NationStates Jolt Archive

No, this is not about the holocaust or any of that. The Iranian president was denied clearance to place a wreath at the WTC site. What a shame this government is, not even showing any hope for peace. Israel and Iran just worked together in Thailand. Let the bastard lay a wreath!

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_re_us/ahmadinejad_ground_zero)

NEW YORK - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site when he comes to New York City next week, but the request was denied, a police official said Wednesday.

The Iranian president, who is arriving Sunday to address the United Nations' General Assembly, had asked the police department, the U.S. Secret Service and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey earlier this month for permission to visit the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, police spokesman Paul Browne said.

The police and Secret Service provide security to visiting heads of state.

The request to enter the fenced-in site was rejected because of ongoing construction there, Browne said. "Requests for the Iranian president to visit the immediate area would also be opposed by the NYPD on security grounds," Browne said.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said earlier Wednesday that the city was considering Ahmadinejad's request, but Browne said about two hours later that Kelly had misspoke.

The Port Authority, which owns the trade center site and is the only agency that could grant Ahmadinejad permission to go inside, said it never received such a request, contradicting the police statement.

"We have not been asked to accommodate the president of Iran," Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman said Wednesday.

It wasn't clear whether Ahmadinejad wanted to descend to the base of the trade center site, where the fallen twin towers stood, or lay a wreath on a public sidewalk outside the site. Telephone calls to the Iranian Mission to the United Nations were not immediately returned.

Kelly earlier said he did not know why Ahmadinejad expressed interest in the site. "I am not sure we have the rationale behind it," he said.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Wednesday that an Ahmadinejad visit to ground zero "is a matter for the city of New York, but it seems more than odd that the president of a country that is a state sponsor of terror would visit ground zero."

Iran and the U.S. have not had diplomatic relations since Washington cut its ties with Tehran after Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The Bush administration has accused Iran of arming Shiite Muslim militants in Iraq and seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

In a television appearance earlier this week, Ahmadinejad said his country wanted peace and friendship with the United States, despite mounting tensions between the two countries.

By denying him, we only fuel more anti-Americanism in Iran.

I agree it's a shame, but for other reasons. If it was at all possible to guarantee his safety, then he should have been escorted to and from the site for his visit. If he is in earnest, then his gesture of respect should not have been spurned. If he wanted instead to turn it into a three-ringed circus, then he should have had that opportunity as well -- as well as the opportunity to be censured by the international community for such a hypothetical display.

Reminds me of when we denied Cuban doctors after Katrina.

Israel and Iran just worked together in Thailand.

I must have missed that. What happened?

As to the topic, what could it hurt, letting him lay a wreath?

Also, have you seen the article about Romney's reaction? I can't find it just now, but it was unbelievably stupid.

Well, I guess you can't ask people to stop construction just because he wants to stroll around and be photographed by the media. It's bad enough when Bush does it.

If he's okay with staying outside the construction site, I don't see why not. It would require a lot of security and stuff, but that could probably be arranged (unless he needs half of Manhattan shut down, which would be overkill).

But then they didn't return the phone calls, so maybe this was just a stunt to make it look like the White House puts politics above remembering the victims...which according to their own response, they apparently do.

The US government are afraid of what the Iranian President will say, because it's the truth, their terrified of him addressing the UN and telling the truth of US hegemony and imperialism, because all members know it's the truth yet won't speak out.

He's going to address the UN anyway, and he will say what he wants to say anyway, so I honestly don't see your point.

He's not been told he can't come to NY. He's been told he can't go to the World Trade Center site. Stupid, yes, but hardly gagging him.

He's not been told he can't come to NY.

Romney would like to have him banned from the UN and arrested if he enters the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070917/wl_mideast_afp/usvote2008iranun_070917173239

I think it's got a lot to do with the city of New York trying to avoid an international incident. Who knows what could happen if Ahmadinejad were to be killed while in a construction zone. :eek:

Romney would like to have him banned from the UN and arrested if he enters the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070917/wl_mideast_afp/usvote2008iranun_070917173239

Yes well he's going for his party's Presidential nomination, I would be surprised if he didn't say something like this to pander the far-right nutjobs, McCain has made an art of courting the neocons.

By denying him, we only fuel more anti-Americanism in Iran.

We are always looking for alternative fuel sources.

Romney would like to have him banned from the UN and arrested if he enters the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070917/wl_mideast_afp/usvote2008iranun_070917173239

And here I thought his wanting to double Guantanamo would be the stupidest thing I've heard from him. But he proved me wrong.

The last thing I want is another terrorist or terrorist support down there...

That is horrible. It seems like he was trying to offer sympathy and maybe even the start of a more friendly relationship...one where war isn't on the table...

Its a damned shame.

AAbout Romney:
Wouldn't Ahm(can't spell the rest) have diplomatic immunity, though?

The last thing I want is another terrorist or terrorist support down there...

Denying him access isn't exactly going to help our cause making friends in the Middle East. Rather insulting really.

Romney would like to have him banned from the UN and arrested if he enters the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070917/wl_mideast_afp/usvote2008iranun_070917173239

And I would like a salary for teachers of a cool million. Doesn't mean I'm going to get it.

