Iran Leader Denied on WTC Wreath Request

Don't be so quick to make assumptions. But yeah I'm sure he is not that bad a guy from a certain point of view. Just like the liberal I was arguing with saying Bush was like Hitler and actually defending Hitlers memory by recalling that he did great thinks economically.

There is some sarcasm there. He isn't a man at all to be judged based on anything over than his actions and political direction. whether he kisses young children goodnight or is a loving person in general has nothing to do with anything.

That said.. HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED to place the wreath. It's bad PR to say no and good PR to say that we can accept this leader who's country we are at odds with as being at least a human being capable of feeling sadness for the loss of the innocent. I am disgusted by the no answer but at the same time I wonder if there is other possible reasons for his request. Maybe he wants NY to have a taste of what Australia got with Bushes visit. I'm sure the security around him will be intense.

HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED to place the wreath.

As a New York City resident and taxpayer there's a lot about the action you forget to look at that we do. First off it's not a stones throw from the UN to Ground Zero, it's a lifetime in terms of neighborhoods and high use roadways. Security for diplomatic visitors, President or foreign is a nightmare and huge resource drain on NYC. As early as today you can see stepped up presence and activity preparing for the UN event. The city is crawling with uniforms and undercover SUV's are out in force, that's just what I see.

The day before the final prep, all the street side free paper boxes and trash cans get removed, snipers are stationed on roofs and advance teams do set up and sweeps. Roads are blocked, traffic rerouted. It's too much to do for the one request of Ground Zero, not political just prqactical cost and inconvenience to the millions of us going on with life, or trying. I appreciate Ahmadinejad's desire to pay respects, but as one more resident tired of being inconvenienced for the security of dignatires, glad they said NO.

Maybe take him cross town to the Colbert Report Studio and give a wreath to Steven to take to the site for him.

The day before the final prep, all the street side free paper boxes and trash cans get removed, snipers are stationed on roofs and advance teams do set up and sweeps. Roads are blocked, traffic rerouted. It's too much to do for the one request of Ground Zero, not political just prqactical cost and inconvenience to the millions of us going on with life, or trying. I appreciate Ahmadinejad's desire to pay respects, but as one more resident tired of being inconvenienced for the security of dignatires, glad they said NO.

Thank you for that perspective; it's something I hadn't considered.

Whoa talk about a little shock of reality ! I did somewhat forget there for a moment that I lived close to Washington DC for almost 25 years and just how large an event it was for what seemed like a trivial event to others, however if you happened to live in the area and had to deal with blocked off roads, masses of mystery black cars with government plates then it all made sense.

Thanks for the wake up Pamela !

Glad to, not for nothin', we New Yawkas are known for offering opinions. Far be it from me to disappoint *grin*

Yeah offering opinions and from the time stamp, never sleeping !!!

I never knew you were an NYC resident, Pamela.

But you brought up an even more interesting topic: Wouldn't it be awesome to see Ahmadinejad on an episode The Colbert Report? "So in closing, Mr. Ahmadinejad...George Bush: Great president, or the greatest president?"

"So in closing, Mr. Ahmadinejad...George Bush: Great president, or the greatest president?"

OMG, you are too funny! I'm so glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth just now, or my monitor would be wearing it.

:)

Hamid Karzai did the show like a year ago, his book had come out and Comedy Central made the book tour stops I suppose. All these things do involve security issues but Bill Clinton was on Jon Stewart tonight. Now that he's a private citizen he's out on the streets no biggie. Foreign dignataries and targets do roll out the security big time and cause some problems but in the offical traffic and procession ways. When folks want to go eat or cruise around like the rest of the masses, we New Yorkers let them wait in line right behind us.

Yeah, this whole anti-Iranian fervor being kicked up by the neoconmen and their propaganda outlets has very little to do with the average Iranian/Persian. There weren't any spontaneous 9/11 vigils in Saudi Arabia or Israel shortly after those attacks, but there were in Iran.

Nice reminder chindi,

Many don't know in this country, sadly, that the average Iranian has nothing but respect and admiration for this country and it's citizens. The media doesn't provide that view often enough, maybe if they did, fewer people here would fantasize about killing so many of them.

Many don't know in this country, sadly, that the average Iranian has nothing but respect and admiration for this country and it's citizens.

I agree; its Bush and his people they hate.

I agree; its Bush and his people they hate.

...... same goes for some US citizens and Ahma-freakin-nutjob and the pieceloving Ayatollahs.

The media doesn't provide that view often enough

The media does portray the Iranian's as kind, gentle, and intelligent people who admire America. Even the 3rd most hated talk show host in America (Glenn Beck) says it. Then on the other side of the grass is Matt Lauer. I watched him Monday go on about Iran and the US similarities.

I think it's ironic that the majority of the "common folk" on both sides agree on the same thing.

That is strange that you got no votes up, until I came in, it just goes to show you that the neocons, zionists, racists, liberal warhawks, have a secrete agenda, aggression by both Americans class thugs, and Israeali class thugs.

Eric, grow up a little will ya... I voted it up as soon as I read it. his comment has 13 votes and counting... Hold your guns sonny, we're not all idiots....

Many don't know in this country, sadly, that the average Iranian has nothing but respect and admiration for this country and it's citizens.

True-- in fact, many Iranians are amongst the most pro-US people in the world. Do you know why?

They should have let him. It just makes the US look petty for denying the request

I agree Brenda, it just makes the US look childish, like we did when we refused the help of Cuban doctors after Katrina. Here another government is trying to show respect for a tragedy and get spit on. Its pathetic.

when we refused the help of Cuban doctors after Katrina

@chindi
I had not heard that - I know our (Canadian) help was refused.

