Over half of the people at the UN walked out during Ahmadinejad's speech

Didn't he go over his allotted time? He was starting to get a bit boring, I'd have gone off for a coffee or a smoke too. I don't think anything he said is what made people walk out, looked to me like he'd just been going a bit too long. I cannot see how anything he said could be seen as any way offensive.

reply to post by quackers


Well no matter what there will be a "World system"; We currently are living in one. It takes cooperation, and understanding to ferment peace. Isolationism just doesn't quite cut that; it most definitely seals off learning about the differences in culture, and societies.

I just got done now watching the video, and it was fairly good. I still feel that the guy laid it all out fairly well, and was concise.

Again, I am saying overall. Not one of us in these boards agree 100% of the time; We work off of the understanding the general message is what is important, and each individually put Our own flare to it.

reply to post by quackers


No, they are given a 40 minute speaking allowance. I was shocked at how many "tolerant" countries split, and didn't give him the time of day. The United States actually was the worst; of course I knew they would walk out, but c'mon. We toot Our own horn as being the wise country of the World. All knowing, and will listen to anyone...., but not Ahmadinejad. It just really blows me away as war is on the horizon.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


I would agree. I was sort of trying to say that it's an overused term, hence we get a choice. A global convergence of some sort is inevitable, no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

To me he sounded like any other politician saying what any other politician would say, except for capitalism, which is screwed anyway and everyone should badmouth it.

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones The United States actually was the worst; of course I knew they would walk out, but c'mon.

No, gotta disagree there.

Canada was the worst. They proudly stood up and left as soon as he started speaking. At least the other countries waited for something they could at least claim offense at.

reply to post by vox2442


You bring in an interesting point to the discussion. I wonder how the order of when to leave was decided?

When I said the US was the worst I meant in regards as acting like the World's police; which they are credited with a lot.

The UK actually "kinda" surprised me with not being there. All these countries main premise for walking out was to show support for Israel. The UK recently, or groups in the UK have recently started to impose different bans, or restrictions on Israel.

I donno, just kinda odd is all.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


According to the Canadian MSM, the Canadian decision to leave before the speech started was taken at Israel's request. Harper said yesterday that they would boycott the speech because of his comments last week "denying the holocaust".

In the last couple of years, Canada has become the strongest supporter of Israel in the world, bar none. Even after the gaza turkey shoot, when the USA was outraged enough to abstain from voting to censure Israel - Canada was the sole nation to vote against the resolution. In this case, Canada led the charge to the exits - the only nation that beat them to the door was Israel, who didn't even show up.

Hold your friends close and your enemies closer. Maybe they should have stayed and listened.

reply to post by Cosmic4life


There is absolutely nothing wrong in boycotting something that is plainly reprehensible; it is in fact morally more sound to show disapproval to the demagogues and bigots than to tolerate their hyperbole to keep up the appearance of decorum.

It could also be that, Ahmedinajad's speech coincided with a more important engagement many of the attendees had. However, either way, a captive audience is like candy to demagogues. There is no point in feeding the beast.

As for honest debate and all that nonsense about learning for each other, Ahmedinajad and his like are not there to learn or understand. They do not represent their people, merely their ideologies and arguing with zelots who peddle rhetoric is like fighting with the wind! An entirely futile exercise.
Leaving was the most dignified response to something entirely vulgar and the totally ponderous rhetoric. An "honest" debate would have been a volley of boots hurled to the dais till he either ran away or was knocked unconscious.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


Just like last year...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought it was an excellent speech also. I didn't hear anything even close to Hitler come out of his mouth. I heard an awful lot of truth, which is probably why so many walked out like a bunch of sixth graders. The truth hurts, especially when it's told to your tax paying slaves.

S&F

I read the transcript of the entire speach and comparing what he said to Hitler would be like comparing the Archies to Led Zepellin.

It was a little heavy on religion, you know not being decedant and being pious which well I am not really about not being not decedant but everything he said regarding the way the Security Council operates procedurally was correct.

Everything he said about a handful of nations getting to basically run roughshod over the other 180 smallers ones is correct.

Evernthing he said was very respectful. The only thing he said regarding Israel is the truth, that a wave of Post World War II immigration brought people from all over the world into the region and they displaced the people who were already living there with out much thought to the law or compensating those who existed there.

He talked about the double standards in the Security Council and if it was wise for the nations who are most actively engaged in violence and war to all be permanent members of the security council as it kind of defeats the purpose of having a security council when the 5 permanent members don't let the other 180 nations have any say when it comes to Security related issues.

The long and the short of it, is this guy would have my vote if he wasn't so religious. Everything else he talks about is just plain honest common sense.

The hysterical thing is, just like with Ron Paul, it's the guys who speak plain honest common sense and to the base truth of things that are labelled as crackpots and dangerous.

Some how we now live in a world where people who do speak common sense, in regards to fairness, even and transparent laws that everyone has to follow, not letting a handful of people and corporations and nations dictate everything the world over, and looking for a way to work out differences peacefully is considered crazy and dangerous.

It would be funny if it weren't so darn sad.

Anyone who hasn't read his speech should.

Anyone who wants to pretend the main stream media has represented accurately for you, on your own behalf with out you taking the time to read it and judge it for yourself?



Here is is in it's entirety posted on NPR's (National Public Radio) web site.

NPR

[edit on 24/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Again, that's the wrong speech. It says "September 19, 2006" right at the top.

I posted the video of the latest speech on page 1.

reply to post by IAF101


So in other words you have no idea what he said in his speech?

Someone told you that you should just take a certain predisposition to it?

Told you to behave in the manner you are accusing the Iranian President of even though he didn't act in that manner of all.

Or was it your own idea to just be intollerant, talk without first finding out the facts, and to do so with a clear and strong malignant prejudice?

I certainly enjoyed reading his speech despite the religious undertones I am not sure I can say the same about your post about something you yourself didn't even hear or read

reply to post by vox2442


Now you tell me laugh out loud!

Well, does anyone have a link to the text of the speech?

The good news is I am caught up through 2006 now!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Looking for one now -

here's something very odd, though - here's the google search I'm using:

www.google.ca...=en&safe=off&num=100&q=Ahmadinejad+UN+speech+transcript+2009&meta=&fp=58658b2190507a24

Of the first 7 links, 5 come up with the "attack site" warning on firefox. Have not gone further than the red screen, because I'm at work..

hmmmmm..

The speech is here :

ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com...

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

I'll keep looking for the hate in the speech.

Look for it in the streets of Tehran where they hang the bodies of homosexuals from the lampposts, and stone young girls to death after burying them up to their neck.

I don't ever remember Gandhi supporting acts like that.

I must say, you have some strange heroes.:shk:

reply to post by vox2442

Odd, isn't it...

I just finished watching it, and I can't pinpoint anything that he said that I have not read on ATS, by members of all political stripes and national backgrounds.

Are you looking at that as some kind of endorsement? From a board with a very large thread about violent encounters with fish-like aliens while asleep?

reply to post by IAF101


Excellent post!

You called a spade a spade. Sitting there and listening to his bile for the sake of decorum only feeds the illusion that he is anything but a madman.

A volley of boots would have been the appropriate response.