He's the president of a UN member state. He has every right to be at the UN no matter what some presidential candidate thinks. There is no precedent for denying a visa to a world leader who wishes to attend the UN. He's been here before (last year, as a matter of fact), and as stated, he's not been told he cannot come to New York and speak at the UN.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5grVHa0ROcaG__RPe5bz8oLinALWg

He has every right to be at the UN no matter what some presidential candidate thinks.

Can you show me where I said otherwise?

Can you show me where I said otherwise?

You never did, he or she was referring to Romney's statement.

Not entirely. He isn't the most favorite person in the Middle East. Non-Muslims are not permitted entry into Mecca so why should we allow someone who supports terrorism entry to a place that was ravaged by terrorism?

Non Muslims aren't permitted into Mecca???????

Can you show me where I said otherwise?

Can you show me where I said you said otherwise?

You never did, he or she was referring to Romney's statement.

Indeed.

Denying him access isn't exactly going to help our cause making friends in the Middle East. Rather insulting really.

Not entirely. He isn't the most favorite person in the Middle East. Non-Muslims are not permitted entry into Mecca so why should we allow someone who supports terrorism entry to a place that was ravaged by terrorism?

Can you show me where I said you said otherwise?

Right. Apologies.

The US government are afraid of what the Iranian President will say, because it's the truth, their terrified of him addressing the UN and telling the truth of US hegemony and imperialism, because all members know it's the truth yet won't speak out.

Bah, for a moment I thought you were going to say that he was going to tell the HORRIBLE TRUTH ABOUT HOW THE US DID 9/11!
Turns out its the regular boring stuff. You should study TRA/MKULTRA's posts. HE was a good crazy guy.

The last thing I want is another terrorist or terrorist support down there...
Like Bush?

Indeed.

YES!!!!! A mod recognized that I exist!




Anyways, he hasn't been esplicitly denied (that is, except by Romney, but who cares about him). He can just come to the gate like all normal tourists (including me) do. I mean, and I know this because I have family in construction, It isn;t really smary to bring a world leader to the construction site of a skyscraper.

I think this might be my last post for the night

Romney would like to have him banned from the UN and arrested if he enters the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070917/wl_mideast_afp/usvote2008iranun_070917173239

Stupid Mormons. I think the middle "m" in that word is a typo.

Non Muslims aren't permitted into Mecca???????

https://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=327779
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/places/mecca.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55884
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010608.html

Sorry to rain on the parade, but Iran is a shia state, and Al qaeda is a Sunni group, somehow I doubt they would cooperate.

Well, I guess you can't ask people to stop construction just because he wants to stroll around and be photographed by the media. It's bad enough when Bush does it.

If he's okay with staying outside the construction site, I don't see why not. It would require a lot of security and stuff, but that could probably be arranged (unless he needs half of Manhattan shut down, which would be overkill).

But then they didn't return the phone calls, so maybe this was just a stunt to make it look like the White House puts politics above remembering the victims...which according to their own response, they apparently do.

What construction are you talking about?

Not entirely. He isn't the most favorite person in the Middle East. Non-Muslims are not permitted entry into Mecca so why should we allow someone who supports terrorism entry to a place that was ravaged by terrorism?

And we haven't supported just as many, if not more, terrorist groups?

What construction are you talking about?
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/freedom_tower_26204.aspx

Like Bush?

Lucky for us he doesn't come down very often though I personally don't classify him as a terrorist...just a really bad guy.

What construction are you talking about?



And we haven't supported just as many, if not more, terrorist groups?

Over the years we've support a lot of bad guys we sure have and I'm not inviting them down here am I?

Sorry to rain on the parade, but Iran is a shia state, and Al qaeda is a Sunni group, somehow I doubt they would cooperate.

Thank god some one figured that out

This is seriously my last one

Thank god some one figured that out

This is seriously my last one

Well the regular Sunnis and Shias don't hate each other, just the crazy ones.

Well the regular Sunnis and Shias don't hate each other, just the crazy ones.

Precisely a lot of people forget that and the crazy ones are the crazy ones, it doesn't matter what or who they are...Ahmadinejad is definitely a crazy one.

Precisely a lot of people forget that and the crazy ones are the crazy ones, it doesn't matter what or who they are...Ahmadinejad is definitely a crazy one.

I don't think he hates all Sunnis, but he certainly would be against a group like Al-Qaeda(which is certainly against Shias).

I don't think he hates all Sunnis, but he certainly would be against a group like Al-Qaeda(which is certainly against Shias).

Neither do I think he's full blown crazy (yet, who knows we'll see as time goes on and he absorbs more radiation). If he were to dismantle the Qods Force and cease the funding for Hamas and Hezbollah then it'd be different but as long as he's up there, pushing funds to organizations that, if they had a nuke would use it, and in NYC too if they got the chance, then he shouldn't be allowed down at Ground Zero (amongst other reasons). I'm not saying he shouldn't go to the UN, that is his right as President of the country and that sovereignty must be respected, no matter how distasteful the person is...

Neither do I think he's full blown crazy (yet, who knows we'll see as time goes on and he absorbs more radiation). If he were to dismantle the Qods Force and cease the funding for Hamas and Hezbollah then it'd be different but as long as he's up there, pushing funds to organizations that, if they had a nuke would use it, and in NYC too if they got the chance, then he shouldn't be allowed down at Ground Zero (amongst other reasons). I'm not saying he shouldn't go to the UN, that is his right as President of the country and that sovereignty must be respected, no matter how distasteful the person is...

