PDA

View Full Version : Great Post on Ahmadinejad From a Conservative Blogger


Linkster
09-23-2007, 12:26 PM
Jon Swift over at the conservative - http://jonswift.blogspot.com/

The visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to New York has stirred up a lot of controversy and emotions. It has forced Americans answer some hard questions about what kind of country we are and what message we want to send to the rest of the world.

Ahmadinejad's plans to visit Ground Zero and lay a wreath there evoked outrage from many. "Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero -- hallowed ground for all Americans -- is outrageous," said former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. If anyone should know how sacred Ground Zero is to Americans, it would be Giuliani, who was there just as much as, if not more than, the rescue workers were, taking such dignitaries and celebrities as Saudi Arabia's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdul Aziz, Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov, Donald Rumsfeld and many others on guided tours of this consecrated burial ground. Of course, it is unconscionable for a politician to use Ground Zero for a photo op or to try to score political points on the tragedy of September 11 and I am glad the New York Police Department listened to Giuliani and denied Ahmadinejad permission to go there. What kind of a message would it send the world if we let someone like that use Ground Zero for a publicity stunt? Even though most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Iran has not been conclusively linked to the 9/11 attacks, I am sure that there are people working on making a connection and one will be revealed before we declare war on Iran.

Then Columbia University sparked new outrage by inviting Ahmadinejad to speak there, defying President Bush's stated policy of not having any dialogue at all with our enemies. Although Columbia President Lee Bollinger said that he would "introduce the event with a series of sharp challenges" about Ahmadinejad's views on the Holocaust, Israel and terrorism, many people believe that a university, which is full of impressionable young minds, is not the place for this sort of discussion. Michelle Malkin pointed out the hypocrisy of Bollinger's refusal to punish students who stopped a member of the Minutemen from speaking by rushing the stage and allowing Ahmadinejad to speak. How could the university let one group stop someone from speaking and not let another group stop someone from speaking? That kind of double standard makes a mockery of the First Amendment.

In what might be the most rapid fulfillment of Godwin's Law on record, some compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler. "Why are they inviting the Persian Hitler to Columbia?" said Columbia alumnus and conservative writer David Horowitz. "Would Columbia have invited Hitler to speak?" asked others.

Although I believe this was probably intended as a rhetorical question, Columbia Dean John Coatsworth decided that he would try to tamp down some of the heightened emotion surrounding this debate by going ahead and answering the question on Fox News: "If Hitler were in the United States and he wanted a platform from which to speak he would have plenty of platforms to speak from in the United States. If he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him."

But Coatsworth's attempt to inject some thought and rationality into the debate over whether Columbia should let Hitler speak just raised more questions: If you were a doctor and Hitler had a life threatening illness, would you treat him? If Hitler knocked at your door and he was bleeding and he said he had been in an automobile accident, would you invite him in to use your telephone? If you were a Catholic priest and Hitler told you in confession that he had killed six million people, would you keep your vow of silence or report him to the authorities? And finally, a question that I think would stump a lot of conservatives, if Hitler's mother wanted to abort him, would you drive her to a Planned Parenthood clinic or counsel her to keep the baby?

Although Ahmadinejad's visit has forced us to confront a lot of difficult questions, it has also given us a chance to show the rest of the world what kind of a country we are. If some people in the world have gotten the mistaken impression that America can be pushed around, I think our response to Ahmadinejad's threat to visit Ground Zero shows that we are not as weak as they may think. And though Columbia continues to defy the government by giving Ahmadinejad a forum (we'll see how they feel when they lose federal funding and alumni donations), the protests that will greet him and the number of people who called for Columbia to deny him an opportunity to speak shows that though we value the First Amendment in theory, it is not a suicide pact. Maybe they just let anyone speak at universities in Iran but that's not the American way. In America if our enemies want to spout their propaganda, first they have to get through a phalanx of very loud protesters who will try to shout them down.

People in the Middle East respect strength not weakness. By insulting Ahmadinejad and rebuffing his attempts at dialogue, we gain his respect. If we want to have peace in the Middle East, humiliating their leaders and refusing to talk to them is a good first step.

radioguy
09-23-2007, 02:05 PM
Never heard of this guy??

He certainly doesn't speak for me... How about you Linkster?

Linkster
09-23-2007, 02:08 PM
I believe the title of the post should explain it - although NO ONE speaks for me - I can do that quite easily without having to depend on anyone else - I titled it a "great post"

I have a real hard time understanding why anyone would let anyone else "speak for them" unless they are incapable of producing their own thought

Independent Harry
09-23-2007, 04:52 PM
well you haven't met grim yet, all his own thoughts are actually beamed directly from Fox news by sattelite into the antenna he wears on his head to keep the liberals away from him...

radioguy
09-23-2007, 05:06 PM
I believe the title of the post should explain it - although NO ONE speaks for me - I can do that quite easily without having to depend on anyone else - I titled it a "great post"

I have a real hard time understanding why anyone would let anyone else "speak for them" unless they are incapable of producing their own thought

Your own thought? Give me a break... You spew nothing but liberal/anti-war talking points 24/7 Linkster.

I posted a link to Michelle Malkins site to prove that you were wrong about the Scott Tomas bullshit, and you refused to even look at it. The thing is, that link only provided more links to the evidence and the facts, but being the closed minded closet liberal you obviously are, you walked away with the fairytales in your mind completely intact.

That is the mark of a closed minded liberal that is anything but an independent thinker.

Linkster
09-23-2007, 05:29 PM
First - I take the liveral side occasionally for debates sake here - I explained that to you the first time you asked - it does not reflect my views.
Second - if you havent figured out yet - there are some of us that can think for ourselves - and dont need talking points fed to us by anyone else
Third - Ive been reading Malkins board for quite some time - and on your suggestion I did go back and read it again - and nothing had changed since the last time I read it - she is still spewing out lies as usual and has yet to prove either way anything substantial - once someone does I will be glad to give you my opinion on it
Last but not least - if you feel that attacking someone is the best way to conduct a meaningful discussion, then you dont need to be here - there seems to have been an influx of some that tend to just attack the person talking instead of holding any discourse - which is our purpose here - and very simply put - I dont care which side of an argument someone is on - if they cant hold a discussion then why bother?

TheCenturion
09-23-2007, 05:35 PM
Your own thought? Give me a break... You spew nothing but liberal/anti-war talking points 24/7 Linkster.

I posted a link to Michelle Malkins site to prove that you were wrong about the Scott Tomas bullshit, and you refused to even look at it. The thing is, that link only provided more links to the evidence and the facts, but being the closed minded closet liberal you obviously are, you walked away with the fairytales in your mind completely intact.

That is the mark of a closed minded liberal that is anything but an independent thinker.

Ha.. The only thing somebody who posts a link to Malkin's site proves is that they're a fucking brain-dead knuckle dragging moron so clueless they should be put in a leather mask and kept on a leash 24/7.

This slobbering chimp is really side splitting . He accuses other people of closed minded bias, hate and derides their sources while relying on mentally ill right-wing fascist whore Michelle Malkin for his daily dose of Bush boot licking. What a complete asshole LOL.. Hey..Radiodummy..Why do you hate America so much?

“I’m skeptical of anything with ‘Bill of Rights.’” -- Michelle Malkin

radioguy
09-23-2007, 08:18 PM
First - I take the liveral side occasionally for debates sake here - I explained that to you the first time you asked - it does not reflect my views.
Second - if you havent figured out yet - there are some of us that can think for ourselves - and dont need talking points fed to us by anyone else
Third - Ive been reading Malkins board for quite some time - and on your suggestion I did go back and read it again - and nothing had changed since the last time I read it - she is still spewing out lies as usual and has yet to prove either way anything substantial - once someone does I will be glad to give you my opinion on it
Last but not least - if you feel that attacking someone is the best way to conduct a meaningful discussion, then you dont need to be here - there seems to have been an influx of some that tend to just attack the person talking instead of holding any discourse - which is our purpose here - and very simply put - I dont care which side of an argument someone is on - if they cant hold a discussion then why bother?

Well, if you did go back to that link, then you have read the interviews with the Army, with the manufactures of the Army vehicle that Thomas said was used to run over dogs, with the people at the base in Kuwait, and the lack of response by TNR. Here is your chance at a meaningful discussion about the "Scott Thomas" story. A chance for you to give us your revised opinion on the subject, now that you have been introduced to the facts of the case, rather than the TNR and far left version of things.

Lets go!

radioguy
09-24-2007, 12:23 AM
You must have missed this one Linkster, so I'll give her a little BUMP!

Linkster
09-24-2007, 08:44 AM
Like Ive posted before - once the facts are out from someplace other than blogs - I will be glad to discuss it - sorry but I tend to disbelieve anything posted/written by Malkin - whether she says she "has sources" or not
Once we hear it from the horses mouth I will be more than happy to have some more discussion on it

radioguy
09-24-2007, 02:30 PM
Like Ive posted before - once the facts are out from someplace other than blogs - I will be glad to discuss it - sorry but I tend to disbelieve anything posted/written by Malkin - whether she says she "has sources" or not
Once we hear it from the horses mouth I will be more than happy to have some more discussion on it

Two points:

You tend to disbelieve anything written by Michelle Malkin? Why's that, because she's conservative? If you have examples of her posting phony stories, lets see them, otherwise, sounds like a little liberal bias on your part

Second, the Weekly Standard is not a blog, but they are a conservative publication, so god forbid you read the FACTS they uncover. TNR is as left wing as it gets, yet you have no problem spouting their propaganda, even though they do have a track record of publishing fabrications.

You say your not liberal huh? What you choose to read, and what you choose to believe seems to tell a different story Linkster.

Bill
09-24-2007, 02:49 PM
What's fundamentally wrong with letting the Iranian president speak?

Is it realistic to be afraid that simply hearing this guy is going to corrupt america?

radioguy
09-24-2007, 02:59 PM
What's fundamentally wrong with letting the Iranian president speak?

Is it realistic to be afraid that simply hearing this guy is going to corrupt america?

It's the principal of the thing. the Iranian president is responsible for furnishing the weapons used today, to kill American soldiers in Iraq. He has ignored the world and won't stop his development of nuclear weapons. He has also called for the destruction of Israel and is a Holocaust denier.

In your opinion, do morals have any place in American society anymore?

Giving a platform for this man to spread his propaganda, just isn't the right thing to do... Unless you side with him, or you are anti-American.

Bill
09-24-2007, 03:07 PM
I'm listening to him right now.

I don't see that it has any effect on my moral integrity.

I'm not afraid of third world politicians.

radioguy
09-24-2007, 03:18 PM
I guess you missed my point Bill :(

Bill
09-24-2007, 03:23 PM
Perhaps you could restate your point more concisely?

It's not impossible that I missed it.

Altho it's equally likely you and I see radically different things as moral offenses.

TheCenturion
09-24-2007, 03:28 PM
It's the principal of the thing. the Iranian president is responsible for furnishing the weapons used today, to kill American soldiers in Iraq. He has ignored the world and won't stop his development of nuclear weapons. He has also called for the destruction of Israel and is a Holocaust denier.

In your opinion, do morals have any place in American society anymore?

Giving a platform for this man to spread his propaganda, just isn't the right thing to do... Unless you side with him, or you are anti-American.


Ha! It really takes a truly delusional, self possessed ignorant fascist loony tune of the lowest abject stripe to have enough gall to openly claim free speech and open discussion for all is somehow "anti-American" in any sense. Thankfully, only in his fantasy world. We in the sane community all understand that free speech doesn't mean allowing only those who share your opinions to express themselves.

