View Full Version : The recent event at Columbia University

09-26-2007, 12:36 AM
This university forum/colloquium was definitely not a very friendly one:


09-26-2007, 12:46 PM
...Not everyone is a member of the linked website... You may wish to repost the article in question.

09-26-2007, 01:03 PM
...Not everyone is a member of the linked website... You may wish to repost the article in question.
I'm not a member, and I can see the article ..?

09-26-2007, 01:26 PM
So can I, with Internet Explorer 6 and Iceweasel (that's Windows and Linux).

09-26-2007, 04:48 PM
Weird. I couldn't see it earlier, but now I can... Of course, I just wiped my HD, installed XP 64-Bit and a new version of Opera so I'm sure I'll never know the reason. :)

A very interesting article. Sounds like it would have been even more interesting to be there.

09-26-2007, 04:57 PM
I highly doubt Mahmoud (sp?) was expecting a receptive audience. He's of little consequence anyways, nothing more than a mouthpiece for the radical clerics back in Iran. I don't consider Iran a threat either, no more than Iraq was portrayed by Bush n' Co. before the launch of this g'damn war. I still get into arguments with what I consider to be gullible idiots at the legion who believe that Hussein had a hand in 9/11. Sure, he (Saddam) was a no good, murderous <edited> who realistically got what he deserved, but on the other hand he also knew how to keep his population under control and served as a potential threat to Iran. He's gone, Iran's grown balls and Bin Laden is laughin' his a s s off. On the upside, I no longer need to worry about cobblin' enough money together for my world trip, we americans aren't welcome anywhere.

It's been a splendid six years...

Edited by mod. The filters aren't there to get around.

09-26-2007, 08:59 PM
I kind of think that the remarks of the President of Columbia were rude and uncalled for, even if they are true. I would think that one would show more respect to a guest speaker, even if that guest speaker is pretty much an enemy of the USA.

09-26-2007, 09:15 PM
Summary: UofC president/dean is an idiot. Among the highly educated and hopefully critical minds of the masses that participated in that discussion (Mahmoud may or may not being of that category) there was absolutely no need to start off the proceedings with a series of sore-ass remarks either geared to take cheap shots at the president, or to profess his innocency and lack of support of the presiden'ts agenda, despite the invitation. In the former case, he only imparts sympathy for Ahmenijad (whatever), and in the latter case, I'm sure we (and his student body) is intelligent enough to figure that, despite the extended invitation, his motives were solely based in the exercise of free speech; he does not need to go into a 20 minute lecture/insult fest to prove it to us, thats just insulting to their (and my) intelligence. I really expected more than that from the president of one of the leading universities in the US... sadly though, I could not say the same for the president of Iran. He, on the other hand exactly met my expectations: dodgey. Though I must say he seemed smart enough to avoid political castration of his arguments by avoiding his once hardline claim that the holocaust never happened. In aswer of these questions, once again, UofC embarrassing the entirety of the US and Western world, gave Ahmadinejad the perfect opportunity to shine again by outwitting them, making them appear foolish in their claim that "facts are facts and do not require any more research", when clearly on-going research is always an invitation for higher learning. Of course, I have no doubt that by "continued research" he meant discovery of facts that would lead to a half decent argument that the holocaust did not exist, but to the unbiased viewer, it appeared that he was truly interested in further knowledge of the events of WWII, whereas the US simply wanted to "close the books".

Of course I can claim to know better of Ahmadinejad's real motives given his previous, lets say, quite unsubtle reveals of his agenda, but truthfully and honestly, from an unbiased and completely neutral standpoint in the context of this discussion alone, I would have to conclude that Ahmadinejad actually came out looking much better than what the American public would have had of him; in turn making the UofC organizers/presenters look like complete, utter idiots, content to uncourtiously insult a man present on their own invitation and still have the audacity to go on about excersing the "morals of free speech", going on to ask questions and expecting answers "as they want to hear them".

Despite my utter dispise of the man, I would have to say I agree with him on many of the decernable points he made (with one of the laughable exceptions being the "there are no homos in Iran" statement... that brought me to a laugh, especially since I've seen the hidden cam documentaries of that subculture in Tehran) simply because of the fact that he twisted and rephrased the questions into answers that no logical person could disagree with (for example, the statement that continued research in ANY area, including the holocaust is always undeniably a good thing, as well as the fact that he was riddled about executions and aptly countered with the example of American captical punishment. Fortunately, one of the very few moments of mental clarity was present enough in the dean to realize he dodged the specific quesiton of not execution, but execution/persecution of children/women/otherwise innocent citizens).

But make no mistake though, this man is dangerous. Not because of his ability to manipulate underground terror cells, no, because of America's blinding zeal to persecute him so much so that they would make him a public martyr, even in the eyes of their own citizens, such that, if given a week more in the public eye of the American Media, I'm sure they themselves with the help of American Public institutions such as UC, would turn him into a saint.

p.s. Don't blame Bush for any of this. Blame the american public. The surge was shown to have been working, so what does Bush do? he reduces troop levels, why? to appease the american public because they have grown (always were) fickle, content to tie their own hands hands behind their back. Such is democratic politics everywhere though, it works well in civil matters, but such shakyness will never see success in wars such as these. When you try to represent everyone at once you end up representing no one.

09-30-2007, 07:25 PM
I wouldn't know where to begin to mention that the last time I visited this forum was September 14, 2002. But it was. But all those posts have likely been pruned by now and noone here will likely remember me, since my last affairs were pm'ing Sean Mackory and he's gone now and I will have to wait another year.

But anyway, on topic. I just want to know what changed the President's mind from not allowing him to speak last year, to allowing him to speak at Columbia University this year.

Is he that much less of an evil dictator?

10-01-2007, 07:19 PM
I think this political stunt worked as Ahmadinejad planned, namely he expected to be treated in a hostile manner, which bolsters political support for him back home. It's especially rude to mistreat a guest in everyday Middle Eastern culture.