If you seek to discuss issues such as Iran using a nuclear weapon, or it funding supposed "terrorist" groups, then I suggest you go to the other thread which is already devoted to these sort of topics.

As for being allowed to Ground Zero, I think he should be allowed to visit any part that any regular person can see, it's only fair. And I do agree that he should be allowed to go to the UN, Romney disappoints yet again.

I have not yet forgiven them for the hostage taking.

Let him in. But then have a sniper take him out. The world will be a lot better off without him.

Or shoot down the plane carrying him. No mercy and no rules of war apply to terrorists.

Let him in. But then have a sniper take him out. The world will be a lot better off without him.

Or shoot down the plane carrying him. No mercy and no rules of war apply to terrorists.

Wow, you want to kill a foreign head of state with diplomatic immunity. Your more entertaining than a jester, please, do another trick.

The US government are afraid of what the Iranian President will say, because it's the truth, their terrified of him addressing the UN and telling the truth of US hegemony and imperialism, because all members know it's the truth yet won't speak out.

American imperialism?

Are you trying to say America is trying to annex Iraq as a 51st state?

Are you trying to say America is trying to annex Iraq as a 51st state?
They will be a little more subtle than that, they'll ensure through economic means that it serves their purposes and interest, as they do with many countries.

I don't trust Ahmadinejad to speak at Ground Zero and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed...anymore than I trust Bush to speak in Tehran and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed.

Both nations elected idiots for leaders...idiots are not always welcome.

The US government are afraid of what the Iranian President will say, because it's the truth, their terrified of him addressing the UN and telling the truth of US hegemony and imperialism, because all members know it's the truth yet won't speak out.

You're ignorance and idiocy never cease to amaze me..


I don't trust Ahmadinejad to speak at Ground Zero and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed...anymore than I trust Bush to speak in Tehran and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed.


I agree

There are three good reason why they should let him set foot on US soil.

1. We can arrest him for the 1970 Embassy Hostage crisis.

2. We can arrest him for supporting Hamas.

3. He supports Genocide of a race (Jew), and the UN should step in then because they are sussposely against Genocide.

4. Have the members of the NYFD, and NYPD meet him at Manhattan Park at 3am to have a few 'words' with him.

5. Hey, never know when they'll be another Oswald with a sniper rifle waiting for him.

Again, you Americans are afraid he'll tell you the truth, and the truth is you brought 9/11 on yourselves, more than you deserved it, and you deserve another you for US imperialism, 10x 9/11 wouldn't cover adequate retribution to the US.

This was very clearly a deliberate move by Ahmedinejad to try to make the Americans look like unreasonable, war mongering, bastards- and by contrast make him look to be the friendly victim of US agression who 'only wants peace'.

Given that, the US played right into his game. It was actually a brilliant move on Ahmedinejad's part. Either they let him and tensions are released, granting a legitimising effect on his administration, or the disallow him making him look like a peaceful victim of the big bully USA also legitimising him somewhat but more so tarnishing the US. Brilliant. Hats off.

I don't trust Ahmadinejad to speak at Ground Zero and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed...anymore than I trust Bush to speak in Tehran and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed.

Both nations elected idiots for leaders...idiots are not always welcome.

I'd also have to agree.

Again, you Americans are afraid he'll tell you the truth, and the truth is you brought 9/11 on yourselves, more than you deserved it, and you deserve another you for US imperialism, 10x 9/11 wouldn't cover adequate retribution to the US.

Um, many prominent figures have already told the USA that it's all their fault for being attacked on 9/11. Is Ahmadinejad now a credible source of information to the West and the American people? I don't see how him saying that the USA deserved 9/11 (even if in your Bizarro universe it were true) would have any more effect than bin Laden's crazy videos about similar topics.

Hell, you've already made this point several times, and even you arguably have more credibility than Ahmadinejad.

Hell, you've already made this point several times, and even you arguably have more credibility than Ahmadinejad.Err... In terms of credibility, it goes Daffy Duck > Ahmadinejihad > Ann Coulter > The Teletubbies > Andaras Prime.

This has been scientifically proven, and cannot be plausibly denied.

Again, you Americans are afraid he'll tell you the truth, and the truth is you brought 9/11 on yourselves, more than you deserved it, and you deserve another you for US imperialism, 10x 9/11 wouldn't cover adequate retribution to the US.

By that logic, the U.S. should have dropped a couple more A-bombs on Japan...

...they did deserve it, didn't they?

1. We can arrest him for the 1970 Embassy Hostage crisis.


Did he actually have a part in that? The last time an article came out accusing that, all they had was a picture and much yelling "See? They both have beards! They must be the same guy!"


2. We can arrest him for supporting Hamas.


Let me know when US presidents go to jail for supporting terrorist groups. It's not a crime when they do it eh?


3. He supports Genocide of a race (Jew), and the UN should step in then because they are sussposely against Genocide.


Big deal. He hasn't taken any actions to start a genocide yet. Fred Phelps is still running around outside of jail regardless of his "Kill! Burn!" stance.


4. Have the members of the NYFD, and NYPD meet him at Manhattan Park at 3am to have a few 'words' with him.

So you support illegal police brutality? I'll keep that in mind the next time riots are broken up and people tasered.


