Yes, there were those that do not care for the U.S. and support Islamic radicalism. There were those that do not care one way or another.
No rebuttal is needed to nuttiness. I hate to say this, but that is something I see here at CAF. Some things are so far out in left field, like this speech, that no answer could possible do a better job of rebuttal than the person’s own words. No response is sometimes the best response. Walking out, is a form of communication. When this Iranian claimed that the U.S. blew up its own buildings, what could possibly have been said that would make Ahmadenijad look crazier than his own theories?
Which part of the speech, exactly, was so far out in right field as to be unworthy of response?? I did not ‘walk out’. I watched the entire speech, and I have a transcript, too. I’m genuinely interested in hearing other people’s ideas- even the crazy ones. How else will I continue to learn?
Maybe it was the part where Mr. Ahmadinejad said,
“Please take note: it was said that some three thousands people were killed on September 11th, for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.”
Sad fact, but fact nonetheless. I see nothing nutty about that. But oh it must have been when he 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. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.
*
Ah, I see. While Big Bad Ahmadinejad is greatly exaggerating that part- far less than a majority of us believe this- I can see how many would automatically register the fact that Mr. A supports this position, too.
BUT, my point, had they stayed to hear the rest, they could have answered these VERY VALID questions, instead of looking like children who throw a tantrum when they are forced to listen to something they don’t like:
*
There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:
1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?
2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?
3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.*
Wow, even I never thought to ask those questions. Never even heard of this Riggi group. Guess I don’t know nearly as much as I think I do…
But the most nutty, INSANE statements of all must have been these:
*The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament.
Nonetheless, note what some of the permanent members of the Security Council and nuclear bomb holders have done: they have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA. While at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and upgrade their own nuclear arsenals.*
I would like here to propose that the year 2011 be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and “Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None”.
I thought everybody just tuned out the rambling mad man. :whacky:
