Ahmadinejad Will Not Push to Visit Ground Zero

[LiddyRules]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is planning to take a trip to NY and was originally planning to visit Ground Zero. He was denied the chance.

http://drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/20/world/main3282796.shtml

Setting a poll to see what people think

[jetdog]

I voted no, but I want to change my vote, because as I was typing my reasoning for voting no, I realized I disagree with myself.

[underdog]

I'm always confused as to why people who hate our country come here.

[BoondockSaint]

I'm always confused as to why people who hate our country come here.

I think he's here for the UN.

[LiddyRules]

I think he's here for the UN. Those cowards who refuse to just listen and accept everything America says and does.

I voted for 'yes,' he should visit.

[underdog]

I think he's here for the UN.

Why? Doesn't he routinely just not listen to the UN or care about them? Hasn't he stopped inspectors from going into his country before?

[Dougie Brootal]

why not? i think its a gensture of respect. especially at this tense time in our relationship with iran.

[sailor]

isn't iran a sponsor of international terrorism?

[LiddyRules]

isn't iran a sponsor of international terrorism? A pretty big one I think.

[keithy_19]

I think he's a total douchebag. A cocky, arrogant, hate filled bastard who deserves the worst of treatment.

Unfortunately, here in America we allow people to do things like this. If he goes to pay his respects and doesn't cause problems than there shouldn't be any objection.

I do consider him a terrorist though, so under that stance he shouldn't be allowed in the country at all.

[foodcourtdruide]

It would probably be naive to think a visit to ground zero accompanied by President Bush could be the first step to mending relationship between the two nations, but it would be nice.

[Snacks]

I think he's a total douchebag. A cocky, arrogant, hate filled bastard who deserves the worst of treatment.

Unfortunately, here in America we allow people to do things like this. If he goes to pay his respects and doesn't cause problems than there shouldn't be any objection.

I do consider him a terrorist though, so under that stance he shouldn't be allowed in the country at all.

Are you talking about GW Bush or Ahmadinejad? Im confused because it sounds like a perfect description of GW.

[topless_mike]

as much as i think he is a douche, wheat he does in his country is his bidness.
i think he should be allowed to see ground zero... and i think President Bush should accompany him. to me, it would be a great platform to maybe work out some kind of neutrality between our nations.

also remember, he's not the one who ordered the planes....

[sailor]

as much as i think he is a douche, wheat he does in his country is his bidness.
i think he should be allowed to see ground zero... and i think President Bush should accompany him. to me, it would be a great platform to maybe work out some kind of neutrality between our nations.

also remember, he's not the one who ordered the planes....

but, he supports actions like that. does he sympathize more with us or the hijackers?

[Bulldogcakes]

I'm just waiting for him to take his boot, bang the podium and scream

http://www.russiablog.org/Krushchev-boot.jpg
"WE WILL BURY YOU!"

Cause that worked out so well for the last guy who did it, and his country.

[Thrice]

He's every bit as evil as Bush, only his skin is brown and he lives in the "desert" so of course he's a savage and Bush is still loved by a surprisingly large segment of this country.

Ahmadinejad is an absolute scumbag but that does not mean Iran as a whole is bad. Just like Bush being a complete fuck-up with dollar signs being his chief motivation does NOT make America as a whole bad.

The sooner that America can accept this the sooner we can move beyond the "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" bullshit mentality that has gotten us to this fucked up point in time.

All that being said, I say that Ahmadinejad never truly wanted to visit Ground Zero. He knew that he'd be shot down and the denied request makes Bush/America look that much more unwilling to explore diplomacy.

[FUNKMAN]

i feel he should have been allowed to pay his respects at the site. you can't fault him for being against the US being in Iraq, it is in his backyard. Just like we wouldn't tolerate China going into Mexico to make it communist...

i love this country but we are the biggest fucking hypocrites on the planet and it doesn't need to be that way

[Reephdweller]

I don't understand what the issue is with him wanting to visit the site and pay his respects at all. I don't buy the arguments made by the police and those opposed that it's more of a photo op. I'm more of the mindset to take it at face value as a legitimate attempt on his part to pay respect. That doesn't mean I would turn a blind eye to him or Iran as a threat overall.

I also don't equate him on the same level as a Bin Laden, at least not yet. I voted to let him go and pay his respect.

[ChrisTheCop]

I voted no, but I want to change my vote, because as I was typing my reasoning for voting no, I realized I disagree with myself.

Hows THIS for a start at diplomacy?
I was gonna vote NO. But since you want to change your vote, I voted YES for you.

If there is even the slightest chance that he wanted to go there to see what his pals did, and go home and high five Osama... he shouldnt go.

But again...for JetDog, I voted yes.

[PapaBear]

I want to change my vote, too. I voted "no". But if letting him go there, results in less O.J. news coverage, I'm all for it.

[ChrisTheCop]

Crap, I just realized my courtesy vote pushed "yes" ahead.

booooo to me and my sense of fairness.

[PapaBear]

Crap, I just realized my courtesy vote pushed "yes" ahead.

booooo to me and my sense of fairness.
Actually, your vote made it a tie. Someone must have "fixed" my vote after you "fixed" the other one. You can rest easy.

[ChrisTheCop]

I see 13 yes, 12 no

[PapaBear]

I see 13 yes, 12 no
I know, but your vote made it 12/12. Someone voted after you. I still say having him go there would be good, if it takes OJ out of the news for a few days.

[ChrisTheCop]

I know, but your vote made it 12/12. Someone voted after you. I still say having him go there would be good, if it takes OJ out of the news for a few days.

THIS JUST IN TO THE WCBS NEWSROOM:

September 21, 2007 updated 9/21/07 2:21 am EDT

Behrouz Mehri / AFP / Getty


In a move that has stunned New York, the Bloomberg administration is in discussions to escort the killer of 2, kidnapper of several, OJ Simpson, to ground zero during his visit to New York next week, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said today.

The formerly beloved celebrity made the request to the New York City Police Department and the Secret Service, which will jointly oversee security during the murderer's two-day visit. Mr. Simpson is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the local chapter of The Naked Gun fan club.

Mr. Kelly said the NYPD and Secret Service were in discussions with N.A.M.B.L.A. about the logistics for the possible visit, and whether it will take place at all. He said that for safety reasons related to ongoing construction at ground zero Mr. Simpson would not be allowed to descend into the pit, adding jokingly, "although doing so he'd be a little closer to where he belongs, " referring of course to hell.

"There has been some interest expressed in his visiting the area," Mr. Kelly said. "It's something that we are prepared to handle if in fact it does happen."

Recent NYPD bulletins to theatre goers suggest leaving your reading glasses at home, so as not to leave them behind in a restaurant.

[PapaBear]

Nice one.

BTW... Did I mention that I have a beautiful head of curly hair? I win, baldy.

[ChrisTheCop]

Nice one.

BTW... Did I mention that I have a beautiful head of curly hair? I win, baldy.

and bats in your bell free.

[Thrice]

If there is even the slightest chance that he wanted to go there to see what his pals did, and go home and high five Osama... he shouldnt go.


Please tell me you're joking or just badly misinformed. Ahmadinejad is holding Bin Laden's son hostage and is using him as a bargaining chip. Osama Bin Laden has no association with Ahmadinejad, ever. Bin Laden fled to Iran after we struck Afghanistan, true, but to assume he's been given safe passage there because he's one of Ahmadinejad's pals is like saying Musharraf is Bin Laden's pal because he's now hiding in the caves of Pakistan.

Don't just assume because these people are all the same color and they live in the same general area that they are in this shit together.

[ChrisTheCop]

I forgot, I'm a racist.

And the President of Iran loves America.

And just because the people in Patterson were dancing in the streets about September 11, theres absolutely NO WAY this guy did... he doesnt even have a TV.

Thanks for setting me straight.

[Thrice]

I forgot, I'm a racist.

And the President of Iran loves America.

And just because the people in Patterson were dancing in the streets about September 11, theres absolutely NO WAY this guy did... he doesnt even have a TV.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Misinformed, got it.

[Thrice]

Also the correct answer is No, Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to visit Ground Zero. He has no connection with anyone that died in 9/11 so he has no reason to be given special access. He clearly has ulterior motives and giving him special access is NOT the correct way to start a dialogue between our two countries.

[Reephdweller]

Also the correct answer is No, Ahmadinejad should not be allowed to visit Ground Zero. He has no connection with anyone that died in 9/11 so he has no reason to be given special access. He clearly has ulterior motives and giving him special access is NOT the correct way to start a dialogue between our two countries.


I didn't know there was a "correct" answer. I thought it was just our misinformed opinions on the subject.

[Thrice]

I didn't know there was a "correct" answer. I thought it was just our misinformed opinions on the subject.

Now you know. You're welcome.

[ChrisTheCop]

I didn't know there was a "correct" answer. I thought it was just our misinformed opinions on the subject.

lal.

[Furtherman]

He shouldn't be allowed in Ground Zero. If he wants to drive by it, knock yerself out, it's a free country. But he's a shifty eyed leader and I don't trust him, nor like him being allowed into the pit.

[Earlshog]

He shouldn't be allowed in Ground Zero. If he wants to drive by it, knock yerself out, it's a free country. But he's a shifty eyed leader and I don't trust him, nor like him being allowed into the pit.

Just out of curiosity (and this question is not just for you but for everyone who thinks hes up to something) what do you think his alterier motive is for going to the site?

[keithy_19]

Just out of curiosity (and this question is not just for you but for everyone who thinks hes up to something) what do you think his alterier motive is for going to the site?

To urinate.

[Furtherman]

Just out of curiosity (and this question is not just for you but for everyone who thinks hes up to something) what do you think his alterier motive is for going to the site?

Simply so he could gloat to his buddies at home. He has no love for the American way of life and to stand where our way of life was hit hardest on our soil would give him a smug hint of joy. He's a smart leader, so he would never gloat it publicly, but I think he would personally. And I don't want him to have that chance.

[keithy_19]

Don't just assume because these people are all the same color and they live in the same general area that they are in this shit together.

The fact is this, Bin Laden, and Ahmadinejad both want the destruction of Israel, an alli to the United States, and they both want a world full of people who follow Islam.

In America, we don't tolerate that shit. And go ahead and say that our president is trying to make everyone a Christian, that's not the case at all.

I supported Bush in his election, and I'm sorry to say that he's not at all who I want in office right now. Not that anyone else who was running would do better.

[Earlshog]

To urinate.


I'd like to see him pull out his shriveled uncut two and half inches of manhood with 1,000 cameras on him.


okay that didn't sound very good....

[keithy_19]

I'd like to see him pull out his shriveled uncut two and half inches of manhood hood with 1,000 cameras on him.


okay that didn't sound very good....

Freudian slip. It's ok. :wink:

[keithy_19]

If he goes, have the FDNY and the NYPD standing all around him staring the fucker down.

