The BBC also felt the need to select (a different set of) quotations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8008850.stm , but at least had the good grace to make this clear., After all, the selection of quotations is a form of editing, and as such is an attempt at censorship !

But why not publish the full speech ? I was so interested in what you had omitted that I immediately sourced Ahmadinejad’s international speeches from 2005 onwards, and.have concluded that he has many valid points that are worth considering. If others could put their prejudices aside for a while, they might also find that this guy has a valid perspective - regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

Moderator - Anorak satirises the news , he isn’t a news site like the BBC

talking about racism, enery individual, arms of governments, nations and societies admit racist is a global disease; where total cure could not be achieved, it is essential that the world leaders join hands together and find a lasting strtegies to prevent its promotion and to reduce the harm it causes on people including nation, socienties and individual alike.

walking out as witnessed in this occasion gives us different impressions and interpretations; but most importantly I am not sure weatherthsir actions are meant to represent our interests or mainly based on their personal feelings.

by listening to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say it seems as if he wants people to consider the genesis of global racism through which full understanding of the progressive distruction of world unity could be possible and through which strategies towards the global approach could be developed to sonbart the racism plagues. Walking out this type of crucial speach could therefore be interpreted as a reaction (Allergy) to the real “TRUTH”. Even some would interprete the walk-out behavious as act of recism because if it was another country rather than Israel was the target, they may not walk out ot if it was another country representative - say America there may not be any walk out.

I have my lay-man reason for this opinion and that is:
few years ago, American secretary of state (Collin Powell) came with a fabrication whereby accused Iraq of Trorism and presented to the whole world fake evidences that the nation (Iraq) possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The same Security Council did not walk out; rather they listened to him and explore the facts, which resulted to the on going endless war that everyone of us are paying for today.

Comparatively I do not think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech is as such fabricative. Then if he is not telling lies, then why can’t the security council stay and explore the facts so that any possible solutions could be reached.

My question:
1) Does walking out really means that nothing like what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said not happen?
2) If it is not, why can’t the confront him for evidence(s)?
3) If it is happening, why can’t they look for the solutions?
All in all, no answer would come out unless they stay, listen and explore the whole issue. OR
Is that where the global racism will be abandoned?

Thanks
A Jimoh

‘Do Israeli arabs get equality?’

No.

On the other hand, neither do black, brown, dubiously converted or female Israelis…

Does anyone believe this is the full text of the speech?