Ahmadinejad: How Is WTC Visit Insulting?

[wtmusic]

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not press his plan -- just denied by New York City police for security reasons -- to visit ground zero in New York City, he tells 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley in an exclusive interview conducted Thursday in Iran."

<>

"But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world," Pelley says. "You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans."

"Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?" Ahmadinejad says. "You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/20/world/main3280561.shtml

"Scott Pelley". What a frickin' moran.

[Swamp Rat]

1. It's insulting because THEY want you to feel insulted.

Obey.

[EFerrari]

12. That's right. It messes with the propaganda.

We have always been at war with Iran. :sarcasm:

[redirish28]

2. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Iran that held Rallies in support of America after

9/11. Wasn't it Iran that mourned?

[wtmusic]

5. Yes -- I remember the Iranian soccer team, at an important match,

having a minute of silence out of respect for the victims that week.

If we only we had known that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11!

[BurtWorm]

119. Rafsanjani was still president.

Apparently, when the war began in November, he (or someone high up in the government) offered to seal the border between Iran and Afghanistan so Taliban and Qaeda members couldn't slip through.

When the Bushists included Iran in the Axis of Evil Speech, that sealed Rafsanjani's fate and paved the way for Ahmedinejad the hardliner.

Good job, Bushists.

[erpowers]

29. The Media

It is interesting what you do not know when your media does not tell you certain things. What you said seems to prove what john Maher said in his song right. "When the own the information, what they give is what you got".

[BringEmOn]

97. Yes. Those "evildoers!!"

[kineneb]

102. Iran sent condolences

1. Iran, as often pointed out, is majority Shi'ia. Iran does not support the Wahabbi version of Islam; Osama and his bunch come out of that radical tradition.

2. As an ancient culture, which prizes both art and music, the people are revolted by the iconoclasm of the extremist Sunni sects. Despite the efforts of the Mullahs, the people have not given up most of their traditional arts and celebrations. The Revolutionary gov. tried to ban Nou Rooz (Persian New Year), and the people refused to stop celebrating it. After celebrating it for 2500+ years, a bunch of religious nuts were not going to stop the holiday.

3. The US has the largest number of Iranian expats, most of whom live in Southern California. I am sure they saw 9-11 as an attack on their extended families in the US.

[bdamomma]

113. and not only Americans were killed on 9/11, people from other

countries were killed also. Sickening how the propaganda is spewed again for another illegal invasion. sickening

[daninthemoon]

3. At some point this msm, this admin, and Bloomerg are going to

make Ahmadinejad seem like a quite reasonable fellow.

[Richard D]

4. It's cause Iran . . .

. . . was responsible for the WTC disaster . . . Just wait a while for the spin.

[BlooInBloo]

6. It's just whinyasstittybabies who want to bitch at all brown-skinned folks.

[frogcycle]

7. you know, the travesty is

that at least SH was a badass

I have yet to be convinced that this guy poses any threat whatsoever, and, what's worse, that he is even not a decent guy. I read that the oft-repeated line about him saying Israel should be destroyed is a misquote. I have no idea whether it is or not, but I sure as hell have nothing to persuade me he is any less a kind and gentle guy than the Iranian who worked for me a few years back. Iran is a beautiful country; the people are generally modern, west-leaning. Their government is a mess right now, but so is ours. Give it time and they'll sort it out. Ahmadinejad is not popular. Islamic fundamentalism is not popular. As my friend said, "Iran is a wonderful country; I love it, but the crazies are in charge right now. But that will pass"

But our Orwellian Big Brother needs him to be a satan, so they just say he is, and make up shit to prove it. They did not want him to be seen laying a wreath at the site because it might cause people to question their claims of his satanhood. Hell, Iran hates Al Qaeda, and tried to be helpful in that brief period when we pretended to go after them. We told them to buzz off, just like we told the Canadians to buzz off when they tried to send relief supplies to NOLA.

I hate my government.

I hate that I live in a country full of damned skinheads and Klansmen, and they have taken over the government.

[wtmusic]

8. We provoke these people at our own peril

We can have the most advanced weaponry in the world and it is still no match for the potent combination of oil money, loose nukes, and determination.

Let him speak. Confront him where he might be dangerous, so the world can hear. Snubbing him solves nothing.

[mark414]

9. what really blows my mind

is that a semi-developed mid-sized country that is only in the process of developing nuclear technology is somehow a bigger threat to us than an equal superpower with thousands of nukes pointed right at us for 30 years...

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Yeah, but Iran supports terrists!

Sure, they haven't invaded and occupied other countries for decades, like our friends the Russians and Chinese, but THEY SUPPORT TERRISTS!

We have every right to be hysterical!

[frogcycle]

14. if cheney had been in government during cuban missils crisis

we would not be having this discussion

nobody would

and global climate change would already have passed the tipping point

[wtmusic]

19. If Nixon had been president, same thing

We've been pretty damn lucky.

[MedleyMisty]

18. So Iran is basically like the US?

A wonderful country with crazies in charge?

I hope it will pass here too.

[cali]

25. Bwahahaha

I'm fine with Ahmadinejad going to Ground Zero. But a kind and gentle guy? Puleez. He's a toad. He's a religious whack job. He's full of bellicose language. He denies the Holocaust. In short, he's an asshole.

[frogcycle]

30. all I'm saying

is that we don't know shit.

Everything you say about him is what the propaganda machine puts out.

Oh, I don't think he's a pussycat - where there's smoke there's fire, and all that.

But as to the actual factual basis for 99% of the "conventional wisdom" about him? hmmm

[wtmusic]

40. Ditto for al-Sadr

If I hear him described as a "firebrand cleric" one more time I will :puke:

Wanting the US out of his country is the ONLY thing that makes him a "firebrand".

[cali]

48. He held a Holocaust Denial Conference

That makes him a manipulative creep. It's really not that hard.

[wtmusic]

53. So by letting him lay a wreath we are endorsing his opinion?

That's the hard part.

[cali]

54. Hello? Where did I say that?

I've written REPEATEDLY in several threads, that of course we should let him lay a wreath at Ground Zero. I don't use binary thinking.

[robinlynne]

82. WTC airtime has been reserved for Bush and Guiliani, hasn't it?

[frogcycle]

79. At this point I would want independent corroboration of

what that conference really was. Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to define my own reality and claim he is something he is not - or that he is not something that he is - just saying I don't trust anything I read or hear any more.

How many times have you read that Al Gore claimed to have "invented the internet?"

Never happened.

I think Ahmadinejad is a creep, but I don't know it. I think gwb is a creep and I know it.

Which is a greater threat to the future of this country? Which would be more sincere laying that wreath? Jury is out as far as I am concerned.

[Bluerthanblue]

95. i think it is important to really question anything the

media says.

I agree with you- and was troubled enough by the notion that anyone could even begin to question that the Holocaust happened, that i've been searching for actual statements about this 'conference'.

What i've found falls far short of the media hype.

I'm not endorsing Ahmadinejab- Maybe it would do the world good if we all insisted on knowing for ourselves what was 'true' and not just passing along what is often exaggerated, or flawed information.

[eridani]

87. Booshie saber-rattling is empowering the fundies at the expense of the sane majority

Just watch how fast everybody lines up behind the fundie minority if we actually bomb the place.

[AuntPatsy]

11. Nice to hear that he knows we have different points of view here, it eases my mind.

[TornadoTN]

26. Isn't that the truth

I do a fair amount of travelling internationally, and pretty much everyone I have come into contact with has been gracious, courteous, and apologetic when they find out I'm an American. Even more so when they find out I'm part of the 70%+ who oppose this administration. It's pretty sad to feel like you have to apologize to everyone you come across for the actions of a small minority here in this country.

I just hope that Ahmadinejad can remember this once our nation starts bombing his country into oblivion.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. What an incredible bridging of nations this visit could inspire.

MKJ

[frogcycle]

15. can't have that

might disrupt the plan

[subsuelo]

24. exactly

[TheUniverse]

16. For Mahmoud to show remorse for a terrorist attack is a good thing.

I dont see anything wrong with him leaving flowers at the memorial. Now he needs to visit Auschwitz.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Remorse? Why should he show remorse. He didn't do anything

:shrug:

[Rex]

17. No we don't! God, I can't STAND the M$M!

Soon they will link Iran to 911, give them time. Assholes.

[Disturbed]

20. Insulting a Pres of another nation that paid respect to the victims

of the 911 Attack is pure arrogance. The excuse given was total BS! This is not in the supposed American spirit of generosity.

[frogcycle]

35. The American Spirit has been hijacked

Our dear leader now speaks for all of us.

Interesting that when he first started his madcap adventure he declared an "axis of evil" but has since then done his level best to emulate all three of the leaders he vilified. Whereas he may have had some semblance of justification for that claim 'way back then, his actions since then have served to make them look not so bad after all...

[yewberry]

21. It's not.

I don't give a rat's tail what Scott Pelley or George Bush says. President Ahmadinejad did not cause the tragedy of 9/11. Iran did not cause the tragedy of 9/11.

If there are valid reasons for not allowing, say, President Sarkozy from visiting the WTC site, then sure, President Ahmadinejad shouldn't be allowed on-site either. If, however, the reason for the rebuff is political, then the NYPD should be ashamed (setting aside the fact that six years later, there's still nothing more than a hole in the ground at which people can pay their respects.)

The WTC site should be an INTERNATIONAL reminder of what can happen when extremism and hate drive ideologues to action. Remember that day, that awful day, when people all over the world said to themselves and all of us, that "Today, we are all Americans?" The WTC site should be just that--a place where anyone can come to honor our loved ones and our dead, to reflect on how wrong and self-defeating acts of terrorism against civilians are, and, for a moment, to be an American and know what that meant on a clear day in September six years ago.

[frogcycle]

32. well said

if we had not been under the rule of warmongering nutjobs, maybe such an international shrine would have happened.

We could have used the UN to recruit countries and people to the side of reason, instead of spitting in all their faces.

[SoCalDem]

22. It's an official site for the Saint Propaganda Griefgasm-a-palooza

It must not be sullied by infidels..Didn't you get the memo?

[TornadoTN]

23. Why allow anyone to visit Ground Zero then?

If they can't let the President of Iran visit Ground Zero to pay his respects - a man who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 in any way shape or form - then they should put it off limits to any foreign dignitaries. Bush can bring the Saudi's over here and they can visit, hold hands and French kiss, yet this guy can't even speak about visiting it without everyone's panties getting bunched up.

It all boils down to they can't let the President of Iran, whom they are trying so very hard to villify to satisfy their war mongering plans, appear to be human and compassionate or having the platform to address the American people unfettered.

[ecstatic]

27. It's racism. Period. Those who object to him visiting most likely

object to any Muslim visiting.

[Romulox]

36. Gimme a break. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism...

Best wishes from Dearborn, Michigan.

[wtmusic]

42. Curious: is it called terrorism when we do it? nt

[Romulox]

44. History is written by the winners...who cares what we call it?

The "aren't we the real monsters" schtick notwithstanding, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And of course it's terrorism when we do it. That doesn't make Ahmadinejad or the state he represents any less odious.

Persians are a lovely people with an ancient culture. They deserve better than the current leadership.

[wtmusic]

45. Your "terrorism" label notwithstanding (and irrelevant, actually)

there is nothing but ill will to be generated by preventing him from performing this gesture.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. So then it's not really about terrorism, is it.

It's about feeling like a "winner."

Fucking racists.

[Romulox]

58. I'm at a loss to respond to such a strange comment. I don't expect you can clarify? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Are you against Americans visiting the WTC site?

[Romulox]

37. Also, just curious: What "race" are Iranians? nt

[kineneb]

104. the true Caucasians

They are Not Semitic, nor Arabs. They have been inhabiting that area for thousands of years. Their language is in the Indo-European family, even though after the invasion of Islam, they use the Arabic script for writing. Iran was where Zoroastrianism originated.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Racism? Muslim is neither a race nor an ethnic group

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. It's bigotry against arab muslims.

