Irish Delegates walk out of Ahmadinejad UN Speech

SamHarris · 27-09-2011 10:35AM

Nodin wrote: »

You might point that out to the person who brought it up.

Im fully aware he is not, once again I was merely pointing out how historically innaccurate yet another one of his claims were.

Jonny7 · 27-09-2011 03:27PM

Boskowski wrote: »

However, most of the stuff thats being spurted about Ahmadinejad in our media are rubbish and are following a certain political agenda.

"Most" of the stuff? can you provide examples?

The British sailors crossing into Iranian waters story is the only one I can really think of.

When you say "our media" which media are you referring to exactly? major networks in the US, or Irish and British media like RTE, The Guardian, etc or world media including Asian, Indian, Scandinavian news?

Mahatma coat · 27-09-2011 04:20PM

the Shatt al Arab incident??? depends on which line of bullsnit you believe I suppose, but the Iranians have a bit more of a teritorial claim to those Waters than the british. I'd tend to believe that the brits did indeed stray into Iranian Waters.

Batsy · 27-09-2011 04:39PM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the Shatt al Arab incident??? depends on which line of bullsnit you believe I suppose, but the Iranians have a bit more of a teritorial claim to those Waters than the british. I'd tend to believe that the brits did indeed stray into Iranian Waters.

The Algiers Agreement, ratified by both nations (Iraq and Iran) in 1976, remains in force. It defined the Iran-Iraq international boundary in the Shatt al-Arab by a series of precisely defined turning points closely approximating the 1975 thalweg or deepest channel, ending at point "R". Point "R", at 29°51′16″N 48°44′45″E / 29.85444°N 48.74583°E / 29.85444; 48.74583 (WGS84) is about 8.6 nautical miles (16 km) southeast of the tip of Iraq's Al-Faw peninsula at high tide. Point "R" is where the thalweg in 1975 was adjacent to the furthest point of exposed mud flats at "astronomical lowest low tide." Point "R" thus constitutes the end of the land boundary of the two nations, despite being under water at all but the lowest tides.

According to analysis by the International Boundary Research Unit (IBRU) at the UK's Durham University, the location provided by the Ministry of Defence for the location of the seizure is 1.7 nautical miles (3.1 km) southwest of this Point "R" boundary terminus and 1.6 nautical miles (2.9 km) south of this international boundary line. Thus the university says: "The point lies on the Iraqi side of…the agreed land boundary." This has been challenged by Iran, whose second set of released co-ordinates were inside its waters. But the location provided by the British government is not in disputed territory according to IBRU, which says the boundary is disputed only beyond Point "R" (to the east and southeast). Confirming this, Richard Schofield, an expert in international boundaries at King's College London, stated "Iran and Iraq have never agreed to a boundary of their territorial waters. There is no legal definition of the boundary beyond the Shatt al-Arab."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel#Legal_treaties_in_force_at_site

walshb · 27-09-2011 05:12PM

We are allies and friends of the U.S, but recently the U.S. have made some serious bad calls. Serious. I mea, Iraq, Afghanistan? That was pure madness. Killing for the sake of killing. So many U.S. lives lost, and even more Iraqi and Afghan lives lost. For what? To tst their miltary capability, oil, land? To make the world safer?

JustinDee · 27-09-2011 05:52PM

walshb wrote: »

We are allies and friends of the U.S, but recently the U.S. have made some serious bad calls. Serious. I mea, Iraq, Afghanistan? That was pure madness. Killing for the sake of killing. So many U.S. lives lost, and even more Iraqi and Afghan lives lost. For what? To tst their miltary capability, oil, land? To make the world safer?

Afghanistan provided logistics and sanctuary for the perpetrators of terrorist attacks on Europe and the US.
Wholly different to the hijacking of catastrophe in an attempt to justify Iraq.

Mahatma coat · 27-09-2011 06:18PM

Wha?????????

you Talkin about the CIA Agent who lived in Pakistan?????

JustinDee · 27-09-2011 06:22PM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Wha?????????

you Talkin about the CIA Agent who lived in Pakistan?????

Do more delving into where Al-Q operations were based at the time and where training and planning took place.
Try Steve Coll's book on the subject actually. More constructive literature on the matter and less pamphletic tosh normally found in the JCR.

Nodin · 27-09-2011 06:40PM

walshb wrote: »

We are allies and friends of the U.S, but recently the U.S. have made some serious bad calls. Serious. I mea, Iraq, Afghanistan? That was pure madness. Killing for the sake of killing. So many U.S. lives lost, and even more Iraqi and Afghan lives lost. For what? To tst their miltary capability, oil, land? To make the world safer?

Aghanistan was an operation which had the support of a wide range of the international community. The country had been a source of problems for India, Iran, and many of the former soviet states as well as the US.

walshb · 27-09-2011 08:07PM

Those taliban, who were supported by the Americans when they were fighting the Russians.

Support or not, the whole war on terror is just madness. Safer world? No, madder world.

And, what has the U.S. done in Afghansistan apart from killing, and having its men butchered? What has it acheived?

Hayte · 27-09-2011 09:07PM

Ahmadinejad is a world class troll. He's better at trolling the UNGA than Putin is at trolling the G8. Like all master twilly trolls he speak just enough truth to hit too close to comfort and just enough lies to render his position inactionable and unsupportable.

The reaction to what he says is whats really interesting.

Manic Moran · 27-09-2011 10:17PM

kraggy wrote: »

Who are the Irish people that sit in the UN? Are they civil servants or a team of ambassadors to the UN or something?

Irish ambassadors are civil servants. They work for the Dept of Foreign Affairs under the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

But since we joined the Americans and French ect, you couldn't quiet say it was the act of a neutral nation now could you?

Since Ireland isn't neutral but non-aligned, why would you want to? Besides, even a neutral country can independently come to the same conclusion as an alliance.

NTM

cooperguy · 28-09-2011 12:58AM

JustinDee wrote: »

At least no-one from Ireland has been involved in terrorism and paramilitarism overseas while using false/stolen irish passports, eh?

Boy oh boy, can Irish folk be hypocritically self-righteous and sanctimonious.

Ah come on! Are you serious? Government sanctioned actions are entirely different from the actions of a terrorist group within a country (which the government are actively trying to stamp out).

Also can people stop saying Ireland is a neutral country. It says nowhere in our constitution we take a neutral stance on everything. We make policy decisions as situations happen and we have tended to adopt a policy of neutrality during war. It does not stop us taking positions on other issues.

JustinDee · 28-09-2011 12:21PM

cooperguy wrote: »

Ah come on! Are you serious? Government sanctioned actions are entirely different from the actions of a terrorist group within a country (which the government are actively trying to stamp out

The Irish government are quite involved in one particular example amongst a number, so there isn't really all that much difference.

Do you think there are secret services or intelligence units that don't use false identification, even in Ireland? Where??

mike65 · 29-09-2011 11:26AM

Al Qaida tells Ahmadinejad to stop spreading lies about Sept 11, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy

wes · 29-09-2011 11:41AM

mike65 wrote: »

Al Qaida tells Ahmadinejad to stop spreading lies about Sept 11, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy

This Atlantic article also includes a funny Onion video with Al Qaeda argueing with a truther:

The Onion Predicted Al Qaeda's Frustration with 'Ridiculous' Truthers

There right in that they are a parody of themselves now.

cooperguy · 29-09-2011 10:34PM

JustinDee wrote: »

The Irish government are quite involved in one particular example amongst a number, so there isn't really all that much difference.

Do you think there are secret services or intelligence units that don't use false identification, even in Ireland? Where??

What are the examples? I cant remember the Irish Government sponsoring terrorism. So yes there is a difference. In fact they are worlds apart

Irish Delegates walk out of Ahmadinejad UN Speech

Comments