This article first published on Blogcritics.org.
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 what context the President of the US chose to condemn the comments of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
Mr. Obama should have responded by directly addressing the comments of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Condemning notionally such comments is a way of responding, but it cannot suffice to a head of the state of the United States of America, who repeatedly talks about humanity, reputation of America, support for America, relevance of American supremacy, the pride of the USA and the uniqueness of the USA.
Let us see the remarks of Mr. Ahmadinejad. He said, "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." 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 be perfect if Obama asked Mr. Ahmadinejad to reveal the sections 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 that the US was up for grips 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 it
was the only 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 twin towers, collapsed in 9/11 attacks. 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, how 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 context. However, astonishingly, Obama himself repeated the same context to condemn the comments.
The bottom line is that the Iranian President could make his point straight and the US President could not. Moreover, Mr. Ahmadinejad asked to constitute a fact-finding mission to ascertain what really happened. Even after furor over his comments, the Iranian President did 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 have known 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.
The US imperialism stands on the fake base built with lies. It is not faithful but hateful. Fakeness is strength temporarily, but disastrous for the future. The US kingdom is keeping its people in the darkness of lies. That is why it is not daring to appoint a fact-finding mission. It has no guts to prove why Mr. Ahmadinejad was wrong in his comments.
Inciting Iranian People
Mr. Obama’s machinations did not stop with diverting attention from the comments made by Ahmadinejad, but extended to Inciting 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 to troop rise by 30,000 in Afghanistan throwing them into fire and subjecting Afghanistan people to more killings, attacks, blasts and tragedy.
Humanity and Profanity
Mr. Obama was correct when he was talking about candle light vigils. He was right when he described the Iranian people as respectful and thoughtful in thinking about 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 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 asked to reveal the truth, 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.