And these are the sort of people who don't know there's a difference between arabs and persians. They shoot Sikhs for fuck's sake.

It's racism.

[Romulox]

59. Iranians ARE NOT ARABS

Just thought you might like to know. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. No shit, Sherlock.

Try reading the post next time.

[Dorian Gray]

84. Iranians are not Arabs.

As you seem to acknowledge. But, I don't think that the anger against Ahmadinejad has so much to do with his background as it does with his anti-American spewings. I think that, regardless of our culpability (which is great) in world horrors, he is an enemy of the USA according to our government. Which makes me surprised that he is allowed to speak at universities here.

I'm not stating a position either way, as I'm sort of on the fence about him. I don't like his anti-semitism. But, I am surprised that our government is allowing him to do non-U.N. related things while in NYC. (Unless his Visa gets "lost" at the last minute, which has been known to happen.)

[erpowers]

28. Did Not See the Problem

I really did not see the problem with letting him lay a reef at the site. His country had nothing to do with 9/11 so why should be he stopped from going to the site. My only problem would have been if he wanted to go to the site, lay a reef, and then say bad things about America. In part of the interview that will air on "60 minutes" Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to talk about why 9/11 happened. Some of what he would have said at that point might have hurt the family of 9/11.

[frogcycle]

31. wreath

[BlooInBloo]

33. ROTHL!!!!

[erpowers]

34. Knew I Spelled It Wrong

I guess I should just try to let this pass as soon as possible, but I did know I had spelled it wrong. I quess I thought someone would point it out. Maybe next time I will just stick to talking about the visit.

[frogcycle]

38. well ok then

I missed the sarcasm. What a moran I am. It really isn't a hugh thing.

My apologies. I'm series

We have now added a word to the official lexicon of the moran-ese.

[AzDar]

39. Ahhhh, the Bush Administration once again doing things previously thought impossible:

Making Saddam Hussein a martyred hero, and the President of Iran seem a diplomatic genius.
Heckuva job, Georgie....
:puke:

[sniffa]

41. iran was behind 9-11

they're next!

[BoneDaddy]

43. It is insulting

Hating GW Bush does not mean you have to like world leaders who defy him. As far as I am concerned Ahmadinejad and Bush are cut from the same cloth.

I am amazed how irration DUers can be when it comes to hating Bush. I hate Bush but that does not mean that the other world leaders are good people because they too, hate Bush. It is middle school logic.

[wtmusic]

46. So if Bush wanted to honor the dead of Iran Air Flight 655

shot down by the US Vincennes in 1988 (by mistake) the Iranians shouldn't let him do it?

[BoneDaddy]

64. If the overwhelming response from the public

was to NOT have Bush speak, I think he should honor it.

The accidental shooting down of a plane and the conscious murder of civilians are two different issue btw

[wtmusic]

77. And has the overwhelming response of the American public

been against the Ahmadinejad visit, or maybe just a very vocal few and an obviously-biased media?

[liberalsoldier5]

92. No, the majority of Americans are definitely repulsed by him and his visit to America.

I think you're with the fringe on this one. (The Cindy Sheehan pic in your signature speaks volumes.)

And if Bush ever wanted to visit some site in Iran and the Iranian people were as equally repulsed by it, then I'd say that he should keep his ass home.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

93. What the fuck does Cindy have to do with any of this?

You mean the 70% "fringe" that wants the troops out of Iraq? Maybe your the one who's out of touch.

[annabanana]

115. The majority of Americans or the majority of corporate media

propaganda shills?

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. That's nioce, but why is it insulting?

:shrug:

[BoneDaddy]

65. It is insulting

because even though he was not dirrectly involved in this specific act (911), he sanctions, supports and funds terrorism. His prescence at the site is an affront to all who died there. Honestly, I feel the same way about Bush. If Bush wanted to speak on behalf of human rights or at an Iraqi memorial honoring those lost, I would imagine the populace would be equally insulted. I know I would be.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. I'm not convinced that Iran is a "state sponsor of terrorism"

It sounds more like a sponsor of a group that people call terrorists for political reasons. In any case, it's a disputed area. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the representative of a nation and people. Everything beyond that is propaganda for suckers.