[Earlshog]

The fact is this, Bin Laden, and Ahmadinejad both want the destruction of Israel, an alli to the United States, and they both want a world full of people who follow Islam.

In America, we don't tolerate that shit. And go ahead and say that our president is trying to make everyone a Christian, that's not the case at all.

I supported Bush in his election, and I'm sorry to say that he's not at all who I want in office right now. Not that anyone else who was running would do better.


if we didn't allow everyone who wanted the destruction of Israel into New York there would be a lot of empty seats at the UN.

[Earlshog]

Freudian slip. It's ok. :wink:

:lol: if it was a freudian slip I would have put the word hot in front of shrivled

[keithy_19]

:lol: if it was a freudian slip I would have put the word hot in front of shrivled

Well, maybe shriveled cock is a fettish of your. We have a thread for that now.
:bye:

[torker]

Shouldn't this guy be in a spider hole?

[Bob Impact]

He shouldn't be given any special access to Ground Zero, he can view it at the same distance as the general public. That being said it's highly inappropriate. It's also a shame that we're pandering to this murderer who participated in taking Americans hostage.

[Yerdaddy]

Not only did Iran have nothing to do with 9-11, but at the time they were supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Islamic_Front_for_the_Salvation_of_Afghanis tan),

Iran had some of the first vigils in support of America after 9-11;

http://img.timeinc.net/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/images/1.jpg

September 18, 2001: Ordinary Iranians hold candles during a vigil in Terhan to mourn the loss of life in the United States after hijackers crashed airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the attacks which have been blamed on Saudi-born Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden is believed to be in hiding in the mountains of neighboring Afghanistan, a country which Iran has no love for.. (http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/index.html)

At the time they had the most favorable opinion of the American people in the Muslim world;

And considering we hate Iranians more than than they hate us (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/312.php?nid=&id=&pnt=312&lb=brme)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan07/Iran_Jan07_graph5.jpg

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan07/Iran_Jan07_graph6.jpg

I think it's time we stopped using 9-11 to insult, attack and exploit countries who had nothing to do with the attacks.

Ahmenotgonnaworkhereanymore is a pretty poor representative of his people as he's not very popular with most of them - especially the middle class who have the most favorable view of us - but Iran symathised with us and we'll just be seen as arrogant cockbags if we throw it back in their faces by refusing their president a visit to the sight. And if we keep him from visiting the site he'll have more reason to add that to his repertoir of crazy-talk than if we just let him. If we let him then it's not a big deal, but if we prevent him then we'll look like assholes again. So why is it even a question?

[Snacks]

Not only did Iran have nothing to do with 9-11, but at the time they were supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Islamic_Front_for_the_Salvation_of_Afghanis tan),

Iran had some of the first vigils in support of America after 9-11;

http://img.timeinc.net/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/images/1.jpg



At the time they had the most favorable opinion of the American people in the Muslim world;

And considering we hate Iranians more than than they hate us (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/312.php?nid=&id=&pnt=312&lb=brme)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan07/Iran_Jan07_graph5.jpg

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan07/Iran_Jan07_graph6.jpg

I think it's time we stopped using 9-11 to insult, attack and exploit countries who had nothing to do with the attacks.

Ahmenotgonnaworkhereanymore is a pretty poor representative of his people as he's not very popular with most of them - especially the middle class who have the most favorable view of us - but Iran symathised with us and we'll just be seen as arrogant cockbags if we throw it back in their faces by refusing their president a visit to the sight. And if we keep him from visiting the site he'll have more reason to add that to his repertoir of crazy-talk than if we just let him. If we let him then it's not a big deal, but if we prevent him then we'll look like assholes again. So why is it even a question?

its posts like this that make you the best poster on here. The truth is the truth but sometimes the same shit that we hate other leaders for is the exact same shit our leaders do. Every muslim leader didnt sanction or support 9/11. Bin Laden did. Not Sadam, not Ahmadinejad, Not little kim, Not Castro, none of our so called enemies. The attacks were made by Bin Laden and his peeps from Saudia Arabia. You know the country that Bush Senior and the rest of that crew are in bed with and do business with.

People the cool-aid will kill stop drinking it.

[PapaBear]

People the cool-aid will kill stop drinking it.
But it's so sweet and colorful:down:

[ChrisTheCop]

Kool Aid is what helped tear down the Berlin Wall.http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050401/koolaidman.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

its posts like this that make you the best poster on here. The truth is the truth but sometimes the same shit that we hate other leaders for is the exact same shit our leaders do. Every muslim leader didnt sanction or support 9/11. Bin Laden did. Not Sadam, not Ahmadinejad, Not little kim, Not Castro, none of our so called enemies. The attacks were made by Bin Laden and his peeps from Saudia Arabia. You know the country that Bush Senior and the rest of that crew are in bed with and do business with.

People the cool-aid will kill stop drinking it.

Thanks, but I have to make this point: The Saudi connection to 9-11 is distorted and overstated way too often. The fact that the 19 hijackers were Saudis and Egyptians was simply because their citizens recieved less scrutiny when entering the US and so were deemed less likely to be found out. But the original pool of candidates included al-Qaeda recruits from all over the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia's close ties to the US go back to the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia when King Ib Saud gave exclusive production rights to the US because he resented the European countries, (especially the UK), for fucking him over after WWI and for their colonial pasts. (This national monopoly was actually a problem becase when it was discovered that Saudi had more oil than Ameican companies could handle we had to come up with eloborate cartel structures to bring in the Brits and the Dutch without Saud knowing about it.) That close relation has continued, except for the 1973 oil crisis years, with SA hooking us up with increased production when other countries embargo us and with SA being largely dependent on us for security exemplified by the first Gulf War.

Like with Farenheight 9-11 I think linking the Bush family dealings with the Saudis to Osama Bin Laden and 9-11 are just bad arguments.

[Bulldogcakes]

Ahmenotgonnaworkhereanymore is a pretty poor representative of his people as he's not very popular with most of them - especially the middle class who have the most favorable view of us - but Iran symathised with us and we'll just be seen as arrogant cockbags if we throw it back in their faces by refusing their president a visit to the sight. And if we keep him from visiting the site he'll have more reason to add that to his repertoir of crazy-talk than if we just let him. If we let him then it's not a big deal, but if we prevent him then we'll look like assholes again. So why is it even a question?

Because he makes stupid, over the top statements that are easy to sensationalize (usually by the pro-Israel types) and because of our history with Iran going back to the 70's. As you stated, he's not even very popular in his own country, plus he's a figurehead anyway. The Mullahs run that country. Throw in the saber rattling about the nuclear program and suspected Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents. Crazy talk, intrigue and nukes. I'm no journalist, but even I know thats a story right there. So he makes good copy for the newspapers. I agree the best approach would be to ignore him, but the local politicians want to score easy political points and he is gift wrapped for that purpose.

BTW-You can trace the Iran nuclear program to the day we invaded Iraq. If you had a country that lists you on the 'axis of evil' invade your neighbor, you'd be looking for a nuclear trump card as well.

[Thrice]

Ahmenotgonnaworkhereanymore is a pretty poor representative of his people as he's not very popular with most of them - especially the middle class who have the most favorable view of us - but Iran symathised with us and we'll just be seen as arrogant cockbags if we throw it back in their faces by refusing their president a visit to the sight. And if we keep him from visiting the site he'll have more reason to add that to his repertoir of crazy-talk than if we just let him. If we let him then it's not a big deal, but if we prevent him then we'll look like assholes again. So why is it even a question?

1. Ahmadinejad reportedly rigged and had his thugs strong arm voters in the 2005 election. So to say that Iranian's would take offense at "their" President not getting special treatment is pretty hard to believe. If Bush(and I'm NOT saying he stole any election) wanted to visit Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said no, would American people think of Iraqis as "arrogant cockbags" for refusing our President?

2. As far as I've read Ahmadinejad hasn't been banned from visiting Ground Zero. He has just as much access to the site as the general public does. What he was requesting was special access/official tour and THAT is where I draw the line. Why grant him access beyond what the general public has? If you or I can pay tribute without stepping within the boundaries so can Ahmadinejad.

[Bulldogcakes]

2. As far as I've read Ahmadinejad hasn't been banned from visiting Ground Zero. He has just as much access to the site as the general public does. What he was requesting was special access/official tour and THAT is where I draw the line. Why grant him access beyond what the general public has? If you or I can pay tribute without stepping within the boundaries so can Ahmadinejad.

You can't be serious. He's a head of state, not providing security for him is a recipe for assassination. Plus the NYPD provides security all the time for all sorts of heads of state we don't like and even the most marginal of celebrities who make public appearances. Anyone who lives in this town knows that. To not provide it in his case is exceptional and extraordinary.

[Thrice]

You can't be serious. He's a head of state, not providing security for him is a recipe for assassination. Plus the NYPD provides security all the time for all sorts of heads of state we don't like and even the most marginal of celebrities who make public appearances. Anyone who lives in this town knows that. To not provide it in his case is exceptional and extraordinary.

His motives are specious at best, manipulative at worst. He should not be there and if he really wants to be there he should entrust his private security staff with securing the area. I honestly do not think he ever wanted to physically step foot in that area. As I mentioned before just making the request public served his purpose tenfold. He wanted to show the world that America is so unwilling to even consider diplomacy that we won't even accept a request to pay tribute to their tragedy.

It's all about motive and his motives smack of insincerity.

If Hugo Chavez went to New York tomorrow, requested a tour behind the scenes without issuing a press release and got shot down then the public found out about it after the fact that's when I'd be pissed and I'd want to know where the NYPD gets off rejecting his request.

It's the outward nature of the request that reeks of ulterior motives and that's why I say fuck the police escort for Ahmadinejad; if you want police protection make a genuine request.

[Bob Impact]

***EDIT***

Don't even bother giving him the attention.

[Crispy123]

Fuck that ...

That is a brilliant argument.:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

I say yes. We are the land of the free and all. I do think he might be trying to use this as a platform for anti-American BS but what are you going to do?

[sailor]

That is a brilliant argument.:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

I say yes. We are the land of the free and all. I do think he might be trying to use this as a platform for anti-American BS but what are you going to do?

um, maybe tell him no?

[Crispy123]

um, maybe tell him no?

Then he can say we really aren't the land of the free and still spew anti-American BS...so its a catch-22.

[sailor]

Then he can say we really aren't the land of the free and still spew anti-American BS...so its a catch-22.

we are the land of the free, but he's not a citizen. plus, he's asking for special treatment as others have pointed out.

[Crispy123]

we are the land of the free, but he's not a citizen. plus, he's asking for special treatment as others have pointed out.

I say leading by example is the best way to go, even if the guy isn't a US citizen. If there is a problem with the security request then that is another story. Just my 2c worth, take it or leave it. :wink::wink::wink:

[ChrisTheCop]

Smaller scale...
It would be like Reverend Al asking to visit O and A during their suspension.
Did he directly cause their suspension? No.
Was he probably happy that it happened? Yes.
Would they want to give him the satisfaction? No.
Would you say no to all black people because of Al's actions/statements? No.
But youd definitely say no to him.

