Skip to main content

Just when you thought he couldn't get any more batshit insane, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went there.  

Speaking at the U.N., he went full on 9/11 truther, claiming that "most" people believe the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks.  The reason for such a conspiracy: of course, for Israel.

Here's the story:  http://news.yahoo.com/...

Apparently not content with his regime just stoning people to death for their private lives, denying the existence of gay folks while simultaneously executing them, denying the Holocaust and sponsoring a contest for cartoons to make fun of it, cutting off peoples' limbs, enforcing a medieval theocracy, and of course stealing elections, Ahmadinejad had to turn the ridiculousness up another notch.

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked yet another controversy Thursday saying a majority of people in the United States and around the world believe the American government staged the Sept. 11 terror attacks in an attempt to assure Israel's survival.

If you thought those sorts of opinions were restricted to certain fringe Neo-Nazi groups, they have apparently been embraced by the Iranian regime.  Ahmadinejad seems to think they have also been embraced by a "majority" of Americans and a "majority" of the world.  I sure hope he's wrong about that.

So what does that "majority" believe?

Ahmadinejad did not explain the logic behind blaming the U.S. for the terror attacks but said there were three theories:

- That a "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses, which is advocated "by American statesmen."

- "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."

After Ahmadinejad uttered those words, two American diplomats stood and walked out without listening to the third theory:

- That the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

I think that our diplomats did the right thing by walking out in protest over this verbal diarrhea.  And it seems that a number of nations had our back:

Delegations from all 27 European Union nations followed the Americans out along with representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica

Right there is pretty much a who's who of the most awesome, progressive nations in the world.  So that is the kind of thing that warms my heart in the midst of all of this crazy talk and anti-Semitism.

Finally, we have some pathetic whining from AhmadinnerJacket:

The Iranian leader... also called for setting up an independent fact-finding U.N. team to probe the attacks. That, he said, would keep the terror assault from turning into what he has called a sacred issue like the Holocaust where "expressing opinion about it won't be banned".

How can expressing an opinion about the Holocaust be supposedly banned when they had a whole conference and cartoon contest for doing exactly that??

In the end, I hope that the world chalks these Ahmadinejad mouth turds up to the further ramblings of an idiot.  But on the other hand conspiratorial accusations about 9/11 seem to be the zombies of the rhetorical world - they refuse to die.  

Originally posted to the wonderful world of reality on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 04:22 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Ahmadinejad is a triple-decker turd sandwich... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, Cenobyte, RedPencil, hikerbiker

      I like how he bleats about not banning expressing opinions when his government guns down anyone who dares speak of freedom or democratic reform.

      This is one of the few areas where the GOP and I agree. This guy is a menace.

      "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

      by APA Guy on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 05:30:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A menace (4+ / 0-)

        This is one of the few areas where the GOP and I agree. This guy is a menace.

        Oh really?  A menace?  I didn't read anything in the diary that could have been interpreted as MA making a threat to any country.  

        Yes, he did make some outrageous accusations and insinuations, but thoroughly free Americans on the fringe (conspiracy nuts, etc.) make such accusations and insinuations every day in this country.  Indeed, gun-toting Republicans and Tea Partiers make threatening comments all the time.

        The man may be a religious nut case, but the current Iranian regime has not attacked any of its neighbors (unlike the US and Israel), nor has it ever suggested that it is going to 'set things right' if/when it gets the military power to do so.  

        No, that doesn't guaranteed that they won't, but guessing that they would is not a good enough reason to attack them.

        What really annoys me about this diary is that it implies that Ahmadinejad's crazy talk just might justify an attack on that country if we [or Israel] were convinced that they wanted to build an atomic bomb.

        •  do proxy armies count? (7+ / 0-)

          the current Iranian regime has not attacked any of its neighbors

          I think they do.  The distinction between a national army and a proxy army (Hezbollah in this case) is pretty artificial.  

          •  whom has Hizbullah attacked? (4+ / 0-)

            I think you mean Israel but if so, you have to agree that the provocations were pretty paltry in proportion to the reaction of an incursion into another country.

            Also if you mean Lebanon do not forget that Israel has made much of its own misery there, some historians argue that the first Israeli incursion led to the creation of Hizbullah: http://www.csmonitor.com/...

