Why shouldn't Ahmadinejad get to lay a wreath again ?

[iamthebandfanman]

because i think i need someone to remind me..



Where were the hijackers from again ?

why block a jesture of good will?
...
.....
.......

dont think this wont get exploited more by them ?

im sorry, but i think it was a bad idea to block his visit to the site.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Because he looks like an arab.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. So Didn't the Saudi Arabians ,that flew the planes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan

[BlooInBloo]

6. They don't get to lay wreaths either. lol!

[Zandor]

40. Anti-semitic, terrorist supporting asshole

For starters.

[BlooInBloo]

43. Ok - new law - no anti-semites permitted in NYC.

DUers slay me.

[Zandor]

45. Nope

Just don't give photo ops to anti-Semitic, terrorist supporting heads of state at a sacred site.

[sinkingfeeling]

99. So, you're not going to let Bush go there again?

[subsuelo]

121. so can photo ops be given to

anti-Muslim terrorists? (such as Ehud Olmert)

[JackRiddler]

52. The biggest terrorist supporting asshole got to cheerlead on top of the pile -

while it was still smoking!

[scarletwoman]

83. What makes him anti-semitic? He's anti-Zionist, that's NOT the same thing. (nt)

[The Straight Story]

2. Because he supports terrorism and the hanging of gay people, and the oppression of women

He does not deserve a voice here in the US - from ground zero to talking at a campus.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Iran does not support international terrorism.

However it does hideously repress gay people, women, Bahia's, and other unapproved humans. As do many other nations, all of whose leaders would be allowed to do this. So why are we singling out Iran?

[The Straight Story]

9. Are we singling them out? Or are they they only ones requesting to do so right now?

and both dems and repubs think Iran is part of an Axis of evil that supports international terrorism.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Yes indeed the War Party likes to toss around 'terrorist'

with great abandon. We are supposedly in a war on terror. All the folks we don't like and nations we wish to dismantle are terrorist nations. I am not impressed. Nor should you be. It is a lot of bullshit. Haven't you noticed that the War Party has been lying to us pretty much all the time?

"Until the one month anniversary of the September 11 attacks against the United States, Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdulaziz was not recognizable to most people outside of the Middle East and international business circles. Although he was then listed by Forbes magazine as the six richest person in the world (he is now eleventh) and had invested the bulk of his estimated $20 billion fortune in high-profile American corporations, until October 11, 2001 Al-Walid remained what Business Week once called "the most important financial kingpin that you've never heard of."1 His gift of a $10 million check to the victims of the World Trade Center disaster on that day would have made him a celebrity in the United States, had it not been followed by a statement so offensive to most Americans that New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani promptly returned it. The intense media frenzy which resulted was quickly superceded by the war in Afghanistan, however, and the prince soon became a mere antagonist in Giuliani's mythic rise to national fame. "
http://www.meib.org/articles/0209_med1.htm

Saudi princes, well of course they can visit.

You should consider the motivation for the hate-Iran campaign. Why are they lying? What is their objective?

[jefferson_dem]

39. Iran does not support international terrorism. Really? Thanks for clarifying that.

Of course, that puts you in the cozy company of about two - you and Ahmadinejad himself.

[scarletwoman]

44. Oh for cripesakes! What international terrorist events has Iran been behind?

Really, name one -- and please include some supporting documentation of this "fact".

sw

[jefferson_dem]

48. LOL! Do you really need someone else to research this for you?

Start with the obvious: Do you deny Iran has provided material / human support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad or just deny that any of this support ended up being used for "terrorist" purposes.

[scarletwoman]

57. Hezbollah, Hamas & IJ are localized resistance movements, they are NOT "international terrorists".

The U.S. government loves to pin the label "terrorist" on any group it wishes to demonize, it's becoming a meaningless term. Terrorism is a tactic, nothing more.

Lots of Americans funded and supported the IRA back in the day -- did that make the U.S. a supporter of "international terrorism"? Should Britain have bombed us?

[jefferson_dem]

58. I know what terrorism is and ergo my claim that Iran sponsors the deployment of the "tactic"...

But you did not answer my question.

