Ahmadinejad Slammed on Campus

[PanzerJaeger]

In case anyone missed it..

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Columbia University president Lee Bollinger took Iran's president to task Monday, bluntly criticizing his record and saying he exhibits "all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/columbia.president/index.html


While its completely ridiculous for a university to give the leader of a nation waging a proxy war against the United States a platform, at least they made him look like an idiot.

[Samurai Waki]

Hmmm... after reading that I almost feel sorry for the guy. Well, it sure makes American's look like an enlightened bunch :shame: I would've at least showed the courtesy to not insult him, even if I disagree with everything he stands for.

[HoreTore]

After I read the Fox News story and listening to the BBC World story, I came to the conclusion that the american was a fear-mongering brutal idiot, while Ahmadinejad appeared calm, collected and intelligent...

I mean, calling Ahmadinejad a "brutal tyrant"? Come on! Saddam was a brutal tyrant. Pinochet was a brutal tyrant. Mugabe was a brutal tyrant. Mao was a brutal tyrant x2.

Ahmadinejad is a dictator, but as far as dictators go, he's certainly not one of the brutal ones.

And this little gem?


After the session, Bollinger said Ahmadinejad left without properly answering many of the questions that were posed to him.

Oh noes, a world leader won't answer every question! Now that's a surprise! Tell me, who would actually do that...? How many times do we hear the words "no comment"...?

[Lemur]

Gee, according to the site I read (http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0709252616013529.htm), it went great, and "The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises." I guess Iranians think that gales of derisive laughter are how we Americans applaud.

Silly Ahmadinejad. The entire sham was worth it to hear him declare that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Who are those kids they're torturing and executing (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/theyll_kill_me_.html), then?

[PanzerJaeger]

Ahmadinejad is a dictator, but as far as dictators go, he's certainly not one of the brutal ones.



Oh dear.. :shame:

EDIT: Pictures of executions are not permitted here. BG

[HoreTore]

Oh dear.. :shame:

Yes. He executes people. A despicable act that sadly a lot of countries in the world practices. Including democracies.

But does 100 executions(or so, I have no idea) a year get him into the league of people who committed things like genocide, killing 10-20-30-40-50-etc thousands? In addition to the yearly killings/executions of the same number or more than Iran?

And do remember that Ahmadinejad is not solely responsible for those executions. The government of Iran is, and Ahmadinejad is simply a part of that body.

Oh, and remember that the Saudi's engage in the same thing, yet they are somehow your allies? If the Saudi King had made a speech at a US university, do you really think he would have gotten the same hatespeech? And I daresay that the situation in Saudi Arabia is worse than in Iran.

[PanzerJaeger]

Its not the executions, but the reasons behind them that are shocking.

^Those guys were gay, or at least thats what they were accused of. While its not a lifestyle I agree with, execution is completely out of line.

Women who are victims of rape can expect the same "justice".

Now I cannot understand how you, a proud leftist, socialist... whatever, and your side, can be so soft on Iran and so critical of the US. Neither country is perfect, but I would expect that rational people on all sides of the political spectrum would applaud the taking to task of a ruthless dictator.

Hypocritical anti-americanism? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?




Oh, and remember that the Saudi's engage in the same thing, yet they are somehow your allies? If the Saudi King had made a speech at a US university, do you really think he would have gotten the same hatespeech? And I daresay that the situation in Saudi Arabia is worse than in Iran.

Personally, I have said many times that I feel all of the backwards, muslim states and their inhabitants would be much better off without the privilege of self rule.

[CountArach]

Now I cannot understand how you, a proud leftist, socialist... whatever, and your side, can be so soft on Iran and so critical of the US. Neither country is perfect, but I would expect that rational people on all sides of the political spectrum would applaud the taking to task of a ruthless dictator.
It isn't as much a matter of being soft on Iran, as not being as hard on Iran as the Right is.

[PanzerJaeger]

It isn't as much a matter of being soft on Iran, as not being as hard on Iran as the Right is.

Why is that? The Left is supposedly the side of people with a heart. The Left supposedly has more compassion for women and minority groups.

Yet again, that line of thinking is shown to be inaccurate.

[HoreTore]

It isn't as much a matter of being soft on Iran, as not being as hard on Iran as the Right is.

Damn straight. Judging by the talking of the right, Ahmadinejad is Hitler reborn. That's not true. He's a dictator, and he's not one of the worst. That he is being called one of the worst is a very dangerous thing to do, as it takes focus away from those who actually are the worst. There are genocides happening in the world, it's not happening in Iran. I would rate a genocide as a higher priority to stop than women getting death sentences on idiotic grounds. Are the executions unjust? Yes. Are the genocides unjust? Yes. Are the genocides worse than a smaller number of executions? Again, yes.

Iran isn't the worst kid in the class, and we should focus on the real brutal tyrants before we go after the lesser evils.

And the flame of revolution isn't put out in Iran, you never know, they might just have sorted things out by themselves in a few years ~;)

[CountArach]

Why is that? The Left is supposedly the side of people with a heart. The Left supposedly has more compassion for women and minority groups.
So going to war is considered to be having a heart? I will leave that women and minority groups comment along, because I cannot think about any right wing group that has encourgaed their liberation to the same extent as the Left.