            Add to that the active Israeli support of militias during the Lebanese civil war:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War to the point that the South Lebanon Army, when pushed out of Lebanon, was afforded political asylum in Israel.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            •  was that a subject change? (5+ / 0-)

              The issue was the claim that Iran had not attacked any of its neighbors, and the counterclaim was that via a proxy army, Hezbollah, they have attacked both Israel (with rockets) and Lebanon.

              It doesn't take a meta-analysis of the situation in Lebanon to say that, yes, Iran is indeed engaged in armed conflict in the region.

              •  It would be nice to see some sourcing (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                socalmonk, JesseCW, Deep Texan

                For example, here is the IDF attacking the Lebanese Army:'
                http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
                but the Lebanese Army collaborates with Hizbullah:
                http://www.highbeam.com/...
                http://www.sanluisobispo.com/...
                so I guess it is OK. However no examples of pitched battles between Lebanese Army and Hizbullah (and let's not resurrect militias as putative Lebanese Armies)

                Now regarding Hizbullah's attack on Israel (I seem to have missed their massive land invasion) exactly how is Hizbullah an existential threat to Israel? After all, in trying to get to Hizbullah, Israel had to invade Lebanon, a third party, somewhat like Belgium in the early days of WWI.

                •  missing the point (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zemblan, RedPencil, hikerbiker, volleyboy1

                  exactly how is Hizbullah an existential threat to Israel?

                  none of this matters, for the purposes of this discussion.  This discussion is solely about the laughable claim that Iran has not attacked any of its regional neighbors.

                  •  laughable claim? (6+ / 0-)

                    Ever play degrees of separation?
                    How many associations does it take before you have Iran, post the Iran/Iraq War, responsible for a land invasion of another country?
                    Oh you said attacked so does that mean economic or political warfare or purely military actions? If military action, exactly how would we define the extent of the action?

                    See the problem when you begin that game? Under your rules, I suppose we could claim that the US has attacked Turkey, once we remove the degrees of separation or that the US has attacked Lebanon. Or am I missing a point here as we play this game with words and relationships?

                  •  When did Iran's proxies (4+ / 0-)

                    attack Israel?  The 2006 war was the result of a series of escalating encounters and cross border raids by both sides.  I would also point you to Israel's continual violations of Lebanese sovereignty between 2000 and 2006 through almost daily supersonic flights into Lebanese airspace, violations which Lebanon complained to the UN about continually but which the UN took no action about (so much for the myth that the UN is anti-Israel).  

                    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                    by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 07:56:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hardly an objective source you point to... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RedPencil

                      Just sayin...

                      "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

                      by APA Guy on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 08:18:54 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  how about the rockets? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pozzo, hikerbiker, volleyboy1

                      Weren't those attacks on Israel by Hezbollah?

                      •  You mean the rockets (0+ / 0-)

                        that only started falling after Israel attacked?  

                        Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                        by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 11:54:27 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No he means the rockets (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Pozzo, fizziks, RedPencil, hikerbiker

                          that fell on Haifa (a civilian target) after Hizbollah attacked, killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers first and after Israel attacked in retailiation.

                          He means the rockets that killed non-combantants all the time Hizbollah was complaining about Israeli attacks on civilians. Because I guess you can complain about something and then do it yourself and that's ok.

                          I think those are the rockets he referred to.

                          Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

                          by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 12:06:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Volley, (0+ / 0-)

                            The discussion about rockets started because he's trying to say the Hizbollah instigated the war with rockets (which isn't true), while my point is that the war was a result of increasing escalation between the two, including Hamas' actions and repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty between 2000 and 2006.  

                            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                            by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 12:11:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually: (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fizziks, RedPencil, hikerbiker

                            Here is the wiki version - which I have heard as well:

                            The conflict began when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence(vb1 emphasis).[29] The ambush left three soldiers dead. Two additional soldiers, believed to have been killed outright or mortally wounded, were snatched by Hezbollah to Lebanon.[29][30][31] Five more were killed in a failed rescue attempt. Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon that damaged Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport (which Israel said that Hezbollah used to import weapons and supplies),[32] an air and naval blockade,[33] and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.[34]

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

                            by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 01:22:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's the first time I have ever heard that (0+ / 0-)

                            Not surprised though, according to the source article:

                            The fighting on the Lebanese border erupted around 9 a.m., when Hezbollah attacked several Israeli towns with rocket fire, wounding several civilians, the Israeli military said.