The groups mentioned may be localized but they are or have been supported, at least in part, by the Iranian nation-state (not individuals within Iran but by the Iranian governmental apparatus itself).

So...are you arguing that these groups do not use terrorism (as a tactic) or that no Iranian funds have been used in that effort? One must be true in order for you to refute my point that Iran sponsored international terrorism.

Of course, there are specific "events" that Iran is accused of involvement in, such as Higgins murder in 1988 and Khobar Towers.

[scarletwoman]

65. Your original claim was that Iran sponsors "international terrorism". I don't see anything

"international" in the localized power struggles in Israel/Palestine and Lebanon.

Hezbollah kidnapping and murdering an American military officer IN LEBANON almost 20 years ago is NOT "international terrorism".

And the bombers of the Khobar Towers were "13 Saudi militants and a Lebanese man" (from this link: IRAN INDICTED IN AL KHOBAR EXPLOSION

More:

...the indictment did not name or charge any member of the Iranian government (my bold), but U.S. investigators had identified a certain Ahmad Sharifi, believed to be a senior Iranian member of the Revolutionary Guards, as one of the suspects responsible for the blast...

Sure, lots of accusations were thrown at Iran for that one, but accusations -- especially coming from the USG with its anti-Iran agenda -- don't constitute proof. They named ONE Iranian as a "suspect", with no proof.

How does that translate to Iran being a sponsor of "international terrorism"?

What I'm trying to do here is to shake people from their propaganda-induced trance where the extent of their "thinking" about Iran is confined to parroting back meaningless neocon/AEI/Cheneyite bullshit like "sponsoring international terrorism".

I mean, what the hell? Why are people so willing to fall for this crap?

sw

[jefferson_dem]

68. Ah, the old "you're just falling for the propaganda" card. I guess it was only a matter of time.

Whatever.

Let's cut to the chase...

Seems you are arguing that the Iranian government has not or does not knowingly engage in the "sponsorship" of terrorist activies (as traditionally defined) outside its own borders? Ok. On that, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[scarletwoman]

78. So now you're changing the terms.

Okay, here goes...

Yes, Hizbullah receives support and training from Iran. But I do not consider present-day Hizbullah to be a "terrrorist" organization, nor does the rest of the world outside of the U.S. and Israel, which are the only countries who classify them as such.

Hizbullah, much like the IRA/Sein Fein, has morphed into a political organization with an armed wing. They are part of the elected government of Lebanon, as well as a social service organization. They are Shiites, Iran is Shia. Iran DOES have a legitimate regional interest in supporting their co-religionists.

The Hizbullah of today is not mounting suicide bomb attacks anywhere. They are not committing "terrorist actions". So scratch that one off your list.

Hamas, on the other hand, are Sunni. I see lots of accusations that Iran "supports" them, but when one looks at the history of the Iran/Hamas relationship, it appears to be largely ideological. Hamas was attracted by the concepts of Khomeni's Islamic Revolution. If Iran were actually supplying money and weapons to Hamas, they must be doing a very stingy job of it, since Hamas is extremely isolated and does not appear to be either well-funded or particularily well-armed.

Yes, Hamas has employed terrorist tactics -- suicide bombers -- over the years, but I do not see how that can be laid at the door of Iran. Iran does not direct or control Hamas.

Islamic Jihad seems to be a fading force -- at least, I can't recall any recent news of them mounting any terrorist attacks. Since I can't be on top of ALL the news in the Middle East, it's possible I've missed something. But it seems to me that if IJ were up to lots of nefarious activities, we'd be hearing about it -- ESPECIALLY if it helped drive the Iran/terrorist connection propaganda.

Islamic Jihad, like Hamas, was attracted to Khomeni's ideology of Islamic Revolution back in the day. They actually had ecumenist ambitions at the time -- a hope of uniting Sunni and Shia into a grand Islamic revival.

Those early ideals have given way to the "new" style of jihad espoused by the Salafi/Wahhabist Al Qaeda types -- which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Iran. It needs to be remembered that Iran in fact aided our fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I'm just digging for the truth and doing the best I can to deconstruct all the anti-Iran propaganda. That's why I ask for proof when I see talking points being tossed around as though they are gospel.

sw

[Hydra]

98. Sorry you have to state the obvious while the other person spouts beliefs

Congrats on bringing the message out.