[cartshlepper]

lets see, Ahmadinejad and his regime has and is a current sponsor of world wide terror, including the exporting of both weapons and technology to those who are killing our troups in Iraq and Afghanistan, has called for the complete destruction of one of it's neighbors, has lead a defacto war against one of its neighbors (the abduction of an Israeli soldier which lead to a war with another soverign nation, has publically dreamed of the day that the United States is removed from the earth, and has helped to weaponize some of his neighbors with chemical weapons to use against another neighbor (see what happened in Syria with regards to a chemical explosion of VX gas and Sarin). While we should not ignore the words of those who call for our destruction, I do not think we should allow a person who is directly responsible for world terrorism to set foot on the very sight that the largest terrorist attack of this century occured, remember who was celebrating on the day that this attack happened (CNN shots of Iranians and Palestinians passing out candy and chearing loudly as the towers fell). Yes, listen to our enemies because their words do mean something, but remember tyrants like ahmadinejad look for public platforms to influence an often all to ill informed public, and I have no doubt that the wreath he will lay will be for the hijackers and not the victims. :glurps:

[A.J.]

The attacks were made by Bin Laden and his peeps from Saudia Arabia. You know the country that Bush Senior and the rest of that crew are in bed with and do business with.

Saudia Arabia? Where's that?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Fuck that... :furious:



Actually Iranians are not Arabs they are Persians who migrated from Europe

[zildjian361]

That's helpful.
think back 6 years ago you wouldn't be so forgivven:furious:

[Earlshog]

think back 6 years ago you wouldn't be so forgivven:furious:

He had nothing to do with what happend six years ago.

[underdog]

He had nothing to do with what happend six years ago.

Don't you get it, man? He's brown and from that area of the world no one knows anything about. Of course he had something to do with it.

[TheMojoPin]

(CNN shots of Iranians and Palestinians passing out candy and chearing loudly as the towers fell).

Please provide evidence of large groups of Iranians doing this.

And people always talk about the cheering footage, as if it was reflective of a majority of any country or group throughout the world that day. Of course you're going to get people who reveled in the events of 9/11, but that footage always gets tossed out as if it was proof that everyone of a certain race or nationality is monstrous. Hell, there were whackjob Americans that thought 9/11 was a good thing...

[TheMojoPin]

Actually Iranians are not Arabs they are Persians who migrated from Europe

I love that his response only inspired you to clarify the difference between Arabs and Persians, as if his slur is just fine and dandy when used against the "right" people. Classy.

[sailor]

Please provide evidence of large groups of Iranians doing this.

And people always talk about the cheering footage, as if it was reflective of a majority of any country or group throughout the world that day. Of course you're going to get people who reveled in the events of 9/11, but that footage always gets tossed out as if it was proof that everyone of a certain race or nationality is monstrous. Hell, there were whackjob Americans that thought 9/11 was a good thing...

to be fair, pics of iranians holding vigils were posted to prove the opposite but nothing was said of that. if one isn't representative of the whole neither is the other.

[Earlshog]

Don't you get it, man? He's brown and from that area of the world no one knows anything about. Of course he had something to do with it.

:lol:

I didn't know Ruport Murdoch posted here...

[TheMojoPin]

to be fair, pics of iranians holding vigils were posted to prove the opposite but nothing was said of that. if one isn't representative of the whole neither is the other.

Exactly.

[lleeder]

Smaller scale...
It would be like Reverend Al asking to visit O and A during their suspension.
Did he directly cause their suspension? No.
Was he probably happy that it happened? Yes.
Would they want to give him the satisfaction? No.
Would you say no to all black people because of Al's actions/statements? No.
But youd definitely say no to him.

What if Rev Al saw them at the bar? He'd have to try to buy them a drink to look good. Then when they blew if off and refused, the paper could make it front page headlines.

[Yerdaddy]

Because he makes stupid, over the top statements that are easy to sensationalize (usually by the pro-Israel types)

So does our President. When he labelled Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" then president Khatami was seeking cooperation with us on defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which Iran had been aiding the Nothern Alliance to do since the Taliban beheaded four Iranian diplomats. Al-Qaeda also considers Shi'a to be apostates. Iran had also offered us shitloads of intelligence they had and use of Iranian territory to launch operations in Southern Afghanistan from. We refused it all except we had to accept clearance to launch search and rescue operations from Iran, which they agreed to. In that context I'd call the label "Axis of Evil" pretty stupid, over the top and easy to sensationalize, not to mention - like just about half of every foreign policy decision of our President - self-defeating.

Our current President's official policy towards Iran is "regime change". Just like it was towards Iraq beginning in 1998. That's an open and official threat to do to them what we did to Iraq.

and because of our history with Iran going back to the 70's.
Which can't be detatched to our history of Iran before the 70's. It was that period that created an Iranian middle class and they are the ones who make Iran the most favorable towards the American people of all the Muslim world, (and more vaforable of us than we are of them). That middle class is the real hope for regime change. If Ahmananama-do-doooo-do-do-do spends years pandering the the poor and pissed and ignores the middle class they'll turn on him and the government and you'll have an anti-theocratic revolution that wants to open with the US, the West, and the rest of the world. But if we seem like a bunch of Muslim-hating rednecks who want to destroy countries and steal oil then they've got nothing to open up to. So every petty and irrational action we take undermines the incentive for the educated, secular Iranian middle class to push for political change.

As you stated, he's not even very popular in his own country, plus he's a figurehead anyway. The Mullahs run that country.

I don't know if he's as unpopular as Bush, as I don't imagine he's pissed off his base like Bush has so him being slighted overseas still has meaning, figurehead or no. This is a battle over a symbolic act and the Iranians are more sensitive to their image overseas than we are. They're dispised by the majority of their own co-religionists. They're better educated and more secular than most of the Muslim world. They've been a global superpower before only to be the plaything of European colonialists and American Cold-Warriors. They are going to be watching this more closely than we are and so we should be considering their opinions on the matter. The point of "public diplomacy" which every terrorism expert says we suck at and need to do better is to understand and responsive to the opinions of people abroad. This battle is a battle for conservative Democrat and Republican hearts and minds at the expense of foreign hearts and minds and for what? So that the Caddyshack gopher doesn't get to see Ground Zero and one greasy Ameican politician can insult another in campaign commercials? It's so fucking petty and self-defeating.

Throw in the saber rattling about the nuclear program and suspected Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents. Crazy talk, intrigue and nukes. I'm no journalist, but even I know thats a story right there.

See our official threats - from our real head-of-state - that I listed above. Yet somehow the threats of a "figurehead" get more press than our Pres threatening to deliver to us an Iraq x 3. That's the odd part.

So he makes good copy for the newspapers. I agree the best approach would be to ignore him, but the local politicians want to score easy political points and he is gift wrapped for that purpose.

*See "greasy politician" remark above.

BTW-You can trace the Iran nuclear program to the day we invaded Iraq. If you had a country that lists you on the 'axis of evil' invade your neighbor, you'd be looking for a nuclear trump card as well.

They had one before Iraq but it was literally a joke. I was at Federation of American Scientists at the time and they described the program to me as a bunch of academics with no hands-on experience who were going to blow up every lab in the country until they finally brought in pros. You're right though, Iraq made them take it seriously by showing them they needed nukes to deter an invasion.

1. Ahmadinejad reportedly rigged and had his thugs strong arm voters in the 2005 election. So to say that Iranian's would take offense at "their" President not getting special treatment is pretty hard to believe. If Bush(and I'm NOT saying he stole any election) wanted to visit Ibn Sina Hospital in Baghdad and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said no, would American people think of Iraqis as "arrogant cockbags" for refusing our President?

Bad comparison. Ahmadrashadmustdie still has the support of his base and he hasn't enraged his general public by doing the self-destructive shit that Bush has done. Now if Bush had wanted to visit the Saddam statue right after it was pulled down in '03 and the Iraqis refused, (this is totally hypothetical because in an anarchic state there is no official Iraq to refuse) they would have looked like dicks. But Bush has fucked that whole country up and he's incredibly unpopular there - which he wasn't at the time of the invasion - but guess what? when he needs a bump in the fucking polls he goes to Iraq and nobody says dick. You guys think that's lost on the Iranians or the rest of the world you're ignorant. The fact is the rest of the world is paying more attention to Iraq than Americans are, in my experience. That's why we always miss the point of public diplomacy - we think we're the only ones that matter.

This valmorphanized dwarf wants to play the same game in Ameirca because he knows he can score points either way - if we block him from the same tour other diplomats have taken we look like hypocrits and he goes back to his base and says "they wouln't let me go... they've got something to hide!" And then he pushes some wild conspiracy theories and solidifies his support from his base. If we act above petty politics and call his bluff he'll go back and say something similar but it won't hold the same wieight because it won't play into the conspiracy theories and it won't play into the "America hates us" propaganda. It's the smart move and it's about fucking time we started trying some smart moves for a change.

[Yerdaddy]

to be fair, pics of iranians holding vigils were posted to prove the opposite but nothing was said of that. if one isn't representative of the whole neither is the other.

To be fair, pics of Iranians holding vigils is evidence of Iranians holding vigils. I don't see any evidence of Iranians cheering. I've seen evidence of some Palestinians, but never Iranians. I think he was just trying to link the two, but without evidence to back it up.

And in my two years in the Middle East it was my experience that we had more sympathy from Arabs for 9-11 than Bin Laden by a factor of 100 to 1. We just threw that sympathy away for Iraq.

[Yerdaddy]

lets see, Ahmadinejad and his regime has and is a current sponsor of world wide terror, including the exporting of both weapons and technology to those who are killing our troups in Iraq and Afghanistan,

And the United States is and has been sponsoring anti-Iranian terrorist groups in Iran, largely based in Iraq since before the Iraq war. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_relations#US_using_proxies) I don't want them arming the Shi'ite militias either but it's hypocritical to take it as a moral position when we're doing the exact same thing.

has called for the complete destruction of one of it's neighbors,

Israel. A country with over 200 nuclear weapons - and good ones, (because they stole much of their technology from us), not the washing-machine strapped to a bunch of bottle-rockets that Iran will have when they finally build a functional nuke, (see the difference between India and Pakistan's arsenals for the importance of factoring in quality when talking about nuclear weapons.) Point is, Israel's existance is perfectly safe, (and won't be made any less so by a Tribble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribble) going to Ground Zero.

has lead a defacto war against one of its neighbors (the abduction of an Israeli soldier which lead to a war with another soverign nation,

We led an in facto war against one of his neighbors.

has publically dreamed of the day that the United States is removed from the earth,

whatever. This really keep you up at night?

and has helped to weaponize some of his neighbors with chemical weapons to use against another neighbor (see what happened in Syria with regards to a chemical explosion of VX gas and Sarin).

too much work. link it and I'll look.

