Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Ahmadinejad’s Enigmatic Statements are Well Based in Fact

Ahmadinejad’s Enigmatic Statements are Well Based in Fact

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A substantial issue between President Ahmadinejad and the U.S. government has been the refusal of the U.S., until recently,  to allow the Iranian president, a powerful global leader, to speak. Over the past several years I have accused former US President George W. Bush of being insecure and lacking in the confidence even to listen to the words of Ahmadinejad. I still maintain that position toward Bush. When we negotiate, we are not compelled to make deals or concessions, we are merely having discussions. Silence promotes misunderstanding. Bush took the position that by negotiating, we were elevating the status of those with whom we negotiate.

On several occasions, Ahmadinejad was prepared, competent, worldly and knowledgeable to address the United Nations. Bush obstructed. Then, during March of 2007, after long years of being ignored by the west, Ahmadinejad was to speak in defense of Iran’s nuclear rights before the United Nations, at a Security Council meeting as the Council discussed a resolution on Iran’s nuclear activities, this allowance in spite of the non-negotiation policy.   According to State Department spokesman Sean McCormack,  “… as host of the United Nations, the United States is obligated to let foreign leaders speak before the world body. We have host country obligations, and we are going to live up those host country obligations.”

However, the Iranian presidential visit took an unexpected turn; President Ahmadinejad wasn’t heard after all. The stated reason, that the visas for his party were late in arriving, was unsettling to this observer. We can’t help but wonder if there was more to this cancelled meeting with the Security Council than met the eye.

Now the Democratic President Barack Obama is allowing negotiations. The Iranian president is always somewhat enigmatic, but in the speech to the General Assembly last week, he allowed that the September 11 attacks on the United States were the works of a terrorist group supported by the U.S., and that the U.S. took advantage of the situation. I choose to ignore the thought that Ahmadinejad might truly believe that someone in our government “supported” the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. This would  clearly be  grounds for a death penalty investigation, and could not have been done without evidence having being  produced. If Ahmadinejad has some clandestine knowledge, he is keeping it to himself. President Ahmadinejad, in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, September 23, said the retaliation could have been carried out, with a “logical plan” to avert bloodshed. Nothing could be truer. On May 30, 2006, I wrote that the death and destruction to Iraq could have been avoided. I recalled a time when the Libyan “Superman”, Muammar Kaddafi (or Khadafy), became a threat, we handled the matter swiftly and effectively.

Many now believe that the terrorist behind the 9/11 attacks was in fact, Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian billlionaire (perhaps trillionaire) prince, as bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan at the time. Bin Laden, in a tape some months ago, took responsibility for the attacks, and threatened new attacks based on his concern for the non-assimilation issues in Palestine/Israel. Even during the early hours of the national news coverage on 9/11, the attacks having  begun at the World Trade Center, and as the buildings were falling, newcasters made mention of the Palestinian Liberation Organization as a possible conspirator. The PLO quickly denied that possibility, and absolved itself from any knowledge or participation.

Even today, the threat of new terrorism and destruction remains active. At this time, one would be foolish not to envision the possibility of ruinous world war if  settlement building by Israel on the West Bank goes unchecked. Muslims demand equality in the modern world, and will accept nothing less!

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • http://www.pentagonunit.com/ Damion

    I would recommend that you watch the Iranian president speech on Youtube. The president never said that the US government committed the attack. He basically said there are theories out there that needs to be address and he called for an independent body to investigate. That is what he said. Why do you think that you are obligated to make false comments just like the other propagandist main stream media?

  • John Lake

    To Damion:
    Sir: You like many others assume that those who write, or make public statements are ‘against” you, and your causes. This is not true. I make an attempt to favor neither side, or any group in my writing. I attempt to remain objective and to speak truth. My sources for information are creditable and responsible.
    The following comes from
    Associated Press
    a few hours after Ahmadinehads remarks to the U.N. Security Council.

    “The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:

    _That “powerful and complex terrorist group” penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses.

    _”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.”

    The Americans 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 address in the foregoing article the third theory, which I find to be rich in truth, although as always, Ahmadinejad seeks to maintain some mystery, and to make one search for his view.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz Alan Kurtz

    I agree with Damion (comment #1). You have badly mischaracterized President Ahmadinejad’s UN speech, the full text of which can be read here.

    You write, falsely, that “he allowed that the September 11 attacks on the United States were the works of a terrorist group supported by the U.S., and that the U.S. took advantage of the situation.”

    Here is the relevant portion of what he actually said.

    In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

    1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross 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.

    Ahmadinejad did not “allow” that viewpoint #3 was correct. To the contrary, he stated clearly that of the three propositions, #3 has the fewest proponents.

    John, you discredit only yourself when you twist and attempt to mystify Ahmadinejad’s words as you did.

  • John Lake

    I’m not trying to equivocate, here, but that’s darn close to what I said!
    “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.”

  • Ruvy

    Even today, the threat of new terrorism and destruction remains active. At this time, one would be foolish not to envision the possibility of ruinous world war if settlement building by Israel on the West Bank goes unchecked. Muslims demand equality in the modern world, and will accept nothing less!

    Looks like you and your new Muslim friends are going to see a ruinous world war. We stubborn Jews ain’t going nowhere, John. And if you suffer a world war as a result, that’s just too bad. I’ll give you my underwear to cry in. Is there a bomb shelter next to your favorite bar in Chicago? You may need to frequent it….

  • John Lake

    Ruvy:
    Clearly you won’t be taking the advice of Helen Thomas, who felt that one solution was for the Jewish population to re-locate. We may see a major world war, and maybe soon. But I know many Jews are doing what they can to work with and relate to the Muslims.
    Hopefully many Muslims are making similiar efforts. Maybe the situation will resolve by the working class common people.

  • Ruvy

    The Arabs can relocate, John. If they don’t want to live in peace, there are a whole load of Pashtun (who love vengeance) willing to avenge the Arab desecration of Joseph’s Tomb – since Joseph was their ancestor. All we gotta do is spread the word in Pashto…. The Arabs will be on the receiving end of their own style viciousness – for as long as they dare inhabit and occupy what is really Pashtun land.

    Religion has nothing to do with this, Big Johnny. Nationality does, though – along with Badal – vengeance. Ah, the delicious ironies!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ruvy –

    Bob Woodward’s book “Obama’s Wars” shows that the reason that we are staying in Afghanistan is NOT because of Osama bin Laden or Afghanistan…but to ensure the stability of Pakistan and its nukes.

    Just like I said over a year ago.

    Problem is, we’re conducting drone strikes in Pakistan on a greater level than Bush ever did…and we might well become involved in a third Mideast war – if we aren’t already. The stakes aren’t quite as high as in Vietnam (remember Mutual Assured Destruction), but this seems to be leading somewhere that no one wants to go.

    And for those who think Obama’s a warmonger, when he asked for options for our Afghan strategy, the JCS only offered him variations on the same theme: an open-ended occupation with no end in sight. That was when he made the unilateral decision that he would not pass this problem down to his successor. Whatever one may say of his overruling the generals (both of which were from the Bush era, btw), at least he’s trying to get us out of there while still giving our armed forces a little time to try to finish the job if they can.

    But of course Obama’s just a commie fascist warmonger, lest we forget.

  • Clavos

    “commie fascist” is an oxymoron. Obama’s just a moron.

  • zingzing

    a moron, eh? that moron certainly got the upper hand on a lot of people. moron done good for himself.

  • Clavos

    moron done good for himself.

    “for himself.”

    Exactly.

  • zingzing

    well, he’s a pretty smart moron, ain’t he?

  • Clavos

    Jury’s still out, zing, we’ll see what shape the country’s in when slinks off the stage. So far, not much but smoke and mirrors.

  • Clavos

    Oh, and a whole lot of pretty but empty palaver.

  • STM

    John Lake: “the Iranian president, a powerful global leader … ”

    Really?

    His only questionable claim to being powerful is that he’s a sabre-rattler for half a dozen limping non-aligned states such as Cuba and Venezuela, and heads up a government that is loathed by a large proportion of its own people for its heavy-handed repressiveness.

    Powerful?

    Only in as much as a fart is powerful.

    You know, makes a loud noise and leaves a bad smell.

    I predict it won’t be long before Iranians themselves decide it’s time to open a window.

  • john lake

    Many view Iran as a central point of the Ismaic world. Iran is a modern and developing nation, and is developing nuclear energy as Iran moves into the future.
    Ahmadinejad often, in seeking election vows to move the economy of Iran in a forward direction; at one point he vowed to place the profits of the oil industry on ‘everyone’s table’. He hasn’t fared as well as he might have liked, but maintains favor and influence by being a powerful (albeit perplexing) ruler.

  • STM

    John: “Many view Iran as a central point of the Ismaic world.”

    Maybe, but HOW they see it is a different kettle of fish. Since sunni outnumber shia about 20 to 1 and the most radical sunni regard shia as heretics, he’s handicapped before he gets off the blocks.

    They might think it’s great that he’s “standing up to the West” (or simply causing trouble where none exists), but when push comes to shove, most serious muslims (al-Qaeda and their lunatic mates)regard Iran with the same kind of contempt they have for us.

    And since moderate muslims want no part of any of it, that doesn’t leave much of a base – pardon the pun – in terms of numbers at least.

    He’d like Iran to be powerful, but unless he can convert the rest of islam to Iran’s brand of islam, it’s not going to happen.

    Ever, that is.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Bob Woodward’s book “Obama’s Wars” shows that the reason that we are staying in Afghanistan is NOT because of Osama bin Laden or Afghanistan…but to ensure the stability of Pakistan and its nukes.

    Just like I said over a year ago.

    Problem is, we’re conducting drone strikes in Pakistan on a greater level than Bush ever did…and we might well become involved in a third Mideast war – if we aren’t already. The stakes aren’t quite as high as in Vietnam (remember Mutual Assured Destruction), but this seems to be leading somewhere that no one wants to go.

    My sources – who are Pakistani – tell me a very different story. As it stands, Pakistan is on the verge of collapse. Its former dictator held a rally in London today, hoping to get the overseas Paki vote, if you will, but the bottom line is that the the Pakistani regime governs the city of Islamabad and surrounding suburbs, while the Pakistani army and its ISI are the real forces there. The present Durand Line, the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is liable to get pushed east to the Indus if the Americans keep forcing the Pashtun in the mountains to choose between being killed by Americans
    or massacred by the Taliban.

    I won’t comment further on this, though. You need a solid grasp of what’s going ion from folks who are there, or who are from there.