[scarletwoman]

118. I'm sorry that so few people are willing to actually examine their assumptions.

Thank you for your kind words. I wish I could do more.

To be honest, I didn't expect that ANYONE would read that last post of mine beyond the person I was debating. It's actually quite delightful to find out differently -- and even more delightful that you are offering congrats!

Many thanks!
sw

[ronnie624]

105. I think I'm in love.

But seriously, thank you for your commentary and supporting links. Some of us do indeed prefer verifiable information to naked propaganda.

I can easily imagine the leaders of Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan visiting the site, and being lauded by the criminal dross in the White House, as the guiding lights of democracy in Central Asia.

[scarletwoman]

119. Well then, please allow me to love you back. Thank you for your kind words.

I can easily imagine the leaders of Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan visiting the site, and being lauded by the criminal dross in the White House, as the guiding lights of democracy in Central Asia.

Too true. We are all so deeply enmired in such a vast swamp of lies and distortions that it takes a massive effort of will to fight our way up to the light where we can see clearly.

What saddens me more than anything is the realization of how few are up to that effort. Your supportive words really mean alot to me.

My sincere thanks,
sw

[The Stranger]

104. "We'll just have to disagree." Right. Your statements have been eviscerated.

Educate yourself about the "terrorism" propaganda and lies you have been fed for so long.

[scarletwoman]

120. Ah! One of my favorite DUers shows up! Thank you! (nt)

[iamthebandfanman]

11. So do some Americans

they are still here and have a voice.

[The Straight Story]

12. And I don't want them there either, especially fred phelps

And if I had a say in it, his ass would not be allowed near there to lay a wreath :)

[iamthebandfanman]

17. yes, but you dont

and this was a governmental(police agency) decision to not let him lay a wreath...

think theyd stop phelps?

[The Straight Story]

20. Question is - do you want either of them there or both?

and why?

[iamthebandfanman]

22. yes, both

i dont WANT them there, but far be it for me to not let them

regardless of how i feel about them.

thats the double edged sword of freedom.

would i have loved to have protested him or both of them while they were doing it ??
hell yes.


p.s.
how i feel about them is ... i strongly dislike them both and if i ever ran into phelps in a back ally ... lets just say he had better pray to that hateful god he worships.

[Dave From Canada]

50. Yes, but you're comparing American citizens, with a non-American foreign leader.

How about he lays a wreath in Iran first, at the spot Iranian authorities beat to death a Canadian journalist a couple of years ago? He can go to hell, and nobody should believe his crocodile tears.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3070895.stm

[jefferson_dem]

37. Sadly, many of our DU friends don't care.

It's the same posture taken with some other tyrants and demagogues. If Tyrant A hates Chimpy and Chimpy hates Tyrant A...all grievances are excused. Shame.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. i think we shouldn't lie to ourselves about why we do something

if we are working for the cause of women/gays in the world, then sure we should let ahmadinejad into this country but we should not let the saudis in either.

but thats not why we are doing this, and we should be honest about it.

[jefferson_dem]

69. I would agree with you if the Saudi Royals wanted to go use "ground zero" for a dog and pony show.

Personally, I would not advocate denying them or Ahmadinejad entry into the country or the right to speak once here.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. a saudi prince has visited ground zero.

[jefferson_dem]

75. Well then...

that's probably some fucked-up shit.

Not surprising though.

[ronnie624]

108. We do care.

But ultimately, it is for the Iranian people to address the issues of oppression by their government. We do not have a right to punish other countries because we disagree with certain aspect of their domestic affairs. We are not the rulers of the world, despite what you have been led to believe throughout your life.

If we expect to ever get along with other nations, we must learn to respect their sovereignty and their right autonomy.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. cos clearly we are doing this for homosexuals and women

:eyes:

[The Straight Story]

70. That does not have to be the MAIN reason, but it can be A reason, especially for us on the left

Why would any on the left support him?

The RW has their reasons not to, and so can we. They don't have to be the same reasons, but to see folks on the left support this man who murders gay people simply because they are gay is reason enough for me not to want his ass any where near our land marks.

