I am a Democrat and I SUPPORT the rebuke of Ahmadinejad

[Zandor]

Ahmadinejad, in the words of Hillary Clinton, our likely nominee...

"...refuses to renounce and end his own country’s support of terrorism..."

Amen. His laying a wreath would be like urinating on the WTC site.

[fooj]

1. It's called productive dialogue.

Perhaps he will renounce his support of terrorism when we renounce our own. That seems fair enough to me.

The Saudi's were welcome at the WTC site. Where was Miss Hillary's outrage then? Nevermind.

[Zandor]

4. "Perhaps he will renounce his support of terrorism when..."

At least you admit he supports it. Thank you for your honesty, and I mean that sincerely.

[fooj]

13. Well hell, he's a zealot. That's not news.

What do you think about this type of terrorism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1862545

Dialogue is key. It's important in these troubling times to behave as adults. Hopefully, our leaders will grab a clue and actually LEAD.

Can you HONESTLY reconcile why Hillary had no outrage when the Saudi's visited the WTC site? There's a very important point in all of this, yes?

[Macchendra]

109. Sure, but America was convicted of being a state sponsor of terror in 1987 by the ICJ

For details, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

Then we sent the guy who oversaw the terror there, John Negroponte, to oversee Iraq... and to everyone's surprise, death squads and civil war formed there too.

[Macchendra]

111. And We Still Owe Them $13 Billion In Reparations

We need to get Democrats in power who will NOT pretend like this is a non-issue. Americans are ignorant because of decades of their politicians ignoring stuff like this. If Dukakis had come right out and said: "America has to stop being a rogue terrorist nation." he still would have lost, but 40% of the American people would at least know that their TV was lying to them, and they could have spent the next four years getting their butts educated. Now we have the internet so there is NO excuse.

[jeff30997]

20. "Where was Miss Hillary's outrage then?"

But,but the Saudis have nothing to do with 9/11 ! It was Saddam!And Iran!:sarcasm:

What a hypocrite!

[fooj]

24. No kidding...

Wonder if Saddam's involvement was before or after he killed Mandela...:P

Hypocrisy knows no bounds...

[jeff30997]

49. Lol! You forgot to mention Saddam is responsible for

The killing of JFK,the death of Mother Teresa,Lady Di and the destruction of 2 Space shuttles.:)

[VolcanoJen]

97. Princess Diana is dead!! There are no more Dianas!!

Because Saddam killed them all!!! :P

Good God, every time I think it can't get any more absurd, it just does.

[WinkyDink]

2. And the connection would be....?

[Snarkturian Clone]

3. hear hear nt.

[Avalux]

5. I wonder if any Iranians died at the WTC.

I also wonder if allowing Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath might shift towards a positive. I don't have a problem with it.

[terisan]

12. I don't either. I hate political posturing by US politicians.

[Zodiak]

16. Yes, at least one

They were listed as one of the many nations of people that lost lives that day.

I don't know how many, though.

[Avalux]

18. Thank you. He should definitely be allowed to lay a wreath then.

Why must we always be such hard-assed bullies? I really am embarrassed to be an American sometimes (a lot lately).

[BoneDaddy]

113. So you think the man

who heads a theocratic country like Iran that has been supplying weapons to the people who are shooting Americans in Iraq and is in support of terrorism against us and who denies the holocaust should be allowed to lay a wreath at the WTC site? Wow.

[treestar]

119. Yeah, why not? What harm is it going to do?

He is here, isn't he? At least one of his countrymen died at the site. He did not plan 911, and there is no proof he "supported" it. Whether there is proof regarding your assertions about Iraq I don't know, but Iraq has nothing to do with 911. Neither does Iran. What is going on in Iraq and Iran right now had nothing to do with it.

If being head of a theocratic state is enough, then the same thing applies to the Saudis, right?

[BoneDaddy]

121. Yes it does

apply to the Saudis and every other "state" that is theocratic, repressive and/or is in huge violation of human and civil rights, including China.

I am not against dialogue but I think it is a smack in the face to allow him access to the WTC remains. There is no need for it and given the poor relationship between the US and the region, I think it premature.

Iran does support terrorism. Granted they did not plan or have anything to do with 911, but his support for terrorism disqualifies him in my eyes.

And just because some countries or their leaders stand up to Bush and America, it does not mean that they are good people who have good policy. I am viruently anti-Bush but the enemy of my enemy is not a sound approach here.

[FogerRox]

161. Shite Iran has been supplying weapons to the US Shite Puppet government in IraQ

Yeah sure.

Those 155mm shells used for IEDs are surely supplied by Iran, though how Iran got those 6 inch shells, (US Army
) I'll never tell.

The M109A6 Paladin is the latest advancement in 155mm self-propelled artillery.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm

[FastHorizon]

162. None

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm

[johnfunk]

6. Ahmadouchebag wants to lay a wreath at Ground Zero? Fine. But FIRST....

Bloomberg, Spitzer, Sen. Clinton, Schumer and (yes) Cokey W. McSilverback should tell Ahmadinejad he has to lay wreaths at Auschwitz, Dachau and Buchenwald BEFORE he is eligible to do so in our country.

Sounds fair to me...

[Zandor]

8. Maybe his Holocaust conference

concluded there wasn't one? :(

[Warren DeMontague]

86. I think that was pretty much the point of the thing.

Dude is an asshole, plain and simple.

[TheUniverse]

9. Sounds pretty good.

[sufrommich]

31. Ahmadinejad

says those places are all FICTION! FICTION,I tell ya!

[moodforaday]

134. So I see you're all set up

for bombing Iran, eh? Stumbling into this thread tonight one might be forgiven for confusing DU with... that other place.

[johnfunk]

141. Bomb Iran? You must be nuts. As for Ahmadouchebag...

... he's just the Shi'ite version of George W.

Same smirk.

Same black-and-white, "good" vs. "evil" mindset.

Same saber-rattling stupidity.

[otherlander]

150. Believe it or not...

one doesn't have to want to kill people with bombs to believe that those people are lead by a government of lunatics.

If I wanted to kill people for having bad presidents, I'd have to kill myself first.

[otherlander]

145. That would actually be the perfect response.

:applause:

[TheUniverse]

7. ahmadinejad may be complete trash.

But does it do any good to not have any diplomatic relationship at all with him. After all we have troops in two (three if you count Saudi arabia, only the gulf seperates them) countries that boarder his.

[me b zola]

10. What's that? Whatya say?

I couldn't hear you over the drum-beat to attack Iran.


Did you make a post like this when terrorist * layed a wreath on the WTC site?

[MikeNearMcChord]

11. We did not like what the Commies were doing

the Soviets were sending tanks into Hungary, but did it stop Eisenhower or Kennedy from meeting Khruschev? The Chinese no doubt were running weapons to North Vietnam , and hell backed up the North Koreans, but did that stop Nixon from going to China? You deal with people who you may care little about. It is time for the US to act like adults.

[BoneDaddy]

116. I don't think the issue is about meeting

with him. I think it is an issue of the hypocrisy of him laying a wreath at a place where terrorism took thousands of lives while he is a supporter and promoter of terrorism.

I have no problem meeting with him and we should, as you have pointed out. What we don't have to do is go along with the farce of him going to ground zero.

[Ian David]

14. I agree! And we should also take the opportunity to reuke THIS...

President Reagan laying a wreath at Kolmeshohe Cemetery, Bitburg, West Germany, 5 May 1985

<snip>

In February 1985, the White House deputy chief of staff, Michael Deaver, made an advance-planning visit to Bitburg. The 32 rows of headstones were covered with snow. Deaver was usually very skillful in carrying out his role as public relations maestro for Reagan, but this time he grew careless. He and his team failed to discover that 49 members of the Waffen SS were buried at Kolmeshohe -- and West German officials didn't mention the fact. A decision was made by the Reagan team not to include a visit to a concentration camp, as had been previously suggested by Kohl. The president said he didn't want to risk "reawakening the passions of the time" or offend his hosts by visiting a death camp, and his aides would later contend that the West Germans were privately pleased with this decision, implying that Kohl had made the offer only as a courtesy. Nonetheless, Reagan would soon learn he was about to reawaken passions that would place his administration in the center of a political firestorm.

In mid-April, White House press secretary Larry Speakes informed the media of the planned visit to Bitburg. When asked who was buried at Kolmeshohe, Speakes said he thought both American and German soldiers were there. Reporters soon discovered, however, that no American servicemen were in the cemetery; in fact, the remains of all U.S. soldiers had long since been removed from German soil. They also learned that a handful of the notorious SS were among the Germans interred at Kolmeshohe. The Waffen SS had been the combat branch of the Third Reich's elite guard, the Schutzstaffel. Created in 1923 to serve as Hitler's bodyguards, and expanded by Heinrich Himmler in the 1930s -- nearly one million men had served in the SS by the end of the war -- the Schutzstaffel included the Totenkopf, or "Death's Head" division, the men who had served as guards at the concentration camps. And a Waffen SS First Division battle group was responsible for the massacre of 71 American POWs at Malmedy, Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. It wasn't clear if any of the SS troops buried at Kolmeshohe had participated in that or any other atrocity and, as Bitburg Mayor Theo Hallet pointed out, all German military cemeteries were likely to contain at least a few SS graves. Such distinctions, though, failed to placate those who were opposed to Reagan's visit on moral grounds.

One of the most eloquent of these opponents was Elie Wiesel, an author and concentration camp survivor to whom Reagan presented the Congressional Medal of Achievement during a White House ceremony just weeks prior to the president's European trip. "Mr. President," said Wiesel, in his remarks, "I am convinced . . . that you were not aware of the presence of SS graves in the Bitburg cemetery. Of course you didn't know. But now we are all aware. May I . . . implore you to do something else, to find another way, another site. That place, Mr. President, is not your place." Wiesel's protest was just one of many. The chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Menachem Rosensaft, called the proposed visit "so macabre and so awful that one can only wonder what possessed Reagan." Clarence M. Brown, national commander of the American Legion, warned that it would "not sit well" with veterans if Reagan were to "lay a wreath at the graves of Nazi soldiers." Former Army S/Sgt. Jim Hively mailed his World War II decorations, including a silver star and a bronze star, to Reagan in protest. In the Congress, 53 senators, 11 of them Republicans, signed a letter urging the president to cancel the visit, while 257 representatives, including 84 Republicans, signed a letter asking Chancellor Kohl to withdraw the invitation.
But Reagan would not budge, and neither would Kohl. "I will not give up the idea," said the West German leader in an interview with Time's Bonn bureau chief. "If we don't go to Bitburg, if we don't do what we jointly planned, we will deeply offend the feelings of people." A poll revealed that 72% of West Germans thought the visit should go forward as planned. Kohl admitted that rarely had German-American relations been so strained. Indeed, it seemed that in the days leading up to the presidential visit, the White House and the Chancellery were pitted one against the other in the blame game. A top Reagan aide claimed the Germans had given assurances that nothing in the Bitburg visit would be an "embarrassment" for the president. "As clumsily as we handled it," said another U.S. official, "Kohl &. Co. have surpassed us in spades." A German official responded: "The Americans also have a responsibility toward the president. They must also check on the history that is beneath the ground. It was not very intelligent."

Reagan didn't help matters when he announced that he saw nothing wrong with visiting the cemetery because the German soldiers buried there were "victims of Nazism also . . . drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis." Equating Nazi soldiers with Holocaust victims, responded Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, was "a callous offense for the Jewish people." Many questioned Reagan's claim that most of the SS soldiers at Kolmeshohe had been teenagers drafted against their will into serving the Third Reich. But further research revealed that, indeed, most of the 49 SS dead were between the ages of 17 and 20. Kohl confirmed that in the last days of the war he was able to avoid service in the SS because he was only 15, "but they hanged a boy from a tree who was perhaps only two years older with a sign saying TRAITOR" because he had tried to run away rather than serve.

More:
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id342.htm

[Deja Q]

15. I agree entirely.

100%

We are in the minority, but that's not our problem.

[fooj]

17. And where was the outrage when the SAudi's visited the WTC site?

Just wonderin'...

[Zandor]

22. Can I have a KICK and RECOMMEND

from like minded Democrats out there?

[fooj]

27. Yo, Zandor...

You STILL haven't answered my question about Hillary and her outrage re: the Saudi's. I'm hoping that you can be as honest as I was. I'm waiting...

[Zandor]

29. She should have condemned it if she didn't

Now K & R this. :)

[fooj]

35. And why do you suppose she didn't?

Knowing that she didn't...you still support her? Wow. Just wow. But...let's get the guillotine for the Iranian dude. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[Zandor]

37. Makes lots of sense

to prevent a sponsor of terror from showing a faux mourning of victims.

[fooj]

41. And WE don't sponsor terrorism. Since when?

I've provided you several links re: Blackwater yet you REFUSE to address the issue. If THAT'S not terrorism, I don't know what is.

[Zandor]

52. "If THAT'S not terrorism, I don't know what is."

You're right. You don't know what is.

[fooj]

53. Killing innocent civilians isn't TERRORISM?

Whatever. You may need a refresher course or MAYBE, just maybe you DO KNOW that it's terrorism but you don't care. How sad is that?

[Bluerthanblue]

58. and you believe you do?

Who died and made you the decider?

Is it because the victims are "them" not "us"?

You make less sense than i do-

[stlsaxman]

94. Mighty convenient for those banging the nuclear war drums that we 'murkins weren't allowed to read..

this on Sept. 12th, 2001 We might end up thinking there are actual human beings in the Middle East.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010915153141/http://www.irna.com/en/tnews/010912234912.etn00.shtml

"Tehran, Sept 11, IRNA -- Iranian President Mohammad Khatami on Tuesday
condemned the kamikaze "terrorist" attacks in the United States and
expressed his deep sorrow and sympathy with the American nation.