[Pannonian]

So going to war is considered to be having a heart? I will leave that women and minority groups comment along, because I cannot think about any right wing group that has encourgaed their liberation to the same extent as the Left.
The guff about having a heart is inconsistent BS, because it's not why they want to fight wars. Internationalist rightwingers just like to bash foreigners, and freedom and democracy is the cover which they currently use to justify this, as imperialism used to be in the past. Once it becomes unfashionable to export democracy, they'll find another excuse to bomb Johnny Foreigner.

[macsen rufus]

Ah, how many of these vociferous right-wingers are actually Biblical Literalists who want to see homosexuals and adulterers stoned to death in America as well? We've got enough religiose nut-jobs of our own promoting Bronze Age tribal mores for us to be able to criticise other societies on those grounds.

When I listened to the BBC news this morning and heard the coverage of the demonstrations, I thought, 'well that's a physical manifestation of Godwin's Law'. Mr Dinnerjacket is certainly a populist demagogue with an unfortunate flair for inflammatory and anti-semitic rhetoric, but to compare him to Hitler is so over-egging the pudding as to make it completely unpalatable. Dictatorships depend on or create a monolithic state power apparatus, something that is clearly absent in Iran. The entire 'system' of government is feudal, not truly heirarchical. Ahmedinejad is not strictly it's head in the same manner as the US president or UK PM, he's more of a figurehead with poor, or non-existant control - possibly even influence - over some of the semi-autonomous fiefdoms, such as the Revolutionary Guard. It might not be as bad as Iraq where various ministries are controlled by competing militia groups, but it is still far from a fascist state. Just all goes to prove how wrong things can go when you let religious folk anywhere near the strings of power. The Saudi royals, I presume, are not likely to be presented with the same "welcome" next time they're in NY, though they're probably far more deserving of it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Damn straight. Judging by the talking of the right, Ahmadinejad is Hitler reborn. That's not true. He's a dictator, and he's not one of the worst. That he is being called one of the worst is a very dangerous thing to do, as it takes focus away from those who actually are the worst. There are genocides happening in the world, it's not happening in Iran. I would rate a genocide as a higher priority to stop than women getting death sentences on idiotic grounds. Are the executions unjust? Yes. Are the genocides unjust? Yes. Are the genocides worse than a smaller number of executions? Again, yes.

Iran isn't the worst kid in the class, and we should focus on the real brutal tyrants before we go after the lesser evils.

And the flame of revolution isn't put out in Iran, you never know, they might just have sorted things out by themselves in a few years ~;)


Who is saying he is the worst dictator in history?

All I am saying is that it bothers me that you and people on the Left in general try to defend this man. It would seem like you would enjoy a brutal dictator being verbally lashed just as much as anyone on the right.

The Left supposedly stands for liberation, compassion, blablabla, yet you make excuses for a nation that has women stoned to death.. that has all manner of "subversive" (not muslim enough) behavior suppressed brutally?

Makes no sense... just because he isnt the worst dictator in history doesnt mean it isnt a good thing that he got called out on his record. :wall:

I guess as long as he's an enemy of the United States, he's golden, along with countless other dictators around the world. :shame:

[Beirut]

Personally, I have said many times that I feel all of the backwards, muslim states and their inhabitants would be much better off without the privilege of self rule.

Just one big happy occupied territory, eh? Palestine writ large. Sounds neat.
Who gets to man the guard towers?

By the by, I would love to see all world leaders get it a la Columbia University, complete with chatty opening statement. I think your guy and mine would both take it on the chin pretty bad.


:singer: Prime Minister Harper, after you explain why the Canadian government was complicit in the shocking abuse of thousands of aboriginal children in Canada at residential schools and the following government cover up, as well as the sale of Canadian nuclear reactors to other countries, we'd like to ask President Bush about CIA involvement in Iran and US support of the Shah and his secret police.

[Navaros]

While its completely ridiculous for a university to give the leader of a nation waging a proxy war against the United States a platform, at least they made him look like an idiot.


No they didn't. They made themselves look like idiots by inviting him there only to then insult him with silly, mindless, cliche rhetoric before he started speaking.

I think Ahmadinejad held up very well, although he should have been more forthcoming about all of his views instead of beating around the bush a bit regarding some of them. But nonetheless, he made some very valid points.

I respect Ahmadinejad for how he stands up for family values on this and other occasions, unlike anyone promininent in "the West", who instead wage vendettas against family values. Ahmadinejad is one of the few moral men still around these days.

[Odin]

No they didn't. They made themselves look like idiots by inviting him there only to then insult him with silly, mindless, cliche rhetoric before he started speaking.

I think Ahmadinejad held up very well, although he should have been more forthcoming about all of his views instead of beating around the bush a bit regarding some of them. But nonetheless, he made some very valid points.

Navaros is right, it was a sham from the get go, and to his credit the guy stood in there, took the blows and fulfilled his obligations.

Mr Bush hand picks his attendee's at speaking events, as a comparisson...



Ahmadinejad is one of the few moral men still around these days.

:laugh4: You had to screw up a well worded, concise and accurate post didnt you? :thumbsdown:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here's a thought: execution, or grave torture followed by execution, which would be Ahmadinejad's answer to the criticism he got if it was delivered in his own country by Iranians?

I for one applaud the questioning of brutal theocratic dictators anywhere, anytime.

[Banquo's Ghost]

PJ, not for the first time you have me confused.

I was under the impression that you were firmly of the opinion that fascist dictatorships were a good thing? And that in your oft-expressed admiration for the Germany of the 1930's, you might well have shared some of President Ahmadinejad's scepticism of the history of that regime written by the victorious Allies? (You know, just while we are on the subject of hypocrisy).