                            You'll excuse me for not trusting the Israeli military's word in these matters, especially since this the only time I've heard this claim.  

                            My problem is that Israel had been violating Lebanese territory continually since its withdrawal from southern Lebanon.  Here's a good rundown of some of the earlier violations, including this line from April 2001:

                            Since the resolution was adopted [i.e., since Israel's withdrawal], the situation has remained essentially unchanged, although there were further developments in the dispute over Shab'a farms area. As before, there were frequent minor ground violations of the Blue Line. There were, in addition, almost daily violations of the line by Israeli aircraft which penetrated deeply into Lebanese airspace. I have been in touch with the parties concerned and other interested parties to urge respect for the Blue Line and to avert further escalation.

                            There's also May 2004, September 2004, December 2004, February 2005, July 2005, and August 2005 just for a few examples.  

                            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                            by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 01:45:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  No it was just a (0+ / 0-)

                "HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!" comment.

                Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

                by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 08:08:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  This: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fizziks, RedPencil, hikerbiker

          I like how he bleats about not banning expressing opinions when his government guns down anyone who dares speak of freedom or democratic reform.

          ...is what I was referring to.

          Read the diary again:

          The Iranian leader... also called for setting up an independent fact-finding U.N. team to probe the attacks. That, he said, would keep the terror assault from turning into what he has called a sacred issue like the Holocaust where "expressing opinion about it won't be banned".

          It's laughable that he speaks about expression opinion in any sense given the muzzle his government places on democratic reformers.

          "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

          by APA Guy on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 07:30:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The current US regime has attacked its neighbors (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RedPencil

          When? Where?  Are we invading Canada, Mexico? Cuba? Or Russia, which you can see from Sarah Palin's driveway?

  •  HE SOUNDED LIKE A REPUBLICAN TO ME n/t (4+ / 0-)
    •  which part ? (7+ / 0-)

      Rebublicans, as ridiculous as they are, haven't stooped to claiming that 9/11 was carried out by the US government in support of Israel.  

      •  No, but they claim equally silly things (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, FrankCornish

        like "Iran will have a nuclear weapon very soon".

        The problem is that our Economy is a '72 Pinto with a blown head gasket, whether or not it's in a ditch.

        by JesseCW on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 04:41:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  how can that be "equally" silly ? (9+ / 0-)

          Iran obviously has nuclear ambitions.  It is also not completely out of the question that they have hidden facilities that have not been inspected.  

          On the other hand, the existence of a giant conspiracy within the US government of the magnitude necessary to carry out the 9/11 attacks, and for every one of those people to keep it secret for 10 years, is impossible.  

          •  Because in both cases, a basic understanding (6+ / 0-)

            of the available evidence and of basic physics render the claims laughable.

            The weakest argument ever advanced against the truthers is that "no one could have kept the secret".  While the facts aren't on their side at all and I do not support claims that 9/11 was in any way an inside job...

            Between 400 and 700 people kept the secret of Tuskegee for 40 years.

            The problem is that our Economy is a '72 Pinto with a blown head gasket, whether or not it's in a ditch.

            by JesseCW on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 05:03:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  those conspiracies not similar at all (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caj, Pozzo, RedPencil

              I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.  I do not agree that the number of people necessary to keep the horrible secret of the US government attacking and murdering thousands of its own citizens and destroying proiminent buildings is a weak argument against a conspiracy.

              •  Our government murdered (5+ / 0-)

                128 innocent men and caused 19 children to be born with congenital syphyllis and caused the needless infection of 40 women.

                Hundreds of people from many walks of life were involved in or aware of the study, and all the horrible details.

                It remained a secret for 40 years.

                This destroys both the "Our Government just couldn't do that" and the "People couldn't keep the secret" arguments, IMO.  Once you really "get" Tuskegee, these arguments just don't hold water.

                Again, not an argument about conclusions.  All available facts support what's come to be called the "Official Story".

                The problem is that our Economy is a '72 Pinto with a blown head gasket, whether or not it's in a ditch.

                by JesseCW on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 05:47:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I completely disagree. (4+ / 0-)

                  This destroys both the "Our Government just couldn't do that" and the "People couldn't keep the secret" arguments, IMO.

