Sympathy for the Devil
David Weigel | September 20, 2007, 4:11pm
What's the problem with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
wanting to visit Ground Zero in New York? I won't deny that Ahmadinejad has offensive and stupid ideas about 9/11. Like he wrote last year:
Sept. 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligences and security services, or with extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret?
This is the crap that burly men in black T-shirts bullhorn at passersby near Ground Zero, but Ahmadinejad was just planning to plant a wreath and rake in PR cred. And before Ahmadinejad won the presidency,
Iran was smoothing the path for Saudi terrorists to move in and out of Afghanistan. It funds Hezbollah. It supports anti-America forces in Iraq.
Let's accept all that. This still represents a politicization of 9/11 egged on by presidential candidates and hawkish pundits. Iran, remember, joined the chorus of official outrage after the terrorist attacks, then-Pres. Khatami saying "In the name of the Iranian government and people, I condemn the terrorist attacks on public centers of American cities."
The anti-Ahmadinejad debate doesn't address any of that: It's a calvacade of non sequitors. I just watch John Gibson say that "the man who wants to wipe Israel off the map won't be allowed to visit the place that
was wiped off the map." John McCain
says he should be tackled because of his "immense ego" and spun this scenario: "Suppose while he was at Ground Zero an IED would go off in Iraq and kill Americans. That would be unacceptable."
henry | September 21, 2007, 1:15am | #
Well, when Krushchev visited for what turned out to be his famous "kitchen debate" with then-VP Nixon, he and his nation were a much, MUCH greater "existential" threat to the US (as demonstrated by the Cuban Missile Crisis a few years later) than this little putz could ever hope to be. But we had enough confidence in ourselves to confront him, here, and even Nixon (a fairly shady character as a VP) looked the better for it.
And invoking Hitler for every tinhorn Middle Eastern dictator is tiresome. Unless we prop him up an attack, this guy will be lucky to last two years. Iran is hardly the Fourth Reich, in any way. Stop it already.
My point is this--we are not going to kill and intimidate our way to long term success in the Middle East and the Muslim world at large, at least not unless we are willing to become (by far) the greatest mass killers in history. Sure, we need to snuff some folks (OBL and his crew, obviously), but pretending that everything else is going to be resolved through a military solution is delusional. So, like during the Cold War (when a military solution was also impossible), we need to be prepared to confront our enemies directly, with confidence in our cause.
So, simply--why the fuck can't someone in DC see the enormous opportunity this visit would afford for just such a confrontation? Instead, we seem to be dithering about our fears that the Iranian dwarf will somehow best us with some propaganda victory. Are we really that shaky in our own belief in our ability to present our case to the world? If so, where the hell did that come from?
And THAT, SG, is the fucking embarrassment I originally wrote about.
Gary | September 21, 2007, 7:23pm | #
What the black-tee-shirt and bullhorn shills for the latest phase of Operation Mockingbird don't mention often enough, in my opinion, is that while Osama was calling for his Jihad against (certain) American targets, leading Neo-Conservative and Tri-Lateralist experts in the halls of power were positively pining for a 'bloodbath' in America, in order to supercharge and jumpstart their ambitious military plans and domestic vision.
This call -- that America NEEDS to be attacked -- is echoed again today by the mouthpiece of the MI-Complex and Republican Party, and it's hired celebrity, Jon Gibson.
Firstly, WHO is really anti-American? A guy with an unorthodox view or people who STATED that a bloodbath in America would be LUCKY?
Secondly, consider that these American pro-terrorists do not reside in a remote mountain cave, unless it's one designed by FEMA (which was discussed during Iran-Contra hearings .. almost).
Thirdly, consider what it could possibly mean that the deepest dreams of these 'thinkers' and policy makers just happened to dovetail perfectly with those of Osama bin Laden, former CIA asset.
I'm sure there's a perfectly Reason-able explanation. (By the way, sarcasm aside, I deeply appreciate the fine minds here contributing here.)