"On behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the
hijacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American
cities which have killed a large number of innocent people," President
Khatami said in reaction to the worst attack on American soil since
Pearl Harbor. Three hijacked planes slammed into the Pentagon and New
York's landmark World Trade Center on Tuesday, demolishing the two
110-story towers that symbolize U.S. financial might.

"My deep sympathy goes out to the American nation, particularly
those who have suffered from the attacks and also the families of the
victims," he said, noting, "terrorism is doomed and the international
community should stem it and take effective measures in a bid to
eradicate it."

Khatami added that the Islamic Republic is treading a road to
uproot terrorism and to this end, he noted, it will spare no efforts. "

[Bluerthanblue]

19. you have every right to your opinion- personally i don't share it..

if we aren't willing to talk with each other and work things out diplomatically- we will be stuck with the abysmal failure of using weapons instead of words.

His laying a wreath at the WTC is no more offensive than any of *'s numerous photo ops there.

Or Guilliani milking it for all its worth-

But that is my opinion. Everyone should form their own, and continue to refine them.

[2rth2pwr]

128. How's the talking and working things out diplomatically

going with the repug minority in the Senate?

[Bluerthanblue]

140. a hell of a lot better

than it would be if we resorted to guns and bombs to settle our issues.

I've been a mother for over 20 yrs, it was important to me that kids be encouraged to learn self control, and that they understand the wisdom of using words, not fists or violence, or threats to settle disagreements get what they need or want.

Children are given all kinds of expectations - encouraged to learn how to live as members of a supportive community (and most do very well when they are young) yet those in positions of power, to often those in leadership roles, not only ignore, but dismiss those very same principals.

Should we quit encouraging kids to share, forgive, be patient, compassionate, try their best, wait their turn, not cheat, not lie, because others don't?

If so, what's the point of a world like that? How are humans of 'higher intelligence' than animals when we CHOOSE to resort to violence rather than use our minds and mouths????

It takes much more courage and strength to wage peace than it does to wage war. But the rewards are much more valuable for everyone-everything when we face our adversaries without weapons and choose to work for real solutions.

sorry.... i'm trying to remember what's important, what is worth dying for...

this has been a really difficult month so far~
rambling....

peace,
blu

[AlCzervik]

21. was this a Congressional rebuke like the one that Move on got today?

[movonne]

23. I feel the same way about bush laying a wreath....

[cali]

25. That's just silly

It's making waay too big a deal out of this. How about this? Let him go, but don't allow any press to accompany him; he doesn't get too play the photo op game, and the U.S. actually looks gracious for a change, instead of bullying.

And at least when it comes to foreign policy, please tell me how the U.S. is better than Iran?

[Zandor]

28. He supports terrorism

And is offering to mourn American victims of terror?

[fooj]

30. You absolutely REFUSE to answer my question. Wonder why THAT is?

For a moment, you tricked me into believing that you really DID appreciate my honesty. Won't let that happen again!

And WHAT do you call this? A f*cking boardgame? I call it TERRORISM.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1862545

Lawyer Hassan Jabir was stuck in traffic when he heard Blackwater USA security contractors shout "Go, Go, Go." Moments later bullets pierced his back, he said Thursday from his hospital bed. Jabir was among about a dozen people wounded Sunday during the shooting in west Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Iraqi police say at least 11 people were killed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki described the shooting as a "crime" by Blackwater, a N.C.-based company that guards American diplomats and civilian officials in Iraq.
<snip>

[Zandor]

32. See Post 29 n/t

[fooj]

38. Here's the ugly truth, Zandor...

The current administration supports terrorism. That's the long and short of it.

[Zandor]

40. Everyone iis a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist

Got it.

[fooj]

No. That's not what I said.

Projection doesn't suit you.

[cali]

43. Guess what?

Lots of people we support and have supported support *terrorism*. and this wouldn't be supportin him, it would be defusing him. And what about us, launching an illegal war?

[Zandor]

54. It would be allowing a slap in the face

to the country and the victims' families.

It would score him some PR. It would certainly bolster him.

[cali]

60. Discussing anything with you

is clearly utterly worthless. You won't respond to any questions posed to you and you keep parroting the same lines.

I think you should go back to your cesspool, er, I mean website.

[Zandor]

66. Come again?

My cesspool / website? Huh?

[fooj]

65. Are you speaking for the victim's families?

Here's a member that ABSOLUTELY disagrees with your assessment. I hope you take the time to read this. Knowledge is power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Stunt or Statesmanship? Ahmandinejad Goes to Ground Zero
Posted September 20, 2007 | 01:45 PM (EST)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: ahmandinejad, clinton, giuliani, Ground Zero, iran, Breaking Politics News



This morning I was bombarded by a series of phone calls from the press. Breathlessly, they all asked how I felt about Ahmandinejad, the president of Iran, visiting Ground Zero.

Wasn't I outraged?

Didn't I want to protest such a flagrant act of disrespect by this world outcast toward one of our country's most sacred sites?

How could a "terrorist leader on the level of UBL" have the audacity to visit Ground Zero?

By the third call before 9 a.m. I was fairly irritated. Mostly because the only news show that has made any real effort to get the American people to better understand Iran is The Today Show, which sent Matt Lauer to Tehran last week. (Incidentally, we should all commend Today Show producers for that effort -- this was the best morning television programming that I have seen in years, largely because it was not about "reprogramming" Americans for yet another war.)

So, no, I wasn't angry that Ahmandinejad wanted to visit Ground Zero. I was angry, however, at the "pack mentality" of our leading journalists. I was also dismayed -- but not surprised -- at the similar mentality of our current crop of political officials and presidential candidates, several of whom provided the same predictable, politically-correct sound-bite: "We are OUTRAGED!"

What I would have preferred was some real statesmanship.

Real statesmanship would be a presidential candidate with the courage to encourage potentially dangerous, misinformed leaders like Ahmandinejad to visit Ground Zero, in the hopes that they might learn something.

Real statesmanship would mean proposing a new dialogue with Ahmandinejad and other Iranian leaders, searching for some common ground between America and Iran while there's still time to avert disaster.

Real statesmanship would not be intimidated by the O'Reillys and the Ann Coulters of the world. Real statesmanship would not view this kind of diplomacy as weak, but wise. Real statesmanship would not be based on knee-jerk reactions, but on long-term vision.
<snip>

Wise words from Kristen. Hope you read them.

[Malikshah]

95. What about state-sponsored terrorism, or the support of Terrorist groups in Iraq

trying to cause hell for Iran

Sorry-- the hypocrisy shown is tooooo deep here.

[still_one]

26. I couldn't agree more. He is diplomatic visitor here, which doesn't automatic access

to a memorial that is on OUR SOIL

[HuffleClaw]

33. "his own country’s support of terrorism"

supporting those fighting against an occupying army is not 'supporting terrorism'

[Bucky]

36. It's their support of terrorists in Lebanon and Palestine the OP refers to.

The OP fails to find an equivalence with US support for terrorist insurgent groups inside Iran. Honestly, no one deserves to lay a wreath there.

[Zandor]

44. Helping Iraqis kill Americans

You support that?

[me b zola]

92. You are out of line

And that shit is not appreciated here.

[Zandor]

146. Helping Iraqis kill Americans

isn't appreciated.

[ShortnFiery]

154. Let's see: Who's country are American's occupying? Who's their neighbor? nt

[Zandor]

155. Let's see - Who are Iranians killing?

Americans.

[ShortnFiery]

159. That's what happen when you INVADE a sovereign country. Would Americans if it was the other way

around behave any differently? :shrug:

The killing of Americans would cease if we'd trust those "little brown people" to work out their civil war for themselves. They hate Iran for their recent war - Iran's not going to take over. That's a paper tiger argument.

[ShortnFiery]

160. We are INVADERS and OCCUPIERS - if you were Iraqi, what would you do? nt

[Bluerthanblue]

164. ha...

who are Americans killing?

[me b zola]

163. So who in your mind is helping Iraqis kill Americans?

...besides your pResident and the publican party?

[Bucky]

34. Actually, Iranians were the only major Muslim country to mourn & not celebrate 9-11

Ahmadinejad is a bitter irony, but hardly an insult. Ahmadinejad supports terror in Lebanon and Palestine. But don't forget that the US is supporting terrorists in rural Iran. For several months the Iranians helped us track down the murderers of 9-11 in Afghanistan along with their Taliban hosts. It was Bush who suddenly quit looking for the killers and started a fresh war on Iran's other border.

[marmar]

39. Umm, America supports terrorism when its in "our national interest"....

I'm sure that all the Iraqis feel that the building of $600 million US embassy while they can't get electricity for more than an hour a day and have to worry about being blown to bits en route to the market "urinating" on their relatives graves. Terrorism is as terrorism does.
Ahmadinejad is the result of America's shenanigans in the Middle East - a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[fooj]

42. Bingo.

:thumbsup:

[Pastiche423]

45. The only way HRC will be "our likely nominee" is

if the elections are rigged.........Again!



It is so sad to see bigots on a progressive board.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Bullshit. He had nothing to do with 9/11. He's not even an Arab. Sheesh....

... Would you also forbid the Irish leader from going there? Thought not.

[Zandor]

48. Reading comprehension

Never said he did.

[BlooInBloo]

50. ... is what you lack. I never said you said he did.

[Zandor]

51. Hard headed lieralism is okay I suppose

Allowing a sponsor of terror to lay a wreath for victims of terror is not.

[fooj]

55. It's all about dialogue. It's all about diplomacy.

This country is seriously lacking in both, imo. Have a good one...

[Zandor]

57. Same to you, my friend

n/t

[BlooInBloo]

56. Says you. TPM captures my sentiments: grow up - act like a man for christsakes...

... instead of a whinyasstittybaby.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/053780.php


'A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss."

[Zandor]

61. So it would be a learning experience for him?

Hardly. He is a sponsor of terror looking for PR by pissing on the grave of terror victims.

[BlooInBloo]

64. (shrug) As long as you vote for Democrats, I suppose I don't really care...

... what other WATB ideas you may have. Rock on.

[Zandor]

67. I'll keep voting for Democrats

And I hope you will as well.

[fooj]

71. One might say that Iraq is a grave of terror victims.

Think about that.

[Zandor]

72. One would be wrong

n/t

[fooj]

73. You've missed the point.

Did you see the post I provided to you from an actual victim of 9-11 and her take on this? Post #65. Read it with an open mind.

[Zandor]

74. Okay, that's one

Most victims' families and Americans would be nauseated.

[LeftishBrit]

138. So is Bush!

Ahmadejinad is an evil man, but if he should not be allowed anywhere to the WTC then neither should Bush.

I think there IS a case to be made that political leaders should not be allowed to lay wreaths, and that this should be left to ambassadors or similar representatives, who are not involved in local or international campaigns. In fact, the more I think about that idea, the more I support it. But as long as Bush can exploit the WTC for his nefarious purposes, he hasn't much moral right to stop other leaders whose countries lost citizens at the WTC.

The hijackers did not come from Iran but from Saudi Arabia.

[Bluerthanblue]

63. bush not only SPONSERS terrorism- he does

so with our tax dollars, and in our name.

Where is your outrage for that?????

[Zandor]

69. No he doesn't

He's awful enough, we don't need to stretch our rhetoric into "America is a terrorist nation" nonsense.

[Bluerthanblue]

75. it doesn't take any stretch

Zandor-

As awful as it is to face the truth, denying it doesn't change it.

and only allows the action to continue.

What is terrorism? How can you justify the illegal, immoral war and occupation of a sovereign nation?
Using force, domination and fear to try and make a society accept the kind of rules and life 'we' have chosen for ourselves???

Can the Iraqi people tell Blackwater to leave? NO- so what kind of freedom, and autonomous society are they getting???

Can you even begin to imagine what life is like for someone very like you, who had the misfortune of being born in Iraq, and not here???

3 1/2 thousand people died as a result of a single days events in the US- we have participated in nearly 6 years of terror, death and destruction in Iraq.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be an Iraqi???

don't fool yourself.

Terror is best judged through the eyes of the receiver.

[Zandor]

76. It isn't terror

We were misled into this war and Bush's management of it has been horrendous.

But calling it terrorism is silly and weakens our cause.

[Bluerthanblue]

81. denial

kills.

But if that is how you cope with this, it's your life.

Many of us weren't fooled into believing this war was anything other than the lie it always was. If you look back, you'll see that.

The cause i believe in doesn't care how things might appear, and isn't weakened by honest self-evaluation.

peace.
blu

[Ghost in the Machine]

110. We weren't "misled", we were *LIED TO*. Start calling it what it is. A LIE!

George W Bush lIED to the American public, as well as Congress, knowingly using cooked intelligence to enact the PNAC plan of destabilizing the Middle East.

Can you name me the Iraqi hijackers please?

Bush/Cheney invaded and occupied a sovereign nation in a war of aggression (Shock & Awe!) and have been bombing, killing and terrorizing its citizens for over 4 years now.

[Chulanowa]

84. And how does he sponsor terror, exactly?

Think very carefully and make sure to double-check your facts before answering.

[PDenton]

115. Hezbullah

- financed by Iran.

[Chulanowa]

125. I was hoping for something confirmed, tell you the truth

Truth is, we do not know if Hezbollah is funded in any part by Iran. Our intel says "maybe", both sides say "no". Given that our intel has confirmed funding from Syria, from local Lebanese, even from groups in West Africa and South America, I would imagine we would have found any definite ties to Iran, given how hard we've been looking for them.

The US government estimates about 100 million per year goes from Iran to Hezbollah, which of course, makes me wonder why Hezbollah is thus armed with the military equivalent of bottle rockets and duct tape. With all those millions each year, they could certainly afford some higher-grade stuff than what they have. Fact about Hezbollah is, their "ties" to Iran are primarily a paranoia product after the Beirut bombings, trying to connect one "brown moon-worshipping devil" to another one. Hezbollah was to Iran for Reagan, what the Veit Cong were to the Chinese for Johnson, and what Osama bin Laden is to Saddam for this current Bush. Basically American leaders what there to be a "big bad" behind the scrubs that just kicked them in the face.