                  The "Bush blew up the towers" theory is like the "NASA faked the moon landing" theory:  they require all the world's scientists and mechanical engineers, all over the world, to keep quiet about the evidence that conspiracy theorists can see in every video clip.
                   
                  This is a completely different thing from the Tuskeegee experiments.  The Tuskeegee experiments were not known to every medical doctor on the planet, all in lockstep coverup mode for the benefit of the US government for no reason.

                  The fact is, truthers allege a conspiracy that is stupefyingly large, and includes not just the government and military but also tacit participation of the scientific community and the media.  It is perfectly reasonable to say that such a thing could not be kept secret.

                  Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                  by Caj on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 07:36:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  On of the things (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW

                    that keeps the CT alive though is that there are scientists and engineers who discount the evidence.  They've even been on C-SPAN.

                    For the record, I do not believe in this drivel.  I just want to point out that there are those experts who might otherwise be respectable who also buy into the CT.  

                    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                    by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 08:11:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not really. (5+ / 0-)

                      The truther movement has a physicist (Stephen Jones) on their side just like the intelligent design movement has a biologist (Michael Behe) on their side.  

                      The truthers also keep a list of "architects and engineers" who believe their theory, and they hype the Hell out of it, but it's still far, far smaller than the fraction of experts who believe in Biblical creationism or Holocaust denial.

                      I doubt that this is what keeps these theories alive.  If you took away Stephen Jones and took away the petition of a whole 1000 people, the movement would still be there.  These movements are kept alive because there's a large population of people receptive to the conspiracy theory, and a smaller group of people passionate about promoting it.

                      Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                      by Caj on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 08:23:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  If you're assuming that all 9/11 CT's (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    capelza

                    involve "planted explosives" or "They were really cruise missles", that would be true.

                    They come in other varieties, which could (fictionally) involve a few hundred people at most, and which don't deny that planes were flown into buildings.

                    None of these are true, but "It wouldn't be possible for a few hundred people to keep a secret" and "that's too horrible" are both useless for debunking them.

                    The problem is that our Economy is a '72 Pinto with a blown head gasket, whether or not it's in a ditch.

                    by JesseCW on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 10:23:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I have to disagree even in this case. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pozzo, fizziks, RedPencil

                      It may seem that a "LIHOP" conspiracy theory only needs a small group of conspirators, but even the LIHOP theories end up requiring vast crowds of people.

                      For example, LIHOPpers are quick to allege a suspiciously slow military response to the attack, implying that someone let the attack happen with a "military stand-down" (Google that phrase to find a bunch of conspiracy sites.)  

                      Of course, a "military stand-down" takes a lot more than a few hundred people, because a conspiracy can't just include the people who give the orders; where are the zillions of people who received the orders?

                      I understand your argument that some small conspiracy theory may be logistically plausible.  But whenever these things are put down on paper, they swell to enormous size.

                      Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

                      by Caj on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 12:14:25 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    volleyboy1

                    I was trying to say that but couldn't find the words.

                    Very well put

                •  Our current government did not do this (0+ / 0-)
            •  the reason behind the speech (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deep Texan

              might be over at Informed Comment where Juan Cole considers the context of the speech:
              http://www.juancole.com/...

              Too often when events happen which involves the US we tend to forget that there are external forces at work which may have nothing to do with the US.
              But it does hurt to discover that everything is not always about us.  

          •  agreed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            capelza, fizziks

            Pakistan's had nuclear weapons for more than a decade and arguably, is more of a basket case of a nation than Iran is, in that it is less stable. The know how is there, it's probably available on the internet. It's just a matter of obtaining the materials.

        •  Rev Hagee has demanded that Ahmadinejad (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, lcarr23, Deep Texan

          be arrested immediately before he could leave the US and held for trial by an international court for "inciting to genocide". Some of the wingers have picked up this idea and carried it farther, fantasizing about a possible "citizen's arrest and retention" of him. (Well they are allowed to bring weapons to public events)

          It will not be long before US lawmakers weigh in on the issue; (http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/ahmadinejad-should-be-arrested/0513877)
          but while we fret over his apparent lunacy, Iran in the past six years has emerged as a regional power and influence. They have formed solid alliances with Russia and China while consolidating their ability to either make friends or intimidate their neighbors. In other words, while we have been fretting over apparent chimera, the Iranians have been making steady progress on several fronts.

