Walk-Outs

90 thoughts on Walk-Outs

1. Odd. It would seem to me that we’ve failed in reaching all those goals and in rather spectacular fashion.

2. If only our elected officials would do the same to the Birthers and other bigoted conservative American conspiracy theorists. (Emphasis added).

   Fair, but what about crazy liberal conspiracists? There are a fair number of those too.

3. He did not claim that the US government orchestrated the Sept. 11th attacks in order to yadayadayada. He presented it as one of three viewpoints on the 9/11 attacks, specifically saying that it is a view “some segments within the U.S. gov’t orchestrated the attack” and that he believes the “majority of American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.” You can certainly call it conspiratorial but I’m not sure how saying that some segments of the U.S. government orchestrating the attacks in order to help save Israel is anti-semitic outright. And I certainly don’t know what good walking out does except send the message that you’re not interested in any sort of dialogue with these individuals. Which is exactly the wrong message anyone in the West would want to send Iran. I remember several years ago when Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia and its president Lee Bollinger prefaced his introduction of Ahmadinejad with a long-winded diatribe about his dictatorial nature. This was completely lambasted in Iranian circles and was used as evidence of a desire not to dialogue. By all means, make fun of his views. In the same talk, Ahmadinejad was laughed at for promoting the belief that Iran had no homosexuality; as he has been at the UN assembly. But by not engaging with these people you empower them in counter-productive ways.

   1. Sid, a dialogue goes both ways. The Obama administration has reached out to Iran. By coming to the UN and saying that it’s a credible view to believe that the US orchestrated 9/11 does not help to open up any sort of dialogue. Walking out of a reasoned speech because you don’t like the speech-giver or you disagree with their views is one thing; walking out of an intentionally incendiary speech that suggests the government of the nation you are currently standing in orchestrated a major terrorist attack which killed and injured thousands of citizens is totally justified. I’m glad they walked out.

      Are we seriously supposed to “engage” the suggestion that the US might have orchestrated 9/11? Should we “engage” the people who argue that Obama is a Muslim or that he isn’t an American citizen? Come on.

4. Oh, Ahmadinejad? There is no world leader that is more of a supervillain caricature than this guy, and every time he is in an article for anything, he says something ridiculous.

   Yeah, we bombed our own buildings to save our economy. Somehow we thought that the economy would forget that we had cut taxes too much and that a war and war-time spending would help that shit. What’s 3,000 lives with a foolproof plan like that?

   I’m glad those delegations walked out.

5. Sid: And I certainly don’t know what good walking out does except send the message that you’re not interested in any sort of dialogue with these individuals.

   I fail to see why this is an issue. I know lots of bigots who I won’t entertain in conversation.

   Sid: But by not engaging with these people you empower them in counter-productive ways.  

   By engaging them, you grant them legitimacy.

   1. What PrettyAmiable said.

      I support engagement with Iran. But at the point where their leader makes it clear that he is not going to engage in any sort of rational thought-process and is simply interested in theatrics, end engagement.

6. As far as Ahmadinejad goes, the worst is yet to come.

7. @Sid: “Feminists conspire with women to falsify rape claims to keep men in a state of suspended terror and falsely empower women.” is a corollary to “The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen Israel.” The first is sexist. The second is Anti-Semitic. It calls back to a “Protocols” style massive Jewish conspiracy stereotype.

8. Jill: Sid, a dialogue goes both ways.The Obama administration has reached out to Iran.By coming to the UN and saying that it’s a credible view to believe that the US orchestrated 9/11 does not help to open up any sort of dialogue.Walking out of a reasoned speech because you don’t like the speech-giver or you disagree with their views is one thing; walking out of an intentionally incendiary speech that suggests the government of the nation you are currently standing in orchestrated a major terrorist attack which killed and injured thousands of citizens is totally justified.I’m glad they walked out.Are we seriously supposed to “engage” the suggestion that the US might have orchestrated 9/11?Should we “engage” the people who argue that Obama is a Muslim or that he isn’t an American citizen?Come on.  

   @Jill: Engage as equals? No. Put a stop to/Overcome/Beat in some way? Damn right. No idea how to do that yet, but I’m on board with the not treating their position as equal to our own.

9. How has the Obama administration reached out to Iran? As far as I can tell, we’ve been sabre-rattling about their desire to acquire nuclear power and of course we continue to arm Israel, a real threat to Iran’s nuclear program.

10. Jill: Sid, a dialogue goes both ways.The Obama administration has reached out to Iran.By coming to the UN and saying that it’s a credible view to believe that the US orchestrated 9/11 does not help to open up any sort of dialogue.Walking out of a reasoned speech because you don’t like the speech-giver or you disagree with their views is one thing; walking out of an intentionally incendiary speech that suggests the government of the nation you are currently standing in orchestrated a major terrorist attack which killed and injured thousands of citizens is totally justified.I’m glad they walked out.Are we seriously supposed to “engage” the suggestion that the US might have orchestrated 9/11?Should we “engage” the people who argue that Obama is a Muslim or that he isn’t an American citizen?Come on.  

    But this has been seriously engaged. By Popular Mechanics and many others in response to the 9/11 Truth Movement. And we do engage people who argue that Obama is a Muslim or that he isn’t an American citizen by pointing out exactly why they are wrong. A dialogue certainly goes both ways, but the Obama administration has reached out to Iran in profoundly limited ways which is neither here nor there. Ahmadinejad often says incendiary things, but if the endgame is to marginalize him abroad and/or (especially) at home, you combat his views with reason and deliberation.

11. Cam: @Sid: “Feminists conspire with women to falsify rape claims to keep men in a state of suspended terror and falsely empower women.” is a corollary to “The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen Israel.” The first is sexist. The second is Anti-Semitic. It calls back to a “Protocols” style massive Jewish conspiracy stereotype.  

    Not quite. The first statement certainly is sexist. “The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen JEWS” is certainly anti-semitic. “The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen Israel” is certainly anti-Israel but only possibly anti-Semitic.

12. Fair, but what about crazy liberal conspiracists?There are a fair number of those too.

    That’s quite a false equivalence you’ve got there. Where did you get it? Bit of a strawman too. How many Democratic Congresspeople can you show me who believe anything as nutty as birtherism? What leftist conspiracies get constant, credulous coverage on cable news, in our leading national newspapers, or on talk radio? What lefty bunch of lies and innuendos went around the world as quickly and as often as the Climategate crap?

    Even when we on the left can point to something that is plainly and obviously an actual conspiracy, such as the cooperation of telecom companies with illegal wiretapping, or the politicization of the Justice Department under the Bush regime, it doesn’t really get any traction.

13. Sid:
    Not quite.The first statement certainly is sexist.“The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen JEWS” is certainly anti-semitic.“The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen Israel” is certainly anti-Israel but only possibly anti-Semitic.  

    Sid,

    You clearly know less than nothing about Anti-Semitism. To imply that there is a segment of the US Government who
    would be willing to murder thousands of American citizens in order to preserve a Jewish state is textbook Anti-Semitism. What’s more, his statement is demonstrably false, a ‘majority’ of US citizens do not believe these things. How can you have a serious ‘engagement’ with someone who is blatantly lying? You yourself are guilty of lying as well, as you could not possibly think that his comments are down to naievete. Therefore, to pretend that he just needs to be educated on the facts, shows that you have no concern about the Anti-Semitism in his remarks.

14. Does anyone have a link to a transcript of the actual speech? I’ve heard at least 5 different versions of what he is supposed to have said ranging from foaming at the mouth crazy to possibly reasonable in the right context.

    But assuming the worst, was walking out the right response? It seems to me that walking out might create the impression that Ahmadinejad had a point. I’m no diplomat and not versed in the meanings of various acts in the UN, but doesn’t walking out imply that he struck a nerve? I’d argue that the delegates should have reacted in much the same way they might have if he’d claimed that the 9/11 attacks had been orchestrated by the teal green aliens as part of a conspiracy to steal the earth’s magnesium: it’s only slightly less plausible.

15. Sid:
    Not quite.The first statement certainly is sexist.“The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen JEWS” is certainly anti-semitic.“The US Gov’t orchestrated 9/11 to strengthen Israel” is certainly anti-Israel but only possibly anti-Semitic.  

    You can, concievably, be anti-Israel and not anti-Semitic. It’s logically possible. In the same way you can be anti-Feminist and not sexist. However, when you use racist and sexist rhetoric, calling down stereotypes that have been used to vilify, imprison, enslave, and straight up mass-murder a group of people because they are who they are, I think it’s on you to prove you’re not a bigot.

16. I do support reasonable engagement with Iran (of course, it is a two-way street and I don’t think either sides’s been terribly good at opening a constructive dialogue), but at this point I’m honestly not surprised at anything Ahmadinejad says anymore. I can’t even work up feelings of outrage. Ahmadinejad said something that was uncalled for and offensive to a lot of people, the Pope is Catholic, and bears shit in the woods.

17. Ahmadinejad often says incendiary things, but if the endgame is to marginalize him abroad and/or (especially) at home, you combat his views with reason and deliberation.

    I don’t think marginalization ought to be the goal here. The man is a tyrant. He lost an election, stuffed the ballot boxes, then brutally suppressed the protests that followed. He has continued to pursue a nuclear programs whose only possible purpose can be to threaten his neighbors. This man shouldn’t be “marginalized” through reasoned discourse because he cannot be. He isn’t playing by the same rules. The only reason he ought to be allowed a seat at the UN’s table is so his plane could get lost over international waters on the way there.

18. In the same way you can be anti-Feminist and not sexist.

    What. The.

19. It’s okay to be a nutjob conspiracy theorist. It’s not okay to be a nutjob conspiracy theorist in charge of government, suppressing rights of domestic civil dissidents, and waging aggressive war via proxies. It’s not okay when US presidents (e.g. Bush) do it, and it’s not okay when Ahmadinejad does it.

    Ahmadinejad isn’t a crazy old uncle you roll your eyes at. He’s a world leader who has aggressively funded and armed proxy wars throughout the region and who is forwarding some completely psychotic conspiracy theories, either because he’s crazy or because he cynically believes this will get him foreign support, as a justification for the kind of brutal oppression he’s promoting at home and abroad.

20. From the NY Times article:

    “In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.”

21. Israel’s a racist nation and a nation of racists, and we ought to be willing to call it out for those things just as we called out South Africa in its own bad old days. That’s totally different from being racist ourselves–in fact if we let Israel off, we’re the racist ones! But in telling the truth there, we sometimes have to face down the people who are willing to use the language of anti-racism to defend Israel against legitimate criticism, as when someone calls another person anti-Semitic for opposing Israel. It’s unfortunate that these people are often our friends in other ways, but we just have to stand our ground.

    1. Oh for the love of…

       Ok. We can criticize Israel the same way that we criticize any other nation. Fine! But “Israel is in a conspiracy with the US government for the US government to perpetrate attacks on American soil in order to defend Israel” is not how we criticize any other nation. And is a crackpot conspiracy theory.

       Defend criticism of Israel, fine. But that’s not what this post is about, so let’s please get back on topic.

22. JDP:
    What.The.  

    Unless you’re actually of the impression that only the people who choose to attach a label to themselves called “feminist” are capable of not being sexist, or caring about ending sexism…

    Oh, forget it. I’m already bored.

    I’ll stop contributing to the derails now.

23. But assuming the worst, was walking out the right response? It seems to me that walking out might create the impression that Ahmadinejad had a point. I’m no diplomat and not versed in the meanings of various acts in the UN, but doesn’t walking out imply that he struck a nerve? I’d argue that the delegates should have reacted in much the same way they might have if he’d claimed that the 9/11 attacks had been orchestrated by the teal green aliens as part of a conspiracy to steal the earth’s magnesium: it’s only slightly less plausible. Dianne

    Though that’s how you and some others outside the diplomatic/international politics community may interpret walking out, that act has had a long history of being used as a way to protest, voice strong disapproval in diplomatic circles, and as a means to refuse to grant any legitimacy to the offending person/group/speech. What the US and its allies did has been common practice in diplomacy and international politics for decades at the very least.

    If anything, to not walk out would signify silent approval and providing legitimacy to the speech giver/speech that is deemed offensive to a given party.

    Moreover, staying and openly displaying the reactions akin to seeing “teal green aliens” would be read by the larger diplomatic community as a sign the US and/or its allies have lowered themselves to Iran’s level by acting in a childish immature manner not befitting those in diplomatic service/international politics. Though entertaining and satisfying for those of us on the outside, this would be highly counterproductive and undercut whatever perceived legitimacy the US and its allies may have had.

24. @Tei Tua
    “Israel’s a racist nation and a nation of racists, and we ought to be willing to call it out for those things just as we called out South Africa in its own bad old days. That’s totally different from being racist ourselves–in fact if we let Israel off, we’re the racist ones!”

    Ah, yes Tei Tua. I’m sure you’re just anti-Israeli aren’t you? Because Zionism is racism and all that? A whole nation of racists aren’t they, *all* the Israelis. Yup, right, so far, so anti-colonialist, anti-Imperialist, so progressive.

    Oh, but hold on. You don’t *actually* think Bahai Israelis are racist, or Bedouin Israelis, or Druze Israelis, or Palestinian Israelis, or Arab Israelis or Samaritan Israelis, or Armenian Israelis and etc etc. Just that Jewish Israelis are racists. And that is just exactly where *you* become the racist anti-Semite.

    = how to slip from anti-Zionism into anti-Semitism 101.

25. exholt: If anything, to not walk out would signify silent approval and providing legitimacy to the speech giver/speech that is deemed offensive to a given party.

    This is an important point, I think.

    Also, neither Ahmadinejad nor conspiracy theorists are “crazy” or “nutjob[s].” And since the conversation inevitably goes that way, yes, I do understand this was not meant literally. No, it does not make it less offensive. Like when someone calls something “ghetto.” Maybe it’s not literal, but it’s still really fucking offensive.

26. **the second half of that comment wasn’t directed at exholt so much as several throughout the thread.

27. William: He has continued to pursue a nuclear programs whose only possible purpose can be to threaten his neighbors. class=comment_quote_link title=”Click here or select text to quote comment” onmousedown=”quote(‘329001’, document.getElementById(‘name329001’).innerHTML, ‘comment’,’div-comment-329001′, false);try { addComment.moveForm(‘div-comment-329001’, ‘329001’, ‘respond’, ‘18456’); } catch(e) {}; return false;” href=”javascript:void(null)”>(Quote this comment?)

    You don’t think the pursuit of nuclear power is a feasible reason to acquire nuclear material?

28. Did you actually read/watch the speech? I watched it and the only crazy thing I thought he said was his repeated statements that nations should be guided by religion, i.e. Islam. Not that strange though, given that I’m sure many Americans hold the same belief, but in favour of Christianity.

    In fact, he said a lot of things that would make sense and seem very noble if put in a more “popular” mouth . There was a lot in that speech that if spoken by Obama would generate praise, e.g. on diversity, nations working together, marginalised nations being able to participate in world politics etc..

    I also didn’t detect any anti-semitic statements, though he was obviously criticising Israel (which is not the same thing as anti-semitism).

    He also had quite a bit to say about nations from across the world coming to the middle east and bringing wars with them.

    To be honest, there was some crazy stuff in Ahmadinejad’s speech, sure, but there was a lot of good things too.

29. By the way, here’s the transcript:

    slamic Republic of Iran
    Permanent Mission to the United Nations
    Address by H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
    President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
    Before the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
    New York
    23 September 2010
    622 Third Ave, New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 687-2020 Fax: (212) 867-7086 email: iran@un.inl
    [edited; unreadable]
    ***********************************************************
    Mr. President,
    Excellencies,
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I am grateful to the Almighty God who granted me the opportunity to appear
    before this world assembly once again. I wish to begin by commemorating those who
    lost their lives in the horrible flood in Pakistan and express my heartfelt sympathy
    with the families who lost their loved ones as well as with the people and the
    government of Pakistan. I urge everyone to assist their fellow men and women as a
    humane duty.
    Let me thank H.E. Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, the President of the he sixtyfourth
    session of the United Nations General Assembly, for all his efforts during his
    tenure. I also would like to congratulate H.E. Mr. Joseph Deiss, the President of the
    sixty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly and wish him all success.
    In the past years, I spoke to you about some of the hopes and concerns,
    including family crises, security, human dignity, world economy, climate change as
    well as the aspiration for justice and lasting peace.
    After about one hundred years of domination, the system of Capitalism and the
    existing world order has proved to be unable to provide appropriate solution to the
    problems of societies, thus coming to an end. I shall try to examine the two main
    causes of this failure and picture some features of the ideal future order.
    1
    A) Attitudes and Beliefs
    As you are well aware, the divine prophets had the mission to call everyone to
    monotheism, love and justice and show mankind the path to prosperity. They invite
    men to contemplation and knowledge in order to better appreciate the truth and to
    avoid atheism and egoism. The very nature of the message of all prophets is one and
    the same. Every messenger endorsed the messenger before him and gave glad tidings
    about the prophet to come, and presented a more complete version of the religion in
    accordance with the capacity of the man at the time. This continued up to the last
    messenger of God who presented the perfect and all inclusive religion.
    In opposition to that, the egotist and the greedy stood up against this clear call,
    revolting against the message.
    Nimrod countered Hazrat Abraham, Pharaoh countered Hazrat Moses and the
    greedy countered Hazrat Jesus Christ and Hazrat Mohammad (Peace be upon them
    all). In the recent centuries, the human ethics and values have been rejected as a cause
    for backwardness. They were even portrayed as opposing wisdom and science
    because of the earlier infliction on man by the proclaimers of religion in the dark ages
    of the West
    Man’s disconnection from Heaven detached him from his true self.
    Man with his potentials for understanding the secrets of the universe, his instinct
    for seeking truth, his aspirations for justice and perfection, his quest for beauty and
    purity and his capacity to represent God on earth was reduced to a creature limited to
    the materialistic world with a mission to maximize individualistic pleasures. Human
    instinct, then, replaced true human nature.
    Human beings and nations were considered rivals and the happiness of an
    individual or a nation was defined in collision with, and elimination or suppression of
    others. Constructive evolutionary cooperation was replaced with a destructive struggle
    for survival.
    The lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love
    and unity.
    This widespread clash of the egoist with the divine values gave way to slavery and
    colonialism. A large portion of the world came under the domination of a few western
    States. Tens of millions of people were taken to slavery and tens of millions of
    families were shattered as a result. All the resources, the rights and the cultures of the
    colonized nations were plundered. Lands were occupied and the indigenous people
    were humiliated and mass- murdered.
    Yet, nations rose up, colonialism was alienated and the independence of the nations
    was recognized. Thus, the hope for respect, prosperity and security was revived
    amongst nations. In the beginning of the past century nice talks about freedom,
    2
    human rights and democracy created hopes for healing the deep wounds of the past.
    Today, however, not only those dreams are not realized, but memories, even at times
    worse than before, have been recorded.
    As a result of the two World Wars, the occupation of Palestine, the Korean and the
    Vietnam’s Wars, the Iraqi war against Iran, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as
    well as many wars in Africa, hundreds of millions of people were killed, wounded or
    displaced.
    Terrorism, illicit drugs, poverty and the social gaps increased. The dictatorial and
    coup d’etat governments in Latin America committed unprecedented crimes with the
    support of the West.
    Instead of disarmament, the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear, biological and
    chemical weapons expanded, putting the world under a bigger threat. As a result, the
    very same old goals of colonialists and the slave masters were, this time round,
    pursued with a new facade.
    B) The Global Management and Ruling Structures
    The League of Nations and, then, the United Nations were established with the
    promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in
    fact meant a global management.
    One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:
    First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for
    almost a decade.
    All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using
    numerous footages of the incident.
    Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.
    But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole
    world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save
    the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.
    Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.
    Please take note:
    It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for
    which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds
    of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the
    conflict is still going on and expanding.
    In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.
    1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross
    3
    all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.
    This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.
    2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to
    reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order
    also to save the Zionist regime.
    The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree
    with this view.
    3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported
    and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.
    The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge
    volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown
    but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American
    officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of
    the suicide attackers was found.
    There remain, however, afew questions 10 be answered:
    1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have
    been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved
    in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
    2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a
    classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds
    of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?
    3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who
    killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent
    person was hurt.
    It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for
    the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not
    forbidden.
    . I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a
    conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars,
    thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.
    Second, is the occupation of the Palestinian territories
    The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying
    regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to selfdetermination,
    while the occupiers are given recognition. On a daily basis, the houses
    are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are
    deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have
    4
    imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people.
    The Zionists committed the most horrible crimes against the defenseless people in
    the wars against Lebanon and Gaza.
    The Zionist regime attacked a humanitarian flotilla in a blatant defiance of all
    international norms and kills the civilians.
    This regime which enjoys the absolute support of some western countries regularly
    threatens the countries in the region and continues publicly announced assassination
    of Palestinian figures and others, while Palestinian defenders and those opposing this
    regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti Semites. All values, even the
    freedom of expression, in Europe and in the United States are being sacrificed at the
    altar of Zionism.
    Solutions are doomed to fail because the right of the Palestinian people is not taken
    into account.
    Would we have witnessed such horrendous crimes if instead of recognizing the
    occupation, the sovereign right of the Palestinian people had been recognized?
    Our unambiguous proposition is the return of the Palestinian refugees to their home
    land and the reference to the vote of the people of Palestine to exercise their
    sovereignty and decide on the type of governance.
    Third, is the nuclear energy
    Nuclear energy is clean and cheap and a heavenly gift which is amongst the most
    suitable alternatives to cut the pollutions emanating from fossil fuels.
    The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows all member States to use nuclear
    energy without limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency is mandated to
    provide member States with technical and legal support.
    The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be
    eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear
    disarmament.
    Nonetheless, note what some of the permanent members of the Security Council
    and nuclear bomb holders have done:
    They have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this
    energy from the reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring
    the IAEA. While at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and
    upgrade their own nuclear arsenals.
    This has entailed the following:
    5
    Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized but also nuclear bombs
    have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating
    Zionist regime.
    I would like here to propose that the year 20 II be proclaimed the year of nuclear
    disarmament and “Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None”.
    In all these cases the United Nations has been unable to take any effective course
    of action. Unfortunately, in the decade proclaimed as the “International Decade for the
    Culture of Peace” hundreds of thousands were killed and injured as a result of war,
    aggression and occupation, and hostilities and antagonism increased.
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    Very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the Holy
    Quran.
    The Holy Quran is the Divine Book and the eternal miracle of the Prophet oflslam.
    It calls for worshipping the One God, justice, compassion toward people,
    development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and
    resisting against the oppressors; and it names with respect the previous Messengers of
    God, like Noah, Abraham, Isaaq, Joseph, Moses and Jesus Christ (Peace be Upon
    them all) and endorses them.. They burned Quran to bum all these truths and good
    judgments. However, the truth could not be burned. Quran is eternal because God and
    truth are everlasting. This act and any other act which widens the gap and distances
    between nations is evil. We should wisely avoid playing into the hands of Satan. On
    behalf of the Iranian nation I pay respect to all Divine Books and their followers. This
    is the Quran and this is the Bible. I pay respect to both of them.
    Esteemed Friends,
    For years the inefficiency of the capitalism and the existing world management and
    structures has been exposed and the majority of States and nations have been on a
    quest for fundamental changes and for the prevalence ofjustice in global relations.
    The cause of the United Nation’s ineptitude is in its unjust structure. Major power
    is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar
    of the Organization, namely the General Assembly, is marginalized.
    In the past several decades, at least one of the permanent members of the Security
    Council has always been a party to the disputes.
    The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; How could,
    therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party
    to the dispute?
    Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA
    Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?
    6
    Dear Friends,
    The United Nations is the key center for coordinating the common global
    management. Its structure needs to be reformed in a manner that all independent
    States and nations be able to participate in the global governance actively and
    constructively.
    The veto privilege should be revoked and the General Assembly should be the
    highest body and the Secretary-General should be the most independent official and
    all his positions and activities should be taken with the approval of the General
    Assembly and should be directed towards promoting justice and eliminating
    discrimination.
    The Secretary-General should not come under pressure from powers and/or the
    country hosting the Organization for his stating the truth and administration ofjustice.
    It is suggested that the General Assembly should, within one year and in the
    framework of an extraordinary session, finalize the reformation of the Organization’s
    structure
    The Islamic Republic of Iran has clear suggestions in this regard and stands ready
    to participate actively and constructively in the process.
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I announce clearly that the occupation of other countries under the pretext of
    freedom and democracy is an unforgivable crime.
    The world needs the logic of compassion and justice and inclusive participation
    instead oflogic offorce, domination, unilateralism, war and intimidation.
    The world needs to be governed by virtuous people like the Divine Prophets.
    The two vast geographical spheres, namely Africa and Latin America, have gone
    through historic developments during the past decades. The new approaches in these
    two continents, which are based on increasing level of integration and unity as well as
    on localizing the growth and development models, have born considerable fruits to the
    ‘peoples of those regions. The awareness and wisdom of the leaders of these two
    continents has overcome the regional problems and crises without the domineering
    interference of non-regional powers.
    The Islamic Republic of Iran has expanded its relations with the Latin America
    and Africa in all aspects in recent years.
    And about the glorious Iran,
    The Tehran Declaration was a hugely constructive step in confidence building
    efforts which was made possible through the admirable good will by the governments
    of Brazil and Turkey along with the sincere cooperation of the Iranian government.
    Although the Declaration received inappropriate reaction by some and was
    7
    followed by an unlawful resolution, it is still valid.
    We have observed the regulations of the IAEA more than our commitments, yet,
    we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so.
    It has been said that they want to pressure Iran into a dialogue. Well, firstly, Iran
    has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice. Secondly, methods
    based on disrespecting nations have long become ineffective. Those who have used
    intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in
    real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council and the trust of
    nations for this body, proving once and again how unjust is the function of the
    Council.
    When they threaten a great nation such as Iran which is known throughout history
    for its scientists, poets, artists and philosophers and whose culture and civilization is
    synonymous to purity, submission to God and seeking justice, how can they ever
    expect that other nations grow confidence on them?
    It goes without saying that domineering methods in managing the world has failed.
    Not only has the era of slavery and colonialism and dominating the world passed, the
    path to the reviving old Empires are blocked, too.
    We have announced that we stand ready for a serious and free debate with the
    American Statesmen to express our transparent views on issues of importance to the
    world in this very venue.
    It is proposed here that in order to have a constructive dialogue, an annual free
    debate be organized within the General Assembly.
    In conclusion,
    Friends and Colleagues,
    The Iranian nation and the majority of the world’s nations and governments are
    against the current discriminatory management of the world.
    The inhumane nature of this management has put it at a dead-end and requires a
    major overhaul.
    Reforming the world’s affairs and bringing about tranquility and prosperity
    requires the participation of all, pure thoughts and the divine and humane
    management.
    We are all ofthe idea that:
    Justice is the basic element for peace, durable security and the spread of love
    among peoples and nations. It is in the justice that mankind seeks the realization of his
    aspirations, rights and dignity, since he is wary of oppression, humiliation and ill
    treatment.
    8
    The true nature of mankind is manifested in the love for other fellow humans and
    love for all the good in the world. Love is the best foundation for establishing relation
    amongst people and amongst nations.
    As Vahshi Bafqi, the great Iranian poet, says:
    “From the fountain of youth, drink thousand sips
    You’ll still die if you don’t have love’s grip”
    In making a world full of purity, safety and prosperity people are not rivals but
    companions.
    Those who see their happiness but in the sorrow of others and their welfare and
    safety but in others’ insecurity, those who see themselves superior to others, are out of
    the path of humanity and are in evil’s course.
    Economy and materialistic means are only some tools to serve others, to create
    friendship and strengthen human connections for spiritual perfection. They are not
    tools for show-off or means of dominating others.
    Men and women complements each other and family unit with pure, loving and
    long-lasting relation of the spouses in its center is the guarantee for the continuity and
    the bringing up generations, for true pleasures, for spreading love and for reforming of
    the societies.
    Woman is a reflection of God’s beauty and is the source of love and caring. She is
    the guardian ofpurity and exquisiteness of the society.
    The tendency to toughen the souls and behaviors of women deprives them from
    their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. It would result in a
    more violent society with irreversible defects.
    Freedom is a divine right that should serve peace and human perfection.
    Pure thoughts and the will of the righteous are keys to the gates of a pure life full
    of hope, liveliness and beauty.
    This is the promise of God that the earth will be inherited by the pure and the
    righteous. And the people free from selfishness will take up the management of the
    world. Then, there will be no trace of sorrow, discrimination, poverty, insecurity and
    aggression. The time for true happiness and for the blossoming of the true nature of
    humankind, the way God has intended, will arrive.
    All those seeking for justice and all the free spirits have been waiting for this
    moment and have promised such glorious time.
    The complete human, the true servant of God and the true friend of the mankind
    whose father was from the generation of the beloved Prophet of Islam and whose
    9
    mother was from the true believers of the Jesus Christ, shall wait along with Jesus the
    son of Marry and the other righteous to appear on those brilliant times and assist the
    humanity.
    In welcoming them we should join ranks and seek justice.
    Praise to Love and worship, praise to justice and freedom, praise to the true
    humanity, the complete human, the true companion of the humankind and peace be
    upon you and all the righteous and the pure.
    Thank you.

30. But in telling the truth there, we sometimes have to face down the people who are willing to use the language of anti-racism to defend Israel against legitimate criticism, as when someone calls another person anti-Semitic for opposing Israel.

    Are you saying that trutherism is a “legitimate criticism” of Israel, or are you just trying to derail the thread?

31. I just wanted to pop in and say that I really enjoyed the video, that was fun 🙂

32. First of all, one has to give some credit to Ahmadinejad – he is an honest person. He says what he means. The problem is that he is talking in code-words, and many in the West miss the meaning of what he says.

    A few points:

    He did say that majority of people don’t believe that a terrorist organization could have penetrated multiple layers of American security. That majority does believe that it was the US goverment that was involved in 9/11 one way or another. Obviously, he claims to belong to majority… and wants an “independent” investigation of 9/11.

    The second problem for him is Zionist “occupation” of Palestinian land for 60 years. This timeframe is an important element missed by people who claim that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are the obstacles to peace – from Muslim point of view Tel-Aviv is also an illegal settlement.

    On the diplomatic front, Iran want to abolish the UN Security Counsel dominated by the Great Satan and give the final power to the General Assembly, where Arab oil-rich country have a lot of influence.

    Otherwise, Ahmedinajad loves all people, as long as they are not atheist…. and homosexuals (this time he did not mention them) … and Zionists….

    Feminists???

33. I’m saying it’s logically possible, in the same way that people will criticize feminism. “I don’t like this particular feminists writings, but I’m not allowed to say so because I’ll be accused of sexism by the feminist powers-that-be trying to silence my voice. Making sure that stops happening is much more important than dealing with the original issue addressed. All I’m doing is calling them sexist.” makes as much sense as what the Sid guy is talking about.