Now if you want to stick with "moral support" and probable private donations, go ahead, 'cause the first is certain and the second is extremely likely.

[provis99]

158. Hezbollah? We attacked Hezbollah, they didn't attack us

Remember, Reagan ordered the battleship New Jersey to shell Hezbollah headquarters, when they hadn't don e anything to us. They blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon in retaliation for this unprovoked attack. America has no goddam right to complain about an enemy that we created for ourselves.

[moodforaday]

132. And you know he's a "sponsor of terror"

because...?

Turn off CNN, will you? The people telling you Ahmadinejad sponsors terror or that Iran is fueling Iraqi insurgence are the same people who told you there were WMDs in Iraq and that nobody could predict 9-11, even as the military were running drills against exactly that scenario happening.

Shut off CNN, dammit, and stop believing Bush.

[PDenton]

114. he's a holocaust denier... and a supporter of terrorism

Having him step foot into New York would be offensive to anybody who had victims in the holocaust. Plus since this guy finances car bombings, I think it would be a little offensive to let him pretend to be a man of peace. Under international treaties, we have to allow him to attend the UN, but we don't have to allow him to have publicity stunts outside the UN.

[Jed Dilligan]

47. Ever hear of a baby-step in the right direction?

The Muslim world looks to Ahmetc. as a leader. If he distances himself from 9/11, that's a good thing. It would be nice if he also distanced himself from terrorism against Israelis, but at the end of the day that's not our biggest problem. Would you exclude Hu Jintao for laying a wreath until he lays off the Tibetans?

[orpupilofnature57]

59. Kkkarl Rove walking the streets ,is an afrontage , Ahmadinejad

has at least got reasons for being a misanthrope.

[spanone]

62. .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Well, that should keep "our likely nominee" from laying a wreath there too.

If support of terrorism is test of anyone's ability to visit the site. Her hands have a helluva lot more blood on them than Ahmadinejad's. As does every other politician's who voted for the war in Iraq, or votes to continue funding it.

[Zandor]

70. Supporters of the IWR weren't supporting terrorism

They were reating to it. They might have been wrong, but their goal wasn't to inflict terror on innocents.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. I guess all those dead Iraqis were what? "Guiltys"

Terrorism is a tactic. There is no difference between being blown apart by a planted bomb and one dropped from a plane.

[Zandor]

80. A bomb from a plane killing innocents accidentally

Isn't terror.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. Then what is it?

Murder? Homicide? Manslaughter?

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Bluerthanblue]

89. accidentally my ass- at least use the right lingo- they are just "collateral damage"-

You have a very narrow and narcissistic view of terror.

EVERY military person who knows anything will tell you that there is ALWAYS the expectation of killing innocent bystanders in war. * knew that- we all knew that- but still we went ahead and ATTACKED a sovereign nation anyway.

that is no accident. it is pre-meditated murder. for what????

[Zandor]

142. They aren't killed intentionally

An important difference.

[Bluerthanblue]

152. They might not be the target, but their certain death is not

seen as enough of a reason NOT to take a willful action which will end the lives of innocent bystanders. You may see that as an important difference- i say it is playing games to avoid the unpleasant reality.

The people who died on the planes on 9/11 weren't the target- but they were victims none the less.

Spin it any way you like Zandor- this nation has ample innocent blood on its hands.

And that means we are accomplices.

But you feel free to keep comforting yourself with semantics- and i'll continue to call you on it.

[Solon]

78. What the FUCK, he can't even honor IRANIAN victims?

Iran is one of the VICTIMS of 9/11 you fucking JACKASS!

[Zandor]

79. Then he shouldn't support terror

Doncha think?

[Solon]

82. Neither should the U.S. which has and does, yet we don't forbid ourselves from honoring the victims.

I'm not just talking about Bush either, for over the past 50 years the United States has supported death squads, terrorists, dictatorships, etc. and continues to do so to this very day, yet you want to condemn IRAN, on a scale of one to ten, comparing the U.S. government to Iran's in evilness, they are at number 3, we are at number 11. If we are to judge any nation by standards you set, then we should judge ourselves by the same standard, to do otherwise is hypocrisy.

[Bluebear]

85. And we shouldn't support torture, don'tcha think?

[Warren DeMontague]

90. And they shouldn't put sawdust in hot dogs, either.

But C is not necessarily relevant to B being contingent on A.

[me b zola]

98. republicans own the victims of 911--and the military, too!

It's part of the 'ownership society'.

[Solon]

99. What pisses me off is the hypocrisy...

The OP is applying a double standard here, both the United States and Iran have supported terrorism in the past and present, the only difference is that the U.S. does it on a MUCH larger scale. Yet he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that.

[burythehatchet]

87. I hold the rest of the planet to the standard to which Hil refers to

when the US holds itself to that standard.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Ahmadinejad is a prime example of why you shouldn't let backwards fundy religious nutjobs

run your government.

Ahem.

[LeftishBrit]

I agree on that!

[LeftishBrit]

137. I agree on that!

[Swamp Rat]

91. LOL!

:rofl:

[rug]

93. I am a Democrat and I REBUKE the support of the rebuke of Ahmadinejad.

That felt good.

[Nimrod2005]

96. Iran had nothing to do with 911...Iran does not support Al Qaeda or OBL...nt

[stlsaxman]

100. Truth To Morans, My Brother!

correct, correct and correct!

:headbang:

[BlooInBloo]

101. But... but.... he LOOKS like THEM!!! And he believes in that AW-LAW like he's GAWD!!!

[stlsaxman]

102. Why would you feel you have to qualify yourself as a "democrat" to us?

unless you ain't...

hmmmm?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zandor]

151. Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite and a terrorist supporter

Recognizing that doesn't make me a conservative.

[DUyellow]

104. it's 6 years later and its still a hole, thats like urinating on the WTC site.

Are you kidding me, who gives a shit. There has been more talk about this then how we cant rebuild a building.

[tyedyeto]

105. Iranians died there...let him lay his wreath.

His country has not been allowed to greive publically for those who died that day, why deny them now?

[Rex]

106. Well we all have our opinion

I think it would be a good idea, but what do I know. Diplomacy? HA!

[NaturalHigh]

107. Agreed.

I don't want this sick, anti-semitic SOB anywhere near Ground Zero.

[NaturalHigh]

108. By the way, K & R.

[Katherine Brengle]

117. When are we going to renounce and end our country's support for terrorism?

She should try answering that.

[Orsino]

118. Which rebuke was that?

The denial of permission to enter Ground Zero hardly qualifies. It's a diplomatic fiasco, but nothing like an open rebuke.

I'm sure the swaggerers love seeing it that way, though.

[BlooInBloo]

120. I'll be damned. You actually got 5 fucking whiny ass titty babies on your side.

[Zandor]

148. Well, The Greatest Page

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Zandor]

149. Well, The Greatest Page

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

122. The United States of America is...

and has often been - a State sponsor of terrorism. Dig?

I suggest we start renouncing and ending OUR OWN terrorism before we ask anyone else to.

[Macchendra]

123. This is not just hype...

It was confirmed in the International Court of Justice! see #109

[hogwyld]

124. The U.S. is a terror nation

We've killed a LOT more people in this world than Iran has ever dreamt of. I say let him go there, and who knows, we might begin a dialog. Those that live in glass houses and all that stuff.

[RestoreGore]

126. yes, God forbid we do anything to see beyond our own hate

I'm not a fan of his either, but really, this is just all so... political.

[hiphopnation]

127. yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnn

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

129. I support the rebuking of bigots.

Hillary Clinton included.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

139. Nope. He just has some views that many of us disagree with.

But I think many Democrats probably agree with him.

[Zandor]

143. Thank you n/t

[mmonk]

131. I disagree with political posturing & pettiness while our leaders want to start a war.

[moodforaday]

133. Evidence that Ahmadinejad sponsors terror?

Real evidence, please, not a say-so from neocons? Got any to share?

(And he never even said Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. Go on the Internets and find out what he really said. Hint: he was talking about the present government of Israel, not the country. Another: it's common rhetorics, something like chanting "USA! USA!", you know. Not to be taken literally. Yet another hint: Iranians are not Arabs, and culturally they would be much more eager to form alliances with the US and Western Europe than with their Arab neighbors. But we can't allow that, can we, becvause we'd be a scapegoat short.

[hiphopnation]

135. is this shitbird thread still alive

damn, i just revived it
sorry...SORRY!

:spank:

[subsuelo]

147. cut it out!

[hiphopnation]

157. wake me when he's tombstoned

welcome to du

[LeftishBrit]

136. I agree with the first, disagree with the second

I support the rebuke, though I think many others deserve one too.

However, I think that there should be only one criterion for laying a wreath: whether your country lost people in the tragedy. China has an appalling human rights record - but the Chinese leader should have the right to commemorate people who died in the disaster. Same with Ahmadejinad.

'would be like urinating on the WTC site' - in my view this is a better description of Bush and Cheney, who cynically exploited the disaster to get their own way and commit atrocities, and Giuliani who is using it as a campaign platform to try to get elected to a post for which he is totally unqualified.

[applegrove]

144. I agree. He is a nutter.

[ShortnFiery]

153. Not all that unlike our Dear Leader.

:shrug:

[applegrove]

156. Quite like dear leader. Except dear leader is loosing his base...perhaps

so too is the Iranian PM.