Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero?

[Dave NoCal]

It seems to me that most comments on this thread address the issue from a "justice" prespective. That is, focusing on the past, various wrongs, and addressing whether he "deserves" to visit the site. The U.S. and Iran have had a perpetual "nya,nya" relationship since the revolution there.

I believe that people sometimes have transformational moments and wonder whether it would be more effective, from the standpoing of friendlier relations (which the Bush administration DOES NOT want, it needs its bogeymen to help keep us passive and obedient) it might be more effective to allow him to visit the site, perhaps meet some of the firefighters, family members, or whatever might have a chance of opening his heart.

 

[earllogjam]

The crux of the matter here is whether you view Ground Zero as an attack on just America and Americans or in a more broader context as a attact to the civilized world and humanity.

I can see no problem granting permission to a world leader giving respects if we see this attack as a travesty against humanity as many view the Holocaust.

However, if you percieve this site as an uniquely American memorial charged with the emotions of revenge and deep resentment to all those who would harm our country or our citizens - you would have a problem granting Ahmadinejad permission to pay respects because his gesture is not sincere. He has demonstrated quite vocally that he has no love loss with Americans. His government deliberately supplies rebel forces in Iraq and Syria with weapons to kill American soldiers and to wreak even more killing in Iraq, making a bad situation even worse. I'm sure there are other anti-America acts he has propogated which I don't know off the top of my head. It would be akin to granting Fidel Castro a visit to JFK's memorial grave at Arlington. Would we have allowed that?

Ahmadinejad is very clever in that the US can't win this PR war either way. If they do grant him permission - he would be percieved as a good guy and that he is not as bad as he is portrayed to be, softening US public sentiment against Iran. If they deny permission to him the US will only shed more light to the fact that the war was a huge mistake. We would be a country misdirecting its anger and resentment towards a leader and country that had nothing to do with the 911 attacks. We would look like fools...again. Either way he can't loose.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Either way he can't loose.

Yes. That fact that he's milking this opportunity for maximum PR value casts doubt on his sincerity, not that such gestures by political leaders mean much anyway.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

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.

They could say that but they'd be wrong. They were already planning to invade Iraq before 9/11 happened. They didn't need an excuse and enough people believe whatever Sean Hannity tells them that they wouldn't have needed one. Though without 9/11 there's a possibility that support for the war would have evaporated far sooner and we'd be out of there by now.

Agree with the rest of your post about Ahmenenijad (sp?) acting as Iranian head of state, though I think it's wrong to say Bush felt no genuine grief for the victims of September 11th. On the other hand, he is allowed to visit countries all the time where the United States military and/or various intelligence agencies have murdered or abducted people.

Of course we don't owe him anything and if you want to be callous and cynical (like me) then maybe there's no reason to grant him his photo op, but I also don't think there's any good reason to deny him the opportunity to pay his respects to the victims.

 

[rob_just_rob]

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.

I actually know quite a few expat Iranians - there's quite a thriving Iranian community just north of where I live. I have yet to hear a horror story of the type you have described from any of them. In fact, quite a few of them routinely go back there to visit relatives.

I guess that's bad luck for them, because they might get some TV time and become famous if they were willing to make up stories that support the US administrations view of Iran.

But while we're on the subject, how about we talk to the people whose relatives have disappeared into Gitmo, or into some country where 'rendition' is allowed? How about the detainees facing kangaroo US military courts?

I said many of the points in the first paragraph of your previous post apply to Bush, not all. Same as in this post. Interesting. So, what are you getting at? That the Bush government and the Iranian government have much in common? How does that support your position?

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

You missed "allegedly" here.

committed criminal acts against the United States. Bush has committed no criminal acts against Iran (yet).

You missed "that we know of" here.

There IS a difference.

Yes - let's ask Iraq about the difference between committing terrorist acts against the US, and NOT committing terrorist acts against the US. According to the US, there is none - thus the concept of 'pre-emptive' war.

If you still can't see the double standard because you've swallowed the party line on Iran, I can't help you.

 

[2322]

It's not about 911. It's about the Hostage Crisis. On those grounds alone he should be barred from any but the most necessary movement within this country. I'd say the same thing about Mu'ammar Gadahfi. Both these men have committed crimes against Americans. I grudgingly respect their position as leaders and believe we should extend minimal courtesies to them that they never extend to us simply to show that we're better than they are.

Earl's quite right about the PR aspect. There is no winning. Either way Ahmadinejad appears to be taking the high ground and it's sure to be used as fodder in Iranian media to demonstrate beligerant US policy toward Iran. The response by the US, however, was correct. Rather than say we hate his guts it's far better to blame security issues to show, however feigned, concern for his safety. So far Iranian news media haven't reported his rebuke, instead continuing to state that Ahmadinejad will be visiting WTC.

Ahmadinejad will, however, be a guest of Columbia University and make a speech there. All I can say to that is I hope it will help enlighten US intelligence and middle east scholars as to how his mind works and perhaps help us find a way to capture, kill, or depose him and the rest of the regime.

