Iranian President and Ground Zero

Hoboken411 really isn’t a place that focuses on world politics, but I’ve received quite a few emails about the upcoming visit to the U.S. from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

One particular Hoboken411 reader says this:

“Hobo 411,

Hey man, love the site. I comment all the time on local hot spots and local politics.

I realize there are all different stripes in Hoboken in terms of National Politics. And I appreciate that. But if the President of Iran is allowed near Ground Zero, even within blocks of it, my head will explode. Please post what you can to protest this. There are conflicting reports of Ahmadinejad’s attempt to get near there at this point.

Please mobilize the 411 Army to block this from happening.”

However, Thursday’s NY Times had reported that NYC’s Police Commissioner had already denied this request.

Iran Leader Denied Bid to Visit Ground Zero

iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.jpgA remark by Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly that the Police Department was considering a request by Iran that its president visit ground zero set off complaints yesterday before the department corrected itself.

Late in the day, it said, the request had already been turned down.

Iran asked this month that its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, be permitted to visit ground zero when he attends the opening of the United Nations General Assembly next week.

Paul Browne, the chief spokesman for Commissioner Kelly, said the request — that Mr. Ahmadinejad be allowed to lay a wreath at the former site of the World Trade Center — had been made by Iranian officials earlier this month in a meeting that was also attended by officials of the United States Secret Service and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Mr. Browne said the request was rejected because the Iranians wanted Mr. Ahmadinejad to visit the area of ground zero where construction is under way, but he said that any additional request that he appear near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attack would also be denied out of concerns about security. Although relatives of the victims were allowed to visit the site briefly on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, members of the public are not allowed into the area.

What are your opinions/thoughts about this?

iranian-president-denied-visit-to-ground-zero.gif

Leave a Reply

54 Comments on "Iranian President and Ground Zero"


chester
Member
chester
9 years 1 day ago

Free speach for everyone at Columbia – except for the military. No recruiters allowed. HYPOCRITS!

bazztrap
Member
bazztrap
9 years 1 day ago
[quote comment=”44999″][quote comment=”44994″]Knowing something new and different isn’t wrong, if anything it is right. I do believe we have been corrupted the way the information is fed to us and he has attempted to have an open debate before with Bush which has been turned down so maybe he sees this as an opportunity.[/quote] That couldn’t be more incorrect. There’s a difference between seeing the relevence of an opposing view, and falsely claiming that what we know is incorrect and lies, while claiming something new is the correct version. Propaganda. In my previous posts, I was explaining the rationale he was coming from – absolutism. Why you would coincide with that view escapes me. In his world, he cannot be wrong, and so views anyone else differing from his view as incorrect and in need of correcting.[/quote] I wasn’t saying knowing anything new, is bound to be right or is the Truth, it just broadens our knowledge spectrum. While I do want to agree on security for community and nation taking higher priority. Community and nations are built by different people have different views and ideology and encompassing all those views in one singular feeling of security is not possible. Idea behind one nations security could be different for different people in the same community. The possibility of something being right, beyond our knowledge is reason why one should hear him cause certain situation/events when exposed in a different zone under a different light sheds different source of information. We… Read more »
MidnightRacer
Member
9 years 1 day ago

At best, two sides can say that they don’t have the ultimate answers, but merely a point of view. When exchange happens, that is an opportunity to refine your perspective while seeing the relevence of an opposing view has something to contribute in thinking – not as truth or solution, but thought. No one has the real answer, but we do have some priorities when it comes to protecting our families and communities (nation) – as well as others have that very same obligation and duty.

But especially beyond the boundaries of its own territories, one who protects their family and communities (nation) has no truth higher than another which protects their own family and communities (nation). However, when one nation reaches beyond its territories and enters either into another’s territoy, or amongst the international as a whole, interchange for mutual beneficial growth is key as long as one does not intend or plan to eradicate another.

Where Ahmadinejad errs is in assuming that his ideology is infallible. And so while he accepts invitations to free speech and debate Q&A, it is not a sincere engagement of respectful interchange for mutually beneficial growth, but rather, one that attempts to replace all others who are not them. As well, he will also attempt to eradicate a whole nation and group of people. There’s no interchange here. It’s absolutism.

MidnightRacer
Member
9 years 1 day ago

[quote comment=”44994″]Knowing something new and different isn’t wrong, if anything it is right. I do believe we have been corrupted the way the information is fed to us and he has attempted to have an open debate before with Bush which has been turned down so maybe he sees this as an opportunity.[/quote]

That couldn’t be more incorrect. There’s a difference between seeing the relevence of an opposing view, and falsely claiming that what we know is incorrect and lies, while claiming something new is the correct version. Propaganda. In my previous posts, I was explaining the rationale he was coming from – absolutism. Why you would coincide with that view escapes me. In his world, he cannot be wrong, and so views anyone else differing from his view as incorrect and in need of correcting.

bazztrap
Member
bazztrap
9 years 1 day ago
I agree its an emotional issue. I would rather be open to know whats on the other side. Knowing something new and different isn’t wrong, if anything it is right. I do believe we have been corrupted the way the information is fed to us and he has attempted to have an open debate before with Bush which has been turned down so maybe he sees this as an opportunity. Saying that he is feeding on all the attention he can get. Recent Iranian articles actually condemn him as being distracted President ever, focusing more on issues he shouldn’t be. Earlier this year he had major gathering for Free Speech summit, where people with beliefs that are being shunned now could meet, like KKK clan .. People with Nazi views and Non Zionist jews. This was a clear indicator he is doing anything to get worlds attention. So this Columbia speech shouldn’t be any surprise. but I would like to here from the person itself than from the media. What Columbia school is doing is there own decision. I mean they are allowed to have there own opinions and right to hear someone. If anyone doesn’t like it shouldnt be listening, but trying to protest against people who would like to listen his views maybe wrong. We do live in a free society which isn’t free. I feel its more of a compromising situation where a group is allowed to do certain things offending some other group if the other… Read more »
wpDiscuz