5. Hey, never know when they'll be another Oswald with a sniper rifle waiting for him.

Yes, yes. Because killing heads of state for their views (actions is a different story), is all the rage these days.

I don't much like Ahmadinejad. I think he's a fruitcake. But being a fruitcake is hardly justification for murder and abuse. Pranks, maybe a wedgie or two. Not murder.

By that logic, the U.S. should have dropped a couple more A-bombs on Japan...

...they did deserve it, didn't they?nonononono.

You forgot the most basic premise of the anti-american:

Everything the United States do is evil.

And the second premise, of course:

Everything the enemies of the United States do is good.

Hence, why airlifting food into Berlin was an imperialist plot to subjugate the European proletariat, while the Cambodian killing fields were necessary to destroy the poisoning influence of the agents the western bourgeoisie had planted there.

I apologise for the leftish touch of the above. Anti-americanism is, of course, not restricted to the left. The (Non-american) right does, after all, use exactly the same phrases. But in this particular case, it seemed appropriate, given AP's tendencies.

Let him lay the wreath; let him sow the seeds of his own destiny. If he's going to say something asinine, let him say it. It'll be his own ultimate undoing.

By denying him, the US is giving him credit. If they let him speak and set his fate in stone. He can do more damage to his credibility by speaking than the US can by censoring him.

nonononono.

You forgot the most basic premise of the anti-american:

Everything the United States do is evil.

And the second premise, of course:

Everything the enemies of the United States do is good.

Hence, why airlifting food into Berlin was an imperialist plot to subjugate the European proletariat, while the Cambodian killing fields were necessary to destroy the poisoning influence of the agents the western bourgeoisie had planted there.

I apologise for the leftish touch of the above. Anti-americanism is, of course, not restricted to the left. The (Non-american) right does, after all, use exactly the same phrases. But in this particular case, it seemed appropriate, given AP's tendencies.

Well what "we" the US should do is go back to a pre-ww2 isolationism...lets just cut off all foreign aid to other countries..and instead of sending in our people through the UN to go to places to keep the peace lets just sit back and make money off them and let them kill each other... like we did with the Brits before we joined their side in ww2....then ignorant people like AP will run out of stuff to bitch and whine about..

I don't much like Ahmadinejad. I think he's a fruitcake.

Actually, I don't think he is. It's a part he plays. Much as George Bush plays the part of the simple country bumpkin, Ahmadinejad plays the part of the fiery anti-Western radical, and for very similar reasons Things that appear to us as crazy radicalism are carefully thought out political maneuvers, much like Bush's "cowboy" moments. In 2004 Americans elected Bush largely because they were scared of terrorism and saw him as being the one better suited to protect them. The "cowboy" image helped a lot with that. In 2005 the Iranians elected Ahmadinejad because they were scared of the United States and saw him as being the one better suited to protect them. Taking the "fiery anti-Western radical" approach certainly helped against the more moderate Rafsanjani, at a time when the US seemed to be encircling Iran. Ahmadinejad is a consummate politician, as this particular incident shows.

Actually, I don't think he is. It's a part he plays. Much as George Bush plays the part of the simple country bumpkin, Ahmadinejad plays the part of the fiery anti-Western radical, and for very similar reasons Things that appear to us as crazy radicalism are carefully thought out political maneuvers, much like Bush's "cowboy" moments. In 2004 Americans elected Bush largely because they were scared of terrorism and saw him as being the one better suited to protect them. The "cowboy" image helped a lot with that. In 2005 the Iranians elected Ahmadinejad because they were scared of the United States and saw him as being the one better suited to protect them. Taking the "fiery anti-Western radical" approach certainly helped against the more moderate Rafsanjani, at a time when the US seemed to be encircling Iran. Ahmadinejad is a consummate politician, as this particular incident shows.

Finally someone who knows the truth and doesn't think all Muslims are mindless fanatical drones or something...

Finally someone who knows the truth and doesn't think all Muslims are mindless fanatical drones or something...

Most people don't think that way...what surprises me is that you obviously don't want people to think that way about muslims and yet you advocate blowing up bombs in the middle of a market place killing your own people as "freedom fighting"...so shall I add hypocrisy to your list as well? on top of ignorance and plain idiocy

I don't trust Ahmadinejad to speak at Ground Zero and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed...anymore than I trust Bush to speak in Tehran and not say something stupidly insensitive that will get himself killed.I am a supporter of the Death penalty,

So I do think Bush or Ahmedjihad could be killed for they things they do (IF they do something deserving of death penalty)

But I do NOT think people should kill you for what you think.. or for what you say.

If some country has people willing to kill you for what you think.. or to kill you for what you say.. I think you should avoid visiting such retarded Countries.

Some people here were saying Ahmedjihad should have avoided to go see the Iranian team play at Germany.. and I am on the record as saying he is a pussy.

A president job has some perks and.. has some risks included.

There are three good reason why they should let him set foot on US soil.