 

[2322]

I don't need any help, thank you very much. Iranian apologists have no credence in my book. I've seen the videos of the hangings and stonings smuggled out of Iran and I have ZERO sympathy for the Iranian government. None. Iran has been openly hostile to the United States since 1979.

Sometimes when people tell you they hate you it is wise to believe them.

There is no double standard because what we have done in Iraq has no bearing over how we treat Ahmadinejad. I do not deny that Iraq and other countries have legitimate complaints, but to bring Guantanamo into this is a tangent with no relevance. Our government does some dirty and nasty things, but I am an American and I will also take the side of the United States against those who wish to harm this country. If that's what you mean by a double standard, then I plead guilty. Perhaps if I were Swiss I would think differently but I'm not. I may not always take the side of my government, but I will always take the side of my countrymen in seeking justice against those foreign governments who have harmed our civilians and violated our sovereign territory.

I actually know quite a few expat Iranians - there's quite a thriving Iranian community just north of where I live. I have yet to hear a horror story of the type you have described from any of them. In fact, quite a few of them routinely go back there to visit relatives.

I guess that's bad luck for them, because they might get some TV time and become famous if they were willing to make up stories that support the US administrations view of Iran.

But while we're on the subject, how about we talk to the people whose relatives have disappeared into Gitmo, or into some country where 'rendition' is allowed? How about the detainees facing kangaroo US military courts?

I said many of the points in the first paragraph of your previous post apply to Bush, not all. Same as in this post. Interesting. So, what are you getting at? That the Bush government and the Iranian government have much in common? How does that support your position?



You missed "allegedly" here.



You missed "that we know of" here.



Yes - let's ask Iraq about the difference between committing terrorist acts against the US, and NOT committing terrorist acts against the US. According to the US, there is none - thus the concept of 'pre-emptive' war.

If you still can't see the double standard because you've swallowed the party line on Iran, I can't help you.

 

[B_New End]

re: iranian government supplying insurgents in Iraq

NO PROOF

re: Gitmo

Just like Iran, across the middle east, people talk about America as a very scary place where muslims disappear.

re: hangings and stonings

most of those were local government sponsored, and some have been brought to justice


A Saudi Arabian prince was allowed to visit the site... and 11 of the hijackers were Saudi.... none of them were Iranian.

So in conclusion

Fuck you, and fuck your war with Iran, and fuck your want for war with Iran, fuck your bloodlust, fuck your ignorance, and fuck anyone that still believes a god damned thing the piece of shit in the white house says.

Im fucking tired of dumb fucks thinking it makes their dick bigger to act like an asshole to the rest of the world, cuz fuck em wur merican dammit, fuck the world...

..well fuck you.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I don't need any help, thank you very much. Iranian apologists have no credence in my book. I've seen the videos of the hangings and stonings smuggled out of Iran and I have ZERO sympathy for the Iranian government. None. Iran has been openly hostile to the United States since 1979.

Sometimes when people tell you they hate you it is wise to believe them.

There is no double standard because what we have done in Iraq has no bearing over how we treat Ahmadinejad. I do not deny that Iraq and other countries have legitimate complaints, but to bring Guantanamo into this is a tangent with no relevance. Our government does some dirty and nasty things, but I am an American and I will also take the side of the United States against those who wish to harm this country. If that's what you mean by a double standard, then I plead guilty. Perhaps if I were Swiss I would think differently but I'm not. I may not always take the side of my government, but I will always take the side of my countrymen in seeking justice against those foreign governments who have harmed our civilians and violated our sovereign territory.

You're repeating yourself.

For the benefit of those who haven't been following your posts here, I'll translate:

"America can do bad things because it's my country. Other countries can't do bad things*, because they are other countries."

* or bad things that are alleged by the American government.

Thanks for this exchange, it's always good to know people's biases for future reference.

 

[2322]

Well! That was interesting.

Once again Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, claimed Iran wanted to see a strong Iraq, and refused to deny he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Most laughably he claimed, ""We are a peace-loving nation," and, ""We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people."

"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" He refused to give a definitive answer as to whether his country seeks the destruction of Israel though he did state, " "Iran will not attack any country."

More knee slappers:

“People in Iran are very joyous, happy people,” he said in response to questions about the arrests of students, journalists and women.

“They’re very free in expressing what they think.” “[Iranian women are] the freest women in the world ... They’re active in every level of society."

"We don't have homosexuals in Iran. I don't know who told you we had it." In that he may be right. He's likely had them executed as he did these two boys. Both of whom were under 18. Nice man, nice government.

 

[Osiris]

Well! That was interesting.

Once again Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, claimed Iran wanted to see a strong Iraq, and refused to deny he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Most laughably he claimed, ""We are a peace-loving nation," and, ""We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people."

"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" He refused to give a definitive answer as to whether his country seeks the destruction of Israel though he did state, " "Iran will not attack any country."

More knee slappers:

“People in Iran are very joyous, happy people,” he said in response to questions about the arrests of students, journalists and women.

