Wednesday, September 26, 2007

But, sometimes I can get the first word...

Some pinheads in Iran have issued 10 questions for Lee Bollinger of Columbia University. I take my shot at answering them. One comment to start. Peoples in the Middle East (and many other places) expect respect and hospitality for guests. Bollinger was insulting, regardless of what he may actually have meant or said, the Middle East will consider his behavior very, very insulting. Good.

The questions:

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

First, because Mr. Ahmadinejad has insulted the United States repeatedly in the past. First as a ringleader in the unlawful kidnapping of Americans and holding them hostage in 1979-1980. Then, as a leader of a country that is actively supplying material assistance to terrorists in Iraq. Such a platform as a University is well above the respect that should be granted such a despicable person. Mr. Ahmadinejad had an opportunity to speak after Mr. Bollinger, that is all that was offered. No media outlet is required to carry opposing viewpoints or be forced to grant Mr. Ahmadinejad additional broadcast time because he wants it. He can purchase the time if he so chooses. THAT is free get what you pay for.

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

As I was quick to bring up the past, let me offer an opinion here also. In 1952 and 53, Dr. Mosaddegh was rapidly approaching the communist principles supported by and encouraged by the Soviet Union. Such principles were a direct threat to the United States and given the geographic location of Iran, a security threat to oil supplies. Such a turn towards communism was simply not allowable. The choice was not made easily, nor accomplished well, but the result speaks for itself. Communism was/is a dangerous political/economic system both for the world in general and for the people suffering under it specifically. I am not suggesting the Iranian people were better off under the Shah, but they were better off than under a communist rule, even if they stupidly choose such a rule.

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

First, Iran had openly declared war on the US, so of course we were going to support your enemies. Iran had shown no particular desire to adhere to international law, no reason for us to withhold support of someone fighting you. Dictators is what we did, because the alternative was communists. Easier to control one bonehead than an entire populace of boneheads. We admit it was not a good choice, but the alternative was empire building and multiple wars...Europe tried that for 300 years with no success...we have tried a different path with more success. And as for Hussein, we have now rectified that error...why are you not happy about that?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran 's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

a) the people of Gaza continue to lob missiles into Israel. The 'elected' terrorists of Gaza seek to destroy Israel. Just because an election - even a completely fair, open and honest one - is held doesn't mean we accept the consequences of such an election. Gaza decided that they want to kill Jews and destroy Israel. They held an election to prove it. So WHAT? Mob rule isn't just or fair. As long as stupid people vote for stupid things, stupid elections will be ignored by more intelligent people. b) see a.

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

a). Frankly, we could find and kill OBL if we acted like ...well, Muslims...indiscriminately killing anything that moves. We try to be more selective in our killing fields. That is why OBL and other muslim mufsid hid as women, hid with women and children. They have no honor, they engage in hirabah. b) We try to hold the people actually responsible for terrorism accountable, rather than their whole family. the Bin Laden family is quite large, no need to tar and feather all of them. Further, we do believe engagement is better than war when possible. When people have a stake in commerce, they are less likely to blow it up. c) I am uncertain what efforts you speak of....maybe it is the same type of investigations into the holocaust you are so fond of?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran 's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

Freedom fighters are always in the eyes of the beholders eh? Your support of terrorists in Iraq is ok, but our support of terrorists in Iran is not. Awww...too bad. Also, given the reporting quality of Iranian media, I would be remiss if I didn't question "massacres"?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

a) yes. UN support, multiple country support....I know you are not a big fan of research that actually deals with facts...but this one is pretty obvious. b) the real purpose was to provide the US military with sufficient bases and in place assets to attack you. We don't have the 'balls' to do it yet, but you are a people that keep giving! c) 177 tonnes of chemical weapons have been found. There are reports of massive movement of materials to Syria prior to our entrance into Iraq.

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

Because the alternatives are extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist religious regimes hostile to non-muslim countries? Of course, ISRAEL is not a monarchy....nor is Turkey...or India...

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

When you outlaw the guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Right now, only Israel has unconventional weapons, though there are some states trying to get them. So the impact is not to prevent the weapons, but to disarm Israel. I know you THINK we are stupid, but...

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Because such agreements have worked out so well in the past! A lie is not deception if the person being lied to is deceptive, right? If your country actually lived up to the agreements it makes, we might be more open, however, your country has proved repeatedly that such agreements are worth exactly the paper they are written on.

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

Yes, but could we talk to your women and homosexuals?

No comments: