Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Scrabb wrote:

KingCracker wrote:I just want to say, I think its incredibly childish and rude to just walk out on someone speaking, no matter how ridiculous they are being. But that being said, the guy is a total quack. I think he thinks that in saying that, he can lure some Americans to his cause, but doesnt realizer that sure 1 in 4 Americans believe that, 5 in 4 Americans cant stand the guy

I disagree. When you are so incensed by a speaker that your options are leaving and charging the pulpit the polite thing to do is to leave. Do you not think there is any possible position where the person on the pulpit doesn't deserve an audience?

Didn't the article say that they walked out on him, just like they had every other time? I'm pretty sure they didn't need him to go on about 9/11 to walk out anyway, or maybe he said something equally offensive the last time.

KingCracker wrote:I just want to say, I think its incredibly childish and rude to just walk out on someone speaking, no matter how ridiculous they are being.

Normally I would agree with you, but I would say walking out was justified in this case, because Imadinnerjacket has no actual desire to communicate with the people in question. He's only trying to look good for people in his own country by "standing up to the western imperialists", and just generally making himself into more of a character. There's no sense in sticking around for that.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Scrabb wrote:

I disagree. When you are so incensed by a speaker that your options are leaving and charging the pulpit the polite thing to do is to leave. Do you not think there is any possible position where the person on the pulpit doesn't deserve an audience?

Didn't the article say that they walked out on him, just like they had every other time? I'm pretty sure they didn't need him to go on about 9/11 to walk out anyway, or maybe he said something equally offensive the last time.

KingCracker and I were both speaking of etiquette in general. He believes that it is bad form for people to walk out on a speaker regardless of how ridiculous that speaker is behaving. I believe that someone can be incensed to the point that their best course of action is to walk out on a speaker. (You could say we were both right except I don't think it at all rude in some situations)

I believe this is a good example of a speaker that you really don't need to hang around for closing remarks from. Unless you want a good laugh/cry.

Scrabb wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Scrabb wrote:

I disagree. When you are so incensed by a speaker that your options are leaving and charging the pulpit the polite thing to do is to leave. Do you not think there is any possible position where the person on the pulpit doesn't deserve an audience?

Didn't the article say that they walked out on him, just like they had every other time? I'm pretty sure they didn't need him to go on about 9/11 to walk out anyway, or maybe he said something equally offensive the last time.

KingCracker and I were both speaking of etiquette in general. He believes that it is bad form for people to walk out on a speaker regardless of how ridiculous that speaker is behaving. I believe that someone can be incensed to the point that their best course of action is to walk out on a speaker. (You could say we were both right except I don't think it at all rude in some situations)

I believe this is a good example of a speaker that you really don't need to hang around for closing remarks from. Unless you want a good laugh/cry.

Or an excuse to bust out the pitchforks and torches.

Yes but having our Representatives walk out everytime, is just more fuel for the dinnerjacket guy. He can go home and tell everyone see, the Americans do not respect us as a country blah blah blah *insert typical anti American whatever* Where as if we stayed, he at least couldnt use that, because the guys sat there. I dont care if they put on iPods and rocked out to their favorite band. Just having a presence is what Im talking about.

Also I dont think it really matters if he were speaking ill about 9/11 ontop of the site, or in Kentucky somewhere. There are MANY people that think it was an inside job, and we dont really get upset with them. This is just being blown out of proportion because of who said it. And really, him saying it, MIGHT have made the "inside job crowd" lose a few members simply because to him, the Nazis never killed Jews in WW2. And thats just stupid. It can easily be proven through historical documents. That be like saying the number 2 doesnt exist, and all the 2's on keyboards are just crazy people seeing 8's

KingCracker wrote:Yes but having our Representatives walk out everytime, is just more fuel for the dinnerjacket guy. He can go home and tell everyone see, the Americans do not respect us as a country blah blah blah *insert typical anti American whatever* Where as if we stayed, he at least couldnt use that, because the guys sat there. I dont care if they put on iPods and rocked out to their favorite band. Just having a presence is what Im talking about.

