Ahmadinejad Wants To Visit Ground Zero - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-22-2007, 09:40 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
He will talk about it on 60 Minutes Sunday. He wants to go there to "air his views about the root causes". Uh, I don't think so-not appropriate. For me it's about 90 % of me that says no, 10 % holds out hope for pure motives and genuine compassion and humanity. If he just wanted to pay respects he wouldn't say anything about root causes-save that for the UN.

(CBS) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not press his plan -- just denied by New York City police for security reasons -- to visit ground zero in New York City, he tells 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley in an exclusive interview conducted Thursday in Iran.

The Iranian leader says he's skeptical that most Americans view his visit there as insulting as his intention was only to show respect. The interview will be broadcast Sunday, Sept. 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Asked if he intends to press his request to visit the World Trade Center site, Ahmadinejad tells Pelley, "Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that."

"But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?" Pelley asks.

"Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can't do that, I won't insist," the president replies.

"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans," Pelley says.

"Why should it be insulting?" Ahmadinejad asks.

"Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley says.

"Well, I wouldn't say that what American government says is is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations," Ahmadinejad replies. "Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation."

"But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world," Pelley says. "You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans."

"Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?" Ahmadinejad says. "You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there."
Eh, I don't know. . .I think this interviewer comes off a bit ludicrous.

"Hey, don't you know you're one of the Bad Guys? You're not allowed to go there. Haven't you read your script?. . .No, no, it says right here, you're Evil! You hate freedom, you're not supposed to go there!"

I think the worst Ahmadinejad could do is get to Ground Zero and start making some grandstanding, zealous speech about the "root causes." That would be quite offensive. But to me, banning him from the site STILL seems like, I don't know, a bit of over-reaction. I think we, as a nation can have the dignity and the grace to allow this guy to visit the site.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 09-22-2007, 10:05 AM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 06:37 AM
NEW YORK (AP) - Columbia University said it does not plan to call off a speech by Iran's president despite pressure from critics including the City Council speaker, who said the Ivy League school was providing a forum for "hate-mongering vitriol."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is traveling to New York to address the United Nations' General Assembly. He was to appear Monday at a question-and- answer session with Columbia faculty and students as part of the school's World Leaders Forum.

The State Department calls Iran a state sponsor of terror, and Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth" and urged for Israel to be destroyed.

City Council speaker Christine Quinn called Thursday for the university to rescind the invitation, saying "the idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers."

Quinn, a Democrat, said Ahmadinejad was coming to the city "for one reason—to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage."

His planned appearance at Columbia also was condemned by Jewish groups including the Jewish Defense Organization, which described Ahmadinejad as "the Hitler of Iran."

Columbia spokesman Robert Hornsby said Thursday there was no plan to cancel the appearance, though the university dropped plans for an Ahmadinejad speech last year because of security and logistical problems. The decision came after a Jewish activist group expressed outrage over the invitation.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that the university was free to invite Ahmadinejad to speak, but "personally, I wouldn't go to listen to him—I don't care about what he says."

White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday that the Bush administration had no involvement with Columbia's decision.

"This is a country where people can come and speak their minds," he said, adding, "It would be wonderful if some of the countries that take advantage of that here allowed it for their own citizens there."

Columbia President Lee Bollinger, in announcing Ahmadinejad's upcoming appearance, described the event as part of "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate." He said the Iranian president had agreed to answer questions on Israel and the Holocaust.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 12:05 AM   #33
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Columbia University should be ashamed of itself. I'm tired of the "shades of gray" in this world. Why would anyone give this idiot a plaform to speak? And please don't give me the freedom of speech argument. This guy isn't an american, he is the president of a country who doesn't have freedoms of press and religion. Try being openly gay in Tehran. See where that gets ya! I'm shocked more liberals aren't fired up about this guys agenda when he gets here. Why? oh, thats right, we have to be TOLERANT. Well, I'm not tolerant of this idiot. This man is dangerous, his country is involved directly in the killing of US service members, and he wants to come to ground zero? I hope he is taken care of in a New York minute....
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 01:03 AM   #34
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,026
Local Time: 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Asked if he intends to press his request to visit the World Trade Center site, Ahmadinejad tells Pelley, "Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that."

"But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?" Pelley asks.

"Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can't do that, I won't insist," the president replies.

"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans," Pelley says.

"Why should it be insulting?" Ahmadinejad asks.

"Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley says.

"Well, I wouldn't say that what American government says is is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations," Ahmadinejad replies. "Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation."

"But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world," Pelley says. "You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans."

"Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?" Ahmadinejad says. "You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there."
Frankly, Ahmadinejad comes off as more rational than the "what were you thinking?" interviewer.

And in any case, if we're going to keep up the "Iran is a terrorist state" line of discussion, it's worth remembering that the real power in Iran belongs to Ayatollah Khamenei.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 02:53 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Columbia University should be ashamed of itself. I'm tired of the "shades of gray" in this world. Why would anyone give this idiot a plaform to speak? And please don't give me the freedom of speech argument. This guy isn't an american, he is the president of a country who doesn't have freedoms of press and religion. Try being openly gay in Tehran. See where that gets ya! I'm shocked more liberals aren't fired up about this guys agenda when he gets here. Why? oh, thats right, we have to be TOLERANT. Well, I'm not tolerant of this idiot. This man is dangerous, his country is involved directly in the killing of US service members, and he wants to come to ground zero? I hope he is taken care of in a New York minute....


allowing someone to speak doesn't mean that you endorse everything he stands for. you bring up a great example about the execution of gays in Iran -- and the FAILURE of the US to condem the state persecution of homosexuals.

he is the head of state of a country that we have to deal with. he is *democratically* elected. we have to deal with him. F. Scott Fitzgerald once said something to the effect of "the mark of an ingelligent person is being able to hold two contradictory thoughts in his head at once."

this is what adults do. we don't throw tantrums, we deal with who we have to deal with.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 02:56 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
The thing is here - yes he is an enabler of terrorism, but then so is America.

could you name for me the officially designated terrorist groups -- like the Iranian-funded Hezbollah -- that the US supports?

and the whole "the US army terrorizes" doesn't fly in this particular situation. we do have rules as to who is and who isn't a terrorist -- Hezbollah, Hamas.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 03:01 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
[q]Originally posted by financeguy


Mudfeld's statement:- "As usual, NYC politicians don't like Muslims if they stand up for themselves. Giuliani kicked Arafat at a concert in NYC, while he has no problem with mass murdering Israeli heads of state. So typical of New York" was a bit of an overgeneralisation, IMO. But I wouldn't hugely disagree with its general thrust.

I would venture that the three most well known New York politicians at the moment are Hilary Clinton, Rudi Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg - each one of them pretty strongly pro-Zionist. One is current Mayor, another a former Mayor and one is an elected Senator and married to a former President. Not uninfluentual people, it's fair to say. And all three are potential Presidential candidates.[/q]


we can agree on a lazy overgeneralization, but disagree on the use of the phrase "pro-Zionist." the overal bent of the generalization, as i took it, was the whole "Jew York" slur i've heard many times and the oft-repeated canard that the Jews control everything in the US. i might have read too much into that.



[q]Whose perception, precisely, are we talking about here? On the basis of what Mudfeld has said in this thread, I don't have any such perception - do you? If you do, can you explain why?[/q]

http://forum.interference.com/t179916.html



[q]It seems to me that that's a fairly strong statement of expression of disgust for the war crimes committed by the Nazis, and it's a long way from your implication that Mudfeld only stated that the Holocaust was "A Bad Thing" to "cover his ass".[/q]

it struck me as an expression of exasperation with perceived notions that the Jews feel themselves to be entitled to certain things because they have suffered more, and as such are exceptional and deserve exceptional treatment. and it's akin to someone saying, "yes, slavery was a bad thing, but that doesn't excuse those black kids who just stole my car."



Quote:
Can you give some examples? And is anyone seriously claiming that group suffering is known only to Palestinians?
i am saying that the amount of political time and attention to the Palestinians is out of proportion to the level of suffering in the territories.

would that the residents of Darfur have Tony Blair arrive to mediate between them and the muslim government in the north. "Never Again" indeed.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 06:10 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 06:37 AM
It pisses me off to no end that this administration NEVER publisized the fact that Al-Qaeda had more ties to Iran than Iraq. This is in multiple books written after 9/11. Why? Why? Why?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 07:00 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[B][q]Originally posted by financeguy
I would venture that the three most well known New York politicians at the moment are Hilary Clinton, Rudi Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg - each one of them pretty strongly pro-Zionist. One is current Mayor, another a former Mayor and one is an elected Senator and married to a former President. Not uninfluentual people, it's fair to say. And all three are potential Presidential candidates.[/q]

we can agree on a lazy overgeneralization, but disagree on the use of the phrase "pro-Zionist." the overal bent of the generalization, as i took it, was the whole "Jew York" slur i've heard many times and the oft-repeated canard that the Jews control everything in the US. i might have read too much into that.

I didn't say it was a lazy overgeneralization. I said it was a bit of an overgeneralization, but that I didn't disagree with its broad thrust. In relation to the use of the phrase "pro-Zionist", which you appear to find problematic, please note I did not say simply say pro-Zionist. Zionist is usually taking as meaning support for the continuing existence of the State of Israel. By that standard, I am Zionist myself. But when I look at the policy positions and public speeches and statements of politicians such as Clinton, Bloomberg, and Giuilani, then I'd describe them not just as pro-Zionist, but strongly, even fervently so. Hilary is perhaps slightly more nuanced than the other two on the subject. At least, I hope so.



Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[http://forum.interference.com/t179916.html

I hadn't seen that thread, as I haven't been paying much attention to news about the new album. Having skimmed it, I find that the post by Lazarus largely represents my own views, so I will take the liberty of quoting from it here:-


Quote:
Originally posted by lazarus
It's amazing how any time someone criticizes Israel's policies, they are immediately branded as some kind of intolerant Jew-hater. If you go back and read what Muldfield said, he never used the word "Israelis" or "Jews". He referred to Israel itself, which to me means its government. Why don't you just go ahead and call him a Nazi and Anti-Semite? It's the easiest way to discredit anything he may have said in the interest of a serious discussion.

As someone who was raised Jewish (including learning rudimentary Hebrew and being Bar Mitzvahed), I've seen this attitude many times, and it comes at no surprise that people are playing the victim so quickly. Look at Jimmy Carter, a hero of the Israel/Egypt Peace Agreements back in the 1970's and NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER, who attempted to write an objective book about the conflict, titled "Palastine: Peace Not Apartheid". When he suggested that Israel may not be playing completely fair with the Palestinean territories, he was attacked by the usual suspects like the Anti-Defamation League, who view any suggestion of Israeli government wrong doing as an all-out assault on the Jewish people. While I understand that Anti-Semitism is alive and well, and that Jews should always be on guard for those who would try to add to the history of discrimination and intolerance, this inability to have an objective discussion does no one any good.

The United States and Israel have on numerous occasions ignored or reneged on United Nations resolutions, and haven't shown themselves to be fair partners in peace. While death and destruction can be attributed to both sides, it bothers me that a suicide bomber can be called a terrorist while a tank blowing up women and children is just considered a military action. History has made it very difficult to sympathize with a much larger and stronger power over a smaller one that is trying to attain some kind of freedom for itself. I don't think this case is necessarily any different.

Back to my main point, it's my understanding that most Jews worldwide, and most Israeli civilians aren't as hardlined about this situation as the Israeli government. So when one criticizes the political entity, how does that translate to a generalization of its citizens? When people protest George Bush all over the world, I don't take it personally.
And incidentally, I'd suggest that your implication about Mudfeld's views is unworthy of you. The posts by Mudfeld and the overall discussion on that thread was a lot more nuanced than what you're suggesting.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[q]it struck me as an expression of exasperation with perceived notions that the Jews feel themselves to be entitled to certain things because they have suffered more, and as such are exceptional and deserve exceptional treatment.
Well, all I can say to this is that it's amazing how different people can read different things into the same statement.


Having said all that, I have no clue what Mudfeld is on about with all the 'BattleStar Galactica' stuff.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 09:56 PM   #40
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,400
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
And please don't give me the freedom of speech argument. This guy isn't an american, he is the president of a country who doesn't have freedoms of press and religion.
which, of course, is exactly why they should allow him to speak. ah the irony.

mayor mike put it best

Quote:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Friday that the university was free to invite Ahmadinejad to speak, but "personally, I wouldn't go to listen to him—I don't care about what he says."
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-23-2007, 11:37 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 06:37 AM
I say let him visit the site.
Let him speak at Columbia University. I know it's some idealistic faith I have that people can change or get some insight.
I don't underestimate the power of our young people and freedom of speech to make a strong statement.

Which reminds me...

They say that what you mock
Will surely overtake you
And you become a monster
So the monster will not break you

And it's already gone too far
Who said that if you go in hard
You won't get hurt
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 07:44 AM   #42
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,400
Local Time: 06:37 AM
i suppose the next line to that song didn't fit the topic?

if anything i've gained respect for Columbia over this... not that an Ivy League school really needs the respect of some schlub like me...

letting this man speak is in no way endorsing him or his views. it's simply giving their students the best possible insight into the views of one of the most influential people in the world. isn't that what college is for?

he may be a wack job, but that wack job is, ya know, kinda a big deal.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 10:24 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Will the speech be televised?

I say let him speak...let people see the bastard for who he is.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 11:10 AM   #44
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



could you name for me the officially designated terrorist groups -- like the Iranian-funded Hezbollah -- that the US supports?

and the whole "the US army terrorizes" doesn't fly in this particular situation. we do have rules as to who is and who isn't a terrorist -- Hezbollah, Hamas.
Well i do believe that america has let a lot of cats out of the bag by the complete balls up in Iraq - a lot of death can be contributed to the war in iraq. i believe the us should take some responsibility. While they're not putting funding in the bank, there are other ways to be an enabler. I just think its a little bit of a pot calling the kettle black.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 11:38 AM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy


Well i do believe that america has let a lot of cats out of the bag by the complete balls up in Iraq - a lot of death can be contributed to the war in iraq. i believe the us should take some responsibility. While they're not putting funding in the bank, there are other ways to be an enabler. I just think its a little bit of a pot calling the kettle black.


i don't disagree here, but i think this is distinct from funding Hezbollah.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com