It is not Iran that is threatening Israel,

Eric, just what in hades are you smokin?
I'm not even going to go through the trouble of finding the quotes and links for you. (yes non-fox, and MSM....memri.org if you must look)

It is not Iran that is threatening Israel,

Well, then who is it-- in your humble (class) opinion? :-)

It seems like the question better asked might be "Who is threatening Iran?"

Iran is a sovereign nation with a right to determining it's energy needs, and is complying with the IAEA (or whatever the acronym is). Yet, just as the picture was painted that Iraq was trying to gain WMDs and develop 'the bomb' it was later determined that whole story was a sham, and now nearly everyone sees that the Iraq invasion was always about oil. It looks like this latest shift to focus on Iran is as much about oil as anything, but certainly there are fear-mongerers who are pro-Israel (and don't get me wrong I love the people of Israel as much as any people, but I am for finding peaceful diplomatic solutions, which are contrary to the Israeli policies of making more land grabs and attacking their neighbors).

Though, to answer the question:
"Well, then who is it-- in your humble (class) opinion? :-)"

In my opinion it is Israel that is threatening Israel with it's own policies, much like it is America which is threatening America (and it's future) with it's policies.

Yet, just as the picture was painted that Iraq was trying to gain WMDs and develop 'the bomb' it was later determined that whole story was a sham

The whole story was a sham? Are you saying Bush 41, Clinton, and GW were all wrong? Please show me, I'd love to see it.

are contrary to the Israeli policies of making more land grabs

Actually, the history of Israel over the last few years is one of them giving up land- not acquiring more. And, not under coercion, but rather doing so voluntarily!

1- The Sinai:

-The Sinai is 60,000 square kilometers.... more than 2X the size of Israel! It is a valuable property-- the coast of the Red Sea is great for tourism, as there are beautiful beaches with extensive sea life.

Oh, and it has oil!

-"In 1967, Egypt reinforced its military presence in Sinai, renewed the blockade on Eilat, and on May 16 ordered the UNEF out of Sinai effective immediately. Secretary-General U Thant eventually complied and ordered the withdrawal without Security Council authorization. In response, Israel initiated the Six-Day War in which the Egyptian army was defeated, and Israel took control over the entire peninsula

-In 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in which Israel agreed to transfer all control over Sinai to Egypt, despite the fact that large oil reserves had recently been found in the region. Subsequently, Israel pulled out of Sinai in several stages, ending in 1982.

Israel is now a tiny country-- about the size of New Jersey!

img100.imageshack (dot) us/img100/6761/palastinianlandloss8tz.gif

I'm really not trying to vilify Israel, but the fact is, the country has "grown" at the expense of other people, who have been displaced. This is not ancient history, it is modern history. The Palestinian people have some legitimate grievances, am I wrong? Water rights is one issue I don't see you addressing. Nor do you talk of Israels militaristic attacks on Lebanon in the last couple of years, or the recent attack on Syria.

Ivy Mike said:
"The whole story was a sham? Are you saying Bush 41, Clinton, and GW were all wrong? Please show me, I'd love to see it."

I'd love for you to read Noam Chomsky's "Media Control." I can't go into the whole story, but yes, Bush 41, Clinton and GW all have deceived the American people and the world. You could just do a search about the history of "CIA "nation building" or "regime toppling" in the region. The information is available in books and online if you want to look for it, but I get the impression you are not interested in learning about American 'covert' involvement in the region. If Iraq ever had WMDs it was because the US gave them to them in the '80s to fight Iran. If there were WMDs, if Iraq was trying to "procure nuclear materials from Sudan" or some such, why has that story since been rebuked?

I'm really not trying to vilify Israel, but the fact is, the country has "grown" at the expense of other people, who have been displaced.

Kinda like the U.S....and, in fact, many other countries :-)

Nor do you talk of Israels militaristic attacks on Lebanon in the last couple of years, or the recent attack on Syria.

But-- what about Hizb'Allah's "Millitaristic attacks" on Israel dueing the last couple of years? And-- it is interesting that while yopu mention only Israel-- the was , quite recently, an ongoing massacre at a Pali refugee camp in Lebanon...

Why only vilify the Israelis (even though you are "not trying to")?

Krishna said: "Kinda like the U.S....and, in fact, many other countries :-) "

Indeed. I am not proud of this. But how does the saying go? "Two wrongs don't make a right." Should Israel be proud of it's land grab? Should we not try to figure out a way to coexist on land somehow without wars and genocide and terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise)?

Krishna said: "Why only vilify the Israelis (even though you are "not trying to")? "

Well, heres the thing. The media--here in the US anyway-- does such a great job of vilifying the Lebanese and the Palestinians, and the Iranians and the Syrians, and the AIPAC has such influence over American foreign affairs decisions with regards to the 'middle east,' a lot of these other peoples (many of whom are ruled by unjust leaders like many of ours here in the US, such as Bush who has started an unjust war in Iraq) don't have too many people standing up for them, explaining the 'other side' of the story.

We are all humans. We need to figure out ways to peacefully coexist, or we could face extinction of the human race (yeah, seems kinda unlikely, unless you start thinking about all the nukes, all the bio-weapons, all the guns and ammo and tanks and helis, all the chem-weapons, the overpopulation and environmental degradation). I, for one, would rather we not see an 'apocalyptic doomsday scenario' with total war in the middle east which would almost assuradely spill over to many countries. I, for one, would rather us "tighten our collective belt," adopt a voluntary steady-state economy, have a 'world debt forgiveness day,' and overcome these nationalistic, tribalistic, us vs. them mentalities so we can work together to face common problems of environmental degradation and disease. Until we can see the world that way, someone has to point out the fallicies of the arguments of the war-mongerers....some of those war-mongerers are American, some are Israeli, some are Iranian, some are whoever, wherever.