While we should not ignore the words of those who call for our destruction, I do not think we should allow a person who is directly responsible for world terrorism to set foot on the very sight that the largest terrorist attack of this century occured,

Fair enough. To me, this is the strongest argument against permitting him. However, were this still 2002 it would not be outweighed by our own arrogant, destructive and immoral actions in the name of the Wurr on Turr. We always give ourselves a pass because we don't want to beleive that we're capable of immoral acts and because we're powerful enough not to give a shit about the views of outsiders. But the only way to reverse the downward trend of the Wurr on Turr and the damage it's done to our nation is to stop playing the Dirty Harry role and start playing smart. That means taking public diplomacy seriously and being big enough not to let a furry turd bait us into blocking his visit so he can solidify his base. We certainly can't do that in the name of principle when we've thrown our own principles out the window many times over for the sake of the Wurr on Turr. If we showed ourselves to be more honest and pragmatic we'd be on the way to earning the trust we need to get the cooperation required to really go after terrorists and the condistions that breed them.

remember who was celebrating on the day that this attack happened (CNN shots of Iranians and Palestinians passing out candy and chearing loudly as the towers fell). Yes, listen to our enemies because their words do mean something, but remember tyrants like ahmadinejad look for public platforms to influence an often all to ill informed public, and I have no doubt that the wreath he will lay will be for the hijackers and not the victims. :glurps:

He's put forth a bunch of conspiracy theories about 9-11 just like millions of Americans have done, but he's never shown any sympathy for al-Qaeda. Now I believe you're just making this shit up to say they hate us and love Bin Laden, which is provably false in the case of Iran. This is why we hate them more than they hate us - we don't know shit about them, we don't really care, and we allow ourselves to buy into the predjudices of pundits and political and religious actors. We gotta outgrow that shit. We actually have the second largest population of Persians after Iran. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_people) Isn't that more useful a tidbit of information than a bogus claim that they were dancing in the streets and they all love Bin Laden? Especially if one's true and the other one isn't?

[Bulldogcakes]

So does our President. When he labelled Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" then president Khatami was seeking cooperation with us on defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which Iran had been aiding the Nothern Alliance to do since the Taliban beheaded four Iranian diplomats. Al-Qaeda also considers Shi'a to be apostates. Iran had also offered us shitloads of intelligence they had and use of Iranian territory to launch operations in Southern Afghanistan from. We refused it all except we had to accept clearance to launch search and rescue operations from Iran, which they agreed to. In that context I'd call the label "Axis of Evil" pretty stupid, over the top and easy to sensationalize, not to mention - like just about half of every foreign policy decision of our President - self-defeating.

Our current President's official policy towards Iran is "regime change". Just like it was towards Iraq beginning in 1998. That's an open and official threat to do to them what we did to Iraq.

Yep. There are so many areas of opportunities for us to work together and shared interests in that region. From our own national and strategic interests perspective, we should have much better relations than we do. You can't make sense of our policy toward Iran until you factor in Israel. Then it makes sense.

And just to respond to the other 50 gazillion points you made, Yes, uh huh, absolutely, Really?, yeah, Hmmmmmm, I know, and BOO-YAH!

That should cover it.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I love that his response only inspired you to clarify the difference between Arabs and Persians, as if his slur is just fine and dandy when used against the "right" people. Classy.

My comment was not to be meant as a slur at all. Its just a lot of people make a rush to judgement and say that people from the middle east, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all Arabs which in fact is the contrary.

[TheMojoPin]

My comment was not to be meant as a slur at all. Its just a lot of people make a rush to judgement and say that people from the middle east, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all Arabs which in fact is the contrary.

But why the need to clarify when the dude's only comment was to use an ethnic slur?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

But why the need to clarify when the dude's only comment was to use an ethnic slur?

It was never meant to clarify anything at all. Another case could be is when those Hot 97 DJs and the Tsunami song a few years back. They clarified the victims as "chinks" Meanwhile the Tsunami affected Indonesia , Thailand and Sri Lanka which are thousands of miles from China. I am not saying its ok to call Chinese people any type of slur at all. Case in point I was trying to make is that a lot of people tend to categorize people into just one group and at the same type making the slur offensive as well.

[Bulldogcakes]

http://www.goodstorm.com/files/images/E69EA3EB_8A86946D.jpg

[A.J.]

Which can't be detatched to our history of Iran before the 70's. It was that period that created an Iranian middle class and they are the ones who make Iran the most favorable towards the American people of all the Muslim world, (and more vaforable of us than we are of them). That middle class is the real hope for regime change. If Ahmananama-do-doooo-do-do-do spends years pandering the the poor and pissed and ignores the middle class they'll turn on him and the government and you'll have an anti-theocratic revolution that wants to open with the US, the West, and the rest of the world. But if we seem like a bunch of Muslim-hating rednecks who want to destroy countries and steal oil then they've got nothing to open up to. So every petty and irrational action we take undermines the incentive for the educated, secular Iranian middle class to push for political change.

All the more reason why we should normalize relations and open an embassy in Tehran. And I'd do the same thing in Pyongyang and Havana. This assinine policy of embargoes and cutting off diplomatic relations is stupid and counterproductive. You want to expand democracy, American business and get the REAL story on what's going on in Iran, North Korea and Cuba? Open up embassies there.

Didn't this nation learn anything from Don Corleone? "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

[KnoxHarrington]

Oh, to the hayseeds who called in to today's show saying that the liberals at Columbia would love Ahmadinejad, here's the reaction he got:


The President of Columbia introduced him as a "cruel dictator"
He faced brutal questioning about his Holocaust denial, including this denunciation from Columbia's president: ""You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. Will you cease this outrage?"
A line about there being no homosexuals in Iran got derisive laughter.


Yeah, those silver-spoon radicals sure loved him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_re_us/iran_us;_ylt=Aru5y1nWmo3xoBjMc06kYsms0NUE

[TeeBone]

When your religion and politics are the same in the West you end up with horrific events like Christian Fundamentalist bombing abortion clinics to make a point. The same can be said for Islamic fundamentalists. When you think of someone like Ahmadinejad whose religion and politics are the same, you end up with horrific events like the coming of the Mahdi, or 'the Islamic Messiah.' He talks about it openly in his speeches and today was no exception. In fact, I think he started the speech with a remark about the Mahdi.
In 2005 when he was 'elected,' Ahmandinejad promised the end of the world for Christians and Jews and referenced that it would only take a few years to do so. Do the math, we are now a few years removed from 2005. It is a very dangerous world when a leader of a nation with Millions of thinkers like this believe the return of the Mahdi can be ushered in only with Death, Destruction and chaos. The Mahdi will then return to restore order and peace. When he returns, the Mahdi will offer Jews and Christians the chance to convert. When there is a refusal to conversion-----Instant Death!!!!!! That is how Ahmandinejad and Millions like him think. To them, Israel is a stepping stone, then the States, then complete rule and peace once we are all run into the sea and killed. It'd crazy talk.
Giving this man a forum in our country was/is a slap in the face to every American and our beloved President (a man who I voted for) is nowhere to be found. Way to step up, George. I am convinced now more than ever that we are completely out of touch and I view the remainder of our so-called harmonious existence as BONUS TIME. I can't believe we have made it as far as we have. Do you know any other elected officials who base political decisions around religious beliefs???? HMMMMMMM
I don't know what's worse, Ahmadinejad----or us, who sit around and do nothing and elect people like Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy; to lead us out of this.

[Doctor Z]

There are no cats in America.

And there are NO HOMOS IN IRAN! (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5960.html)

[Bulldogcakes]

All the more reason why we should normalize relations and open an embassy in Tehran. And I'd do the same thing in Pyongyang and Havana. This assinine policy of embargoes and cutting off diplomatic relations is stupid and counterproductive. You want to expand democracy, American business and get the REAL story on what's going on in Iran, North Korea and Cuba? Open up embassies there.

Didn't this nation learn anything from Don Corleone? "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Maybe the most subversive thing we could do to Iran would be to offer them MFN trading status. They would eventually have regime change without us firing a single shot, and if nothing else we would have FAR more influence on them politically. Anyone else notice what happened to (formerly) Communist China?

[TheMojoPin]

When your religion and politics are the same in the West you end up with horrific events like Christian Fundamentalist bombing abortion clinics to make a point. The same can be said for Islamic fundamentalists. When you think of someone like Ahmadinejad whose religion and politics are the same, you end up with horrific events like the coming of the Mahdi, or 'the Islamic Messiah.' He talks about it openly in his speeches and today was no exception. In fact, I think he started the speech with a remark about the Mahdi.
In 2005 when he was 'elected,' Ahmandinejad promised the end of the world for Christians and Jews and referenced that it would only take a few years to do so. Do the math, we are now a few years removed from 2005. It is a very dangerous world when a leader of a nation with Millions of thinkers like this believe the return of the Mahdi can be ushered in only with Death, Destruction and chaos. The Mahdi will then return to restore order and peace. When he returns, the Mahdi will offer Jews and Christians the chance to convert. When there is a refusal to conversion-----Instant Death!!!!!! That is how Ahmandinejad and Millions like him think. To them, Israel is a stepping stone, then the States, then complete rule and peace once we are all run into the sea and killed. It'd crazy talk.

He doesn't actually run the country. Or the military. He's basically a glorified mouthpiece.

Giving this man a forum in our country was/is a slap in the face to every American and our beloved President (a man who I voted for) is nowhere to be found. Way to step up, George. I am convinced now more than ever that we are completely out of touch and I view the remainder of our so-called harmonious existence as BONUS TIME. I can't believe we have made it as far as we have. Do you know any other elected officials who base political decisions around religious beliefs???? HMMMMMMM

Bush?

And where did you expect Bush to be during this visit? What did you want him to do?

I don't know what's worse, Ahmadinejad----or us, who sit around and do nothing and elect people like Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy; to lead us out of this.

Er...

[high fly]

So does our President. When he labelled Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" then president Khatami was seeking cooperation with us on defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which Iran had been aiding the Nothern Alliance to do since the Taliban beheaded four Iranian diplomats. Al-Qaeda also considers Shi'a to be apostates. Iran had also offered us shitloads of intelligence they had and use of Iranian territory to launch operations in Southern Afghanistan from. We refused it all except we had to accept clearance to launch search and rescue operations from Iran, which they agreed to. In that context I'd call the label "Axis of Evil" pretty stupid, over the top and easy to sensationalize, not to mention - like just about half of every foreign policy decision of our President - self-defeating.

Iran was also offering us a half dozen or so high-ranking al Qaedamites including bin Laden's son, in return for some terrorists we had seized in Iraq, but Bush turned them down, preferring to act like a tough guy.

[Bulldogcakes]

Giving this man a forum in our country was/is a slap in the face to every American and our beloved President (a man who I voted for) is nowhere to be found.

