Columbia University and Free Speech?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You think the man suffers from a lack of free speech? His opinions are National News. That does not warrant an invitation to an evironment that is proven hostile to "other" points of view. Please spare me the "we just want to listen" crap. The primary motivation is to offend a certain group of people. Not everyone falls for the tolerant well meaning liberal bullshit.

The primary motivation is to have a fucking dialogue with the head of a country we very well may go to war with. Christ, some of you seem deathly afraid of what he has to say...

Why the fuck shouldn't people be allowed to challenge him on his various past statements? Instead of covering your ears screaming at the top of your lungs because you seem to know everything already, why don't you listen to what he has to say in a forum where the context will be absolutely clear and his words can be put on public record.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And you might want to know more about people who use one as an excuse for the other. There is a very old deep seeded ethnic and religious hatred at work here and if you think it is all politics you are rather naive. That is exactly what this terrorist will feed the far left dopes at Columbia.

Watch!

Wow. I had no idea you majored in Mid-Eastern history and politics.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Some Ahmadinejad quotes:

# "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

# "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

# "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

# "If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

# "Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

# "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

# "We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime."

# "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

* "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Oh, hell guys. Sorry about that. The last quote there was by Hitler. Woops.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

The primary motivation is to have a fucking dialogue with the head of a country we very well may go to war with. Christ, some of you seem deathly afraid of what he has to say...

Why the fuck shouldn't people be allowed to challenge him on his various past statements? Instead of covering your ears screaming at the top of your lungs because you seem to know everything already, why don't you listen to what he has to say in a forum where the context will be absolutely clear and his words can be put on public record.

I already showed what the Q/A would be like. But he will be amount like minded people there. He won't have to worry about anyone jumping on stage to chase him out. He's a Bush hater, which makes him OK by you and them.

[motivez]

way to pretty much avoid every relevant point made by people in the thread and dumb it down to "hate america/bush first"

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

way to pretty much avoid every relevant point made by people in the thread and dumb it down to "hate america/bush first"

I made my points. And my points will be proven when he speaks.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I made my points. And my points will be proven when he speaks.

And you ignored everyone else's. Congratulations.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Some Ahmadinejad quotes:

# "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

# "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

# "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

# "If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

# "Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

# "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

# "We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime."

# "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."

* "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

What propagandist Israeli "news" source did these quotes come from?

That is certainly not what he has said... far from it in fact.

Look for the original unaltered Farsi translation, and kindly, eat your words.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

What propagandist Israeli "news" source did these quotes come from?

That is certainly not what he has said... far from it in fact.

Look for the original unaltered Farsi translation, and kindly, eat your words.

I've seen this all in many places. Show they are not accurate quotes. Hell, we have had whole threads devoted to some of these quotes.

[Linzyhop]

I don't feel like reading through this whole thread, mostly due to laziness, but here is an article I read the other day about this that you guys can dissect...

Iranian leader tells off CBS reporter: 'You don't represent 300 million people'

09/21/2007 @ 8:44 am

Filed by RAW STORY

In an interview with an 'objective' CBS reporter who continued to express opinions about his his visit to Ground Zero, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad returned fire. The interview is scheduled to air on 60 Minutes. Excerpts:


Asked if he intends to press his request to visit the World Trade Center site, Ahmadinejad tells 60 Minutes Scott Pelley, "Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that."
"But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?" Pelley asks.
"Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can't do that, I won't insist," the president replies.
"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans," Pelley says.
"Why should it be insulting?" Ahmadinejad asks.
"Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley says.
"Well, I wouldn't say that what American government says is is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations," Ahmadinejad replies. "Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation."
"But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world," Pelley says. "You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans."
"Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?" Ahmadinejad says. "You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there."



The Raw Story | Iranian leader tells off CBS reporter: 'You don't represent 300 million people'

[Stylerod]

Here is the real reason he wants to go.

"Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation."

To show how it was our fault that terrorists came here and decided to murder 3000 innocent people. Which will make him even more popular with the American left.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Here is the real reason he wants to go.



To show how it was our fault that terrorists came here and decided to murder 3000 innocent people. Which will make him even more popular with the American left.

Blowback from our foreign policy doesn't exist. It's not like the CIA says it does or anything.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Blowback from our foreign policy doesn't exist. It's not like the CIA says it does or anything.

Sure it does. But does that mean we have to give a forum to someone that is actively arming the people who are killing our Soldiers?

That is perfectly ok with you?


Good Editorial here.