          It appears to me that Ahmadinejad is crazy like a fox    

          •  I think you overestimate him (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pozzo, capelza, hikerbiker, Deep Texan

            Iran had really been growing since since Rafsanajni, who began repairing Iran's relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council, EU, and Asian nations.  Khatami moved those efforts forward (and was given credit for all of those efforts by Americans).  There was a great article in Middle East Policy by Stephen Zunes back in 1997 which talked about the competition between the US and Iran for regional hegemony.  Ahmadinejad, with his insane rhetoric (and I still think the closest comparison to him is Bush II) has been harming all those efforts around the world.  I can't think of a single nation that Iran has better relations with now than in 2005 (when Ahmadinejad was first elected).  OK, maybe Iraq, but that's more because of changes in Iraq than anything else.  

            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

            by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 06:20:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  I actually don't think so (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pozzo, capelza, FrankCornish

                Iran's relationship with China was really good under Khatami.  China is hemming and hawing more and more about supporting Iran in the Security Council.  The relationship won't die because China needs Iran's oil, but I do get the sense that Beijing is getting frustrated with Ahmadinejad.  

                Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 06:33:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  really any evidence (0+ / 0-)

                  has china supported any sanktions yet or are they still thinking about it?

                •  the Chinese are pragmatic (4+ / 0-)

                  I would say since the aftermath of Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) with the unleashing of the Red Guard and the concomitant social political and economic upheaval led to the Chinese leaders after the Gang of Five to value pragmatism over ideology.

                  So far, the value of Iranian gas and oil have outweighed the political costs to China though they may be well tired of Iranian political hijinks. In the final analysis, if China is to convert its industry from wood and coal to gas and oil at the rate they desire, they have to support the Iranians political aspirations, almost at any cost.

                  •  true (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    entlord, capelza

                    the value of Iranian gas and oil have outweighed the political costs to China though they may be well tired of Iranian political hijinks.

                    and when you look at what china had to say this week it was not about iran
                    it was about trade war against america and that the usa will loose big time or the unusual blunt statement that china is not responsible for the USA economic problems or the little game with US ally japan about the ship captain arrested by japan and realesed today with a big " WE ARE SORRY CHINA" from japan.
                    they are testing the limits and till know have not encountered any reall oponents.

      •  no (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy, JesseCW

        they only blamed the attacks on Clinton and Gore

        •  but not directly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RedPencil

          They had some BS about Clinton not being aggressive enough against Al Qaeda, because he was too busy getting his deek on (like you can't do both!), but they never claimed that Clinton/Gore or really any Democrat carried out the attacks for some reason.

      •  Bush was president at the time. Therefore (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza

        they couldn't afford to blame him for it.

        Sarah Palin ... speaks truth. It remains to be seen if this nation has enough sanity left to put her in office. -- A RW blogger.

        by Kimball Cross on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 05:49:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  well (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, JesseCW, Dexter

      he is a right-winger and as such he feels he can create a reality to support his world view. No different than palin really.

  •  And this is the guy who will soon (8+ / 0-)

    have his finger on the Iranian nuclear weapons trigger.

    •  I know. That really scares me. (10+ / 0-)

      There are people here on this blog who argue that Iran having nuclear weapons would be ok, because it would provide a balance to American (and Israeli) power.

      What are they smoking?  This guy is totally whacko.  His finger should not be near a nuclear trigger.

    •  Nonsense on three fronts. (7+ / 0-)

      The first is that no credible source claims Iran can produce a nuclear weapon within 5 years, by which time he'll be termed out.

      The second is that even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, he wouldn't be the one with the trigger.  The most rudimentary understanding of Iranian political realities (not to mention Governmental structure) makes that crystal clear.

      Third, Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon without kicking out the IAEA and overtly abandoning the NPT, at which point the US would invade and WWIII would commence.

      The problem is that our Economy is a '72 Pinto with a blown head gasket, whether or not it's in a ditch.

      by JesseCW on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 04:40:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fortunately I doubt Iran kicking out IAEA (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, coffeetalk, hikerbiker

        would start World War III because that seems quite possible to me.
        http://english.aljazeera.net/...
        http://www.reuters.com/...

        And the IAEA gave a "three to eight year" timeline for Iran getting nuclear weapons --- in 2007.
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
        I think we can dismiss the 3 year timeline that extends through 2010, but the eight year timeline is not so easy to dismiss. Iran had a nuclear program under the Shah --- if they had not driven so many of their scientists into exile and slowed their program to a crawl for decades, they would surely have had this capability already.

