Saturday 25 September 2010

All is Gay and Fair in War

So the delegations of consternation again expressed their rejection of All Things Ahmadinejad by walking out on an address to the UN General Assembly in which the Iranian President recounted three of the more popular theories related to what happened nine years hence on the eleventh of this month.

Why not simply plug your ears and chant, "Neener, neener, neener"?

Because going out for a smoke-break is more mature.

Then again, it might've been more a display of solidarity with the previous US President than an admonition of the current Persian one. In his speech to the same assembly in 2001, the former preznit implored members still assembled to christen as intolerable alternative suppositions about the crime his government failed to prevent, but solved within three days and with the information they already had at their disposal.

Amongst those who made the walk of blame Thursday: newly same-sex 'wed' German Foreign Minister/Deputy-Chancellor, and (immer noch) FDP Chief, Guido Westerwelle.

The conservative-libertarian had been a little less-recently quoted as saying that he would not be taking his partner with him on trips to countries in which homosexuality is a punishable offence, and that, in so not doing, he hoped to further the cause of tolerance; the implication being that sensitivity towards one's counterpart works both ways.

How conservative-libertarian of him!

So I guess sending a homosexual Foreign Minister to Iran is not a provocation unless his husband is close enough for him to receive his ejaculate. That's probably why he walked out of the General Assembly: to allay Mahmoud's fears that the minister might demand a facial.

Back to the speech in question and another current president: In an interview with the BBC, Bo Rama called the Iranian leader's remarks "hateful", "offensive", and "inexcusable". It's not clear if he was referring to the three conspiracy theories respectively.

Speaking of rhetoric cloaked as communication, I take you to last summer in Cairo when, in the middle of another one of his condescendingly arbitrative history lessons to his hosts who'd actually lived it, the Rama harked back to the one true and apostolic, unimpeachable sentence for the crime that was... that is... and that will always be the offense of nine-eleven:
"But let us be clear. Al-Qa'ida killed nearly three-thousand people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody, and yet al-Qa'ida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts to be dealt with."
It's so nice to have leaders who would never ruthlessly murder innocent men, women, and children on a massive scale with affiliates in many countries trying to expand their reach.

To date that'd be about a million death penalties for the "offense of nine-eleven". What percentage of that million people do you reckon had done something to harm somebody which was worthy of the death penalty?

How do you deal with that?

Lest we mollify our collective conscience with the excuse of the curse of continuity: He didn't inherit that motherfucking speech - or any of the actions he's taken before, during, or since.


So what else is goin' on?  Gays in the Military

Call: Stop violating our human rights!
Response: To violate human rights!

Don't fret. Think of it as covert activity.

Of course, the next time the German Vice is in that neck of the desert fulfilling his diplomatic obligation to royalty and representing gay sand rovers everywhere, you can bet that he'll get off clean.