[BoneDaddy]

75. "Everything beyond that is propaganda for suckers"

Wow what a great line of crap. First of all, who says this? You? It is not exactly a statement for the ages. So I must accept your line or else I am a sucker? Based upon your logic, just because someone is "head of state" they need be given allowance to do what they want, without our criticism as members of this state?

Just clarifying.

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. Yeah, I say it

That's my opinion. If you care to change it, feel free to provide evidence. If you don't care to change it, then I'll continue to hold and espouse it publicly. See how that works. It's called public discourse.

Based on my logic, no head of state acting as a representative of a sovereign nation who wishes to pay tribute to people should be denied without good reason. So stop fucking obfuscating. The question is whether there is good reason to deny his visit, not whether visits can be denied in principle. I'll make it clear so you can't keep pretending not to understand a simple point: yes, obviously requests can be denied in principle. The question is whether it SHOULD be denied in this case. Clear now? Not too hard? Wattaya think?

[BoneDaddy]

94. Wow

you contradict yourself all over the place. You say that unless someone holds an positition other than yours, they are suckers, then call it your opinion, you are entitled to it and that what you are doing is public discourse. YOu are not interested in public discourse.

Obfuscating? I am doing the exact opposite. I am being very clear. If we want to dialogue with others who may have altering views as ours, that is fine. To cater to a head of state that promotes a lifestyle based upon a theocracy, denies the halocaust, and supports terrorism is a totally different story in my book.

As for the hard guy or girl routine, drop it. YOu are not tough.

This isn't about linking Iran with 911, it is about recognizing that Iran is a major player in terrorism and violence in that region. This isn't about whether or not we should have a dialogue with him and other heads of state that come from theocratic, dictatorial regimes... of course we should.

But to ask the American people, in particular New Yorkers who are still struggling 6 years later with the crater in the middle of their city to accept this figure head of what I consider to be everything that is wrong in the middle east into their greatest and most recent wound, is ludicrous.

If you cannot see that, you are blind.

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. A lot of jabber, and zero evidence

It's very easy, really. You provide some evidence, and reasonable people who disagree with you are more willing to examine their views. Rather than do this easy thing, you jabber on about ME and your perception of my contradictions, and other nonsense. Indeed, you do everything but the simple thing you should do, which is provide evidence. It makes one wonder if you can do that at all.

By the way, I was raised in NYC, I consider myself a New Yorker, and I was in Lower Manhattan on 9/11. I lost friends on 9/11. So invoking "the New Yorkers" against me is a bit tenuous. There are many different folks of many different persuasions in New York.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

101. Good point on "the New Yorkers"

It's worth noting that for the most part, New Yorkers haven't "fetishized" 9/11. It seems rural/suburban red-staters have taken it upon themselves to use 9/11 as an excuse to start wars and dehumanize entire populations due to their religion or ethnicity. By the way, what the fuck does the President of Iran have to do with the September 11th attacks? Would the poster your replying to feel the same way if a member of the Saudi Royal Family wanted to lay a wreath? I doubt it, then again the Royal Family haven't been demonized be the MSM or any other white house propaganda outlet.

Your right, New Yorkers don't need to be reminded about 9/11. I mean how insulting is it for a New Yorker to be asked the "have you forgotten" question? No dip-shit they haven't! For the last six years they have stared at a hole in the ground! A constant reminder that George W. Bush, the republican party, and red state America really doesn't give a shit about them.

Sorry for the rant, but the point stands, don't pretend to speak for 7 million New Yorkers!

[BoneDaddy]

105. How bout the facts

overwhelmingly New Yorkers on both the left and the right are against his appearance. I don't plan to speak for them, I just report what I see and there is very little support for Mahmoud to lay a wreath at the WTC.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

106. Report what you see?

If by that you mean spewing Fox "News" talking points then yeah sure.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BoneDaddy]

107. First of all

every report I have seen shows, overwhelmingly, that New Yorkers are not in favor of him going to the WTC. I get my news from many sources and it seems our politicians on the left are echoing the same sentiments and I have seen very very little in support of him. Perhaps the effort to provide proof lays on your shoulders to show that a significant amount of New Yorkers approve of his visit. Good luck.

As for providing proof of Iran's involvement in terrorism, what do you want?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
http://www.mehr.org/iran_terrorism.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/854124.html

Look, I understand your desire to like anyone who stands up to Bush as somewhat admirable but I think it is misplaced.

And I am sure you will look at the links above and somehow dismiss them, but can you dismiss Ahmedinejad's own words? He does not believe the Holocaust occurred and has vowed the destruction of both the US and Israel. New York is home to a HUGE jewish population, for one, and I think anything but a cold agreement to enter into debate would be to give this individual too much from a city that has been hit hard.

My question to you is why do you feel the need to defend Iran and Ahmedinejad so vociferously? I am not asking you to join the saber rattlers in condemning Iran, but you show a bit of naivete when you claim that they are as innocent as you say they are.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

108. Who the hell is defending him?

Just see a lot of people who are not joining the two minuets of hate. It takes a lot of nerve for an American to bitch about another nation supplying weapons to "insurgents" in an occupied country. The United States spent the 80's providing weapons to militant groups in Afghanistan so they could fight off the Soviets. Those weapons were used to kill Russian soldiers. Let's not forget the chemical weapons we sent to Saddam during his eight year war with Iran. Weapons he used against not only the Iranian military, but civilians in Iran. Where is your, or any American's outrage over those events? Second, Ahmedinejad did NOT vow the "destruction of Israel". If you read the correct translation you would know that.

Oh I know, I know, just because he doesn't like Bush blah, blah, blah. It's not about hatred of Bush, it's about not falling for the blatant lies told by the same people who have lied about EVERYTHING for the last six and a half years. Your government and media sold Americans a slew of lies in the run up to Iraq, sad to see Americans buying the same product once again.

[BoneDaddy]

111. Pointing out

America's enormous inconsistencies does not make IRan less culpable for their behavior.

I am not defending America and you are spot on about the hypocrisy but that is not what we are discussing, is it?

As for the republican message being swallowed by the American people, I am very discerning when it comes to propaganda. Does it mean that because they have lied about Iraq, the war, 911 that the reality that is Iran is not true?

See, you are a perfect example of what I was talking about. Your dislike of Bush makes you believe the opposite of everything they say, even when their message my have truth in it. They are wrong about alot but their position aside, Iran is a huge problem in the region and it needs to be addressed.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

118. You need to fuckin' prove Iran is culpable.

You've only provided three questionable links. Sorry until I see evidence from reliable sources I'll remain skeptical. My dislike of Bush doesn't make me believe shit. You really think I see the world in black and white? Good guys and bad guys? I never said I liked the fucking guy, just trying to get other citizens to see the world through the eyes of non-Americans.

I would say a nation that has no regard for it's neighbors and has no problem flexing it's muscle over the region (not to mention an undocumented nuclear arsenal) is an even bigger problem thn a nation that has not invaded another country in modern history.

[BoneDaddy]

121. Back to the same old tired meme

of pointing out the negatives of America, even well after I have conceded that I have no argument there. Well, let's end this conversation as I don't think you would even concede any of my points even after Amidinejad's threats against Israel, America, his support of Hizzbollah are common knowledge.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

123. Common knowledge to whom?

Freepers, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly? You have failed to provide proof of your accusations, yeah let's end this conversation. Nice to see some DUers are no less reactionary than the average Fox News viewer.

[BoneDaddy]

124. how bout you do some

research, a smattering perhaps, on the topic and stop relying on me to educate you.
Here is just a little of what I was able to find in 10 seconds.

Wake up
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1057955.php/Teheran_government_calls_mass_riot_against_Israel

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. I have not defended Iran or its leader in the least bit

Nor do I feel the need to support anyone who disagrees with Bush (you, for instance).

