World Trade Center Visitor

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

They guy may hold a Ph.D but believes that one of the best documented atrocities in HISTORY (always thought that it was a subject in school (history)) never happened. That’s a little ignorant in my book. DOn’t know how they roll up in N. Europe, but here in the States, that’s how we roll. He says, (I’m paraphrasing but trying to be as acurate as possible) The Zionist state should be wiped from the pages of history.

Don’t know if you interpret that differently, but I hear him saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map. I may be just assuming he feels the same way about USA, but I don’t think it’s not a valid assumption.

Happy to have a discussion that doesn’t equate to someone saying “well you’r effin stupid” though. And I would never take the 1st ammendment for granted because of regimes in the world like Mr. Ahmadenijad’s censoring, critical government.

22

And yes, I do think that those people hijacked and crashed planes into our buildings to send a message. They didn’t just fly into random buildings, they flew into symbols of our freedoms. The WTC stood for our capitalist, free market (for arguments sake) commerce. They do have a gigantic problem (they being Al-Qaeda and radical Islam) with our way of life. To even question that is ignorant in and of itself.

And just to clear this up next time you want to quote something that is preceeded by “this is my opinion” you might want to include that in your quote rather than chopping it out. Don’t mis-quote.

23

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Iran doesn’t support Al Quaeda and anti-American terrorism nearly as much as Saudia Arabia, and they’re here all the time. Why didn’t Bush shoot the leader of the Saudi’s during one of their many luncheons?[/quote]

Well said.

24

[quote]polo77j wrote:
And yes, I do think that those people hijacked and crashed planes into our buildings to send a message. They didn’t just fly into random buildings, they flew into symbols of our freedoms. The WTC stood for our capitalist, free market (for arguments sake) commerce. They do have a gigantic problem (they being Al-Qaeda and radical Islam) with our way of life. To even question that is ignorant in and of itself.

And just to clear this up next time you want to quote something that is preceeded by “this is my opinion” you might want to include that in your quote rather than chopping it out. Don’t mis-quote.[/quote]

I was trying to read your post…(bounce, bounce, bounce…)

Your avatar is pretty distracting…

25

[quote]polo77j wrote:
They guy may hold a Ph.D but believes that one of the best documented atrocities in HISTORY (always thought that it was a subject in school (history)) never happened. That’s a little ignorant in my book. [/quote]

Nope. That’s the way it was presented. He never actually claimed that the Holocaust didn’t happen. He questioned the proportions of the massacre. Not that it’s smart, wise, or moral to do so. Far from that. But it’s a totally different issue than claiming that the Holocaust never happened.

His speech was mistranslated. The Iranian government issued an official statement clearing things up.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/16/iran.israel/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/

I’m guessing the purpose of his visit is to clear his name from the slander he’s been getting from the media. You can bet that such a question will be asked by someone at his talk. Stay tuned…

26

[quote]polo77j wrote:
And yes, I do think that those people hijacked and crashed planes into our buildings to send a message. They didn’t just fly into random buildings, they flew into symbols of our freedoms. The WTC stood for our capitalist, free market (for arguments sake) commerce. They do have a gigantic problem (they being Al-Qaeda and radical Islam) with our way of life. To even question that is ignorant in and of itself. [/quote]

The WTC was indeed very symbolic. They chose it because of the sheer number of people it houses on a Monday morning. Ultimately, it was a criminal act to take down as many people as possible. The symbolism was just the cherry on top. They could have attacked the Statue of Liberty, but it wouldn’t have been as devastating a blow as the twin towers.

It makes no sense to say that they were after capitalism and free market. They were angry at American interventionism, which is something the whole world is angry at, not just radical Islamists. The only difference between the people protesting in front of your embassies around the world and Al-Qaeda, is that the latter found a way to rationalize acts of aggression and gratuitous killings.

Clear?

Open your eyes. I quoted your original passage in full before tackling it. Surely, you can’t accuse me of malicious intent.

27

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m guessing the purpose of his visit is to clear his name from the slander he’s been getting from the media. You can bet that such a question will be asked by someone at his talk. Stay tuned…[/quote]

But will it be answered honestly - or even answered at all?

