- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Ahmadinejad can make a fool of himself without America building him into more than he is


Alt Tv/Fleet FM Breakfast News Comment
Ahmadinejad can make a fool of himself without America building him into more than he is
With American tabloid headlines screaming “The Evil has landed”, and “Madman Iran Prez”, the way Fox News America have gone about demonizing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be a deep embarrassment for a country that supposedly protects free speech. If they can allow the Klu Klux Clan to march down mainstreets, you would think they could allow the President of a country they are threatening to bomb to say a few words first. The funny thing is that when you look at much of what Ahmadinejad had to say in his speech, it was all pretty reasonable stuff that most rational people would agree to. He pointed out the sheer injustice within Palestine and the arrogance of American foreign policy, all valid stuff (and for the record Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth and he never claimed the holocaust never happened – he challenges the reason why Palestinians had to suffer for European guilt, and for that he gets misquoted for self serving interests). But here’s the thing, Iran isn’t a free country, it is a deeply repressive country, and give a clown enough rope and they will at some point hang themselves, which Ahmadinejad did when he claimed that there were no homosexuals in his country. This might be technically true as Iran tends to hang them from cranes, so perhaps he’s killed them all – but then again Saudi Arabia is a dreadful abuser of human rights as well and we ain’t lookin to invade them. So while Iran has some way to go to becoming a progressive nation, suggesting bombing them into the stone age seems churlish. The other dumb reason to demonise Ahmadinejad is that he isn’t the power in Iran, the Ayatollah is, the Ayatollah determines nuclear policy, by insulting Ahmadinejad all America does is make him more popular at home, not a smart idea if you are genuine about diplomacy.

33 Comments:

At 27/9/07 8:12 am, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at U.N. General Assembly Meeting

CQ Transcripts Wire
Tuesday, September 25, 2007; 6:27 PM

SPEAKER: IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501655_pf.html

 
At 27/9/07 8:13 am, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

http://farsnews.com/english/newstext.php?nn=8606300370

 
At 27/9/07 8:17 am, Blogger karlos said...

The visit by Ahmadinejad to NY at a time of US / Israeli war mongering makes for interesting reporting.

Whilst the war lobby continues to use the media to convince the public that war is necessary, Ahmadinejad's visit tries to counteract this.

Instead of seizing on an opportunity to defuse a volatile situation, we see the media engaging in selective reporting that detracts from the useful parts of his rhetoric.

They under-reported his concerns about the plight of Palestinians and US provocation, whilst downplaying his denunciation of war & nuclear weapons and his meeting with Jewish Rabbis;
instead the media over-emphasizes his stupid comments, and repeat the same old quotes and misquotes attributed to him; finally recalling the Holocaust Conference he sponsored.

Coupled with sensational headlines and name-calling, this bias aims to dehumanise him.
The US media is utilizing his visit to manufacture consent for another war.

But judging from the placards carried by protestors, the publics consent for another war may already be won, and his attempt to woo the American Public failed before it really got started.

Ahmadinejads visit highlights his willingness to engage the International Community in the face of, what some believe, is an inevitable US and/or Israel terrorist attack on Iran before Pres. Bush leaves office.

 
At 27/9/07 9:07 am, Blogger Jeff said...

Not all mainstream media swallowed it though this time. Whilst Murdocks evil little empire denounced the evil has landed The New York Times, respected as NY leading paper in terms of quality had a much more balanced debate.

What was uplifting to was the comments written into the NY Times saying on the whole, yeah this guy is fooba but let him speak he has a right to be heard.

I can only hope that most of the US are starting to learn, the problem is and always will be the bible belt.

 
At 27/9/07 12:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But hang on folks, the Surge is working:

Weapons left by US troops 'used as bait to kill Iraqis'
By Kim Sengupta in Baghdad
Published: 25 September 2007
US soldiers are luring Iraqis to their deaths by scattering military equipment on the ground as "bait", and then shooting those who pick them up, it has been alleged at a court martial. The highly controversial tactic, which has hitherto been kept secret, is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of a number of Iraqis who were subsequently classified as enemy combatants and used in statistics to show the "success" of the "surge" in US forces.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2996115.ece

 
At 27/9/07 3:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

which Ahmadinejad did when he claimed that there were no homosexuals in his country.

