PDA

View Full Version : Ahmadinejad on Charlie Rose




ChooseLiberty
09-24-2007, 11:36 PM
He interviewed with Charlie Rose before the Columbia speech and seemed more reasonable than our own government.

Maybe they'll post it on charlierose.com or youtube. Definitely worth watching.

ctb619
09-24-2007, 11:37 PM
I hope it was better than the combative 60 Minutes interview

EvilEngineer
09-24-2007, 11:48 PM
Heck all of the interviews so far that I have seen have been nothing but attacks on him. I know that people are brainwashed into blindly hating the guy, but have some respect, he is an ELECTED foreign head of state. Much like our idiot in office... oops, I mean president. Except our president doesn't have the balls or intelligence to ever do an open / unscripted forum with people from another country, let alone ours.

hard@work
09-24-2007, 11:51 PM
When an evil man tells the truth, does it stop the truth from being true or the man from being evil?

fluoridatedbrainsoup
09-25-2007, 12:18 AM
The Iranian is not evil. Our media is evil for being so effective in its brainwashing that people repeat what they say like recorders.

On other note, I'd like to see all presidents subjected to an IQ test, and then I would like to see where Bush stands in relation to the Iranian.

EvilEngineer
09-25-2007, 12:19 AM
When an evil man tells the truth, does it stop the truth from being true or the man from being evil?

Nope, the truth is just evil :D

Mordechai Vanunu
09-25-2007, 09:35 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7351989860835767572&q=charlie+rose+mahmoud&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

maggiebott
09-25-2007, 09:44 AM
I saw the interview last night and did not think Rose was fair or just. Charlie Rose is just another neocon bastard.

Mordechai Vanunu
09-25-2007, 09:49 AM
I'll be honest, I'd much rather have that guy as my President than the current one.

constituent
09-25-2007, 10:18 AM
charlie rose always disappoints.

even when he's got a great guest on and
everything should be poppin' he somehow
manages to kill the pace, draw poor inferences
from their answers to frame his next question...

just not that great a communicator. even tavis
smiley's got him beat.

nexalacer
09-25-2007, 10:28 AM
Wow, Ahmadinejad is pwning Charlie Rose. I love how he's talking about Hezbollah, which is absolutely true. They never attack outside of Lebanon unless in retaliation against an Israeli attack. Then Charlie Rose says, "but they aren't giving up their arms!"

I'd love to see him spit the same nonsense if America was constantly under attack like Lebanon is by Israel!

Edit: But the dude is spitting a lot of propaganda when talking about Iranian internal issues. Very cool interview though.

DataSage
09-25-2007, 10:32 AM
I'd be careful about giving this man praise, despite the insanity of our own current leadership. Ahmadinejad is an "elected" head of state in the same way that the Soviet congress was "elected." Regardless, this is America, it's not like we should be respecting foreign heads of state anyways. ;)

What really gets me is people who defend him speaking for the sake of "understanding Iranian society." Are you kidding me? The theocrats in Iran are a very small minority, much like the Bolsheviks were in post-Tsarist Russia. Iranians are pretty westernized for the most part, and are well educated, so Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and fundamentalist orientation are in no way representative of that country politically or socially.

Mordechai Vanunu
09-25-2007, 10:33 AM
I'd be careful about giving this man praise, despite the insanity of our own current leadership. Ahmadinejad is an "elected" head of state in the same way that the Soviet congress was "elected."

I agree. There was nothing suspicious about the rise to power of our own "elected" administration. :rolleyes:

dukker
09-25-2007, 10:34 AM
man what the hell? This guy is awesome president. Charlie Rose was a douchebag. The Iranian president was making nothing but reasonable and intelligent answers.

DataSage
09-25-2007, 10:38 AM
I agree. There was nothing suspicious about the rise to power of our own "elected" administration. :rolleyes:

I was more referring to institutional methods than actual electoral politics. (i.e. Boss Tweed)

dukker
09-25-2007, 10:40 AM
god the more I listen to this guy the more he makes sense. He's not a lunatic at all.His views on foreign relations are a lot like Paul's.