Should Israel be proud of it's land grab?

What "land grab"? For the last decade or so, Israel has been giving land to the Arabs...not taking it!

The Sinai is 2 1/2 times the size of Israel. Israel returned it to Egypt...and received nothing in return (except peace....) And...this was after oil was discovered there!

For years Egypt occupied Gaza...no complaints from the Arabs about how the Egyptian "Occupation" deprived the Palis of a state. Then it was occupied by Israel...naturally the accusations started flying. For years Israel refused to give it up...insisting it would not give it to the Arabs Until they were willing to make peace.

Then, suddenly, Sharon destroyed all the settlements there...and withdrew completely...it is now in Pali hands! (And, this was a unilateral decision...Israel received nothing in return).

How many other nations would've done this?

"Israel's 'land grab'" is a nice propaganda phrase to toss around...but it is inaccurate...and misleading. Israel has been turning land over to the Arabs...not taking it! And...the phrase conjures up i,ages of some huge country. In actuality, Israel is a tiny country...about the size of New Jersey!

Should we not try to figure out a way to coexist on land somehow without wars and genocide and terrorism (state-sponsored or otherwise)?

In the case you just mentioned-- Israel has declared it is willing to recognize a Palestinain state--- the Pali government's official policy? The destruction of Israel.

Israel has said its willing to return land for peace (as it did with Egpt)...the Palis refuse..this would mean recognizing Israel's right to exist.

AIPAC has such influence over American foreign affairs decisions with regards to the 'middle east,'

Why is it that other groups have a right to lobby...but the Jews don't? Sounds anti-semitic to me.

I, for one, would rather we not see an 'apocalyptic doomsday scenario' with total war in the middle east which would almost assuradely spill over to many countries.

People have been predicting this for years...I don't think it will happen..for the simple reason that none of the parties want it to!

During the war with Lebanon, Israel could have expanded it to start a war with Syria. (Incidentally, many sources reported that Bush was pressurising the Israelis to attack Syria...one prominent Israeli general was quoted as saying that the idea was "nuts"). Israel could've widened the war..but didn't want to.

(And of course, with Israel tied down in Lebanon, it would've been a perfect time for Syria to attack Israel! But, they also chose not to).

If there were a war between Israel and Syria, there would be horrible destruction on both sides....there would be no winners. What purpose would it serve? Both the Israelis and the Syrians know this.

The leaders in the mideast know they have too much to lose if there's another war. Since Saddam, there has been no leader wanting to attack another country in the area (the recent war in Lebanon was a war between Israel and a terrorist organization...the violence between Hamas and Fatah, as horrendous as it is, is an internal conflict). The only exception-- although its hard to know their motives-- are Bush and Ahmadinejad. But-- especially in the mid-east, there's a tradition of aggressive talk...and no fighting.

and overcome these nationalistic, tribalistic, us vs. them mentalities so we can work together to face common problems of environmental degradation and disease

Hey...what a great idea!
(Why didn't I think of it...???? :-)

Until we can see the world that way, someone has to point out the fallicies of the arguments of the war-mongerers....some of those war-mongerers are American, some are Israeli, some are Iranian, some are whoever, wherever.

Do you think any of them might be Palestinian? Or...Lebanese? Or just the US and Israel (and throw in Iran + "whatever" to show you are fair?)

Krishna said:
Why is it that other groups have a right to lobby...but the Jews don't? Sounds anti-semitic to me

Tsk, Tsk, throw out the "anti-semetic" rhetoric. The American system of government is corrupt. That any foreign government's interest group can buy US national policy decisions is messed up and it wouldn't matter if it was Canada, it'd be wrong in my opinion...Would you call me anti-Canadite or something if this were the situation? The state of Israel does not equel all Jewish people everywhere. I am an equel opportunity anti-statist for the record.

Krishna said:
People have been predicting [apocolyptic doomsday] for years...I don't think it will happen..for the simple reason that none of the parties want it to!

Go here, read and listen for a couple minutes, and tell me again none of the involved parties "want it":

towleroad (dot) com/2007/07/max-blumenthal-.html

Please pay particular attention to the "unilateral attack on Iran" and "expansion of territories" comments. Sure, some parties don't 'want it,' but other parties think it 'must happen for "the 2nd coming" to happen,' and if "a 2nd coming" or "1st coming" (if you don't accept Jesus as a/the 'messiah') were to happen, I doubt that many of the war-mongerers would recognize that person if they were speaking to them.

Krishna said:
"Do you think any of them might be Palestinian? Or...Lebanese? Or just the US and Israel (and throw in Iran + "whatever" to show you are fair?) "

When I said 'whoever, wherever' I include all kakistocracies, including Iran and Palestinian and Lebanese governments. The thing is, I see a difference between the people "represented" by the leaders and the leaders. I certainly would not want the world to judge me by Bush's actions, so I choose not to judge every person living in a particular territory by the governors or rulers of that territory. I would not want to see the Israeli people suffer for their leaders' poor decisions any more than I would want to see any people suffer for their 'leaders' actions/decisions. I would characterize myself as an anarchist and pacifist in the tradition of Gandhi. I think that a form of anarchy that could be described as 'libertarian socialism' is the only solution for humanity to have a chance at a sustainable future.

These are complex situations--I'm glad to have people to challenge my views. I will do my best to criticize the leaders of all nations who are steering the world towards global calamity better.

Here is a link to an article about Jewish dissenters, who disagree with the 'carte blanche' attitude that some Israeli politicians seems to have:

alternet (dot) org/stories/62618/

Here is a link to an article about Jewish dissenters, who disagree with the 'carte blanche' attitude that some Israeli politicians seems to have:

There is a lot of debate...free exchange of ideas..and dissent in Israel. But...very little in Palestine. Why?