:shrug:

My views coincide with Louis' though not just limited to theocratic dictators. I'm looking forward to the thread on Burma any moment now, for example.

However, from a realpolitik point of view, we are shoring up Ahmadinejad's regime by all this demonising. He is very weak at home, and unlike most dictators worth the name, is subject to a (deeply flawed) ballot box. Rafsanjani and the moderates are growing in influence and power, and if we left well alone, we'd soon have a much more accommodating government in Iran. Almost certainly, the nuclear issue will go away with some judicious bribery of the new regime.

Why we need all this sound and fury is beyond me.

[Ice]

I respect Ahmadinejad for how he stands up for family values on this and other occasions, unlike anyone promininent in "the West", who instead wage vendettas against family values. Ahmadinejad is one of the few moral men still around these days.

Family values? Moral men? :laugh4:

Oh, I did like the part about Iran having no homosexuals like in this country. I guess they are all hiding? :hide:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PJ, not for the first time you have me confused.

I was under the impression that you were firmly of the opinion that fascist dictatorships were a good thing? And that in your oft-expressed admiration for the Germany of the 1930's, you might well have shared some of President Ahmadinejad's scepticism of the history of that regime written by the victorious Allies? (You know, just while we are on the subject of hypocrisy).

:shrug:

My views coincide with Louis' though not just limited to theocratic dictators. I'm looking forward to the thread on Burma any moment now, for example.

However, from a realpolitik point of view, we are shoring up Ahmadinejad's regime by all this demonising. He is very weak at home, and unlike most dictators worth the name, is subject to a (deeply flawed) ballot box. Rafsanjani and the moderates are growing in influence and power, and if we left well alone, we'd soon have a much more accommodating government in Iran. Almost certainly, the nuclear issue will go away with some judicious bribery of the new regime.

Why we need all this sound and fury is beyond me.

I think Banquo's assesment is, as usual, quite accurate. Western Hatemongering helps to issolate Iran, there is an intenationally vocal Ex-pat community agitating for reform and regime change as well as a lack of support at home.

To call the current President of Iran a Dictator is akin to calling Tony Blair a Dictator, you can choose to take that how you like but Ahmadinejad's constitutional position is if anything weeker.

[Goofball]

My fellow lefties:

You guys are absolutely killing me.

Ahmadinejad is a bad, bad man. He spouts dangerous ideas. And the only way to combat dangerous, harmful dogma is to expose it to the light of day in a public forum. This was done.

Now you guys feel sorry for him? You think we should have politely applauded him and carried on with our wine and cheese party, for fear of offending the Iranian people? How exactly, does calling a brutal dictator a brutal dictator insult the people that he is oppressing?

Are you all crapping me?

[CrossLOPER]

How many times do we hear the words "no comment"...?
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

[Pannonian]

My fellow lefties:

You guys are absolutely killing me.

Ahmadinejad is a bad, bad man. He spouts dangerous ideas. And the only way to combat dangerous, harmful dogma is to expose it to the light of day in a public forum. This was done.

Now you guys feel sorry for him? You think we should have politely applauded him and carried on with our wine and cheese party, for fear of offending the Iranian people? How exactly, does calling a brutal dictator a brutal dictator insult the people that he is oppressing?

Are you all crapping me?
Sounds a bit dogmatic to me. This particular president was elected for a particular reason - the economy. In this, he is failing miserably. In the next elections, if we let him be, his position will fall apart without any need for action on our part. If we do take any action, especially of the kind some support here, it can be portrayed to his advantage back home, thus shoring up his position and helping his chances of surviving the next presidential election. The question, once again, lies in what you prefer to do. Do you prefer to remain morally consistent, and confront wickedness wherever and however you can? Or do you have a goal, getting Ahmadinejad out of power, and will do anything you need to towards that goal, including nothing? You may tend towards the first option. I am firmly of the second.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Silly Ahmadinejad. The entire sham was worth it to hear him declare that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Who are those kids they're torturing and executing (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/theyll_kill_me_.html), then?

I guess he slipped up and should have said 'There will be no homosexuals'.


Now you guys feel sorry for him? You think we should have politely applauded him and carried on with our wine and cheese party, for fear of offending the Iranian people? How exactly, does calling a brutal dictator a brutal dictator insult the people that he is oppressing?

Are you all crapping me?

Well, it's because he's anti-America, especially anti-George Bush.

Heck, at dailykos.com, which is the headquarters of the leftist fringe that wants to control the democrat party, they've got posts by members who complain about the 'scariest thing I've ever watched' - a 60 minutes interview of Amadinnerjacket, because the interviewer was actually aggressive in questioning Amadinnerjacket, and this meant it had to have been orchestrated by the administration.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/192818/383

33% of them would rather have amadinnerjacket as pres over Bush:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/224950/843

One by a self proclaimed 'Jewish Lesbian' explaining why she had a crush on Amadinnerjacket because his criticism of Bush aligned so nicely with leftist talking points:

Could it be that, to the Bush Administration, one of the most dangerous things about Ahmadinejad is that he is calling the Bush Administration out? And so, if Ahmadinejad can’t be silenced, at least he can be discredited. I’m not saying he’s a good guy at all. I’m only saying it’s hard to know the full story when the Bush Administration seems so invested in smearing Ahmadinejad --- and the media, as we’ve already learned with Iraq, is happy to choose its facts in convenient accordance.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/83652/6735


Or do you have a goal, getting Ahmadinejad out of power, and will do anything you need to towards that goal, including nothing?