“They’re very free in expressing what they think.” “[Iranian women are] the freest women in the world ... They’re active in every level of society."

"We don't have homosexuals in Iran. I don't know who told you we had it." In that he may be right. He's likely had them executed as he did these two boys. Both of whom were under 18. Nice man, nice government.

The 60 Minutes interview just made him look aloof in my opinion. He is a good speaker, but repeatedly at a loss for how to answer the interviewer. I did find it funny that when the reporter quoted President Bush and said he was quoting him, his reponse was "I don't think he said that." Upon reiterating the fact it was a quote, he still refused to fathom it.

Very odd man.

 

[2322]

The 60 Minutes interview just made him look aloof in my opinion. He is a good speaker, but repeatedly at a loss for how to answer the interviewer. I did find it funny that when the reporter quoted President Bush and said he was quoting him, his response was "I don't think he said that." Upon reiterating the fact it was a quote, he still refused to fathom it.

Very odd man.

Not odd. It's the middle eastern mentality of nothing is ever my fault. A middle eastern man does not admit he's wrong or mistaken. It would mean a loss of face. Once again, pride comes before everything else.

 

[Osiris]

Not odd. It's the middle eastern mentality of nothing is ever my fault. A middle eastern man does not admit he's wrong or mistaken. It would mean a loss of face. Once again, pride comes before everything else.

Thanks for the lesson. I was unaware of that.

 

[rexcasual]

Thanks for the lesson. I was unaware of that.

Beware accepting such information blindly. At least try to verify. It's a very broad and somewhat damning statement to make about a large group of people.

 

[Osiris]

Beware accepting such information blindly. At least try to verify. It's a very broad and somewhat damning statement to make about a large group of people.

I need to sit in on Preffessor Jason and Professor Rex's seminars. :biggrin1:

Very correct you are.

Now I sound like Yoda.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

Going back to one of the original points, whether you agree with Ahmadinejad or not, he is the leader of a sovereign state who has asked permission to perform a common ritual of respect shown by many national leaders.

The attitude of the US government to this smells of another smudging of definitions that they have become so good at. Think of the legitimisation of Israels occupation of Palestine and the damnation of Saddam for possessing WMD's (that no one ever found).

The White House were planning an invasion of Iraq pre-911 but were struggling with the justification. They needed a serious Pearl Harbour scale reason and then the WTC attack landed in their lap. (I refuse to call it a tragedy, Shakespeare is rolling in his grave everytime that is said by a talkng head). Suddenly, they could justify it (with the help of a little water muddying) and off we go to the Mid East again. In this thread alone I have seen a couple of references to his "state spnsored terrorism" which is a very tenuous thread at best. But already, the Pennsylvania Ave PR machine is at work, making anyone from that region a shade of brown that no one can trust.

BTW, even the CIA cleared Ahmadinejad of any involvement in the 1979 hostage situation. He was a civil engineering student at the time and was involved in student activism but he had nothing to do with the hostage situation.

The one thing that puzzles me is his odd attitude towards the Holocaust. He questions it as a reasonable justification for the creation of Israel and the mess that created but I can't see how you can question the holocaust's existence with the metric tons of evidence on hand.

He, and all the Arab countries, want a strong Iraq. They don't want a subjugated state which will only become an incubator for more militant nutters.

In the mean time, get ready for another Mid East war by the end of 2008.

 

[2322]

Beware accepting such information blindly. At least try to verify. It's a very broad and somewhat damning statement to make about a large group of people.

Damning only if you think it such. Within its own culture it's understandable and expected. I find it frustrating and disingenuous as a westerner but I understand it. Persian and Arabic cultures share the cultural trait of treating pride highly because they are traditionally non-confrontational cultures.

I agree, definitely verify what I, or anyone else, says. In retrospect, I should have confined my brush to Arabic and Persian cultures as I am not qualified to speak of the Maronite, Druze, Berber, Kurdish, and other minorities.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Its sounds like some of the questions posed at Columbia U this afternoon rattled Ahmahdinejad from his usual smug, self-assured demeanor.

Iranian leader 'petty, cruel dictator,' school president says - CNN.com

 

[Elmer Gantry]

His statement about homosexuals was just plain loopy.

 

[2322]

Its sounds like some of the questions posed at Columbia U this afternoon rattled Ahmahdinejad from his usual smug, self-assured demeanor.

Iranian leader 'petty, cruel dictator,' school president says - CNN.com

Yeah, that was a mistake. It made the United States look simply awful, playing right into the hands of Ahmadinejad. Iranians, as many other middle easterners, place great stock in treating guests with the utmost respect. Think of Lot offering his daughters instead to the mob who demanded his guests. For Columbia's president to treat his invited guest so poorly is particularly repugnant to the Iranian people. Ahmadinejad is already losing his lustre at home in Iran, kicking him while he's down is a great way for him to turn around and tell Iranians, "See? Americans really are rude and nasty!" In pandering to their donors, Columbia's president screwed-up royally and created an international incident. He should have run everything he was going to say by a board of his own resident middle eastern scholars.