Bomber you could prove Ahmadinejad wrong by moving there then there would only be one Homosexual YOU
Hahahaha

 
At 27/9/07 9:52 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all good if they hang homos as long as it isn't in this country isn't it Brewer.

 
At 28/9/07 8:51 am, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

Anonymous.

So far the only evidence of homosexual hangings I have been able to turn up has been one instance of a hanging for homosexual rape and one of rape and murder. Both instances were offences perpetrated on children.

If you have other evidence please present it.

In view of the fact that Amnesty International reports Iran has executed just 5 more minors than the United States in the last 8 years seems to indicate that such evidence might be hard to find.

Let us assume that Iran does hang people for picking their nose. Do you assert that this justifies a bombing campaign in which hundreds of thousands of civilians will die, millions will be made homeless and the residual effects of depleted uranium will pollute the land for generations?

 
At 28/9/07 6:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you have an interesting way of arguing.

Iranian govt send in religious thugs to beat, kill and kidnap students.

BD: Oh but 40 years ago there were some killings at Kent state so the US is just as evil.

Iranian government executes two minors on trumped up sexual charges after having tortured confessions out of them.

BD: Oh but the US executes minors too (conveniently ignoring that is due process in the US)

This depraved exercise in moral equivalence gets old real fast. Stop excusing these people. It belittles you.

 
At 28/9/07 11:55 pm, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

I take it you have evidence i.e. sources for the allegations you make against the regime in Iran such as:
"Iranian govt send in religious thugs".

and

"on trumped up sexual charges"

but leaving that aside, let us assume you are right in assuming this sort of thing goes on in Iran.
Doesn't it stretch credibility to believe that this could cause the only superpower in the world to attack it???

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

 
At 29/9/07 10:19 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey children don't forget

Creditable sources to BD = anything that agrees with him.

Anything else which questions BD world view = pro bush zionist neo-con propaganda.

It's amusing to see liberals like you defending the hanging of fags and the beating and killing of students in an Islamic theocracy so you can hate on Bush.

 
At 29/9/07 10:33 am, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

Whether I accept your sources as credible or not seems destined to remain an unanswered question - until you put some up.

Please cut and paste the bit where I defended the "hanging of fags and the beating and killing of students".

 
At 29/9/07 11:44 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL
And what's even funnier is that in the US a man can have sex with another man or publicly voice an independent view without being persecuted for it and you continue to portray the US as evil incarnate despite the fact that such freedoms are not available to Iranians.

I could offer evidence from human rights ngos but since they are obviously held in the thrall of pro bushite crypto-zionnist neocon propaganda machine what's the point.

Your game is to make them less odious through the use analogies which don't hold when examined.

But it doesn't alter the fact that you're an apologist for a regime that abuses human rights and freedoms. How does it feel to betray your own beliefs out of political convenience?

 
At 29/9/07 3:51 pm, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

One of the reasons I ask for references to the persecution of minority groups in Iran is because those who seek to justify an attack on that country often conflate exra-judicial hate crimes with official policy.
It is very easy to show that extra-judicial persecution is not limited to the countries America and Israel wish to see broken up. In the U.S., contrary to your assertion "a man can have sex with another man or publicly voice an independent view without being persecuted" the following pertains:

"A study of gay, lesbian and bisexual adults showed that 41% reported being a victim of a hate crime at sometime during their life after the age of 16. Assuming that 8% of all adults are homosexual or bisexual, this would mean that about seven million of them had been victimized during their lifetime out of a total group population on the order of 17 million Americans."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat14.htm

Now, as to my beliefs which you assert I betray.

I believe that Iran is a theocracy that executes people for offences that would not get you arrested in this country. These executions are on the increase. They amount to about 200 a year which is 200 too many.

I believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has resulted in around 600,000 civilian deaths, most of them slow and agonising, the result of burns and flesh being ripped open by munitions. Not to mention the possibly one million children whose health was ruined by pre-war sanctions, the two million made homeless and the future effects of the barbaric depleted uranium that now litters the country.

I know that in the past twelve months, Israel has killed 457 Palestinians in return for 10 Israelis killed. I know that 92 of the Palestinians and none of the Israelis were children.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907708.html

I believe that the U.S., at the behest of Israel, is likely to repeat the Iraq exercise in Iran.