Perhaps part of the problem is the living conditions of many of the Palestinian people. Granted, I haven't been to the 'middle east' but I have read and seen photos which suggest that a lot of people in the Palestinian territories are in severe poverty and places with high population density. If your main concern is getting water or food, or if you are reminded of the fact every day that 20 or 30 or 40 years ago your family was living where another people are living now, but were forcibly removed...how much time do the people have to sit and have intellectual discussions and debates?

I have met at least one Palestinian person here in the US. She was a dental student who was learning dentistry, and she worked on my teeth. She was very kind and if I remember correctly, she was learning dental medicine so she could go back to her home and help her people. She didn't mention politics or try to convince me of anything.

I'm not so sure that there isn't disagreement within the Palestinian people---maybe it is one of those situations where they hold onto 'national identity,' and they have more in common (their struggle to live on the land they once lived on) with each other. Perhaps some of the militaristic leaders of their people are strong-arming their people, threatening the lives of dissenters. Perhaps it is also religious fundamentalists, like the ones we have here in the US, who hold extremist views and think that war can somehow be holy--and their views are seen as true, as some of these leaders have charisma, or are more educated. Perhaps there are not a lot of Palestinians with computers and network connections to get on the internet and have debates and discussions---hearkening back to high incidence of poverty, and more priority on securing food and water for their families. I don't have all the answers, just theories.

..how much time do the people have to sit and have intellectual discussions and debates?

If people dont have time for discussions and debates...that is not an indication of Apartheid per se!

Perhaps part of the problem is the living conditions of many of the Palestinian people. Granted, I haven't been to the 'middle east' but I have read and seen photos which suggest that a lot of people in the Palestinian territories are in severe poverty and places with high population density.

A few points:

1-I agree. The living conditions of many of the Palestinian people are horrendous. One cannot help but feel compassion for them. However-- in many ways they brought it upon themselves.

Most people are unaware of it-- but the Palis are the #1 recipient, per capita..of foreign aid in the world! (actually, that was the case for many years. Since Bush has been pouring money into Iraq, I believe Iraq is now, statistically. Also, some aid was cut when they elected a terrorist goverment-- who's fault was that?)

You've probably seem pictures of starving children in Darfur, Niger..other African countries. Its a horrible tragedy. How come the Palis get so much more aid...? How would you compare these African kids, many of whom are literally skin and bone..to the pictures you've probably seen of Pali kids (in their Nike sneakers :-) throwing rocks at Israeli tanks.

So, where does all the money go? The truth-- its not Israel's fault. Please read this!

a lot of people in the Palestinian territories are in severe poverty and places with high population density.

Why the high population de3nsity? Did you know-- Palestinian areas have the highest (or one of the highest) birth rates in the entire world! And-- its deliberate.

Something to think about-- isn't it a bit irresponsible to deliberately create huge families if you're living in poverty...?

And..it is deliberate. The propaganda is to have people make lots of babies so they can outbreed the Israelis. Not a bad idea..but if you are living in poverty, its irresponsible.

I'm not so sure that there isn't disagreement within the Palestinian people-

Their culture sees violence as the main way to resolve problems. When Israel occupied Gaza, they attacked the Jews, natch. But, then Israel ended the occupation.
What to do? Well, they started attacking each other-- there have been horrific attacks on civilians, including women and children, by other Palis. I quickly checked my column-- here's the first related article I came across: Hamas MP Fathi Hammad Threatens to Use Suicide Bombings against Abbas (Abu Mazen),

This is not atypical...

maybe it is one of those situations where they hold onto 'national identity,'

The identity of "Palestinian" didn't exist before 1967. It was vreated for propaganda purposes then...to gain world sympathy. Palestine refers to a geographical area...not a national identity. (In fact, the Jews living in the area before Israel was created were referred to as "Palestinians".

Perhaps it is also religious fundamentalists, like the ones we have here in the US, who hold extremist views and think that war can somehow be holy--and their views are seen as true, as some of these leaders have charisma, or are more educated. Perhaps there are not a lot of Palestinians with computers and network connections to get on the internet and have debates and discussions---hearkening back to high incidence of poverty, and more priority on securing food and water for their families. I don't have all the answers, just theories.

Before the govt of Hamas was elected, it was a secular govt (More like Iraq under Saddam than, say, Iran). However, you have a good point about their leaders.

Pali kids are brain-washed from infancy to hate the Jews. They are taught that Jews are evil. Also Christians-- but Jews are hated even more. (They have a saying "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people_— this refers to plans for a mid-east wityh the kufr-- i.e. infidels, non-believers).

Its hard for Americans to realize the degree of racism and pure bigotry that exists there. Here is a short video-- from the official Pali TV station-- its a Friday sermon in a mosque:
What Pali kids are exposed to from childhood

Its hard for Americans to realize the degree of racism and pure bigotry that exists there. Here is a short video-- from the official Pali TV station-- its a Friday sermon in a mosque: What Pali kids are exposed to from childhood

Btw, this type of hatred is common in "Palestine" (actually, in much of the rest of the Arab world also). The media in the US doesn't show this type of thing...why?

This type of hate-mongering and pure racism would never be permitted in Israel....(If you were foolish enough to try it, you'd end up in jail!) But its common in many Arab countries....

Krishna wrote:
"Most people are unaware of it-- but the Palis are the #1 recipient, per capita..of foreign aid in the world! (actually, that was the case for many years. Since Bush has been pouring money into Iraq, I believe Iraq is now, statistically. Also, some aid was cut when they elected a terrorist goverment-- who's fault was that?)

