Thursday, September 23, 2010

Worlds Most Famous Truther Speaks

No, not Charlie Sheen, this guy.




Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations Thursday most people believe the U.S. government was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001, prompting the U.S. delegation to leave the hall in protest.

Addressing the General Assembly, he said it was mostly U.S. government officials and statesmen who believed al Qaeda Islamist militants carried out the suicide hijacking attacks that brought down New York's World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon.

Another theory, he said, was "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 to save the Zionist regime." Ahmadinejad usually refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime."

29 Comments:

At 23 September, 2010 18:44, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Another Holocaust Denier for da twoof.

Why don't twoofers move to Iran, since they'd be so much more popular there.

 
At 24 September, 2010 09:58, Blogger Garry said...

Here's another charmer:

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/09/24/we-dont-know-where-jobbik-ends-and-fidesz-begins/

'“What is the Western world under leadership of America doing in Afghanistan?” [Gabor] Vona asked rhetorically. According to him 9/11 was just an excuse for the USA to occupy Afghanistan, as the actual facts of the day are not really known. Even if the official explanation should be true (which he doubts), “9/11 was just an act of revenge by some Arab terrorists because America had been making life in Arab countries miserable and, by supporting Israel, hindered the creation of the State of Palestine.”'

Vona is the leader of a Hungarian party called Jobbik. This is what their predecessors looked like:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_ph.php?ModuleId=10005466&MediaId=1324

 
At 24 September, 2010 10:22, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

We'll have to start taking the 9/11 Truth advocates seriously when they get nukes.

 
At 24 September, 2010 11:55, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Obama: Ahmadinejad's speech 'offensive' and 'hateful'
By the CNN Wire Staff
September 24, 2010 12:50 p.m. EDT

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/24/un.ahmadinejad.remarks/index.html?hpt=T1

 
At 24 September, 2010 12:01, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Michael Shermer speech interrupted by 9/11 truther proving they are clueless ass wipes.

The truther loons posted the video even though it shows them to be rude and desperate for any attention at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGXm__kqFzQ

 
At 24 September, 2010 15:34, Blogger NoIdentity said...

Jobbik are one of the many far-right parties emerging across Europe like the Front National in France and Lega Nord in Italy. Every country has one, even the friendly Dutch have one. They are critical of American foreign policy and while vitriolic they seem to promote a plausible narrative about 9-11, albeit one I disagree strongly with. They're all very rational compared to the nut-cases in the Middle East for whom everything is a vast (usually Jewish) conspiracy.
And on the theme of the insane in the Middle East, Iranians are probably the most pro-Western and rational. Ahmadinejad is a populist nut who is in power because the military supports him.
case in point http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/

 
At 24 September, 2010 18:18, Blogger ConsDemo said...

seem to promote a plausible narrative about 9-11, albeit one I disagree strongly with.

What is the difference between Jobbik's crap and that of Ahmadinejad. They are both MIHOPERS using the "just asking questions" bs.

 
At 24 September, 2010 19:20, Blogger NoIdentity said...

Cons,
I got the impression Jobbik folks were saying that 9-11 happened because they hate our foreign policy. "9/11 was just an act of revenge by some Arab terrorists..."
Obviously I don't think it was a just act but in the mind of Mohammad Atta and company it was an act of revenge. I don't recall him saying anything about US government complicity or involvement. Of course I could have overlooked it. They're pretty antisemitic too from what I've heard.
I just think, not all extremist nuts are created equal.

 
At 24 September, 2010 19:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

NoIdentity wrote, "...Obviously I don't think it was a just act but in the mind of Mohammad Atta and company it was an act of revenge."

Not according to the mastermind of the attacks, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.

According to page 11, exhibit 941, titled Purpose of the 9/11 Attacks, from the United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to "wake the American people up." And I quote:

"...Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin Towers was to 'wake the American people up.' Sheikh Mohammed said that if the target would have been strictly military or government, the American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples." -- Exhibit 941, page 11 from the United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui

Notice that the American "mainstream media" refuses to quote Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's statement concerning "supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples." Instead the "mainstream media" chose to repeat ad nauseum the Bush administration's propaganda, "They hate our freedom."