        Also, Ahmadinejad may not have his finger on the trigger of the atomic bomb in a constitutional sense --- but he would not have his bully pulpit right now if Supreme Leader Khamenei did not want him to be there.  Khamenei is no blushing innocent and has his reasons for giving his blessing to A's contested reelection in 2009. Khamenei has the president he wants right now, and will continue to have the president he wants when A's term limit expires in 2013.

        •  I have to argue with two points (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, JesseCW, FrankCornish, Deep Texan

          First, Khoomeini issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.  That's not something you can go back on, and that is the reason why Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program through the 80s and why many question whether Iran has a weapons program now.  To go back on that would undermine the entire political system...a system which is already shaky.  

          Two, it's not entirely clear that Khamenei really had that much say in the elections.  He and Ahmadinjad are not friends or allies, rather they are political adversaries.  Ahmadinejad's power comes from the Revolutionary Guard, not the clerics, and there is some speculation that the Guard are staging a slow power grab against the clerics (which, of course, could potential undermine my first argument).  

          Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

          by Dexter on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 06:25:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Iran can't even turn enriched uranium (4+ / 0-)

          into reactor fuel.

          They don't even have the metalurgy to make a bomb.

          After we made it clear that we were not open to any compromise by backstabbing Lula and Erdogan, Iran quite reasonably decided that our inspectors wouldn't be allowed back in.  

          The IAEA timeline is a guess at how long it would take if Iran made an all-out effort it wasn't trying to hide.  This would require diverting already enriched uranium and kicking out all inspectors (not merely objecting to 2 ((two)) out of 150), and would be impossible to hide.

          You're right that Khamenei is the real shot-caller (or at least, one of them) and that Ahmadinejad wouldn't be the one with his finger on the trigger, if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons.

          The problem is that our Economy is a '72 Pinto with a blown head gasket, whether or not it's in a ditch.

          by JesseCW on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 06:50:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  other aspect of having a nuke is that it (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capelza, JesseCW, FrankCornish, Deep Texan

        works as a MAD deterrent or against conventional invasion a la Dr Strangelove but in the final analysis, it sucks as an offensive weapon. So the Iranians nuke Jerusalem.
        What then? Invasion? not likely. Hunker down and wait for devastating Israeli and US response with Arab neighbors piling on for effect? Very likely. So who commits national suicide by using the nuke?

        Truman was strongly urged by McArthur to nuke China when Chinese units crossed the Korean border. Truman was reported to have asked "What then" recognizing such an action would necessitate the absolute nuclear devastation of China with a probably disastrous ground war and a very good possibility of the USSR weighing in on the Chinese side.

        The problem with nukes is their finality. There is no way to "lightly" nuke an area  

    •  do you have the timeline for the nuke development (5+ / 0-)

      By Israeli and US warhawk estimates? Over at Hagee website there is already a claim almost a year old that an al Qaeda operative was arrested in Nablus with an armed baby nuke strapped to his back with the mission to take out Jerusalem.
      Now to review some sources, in 2004, it was said it was one year to Iran going nuclear. Then we have the 2007 claim that they were 16 days away. In 2007 we were told it would be six months and in 2008 we were told six months. In 2010, we were told September of this year was the time.

      There are 476,000 links for predictions on when the Iranians will have nukes and so far it seems that the window for development has not shifted from six months to a year despite the passage of time.
      If going Chicken Little over Iranian nukes is a fashionable thing, then consider how many other countries, besides Iran, could have a nuke in the same amount of time as Iran:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Our potential enemies have us surrounded!
       

  •  What a nut. (11+ / 0-)

    Well, that and he's obviously wrong. The NYT has a global survey from 2008 that asked respondents who they thought were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

    When the poll findings were published, Reuters reported, “the survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.” But there were also no countries in which a majority blamed the American government. The researchers found the most support for the idea that the U.S. government was responsible for the attacks in Turkey and Mexico — but just 36 percent of Turks and 30 percent of Mexicans endorsed the theory.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 04:30:35 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like a viable Tea Party candidate. eom (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross, MBNYC, JesseCW

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 04:53:25 AM PDT

  •  I have never thought that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kimball Cross, fizziks, RedPencil

    "those sorts of opinions were restricted to certain fringe Neo-Nazi groups." Personal experiences of "discussions" in coffee-shops, bars, etc., both here in the States and abroad, indicate to me that these irrational CTs flourish amongst a host of seemingly reasonable and respectable people. Sad, really...

