Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero?

[earllogjam]

The Iranian leader has asked for permission to lay a wreath at Ground Zero during his visit to New York. Story below.

http://www.nysun.com/article/63004


Would you grant him permission? Any speculation about his motivation?

 

[davidjh7]

You know, I would love to be able to discuss this sanely, and with understanding of all points of view. But unfortunately, I can't---I still have too much anger, emotion, and confusion over everything to do with the middle east conflicts. THis started with me when I had a very good friend in college, no, not sexual, but just a god friend, from Iran. This was in 1979, before the hostages were taken and Khomeni came to power. He went back to Iran right after the crisis started , because he believed in what was done. We totally diagreed on the right and wrong of the situation, but we still hugged each other goodbye. I can no longer be objective about anything related anymore.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Why should he not be allowed?

As for theories about his motivation... uh... photo op. duh. Maybe he's hoping to convince us not to bomb his country.

 

[Puntie]

Of course he should be allowed was it not bin laden that hit the WTC? It had nothing to do with Iran. I dont know why people are making such a big deal about it.

 

[HazelGod]

Of course he should be allowed was it not bin laden that hit the WTC? It had nothing to do with Iran. I dont know why people are making such a big deal about it.

Because people are stupid and easily led by whatever the mainstream media happens to be shoveling across the idiotbox at any given time. Ooh, the brown leader from one of those terror countries full of brown people with all the oil wants to come here and visit the site where those other brown guys from that axis thingy over there blew up our buildings. That sounds like something I'm supposed to be offended by...better check CNN and see how I feel about it.

The more pertinent question is why our government is making such an issue over this. Not that it takes much effort at this point, but it's making them look pretty stupid.

 

[Ewan]

And I though this was a forum about penis size!

 

[Mem]

And I though this was a forum about penis size!

No. This forum is about anything. If you use the jump feature at the bottom, you will find other forums about penis size.

 

[agnslz]

Yes, I would allow him to visit the site. But I would make it so that a crane accidentally dropped a beam on his head.

 

[mindfawk]

And I though this was a forum about penis size!

So you're saying we should let him only if he as a huge dick? :tongue:

All joking aside I think he should be allowed to do so. I know that one of the articles that I read yesterday was citing safety issues with the construction going on in the area but that hasn't stopped them from letting others visit the site.

 

[2322]

No! Absolutely not.

I understand that with hosting the UN comes certain indignities we have to swallow. His visa should allow him to travel to the Iranian UN delegation, the UN itself, and the airport. Any time he's not in transit to or in one of those places, he should be subject to arrest.

Ahmadinejad clearly had a hand in violating US sovereignity and taking Americans hostage on US soil. Unlike any other world leader, he has committed felonies on US soil. Several of the US embassy hostages recall Ahmadinejad as being involved in the taking of the hostages and the embassy itself. To allow him to walk or even travel unfettered here in the US is a travesty. If Iran had a leader who was not a US felon, then I would have no problem with it. This is a play to show his own people that he can walk into the heart of America with impugnity and that we're too weak to touch him.

If Ahamdinejad can't respect US sovereignity and world diplomatic protocols then why should he expect us to respect his?

 

[rob_just_rob]

If Ahamdinejad can't respect US sovereignity and world diplomatic protocols then why should he expect us to respect his?

So, was Bush allowed to lay a wreath at "ground zero"?

 

[rob_just_rob]

The Iranian leader has asked for permission to lay a wreath at Ground Zero during his visit to New York. Story below.

U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero - September 19, 2007 - The New York Sun


Would you grant him permission? Any speculation about his motivation?

Sure.

Propaganda coup. If he isn't granted permission, it's because it would have the effect of countering the current propaganda line on Iran.

 

[2322]

So, was Bush allowed to lay a wreath at "ground zero"?

Yes. As president of the United States he acts in the name of the people of the United States, symbolizing all of us in his actions as Head of State. Oaf or not, I can't argue with him laying a wreath when acting in his capacity of Head of State.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Yes. As president of the United States he acts in the name of the people of the United States, symbolizing all of us in his actions as Head of State. Oaf or not, I can't argue with him laying a wreath when acting in his capacity of Head of State.

I see you missed my point about world diplomatic protocols.

Anyway, one could make the same argument for Ahmadinejad, who is acting in the capacity of the Iranian head of state. That pretty much negates your argument that he should be barred from ground zero due to his alleged (personal) role in the hostage taking.

Bush and his grief act is at least as hypocritical as Ahmadinejad - 9/11 has been the best thing that ever happened to GWB. It's given him the excuse to go into Iraq, run a fear campaign in the USA for the last 6 years, and line the pockets of his cronies with money. One could almost say that if 9/11 hadn't happened, a similar event would have had to be orchestrated.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Ahmadinejad gives the creeps. That goofy smirk on his face, the wild look in his eyes and the casual way he threatens to launch an attack on a nuclear armed enemy leaves me feeling pretty cold.

But, that aside, what's the protocol for foreign leaders visiting the WTC site? Have any others been denied and why?

 

[Osiris]

This is a hard one. On just the basic level, why shouldn't he be allowed to? There is no big government secret there and, for the record, the ruling Iranian regime hates the Taliban and the bin Laden sect as they are aligned with them. A great wrong was done on the site, but it is a construction site for a new building, plain and simple.

The only thing I have problems with is Ahmadinejad's politics/views/statements. The man flips more than IHOP pancakes. One minute he is all bluster and "America must perish!" Then he is espousing "friendly" relations with America and rebuilding ties. So is he stating the wants of his people? The wants of his party? the wants of anybody other than himself? I can't figure this guy out. I'll see what he says on 60 Minutes this Sunday.

As for the Embassy issue, that is another that has me on the fence. I would agree with Jason on his freedom. If he was involved, we technically cannot do anything to him now as he is president of a foreign nation, but we can restrict his access. He is on Iranian soil in his car and at the UN. As long as he stays within those boundaries, reluctantly, he is within the law, but this is another sticky wicket. All the hostages have said he was there, he has vehemently denied being there. Unfortunately this is like a rape case with the former hostages the victim and Ahmadinejad the accused rapist. We may never know the deal with this one.

 

[deleted136887]

Bush and his grief act is at least as hypocritical as Ahmadinejad - 9/11 has been the best thing that ever happened to GWB. It's given him the excuse to go into Iraq, run a fear campaign in the USA for the last 6 years, and line the pockets of his cronies with money. One could almost say that if 9/11 hadn't happened, a similar event would have had to be orchestrated.

How true.

 

[2322]

No they cannot. Ahmadinejad, besides being a felon, represents an undemocratic, oppressive government which sponsors terrorism against the US and other nations, is seeking nuclear weapons, has a ghastly human rights record, and has no diplomatic relations with the United States. Beyond the most basic diplomatic visa, he is entitled to exactly squat from us other than a one-way ticket to a Federal prison.

We're respecting diplomatic protocols here. He received his visa to enter the US to address the UN and to limited travel. The Iranian delegation to the UN is given the diplomatic status of an embassy as with every other nation. Despite his crimes against the United States he will be free to move openly and return to his country unmolested. That is all that he is required to have and all that he should receive.

Regardless of whether Bush is guilty of crimes, he's still the president of the United States and I respect the office of president if not the man who occupies it. He is, for better or worse, our president and ground zero is on our soil, not a foreign nation's. It is right that the president engage in memorials in the capacity of representing the people of the United States.

I see you missed my point about world diplomatic protocols.

Anyway, one could make the same argument for Ahmadinejad, who is acting in the capacity of the Iranian head of state. That pretty much negates your argument that he should be barred from ground zero due to his alleged (personal) role in the hostage taking.

 

[rob_just_rob]

No they cannot. Ahmadinejad, besides being a felon, represents an undemocratic, oppressive government which sponsors terrorism against the US and other nations, is seeking nuclear weapons, has a ghastly human rights record, and has no diplomatic relations with the United States. Beyond the most basic diplomatic visa, he is entitled to exactly squat from us other than a one-way ticket to a Federal prison.

We're respecting diplomatic protocols here. He received his visa to enter the US to address the UN and to limited travel. The Iranian delegation to the UN is given the diplomatic status of an embassy as with every other nation. Despite his crimes against the United States he will be free to move openly and return to his country unmolested. That is all that he is required to have and all that he should receive.

Regardless of whether Bush is guilty of crimes, he's still the president of the United States and I respect the office of president if not the man who occupies it. He is, for better or worse, our president and ground zero is on our soil, not a foreign nation's. It is right that the president engage in memorials in the capacity of representing the people of the United States.

Quite a few of the points in your first paragraph apply to Bush as well. Why not just say it's a double standard, and be done with it?

 

[2322]

Quite a few of the points in your first paragraph apply to Bush as well. Why not just say it's a double standard, and be done with it?

If you think living in the US is anything like living in Iran then talk to some Iranian refugees. New York is full of them. Ask them about their relatives who have disappeared, their property confiscated, and how they can't return to their home country for fear of being arrested as enemies of the revolution, put before a kangaroo Islamic court with no jury, no defense, and then locked-up or hung.

Bush hasn't committed any felonies against the Iranian people and hasn't violated their diplomatic status. You may have many valid complaints against Bush, but that isn't one of them. Argue all you want about crimes Bush has committed here in the US or abroad, that's fine. When he leaves office then let him be indicted. Two wrongs don't make a right. Ahmadinejad has committed criminal acts against the United States. Bush has committed no criminal acts against Iran (yet).

There IS a difference.