We were not attacked because of our freedoms and we were not attacked because the United States government engineered the attacks. Like it or not, we were attacked because of our decades long support for Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people. Anyone who plays along with the lies--be they 9/11 troofers or die-hard Bush fanatics--is helping special interests protect specific foreign policies at the expense of the American people.

Sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

 
At 24 September, 2010 19:47, Blogger NoIdentity said...

I can't really find anything to disagree with Bill. But I'd ad that support Western support for the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and probably Jordan and Morocco also piss them off. They want their Islamic states and if those countries were democratic they would probably have it. Instead they're ruled by kings and generals. To some extent they do rule because we support them but we aren't as omnipotent as the Al Queda types believe.
"...and America's self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples."

 
At 24 September, 2010 22:51, Blogger Pat said...

GB, the fatwa issued by OBL against the US mentioned three reasons, of which Israel was only the last. The first two were US troops on Saudi soil and the sanctions against Iraq.

 
At 25 September, 2010 01:57, Blogger Garry said...

'I got the impression Jobbik folks were saying that 9-11 happened because they hate our foreign policy. "9/11 was just an act of revenge by some Arab terrorists..."'

'NoIdentity', my view is that groups like Jobbik hold two mutually contradictory positions. The first is to hint (as Vona does) that 9/11 was an inside job, but also to say that it was retribution for the USA's interventions in the Middle East.

Now clearly a rational individual can't believe both positions at once. If you think that a group of Arab terrorists can get so pissed off with the USA that they can contemplate doing what Atta and his pals did on 9/11, then that rules out any notion of MIHOP. But then fascists have not been known for thinking things through rationally.

As you say, trooferism is becoming a feature of the European far-right - we've seen it in this country with the BNP.

 
At 25 September, 2010 06:47, Blogger ConsDemo said...

GuitarBill is spot on. While Pat is correct that American support of Israel was but one of the motivations for that attacks, it is probably the most long lasting Muslim Arab grievance against the US and is a valuable recruiting tool for the militants.

Let's face it, our "alliance" with Israel at a price. By blindly backing Israel, we make Israel's enemies our enemies. Now, I don't have anything against Israel per se, but our unquestioned backing enables Israeli intransigence. It appears Israel is going to rebuild settlement building and the Palestinians will break off peace talks. What American interest is served by such an outcome?

We should give Israel a choice, forgo settlement building of American aid.

 
At 25 September, 2010 06:48, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Sorry for the typos, my last post should have said "forgo settlement building OR American aid"

 
At 25 September, 2010 07:21, Blogger Garry said...

'Let's face it, our "alliance" with Israel at a price. By blindly backing Israel, we make Israel's enemies our enemies'.

CD, I would point out here that for twenty years or so after the state of Israel was founded, the USA was not its main ally or source of support. It was France.

The substance of the US-Israeli alliance is basically the fact that Arab countries like Egypt (before the mid-1970s), Syria and Iraq were pro-Soviet. My enemy's enemy and all that.

I am also extremely sceptical of notions of so-called pan-Arab unity, and in particular the supposed fury which the plight of the Palestinians arouses amongst regional governments. As Yezid Sayigh notes in his history of the Palestinian movement, non-Palestinians have tended to treat them with utter contempt. Syrians, Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians et al do not agree on much, but the one thing they do agree on is that Palestinians are there to be used as either cheap labour or cannon fodder.

When he was interviewed in April 1986, the PLO's intelligence chief noted that of all the losses his people had suffered since 1948, only a quarted could be blamed on the Israelis. The Palestinians have had to deal with Black September, the war of the camps, and also the vicious feuds incited by their so-called Arab brothers (e.g. Abu Nidal rubbing out Arafat's men firstly at the behest of Damascus, then Tripoli, then Baghdad). Deep down, the average Palestinian knows that Arab unity is a sick joke, and that their brothers have used them shamelessly.

Furthermore, if we are looking at the rise of Islamism in the Arab world since the 1960s, it is actually a grass-roots response against the secular pan-Arab nationalist regimes, such as Jamal abdel Nasser's in Egypt and the Baathists in Iraq. There is also the abysmal state of socio-economic development across the Arab world - without oil and gas, their collective economic output would be less than Finland's. In this case, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are useful means for ruling regimes to distract popular attention from problems closer to home.

