potion made all homosexuals in Iran straight.

If there is indeed a risk of war, then the focus should be on getting Iran and the US to talk. If we don’t focus on this, then none of this other stuff will matter and will in fact become even more irrelevant than it already is in the current context.

All the best,

Publicity Strategy

I agree with Pooyan. I think it's the same with his comment about homosexuality. He CAN'T say they are NOT persecuted because many know homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran, as he can with women (where just BEING a woman is not in ITSELF a capital crime), nor can he point to ANY gains whatsoever for gay freedom as he can with women (large voting turnout, university attendance, training as police, whatever, there are things that can be pointed to as gains if you stretch it...). So he can't say gays are NOT officially persecuted but he can't say they ARE, because he knows the latter would demonize him in many people's eyes. And of course he can't say the third option, that they are persecuted but he wants to change that because a) he doesn't and b) he would alienate his own constituency. So better to deflect the question by pretending to misunderstand it, and talking about public executions of drug dealers for as long as he possibly can, thus trying to say NOTHING, and if the questioner insists on asking it again, better to just deny gays exist in Iran. Rather than evoking hatred, better to evoke ridicule. And anyway after all that talk about Allah and Moses and the conflation of science and theology in the planned speech, for some listeners the comment could seem... almost..quaint, like, "Oh, the THINGS those fundamentalists say about sex and God!" I think I am in a very small minority who thought it was a smart tactical move to say something so dumb.What other choice did he have, plead the fifth?

VERY GOOD POINTS !

You made very good points and your assessments are very true and pragmatic.

Unfortunately the DR. President has truly made a fool of himself and truly has blown away the legitimate aspirations of Iranians in general.

I am afraid that the rhetoric of the Islamic Republic has been more or less the same regardless of who is in power. Khatami was a more moderate looking figure but ultimately was also hostage to the same political rhetoric of wanting to defend the so-called Third World Interests. The issue is that even if they replace Ahmadinejad lets say by a more moderate figure in the lines of Rafsanjani, none of these current leaders or figureheads of the Islamic Republic are credible in any way.

This Regime will ultimately implode if the West agrees with heavy sanctions and recurrent political pressures to isolate the regime.

This kind of mascarade cannot continue eternally. It is high time to get rid of this regime through peaceful ways in the long term interests of Iran and Iranians. I think that this should be the last Straw in ever trusting this regime and its henchmen in the year to come.

Lets hope that NO ONE will accept to deal with these BEE SAVAD's who are squandering our natural and human ressources.

Best,

DK

You missed the point! It's a Publicity Strategy!

And a good one at that. Do you think he would have had the same attention and publicity had he cleared up the fact that he was quoting khomeini's "remove the zionist regime from time" or that he's not supporting any internationally recognized terrorist groups? (only US and Israel consider Hezbollah a Terrorist Org) No! Not even close! He or his advisors know how the government/corporation/media complex works in this country and they exploited it to the fullest. I would even go so far to say they outsmarted this media machine. For the first time, they are actually using their brains when it gets to the media, and investing time into PR strategies. Hats off to the advisors. Your point is valid with a "fair and balanced" media system, which does not exist in the mainstream arena. Now, only if they could invest a little time on his outfit...