This sick fuck would have my best friend hanging from a noose if he had his way - and I don't care why the RW hates him, I have reasons enough of my own to do so.

That anyone on the left would stand up for him is, to me, weird.

I can condemn both he and bush at the same time without an issue :)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. i dont like him either. however i dont think americans should bully the world

which is pretty much what we are doing to iran. i also think this condemnation will soon lead to a war with iran. which we really cant afford.

[The Straight Story]

74. I can go along with all that - however

I am worried that too many on the left treat this scum with kid gloves because he hates bush and we don't want a war with Iran.

He is no friend to progressives, is RW nutjob (though a different RW nutjob then our homegrown ones), and is probably looking for war with Israel just to make a name for himself (war = bad IMHO).

I can agree with the RW on this guy, without advocating war with Iran.

For the women and gays in Iran, I would love to see he and his regime go under - as well as their antiquated fundie religious ways.

[uppityperson]

97. I don't support him but stand up for his right to speak/lay a wreath while in USA

Condemning someone for his support of fundamentalist policies and allowing them to publicly show sorrow at a bad thing that happened in /to another country are 2 different things.

[SOS]

96. Perhaps Bush will say he's bombing Tehran

to liberate the gay population.
(As long as they don't marry!)

[TheUniverse]

76. I'd like to think everyone deserves a voice in America.

But thats just me and my pesky beliefs in freedom of speech.

[SOS]

93. "oppression of women and gays"

The oppression of women is far worse in Saudi Arabia.
Women are whipped publically for the crime of driving a car.
Gays are beheaded in Saudi Arabia, rather than being hanged.
And the Saudi's are financing the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.

Any protests against the arrival of the Saudi delegation at the UN?
Should Abdullah be allowed to speak here?
Based on your human rights criteria he does not "deserve a voice here in the US".

[The Stranger]

95. Did you mean to type George W. Bush or Ahmedenijad?

Just about everything you typed perfectly describes the G.O.P.

[LSK]

101. He supports the Palestinians in their struggle for freedom in Israel

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. Yuck.

Using bigotry as a red herring to disguise a seperate bigotry?

That's disgusting.

[fenriswolf]

109. right but the point is i believe

the running of his country might leave alot to be desired, but he is not our enemy why should we treat him like one? we are playing into bushies hands that way. When we trade with china with mutliple human right violations and womens oppression (how many female chinese orphans are their in china just because they were not boys?) and with our great love of saudi arabia who is even worse then iran on alot of these abuses, the only thing to be gained from this "stunt" in not allowing him to visit is to further the war mongers agenda.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Because the saudi-texas oil mafia blew up the WTC?

I think that has to be the right anwer.

[iamthebandfanman]

24. exactly

and the iranians dont like Saudi Arabia either.

[TwilightZone]

4. Maybe "Death to America" has something to do with it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html

[iamthebandfanman]

10. dont you think it would look hypocratic ON HIM

if we had let him?

death to america but heres a wreath ?

just makes him look weaker... not us.

thats a silly reason.

[BlooInBloo]

15. It would look medicinal?

[Dr. Strange]

26. Paging Dr. Ahmadinejad...

What a hypocrat!

[JackRiddler]

53. Eye of the needle!

[TwilightZone]

16. Not at all, it's his usual pattern.

He loves to play both sides. Here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/america/24letter.php

[chimpymustgo]

13. Kind of hard to take that Bush-propaganda article seriously. Did you READ it?

JOURNALISM??? Not so much.

-snip-
As the hatemonger spoke, a parade of anti-aircraft guns, missiles and military hardware moved before him. Three jet fighters flew overhead.
In a menacing move, Ahmadinejad's military henchmen said the medium-range missiles could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf.
Ahmadinejad, who is coming to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly, is expected to land at Kennedy Airport today.

The White House and U.S. military leaders have accused Iran of supplying training and weapons to terrorists who are attacking and killing U.S. troops in Iraq.

Large protests will greet Ahmadinejad - an accused terrorist, Holocaust denier and member of the Axis of Evil - when he speaks at Columbia University on Monday and when he addresses the UN Tuesday.