This is not to say that the USA cannot be condemned for its past actions, or that the Palestinians don't deserve a state (I personally favour one based roughly on 1967 boundaries). But I personally don't think that the USA would have been any better off had Israel never existed, and if the Palestine problem had never emerged. Both the Islamists and the ruling elites would have found another reason to scream their hatred for the West in general, and Uncle Sam in particular.

 
At 25 September, 2010 09:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

most people believe the U.S. government was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001

Yes, and Iran also has no homosexuals.

 
At 25 September, 2010 12:29, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Garry, I don't disagree with any of the historical events you described. Nor do I contend it would be better if Israel didn't exist. I also don't believe our support of Israel is our only problem in the ME. Our dependence on ME oil (which by the way isn't a result of a conspiracy to help Big Oil as twoofers claim, but rather the average American's gluttonous consumption) and our perceived need to "guarantee the supply of oil" is the other big reason.

That said, I notice nations that don't take sides in Middle East conflicts are targeted by Islamic militants. Obviously, we can't go from maintaining a high profile in the region to being completely neutral in its conflicts over night, but we could start moving in that direction and step one would be stop backing Israel so blindly, since it just gives Israel an excuse to take actions (such as settlement expansion) that make a peace deal impossible.

It was frankly mind-boggling when a majority of the members of Congress wrote Obama a letter telling him to stop pressuring Israel in public. No, I'm not into any of the Jewish world domination crap, but I also can't remember a time when a majority of Congress demanded the President defer to a foreign country. We need to shake ourselves of the notion we owe Israel unquestioned backing.

 
At 25 September, 2010 12:30, Blogger ConsDemo said...

ugh, another typo. I meant to say "nations that don't take sides in Middle East conflicts aren't targeted by Islamic militants"

 
At 25 September, 2010 14:40, Blogger NoIdentity said...

As you say, trooferism is becoming a feature of the European far-right - we've seen it in this country with the BNP.
But aren't Muslims the biggest boogie-man to most far-right parties?

And as someone with dozens of Lebanese and Palestinian (American) relatives I can assure you that "Arab Unity" is a sick farce and every Arab knows it. The die-hard believers blame lack of unity on Israeli/American/British trickery, but that's sorta silly.

 
At 25 September, 2010 17:02, Blogger angrysoba said...

nations that don't take sides in Middle East conflicts aren't targeted by Islamic militants

Well, India, Russia and China are tergetted by Islamic militants. Kenyans and Tanzanians were blown up outside the US embassies there. People in Bali were killed in nightclub bombings there. Spain had bombs set off on their trains. The UK had its London Underground bombed. German and Japanese tourists were murdered in Luxor by Islamic militant gunmen etc... etc... etc...

I would be sickened if the US decided it had to pick its allies on the say so of those psychopaths. And let's face it. Given that Israel is threatened by those pyschopaths wouldn't you feel somewhat proud of your country by sticking by them?

 
At 25 September, 2010 18:34, Blogger VRWC Member Johnny said...

Could one of you please email me? I am starting work on a book and would like your assistance.

 
At 26 September, 2010 02:03, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Well, India, Russia and China are tergetted by Islamic militants.

Those countries have conflicts with Muslim groups within their borders. The European nations you listed were targeted because their support for/participation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brazil, for example, doesn't have any military in the ME (as far as I know) and they also aren't threatened by Islamic militants.

Given that Israel is threatened by those pyschopaths wouldn't you feel somewhat proud of your country by sticking by them?

I'm not proud of the fact that blind unquestioned American support of Israel allows them to kowtow to their own extremists who want to expand settlements on the West Bank even if it likely means permanent conflict.

 
At 26 September, 2010 02:18, Blogger Andrew said...

I thought Jesse 'The Body' Ventura was the most famous Truther. Can you imagine little Ahmadinejad in a choppa saying 'Bunch of slack-jawed faggots around here'? No me neither.
And what about Warren Cuccurullo? Or that asshole from Muse? They're both more famous Truthers than Ahmadinejad.
I suggest you bulk up, start acting or learn to play the guitar, Mahmoud.

 
At 26 September, 2010 04:45, Blogger Garry said...

'But aren't Muslims the biggest boogie-man to most far-right parties?'

In certain cases, yes, and we've recently seen the emergence of the English Defence League (EDL), which is explicitly anti-Islamic. But I think it depends on the country concerned, and trends within their society. Hungary, for example, doensn't have a substantial Muslim population.

Far-right parties are able to hold mutually contradictory views, mainly because they have an opportunistic urge to change their tune as and when appropriate, and also because their rank and file are morons. They're not dissimilar to troofers in that regard.

Talking of opportunism, the BNP leader Nick Griffin fared poorly when he was on the BBC political debating programme 'Question Time', but there was one point where he managed to get some of the audience on-side, and that was when he talked about the Muslim 'threat'. If British fascists think this is a way of drumming up some support - as opposed to traditional anti-Semitism and anti-immigration - then they'll play on it.

Just to pick up one of ConsDemo's points, France has been a target for terrorism - both Palestinian nationalist and Islamist - despite the fact that since de Gaulle's time successive French governments have been pro-Arab and anti-Israeli.

 
At 26 September, 2010 06:30, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Far-right parties are able to hold mutually contradictory views

Far right parties are usually filled with kooks and morons, however, in their minds, anti-Americanism and anti-Muslim sentiments aren't contradictory, since they view American influence and hegemony in a negative light. They also tend to oppose participation of their countries in the war on terror, Geert Wilders is a good example.

Garry, France also participates in the Afghan campaign. Our need to lower our profile in the Middle East is driven by necessity as much as anything else. Support of fighting Islamism is breaking down across the line. I'm not just talking about the war in Afghanistan, it is even happening with the things that shouldn't be controversial. People are going to court to stop the US from targeting scumbag Anwar Al Aulaqi from a drone strike. I don't imagine the suit will ultimately be successful, but the fact that they might hold off from killing him if he was spotted because of some uber civil libertarians is telling. Even if support wasn't crumbling, there doesn't seem to be any victory in sight in the war against radical islam. We are going to have to take steps to defuse its appeal and that means trying to satisfy some broader Arab grievances.

Finally, no one has explained why we need give Israel unconditional backing. To do so with any foreign nation is to let that nation dictate our foreign policy and its a mistake.

 
At 26 September, 2010 07:41, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 September, 2010 20:22, Blogger angrysoba said...

I'm not proud of the fact that blind unquestioned American support of Israel allows them to kowtow to their own extremists who want to expand settlements on the West Bank even if it likely means permanent conflict.


Well, okay I can agree with you that no one deserves unconditional support if that means those being supported feel they can do whatever they want without consequences.

However, Israel has not enjoyed complete uncritical support and there is room for pressuring the country to being more conciliatory.

I think that saying Israel can and should be criticized and shouldn't receive unconditional support should be divorced from saying, "We better not make Islamic fundamentalists angry by supporting Israel." That one seems like the most craven reason for not supporting Israel.

To some extent Islamic fundamentalists simply CANNOT be appeased. When I mentioned those countries before you pointed out that they had there own problems with Muslim fundamentalists. You can also add the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia not to mention just about any country where two branches of Islam run up against each other.

I agree with the poster before who said if it wasn't Israel it would be something else.

 
At 27 September, 2010 05:16, Blogger Garry said...

'Finally, no one has explained why we need give Israel unconditional backing'.

If you look at US-Israeli relations over the long-term, America has not been an 'unconditional' ally.

I would also point out that France has been subjected to attacks by Arab terrorists - both secular and Islamist - well before it sent troops to Afghanistan. Furthermore, my own country has often been at odds with the Israelis, but that did not prevent Islamist hostility towards the UK - which again pre-dates Afghanistan and Iraq.

 
At 28 September, 2010 06:05, Blogger ConsDemo said...

However, Israel has not enjoyed complete uncritical support and there is room for pressuring the country to being more conciliatory.

If you look at US-Israeli relations over the long-term, America has not been an 'unconditional' ally.

Perhaps this has been true at times in the past, but I don't see any evidence it is at the moment. Netanyahu is completely free to blow off the US demand for a settlement freeze because he knows there are no repercussions in doing so, American aid will continue at current levels regardless. That qualifies as "unconditional support" in my mind.

To some extent Islamic fundamentalists simply CANNOT be appeased.

I agree, but we should be doing what we can to deny them recruiting tools and, if not sympathy, at least tolerance by others.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home