1. We can arrest him for the 1970 Embassy Hostage crisis.

2. We can arrest him for supporting Hamas.

3. He supports Genocide of a race (Jew), and the UN should step in then because they are sussposely against Genocide.

4. Have the members of the NYFD, and NYPD meet him at Manhattan Park at 3am to have a few 'words' with him.

5. Hey, never know when they'll be another Oswald with a sniper rifle waiting for him.

Yes, because we can ignore the rule of law because we don't like him. :rolleyes:

Again, you Americans are afraid he'll tell you the truth, and the truth is you brought 9/11 on yourselves, more than you deserved it, and you deserve another you for US imperialism, 10x 9/11 wouldn't cover adequate retribution to the US.

Right. Because crashing planes full of tourists into towers that contained foreign nationals working here really was well deserved.

What a hateful and idiotic thing for you to say. And a lie as well, because as said previously: he WILL be at the UN, and he WILL say exactly what he's come to say.

Again, you Americans are afraid he'll tell you the truth, and the truth is you brought 9/11 on yourselves, more than you deserved it, and you deserve another you for US imperialism, 10x 9/11 wouldn't cover adequate retribution to the US.

You can GDIARCF for all I care.

Really.

As for this wreath incident, that was a really shallow and dick move that whatever moronic US official denied him the right to lay a wreath.

Just because the silly little man in the tan jacket has a twisted view on things doesn't make him a stupid or unreasonable, and I think most Americans fail to recognize this.

The US government are afraid of what the Iranian President will say, because it's the truth, their terrified of him addressing the UN and telling the truth of US hegemony and imperialism, because all members know it's the truth yet won't speak out.

Gee thanks for the Anti Americanism..yeah we ain't perfect...get off my internet!!! We created it! And give us back our peanut butter too...

Well what "we" the US should do is go back to a pre-ww2 isolationism...lets just cut off all foreign aid to other countries..and instead of sending in our people through the UN to go to places to keep the peace lets just sit back and make money off them and let them kill each other... like we did with the Brits before we joined their side in ww2....then ignorant people like AP will run out of stuff to bitch and whine about..

I second

They will be a little more subtle than that, they'll ensure through economic means that it serves their purposes and interest, as they do with many countries.

So we should be attacked because we are better at economics than the middle east. Hate to break it to ya it isn't my fault that the Islamic world doesn't condone loans. Maybe if they did they could get something going. And if you want to hate by economic ability...hate china they own the US...

They do use loans all the time. It is not how you and I have them but they do have them. Most loans that I know of are owner carry contracts for property and what I would call the Arabic version of check cashing loan sharks. The reason why most of their countries are F'd up is because of the government corruption.

Nahh didn't you read the past posts...it is because the US is keeping them down.

So we should be attacked because we are better at economics than the middle east. Hate to break it to ya it isn't my fault that the Islamic world doesn't condone loans. Maybe if they did they could get something going. And if you want to hate by economic ability...hate china they own the US...

They do use loans all the time. It is not how you and I have them but they do have them. Most loans that I know of are owner carry contracts for property and what I would call the Arabic version of check cashing loan sharks. The reason why most of their countries are F'd up is because of the government corruption.

Again, you Americans are afraid he'll tell you the truth, and the truth is you brought 9/11 on yourselves, more than you deserved it, and you deserve another you for US imperialism, 10x 9/11 wouldn't cover adequate retribution to the US.

I missed where you were going to leave your home address for the next 9-11 party. What was the address again?

Nahh didn't you read the past posts...it is because the US is keeping them down.

Oh yes it has nothing to do with personal responsibility. ;)

Again, you Americans are afraid he'll tell you the truth, and the truth is you brought 9/11 on yourselves, more than you deserved it, and you deserve another you for US imperialism, 10x 9/11 wouldn't cover adequate retribution to the US.

Yeah, like we deserved to have terrorists crash into the Twin Towers and have thousands killed and most of what our country stand for be tested. Why would we deserve something like that, it was before the rants on Us imperalism (which by the way, we never believed in or we are using it)?

Just let him lay down the stupid wreath, but then again, its just going to be another get-on-the-public's-good-side-sort of thing. He has even gone onto public TV interviews with American reporters, and he has oooed and awwed 45% of the population after the interviews. He's skilled in diplomacy, and for somewhat unknown reasons, knows quite alot about our country and how our government and media work.

nonononono.

You forgot the most basic premise of the anti-american:

Everything the United States do is evil.

And the second premise, of course:

Everything the enemies of the United States do is good.

Hence, why airlifting food into Berlin was an imperialist plot to subjugate the European proletariat, while the Cambodian killing fields were necessary to destroy the poisoning influence of the agents the western bourgeoisie had planted there.

I apologise for the leftish touch of the above. Anti-americanism is, of course, not restricted to the left. The (Non-american) right does, after all, use exactly the same phrases. But in this particular case, it seemed appropriate, given AP's tendencies.

That's some good spin right there. ;)

Well what "we" the US should do is go back to a pre-ww2 isolationism...lets just cut off all foreign aid to other countries..and instead of sending in our people through the UN to go to places to keep the peace lets just sit back and make money off them and let them kill each other... like we did with the Brits before we joined their side in ww2....then ignorant people like AP will run out of stuff to bitch and whine about..

Works for me.

I am a supporter of the Death penalty,

So I do think Bush or Ahmedjihad could be killed for they things they do (IF they do something deserving of death penalty)

But I do NOT think people should kill you for what you think... or for what you say.

If some country has people willing to kill you for what you think.. or to kill you for what you say.. I think you should avoid visiting such retarded Countries.