I'll leave the ongoing debates about WTC7 and the Pentagon and whatnot to people with more time on their hands and a greater love for drama and bullhorns.
(well, since I started, I gotta give some props to the 200-300 professional architects and engineers for 911 truth -- unlike many other creepy loons -- who not long ago started agreeing with some of the 'conspiracy theories'.)
John S. | September 22, 2007, 4:53pm | #
Remember How Iran Responded to the 9/11 Attacks?
With all the ruckus over the request of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's request to visit “Ground Zero” during his visit to New York to lay a wreath [1], it is somewhat worth remembering how Iran responded to the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
Knowing how short American memories are and knowing how many Americans share President Bush’s habit of conflating all U.S. opponents and enemies into some sort of utterly fictional “united front,” like the now famous “Axis of Evil” (none of whom had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks); I began preparing in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. It was fully predictable that there would be an Islamaphobic backlash in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and that people with a vested interest in promoting anti-Muslim hatred would later try to equate the entire Islamic world with the attacks in New York and Washington DC. So, beginning on September 12, 2001, I began compiling the actual responses to the attacks by all the countries of the world with a Muslim majority regardless of their political standing or relationship with the United States. Visiting and saving snippets from official government outlets for these states (embassy websites, Ministries of Foreign Affairs, &c.) as well as searching the media for relevant articles discussing the reactions of these states, I saved all this data for the fifty-two states in question and put it online in the “International Islamic Response” website. After several moves to different hosts, I kept all this data and it can now be found online at: http://iir.internetactivist.org/
So what was Iran’s reaction to the 9/11 attacks?
"On behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the hijacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American cities which have killed a large number of innocent people," President Khatami said in reaction to the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. ... "My deep sympathy goes out to the American nation, particularly those who have suffered from the attacks and also the families of the victims," he said, noting, "terrorism is doomed and the international community should stem it and take effective measures in a bid to eradicate it." Khatami added that the Islamic Republic of Iran is treading a road to uproot terrorism and to this end, he noted, it will spare no efforts.
And related news stories included:
“Iranians Honor U.S. with Moment of Silence” (NY Post)
“Khatami Condemns ‘Terrorist’ Attacks on U.S. Targets (People’s Daily, Iran)
“US calls Iran’s response ‘positive’” (Economic Times)
“Terror attacks transform U.S. image in Iran’s media” (Gulf News)
“Powell sees hope in Iran, Syria response to attack” (Reuters)
“'Iran News’ deplores attacks on major US landmarks” (Iran News)
“Iran expresses rare sympathy for U.S. over attacks” (Reuters)
“Iran ayatollah says he is heart-broke over U.S. attack” (Gulf News)
“Iran seals Afghanistan border” (AP)
All of this was saved in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 at http://iir.internetactivist.org/020.html though of course many of the links are no longer valid, being six years old.
The point was – and remains – to show that contrary to whatever the Islamaphobic hate-mongers might say today, the vast majority of the Islamic world, even including states that the US has had difficult relations with, were sympathetic and supportive in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The whole supposition that there should be any problem with President Ahmadinejad laying a wreath at “Ground Zero” is just a statement of American ignorance, bigotry, and hated completely unjustified by anything Iran has done.
Anyway, to learn more about the response of the world’s majority Muslim countries in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, visit the International Islamic Response website at: http://iir.internetactivist.org/ Just click on any of the countries listed on the left to see how they responded. Just to save you some time, the ONLY majority Muslim states that were not sympathetic was Iraq (at the time under Saddam Hussein and suffering from US imposed sanctions that resulted in the death of over a million Iraqis [2]) and Afghanistan (then under the Taliban).
John S.
Notes:
[1] Pat Milton, "New York bans 'photo op' visit to Ground Zero by Iran's president," The Scotsman, 21 September 2007, http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1509712007
[2] Peace Action, “End Sanctions on Iraq,” Peace Action Education Fund, undated, http://www.peace-action.org/camp/justice/iraqfs.pdf