Funny how you say that but leftists here, at least, always are criticizing Bush for not denouncing Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, when the goal of not doing that might be to catch OBL and secure Iraq.


Edit: Oh yeah, CU is full of filthy hypocrites in the administration who allow this guy but not American Reserve Officers Training Corps.

Crazed Rabbit

[Husar]

Pfft, next you're telling me the Chinese government was bad. :laugh4:

That said, I'd love to see one of those comedians in such a forum.

[Don Corleone]

I think CR nailed it. As long as Ajay continues to lead with criticism of Bush, or America acting on its own even, a large portion of the American left and Europe will applaud him and cheer him for the courageous stance he's taking.

That being said, I would agree that it goes both ways. I don't see too many American rightys bemoaning the nosebleed Democracy in Pakistan seems to have gotten over the past 8 years. :shrug:

[Ironside]

Now you guys feel sorry for him? You think we should have politely applauded him and carried on with our wine and cheese party, for fear of offending the Iranian people? How exactly, does calling a brutal dictator a brutal dictator insult the people that he is oppressing?

Are you all crapping me?

No, no, no you insult him with style, calling the current execution spree as an awfully poor political diversion for him failing on the points he was elected for.

Calling the nuclear program as a kind of populism were you try to make the opposition look bad, attacking you when you're holding an inoffensive position ("I'm only doing this for nuclear energy", yeah sure... But that doesn't nessiccerly means aquireing nukes).

The holocaust thing was ok, but some more style with more indirect insults would've been better.

Due to his odd position were he can be of that lousy type and still be able to get kicked out by the people hit in a way that hurts.

[Navaros]

Heck, at dailykos.com, which is the headquarters of the leftist fringe that wants to control the democrat party, they've got posts by members who complain about the 'scariest thing I've ever watched' - a 60 minutes interview of Amadinnerjacket, because the interviewer was actually aggressive in questioning Amadinnerjacket, and this meant it had to have been orchestrated by the administration.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/192818/383



That's a very valid point, actually. That 60 Minutes "interview" was not a legitimate interview. "Hard questioning" had nothing to do with the criticism. It was a biased attack rather than an interview, with the "reporter" putting himself on a soapbox for Bush's propaganda. The "reporter" kept insisting that Iran was supplying the Insurgents in Iraq, but there has been no proof of that other than "The Bush Administration said so." Yet based on "The Bush Administration said so", that makes it a "fact" according to this incompetent reporter. Just like Saddam having WMD's eh. Pres. Ahmadinejad was completely right when he zinged the incompetent reporter, questioning during the interview if he even is a reporter. :laugh4:

That "interview" was without question, the most incompetent interview/"report" to ever appear on the show "60 Minutes", which usually is one of the last bastions left for semi un-biased, credible reporting.

It is even being attacked as such en masse via user comments on the official website, and surely not all of them are from "dailykos".

Scroll to the bottom of the page for some user comments on that:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/20/60minutes/main3282230_page3.shtml

I saw the President Ahmadinejad being interviewed on Charlie Rose, and that was an immensely more professional and credible interview which included hardball questions.

[HoreTore]

I think CR nailed it. As long as Ajay continues to lead with criticism of Bush, or America acting on its own even, a large portion of the American left and Europe will applaud him and cheer him for the courageous stance he's taking.

That being said, I would agree that it goes both ways. I don't see too many American rightys bemoaning the nosebleed Democracy in Pakistan seems to have gotten over the past 8 years. :shrug:

I(leftie) say: Ahmadinejad isn't the worst dictator of all time.

You(rightie) hear: I love Ahmadinejad and wants to marry him!! Shame on those wanting to destroy him!

I think that pretty much sums it up...

[Geoffrey S]

Sounds like Ahmadinejad got exactly what he's been dosing out to the Jews, dissidents, the US administration over the last few years back in his face. Which in a way is a shame, since all it achieves is to reaffirm peoples opinions and makes it all the more difficult to show those who see the enemy, Ahmadinejad, of their enemy, being the US, as worth their support just how wrong they are.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Gee, according to the site I read (http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0709252616013529.htm), it went great, and "The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises." I guess Iranians think that gales of derisive laughter are how we Americans applaud.

The CNN article also stated that he was applauded by the students.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I(leftie) say: Ahmadinejad isn't the worst dictator of all time.

You(rightie) hear: I love Ahmadinejad and wants to marry him!! Shame on those wanting to destroy him!

I think that pretty much sums it up...

What??

Come on, no one of the right likes him. Anyone on the left who likes him is blinded by Bush hatred.

[AntiochusIII]

Come on, no one of the right likes him. Anyone on the left who likes him is blinded by Bush hatred.I think HoreTore means that the posters here misinterpret his post from "he's not so bad as Mugabe" to "I wanna have his baby (Gay Marriage!? :laugh4: )."

Still, it's really not worth anyone's time trying to defend Ahmadinejad's actions, his populist tendencies, or the oppressive nature of the Iranian revolutionary regime. I tend to see most "rose-colored goggle" views of Iran to stem more from a hatred of Bush -- whose administration now focuses its attention, and consequently media attention, to Iran -- than any fascination with Islamicism.