No, it gives him a chance to tell everyone what he really believes and make a total fool of himself. Just like Hugo Chavez did at the UN when he called Bush a "Devil". Rhetoric like that doesn't win him any friends, it isolates him and sets his cause back. Same goes for Ahma-whathisface.

[high fly]

Oh, to the hayseeds who called in to today's show saying that the liberals at Columbia would love Ahmadinejad, here's the reaction he got:


He faced brutal questioning about his Holocaust denial, including this denunciation from Columbia's president: ""You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. Will you cease this outrage?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_re_us/iran_us;_ylt=Aru5y1nWmo3xoBjMc06kYsms0NUE

Beautiful.
Today on either the Neal Boortz or the O'Reilly radio show, the dink hosting the show quoted a breaking FoxNews story that said there would be no questioning of Ahmadinajob by the students.

[TeeBone]

I guess you just don't get it, Mojopin. The 'Windshield Cowboy' could have stepped in and halted the visit. It was not out of realm of possibility to do that. It reminded me of another hand-in-hand walk through the garden in Crawford. Instead, the President was quoted as saying, "I guess I'm fine with it," when asked about the visit to New York today. You know that base of pissed off Bush supporters that has been accumulating over the years----I'm one of them. I'm just glad the so-called 'limousine Liberals' actually gave Ahmadinejad a tongue lashing.

[sailor]

He's basically a glorified mouthpiece.

hott!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

There are no cats in America.

And there are NO HOMOS IN IRAN! (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5960.html)

Iran is one country these guys wont visit

http://socialitelife.com/images/Queer-Eye-cast.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

I guess you just don't get it, Mojopin. The 'Windshield Cowboy' could have stepped in and halted the visit. It was not out of realm of possibility to do that.

But why should he? If he did, it would appear petty and pointless and appealing only to the most reactionary core of his base. It's not like we "lost" anything by him being here...if anything, it only makes him look bad since he got called out by the audience he came to speak to. Do we really want the larger picture to essentially be that when we see or hear someone we don't like we just stick our fingers in our ears, go "LA-LA-LA!!!" and then slam the door shut? Isn't that a big part of the problem of this administration's foreign policy to begin with? And you want him to make it more myopic and narrowminded?

It reminded me of another hand-in-hand walk through the garden in Crawford. Instead, the President was quoted as saying, "I guess I'm fine with it," when asked about the visit to New York today. You know that base of pissed off Bush supporters that has been accumulating over the years----I'm one of them.

Apparently you're not pissed off about Bush's foolish cowboy diplomacy, since you're simply clamoring for more of it multiple times in this thread. What does refusing the visit legitimately accomplish?

I'm just glad the so-called 'limousine Liberals' actually gave Ahmadinejad a tongue lashing.

Why toss that shot in there? How is it even applicable here?

[Bulldogcakes]

There are no cats in America.

And there are NO HOMOS IN IRAN! (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5960.html)

http://www.aeispeakers.com/images/headshots/Riley-Pat.jpg
"and there's NO 'I' IN TEAM!!!!"

[high fly]

I guess you just don't get it, Mojopin. The 'Windshield Cowboy' could have stepped in and halted the visit.

Wouldn't the Deciderator have to invent new powers for the presidency to do that?
I mean, it's not like he hasn't done it before now, but stilllll.

Free speech is not about protecting the right of your pals to tell you how nice your hair looks as it is for total assholes to insult and disturb others.


I swear, back during the American Revolution the conservatives allied themselves with the side that came in second place and ever since have done their damnedest to find any excuse to limit liberty.


A-Job isn't going to hurt anyone and if we'll just play it cool instead of making him to be a bigger, more important figure that he really is, then we won't look so bad.
We have a habit of making everyone we don't like into homicidal Hitlerlike madmen with plans to rrrrule the worrrrld!


It's as if some people think villains in the movies are for real and if we don't watch out, some ultra-polite wierdo with a Persian cat on his lap and his black-body-stocking-ed henchmen (who never speak) are gonna use all manner of death rays on the rest of the world so they can be overlords over that Mercator Projection etched into the glass behind Mr. Big's desk and turn us all into slaves like on that island Pinocchio went to....


.

[Thrice]

Holy shit I just heard today's episode of R&F and the callers on the subject of Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia were mind blowingly short-sighted.

People are fucking nuts.

[KnoxHarrington]

Holy shit I just heard today's episode of R&F and the callers on the subject of Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia were mind blowingly short-sighted.

People are fucking nuts.

Yeah, that segment was painful.

I wasn't worried about it because I knew he'd get the reception he got. Did these hayseeds truly believe he wouldn't get grilled about his Holocaust denial and human rights abuses there?

[Thrice]

Yeah, that segment was painful.

I wasn't worried about it because I knew he'd get the reception he got. Did these hayseeds truly believe he wouldn't get grilled about his Holocaust denial and human rights abuses there?

Yes.

[scottinnj]

I'm just waiting for him to take his boot, bang the podium and scream

http://www.russiablog.org/Krushchev-boot.jpg
"WE WILL BURY YOU!"

Cause that worked out so well for the last guy who did it, and his country.


"Mr. Kruschev said 'we will bury you'
I don't subscribe to that point of view,
It'd be such an ignorant thing to do
When the Russians love their children too"

-Sting

[scottinnj]

Beautiful.
Today on either the Neal Boortz or the O'Reilly radio show, the dink hosting the show quoted a breaking FoxNews story that said there would be no questioning of Ahmadinajob by the students.

It must be true. Look what happened during a Q & A session with one of our own US Senators!
I can only imagine what could happen to a student going over his/her time with Ahmadinejad!

[scottinnj]

I voted "no" because I could just see him laying a wreath in honor of the hijackers.

Besides, whatever happened about people thinking he was one of the terrorists who kidnapped our ambassadors in the 70s after the ouster of the Shah of Iran?

Is that just a dead end? Or just a dumbass rumor?

[KnoxHarrington]

I voted "no" because I could just see him laying a wreath in honor of the hijackers.

Besides, whatever happened about people thinking he was one of the terrorists who kidnapped our ambassadors in the 70s after the ouster of the Shah of Iran?

Is that just a dead end? Or just a dumbass rumor?

Searching around for proof, I found this 2005 article from CNN.com that says that the CIA concluded there is no evidence that he was involved in the taking of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran.

But, then again, since when has lack of evidence stopped a war with this horrible administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

[keithy_19]

I don't know what questions you guys heard. While I was watching via al jazeera all the questions were incredibly kind.

Student: Hey. Nice outfit. Casual, I love it. Hows the weather in Iran?

Ahmadinejab: Thank you kind American student. Praise Allah. The weather is a bit dry, but so is Jerry Seinfeld's humor. Kike.

Student: Kike is right.

Ahmadinejab: Indeed.

Student: Praise Allah.

Ahmadinejab: Fuck the faggots.

::Song and dance number begins::

[scottinnj]

Searching around for proof, I found this 2005 article from CNN.com that says that the CIA concluded there is no evidence that he was involved in the taking of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran.

But, then again, since when has lack of evidence stopped a war with this horrible administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html


Thanks. I had heard about this, but never any conclusion to any investigation.

I'm still for "containment" not invasion.

[JPMNICK]

i do not understand how people compare the president of Iran to the President of the US. the iranian president is coming here to talk about how we should destroy isreal and the holocaust never happened.

Also, a lot of the problems we are having in Iraq stem from his condoning of terrorism in his country.

[JPMNICK]

Searching around for proof, I found this 2005 article from CNN.com that says that the CIA concluded there is no evidence that he was involved in the taking of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran.

But, then again, since when has lack of evidence stopped a war with this horrible administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

not to be a dick, but what if that was put out just to calm the tensions between the 2 countries and to not have it be even more tense than it already is?

[Thrice]

i do not understand how people compare the president of Iran to the President of the US. the iranian president is coming here to talk about how we should destroy isreal and the holocaust never happened.

Also, a lot of the problems we are having in Iraq stem from his condoning of terrorism in his country.

I'm not one to call Bush a war criminal or terrorist but the fact is his words and his actions have been directly responsible for an estimated 1.2 Million deaths in Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story?coll=la-news-a_section

100% of the problems we are having in Iraq stem from the decision making of George W. Bush. The buck stops there.

So yeah, you've got a point. We shouldn't compare Bush to Ahmadinejad. One supports terror and the other starts a civil war, installs governments and offers up false evidence as a reason to invade a foreign land.

[Yerdaddy]

Giving this man a forum in our country was/is a slap in the face to every American and our beloved President (a man who I voted for)

Why do you think I said let him visit?

When your religion and politics are the same in the West you end up with horrific events like Christian Fundamentalist bombing abortion clinics to make a point. The same can be said for Islamic fundamentalists. When you think of someone like Ahmadinejad whose religion and politics are the same, you end up with horrific events like the coming of the Mahdi, or 'the Islamic Messiah.' He talks about it openly in his speeches and today was no exception. In fact, I think he started the speech with a remark about the Mahdi.
In 2005 when he was 'elected,' Ahmandinejad promised the end of the world for Christians and Jews and referenced that it would only take a few years to do so. Do the math, we are now a few years removed from 2005. It is a very dangerous world when a leader of a nation with Millions of thinkers like this believe the return of the Mahdi can be ushered in only with Death, Destruction and chaos. The Mahdi will then return to restore order and peace. When he returns, the Mahdi will offer Jews and Christians the chance to convert. When there is a refusal to conversion-----Instant Death!!!!!! That is how Ahmandinejad and Millions like him think. To them, Israel is a stepping stone, then the States, then complete rule and peace once we are all run into the sea and killed. It'd crazy talk.
Giving this man a forum in our country was/is a slap in the face to every American and our beloved President (a man who I voted for) is nowhere to be found. Way to step up, George. I am convinced now more than ever that we are completely out of touch and I view the remainder of our so-called harmonious existence as BONUS TIME. I can't believe we have made it as far as we have. Do you know any other elected officials who base political decisions around religious beliefs???? HMMMMMMMI don't know what's worse, Ahmadinejad----or us, who sit around and do nothing and elect people like Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy; to lead us out of this.

You're talking like this Mahdi story could come to pass. Do you really believe that it matters that the figurehead president of Iran can bring this ridiculous prophesy to pass by destroying Israel with its 200+ nukes and superior conventional weapons... a week from Thursday and be on their way to destroy us next? Does that really keep you awake or are you just using Ahmaddelinekahnitstwueitstwue's own technique of making apocolyptic threats to get your point across?

You're saying a ferrett is coming to destroy America. I say he came to get refused admission to Ground Zero and use it to win points accusing us of hating Iran and hiding "the truth" about 9-11. Instead we let him see the site and let him get heckled by a room full of hungover frat boys which will now be seen by the Iranian middle class on satellite CNN. MSNBC, BBC World and Fox "News".

