# Muammar and



## Nestor_Kelebay (Sep 25, 2009)

It was a gala celebration at the UN today as world leaders came out to the Augusto Pinochet Dictator Awards held at the UN's General Assembly Hall.  By all accounts the evening was the unofficial coronation of Muammar Kadafi as Dictator of the Year when he stole the show with a 90 minute nonsensical rant about everything from the assassination of JFK to the H1N1 virus choreographed with an occasional paper toss (a new move for the 72 year old).  It was a night for the critics, but true artistic genius is always hailed as radical.






Muammar relaxing and having a few too many beer back stage with the road crew after the show.  





Mahmoud Ahmadinejad opened for Muammar, and I couldn't think of a better opening act.  Mahmoud, a long time advocate of saying what's on his mind, entertained the crowd by affirming that were no homosexuals living in Iran.  Mahmoud drew howls of laughter when he suggested that the number of homosexuals in both Iraq and Afghanistan had increased tremendously since the landing of US led coalition forces in both countries.  Whatta guy.





Mahmoud and his wife pose on the red carpet for photographers.  Mrs. Ahmadinejad wore a gold necklace with a diamond solitaire and matching earrings by Cartier,  a teal evening gown by the up and coming designer Emily Wright of Los Angeles, a white silk sash from Prada, and a conservative but stylish black burka.

Notably absent at the celebrations were Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela as both had prior speaking engagements.






Robert Mugabe was in South Africa performing live at the Africa Raps concert, and Hugo was in Crawford, Texas yelling insults from the property line of the Bush family ranch.


----------



## Billvila (Sep 25, 2009)

I never got my invite. Was it a black tie affair?


----------



## handyguys (Sep 25, 2009)

At first I though you were talking about Obama when you said nonsensical rant!!!


----------



## oldognewtrick (Sep 27, 2009)

They all look like such like able guys, you know, the kind you would invite over for a beer in the garden to iron out your differences......


----------



## inspectorD (Sep 27, 2009)

That could be the problem, they do not drink if they are muslims....
maybe take em on a fishin trip.


----------



## oldognewtrick (Sep 27, 2009)

Well, how about putting a hog on the smoker and having a pig roast. Nothin like eatin some good ole southern BBQ to settle ones differences.


----------



## Plumbing And Lighting (Sep 29, 2009)

LOL, nice post. A friend of mine was actually in attendance for a recent Ahmadinejad speaking engagement (might have been this exact one, but I'm not sure). He's a college student so he went with his whole class to a Q&A. Said he cringed and rolled his eyes the whole way through. The Q&A was only broadcast in Iran and it concluded with a 30 minute rant, which from what I was told was basically a further denial of the holocaust. Scary thing is that the majority of people there stood and applauded at the finish.


----------



## Huh? (Sep 29, 2009)

That's not surprising at all. People are backwards and need to be corrected. If the country that's responsible for the Holocaust admitted it and there are sites all over Germany that prove it who cares what one mildly retarded puppet for the Ayatollah says. The second he contradicts a edict put forth by the supreme leader he will be forced out of office. Shari is great and all but I don't think people realize that the Ayatollah calls all the shots. Get ready for a Nuclear Iran!


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Sep 30, 2009)

Huh? said:


> People are backwards and need to be corrected.



There are no backward people on this good Earth that need correcting.  If people do things differently in other countries, it's because it makes more sense to do it that way given their circumstances, social and economic constraints and cultural history.  I once saw a Yanomamo Chief being interviewed on TV talking about the cutting down of the Amazon rain forest by logging companies to sell hardwoods to North America and Europe.  By the way he was dressed, I figured him to be an as yet uncatalogued species of monkey.  But, when the translation came through, the man was obviously very intelligent, and that was presumably why he had been chosen by his people to be chief.



> The second he contradicts a edict put forth by the supreme leader he will be forced out of office. Shari is great and all but I don't think people realize that the Ayatollah calls all the shots.



You need to understand that Ahmadinejad needed the UN exposure for his own good.  The Ayatollah's regime is committing political suicide.  Anytime people who are in power brutally put down a popular uprising against them over fundamental issues like personal freedom, they sow the seeds of their own demise.  It's just a matter of time.

Ahmadinejad knows that there is a great deal of anger within factions of his country that want him and the Ayatollah's ousted.  The opportunity to be seen amongst other world leaders at the UN defending Iran's right to self determination and bad mouthing Israel will score him a lot of points with his public back home, even if they feel he rigged the election.  Ahmadinejad needed the opportunity to "look Presidential" at the UN for "domestic consumption" so as to bolster his popularity and legitimacy amonst fence sitting Iranians as this is a critical time for the regime.  Otherwise, he wouldn't have risked leaving the country.  It's very possible that an uprising could have occured in his absence.  So, Ahmadinejad didn't come to the UN cuz he wanted to, it's mostly because he (and the Ayatollah's) felt he needed to.  His presence at the UN is an indication of how fragile the regime is now, and how important it is for him to LOOK and ACT presidential to the Iranian public, than it has to do with the holocaust, or lack thereof.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 1, 2009)

You took it out of context. A denial of the holocaust is backwards. I'm no Zionist, but it did happen, and if your going to base policy, or in this case lack there of, on a faulty point then you are in need of correcting. I understand that people are entitled to there opinion, but not when it causes an irrational amount of hate into an ignorant public. Your monkey man may have been smart by monkey man standards and he may have been smart by western standards, but if he had based his truth on a lie the intelligence is void, no matter his ability to logically deduce his position and reinforce it with perceived fact. What your saying is the exact opposite of science and science is the only valid form of intelligence. Meaning obviously the scientific method. Anything else is faith. Faith yields to coercion.
As for the Ayatollah, Stalin didn't have public support. He gained it through starvation. Look how well his regime instilled authority. An uneducated population ingrained with the words of Allah, which despite it's clergy saying it's peaceful (it is not), is an indoctrination of the ayatollah and his status as the supreme leader. Their religion forbids descent.