You've probably seem pictures of starving children in Darfur, Niger..other African countries. Its a horrible tragedy. How come the Palis get so much more aid...? How would you compare these African kids, many of whom are literally skin and bone..to the pictures you've probably seen of Pali kids (in their Nike sneakers :-) throwing rocks at Israeli tanks.

So, where does all the money go? The truth-- its not Israel's fault. Please read this! "
--

Yes, I remember reading that the Palestinians were one of the largest recipients of international (financial) aid in the world. What you have convinced me of is that the aid is being (or was) diverted (or at least some of it) by leaders who lack compassion for their people. I know the feeling. The American president and the policies of the current administration seems to lack compassion for the American people as well (unless those Americans are big businessmen or "good ol' boys"), let alone the people of Iraq.

I am convinced that even more of the hierarchical power (and social control) systems in the world today are inherently corrupt, as too much power to decide things for entire populations are put into the hands of small groups, which include many self-serving/greedy people (like Arafat apparently was, and like many 'global elites' are, whether 'western' or not).

------------
Krishna wrote:
"Also, some aid was cut when they elected a terrorist goverment-- who's fault was that?"

--

When we throw around rhetoric like 'electing terrorist governments,' we may want to examine the governments of the countries we live in.

If you go to thefreedictionary (dot) com, and look for a definition of the word terrorism it says:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

I guess a government could just rewrite what is "unlawful." Maybe that is what the Palestinian government has done, like the American and Israeli governments.

You may want to research the phenomenon of 'state-sponsored terrorism,' or the use of 'fear tactics' to keep the people supposedly controlled by the government in check. Here in America, it is something many are familiar with, since un-carried out plans like "Operation Northwoods" have entered the public sphere thanks to the "freedom of information act."

So when the Palestinian people elected government officials which threaten to and/or use violent guerrilla tactics to attempt to accomplish political objectives, how is it different than when Israel or the US (or any government with "high-tech" militaries) threatens to and/or uses violence to achieve their political objectives?

Why is violence "ok" as long as it is done by a high-tech military rather than a low-tech military? Why is violence "ok" as long as it is the "other side" (aka the "enemy," "the barbarians," "the terrorists," "the huns," "them") dying so that "our side" can have property or land or energy resources put into the hands of the wealthy multinational companies who will pimp said resources to us over time, (bleeding the every-man/lower class dry of their dwindling money)?

I condone no violence, and find the idea of 'suicide bombers' to be as sickening as carpet bombing or other somehow 'acceptable' methods of killing people. (Carpet bombs kill pretty indiscriminately--call 'em "smart" or "stupid" bombs, a lot of innocent bystanders die--what do we call these victims to sanitize the situation? "Casualties of war" or some such)

Krishna wrote:
"Btw, this type of hatred is common in "Palestine" (actually, in much of the rest of the Arab world also). The media in the US doesn't show this type of thing...why?

This type of hate-mongering and pure racism would never be permitted in Israel....(If you were foolish enough to try it, you'd end up in jail!) But its common in many Arab countries.... "

---------

That the propaganda in the "Arab world" is more overt just means they haven't refined the techniques of "public relations" to the degree that the "west" has. I'm not defending racist propagandist tripe, I'm saying has similar effects whether it is overt or covert--to vilify "(insert group or buzz-word here)."

I don't have solutions to all the problems, except to say that humans need to evolve and fast, or we will have "mutually assured annihilation."

Krishna said:
"The media in the US doesn't show this type of thing.."

I saw some Mickey Mouse anti-Israel propaganda shown on "the daily show with John Stewart" and am aware of the phenomenon.

Krishna said:
"The media in the US doesn't show this type of thing.."

I saw some Mickey Mouse anti-Israel propaganda shown on "the daily show with John Stewart" and am aware of the phenomenon.

Oh, Ok. I guess I should've said the media in the US usually doesn't show this sort of thing" or, perhaps more accurately, the extent of it...?

Let's not divert the topic here away from state-sponsored violence/terrorism. Do you have a response to that topic?

(And I think that Micky Mouse thing was aired pretty heavily on fox news or cnn, but i may be mistaken--i try to avoid a lot of the American propagandist media when possible---I will say, American media seems to be more interested in profit-driven substance-less topics like celebrity and sports)

And I think that Micky Mouse thing was aired pretty heavily on fox news or cnn,

Actually, you might be right. I also avoid the msm (I don't watch TV)...but I believe I had heard about the Mickey Mouse clip. They probably aired it because of the Mickey Mouse angle-- not the incitement angle.

State sponsored terrorism? I guess you could say that all war is terrorism. The U.S. and our allies committed acts of terrorism/violence frequently during WWII. (My own personal preference would be for war to cease to exist-- but that's just my opinion-- many people would disagree with me).

So when the Palestinian people elected government officials which threaten to and/or use violent guerrilla tactics to attempt to accomplish political objectives, how is it different than when Israel or the US (or any government with "high-tech" militaries) threatens to and/or uses violence to achieve their political objectives?

Have you ever noticed...what the targets of Palestinian terrorists are? And...what Israel targets?

Krisha said:
"State sponsored terrorism? I guess you could say that all war is terrorism."

All war or threat of war is terrorism. Using fear tactics flagrently against one's own people is terrorism. When a politician says something like "it's going to be on your hands if we don't pass this law taking away your civil liberties in the name of your security"---those are terrorist tactics---using threat of attack (from the never-ending, ever-elusive "enemy").

Krishna said:
"My own personal preference would be for war to cease to exist-- but that's just my opinion-- many people would disagree with me"

Mine as well. No attack on any people anywhere is "ok" in my opinion. But as you said, many people would disagree with me.