WE WON! Without invoking holy war or swinging our big American cocks, WE WON! We won by NOT being afraid of nothing for a change. Try to accept this small victory and think of other ways to win victories with our br-br-brains instead of our Super Jesus Ring of Retard Strength. Go hug a liberal and celebrate the win.

I guess you just don't get it, Mojopin. The 'Windshield Cowboy' could have stepped in and halted the visit. It was not out of realm of possibility to do that. It reminded me of another hand-in-hand walk through the garden in Crawford. Instead, the President was quoted as saying, "I guess I'm fine with it," when asked about the visit to New York today. You know that base of pissed off Bush supporters that has been accumulating over the years----I'm one of them. I'm just glad the so-called 'limousine Liberals' actually gave Ahmadinejad a tongue lashing.

Gay monkeys ate my limousine. I'm looking at you Mojo!

[sailor]

Did these hayseeds truly believe he wouldn't get grilled about his Holocaust denial and human rights abuses there?

it's easy to say you saw it coming after the fact. i don't think i read anyone on here say they expected him to get grilled there.

[Yerdaddy]

not to be a dick, but what if that was put out just to calm the tensions between the 2 countries and to not have it be even more tense than it already is?

"Put out" by who?

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not one to call Bush a war criminal or terrorist but the fact is his words and his actions have been directly responsible for an estimated 1.2 Million deaths in Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,1207545.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Bullshit. When the Lancet published the study that estimated 600,00+ deaths give or take 300,000, journalists in Iraq who had been building contacts in Iraqi hospitals to cover civilian casualties surveyed those contacts for figures to that date and found it was physically impossible that the number could be anywhere near even 300,000. So a million dead now is just as impossible with the UN estimating the last two years' civilian casualties in the 20-30 thousand range per year. Bush takes overall responsibility for a lot of civilian casualties, but nothing close to 1.2 million.

[TheMojoPin]

it's easy to say you saw it coming after the fact. i don't think i read anyone on here say they expected him to get grilled there.

So whatif nobody here actually spelled that out here. Why would anyone think he wouldn't be asked tough question about his most controversial points when those are all that he's known for? Did people really think that he would be coddled and basically patted on the back?

[sailor]

So whatif nobody here actually spelled that out here. Why would anyone think he wouldn't be asked tough question about his most controversial points when those are all that he's known for? Did people really think that he would be coddled and basically patted on the back?

hey, people defended him speaking there and that would have been a great defense. i don't think either side saw it coming. i could be wrong, but can't imagine why those who supported columbia would have not thrown it out if it had occurred to them.

[Thrice]

Bullshit. When the Lancet published the study that estimated 600,00+ deaths give or take 300,000, journalists in Iraq who had been building contacts in Iraqi hospitals to cover civilian casualties surveyed those contacts for figures to that date and found it was physically impossible that the number could be anywhere near even 300,000. So a million dead now is just as impossible with the UN estimating the last two years' civilian casualties in the 20-30 thousand range per year. Bush takes overall responsibility for a lot of civilian casualties, but nothing close to 1.2 million.

Take it up with ORB.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/09/21/orb_survey_and_1_2_million_iraq_deaths_i

The UK ORB estimate of 1.2 million, violence-related, post-invasion Iraqi deaths is supported by 5 estimates from 4 independent data sets of about 1 million post-invasion Iraqi excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that should not have happened) as of September 2007 (for details see: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/16802/42/ and http://open.newmatilda.com/crosswire/?p=129 ).

As of September 2007, excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that should not have happened) in post-invasion Iraq total:

(1) 0.7 million (from conservatively UNDER-estimated UN Population Division data);

(2) 0.8 million (from estimating post-invasion under-5 infant deaths from UNICEF data and dividing by 0.7) (see “Layperson’s Guide to Counting Iraq Deaths”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/5872/26/ );

(3) 1.0 million (using data from The Lancet published in 2004);

(4) 1.0 million (using data from The Lancet, published in 2006); and

(5) 1.1 million (the “best estimate”, from using data published in The Lancet in 2006 and using Iraq’s impoverished but peaceful neighbors Syria and Jordan for a comparative mortality baseline).

[Midkiff]

Amacuntejad is an evil cunt. Fuck him in his fuck-hole. Bush too. They should hang out.

[TheMojoPin]

hey, people defended him speaking there and that would have been a great defense. i don't think either side saw it coming. i could be wrong, but can't imagine why those who supported columbia would have not thrown it out if it had occurred to them.

Even if they hadn't talked down as hard as they did on him, or at all, the same people still would have been "defending" it because it's a unique opportunity to hear someone who has been made, justly or not, into a focal point as an "Axis of Evil." It's not like he was being given anything special...he can make his speeches and have them put on TV or the internet and have them available for even more people than an appearance at a university would give him.

Your response just smacks, whether you intended to do so or not, of the general perception fostered by the neo-con segment of the Right that wants to insult, attack and demonize those perceived as the Left as much as possible. It's all but saying, "well, nobody was expecting those terrorist loving college commies to step up to this guy!" Even if he had just showed up and spoke and hadn't been attacked like that, what's so wrong about that? He's a major figure in the world today and this is giving studtents a chance to hear him. That doesn't mean they agree with him or support him at all...it's witnessing current events and eventual history firsthand.

More was accomplished in this single visit in terms of America intelligently and realistically countering his bullshit rhetoric than has been done by our administration the entire time Ahmadinejab has been in office. And yet, the main focus before and after is still along of the lines of, "how dare he be allowed into our country!" and "those damn college liberals are just supporting a terrorist" and "him visting Ground Zero would be an insult!" Yes, let's continue to demonize him and others as some kind of absurd comic book supervillain as opposed to actually attempting to soundly respond to what he's saying and claiming. It's clearly much better to stay as distant as possible from him in both actions and words and pretend like he doesn't exist except when it's time to look for the latest Middle Eastern boogeyman. It's all or nothing along those lines when it comes to much of the public and issues like this.

[badmonkey]

He's speaking live on CNN and probably every other news network right now as he speaks to the UN. Although, he won't be "asked the tough questions" at the end of this speech. Thank you Columbia University for allowing Ahmadgenocide a chance to sidestep and gloss over the tough questions.

I wonder if he developed his routine at the Iranian Improv before he came here to perform it.

Good jokes, great show.

Badmonkey

[TheMojoPin]

Thank you Columbia University for allowing Ahmadgenocide a chance to sidestep and gloss over the tough questions.

So what should they have done? Beat him up until he said what people want to hear? Cut his mic when he didn't give the right answers? Throw things at him? Your comment implies there should have been some kind of alternative response by the University...please clarify what it "should" have been. I guess inviting him there to call him out on his crap isn't enough. How are they not making their points in what they did? Or are you just going to insist on taking shots at anyone who isn't just toeing the "HOW DARE HE BE ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING!" line like so many others here? Seems like griping and insulting just for the sake of it since the people targeted are perceived as falling on THAT side of the spectrum.

[Thrice]

He's speaking live on CNN and probably every other news network right now as he speaks to the UN. Although, he won't be "asked the tough questions" at the end of this speech. Thank you Columbia University for allowing Ahmadgenocide a chance to sidestep and gloss over the tough questions.

I wonder if he developed his routine at the Iranian Improv before he came here to perform it.

Good jokes, great show.

Badmonkey

http://sc.tri-bit.com/images/7/75/rofl.jpg

[badmonkey]

So what should they have done? Beat him up until he said what people want to hear? Cut his mic when he didn't give the right answers? Throw things at him? Your comment implies there should have been some kind of alternative response by the University...please clarify what it "should" have been. I guess inviting him there to call him out on his crap isn't enough. How are they not making their points in what they did? Or are you just going to insist on taking shots at anyone who isn't just toeing the "HOW DARE HE BE ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING!" line like so many others here? Seems like griping and insulting just for the sake of it since the people targeted are perceived as falling on THAT side of the spectrum.

No need to get so upset. My only point was that the whole thing with him and the appearance at Columbia as well as the UN is laughable. I can't believe anybody thought that they were going to "get him" with anything. He ignores controversy and acts like it never happened. They did get some interesting answers, but he didn't really answer anything at all. The guy is extremely intelligent and he thinks he can kick off the apocalypse. He invited the world to join him in playing a part in that today at the UN. I don't have issue with some students from a university asking him some questions. People that are concerned that he's gonna convert anybody to his point of view are from the same shelf as the tools that are afraid that they will be zapped by a crucifix on a wall and suddenly become Christians.

I think if he wants a special tour of ground zero, we should arrange for him to see it from a similar angle to what many others saw on 9/11 as he heads towards it after being shoved out of a helicopter.

Whatever...

Badmonkey

[sailor]

Even if they hadn't talked down as hard as they did on him, or at all, the same people still would have been "defending" it because it's a unique opportunity to hear someone who has been made, justly or not, into a focal point as an "Axis of Evil." It's not like he was being given anything special...he can make his speeches and have them put on TV or the internet and have them available for even more people than an appearance at a university would give him.

Your response just smacks, whether you intended to do so or not, of the general perception fostered by the neo-con segment of the Right that wants to insult, attack and demonize those perceived as the Left as much as possible. It's all but saying, "well, nobody was expecting those terrorist loving college commies to step up to this guy!" Even if he had just showed up and spoke and hadn't been attacked like that, what's so wrong about that? He's a major figure in the world today and this is giving studtents a chance to hear him. That doesn't mean they agree with him or support him at all...it's witnessing current events and eventual history firsthand.

More was accomplished in this single visit in terms of America intelligently and realistically countering his bullshit rhetoric than has been done by our administration the entire time Ahmadinejab has been in office. And yet, the main focus before and after is still along of the lines of, "how dare he be allowed into our country!" and "those damn college liberals are just supporting a terrorist" and "him visting Ground Zero would be an insult!" Yes, let's continue to demonize him and others as some kind of absurd comic book supervillain as opposed to actually attempting to soundly respond to what he's saying and claiming. It's clearly much better to stay as distant as possible from him in both actions and words and pretend like he doesn't exist except when it's time to look for the latest Middle Eastern boogeyman. It's all or nothing along those lines when it comes to much of the public and issues like this.

actually, all it smacked of was countering a specific poster who implied that only the hayseeds didn't see ahmad's rough treatment coming.

[Doogie]

The main issue with him visiting the WTC site is a matter of security. Yes I know some of you will say "...but he was at Columbia University, bitch bitch bitch..." That is main reason why he is not allowed to go down there. It is not unlike when good ole Nikita Kruschev visited the US back in 56 and wanted to see Disneyland, but the secret service said no on the same grounds, security.

[TheMojoPin]

No need to get so upset. My only point was that the whole thing with him and the appearance at Columbia as well as the UN is laughable. I can't believe anybody thought that they were going to "get him" with anything. He ignores controversy and acts like it never happened.