    You can say “I don’t like this feminist’s writing.” And I’ll say (and everyone will agree) that that doesn’t make you sexist. But that’s not what these people are saying. These people are usually saying the equivalent of “Feminism is intrinsically sexist and should not exist as a belief system or influence politics or power structures in any way.” And then they subtly hint that women are all liars, or something. Now, that one, that’s the problematic one. Which one does Sid, and Achmedinijad, sound more like?

    JDP:
    What.The.  

34. PM: You don’t think the pursuit of nuclear power is a feasible reason to acquire nuclear material?  

    I really don’t believe this comment is serious. Not to speak on behalf of William, but of course the pursuit of nuclear power is a good reason to acquire nuclear material. I just have trouble believing that this is the only reason that Ahmadinejad has for acquiring nuclear material. Massive Holocaust denier who lives within spitting distance of a country he decries whenever there is a camera or reporter present? And it’s not like he’s exactly proven himself trustworthy after losing an election and then stuffing the ballot boxes.

    And Mark, again, please what your use of crazy, but no, this:

    “That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.” is not rational. It’s just not true.

35. I have a hard time understanding–or perhaps communicating–the way people react to criticism of Israel. Firstly, it’s always pre-empted. “I’m not a racist, but I think Obama’s Kenyan, a Muslim, and a crack dealer. See? You’re calling me racist! Trying to silence me.” That’s not a tactic I expect to see from my side of the political spectrum, but it’s the regular trope. People accuse Jews of using accusations of anti-Semitism to cover up legitimate criticism of Israel. As a Jew who has lived amongst gentiles for his whole life, I can tell you that it’s almost always the other way around–people use anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism as a cover to vent anti-Semitic sentiment.

    You know what it feels like to me? “I’m not sexist, I just think that women shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions, and those that do are evil. You can’t call me sexist because not ALL women get them. And see? Here’s a website where women agree with me! That makes me EXTRA Not-sexist.”

    Israel, like a bunch of other things borne out of a history of horrific atrocities, has the right to exist. And the duty to exist. It has, like every other country on earth, the right to defend itself. The whole “Israel’s just more imperialism” feels, like, THIS close to Holocaust denial for me. That JUST HAPPENED! And we still live in a really, really anti-Semitic society. I’m up in Canada right now. The Jewish population of Canada is about 2%. The queer or queer-identified population, assuming 10% from the Kinsey thing, has X amount of hate crimes a year. The Jewish population has almost X amount of hate crimes per year–I worked this out once, you’re about 8 times more likely to be the victim of a hate crime if you’re Jewish than if you’re queer-identified. How everyone else seems to forget about it I have no idea. You want to know what the majority of anti-Israeli criticism looks like? Put in “Israel” to a google alert, read over what the internet spits out every day. Put in “Jew”. See what people are saying.

36. You don’t think the pursuit of nuclear power is a feasible reason to acquire nuclear material?

    In 2005 Iran was asked by the big EU players (France, UK, and Germany) to permanently suspend uranium enrichment programs in exchange for a package that included long term supplies of the low-enriched uranium necessary for nuclear power but unsuitable for weapons. Iran’s nuclear program refused. For the next 5 years Iran was beginning to look like another Iraq: lots of shouting and questionable intel from the Americans and Israel but little actual evidence on the ground.

    This year, however, things have changed even if you completely discount the reports of American intelligence agencies. Iran has refused to explain the purchase, development, and secret testing of high-payload missile cones and precision detonators that are almost certainly intended for nuclear weapons. several months later Iran reported producing enough low-enriched uranium to, with further enrichment, build two nuclear weapons. At the same time Iranian officials began to refuse to answer questions from UN inspectors. In July Iran barred two UN inspectors from the country for issuing a report that the Iranian government didn’t like. In August Iran announced a plan to enrich uranium up to 20%, a level that could be used for an inefficient bomb and which would be unsuitable for nuclear power. All of these events have been independently documented and verified by the IAEA, a UN organization which has been very sympathetic towards the Iranian nuclear program.

    Whe you put blocking inspectors, stockpiling low-enriched uranium, enriching that Uranium to 20%, and secretly testing the other materials necessary to build a nuclear warhead together, you get a country that is no longer seeking nuclear power but flirting with the idea of a nuclear weapon.

    In the specific context of diplomacy, however, this flirtation is especially significant. Iran would be foolish to use a nuclear weapon (that would be one of the only ways to get the major global powers to agree on a united invasion, occupation, and rebuilding campaign), but I doubt that using a nuclear weapon has ever been Iran’s plan. The gradual development of a nuclear weapon is a diplomatic strategy designed to elicit certain responses and increase international influence. North Korea was successful with a similar gambit and managed to exact concessions in exchange for slowing or halting their nuclear program. Iran’s nuclear program is an especially dangerous form of saber rattling.

37. Cam: I’m saying it’s logically possible, in the same way that people will criticize feminism. “I don’t like this particular feminists writings, but I’m not allowed to say so because I’ll be accused of sexism by the feminist powers-that-be trying to silence my voice. Making sure that stops happening is much more important than dealing with the original issue addressed. All I’m doing is calling them sexist.” makes as much sense as what the Sid guy is talking about.You can say “I don’t like this feminist’s writing.” And I’ll say (and everyone will agree) that that doesn’t make you sexist. But that’s not what these people are saying. These people are usually saying the equivalent of “Feminism is intrinsically sexist and should not exist as a belief system or influence politics or power structures in any way.” And then they subtly hint that women are all liars, or something. Now, that one, that’s the problematic one. Which one does Sid, and Achmedinijad, sound more like?
      

    I looked through Ahmadinejad’s speech (note the correct spelling) and I couldn’t find any use of Jewish stereotypes or implications of Jewish power and conspiracy. I suppose one could read a tangential implication of Israeli power, but as has been noted one should not misconstrue the two. I certainly can’t find any comment where I implied anything about Jewish power.

    I just have trouble believing that this is the only reason that Ahmadinejad has for acquiring nuclear material. Massive Holocaust denier who lives within spitting distance of a country he decries whenever there is a camera or reporter present?

    There is a huge gap between Holocaust denial and destruction of a state by use of a nuclear weapon; one dammed by numerous statements from Iran: Ahmadinejad himself and clerical rulings from Khamenei (which hold actual water) and other leaders. It is wholly possible Iran wants or will desire a nuclear weapon, but almost certainly for the same reason why any nation would want a nuclear weapon: deterrence.

38. William:
    In the specific context of diplomacy, however, this flirtation is especially significant. Iran would be foolish to use a nuclear weapon (that would be one of the only ways to get the major global powers to agree on a united invasion, occupation, and rebuilding campaign), but I doubt that using a nuclear weapon has ever been Iran’s plan. The gradual development of a nuclear weapon is a diplomatic strategy designed to elicit certain responses and increase international influence. North Korea was successful with a similar gambit and managed to exact concessions in exchange for slowing or halting their nuclear program. Iran’s nuclear program is an especially dangerous form of saber rattling.  

    It also allows Iran’s proxy militias to operate with a nuclear umbrella throughout the region.

39. Sid: It is wholly possible Iran wants or will desire a nuclear weapon, but almost certainly for the same reason why any nation would want a nuclear weapon: deterrence.

    Then we agree that it’s not primarily for nuclear power, as was implied in the comment I was responding to.

    Just to be clear, I’m not for anyone having a nuclear arsenal. It’s disgusting regardless of whether you use it on people or as a threat to coerce people to comply with your political agenda.

40. BTW, has anybody found the clip sexist? What do we have here: two sharp, really good-looking males making fun of ‘the enemy’ by dressing him in woman’s clothes, and by taking him on a date. Hello?

41. In the specific context of diplomacy, however, this flirtation is especially significant. Iran would be foolish to use a nuclear weapon (that would be one of the only ways to get the major global powers to agree on a united invasion, occupation, and rebuilding campaign), but I doubt that using a nuclear weapon has ever been Iran’s plan.

    If Iran initiated a nuclear first strike, they would be lucky to get away with invasion and occupation rather than having American and Israeli missiles turn the country into a radioactive wasteland. I agree that Iran’s purpose is to extract concessions from the major world powers and throw their weight around in the region. A nuclear first strike would be suicidal.

42. a lawyer:
    If Iran initiated a nuclear first strike, they would be lucky to get away with invasion and occupation rather than having American and Israeli missiles turn the country into a radioactive wasteland.I agree that Iran’s purpose is to extract concessions from the major world powers and throw their weight around in the region.A nuclear first strike would be suicidal.  

    Not convinced. “Mutually-assured destruction” only works if both parties actually have the stomach for nuclear genocide. Neither the American nor the Israeli public have the stomach to nuke the living crap out of Iran, and Israel simply doesn’t have the ability to absorb a successful nuclear attack. A failed nuclear attack by Iran would result in weeks to months of hand-wringing about what actually happened with no chance of a nuclear response.

    MAD-style nuclear deterrence is probably waning in relevance in general, but it’s likely not relevant to the Iran situation at all.

43. “Neither the American nor the Israeli public have the stomach to nuke the living crap out of Iran”

    Awwwe, yeah … I know both the American and the Israeli public are such bleeding hearts. It’s not like 95% of the Israeli population supported “operation cast lead” or that Hiroshima ever happened!

44. As detestable as the regime might be, the Iranian state has the same right of national defense as any other. Rights don’t just belong to our friends, or to ‘good’ people. They are universal. As long as two nuclear powers are threatening Iran with destruction, my only moral objections to their pursuit of nuclear weaponry are these: first, I believe that nobody, including the US, should have nuclear weapons; second, they are signatories to the NPT, and have a duty to uphold their treaty obligations. However, the political reality do somewhat mitigate those objections. The United States has demonstrated quite clearly that we’re capable of invading anybody we don’t like, without provocation or just cause. Israel has also demonstrated aggression towards its neighbors (perhaps with more cause), and though they’re more limited in their ability to project power, Iran is plenty close enough for them to attack (though probably not occupy). Further, the three countries in the world who openly flout the NPT are all in the ‘neighborhood’ of Iran, so to speak, and one of them is Israel (the US directly or indirectly supports nuclear programs in two of the three non-signatory states, as well). As a final data point, they have North Korea – when George W. Bush decided to prove his manhood by invading somebody it wasn’t the state that might be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons. That math is easy.