Krishna said:
"Have you ever noticed...what the targets of Palestinian terrorists are? And...what Israel targets? "

Well, I think this gets back to the "hi-tech military" vs. "low-tech military" question. If a people cannot fight tanks or whatever, on the "battlefield," then they find civilian targets. Again, all violence abhors me. I am just venturing a guess as to why they attack "civilian targets"---because they would be mowed down if they attack military targets.

One thing, we are in the thread about Iran, let's talk about Iran for a minute:

Please go to this thread and discuss why the IAEA is not monitoring Israel's (or America's) nuclear arsenal:

electricblanket.newsvine (dot) com/_news/2007/09/22/978673-for-the-first-time-iran-directly-confronts-israel-on-nuclear-arms-?last=1190480328&threadId=153444&cmt=1046074#c1046074

Who has signed the NPT? There is a flaw, granted.

I believe that Israel and Pakistan and India are the big 3 which haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty. Why is the international community not addressing these nations, particularly Israel, since it is a 'key player' in many of the "middle east" disagreements.

Particularly, Israel? The country has not been engaged in threats to wipe out other nations.

India? That power plant deal does approach addressing the issue. If relations with India and Pakistan can be fully realized, that just might ease tensions. Right now, signing the NPT probably is not that high on Pakistan's to-do list.

The NPT needs fixing, and that includes mullah lies. This evening on 60 Minutes, Ahmadinejad did a fine job of dissembling about what they're doing.

Well, there are those in the US and Israel calling for "unilateral attacks on Iran" when the IAEA has said they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. Is that not hostile posturing as well?

I dont' think those unilateral calls will win the day.

Check El Baradei's latest comments. He, too, distrusts the mullahs. He has urged them to cooperate. Yes, he's counseling sanctions and talks, but he's not buying what the mullahs are selling.

Perhaps he would have accused Israel of putting on the 9/11 attacks.

Perhaps he would have accused Israel of putting on the 9/11 attacks.

Hmmm. Yes and perhaps he would have worn a pink tutu but I doubt it.

Pamela mad a relevant comment (1.1):

Pamela Drew

As a New York City resident and taxpayer there's a lot about the action you forget to look at that we do. First off it's not a stones throw from the UN to Ground Zero, it's a lifetime in terms of neighborhoods and high use roadways. Security for diplomatic visitors, President or foreign is a nightmare and huge resource drain on NYC. As early as today you can see stepped up presence and activity preparing for the UN event. The city is crawling with uniforms and undercover SUV's are out in force, that's just what I see.

The day before the final prep, all the street side free paper boxes and trash cans get removed, snipers are stationed on roofs and advance teams do set up and sweeps. Roads are blocked, traffic rerouted. It's too much to do for the one request of Ground Zero, not political just prqactical cost and inconvenience to the millions of us going on with life, or trying. I appreciate Ahmadinejad's desire to pay respects, but as one more resident tired of being inconvenienced for the security of dignatires, glad they said NO.

At least the guy was trying to break some rather difficult diplomatic bounds

Was he-- or was he trying to engineer a propaganda stunt?

Hmmm. Yes and perhaps he would have worn a pink tutu but I doubt it.

Glinda-- you are being a silly goose! What does a pink tutu have to do with this?

However, the possibility of him repeating accusations that either/or Israel and the US were behind 911 is not so absurd. (I imagine he would not do in in the US-- bad propaganda value-- but might do it once back in Iraq.)

But..its no "Pink tutu":

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – The Supreme Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps accused the Bush Administration and the Israeli security service Mossad of ordering the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC.

[...]

The IRGC's primary task is to export the Islamic revolution to Jerusalem via Baghdad. Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is one of many officials who stem from the IRGC.

You need to watch Stewart and Colbert, news at it's best and they stay on top of the cyber speed issues, all delivered with a twist. They're pure genius and have gone beyond where the SNL Weekend update was at its best. Tonight Bill Clinton was Jon's guest and you hear a decent conversation with some heavy points and some laughs, skip all the policy mumbo jumbo and let people talk not eco through media edited clips.

oops, that was not echo, echo, eco, %$#@ !! :~)

I rarely take The Daily Show as real news. I never take it seriously. It's even listed as satirical news. I take them about as seriously as I take the big 4.

The sad thing is, the satire in the daily show and the colbert report is closer to 'real news' than the 'real news.' When the comedians are getting closer to the truth than the nightly news or the average newspaper on an average day, you know theres a problem. Look at The Onion or Adbusters--again, they get closer to the 'heart of the matter' a lot of the times with their harsh critique and satire than the soft-ball pandering of the average news anchor.

'Tis gettin' so 'twould be a good thing t' require "Reality Content Advisories" on th' network news.

"Th' following report contains 54 percent actual truth."

I d be wondh'rin', tho', would Fox News ever have such a high reality-content quotient?

I don't know why the AP article here is different.

Hmm maybe because the way Fox spins and slants the truth?

Hmm maybe because the way Fox spins and slants the truth?

So you're accusing Fox News of making up an Associated Press article? Now that's against the law. How about some proof to back your claims?

chindi: Hmm maybe because the way Fox spins and slants the truth?

Well the AP article Iran president asks to lay wreath at ground zero, request denied at Newsday says the same thing as Fox. So chindi, looks like you're wrong about Fox News. Any apologies to Fox News chindi? Huh?

ComSen said "So you're accusing Fox News of making up an Associated Press article? Now that's against the law. How about some proof to back your claims?"

projectcensored (dot) org/publications/2005/11.html

The link talks about how it has been ruled that it is legal for Fox to "distort the truth" as that is within their first amendment rights. Please read it.

