Mikes Vacation supports the decision by New York City officials to deny the Iranian President his request to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.
Mikes Vacation believes that the Iranian President had no personal culpability for the attacks on September 11, 2002, however it is my belief that the parties ultimately guilty for these attacks, would view his arrival at this site as some kind of triumph, and this wrongly perceived "triumph" would only serve to bolster their confidence and possibly inspire their strength and possibly aid future attacks against Americans.
The Iranian President has made a sincere request, and Mikes Vacation believes he would arrive at ground zero with a feeling of sorrow and solemnity in his heart for those lost on 9/11.
His request was sincere and legitimate, made for the purpose of showing respect to those who were murdered.
However, his personal security simply can not be assured by New York City officials as there are literally thousands of New Yorkers who might believe he is somehow mocking the dead, or that he had somehow played a part in the tragic deaths of their loved ones.
It is in the nature of the dead and grieving to not always think logically, and to want to take revenge on those they believe could "possibly" be somewhat responsible for their loved ones loss.
It would be reasonable and understandable for a New Yorker with a broken heart to attempt to assassinate the Iranian President at the ground zero memorial. It would not be difficult for one or even several persons to attempt to shoot the Iranian President with a hunting or sniper rifle from a nearby building. This would be easy for them to do, and difficult for the New York City officials to prevent. This same attack would become an international incident, and it would have long standing and terrible repercussions for New York City, and for Americans in general, and obviously for American Soldiers already under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Iranian President has made a reasonable request that cannot be reasonably granted by the City of New York.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20942057/
Michael Miller
Indianapolis,
2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The man said he wants Israel wiped off the map and even his back peddling from the remark is straight out of the drug dealer/mafia phrasebook. The world trade center was seen as a symbol of Jewish monetary control and power and the two attacks on the trade center were specifically seen as attacks against Jews and America and because of this, Ahmadinejad is the poster boy for anti-Semitism. Even allowing the man into the country or agreeing to recognize him as a statesman is a joke and an affront to reason. The current nuclear situation between Iran and Russia is thought of almost universally and one of the most dangerous situations in the world. Allowing Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath would be the same sort of negative propaganda as the picture of Hitler driving under the Eiffel tower was to the Nazis. I also say no.
Adam, you have verbalized the feelings of millions of Americas. And your opinions are likely synonomous with that of a giant percentage of New Yorkers.
As many New Yorkers feel like you do, I believe that his presence at the ground zero memorial could turn into a multi-sniper ambush, and this would not help America move forward.
I have not been following Ahmandinejad closely enough to agree or disagree with your character assessment of him as the "poster boy for anti-Semitism."
However, as the United Nations is located in New York, we are obligated to allow into our country anyone that does not pose an immediate security risk, that has an invitation by the UN to speak.
The rights of the UN to invite speakers that are unpopular with the United States or Israel should not be frusterated.
There are many leaders such as Alexsander Lukashenka which have been unfairly demonized by the United States that should be allowed to speak at the United Nations.
If Saddam Hussein had been allowed to safely address the UN in person, perhaps the people of Iraq and America would be richer and happier today.
I am not in love with Ahmandinejad, however his government is in existance in large part because the United States gave support to the late Shah of Iran in spite of the Shah's terrible human rights record against his own people. Ahmandinejad exixts today because the people of Iran were soo poorly brutalized by our friend the Shah. Iran would not likely have become a centerpiece for islamic fundamentalism if the people had been bettered by the man we supported, the Shah.
Also, the people of Iran sufferred terrible losses due to the chemical weapons we furnished to Iraq.
The much publicized crimes of Iraq's chemical Ali, were against Kurdish towns alleged to have provided shelter and assistance to invading Iranians.
It is unlikely that the United States attempted to disuade Iraq from using chemical weapons on Iranian troops, or against the Kurds who were assisting them.
Modern Iran having complaints against Israel is one issue.
Modern Iran having complaints against the United States is another issue.
Sometimes these issues run parallel and synthicize and sometimes they don't.
Ahmandinjad is in a good position to say some very truthful and poignant things about the current war crime invasion the U.S. has perpertrated upon the Iraqi people.
There are simply more factors to be calculate when considering Ahmandinjad, than his like or dislike of Israel.
However his politics as it relates to the middle east, to include Israel should be throughly considered when calculating his personal and executive merrits.
Mike Miller
Post a Comment