Canada to boycott Ahmadinejad's UN speech

[Traditional_Ale]

EDIT: I hate being first post on a new page....

****

I'm a geek, and kind of a nerd too, but I like sports and know lots about them.

Stephen Harper is a dweeb.

We need to make an important distinction between the three.

A Geek - Is a slightly socially awkward person who is very intelligent.

A Nerd - Is like a geek, but has quirky hobbies like collecting war paraphenalia or stamps or something.

A Dweeb - Is someone with no backbone, who can't get laid, thinks beer is the spawn of satan (probably perfering prune juice) and gets real kicks out of collecting obituaries. Also wears ghey sweater vests.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Table 5

What positives does a country like Canada get from supporting Israel?

I think that could be said for a lot countries.
What exactly do we get by being a part of the Commonwealth? What has the Queen of England done for us lately? Should it bother us if France recognizes Quebec as a nation (of course it should!)? The sinking of the islands of Mauritania seems to be getting press now, and we know the whole global warming thing is a debate with no end - should we care about Mauritania?

I don't think Canada is getting a whole lot of bang for the buck in all the aid for Africa. Nothing but strife there, but no positives I can see. (I honestly agree with the position that all our aid should go to fixing one country - Haiti was the one in the example I read - where is can actually make a dent in the cause.)

Should Canada only care about large trading partners (US & China) since we get something from that?

As Harper has said often, Israel does share our values - liberal democracy, freedom of the press, free speech, as mentioned an independent judiciary.

Canada works with Israel on implementing new fresh water preservation strategies and agricultural advances. There is co-operation in science and technology R&D.

DO you only care about your friends when they bring something positive to the table?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He's a Flames fan

Ignatieff is the Leafs fan

And he's a communist.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Hockey fans are wondering if Prime Minister Stephen Harper unwittingly outed himself as a closet Toronto Maple Leafs fan with his reaction to the team's lone goal Wednesday night.

Res ipsa loquitur

guys a Leafs fan, but that is alright...

Oh, and he is a fascist as well

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories



Res ipsa loquitur

guys a Leafs fan, but that is alright...

Oh, and he is a fascist as well

We all know he's just trying to gain Ontario Votes. Once he has a majority government he's going to sign the Maple Leaf Dissolution bill, followed by ordering the airforce to bomb the crap out of Edmonton, his specific quote was "Leave not one mullet standing"

And he's a free mason too.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Some of it is a sense that because Israel was a western creation, the west needs to continue to stand up and defend it.

Modern Israel as lines on the map can be said to be a Western creation - the same as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, the emerites...the list is long.

The concept of Israel as the Jewish Homeland pre-dates any Western creation.

The West should stand up a defend it because it is the right thing to do.
The West should also be willing to say "work it out already in the most amicable way" because it to is the right thing to do.

[jammies]

We should stay but then make rude comments during his speech. Get some teenage boy to sub in for the ambassador and have him yell, "You suck, f***butt! Go back to Irania!" and similar adolescent witticisms.

[Azure]

Eleven delegations, including the United States and Australia, have staged a walkout to protest a fiery speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly.

"It is disappointing that Mr Ahmadinejad has once again chosen to espouse hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric," Mark Kornblau, a spokesman to the US mission to the United Nations, said.

Delegations from Argentina, the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and New Zealand also left the room as Mr Ahmadinejad began to rail against Israel.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

[blankall]

Ahmadinejad's earlier speech was more than just anti-Israeli. It was filled with blatant anti-semitism and holocaust denial. It eventually concluded the only solution to the Jewish problem was to wipe the Jewish state of the map (sound familiar?).

The UN was founded in the aftermath of anti-semitism. Confronting the kind of hatred that was in Ahmadinejad's speech is about a lot more than just supporting Israel. Had Ahmadinejad's speech consisted of genuine and warranted criticism of Israel as a nation it would not have warranted the same reaction.

Instead it was filled with such gems as:

"It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions," he said."

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by blankall

Ahmadinejad's earlier speech was more than just anti-Israeli. It was filled with blatant anti-semitism and holocaust denial. It eventually concluded the only solution to the Jewish problem was to wipe the Jewish state of the map (sound familiar?).

The UN was founded in the aftermath of anti-semitism. Confronting the kind of hatred that was in Ahmadinejad's speech is about a lot more than just supporting Israel. Had Ahmadinejad's speech consisted of genuine and warranted criticism of Israel as a nation it would not have warranted the same reaction.

Instead it was filled with such gems as:

"It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions," he said."

That was for local consumption

[Ozy_Flame]

Ahmedinejad is like the Ayatollah's form of masturbation. It feels really good for them when Mahmoud spouts off, but no one likes the mess it creates.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ahmedinejad is like the Ayatollah's form of masturbation. It feels really good for them when Mahmoud spouts off, but no one likes the mess it creates.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine. The term Ayatollah refers to a senior cleric of Shia Islam and they range in political views from very moderate and tolerant to extreme conservative; many of the high ranking figures speaking out for election reform in Iran were Ayatollahs (and in some cases, Grand Ayatollahs). It remains to be seen where it settles, but right now Khamenei is likely supported by only a small number of Grand Ayatollahs. I'd argue that many of them feel more shame and embarrassment when they see a speech like Ahmadinejad's, and know that so many people will be making generalizations about the state of Iran and about Shia Islam as a result.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Sorry, pet peeve of mine. The term Ayatollah refers to a senior cleric of Shia Islam and they range in political views from very moderate and tolerant to extreme conservative; many of the high ranking figures speaking out for election reform in Iran were Ayatollahs (and in some cases, Grand Ayatollahs). It remains to be seen where it settles, but right now Khamenei is likely supported by only a small number of Grand Ayatollahs. I'd argue that many of them feel more shame and embarrassment when they see a speech like Ahmadinejad's, and know that so many people will be making generalizations about the state of Iran and about Shia Islam as a result.