    So, I can’t really agree with the Iranian regime if they are, in fact, pursuing nuclear weapons. But I can understand why they might feel the need for them. Iran is perhaps the state most threatened with invasion of any in the world right now. If they had a demonstrated ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons, that would change overnight, and a lot of the posturing from the US and Israel over this subject has to be seen as an attempt to preserve their regional hegemony. They simply don’t want to have to deal with Iran as equals, they always want the “we’ll just invade you then” card available to be played.

45. JDP: What. The.  (Quote this comment?)

    You might want to ask Renee over at Womanist Musings, your what. the. question. She probably counts herself as an anti-feminist. She sure sounds like one.

46. As detestable as the regime might be, the Iranian state has the same right of national defense as any other. Rights don’t just belong to our friends, or to ‘good’ people. They are universal. As long as two nuclear powers are threatening Iran with destruction,

    YES. Thank you. I hate saying anything remotely positive about the Iranian regime, but come on – the United States launched a catastrophic war in Iraq (directly to Iran’s west), has invaded Afghanistan to their east, and has military bases all over Central Asia and in Saudi Arabia. This sobering graphic might help illustrate what I’m talking about.

    Let us not also forget that this very same Iranian government HELPED the United States against the Taliban in the direct aftermath of the 9/11 attacks – only for Bush to turn around and slap them with the “Axis of Evil” label. Gee, I wonder why they could POSSIBLY be disinclined to play nice with the U.S.???

    And does it occur to anyone that Israel has been threatening an independent strike against Iran for years now?

    I really, really, REALLY HATE saying anything that can be construed as defense of the Iranian government. I hate what they do to women, I hate what they do to gays, and I hate what they did to the voters/protesters in the election last year. But I think is folly to say that they are “crazy” for not cooperating with the USA/Israel because frankly, they have not been given much rational basis to trust us.

    Now, as far as labeling Ahmadinejad’s comments about 9/11 and the Holocaust horrible and offensive, absolutely. And I think the American delegation had every right to walk out on the 9/11 comments this time. If the American president had made some offensive statement about the 1953 CIA coup in Iran, I would fully expect the Iranians to walk out on that too (which is not a perfect analogy, but the closest I can come up with).

47. PrettyAmiable:
    Then we agree that it’s not primarily for nuclear power, as was implied in the comment I was responding to.
      

    No, I said its possible, you are evidently far more certain of a deviant intent.

48. bogdan: BTW, has anybody found the clip sexist? What do we have here: two sharp, really good-looking males making fun of ‘the enemy’ by dressing him in woman’s clothes, and by taking him on a date. Hello?  

    Somewhat sexist, more homophobic and slightly racist, and not even funny to boot.

49. Sid:
    I looked through Ahmadinejad’s speech (note the correct spelling) and I couldn’t find any use of Jewish stereotypes or implications of Jewish power and conspiracy.I suppose one could read a tangential implication of Israeli power, but as has been noted one should not misconstrue the two.I certainly can’t find any comment where I implied anything about Jewish power.I just have trouble believing that this is the only reason that Ahmadinejad has for acquiring nuclear material. Massive Holocaust denier who lives within spitting distance of a country he decries whenever there is a camera or reporter present?There is a huge gap between Holocaust denial and destruction of a state by use of a nuclear weapon; one dammed by numerous statements from Iran: Ahmadinejad himself and clerical rulings from Khamenei (which hold actual water) and other leaders.It is wholly possible Iran wants or will desire a nuclear weapon, but almost certainly for the same reason why any nation would want a nuclear weapon: deterrence.  

    If the Israeli government can influence the U.S. Government to kill it’s own citizens, how is this anything but a conspiracy of Jews? Do you honestly he thinks the Israelis the U.S. Government is influenced by are not Jews.

    No one is claiming that محمود احمدی‌نژاد (that’s the actual spelling, if you want to be a dick about it,) is blaming ALL Jews for 9/11. He is saying that elements within the U.S. Government were influenced to protect a specific group of Jews (the Israelis.)

50. bogdan, I can see where the part in the dress is questionable, but for some context — this was shortly after Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University where he claimed there is no homosexuality in Iran, and this line had been widely publicized and mocked. It’s directly referenced at the end when he says “I know you say there’s no gays in Iran… but you’re in New York now, baby!” So for the most part it’s a ‘shaming the homophobe with a really homoerotic song’ joke.

51. “Oh, but hold on. You don’t *actually* think Bahai Israelis are racist, or Bedouin Israelis, or Druze Israelis, or Palestinian Israelis, or Arab Israelis or Samaritan Israelis, or Armenian Israelis and etc etc. Just that Jewish Israelis are racists. And that is just exactly where *you* become the racist anti-Semite.”

    Bahai Israelis and Bedouin Israelis and Druze Israelis and Palestinian Israelis and Arab Israelis and Samaritan Israelis and Armenian Israelis do not have systemic, institutionalized power within Israel. Jewish Israelis do. Pointing this out is not racist, any more than pointing out discrimination against African-Americans in the US is racist.

52. Fat Steve: If the Israeli government can influence the U.S. Government to kill it’s own citizens, how is this anything but a conspiracy of Jews? Do you honestly he thinks the Israelis the U.S. Government is influenced by are not Jews.

    No one is claiming that محمود احمدی‌نژاد (that’s the actual spelling, if you want to be a dick about it,) is blaming ALL Jews for 9/11. He is saying that elements within the U.S. Government were influenced to protect a specific group of Jews (the Israelis.)  

    Haha, so, I’m sure we’ve had our differences on threads past, but this response was awesome. Cheers.

    Sid: No, I said its possible, you are evidently far more certain of a deviant intent.  

    I think you misspelled “realistic.”

53. Ahh there’s nothing like the smell of American hypocrisy in the morning!

    Assuming you’re not bigoted and that you don’t all hate Muslim people, then please observe the hypocrisy.

    If you can’t be anti-Israel, a jewish state, without being anti-semitic, then you can’t be anti-Iran, an Islamic state, without being anti-Muslim.

    Yeesh. The Israeli government are doing bad things to innocent people. It’s not just Iran that needs addressing on the issues of human rights. And hey, America? You need to get over this fear of criticising that Israeli government for fear of being painted as anti-semitic, it’s ridiculous and juvenile.

    And this is coming from a Jewish lady.

54. I got really angry wen I first read this blogpost… I am trying to think of a rational way to formulate my anger, here’s my best shot:

    1- Someone who approves, supports and protects an unnatural, oppressive, brutal regime like Israel cannot fake being a saint by walking out on a president like Ahmedinajad.

    2- I am Christian Lebanese (at least by birth) which makes me part of the community that is the most terrified of Ahmedinajad, right after Iranian dissidents, but with what moral authority are you deciding that every president has the right to be heard at the UN but not Ahmedinajad? Why not the Saudi King? or the Chinese president? Or the Egyptian president? or the racist French president? or the Syrian President? and wait… what about the former American President? After all, what George Bush did to us is far worse than anything Ahmedinajad can do to us? Or is it that you only want to attack the mainstream portrayal of women but not of the third world population?

    3- About anti-semitism: Anti-semitism is a problem in the middle east, it particularly spiked after the Nakba (the Zionist occupation of Palestine)… But still, a synagogue is being rebuilt in Lebanon, where less than 5 years ago Israel (the self-proclaimed jewish state) massacred 1400 ppl, something that even new york couldnt tolerate, because in the mainstream culture Islam attacked the world trade center, like Judaism attacked Lebanon. So the anti-semitism you just excuse to walk-out on another president’s speech, is not half as horrible as the shit you tolerate on a regular basis…

    4- On 9/11 accusations: you mean you never thought about the possibility that people within the American regime were involved in the attacks? never? not even when you saw the clearly orchestrated occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Not even when you looked at the clear, clean, impeccable way in which the twin towers fell straight down? not even when you read about other conspiracies done by American systems which led to grave destruction to the American society, like the “we must consume” slogan?

    Ok that’s all I could rationalize

55. I’m glad we all walked out on him, but I have to say, there’s too much we don’t know about 9/11, and continue to believe that we had intelligence about the attack prior to the day of, and that Bush/Cheney allowed the attacks to happen to justify invading Iraq. Wow. I never thought I’d agree with Ahmadinejad on anything.

56. “not even when you saw the clearly orchestrated occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq”

    I’m going to just point out that in the case of Iraq, we’d been saber rattling long before 9/11. Hell, there were news stories about the very bad awful man Saddam and the scariness of Iraq. We were already manufacturing a reason–we didn’t need 9/11 to do it. Also: if people in the administration were orchestrating this to give us a reason to fuck with the Middle East, I doubt very much that they’d include the Pentagon as a target. Just sayin’.

    Frankly, I don’t think we should have walked out–I certainly wouldn’t have, but in all honesty, I think Ahmadinejad, Sarkozy, Obama, and the rest of them are hypocrites.

57. Pazuzu, a couple of thoughts.

    Regarding your first point, it doesn’t make anyone a saint to walk out on someone. No one is claiming that. I, for instance, am not a saint in any respect, but if someone is going to tell me that I orchestrated the murder of 3000 people because of my Jew-lust, then I don’t have to listen to it. Not listening doesn’t make me a saint. It makes me aware that there’s some shit I just don’t have to listen to.

    Regarding the second, I don’t think Jill said that Ahmadinejad shouldn’t have the floor. She even says, “I’m personally of the mind that all world leaders, no matter how terrible, have a place at the UN.” That doesn’t mean people are obligated to listen to his hateful ranting. I’m not sure how you could convince anyone otherwise.

    Regarding the third, I’m not sure if you’re relatively new, but no one here “tolerates” Israel’s terrorist activity.

    And regarding the fourth, people above are clear that some people believe that there was an inside conspiracy. Ahmadinejad said *most*. “Most” has no support. And I’m not really sure if you thought the towers were going to tip over, but no, I’m not surprised they fell straight down. It’s not a Jenga tower.

58. For the record, I do believe that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney allowed 9/11 to happen. They’d gotten the reports that Bin Laden was planning something big, and they’d decided not to do anything about it. But there’s a difference, a big one, between allowing something to happen and actually doing it yourself. It’s like the difference between letting someone drown by walking away rather then helping, or pushing them into the water in the first place.

59. Politicalguineapig: For the record, I do believe that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney allowed 9/11 to happen. They’d gotten the reports that Bin Laden was planning something big, and they’d decided not to do anything about it.

