Columbia University and Free Speech?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He may not be the person fully responsible, but by agreeing with it and carrying it out he's definitely a key player in the act.

And what responsibility do you feel Bush has for the torture of innocent people who have been sent to other countries and tortured with the cooperation of the CIA or other various US agencies?

Is he a "key player" for agreeing with it (since he didn't stop it from happening)?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

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

You are missing the characters in the analogy.

Then Now
Soviets= US
Afghans = Iraqi's
US = Iran

[nbiggershaft]

I see no problem with allowing the man to speak. But the fact that he isn't hated by more liberal minded people astounds me. As much as I hate to agree with right-wingers round here, there is a clear and irrational bias evident when a despicable leader of a country that squashes liberalism gets defended (or atleast dismissed) because we'd rather bitch about Bush some more.

[nbiggershaft]

Ha, good. They seem to have had him there to attack him, not praise him (or go through a step by step Bush comparison). And the student body seemed to feel the same way.

Columbia University president slams Ahmadinejad - CNN.com

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."

As he read a long list of documented actions and remarks by the firebrand Iranian leader and his government, the crowd of 600 applauded.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

So some kinds of torture are ok?

Oh, and there's a lot more to our approval and use of torture than just waterboarding..

When did I ever say torture was ok? And waterboarding is by far the worst thing we did. You don't see many people in Gitmo with body parts missing or tortured to death.

Again, torture is bad no matter how many times, to how many people, or what specific method is used. I condemn our uses of it as I would theirs.. and so long as it's our national policy to torture people, there is a valid comparison to be made.

Torture is bad, but there is a huge difference between different types of torture. And again we have used torture in the hopes of saving other lives. Our torture is a joke compared to Iran and it is done with the intent to obtain information to save lives. It is not anywhere near the same as Iran. You made the statement that human rights in the US isn't all that much better than Iran's. Now there's some attempt to cling on to use of torture to back up that extremely absurd statement, but even then the argument falls short because when you compare the two it is clear that there are very big differences even in that one micro-argument that is being pushed to back the initial ridiculous argument of our human rights not being all that much better than Iran's.

It may not be fun to hear, it may hurt, but it's the truth. I wont wave the flag and pretend we're perfect like some wish we were.

I have no idea what this has to do with the conversation. I'm not asking anyone to wave a flag in pride. Nor am I saying we're perfect. But we're a whole hell of a lot better than Iran when it comes to things like human rights... well at least I think so. I wasn't aware that made me a flag waver or someone who pretends we're perfect. But yes, I do wish we as a nation were perfect. I think that would be nice. I don't see what that has to do with the conversation or why it's necessarily something that shouldn't be desired.

I said we were better,

You said we aren't all that much better. That's a joke and quite disturbing.

I'm comparing the ideological similarities of one group to another. If you don't agree with my comparison, that's certainly your right.

No you're not comparing the similarities within the ideologies you're comparing the two as a whole by saying they're ironically similar.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Is he a "key player" for agreeing with it (since he didn't stop it from happening)?

Of course. He agrees with it, condones and supports it. He's a leader of the country, when you put it all together he is a key player in it.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

When did I ever say torture was ok?

Originally Posted by JaJae

we have used torture in the hopes of saving other lives.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Our torture is a joke

"it's so hilarious, it tickles! and since its justified by saying we're trying to save lives, it's a-okay by me!" is essentially what I take away from your statements.

Trying to minimize torture by saying it's "a joke" and repeating justifications doesn't make it not torture.

Originally Posted by JaJae

And waterboarding is by far the worst thing we did.

Actually, sending someone to a foreign country where we oversaw their torture without giving them a chance to defend the accusations against them and then learning they were innocent ranks above the actual techniques used

But it's still torture.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Torture is bad, but there is a huge difference between different types of torture. And again we have used torture in the hopes of saving other lives. Our torture is a joke compared to Iran and it is done with the intent to obtain information to save lives. It is not anywhere near the same as Iran. You made the statement that human rights in the US isn't all that much better than Iran's. Now there's some attempt to cling on to use of torture to back up that extremely absurd statement, but even then the argument falls short because when you compare the two it is clear that there are very big differences even in that one micro-argument that is being pushed to back the initial ridiculous argument of our human rights not being all that much better than Iran's.

This is so convoluted I'm not sure where to begin.

Of course there's different types of torture. My assertion is that they're all bad.

And sorry, any nation that embraces torture as a national policy really ISN'T that much better than someone. Torture is a horrible, horrible thing... and is one of the most egregious violations of human rights there is.. it's one of the "fallback justifications" used by conservatives to say why else we supposedly went after Saddam..

Originally Posted by JaJae

But we're a whole hell of a lot better than Iran when it comes to things like human rights... well at least I think so.

You can argue degrees until you're blue in the face, the bottom line is that our national policy is in favor of using torture, and while certainly I think we're better, how much better can we really be as long as torture is an acceptable practice to use on prisoners in our custody?

Originally Posted by JaJae

No you're not comparing the similarities within the ideologies you're comparing the two as a whole by saying they're ironically similar.

They are ironically similar. Notice the word similar? That means not exactly the same. Of course there are differences.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I see no problem with allowing the man to speak. But the fact that he isn't hated by more liberal minded people astounds me. As much as I hate to agree with right-wingers round here, there is a clear and irrational bias evident when a despicable leader of a country that squashes liberalism gets defended (or atleast dismissed) because we'd rather bitch about Bush some more.

I don't think most liberal people embrace his ideas, or really agree with him on much of anything that's the least bit controversial.. some of the stuff like he's talked about with the media not being hard enough in the run up to the war aren't controversial and most people in the media agree with that, it's not something he thought up, he's just repeating it.

Until diverted, this thread was about whether or not it was acceptable for the man to speak at a University and to allow people to ask him questions and challenge him on his positions

Most of the conservatives in the thread said no, he shouldn't be, and accused the University of giving the man a stage to spew rhetoric while being lobbed softballs.

As expected, the event was anything but. He was challenged, and hopefully shown that even at the most liberal institutions in America, the American people disagree with his view of the world

But they should be allowed to ask him and decide that for themselves, rather than letting some favorite partisan pundit make it for them..

And I think the idea that liberals, progressives, and other independents who happen to be against the war in Iraq somehow embrace this man and his positions is just wrong.. and I think you saw that clearly after Chavez spewed what he did at the UN as well..

People may not like Bush, and rightfully so IMO, but they would rather live in America under Bush than elsewhere in the world under an Ahmadinejad or Chavez or Kim Jong Il or Saddam any minute of the day..

Even at his worst, Bush is not in the same league as these people when it comes to repression, oppression, and so forth.. but that fact certainly doesn't excuse valid criticisms of Bush or his Administration.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

"it's so hilarious, it tickles! and since its justified by saying we're trying to save lives, it's a-okay by me!" is essentially what I take away from your statements.

Trying to minimize torture by saying it's "a joke" and repeating justifications doesn't make it not torture.

If we could stop the red herrings and putting words in my mouth we might actually be able to stay on target. I am not saying torture is ok. I do not condone it. I am not saying it is "a-okay by me!" or any other such nonsense you can come up with. What I am saying is that in comparison to Iran our use of torture is a joke.

Actually, sending someone to a foreign country where we oversaw their torture without giving them a chance to defend the accusations against them and then learning they were innocent ranks above the actual techniques used

But it's still torture.

It is still torture. I haven't denied it was still torture. In fact, I have absolutely no clue why we're hingering on this useless point. The use of watered down torture compared to the lights of Iran does not mean our human rights aren't all that much better than Irans.

This is so convoluted I'm not sure where to begin.

Of course there's different types of torture. My assertion is that they're all bad.

And sorry, any nation that embraces torture as a national policy really ISN'T that much better than someone. Torture is a horrible, horrible thing... and is one of the most egregious violations of human rights there is.. it's one of the "fallback justifications" used by conservatives to say why else we supposedly went after Saddam..

Are you going to back up you statement that US human rights isn't all that much better than Iran with anything other than this torture argument and something about me being a flag waver? If not I might as well just stop debating. I don't think either of them back up your statement that our human rights aren't all that much better than Iran's.

You can argue degrees until you're blue in the face, the bottom line is that our national policy is in favor of using torture, and while certainly I think we're better, how much better can we really be as long as torture is an acceptable practice to use on prisoners in our custody?

what a circle jerk.

They are ironically similar. Notice the word similar? That means not exactly the same. Of course there are differences.

They're not really similar at all. Neocons might be similar to the more calm and relaxed Islams in Iraq who are seeking Democracy. That might be the closest similarity. Comparing them to Islamic extremists is absolutely absurd.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I see no problem with allowing the man to speak. But the fact that he isn't hated by more liberal minded people astounds me. As much as I hate to agree with right-wingers round here, there is a clear and irrational bias evident when a despicable leader of a country that squashes liberalism gets defended (or atleast dismissed) because we'd rather bitch about Bush some more.

Point well taken. I have to question the motives of his defenders and some of the applause he was getting from that audiance. It would seem like sticking it to Bush and his Whitehouse foreign policy is more the priority? It is not as if you can't go back to that the next day!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't think most liberal people embrace his ideas, or really agree with him on much of anything that's the least bit controversial.. some of the stuff like he's talked about with the media not being hard enough in the run up to the war aren't controversial and most people in the media agree with that, it's not something he thought up, he's just repeating it.

But do you really think that is an honest concern on his part? If some David Duke guy says he does not approve of affirmative action quotas or illegals in the country I don't offer that person a speaking platform or give applause when I agree. I know "his" intention does not match my principles. A guy with a State run media has no business giving anyone a lecture about the faults of our media.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He may not be the person fully responsible, but by agreeing with it and carrying it out he's definitely a key player in the act.

Certainly he has some responsibility, but it isn't like he could end the practice if he wanted to (which I doubt he would).

That doesn't make him a terrorist though - those laws may be unethical, but you can hardly call it "terrorism".

[RMNIXON]

Iranian President launches new tirade against Israel by Hiedeh Farmani and Aresu Eqbali Fri Oct 5, 9:39 AM ET

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday launched a new tirade against Israel amid growing tensions with the West, vowing to work to abolish the Jewish state and questioning the scale of the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad said Iran would strive to liberate "all of Palestine" from Israeli hands, in a speech to mark the Quds day, where Iran holds its annual mass protest marches in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Tens of thousands of Iranians turned out for the march in central Tehran, carrying anti-Zionist banners, chanting "Death to Israel" and burning Israeli and American flags.

"The Palestinian people are standing firm. The Iranian people and other peoples will not stop until all of Palestinian territory is liberated," Ahmadinejad told the faithful at Tehran University.
"They (world powers) should not think that the Iranian nation and other nations in the region will take off their hands off the throat of the Zionists and their supporters."

Ahmadinejad provoked an international outcry shortly after his election in 2005 when he called for Israel to be "wiped from the map" and also described the Holocaust as a "myth".

He has since toned down his rhetoric but in this speech he reaffirmed his deeply controversial questioning of the mass slaughter of Jews in World War II and his suggestion that Israel could be moved to arctic North America.

"The Iranian nation hates killing and considers Hitler and the executioners of the World War II as black and dark figures," he said.

"But the Iranian nation has a question and as long as there is no clear and reasonable response to this question, it will remain.

"They have made the Holocaust sacred and do not allow anyone to ask questions. Under the pretext of the Holocaust they are allowed to commit whatever crime they like," he added.

"Europeans cannot tolerate the Zionists in their region and country, but they want to impose them on the people of the region... Give these vast lands of Canada and Alaska to them to create a country for themselves."

His graphic verbal assualt on the Jewish state came amid growing tensions over the Iranian nuclear programme.

[JaJae]

I heard he also suggested we move Israel to Alaska or something..

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I heard he also suggested we move Israel to Alaska or something..

yeah, that was at the end of Nixons post. Pretty funny.