[Tribesman]

Sounds like Ahmadinejad got exactly what he's been dosing out to the Jews
Don't you mean Israel not "the Jews" . You see one of his appointments in America is with this bunch of people , Jewish I think they call themselves on account of their religeon ...apparently they say the current State of Israel should not exist....something about it being an affront to their G*d and religeon .:shrug:

[Boyar Son]

He criticizes us, now we criticize him...

no problem...

[Marshal Murat]

I have to say that when I first heard about it, I was opposed.

Then Columbia's president expounded upon what Ahmadinejad has done, and I figured that Ahmad might respond, and we could get his side of the story. Unfortunately he quickly began criticizing the university for insulting him.

Well, I'm sorry if you get some of your own medicine.

I applaud Columbia university now, and hope that America sponsors more of this 'free-speech' stuff.

[Geoffrey S]

Don't you mean Israel not "the Jews" . You see one of his appointments in America is with this bunch of people , Jewish I think they call themselves on account of their religeon ...apparently they say the current State of Israel should not exist....something about it being an affront to their G*d and religeon .:shrug:
Probably that should have been Israel or Zionist and not the Jews in general, yes, but then again he's been quite busy assisting attempts to show the holocaust wasn't really all that bad.

[Watchman]

Then again, the Iranian state TV is nowadays running a pretty grim drama series on the life of was it now French Jews under Nazi occupation or something along those lines...

It's not like they were exactly oppressing their domestic Jews either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is one reason why I would like to see the headquarters for the United Nations moved. If they moved, they'd probably pick Switzerland, though I'd suggest Papua or someplace in the Pacific and less "Eurocentric."

As host country, the USA must allow in any head-of-state invited to address the UN. Even if we loathe or are actively at war with said head-of-state.

In this case, it was a win on all cards for Mr. A even before he arrived.

1. He's in NYC, so he can get Western Media face time in a hot second. He has a number of audiences to whom he wishes to send a message. The peoples of the Middle East, Islamists, Iran's own government, Iran's electorate, and that loose coalition of nations who share a belief that the USA are a bunch of twerps. The citizenry of the USA are irrelevant to him. He can proclaim Iran's peaceful intentions, reasonable requests to be treated as an "equal" among nations etc. Moreover, any response by Bush beyond a brief agreement or disagreement would make it appear that Mr. A scored points -- regardless of the type of response.

2. He gets to beard the eagle on a bunch of levels:

-- request opportunity to lay wreath at ground zero. USA can now a) offend all of its right wingers and most of the families who lost people there and look foolish or b) deny the visit and look rude and unwilling to be reasoned with. This, no doubt, played well in Iran and the Middle East. We denied him a chance to honor the fallen.

-- take a speaking engagement or two. If treated rudely, he can point to his having been invited to a venue only to be insulted by his hosts (not likely to play well with the ME audience with their arabic hosting traditions; not sure of hosting traditions in Iran). If treated well, he can claim that Americans NOT part of the Bush government have a reasonable outlook. In either case he can poke fun at the Bush administrations policies etc. As long as he doesn't spout off any "Brimstone" oratory, his statements even have a small chance of influencing things more favorably to Iran.


Mr. A had only a little to gain, but absolutely nothing to lose. So why not engage in a bit of political theatre and be THE person setting the agenda for a while? Cost, one chartered plane flight.

[drone]

Correct on pretty much all points. A open stage, in his adversary's country, I'm sure he enjoyed that. I had a problem with the wreath-laying request when I heard about it, but not because of the usual outrages brought up by the press. I'm just not sure who he would be honoring in his head, the thousands of civilian dead, or the hijacking murderers who have not and should never be honored. Better safe than sorry! :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

Doesn't the al-Qaida crew basically rank as vile heretics as far as pious (reads "zealous") Shiites like Ahmadinnerjacket are concerned ? No skin off their nose if those scum and the Great Satan blast each other of course...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Then again, the Iranian state TV is nowadays running a pretty grim drama series on the life of was it now French Jews under Nazi occupation or something along those lines...

It's not like they were exactly oppressing their domestic Jews either.

The one that claims the Holocaust was a plot of Jews conspiring with Hitler to kill off Jews who opposed a Zionist state?

The one with Roger Garaudy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Garaudy), Holocaust denier, as historical advisor?

CR

[Watchman]

Not insofar as I am aware of. But then, the newspaper article didn't go into too much detail.

[Tribesman]

Probably that should have been Israel or Zionist and not the Jews in general, yes, but then again he's been quite busy assisting attempts to show the holocaust wasn't really all that bad.

By busy assisting attempts do you mean the conference that made big headlines where things like this were said........
There is no doubt whatsoever, that during World War II there developed a terrible and catastrophic policy and action of genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany against the Jewish People, confirmed by innumerable eyewitness survivors and fully documented again and again. I personally was spared the worst effects of the War because I was living in England which thankfully was not occupied by Nazi Germany. However, I and many many others lost countless friends and relatives who perished under the Nazi rule by intentional murder and genocide. Three million Jews in Poland, more than half a million in Hungary, many tens or hundreds of thousands in Russia, Slovakia, France, Belgium, Holland and more. The figure of six million is regularly quoted. One may wish to dispute this actual figure, but the crime was just as dreadful whether the millions (and there were millions) of victims numbered six million, five million or four million. The method of murder is also irrelevant, whether it was by gas chamber (and there were eyewitnesses to this), firing squads or whatever. The evil was the same. It would be a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way ...?

