Ahmadinejad not allowed to visit Ground Zero @ WTC

[The Real Bingo]

CNN

The controversial, outspoken president wanted to "pay his respects" and lay a wreath at the site of the 2001 al Qaeda attacks during his visit to the U.N. General Assembly, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, citing Iranian officials.

But workers are rebuilding the foundations of the site, "and it would not be possible for him to go where other people don't go," Kelly told CNN.

Iranian officials have not put in any additional requests to visit the public platforms at ground zero, police spokesman Paul Browne told CNN. But, he said, "If there were a further request, we'd reject it" because of security fears.

The Iranian mission to the U.N. said it had not been told of the decision, but in a statement issued Wednesday evening, it called the rejection "unfortunate."

[Mike]

What a shock!

[The Real Bingo]

I don't like the reason they give. The reason should be: because he's a prick and he's not welcome on soil that was destroyed by assholes his country supports. But that's not too PC, is it?

[Gomer]

I don't like the reason they give. The reason should be: because he's a prick and he's not welcome on soil that was destroyed by assholes his country supports. But that's not too PC, is it?

Actually it was destroyed by Saudi Arabian assholes, a country that he strongly opposes. A country which WE support.

I can understand your confusion though. The more confused you are the easier it is for the Bush Administration to have their way with you. There were no Iraqi or Iranian terrorists involved in 9/11.

[Gomer]

I don't even think you read the articles you post. You hear something on the radio, or see a blog or something that gets you all wound up. You try to find an unbiased source that supports the way you think you should feel and share it with us to try to hide your bias while you complain.

From the article you cited:

Iran is ruled by a Shiite Muslim government hostile to the fundamentalist Sunni al Qaeda.


Ahmadinejad's predecessor at the time of the September 11 attacks, Mohammed Khatami, condemned them, and Tehran cooperated with the U.S.-led campaign to topple al Qaeda's Taliban allies in Afghanistan that followed.

[The Real Bingo]

I don't care where they're from...Iran harbors and is kind to terrorist like the ones who perpetrated 9/11.

[no1_vern]

TRB: Where is the PROOF??

It would have been a political coup for US to get Ahmadinejad to place a wreath commemorating our dead, but no, we cant allow that, can we?

One of the many things that is said by our enemies is that we offend more people who are our friends than our enemies can ever do.

[johnnycombat]

I don't care where they're from...Iran harbors and is kind to terrorist like the ones who perpetrated 9/11.

No, Iran supports very different kinds of terrorist. The problem with lumping all terrorist together is that it unites your enemies instead of dividing them, it also creates new enemies when what you need is allies. Iran could have been an ally in the fight against Al Qeada but due to ignorance that won’t happen.

[Epidemic]

Iran could have been an ally of ours. this is true. but with what you know of them would you really want them as allies?

[sharder8]

I think this could have been handled a little better than it was . . .

For example, "Denied due to construction and safety concerns" would have been best.

Harder

[Shipuuden]

They should let him go there then when a sniper takes him out good riddance.

[osprey4]

Why quibble over whether he's a raghead or not? The guy is a known terrorist.

[Mike]

I think this could have been handled a little better than it was . . .

For example, "Denied due to construction and safety concerns" would have been best.

Exactly...

They should let him go there then when a sniper takes him out good riddance.

That would really get the United States far.

[Cmptr-Gy-Dv]

I don't like the reason they give. The reason should be: because he's a prick and he's not welcome on soil that was destroyed by assholes his country supports. But that's not too PC, is it?

I’m with you TRB, the man was part of taking 52 American citizens hostage,
Iran was responsible for killing the marines in Beirut, they support Hamas,

In short the man is a pile of human crap, and some of you think we should let him go
To ground zero,
They shouldn’t even let him in the country; in fact the U.N. should be regarded as an illegal and told to get out of our country,

Ya let him go to ground zero, then shoot him and Berry him under it,

[johnnycombat]

Iran could have been an ally of ours. this is true. but with what you know of them would you really want them as allies?

Better a bad ally than a good enemy

[Keymaker]

A little non verbal legitimate propaganda on my front.


http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/e...tedwithsig.jpg

[2monsters]

Why quibble over whether he's a raghead or not? The guy is a known terrorist.

I Agree.

[zen]

Nice to see our liberal members showing their true colors.
yellow to be exact.

[Disley]

Iran was a good enough ally when they helped clear the taleban from Afghanistan and offered to hand over Al Qaeda prisoners they'd captured to the US, of course that was before Bush called Iran the axis of evil, even after all the bad things the US had done to Iran, they were still prepared to help the US and held vigils for the victims of 9/11, but Bush wants to give Iran a taste of shock and awe, so he won't want you knowing the truth about anything. I'll post the article of Iran offering to recognise Israel and to help disband hizbollah, but Bush and Cheney rejected the offer.
You see Bush needs an enemy he can call a terrorist, this is the only way he can keep people scared and keep him in power.
Terrorism is when a country invades another, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths like Bush has done, yet you mention hizbollah which is responsible for a couple of dozen Israeli deaths, which were mainly Arab Israelis, yet you don't see the irony of calling others terrorists, when your own government is the biggest supporter of state sponsored terrorism since Mao or Stalin.
Take a close look at your own actions before criticizing other. has Iran invaded another country half way around the world and murdered close to a million people. Your military has, on orders from a mad man.
Bush and Cheney are far more dangerous.
P

resident Bush may not be aware of this. In his televised address to the nation he warned that a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq could cause a “humanitarian nightmare.”

A trusted aide should take the president aside and quietly inform him that this nightmare arrived a good while ago.

When the U.S. launched its “shock and awe” invasion in March 2003, the population of Iraq was about 26 million. The flaming horror unleashed by the invasion has since forced 2.2 million of those Iraqis, nearly a tenth of the population, to flee the country. Many of those who left were professionals marked for death — doctors, lawyers, academics, the very people with the skills necessary to build a viable society.

The worst aspect of the nightmare, of course, is the rain of death that has descended on Iraq since the U.S. invasion. Controversy has surrounded virtually all attempts to estimate the number of civilian casualties, but no one disputes that the toll is staggering.

The U.S. government has behaved as though these dead Iraqis were not even worth counting. In December 2005, President Bush casually mentioned “30,000, more or less” as the number of Iraqis killed in the war. The White House later said there were no official estimates of Iraqi deaths.

We shouldn’t be so cavalier. Based on all available evidence, it seems unreasonable to believe that fewer than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed thus far. Many very serious scholars believe the total is much higher.

As for the number of wounded and disabled Iraqis — men, women and children who have lost limbs, or been paralyzed or otherwise maimed in air, rocket and bomb attacks — no one has a real grasp of the size of the problem.

“Just considering the number of the dead and the number of displaced, this is probably the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world,” said James Paul, the executive director of Global Policy Forum, which recently compiled an extensive report on the war and occupation. “This is the biggest displacement of people in the Middle East in a very long time.”

The effect on children of the carnage, the dislocations and the deteriorating quality of daily life has been profound. Conditions in Iraq were dire for children even before the war. One in eight died before the age of 5, many from the effects of malnutrition, polluted water and unsanitary conditions.

Now, more than four years after the invasion, huge numbers of Iraqi children are finding themselves orphaned, homeless, malnourished, and worse.

Read the whole article, then think twice before you accuse others of being terrorists, and tell me the Iraqi's haven't been terrorized, Bush calls it being democratized, but only a total moron would believe him.
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/15...15herbert.html

[Shipuuden]

The UN says that more than two million of the estimated six million population have fled their homes, but the organisation is reluctant to suggest how many might have died in total.

Lets do the math, thats more then 1/3 of the population of the Sudan that have fled their homes, so it seems that the Sudan has "probably the biggest humanitarian crisis".

"We believe the procedures we have used have allowed us to come to very conservative and cautious conclusions which we used to try to identify a floor to these estimates - a floor figure of 200,000.
"We do not believe it is possible or defensible to go below in estimating the scale of this genocide."

0.2%-2.1% of Iraqs Populations killed Vs. 3.3%-5.0% of the Sudans populations killed still seems the Sudan has "probably the biggest humanitarian crisis".

Thats all beside the point anyone who would believe what that crazy nut job Bob Herbert would say is a fucking idiot.