It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Khatami Condemns Bin Laden

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
This a bit old, but I didn't see anything current on the subject. The whole transcript can be read here. Read the following;


www.cbsnews.com...


Here's some important remarks. Do you think he's being sincere?


Khatami said he was one of the first world leaders to condemn "the barbarous acts" of Sept. 11. Responding to a question from the audience about bin Laden, Khatami said he had two problems with the al Qaeda leader behind the attacks.

"First, because of the crimes he conducts," he said, "and second because he conducts them in the name of Islam, the religion which is a harbinger of peace and justice."


Why would he want to speak to a prestigeous American college audience about the injustices of OBL during the same time frame as the current president wants to address the UN general assembly @ 300 mi SW of boston? Don't these guys talk to eachother & get their stories straight? They seem to have quite different agendas don't you think?

spelling



[edit on 18-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

realliy bad spelling

[edit on 18-9-2006 by 2PacSade]




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Actually Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks shortly after they occurred. The link for that can be found here. Trouble is, I doubt that this will ever really get much attention. It will be spun and spun around more and more. Funny enough, I rarely see Saudi Arabia getting condemned as they could be for their treacherous support. :shk:

I wonder if that has anything to do with the almighty $$$.

I bet if Iran softened their stances with the liquid gold (or as the Clampett's said, Texas Tea), that America would quickly find a way to have diplomatic talks with Iran. Diplomacy? I remember that. Somewhere along the way, I think it was misplaced.

This isn't the first time that OBL's actions (if it were indeed completely his) were villified by Iran though.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
www.usatoday.com...

Iran has been fighting the Taliban a long time before most american politicians even knew they existed.

Iran's main conflict with the Taliban is with the traditional Shi'ite and Sunni split, as well as the drug war revolving around Opium smuggling. Ironically, Afghanistan under the Taliban (1994-2001) was actually much better governered than under the original Mujahideen. Not only was opium production cut buy 98%, but women were actually better treated. (Seriously, this is not a joke.)



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
Actually Iran condemned the 9/11 attacks shortly after they occurred. The link for that can be found here. Trouble is, I doubt that this will ever really get much attention. It will be spun and spun around more and more. Funny enough, I rarely see Saudi Arabia getting condemned as they could be for their treacherous support. :shk:

I wonder if that has anything to do with the almighty $$$.

I bet if Iran softened their stances with the liquid gold (or as the Clampett's said, Texas Tea), that America would quickly find a way to have diplomatic talks with Iran. Diplomacy? I remember that. Somewhere along the way, I think it was misplaced.

This isn't the first time that OBL's actions (if it were indeed completely his) were villified by Iran though.


What's the difference if you have the current president condoning the thought that there are parts of the world that currently exist that shouldn't. . .?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
What's the difference if you have the current president condoning the thought that there are parts of the world that currently exist that shouldn't. . .?


What exactly does that have to do with the subject of this thread?


Are you derailing your own thread? I've done that a few times, too!


Honestly, they are two completely different subjects. Though definitely tied that the same people may have mentioned them, he also called for wiping out the zionist regime. Not that the part of the world shouldn't exist. I think it's time for change within the Israeli goverment as well.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82

Originally posted by 2PacSade
What's the difference if you have the current president condoning the thought that there are parts of the world that currently exist that shouldn't. . .?


What exactly does that have to do with the subject of this thread?


Are you derailing your own thread? I've done that a few times, too!


Honestly, they are two completely different subjects. Though definitely tied that the same people may have mentioned them, he also called for wiping out the zionist regime. Not that the part of the world shouldn't exist. I think it's time for change within the Israeli goverment as well.

The jist of my first post was this;


Why would he want to speak to a prestigeous American college audience about the injustices of OBL during the same time frame as the current president wants to address the UN general assembly @ 300 mi SW of boston? Don't these guys talk to eachother & get their stories straight? They seem to have quite different agendas don't you think?


I don't understand why I 'm deralling my post by my remarks?

Here's my remark that you said negates my first. . .


What's the difference if you have the current president condoning the thought that there are parts of the world that currently exist that shouldn't. . .?


Don't both these officials of Iran, ( both past & present ), present a totally different message to the world, as the both visit the USA? that's the point of the thread. . .



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join