[Azi Tohak]

I saw part of the intro given to him on BBC World, and I was appalled. I don't like the guy, and I never will, but that was pathetic. Be civil to him in your house!

Azi

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I saw part of the intro given to him on BBC World, and I was appalled. I don't like the guy, and I never will, but that was pathetic. Be civil to him in your house! --Azi

Please note how Azi's response also serves as proof of the likely response noted in my earlier post.

As I said, win-win for Mr. A, without much effort.

We need to move the UN to Madagascar or some such.

[Odin]

This is one reason why I would like to see the headquarters for the United Nations moved. If they moved, they'd probably pick Switzerland, though I'd suggest Papua or someplace in the Pacific and less "Eurocentric."

As host country, the USA must allow in any head-of-state invited to address the UN. Even if we loathe or are actively at war with said head-of-state.

In this case, it was a win on all cards for Mr. A even before he arrived.

1. He's in NYC, so he can get Western Media face time in a hot second. He has a number of audiences to whom he wishes to send a message. The peoples of the Middle East, Islamists, Iran's own government, Iran's electorate, and that loose coalition of nations who share a belief that the USA are a bunch of twerps. The citizenry of the USA are irrelevant to him. He can proclaim Iran's peaceful intentions, reasonable requests to be treated as an "equal" among nations etc. Moreover, any response by Bush beyond a brief agreement or disagreement would make it appear that Mr. A scored points -- regardless of the type of response.

2. He gets to beard the eagle on a bunch of levels:

-- request opportunity to lay wreath at ground zero. USA can now a) offend all of its right wingers and most of the families who lost people there and look foolish or b) deny the visit and look rude and unwilling to be reasoned with. This, no doubt, played well in Iran and the Middle East. We denied him a chance to honor the fallen.

-- take a speaking engagement or two. If treated rudely, he can point to his having been invited to a venue only to be insulted by his hosts (not likely to play well with the ME audience with their arabic hosting traditions; not sure of hosting traditions in Iran). If treated well, he can claim that Americans NOT part of the Bush government have a reasonable outlook. In either case he can poke fun at the Bush administrations policies etc. As long as he doesn't spout off any "Brimstone" oratory, his statements even have a small chance of influencing things more favorably to Iran.


Mr. A had only a little to gain, but absolutely nothing to lose. So why not engage in a bit of political theatre and be THE person setting the agenda for a while? Cost, one chartered plane flight.

If you keep making logical posts with merit you may infact restore my faith in the republican party and would destroy my pledge of voting democrat/3rd party for the next two elections.

Your killing me...

[Fragony]

After I read the Fox News story and listening to the BBC World story, I came to the conclusion that the american was a fear-mongering brutal idiot, while Ahmadinejad appeared calm, collected and intelligent...

I mean, calling Ahmadinejad a "brutal tyrant"? Come on! Saddam was a brutal tyrant. Pinochet was a brutal tyrant. Mugabe was a brutal tyrant. Mao was a brutal tyrant x2.

Ahmadinejad is a dictator, but as far as dictators go, he's certainly not one of the brutal ones.


What just didn't make it to the news, the red rats need america to be evil after all.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3432515,00.html

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Hmmm... after reading that I almost feel sorry for the guy. Well, it sure makes American's look like an enlightened bunch :shame: I would've at least showed the courtesy to not insult him, even if I disagree with everything he stands for.


He's a Idoit. Why show him courtesy?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He's a Idoit. Why show him courtesy?

Because rudeness achieves nothing and there's pretty much no reason for it. You may be forced to kill someone to protect you and yours, but what possible reason is there to insult them?



B-t-w:

I do not consider Mr. A to be a dictator in any sense. However limited in their access to power, the Iranian hybrid theocracy/republic's opposition groups did draw some attention. Nor was Mr. A elected by a 100% margin -- S. Hussein apparently needed a bit of ego-stroking -- so there is at least a limited amount of political dissent in their system (not that I think they've really got a democracy going by any means).

The real problem with labeling him a dictator is that HE's NOT THE ONE IN POWER. Look to the supreme leader of their religious "college of electors" if you wan't to try to label someone a dictator. Mr. A is their lightning rod -- a glorified press secretary if you will -- whose job it is to a) nudge public opinon in the direction they desire and b) to keep the focus on himself while the powers that be exercise the real power in peace and quiet. Mr. A is succeeding admirably. He is an excellent front man for the religious oligarchy that's running the show.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you keep making logical posts with merit you may infact restore my faith in the republican party and would destroy my pledge of voting democrat/3rd party for the next two elections.

Your killing me...

If you're disgusted with things as they are (and you wouldn't be alone in that sentiment), you should consider:

1: Getting active yourself and changing one of the primary parties from the inside -- it's been done before.

2: Getting behind a 3rd party.


Simply choosing to vote for the more socialist of the two extent parties because the more nationalist party is currently screwing up really doesn't effect much in the way of change. As has been remarked upon by others, there is far more congruence between the two parties than difference. If you loathe one, are you really served by the other?

[Odin]

If you're disgusted with things as they are (and you wouldn't be alone in that sentiment), you should consider:

1: Getting active yourself and changing one of the primary parties from the inside -- it's been done before.

Oh I have, i hold a political office seamus I was appointed granted but I am involved in politics, in MA if you arent your out of the loop.



2: Getting behind a 3rd party. I'm an active donor to the libertarian national party, sadly in MA they havent been able to get enough signatures to get on the ballot.