I believe that you are an apologist for Israel and the U.S. Whether or not this is inspired by "political convenience" I don't know. Maybe you are indeed as incapable of analysis as your posts make you out to be.

As you do not appear to favour evidence-based debate, here is an easy question.

Do you favour an attack on Iran and if so, for what reason?

 
At 29/9/07 4:46 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The is is not about whether there is going to be an attack on Iran or not It's about you being prepared to compromise values such as freedom of expression and sexual orientation because those who violate these rights happen to hold the same ideological position as you.

Once again you play the moral equivalence game. Instead of denouncing state sponsored gay persecution in Iran you bring up some statistic to show how bad it is in the US. You're not making any moral stand here you're only trying to lesson, whitewash and ultimately excuse attacks on gays and political repression by Iranian authorities.

This cloud of statistics won't slow your slide into moral bankruptcy. maybe you and Islamic judge who hung those two boys should get together. You seem to have a lot in common.

 
At 29/9/07 5:19 pm, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

I would suggest that:
"I believe that Iran is a theocracy that executes people for offences that would not get you arrested in this country. These executions are on the increase. They amount to about 200 a year which is 200 too many"
...is denunciation enough.

And yes, I do play the moral equivalence game. I compare the morality of a nation that holds over 3,000 prisoners under sentence of death (half of them non-white)and kills and maims millions in wars waged on false pretexts....... with Iran.

What is it that you do?

 
At 29/9/07 8:23 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gruesome images of Iran:

http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html

 
At 29/9/07 9:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I do is highlight your moral failings. Some of believe that morality is an absolute concept and not some currency to be traded for political convenience. You represent everything which is wrong with the liberal left. I wonder what would happen if you came face to face with someone who had been tortured or had a relative executed in Iran. I guess you could always comfort them with 'oh but America executes people too so that makes it all right' shit. Your moral relativity makes me sick.

Get some fucking principles.

 
At 29/9/07 9:36 pm, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

What you do is engage in sophistry.

My reaction to someone who had been tortured would be the same whether they had been tortured in Iran or Guantanamo. Similarly I would be equally sympathetic if I met someone whose family had been wiped out by U.S. bombs as I would to someone whose relative had been hanged. I know I would have many more opportunities to be so. It seems that your principles allow you to approve of hundreds of thousands of deaths so long as it comes from the air yet not one if it occurs in a society you do not approve of. That is not exactly "absolute" is it?

 
At 30/9/07 7:11 am, Blogger Bomber said...

...
HOLD ON ANON - I am horrified with human rights anywhere - I am MORE HORRIFIED when we in the supposedly 'enlightened' freedom democracy of tghe West do it. How the hell do I get Iran to stop hanging people from cranes when America commits illegal invasions???? How do we get China to stop investing in dictators when America toppled one they set up - IF we are harsher on America its because America should fucking well know better, and because their example is one every brutal regime apes, well brutal regimes the west has finacial relationships with. To use our protest against them as some sort of tick for the brutalities in Iran suggests a lack of understanding on your behalf. The question is should we invade Iran because of its human rights abuses, well seeing as Saudi Arabia commits the same sort of abuse (not to mention the torture chambers of Egypt), if we were to use that level of human rights abuse as justification for invasion we better have a long list - but oddly you don't mention their suffereing - only Iran.

 
At 30/9/07 10:26 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A new landmark in the Iraq catastrophe, and a new landmark in history altogether: at least 300 media professionals have died in Iraq .

Suhad Al-Khalidi, reporter for Iraqi Media Network, was killed by US troops on 4 February 2007 when their patrol passed by her car in Hilla. Three guards working for the government funded al-Iraqiya TV were killed by fire of foreign security guards in central Baghdad on 7 February 2007. Foreign security guards accompanying a delegation shot and killed the three guards. Rasoul Abdul Hussein, a reporter, was killed together with his wife in Diwaniya on 21 February 2007. Hamid Mohammed Salih, a program director for the Dijlah radio station, was assassinated in the Jami'a district 0n 19 March 2007. Mohammed Jassim Yousif, a reporter for the Iraqi Media Network, was assassinated west of Baghdad on 31 March. An unknown correspondent for the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram was killed in a car bomb explosion targeting the Shi’ite Khillani mosque in a crowded area of central Baghdad on 19 June 2007. Abdul Khaliq al-Habir al-Anbaki, a caricaturist in al-Mutamar newspaper, was killed along with his 11-member-family in the car bombing attack that took place on 27 July 2007 in Karrada, central Baghdad .