TheEvilDetector
09-25-2007, 10:42 AM
Iranian Prez is very very clever.

I just hope he is mostly honest, I know that no politician is totally honest.

As long as he has good intentions, its alright though.

The media's intention to make him look like some kind of madman are failing spectacularly because he seems like a very rational and educated person.

PS. That part about where the interviewer brought up the point of the council needing to approve presidential candidates in Iran, for a moment made the prez
look bad, that is until he replied that in USA there is never an independent president, only a DEM or REP denominated one, so there is a party dictatorship of sorts.

Brilliant.

One can go further than even the prez said, because in fact for around 20 years there have been 2 ruling families ie. the clintbush royal line.
LOL

Santana28
09-25-2007, 10:57 AM
i tend to believe him to be completely genuine, or at least VERY genuine, simply by the fact that he is so willing to come into extremely hostile and difficult situations and speak to people who are openly hostile towards him and everything he represents. people who didn't genuinely believe in what they were trying to accomplish wouldnt take so many risks...

Santana28
09-25-2007, 10:57 AM
and this isn't anything new for him, mind you.

Mordechai Vanunu
09-25-2007, 11:14 AM
I was more referring to institutional methods than actual electoral politics. (i.e. Boss Tweed)

Examples? How was his rise to power worse than GWB's?

DataSage
09-25-2007, 12:36 PM
Examples? How was his rise to power worse than GWB's?

Because the theocratic regime in Iran operates in a more of a way a political machine does, as opposed to a party based electoral system. Yeah, they have parties, but they're rubber stamps for the ruling body. This is why we have direct primaries. Iran does not, because if they did, a secular liberal would be elected and the rule of the Ayatollahs would be compromised (at least symbolically). Iran is not a country full of extremists, which is why our foreign policy over the past 50 years has been so destructive for us.

W's election was a product of electoral politics. The fact that you had people like Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan on the primary ballot disproves any theories of comparing the two systems, so in our case it's substance over structure.

james1906
09-25-2007, 12:56 PM
The Values Voters would like him since he successfully eradicated homosexuality.

ChooseLiberty
09-25-2007, 12:56 PM
If you check recent history several "Islamic" countries have had elections and the West has not supported their democratic choice.

Maybe Iran has some religious influence in the process. So what? Who made it the USA's business to demonize an elected leader and attack their country just because he doesn't agree with US policies.

How many countries around the world have had their elected government overthrown by the US "making the world safe for democracy" with the CIA?

Does the USA have free elections? Check the AIPAC video under this post. Are the front runners in the '08 election really significantly different from each other in any way with respect to their "support" for Israel?

Of course everyone paying attention knows the real reason the US regime is trying to pump up a war with Iran. It's the same reason they attacked Iraq. Iraq was Israel's biggest threat in the region and now it's Iran.

SeanEdwards
09-25-2007, 01:01 PM
They may be justified, but his government is involved in killing American soldiers right now.

He is not a nice guy, and he refuses to give a straight answer about developing nukes, or about killing our troops in Iraq.

And why the fuck does this raghead monkey get an hour on Charlie Rose before Ron Paul gets an invite? Somebody needs to slap some sense into Charlie until he puts Ron on.

nexalacer
09-26-2007, 12:21 AM
They may be justified, but his government is involved in killing American soldiers right now.

He is not a nice guy, and he refuses to give a straight answer about developing nukes, or about killing our troops in Iraq.

And why the fuck does this raghead monkey get an hour on Charlie Rose before Ron Paul gets an invite? Somebody needs to slap some sense into Charlie until he puts Ron on.

Proof? The only proof I've seen is this lying administration saying it's so. That's not NEARLY enough for me. And honestly, proof of it crossing the border would not even be enough. I'd need evidence it ACTUALLY came from their government... cuz guess what? I could send nearly ANYTHING across our borders if I wanted to right now... does that mean it would come from the US government?

And the raghead monkey comment really shows your ability for rational analysis.

DataSage
09-26-2007, 01:45 AM
Proof? The only proof I've seen is this lying administration saying it's so. That's not NEARLY enough for me. And honestly, proof of it crossing the border would not even be enough. I'd need evidence it ACTUALLY came from their government... cuz guess what? I could send nearly ANYTHING across our borders if I wanted to right now... does that mean it would come from the US government?

And the raghead monkey comment really shows your ability for rational analysis.

Since when does the private sector in Iran deal in explosives and munitions??:confused:

ctb619
09-26-2007, 03:59 AM
Charlie Rose is a complete asshat

nexalacer
09-26-2007, 04:03 AM
Since when does the private sector in Iran deal in explosives and munitions??:confused:

The government does not have a monopoly on explosives and munitions. I could go to the store right now and buy stuff required to make explosives. It's not like Iran is an uneducated country. 79% of their people are literate.... they could probably find a few books floating around about how to make explosives and munitions. If a group is motivated, it would be easy to get munitions to "freedom fighters" or whatever.

I suggest while thinking about this issue, try to completely block out anything and everything you've heard from the administration or the Ministry of Truth (MSM), as they're quite distracting from the real issues at hand.

Man from La Mancha
09-26-2007, 04:08 AM
I'd be careful about giving this man praise, despite the insanity of our own current leadership. Ahmadinejad is an "elected" head of state in the same way that the Soviet congress was "elected." Regardless, this is America, it's not like we should be respecting foreign heads of state anyways. ;)

What really gets me is people who defend him speaking for the sake of "understanding Iranian society." Are you kidding me? The theocrats in Iran are a very small minority, much like the Bolsheviks were in post-Tsarist Russia. Iranians are pretty westernized for the most part, and are well educated, so Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and fundamentalist orientation are in no way representative of that country politically or socially.
We elect our leaders the same way as Iran or Russia. The vote machines are rigged Duhh.:)

.

DataSage
09-26-2007, 09:07 AM
The government does not have a monopoly on explosives and munitions. I could go to the store right now and buy stuff required to make explosives. It's not like Iran is an uneducated country. 79% of their people are literate.... they could probably find a few books floating around about how to make explosives and munitions. If a group is motivated, it would be easy to get munitions to "freedom fighters" or whatever.

I suggest while thinking about this issue, try to completely block out anything and everything you've heard from the administration or the Ministry of Truth (MSM), as they're quite distracting from the real issues at hand.

Right, except munitions, much like nuclear material, is easily traceable. There are hardly any extremist groups in Iran, and the ones that DO exist are linked and/or directly funded by the government, so I fail to see your logic that it's just regular people sending stuff to Iraq. I mean, are they just bored, or something?

Man from La Mancha
09-26-2007, 09:36 AM
Well lets see if I remember right from a playboy article over 20 yr ago. If you put the plutonium in the center of a container and placed equal amounts of of plastic explosive in hexagram like charges surrounding it perfectly distance and of equal wt and and size like a soccer ball. With detonators on each charge with wires the same length so when exploded all the charges hit the center equally to make the plutonium compress and explode. Wallah an abomb. Gee anybody can do that:)

.

scipio337
09-26-2007, 09:51 AM
We elect our leaders the same way as Iran or Russia. The vote machines are rigged Duhh.:)

.Gross mischaracterization. Have you tried a write-in candidacy in iran?

Man from La Mancha
09-26-2007, 09:54 AM
Gross mischaracterization. Have you tried a write-in candidacy in iran?Like any president in the US was elected this way.

.

nexalacer
09-26-2007, 10:09 AM
Right, except munitions, much like nuclear material, is easily traceable. There are hardly any extremist groups in Iran, and the ones that DO exist are linked and/or directly funded by the government, so I fail to see your logic that it's just regular people sending stuff to Iraq. I mean, are they just bored, or something?

First off, in what I've seen, there is always mention of the explosive devices, you're the first I've heard of munitions from anyone other than the Bush Administration. And I've already stated I don't trust their word at all. If you have real proof from anyone outside of the Bush Administration or the Military spokespeople aka DoD bureaucrats, I'd be happy to see it.