I am defending a principle here. I certainly find your links dubious, moreover. Haaretz on Iran? Come on, now. I know you have this idea of me in your head, thatI'm waving an Ahmedinijad banner because he's sticking it to Bush, or some such nonsense. That is absolutely false, a little idea you made up to justify your propagandizing. It's a silly little idea, but I don't suppose there's much I can do to dispel it, other than to say it is weak, and cheap argumentation at best.

You are fighting a strawman, in other words. I no more believe Iran is innocent than I believe Ahmedihejad is some sort of poster child for liberalism, a misunderstood man. That said, he's likely no worse than many other world leaders (say, Putin). The only one who is naive here is you, be3cause you can't separate the propaganda from the principle.

[BoneDaddy]

110. Wow

circles in circles. No matter what I say, you will dispute.
What have I said about Iran is it that you question? I am confused by this. I do not think what I have proposed is "way out there" propaganda and is pretty much substantiated by Iran themselves. Amidinejad makes no bones about it.

I am not arguing for an attack on Iran, I am not asking for their destruction, I am simply saying that such an unsavory character on the site of one of our most horrible tragedies should not be allowed. I am not asking for a stop in dialogue with Iran but enough with the parlor games.

[wtmusic]

76. Bush is responsible for Iraq; Ahmad had nothing to do with 9/11

there's where your analogy breaks down.

By your logic Bush/Ahmad should not be able to speak anywhere in the world, because they both support terrorism somewhere. :crazy:

[BoneDaddy]

83. and what is wrong with that logic?

If the world reacted to bush in that way, perhaps he would have stopped Iraq. If people like Bush and Ahmad were shunned, perhaps things would be different.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Who's saying he's a good person?

[BoneDaddy]

67. It was more a general response

to some of the people on this board who laud characters like him who have stood up to Bush, but fail to see him as a person who may be just as bad as Bush, if not worse, as a human being and leader.

The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. We hate Bush, Amidhinjad hates Bush, therefore he must be my ally.

[bluedog]

49. on msnbc.a firefighter who lost his son on 9-11

said the 9-11 families were going to block him........he said and believes that Iran fully funded and trained the 9-11 terrorists..
this is their mindframe////I swear some of these people are totally brain dead!

[Dukkha]

52. meanwhile * would walk the Saudis hand in hand right up there

never mind the fact that the hijackers came from and were funded by the Saudis

[CJCRANE]

66. Saddam & Ahmedinajad

were and are too smart to carry out a pointless attack on American soil.

That's why Bush-Cheney had to get their "allies" to do it. They then use the MSM to blame the other guys.

[BoneDaddy]

69. But pointing it out

doesn't make Iran any sweeter. I tend to think Bush, the house of Saud and Ahmidejad (forgive spelling) are all cut from the same type of cloth. I don't give any of them lee way.

I think what most liberals find so unforgivable is the outcry by the "right" about the Iranian representative yet there is nary a peep when the Saudi Arabian presence is wined and dined. That said, it still doesn't make Ahmidenjad any more worthy of attending the WTC site.

[Dukkha]

73. I agree

we can 't lose sight of the fact that Ahmidejad is still a terrorist supporter not to mention a major anti-semite who believes the Holocaust was a hoax. The left also gets too cozy with Hugo Chavez for that matter.

[BoneDaddy]

74. Very true

and I think it is this type of reactionary affiliation that causes the left to lose face to more moderate voters and independents, like myself.

[kenny blankenship]

61. Because he reminds me of Saddam and Saddam did 911!!!!!

In fact Saddam and Ahmadinajihad are the same person when they aren't being Osama Bin Ladin together.

Who says they can't all be the same person? Is the world flat? I don't know, I never thought about it much. If evolution was true we'd all be monkeys related to SaddamBinLadinAhmadinehjad.
Are you saying General Saint David Petraeus is related to SaddamBinLadinAhmadinehjad --and a MONKEY???

