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/col...ent/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 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, 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, then?

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Oh dear..

EDIT: Pictures of executions are not permitted here. BG

[HoreTore]

Oh dear..

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.

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

[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.


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.

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

[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).



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?

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

[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).



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, 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.

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.

[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.

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/...30_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.

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...