    Madness. It’s only luck (and the bravery and competence of first responders) that allowed anyone to escape on 9/11. So basically you’re saying that the Bush administration was willing to allow 50,000 or so civilians to be murdered (and allow the economy to be crippled) in order to justify going to war. Don’t you understand how crazy that sounds?

    Obama’s gonna put us all in FEMA camps! Run for your life!

    Christ almighty.

60. If you can’t be anti-Israel, a jewish state, without being anti-semitic, then you can’t be anti-Iran, an Islamic state, without being anti-Muslim.

    This is true. Which is why no one on this thread actually said “you can’t be anti-Israel without being anti-semitic.”

    You need to get over this fear of criticising that Israeli government for fear of being painted as anti-semitic, it’s ridiculous and juvenile.

    This parallels an analogous right-wing meme. They spew all sorts of racist crap at our president and then claim they’re the victim of those playing the race card

    Similary, you pop into a blog where being anti-israel puts you in the mainstream, in a thread where classic anti-semetic memes are being thrown around, and yet you scold those who are concerned about anti-semitism.

    This is precisely how teabaggers answer charges of racism.

61. I looked through Ahmadinejad’s speech (note the correct spelling) and I couldn’t find any use of Jewish stereotypes or implications of Jewish power and conspiracy. I suppose one could read a tangential implication of Israeli power, but as has been noted one should not misconstrue the two. I certainly can’t find any comment where I implied anything about Jewish power

    .

    I’m a right-winger so let me explain how racism and politics works. You don’t criticize blacks per se. What you do is take on the NAACP, like Andrew Breitbart did. Since the NAACP is not the same as African Americans, you’ve created plausible deniability. So now Rush LImbaugh will go around lecturing “one should not misconstrue the two.” and if you do, why you’re the racist.

    Its called a dog whistle. The Southern Strategy. You don’t say you’re for segregation, you say you’re for states rights. Why? because stats rights is legit. Thomas Jefferson used states rights to oppose the alien and sedition acts. Its noble, its progressive, its even anti-racist.

    And I really mean that. It is an improtant principle. But its also a code word.

    Anti-Zionism = States Rights.

62. Henry: Madness. It’s only luck (and the bravery and competence of first responders) that allowed anyone to escape on 9/11. So basically you’re saying that the Bush administration was willing to allow 50,000 or so civilians to be murdered (and allow the economy to be crippled) in order to justify going to war. Don’t you understand how crazy that sounds?

    Erm. Bush had been notified of bin Laden’s intentions to attack the US, and various officials in the Bush administration had set up appointments to talk about it with him essentially since he was inaugurated. This is actually pretty well documented. It doesn’t mean he was all, “Eff Americans! Let ’em burn!” – it just means the guy was horribly incompetent at the job and didn’t know where to lay his energies. Think about how much fucking vacation time the guy took before September 11th.

    Here’s Fox News on it, and given how much they <3 Bush and oppression, you can imagine how heart breaking this must have been for them to post: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52913,00.html

    As politicalguineapig pointed out, there’s a difference between letting something happen (though I would argue that the person walking away from the drowning victim, to be an accurate metaphor, would have to have been presented with a life saving course beforehand and then blown it off, only to find hirself unable to assist the drowner) and causing it to happen. politicalguineapig pretty plainly says that he or she (I feel like I should know, sorry) doesn’t think Bush hired the hijackers.

    Also, your use of “madness” and “crippled” are offensive. Before you go all, “IT’S FIGURATIVE!” let me be clear that the metaphoric use of those words doesn’t make your usage LESS offensive and ableist.

63. But, but, but the Israelis also absented themselves (as opposed to walked out) from the UN when Obama gave his keynote speech (but they were all celebrating Sukkoth, those deeply religious, holiday-honoring, Israelis). Methinks Israelis regard Obama and Ahmadinejad as sort of schwartzer ‘cousins’.

    Back to the US for annual month-long visit to the family – looking forward to the woman in the local deli who refers to the Iranian president as ‘ArmaniDinnerjacket’ – could be worse, couldn’t it?

64. Ok, let me get this right, this is a feminist, progressive, anti-racist blog right?

    So far we have people saying:
    Israel is ‘unnatural’
    ‘Judaism attacked Lebanon’
    Israelis are ‘a nation of racists’

    Or saying things like:
    “I looked through Ahmadinejad’s speech (note the correct spelling) and I couldn’t find any use of Jewish stereotypes or implications of Jewish power and conspiracy.”

    I’m sure that this approving poster must have skimmed over the bit where the noted Holocaust denier stated that: ‘the Greedy countered Jesus Christ’ or that 9/11 was organised to ‘save the Zionist regime’

    Nope, no Jewish stereotypes or power conspiracies there, no sirreee. And that’s the explicit statements. Not even the dog-whistling.

    This stuff happens time and time and time again. So-called left-wing, anti-racists post trope after trope after trope conflating Jewish power and Israeli power in a global context; claim that people concerned about comments like ‘Judaism attacked Lebanon’, just for one, are just bringing up anti-Semitism as a devious and malicious canard to defend Israel right or wrong. ( Which, coincidentally is known in UK circles as the Livingstone formulation/maneouvre http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1900 )

    And of course, let’s just be really progressive and accuse Israel of being the most evil and unnatural of all regimes in the world (let’s just ignore the gay-hating, women-stoning, Bahai, Ahmadi and Sunni-persecuting Iranian regime for one).

    Despite the fact that there are plenty of countries that were created ‘unnaturally’ from colonial powers rolling back in the first half of the 20th century (India, Pakistan and the entire Middle East and that’s you too Lebanon!); occupying land (Turkey, Morocco, China and others); having immigration policy based on nation (Ireland, Japan, Germany etc) or have inequalities based on racial/religious background (Brazil, Malaysia, United States) and I could go on…..

    …but, no, it’s Israel, the *sole* expression of Jewish national self-determination after ridiculous amounts of persecution, which is the most racist, unnatural and worst country in the world. Yep, nothing problematic here. Uh-huh. It’s not like the pariah Jew – concreted in 2000 years of theological Jew-hatred in Christianity and Islam – has become the pariah Jew country. Nuh-uh. All resemblances between traditional Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracies and today’s ‘Israel controls US, UK and EU and etc’ conspiracies are *entirely coincidental*.

    And I have bl**dy bridge to sell you. Try to learn something here:
    http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=652

    Clean up your act so-called progressives.

65. * Here’s a particularly useful portion of the 9/11 Commission report: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.pdf

    Also, there have been well over 100 thou civilian lives lost in Afghanistan and Iraq, FYI.

66. Pazuzu HSP: 1- Someone who approves, supports and protects an unnatural, oppressive, brutal regime like Israel cannot fake being a saint by walking out on a president like Ahmedinajad.  

    No one is faking being a saint. If someone stands up and tells lies people should have the freedom to leave. Would you expect a Saudi Arabian diplomat to sit there if their government was blamed for 9/11? What if the tables were turned, would Ahmadinejad sit there while an American claimed a majority of Iranians bought into a crazy theory about how the Iranian government was responsible for 9/11?

    Pazuzu HSP: 2- I am Christian Lebanese (at least by birth) which makes me part of the community that is the most terrified of Ahmedinajad, right after Iranian dissidents, but with what moral authority are you deciding that every president has the right to be heard at the UN but not Ahmedinajad? Why not the Saudi King? or the Chinese president? Or the Egyptian president? or the racist French president? or the Syrian President? and wait… what about the former American President? After all, what George Bush did to us is far worse than anything Ahmedinajad can do to us? Or is it that you only want to attack the mainstream portrayal of women but not of the third world population?  

    How is walking out denying someone the right to be heard? If George Bush said the attacks by Israel on Lebanon were a result of a conspiracy by Lebanese Christians, would you expect Lebanese diplomats to sit there and applaud?

    Pazuzu HSP: 3- About anti-semitism: Anti-semitism is a problem in the middle east, it particularly spiked after the Nakba (the Zionist occupation of Palestine)… But still, a synagogue is being rebuilt in Lebanon, where less than 5 years ago Israel (the self-proclaimed jewish state) massacred 1400 ppl, something that even new york couldnt tolerate, because in the mainstream culture Islam attacked the world trade center, like Judaism attacked Lebanon. So the anti-semitism you just excuse to walk-out on another president’s speech, is not half as horrible as the shit you tolerate on a regular basis…  

    OK, our president was NOT against the building of the mosque. That is why our president does not get walked out on. Because he doesn’t represent the opinions of the douchiest segment of American society. Unfortunately Ahmadinejad not only represents the douchiest segment of Iranian society, he has now decided to stand up for the douchiest segment of American society- conspiracy based wingnuts.

    Pazuzu HSP: 4- On 9/11 accusations: you mean you never thought about the possibility that people within the American regime were involved in the attacks? never? not even when you saw the clearly orchestrated occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq? Not even when you looked at the clear, clean, impeccable way in which the twin towers fell straight down? not even when you read about other conspiracies done by American systems which led to grave destruction to the American society, like the “we must consume” slogan?Ok that’s all I could rationalize  

    Thought about it. Immediately dismissed it as utterly implausible. Nothing has come to light that has changed my opinion of that. Having seen footage George W. Bush struggling through a children’s book makes me convinced that he could not organize a conspiracy to get drunk in a brewery. What do you know about the Towers coming down? I saw the towers come down- you didn’t. You watched it on TV and clearly have no idea what it looked like from the ground. It was about as clear, clean and impeccable as your reasoning. I have literally no idea what other ‘systems’ and ‘conspiracies’ you are talking about, and this ‘we must consume’ slogan is clearly something you made up. If this was supposed to be a rational comment, this was a massive fail.

67. ‘Despite the fact that there are plenty of countries that were created ‘unnaturally’ from colonial powers rolling back in the first half of the 20th century (India, Pakistan and the entire Middle East and that’s you too Lebanon!); occupying land (Turkey, Morocco, China and others); having immigration policy based on nation (Ireland, Japan, Germany etc) or have inequalities based on racial/religious background (Brazil, Malaysia, United States) and I could go on…..’
    Plenty of people have plenty to say about what these countries have done, still do, etc. But that shouldn’t deflect attention from what’s going on in Israel/Palestine. Do any of these countries receive one-third of all the US’s foreign aid budget? Israel does, plus it gains an enormous amount of US arms investment, while the recipient of such US aid spits in its donor’s face like a truculent toddler and does whatever the f- it wants. And no, I do not equate Jews with Israel, and neither do lots of American and Israeli Jews, who are horrified with the Israeli gov’t’s tactics.