I am looking forward to see just how the terrorist president reacts to a citizenry with a 1st Amendment rights.

I’ll bet he figures out pretty fucking fast how invoke the 5th.

28

[quote]rainjack wrote:
But will it be answered honestly - or even answered at all? [/quote]

There’s not much point debating if you can’t even assume good faith.

29

[quote]lixy wrote:
It makes no sense to say that they were after capitalism and free market. They were angry at American interventionism, which is something the whole world is angry at, not just radical Islamists. The only difference between the people protesting in front of your embassies around the world and Al-Qaeda, is that the latter found a way to rationalize acts of aggression and gratuitous killings.

[/quote]

This can’t be right.

If this were true, and they hated us for global American interventionism… then the best way to fight terrorism would be to possibly change that interventionism. We simply cannot accept that possibility.

They hate us because we have bigger dicks than them.

30

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
I’m guessing the purpose of his visit is to clear his name from the slander he’s been getting from the media. You can bet that such a question will be asked by someone at his talk. Stay tuned…

But will it be answered honestly - or even answered at all?

I am looking forward to see just how the terrorist president reacts to a citizenry with a 1st Amendment rights.

I’ll bet he figures out pretty fucking fast how invoke the 5th. [/quote]

Which one is wanted in several countries for war crimes?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Henry Kissinger

31

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Just silly rhetoric, actually.

Yeah, I figured.

Just so you know, that was a rhetorical question I asked.[/quote]

Just so you know, I was joking.

I like how you ignore the main point of the post.

32

[quote]lixy wrote:
His speech was mistranslated. The Iranian government issued an official statement clearing things up.

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=070518144544.3s9xsh15&cat=null
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/16/iran.israel/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/02/20/iran_denies_wanting_to_wipe_israel_off_the_map/

Don’t know if you interpret that differently, but I hear him saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map. I may be just assuming he feels the same way about USA, but I don’t think it’s not a valid assumption.
[/quote]

Either it was mistranslated or he put his foot in his mouth and his PR department quickly went to work. Was it also mistranslated that he had an aura around him when he spoke to the UN and had them transfixed, or when he called on the Holocaust deniers and History revisionists to visit his country for a huge convention, or when he had a competition for the best anti-Jewish cartoon? Were these all mistranslations?

33

[quote]lixy wrote:

The WTC was indeed very symbolic. They chose it because of the sheer number of people it houses on a Monday morning. Ultimately, it was a criminal act to take down as many people as possible. The symbolism was just the cherry on top. They could have attacked the Statue of Liberty, but it wouldn’t have been as devastating a blow as the twin towers.

It makes no sense to say that they were after capitalism and free market. They were angry at American interventionism, which is something the whole world is angry at, not just radical Islamists. The only difference between the people protesting in front of your embassies around the world and Al-Qaeda, is that the latter found a way to rationalize acts of aggression and gratuitous killings.

[/quote]

First off, the attacks happened on a tuesday.

Thank you for clarifying the modivation behind the attacks. In taking down the towers, they killed people from all nations, not just the US.

34

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Either it was mistranslated or he put his foot in his mouth and his PR department quickly went to work. Was it also mistranslated that he had an aura around him when he spoke to the UN and had them transfixed, or when he called on the Holocaust deniers and History revisionists to visit his country for a huge convention, or when he had a competition for the best anti-Jewish cartoon? Were these all mistranslations?[/quote]

There were many Jews there, and the point of the conference was to be able to openly debate the Holocaust - something you can’t do, punishable by imprisonment, in supposedly “free” European countries.

Think about ANY OTHER point in history where you HAVE TO believe it (or keep it to yourself) that is punishable BY LAW?

35

It’s hard to take someone in good faith who’s appears to be a dishonest sob … I know you can spin that back but let’s keep focus at hand here … His intentions aren’t exactly the clearest regarding a lot of controversial world issues including his own domestic policies (i.e. how he treats his own people also his nuclear ambitions) …

From what I’ve read and heard he seems to not really give a shit about the world community yet constantly criticizes other nations that don’t adhere to his own standards (whatever THOSE may be) …

36

And lixy, you’re right about quoting me correctly … my b. But it was just an opinion of mine.

37

[quote]lixy wrote:
polo77j wrote:
And yes, I do think that those people hijacked and crashed planes into our buildings to send a message. They didn’t just fly into random buildings, they flew into symbols of our freedoms. The WTC stood for our capitalist, free market (for arguments sake) commerce. They do have a gigantic problem (they being Al-Qaeda and radical Islam) with our way of life. To even question that is ignorant in and of itself.

The WTC was indeed very symbolic. They chose it because of the sheer number of people it houses on a Monday morning. Ultimately, it was a criminal act to take down as many people as possible. The symbolism was just the cherry on top. They could have attacked the Statue of Liberty, but it wouldn’t have been as devastating a blow as the twin towers.

It makes no sense to say that they were after capitalism and free market. They were angry at American interventionism, which is something the whole world is angry at, not just radical Islamists. The only difference between the people protesting in front of your embassies around the world and Al-Qaeda, is that the latter found a way to rationalize acts of aggression and gratuitous killings.

Clear?

And just to clear this up next time you want to quote something that is preceeded by “this is my opinion” you might want to include that in your quote rather than chopping it out. Don’t mis-quote.

Open your eyes. I quoted your original passage in full before tackling it. Surely, you can’t accuse me of malicious intent.[/quote]

Lixy,

You’re coming across as a moderator on this thread all of the sudden. Telling folks not to mis-quote. Are you issuing fatwas all of the sudden?

You cite that The only difference between the people protesting in front of US embassies around the world and Al-Qaeda, is that the latter found a way to rationalize acts of aggression and gratuitous killings.

Their rational was based on your faith. Kind of ironic isn’t it? They all have the discovery of radical Islam and jihad – not jihad as the individual’s daily struggle for their own soul, but jihad as a Muslim’s obligation to fight on behalf of their beliefs, against nonbelievers and corrupters of belief.

Obviously the take away from your point is to keep an eye on folks who share your faith, as at any point in time, they might find a way to “rationlize acts of aggression and gratuitous killings” as you put it…

38

[quote]polo77j wrote:
It’s hard to take someone in good faith who’s appears to be a dishonest sob … I know you can spin that back but let’s keep focus at hand here … His intentions aren’t exactly the clearest regarding a lot of controversial world issues including his own domestic policies (i.e. how he treats his own people also his nuclear ambitions) … [/quote]

Now you’re talking. He appears to you as a dishonest sob. If you could tell us why you get that impression, maybe we can better tackle the validity of your point.

But, I’ll start by addressing the two issues you raised already:

  • How the Iranian government treats his own people is a non-issue. Iran is a sovereign state, and the US (or any other country for that matter) don’t have much say in the matter. Compared to the horrors that happen in Egypt, the occupied territories, Saudi Arabia and other US allies, human right abuse in Iran is fairly negligible.

  • Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a hot topic. It’s gonna get even hotter in the days to come. Tehran reaffirms its intentions are totally peaceful, and under the Non-Proliferation Treaty which it signed, it has every right to enrich uranium for civil purposes.

The core of the issue isn’t Iran’s intentions as much as Iran’s ability to make nukes that’s bugging Washington. Bush made that clear: any country that can potentially represent a threat to American domination should be treated as a threat.

A nuclear armed Iran is something that will shift (more accurately, restore) the balance of power in the ME and that’s a power the US isn’t willing to give up. America wants total hegemony over the region - if not the world - and other countries will always challenge that any way they can.

What do you mean? The Atomic Agency praised Iran for its cooperation.

39

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Think about ANY OTHER point in history where you HAVE TO believe it (or keep it to yourself) that is punishable BY LAW?[/quote]

So, did you go? How was it? Did you meet Ahmadinejad?

40

[quote]lixy wrote:
…

Mahmoud is dangerous to whom? And why do you think he’s ignorant? I don’t know if you’re aware, but the guy holds a Ph.D.

…[/quote]

In what?