So what? We finally showed that somebody this country can have some kind of response or debate to posturing outside of vague , pseudo-patriotic "cliches" and threatening to invade. Have you actually read about his response at Columbia? The debate and the points and statements made towards him definitely caught him offguard and he ended up being very visibly angry and flustered for most of it. That's hardly the response of someone who just "acts like nothing happened." Of course I'm not saying that this is ome kind of magical cure-all the defuses his rhetoric, but to shrug it off as if it meant totally nothing simply shows you haven't bothered to actually read or listen to what really happened during his visit. You made up your mind ahead of time and the actual details aren't going to change it.

They did get some interesting answers, but he didn't really answer anything at all.

Again, all this does is demonstrate that you likely haven't read or heard what was actually said during the debate. I'd readily argue none of his answers were "interesting" at all...his responses were basically negative and somewhat surprised to the tone of the statements and questions made to him and then recovery attempts to spin his typical rhetoric. Your statement implies that this whole thing was meant to somehow reveal some kind of mystery about the man that we didn't know the answer to.

The guy is extremely intelligent and he thinks he can kick off the apocalypse. He invited the world to join him in playing a part in that today at the UN.

Again, he doesn't actually run that country. He doesn't have any control over their military. His job is to be the sensational and attention-getting mouthpiece that consolidates the Iranian conservative base that are holdovers from the Shia revolution. People toss out his "apocalypse" talk as if it has been anything beyond vague, pseudo-religious posturing that blindly waves at the West, Israel and any other enemies of the Shia. I'm not saying it should be ignored, but people place way too much stock and way too much spin on what he says and inflating his role and capabilities as the president of Iran. Too many people are gobbling up the supervillain caricature that's been paraded about of him and seemingly accepting that there's no other alternative between the US and Iran except for some kind of armed conflict.

[badmonkey]

So what? We finally showed that somebody this country can have some kind of response or debate to posturing outside of vague , pseudo-patriotic "cliches" and threatening to invade. Have you actually read about his response at Columbia? The debate and the points and statements made towards him definitely caught him offguard and he ended up being very visibly angry and flustered for most of it. That's hardly the response of someone who just "acts like nothing happened." Of course I'm not saying that this is ome kind of magical cure-all the defuses his rhetoric, but to shrug it off as if it meant totally nothing simply shows you haven't bothered to actually read or listen to what really happened during his visit. You made up your mind ahead of time and the actual details aren't going to change it.



Again, all this does is demonstrate that you likely haven't read or heard what was actually said during the debate. I'd readily argue none of his answers were "interesting" at all...his responses were basically negative and somewhat surprised to the tone of the statements and questions made to him and then recovery attempts to spin his typical rhetoric. Your statement implies that this whole thing was meant to somehow reveal some kind of mystery about the man that we didn't know the answer to.



Again, he doesn't actually run that country. He doesn't have any control over their military. His job is to be the sensational and attention-getting mouthpiece that consolidates the Iranian conservative base that are holdovers from the Shia revolution. People toss out his "apocalypse" talk as if it has been anything beyond vague, pseudo-religious posturing that blindly waves at the West, Israel and any other enemies of the Shia. I'm not saying it should be ignored, but people place way too much stock and way too much spin on what he says and inflating his role and capabilities as the president of Iran. Too many people are gobbling up the supervillain caricature that's been paraded about of him and seemingly accepting that there's no other alternative between the US and Iran except for some kind of armed conflict.

I actually listened to his appearances at both Columbia AND the UN, so you'd be wrong about me not knowing wtf happened. I laughed at his crap answers all day long. I heard him today talking about how god was going to come back and all that same crap he's been spewing for years about the return of the 13th(?) Imam and he said we should all play a part in that. While he may seem like a nice guy to Mike Wallace, the guy is obviously the religious nutjob that you make Bush out to be. He doesn't need control of the Iranian military to achieve what he thinks will this about. All he needs is to somehow set off another real world war. Will it bring about the apocalypse, I don't think so... but when you look at what others are willing to do for 72 virgins...you gotta be a little unnerved by somebody thinking he can bring god down to create heaven on earth.

Oh... nevermind... I have no idea what I'm talking about because I haven't "read" about the response at Columbia. I've only been listening to CNN talk about it all day long after hearing it firsthand.

Badmonkey

[torker]

I could go for so chicken almond dingejad.

[FUNKMAN]

I could go for so chicken almond dingejad.

wait what????

[TheMojoPin]

I actually listened to his appearances at both Columbia AND the UN, so you'd be wrong about me not knowing wtf happened. I laughed at his crap answers all day long. I heard him today talking about how god was going to come back and all that same crap he's been spewing for years about the return of the 13th(?) Imam and he said we should all play a part in that.

12th Imam.

And again, if you saw the entire exchange, why are you totally leaving out how clearly angry and frustrated he was by the tone of the debate? Your initial response made zero mention of it and actually clearly implied the exact opposite...that he shrugged everything off like it was nothing. That's not what happened at all.

While he may seem like a nice guy to Mike Wallace,

Complete strawman with absolutely no basis in reality. Again, the vague expectation that any American delaing with this man and not screaming in his face or beating him down or whatever some people expect means that the person dealing with him approves, likes or supports him.

the guy is obviously the religious nutjob that you make Bush out to be.

I never said Bush was a "religious nut." I also don't think Ahmadinejad is. I think both are very shrewdly using their religions to strengthen their base and rhetoric, though the latter is clearly doing it to a much more extreme degree is. What I did say about Bush in this thread is that many of his decisions as president are driven by his religion...and that's according to him.

He doesn't need control of the Iranian military to achieve what he thinks will this about. All he needs is to somehow set off another real world war. Will it bring about the apocalypse, I don't think so... but when you look at what others are willing to do for 72 virgins...you gotta be a little unnerved by somebody thinking he can bring god down to create heaven on earth.

Wait...how can you back up the first part at all? He doesn't have control of the military, but he doesn't need it to start a war? Then how is he going to do it? What kind of theoretical plan are you privy to that allows him to do such a thing? Remember, he answers to people above him...people who have have often acted in contrast to his claims and rhetoric. His word is far from the final word in Iran, and he doesn't act on his own without the approval of those above him.

Oh... nevermind... I have no idea what I'm talking about because I haven't "read" about the response at Columbia. I've only been listening to CNN talk about it all day long after hearing it firsthand.

Then you're willfully ignoring very key parts of the entire exchange, namely his very obviously angry and surprised reaction and responses to the tone of the debate.

What do you think the US should or should not do in response to Iran?

[Yerdaddy]

He doesn't need control of the Iranian military to achieve what he thinks will this about. All he needs is to somehow set off another real world war. Will it bring about the apocalypse, I don't think so... but when you look at what others are willing to do for 72 virgins...you gotta be a little unnerved by somebody thinking he can bring god down to create heaven on earth.

QUOTED FOR NUTTINESS

He's been taking flying lessons in Arizona! He's going to fly Persia into the eastern seaboard! Look out! He's coming right for us!

What has he done in his time in office to bring the world closer to a world war? What have we done in that same time period?

[A.J.]

What has he done in his time in office to bring the world closer to a world war?

He's trying to bring back the Member's Only jacket. That's a crime against humanity right there.

[badmonkey]

QUOTED FOR NUTTINESS

He's been taking flying lessons in Arizona! He's going to fly Persia into the eastern seaboard! Look out! He's coming right for us!

What has he done in his time in office to bring the world closer to a world war? What have we done in that same time period?

You neglect the fact that the Iranian nuclear push could get Israel to bomb Iran, which would bring about the chaos he believes is necessary. He doesn't need control of the military for that. He doesn't need to be in control of ANYTHING for that actually, since the religious powers in Iran seem to be pushing that agenda as well.


Badmonkey

[TheMojoPin]

You neglect the fact that the Iranian nuclear push could get Israel to bomb Iran, which would bring about the chaos he believes is necessary. He doesn't need control of the military for that. He doesn't need to be in control of ANYTHING for that actually, since the religious powers in Iran seem to be pushing that agenda as well.


Badmonkey

Based on what? The main indicator of any kind of theory along these lines is his rhetoric, which has been contrasted many times by Iran's actual actions. The main "proof" of what you're saying is what HE'S saying, and what he says isn't necessarily reflective of what Iran has done or will do. And you still haven't explained how HE can start a war without an army he can control or really any kind of resources along those lines. It's also a huge leap to think the potential tin can nuclear aresenal they can come up with in the next few years even comes close to rivaling the 200 or so missiles and tactical superioroty Israel has over them. Even a terrorist-style "nuke" strike against Israel is no kind of guarentee of "apocalypse"-style chaos since that would be, while devastating to a degree, likely too limited in scope.

In short, there's little evidence that this is serious near future outcome outside of what he says, and what he says often doesn't end up matching up with Iran's actions...and in this case, it's especially not doing so. Iran wants nuclear power to have the swinging dick to be a "player," not supervillains who want the world to do what they say or they destroy everything. If they were that removed from reality, they wouldn't be anywhere near the level of modernization and Westernization they are now, morseo than many other ME countries. I don't think their nuclear development is something to be ignored, but a country like that in the middle of a legit velvet revolution should be corralled and contained, not messily stomped on like Iraq or Afghanistan.

And I ask again, what do YOU propose should be done about Iran?

[badmonkey]

Based on what? The main indicator of any kind of theory along these lines is his rhetoric, which has been contrasted many times by Iran's actual actions. The main "proof" of what you're saying is what HE'S saying, and what he says isn't necessarily reflective of what Iran has done or will do. And you still haven't explained how HE can start a war without an army he can control or really any kind of resources along those lines. It's also a huge leap to think the potential tin can nuclear aresenal they can come up with in the next few years even comes close to rivaling the 200 or so missiles and tactical superioroty Israel has over them. Even a terrorist-style "nuke" strike against Israel is no kind of guarentee of "apocalypse"-style chaos since that would be, while devastating to a degree, likely too limited in scope.

In short, there's little evidence that this is serious near future outcome outside of what he says, and what he says often doesn't end up matching up with Iran's actions...and in this case, it's especially not doing so. Iran wants nuclear power to have the swinging dick to be a "player," not supervillains who want the world to do what they say or they destroy everything. If they were that removed from reality, they wouldn't be anywhere near the level of modernization and Westernization they are now, morseo than many other ME countries. I don't think their nuclear development is something to be ignored, but a country like that in the middle of a legit velvet revolution should be corralled and contained, not messily stomped on like Iraq or Afghanistan.

And I ask again, what do YOU propose should be done about Iran?

You really don't read anything I type do you? I didn't say that Iran would have an arsenal to rival ANYBODY. What I said was, their actions and rhetoric could result in Israel bombing the sites of their nuclear facilities. That would likely result in several surrounding muslim countries attacking Israel, as well as the potential for Egypt to break it's treaty with Israel, closing the Suez Canal and Strait of Tiran and drawing Europe and the USA into the conflict.

Even the French came out a week or so ago saying that Iran could be attacked if they don't knock it off with the pursuit of nuclear weapons. It has absolutely zero to do with Iran's ability to defend itself or with Ahmadgenocide's ability to control the Iranian military.

