Irish Delegates walk out of Ahmadinejad UN Speech

The Waltzing Consumer

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The USSR Invaded Poland too,yet they became Allies of Britain

Churchil was a Warmonger, The Fuhrer's Germany didnt want a War until at least the mid Forties. Churchill started the War for his own egotistical ends.

What else do people consider Untrue in Ahmidinijads Statement???

Churchill was not PM at the start of the war so how did he start it? Did he invade Poland?

German did not want a war until at least the mid forties? Like 1945?

Jonny7

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The USSR Invaded Poland too,yet they became Allies of Britain

Churchil was a Warmonger, The Fuhrer's Germany didnt want a War until at least the mid Forties. Churchill started the War for his own egotistical ends.

What else do people consider Untrue in Ahmidinijads Statement???

Okay, so you have no idea why Russia became allied to Britain, yet you claim that Churchill started the war?

Brain no understand stupidity of statement

Jonny7

wes wrote: »

No fan of Ahmadinejad, but I fail to see how anything he said was any worse than the garbage spewed by Obama and Netanyahu. If Irish delegates are going to walk out, then I would expect them to do so, when other people engage in similar crap, like Obama and Netanyahu did. Right now, the whole thing looks childish and reenforces Iran's image that it is unfairly singled out (which they are to a certain degree, considering the West ignore Israels nuclear program for example), when other people don't receive the same treatment for similar speeches that are full of crap.

I've said the same before, but in fairness give us a speech that's on a par with Ahmandinejads?

The man does not believe in the Holocaust, that 911 was an inside job and that Europe steals Iranian rain using weather technology - I mean for fecksake, he's not exactly doing himself any favors.

wes

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've said the same before, but in fairness give us a speech that's on a par with Ahmandinejads?

I already did. Obama and Netanyahu, both gave factually inaccurate accounts of the Israel/Palestine conflict. There nonsense was clearly on par with Ahmadinejad.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The man does not believe in the Holocaust, that 911 was an inside job and that Europe steals Iranian rain using weather technology - I mean for fecksake, he's not exactly doing himself any favors.

Yes, and Obama exonerating Israel from any responsibility from the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't any better imho. Both of them came up with a lot of nonsense but in the case of Ahmadinejad he offended Westerners, so he is apparently pure evil, where as Netanyahu and Obama just offended Palestinians and Arabs, so that ok then. Deranged crap from the West is a-ok as per usual.

Personally, this is a huge double standard from our delegates imho, and it also reenforces Iran's feeling that there being unfairly treated.

Simply put, if our delegates were happy to sit through Israeli and American nonsense, then they should have done the same with Iran. As it stands, the whole thing is just childish.

Benny_Cake

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The USSR Invaded Poland too,yet they became Allies of Britain

Churchil was a Warmonger, The Fuhrer's Germany didnt want a War until at least the mid Forties. Churchill started the War for his own egotistical ends.

What else do people consider Untrue in Ahmidinijads Statement???

Ok,so even if we were to accept Britain and France started the war - which I don't btw,are you seriously suggeting that it was somehow unfair and unsporting that they didn't wait until 1942 for Hitler to complete rearmament?!Also,do you even know who the British PM was in 1939?

maddragon

It was bad form for Britain and France to declare war on Germany before the Nazis preferred date of 1945. By this time Germany would have had mass production of King Tigers, ME262s, the V3 (nuclear) ICBM and U boats that could do 20 knots under water. The war could have been over in 6 weeks instead of 6 years and saved us the trouble of waiting until the current debt crisis for Germany to finally take over Europe.

Regardless of what's true and what isn't, I think it's bad form for any of them to be storming off.
If they have such problems with the speech including any factual inaccuracies then he should have been challenged on them when he was done speaking.
Instead it makes it look like everything he said was true and the US and Ireland couldn't handle it so stomped off. I also have no idea why the irish delegates would have left.

mike65

Mahatma coat what are you on about?

digme

maddragon wrote: »

It was bad form for Britain and France to declare war on Germany before the Nazis preferred date of 1945. By this time Germany would have had mass production of King Tigers, ME262s, the V3 (nuclear) ICBM and U boats that could do 20 knots under water. The war could have been over in 6 weeks instead of 6 years and saved us the trouble of waiting until the current debt crisis for Germany to finally take over Europe.