68. As politicalguineapig pointed out, there’s a difference between letting something happen…and causing it to happen.

    There’s a difference, but you’re framing still falls under trutherism. For the Bush admin to have let 911 occur would be treasonous. Even the “they’d decided not to do anything about it” is problematic.

    There are loopholes, but both these statements appear to frame the issue as if Bush $ Co actually thought an attack like this would occur and still did nothing. This is dangerous because it interescs with aniti-semitism (the jewsisraelis are almost always the puppeteers behind the “allowing”) and feeds the paranoid and exaggerated sense of victimization that is one of the fundamental reasons individuals are attracted to these totalitarian ideologies.

    Ditto for the McVeigh crew. thats why the fdr conspiracy theories are not funny. They are also part of white supremacist lore (remember at the time the right was largely isolationist, a la Pat Buhanan today).

    It was no secret that fdr wanted to enter the war. his Peacenik critics long accused him of provoking an attack (the American foreign policy is to blame argument of the day). He also possessed intelligence that demonstrated a high risk of attack.

    But he and bush got intelligence like that every day. In all likelihood, they didn’t know an attack would occur, they just saw an increased likelihood. to say FDR let pearl harbor occur or decided not to do anything about it implies he actually thought the threat was immanent and preferred it to happen

    I’m sure that the view of the “moderate” John Birchers.

69. Fat Steve:
    If the Israeli government can influence the U.S. Government to kill it’s own citizens, how is this anything but a conspiracy of Jews? Do you honestly he thinks the Israelis the U.S. Government is influenced by are not Jews.No one is claiming that محمود احمدی‌نژاد (that’s the actual spelling, if you want to be a dick about it,) is blaming ALL Jews for 9/11. He is saying that elements within the U.S. Government were influenced to protect a specific group of Jews (the Israelis.)  

    Once more, read his statement, if he believes the Israeli government can influence the US to kill its own citizens, this is an Israeli conspiracy; yes most Israelis are Jews, but this is not a characteristic he is defining explicitly as being operative. If we draw a parallel to your argument, anyone claiming that the current Iraqi government (or Bangladesh or Indonesia or what have you) is seeking weapons of mass destruction must ipso facto be Islamophobic since its a very wild theory that recalls ingrained orientalist stereotypes and demonization of Muslims as bloodthirsty killers hellbent on destruction. And I was correcting a spelling that I interpreted in a prior post as being an offensive, trite caricature of the standard Romanization of his name. Personally I prefer Dowd’s spelling: Im-a-dinner-jacket.

    Or saying things like:
    “I looked through Ahmadinejad’s speech (note the correct spelling) and I couldn’t find any use of Jewish stereotypes or implications of Jewish power and conspiracy.”

    I’m sure that this approving poster must have skimmed over the bit where the noted Holocaust denier stated that: ‘the Greedy countered Jesus Christ’ or that 9/11 was organised to ’save the Zionist regime

    Did you even read the context of ‘the Greedy countered Jesus Christ?’ It’s very hard to interpret anti-semitism from that line given the context. Also, while its true Bahai’s are persecuted and Sunnis very slightly so, there are virtually no Ahmadis in Iran. But hey, who wants nuance?

    t’s not like the pariah Jew – concreted in 2000 years of theological Jew-hatred in Christianity and Islam – has become the pariah Jew country

    One ought to be careful, someone perhaps would accuse you of Islamophobia based on this statement.

    I think you misspelled “realistic.”

    If you think it’s probable that Iran wants nuclear weapons to be able to destroy Israel, then you don’t know the Middle East well enough for any discussion to be worth having. Anyone with any substantive perspective on Iran from Aslan to Nasr to Sadjadpour disagrees vehemently with you.

70. Sid:
    Once more, read his statement, if he believes the Israeli government can influence the US to kill its own citizens, this is an Israeli conspiracy; yes most Israelis are Jews, but this is not a characteristic he is defining explicitly as being operative.If we draw a parallel to your argument, anyone claiming that the current Iraqi government (or Bangladesh or Indonesia or what have you) is seeking weapons of mass destruction must ipso facto be Islamophobic since its a very wild theory that recalls ingrained orientalist stereotypes and demonization of Muslims as bloodthirsty killers hellbent on destruction..  

    What utter nonsense. To say that Israel has weapons of mass destruction is not Anti-Semitic. They do. So similarly, it would not be anti-islamic to assume that Islamic countries would want them. Pakistan readily admits that it has weapons of mass destruction. Are you saying they are Islamophobic against themselves? When Pakistan announces a nuclear test are they propagating “a very wild theory that recalls ingrained orientalist stereotypes and demonization of Muslims as bloodthirsty killers hellbent on destruction”

    As I said it’s perfectly acceptable to point out that Israel has WMD’s. It’s perfectly acceptable to blame them for 9/11 IF YOU HAVE ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE pointing in that direction. However, to make up a charge like that AND to lie about a ‘majority’ of Americans feeling that way, well it doesn’t matter if it is textbook Anti-Semitism (it is, by the way,) it is just wrong and untrue and deserves to be walked out on.

71. Fat Steve:
    What utter nonsense. To say that Israel has weapons of mass destruction is not Anti-Semitic. They do. So similarly, it would not be anti-islamic to assume that Islamic countries would want them. Pakistan readily admits that it has weapons of mass destruction. Are you saying they are Islamophobic against themselves? When Pakistan announces a nuclear test are they propagating “a very wild theory that recalls ingrained orientalist stereotypes and demonization of Muslims as bloodthirsty killers hellbent on destruction”
    As I said it’s perfectly acceptable to point out that Israel has WMD’s. It’s perfectly acceptable to blame them for 9/11 IF YOU HAVE ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE pointing in that direction. However, to make up a charge like that AND to lie about a ‘majority’ of Americans feeling that way, well it doesn’t matter if it is textbook Anti-Semitism (it is, by the way,) it is just wrong and untrue and deserves to be walked out on.  

    No its not nonsense; get some fucking reading comprehension before you dismiss so readily. I named Islamic countries with no known nuclear program. The parallel, to spell it out for you, is as follows: Ahmadinejad claimed (a wild and unfounded claim) that some members of the U.S. government brought about the events in order to save the Zionist regime (Israel), and you think this to be antisemitic b/c of historical allusions. Similarly, using your line of reasoning, if someone claimed that an Islamic country (like Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Iraq) with no known WMD’s or desire to acquire them was in fact pursuing them (a wild and unfounded assertion) then this would be Islamophobic b/c of historical allusions. And if we use your apparent standard, any criticism of undue reach and influence of Zionism (of which Ahmadinejad’s statement is but an extreme example) should be read as “textbook” Anti-Semitism since it recalls a stereotype of Jewish power. But what do I know, I’m a “liar” and know less than nothing about anti-semitism.

72. not that we need one, but another reason trutherism, and Ahmadinejad’s passive-aggressive deployment of it, is a form of racism is because it deflects responsibility away from the religious bigots who commited the atrocity: al quaeda. so its tantamount to denying the klan engaged in lynching. In fact its tantamount to a white person denying, because part of racism is ethnocentrism.

    similarly, recent news reports indicate that the AZ sheriff who claims to have been shot by illegal immigrants may have made the whole thing up. Now i’m sure there are some righties out there who will deny this act, if true, is racist…probably along lines that Sid uses (hey, illegal immigrant does not equal Mexican so how can falsely blaming one of shoting me be racist??) but the racially incendiary nature of the hoax leaves very little room to make that argument. Ditto for Ahmadinejad’s speech.

73. Henry: What PA said. I’d also add that Bush’s willingness to throw thousands of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis into the line of fire does not make me think that he’d be adverse to sacrificing American lives.

    PA: I use an androgynous screen name deliberately so people can’t figure out who I am in meatspace.”zie” is fine. (Though I’m kinda embarrassed that you think I’m male..)

    Manju: I’m not saying anything about treason, just simple incompetence. Bush could’ve actually met with his advisors and let them come up with a plan. What do we pay the FBI and CIA for, if the pres doesn’t let them do their jobs? Or sends them after peaceniks instead of the people who are trying to organize mass killings? Saying 9/11 could’ve been prevented IS NOT the same as saying it was an inside job.

    I’d also like to say that Ahmedinajad has a habit of lying like a rug, and is not in a position to point fingers at any other government.

74. @Manju- actually, if you look further up the thread, people are precisely saying that being anti-Isreal is being anti semitic.

    And I don’t like in the USA, so your mainstream politics mean diddly squat to me- it’s your international relations that I give a toss about. And as far as the rest of the world is concerned, your governments (ALL of them, democrat and republican), seem terrified of telling Israel that what it’s doing to Muslim people is disgusting and dehumanising. The same way it tells Iran, near constantly, and quite rightly, that their human rights record is not okay.

    And as a *Jewish* lady, can I thank you for your help in getting me to understand that SOME people are concerned and fed up with anti-semitism? It’s not at all patronising!

75. I hate Ahmadinejad, but can we please quit with the cutesy corruptions of his name? There are far better arguments against him than HERP DERP DEM FURRINERS HAVE SUCH FUNNY NAMES!

    Seriously, Feministe, what in all actual fuck?

76. Sid:
    No its not nonsense; get some fucking reading comprehension before you dismiss so readily.I named Islamic countries with no known nuclear program.The parallel, to spell it out for you, is as follows: Ahmadinejad claimed (a wild and unfounded claim) that some members of the U.S. government brought about the events in order to save the Zionist regime (Israel), and you think this to be antisemitic b/c of historical allusions.Similarly, using your line of reasoning, if someone claimed that an Islamic country (like Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Iraq) with no known WMD’s or desire to acquire them was in fact pursuing them (a wild and unfounded assertion) then this would be Islamophobic b/c of historical allusions.And if we use your apparent standard, any criticism of undue reach and influence of Zionism (of which Ahmadinejad’s statement is but an extreme example) should be read as “textbook” Anti-Semitism since it recalls a stereotype of Jewish power.  

    If someone made those comments about a country like Oman or UAE, where there has been no indication of any nuclear weapons or desire to get them- based solely on the fact that these are Islamic countries- then OF COURSE it would be Islamophobic!

    You are the one who needs to learn some reading comprehension. I said that Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with why these comments deserve to be walked out on. I said the comments WERE Anti-Semitic and that he IS Anti-Semitic, but that has nothing to do with the reason they deserve to be walked out on.

    The reason he deserved to be walked out on is because he is accusing people of mass murder without a shred of evidence. He provided no evidence whatsoever, not poor evidence, not flawed evidence, not even fabricated evidence- NO EVIDENCE! And NO EVIDENCE to back his claim that a majority of Americans agreed with his moronic assertions.

    In addition, by making these fantastic claims, he does a great disservice to the thousands of Palestinian civilians who have been killed by the Israelis IN THE REAL WORLD. Accusing Israel falsely of murdering 3000+ American civilians completely ignores the oppression and killing going on every day in Palestine, and makes people like you unable to distinguish between farcical hate speech and criticism of the ‘influence and reach of Zionism.’

77. Manju: There’s a difference, but you’re framing still falls under trutherism. For the Bush admin to have let 911 occur would be treasonous. Even the “they’d decided not to do anything about it” is problematic.

    There are loopholes, but both these statements appear to frame the issue as if Bush $ Co actually thought an attack like this would occur and still did nothing. This is dangerous because it interescs with aniti-semitism (the jewsisraelis are almost always the puppeteers behind the “allowing”) and feeds the paranoid and exaggerated sense of victimization that is one of the fundamental reasons individuals are attracted to these totalitarian ideologies.

    Bush’s co. did think an attack like this was going to occur, and I repeat that he was so incompetent that he couldn’t have known better. If you’re not going to read the report, then I don’t have anything to say to you. Reading and understanding a set of facts doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist – it makes me educated.

    @politicalguineapig: noted! Zie from now on.

78. @Manju- actually, if you look further up the thread, people are precisely saying that being anti-Isreal is being anti semitic.

    I find this hard to believe. I think you’re lying. If someone, indeed more than one, said precisely this why rely on an argument-by-assertion? Pull the damn quote.

    And as far as the rest of the world is concerned, your governments (ALL of them, democrat and republican), seem terrified of telling Israel that what it’s doing to Muslim people is disgusting and dehumanising.

    “seem terrified”… for fear of being called anti-Semitic, was your original claim. yet the only people being called anti-Semitic here are those criticizing Israel for its part in orchestrating 911.

    so either you’re changing the subject to the larger context of false charges of racism or you’re all concerned about the poor darlings being “silenced”, in scare quotes because its the way sarah palin thinks Dr Laura is being silenced, simpy because they dared to claim that 911 was an inside job done on behalf of israel.

    And as a *Jewish* lady, can I thank you for your help in getting me to understand that SOME people are concerned and fed up with anti-semitism? It’s not at all patronising!

    interesting to see where your sensitivities lie. patronize Sarah = very very bad. deploy a classic anti-semitic meme, not so much.

79. Bush’s co. did think an attack like this was going to occur, and I repeat that he was so incompetent that he couldn’t have known better.

    This seems contradictory. If Bush thought the attack was going to occur, how is he incompetent? The attack occurred. So this is evidence of competence. You say he “was so incompetent that he couldn’t have known better” but what he knew, according to you, was the actual truth. so what is there to know better?

    If you’re not going to read the report, then I don’t have anything to say to you. Reading and understanding a set of facts doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorist – it makes me educated.

    Arugment by assertion. I took issue with your framing…that bush let 911 happen like a “person walking away from the drowning victim.” That sounds like trutherism b/c peculiar behavior like that is not a matter of competence, but morality. Its conspirational becasue it invites talk of motive, which in turn intesects with anti-semitism. FDR went thru something similar.

80. Manju: This seems contradictory. If Bush thought the attack was going to occur, how is he incompetent? The attack occurred. So this is evidence of competence. You say he “was so incompetent that he couldn’t have known better” but what he knew, according to you, was the actual truth. so what is there to know better?

    It seems contradictory because you’re not engaging what I said. It’s cool – when someone disagrees with me, I try to discredit what they say by making up shit and ascribing it to them too. No, wait, that’s intellectually dishonest. I said his company thought the attack was going to occur. Bush? Still incompetent. Presented with facts, didn’t know what to do with them. It doesn’t mean Tenet and whoever else were incompetent.

    And I repeat, there’s no “motive.” He didn’t allow it to happen because he was being conspiratorial – he allowed it to happen because he’s fucking stupid. Instead of looking at the facts being presented to him and acting on them, he was busy taking a three-month-vacation because presidency just wasn’t for him.

    Example of people being stupid and allowing horrible shit to happen: all the people who heard Kitty Genovese die and didn’t call the cops. They should have called the cops but didn’t engage because they didn’t know what to do or thought someone else would handle it. There was ambiguity in terms of whose responsibility it was. Is this what happened to Bush? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was something different entirely and that’s cool and not the point. The point is that people ALLOWED HORRIBLE SHIT TO HAPPEN WITHOUT BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR IT DIRECTLY — and no one is implying that there was some ridiculous Kitty Genovese death conspiracy by pointing out these facts. Holy fuck.

81. Kitty Genovese Trutherism FTW, though.

82. I said his company thought the attack was going to occur

    OK. I didn’t catch the “co.”

    Kitty Genovese Trutherism FTW, though.

    Not good enough. Its an odd framing that may be technically ok, but serves as a dogwhistle. Similarly, Mitch McConnell and a few other repubs have gotten into the habit of saying they “take obama at his word” that he’s christian. The odd phrasing plays to the birther crowd without technically being birtherism.

    So, we don’t say “Obama allowed unemployment to go up, ignoring advice from his company to do this or that”. its creepy. it implies that’s what he really thought would happen but he did it anyway.

    we certainly do say, “paulson let lehman go under” because in that case he knew the consequences of his decison. if the fed didn’t save them, there was no other capital available.

    We don’t however claim that he “let the economy collapse” because, even though many warned that it would if he didn’t save Lehman, that it would is still a subjective opinion at that point. “let and allow” apply a high degree of certainty, like the kitty genovese people had.

    Think about it: “FDR let pearl harbor occur.” By framing issues like this you’re sending a dog whistle to the John Birtch Society. I don’t see why you should be held to lower standards.

83. @Manju- I was not saying in the least that what was said at the UN wasn’t anti-semitic and offensive and disgusting. I’m saying that other people in this thread have said things that certainly aren’t anti-semitic whilst certainly are anti-Israel and are being called Jew haters for it.

84. Manju: So, we don’t say “Obama allowed unemployment to go up, ignoring advice from his company to do this or that”. its creepy. it implies that’s what he really thought would happen but he did it anyway.

    Are you fucking kidding me? Listen, if you can’t handle facts because you think facts send the wrong message, fine. Go hang out in your bubble of the-US-can-do-no-wrong and leave me out of it.

    Jobless rates, the economy, and so on are dependent on MANY FACTORS acting simultaneously. Obama and Paulson aren’t marionettes of the moving parts.

    In contrast, Bush was responsible for maintaining the nation’s security, insofar as we say Obama is responsible for maintaining the nation’s security. If Bush is told, “THIS SHIT WILL HAPPEN” and then doesn’t do anything about it, it’s like walking away from a situation you can’t deal with instead of acting. The moving part here are the 19 hijackers whom his staff were already starting to identify with knowledge that a major attack would happen. Not thousands of businesses, interest rates, inflation, every other trading partners’ economies, unknown and corrupt financial officers, and so on that actually increase the jobless rate and cause our economy to fail. Your analogies are HORRIBLY flawed.

    I don’t know enough about FDR to comment, but you know what? If you want to call me a Truther because I choose not to have my head in the sand, honestly, great. I would much rather open the door for conspiracy theorists than to pretend we never made a mistake and then not learn a fucking thing from it.

    And seriously, who the fuck cares that Truthers take facts and extrapolate? It’s a handful of people no one respects (for instance, we walk out on them at UN meetings) who employ the same logic you just employed when presented with facts. If you guys can’t handle facts and information and make reasonable deductions, then don’t play.

85. @Sarah
    “I’m saying that other people in this thread have said things that certainly aren’t anti-semitic whilst certainly are anti-Israel and are being called Jew haters for it.”

    Quotes please. Because I can’t see *anyone*, *anywhere* on this thread calling anyone a Jew hater full stop, let alone for simple anti-Israel remarks.

    Talk about minimisation. I don’t much like the policy and governments of the state of Israel. Some of it I actually detest. Much of it I rail against.

    But I never demonise “all Israelis”, call the country “unnatural” and either hold it to standards not expected of ANY OTHER COUNTRY in the world, or alternatively accuse it and its people of secretly manipulating policy in other countries due to greed and innate evil.

    *That’s* where criticism is no longer criticism and is either motivated by direct anti-Semitic animus (plentiful on the Right) or instead sucks up thousands of years’ old anti-Semitic tropes which have hardly gone away. In fact, as to the latter, I have no idea why Left people think that the tropes would have simply gone away or would be entirely free of such things themselves because anti-Semitic tropes are embedded in Christian and Islamic theology and civilisation. No-one is necessarily immune from anti-black racism, say, despite improvements in law and attitudes etc, why would people now *suddenly* necessarily be immune from the anti-Semitism that has plagued Christian and Islamic countries for thousands of years?

    And the worst thing about this is? When someone does use ridiculous anti-Semitic tropes, Jewish people in particular are not even allowed to say: Hey, wait a second when you say that Israelis are greedy, suck the blood of non-Israeli babies and secretly control global foreign policy, I think, you know, you might be at the very least drawing on some deeply problematic and historical anti-Semitic tropes.

    And then EVEN BETTER, our objections are not just dismissed as right or wrong; the VERY FACT that we object is ascribed to malice – that we are raising the issue of anti-Semitism as a malicious decoy. And this despite EVERY other minority group being allowed to identify and object to things they find problematic without the default position being that they are by definition lying.

    This is even the case when so-called Left people have enthusiastically and “accidentally” reposted articles from David Duke’s website which are “anti-Zionist”. And they can’t even see, when people object, that there might just be a *tiny* ickle problem where assertions and opinions held by neo-Nazis are enthusiastically promoted by themselves.
    (here’s a cunningly useful guide to help you when posting anti-Zionist articles http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/for-ucu-activists-how-to-avoid-re-posting-from-neo-nazi-ku-klux-klan-or-white-power-web-sites/ )

    And none of the progressive Left can see why some of us are very very worried. Talk about the beam in your eye.

86. WestEndGirl, you are rocking the house.

87. Thanks for linking to one of my older posts.

    I do hope that you’ll enjoy the newer ones too 🙂

Comments are currently closed.