Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Difference between revisions
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards No edit summary |
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In the case of the UN speech, most notable were the absence of the USA and in his speech a focus on the structure of the UN and its reliance upon world war 2 victors. This criticism of the UN is upheld in the academic literature, and constitutes an oligopoly of power by a few countries. | In the case of the UN speech, most notable were the absence of the USA and in his speech a focus on the structure of the UN and its reliance upon world war 2 victors. This criticism of the UN is upheld in the academic literature, and constitutes an oligopoly of power by a few countries. | ||
I should also mention that the BBC reports of these two speeches were inaccurate and unacceptably low quality: they cannot be relied upon for an academic article. | |||
--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 21:46, 26 September 2007 (CDT) | --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 21:46, 26 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:05, 26 September 2007
I have great problems with the accounts of his speeches to Columbia University and the UN, which I watched in their entirety on satellite tv. In particular, the Columbia speech was most notable for 4 things: (1) the political speech made by the President of the University, which was not in keeping with the academic standards of the world (2) the visible Jewish lobby which was determined to silence Ahmadinejad (3) his robust defence on the Israeli issue, which is not a simple "Let's destroy Israel" message (4) the booing mostly came with his answer about homosexuality in Iran, which also occasioned laughter at the response.
In the case of the UN speech, most notable were the absence of the USA and in his speech a focus on the structure of the UN and its reliance upon world war 2 victors. This criticism of the UN is upheld in the academic literature, and constitutes an oligopoly of power by a few countries.
I should also mention that the BBC reports of these two speeches were inaccurate and unacceptably low quality: they cannot be relied upon for an academic article.
--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:46, 26 September 2007 (CDT)