What does that have to do with the actual existence of gays in Iran?
Even if he was reacting to the proscriptions of his faith, wouldn’t the statement be “We condemn homosexuals in our country because our faith says to do so,” and not the laughable, “They don’t exist because we refuse to acknowledge the fact[, even though we recently hanged a few].” (See ghastly picture link upthread.)
He still has the power to ensure that people are killed because of what they believe and how they act, no matter how innocently those actions would be in the west. So, I retract the moniker of ‘dictator’. Maybe ‘wannabe dictator’ would be more appropriate. Better now?
How does he do that? I don’t think he can order anyone executed without trial, he can’t say what is or is not illegal, and the Supreme Leader, not the president, commands the armed forces and declares war.
It’s not a matter of being polite. It’s a matter of not giving the guy the opportunity to play the victim and get any sympathy. Ahmedinejad isnt’ a dictactor, either petty or great. The president of Iran is more a figurehead than anything else-- the real power lies with the clerics and the Council of Guardians.
Well, he is a torturer and executioner, so perhaps he knows more about the persecution of gays and dissidents than most world leaders.
Regards,
Shodan
Can you quote the part about torture from that very lengthy article? I’m not about to read the entire thing, but I did a search for the word “torture” and it’s not in there. And remember, I’m just saying it is inaccurate to describe him as a dictator.
But you know… I have no doubt that torture and executions occur in Iran, and that gays have been executed. I’m not defending this guy, just talking about how effectively to engage with him (and the regime as a whole). You don’t do that by hurling insulting, and demonstrably false accusations at him.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Well, not quite a figurehead. The presidency of Iran has been rather more powerful since 1989, when the prime ministry was abolished and the president took over most of its functions. But it’s still a less important office than Supreme Leader.
Awhile back, I read that many American soldiers in Iraq mentioned that Iraqi guys would often come on to them for sex - the Iraqi guys explained, “It is OK as long as you are not married to a woman yet.” It seems that sex between men is semi-condoned as an alternative to the horrible sin of sex with a woman before marriage.
They don’t consider this male to male sex “Gay”, it is just something guys do until they get married to a woman. I heard similar stories from other guys from Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia when I lived in Berlin. Supposedly, once you are married to a woman, you’ll never need to go back to having sex with men. Of course, you are also allowed to have sex with men if your wife is unclean, or pregnant…but you are still not “Gay”.
Maybe they are not quite sure what the standard definition of “Gay” is…
FYI only: Here’s a transcript of the Bollinger / Ahmadinejad show at Colombia University:
As opposed to being married to, say, a sheep? 
Which is dumber, his “there are no gays in Iran”, or Dubya’s belief that gays exist, but are going to burn in hell if they don’t change their ways? I love it how Bush lovers are making this guy out to be a raving lunatic, but can’t see their hero is just as insane. Dennis Miller on Bill O’Reilly last night mocked the guy for a while and called him a mass murderer- really Dennis? What the hell then is your beloved President?
The former, obviously. I’m no Bush apologist, but there’s a world of difference from believing something will occur after death – completely unprovable and therefore unproven – and asserting that something that patently exists in Iran, does not exist in Iran.
And I’d like to see a cite, please, for the assertion that Bush believes gays are going to burn in hell if they don’t change their ways. Bush is a member of the United Methodist Church, which certainly does not hold as a tenet that unrepentant gays will burn in hell. Now, he disagrees with the UMC on other issues (including gun control and capital punishment) so it’s certainly possible he disagrees with them on the issue of homosexuality, but I’d still like to see a cite for the assertion that he disagrees with them so radically.
I totally disagree that Bollinger should’ve been more diplomatic. Had he been more polite the Iranian press would’ve twisted that, too. They are propaganda specialists and that is their job. Ahmidinejad is a psychotic clown and should be treated as one. The downfall of Joe McCarthy began when Joseph Welch asked, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” I assume Bollinger’s speech will leak into Iran and hope that it causes some people to realize their emperor has no clothes.
I used to belong. They were and may still be against drinking, too.
Yet parts of the country that Bush is the leader of are passing legislature legalizing same-sex unions for gays. Get back to me when you see that take place in Iran.
I seriously doubt that he is in favor of such legislation.
The official policy of Iran is to kill gays. The official policy in the US is to “Don’t ask, don’t tell”? Sorry, but what is the official US policy, or law, that is the equivalent to, “Violators are reportedly given a choice of four methods of execution: hanging, stoning, halving by sword — or being dropped from the highest perch.”?
Please explain how you can even attempt to make the two sides morally equivalent in this situation? Or are you just a fan of this guy from Iran because he tweaks the nose of people in the west?
Against his wishes.
Not a fan of the guy at all. Its one thing when Bush haters rag on the guy, as the two are quite similar- dumb guy who thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants. Its quite another thing when Bush fans go on about how loony he is, when Bush is pretty much the same- mass murderer, hates gays, despises those who don’t share his religion, etc.
And come on now, the US not having laws to kill gays has nothing to do with George Bush- its not like that used to be the policy and Dubya changed it. Is there a difference between killing gays and denying them basic rights? Of course. But both people are against them, just one to a larger degree. So Bush looks better in comparison- thats not saying much.