Simply choosing to vote for the more socialist of the two extent parties because the more nationalist party is currently screwing up really doesn't effect much in the way of change. As has been remarked upon by others, there is far more congruence between the two parties than difference. If you loathe one, are you really served by the other?

I concede there isnt much difference, but given the choices the more bang for the buck nationally is to go with one of the majors (money and vote). If the republicans were more moderate (like Mr Bush's father) i wouldnt have any issue at all, but the democrats offer the only viable alternative at this point.

I understand politics fairly well, I have been involved at the local level since my father was town selectmen. On a national level if more republicans had resonable and rational outlooks on issues like you exhibit in your post you would garnish far more independents like me, that was my point.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh I have, i hold a political office seamus I was appointed granted but I am involved in politics, in MA if you arent your out of the loop.


I'm an active donor to the libertarian national party, sadly in MA they havent been able to get enough signatures to get on the ballot.



I concede there isnt much difference, but given the choices the more bang for the buck nationally is to go with one of the majors (money and vote). If the republicans were more moderate (like Mr Bush's father) i wouldnt have any issue at all, but the democrats offer the only viable alternative at this point.

I understand politics fairly well, I have been involved at the local level since my father was town selectmen. On a national level if more republicans had resonable and rational outlooks on issues like you exhibit in your post you would garnish far more independents like me, that was my point.

Well it appears that my advice is on track -- since you've already done all of it before I even posted. :devilish:


I understand and agree with your larger point, though I take a different poltical stance.

I've been a GOPer since before I understood why I was. I was happiest with the policies that Reagan put forward and acted upon. I actually oppose many of the policies of the Bush Sr. wing of the party.

Unfortunately, the current leadership seems to combining the worst elements of both wings by following a grow government while cutting taxes domestic agenda and a foreign policy that is interventionist but not (at least apparently) connected to a discrete pro-active programme. The WoT goals sounded well, but I don't think they ever had a concrete definition of what victory would look like -- and we're all aware of how effective goal setting tends to be when you can't define the goal clearly.

[Ironside]

Please note how Azi's response also serves as proof of the likely response noted in my earlier post.

As I said, win-win for Mr. A, without much effort.

We need to move the UN to Madagascar or some such.

Or hire better speechwriters.
If new Iranian weapons shows up in Iraq, officially complain about Iranian security being lousy for letting those weapons getting sold/stolen... His only defense is telling that it's approved higher up... And "accidently" implying that after a while would be nice.



If you're disgusted with things as they are (and you wouldn't be alone in that sentiment), you should consider:

1: Getting active yourself and changing one of the primary parties from the inside -- it's been done before.

2: Getting behind a 3rd party.

That option is certainly better than a full-blown revolution (I suspect that some major reaction will occur against the current situation), but how long do you estimate that will take? Next election? Another decade? 2? I mean, the inabillity to do that has been joked about for over a decade already.

[Geoffrey S]

The real problem with labeling him a dictator is that HE's NOT THE ONE IN POWER. Look to the supreme leader of their religious "college of electors" if you wan't to try to label someone a dictator. Mr. A is their lightning rod -- a glorified press secretary if you will -- whose job it is to a) nudge public opinon in the direction they desire and b) to keep the focus on himself while the powers that be exercise the real power in peace and quiet. Mr. A is succeeding admirably. He is an excellent front man for the religious oligarchy that's running the show.
QFT. I mean, what exactly have we heard directly from the supreme leader in recent times? As long as it's generally believed the president has the power (and can be used as scapegoat) the clerics can get away with whatever they like.

[FactionHeir]

I think it was impolite and undeserved that he was insulted when he was just being introduced by the one who invited him over.
If you want to insult him, do it after he gives his speech, not before he does.

Besides, while he may not be the most democratic person (and democracy is not the universal government nor should be imposed on anyone), he is actually quite a reasonable person, at least from his public appearances. He is being bad-mouthed and cast-out by Western media and governments though, similar to the fear-mongering that went about Chavez, Castro and Hussein.

Also, regarding the remark about there not being any homosexuals in Iran, I read elsewhere that it was a translational error and was meant to say that there are no homosexuals in Iran to the extent and openness as in the US.

[master of the puppets]

Had Hitler shown up at an American university in the 1930s he would recieve the same treatment... by half, the other half would applaud how he rebuilt Germany and upheld the ideas of hard work and patriotism.

Evil happens when good men fail to act.

He is far from the worst dictator seen in the last... um 2 years maybe, but that does not mean with nuclear weapons he couldn't be. in many regards its not what you've done, its what you have yet to do. I'm glad that our universities are open minded enough that they will at the very least listen to his point of view, and i'm just as glad to see that we are not so steeped in democracy that we cannot debate the pros and cons of dictatorship. But the fact remains that he is the head of a theocracy whose "moral grounds" include the destruction of the nation of Isreal.

Allow him speak, Don't allow him to act.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3432515,00.html

If there's another news agency that backs that up, I might believe it. I certainly won't trust anything Israeli about Iran any more than I would trust something Iranian about Israel.

[CrossLOPER]

Also, regarding the remark about there not being any homosexuals in Iran, I read elsewhere that it was a translational error and was meant to say that there are no homosexuals in Iran to the extent and openness as in the US.
Should have brought his own translator then.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Should have brought his own translator then.

He did.

This too is a tool of the effective politician. Gives you deniability and plausible point for "spinning" anything that went a notch too far. Politicians bring and use translators for this reason even when they speak the local language.