Thanks, Buzz Killington!

Mahmoud is a puppet for the Grand Ayatollahs. Ultimately direct executive control comes from them, and if the Ayatollahs truly wanted him out of power, they would have done it during the (fraudulent) June elections if he was that much of a problem.

I'm sure they take into account the sentiments of hard-liners, conservatives and the apathetic within their own populations just as much as their regard for the opinions of the international community.

The Ayatollahs are not some innocent party; they groomed Mahmoud to the position he's in today. They're as much at fault for Iran's spectacle as Ahmedinejad himself.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Thanks, Buzz Killington!

Mahmoud is a puppet for the Grand Ayatollahs. Ultimately direct executive control comes from them,

No. Direct Executive Power does not come from them. The Supreme Leader may or may not be a Grand Ayatollah (the current one isn't), and he is appointed by the Assembly of Experts, who are all clerics but may or may not have Ayatollah status. It's worth noting that the previous Supreme Leader overruled the AoE's choice of leader to ensure that Khamenei became his successor.

and if the Ayatollahs truly wanted him out of power, they would have done it during the (fraudulent) June elections if he was that much of a problem.

Not something that they can do without any sort of political or military power. The most senior Grand Ayatollah in Iran slammed the election results, saying that no sane person could possibly believe them, an opinion that was supported by a lot of the Qom religious community. If there is any political change in Iran, moderate Grand Ayatollahs such as Montazeri and Rafsanjani have been campaigning for widespread political reform for years and will be at the forefront of any meaningful change to the power system in the country.

I'm sure they take into account the sentiments of hard-liners, conservatives and the apathetic within their own populations just as much as their regard for the opinions of the international community.

Are you sure you don't mean "I'm wildly speculating" rather than "I'm sure"?

The Ayatollahs are not some innocent party; they groomed Mahmoud to the position he's in today. They're as much at fault for Iran's spectacle as Ahmedinejad himself.

No, Mahmoud was actually not groomed by any religious group. His mentor was a single, non-grand Ayatollah. He was the choice of secularists and military groups, and received support from the main religious right only when their main candidate floundered. During his time in power, he's consistently removed clerics from positions of power and promoted military figures in their place. To suggest that he's the Grand Ayatollahs' puppet is to be seriously misinformed about the nature of the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad's relationship with them.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by octothorp

No, Mahmoud was actually not groomed by any religious group. His mentor was a single, non-grand Ayatollah. He was the choice of secularists and military groups, and received support from the main religious right only when their main candidate floundered. During his time in power, he's consistently removed clerics from positions of power and promoted military figures in their place. To suggest that he's the Grand Ayatollahs' puppet is to be seriously misinformed about the nature of the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad's relationship with them.

Yes, MA is not a religious place-man, but rather the figurehead (?) of the mafia/elite centered on the Republican Guard. The state within the state.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Not something that they can do without any sort of political or military power. The most senior Grand Ayatollah in Iran slammed the election results, saying that no sane person could possibly believe them, an opinion that was supported by a lot of the Qom religious community. If there is any political change in Iran, moderate Grand Ayatollahs such as Montazeri and Rafsanjani have been campaigning for widespread political reform for years and will be at the forefront of any meaningful change to the power system in the country.

And that right there leads me to believe that while there are moderate Ayatollah's (I'm not disputing that) there are just as many hard-liners with equal or greater power that are not going to let widespread political reform happen.

And when I say Mahmoud is a puppet, he essentially is - he's a hand-picked candidate from the Council of Guardians, a council which has jurors approved by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a man known for his staunch opposition to Israel and the West. This is, as you should obviously know, in addition to the Council of Gauardians approving the Assembly of Experts. The Council is composed of "jurors who are supposed to be conscious and politically aware of the issues of the day."

For you to say that Mahmoud isn't a puppet of Ayatollah Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts is completely laughable. Just laughable.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And that right there leads me to believe that while there are moderate Ayatollah's (I'm not disputing that) there are just as many hard-liners with equal or greater power that are not going to let widespread political reform happen.

And when I say Mahmoud is a puppet, he essentially is - he's a hand-picked candidate from the Council of Guardians, a council which has jurors approved by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a man known for his staunch opposition to Israel and the West. This is, as you should obviously know, in addition to the Council of Gauardians approving the Assembly of Experts. The Council is composed of "jurors who are supposed to be conscious and politically aware of the issues of the day."

For you to say that Mahmoud isn't a puppet of Ayatollah Khamenei and the Assembly of Experts is completely laughable. Just laughable.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere: Ahmadinejad as a puppet of Khamenei? I agree with that 100% (Well, maybe 80%; the other 20% is puppet of various military interests). My problem was always with you grouping all of the Ayatollah together as one organized entity.

Not really a puppet of the AoE though: the AoE largely opposes Ahmadinejad but don't have the authority to directly oppose him except through tersely worded statements by individual members (which we do see a lot of); they have the power to directly oppose the Supreme Leader, but a lot of them are not sure that such a move would be successful or result in reform. Do they lack the courage to act in the best interests of their country? Possibly. Are they more interested in self-preservation? Very possibly. Do they actually control Ahmadinejad in anything beyond tacit acceptance? No.