How did they get the money for all that stuff when they were forced to pay US $442 billion ?

Nodin

mike65 wrote: »

Mahatma coat what are you on about?

....shhhhh....don't ask him, he might tell us.

Batsy

irishconvert wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/us-france-walk-out-as-iran-delivers-un-speech-234000-Sep2011/



Ok, what did he say that was so bad? What in that speech (transcript link below) is so wrong? Do we always have to be the US lapdog?

http://publicintelligence.net/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-speech-to-un-general-assembly-transcript-september-22-2011/

I can see at least two things which stand out from Imadinnerjacket's speech that were wrong.

1) He said that America caused both World Wars. It actually didn't. Germany did.

2) He said that 9/11 was a "mystery." No, it wasn't. It was caused by Muslime terrorists flying planes into buildings.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

I already did. Obama and Netanyahu, both gave factually inaccurate accounts of the Israel/Palestine conflict. There nonsense was clearly on par with Ahmadinejad.

Utter rubbish. If you think Obama and Netanyahu's speeches were in even the same timezone of inaccuracy and just plain insanity as Ahmedinijads then your credibility is completely shot.

JustinDee

Ffs, the excuses for Madmanijad's constant and hypocritical rhetoric are pathetic.
Its strange that he (and his apologists here) excludes Russia and China's domestic and foreign policies as well as that of his own country.

Its fine for the usual barstool politikos to laud another populist like Erdogan for walking out of a summit but not Irish representatives.

Benny_Cake

digme wrote: »

How did they get the money for all that stuff when they were forced to pay US $442 billion ?

The reparations payments were suspended in 1931,before the Nazi's came to power.Only one-eight of payments had been made at that stage.This was how they were able to re-arm.

Mahatma coat

I am well aware that Churchill wasnt Prime Minister in 1939 but he was still one of the major players in the Commons and the Media in agitating for War.

my point is, The third Reich and the USSR had a pact for the Invasion of Poland, so surely War should have been declared on Both.

Lots of people here are complaining about Bluster form Ahmidinijhad but no one seems to be refuting the claims he made, hint Shouting 'its not true' does not equal disproving the claim.

as for Ahmidinijhads Holocaust stance, can someone point out where he says he dosent believe it happened, or would this be another case of wilfully misrepresenting his call for an open and honest debate on the topic?

Benny_Cake

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I am well aware that Churchill wasnt Prime Minister in 1939 but he was still one of the major players in the Commons and the Media in agitating for War.

my point is, The third Reich and the USSR had a pact for the Invasion of Poland, so surely War should have been declared on Both.

Lots of people here are complaining about Bluster form Ahmidinijhad but no one seems to be refuting the claims he made, hint Shouting 'its not true' does not equal disproving the claim.

as for Ahmidinijhads Holocaust stance, can someone point out where he says he dosent believe it happened, or would this be another case of wilfully misrepresenting his call for an open and honest debate on the topic?

Ahmadinejad calls Holocaust a "great deception":

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/03/us-iran-election-holocaust-idUSTRE5525W320090603

Ahmadinejad: Holocaust a myth :

http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2005/12/200849154418141136.html

JustinDee

Surely take all the holocaust 'debate' to the conspiracy theory forum where it suits?

Mahatma coat

So this is the Quote that AlJazera atribute to him, However they have also put the Wipe Israel from the ma quote in, which we know to be a deliberate mistranslation to make him seem more inflamatory,

SO how about this translation, if you take the 3 words that seem the most contentious and replace them with alternative translations the meaning of the statement disent change but the capacity to use it as proof of inflamatory rhetoric does.

They have fabricated Created a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves.

"If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody deniesQuestions the mythestablished Narative of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."

See, a few words Translated one way or another can make all the diference

The Waltzing Consumer

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So this is the Quote that AlJazera atribute to him, However they have also put the Wipe Israel from the ma quote in, which we know to be a deliberate mistranslation to make him seem more inflamatory,

SO how about this translation, if you take the 3 words that seem the most contentious and replace them with alternative translations the meaning of the statement disent change but the capacity to use it as proof of inflamatory rhetoric does.



See, a few words Translated one way or another can make all the diference

What's your bizarre point?

JustinDee

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

What's your bizarre point?

He's trying to say that Iran's leader is not an antagonistic pot-stirrer but just innocently misunderstood as having an agenda against almost everyone but China and Russia.

Mahatma coat

I thought my Point was rather clear.

but for those who may have difficulty grasping the nuances

the Main Stream Media LIE, they spin Bullsnit to make us believe things that simply arent true about People they have been told to demonise by their Overords.

at the sae time they cover up blatant Bulsh1t prepetrated by people the overlords consider Friendly to their objectives.

Iran has not Invaded anyone, Iran is not Opressing anyone, IRan is not lying to us on a daily basis.

Benny_Cake

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I thought my Point was rather clear.

but for those who may have difficulty grasping the nuances

the Main Stream Media LIE, they spin Bullsnit to make us believe things that simply arent true about People they have been told to demonise by their Overords.

at the sae time they cover up blatant Bulsh1t prepetrated by people the overlords consider Friendly to their objectives.

Iran has not Invaded anyone, Iran is not Opressing anyone, IRan is not lying to us on a daily basis.

Your changes don't make Ahmadinejad's comments sound much better.

Mahatma coat

is it Untrue tho????

JustinDee

Mahatma coat wrote: »

is it Untrue tho????

They haven't tried to invade anyone, that could be true.
Oppression? Die-cast proxy support for Syrian regime, Hezbollah's antics and Hamas logistically and politically (not that Hamas even know what democracy is) for a start. Then there's Iran itself.
As for lying, you must have seen Press TV...

Son Of A Vidic

I find it amazing that a country that claims to be neutral, would walk out in such a fashion. Regardless of who is ranting on, surely such an act could be easily misinterpreted. Now to balance things out, perhaps next time we should walk out when Israel have the floor. Because that troubled little 'nation' has killed quite a few Irish citizens and at times acted like an enemy nation. Certainly more than Iran ever has, so lets go for a some balance.

View

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I find it amazing that a country that claims to be neutral, would walk out in such a fashion.

Even diplomats should have the right to say "Okay, enough sh*te, we're out of here".

SamHarris

wes wrote: »

I already did. Obama and Netanyahu, both gave factually inaccurate accounts of the Israel/Palestine conflict. There nonsense was clearly on par with Ahmadinejad.



Yes, and Obama exonerating Israel from any responsibility from the Israel/Palestine conflict isn't any better imho. Both of them came up with a lot of nonsense but in the case of Ahmadinejad he offended Westerners, so he is apparently pure evil, where as Netanyahu and Obama just offended Palestinians and Arabs, so that ok then. Deranged crap from the West is a-ok as per usual.

Personally, this is a huge double standard from our delegates imho, and it also reenforces Iran's feeling that there being unfairly treated.

Simply put, if our delegates were happy to sit through Israeli and American nonsense, then they should have done the same with Iran. As it stands, the whole thing is just childish.

Firstly Irish delegates do not and should not pretend they have the same relationship with Iran as they do with the US or even Israel. Ridiculous and childish to call for them to act as if they do.

Secondly, if Arabs want to walk out when offended they should - and often dont even show up to Israeli speeches.

Thirdly, yes accusing the US government of killing 3000 of its own citizens with no evidence should be walked out on by allies and friends of the US, sitting through the BS affords the psychopath far more respect than he deserves. It's an insult to a friendly nation, and should be dealt with as such. That you believe that Obama said anything approaching as crazy says alot more about your politics than it does about Obama's historical fallacies.

Sheer insanity that people would call for Irish delegates to even pretend that an Iranian, N Korean or any number of any other crackpot backwaters are equally important to show solidarity with as the US or that any speech gets near as crazy as Ahmadinejad. He offeneded anyone capable of critical thinking, not just Westerners. THIS was childish, not peoples descision to publicly display how much they disagreed with him.

There is no double standard, its just the standard applied is not what you wish it was It has much more to do with protecting Irish interests and relationships rather than showing a solidarity with the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims, for whatever reason.

Next time an American president goes on an a rascist, borderline crazy speech and Irish delegates dont walk out, you will have an absolutly wonderful point.

sdanseo

There is a plethora of evidence that 9/11 was not all it seems, whether or not it was a full blown inside job is another thread (there are hundreds on boards alone) - but it is QUITE CLEAR that we have not been told the full story in some areas.

Jist of this thread thus far:
Iran is stupid because its president is a fascist nutjob.
USA is stupid because its leaders are greedy selfish power-hungry world-policing oil-guzzling gun-toting nutjobs.

Lesser of two evils there? I'm having genuine trouble deciding.

SamHarris

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I am well aware that Churchill wasnt Prime Minister in 1939 but he was still one of the major players in the Commons and the Media in agitating for War.

my point is, The third Reich and the USSR had a pact for the Invasion of Poland, so surely War should have been declared on Both.

Lots of people here are complaining about Bluster form Ahmidinijhad but no one seems to be refuting the claims he made, hint Shouting 'its not true' does not equal disproving the claim.

as for Ahmidinijhads Holocaust stance, can someone point out where he says he dosent believe it happened, or would this be another case of wilfully misrepresenting his call for an open and honest debate on the topic?

He wants "open and honest" an debate on it in the same fashion he wants an "open and honest" debate on 9/11, that is to say he wants someone else to be blamed for it, Zionists almost certainly.

If you believe his calls for a revision of the holocaust are merely a wish to see historical truth uncovered, and not entirelly motivated by his hatred of "zionists" and his belief that "they" had something to do with it then your not living in the same world as the rest of us.

Pretending that it is not a poltiically and racially loaded call to make at a UN conference given the situation in the region is entrielly childish, and exactly the type of obfuscation that weakeans peoples attempts to appear as though they are merely looking for "fairness" from Irish delegates.

SamHarris

sdeire wrote: »

There is a plethora of evidence that 9/11 was not all it seems, whether or not it was a full blown inside job is another thread (there are hundreds on boards alone) - but it is QUITE CLEAR that we have not been told the full story in some areas.

Jist of this thread thus far:
Iran is stupid because its president is a fascist nutjob.
USA is stupid because its leaders are greedy selfish power-hungry world-policing oil-guzzling gun-toting nutjobs.

Lesser of two evils there? I'm having genuine trouble deciding.

It wasnt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking read this, apply it to anything you hear about 9 11, then reach a conclusion about whoever carried it out. There is a reason anyone who routinely applies skeptical thinking will look at a 9 11 truther like the nutjob they are, every contending "theory" has been comprehensivly debunked, if you have one that hasnt been already your not looking hard enough or your idea is so out there that no one could be bothered addressing it. There is a 9 11 conspiracy forum anyway (very sadly), so take it there if you want to thrash it out with the other geniuses.

"Iran is stupid" - "the US is stupid" . . . ?

Ahmadinejad was walked out on because of the overt rascism and hatred of his speech, not because people think "Iran is stupid" - whatever the hell that means.

Obama certainly said nothing even approaching as insulting or loaded as him, regardless of how dissapointing his speech may have been to those that support the Palestinian cause.

Netanyahu, whilst his comments are conistantly almost scarely fascist and I am very far from being a fan also merely mostly harped on about his own people, and again there may have been outright lies but at no point did he bother with a rascist diatribe.

Delegates would not have walked out if they merely disagreed whole heartedly with Ahmadinejad, they would and should if he is trying his best to outright insult people. If people were as insulted by Netanyahu's lies and poltical spin as they were from Ahmadinejad rascism and unfounded accustations of mass murder, then I would contend that those people already had a very strong opinion about Palestine to be begin with, one very negative towards Israel, and are excercising blatantly the "double standards" they so like to accuse others of.