Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sympathy for the Devil
What's the problem with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanting to visit Ground Zero in New York? I won't deny that Ahmadinejad has offensive and stupid ideas about 9/11. Like he wrote last year:
Sept. 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligences and security services, or with extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?
This is the crap that burly men in black T-shirts bullhorn at passersby near Ground Zero, but Ahmadinejad was just planning to plant a wreath and rake in PR cred. And before Ahmadinejad won the presidency, Iran was smoothing the path for Saudi terrorists to move in and out of Afghanistan. It funds Hezbollah. It supports anti-America forces in Iraq.
Let's accept all that. This still represents a politicization of 9/11 egged on by presidential candidates and hawkish pundits. Iran, remember, joined the chorus of official outrage after the terrorist attacks, then-Pres. Khatami saying "In the name of the Iranian government and people, I condemn the terrorist attacks on public centers of American cities."
The anti-Ahmadinejad debate doesn't address any of that: It's a calvacade of non sequitors. I just watch John Gibson say that "the man who wants to wipe Israel off the map won't be allowed to visit the place that was wiped off the map." John McCain says he should be tackled because of his "immense ego" and spun this scenario: "Suppose while he was at Ground Zero an IED would go off in Iraq and kill Americans. That would be unacceptable."
|9.20.07 @ 5:41PM|#
John McCain says he should be tackled because of his
"immense ego"
WHOA, the room just started spinning.
semm|9.20.07 @ 5:47PM|#
My reason for not wanting him there?
Its like the guy who danced on your lawn while your house burned
down acting all confused as to why he wasn't invited to your new
house-warming party.
If its the kind of space where we all get a vote as to who we let
on it, well put me down for a no on Mr Ahmadinejad.
|9.20.07 @ 6:01PM|#
If its the kind of space where we all get a vote as to who we let on it, well put me down for "don't care."
|9.20.07 @ 6:11PM|#
It's because 9/11 has become appropriated by te powers that be
so that it is less about a horrific criminal act and its very
personal and serious consequences for the families of those lost
and more about the collective victimization of America by those
'who hate us for our freedom'.
Hence anyone who is declared an enemy by the state is denied entry
to its holy shrines.
Of course, this does not change the fact that Ahmedinijad is a
colossal douchebag and like all politicians deserves to be strung
up from the highest tree in the land.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|9.20.07 @ 6:22PM|#
If I thought that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would somehow see our point of view and start moving against terrorists after seeing Ground Zero I would be the first to say "Left him go!" at the top of my lungs. I don't think so. I think he is just a wacko who might even use the oportunity to deliberatly pour salt in the wound. If its the kind of space where we all get a vote as to who we let on it, well put me down for a no on Mr Ahmadinejad.
thoreau|9.20.07 @ 6:23PM|#
Since Ahmadinejad is such a colossal douchebag, shouldn't he be
spending his time in NYC with the Mayor and City Council?
Wait, maybe we don't want them exchanging ideas. OK, send him to
ground zero. He'll do less damage there.
VM|9.20.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Hi Doktor T:
Let's just give 'em all tickets to the Blue Man Group - that's
appropriate level!
thoreau|9.20.07 @ 6:29PM|#
We could just put Ahmadinejad in a padded room with the NY City
Council and then they'd be threats to nobody.
Except that the NY Council would ban padding on the grounds that
you could suffocate yourself by smooshing your face into it. And
Ahmadinejad would blame the dangers of padding on Israel.
This could make for an amusing reality TV show.
|9.20.07 @ 6:35PM|#
Eh, let him go. It's a free country. It will be a good example
that here, you can go anywhere. Well, that's the America I believe
in anyway.
But what's the official protocol on this? Who decides where and
when a visiting head of state can go? If he decided to get in his
car and go downtown, who stops him?
|9.20.07 @ 6:41PM|#
I think I'm going to wait and see how Stephen Colbert pronounces his last name (if and when he covers this story) before knowing what I think about this.
|9.20.07 @ 6:44PM|#
This is not going to be a popular post. Let him visit, lay a
wreath and mouth some false sympathy. Thee world knows who and what
he is. You wouldn't need a very sensitive BS detector to see thru
him.
Go ahead. While your visiting, Mahmoud, how about I take your
daughter out and show her a night on the town? She'll love it!
|9.20.07 @ 6:51PM|#
I say let him go to ground zero.
OTOH, can I visit Mecca or Medina? (I mean openly, not the way
Richard Burton did.)
|9.20.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Is he really prohibited from visiting or is it just a matter of
"we won't be providing for your security"?
Either way it is kind of petty.
|9.20.07 @ 7:01PM|#
He's just another damned idiot 9/11 Truther. As far as I'm concerned, all Truthers should be be allowed to visit ground zero... and then lined up so the public can more easily kick them in the nuts.
|9.20.07 @ 7:13PM|#
Spare the sentimental bullshit.
We should allow him to visit ground zero because it is not in our
national interest to do so.
He would use it to score a PR victory for Iran, one of our greatest
strategic competitors (if not outright enemies), and it is bad for
us if he is able to do that.
I don't see why the Fox Nooz people and John McCain need to strut
around and make up fancy-shmancy pretexts.
Take a hike, shorty. Our country is there to be a backdrop for your
propaganda.
|9.20.07 @ 7:13PM|#
Er, should "not" allow him to visit...
Why can't I ever just leave out an article, or a punctuation
mark?
|9.20.07 @ 7:21PM|#
Ahmadinejad to Visit Ground Zero, Or Vice Versa
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2693
JBinMO|9.20.07 @ 7:33PM|#
To all of you that want to stop him from visiting you should ask yourself if you think we will eventually win the WOT be being free, or more like our enemy. No you can't visit thier "holy shrines" and they can visit ours and that is why we will win. They don't hate us for our freedom, but it is our best weapon, just like during the cold war.
|9.20.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Joe, if it is any consolation, I inserted the missing words
without even noticing that they were missing.
I disagree with you BTW (not about the propaganda backdrop but
rather aboout denying him access).
M. Simon|9.20.07 @ 7:56PM|#
I'd support him if the Truthers were planning a thermite and
demolition demonstration there at the same time.
Oh? Their demos fizzle?
Never mind.
|9.20.07 @ 8:03PM|#
Silly Mahmoud, milking ground Zero for photo-ops is for Western
Politicians only.
I'm pretty sure they knew the request would be denied. Which is the
reason they asked for the touching gesture.
US politicians and media as usual seem to be only slightly brighter
than Miss Teen South Carolina and SUCH AS, started to sound like
frothing rabid dogs.
If Ahmadinejad's crew did this on purpose, it's kinda genius. And
if they didn't, they got a nice PR victory around the globe on
making Americans look bad. Foreign press is already mocking all the
republican "i eat terrorists for breakfast" crowd.
Good times we live in for geopolitical junkies. Lot of material to
work with.
|9.20.07 @ 8:07PM|#
"Sept. 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and
executed without coordination with intelligences and security
services, or with extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just
an educated guess."
Isn't that what the people here who think IRAQ/Saddam was behind
9/11 keep saying?
|9.20.07 @ 8:17PM|#
I've changed my mind.
He can visit Ground Zero, if he visits the Holocaust Museum
first.
J sub D|9.20.07 @ 8:31PM|#
No you can't visit thier "holy shrines" and they can visit
ours and that is why we will win
This is not quibbling. This is a serious point.
WE DO NOT HAVE HOLY SHRINES IN THIS COUNTRY! Some
whack job religion may consider some site a "Holy Srine" or
"Hallowed Ground" but the government, and a large portion of
society does not agree.
Along those lines, I am so tired of every damned town in the middle
east being descibed as a "holy site". You'd think that would
detract from the special ones, but NOOO!, there all holy. It's
like, "everybody's a champion". Basically it don't mean shit.
Boy, I feel better now.
|9.20.07 @ 8:32PM|#
New York City is where the United Nations sits. As part of the deal therefore, leaders of sovereign nations that are members of the General Assembly get to visit and such. So, alas, unsavory world leaders will come here rather often for UNGA meetings and the like. Moreover, Ahmadi-Nejad has not commited genocide (indeed 25,000 ethnic Jews live in Iran, the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel). If he is the new Hitler, why haven't they been slaughtered? As for incitement to genocide, whatever that means precisely, by such flimsy standards of dubious translations getting turned into hyberbolic journalistic copy then dutifully fanned by the usual suspects, we could likely indict rather a large cast of characters indeed.
thoreau|9.20.07 @ 8:45PM|#
joe-
It is in our national interest to show that we don't really give a
flying fuck if some idiot tries to get some PR. We're better than
that.
The most American thing to do would be to let every street vendor
trying to make a buck get in his face and try to sell souveneirs.
We're Americans. We can make money off of anything and anyone,
anywhere, anytime. Even an Iranian President at a photo op is no
match for the greatest capitalist city on the face of the
earth.
|9.20.07 @ 8:50PM|#
Easy solution: Let him do as he wants and .... ignore him. There
goes his PR into never-never land.
Umm, how come I feel that kind of spontaneous action will never
happen? No matter, he's getting his PR already.
|9.20.07 @ 8:53PM|#
The most American thing to do would be to let every street
vendor trying to make a buck get in his face and try to sell
souveneirs. We're Americans. We can make money off of anything and
anyone, anywhere, anytime. Even an Iranian President at a photo op
is no match for the greatest capitalist city on the face of the
earth.
Thoreau, that is rich! LOL!
thoreau|9.20.07 @ 9:01PM|#
J sub D-
What can I say? NYC is the most capitalist place I've ever visited.
The amount of marketing and advertising that confronts you when you
walk down the street is just amazing. The volume of commerce going
on at every level, from small businesses to Wall street, it's just
amazing to see it all and take it in. I've only been there a few
times, but it always strikes me as a mecca of commerce.
Let Ahmadinejad go there. Even a Persian, heir to a great merchant
civilization, is no match for American commerce.
Underzog|9.20.07 @ 9:35PM|#
Dave Weigel is the worst of the Rhoemites here.
His support for Achmedinajad doing a victory lap around ground zero
is reprehensible, but what does one expect from hippies whose
brains have been fried by narcotic drugs?
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
|9.20.07 @ 9:49PM|#
No you can't visit thier "holy shrines" and they can visit
ours and that is why we will win
This is not quibbling. This is a serious point.
WE DO NOT HAVE HOLY SHRINES IN THIS COUNTRY!
J sub D -- A non-Muslim can't visit certain Muslim holy places
because the people who "own" it didn't grant you permission. A
non-Mormom can't enter in the 124 or so operating temples (you can
quibble about whether they are "holy shrines" or not) worldwide
because the organization who owns them didn't grant you permission.
Random people can't just walk into your house unless you grant them
permission.
It's about property rights, not religion. I don't know who owns
Ground Zero -- I thought it was private property, not
government-owned -- so it seems like whoever owns it should have
the say about who can visit it.
Rhywun|9.20.07 @ 9:49PM|#
It's a free country; let him visit like any other tourist. No special retinue, no special treatment; just let him have a bodyguard or two. But of course none of this will happen. He's already gotten the "fuck off" from America, now he'll use that for propaganda purposes, America will repent and eventually he'll get the royal treatment he thinks he deserves. He wins either way, because we're too stupid to defuse it properly.
Rhywun|9.20.07 @ 9:50PM|#
I don't know who owns Ground Zero
Ground Zero is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey.
|9.20.07 @ 9:59PM|#
I think the rule is that diplomats and such are allowed to travel within 25 miles from the UN. The WTC site is about 5 miles. Therefore he should be allowed to. I don't think we should exempt people from the rules just because we don't like them.
Underzog|9.20.07 @ 10:05PM|#
Speaking of non sequiters, didn't Hit and Run accuse Michelle
Malkin of killing some bulldyke because she comitted suicide?
Malkin had nothing to do with the butch's suicide, but Hit and Run
blamed her anyway.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
|9.20.07 @ 10:16PM|#
It's about property rights, not religion. I don't know who
owns Ground Zero -- I thought it was private property, not
government-owned -- so it seems like whoever owns it should have
the say about who can visit it.
You misunderstand me, our government (plus lil ol' me) don't
recognize any sites as holy. Yeah, it's your property and you can
do what you want with it, call it what you want. Your business. No
problem there.
OTOH I often hear historical sites in the national parks system
(gettysburg comes immediately to mind) referred to as hallowed
ground. Well, I own it as much as anybody else in this nation owns
it, and it is not holy. It's historical.
|9.20.07 @ 10:16PM|#
The US government is not required to grant him an entry visa. If
I were in charge, he can give his speech to the UN via Webex. What
does our country gain by permitting an avowed enemy to roam a 2000
square miles of our lands? That's not diplomacy, that's
idiocy.
The other side of the argument is that he is so marginalized that
it doesn't matter. This may be true, but I say screw him anyway. He
has no rights here.
|9.20.07 @ 10:18PM|#
Ground Zero is owned by the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey.
The government. I rest my case.
Fluffy|9.20.07 @ 10:37PM|#
Since when is Iran an avowed enemy of the United States? I
missed our declaration of war on them and theirs on ours.
The faux outrage about this is part anti-Muslim hatred, part that
idiot portion of the public mind that has no idea that Iran [like
Saddam] had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and part
choreography.
The choreography part is that we are being choreographed into a war
with Iran by scum-sucking slime like Joe Lieberman, and they don't
want their complex Fosse-esque footwork messed up by the President
of their chosen target extending a symbolic olive branch to
Americans. The thirst for the blood of Iranians runs so deep with
these bastards that they won't even allow a meaningless gesture of
sympathy to be made, for fear of the tiniest chance of peace
breaking out.
|9.20.07 @ 11:11PM|#
What does our country gain by permitting an avowed enemy to
roam a 2000 square miles of our lands? That's not diplomacy, that's
idiocy.
The proper question is "what does our country lose by
permitting..."
And unless you think Ahminejad is going to strap on a bomb belt and
run into a subway, I don't see that we'd lose anything.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.20.07 @ 11:16PM|#
Dave Weigel is the worst of the Rhoemites here.
WTF is a Rhoemite? I googled it and google don't know neither.
|9.20.07 @ 11:16PM|#
Ok, I got it.
Let Ahmadinejad visit, then airdrop thousands of iPods, loaded with
the footage of the visit, all over Iran.
Several Benefits:
A: Knowing how efficient the gub'ment operates, I'll bet the iPods
will cost less than those stupid leaflets we used to drop.
B: Ahmadinejad/Goldstein can't lie about his visit to the
Anti-American crowd.
C: The pro-American crown the neocons keep telling us about get
free iPods.
Everyone wins!
The Wine Commonsewer|9.20.07 @ 11:17PM|#
And unless you think Ahminejad is going to strap on a bomb
belt and run into a subway...
One could hope.......
|9.20.07 @ 11:24PM|#
If Ahmadinejad's crew did this on purpose, it's kinda
genius. And if they didn't, they got a nice PR victory around the
globe on making Americans look bad. Foreign press is already
mocking all the republican "i eat terrorists for breakfast"
crowd.
Word. He wins either way. If he goes, he gets to look less like a
nutjob and more empathetic. If he doesn't go, we look petty.
|9.20.07 @ 11:35PM|#
Fluffy: Iranian revolutionaries seized the US Embassy and kept
diplomats hostage for over a year - a flagrant act of war.
Ahmadenijad was photographed participating in the seizure.
Regardless of the lack of a declaration, the regime is clearly an
avowed enemy, even before taking into consideration their frequent
threats against our nation and government. It's not about outrage
for me; I don't give to sheeps what he does. But let's send a clear
message: the regime is not friendly and we shouldn't reciprocate
with acts of friendliness. It's only equitable.
Crimethink: In the world of international relations and diplomacy,
lack of a gain is a loss. This isn't economics. He could clearly
return to his land and portray his visit to Ground Zero as "a
victory over a weak America". Of course even a tiny fraction of the
millions of backwards drooling Islamist terrorists might be
inspired to export more violence to Iraq, resulting in the loss of
troops' lives. To knowingly allow such an obvious chain of events
would be an act of irresponsibility on the part of our government.
As an Iraq War skeptic, but also as a member of a military family,
I'd ask for your understanding, if not your implicit agreement. If
you assert that Assclownedinejad really doesn't matter, then back
away from the argument and let those who have a stake have our way.
Thanks.
|9.20.07 @ 11:36PM|#
We definitely should let that wack job tour Ground Zero and spew
whatever he wants. Maybe, just maybe, he could give us some golden
fodder. For example, he could say Ground Zero smells like sulphur.
I'm serious.
Of course, the downside is that Ahmadinejad could use the stunt to
sure up his low approval numbers at home; play it off like he's
against atrocity. We would see right through it, but would
Iranians? And maybe an Ahmadinejad visit to Ground Zero would
remind Iranians that America got fucked that day way beyond the
bounds of decency. Let's not forget that Iran is an advanced
culture, not like Iraq.
Pie in the sky: Bush calls a 24 hour truce and escorts Ahmadinejad
around NYC. Bush would say, hopefully a direct quote, "Ya see,
Mack-mood, this shit really isn't cool. Now, it's true. I'm a
dipshit, but you'd fuck over anybody who did this in Tehran,
right?"
|9.20.07 @ 11:49PM|#
I sent an email to a friend of mine this morning on this
subject. This is what it said:
"You know, if any one in this Administration had any balls and
vision, they could easily turn this into a great moment for
President Dipshit and his alleged agenda. He could have his "Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" moment right there at Ground Zero,
where he could show up, politely but insistently confront this
asshole, and vow that America was never going to allow this to
happen again. Instead, we cower and invoke childish platitudes
about "hallowed ground", and kid ourselves into thinking that
hiding in bombers at 45,000 feet over Iran some day soon is really
going to impress the world--no wonder we are losing a worldwide
propaganda battle to some towelheaded nut in a cave! No one here
has any idea how to invoke moral authority any more. Whatever else
you think of them, FDR, JFK and Reagan understood the concept,
which is of enormous importance if you want to posit yourself as
the leader of the "free world" in struggle against tyranny.
And I love the "argument" that we cannot engage this clown on our
terms while Iranian proxies are allegedly up to no good in Iraq.
Gee, Nixon went to Moscow and Peking while those countries were
aiding proxies who were in the process of killing 50,000 Americans
(and while the Soviets had 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed at us),
and it is considered a watershed in history, and perhaps his finest
moment. Hell, even his "kitchen debate" with Krushchev is
apparently beyond the ken of these losers.
What a fucking embarrassment of snivelling little shits we've
become, led by the AWOL pride of the Alabama Air National
Guard."
peter jackson|9.21.07 @ 12:11AM|#
Since when is Iran an avowed enemy of the United States? I
missed our declaration of war on them and theirs on
ours.
Since when are active declarations of war the definition of an
avowed enemy? The revolutionary government of Iran avows the US to
be their enemy about every other week. They've committed numerous
acts of war against the United States since 1979, but the fact that
we have chosen not to respond in kind doesn't mean they aren't an
enemy of the US.
And if I recall correctly, the US government has yet to even
recognize the junta in Iran as the legitimate government of that
nation, so technically speaking, he's not the President of Iran,
he's merely the fuehrer. The fact that we allow him to come here to
our territory even for UN business should be considered the height
of US magnanimity...and the end of it.
yours/
peter.
|9.21.07 @ 12:16AM|#
Henry: You state that we've become "snivelling little shits".
Your ridiculous hysteria over a relatively minor issue is irksome
at best.
But for all of your faux rationality, I'd be inclined to actually
let him visit the site if he admitted that the Holocaust actually
happened and promised to stop advocating further genocide. An
American who denies the Holocaust is a pariah, but a Muslim one is
invited to speak at Columbia University.
Would you have let Hitler visit Pearl Harbor? Heck, why don't we
book Ahmadenijad on The View while we're at it? Won't we appear so
enlightened to the Muslim world?!?!?!
This is how far out people like you are on this issue. Thanks for
playing.
|9.21.07 @ 12:29AM|#
Second Guesser--
Um, I didn't invent the "hysteria" over this--have you been reading
the usual suspects recently?
And since Hitler declared war on the US within like 3 or 4 days of
the attack on Pearl Harbor, it would have been rather hard for him
to visit.
And I couldn't give a shit who appears on The View.
But the cowardice of our leaders in engaging those we perceive to
be enemies is kind of breathtaking compared to recent history, when
Nixon and Reagan did it with real style--admittedly not something
we should expect from the loser in the White House now.
|9.21.07 @ 12:44AM|#
Henry, you missed my points, but that could be my fault.
I was asking if, hypothetically, it would be appropriate for Hitler
to visit Pearl Harbor. Because that's the closest parallel I could
draw between the Ground Zero situation. What say you to that
hypothetical?
Then, so as not to descend into pure hypotheticals, do you think it
is acceptable to give Ahmadenijad a platform at a prestigious
university? Do you think a Holocaust denier has a place as an
honored guest speaker at a prestigious American university? What do
you think the student protesters in Tehran think about America
now?
I'm glad to hear that you think Nixon and Reagan chose the right
path. We do agree there. But I think it was less about style and
more about substance. A substantial path in this case would be to
invite the crazy Islamist to stay the hell home.
|9.21.07 @ 12:55AM|#
My objection to "Fonzie" visiting Ground Zero is that he would be there SETTING GOALS.
|9.21.07 @ 1:15AM|#
Well, when Krushchev visited for what turned out to be his
famous "kitchen debate" with then-VP Nixon, he and his nation were
a much, MUCH greater "existential" threat to the US (as
demonstrated by the Cuban Missile Crisis a few years later) than
this little putz could ever hope to be. But we had enough
confidence in ourselves to confront him, here, and even Nixon (a
fairly shady character as a VP) looked the better for it.
And invoking Hitler for every tinhorn Middle Eastern dictator is
tiresome. Unless we prop him up an attack, this guy will be lucky
to last two years. Iran is hardly the Fourth Reich, in any way.
Stop it already.
My point is this--we are not going to kill and intimidate our way
to long term success in the Middle East and the Muslim world at
large, at least not unless we are willing to become (by far) the
greatest mass killers in history. Sure, we need to snuff some folks
(OBL and his crew, obviously), but pretending that everything else
is going to be resolved through a military solution is delusional.
So, like during the Cold War (when a military solution was also
impossible), we need to be prepared to confront our enemies
directly, with confidence in our cause.
So, simply--why the fuck can't someone in DC see the enormous
opportunity this visit would afford for just such a confrontation?
Instead, we seem to be dithering about our fears that the Iranian
dwarf will somehow best us with some propaganda victory. Are we
really that shaky in our own belief in our ability to present our
case to the world? If so, where the hell did that come from?
And THAT, SG, is the fucking embarrassment I originally wrote
about.
Underzog|9.21.07 @ 1:59AM|#
Proposed amendment to ban Islam
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
|9.21.07 @ 5:57AM|#
WTF is a Rhoemite? I googled it and google don't know
neither.
That's because Underzog is a slightly retarded borderline troll.
Ernst Roehm / Rohm was Hitler's buddy, and the
leader of the SA - the brownshirts, until he was murdered on
Hitler's orders on the "Night of the Long Knives."
Underzog likes to call people here "Roehmites" because some posters
actually think that Israel's indiscriminate killing of Lebanese
Muslims and Christians is not an unmitigated good.
Of course, he likes to link to things like proposed amendments to
ban entire religions, so maybe he's a better expert on fascism than
I'm giving him credit for.
|9.21.07 @ 8:45AM|#
Another point: Iran helped us in Afganistan with intelligence which helped in our kicking out the Taliban.
|9.21.07 @ 8:45AM|#
Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers in 1980. I listened to
a speech by a former Army COL who was one of the hostages. He said
there was no doubt in his mind who Ahmadinejad was; he was the head
of security for the hostage takers and someone who actively
tortured several of the American hostages. He is also of course
President of a country that is an avowed enemy of the United States
and is the world largest supporter of terrorism and by the way is
next to Bin Ladin the most public spokesman for extremist Islam in
its various forms.
Normal people are offended by a known terrorist and spokesman for
an extremist ideology visiting a spot where nearly 3000 people were
killed by terrorists professing a branch of said extremist
ideology. Bottom feeders like Weigel don't quit get it. What the
hell Weigel why not let him visit Auchwitz to. He can stand where a
million or so people died and deny it ever happened. Yeah that is a
great idea.
|9.21.07 @ 8:56AM|#
BakedPenguin,
Of course, he likes to link to things like proposed amendments
to ban entire religions, so maybe he's a better expert on fascism
than I'm giving him credit for.
The minimum threshold for supporting a retarded idea is being a
retard oneself. Give him no more credit than that.
|9.21.07 @ 9:13AM|#
You have to realize why those embassy workers were taken as hostages. The Shah was seeking medical help in the US. The students were afraid the US would reinstall the Shah.
|9.21.07 @ 9:17AM|#
Pay attention to me.
Pay attention to me.
Pay attention to me.
Pay attention to me.
Pay attention to me.
Nazis.
Poop?
Jennifer|9.21.07 @ 9:24AM|#
A government frightened enough to confiscate its citizens' makeup at airports and wring its hands over photo ops at tourist spots is not a government negotiating from a position of strength, no matter how many big scary bombs its military has.
|9.21.07 @ 9:24AM|#
Dear John,
Vlad "Pootie" Putin was in the KGB for 15 years. You remember the
KGB, don't you? Among their accomplishments were the systematic
torture (or, excuse me--"enhanced interrogation") and execution of
many US operatives over the years.
Yet, still, somehow, when required, we still manage to find a way
to hold our noses and deal with the head of Russia. Get fucking
real already.
Jennifer|9.21.07 @ 9:28AM|#
Also, I don't get this comment from McCain: "Suppose while
he was at Ground Zero an IED would go off in Iraq and kill
Americans. That would be unacceptable."
There's already IEDs killing Americans in Iraq. Do their deaths
somehow count double if they take place while A-jad is at Ground
Zero? Or do they simply become less acceptable if that happens?
|9.21.07 @ 9:44AM|#
Right now, the US is trying to make a case for going to war against Iran. Most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis and many of the out of the country terrorists in Iraq are Saudis, yet we're not pounding the war drums to go to war with Saudi Arabia. We would probably also allow their leaders to visit Ground Zero. Such a schizophrenic policy this Bush Administration has!
Fluffy|9.21.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Second Guesser -
If "Hitler visiting Pearl Harbor" is the closest analogy you can
think of, you're not trying very hard.
It's more like, say, Brezhnev asking to lay a wreath at the tomb of
the unknown soldier.
It would unequivocably have been a diplomatic gesture of
friendliness. I hate commies with the best of them, but anyone who
would have sputtered and said, "Buh buh buh he's a commie! He can't
do that!" would have been a fucking infant. When coupled with this
administration's transparent attempts to generate a pretext for war
with Iran, the Ground Zero incident goes beyond being infantile. As
I said above, the true source of war party defensiveness on this
issue is that they are bound and determined to not allow Iran to
make any overture for better relations. Period.
Yes, the hostage crisis was a bad thing. It was also 27 years ago.
And I will say this about the hostage crisis: when Afghanistan
refused to extradite the mass murderer bin Laden, we invaded their
country, toppled their government, and have troops there to this
day. When we refused to extradite the mass murdering Shah to Iran
to face judgment for his many crimes, Iran took some diplomats
prisoner and let them go a year later. It sounds like "getting
pissed at refusal to extradite mass murderers" is something our
countries have in common.
And the notion that Ahmadinejad would somehow portray such a visit
in his own media as a "victory over a weak America" is fucking
laughable. How twisted does your mind have to be to come up with
such a concept? The sole propaganda value of the visit would be
that it would portray Iran as humbly making gestures of
accomodation even as an overbearing superpower prepares to make war
upon it. [It's debatable if we can really call that "propaganda",
however, because it would be true.]
Fluffy|9.21.07 @ 9:55AM|#
"He is also of course President of a country that is an avowed
enemy of the United States"
False. You don't become an enemy of the United States because that
piece of shit Bush says you are in a speech. Only a declaration of
war can make you an avowed enemy of the United States.
"and is the world largest supporter of terrorism"
Against Israelis, via Hezbollah and Hamas. Not against the United
States. Israel feels free to bomb any country it doesn't like
whenever it feels like it. Why shouldn't Iran feel free to bomb
Israel?
"and by the way is next to Bin Ladin the most public spokesman for
extremist Islam in its various forms."
The formulation "in all its various forms" shows that you know
nothing about the subject whatsoever. Al Qaeda and the Iranians are
not on the same side.
"What the hell Weigel why not let him visit Auchwitz to. He can
stand where a million or so people died and deny it ever happened.
Yeah that is a great idea."
How fucking stupid are you? If he visited Auschwitz to lay a
wreath, that visit and that wreath would constitute an
acknowledgement that the Holocaust happened. It would be a
repudiation of one of the things you're pissed at him for. If he
were in fact to offer to make such a visit and his offer was
declined, I wouldn't want to hear anyone complain about his
Holocaust denial after that. If you aren't going to let potential
enemies make gestures of respect, you deserve actual enemies, not
potential ones. And lots of them.
thoreau|9.21.07 @ 10:09AM|#
A government frightened enough to confiscate its citizens'
makeup at airports and wring its hands over photo ops at tourist
spots is not a government negotiating from a position of strength,
no matter how many big scary bombs its military has.
QTMFT
|9.21.07 @ 10:13AM|#
Fluffy-
After WW2 our government created the lie that Hirihito really had
nothing to do with starting the War, approving Pearl Harbor, etc.
And now we see why--the American population is filled with childish
idealists who really believe international affairs should be
governed by their version of "morality". "Oh, 28 years ago this guy
was involved with doing bad things to Americans--let's not talk to
him, let's just have a war instead!" It is positively fucking
infantile, and the same thinking which has given us a failed Cuba
policy for almost half a century.
Avoiding another clusterfuck war is more important than "avenging"
the Iranian hostages, children. Time to live in the real world. And
avoiding war, if possible, is done by engaging your enemies. We
just did it for almost 50 fucking years, quite successfully. How we
have forgotten that lesson already is just amazing.
To the list of things that no man should see being made I guess we
need to add "diplomacy" to "laws and saudages".
|9.21.07 @ 10:26AM|#
"Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers..."
So was George H.W. Bush in Panama. I'm not sure it matters. We're
talking about elected heads of government here.
|9.21.07 @ 10:31AM|#
And I guess Henry Kissinger is a terrorist too for perpetrating Chile's 9/11 (1973).
|9.21.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Telling this guy to fuck off and not letting him visit the WTC sight or speak at Columbia is not going to war with him. First, we should have respect for the event that was 9-11 by not letting this lowlife come piss all over where it happened. There is nothing diplomatic about allowing that to happen. What do you clowns think that allowing him to come is going to change one thing? He is all of the sudden going to like us? This guy is a serious dirtbag who committed an act of war against the United States. Does that mean we should declare war on Iran? No. But it also doens't mean we should kiss his ass or give him so much as the time of day when he comes here. He gets a Visa to come here, gets to speak at the UN and do whatever it is that he does and then drags his worthless ass back where he came from. End of story. Only on the Bush derrangement syndrome forum that has become Reason could the idea that we should not allow the President one of the most oppressive governments in the world to role around New York giving speechs in New York be so controversial. The bottomline is if this were anyone else, say the President of Burma who wanted to come give a speech about freedom at the Statue of Liberty, you people would be up in arms. But since this guy shares your dislike of Bush, you will suck his dick and talk about how wonderful it is to let him speak.
|9.21.07 @ 10:35AM|#
"So was George H.W. Bush in Panama. I'm not sure it matters.
We're talking about elected heads of government here."
First, he wasn't a head of state when he did, so no immunity.
Second, what the hell is wrong with you? Are you really so stupid
that you think grabbing Noreaga for drug dealing is the same as
kidnapping diplomats, torturing them and parading them around for
400 days? You are normally pretty reasonable Larmar, but you have
joined the wingnut brigade if you think there was nothing wrong
with the Iranian hostage taking or that it is somehow equivilent to
the invasion of Panama. How about this Lamar, if the whole thing
was okay, can the FBI grab this little bastard, beat the shit out
of him, blindfold him and parade him through jeering crowds in New
York? If it wasn't any big deal when he did it to US diplomats what
is the big deal if we do it to him?
Jennifer|9.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
What do you clowns think that allowing him to come is going
to change one thing?
No, but apparently you do.
|9.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I read that Brent Snowcroft doesn't think Bush will go to war with Iran. He doesn't think that Bush is that stupid. Time will tell.
|9.21.07 @ 10:38AM|#
"Oh, 28 years ago this guy was involved with doing bad things to
Americans--let's not talk to him, let's just have a war instead!"
It is positively fucking infantile, and the same thinking which has
given us a failed Cuba policy for almost half a century."
No. lets not kiss his ass and let him run around New York giving
speeches. What the hell, why don't we just let Bin Ladin come to
New York and give a a few speeches. (9-11 was fucking years ago.
How infintile to hold such a grudge.
|9.21.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Hmmm...derangement syndrome. Interesting concept coming from
you.
If you read anything I wrote, I urged inviting him here to
forcefully confront his ass--how that equates to "kissing" it is a
mystery to me. Did Nixon "kiss" Krushchev's ass when he came over
here? Hardly, and that is exact paradigm I wrote about.
Every goddamn cliche you invoke now applied to the Commies, in
spades. But, somehow, we managed to make it work (and I gave most
of the credit to two Republicans, in case you didn't notice).
Why are so afraid of this little punk from a fourth rate country?
"Let him speak"--oooh, what might he say?!?!
Like I said, a nation of children.
|9.21.07 @ 10:41AM|#
"What do you clowns think that allowing him to come is going to
change one thing?
It spits in the face of the people who were hostages in 1980 and on
the victims of 9-11. Why do we owe this guy a platform? What does
it do beyond make us look weak and give him a chance to spit in our
face? Yes, he is a President of a country, he can come here, give
his speech to the UN and go home. What if the President of South
Africa in the 1980s had wanted to give a speech at a MLK memorial?
Would you have been cool with? If not, why not? How infintile of
you to find that insulting.
|9.21.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Yeah Henry and if PW Botha came here circa 1985 and wanted to speak at the King Center in Atlanta, the US had an obligation to let him do it. Yeah, like that would have ever happened and you and everyone else on here would have wanted to. But, this is different how? Oh Bush is involved and this guy is an enemy of Bush, not the country but Bush and he should be able to speak anywhere he wants no matter how vile he is.
David Woycechowsky|9.21.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Iran Guy: Sept. 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be
planned and executed without coordination with intelligences and
security services, or with extensive infiltration? Of course, this
is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the
attacks been kept secret?
Weigs: This is the crap that burly men in black T-shirts
bullhorn at passersby near Ground Zero
No it isn't. The guys with the bullhorns don't ask questions and
make educated guesses. They spout ridiculous theories.
I haven't gone back and looked at the context of what Iran guy
said, but if he was saying that the air force needed to be stood
down for these hi-jackings to really work -- well, he is probably
in a much better position to judge that than you or I or Dave
Weigel. For example, he probably has much more privy to the high
level workings of Iran's air defenses than any of us do, which
gives him some basis of comaprison. And, of course, even he isn't
saying that the air force was stood down -- he seems to be more
pointing out that this hasn't even been explored and denied.
Now maybe his speculations are misdirected and counterproductive.
They are not at all like what the man with the bullhorn on the
sidewalk says though. Weigs is letting his emotions get the better
of him here. Ditto joe.
|9.21.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Bin Laden leads no nation, murdered US citizens on US soil, has
no right to come to the UN, and boast of further attempts to kill
Americans. In short, we have about reason to engage him as we would
Charles Manson. But I wouldn't put it past some future US
government doing it, secretly, if the world situation appeared to
require it--fuck, we dealt with Nazi and Japanese war criminals
when it was deemed necessary to counter the Soviets. I can't
imagine the scenario myself, but if you could sit down with those
butchers, you can engage anyone. Shit, we supported the fucking
Khmer Rouge in the UN because we still had a bug up our ass over
the North Vietnamese!
But at least you got away from the inane invocations of Hitler.
|9.21.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Just so we're clear, Ahmadinejad is not being "forbidden" from visting Ground Zero. He's free to go there like any other tourist. What he's being denied is a police escort, secret service protection, etc. I'm totally fine with that.
|9.21.07 @ 10:50AM|#
John, your attempts to paint me with the brush of your political
enemies over the years is lame.
Reagan urged "constructive engagement" with South Africa. If he had
been given the chance to jawbone Botha on a worldwide stage, he
sure as fuck would have known how to use it. I would have applauded
that--and you?
|9.21.07 @ 10:53AM|#
"Reagan urged "constructive engagement" with South Africa. If he
had been given the chance to jawbone Botha on a worldwide stage, he
sure as fuck would have known how to use it. I would have applauded
that--and you?"
Why does "engagment" mean he can speak anywhere he wants. Even the
people wanted to engage Botha, would have objected to him speaking
at the King center. Stop arguing a straw man. Telling this guy he
can't go to the WTC site does not mean you can never talk to him
again under any circumstances. Again, if there is no problem with
this guy visiting the WTC site, what would have been the problem
wiht Botha giving a speech on white supremacy at the King Center?
To tell him no I guess would have been to refuse to engage him
right?
|9.21.07 @ 11:07AM|#
"It spits in the face of the people who were hostages in
1980 and on the victims of 9-11."
I don't know much about 1980, John, but I do know that I
lost a few good friends, saw two buildings burn down to the ground,
and breathed in a lot of ash and smoke on that day. To this day I
get a little weepy when I see images of the towers, and maybe my
hands are shaking a little right now. So I want to say this about
your "spitting in the face" argument: Fuck you and everybody who
sat around and watched the "nightmare" on CNN or whatever
television pseudo-reality you were watching. If you believed TV,
those buildings burned all day and fell every hour just before
commercial break. You have absolutely no attachment to the
reality of 9/11. So you'll have to pardon me when I call
bullshit on your opinion of what it means to spit on the victims of
9/11.
|9.21.07 @ 12:03PM|#
No. lets not kiss his ass and let him run around New York
giving speeches.
And here we see the failure of the authoritarian mindset.
"kiss his ass" and "let him...give speeches" is the same thing.
|9.21.07 @ 12:40PM|#
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/ahmadinejad79.jpg
This man should not be allowed to step foot on our soil. If you're
husband, wife, or other relative was one of the 400 kept and
tortured for a year, you would feel the same.
There is no benefit to letting him tour New York or talk at
universities.
|9.21.07 @ 12:40PM|#
You'll have to excuse me....I'm in a mood now.
I should have just said to John, "how do you know what spitting in
the faces of 9/11 victims is"? What qualifies you do
define that?
deron|9.21.07 @ 3:43PM|#
On what grounds is he prevented from going? If he takes a cab
there will he be arrested?
I understand that people don't want him to. I don't want him to
come to Colorado. I'd guess the majority of our citizens don't want
him to. Does our not wanting him mean that he's legally
restricted?
Gary|9.21.07 @ 7:23PM|#
What the black-tee-shirt and bullhorn shills for the latest
phase of Operation Mockingbird don't mention often enough, in my
opinion, is that while Osama was calling for his Jihad against
(certain) American targets, leading Neo-Conservative and
Tri-Lateralist experts in the halls of power were positively pining
for a 'bloodbath' in America, in order to supercharge and jumpstart
their ambitious military plans and domestic vision.