I still chuckle about Carter lusting for the Polish people. :cheesy:




re: homosexuality in Iran.

Figures based on the broad experience of the West suggest that they have the same 1-2% the rest of us do. However, Iran is the kind of country where the "closet" has a priest-hole in the back with a spider pit dug underneath that. The Castro it ain't.

[Watchman]

I understand much of the Muslim world has a major denial going on about that particular issue.

[Incongruous]

I haven't seen the full vid of him on campus, but today in International Relations we did watch an interview of him on US tv. I found myself nodding to what he said when questioned about the holocaust denial (he denied the denial), especially what it had to do with the Palestinian people.

[CrossLOPER]

He did.

This too is a tool of the effective politician. Gives you deniability and plausible point for "spinning" anything that went a notch too far. Politicians bring and use translators for this reason even when they speak the local language.

I still chuckle about Carter lusting for the Polish people. :cheesy:

I understand this strategy, but crawling out of this one will be a bit difficult.

Personally, as usual, I think that each side is filled with borderline retards. But what can you do?

[Csargo]

What's the point of inviting a guy to talk if your just going to bash him???

[Blodrast]

What's the point of inviting a guy to talk if your just going to bash him???

Publicity.

[Csargo]

Publicity.

How egotistical...

[Blodrast]

How egotistical...

Well, I guess it's a pretty complicated game.
We/I can think of a range of reasons and motivations for this, going all the way to conspiracy theories.
But a few relatively reasonable ones (imo, ofc) could stuff along the lines of:
- they invite him there to trumpet their status:
- as a University,
- as a department in said University
- pure PR stunt ("look, land of the free, we even allow our enemies free speech") (and, of course, there IS some credit to be given here, if they really did it because they are firm believers in free speech, and not just to show off)

Plus, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Everybody is now a bit more aware of their University. Think enrollment increases perhaps, think maybe some more grants, etc.

Or maybe the guy extending the invitation is a sincere fan of the regime, or feels "we" owe "them" at the very least a chance to speak their minds, to "defend" their position, or to explain why they do things the way they do.

Other posters have already explained why such a move would also be in Ahmadinejad's interests.

Like I said before, we can branch off into even wackier theories, but we'll prolly never know the actual and whole truth. Too many variables, and we will never have enough information.
So we can only speculate as to what seems more likely, or reasonable.

[Csargo]

Well, I guess it's a pretty complicated game.
We/I can think of a range of reasons and motivations for this, going all the way to conspiracy theories.
But a few relatively reasonable ones (imo, ofc) could stuff along the lines of:
- they invite him there to trumpet their status:
- as a University,
- as a department in said University
- pure PR stunt ("look, land of the free, we even allow our enemies free speech") (and, of course, there IS some credit to be given here, if they really did it because they are firm believers in free speech, and not just to show off)

Plus, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Everybody is now a bit more aware of their University. Think enrollment increases perhaps, think maybe some more grants, etc.

Or maybe the guy extending the invitation is a sincere fan of the regime, or feels "we" owe "them" at the very least a chance to speak their minds, to "defend" their position, or to explain why they do things the way they do.

Other posters have already explained why such a move would also be in Ahmadinejad's interests.

Like I said before, we can branch off into even wackier theories, but we'll prolly never know the actual and whole truth. Too many variables, and we will never have enough information.
So we can only speculate as to what seems more likely, or reasonable.

I agree. I think it was just a PR stunt... I think it was done with bad taste though.

[Lord Winter]

It was a missed oppertunity, it could have been good with a respectable but still willing to debate points that may make him look bad. Think about it, if we could have respecticly make addmit to a double standard about the so call freedoms he's upholding. If our democracy is so suporouir then why should we shied away from debating it face on face.

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, not for the first time you have me confused.

I was under the impression that you were firmly of the opinion that fascist dictatorships were a good thing? And that in your oft-expressed admiration for the Germany of the 1930's, you might well have shared some of President Ahmadinejad's scepticism of the history of that regime written by the victorious Allies? (You know, just while we are on the subject of hypocrisy).

:shrug:



Iran is not a fascist dictatorship.

If Ahmadinejad sought to point out that Germany's genocide during that era was really not all that uncommon, and was certainly not near the top of the worst in history and other little inconvenient facts such as that in an effort to show that Germany and Germans were certainly not alone in human rights abuses during the 30s and 40s, I would applaud his efforts.

However, Ahmadinejad is not seeking to bring any moral balance to the issue, but is instead asserting that the Holocaust did not happen, which is false, dangerous, and idiotic.

And worse in my eyes is the fact that he is denying the Holocaust only to further his own islamic agenda of ending Israel, a state that has just as much of a right to exist as Iran.

[Redleg]

It was a missed oppertunity, it could have been good with a respectable but still willing to debate points that may make him look bad. Think about it, if we could have respecticly make addmit to a double standard about the so call freedoms he's upholding. If our democracy is so suporouir then why should we shied away from debating it face on face.

I agree, there was no need to open with calling him a petty dictator, he should of just asked questions that demonstrated that one Iran has many problems that are caused by its government, that Iran continues to mistreat and abuse its female population, and that Iran treats certain groups as second class citizens.

More class, but the same point would of been proven. I truely expected better from a acedemcian of the status of that unversity.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

In case you missed it. Pretty funny stuff from SNL last night (about Ahmadinejad):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhBQxbxAcLg