Columbia University and Free Speech?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Who's giving him a pass?

I don't feel like going through this thread or others (nor do I want to call them out by name), but there are a lot of people comparing him to the Bush administration or our government in order to give him a pass, yet those are the same ones who condemn...

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't feel like going through this thread or others (nor do I want to call them out by name), but there are a lot of people comparing him to the Bush administration or our government in order to give him a pass, yet those are the same ones who condemn...

I sure as hell am not giving him a pass. His regime is horrendous concerning human rights. However, there is an alternative to the 'HE'S A TERRORIST' hysteria that some members on this board have.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Which is it?

Both? I think there are many who believe only what he says when it's politically beneficial to causes they support, and consider him a liar when it does the same.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Both? I think there are many who believe only what he says when it's politically beneficial to causes they support, and consider him a liar when it does the same.

Many is in the international community who has condemned the man? Or many as in people who don't prefer translations from propaganda sites and anti-semitic blogs?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I sure as hell am not giving him a pass. His regime is horrendous concerning human rights. However, there is an alternative to the 'HE'S A TERRORIST' hysteria that some members on this board have.

He isn't a terrorist? I would say he is. He gets in front of our media and claims there's no gay people in his country, possibly because they're all hung... When someone's human rights violations are so strong don't they become a terrorist to their nation?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He isn't a terrorist? I would say he is. He gets in front of our media and claims there's no gay people in his country, possibly because they're all hung... When someone's human rights violations are so strong don't they become a terrorist to their nation?

You make is sound as though he personally created those laws, and could remove them if he wanted

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't feel like going through this thread or others (nor do I want to call them out by name), but there are a lot of people comparing him to the Bush administration or our government in order to give him a pass, yet those are the same ones who condemn...

It was a rhetorical question, and so what if they're comparing him to the Bush Administration? That doesn't have anything to do with giving this guy a pass.. he obviously wasn't, and I haven't seen anyone giving him a pass anyway.

There's some incredible irony in the fact that the Neo-conservative movement is now pitted against Islamic extremism.. considering both the Neo-conservative movement and the Islamic extremists have a fairly similar worldview that's filled with dominance of a single faction over the world.

American dominance, Islamic dominance.. both are willing to use violence and threat of violence to further their goals, both use religion as a basis for their movements, and recruit people to their causes through religion.. it's just incredibly ironic.

But really, that's for another thread

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He isn't a terrorist? I would say he is. He gets in front of our media and claims there's no gay people in his country, possibly because they're all hung... When someone's human rights violations are so strong don't they become a terrorist to their nation?

Our record on human rights lately isn't all that much better.. torture (by definition of the Geneva Conventions), indefinite detention, guilty without chance to prove innocence

And Ahmadinejad was elected, they can remove him from power if they want. He has about as much power as a traditional Vice President in the US.. he doesn't control the army and doesn't make the ultimate decisions, the Mullah's do.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

You make is sound as though he personally created those laws, and could remove them if he wanted

You make it sound like he disagrees with them and would want to remove them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

It was a rhetorical question, and so what if they're comparing him to the Bush Administration? That doesn't have anything to do with giving this guy a pass.. he obviously wasn't, and I haven't seen anyone giving him a pass anyway.

Who is "he"? And yes, when you compare him to Bush to mitigate the issue you're essentially downplaying the event.

There's some incredible irony in the fact that the Neo-conservative movement is now pitted against Islamic extremism.. considering both the Neo-conservative movement and the Islamic extremists have a fairly similar worldview that's filled with dominance of a single faction over the world.

Neo-conservatives want to dominate the world in a similar world-view as Islamic extremists? This can't be a serious statement.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Our record on human rights lately isn't all that much better.. torture (by definition of the Geneva Conventions), indefinite detention, guilty without chance to prove innocence

And Ahmadinejad was elected, they can remove him from power if they want. He has about as much power as a traditional Vice President in the US.. he doesn't control the army and doesn't make the ultimate decisions, the Mullah's do.

Our human rights aren't much better than Iran's? That's absolutely absurd.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Neo-conservatives want to dominate the world in a similar world-view as Islamic extremists? This can't be a serious statement.

I suggest you read some neo-con literature about what their plans and goals are.. because it's American dominance, with our military might as a key tool to accomplish it.

Whereas Islamic extremists want Islamic dominance, and are willing to use terrorism to accomplish it.

I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but there are many similar aspects to both groups worldviews.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You make it sound like he disagrees with them and would want to remove them.

Not at all, but I fail to see how that makes him responsible for the law he never created of implemented.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Our human rights aren't much better than Iran's? That's absolutely absurd.

Iran executes people for crimes it's culture considers worthy of capital punishment.

America executes people for crimes our culture considers worthy of capital punishment.

The only moral high ground is really held by Europe, who's abolished the death penalty and considers both instances barbaric.

I don't agree with Iran's execution of people for those crimes, obviously.

We have tortured people as a matter of national policy. That's really not better than executing someone for being gay.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Iran executes people for crimes it's culture considers worthy of capital punishment.

America executes people for crimes our culture considers worthy of capital punishment.

Just to cut through the bias... look at the reasons they consider worthy. Currently the US basically uses capital punishment for first degree murder with DNA evidence. Iran will kill you for dissenting, your sexuality, etc.... the idea of linking the two is absurd.

To push the Godwin button, Hilter killed people he felt was worthy of capital punishment, are we no different from him too? Where does it end...

[motivez]

You should read a little closer, because I'm comparing our national policy in favor of the use of torture to their sick use of execution for people who are different.. not our use of executions.

But if you're going to use execution of something as an example of poor human rights records, you'd find many in the European community saying our execution of people is an example of the same.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

You should read a little closer, because I'm comparing our national policy in favor of the use of torture to their sick use of execution for people who are different.. not our use of executions.

But if you're going to use execution of something as an example of poor human rights records, you'd find many in the European community saying our execution of people is an example of the same.

You're comparing a lot more than that. You're comparing water boarding torture to far more serious forms of physical torture. You're also comparing overall human rights and not just our pathetic excuse for torture in comparison to Iran. Which again is an absolutely absurd comparison to make.

And comparing neo-cons like Bush to the views of Islamic extremists in terms of views on world dominance is also extremely absurd.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

You're comparing a lot more than that. You're comparing water boarding torture to far more serious forms of physical torture. You're also comparing overall human rights and not just our pathetic excuse for torture in comparison to Iran. Which again is an absolutely absurd comparison to make.

And comparing neo-cons like Bush to the views of Islamic extremists is also extremely absurd.

I see no difference between a country who tortures one person and a country that tortures thousands.

They have both crossed the line.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Not at all, but I fail to see how that makes him responsible for the law he never created of implemented.

He may not be the person fully responsible, but by agreeing with it and carrying it out he's definitely a key player in the act.