-snip-
But several political leaders and religious groups have slammed Columbia for inviting the madman to mouth off.

-snip-

[TwilightZone]

19. It's not the first source to make similar conclusions.

Here, maybe you'll like one of these better:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/america/24letter.php

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0923/iran.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=nation_world&id=5670795

The guy isn't a boy scout. He's a master propagandist, a Holocaust denier, and "Death to America" is nothing new on his agenda.

[scarletwoman]

30. The fact that more than one news outlet spouts the exact same propaganda is proof of what?

Do you honestly fall for all this bogeyman crap? Do you really eat up all that bushie "Axis of Evil" nonsense?

The government of Iran has attempted to open a dialogue with the US for years now. What exactly do we have to lose by simply SPEAKING with them?

Why do you want to fall in with the demonizers and warmongers who care for nothing but endless war for endless profits for the MIC?

sw

[TwilightZone]

31. Perhaps you should bother to actually look at the articles before commenting on them.

They are nothing alike.

"Bushie propaganda?"

Really? Wow, didn't realize that France was in on the conspiracy.

[scarletwoman]

34. Your first link was to the very same article that was in your first post.

Your second article largely just reiterates the standard propaganda lines about Ahmedinejad -- there's no news or investigation or analysis involved, just stenography. All it proves to me is that there is a news outlet in France just as craven and beholden to conventional wisdom as our own media.

Your third link is to an AP piece that every news org in the U.S. can pick up and publish -- or did you not notice the Copyright 2007 The Associated Press at the bottom?

Really, all you've proven is that the propaganda for demonizing Ahmedinejad and Iran is pervasive and ubiquitous. That's not news. The job for people who actually care about truth is to resist and deconstruct the propaganda, not swallow it whole and unquestioningly.

sw

[TwilightZone]

47. Ah, so most of the world is wrong about him, and you're right.

Pardon me if I don't accept your position. Provide some proof that he's not a Holocaust denier, for example, and perhaps I'll take you seriously.

Otherwise, I'll take years of international news reports over your summary dismissal that everything is propaganda, thanks.

[scarletwoman]

51. Even the French article you posted had the honesty to refer to his position as

"QUESTIONING... the SCALE of the Holocaust", not as a "Holocaust denier".

So yes, he DOES question the scale of the Holocaust, and does so to make a point. He asks why the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world have been made to pay the price for something that was perpetrated by Europeans. It is because the Holocaust has been repeatedly used to justify what is seen in the Muslim world as a great INjustice.

[TwilightZone]

55. "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4529198.stm

Mr Ahmadinejad made the comments while speaking on live TV in the south-eastern city of Zahedan.

"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets," he said.

He called for Europe or North America - even Alaska - to host a Jewish state, not the Middle East.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks were "shocking".

Doesn't sound like he's questioning the scope to me. Seems pretty clear what he's saying, but I'm sure you'll come up with some perfectly reasonable explanation to the contrary.

[scarletwoman]

59. How do you know for certain that the word "myth" was translated properly from whatever Farsi term he

actually used in his speech? He is essentially describing a "frame" or a "storyline" that has been used to support the imposition of a colonial entity on the Muslim world. It does not necessarily imply that the story is false, it is a rhetorical device being used to point out how this story has been used against the Palestinians.

From the article at your link:

"If you (Europeans) committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?"

He's not saying outright that the "big crime" didn't happen, he's asking why Palestinians have been made to shoulder the burden of a crime committed elsewhere by other people.

I can see that for Muslims, this is a reasonable question.

[TwilightZone]

60. You translate Farsi?

I'm impressed.

[scarletwoman]

66. Good job totally missing the point and avoiding engaging with it.

I'm NOT impressed.

[TwilightZone]

67. Oh, I didn't miss the point.

You completely reinterpreted a direct quote into something completely unrelated and hid it behind "misinterpretation".

[scarletwoman]

71. I questioned the translation of one particular word, and then demonstrated how the context in which

that one particular word was used did not necessarily imply what that particular word implies.

