Iranian President visits Columbia University

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by halfprep455, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. halfprep455 macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #1
    As most of you probably know, I am probably one of the more liberal ones on this forum however, I am really upset at what happened at Columbia. It was very disturbing and upsetting to see American University students cheering the Iranian President. First off, here is a man who wants nothing more then the destruction of you, your family and the Western world. Are these people who cheered the pres. out of their mind? What were they thinking? That is worse then cheering for Bush or Pat Robertson.
     
  2. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #2
    I'm not sure which story you read that indicated cheering, beyond his comments regarding development of nuclear weapons (the only politicians that want this are retarded).

    But, perhaps they cheered for the fact that they were among the few that stood up in the face of those who would deny someone an opportunity to express their viewpoint. That a (somewhat) popularly elected leader of a sovereign nation should be encouraged to speak, especially when the relationship between his country and that of his audience is so cold. That regardless of what his personal views are, he is a pretty shrewd guy, and that listening to him speak is the best way to gain insight. That the US shouldn't be as intolerant as other nations and make people stop talking when we disagree with them.

    I have no love for the guy, but I would have cheered as well.
     
  3. JW8725 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    so if he wants ur destruction why did he bother come to your country? :confused:
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    I would agree with that. Even though I hate the guy, he should be able to come here and speak. And believe me, "hate" is probably not a strong enough word for what I feel for this man.
     
  5. lord patton macrumors 65816

    lord patton

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
  6. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #6
    because he's going to the UN......and since that's in NYC, he has to come here.....no other reason......surely you know that????
     
  7. halfprep455 thread starter macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #7
    I know the reason why he is going to NYC. I also know that legally we have to let him in. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to go to the UN, I am just surprised that Columbia would want someone like him to speak. I know it is interesting that he did come there to speak. However, I don't think the University should have allowed them because they know that his presence will just stir up old memories and really piss a lot of people off.
     
  8. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #8
    The Associated Press



    I don't think it was particularly helpful for Bollinger to say that, Ahmadinejad already hates us enough as it is; statements like that puts us all at risk. :mad:
     
  9. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #9

    I don't think Ahmnedjajhahdhwhatever hates us as people, if that's what you're implying. Does he hate the US government? Sure. But you don't have to stray too far from any given point in the US to find someone who hates the government.
     
  10. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #10
    I don't know what to think about this guy.

    Some of the interviews I've read/heard about him make him sound very impressive. Other times, like the denying of the Holocaust, he seems ludicrous.

    Is it possible to get an unbiased view of who he is and what he believes?
     
  11. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000

    MACDRIVE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Clovis, California
    #11
    This guy Mr. Bollinger, the university president of Columbia, NY should not have invited Ahmadinejad to his campus only to blurt out a barrage of insults and ridicule the leader of Iran publicly. This guy Bollinger is a damn idiot and should be slapped silly in my opinion. :mad:
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    He made some valid points, and they cheered. He also made some stupid comments, and was laughed at and booed. Both of which were deserved. Read the whole speech.

    There are already 2 other threads here where I've said my piece on this, so I don't think I need to repeat it.
     
  13. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #13
    I watched the whole thing. I thought that Bollinger's behaviour was abominable. I've never seen a speaker treated like that at the hundreds of university events I have participated in. The correct place for such material was in the question period, not some pathetic diatribe that just served to make Ahmadinejad look like the good guy (since he took the high road and refused to respond in kind).

    I can only guess that Bollinger was rattled by threats from the local Zionist mafia, some of whom have threatened to cut off public funding for Columbia. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated event, as other cases involving academics critical of Israel have demonstrated.

    Apart from Bollinger's idiocy, I thought the whole thing came off rather well. Ahmadinejad made some interesting points, and the student questions were very good, and, by politicians' standards, he actually gave decent answers to most of them (whether you liked the answers is a separate issue).

    But props to Ahmadinejad for having the guts to do it. How many of our own leaders would dare put themselves in that position. It's well known that the Bush administration hand picks audiences for its own events.

    What does it say about our countries, when a foreign leader, who is reviled by a majority of our citizens, will put himself in such a position, whereas our own elected leaders will not?
     
  14. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #14
    Absolutely true.

    I think it was a fantastic event. The Columbia students were lucky. How often does one get the opportunity to confront such people in an academic forum and hear them speak?
     
  15. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #15
    While I am absolutely not defending President Bush's groomed public appearances or the errosion of discourse it creates, making a comparison to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's willingness to say-whatever-the-hell-he-wants isn't exactly valid, especially considering the accusations that non-violent dissidents in his own country face harassment, torture and execution.
     
  16. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #16
    And students were able to ask him about that if they wished.

    Your point?

    I don't excuse the Iranian regime at all, although I don't accept the hyper-American/Israeli accounts of it. But that is a separate issue from the appropriateness of this event, and the speaker's behaviour at it.
     
  17. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #17
    I can understand their reasoning. There's no better way to expose a fool than to let him speak his mind.

    This morning the U.N. is listening to two fools, Ahmadinejad and...somebody else. ;)

    I'm not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, to invite him only to call him a tyrant in his introduction is idiotic. On the other hand, I liked the tough questions Bollinger put to him. I'm only sorry Bollinger let him off the hook, to wit:

    Ahmadinejad, of course, didn't answer the question. I'd have liked to hear Bollinger follow up with, "So you repudiate your earlier comments about Israel being wiped out?"
     
  18. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #18
    He did answer the question. When asked if he advocated the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, he said that he favoured a referendum of all inhabitants of Palestine (i.e. Israel and the occupied territories, and probably the refugees as well) on the future of the region.

    That of course is tantamount to the end of Israel as a Jewish state, since the referendum would be won by the Arabs.

    But it was a dishonest question in the first place, as anyone with a brain can understand. The questioner wanted a "yes" or "no" answer, and that was patently dishonest.

    If ADJ had answered "Yes", then the papers would be full of comments saying "look he wants the destruction of the Jewish state", which of course is to favour one interpretation of the question, which can mean several different things. For example: should there be a state in the territory now occupied by Israel that is specifically Jewish? Should there be a state called Israel in its current borders? Should the current state of Israel be completely and violently destroyed by force?

    It's a completely ridiculous question, and ADJ was right not to give a direct answer.

    Of course, this is just another case where Americans are simply incapable of discussing the Middle East in public without some sort of mad pro-Israeli prejudice. What's funny is that the Israel media are less rabidly pro-Israel than the US media. If the US media printed some of the things that Ha'aretz and the JP print, there would be howls of outrage and calls for boycotts.

    The US media and political class are simply not competent to discuss the Middle East in anything approaching objective terms. Anyone who lives outside the US knows this.
     
  19. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    I freely admit to not having heard Ahmadinejad's former comment myself (that Israel cannot continue to exist); but here's the latter comment in an article from The Boston Globe:

    That could be interpreted as a call for a referendum if you're being charitable. It could be seen as a call for Israel's destruction if you're not. Apparently it's been interpreted both ways by various parties, and Ahmadinejad did not take the opportunity to clarify that he did not mean the latter in his speech.

    Interestingly, the Palestinians are not on the same page with him on the "wipe out" comment either:

    And if he doesn't mean he wants to destroy Israel, then he needs to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and speak clearly and precisely.

    Either way the man's a nut case if he thinks he can simply either vote or nuke Israel out of existence instead of learn to live with it.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    Which I think happened, especially when he responded to the question about gays being persecuted in Iran by saying that it could not be happening because Iran doesn't have gays. I'm not sure why anyone would have much difficulty assessing where the man stands on issues. He's remarkably blunt.
     
  21. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #21
    I'd like to clear something up. It bothers me to see it continuously printed in newspapers and repeated over the air on TV. The American press should be ashamed of themselves for being war propagandists.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/w...a2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Ahmadinejad did NOT say "Israel should be wiped off the map".

     
  22. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #22

    This cracked me up...

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw
     
  23. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a

    Nickygoat

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Location:
    London
    #23
    Memories of what?
    9/11? Nothing to do with him or Iran.
    Iraq? Again, not really his problem (simplistically)
    The Revolution in '79? Shouldn't have let QE2 in a while ago then ;)
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    This is old news. Actually, he did. Despite the protestations of Juan Cole, it turned out that this was how his remarks were translated into English by Ahmadinejad's own office and posted to the official presidential web site.
     
  25. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #25
    He can't have said it because I don't think you can say that in Farsi. It's not idiomatic.

    What he said was that "the regime occupying Jerusalem will vanish from the page of time". That is a direct quote by ADJ from the Ayatollah Khomeini.

    I'm surprised you haven't heard that before. The wiped off the map translation has been debunked as accurately revealing his thought several times, and is only repeated because it serves the political interests of Iran haters.
     

Share This Page