Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I helped create Newgrounds. Then I left. Then I came back. Then I left again. It's like that movie "Runaway Bride", but with fewer movie stars and more computer programming.

Contact Info

Send a Private Message (PM)

Website: Ross Snyder's Funtime Emporium

Newgrounds Stats

Sign-Up Date:
12/15/99
Level: 13
Aura: Light

Rank: Civilian
Blams: 8
Saves: 1
Rank #: 150,592

Whistle Status: Normal

Exp. Points: 1,605 / 1,880
Exp. Rank #: 20,625
Voting Pow.: 5.47 votes

BBS Posts: 186 (0.05 per day)
Flash Reviews: 12
Music Reviews: 0
Trophies: 0
Stickers: 0

Entry #15

Newer Older

Jump to Entry: [ 1…6…12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18…27…37 ]

A dose of perspective.

Posted by Ross Sep. 23, 2007 @ 10:40 PM EDT

A lot of people are up in arms about the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who's in New York to visit the United Nations and participate in a debate at Columbia University. Even more people are incensed that Ahmadinejad asked to lay a wreath at Ground Zero.

There's no denying that Ahmadinejad is an extremist - he's very anti-Semitic, would like to dissolve Israel, and calls the Holocaust a "myth". In addition, his regime supports anti-Israel groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that are widely regarded as terrorist organizations.

Some people say that Ahmadinejad should be barred from visiting Ground Zero, which is hallowed ground in New York. Others go further and say that he also shouldn't be given an opportunity to speak, and even others (like presidential candidate Mitt Romney) suggest that he should be arrested upon arrival.

I really don't understand why this is sparking such outrage. Yes, Iran is considered a state sponsor of terrorism, and Ahmadinejad is obviously not on board with our Western values and has some dangerously ignorant views. But what do we gain by muzzling him? Repressive regimes (such as the Taliban) keep people in line through ignorance and censorship. There is no free market of ideas - there's what the leaders want you to think, period. How would silencing Ahmadinejad be any different? Aren't we supposed to be better than that? Rather than suppress his speech, why don't we let him talk, so everyone can hear what a zealot he is, in his own words? Why are people afraid of the words that will come out of his mouth?

And beyond objecting to giving him a chance to speak - how is this the issue where you decide to speak up? We've spent over four years making people despise us in Iraq, providing tons of ideological ammunition to our enemies, losing more Americans than died in 9/11 (and killing FAR more Iraqis), leaving us less safe (and substantially further in debt) than when the conflict started, and yet this is where people draw the line? At a visit to our country by the president of Iran?

The way I see it, the huge mistake currently happening in Iraq is a much more pressing problem than allowing a fanatical Middle Eastern leader to visit. How does his ability to speak take precedence over the lives being lost daily in Iraq? Let's put our "freedom and liberty" rhetoric where our mouth is and let the guy speak. Then we can discuss how wrong he is, while we get back to figuring out how to get out of the quagmire that the Iraq war hawks got us into.

Updated: 09/23/07 10:48 PM Log in to comment! | Share this!

The People Have Spoken

4 Comments

Sep. 25, 2007 | 9:44 PM Mad-Mardigan says:

I just hope that we don't go into war with them. And if we do, I hope their militarys weak.

Sep. 26, 2007 | 5:16 PM Lemonmang says:

It's easy to misinterpret the intentions of a nation by what one man chooses to do with power. This is a good example on how this country is perceived currently in every other body of land. I personally don't think it's about censorship of a man, rather a lack of respect to all of those who have suffered as a result of his regime. We are allowing a man to come to the United States and basically do a press tour for his cause. The same man that you referenced as anti-Semitic, which I think is an understatement. I think that the President of Columbia University took the words right out my mouth when he used this to describe Ahmadinejad view on the Holocaust.

"For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated"

Being anti-Semitic and not believing in the Holocaust are drastic differences.

In respect to the talk at Columbia University, I don't fully understand how they can call the Presidents talk at Columbia an "open-forum." All of the questions were screened before hand and hand-selected by key members. Not very open in my mind, but understandable because if they were truly to allow an open-forum the first question to have been asked would have been "Why do you think the holocaust did not happen"

I digress......

We can not censor someone from believing in something as ridiculous and ignorant as this, which of course is part of this countries beloved views and way of thinking. Furthermore I completely agree with you in the respect of taking precedence over "freedom" and "liberty". Although the focus should be Iraq and how to get out of a war that so many believe that we shouldn't be in. It's very important to not just dismiss the fact that this man, Ahmadinejad, is a murderer and is using his influence as a President with a country presumably ready to go to war with the United States the ability to roam free on our television sets. Where do we draw the line ? Would it be ok to allow the Janjaweed Militia of Darfur to guest appear on 60 Minutes to express their views ? Although some might look at those two as a drastic contrast, I personally feel it's one in the same.

As I mentioned earlier I do see some of your points on this issue, but I just want to make sure that it is understood how serious it is to let a man like this roam free on American television. I don't really have another solution in mind, other than not allowing him to have done so. I don't think arresting him, or ridiculing him solves anything. Hell, I even find everything about Ahmadinejad on The Daily Show absolutely hilarious, I guess i'm just in shock at what a strange world we live in where something like this is considered just another press day.

Sep. 28, 2007 | 4:27 PM Ross responds:

I've heard this argument - that giving him a platform needs to be avoided at all costs - but I don't buy it.

First, there's no endorsement being implied - the president of Columbia laid into Ahmadinejad pretty good.

Second, who's sitting there watching him speak and thinking, wow, this guy's really onto something? Clearly Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, and he underlined that point with his speech at Columbia.

Finally, I'm not on board with the comparison to what's going on in Darfur. Ahmadinejad is not some random militant - he's the president of a large and powerful country in a volatile area of the world in which the United States now happens to be stuck. He may be a whackjob, but a little diplomacy can sometimes go a long way. I'm sure George W. Bush's "cowboy justice" would have us treat him with hostility and issue ultimatums, but that didn't get us very far in Iraq, so maybe it's time we tried something else.

Sep. 26, 2007 | 6:53 PM TheCriminalDuder says:

Huh, I never new you were interested in these kinds of things.
You need to smoke more pot man. Then everything will make sense.

Sep. 28, 2007 | 3:46 AM MrKickyourbutt says:

If we deny free speech rights to this guy, we'd have to deny free speech rights to the Nazi party, KKK, and any other group that the current government doesn't agree with.