This call -- that America NEEDS to be attacked -- is echoed again
today by the mouthpiece of the MI-Complex and Republican Party, and
it's hired celebrity, Jon Gibson.
Firstly, WHO is really anti-American? A guy with an unorthodox view
or people who STATED that a bloodbath in America would be
LUCKY?
Secondly, consider that these American pro-terrorists do not reside
in a remote mountain cave, unless it's one designed by FEMA (which
was discussed during Iran-Contra hearings .. almost).
Thirdly, consider what it could possibly mean that the deepest
dreams of these 'thinkers' and policy makers just happened to
dovetail perfectly with those of Osama bin Laden, former CIA
asset.
I'm sure there's a perfectly Reason-able explanation. (By the way,
sarcasm aside, I deeply appreciate the fine minds here contributing
here.)
I'll leave the ongoing debates about WTC7 and the Pentagon and
whatnot to people with more time on their hands and a greater love
for drama and bullhorns.
(well, since I started, I gotta give some props to the 200-300
professional architects and engineers for 911 truth -- unlike many
other creepy loons -- who not long ago started agreeing with some
of the 'conspiracy theories'.)
Gary|9.21.07 @ 7:34PM|#
I will offer someone I consider a reliable source -- former
Mossad Agt named Ari Ben Menashe -- who was exonerated in Federal
Court for selling weapons to Iran, during the Hostage Crisis. He
was able to provide documentation he was working in official
capacity for Mossad.
In his book, Profits of War, he describes taking a suitcase filled
with $56 million of the CIA's money, from the Saudi Ambassador in
Guatemala, to a Swiss bank for Iranians to buy weapons. Robert
Gates met him at the Miami Airport.
This was one of MANY similar operations he ran to procure used
weapons for Iran, from Poland, North Korea, Uganda, and other
locations.
He also describes personally watching Casey and Bush Senior exit
different elevators in a European Hotel, walk into a conference
room with the Iranian Mullahs, and shut the door. This closing act
occurred after a long dragged-out delay in concluding weapons
deals, before Reagan was inaugurated.
During the repeated delays, his moderate Iranian counterpart
expressed extreme frustration at being forced to KEEP the hostages
beyond their sell date. They wanted weapons, not humans. And these
Iranian colleagues understood American politics well enough to
grasp WHY the delays.
John S.|9.22.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Remember How Iran Responded to the 9/11 Attacks?
With all the ruckus over the request of Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's request to visit "Ground Zero" during his visit to
New York to lay a wreath [1], it is somewhat worth remembering how
Iran responded to the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Knowing how short American memories are and knowing how many
Americans share President Bush's habit of conflating all U.S.
opponents and enemies into some sort of utterly fictional "united
front," like the now famous "Axis of Evil" (none of whom had
anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks); I began preparing
in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It was fully
predictable that there would be an Islamaphobic backlash in the
wake of the 9/11 attacks and that people with a vested interest in
promoting anti-Muslim hatred would later try to equate the entire
Islamic world with the attacks in New York and Washington DC. So,
beginning on September 12, 2001, I began compiling the actual
responses to the attacks by all the countries of the world with a
Muslim majority regardless of their political standing or
relationship with the United States. Visiting and saving snippets
from official government outlets for these states (embassy
websites, Ministries of Foreign Affairs, &c.) as well as
searching the media for relevant articles discussing the reactions
of these states, I saved all this data for the fifty-two states in
question and put it online in the "International Islamic Response"
website. After several moves to different hosts, I kept all this
data and it can now be found online at:
http://iir.internetactivist.org/
So what was Iran's reaction to the 9/11 attacks?
"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. ... "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 of Iran is treading a road to
uproot terrorism and to this end, he noted, it will spare no
efforts.
And related news stories included:
"Iranians Honor U.S. with Moment of Silence" (NY Post)
"Khatami Condemns 'Terrorist' Attacks on U.S. Targets (People's
Daily, Iran)
"US calls Iran's response 'positive'" (Economic Times)
"Terror attacks transform U.S. image in Iran's media" (Gulf
News)
"Powell sees hope in Iran, Syria response to attack"
(Reuters)
"'Iran News' deplores attacks on major US landmarks" (Iran
News)
"Iran expresses rare sympathy for U.S. over attacks"
(Reuters)
"Iran ayatollah says he is heart-broke over U.S. attack" (Gulf
News)
"Iran seals Afghanistan border" (AP)
All of this was saved in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 at
http://iir.internetactivist.org/020.html though of course many of
the links are no longer valid, being six years old.
The point was - and remains - to show that contrary to whatever the
Islamaphobic hate-mongers might say today, the vast majority of the
Islamic world, even including states that the US has had difficult
relations with, were sympathetic and supportive in the wake of the
9/11 attacks. The whole supposition that there should be any
problem with President Ahmadinejad laying a wreath at "Ground Zero"
is just a statement of American ignorance, bigotry, and hated
completely unjustified by anything Iran has done.
Anyway, to learn more about the response of the world's majority
Muslim countries in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, visit the
International Islamic Response website at:
http://iir.internetactivist.org/ Just click on any of the countries
listed on the left to see how they responded. Just to save you some
time, the ONLY majority Muslim states that were not sympathetic was
Iraq (at the time under Saddam Hussein and suffering from US
imposed sanctions that resulted in the death of over a million
Iraqis [2]) and Afghanistan (then under the Taliban).
John S.
Notes:
[1] Pat Milton, "New York bans 'photo op' visit to Ground Zero by
Iran's president," The Scotsman, 21 September 2007,
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1509712007
[2] Peace Action, "End Sanctions on Iraq," Peace Action Education
Fund, undated,
http://www.peace-action.org/camp/justice/iraqfs.pdf
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245