Secondly, we know very little of what actually goes on in Iran because even though it IS a democracy in some sense of the word, there is quite a bit of information that goes through a filter in Iran, then if we put on the filter in America, we are left with very little REAL knowledge of what sort of groups that may have an interest in causing chaos in Iraq actually exist.

And this is still all based on an assumption that Iran is actually sending explosives into Iraq, which I still haven't seen any real proof for.

Man from La Mancha
09-26-2007, 10:13 AM
Can US citizens still visit Iran now. Be like a human shield?

.

Ozwest
09-26-2007, 10:22 AM
It amazes me how even intelligent Ron Paul supporters get sucked into this hype about Iran. Listen to Ron Paul.

Man from La Mancha
09-26-2007, 10:24 AM
It amazes me how even intelligent Ron Paul supporters get sucked into this hype about Iran. Listen to Ron Paul. Link, link??

.

Ozwest
09-26-2007, 10:35 AM
If I knew how I'd Link, link??

Man from La Mancha
09-26-2007, 10:52 AM
At the top of the reply to posts is a symbol of the earth, just click on that and and paste your copied web link there and it will be posted.

.

Ozwest
09-26-2007, 11:07 AM
Thanks, Imagine you recently bought a computer and are learning EVERYTHING from scratch. No outside help. I'll give it a go. Feel like a child.

DataSage
09-26-2007, 11:08 AM
First off, in what I've seen, there is always mention of the explosive devices, you're the first I've heard of munitions from anyone other than the Bush Administration. And I've already stated I don't trust their word at all. If you have real proof from anyone outside of the Bush Administration or the Military spokespeople aka DoD bureaucrats, I'd be happy to see it.

Secondly, we know very little of what actually goes on in Iran because even though it IS a democracy in some sense of the word, there is quite a bit of information that goes through a filter in Iran, then if we put on the filter in America, we are left with very little REAL knowledge of what sort of groups that may have an interest in causing chaos in Iraq actually exist.

And this is still all based on an assumption that Iran is actually sending explosives into Iraq, which I still haven't seen any real proof for.

Actually, we know VERY well what goes on in Iran, there is a ton of academic literature out there, and our HUMINT services are very very good, despite what the MSM paints them out to be.

Secondly, your ignorance of Middle Eastern history is astounding. How can you say we are left with very little knowledge of what groups may have an interest in causing chaos in Iraq? By virtue of your politics, it'd be logical to conclude that every authoritarian figure in the Middle East has interest in causing chaos in Iraq, so please... clarify what you're saying here.

Paulitician
09-26-2007, 12:33 PM
I thought it was a pretty decent interview. Hopefully for some people it dispelled the myths the mainstream media has fed the people in order to get support for a war in Iran or something equally as stupid. Ahmadinejad is like all other politicians, we don't know exactly what skeletons he has hiding in his closet. He, like George Bush, is not even too popular in his own nation. I don't think he has kooky ideas (for instance, he doesn't want to "wipe Israel off the map" that's a lie and mistranslation. He does, however, want to get rid of the "Zionists." He doesn't deny the Holocaust outright from what I've seen, he thinks that alternative views should be looked at and more researched should be put into the subject--why I don't exactly know), however, some of his ideas are outside the mainstream. Mass media will have us believe that this guy is hellbent in destroying Israel and going to war against the US, but I didn't get that vibe from him at all. Perhaps, he is a "petty and cruel dictator" in his own country but that has nothing to do with us. And if he is giving weapons to Iraqis or terrorists that kill our men, that I don't like. At the same time, this could have all been prevented if we didn't go in Iraq in the first place, especially when based on lies. Argh, the imperial hubris of our damn administration and past administrations.

nexalacer
09-26-2007, 12:51 PM
Actually, we know VERY well what goes on in Iran, there is a ton of academic literature out there, and our HUMINT services are very very good, despite what the MSM paints them out to be.