Yom Kippur at Columbia
New York Sun Editorial
September 24, 2007

Jewish students at Columbia who went to their computers after breaking the fast for Yom Kippur were met Saturday evening with a link on the Drudge Report to an interview with the dean of the School of International and Public Affairs saying that he'd have been happy to welcome Hitler to the campus. The interview, aired on Fox News, was with John Coatsworth. He is seen in the Day of Atonement broadcast chuckling like a veritable Mearsheimer or Walt. Could he be oblivious to the impact his words were going to have in a Jewish community already on notice that its sensibilities were of little rank to either the president or the faculty of the university? Columbia, it seems, is bound and determined to honor the president of Iran and provide him with a platform to agitate against our country, and Israel, in midst of a war in which our GIs are facing Iranian backed forces on the field of battle.

Dean Coatsworth seems to be laboring under the illusion that had Columbia actually hosted Hitler in the late 1930s, World War II and the war against the Jews might have been prevented. The dean appears to be ignorant of history. The archives of the New York Times disclose that in December 1933, Columbia's president, Nicholas Butler, extended an invitation to Hitler's ambassador, Hans Luther. A protest was made by the Social Problems Club, which, according to the report in the Times, said: "Inviting the Nazi envoy to lecture on the foreign policy of his government and giving him an official reception means not only failing in our duty to oppose the Nazi onslaught on culture and in our duty to defend our German colleague but signifies, if not an open endorsement of the Nazi actions, at least placing their principles on the same level with other viewpoints."

In response, President Butler harrumphed something about how Columbia "does not ask what a man's opinions may be but only whether he is intelligent, honest, and well-mannered in their presentation and discussion. There is no subject which a company of scholars such as that assembled on Morningside Heights, is not prepared to have presented to it by a man or woman of high intelligence and good manners, and to hear fully discussed and debated." When the "well-mannered" Herr Luther made his appearance on Morningside Heights, it seems only to have whetted the Nazi lust — and to have established a precedent for abasement. It turned out that the only kind of intercourse the Nazis understood was the kind conducted by General Eisenhower, who not only liberated Europe but went on to Morningside Heights, where he brought great distinction to the presidency of the University.

Of how much damage has been done by the latest affair New Yorkers are only beginning to get a sense. Everywhere we called yesterday, responsible men and women in government — and in community institutions — were wrestling with the question of what to do about Columbia. The speaker of the City Council, Christine Quinn, sent a letter, prompting many to look at her in a new and admiring light. The chairman of the Council's finance committee, David Weprin, was telling reporters that Mr. Bollinger "made a big mistake" and suggesting the Council would look at "everything involving Columbia." Our advice would be that it start with Columbia's little-noticed admission last week that the university did not initiate the invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad but that the invitation was initiated by the Iranian embassy at the U.N. It is part of the same diplomatic service on whose premises in Buenos Aires the Amia bombing was plotted in Argentina.

Most ominously for Columbia, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver, has started thinking about the problems at Morningside Heights. "There are issues that Columbia may have before us that obviously this cavalier attitude would be something that people would recall," Mr. Silver told our Jacob Gershman yesterday. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution." Mr. Silver faulted Columbia for "attempting to legitimize this individual," saying, "We have an obligation because of the U.N. to allow him to come to this country. It doesn't mean we have to make him welcome. We don't have to give him a forum."

No doubt such warnings are going to be met with a lot of palaver about the First Amendment and how there is precedent for American law that — once governments are well-launched in funding private institutions they can't withdraw already committed funding over disagreements on substance. Mayor Giuliani had his head handed to him when he tried to do that at the Brooklyn Museum, when it took an image of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung and pornographic pictures and tried to palm it off as a painting. Columbia's Mr. Bollinger is himself one of the premier First Amendment lawyers in the country. But presumably Mr. Silver and his counterparts on the city council will be aware of these suits and, in respect of Columbia, choose their battles carefully. Those who have tangled with Mr. Silver know he is one canny adversary when he feels the interests of his caucus have been placed in jeopardy.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Sure it does. But does that mean we have to give a forum to someone that is actively arming the people who are killing our Soldiers?

That is perfectly ok with you?


Good Editorial here.

Considering he is one of the most important leaders right now concerning our foreign policy, I see nothing wrong with providing him an opportunity to ANSWER QUESTIONS. He won't be giving a speech and simply walking off. How the fuck does this harm us? If anything, it shows how we as a nation truly live by the ideals we always boast about to other nations.

Again, I ask you what we did in Afghanistan in the 80s. It doesn't make it right, but it is a strategy that has been used before, by US. Am I appalled that he could be supplying arms and training to insurgents in Iraq? No. His nation has an active interest in what happens to that country, and having U.S. bases permanently stationed there is not something that will in any way benefit his nation. Again, perspective.