I also included further quotes from the same article -- the article YOU posted -- to demonstrate that in the overall context of the speech, the word "myth" is not necessarily an accurate translation of what was being said.

Of course, if you are already committed to demonizing Ahmadinejad, making a nuanced and subtle examination of context is not going to be your cup of tea.

[TwilightZone]

77. So, everyone mistranslated the word "myth" except for you?

Sorry, no sale. You've invented an interpretation that you have yet to provide any basis for, except for your continued insistent that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

So, what's your excuse for the Holocaust deniers' conference he held, which included such luminaries as David Duke? Was that also misinterpreted in translation?

[scarletwoman]

82. "Everyone" being one BBC writer, of course.

Yeah, David Duke was there. So were some Hasidim. So what. It was a publicity stunt. Did the conference break up with everyone leaping into jets and flying off to Israel to drop bombs?

If not, the fact that some marginalized folks who want to differ with the accepted historical narrative got together and aired their various theories doesn't seem like that much of a threat to me. But what do I know, I'm an ACLU type who believes in free speech, even if it's offensive to some sensibilities.

I've never claimed that "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", all I've done is try to point the way to a deeper analysis of context.

You don't like my analysis, fine. My ultimate aim is to prevent the murder of thousands of my fellow human beings because too many Americans bought into all the propaganda and demonization of one silly little man who will most likely be voted out of office in the next Iranian election.

sw

[TwilightZone]

85. He's not a holocaust denier, but he sponsored a holocaust denier's conference.

So, that's what you're saying now? You then defend that ridiculous assertion with "but, but...it's free speech!!"?

Free speech, apparently, completely changes the intent and meaning of things. Interesting. I'll have to remember that one. Pretty convenient, that.

I don't agree with your analysis because it makes no sense. You tapdance around the facts and can't provide any proof of your assertion that he's not a holocaust denier, and you brush off criticism of your arguments with vague insinuations that I'm just not sophisticated enough to "get" your nuances.

No nuance is necessary. There are thousands of references to the fact that he's a holocaust denier, PLUS he SPONSORED A CONFERENCE for holocaust deniers.

There's no need for nuance when simple facts will suffice.

[scarletwoman]

87. I'm not disputing that he sponsored a "Holocaust denier" conference. I'm asking, so what?

It's obvious that you want Ahmadinejad to be a bogeyman. Then what? Where does your demonization of Ahmadinejad lead? Does it lead to something you want?

I'm invested in cooling down the rhetoric because I don't want thousands of people to die in another "preemptive" war. What's your investment?

[jefferson_dem]

86. The irony of your posts is overwhelming.

You equate not welcoming Ahmadinejad at Ground Zero with endorsement of war with Iran

while at the same time

excusing a gathering of Holocaust deniers because they didn't leave the conference and drop bombs on Israel on the way home.

And, yes, even ACLUers (even free speech absolutists) can disagree on this issue.

[scarletwoman]

88. No, all I'm doing -- as I have said all along in this thread -- is trying to counter the propaganda.

His visiting "ground zero" is a moot point -- it's not gonna happen.

I never addressed the OP of this thread, I only jumped in when I saw people parroting anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Iran propaganda. I did so because I think it's dangerous and reckless to blithely spout unexamined assertions.

Everthing I have posted in this thread has been an attempt to move people to actually examine their assertions. I understand that such attempts are bound to meet with resistance, because if there's one thing people hold sacred, it's their own opinions.

I don't see how questioning assertions is "ironic".

sw

[jefferson_dem]

41. Actually, Ahmadinejad is a swell old chap.

Just ask him...and his happy band of apologists.

[scarletwoman]

46. I'm an "apologist" for truth. Whereas people parroting the Neocon/AEI/Cheney propaganda about Iran

and Ahmadinejad are Bushco apologists in my book.

But, suit yourself...

[jefferson_dem]

49. I appreciate your point.

Truth is all.

[Hieronymus]

8. He certainly should have been allowed. The Iranian people protested

the actions of 9/11 by the thousands .. some say a million or more in Tehran.

[angrycarpenter]

14. only americans get to use 911 for political purposes

the victims, I think, would have a problem with anyone using their deaths as a way to accomplish unrelated political goals.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

18. For the same reason it's not permitted that U.S. politicians exploit 9-11

Oh, wait...

