This is not about supporting Ahmadinejad and not about opposing President Barack Obama. This is about how President Barack Obama responded to the comments made by the head of a state. This is about the context in which the president of the US chose to condemn the comments of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
How should he respond?
Mr. Obama should have responded by directly addressing the comments of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Condemning notionally such comments is a way of responding, but it is not enough for the head of the state of the United States of America, who repeatedly talks about humanity, America’s reputation, support for America, the relevance of American supremacy, the pride of the USA and its uniqueness.
Let us review Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks, He said, “Some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grip on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime.” He said most of the people of the world and the US believe this theory. This was the essence of comments of Mr. Ahmadinejad on the UN podium regarding 9/11 attacks. These comments involve the aspects of politics, economics, sociology and culture of the politics.
It would have been perfect if Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Ahmadinejad to name the element of the US establishment he believed to be behind the 9/11 attacks. He should have said why the American economy was not declining then. He should have rejected the idea that the US was attempting to retain its grip on the Middle East, and he should have told the people of the US and the world why and how the US regime did not intend to save the Zionist (or Israeli) regime, if it was not.
Furthermore, Mr. Ahmadinejad linked the interests of the US in the Middle East to the 9/11 attacks. President Obama should have explained how they were not linked. He should have revealed that there was a possibility, and only a possibility that there could have been attacks irrespective of the US interests in the Middle East. However, Mr. Obama did not choose to respond in that way. He simply made a counterattack on Ahmadinejad’s remarks terming his comments “hateful,” “outrageous,” and “inexcusable.” He chose to divert the attention of the people of America as well as the world by linking just the places of different incidents.
The most disgusting remarks in Mr. Obama’s response were about the linking of the place where Mr. Ahmadinejad delivered his speech, and the site of the twin towers.. Obama said, “It was offensive. It was hateful. And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation. For him to make a statement like that was inexcusable.”
This is not the way to respect those who died in the seminal tragedy of this generation. This is not how to honor the sentiments of those who lost their beloved in the attack.
Suppose that Ahmadinejad had made his comments in Washington or in California instead of New York, would they have been justified? How much distance must Ahmadinejad had to have maintained to make such comments? Is it one kilometer, 100km or 1000km? This context of distance between the UN General Assembly and the twin towers was raised first by a spokesperson of the President. This author noted that it was only a spokesperson and that Obama would not have raised such a context. However, astonishingly, Obama himself repeated the same context to condemn the comments.
The bottom line is that the Iranian President made his point straight and the US president did not. Moreover, Mr. Ahmadinejad asked to constitute a fact-finding mission to ascertain what really happened. Even after the furor over his comments, the Iranian President did not back down. He defended his statement, saying, “I did not pass judgment, but, don’t you feel that the time has come to have a fact-finding committee?” He added, “The fact-finding mission can shed light on who the perpetrators were, who al-Qaeda is… where it exists? Who was it backed by and supported? All these should come to light.”
What Ahmadinejad demanded is potentially beneficial to the people of America, because their right to know the truth has not been fulfilled. If the people of America were to know the truth, the base of American imperialism and the chain of the imperialist soil-legged demon spread among the developed world, would be shattered. If the people of the US knew the truth, that truth could be the beginning of the end of the imperialist regimes.
US imperialism stands on a fake base built with lies. It is not faithful, but hateful. Falsehood is strength temporarily, but disastrous for the future. The US kingdom is keeping its people in the darkness of lies. That is why it does not dare to appoint a fact-finding mission. It lacks the guts to prove why Mr. Ahmadinejad was wrong in his comments.
Inciting The Iranian People
Mr. Obama’s machinations did not stop with diverting attention from the comments made by Ahmadinejad, but extended to inciting the Iranian people against their president. He said in his exclusive interview with BBC Persian television, which broadcasts to Iran and Afghanistan, “There were candlelight vigils and I think a natural sense of shared humanity and sympathy was expressed within Iran,” Mr Obama told the BBC. “It just shows once again the difference between how the Iranian leadership and this regime operate and how I think the vast majority of the Iranian people, who are respectful and thoughtful, think about these issues.”
One should wonder where the natural sense of shared humanity of Mr. Obama was, when he decided on an increase of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, throwing them into fire and subjecting the people of Afghanistan to more killings, attacks, blasts and tragedy.
Mr. Obama was correct when he was talking about candlelight vigils. He was right when he described the Iranian people as respectful and thoughtful about the issues. However, President Obama was pathetic when he tried to draw a negative parallel between the greatness of the Iranian people and the comments of their president in the General Assembly.
The two contexts were different. The Iranians expressed their shared humanity to those who became scapegoats in the machinations of the inhuman vested interests people, no matter whether they were terrorists or certain sections of the US establishment. Mr. Ahmadinejad asked the natural questions “who the perpetrators were, who al-Qaeda is… where it exists? Who was it backed by and supported?” What the Iranian people showed was humanity, what the Iranian president asked was responsibility and how Mr. Obama responded was profanity.
Actually, these questions should be asked by the US rulers and their people, but they have not been. If someone asks for the truth to be revealed, he should be given due respect. Instead, the US President chose the other way, not showing any interest in properly answering the questions and trying to divert attention. This is how the US and the other imperialist regimes survive.Powered by Sidelines