Censorship is not what our country stands for. It will be very interesting to see what happens today.

[lew]

Here is an excellent article about the topic.

The uproar over Columbia University’s invitation to Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak today at the university’s World Leaders Forum needs to be put in perspective.

Last night the Iranian president was interviewed by 60 Minutes and seen by tens of millions of American throughout the United States. As far as I know no one protested or called for a boycott of CBS or the sponsors of 60 Minutes, because the network gave Ahmadinejad a platform to air his views. So why all the angst over Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia and being grilled by its president and having its smart students and professors the opportunity to ask tough questions?

If it’s OK for a television program to give Ahmadinejad about 20 minutes of national air time to explain his position on a number of issues, then surely a university where ideas are supposed to be presented and debated is certainly a legitimate venue for a head of state to make his case and be challenged by a learned academic as Columbia University president Lee Bollinger.

President Ahmadinejad has made provocative statements, to say the least, about the Holocaust and the State of Israel. As a savvy politician Ahmadinejad knows how to push the international community’s buttons. But if he is a Holocaust denier, someone who has called it a “myth,” then his understanding of European history is shallow, at best.

However, there are American politicians—and scholars-- whose knowledge of our own history is shallow or wrapped up in myth: Lincoln is the “great emancipator,” Teddy Roosevelt was a great president because he was a “reformer,” Woodrow Wilson was a great leader because he wanted to spread democracy, FDR saved America from the Great Depression with the New Deal, Truman had to nuke two Japanese cities to end Word War II, LBJ was a compassionate architect of the Great Society, etc, etc. Yet, not only do American politicians get air time to repeat these myths of American history but some of them are revered by the media and are running for president.

Ahmadinejad’s great sin is to deny one of the worst acts in human history. If he had said Lincoln’s crushing of the South during the Civil War was just and righteous, he would have been hailed a hero. Or, if he said the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagaaski deserved to be incinerated, he would be called a wise leader who understands when state power is legitimate.

The Iranian president also questions Israel’s government’s policy toward the Palestinians. This subject is also considered off limits by the political establishment in the United States. Nevertheless, Israel’s policies cannot be off limits to anyone is discussing the public policy of any nation-state. In short, whether Israel’s policies are just or unjust is a legitimate topic for discussion and debate.

Ahmadinejad’s assertion that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” rings hollow, because Iran does not have one nuclear weapon while Israel is reported to have about 200 nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons are supposed to be a destabilizing factor in international affairs, especially in the volatile Middle East and Near East, then Pakistan, Israel, and India should eliminate their arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

In the final analysis, let Ahmadinejad speak at Columbia or anywhere else he is invited, and let us question all political authority.

Let Ahmadinejad Speak at Columbia

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by lew

Here is an excellent article about the topic.




Let Ahmadinejad Speak at Columbia

It's hardly an excellent article. It's a joke.

If he had said Lincoln’s crushing of the South during the Civil War was just and righteous, he would have been hailed a hero. Or, if he said the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagaaski deserved to be incinerated, he would be called a wise leader

What clown wrote that?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Considering he is one of the most important leaders right now concerning our foreign policy, I see nothing wrong with providing him an opportunity to ANSWER QUESTIONS. He won't be giving a speech and simply walking off. How the fuck does this harm us? If anything, it shows how we as a nation truly live by the ideals we always boast about to other nations.

Again, I ask you what we did in Afghanistan in the 80s. It doesn't make it right, but it is a strategy that has been used before, by US. Am I appalled that he could be supplying arms and training to insurgents in Iraq? No. His nation has an active interest in what happens to that country, and having U.S. bases permanently stationed there is not something that will in any way benefit his nation. Again, perspective.

Censorship is not what our country stands for. It will be very interesting to see what happens today.

We armed Afghans to defend their homes from the Russians. Iranian homes aren't in danger from us.

Saying no when he invites himself to speak isn't censorship. Him closing news departments and web sites that speak against his government is censorship. Khaleej Times Online - Iran judiciary seals offices of news Web site

See, he has his own stage. He can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants because he controls the media in his country. If a group says he's not doing a good job, he closes them down. The liberal press hangs on every word he says and reports on him constantly. American news organisations climb over each other to interview him. Liberals enable him to be more than he really is. He's a bully, but since he hates Bush, he is the darling of the left.

It's obvious you like the guy and support him in his actions against our country and our soldiers, so there really isn't much point in arguing anymore. You are for a tyrant of his own people and the M.E. and I'm not. I guess that is where we differ and have to call it quits.