What rock do these right-wing commie nuts crawl out of? And don't they ever tire of making complete blithering asses out of themselves? It's a trick question.

But, there is no trick involved in determining who the REAL anti-American is.

And, therefore, knowing how truly un-American Radioclown's agenda is, one should always consider the source when evaluating the other criminal outrages he un-conditionally supports such as: Zionist Racist Apartheid, Bush's War Crimes and Trampling our Constitution.

Doesn't this tell us something? Yes...At least he's consistent.

radioguy
09-24-2007, 03:54 PM
Perhaps you could restate your point more concisely?

It's not impossible that I missed it.

Altho it's equally likely you and I see radically different things as moral offenses.

It's not that the Iranian president is going to corrupt our morality with his words, it's an issue of right and wrong. Giving the Iranian leader a platform to preach his propaganda in the United States, when he is responsible for killing our troops in Iraq, developing nuclear weapons against the demands of the world, has vowed the destruction of Israel, and hosts conferences denying the Holocaust, is just wrong.

His words are heard on the news all the time, so this isn't a matter of not knowing what the man stands for.

He is an enemy to us and our way of life, so rewarding him by allowing him to spread his hate on an American campus, is just morally wrong.

Bill
09-24-2007, 04:16 PM
Ahhh, well, I don't see him as an enemy, only as a relatively minor threat, so that may explain the difference in perception.

Like I said, I'm not particularly afraid of minor politicians in relatively small countries. This is I imagine a big difference between your thinking and mine.

I believe in understanding the opposition. I don't see any benefit in treating them like devils, puffing up their importance and status on the world stage.

I see you as making a bigger deal of him than he deserves.

And by the same token, of making a bigger deal of mideast threats than they deserve, wether Iranian, Syrian, Palestinian, or Lebonese.

radioguy
09-24-2007, 06:17 PM
And just so Linkster doesn't miss this one, i'll repost it:

Two points:

You tend to disbelieve anything written by Michelle Malkin? Why's that, because she's conservative? If you have examples of her posting phony stories, lets see them, otherwise, sounds like a little liberal bias on your part

Second, the Weekly Standard is not a blog, but they are a conservative publication, so god forbid you read the FACTS they uncover. TNR is as left wing as it gets, yet you have no problem spouting their propaganda, even though they do have a track record of publishing fabrications.

You say your not liberal huh? What you choose to read, and what you choose to believe seems to tell a different story Linkster.

Frankg
09-24-2007, 06:36 PM
BREAKING NEWS: (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/09/24/in-a-stunning-development-a.php)
Disruption At Iran President's Speech At Columbia

Posted by Jay Tea

Published: Sep 24, 07 11:00 AM In a stunning development, a group of Columbia University college students rushed the stage during the speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, taking him and his entourage hostage.

The students, calling themselves Students for a Democratic Society in honor of the 60's radical group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society), have issued their demands.

"It's the spirit of '79 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Hostage_Crisis), bro!" the leader, calling himself "Che' Anything," said. "We are demanding real, democratic reform in Iran -- free elections, the separation of church and state, real rights for the people."

Campus security immediately took charge of the situation, but were overruled by federal officials who pronounced their great concern over the matter and announced they were prepared to wait out the student radicals.

"The last thing we want here is any sort of violence or conflict," hostage negotiator Ernest Stalling said. "We're here for the long haul, and we're prepared to wait them out."

"Cool!" responded "Che Anything" upon being told about the siege.

"We ain't looking for any fights, and we have enough grub and stuff to hold out for over a year.

We had a scare during the planning stage, when we put a Sheryl Crowe fan in charge of buying the TP, but we caught that in time."

"They wanna wait us out? No prob. We said our piece, Iran knows what they gotta do if they want Ahmadinnerjacket back, everything's cool."

And what will happen if Iran does not yield to the new SDS demands? "Dunno, dude. Get back to us in 444 days, and we'll see."