COM SEN you were the one wondering why the Fox version and the AP version were different:
Your words

I don't know why the AP article here is different.

Fox News has a record and reputation of slanting spinning and in some cases out right lying ( such as their claim to being fair and balanced when it is in fact neither).
Ask them why people think they are slanted, not me.

Wow, did anyone even read the article? All this argument, and ComSen was wrong to begin with; this article isn't any different. Check out the 13th paragraph.

Danny McGee: Wow, did anyone even read the article? All this argument, and ComSen was wrong to begin with; this article isn't any different. Check out the 13th paragraph.

I suspect this wasn't there originally and AP revised the article after my comments which they seem to do quite frequently.

You didn't mention anything though about chindi accusing Fox of intentionally altering an AP article which they didn't.

chindi: Ask them why people think they are slanted, not me.

chindi, you're the one who accused Fox of altering an AP article which they didn't. Don't change the subject.

Probably not, because as Pamela Drew commented above, it's a huge deal to prepare for a head of state. Neither J Lo nor Tom Cruise would require that level of preparation or security.

Pamela got my brain working again on the different levels involved with head of state vs the entertainment world. I was only thinking crowd control and not thinking in too much detail at that !

Tedd Riggs

Pamela got my brain working again on the different levels involved with head of state vs the entertainment world. I was only thinking crowd control and not thinking in too much detail at that !

The amount of security required for an Ahmadinejad visit to ground zero would be incredible...and in a city as large as New York, it seems quite possible that there might be someone who would like to assassinate him.

Imagine if he were to be assassinated in the U.S....the results would be horrendous. IMHO, its not worth the risk.

Imagine if he were to be assassinated in the U.S....

Hey! HEY!!!!! Let Dick Cheney dream his own wet dreams, d'ye hear me?!

Actually, it looks like NYPD nixed the visit. And Clinton agreed.

Probably not, because as Pamela Drew commented above, it's a huge deal to prepare for a head of state. Neither J Lo nor Tom Cruise would require that level of preparation or security.

And, if Cruise or J Lp got assassinated, while many would undoubtedly mourn-- it wouldn't be an international incident. If Ahmadinejad was assassinated, while in the U.S.....the outcome might be considerably worse.

Its not you Glinda, its just a thoughtless hit and run comment the RWs here make one in a while

Throughout the 1970s, until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked President Ronald Reagan to stop them, they were the IRA's primary source of funding. And even after that they were widely tolerated.

Who are they? Irish Americans.

Feel free to get Smarter here.

So, you are saying Iran is a peaceful country and lets it's citizens talk freely?
Feel free to educate me.

F' Almondjoyboy. I don't want any such schmuck whose regime is responsible for the death of 200 plus Marines in Lebanon in the early '80s, etc. and is currently active in targeting US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan from laying an obviously insincere wreath at Ground Zero.

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23, 1983, during the Lebanese Civil War. Two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of servicemen, the majority being U.S. Marines. The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Islamic Jihad took responsiblity for the bombing but the real institgator is thought to have been Hezbollah with help from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

@tal6620

you:

Iran is a world wide supporter of Terrorism. It provides bases and money to terrorists . That is the reason and the only reason he should not be allowed to visit a site of a terrorist attack. It has nothing to do with traffic and security.

me:

Throughout the 1970s, until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked President Ronald Reagan to stop them, they were the IRA's primary source of funding. And even after that they were widely tolerated.
Who are they? Irish Americans.

Feel free to get Smarter here.

you:

So, you are saying Iran is a peaceful country and lets it's citizens talk freely?
Feel free to educate me

I said nothing of the kind. I was responding to your use of the T-word, as pots and kettles and name-calling. Clear now?

Rephrasing my question.
Iran is a world wide supporter of Terrorism. It provides bases and money to terrorists.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

That's a little more than rephrasing, buddy.

Rephrasing my point - if leaders of states that sponsor terrorism and regime change around the world are to be treated with random discourtesy, I guess we can expect more instances similar to Condeleeza Rice not being granted an audience with the pope.

In my opinion, America just makes itself look small with a petty gesture like this.

I understand you hate America but you did not answer what you think about Iran.

No I don't and no I'm not playing move the goalposts with you.

In my opinion, America just makes itself look small with a petty gesture like this.

What if, insteaf od Ahmadinejad, it had been, say, Hitler....or Pol Pot...???

.... or Sauron? ... or Satan???

He isn't though, is he.

Aside from his activities sponsoring terrorism abroad...Ahmadinejad is a major violated of human rights within his own country...gays and other violaters of "morality" are stoned to death, hanged, etc. As host country to the UN, we have an obligation to let heads of state in...to speak at the UN. But IMHO, when they are human rights abusers such as A., we should not let them stage events for propaganda purposes.

SO seeing your comment Glinda I have to ask. Would you prefer his leadership over say....Tony Blair, Chancellor Schroeder, (here it comes) GW?

Th' question should be would th' Iranians prefer him to bein' ruled by Blair, Schroeder and/or Bush. Because that's th' choice that's on offer, isn't it, not t'other way 'round? Th' Iranians aren't schemin' t' invade Alaska an' steal our oil, are they? No sir!

Dagda
You have a funny way of saying things, but you make perfect sense to me.
Thank you.

A Ghlinda, a chara,
Go raibh ro-maith agat, a stór!

I've long echoed Dr. K's thinking on this. The mullahs are quite wealthy and want to continue to live that way. If the goddam Europeans would get serious about sanctions I think they'd be amenable to scrapping the nuke program in exchange for lifting of sanctions and foreign investment.

Bill Harrison said:
"The mullahs are quite wealthy and want to continue to live that way."

You could just as easily say "the global elites are quite wealthy and want to continue to live that way" or "the European monarchs are quite wealthy and want to continue to live that way" or "the American Corporatocracy controllers/politicians are quite wealthy and want to continue to live that way."

I don't see why defending the "status quo" is ok as long as it is in favor of Europeans or 'westerners' controlling the money and energy resources.

To me, what this sounds like is "Bow at the temple of our western banks, or we will have you annihilated."

Or just "the rich are quite wealthy and want to continue that way" - you can pretty much count on that being true upwards of 99% of the time. The mullahs may be wealthy, but I did a look around on this internet and nothing turned up... Bill?

Or just "the rich are quite wealthy and want to continue that way" - you can pretty much count on that being true upwards of 99% of the time. The mullahs may be wealthy, but I did a look around on this internet and nothing turned up... Bill?

I wonder if its wealth that's motivating them-- or religious fundamentalism?

I wonder if its wealth that's motivating them-- or religious fundamentalism?

Or, as is the case with many tyrants-- the need for power and control?

@krishna
The Iranian revolution was partly about getting control of their own country from under the U.S. thumb and in a smaller part about developing an Islamic state. I would guess the mullahs are mainly about the religion and somewhat about the power. I would probably say the same about the pope.

Tyrants is not correct, in my opinion. This is an excerpt from a BBC opinion piece I have seeded on my column:

Is it true that a handful of religious extremists holds the entire population of Iran in thrall?

No. Iran is, within narrow limits, a kind of democracy.

President Ahmadinejad won his election fairly, even though no-one who opposed the basic structures of the Islamic Republic was permitted to stand.

A great many Iranians would certainly be delighted if the theocratic state collapsed, and all the restrictions on everyday life, great and small, came to an end; but a great many others support it passionately.

And if there were an attack on Iran, most Iranians would rally to their government's support.

No. Iran is, within narrow limits, a kind of democracy.

Of course, they do occasionall hang gays...and stone women for adultery

And both practices are abhorrent to me.

So is capital punishment by lethal injection, hanging or electrocution - that doesn't mean I can label all countries who practice them as tyrants.

I hope to see you defending gay and women's rights elsewhere on Newsvine.

So is capital punishment by lethal injection, hanging or electrocution

What form of capital punishment do you think is preferable?

So is capital punishment by lethal injection, hanging or electrocution - that doesn't mean I can label all countries who practice them as tyrants.

Well, those are just two aspects of Ahmadienjads rule that came to mind. INMO he is a tyrant....one could cite something unjust about any country in the world...but in the case of A.'s rule....there are many things.

Certainl you don't approve of his treatment of women....gays?

krishna - I don't like the man and disagree with his policies but I have to disagree with the tyrant label. One instance comes to mind of students openly protesting and booing him so badly he couldn't speak at a university. If it were Hussein or Milosevic they would've been dragged out and shot.

One instance comes to mind of students openly protesting and booing him so badly he couldn't speak at a university. If it were Hussein or Milosevic they would've been dragged out and shot.

He is a smarter tyrant than some others...if yo knew about that indcident, I imagine it was well-publicized---so he wouldn't permit violence under the eyes of reporters. What makes you so sure his cops didn't get them later?

I can find many examples. Here is but one of many: Pro-Ahmadinejad Thugs Stab & Beat Student Protesters This sort of thing is grossly under-reported by western media....

We have the same thing here in the US: look at the report of the protester against the war being beat up by pro war fanatics.
http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/18/969505-father-of-fallen-marine-kicked-and-beaten-by-pro-war-demonstrators-in-washington-dc?last=1190405229#last_1

We have the same thing here in the US: look at the report of the protester against the war being beat up by pro war fanatics.

It probably happens in every country. The difference in Iran: its state sponsored. Also, much more common....

Its a lot more common here than you want to believe and as for state sponsored,how do you know they weren't out up to it? They most likely were republicans.

What form of capital punishment do you think is preferable?

Talkin' t' death is th' best way, Krishna. 'Tis cheap, effective and ye don't have t' be a big burly stampín t' become th' executioner. Why, even an ineffectual an' unpreposessin' consarvative like yerself can do it.

Oh gawd Chindi you crack me up. Really. Thank you for that interesting tidbit of info. evil republicans are everywhere and out to get you, me too if I don't agree with them 100%. :)

krishna - you may be right they may have been "taken care of" later. It's hard for me to explain the way I feel about him. I know he's evil, I know he's a terrorist, but I also know that he believes he is doing the right thing for his country. Tyrants don't give two sh1z about their country, only themselves. Like I said before, I don't like him but I don't believe he's a tyrant. JMHO.

Maynard G. Almondjoyboy is looking very metrosexual these days if today's evidence is any proof. Got Chindi all stirred up.

Why, even an ineffectual an' unpreposessin' consarvative like yerself can do it.

I think Ahmadinejad is a tyrant. However, I am not a conservative (nor a Liberal).

Bingo!!

If Bush were asked to speak at Columbia, would you make the same statements about coming with "blood-soaked hands and a nasty domestic and regional propaganda motive?"

No, I'd throw the electricblanket into the bath tub still hooked up.

Are you threatening the president? You might want to watch what you say.

Bill Harrison said: "No, I'd throw the electricblanket into the bath tub still hooked up."

Oh, wait, was this a veiled threat against me? I'm sorry, could you clarify what you meant by this statement? Is there something in the Code of Honor about making veiled threats against other users who are engaged in debate?

Columbia University gave Maynard Arachnid-jihad quite a welcome, from the president to the students.

It seems to me that there has always been an unusually large amount of support on US campuses for totalitarian govts.

They either dare not or cannot comprehend the malice behind such minds. Those who side with them are beyond understanding.