Some people here were saying Ahmedjihad should have avoided to go see the Iranian team play at Germany.. and I am on the record as saying he is a pussy.

A president job has some perks and.. has some risks included.

I agree completely...but there are stupid people everywhere, and these two dunce-cap wearing "leaders" are just dumb enough to say the wrong thing and get lynched by the previously mentioned stupid people.

Finally someone who knows the truth and doesn't think all Muslims are mindless fanatical drones or something...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo]

I also note that you've yet to address my point regarding the atomic bombings of Japan...unless you'd simply prefer to just let your hypocrisy stand for itself.

But don't forget, we're muzzling Ahmedinejad because we won't let him go to a live construction site and because he's not going to be escorted to and from Ground Zero by police and Port Authority police. Nope, instead he's been asked to go speak at Columbia University in addition to speaking before the UN, because we don't want our young people to hear the truth.

And unlike in SOME places, Columbia WON'T be taken over and run by the government because the views expressed there run counter to kissing up to the president. Nor will radio licenses be revoked or not renewed.

I wonder whether his intention was to honour civilians who died in a terrorist action, or the kamikazes... His action would had had a split meaning. The request was too weird.

I wonder whether his intention was to honour civilians who died in a terrorist action, or the kamikazes... His action would had had a split meaning. The request was too weird.

I still believe that as a foreign head of state, he should have been given the opportunity to visit and lay his wreath -- and say whatever he meant to say there.

The US government are afraid of what the Iranian President will say, because it's the truth, their terrified of him addressing the UN and telling the truth of US hegemony and imperialism, because all members know it's the truth yet won't speak out.

Schatzlein, he is going to address the UN. He's not being permitted to lay the wreath by the NYPD.

I still believe that as a foreign head of state, he should have been given the opportunity to visit and lay his wreath -- and say whatever he meant to say there.

Yes and then if it was to praise the terrorist's dieing we stone him to death the way they do in Iran...or just drop him off in Brooklyn...at oh say 11:30 at night

Need I remind you all that this guy actively supports the people who blow things up(i.e. terrorists).
So he wants to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.
Did it occur to you that he wanted to lay a wreath not for the 3000+ people those scumbag cowards killed but for the "brave" martyrs that struck a blow against the Great Satan.
As far as him speaking at Columbia.What the hell is wrong with those people?
Denying people that support America but allowing some scumbag dictator that is avowedly Anti-American like Chavez or Amidididingdong or however you spell his name to speak freely.

As far as him speaking at the UN.Not much we can do there.Other than move the UN to European soil.

This jackass shouldn't even be allowed ON US soil.

This guy and his kind don't want peace,they want an entirely Islamic fascist world without countries like the US or United Kingdom bothering them.

... we won't let him go to a live construction site and because he's not going to be escorted to and from Ground Zero by police and Port Authority police. Well, I guess you can't ask people to stop construction just because he wants to stroll around and be photographed by the media.
I dont buy that..

most of the World wont buy that either.
probably most of US wont either.

Yes and then if it was to praise the terrorist's dieing we stone him to death the way they do in Iran...or just drop him off in Brooklyn...at oh say 11:30 at night

So much for your constitutional rights eh? If he wants to be an ass, let him. It's not a killable offense. Because if it is, NSG is going to have a lot of former trolls, now corpses.

So much for your constitutional rights eh? If he wants to be an ass, let him. It's not a killable offense. Because if it is, NSG is going to have a lot of former trolls, now corpses.

I wasn't being serious its called sarcasm...jesus you people need to lighten up...get out some...or something

You know, I'm fine with him laying the wreath, but I can see why other people wouldn't want him to -- he doesn't mean it. He's trying to ingratiate himself with God knows who, probably in the hope that they'll let him do whatever he wants to. Let him lay the wreath, but don't take what he's saying at face value.

Non-Muslims are not permitted entry into Mecca so why should we allow someone who supports terrorism entry to a place that was ravaged by terrorism?what?? :confused:

The WTC is the now the Mecca of US Christianity?

what?? :confused:

The WTC is the now the Mecca of US Christianity?

I think that's not what LT meant, rather it was just metaphor abuse.

what?? :confused:

The WTC is the now the Mecca of US Christianity?

Hahahahaha thats a good one

I think that's not what LT meant, rather it was just metaphor abuse.a metaphor?

the only logic analogy form his 'metaphor' is: "The Islamists dont allow us into their sanctuary.. lets ban them from our sanctuary too".




and when I say analogy, I am not even using all the punch his statement calls for.

That is horrible. It seems like he was trying to offer sympathy and maybe even the start of a more friendly relationship...one where war isn't on the table...

Its a damned shame.

I found it funny, however, that there were Americans claiming that Iran was behind Sept 11 - are Americans really that stupid as to ignore that their biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, is the funder of radical islam, anti-americanism around the globe?

I found it funny, however, that there were Americans claiming that Iran was behind Sept 11 - are Americans really that stupid as to ignore that their biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, is the funder of radical islam, anti-americanism around the globe?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, I believe it goes...

I found it funny, however, that there were Americans claiming that Iran was behind Sept 11 - are Americans really that stupid as to ignore that their biggest ally, Saudi Arabia, is the funder of radical islam, anti-americanism around the globe?

:rolleyes: Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, I believe it goes...