For somebody that advocates diplomacy, you sure seem to have more faith in the actions of the military than the words and rhetoric of world leaders.

How would I deal with Iran? I liked Newt's idea of letting Iran know that if they didn't knock it off, we would send a special forces team to destroy their single refinery and then put in a naval blockade to keep any refined oil from being shipped back into Iran. In a week or two, all the Iranians would be forced to walk everywhere they go. It shouldn't be long before they get sick of that shit and start their own revolution, which we will happily back once the citizens of Iran take action. Once he's got that information, he can either knock it off or be the guy that takes his country back in time a couple of centuries.

Badmonkey

[WRESTLINGFAN]

He's trying to bring back the Member's Only jacket. That's a crime against humanity right there.

Visit Lovely Tehran. Where it is always Casual Fridays

http://www.bitsofnews.com/images/graphics/iranian_president.jpg


http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/photos/iran_president_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

You really don't read anything I type do you? I didn't say that Iran would have an arsenal to rival ANYBODY. What I said was, their actions and rhetoric could result in Israel bombing the sites of their nuclear facilities. That would likely result in several surrounding muslim countries attacking Israel, as well as the potential for Egypt to break it's treaty with Israel, closing the Suez Canal and Strait of Tiran and drawing Europe and the USA into the conflict.

I read exactly what you said...Israel took out Iraq's nuclear capabilities with airstrikes under Saddam's rule. Why would a similar strike now "likely result in several surrounding muslim countries attacking Israel, as well as the potential for Egypt to break it's treaty with Israel, closing the Suez Canal and Strait of Tiran and drawing Europe and the USA into the conflict?" What do you view as significantly different now as opposed to then that suddenly makes this so mcuh more likely? If anything, it's even less likely...Iran is a Shia country, who are a minority and a much hated one throughout most of the ME. Most ME countries view Iran as a threat to them and their stability since they are part of the Shi'ite majority, as Iraq was at the time. What are you aware of that suddenly tosses these circumstances out the window?

Even the French came out a week or so ago saying that Iran could be attacked if they don't knock it off with the pursuit of nuclear weapons. It has absolutely zero to do with Iran's ability to defend itself or with Ahmadgenocide's ability to control the Iranian military.

Actually, it has almost everything to do with his ability to control the military if his rhetoric is essentially the "proof" that Iran is likely to do what you're saying you think they might do.

For somebody that advocates diplomacy, you sure seem to have more faith in the actions of the military than the words and rhetoric of world leaders.

How so? I brought up the contrasting militaries to point how they make conflict between Iran and Israel unlikely.

How would I deal with Iran? I liked Newt's idea of letting Iran know that if they didn't knock it off, we would send a special forces team to destroy their single refinery and then put in a naval blockade to keep any refined oil from being shipped back into Iran. In a week or two, all the Iranians would be forced to walk everywhere they go. It shouldn't be long before they get sick of that shit and start their own revolution, which we will happily back once the citizens of Iran take action. Once he's got that information, he can either knock it off or be the guy that takes his country back in time a couple of centuries.

At the pace Iran is going, a forced violent revolution is likely a bad move, especially if the US are visibly the ones forcing the circumstances. A blockade would ultimately make the populace suffer more than anyone else in power...we would effectively be squandering the moderate and Westernized nature of the younger majority that way. Why would they want our help or support or want to ally with us when all we did was go out of our way to make their lives miserable?

[sailor]

but, is he hott (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/09/debate-over-whe.html)?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

but, is he hott (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/09/debate-over-whe.html)?

Iranian women wanna bang the Shi'Ite outta him?

[badmonkey]

I read exactly what you said...Israel took out Iraq's nuclear capabilities with airstrikes under Saddam's rule. Why would a similar strike now "likely result in several surrounding muslim countries attacking Israel, as well as the potential for Egypt to break it's treaty with Israel, closing the Suez Canal and Strait of Tiran and drawing Europe and the USA into the conflict?" What do you view as significantly different now as opposed to then that suddenly makes this so mcuh more likely? If anything, it's even less likely...Iran is a Shia country, who are a minority and a much hated one throughout most of the ME. Most ME countries view Iran as a threat to them and their stability since they are part of the Shi'ite majority, as Iraq was at the time. What are you aware of that suddenly tosses these circumstances out the window?



Actually, it has almost everything to do with his ability to control the military if his rhetoric is essentially the "proof" that Iran is likely to do what you're saying you think they might do.



How so? I brought up the contrasting militaries to point how they make conflict between Iran and Israel unlikely.



At the pace Iran is going, a forced violent revolution is likely a bad move, especially if the US are visibly the ones forcing the circumstances. A blockade would ultimately make the populace suffer more than anyone else in power...we would effectively be squandering the moderate and Westernized nature of the younger majority that way. Why would they want our help or support or want to ally with us when all we did was go out of our way to make their lives miserable?

Maybe the current perceived war against Islam and the United States support of Israel might help spark that little riot after the Israeli bombing of Iran. Honestly tho... who gives a shit? I made a comment about how he sidestepped all the "tough questions" at Columbia and then continued his rhetoric at the UN and called it a comedy routine. You wanna argue over technicalities within hypotheticals after you try pick a fight with me because I'm conservative. I obviously don't have any secret operatives infiltrating his office and sending me back intelligence so of course I can't answer specifics on what exactly he wants to do. He is part of a group that thinks they can bring about the return of the hidden imam by causing chaos in the world. He spoke at the UN yesterday and said this was going to happen and that we should all play a part in it.

I wasn't attacking Columbia for inviting him. I could fucking care less. They made a big deal about asking him the "tough questions", which he largely sidestepped by either answering with another question or rambling about something loosely related or attempted to turn back into an attack on this country. He's been saying all that same shit already for awhile now, without having to have a "tough question" asked to trick him into saying it. "But we caught him making a homophobic statement! Nobody knew he was a homophobic asshole before he spoke at Columbia!"... seriously... that was the big payoff? Small children probably could have guessed that after being told he was a part of a radical sect (read: cult) of Islam.

If you learned anything new about him from his speaking at Columbia or the UN this week, then you haven't been paying attention.

Badmonkey

[TheMojoPin]

Maybe the current perceived war against Islam and the United States support of Israel might help spark that little riot after the Israeli bombing of Iran. Honestly tho... who gives a shit? I made a comment about how he sidestepped all the "tough questions" at Columbia and then continued his rhetoric at the UN and called it a comedy routine. You wanna argue over technicalities within hypotheticals after you try pick a fight with me because I'm conservative.

No, I'm responding to the points you've brought up and then asking questions as to why you've reached those conclusions.

The point of the University visit, as I'm seeing it, was to get him out of his comfort zone and see how he responded to being called out on his crap. If you look at his history up until this point he's always played it safe in terms of where he spoke and who he spoke to, where he thought he could get away with his rhetoric. He clearly thought he was going to be in an evironment where people were going to silently respect his position and let him speak and instead they called him out. I really don't think it was meant to be much more than that besides observing a controversial and important world leader speaking in person. It doesn't have to be this huge thing positive or negative...it just happened, and it was somewhat unusual and, in my opinion, enjoyable in terms of how it contrasted with his usual speaking appearances.

[Yerdaddy]

You neglect the fact that the Iranian nuclear push could get Israel to bomb Iran, which would bring about the chaos he believes is necessary. He doesn't need control of the military for that. He doesn't need to be in control of ANYTHING for that actually, since the religious powers in Iran seem to be pushing that agenda as well.


Badmonkey

Well that would be Israel starting a war, wouldn't it?

[Yerdaddy]

How would I deal with Iran? I liked Newt's idea of letting Iran know that if they didn't knock it off, we would send a special forces team to destroy their single refinery and then put in a naval blockade to keep any refined oil from being shipped back into Iran. In a week or two, all the Iranians would be forced to walk everywhere they go. It shouldn't be long before they get sick of that shit and start their own revolution, which we will happily back once the citizens of Iran take action. Once he's got that information, he can either knock it off or be the guy that takes his country back in time a couple of centuries.

Badmonkey

So WE should start a war?

I'm starting to see your point about him starting a war just by being President in a world full of war-starters. Damn him.

Do you work for the Heritage Foundation or something?

[high fly]

You can't be serious. He's a head of state, not providing security for him is a recipe for assassination. Plus the NYPD provides security all the time for all sorts of heads of state we don't like and even the most marginal of celebrities who make public appearances. Anyone who lives in this town knows that. To not provide it in his case is exceptional and extraordinary.


Nice well-reasoned reply, Bulldog.

I would be ok with A-Job going to Ground Zero but not to make a speech or hold a press conference.

[high fly]

No, I'm responding to the points you've brought up and then asking questions as to why you've reached those conclusions.

The point of the University visit, as I'm seeing it, was to get him out of his comfort zone and see how he responded to being called out on his crap. If you look at his history up until this point he's always played it safe in terms of where he spoke and who he spoke to, where he thought he could get away with his rhetoric. He clearly thought he was going to be in an evironment where people were going to silently respect his position and let him speak and instead they called him out. I really don't think it was meant to be much more than that besides observing a controversial and important world leader speaking in person. It doesn't have to be this huge thing positive or negative...it just happened, and it was somewhat unusual and, in my opinion, enjoyable in terms of how it contrasted with his usual speaking appearances.

Yep yep yep yepyepyepyep.
Overall, I think his visit to Columbia was a good thing.
















Better than Reagan going to Bitburg.

[Midkiff]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/cuntymcslut/i-cant-has-bomb-no-gays-no-bomb.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

A young gay Iranian man - a gayranian - tells his story of coming to terms with himself, his family and his society. It sounds pretty much like the stories of American homosexuals a generation or so ago. Or maybe a generation from now. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801322_pf.html)

[scottinnj]

He denies homosexuality as he denies his own soul....we should help him face his feelings, then the world will be a safer place. At least according to SNL.


Enjoy
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xhBQxbxAcLg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xhBQxbxAcLg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


I love the shot of him eating ice cream. Just dandy!

[TooLowBrow]

i was just thinking about how the students all laughed when the iranian president said his country had no gays. then i realized that if Bush was watching him say that he would've been nodding along muttering, 'i wish WE had that'.
we elected a guy who idolizes iran's 'no-homo' policy

[high fly]

i was just thinking about how the students all laughed when the iranian president said his country had no gays. then i realized that if Bush was watching him say that he would've been nodding along muttering, 'i wish WE had that'.
we elected a guy who idolizes iran's 'no-homo' policy


A-Job reminded me of that line in Steambath where the guy says "...of course we know there are no fags in the Ghurkas" and the two gay chaps look knowingly at each other because they know different.

This was before Valerie Perrine took it off and showered topless right in front of the viewer and those glorious dugs of hers were right there on PBS for all the world to see!


I always used to like the fact that the government subsidized channels had titties and the regular channels didn't...