Yep.

Also I dont think it really matters if he were speaking ill about 9/11 ontop of the site, or in Kentucky somewhere. There are MANY people that think it was an inside job, and we dont really get upset with them. This is just being blown out of proportion because of who said it. And really, him saying it, MIGHT have made the "inside job crowd" lose a few members simply because to him, the Nazis never killed Jews in WW2. And thats just stupid. It can easily be proven through historical documents. That be like saying the number 2 doesnt exist, and all the 2's on keyboards are just crazy people seeing 8's

2 + 2 = Whatever the State wants it to be.

djones520 wrote:Another reason why America is so great. We allow the Iranian President to come here and accuse us of perpetrating 9/11 apon ourselves. Where Iran arrests American hikers, and imprisons them for years, for no reason at all.

I love that some people can claim 'we went to the border of Iran and Iraq to hike and do nothing else, because we couldn't think of anywhere safer to hike at all. No, honest, we were!' And you believe them. It's adorable. Would you change your opinion if you found out they were strongly left wing?

Also, it's very silly to compare the freedom given to diplomats to make speeches in formal settings, and the amount of trust that should be granted to private citizens crossing the border into another country without a visa. These are simply different things.

Also, there is absolutely nothing unique in the US granting such immunity. It isn't even the US granting the immunity, it's the UN.

Then there's dogma's point that you congratulate your home country for allowing him to say this, then suggest you should stop tolerating it.

Seriously dude, you need to think more about your posts. You wrote four sentences, and it included at least four ridiculous elements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:Well, I'm convinced then ! Because, clearly, if you were about to try and commit a massively elaborate deception to fool the entire world, which depends entirely upon your actual identity being concealed, you'd take your actual passport with you...

It wasn't very well explained in the article but the passports that 9/11 nutters like Ahmedinejad are talking about are actually the passports of the suspects - according to the theory the passports of the attackers were found in the rubble and that's how the government knew who did it.

Which is still all kinds of stupid, but a different stupid to what you'd assumed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

burning_phoneix wrote:People really don't give Ahmedinejad credit. He certainly says crazy things but he uses them quite cleverly. Like Nikita Kruschev, he acted flying rodent gak crazy but he needed a lot of cunning to claw his way to the top of the soviet pile. Both are quite shrewd politicians.

Kruschev played it up with big speeches to appease the jingoist elements of Russia, while working to improve relations because he understood Russia wasn't powerful enough to compete with the West.

Ahmedinejad is doing nothing of the sort. He's saying even crazier things, building support among the craziest elements of Iran and the ME, and unlike Kruschev he's only alientaing everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:I disagree. When you are so incensed by a speaker that your options are leaving and charging the pulpit the polite thing to do is to leave. Do you not think there is any possible position where the person on the pulpit doesn't deserve an audience?

It's all just diplomatic language. Walking out isn't because you refuse to hear what he says, it's just a way of saying 'we disagree very strongly'.

sebster wrote:

Scrabb wrote:I disagree. When you are so incensed by a speaker that your options are leaving and charging the pulpit the polite thing to do is to leave. Do you not think there is any possible position where the person on the pulpit doesn't deserve an audience?

It's all just diplomatic language. Walking out isn't because you refuse to hear what he says, it's just a way of saying 'we disagree very strongly'.

Right you are sir. I heard that about 30 countries walked out on this one. And I don't think it was rude!

Scrabb wrote:

sebster wrote:

Scrabb wrote:I disagree. When you are so incensed by a speaker that your options are leaving and charging the pulpit the polite thing to do is to leave. Do you not think there is any possible position where the person on the pulpit doesn't deserve an audience?

It's all just diplomatic language. Walking out isn't because you refuse to hear what he says, it's just a way of saying 'we disagree very strongly'.

Right you are sir. I heard that about 30 countries walked out on this one. And I don't think it was rude!

I believe it was the US, most if not all the EU, New Zealand and Australia that walked out.