But when the hand that feeds also bites, one has to do something about it.

That is horrible. It seems like he was trying to offer sympathy and maybe even the start of a more friendly relationship...one where war isn't on the table...

Its a damned shame.

This position is a farse... its equaitable to allowing the Sudanese President visit a hollocaust museum to pay his respects to all those jews killed in WW2 (while at home he kills his own people in a similar manner).

How would we allow a Preisdent who supports terrorist groups throughout the globe come the US and lay a wreath on the site of the largest terrorist attack against this country would be insulting, and hypocritical!

This position is a farse... its equaitable to allowing the Sudanese President visit a hollocaust museum to pay his respects to all those jews killed in WW2 (while at home he kills his own people in a similar manner).

Or condemning a terrorist attack while rigorously supporting the regime said terrorist came from and then blaming someone else for it.


How would we allow a Preisdent who supports terrorist groups throughout the globe come the US and lay a wreath on the site of the largest terrorist attack against this country would be insulting, and hypocritical!

Easy. American politicians and leaders, and through the osmosis process of propaganda, the American public, have long been the on the cutting edge of next generation hypocrisy.

Liberty and political rights for all! Except dark skinned people. Those are subhuman and should be in chains. Oh, and no votes for women either. (Was changed, but present at the foundation)

Democracy is the best! Except for various countries which don't support America 100%. Then America topples them and put dictators in place.

America opposes chemical weapons use! But they'll ship it by the ton for use in proxy wars in the Middle East.

America opposes terrorists! But they'll equip and fund them if they say they won't fight America. Scouts honor!

America's no better at the international political circus than any other major power player. Never has been, never will.

Or condemning a terrorist attack while rigorously supporting the regime said terrorist came from and then blaming someone else for it.

I don't recall ever seeing intellegence indicating the regime played a direct role in the funding, organization, or execution of that said terrorist attack. Do you have links for that ?


Easy. American politicians and leaders, and through the osmosis process of propaganda, the American public, have long been the on the cutting edge of next generation hypocrisy.

Liberty and political rights for all! Except dark skinned people. Those are subhuman and should be in chains. Oh, and no votes for women either. (Was changed, but present at the foundation)

Democracy is the best! Except for various countries which don't support America 100%. Then America topples them and put dictators in place.

America opposes chemical weapons use! But they'll ship it by the ton for use in proxy wars in the Middle East.

America opposes terrorists! But they'll equip and fund them if they say they won't fight America. Scouts honor!

America's no better at the international political circus than any other major power player. Never has been, never will.

2 things...

1. Democracy takes decades to develop, no one has disputed this. To attain the system where by everyone has equal rights (as we generally have today) we had to work through the old systems which were already in place. (slavery/opression of women did not come about because of democracy).

2. If we know the game so well, we should not sit back and claim to deny him an "olive branch" when we all know its a PR stunt whose sentiments are hollow (same as Chavez's offer to sell cheap oil to imporverished areas in the US).

I don't recall ever seeing intellegence indicating the regime played a direct role in the funding, organization, or execution of that said terrorist attack. Do you have links for that ?


There wasn't any proof indicating the guilt of the accused country either. Didn't change the fact that it was touted as a reason for bombing it to pieces now was it?


1. Democracy takes decades to develop, no one has disputed this. To attain the system where by everyone has equal rights (as we generally have today) we had to work through the old systems which were already in place. (slavery/opression of women did not come about because of democracy).


It does nothing to change the fact that when its very constitution was drawn up, it was just so much hypocrisy. Now if it had limited its statement to just "White American Males", rather than "the common man", it wouldn't have been hypocritical. And let's not forget how Chinese immigrants were treated when they started moving in to build the railroads. They certainly didn't get much in the way of rights until the 20th century.

300+ years of hypocrisy, and still counting.


2. If we know the game so well, we should not sit back and claim to deny him an "olive branch" when we all know its a PR stunt whose sentiments are hollow (same as Chavez's offer to sell cheap oil to imporverished areas in the US).

It's politics my dear dummy. You don't really think Capitol Hill is lacking in hypocrisy do you? Or that there was just one flavor of it?

Politics is hypocrisy refined so as to be palatable to the masses that we are. Some pander to the rabid war mongers. Others pander to the more dovish crowd. But in the end, it's all about looking good to your supporters.

Now if there really was a lack of hypocrisy, they would simply have said "Do what you want, we don't care, but we can certainly hurt you if you do anything funny."

But you don't see that now do you?

I don't recall ever seeing intellegence indicating the regime played a direct role in the funding, organization, or execution of that said terrorist attack. Do you have links for that ?There was no proof of funding, organization, or execution against either Iraq or Afghanistan Governments either.

It was all allegations.
Unless you want to bomb any Country where any "terrorists" are staying.
In that case you would have to bomb several Countries in Europe including Russia and... US.

There wasn't any proof indicating the guilt of the accused country either. Didn't change the fact that it was touted as a reason for bombing it to pieces now was it?


I am not going to delve into a debate about what intellegence existed concerning Afganistan, or Iraq for that matter (as there was intelelgence, only the quality of that intellegence can be questioned). These issues your making have almost no relation to the position that there are very good reasons why we can and should deny Ahmadinejad's request to visit ground zero.