[cali]

23. Agree.

It was actually an opportunity

[applegrove]

25. Because he is a nutty monster who says he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

[sam sarrha]

28. not wipe off , the term was remove, as in reName Palistine, return what was taken

[scarletwoman]

32. You're just spouting the propaganda that's been drummed into your head.

He never said he "wanted Israel wiped off the map." That's been thoroughly debunked countless times, but the propagandists keep hyping it, and people who really ought to know better by now keep repeating it like good little automatons.

He's not a "monster", he's not "nutty", he's just a lippy little man who has no actual power over Iran's military and foreign policy -- those powers are reserved for Iran's Ruling Council of clerics. The Iranian president's powers are confined to the domestic sphere.

You're just perpetuating the warmongerers' talking points that are going to send us into another illegal attack on a sovereign nation that is no threat to us by any rational measure. Is that really what you want?

sw

[applegrove]

35. No I don't want war. But he did say something abour removing Israel and

that makes him nutty. Lots of nutty leaders around the world. No reason for any of them to visit ground zero. And I hope they don't.

[scarletwoman]

42. No he didn't! He quoted from an old Khomeni speech, wherein the Ayotollah observed that unjust

regimes eventually disappear from the pages of history. The context of the speech was that he (Khomeni) was pointing out that just like Iran was finally rid of the Shah, and just like the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the Zionist regime that rules Palestine will eventually fade away as well.

It was a prediction, NOT a threat. Nor is there anything "nutty" about it. Pretty much the entire Muslim world in the Middle East sees Zionism as a colonialist enterprise and Zionists as illegal occupiers of stolen land. It may be a different point of view than yours, but it's quite reasonable from their standpoint.

sw

[Exultant Democracy]

89. You speak Farsi? Or do you get your translations from AIPAC?

[applegrove]

91. He has said some nutty things. Or is he as innocent as a baby where

the propaganda is concerned?

[Exultant Democracy]

111. Again do you speak Farsi? Seriously most of what he says could

just as easily come out of an American IR expert (like Michael Scheuer) this doesn't mean I agree with what he says, but the hysterics over this guy are absurd.

[sam sarrha]

27. because the Reich Wing doesnt want him to appear human.....so we can bomb him and get chears

[kitty44]

84. Bingo! We have a winner! n/t

[kenny blankenship]

29. Geeez!!! Becaaauuuuse we are going to try to kill him, you big silly!

You can't very well decapitate some world leader who just laid a wreath at the tomb of your fallen, now can you? It's bad form.

[Dave From Canada]

54. If America was trying to kill him, he'd be dead right now. And it's even worse form to lay a wreath

paying respects to an event he probably celebrated. Fuck him.

[kenny blankenship]

56. Future tense, Dear illiterate northern neighbor

Future tense: "are going to"

[Dave From Canada]

114. K, thanks, anyways, He still shouldn't be allowed to visit Ground Zero.

[sinkingfeeling]

103. You hold a very high opinion of the USA's ability to kill anyone. Why is bin Laden still alive?

[Dave From Canada]

116. Because he's hiding. If you've noticed, Ahmadinejad isn't. He's speaking at American schools.

[fenriswolf]

110. yeah he is probably not that stupid

he probably realized that when 9/11 happened the US would once again do a show of force in his immediate area and why would he want that. I'm sure he celebrated 9/11. I mean his religious zeolotry is unfortunate in the fact that his country is now dangerous to be a homosexual in and oppresses women but that does not mean he or his country supports mass murder of innocent people and he certainly doesnt want more US interferance in his backyard.

[Dave From Canada]

117. Using that logic, Bin Laden wouldn't have celebrated 911 either, because he would have known about

American interferance in his backyard. Good one.

[SOS]

112. "An event he probably celebrated"

There was an unprecedented minute of silence for the victims of 9/11 in the Tehran soccer stadium. First time in Iranian history.
Estimates of one million people held a vigil in Tehran on 9/18/01.
Iran sent diplomatic condolences.
Iran provided priceless intel on the Taliban in the Fall of 2002 to the US.