[Zech Marquis]

62. my question is

beyond the usual critcisms that many DUers and people around the whole world have said numerous times, what exactly did Ahmadinejad do to US to be considered a risk? If the man had ordered an attack on US citizens somewhere, okay, keep him away. Otherwise, it seems he wanted to just visit Ground Zero to pay his respects to the victims. And no sorry ass media company like CBS will speak for me, especially after what Dan Rather has exposed :argh:

[Vinca]

68. I love it when Scott Pelley speaks for me.

Wonder if he knows the hijackers were Saudis.

[Neecy]

90. Pelley is another GOP tool

It's early and I'm not fully awake yet - who was Pelley interviewing earlier this year when he repeatedly referred to our party as the "Democrat" party? I'll think of it at some point, but he really irked me.

[MedleyMisty]

71. Umm - stupid people hate people who aren't exactly like them?

And they needed someone to be the focus of a Two Minute Hate?

[Disturbed]

72. The Saudis visited Ground Zero?

Was that widely promoted in the Mess Media? 15 of the 19 were Saudis. No problem with the Saudi visit? It couldn't be a race or Muslim bias then but now it is? It is purely political because Iran is spozed to an enemy of the USA.

[Zandor]

78. An anti-semitic, terrorist supporting asshole

Other than that a swell guy.

[Malikshah]

81. Ah--OK--

Nevermind.

I have paint that's drying.

[Tom Joad]

80. One world leader we would not want at the site... he called 9/11 a"very good thing"

On September 12, 2001 former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked by reporter James Bennet from the New York Times about what he thought the September 11th attacks meant to US-Israeli relations replied "It's very good." Mr Netanyahu then edited himself saying "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy."

No, i don't think Israel (or Iran or Iraq) had anything to do with the attack, but it sure reeks when the death of thousands of people can, for even a moment, be said to be a good thing.

[Malikshah]

85. Now, now-- you know it's not fair to use the actual words of a leader

One has to come up with a some made up words, or put the words in a person's mouth for them to be considered the truth.


:sarcasm:


Silly Okie...;)

[Zandor]

89. Out of context

Of course a terrorist attack like that on America drives us closer to an ally that suffers them constantly.

Contrast this to nations where 9/11 was openly celebrated.

[SOS]

96. What nations "openly celebrated" 9/11?

nt

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

98. Pack a lunch.

We're still waiting for proof of his previous "Iran supports terraists" claim. What do you want to bet the same people spouting this bullshit bought the entire Iraq WMD line from the same group of liars that are trying to sell another war?

Proof you really can fool some people all of the time.

[Ignis]

122. So what's the "proper" context? (nt)

[BringEmOn]

99. I recall one tyrannical leader stating, "it was an interesting day."

Days later, that tyrant was allowed to stand atop the WTC dead with a bullhorn in hand. Which is more offensive?

[cali]

114. Providing a link is important. Here, let me show you how:

Reports and images of Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank taking to the streets in jubilation, chanting 'Allāhu Akbar' (God is (the) greatest), passing along sweets in praise of Bin Laden (The US primary suspect<5>), honking car horns, holding up the V sign for victory and holding up Palestinian flags were broadcast around the world and most American networks, aired the images. In addition, many newspapers, magazines, Web sites and wire services ran photographs of the festivities.<6><7><8>(VIDEO)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

Netanyahu is despicable, no better than Ahmadinejad. And his blatant use of 9/11 for political purposes is reprehensible.
However, your post header does not jibe with the text in your post. He did not cal 9/11 a good thing.

[Breeze54]

88. Because he's a fucktard, just like

Doh Leader!

Who gives a rats ass if he's offended? Even the Iranian people are offended by him!

[wtmusic]

91. Where did he say he's offended

or are you putting words in his mouth, like everyone else feels comfortable doing?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

103. Saudis probably breed more terorrists than Iran (eg. Osama Bin Ladin)

[annabanana]

116. Yes. Yes they do. But they are our "friends" so it doesn't count.. . .n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

120. Our?

[baldguy]

117. Clinton said it

He shouldn't be allowed to honor the victims of 9/11 at the WTC site because he supports terrorism.