Secondly, your ignorance of Middle Eastern history is astounding. How can you say we are left with very little knowledge of what groups may have an interest in causing chaos in Iraq? By virtue of your politics, it'd be logical to conclude that every authoritarian figure in the Middle East has interest in causing chaos in Iraq, so please... clarify what you're saying here.

OK, you seem to have the knowledge, and I'm asking for you to enlighten me. Where is the proof that the Iranian government is providing explosives and munitions to the insurgents in Iraq? I'll be happy to change my thinking on this topic, but I need the proof. And, as far as I HAVE seen, there is no proof, so I don't feel like wasting MY time looking for it. But, if you've already found it, please share.

My point about not knowing what groups may have an interest in chaos in Iraq was that we don't really know what groups, not tied to the government, may have an interest in chaos in Iraq. I'm not quite sure what my politics has to do with the conclusion that every authoritarian figure in the Middle East has interest in causing chaos in Iraq. What are my politics, from your point of view?

I'll admit, I'm no Middle East scholar, but I do have a basic understanding of Middle Eastern history, primarily, the rise of Zionism, Wahhabism, the split between Shi'a and Sunni, and the ethnic differences between Persians, Arabs, and Kurds. And with this limited knowledge, I am pretty damn sure I know more about the Middle East than George Bush. For that reason, plus the fact that he's proven himself to be a prolific liar, I refuse to believe his propaganda about Iran trying to cause havoc in Iraq. It just doesn't make sense.

What does make sense, and just occurred to me, is that Iranian Kurds are likely supplying the insurgency because a chaotic Iraq can lead to a Balkanized Iraq, which would be in the interest of the Kurds who want a Kurdish state. And since a Balkanized Iraq would be bad for Iran and Turkey, because of the threat of a Kurdish state and the internal chaos that could cause, I think it's in Iran's interest to NOT cause chaos in Iraq. And who knows, the CIA could be providing the materials for the Kurds to make it look like the Iranians did it, so we can accomplish the current administrations goal of war in Iran. I don't have proof, this is pure speculation, but it does fit, from my understanding of the region and our bullshit interference in it.

Zydeco
09-26-2007, 06:33 PM
Rose is -- you guessed it -- a CFR member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

Scroll down under "Notable current Council members"

Syren123
09-26-2007, 11:59 PM
And this is still all based on an assumption that Iran is actually sending explosives into Iraq, which I still haven't seen any real proof for.

That is the crux of the biscuit. They're expecting us to believe the word of members of the military industrial complex who have proven themselves to be self-serving, unremorseful liars. Forget it. I can't imagine anything they could provide in the way of proof that I would ever believe.

As for nukes, Iran doesn't HAVE weapons grade anything. They have the right through international nonproliferation agreements to develop nuclear ENERGY and that's what they're doing, verified over and over again.

Ahmadinejad may be the Evil Con Carne. So what. If Iran is not a threat to the United States, it would be a moral disaster of nightmarish proportions to attack them.

Syren123
09-27-2007, 12:00 AM
Rose is -- you guessed it -- a CFR member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
Scroll down under "Notable current Council members"

Good grief. Who would have thought.

ChooseLiberty
09-27-2007, 02:10 AM
Not only moral. All Iran has to do is fire one of their super-sonic missiles into an oil super tanker and stop all shipping out of the gulf. Oil prices will go to the moon and the world will go into a huge depression and the next round of resource wars.

That would be the perfect finish for the neocon / AIPAC agenda.


That is the crux of the biscuit. They're expecting us to believe the word of members of the military industrial complex who have proven themselves to be self-serving, unremorseful liars. Forget it. I can't imagine anything they could provide in the way of proof that I would ever believe.

As for nukes, Iran doesn't HAVE weapons grade anything. They have the right through international nonproliferation agreements to develop nuclear ENERGY and that's what they're doing, verified over and over again.

Ahmadinejad may be the Evil Con Carne. So what. If Iran is not a threat to the United States, it would be a moral disaster of nightmarish proportions to attack them.