The two things these murders have in common is that these persons were Iraqi media professionals and that their assassination, which occurred in 2007, went unreported by CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists), and RSF (Reporters Without Borders). These casualties are listed on the BRussells Tribunal website (http://www.brusselstribunal.org/JournalistKilled.htm) and their cases were taken from different press reports.

Hold the front page!
Iran just hanged a homosexual rapist.

 
At 30/9/07 10:56 am, Anonymous brewerstroupe said...

Well put Bomber but a waste of time. The anonymous poster above is simply a troll. The debating style is instantly recognisable:

"Stop looking there (at the slaughter in Palestine, Iraq etc.) - look over here at these barbaric Muslims!"

Makes no sense at all but the object is to sway the soft-brained among us.

 
At 30/9/07 6:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL
I must have hit a nerve to deserve being verbally spit roasted by two luminaries such as yourselves.

"It seems that your principles allow you to approve of hundreds of thousands of deaths so long as it comes from the air yet not one if it occurs in a society you do not approve of."

Once again you're trading in liars in the hope taking away the focus from you own moral inadequacy. I've said nothing about Iraq or anything in support of the US. Your pathetic little smear campaign just highlights how desperate you've become.

Every time someone mentions a human rights violation in Iran you have to whitewash and justify it.

Islamic court hangs gays on trumped up rape charges - BD: well hey their confession (induced by torture) proved it so the decision must be right ergo anybody who argues that this decision were unfair must be a warmongering Zionist. And in the face of critical evidence from human rights ngo's and gay rights activist you still consider the integrity of Iran's judiciary beyond reproach.

I regard victims of repression as deserving equal compassion whereas your 'compassion' is contingent upon who is torturing and killing them. That is why you don't give a shit a repression in Iran (and in fact condone and appear to justify it) and yet so outraged about the dire in Iraq.

People like you need to be revealed for what you really are.

 
At 30/9/07 9:19 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

...
LOL
I must have hit a nerve to deserve being verbally spit roasted by two luminaries such as yourselves.

"It seems that your principles allow you to approve of hundreds of thousands of deaths so long as it comes from the air yet not one if it occurs in a society you do not approve of."

Once again you're trading in liars in the hope taking away the focus from you own moral inadequacy. I've said nothing about Iraq or anything in support of the US. Your pathetic little smear campaign just highlights how desperate you've become.

Every time someone mentions a human rights violation in Iran you have to whitewash and justify it.

Islamic court hangs gays on trumped up rape charges - BD: well hey their confession (induced by torture) proved it so the decision must be right ergo anybody who argues that this decision were unfair must be a warmongering Zionist. And in the face of critical evidence from human rights ngo's and gay rights activist you still consider the integrity of Iran's judiciary beyond reproach.

I regard victims of repression as deserving equal compassion whereas your 'compassion' is contingent upon who is torturing and killing them. That is why you don't give a shit a repression in Iran (and in fact condone and appear to justify it) and yet so outraged about the dire in Iraq.

People like you need to be revealed for what you really are.


You busted out LOL - we must be up your nose. YOu haven't attempted to debate at all, you've simply smeared us with some type of 'you don't charge in with the rest of us to condemn Iran, so you must be the enemy' with a few sprinkles of suggesting we only attacj Israel for good measure. Yet you don't debate any of what we try to dialouge with you, you are simply content to make emotive and personal attacks. I like the "People like you need to be revealed for what you really are.": That was the bit that made me laugh out loud.

 
At 30/9/07 10:34 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is prohibited (Haram) in Islam. Yet information about such activity is not sought out by the public for scandal or publicity. In fact, it is also a sin to accuse a person of such crimes without the witness of four adult people of good repute, who actually witnessed an act. Rumor, suspicion, scandal, character assassination are all prohibited in Islam and also punishable. This means that unless homosexuals publicize their activity, or there is an accusation made by a spouse, no one in Muslim society is hunting for homosexuals, and because it is considered sin, most homosexuals will not attempt to make their preference public, or to suggest that their sexual choice is the basis for a political movement or mandate. When such cases are reported, or complaints made, they will be made privately to the responsible leaders of society, and not the media, since the issue is one of private concern for families, for the health and well being and salvation of the individuals involved, and also for the society overall. It is not for gossip, and revenge, and to hurt people or to persecute them, or to corrupt society.

Suspicion of homosexuality cannot lead to deprivation of human rights, and neither can mere accusation. Even attempts to entrap people and to expose their moral weaknesses or violations is frowned upon in Islam, and punishable with public censure of false accusers. Neither the prophets Lut or Abraham hunted down, killed, or persecuted homosexuals, and neither did the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Homosexuality like adultery, and fornication are all moral and civil crimes in Islamic law, neither any better than the other. A fornicator is not given preferential treatment over a homosexual, and neither is an adulterer. There are Muslim scholars who will argue that female homosexuals are to be punished more severely than the males, yet the Qur'an does not command killing as punishment for such crimes by either gender. It was Judaism and paganism where the idea of stoning, and death for moral crimes, and violations originated, and not Islam. As these communities became inter-mingled some of the practices became common among all, yet the Qur'an does not say to kill, and there is controversy about the hadith that say that the prophet Muhammad stoned for adultery and fornication, and there no hadith that I know of indicating that the prophet Muhammad ever killed a person as punishment for homosexuality. Even when people attempted to confess to fornication or adultery, the prophet made every effort to avoid even hearing confessions, he made every excuse, and looked for any legal way to refuse to accept the confession in order to avoid punishment of any soul unless it was commanded by God through the Islamic law. Islam is motivated by love, not sadism.

In my opinion, Iran's President was saying that in an Islamic society you will not find this idea that homosexuals are a sub-species created with a natural attraction to the same sex. The Qur'an teaches us that no people ever practiced homosexuality before the people of Lot, and that it is an abomination and a crime. It would be an injustice for God to create such a species and then deem their behavior immoral and criminal, and God is not unjust. The Qur'an teaches us that judgment, reward and punishment are consequences of choice and tools of justice, and do not relate to compulsion, involuntary acts or genetic predisposition. In Islam justice is not blind, it has perfect sight and takes all things into consideration.

Also, in the Qur'an it is made very clear that homosexuality was not the sole reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, and not only homosexuals were destroyed when God finally decided to eradicate that society due to its disobedience. Remember that Abraham and Lot's tribe was a Hebrew tribe that was under Covenant with God to obey the prophets, and their teachings, and also the law. It was also a bloodline through which prophets would emerge, and was the House of Israel that became the royalty of the Hebrew tribes. Also keep in mind that Lots wife was also destroyed, and there is no mention of her being a homosexual, bur rather the scripture implies that she was not true to her husband. So in Muslim societies there may be people who prefer homosexual behavior. If they are private, society will not persecute them, hunt them down, and make public scandal of their behavior, even though every effort might be made to make it clear that such behavior is prohibited, and punishable. If homosexuals in a Muslim society attempt to publicize, or normalize that behavior, the Islamic society has a right and obligation to protect the society from such efforts.

These are my understandings. There are perhaps many other views. I would suggest that before making light of what Iran's president sought to explain in his response, that one should look more deeply into the issue, and perhaps you will come to understand that homosexuality is a social, religious, moral and societal issue is treated differently in Muslim societies, and homosexuals enjoy all rights in such societies.

 
At 30/9/07 11:25 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought it was weak of you and BD to try and bait me into agreeing with the Iraqi invasion and Israeli occupation of Palestine thus giving you ample opportunity to do the usual smearing of anybody who doesn't agree with you as a Zionist neocon. That's what your 'dialog' really is.

Let's see where to begin oh yes here we are the attempt by BD to portray me as anti Muslim -

"Stop looking there (at the slaughter in Palestine, Iraq etc.) - look over here at these barbaric Muslims!"

At no point did I ever say anything against Islam or Muslims. If simply disagreeing that torturing teenage boys to confess to rape and homosexual activity then hanging them from a crane was a good thing then I stand guilty as charged. At least I didn't try to justify such as BD does.

Nowhere did I refer to Iraq or Israel but you continually brought it up as a distraction.

Guess it doesn't feel too comfortable to have somebody closely scrutinizing what you advocate and how you are arguing them which is why you're reduced to tactics like this. Once you get past the veneer of moral outrage it don't look too pretty.

The issue was not Iraq but the moral relativism that BD thinks is a substitute for real humanitarian concern.

I notice that neither of you are offering the same concern for the people of Zimbabwe, Dafur or Chechnya the people of whom are suffering from similar repression. But since there is no anti- Americanism to exploit in these instances I suppose they fall off the radar of your concern.

 
At 1/10/07 12:10 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

November 5, 2002 "Times/UK"
"Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends", demands Israel!
By Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1105-02.htm

September 30, 2004 "The Insider"
Israel Instructs America To Attack Iran And Syria
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0614

March 16, 2005 "U.S. Crusade"
Israel's Broken Record - Attack Iran
By Kurt Nimmo
http://www.uscrusade.com/index.php?blog=3&cat=16

February 6, 2005 "WhatReallyHappened"
U.S. - Israel Plans To Strike Iran's Nuclear Sites Finalized
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/week_2005_02_06.html

June 14, 2005 "The NewYork Sun"
SPY CASE REVEALS ISRAELI PLOT TO PLANT IRAN WMD DATA
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
Liberty_Forum_Source.org

Dec 5, 2005 “MichNews”
Netanyahu: “If elected, I won't hesitate to order a pre-emptive strike on Iran”
By Ryan Jones, JNewsWire.com
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_10634.shtml

 
At 1/10/07 11:44 am, Anonymous Trollspotter said...

Characteristics of Trolls:

1.Transference: Trolls endeavor to shift the debate away from the topic e.g. “you say you are anti-war but you haven’t mentioned the conflict in Bratislavia. This technique relies on the impossibility of denying a negative
2.Research avoidance: Trolls rarely post links to their research. Their purpose is not to inform. Links posted usually lead to op-ed pieces lacking in fact, usually “think tank” garbage. Trolls also rarely follow up links posted by others. This allows the troll to avoid coherent debate.
3.Obfuscation: Trolls try to get posters to defend positions they have not taken e.g. “you say xyz” when the respondent actually said “mnopq” Ad homenim attacks and outright prevarication are standard troll techniques. This strategem relies on characterizing the respondent as immoral or associated with unpopular people or sites e.g. Holocaust deniers, terrorists etc. The object is to “taint” the poster and is effective despite the faulty logic involved.
4.Logically deficient. The fact that their argument defies logic never concerns a troll. They simply ignore attempts to point this out and repeat the same reason-defying inanity until the respondent either tires or is moved to make a response that the troll can characterize as unreasonable.
5.Lack of response to direct questions. A troll will simply ignore direct questions, the answers to which, would expose them.

Handling Trolls:

1.Ask for a statement of the suspected troll’s position and sources.
2.In the event that the above does not bear fruit, ignore further postings. You are most likely dealing with a T. R. O. L. L.

www.trollwatch.org

 
At 1/10/07 12:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This strategem relies on characterizing the respondent as immoral or associated with unpopular people or sites e.g. Holocaust deniers, terrorists etc."

Wasn't this BD strategy of trying to paint anyone who disagrees with him as a warmongering zionist stooge. I guess this troll criteria is accurate after all.

 
At 1/10/07 9:42 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mr Anonymous

(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)

 
At 2/10/07 9:38 am, Blogger karlos said...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18471.htm

Obviously he was not saying, We don’t have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran—something nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication, he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! —something which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him to be saying.

What he was saying is that homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring them under a common caption would be misleading. “Homosexuality is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society.” This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.


The rest of the article is also very good, explaining several other misquotes and mistranslations attributed to Ahmadinejad.

 
At 4/10/07 7:38 pm, Anonymous Legio X said...

Trollwatch -

Shift debate from topic = Bo ber - check

Links to garbage = Bo ber - check

Characterizes posters as immoral etc = Bo ber - check

Logically deficient = Bo ber - check

Lack of response to direct questions = Bo ber - check

Geezzzz thats weird aye?

Meanwhile Karlos is linking to informationclearinghouse - Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Weirder and weirder.

 
At 5/10/07 5:26 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice how BD doesn't jump on threads to with Burma. This is a demonstration of how myopic his morality is. There are Chinese and French oil like Total and sinopec companies involved there but since those countries were against the Iraqi war then nothing should be said against them.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home