It does nothing to change the fact that when its very constitution was drawn up, it was just so much hypocrisy. Now if it had limited its statement to just "White American Males", rather than "the common man", it wouldn't have been hypocritical. And let's not forget how Chinese immigrants were treated when they started moving in to build the railroads. They certainly didn't get much in the way of rights until the 20th century.

300+ years of hypocrisy, and still counting.


It is merely the perspective you choose to hold when viewing these circumstances that allow you to see hypocrisy. You say it was hypocritical to suggest "the common man" had rights, when clearly society did not reflect this. However, as I see it, the founding fathers were taking into account the realities of society and were masterfully preparing for its eventual evolution. By having the wording the constitution vague, it allowed for the document to be flexible enough to survive our own societal growth. Had the constitution stated only "white American males have rights", that may have been for the times more descriptive of the society, but then the document itself would have become irrelevant once society was able to include all men (and eventually all women). The nation then would have had to endure another period where the supreme law of the land (the constitution itself) would have to be redrawn to meet the new society it would encompass.

But all of this is perfectly reflective of how democracy indeed takes decades to develop. I don’t feel in anyway the United States expects the democracy it brings to suddenly spring from its roots US clones. Instead, they are seemingly planting seeds and basic institutions to regions that have no prior exposure to these tools.

No democracy has ever been built without war, revolution, and civil upheaval (except arguably for Britain)... but the ultimate reward of those movements yields some of the greatest nations today!


It's politics my dear dummy. You don't really think Capitol Hill is lacking in hypocrisy do you? Or that there was just one flavor of it?

Politics is hypocrisy refined so as to be palatable to the masses that we are. Some pander to the rabid war mongers. Others pander to the more dovish crowd. But in the end, it's all about looking good to your supporters.

Now if there really was a lack of hypocrisy, they would simply have said "Do what you want, we don't care, but we can certainly hurt you if you do anything funny."

But you don't see that now do you?

And I never suggested capital hill our government, or any government doesn't partake in its own form of hypocrisy.... had you actually understood my position.

In fact I stated, since we know the game that is being played, there is no reason to further facilitate their goals (by allowing him to visit the site)!

No, this is not about the holocaust or any of that. The Iranian president was denied clearance to place a wreath at the WTC site. What a shame this government is, not even showing any hope for peace. Israel and Iran just worked together in Thailand. Let the bastard lay a wreath!

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_re_us/ahmadinejad_ground_zero)

Meh, they probably should have but he'd probably say something that alluded to the government engineering the attack.

There was no proof of funding, organization, or execution against either Iraq or Afghanistan Governments either.

It was all allegations.
Unless you want to bomb any Country where any "terrorists" are staying.
In that case you would have to bomb several Countries in Europe including Russia and... US.

Not so, The afghanistan government was definitly holding a terroist named Osama Bin Laden. There is clear evidence that he helped engineer the 1993 bombings of the world trade center.

Not so, The afghanistan government was definitly holding a terroist named Osama Bin Laden. There is clear evidence that he helped engineer the 1993 bombings of the world trade center.

true or not... your off point, this is in no way related to the topic of "should ahmadinejad be allowed to visit ground zero"!

I am not going to delve into a debate about what intellegence existed concerning Afganistan, or Iraq for that matter (as there was intelelgence, only the quality of that intellegence can be questioned). These issues your making have almost no relation to the position that there are very good reasons why we can and should deny Ahmadinejad's request to visit ground zero.

There aren't any good reasons, beyond making one's self look like an ass. Even from a political standpoint, doing this sort of thing, and then demanding he be arrested, only makes one look like an immature, law ignorant bully.


It is merely the perspective you choose to hold when viewing these circumstances that allow you to see hypocrisy. You say it was hypocritical to suggest "the common man" had rights, when clearly society did not reflect this. However, as I see it, the founding fathers were taking into account the realities of society and were masterfully preparing for its eventual evolution.


The founding fathers were also slave owners. Hardly the sort of people who can be relied on to advance the cause of universal human rights.


By having the wording the constitution vague, it allowed for the document to be flexible enough to survive our own societal growth. Had the constitution stated only "white American males have rights", that may have been for the times more descriptive of the society, but then the document itself would have become irrelevant once society was able to include all men (and eventually all women). The nation then would have had to endure another period where the supreme law of the land (the constitution itself) would have to be redrawn to meet the new society it would encompass.

You're putting a lot of supposition to the mentality of slave owners. Let's not forget that such mentality applied well past the 2nd civil war and didn't really go away until 50 years ago.


But all of this is perfectly reflective of how democracy indeed takes decades to develop. I don’t feel in anyway the United States expects the democracy it brings to suddenly spring from its roots US clones. Instead, they are seemingly planting seeds and basic institutions to regions that have no prior exposure to these tools.

Oh now that's hypocritical and you know it. The only real democracies the US installed were in Japan and Germany. Everything it put up after that was as democratic as the Shah of Iran.


No democracy has ever been built without war, revolution, and civil upheaval (except arguably for Britain)... but the ultimate reward of those movements yields some of the greatest nations today!

Democracy is built by the people who want them. It is not given at the barrel of a gun.


In fact I stated, since we know the game that is being played, there is no reason to further facilitate their goals (by allowing him to visit the site)!

If their goals were to make the US look like an ignorant bully, then they've played right into their hands. Your advocated courses of actions are exactly the same.