Do you have a link verifying your "celebration" theory?

[Dave From Canada]

113. The Iranian people are alot different then the Iranian "government". Stop defending a fascist

a-hole.

[SOS]

122. Stop presenting unsupportable assertions.

You stated in your post that Ahmadinejad "probably celebrated" 9/11.
I posted the actual response in Iran.

I posted the facts. You posted an assertion.
Nowhere did I "defend" Ahmadinejad.

Again, do you have anything to back your assertion or do you just make this stuff up?

[Dave From Canada]

123. My assertions are not unsupportable. Any intelligent, sane individual can extrapolate from his

actions and his views.

Hmmm, Israel's biggest ally and supporter suffers a historic terrorist attack. Hmmm, I wonder how he felt that day. The man believes in the worthiness of strapping bombs to people, even children, to blow themselves up in a fight against Israel. He believes in burying women to the waist and stoning them for adultery. He believes Iran is "gay-free" (probably because he hangs them all) and he denies people basic human rights. Follow the pattern.

[David__77]

33. He made his point by trying to do this.

It was a brilliant move politically. Iran is really trying to burnish its international image, which is not at all bad in the developing countries. Only in the West is Iran considered a kind of pariah. And let's not forget that the West contains only a smaller fraction of the world's population.

[Disturbed]

36. He wasn't barred from Ground Zero.

He can go there but must provide his own security.

[Baby Snooks]

61. And on 9/11

They held candlelight vigils in Tehran that night. While others danced in the streets of many countries in the region including Pakistan. Celebrating the symbolic destruction of the United States and what it represents to quite a few in the region.

Even the Israelis did not hold candlelight vigils. Only the Iranians. Despite so much of the hatred that spread throughout Islam directed at the United States having originated through the hateful rhetoric of Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It is a complex ideology and a complex hatred. The hatred is directed more at our government than at us.

Keeping that in mind, it is not that offensive to have Ahmadinejad lay a wreath. It is offensive to give credence, however, to his hateful rhetoric that resurrects the hateful rhetoric of Khomeini.

[DRoseDARs]

38. Because the wreath will be made of dead babies and squealing puppies. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. because we dont like him, and that has always been good foreign policy

[EFerrari]

80. LOL!

:applause:

[Nutmegger]

90. Aint that the truth.

Wish it wasn't true, but it is. :(

[cgrindley]

79. because Iranians flew those planes into the WTC...

am I right or am I right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. Because the "home of the brave and land of the free" are scared of the bogeyman.

No doubt the wreath of flowers will contain bombs.

[Javaman]

92. Ironic since Iran was one of the first nations to send their condolences

after 9/11. And if I recall correctly, Iran was willing to help bring the purps to justice. But then moron* took a giant shit on all that good will with his* fucking stupid axis of evil speech.

way to piss away all that "capital" asshole*.

god, what a fucking colossal fucking bull in a china shop life long failure he* is.

[The Stranger]

94. The lying media now has him representing all Muslims in the "War on Terror (against Muslims)."

Iran had absolutely not a fucking thing to do with September 11, but the underlying bigoted, racist and xenophobic meme is that all Muslims did it.

This is preparing the U.S. sheeple for another illegal war in the Middle East.

[sampsonblk]

100. I have no problem with the guy laying a wreath.

What harm can it do? In fact, it might be a great time to show we really do believe in freedom.

[tears4terra]

107. My sentiments exactly! n/t

[backscatter712]

106. Oh, let him lay that wreath.

Ahmedinejad's a tool - he's Iran's George W. Bush. As mentioned, anti-semitic, anti-gay (they hang gays and lesbians in Iran,) financially supports suicide bombings, etc.

But still, the way our own tools have been latching on to this is completely unjustified.

RAHHH! EVERYBODY PROTEST! IT'S EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN! TIME FOR TWO MINUTES HATE!

FOX Noise and the rest of the MSM have made a circus out of this, deliberately to stir up the hatred and hostility, and bang the war drums.

I'm not a fan of Ahmedinejad, but let him lay his wreath, and let all the protesters and press go home. Don't give him an audience.

[Swamp Rat]

115. Copyright infringement