----------



## Plumbing And Lighting (Oct 1, 2009)

I think you meant dissent.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Oct 2, 2009)

Huh? said:


> You took it out of context. A denial of the holocaust is backwards. I'm no Zionist, but it did happen, and if your going to base policy, or in this case lack there of, on a faulty point then you are in need of correcting. I understand that people are entitled to there opinion, but not when it causes an irrational amount of hate into an ignorant public. Your monkey man may have been smart by monkey man standards and he may have been smart by western standards, but if he had based his truth on a lie the intelligence is void, no matter his ability to logically deduce his position and reinforce it with perceived fact. What your saying is the exact opposite of science and science is the only valid form of intelligence. Meaning obviously the scientific method. Anything else is faith. Faith yields to coercion.
> As for the Ayatollah, Stalin didn't have public support. He gained it through starvation. Look how well his regime instilled authority. An uneducated population ingrained with the words of Allah, which despite it's clergy saying it's peaceful (it is not), is an indoctrination of the ayatollah and his status as the supreme leader. Their religion forbids descent.



Well, all I'm saying is this:

Who hates Communism the most?
Is it the generals in the Pentagon?  Is it the bankers on Wall Street?  Or is it the bishops in the Vatican?

None of those.  The people that hate Communism the most are the people that lived under it.  You just have to talk to them to find that out.  Until the Berlin Wall fell, they were the ones willing to risk imprisonment or death just to get the he11 out of their countries and into a free country.

And, except for the name and a few other changes, the people in Iran are finding out that living under a strict Islamist government isn't much different than living under a dictator or living under communism.  They don't have the freedom they crave.  Basically, they don't want to be told how they're supposed to think, what they're supposed to say and how they're supposed to behave.  They want to think, say and do as they please, just like in Amarika.

And, I for one am hoping that the resistance movement in Iran grows the way the resistance to Communism grew in Poland and other eastern European countries.  And, I believe Ahmadinejad is aware that there's the very strong possiblity of a resistance movement growing in Iran, both at a grass roots level and on a political level.  And I believe that's why he's at the UN making speaches.  He wants to be seen by moderate Iranians and fence sitters as "doing a good job for Iran" and standing up for Iran's right to self determination, and bashing Israel helps make him popular back home too.

But, the fact that he's doing that only a month after there were violent protests in the streets of Tehran shows how concerned the government is that their man get more positive exposure on Iranian TV.  And, giving a speach at the UN that stands up to the western powers supporting Israel and defending Iran against foreign "aggressors" who invade that part of the world goes over well amongst ordinary Iranians.  Right now it's a popularity contest between him and Mousavi, and Ahmadinejad knows that being the official leader gives him the opportunity to get more exposure, and he's wanting to use that exposure to build up his popularity amongst Iranians.  But, it's an indication that he and the Ayatollan's are feeling a bit insecure.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 3, 2009)

Plumbing And Lighting said:


> I think you meant dissent.



I think you meant dissent!


----------



## Huh? (Oct 3, 2009)

Nestor, You say they hate communism but the reality of indoctronation shows us the the soviets as long as coming out of system of oppresion into soviet control enjoyed the transition. The were afforded law and order no matter how violent our tenuos. Sure the bottom of the population hates it but I dare to venture those people didn't really have much a voice before that. People want to be left alone, and whatever accomplishes it seems to be the prevailing ethic regardless of political affilation or socio-economic realities. In other words people will be habitualy unhappy. Not knowing the cause of this unhappiness people feel an inability to escape it perpetuating a feeling of hopeless ness.Paraphrasing Russell on that one. If the people of Iran weren't given a vote they would not have revolted. The violence wasn't in responce to oppresion, it was in response to freedom. They way to stop that is oppresion not face time on american telivision slamming homosexuals and praising allah. By that logic he could just control everything on Iranian television. Oh wait he does.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 3, 2009)

I know I have mispelled things my spell check won't turn on.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Oct 3, 2009)

Huh:

Communism and a strict Islamist regime have one thing in comman, and that is that they don't allow any dissent.  People are not free to change the government or change the  religion and so pressure to change builds up within the system until you have a revolution.  That is, where the people take over the governance of the country by force, and set it on a different course.

Under a democracy, there is a safety valve built into the system.  Every few years there is an election where the people elect new leadership.  The result is that you never have so many people so upset with the status quo that they're willing to take up arms against the government in order to change the conditions under which they live.  That fundamental difference is why you never see a coup or revolution in a truly democratic country.  You see coups and revolutions in communist countries, dictatorships, and I'm hoping now in rigid theocracies such as you found in Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

I say that communism, dictatorships and rigid theocracies are all the same in that they repress people's desire for personal freedom, and because of that, there will all eventually fall, either by military coup or revolution or whatever.


----------



## Huh? (Oct 6, 2009)

Communism fell to Capitalism the Taliban is back the papacy has been in existence since Peter. People like to be controlled.


----------

