 |
|
|
|
Monday, April 20, 2009 - 07:38 pm  crackpot With all the problems that racism has brought to our world...You would think they would not let a racist asshole be the main speaker at a conference to stop racism. More FAIL from the UN. And where is a lunatic gunman when you need him.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 08:11 pm man .. why not Vikki Blows instead? I would let him. I don't see why letting him to speak there should hurt anyone or cause violent response from anyone.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 08:19 pm Only a white person can be racist. Iranians are the victums of jewish persecution and therefore can say what they like about israel. A few more years of political correctness re-education and I might actually start beliving it ;-)
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 08:27 pm Why is this thread not named: The end of freedom of speech anyways? Oh because they let him, my bad. We can troll if we want.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 10:32 pm Look if the UN had a conference about being a theocratic jackass ..Yes he is the perfect speaker.
He is a homophobic racist..Not the best choice to speak about the problem. And Iran has no freedom of speech so your argument is flawed and moot.
| |
| Monday, April 20, 2009 - 10:44 pm I do not have argument. I do not even care. Since you started a thread about it, I assumed you are looking for some reaction, so I said I would let him speak, and pointed out that if freedom of speech is to exist, then it applies to anyone saying anything, its not selective or conditioned. I know where I stand, but do you?
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 02:32 am Banning speech we don't like is not the same thing as not allowing a racist to speak at a conference to end racism. We wouldn't invite Pat Robertson to a conference on granting gay marriage rights to all. We would not invite a Klan member to speak at a NAACP conference. George Bush won't be at any Democratic rallies in the future. While all of those people should be allowed to speak their beliefs, that does not mean they should be given a platform at any event of their choosing. Ahmadinejad can speak his hate all he wants but that doesn't mean he should be doing it at a conference whose intent is to end the very hateful ideas he chooses to espouse.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 03:10 am Well, if you think about it why not? Instead of everyone patting themselves on their backs, now they have someone they can disagree with and point a finger at in his presence. On the other hand he had something to say too, even if in a tone some might dislike. To me its more about political statements, from both sides, than about racism and hate speeches, and in such situation to promote "martyr" status for banning him or anyone else does not seem as good idea to me. This is how I see it when I read the news or watch TV. I do not know whats the agenda of this meeting. To me its .. theater, just like all politics. btw Its kinda interesting that hate speech against Israel/Jews is considered as racist, because Jews are not a "race" or are they? Not that I don't agree. I agree that racism takes many shapes, and my definition of racism is simply - group advantage, regardless of biological differences. American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" According to this, "race" is a social construct, and if that is so it should be handled as such. Politicians can make any statement and gestures they want, but getting rid of prejudices requires more than that, social work in the first place.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:31 am I would agree that "Jewish" is probably not a "race" but it is easier to type "racist" than "anti-semitic." That has to be the worst, laziest excuse ever written. I don't disagree with many of the things that moderates voices in the middle east say about Israel. But when they start talking about wiping someone off the face of the earth or even denying the Holocaust ever happened, they kind of lose me there.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:41 am I am not aware I was trying to excuse anyone or anything, but if you feel like it there is not much I can do about it.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:48 am Just so we know what he said there: In quotes: Ahmadinejad speech http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8008850.stm btw Does anyone know what are the conditions for immigrating to Israel? I do not really wanna get in to this debate, but feel free to find out for yourself and make up your own mind.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:55 am I was talking about my excuse for saying "racist" instead of "anti-semitic." I agreed with you that Jewish is not a race. 
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 03:24 pm How is Ahmadinejad racist? Please explain.
| |
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 03:55 pm
LOL. I apologize. He is as tolerant of others differences as any insane misogynistic homophobic anti-semite can be.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 04:08 pm Al is our resident islamist. I remeber an old thread... Muslim hatred of Jews is so common place it is normal. It is virtually cultural. Many muslims I know personnely willl turn a complete blind eye to any wrong doing done by a muslim, and belive whole heartidly any wild rumour that paints israel/jews in a bad light. It is far easier to blame somebody else than to realise your own world is corrupt to the core.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 04:18 pm It remains my wishful thinking for SC community to become more diversified nationally, culturally, ethnically or politically. There is no question the game is, more or less, homogeneous, for obvious reasons, and the so-called Northern-Atlantic state of mind rules here. I do not believe in homogeneity, I prefer diversity.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 06:24 pm Omigod - someone better tell Iranian Jews right quick that they're ruled by an anti-semite. They might have the right to practice their faith, a guaranteed seat in the Iranian Parliament, and enjoy protection under Iranian law, but I'm sure Hitlerdinejad is about to put a stop to all that... The charge of anti-semitism has been so abused and overused for political reasons by the Israel lobby that it has next to zero meaning anymore. I think someone somewhere described it as having been "instrumentalized" - transformed from a description of observed reality into a political club to whack your enemies with. As for misogynist and homophobic... Ahmadinejad has been so "creatively" translated in the western media that I instinctively doubt anything that gets said about him here. What you say of one religion is as true of another. If one Muslim will excuse an evil committed by another, or by an Islamic state, so most Jews will defend to the end anything that Israel does. Religion wrecks everything, as Hitchens said. And to say "Muslim hatred of Jews is so commonplace it is virtually cultural" ignores their intertwined history. Muslims and Jews lived together for centuries in the Holy Land as well as in Spain and probably lots more places that I don't know of. There's no cultural or religious predisposition to hatred on either side. In fact their religions tend to make them if anything more tolerant of each other. Christians too. Though it was Christians who busted up peaceful Muslim-Jewish coexistence centuries ago.
| |
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 09:48 pm And just where is the iranian uranium processing plant...right next to their biggest jewish settlement ;-) I have yet to meet a muslim who does not depise jews/israel. The present not history is what matters today. Have you not seen iranian gays being hanged from cranes? Islam as practised today in many parts of the world is not very 'nice'
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:00 am Who cares? Ahmadinejad is just a puppet for the religous figureheads in his country. It's a simple setup. He gets money and the illusion of power, and they get the real reins of power. Anyone who denies it just ask yourself this: What would happen to Ahmadinejad if he suddenly started pursuing a course of closing down his countries nuclear program and improving relations with Israel? I tend to think he would be strung up, assassinated, or suddenly find he was being deposed.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 03:18 am Your equating of Jews/Israel is inaccurate. The two are NOT the same, however much it serves the Israeli government to have us equate them. There are Jews and Muslims working together right now in the Middle East to get justice for the Palestinians, often at some risk to themselves. They get the idea that "Jew" does not equal "Israel" and they would no doubt disagree that either side is "culturally" determined to hate the other. Mutual understanding is probably less common outside the Middle East, where these things are just ideas, not daily reality. By the way I never said Islamic states were paradise on earth. Religion is a crock and no state should be based on it. I'm sure we both know enough examples that illustrate why.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:42 am Well the world as a whole is generally a very depressing place. Thousands getting killed in sri lanka at the moment. Does anybody notice or care? No Jews or muslims in site so I guess its not news worthy.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 03:38 pm Great Britain had an agreement with the palistinians and the Arab world in the late 1920's. The agreement was on how many normal Jews (farmers, builders etc), could settle in Palestine to seed the creation of Israel. This was going to be a state created over hundreds of years. Through births and a steady population increase, over time, so to assimilate themselves (as they had been doing for hundreds of years around the world) into the surrounding population. All was well up until the holocaust. But once that horrific act had been done the need for a Jewish home land was put on top of the world agenda. The Americans wanted mass immigration to the Holy Land, but Great Britain said no, as it would go against the agreement made and due to the problems that would ensue because of it. With that and with support by the Americans, the Jews and the up coming Zionist movement illegally flooded into the territory, creating what we have today. The Muslims hate the Zionists the same as a Jews hate the Nazis. If America had'nt have gone against Britain and messed everything up then we would have peace in the Middle East. Funny how America did'nt go to this conference.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:42 pm Taking israel away would not create peace in the middle east. If any thing israel, is a unifying presence in the muslim world. A common hate/blame figure. Take Israel away and well maybe they would realise the enemy within.
|