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 05:42:01 AM PDT

    •  maybe it has something to do with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silverbird

      the fact that till today
      I have not seen any evidence how the magic bullet killed J.F.Kenedy or who lost his brain.
      i agree ct are 99% BS but 1% is not or where their never false flag operation
      in the history of the USA .

    •  I was referring specifically to the Israel angle (0+ / 0-)

      In my experience the percentage of people who believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy is indeed high, as you say.  

      But the percentage of those who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy related to Israel is much lower, and they tend to be on either the Neo-Nazi far right or the Israel-derangement-syndrome far left.  

  •  He might as well have said that Obama was a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, fizziks, MBNYC

    Kenyan native, and made the paradigm complete.

    Sarah Palin ... speaks truth. It remains to be seen if this nation has enough sanity left to put her in office. -- A RW blogger.

    by Kimball Cross on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 05:48:40 AM PDT

  •  When (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza

    should the bombing start?

    American business is about maximizing shareholder value. You basically don't want workers. ~Allen Sinai

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 06:55:33 AM PDT

  •  Do I need to say I hate Iran to be cool? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverbird, lcarr23

    I see many lemmings on this board. Is it possible that the truth is somewhere in between our version and his?

    "It's getting late early" - Yogi Berra

    by buckshot face on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 06:56:23 AM PDT

    •  The truth about what? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caj, Pozzo, RedPencil, volleyboy1

      I don't understand your comment.

      Do you mean that the truth about 9/11 is somewhere between our version (solely carried out by Al Qaeda without the involvement of the US or any other government) and his version?

    •  From what I read, Iran does follow the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckshot face

      non proliferation protocols it has agreed to in the non-proliferations treaty and our own CIA has said they do.  It is the American government that is full of violence induicing propaganda about Iran that is the trouble between us.  Iran WAS a democracy until we overthrew the elected government in the 50s and installed one that catered to us for the next thirty years.  We are really the trouble maker in this.

      2.5 trillion dollars have been "borrowed" since the [SS] system was "reformed" in the 80s and they simply don't want to pay it back. - dKos Blogger -

      by Silverbird on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 07:00:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, you do. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, RedPencil, volleyboy1

      Back when Bush was president, I would routinely get forwarded one of Ahmedinejad's speeches from supposedly progressive people.  This was because he kept tweaking Bush, and I guess some people felt he was all right.  
       
      If I reminded them that this was a regime that executes homosexuals, that this dude denied the Holocaust, that he was a far-right wingnut that would make Fred Phelps look like a hippie, they'd tell me to stop yammering about all that stuff and "address his ideas."
       
      Okay, so what are this dude's "ideas" about gay rights, women's rights, separation of church and state, Jews, and the theory of evolution?  And why should I spend my time reading them and giving them deep consideration?  These questions were always an instant conversation-stopper, but they never stopped the next forwarded speech.  The only thing that stopped that was Bush leaving office.

      Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

      by Caj on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 08:04:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seems like Ahmadenijad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    capelza, FrankCornish

    is in trouble at home, to be hauling out these tropes, in this forum.  

    Those who hear not the music-think the dancers mad

    by Eiron on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 07:01:51 AM PDT

  •  Batsh!t crazy little bastard. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RedPencil

    All morning I've wondered why we don't just seize him like Iran seized those three American hikers.

    (Don't worry, the rational part of my brain kicked in and noted circumstances such as diplomatic immunity, the two hikers still imprisoned in Iran, what those crazy bastards would do to every Westerner in the country, etc.)

    The overwhelming consensus of 2,000+ scientific experts from the IPCC& 18 US scientific assns: climate change is happening and is a growing threat to our wo

    by Cenobyte on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 07:41:17 AM PDT

  •  Tipped and Rec.'d (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, fizziks

    Thanks for the diary fizziks... Well done!

    Please Note: The contents of this comment are only my opinion

    by volleyboy1 on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 08:06:12 AM PDT

  •  Sorry to have missed this diary (0+ / 0-)

    We don't need any more nutball from Ahmadinejad, at the U.N. or anywhere else.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site